HomeMy WebLinkAbout20112083 BOARD OF DIRECTORS NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
CHARLES ACHZIGER Q � 32825 CR 39 • LUCERNE, CO 80646
RALPH PRIOR Z O DON POSSELT, DISTRICT MANAGER
LS NELSON
ENE STILLE (, ESTABLISHED C411 P.O. BOX 56 • PHONE (970) 356-3020 • FAX (970)395-0997
ROBERT ARNBRECHT 'r196' \eA.
I/VATER
www.nwcwd.org • e-mail: water@nwcwd.org
June 27, 2011
Karla Grieser
President of the Board
The Genesis Project of Northern Colorado
P.O. Box 200087
Evans, CO 80620
Dear Karla,
• North Weld County Water District, at a Board Meeting on June 13, 2011, by Motion and
unanimous acclimation agreed to your request to set a fire hydrant at 35740 Cr 49 to provide fire
protection for a 501c(3) not for profit ministry for single mothers with young children.
The Board motion stated that the District will "waive the Plant Investment Fee for a water tap at
35740 CR 49 for the Genesis Project of Northern Colorado and to set a fire hydrant at this
address for cost of time and materials."
A revised Letter of Intent which will supersede the letter of February 3, 2011 will follow this
letter. The new Letter of Intent will have the revised cost for the water tap and will include the
cost to set a fire hydrant.
Please address any question to me, Don Posselt at (970) 356-3020.
AQOfl4
Don Posselt, Manager
• EXHIBIT
15.a.
use e
U
•
RECEIVED
• May 4, 2011 MAY 112011 "' r'
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
Weld County Planning Services
Weld County Planning Commission
EXHIBIT
Weld County CommissionersI 5.6
445-177—
I am in receipt of an Application Review Notification Card regarding Case # USR-1781 entitled
Genesis Project of Northern Colorado, a proposed project requesting USR for a Residential
Therapeutic Center in an Ag Zone District located East of and adjacent to CR 49, 1800 feet south
of CR 74. More specifically, Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 0801-6-2 RE 4372 recorded
4/5/06 Reception #3376762 being part of NW X of Sec 6 of Township 6N, Range 64 W of the 6th
PM.
This notification was certainly appreciated, as concerns exist regarding over-development in
this agriculture zoned area. Specific to this project, all materials regarding the same were
reviewed at the Weld County Planning Service offices on 29 April 2011. The following areas of
• concern are offered for consideration to all planning officials who are now or may become
engaged in approval, modification or denial of this project.
• Speaking as an individual firefighter [not as an official spokesman of the Galeton Fire
Department nor the board of the Galeton Fire Protection District] I have grave concern
that the department does not have access to the resources needed to address such a
facility much less at this location. Currently there are 10 residential and/or rental sites
located at or near the intersection of CR 74 and CR 49 coursing ''/: mile south. This would
constitute the 11`h such site and be comprised of multiple buildings that could be at risk.
During the course of all this development along CR 49, at no time has consideration
been given to the need for, nor placement of, a fire hydrant or hydrants(s) in this area to
support fire suppression needs. The nature and density of such development coupled
with seasonal one hour fuels growth and inherent windy conditions, could certainly fuel
a fire storm in and among these premises that likely could not be adequately addressed
via portable water supplies. In addition, the department would likely lack both
equipment and personnel to address even a single large much less a multiple building
involvement at any of these locations.
• The housing and care of individuals as described for this development could also pose
some quite serious and emergent needs for first responder medical care. The potential
1 2011-2083
• certainly exists for such need to exceed the capability of the Galeton Fire Department.
At this time the department is struggling to attract and maintain sufficient numbers of
individuals to consistently mount an effective response to any incident. The availability
of personnel can be quite limited during week day hours as most members work out of
district. In addition, the department is only staffed to the EMT-B level and would have
to rely upon Weld County Paramedics or crew members of Medevac of Northern
Colorado to provide more advanced life support once they could be summoned to and
arrive on scene. The timeline for delivery of the level of care needed could be rather
protracted in comparison to such a facility located within a district with full time paid
staffing, generally including higher levels of medical training and also likely to be in
closer proximity to transport and clinical/hospital facilities equipped to best handle such
cases.
• Traffic likewise should be of concern at or near this location. There is considerable
traffic turning at or crossing the CR 49 and CR 74 intersection which would be the most
likely route to access the site. Much of this is the result of development to the east of
Galeton and on CR 49 north of the Larimer Weld Irrigation Company canal but
substantial traffic also courses southbound to the aforementioned developed
• properties. In addition, a water hauler associated with oil and gas development in the
area stages his trucks at the corner of CR 49 and CR 70 and oft times utilize CR 49 to
access CR 74. Further there is a construction firm located across the road and just south
of the proposed development and a dairy and another rental property located just
beyond the half mile line to the south. The dairy and its rental would constitute the 12th
and 13th developed sites in only slightly over 0.6 mile. Both the construction firm and
the dairy utilize CR 49 as ingress and egress for heavy equipment, equipment trailers,
feed and milk trucks and other service vehicles. Large pieces of farm equipment also
routinely utilize CR 49 to move between and access fields in the area. It was noted in
the application that a dust abatement plan should be considered for the site. In light of
the foregoing, dust and any associated environmental or health impacts generated from
vehicle or equipment traffic on CR 49 would seem more of a concern to the site and its
occupants than any dust generated thereupon.
• It was noted within the application that a water capture feature was recommended for
the site. This is well and good, but should I be the developer, I would be far more
concerned about controlling both surface and subsurface flow onto the site from the
north and northeast. Two factors come into play here; (1) Mr. Stille, landowner to the
• north, persists in irrigating property adjacent to and on which this development is
2
• planned in a rather uncontrolled manner. Whereas corrugations within an old dead hay
field have long since disappeared, nothing exists to direct water flow southward as the
field should flow. It has been noted that water does flow rather heavily across the
development area at times, has flooded out the property to the south in the past and
last year Petroleum Development Corporation and Duke Energy were forced to place a
culvert and substantial amounts of fill on the field road south of said property to be able
to access their tank yard located near the SE corner of the Stille property. (2) This
development sits on the edge of a shale shelf that courses from the WNW to the ESE
across the site and into my property to the east. Soil below this shelf can remain wet
particularly throughout the summer irrigation season or at any times of abundant
natural precipitation. This situation has persisted long enough that the affected ground
below this line is quite alkaline, not very productive and very hard to get water to
peculate into. This could be a concern to proper septic tank system operation
particularly in light of the size of a system needed to support the proposed facility. It
was noted in the application that a geotechnical soils study was not recommended. In
light of the foregoing I might recommend that be reconsidered.
• It was noted within the application that the facility would support 'distressed' young
mothers from nonproductive and unhealthy circumstances. Reading between the lines
• and noting said application arises from individuals within the Evans, LaSalle, Greeley
area, one is at least suspect these individuals may have ties to gang, drug, or other
unlawful environments. The pregnant female may be removed from that environment,
but that does not assure the 'father', 'friends', 'family' or other 'associates' would not
attempt to contact them at the shelter location and even resort to force or intimidation
to do so. Needless to say, this would be easy to accomplish in such an open location
with only a pair of houseparent's assigned to the facility. It was of concern no specific
security measures of any nature were enumerated for this site/facility within the
application. Such activity would also pose an unwanted risk to others in the area where
perpetrators might attempt to gain access to the development site from nearby
properties or take cover or attempt escape from any enforcement intervention at the
site onto nearby properties. Thus, such acts should and likely would predicate the need
for law enforcement intervention. The Weld County Sheriff's Office holds jurisdiction in
this area and their response times can be significantly affected by other commitments
and the location(s) of the same at any given point in time. They would of necessity then
have to rely upon the Town of Eaton Police Department or even possibly Colorado State
Patrol Troopers as mutual aid first responders or backup to their response, and
response times could be significantly delayed. Should such an act occur concurrent with
• personal injury or illness, it is the policy of the Galeton Fire Department responders to
3
• stand by in the area until such time law enforcement has rendered the scene safe prior
to making entry and rendering aid. All of these factors, compounded by the rural
location, could delay response in time needed to hopefully mitigate undesirable actions
compared to a more consistent and timely response that would be anticipated within
incorporated municipal areas.
• The application further notes that some of the mothers may be accompanied by young
children. This poses considerable additional concern in light of the fact no containment
features such as walls or fences are noted, only two houseparent's are consistently to
be on site and child care is to be a shared responsibility without spelling out a procedure
to assure designation of authority for this task. The above outlined traffic issues speak
for themselves as to risks to children. The Stille property to the north should be
considered a very significant risk in this regard also. Currently, to the immediate north
of this development site, Mr. Stille has an estimated 20+ horses confined to an old small
riding arena for whatever unknown purpose. This area is obscured from view by a barn
and drop in surface elevation from the Stille residence such that ready monitoring of the
area cannot be accomplished. Children seemingly are naturally attracted to horses and
as such if they were not detected leaving the development site they could easily enter a
• very high risk area undetected. In addition, Mr. Stille rather routinely allows horses
and/or mules to graze in an area to the east of the development site confined only by an
electric fence that at best is operational only on an intermittent basis. Thus, animals at
this location would pose a direct fence line risk to occupants of the proposed
development.
• Should children or others unfamiliar with farm activities course across the pasture on
the east and onto the Bennett farm property or across the road to the west onto
Johnson farm property, they would be exposed to risks posed by active farming
operations. Large equipment and routine nighttime operations of some farm tasks (hay
baling for example) would likely preclude the detection of children or others in time to
prevent a very serious if not fatal accident. This risk is inherent to rural settings and it is
suggested sponsors of this project consider a more municipal location to mitigate such
threats in the best interest of the community they intend to serve. This would also
prevent potential future conflict with the county's right to farm statutes at the proposed
development site.
• The 'pasture' area to the east on the Stifle property consists of a very old unkempt hay
field that is now home to more noxious weeds than most of us as neighbors care to
• count. Many of the weeds in that area are known to produce pollen or other
4
• substances that can contribute to allergen disorders. This certainly could prove of
concern to infants and toddlers who have not fully developed their immune system and
likewise to the mothers whose immune systems may be compromised by the stressors
of pregnancy. Weeds and associated pollen, etc., are common throughout rural areas,
but are quite pronounced at this location and should be considered and/or directly
addressed prior to habitation for the purpose intended.
• To the north of this pasture area, Mr. Stille, in conjunction with his son-in-law who now
has no direct association with the property, developed a shooting range with only
minimal attempts at constructing an adequate backstop. What is in place currently
doesn't even approach minimal guidance for such facilities to assure shooter, bystander
and downrange safety. This has caused great concern to us as immediate (within 100')
downrange landowners who routinely must access the area and in the past allowed
grandchildren to do the same, not to mention the potential risk to the Galeton
Elementary School and community of Galeton directly in the line of fire. Mr. Stille has
demonstrated absolutely no regard for any neighbors welfare in this matter and readily
states he has a 'County letter' stating he can do as he pleases with what he has in place.
Inherent firearm risk coupled with inadequate range construction and pronounced
landowner attitude has caused us to no longer allow our grandchildren to play in farm
• fields adjacent to our homestead. Additionally we as adults must always check and be
cognizant of range activity risk and additionally this situation has predicated a need for
us to warn any and all custom farm operators as to risk they may be exposed to when
working on our place. Also of note is the fact there are no side berms on the south of
this range to prevent a ricochet off of steel posts within the backstop or misfires on the
firing line from coursing southward in the direction of planned building sites. Further,
should children inadvertently access the area in play [dirt piles are always attractive play
sites] and go undetected by Mr. Stille, a very unfortunate event could occur. The
foregoing is provided to illustrate yet another risk that likely will prevail in regard to
development of this facility. These issues need to be resolved, preferably by
deconstruction and cessation of use of the range, prior to initiation of construction
activity to mitigate any possibility of an unforeseen event.
• Another note of interest is the fact this development is proposed to be constructed
within 500' of an existing natural gas well head. At the time of drilling it was understood
the well developer, Petroleum Development Corporation, could not drill within 500' of
any existing structures due to inherent immediate or longer term risk posed by such a
well head. Yet, today, the applicants are proposing building within such a risk area. This
• may need further study and resolution during the course of this application process.
5
• • It was also noted within the application that funding for this project is not assured and is
to be derived from fund raising events and contributions. In light of the magnitude of
the project and its likely cost, coupled with the current and likely continuing economic
downturn, this would at the least place uncertainty as to completion of the project in
total or incremental steps therein to assure adequacy for occupancy at any given point.
Thus, failure at any point of development must remain a possibility that could lead to
abandonment and thus blighting of the area if construction was not sufficient to provide
for habitation. Existing overdevelopment in this agriculture area appears to be having
some negative effect on the valuation of active farming operations and those that care
to continue farming as opposed to opt for development. Failed development would
have a farther reaching negative effect on property values, residential and farm, in the
immediate area.
• The applicants state they have talked to 'adjoining' land owners. This wording would
imply only the Stille's to the north and Campbell's to the south as they are the adjoined
properties. The mailing list afforded by the Weld County Planning Services would seem
far more appropriate as it enumerates properties in the immediate area that can be
readily impacted by such a development. We were not contacted by project
• proponents and only learned of its formal proposal when notified by Planning Services.
It is recommended all listed by Weld County Planning Services be contacted for and
input verified prior to rendering judgment on this project.
In summary, it appears the sponsors of this project have identified a societal need they wish to
address as a ministerial project. For this they are to be commended. As to the location chosen
for this activity, far more concerns arise as to risk and thus welfare of those they intend to help
than do benefits, if any, of the chosen location on CR 49.Thus it is recommended Weld County
Planning Services/Weld County Planning Commission /Weld County Commissioners deny this
application and the sponsors seek a site more amenable to their purpose that does not place
residents in harm's way or rather inaccessible to anticipated emergency services that likely can
only be provided within a municipal setting such as within or close to Greeley.
Sincerely,
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Bennett Bill Bennett, DVM COL ADO
Director-Homeland Security
ar ra —
.OeflHCfoI y 011-4"01 )tt.y DEPARTMENT OF
•
Adjacent farm landowner mot/a/�e/ix,r✓; /ate AGRICULTURE
Department of Agriculture
Commissioner's Office Tel:(303)239-4129
700 Kipling St.,Ste.4000 Cell::(303)524-5824
6 Lakewood,CO 80215-8000 FAX:(303)239-4125
www.colorado.gov/ag Email:billy.bennett@ag.state.co.us
Hello