The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About760028.tiff 1 Z . • FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION CONCERNING PARK LAND ASSOCIATES SUBDIVISION PLAT The Petition of Park Land Associates, requesting approval, execution and recordation of a subdivision plat of the North Half of Section 8, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P. M. , Weld County, Colorado, designated as (Park Land Estates) hereinafter referred to as the (Plat), came on for hearing on February 11, 1976, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado, having heard the testimony and evidence adduced at said hearing and having considered the testimony, evidence and recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission filed with said Board, and having carefully weighed the same, now makes the following findings: 1 . The evidence and testimony disclosed that the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof as to the need for a subdivision of this nature and size in a rural and remote area of the County; 2. That said plat encompasses land located within an area surrounded by land which is zoned "A" Agricultural and favorable consideration would have an undue adverse effect on existing agricultural uses adjoining and adjacent to the proposed subdivision; 3. The evidence and testimony show that the inhabitants of the im- mediate vicinity of the area proposed to be subdivided are predominately opposed to the subdivision; 4. The evidence and testimony show that said subdivision would create an undue burden on existing fire and police protection services; 5. The evidence and investigation show that the proposed subdivision is within the boundaries of the comprehensive plan of the Town of Erie, Weld County, Colorado, and that the Town of Erie, by Resolution dated March 15, 1976, opposes the approval of the Park Land Estates final plat. 6. The evidence and investigation show that definite provision for a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quantity, quality and dependability has not been made by the subdivider as required by C. R. S. 1973, 30-28-133 (b) (a) (c) as amended; Further, the Board makes the following additional findings: 7. Investigation of subject property reveals that the area is underlaid with substantial mineral deposits, primarily of coal, and that the granting of Park Land Estates final plat will remove the feasibility of extraction of a commercial mineral resource which lies under the ground upon which Park Land Estates Subdivision is proposed, in violation of C. R. S. 1973, 34-1 -305 (1); 8. Applicant has not complied with condition #2 of the Resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners June 30, 1974, granting change of zone to "E" Estate District, Planned Unit Development. This con- dition requires "all applicable subdivision regulations and zoning regulations shall be followed and complied with in accordance with the zoning resolutions of Weld County, Colorado. " 9. Subject plat reflects a proposed air park and said air park is not a permitted use in an "E" Estates Zone. No special use permit has been 760028 applied for or granted for the placement of said air park. 10. No acceptable agreements with the appropriate ditch companies and applicant have been entered into as required by Weld County Subdivision Regulations, Section 8-12 and Section 6-2-I. 11. No preliminary plan for Park Land Estates has been approved by the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners as required by Section 5-3-D or Section 5-4-E and F of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. 12. No development plan for Park Land Estates has been approved by the County Planning Commission or the Weld County Board of County Com- missioners as required by the Weld County Zoning Regulations Section 6. 6-4. 13. That each of the preceding findings in and of themselves and independent of each other constitutes a separate and individual ground for denial of the plat. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado, has heard the petition of Park Land Associates, requesting approval, execution and recordation of a subdivision plat of a parcel of land as hereinabove recited and made a part hereof by reference, and WHEREAS, said Board has made its findings on the evidence and testimony submitted to it, which findings precede this resolution and by reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the said Board has carefully considered the final plat, evidence and testimony and the recommendations of the Weld County Plan- ning Commission and has given the same such weight as it in its discretion deems proper, and is now fully advised in the premises; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Park Land Associates, requesting approval, execution and recordation of a subdivision plat of a parcel of land indicated above be, and it hereby is denied on each of the grounds set forth in the Board's findings therein. Made and entered this 19 day of May, A.D. , 1976. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: �a _ %y am— WE UNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder Lcret G ,(4 and Clerk to the Boar _ i gy J Deputy Co ty Clerk t 1 A Ly):, VD AS TO FORM: Special Legal Counsel -2- .' rn 1 E1DUI! %lige To Commissioners Date April 8 , 1976 COLORADO From subjectParkland Estates Drainage and Roadway Review This is to advise the Weld County Commissioners that Parkland Estates drainage and roadway plans have been revised and resubmitted to our office by VTN Engineers. A final review indicated that my requests in a letter dated 2/27/76 to Mr. Neal Godwin of VTN have been met . The plans as submitted on April 2 , 1976 meet the County Engineering Department ' s drainage and roadway requirements and are therefore approved. Drew Scheltinga mfm CC : Neal Godwin, VTN Tom Honn � FREDERICK L.GINSBERG . -- _ ATTORNEY AT LAW 3600 SOUTH YOSEMITE STREET, SUITE 840 ;10•••••••••••••°71 'tee DENVER, COLORADO 80237 AREA CODE 13031 773-1405 r fI° Jacqueline S.Davis K A April 7, 1976 Mr. Glenn Billings Chairman, Weld County Commissioners Health and Welfare Bldg. Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Final Plat - Park Land Estates Dear Commissioner Billings: The hearing before the Land Use Commission held on March 26, 1976 resulted in a Resolution from the Commission remitting the above cap- tioned matter to Weld County for a final decision. The Resolution of the Commission asks that the County inquire into certain matters, all of which have previously been reviewed by the County and/or other state agencies. Inasmuch as my clients have to the best of their knowledge complied with the regulations and rules of Weld County relating to the submis- sion for approval of final plats, we would ask that the Weld County Commissioners act upon this request and grant a favorable approval. In short this matter has been tried so many times by so many people sitting on so many tribunals that we are all beginning to wonder about the authenticity of the processes. If there is any other in- formation that is needed by either the County Planning staff or by the County Commissioners, we will be happy to furnish same to you. Thank you for all of your cooperation. Very truly yours d4lFrederick L. ns er FLG/cn cc: Mrs. Doris McFeeters RESOLUTION OF MARCH 26, 1976, OF THE COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION TO THE WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PARK LAND ESTATES PROPOSAL. WHEREAS, on March 3, 1976, the Weld County Commissioners did by Resolution request that the Colorado Land Use Commission review the proposed Park Land Estates subdivision in accordance with the Weld County Subdivision Regulations for the purpose of providing guiding recommendations to the Weld County Commissioners in their decision on the final plat review of Park Land Estates, and WHEREAS, the staff of the Colorado Land Use Commission did undertake such review and reported the findings and recommendations of said review at the regular meeting of the Colorado Land Use Commission on March 26, 1976 (Exhibit A) . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Colorado Land Use Commission urges the Weld County Commissioners to re-examine the Park Land Estates proposal according to Weld County's own adopted land use policies, and any further deliberations on this matter to consider mitigation of the issues identified in the LUC staff report (Exhibit A) and furthermore, that consideration also be given to conformance with H.B. 1529 as well as Weld County's Mineral Extraction Plan regarding the identified coal resources on Park Land Estates property. 3-30-76 ! PARR LAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS Preface On March 3, 1976 the Weld County Commissioners requested the LUC to review the final plat of the Park Land Estates PUD according to the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. Pursuant to that request the staff compiled this report. Initially, it must be noted that the Weld County Subdivi- sion Regulations specifically refer to the County Zoning Resolution and the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, our review involved an analysis of this project according to all three documents . This report is divided into two parts . In the first section a description of the Weld County PUD and a chronology of events concerning the Park Land proposal is provided. In the second section we concentrated our review on the following major considerations: (1) consistency with the major provisions of the County's Subdivision Regulations and hence, the Zoning Resolution, Comprehensive Plan and the state subdivision statute; (2) an analysis of the status of recommendations made by the Planning Commission and the Board during the review process; (3) consistency with established review and decision-making procedures as required by county regulations . i • TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - Background Page Section 1. The PUD in Weld County 1 Section 2 . Chronology of Events in the Review Process 2 PART II - Analysis and Review of the County Regulations Section 1. Consistency with County Regulations and State Statute 3 Section 2. Status of Recommendations Made by County During Project Review 7 Section 3. Consistency with Established Review Procedures 10 ii S • PART I BACKGROUND SECTION 1 . THE PUD IN WELD COUNTY The Park Land Estates proposal is considered a PUD and a subdivision. In order to understand this statement, PUD must be defined, and the role of the PUD in Weld County must be explained. Definitions • A "PUD" is defined in the County Subdivision Regulations as: An area of land improved as a residential, commercial, or industrial development or a combination thereof in which normal restrictions of lot sizes , setbacks, densities , land uses, and other " criteria may be relaxed in return for develop- ment conformance to an approved plan for the total parcel. (Weld County Subdivision Regula- tions , Section 2-26, p. 9 . ) A "Unit Development" is defined in the County Zoning Resolution as : . . .a project which is controlled by one owner, corporation or agency, or the subject of an application filed jointly by the owners of the property to be included, which is located on at least 5 acres of land, including usable open spaces for the mutual benefit of the entire tract, and which is planned to provide variety and diversity so that maximum long-range benefits of unique site design can be achieved while still protecting the surrounding areas . (Weld County Zoning Resolution, Revised 10/7/7O , Section 6 . 6, par. 1, p. 40 . ) Relationship to PUD to Subdivision Regulation Weld County encourages the use of the PUD.because it provides the county with greater control over planning and development of such proposals . By classifying a subdivision a PUD it is automatically subject to regulation under the county subdivision regulation and the zoning resolution. Hence, the county has control over the planning of the proposal through zoning and its development through the subdivision process . -1- SECTIOW . CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IN REVIEW PROCESS The following is an outline of the chronology of the major review and decision-making events which have occurred over the past four and one-half years . (1) November 29 , 1971. Park Land Estates concept presented to the Planning Commission by Tom Eichorn and Wayne Barton, representatives of Park Land Associates. Director of Planning Burman Lorenson suggested that if the Planning Commission considered the proposal that it be classified as a Planned Unit Development. (2) To the best of our knowledge there is no formal record of the submittal and review of a sketch plan. However, according to Jim Ohi, who at that time was a senior staff member of the Weld County Planning Department, informal meetings with the Planning Department staff were held to discuss the proposed development. (3) February 6 , 1973. Preliminary subdivision application submitted. (4) . April 26 , 1973. Rezoning application submitted zone change from "A" - Agriculture to "E" - Estates Unit Development. (5) October 16, 1973. Planning Commission recommended denial of the zoning change request, and cited six reasons . (6) December 10, 1973. Board of County Commissioners held a hearing on the proposal. (7) February 13, 1974 . Board granted the requested zone change under four conditions . The zone change granted was conditional for 12 months on the condition that the developer proceed with due diligence to begin development of the area rezoned. (8) January 13, 1975. Board granted an extension of time . on the zoning change to July 30, 1975. The twelve month period was about to expire. The extension was granted upon the same condition as cited in item (7) above . -2- • s (9) June 25, 1975 . Board granted a second extension of time to September 1, 1975 . The six month extension was about to expire . The additional extension was granted upon the same condition cited in item (7) above . (10) October 24 , 1975 . Final plat application submitted to the Planning Commission. (11) December 22 , 1975 . Planning Commission recommended denial of the final plat until five conditions were met. (12) February 11, 1975. Board of County Commissioners held a hearing on the final plat. Deferred decision. (13) March 3, 1976 . Board passed a resolution seeking a recommendation for guidance from the Land Use Commission. PART II ANALYSIS OF THE COUNTY REVIEW PROCESS AND REGULATIONS SECTION 1. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS AND STATE STATUTE Subdivision Regulations First, section 5-4 , subsection A, requires the Planning Commission to .act upon the preliminary plan. Section 5-4, subsection F, requires the Board of County Commissioners to hear an appeal of a Planning Commission recommendation for disapproval. It appears that no action was taken positively or negatively on the preliminary subdivision plan for the proposed Park Land Estates as is required. Further discussion of this situation follows in Section 3 of this Part II. Second, if the final plat of the Park Land Estates PUD is approved by the Board, it appears that such approval will conflict with Section 7 of the County Subdivision Regulations . In Section 7 it is provided that, "Land being subdivided shall conform with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Resolution and other resolutions and regulations in effect in the County. " In order to support our contention that approval of Park Land will conflict with this Section 7 of the Subdivision Regulations , an examination of the major provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Resolution as applied to Park Land must be provided. -3- Comprehensive Plan It appears that several policies enumerated in the County Comprehensive Plan may not be supported if the Park Land Estates final plat is approved. First, the County Planning Commission adopted a land use policy which provided the basis for the Comprehensive Plan. Briefly stated, it is the land use policy of the county to: (1) retain prime agricultural land for agricultural use; (2) retain and build upon existing communities; (3) create built-in agricultural greenbelts around and between communities . (See Weld County Comprehensive Plan, P. 27. ) Second, the Comprehensive Plan established clear agricultural policies to be used as guidelines in directing growth. The following policies are included: (1) Agriculture is considered a valuable resource in Weld County which must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from uncontrolled and undirected business , industrial and residential growth. (2) In order to minimize conflicting land uses and minimize the cost of new facilities and services to the taxpayer, industrial, commercial, business, and residential development will be encouraged to locate adjacent to the existing 27 incorporated towns and in accordance with the comprehensive plans and stated wishes of each community. (3) Where new developments desire to locate in the rural areas away from the existing municipalities, they will be required to justify their development with a detailed plan (Planned Unit Development) accompanied by an economic impact statement and an environmental impact statement prepared by recognized experts. . . (See Weld County Comprehensive Plan, pp. 48-49 for above policies . ) Third, the Comprehensive Plan also provides clear policies governing urban development. The following policies are enumerated: (1) New residential developments which are not closely connected to and served by municipal utilities and services shall be discouraged. -4- • • • (2) Proposals for new residential development adjoining existing municipalities shall be encouraged so long as they conform to the desires of the towns as expressed in their comprehensive plans . (3) Existing municipalities are the best and most efficient sources of public goods and services which are necessary to serve new residential developments. These municipalities will be encouraged to improve their ability to serve new developments and will be looked to for service of all new developments within their corporate areas , in annexable areas immediately adjacent to the town and even those areas not immediatel: available for annexation, but within a reasonable service distance from the municipality. (See Weld County Comprehensive Plan, pp. 59-60 for above policies . ) It appears that the Park Land proposal may conflict with the above stated policies for the following reasons : (1) Development of the area will pose threats to existing agricultural activity in the area and the county - specifically, the Koch's dairy farm operation. Those concerns have been enumerated by Dr. Ulman and his witnesses. (2) Development of Park Land will conflict with the concerns and desires expressed by the Town of Erie. It will not be developed contiguously to the town and hence, will create a small, relatively isolated rural residential area. (3) Economic and environmental impact analyses were not submitted with the PUD development plan as required. Zoning Resolution It appears that the review procedure used in reviewing the Park Land proposal was inconsistent with the three major provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. First, Section 6. 6 , par. 5, p. 41 of the resolution requires that the Planning Commission and the Board approve the develop- ment plan for the PUD. It seems that neither body formally acted upon the proposal. A more detailed discussion of this procedural discrepancy is provided in Section 2 of this Part II. • -5- Second, Section 6. 6, par. 1 of the Resolution defines a "unit development" as including " . . .usable open spaces for the mutual benefit of the entire tract. . . " we suggest that streets, runways, • taxi strips and access areas in one's backyard are not open space. Moreover, such areas may not be able to be used for the mutual benefit of the whole tract. In this regard, our questions are, "Where, in the final plat, are the parks and playgrounds for the children of the owners of those lots? What common areas are those children supposed to use to play upon? Will this lack of mutual open area encourage children to seek such areas on neighbor ing farms?" (See Weld County Zoning Resolution, Section 3.4, p. 14 Third, the Park Land Estates PUD is predicated upon the developmen of an airstrip through the middle of the community and taxi strips to homes on the various blocks . We do not find that an airstrip of any kind is a permitted use in Estate district. Moreover, it appears that the requirements and provisions pertain- ing to Estate unit developments do not permit airports or airparks and do not permit relaxations of permitted land uses 'in Estate unit developments. (See Zoning Resolution Section 3. 4, p. 14 and Section 6. 6, pp. 40-42. ) State Subdivision Statute If the Board approves the final plat, such approval may be in con- flict with 30-28-133 (6) (a) and (c) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973. This section provides that no final plat shall be approved by any Board of County Commissioners unless evidence has been submitted by the subdivider to show that "definite provision has been made for a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quantity, dependability and quality, " and "all areas of the propose subdivision which may involve soil or topographical conditions pre- senting hazards or requiring special precautions have been identi- fied by the subdivider and that the proposed uses of these areas are compatible with such conditions . " In a letter to the County dated November 18, 1975, the State Engineer recommended that land requiring irrigation be limited to 10, 000 square feet of land per lot. According to that recommendation, there is only enough water available for irrigation on properties for 10, 000 square feet of land per lot. Hence, over 70, 000 square feet of land per lot will be left without water. This situation is likely to result in wide- spread wind and water erosion due to overuse by children and/or large animals. -6- i SECTION 2 . STATUS OF RECOMMENDATION'S MADE BY COUNTY DURING PROJECT . REVIEW. During the formal review process, the County Planning Commission a the Board of County Commissioners expressed numerous concerns abou land use problems that were identified with the proposed PUD. It seems that most of those concerns have not been met or have onl partially been met by the developer. PRELIMINARY REVIEW STAGE Planning Commission The Planning Commission recommended denial of the zoning change request from "A" Agriculture to "E" Estate Unit Development on October 16, 1973, for the following reasons : 1. Does not agree with land use policy, which is now incor- porated in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 2. Does not agree with adjacent land use and zoning. 3. Erie recommends denial. 4. Health Department recommends denial, 5. State Engineer's Office states that the water supply is not adequate. Further information has been submitted to them for review. 6. Water quality does not meet Health Department standards. -7- • • In analyzing documents from the County file on Park Land to Bete. whether these reasons for denial have been met by the developer, mane two observations. First, reasons 1 , 2 , and 3 of the above reasons for denial have currently not been met by the developer. This situation supports the apparent inconsistencies with the policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan outlined in Part ] Moreover, if the Board now approves the final plat, they will not only be approving a proposal which is inconsistent with the plan and Items 1, 2 and 3 above, but such a decision will conflict wit the overall formal recommendation of denial of the zone change by the Planning Commission. The PUD requires approval of the Pla ping Commission at the preliminary stage. Second, to the best of our current knowledge, reasons 4 , 5 and 6 have not clearly been mitigated by the developer. In reference to points 4 and 6, wide discrepancies have been identified between the results of two water quality studies done by the developer. One report stated that the water was not potable, the other said it was.. This dis- crepancy is currently being re-examined by the County. In ref ere] tlimited 5, he eoState ate Engineer suggested that water supply may be very Section 1, subsectip' one aon thend e"State of eSubdivisionnStatute, " of this Part II. ) Board of County Commissioners The Board of County Commissioners granted approval of the zoning change request upon the following four conditions: 1. That any water and sanitation facilities to be installed shall be approved by the State Health Department. 2. All applicable subdivision regulations and zoning regulations shall be followed and complied with in accordance with the zoning resolutions of Weld County, Colorado. 3. Subject to complying with the recommendations of the Town of Erie, Colorado, regarding adequate sewer and water service for the area rezoned. -8- • 4. That said change of zone herein granted is conditional only for a period of twelve (12) months from date hereof, on condition that the developer proceed with due diligence to begin development of the area rezoned and submit plans for such develcc-.ent for the approval of the Weld County Planning Commission. Our best information to date indicates that Items 2 and 3 currerth have not been met by the developer. (See Part II, Section 2 herein and letters from the Town of Erie, dated November 20, 1973; March 18, 1975; May 6, 1975; July 1, 1975; and September 15, 1975. : Consequently, if the Board now approves the final plat of the Park Land proposal they may do so in contradiction of conditions which they established in their action on the zone change at preliminary stage. FINAL PLAT REVIEW STAGE Planning Commission The Planning Commission recommended denial of the final plat until the following five major changes, modifications, and/or determi- nations were acccmplished: 1. Title insurance policy updated and clarified. 2. The proposed restrictive covenants clarified to determine responsible party for installation, operation and maintenance of common facilities. 3. Other changes are made in restrictive covenants: (a) Covenant concerning subdivision of land being deleted to reflect State Division of Water Resources requirements and requirements of Weld County Subdivision Regulations. (b) That the section on land use restrictions and limitations require compliance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. (c) That the sections referencing the use of signs and the keeping of livestock and pets be subject to compliance with Weld County regulations. (d) The addition of a restriction on use of water for yard irrigation to reflect the requirements of the. State Division of Water Resources. -9- S 4 . That a determination be made as to how the developer will satisfy Section 8-15A of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations which requires a payment of money in lieu of land to be dedicated for parks. 5. That action be taken to insure that the intent and require- ments of Section 8 .12 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations is met. That section concerns protection of irrigation ditches. Based on our current knowledge, conditions 3 , 4 and 5 have not been mitigated. SECTION 3 . CONSISTENCY WITH ESTABLISHED REVIEW PROCEDURES In this section, we provide an analysis of the consistency of the review procedure applied to the Park Land Estates proposal with review procedures established in the County regulations. PRELIMINARY REVIEW STAGE Requirements for a PUD are enumerated in the Weld County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulation. According to the County Zoning resolution, a PUD is treated differ- ently from other zoning change requests. The following required actions are enumerated in the Resolution: 1. A zone change request from one zone classification to another must be acted upon by the Planning Commission and Board (See Weld County Zoning Resolution, Section 8.1 and 8 .2, p. 53. ) 2. The Development Plan for the PUD must be approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. (See Weld County Zoning Resolution, Section 6 . 6, par. 5, p.41. ) The subdivision regulation contemplates that a PUD will be treated in basically the same manner as a subdivision. Hence, it is requir, that a preliminary plan of a subdivision or PUD be approved by the Planning Commission. (See Weld County Subdivision Regulation, Section 5.4 , p. 22. ) -10- In order to cc rdinate the zoning E.rocess or a PUD and the subdivision p ss for a FUD , the count ses a:: unwritten procedure. Th_s procedure takes place at the preliminary plan review stage . First, the county interprets a preliminary plan for a subdivision as being basically the same thing as the development plan of a PUD. Hence , the preliminary plan serves a dual function. Second, the zone change to a PUD and action on the preliminary plan or development plan occurs simultaneously. We agree that this procedure used by the county is an expeditious approach. However, this procedure does not seem to be consistent with the review procedures required in existing regulations. Planning Commission Action The Weld County Planning Commission recommended denial of the zone change request on October 16, 1973 . The record does not show that any action was taken on the preliminary plan or development plan as is required by the Subdivision Regulation (Section 5.4, p. 22) and the Zoning Resolution (Section 6. 6, par. 5, p.41) . The unwritten procedure used by the County suggests that an action on the zone change request for a PUD is tantamount to the same action on the preliminary or development plan. • On the other hand, the regulations require a minimum two actions - one action for the zoning change and one action on the preliminary or development plan. It seems that the County Planning Commission failed to act on the PUD plan or the preliminary plan as required. Board of County Commissioners Action The Weld County Board of County Commissioners granted approval of the zone change request on February 13 , 1974 . The County file does not show that any action was taken on the preliminary or develop- ment plan as required by the Subdivision Regulation and the Zoning Resolution. (See Weld County Subdivision Regulation, Section 5.4 , par. E and F, p. 24 , and Weld County Zoning Resolution, Section 6. 6, par. 5, p. 41. ) In review, the procedure used by the County for PUD-zoning- subdivision proposals provides that an action on the zone change is tantamount to the same action on the preliminary or development plan. It appears, then, that the decision by the Board on the zone change request was in conflict with Section 6. 6 , par. 5, p. 41 of the Count Zoning Resolution and possibly Section 5-4, Subsection E or F of the County Subdivision Regulations which require the two actions . -11- • COLORADO Lt'ND USE COMMIS•N STAFF REVIEW Date: March 22 , 1976 Project Coordinator: Wil Ulman TOPIC: PARK LAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION , Weld County. ISSUE: Potential land use conflict. Mrs . Shirley Koch appeared before the Land Use Commission on February 27, 1976, requesting assistance. The Kochs are apprehensive that the proposed subdivision, to be located adjacent to their dairy farm, will ultimately jeopardize their dairy farm operation. Specific issues involved include: 1. ) nuisance from aircraft noise 2. ) protection of irrigation ditches 3. ) increased runoff problems 4. ) vehicular-generated dust problems 5. ) dog control problems. ORIENTATION: Park Land Estates is located approximately one and one- half miles northeast of the Town of Erie and three miles west of I-25 (Ref. visual aids) . Park Land Estates : comprised of 92 lots and a private airstrip on approximately 326 acres . Koch dairy farm: comprised of 560 acres , of which appro- ximately 400 are irrigated; operation includes 120 dairy cows and 75 beef cows . The Kochs have been at this location for 12 years , during which time they have invested approximately $120 ,000 in property improvements . ANALYSIS OF 1. ) Aircraft noise nuisance - should not be a problem ISSUES: as long as steps are taken to assure that aircraft do not "buzz" farmsteads and air traffic is limited to reasonable hours. 2. ) Protection of irrigation ditches - the basic problem stems from the fact that irrigation ditches present a hazard to children and, therefore , must be fenced. Maintenance of fenced ditches thus becomes more difficult. There is also a possibility that the insurance underwriters (liability) may require the ditch company to fence not only ditches that run through the residential development, but also far to each side to reduce the potential hazard as much as possible (Ref. Longmont Realty and Insurance Company letter) . i • 3. ) Increased runoff problems - runoff will be increased somewhat, however, considering the low density of the subdivision, this can be controlled through installa- tion of proper drainage ditches and retention ponds . 4 . ) Vehicular-generated dust problems - this problem will become especially acute regarding the access road County Road 9 which runs through the Koch farmstead. This is a gravel/dirt road which passes the cattle feedlot at a distance of approximately 100 feet. Dust conditions could be detrimental to feeding and milking oeprations. 5. ) Dog control problems - stray dogs from existing rural subdivisions nearby are already a nuisance factor. This problem will most certainly be aggravated unless strict controls are effectuated. SPECIAL Dr. Ray Anderson of CSU has aptly demonstrated the subtle REPORTS : erosion of northeast Colorado ' s agricultural land base. A special report has been prepared to illustrate the effects of subtle pressures upon the state's dairy industry and the results thereof. 1. ) Dr. David Carlson, Research Analyst, Colorado Department of Agriculture. "Colorado's Dairy Industry - A State of the Art. " (a) Colorado milk production trends (b) Colorado milk consumption trends (c) Colorado milk sufficiency (d) A single dairy farm in perspective. 2. ) Professor Dawson Jordan, faculty member and researcher in dairy farming at CSU. "The effects of urban pressures upon dairy farm operations" including specific comments on the potential effects of Park Land upon the Koch dairy farm. -2- PROCEL :L REVIEW AS REQUESTED BALD COUNTY COMMISSION ' S RESOLUTION OF _LARCH 3 , 1976 . This phase of the review process is concerned with Weld County 's Subdivision Regulations , Zoning Regulation and Comprehensive Plan. The Weld County planning staff cooperated very closely with the LUC staff during this phase. 1. ) The Erie Town Board is opposed to Park Land Development. In a resolution dated March 15, 1976 , the Board resolved the following: IT IS HEREBY MOVED AND RESOLVED, THAT THE WELD COUNTY COMMISISONERS DENY THE PENDING APPLICATION FOR THE PARKLAND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT, FURTHER, THAT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION BY SENT TO THE COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PURPOSES . 2. ) An analysis of the S .B. 35 referral recommendations by the Colorado Division of Water Resources and the Soil Conservation Service indicates that because of restricitons on water supply and the nature of soil conditions in the area, soil stability may be a problem. (a) S.C.S . Comment: The soils in this subdivision are light to medium textured and should not pose a problem for septic tanks or foundations. Large areas, however, should not be exposed and left unprotected at any one time to prevent water and wind erosion. (b) .' Colorado Division of Water Resources Comment: This is to acknowledge receipt of final plat information for the above-referenced subdivision . In reviewing the preliminary plan material, I find that a water district was proposed which would act as the legal entity for ownership and maintenance of the wells and central water system. Now, it appears that a Water District may not be created, which could seriously affect future land owners within the subdivision in that they may not have any control over the water supply system. If a water district is not to be formed, I would like additional discussion from the developer on the private water company that will supply the 91 lots within the subdivision. -3- IIIThe Restrictive Covenants state that a lot owner may subdivide his lot after June 6, 2003. Due to the availability of water for the present 91 lots , I believe this statement should be deleted or rewirtten to state that sub- division could occur if additional water resources are attained and approval is given by the water district. The Restrictive Covenants do not contain any statement concerning the limitation of lawn and garden areas to 10 ,000 square feet or less . It would be desirable to include this statement on the final plat in case the covenants are changed. Past use of the land in 'question has been for grain production. Its current state is that of a plowed stubblefield with no plant cover. It is estimated that of the total ground surface within the subdivision, approximately 25 to 30 per cent will be covered by lawns , (considering recommended lawn constraints) streets , driveways, etc. Thus , 70 to 75 per cent of the area will be left exposed to erosional forces . Even if preliminary steps are taken to assure a native plant cover, such cover must be maintained. Horses, or other pet livestock confined to the 2-5 acre lots would, within a relatively short time , destroy a plant cover. Considering the constrained water supply, ongoing irrigation of such areas is not feasible. 3. ) Park Land Estates Subdivision Procedural Analysis. CONCLUSION Weld County' s growth management policies and regulations AND are among the most comprehensive in the State. Despite RECOMMENDATIONS : the lack of a well defined state agricultural land protection policy Weld County has been successful in protecting its agricultural economy by adopting stringent regulations of its own. We therefore urge Weld County to re-examine the Park Land proposal according to its own dedicated land use policies . We further urge Weld, County in any future deliberations on this matter to consider mitigation of the issues identified in this report. WU/mad -4- • RICI+AF • D LAMM I ?Th JOHN W. ROL GG.ERNOR - Director u . COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 254 COLUMBINE BUILDING - 1845 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE 892-2611 March 29, 1976 Memo to: Wil Ulman, Land Use Commission From: John W. Bold, Director Colorado Geological Survey Subject: Colorado Geological Survey Memo of 3/25/76 COAL RESOURCES, PARK LAND ESTATES, WELD COUNTY In the rush to provide data for our response to your request concerning coal resources of the Park Land Estates, I mis-spotted the subject tract on two coal maps. This provided erroneous data in two places for coal beds #3 and #6 in the second paragraph of the memo, and in the table of resource calculations. Reese see to it that this memo receives the same distribution as the one with the incorrect data. Although that memo was assembled and signed by Steve Schwochow, the error and the responsibility for that incorrect data was mine and not his. Corrected information follows. After the hearing Friday, I had the opportunity to re-evaluate that information, and include additional data from water wells on the tract. That information is also included as an additional calculation. Although the correct USBM map data reduces the amount of resource, it would not change our basic concerns or recom- mendation. The U.S. Bureau of Mines (RI 6726, Analysis of the Coal Industry in Boulder-Weld Coalfield, Colorado, R. L. Lowrie 1966) recognizes 7 coal beds in the Boulder- Weld field. That publication maps 3 beds (#3, #5 and #6) beneath the N 1/2 Section 8. Bed #3 ranges from 2 1/2' to 6' in thickness and occurs at 9O to 17O' in depth. The USBM map indicates Bed 3 underlies approximately 14O acres, but Well #2 (Willard Owens' report) penetrated 6-8' of coal in that bed at 148'-156' and suggests the unit may be considerably thicker and extend under most of the tract. Bed #5 as mapped averages 4' thick and underlies approximately 24O acres. Again, Well #2 logged 5' of coal in that interval, and indicates greater thick- ness and probable extent under the entire 32O acres at depths from 8O' to 1OO' . Bed #6 ranges from 2 1/2 to over 5' on the USBM map under approximately 12O acres. Well #2, Test Hole #1 and Well #4 logged 5' of coal in that unit and indicated considerably greater thickness and extent than mapped. Expected depths range from less than 5O' to 1OO' . Total volume of mapped coal is calculated as follows: GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE • ! ! Mr. Wil Ulman, Land Use Commission Page 2. March 29, 1976 USBM Maps Including Wtr. Well Log Data Bed 3 3' x 140 Ac = 420 Ac' 5' est. x 240 Ac = 1,200 Ac' Bed 5 4' x 240 Ac = 960 Ac' 5' est. x 320 Ac = 1,600 Ac' Bed 6 3.5' x 115 Ac = 402 Ac' 4' est. x 250 Ac = 1,000 Ac' 1,782 Ac' 3,800 Ac' Using 1770 ton coal/Ac' Mapped tonnage = 3,154,140 Est. tonnage = 6,726,000 The USBM mapped data and the water well data of Park Land Estates combined indicate a reasonable probability of 6.7 million tons of coal resource in these three beds alone. At the present conservative tipple price of $10/ton reported by Colorado Division of Mines, this would represent a potential of $67 million. Analyzing, comparing and correlating the available driller's logs, geologist logs and geophysical logs on the water wells on the tract indicate several additional coal beds which could contribute considerable additional resource. Well #2 Well #4 Test Hole #1 Depth Thickness Depth Thickness Depth Thickness 10' 2' coal 40' 2' poss.coal 31' 3' poss.coal 16' 4' Poss.coal 48' 2' coal 54' 4' coal (#6) 24' 2' Prob.coal 51' 3' coal 78' 2' coal (#5) 42' 4' coal 68' 2' coal 104' 4' coal 47' 2' coal 90' 5' coal (#6 bed) 137' 4' coal (#3) 56' 5' coal (#6 bed) 111' 5' coal (#5 bed) 17' Poss.Total 80' 5' coal (#5 bed) 138' 2' coal 94' 4' coal 150' 3' coal 102' 2' coal 163' 6' coal (#3 bed) 134' 2' coal 30' Poss.Total 150' 6' coal (#3 bed) Poss.Total 38' These additional coal beds, which were not mapped by USBM, would be difficult to mine by underground methods, but could contribute considerable additional recovery to a well-planned surface operation. Although minor faulting, thin and variable bed thicknesses and seam discontinuities would limit resource recovery in underground mining, they would cause only minor problems to a well- planned multi-seam strip mine. Again, please attach this to the memo - Colorado Geological Survey to Wil Ulman, of March 25, 1976 - and give it the same distribution as that memo. I apologize for any inconvenience or embarassment it may cause you or anyone else. Although my error is embarassing to me personally and professionally, fortunately it did not change our basic conclusion or recommendation in the memo and my testimony before the Land Use Commission. Sincerely, JPIR/amr John n W. Bold Director and State Geologist • • • Mr. Wil Ulman, Land Use Commission Page 3. March 29, 1976 cc: Will Owens Roger Heim, Rocky Mtn. Energy, 4704 Harlan Street, 6th Floor, Lakeside National Bank, Lakewood, Colorado 80212 (with copy of S. D. Schwochow's memo of March 25, 1976) • • COLORADO MILK PRODUCTION, UTILIZATION AND SUFFICIENCY The purpose of this article is to describe some trends in production and utilization of milk and dairy products in Colorado, and to discuss some measures of Colorado. "milk sufficiency." 1. Milk production. Table 1 reveals several important trends in Colorado milk production. Since 1945 the number of dairy cows has sharply declined yet the decline in state milk production over the same 30-year period has been held to 17%. This reflects the dramatic increase in annual production per cow: Colorado's average of 11 395 pounds of milk per cow in 1974 ranked 6th in the nation (1) . By subtracting the amount of milk fed to calves from total milk production, the milk production available for human utilization can be computed. (The term "utili- zation" is used throughout this article rather than "consumption" since the raw milk produced must be processed before it can be consumed.) Figure 1 indicates an alternate way of portraying these trends. The number of cows, the total production and the yield per cow for any year since 1955 are each expressed as a percent of the quantities for the given base year of 1967. Receipts from marketing milk by Colorado dairy farmers have been steadily increasing, totaling $75.6 million in 1975. This represents about 4% of the total of $2.1 billion in sales of Colorado agricultural products for the same year (2) . For each dollar of dairy production, approximately $2.41 in business activity is generated. (This compares with $1.30 for what production, $2.30 for beef cattle, etc.) In 1969 Colorado dairy farms accounted for 452 000 acres of land and the value of the land and buildings exceeded $103 million dollars (3) . The value per acre for a dairy farm ($241) was almost five times the value per acre for livestock ranches ($50) at that time. The heart of Colorado's dairy industry lies in the Northern front range: • the counties of Weld, Larimer, Boulder, Adams and Morgan account for over 60% of Colorado's dairy industry, whether the yardstick is the number of herds, the number of cows or the amount of milk produced. Figure 2 indicates the distribution of Colorado's grade A dairy herds. These herds are tested regularly under the super- vision of the Colorado Department of Agriculture and must have negative test results for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Over 68 000 of Colorado's 76 000 dairy cows are grade A, so figure 2 displays 90% of Colorado's dairy cows. Grade A dairy farms which meet additional sanitation requirements of the State Department of Health are the only dairy farms permitted to sell their raw milk for processing into fluid milk and cream for human consumption--class I utilization. The raw milk from all other dairy farms may be used only for class II or class III utilization; such milk is used to produce cheese, butter, ice cream, condensed milk and the like, and normally sells for about $2 per hundred pounds less than class I milk. In the last eighteen months, the number of grade A herds in Colorado has declined from 711 to 656, a drop of 8%. The number of grade A cows has declined from 70 935 to 68 027, a decrease of 4% (4) . • • Page 2 2. Milk utilization. State milk utilization is based upon two major factors-- state population and per capita milk utilization. From the first three columns of table 2, several trends are revealed. State population, currently more than 2.5 million, has doubled since 1943. Recent estimates from the Division of Planning project a state population between 3.1 million and 4.2 million by the year 2000. Of this amount, 65% will be included in the Denver metropolitan area, and over 90% will be accounted for in the front range. National per capita utilization represents the amount of raw milk needed annually per person to produce the dairy products we consume: fluid milk and cream, butter, ice cream, cheese, etc. Slightly less than half of the raw milk produced is consumed as fluid milk and cream; refer to figure 3 which displays the per cent of raw milk used to produce each type of dairy product in 1969 (5) . In contrast to state and national population increases, per capita utilization of milk is slowly declining. The drop from 788 pounds in 1945 to 543 pounds in 1974 is equivalent to a yearly decrease of approximately 1-1/4%; the decline since 1965 is equivalent to a yearly decrease of almost 1-1/2%. By combining state population figures with national per capita consumption estimates, we can plot the state's increasing requirements for milk--whether produced in Colorado or elsewhere. Column (8) of table 2 represents the amount of raw milk required to produce the dairy products consumed by the people of Colo- rado. Since 1945 the amount of milk required has increased by almost 500 million pounds. 3. Milk sufficiency. To what degree are Colorado dairy farms producing the milk needed by Colorado consumers? If we consider the total amount of raw milk required to produce all of the dairy products we consume, then Colorado has been a deficit state since 1947. The deficit--the difference between the production of raw milk (minus the amount fed to calves) and the amount of raw milk used to produce the dairy products we consume--has been steadily increasing since 1945, and exceeded 500 million pounds in 1974 (column (9) of table 2). This difference, called the milk sufficiency difference, measures the magnitude of Colorado's milk deficit. Figure 4 displays the widening gap between production and utilization. If instead the ratio of these quantities is considered (column (10) of table 2) , we see that Colorado's milk sufficiency ratio was 62% in 1974. That is, in 1974 Colorado produced 62% of the milk used in the dairy products consumed in the state. What of the future? Let us make these assumptions: (1) no change in milk production (850 million pounds available for human utilization annually); (2) a continuing annual decline in consumption of 1-1/2%; (3) the projected population estimates from the Division of Planning (table 3) . Then the milk sufficiency indices are as follows: Page 3 • • LOW SERIES HIGH SERIES Year Milk Sufficiency Milk Sufficiency Milk Sufficiency Milk Sufficiency Differnce Ratio Difference Ratio 1974 -519 million lbs. 62% -519 million lbs. 62% 1980 -470 million lbs. 64% -545 million lbs. 61% 1985 -420 million lbs. 67% -556 million lbs. 60% 1990 -381 million lbs. 69% -594 million lbs. 59% 1995 -336 million lbs. 72% -644 million lbs. 57% 2000 -280 million lbs. 75% -707 million lbs. 55% Regardless of the measure used, it appears that Colorado's milk production will meet a shrinking portion of the state's needs unless the low estimates of state popu- lation growth are realized. Thus, the key factor in state milk sufficiency is population. While it is true that milk production has declined, that trend by itself is more than offset by the decline in per capita raw milk utilization. In other words, if state population had remained constant since 1945, the decline in production would have been offset by the decline in per capita consumption, so that Colorado under these conditions would not be milk deficit state today. REFERENCES: (1) "Milk: Production, Disposition and Income, 1972-74," Crop Reporting Board, SAR, USDA, April 1975. (2) Colorado Agricultural Statistics bulletin 1-75, Colorado Department of Agricultut (3) 1969 Census of Agriculture, Volume I, number 41, section 1, table 28. (4) Colorado Department of Agriculture, Animal Division. (5) "How Americans Use Their Dairy Foods," 1970 Edition, National Dairy Council. Prepared by the Colorado Department of Agriculture . Ca - M ' Ol LU 3 F- 3 Oi / J O U 1" / C) • U CC _ .CC •,�'. / CAD W O Cr. . Y O k 7 61 u- •-. r-{ 0 / I— z 1 H z ¢ . Cl. / — ce 3 / N.. a. \ W U ;5. 1 0 L7 "- / 's 3 _ a co 0 0 / 0 /(// o o W Li / Y - J CC E / I .-. 0 t v L z / s _ Ci W LL. Z / ; r--I H / s o / 1 - >• F- / PI U / ? A % W 0 ./4". - CC CC z coo a. O_ - I ` 0 al W J / l- 1 '� C- / 0 O - / Pa O / 0 a • a / d N — c / Y k o / -I L CO O z {----;C ci 0 1t. / _ i ! I I , E ,ten CT) u_i� ocn 0 0 0 0 0 0 ai •--I 4° -1 .----1-1� � . i0 C0E' • • i • — x o W p C > I i J G z W O a V J d E O z RV W y } C C z a 4 N (D a } a m O W F O Y Y z r O z T O O 0 z i �.a.�� m '.7 J N W z fU Q J o i u Ct N a z a) J Y K R H J W V7 C4 co a ® ra Z pn� N _t.© - Q Q W ® N o J YJ J W O a a R WC0 O • 7 J 2 V 'gill 8 Fr 0 ' 41 La la la.Wfl1 ®� let I - H W J f N ¢ C 0.1 ij B8r�ztftLUr co Q .J C a u ftl C ° I) C Z N N C —r W , W o ° z u Y LL Kr, U 4 z a o o < 2 N0 J a ® V. O Y V• f7 a a r W N 1 C J ^ u a Z z J W Y N 6 CM a z Z W •-•1I c'� W u JLl a u l+ o ¢ M N < o Z $.,, .... m C • zz 3 0 Oa �', J U C J j 4 O W W W a 0 F U LL O co ° Jn a z ¢ s Co v IL J Vf A U- CO OZ C �w, J C a O „el". W 1:\t-i\...\O: U 2 ` Q r� W $ a w a �•� Y CI e 0 ° F- 1 me L _ O L .-4 C O c .UC 0 U a.a 0 CC W u -1 O E O 2 ; Win Ln 7 V1 2 Cr 4 2 a. \ a r{ Cr O w a a ul \ C 0 >- a m `� r' - w g .--. -4 H \ X.V _ 2 O Y COY O 1- 0 4 0 u O 2 O r-{ O 0 2 O\ = n m W co \ 0 O en te) N., 2 .--I 3 CO O U Z_ Z O Y 0 0 Q 0 3 ta 0 )Ct j I- O p .7 ¢ \ 0 Q 0 o \ U N.up a 0 '7 O 2 O a O Ni 0 NI 0 00 0 N W 3 \ G aO W \ 0 0 O O O J 0 �'-I 4\ in v 4 d 2N NI in CO O NI Q a N j NO .. N J T a N cc W \ us u 0 N 2 0 tat D \ a o o ttlJ w -2 0 w0 \ O J S O ¢ 0 LLH � o J _ Cr 0 c\ r.i LL W Cr a J n H W J EE M N O J z O O O co a w f '0 v H Q t` o w X W O J cc cc NI NO , CO <V 4 a < u In O 0 u a .N-1 Z O a O' J \ a a O 2 \ o no 0 z 2 w w w p o 0 - Co J 6 � U z W \ 0 U' N -' i ¢ O Cr a Z n O a u too anv W a N. O \ -J I to I-i e v .0 ' O CJw 2 0 2 r L 0 I- t- .--I an ¢ J 6 z W F O 2 2 L 0 s J u3 la O W I o W w Z a . s >. I2 H 0 6Q H C O Q >. an Q Q O O W -J a a 0 G U W r-1 W 7 10 Q 2 2 0 \ 0 O Q \ PI tai CD J G 0 2 J Q O Pl m 0 1- \ M 0 v 2 \ N. -2 O '"'1 \ to N 0 2 O W U K r♦ W 0 O z O .1 u 5 an F \ 0 N 0 C \ z 0 O O V21 0 S • Figure 3 • How 1969 Milk Supply Was Consumed 2.6% OTHER 3.4% EVAP.and COND. t 9.5% ICE CREAM c = ;;16.4% CHEESE ft' . 20.7% BUTTER — CZ': - ._fit};� r� .t->=�7 17 " a iCra-: q' _ -, . .r'a -,-.7-;:211r.1:,-1::47A%FLUID MILK _: 'rtiFandCREAM nti t S+1. 'e;A V ^'.4` "-u^ Tit :3 r-- Y .t. \' Nearly half of the nation's milk supply is consumed each year as fluid milk and cream. During 1969, for instance, 47.4 percent of the total output of milk was consumed as fluid milk products. Butter represents the second most important use of the nation's milk flow. Slightly more than a fifth of the total milk production in 1969 was con- sumed as butter. The proportion of the nation's annual supply of milk consumed as cheese has been increasing over the years due to the long term upward trend in per capita consumption of cheese and an ex- panding population. During 1969, a sixth of the total output of milk was consumed as cheese. In contrast, cheese consumption utilized only a tenth of the total supply of milk in the mid-fifties. Slightly less than a tenth of the national milk flow during 1969 was consumed as ice cream and other frozen dairy treats. 4 r. o CI O J H 0 Q E d > > -. <J Z N n Z Z o aCo 0 U - I- z at.--2 U 0 NQ W - W--.j-- I- 1- r--1 --' --), =1 0..d' W F-ri a i-. CD O_ O_ -) Co U CO 01 U • cc ZZ rnAix > - ,-i 00 O_ WJW • J l-I- ._ -' ••e t cc • 0 0QO_ OW .Z WJ .. lr) Z... 0 '>> Z i- O i- 0 CL . d ? •-•Ill ^ •L O_ W JtJ •-+ W Z . J W J 1 LL OF- -I .. F-WOW/' Y - Co • = r_ CC C::: J 0 I- I- W - 72 CJ �T'C] • 0 ) 2 Cn NJ ' N ; n-I .-en --I • J Q ; Cn 2' J W Q v. O _F- ccZ.. Z J N Q W �- U_ 2 J . 7 SY\i-• ^C ..CAN Z ••..,' - G . W 2 •-•\ C I.L. Sri `1.-/` `• O C w•-i s N. > 0 . O Z ` ¢ r U. � 0 O co % Z .i HI tnAZ W 0 Y CnJC U J - d O_ C.. Z fl•-. • I- .• . 0. 0 A A } U 5 LU Q 8-8 O W / 7 v I-C O. D J Q O_ O • 0 Z M N 0 '0 O Z O_ •--•0 9 I- A `��• J NI a ..-.sue CI � '-14.. `1 r I 0 W Y W O l 0 F r--I J W - zo I C _ - w 5 Y tY ( CC Z 0 Q e d Z )- �-� 0 .O _ cc O � - ''f �•�` U _J QQ / -CD , ` 7 U `_ `V \ • It In 01 r1 i `� LI1 i i t I i 1 -.•••----1\"-lti I NAM- O O 0 O CD O C1 0 0 O O 0 0 O C1 CD O Cr CD Ill M N ri CD . 00 )I1 14 -In SCrJnn•-I -in cnintillw • TABLE I • COLORADO MILK PRODUCTION: 1945-1974 NUMBER OF MILK PRODU MILK COWS ON TOTAL PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PER MILK FED AVAILABLE YEAR COLORADO FARMS ON FARMS MILK COW PER YEAR TO CALVES HUMAN UTIL (1) (2) (3)=(2):(1) (4) (5)=(2)-(. pounds 1945 220 000 1045 million 4 750 42 mi).lion 1003 mil 1946 209 000 995 million 4 760 41 million 954 mil 1947 195 000 975 million 5 000 39 million 936 mil 1948 184 000 916 million 4 980 39 million 877 mil 1949 176 000 906 million 5 150 38 million 868 mil 1950 174 000 922 million 5 300 39 million 883 mil 1951 164 000 886 million 5 400 38 million 848 mil 1952 157 000 864 million 5 500 36 million 828 mill 1953 160 000 891 million 5 570 36 million 855 mil] 1954 160 000 920 million 5 750 37 million 883 mil] 1955 154 000 909 million 5 900 38 million 871 mil] 1956 148 000 888 million 6 000 36 million 852 mill 1957 143 000 884 million 6 180 35 million 849 mil] 1958 135 000 853 million 6 320 32 million 821 mil] 1959 128 000 851 million 6 650 30 million 821 mil] 1960 124 000 864 million 6 970 29 million 835 mil] 1961 119 000 848 million 7 130 28 million 820 mil] 1962 116 000 847 million 7 300 27 million 820 mil] 1963 112 000 850 million 7 590 27 million 823 mil] 1964 107 000 862 million 8 060 26 million 836 mill 1965 102 000 832 million 8 160 25 million 807 mill 1966 99 000 821 million 8 293 26 million 795 mill 1967 94 000 824 million 8 766 30 million 794 mill 1968 89 000 843 million 9 472 28 million 815 mil] 1969 84 000 848 million 10 095 22 million 826 mill 1970 81 000 856 million 10 568 20 million 836 mill 1971 79 000 885 million 11 203 20 million 865 mill 1972 76 000 880 million 11 579 20 million 860 mill 1973 75 000 854 million 11 387 20 million . 834 mill 1974 76 000 866 million 11 395 19 million 847 mill INFORMATION SOURCES: Colorado Agricultural Statistics, bulletins volume 1, number 1; volume 1, number 5; volume 2, number 5; 1-65; 1-70; 1-75. Colorado Department of Agriculture. • TABLE 2 • • COLORADO MILK UTILIZATION and SUFFICIENCY INDICES ; 1945-1974 STATE NATIONAL MILK PRODUCTION MILK MILK POPULATION ' PER CAPITA TOTAL ESTIMATED AVAILABLE FOR SUFFICIENCY SUFFICIE YEAR (July 1) UTILIZATION STATE UTILIZATION HUMAN UTILIZATION DIFFERENCE RATIO (6) (7) (8)=(6)x(7) (5) (9)=(5)-(8) (10)=(5) persons pounds per cent 1945 1116 000 788 879 million 1003 million + 124 million 114 1946 1203 000 786 946 million 954 million + 8 million 101 1947 1237 000 769 951 million 936 million - 15 million 98 1948 1263 000 724 914 million 877 million - 37 million 96 1949 1295 000 734 951 million 868 million - 83 million 91 1950 1335 000 740 988 million 833 million - 105 million 89 1951 1328 000 712 946 million 848 million - 98 million 90 1952 1373 000 698 962 million 828 million - 134 million 86 1953 1454 000 689 1002 million 855 million - 147 million 85 1954 1520 000 697 1059 million 883 million - 176 million 83 1955 1583 000 706 1118 million 871 million _ 247 million - 78 1956 1655 000 702 1162 million 852 million - 310 million 73 1957 1693 000 637 1163 million 849 million - 314 million 73 1953 1690 000 682 1153 million 821 million - 332 million 71 1959 1727 000 667 1152 million 821 million - 331 million 71 1960 1769 000 653 1155 million 835 million - 320 million 72 1961 1844 000 641 1182 million 820 million - 362 million 69 1962 1899 000 641 1217 million 820 million - 397 million 67 1963 1936 000 632 1224 million 823 million - 401 million 67 1964 1970 000 632 1245 million 836 million - 409 million 67 1965 1935 000 620 1231 million 807 million - 424 million 66 1966 2007 000 604 1212 million 795 million - 417 million 66 1967 2053 000 581 1193 million 794 million - 399 million 67 1968 2120 000 577 1223 million 815 million - 408 million 67 1969 2166 000 569 1232 million 826 million - 406 million 67 1970 2225 000 561 1248 million 836 million - 412 million 67 1971 2281 000 558 1273 million 865 million - 408 million 68 1972 2364 000 560 1324 million 860 million - 464 million 65 1973 2468 000 554 1367 million 834 million - 533 million 61 1974 2515 000 543 1366 million 847 million - 519 million 62 INFORMATION SOURCES: Column (6) : Population Estimates and Projections, P-25, #460, 468, 508, 533, 615. U. S. Department of Commerce. - Column (7) : Statistical Bulletin 218, October 1957, table 306; Dairy Situation, September 1969, table 11; Dairy Situati September 1975, table 4. U. S. Department of Agricultur Column (5) : See table I. • • • • TABLE 3 • COLORADO POPULATION PROJECTIONS, HIGH AND LOW SERIES; 1970 2000 High Series Low Series 1970 2 207 259 2 207 259 1975 2 636 906 2. 564 992 1980 2 812 433 2 661 344 1935 3 056 123 2 760 222 1990 3 389 516 2 890 572 1995 3 782 590 3 001 675 2000 4 243 491 3 078 321 Prepared by the Colorado Division of Planning, Demographic Section, March 1976. BOARD OF HEALTH Weld eld County Health Department CATHERINE oENsoN, AU LT FRANKLIN D. YODER, MD. MPH 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD RALPH AAE, GREELEY DIRECTOR GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 WILLIAM eucK. ROGGEN CLARENCE SITZMAN. GREELEY (303) 353-0540 DAVID WERKING. DOS. GREELEY April 7, 1976 rite 1 TO: Mr. Glenn K. Billings, Chairman Weld County Commissioners FROM: Glen E. Paul , Director Environmental Health Services RE: Parkland Estates - N2, Section 8, Township 1 North, Range 68 West We will not accept the Parkland Estates water sample results as we cannot ascertain their origin as being from the Parkland Estates wells. If these were official samples, the concentration of sulfates and chlorides are somewhat higher than recommended for drinking water. In Mr. Willard Owen's Report, No. 73.051 , dated November, 1973, he states the poor quality is not characteristic of that normally found in Laramie Fox Hills acquifer, but it is usually associated with water of the coal sections in the upper Laramie formation. He also stated if cementing and casing is not constructed correctly, a highly mineralization from the coal sections could enter into the wells. This is always a possi- bility especially as the wells become older. There are no pumps on the wells therefore we cannot sample the well water for a complete chemical analysis. Mr. Neal F. Godin has stated this would be a big expense just for that purpose and it would also delay the decision. We cannot make a decision on the quality of the water at the Parkland Estates wells until they are properly constructed and we take an official sample for chemical analysis. We recommend disapproval until a decision can be made. GEP/hv CCot o� R C.J. KUIPER • RI6'HGov GoD.vernor Lr �< p 1,,9a. State Engineer Governor • "� ° '2grK DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 300 Columbine Building 1845 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Admini stration (303) 892-3581 Ground Water (303) 892-3587 April 1 , 1976 Mr. Glenn K. Billings , Chairman Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Parkland Estates Dear Mr. Billings : This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter concerning the water supply plan for the above referenced subdivision. The following comments are provided in response to the questions you have presented on the water supply for the subdivision: 1. The basis for the issuance of the four well permits to the developer of Parkland Estates was that the minimum use- ful life of the aquifer below the subdivision must be 100 years which is required by CRS 1973, 37-90-137(4) . Based upon this statute, the total annual appropriation available to the subdivision from the Larimie-Fox Hill Formation was determined to be 96 acre-feet. An electrical log from a test well in the subdivision was utilized to determine the total thickness of water saturated sands of the formation which is the primary factor in determining the annual appro- priation. Other factors utilized in determining the annual appropriation were the area of land owned by the developer (320 acres) and the specific yield of the formation which was assumed to be 15 percent. The specific yield is the volume of water that can be drained from the aquifer by gravity and is in the range of 15 to 20 percent for this for- mation. 2. The primary reason I recommended a water district in my letters is that it was the only alternative offered other than the development being supplied by the Town of Erie. If a water association is now proposed, then I would like more information on how it would be created, its enforcement author- ity, its income generating capacity, and its operation and maintenance capabilities. • • Mr. Glenn K. Billings -2- April 1 , 1976 A water district, if established, is a quasi-municipal taxing entity which normally has more authority to properly manage and operate a water system. Furthermore, in that the Board of County Commissioners must approve the district's service plan prior to District Court approval , the County has considerable input to the operation and management of the water system. The service plan can include the water use restrictions deemed necessary to insure that a dependable supply is available. A water district also insures that construction, operation, and maintenance funds are equitably obtained on the basis of assessed valuation. 3. Our water use estimates utilized in determining the maxi- mum average irrigated area per lot were based upon the values for domestic use excluding irrigation discussed by the developer's consultant (VTN) . The per capita daily requirement was 100 gallons and the average number of persons per residence was 3.5. These values result in an annual domestic require- ment of 36 acre-feet. The 100 gallons per person per day value is more than the normally accepted value of 80 gallons per person per day and would allow for the watering of one or two horses as well as car washing, etc. However, it would not include water to fill a swimming pool on every lot or irrigation of common areas and the airstrip. The maximum lawn area per lot was determined by allocating the remaining 60 acre-feet equally among the 92 lots and using an application of 2.5 feet of water per acre. Obviously, the amount of lawn irrigation could be further restricted and the remaining water allocated to other uses or to irrigation of common areas. The important factor is that a management entity is established to enforce the restrictions and monitor water use. I hope that these comments adequately answer your questions ; however, if you need further clarification, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours , k� 0 . 7/411,Ctien--`— . Jeris A. Danielson D puty State Engineer JAD/HDS/pjl cc: W. Wilkinson, Div. Eng. • • =ft OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE (303) 353-2212 EXT.221,222& 22; P.O. BOX 75E GREELEY,COLORADO 8063' ,w COLORADO March 22, 1976 Mr. Glen E. Paul , Director Environmental Health Services Weld County Public Health Dept. Bldg. 1516 Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Parkland Estates N-2 Sec. 8 TIN R68W Dear Mr. Paul : In reviewing the application of Parkland Estates Associates for a final plat of the above referenced proposal , it has come to the attention of the Board that certain discrepencies exist with reference to the water quality information which has been submitted by the applicant. The Board would request that the Health Department review the applicable water quality reports, and determine whether or not the water to be used for the development, from the four wells on the site, is of a quality to meet all applicable Federal , State and local water quality requirements and regulations. The Board would request that the Health Department initiate independent tests of the four wells on the site, if such tests are necessary in order to derive conclusive evidence for making the above referenced determinations. If such tests are made, the Board would request that a copy of data relating to test procedures and results be forwarded to this office for inclusion in the Parkland file, as a part of the information upon which this Board may base its final determinations in this matter. Finally, the Board would request that, if possible, your response to this request be directed to the Office of the Board by March 26, 1976. WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS June Steinmark GLENN K.BILLINGS Norman Carl son VICTOR JACOBUCCI pm/MOSFR Mr. Glen E. Paul March 22, 1976 Page 2 Please let us know if additional time will be required in making your response. Your cooperation and efforts in this matter will be sincerely appreciated. Sincerely, (� 7 _/ 4--1711eGtt-47zJ Glenn K. Billings, Chairman Weld County Board of Commissioners • OFFICE OFIARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER; PHONE 1303) 353-2212 EXT.221,222&22: P.O. BOX 76 #' GREELEY,COLORADO 8063 ti M p COLORADO March 22, 1976 Dr. Jeris A. Danielson, Deputy State Engineer Division of Water Resources 1845 Sherman Street, #300 Denver, Colorado 80200 Re: Parkland Estates N1 Sec. 8 T1 N R68W Dear Dr. Danielson: The reports which you have forwarded to our Department of Planning Services would indicate that well water appropriated for use in the above referenced proposal is sufficient, so long as certain restrictions are observed in its use. More specifically, your comments would suggest that the water available is sufficient in quantity and dependability, so long as it is utilized for in-house domestic uses, and outside irrigation of lawns and gardens is limited to an area of 10,000 square feet. The comments which you have submitted have raised various questions, which we would request your response to, for our clarification. These include: 1 . Upon what specific data or considerations do you base your conclusion that the water appropriated is sufficient in quantity and dependability for the proposed subdivi- sion? 2. With reference to the proposed restrictions on use, what controls would have to be utilized to ensure that such restrictions are observed? Your letters have indicated that a water association is not necessarily the best method for ensuring such use restrictions, whereas, a water district is viewed as a feasible alternative. Since this problem was addressed in your comments , and since a water association rather than a district is proposed, would you please more fully explain the per- ceived problems and clarify your concerns. Such WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN K. BILLINGS VICTOR JACOBUCCI ROY MOSER Dr. Jeris A. Daniel son March 22, 1976 Page 2 a clarification would aid greatly in our considerations of this matter and your referenced responses. 3. With a view to the restrictions which you have recommended , would the allowed uses include watering of livestock (such as a horse or other animal which might be kept on the property) , washing down driveways, irrigation of the proposed airstrip and common areas, swimming pools, or others, i .e. , specifically what do the restrictions which you have enumerated actually constitute or imply, with reference to water use in the proposed development? What is included in the term "in-house" or "domestic" use? 4. What "average use" figures did your office utilize in determining anticipated usage in the development, for both in-house and outside irrigation? What other factors were utilized in your calculation of anticipated use and finally, your conclusion of sufficient water supply in terms of quantity and dependability? Your responses to the above items would aid greatly in clarifying the responses which you previously sent with reference to Parkland Estates. It would be useful if we could receive your response by March 26, 1976. Your expeditious response in this matter will be sincerely appreciated. Thank you very much for your efforts and cooperation in this request. Sincerely, Glenn K. Billings, Chairman Weld County Board of Commissioners / /e pope//s4 DEPARTMENT OF AWSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION P‘ nvj\ ‘ ? ell A JI<-k A9u ''1cl / O Z Y \\\7 \ O l 51 °pi5IRP�� March 18, 1976 Mr. and Mrs. Stephen E. Hamilton, Jr. 1148 35th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton: As you were previously informed, your letter concerning Park Land Associates' proposed Sport Airpark near Erie, Colorado was forwarded to the regional office. Due to your concerns with respect to flight safety, the letter was then turned over to the Flight Standards Divi- sion for review. Immediate action was taken; however, our response to you was delayed until such time as an on-site inspection of the area could be made. This was accomplished last Friday, March 12, 1976. The first action token was to notifg Park had d expired and that if es that the airspace determination, dated June 27, they still intend to develop this facility, a new notice of their pro- posal must be filed with the FAA. Our on-site inspection of the proposed airport site indicated that there would be no flight safety problem with respect to the adjacent housing development; however, due to the expiration of our previous air- . space determination, a new airspace study will be required before this airport can be developed. This new airspace study will include a more detailed flight safety review than that performed, during the recent on- site inspection. To date, we have not received the required notice and we therefore do not know whether Park Land Associates still intends to develop this airport. This agency works with flight schools and pilot groups in an effort to locate student practice areas away from densely populated areas and heavy concentrations of ru.r traffic. Pilots operating in practice areas as well {.°, those operating at airports such as the proposed Sport Airpark are not "controlled" by ah airport traffic control tower or an air route traffic control_ center. These pilots do, however, operate in accordance with applicable Federal Aviation Regulations which require their avoidance of adverse weather conditions, minimum safe altitudes over congested areas, and avoidance of other aircraft. A001104/ 9 @ BiO Qfp ®p m U_ cL L AA6 m a $ 2 U� />>6 1916 • 2 • An FAA airspace determination is advisory in nature and refers only to the proposed airport's effect on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. An airspace determination does not pre-empt or waive any • ordinances, laws or regulations of any governmental body or agency. It is the responsibility of the local county zoning board to determine land uses which are best suited to areas within its jurisdiction. We sincerely hope that this letter has answered your questions and has given you a better understanding of the FAA's authority and responsi- bilities in a matter of this nature. If you have further questions con- cerning this subject, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, HAROLD L. SMITH Acting Chief, Flight Inspection and Procedures Staff A' telV45a+ i.C^.1•: 1m..�+k NA ^�.'J i4,cy J ^ ' " '. , ..y s�J3�ty' { YJ}•�. +�4 AFT .A r.x�ya UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 2017 West 9th Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 March 17 , 1976 Weld County Board of Commissioners 1516 Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Parkland Estates N1 Sec. 8 TIN R68W Dear Sirs: This reply is for the above mentioned land concerning soil capability and flood plain hazards. The extreme southwest corner and the extreme northwest corner of the property is in a natural drainway. Some of the proposed lots could be inundated during periods of flash floods. However, the owners have indicated that no structures will be permitted within the 100 year flood plain limit. The soils are mostly deep silty looms posing no significant problems for foundations , septic tank systems or leach fields. The soils are susceptible to wind erosion owing to the high silt content present and being nonirrigated land in a low precipitation zone. The real concern is the permitting of three major animals (of 80 pounds or more) on these small (21 acre) lots. Without irrigation water, it is next to impossible to maintain a grass stand where mature cattle or horses will graze on these lots. A rule-of-thumb is that 20 acres of nonirrigated grass is needed for one animal unit (1000 pound cow) in a precipitation zone area of 13-16 inches per year. Wind and water erosion could be significant taking into consideration the existing soils , low precipitation area and if the majority of lot owners grazed their maximum allowable animals. Purchasing irrigation canal water and pumping to the highest point within the subdivision for storage might be a consideration to mitigate almost certain erosion problems which in turn brings about decreasing aesthetic values. Sincerely, I . f t<e ti' c^ i � W. Kent Ververs District Conservationist 4 T PART I TOPIC: PARK LAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, Weld County. ISSUE: Potential land use conflict. Mrs. Shirley Koch appeared before the Land Use Commission on February 27, 1976, requesting assis- tance. The Kochs are apprehensive that the proposed subdivision, to be located adjacent to their dairy farm, will ultimately jeopardize their dairy farm operation. Specific issues involved include: 1 .) nuisance from aircraft noise 2.) protection of irrigation ditches 3.) increased runoff problems 4.) vehicular-generated dust problems 5. ) dog control problems. ORIENTATION: Park Land Estates is located approximately one-and one-half miles northeast of the Town of Erie and three miles west of 1-25. (Ref. visual aids.) Park Land Estates: comprised of 92 lots and a private airstrip on approximately 326 acres. Koch dairy farm: Comprised of 560 acres, of which approximately 400 are irrigated; operation includes 120 dairy cows and 75 beef cows. The Kochs have been at this location for 12 years, during which time they have invested approximately $120,000 in property improvements. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: (1 ) Aircraft noise nuisance - should not be a problem as long as steps are taken to assure that aircraft do not "buzz" farmsteads and air traffic is limited to reasonable hours. (2) Protection of irrigation ditches - the basic problem stems from the fact that irrigation ditches present a hazard to children and, therefore, must be fenced. Maintenance of fenced ditches thus becomes more difficult. There is also a possibility that the insurance underwriters (liability) may require the ditch company to fence not only ditches that run through the residential development, but also far to each side to reduce the potential hazard as much as possible. (Ref. Longmont Realty and Insurance Company letter.) (3) Increased runoff problems - runoff will be increased somewhat, however , considering the low density of the subdivision, this can be controlled through installation of proper drainage ditches and retention ponds. (4) Vehicular-generated dust problems - this problem will become especially acute regarding the access road from County Road 52 which runs through the Koch farmstead. This is a gravel/dirt DAFT - PARK LAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION • • road which passes the cattle feedlot at a distance of approxi- mately 100 feet. Dust conditions could be detrimental to feeding and milking operations. (5) Dog control problems - stray dogs from existing rural sub- divisions nearby are already a nuisance factor. This problem will most certainly be aggravated unless strict controls are effectuated. SPECIAL REPORTS by Dr. David Carlson, Research Analyst, Colorado Department of Agriculture. "Colorado' s Dairy Industry - A State of the Art." 1 .) Colorado milk production trends 2. ) Colorado milk consumption trends 3. ) Colorado milk sufficiency 4.) A single dairy farm in perspective. Professor Dawson Jordan, faculty member and researcher in dairy farming at CSU. "The effects of urban pressures upon dairy farm operations" including specific comments on the potential effects of Park Land upon the Koch dairy farm. STATE.OLCRADO1. ss. I COUNTY OF WELD _ th th.e Clerk of the Board t It ) ii OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDEI of County Commasioners I (1 S. LEE SHEHE ,;AN �. �g7U COUNTY CLERK ANDRECORDE. 1 PHONE (303) 353-2212 EXT.20 iIVIID ' / , / U f", j'1'l COUNTY SERVICES BUI LOIN co u�++v acne AND RECORDER_6?______ , GREELEY,COLORADO 8063 C 3y Deputy I COLORADO January 5, 1976 Park Land Associates 3953 Fuller Court Boulder, Colorado 80233 Dear Sir, Your request for a final plat of Park Land Estates, has been recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The legal description of the property involved is the North half (N1) of Section 8, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridan, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the West quarter (Wk) corner of said Section 8, Thence: North 01° 15' 00" East 2674.10 feet to the Northwest quarter (NA-) corner; Thence: North 89° 54 ' 40" East 2754 . 79 feet, to the North quarter (Nq) corner; Thence: North 89° 52 ' 13" East 2721. 62 feet to the Northeast quarter (NEa) corner; Thence: South 01° 07 ' 07" West 2674 . 66 feet to the East quarter (Ea) corner; Thence: South 89° 53 ' 53" West 5482. 53 feet to the West quarter (W4) corner to the point of beginning containing in all 336. 27 acres, more of less. If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this letter and returning it to this office. In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by January 19, 1976. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date, the matter will be considered closed. Sincerely. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1WE/�}W}� COUNTY, COLORADO .- Glenn K. Billings, Chairman GKB:KH I wish to be heard on this matter by the Board of County Commissioners. n a Park Land Associates By: „ILA'? , (� , r��l - >,Jizv_:.t%<> FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 3600 SOUTH YOSEMITE STREET,SUITE 840 DENVER, COLORADO 80222 AREA CODE (303) 773-1405 Jacqueline S.Davis January 12, 1976 Mr. Glenn Billings Chairman, Weld County Commissioners Health and Welfare Bldg. Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Final Plat - Park Land Associates Dear Chairman Billings: You are apprised by this time that the above captioned final plat was heard before the Weld County Planning Commission in December, 1975. During the course of that meeting, numerous questions were raised by us as to the procedure employed by the Weld County Planning staff. The main gist of our questions related to the fact that the Planning staff gave its comments to us relative to why the staff was recommending de- nial only fifteen minutes before the hearing with the Planning Commission. Subsequently, the Planning Commission adopted the stance of the Planning Department and voted to recommend denial until certain conditions pre- cedent either exist or occur. We have responded to the Planning Com- mission with respect to the majority of the conditions precedent, and we are presently seeking to be heard by the Weld County Commissioners as soon as possible. We have sent to the County Commissioners an ap- plication requesting a hearing date. The engineers who represent the applicants advise us that the final changes in the plat as requested by the Planning Commission as a con- dition precedent to favorable recommendation for the plat will be com- pleted on or about January 19, 1976. In addition we have attempted to make arrangements for another meeting with the attorney who represents the various opponents to the final plat. The Planning Commission, in its Resolution for denial , recommended that the Board of County Com- missioners act as arbitrators between my clients and their opponents with respect to the ditches on the property. This procedure was a- nother matter about which we raised various questions in previous cor- . Mr. Glenn Billings January 12, 1976 Page Two. respondance with the Weld County Planning Commission. My clients have a large investment in the property for which they seek to obtain a final plat. We urge you please to give us a hearing date within the next 30 days at the very most so that the matter can be concluded and my clients can then proceed with the development of their property. We are unable of course to comply with the conditions precedent in the Planning Com- mission's Resolution which required us to sit at a meeting with the Weld County Commissioners as an arbitrator in relation to the matters raised by the opponents to the plat i .e. fence for the ditches, the pro- viding of various new easements to the ditches and etc. I enclose a copy of my last two letters to the Weld County Planning Commission for your file. We would appreciate the Weld County Commissioners giving this matter their attention at their earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance. Ver ruly yours, F ederick L. Ginsberg --- FLG/cn cc: Mrs. Doris McFeeters Mr. Neal Godwin, VTN L. • ,..-.-luRNEY AT LAW ".,LOG 1,1,-,;7,-. ':C ./j-,-.7. STREET, ....'Z ..40 J_..V.:7,', CGLGR.v✓O 6222 .,,._.. Cwc JCS) 77a-1405 .,. .".::S.-L,Ni5 ✓J1.Vii,✓er JU, ,J7V . - County Planning COi',ur,ission health and Welfare 31dg. ':-lospital Road Greeley, Colorado 50531 1d. ?ark Land Estates Plat Gentlemen: Reference ca December /c ,Z�. L.�Vi,ce 1� made to Resolution adopted by you on ✓l'.1.ei„✓l.r 22, ,,9 J • concerning i5 the above captioned mauler. .f, this regard. we should first ^s-t the fact that w2 . .r:2 to make you aware Of l v given no prior knowledge-. the of the meeting2eting which you held for purpose of adopting Resolution until approximately 36 minutes before the convening ling of eeLing are advised by the Planning Department that fol,r .eeti„g did. ::c permit any presentation o` evidence or the taking cir any testimony from either she applicants, or from the opponents s to the plat. Notwithstanding this fact, we wish you to know that we are entitled to receive reasonable, advance notice before a meeting is held concerning. ny matter relating to ?ark Land Estates matters. We do not think that an hour's prior notice to parties who live at least 40 to 30 miles away from Greeley constitutes ' reasonable, advance notice. We are further concerned that there was ap- a. „ -iylittle, if any, effort made to contact this office which con- stitutes , that you � the attorney of record for the applicant. The fact acopted the Resolution under these circumstances in no way is tobe co„- t. ued by anyone as a waiver of any rights which we may have had to be resent at the Decemiueir 22, 1975 mzeti g approval h_ =also call to your attention that you Vu:. to deny of the application until such time as certain changes , modificationsand/or determinations are accomplished. You than taLe in your Resolution ,,hat s-auh changes ,ges , od ffica ions and/or determinations are to be. Therefore, unless hearing from you to the contrary, and once the items have been cccompleted in accordance with your Resolution, we will consider your Vote to eato .aLically be deemed as a favorable recommsndation of he plat. ne items set forth in your Resolution were made known to us only 15 minutes prior to the time we appeared before you on December 16, 1975. . 0 • County Planning Commission Cecu::`,aer CO, 975 a u . v. Those i,,..:;ee poihts were he same points raisod by the W o:ld County Planning :apartment in its report to you. We co—Thee at the .,t . that these to"tus should have been made known to prior to our a„ anaanoe at the meeting so that we could have taken ste.:,3 to et.; what you are now re— quiring; us to do. The result of his activity or, behalf 3f the ,u t..id County P1nn ng Department has only servod to delay approval of the plat. , ombers of VTN Colorado, Inc. and Soard of Trustees for the applicant Weld Planning _ _ preceding with t:' County , -..,.i staff t,... morning ��.^cGeu , ",g the camber 15, 1975, meeting, and no mention whatsoever was• ,lade C'. the items wnicn you adopted as conditions precedent th e he approval Gf the at your December 22, 1975 Reso: the Weld County Planning g Department tment has items which it wishes to ba co ,- leted prior to the time applicant appears before you for a prova , of a plat, t.hese .,ems should be made known to the applicant within a reasonable ti: prior a to the eLlllg• e dV no,. CG„$ i�a. •J , ,....n ul.J prior �V thei 1.1.:i. •�� reasonable advance tirma. Here again, there is clearly a contradiction with wrat most people consider to be fair play and due process. Weld have suggested ir� the Resolutionthat :".e Weld County :Apart' of County Commissioners shall act as arby . for in the event that the applicant and the opposing parties o the plat cannot reach conclusions satisfactory to both parties. We would ask under what provision of your County ordinances the County Commissioners are granted the power to act as arbitrators. Ch behaif of my client the following are either meant to be regarded as our :responsibilities, or as requests for clarifications: 1 . The title insurance policy will be updated to satisfy the question, raised with respect to title. 2. It is unclear what the y Resolut ion requires o us under the Stat=e - made therein "that responsibilities for maintenance of common n,areas i the development may be assigned upon approval of the final at by the :Board of County Commissioners" . To the best of our know_ ` we have created a procedure in covenants w.nich coverer are maintenance of common areas. We request a clarification from the: Plan- • • • elc County Planning Commission beeefeer 3O, .9/o . • ee. ning Commission concerning this particular We wish this clarifi- cation �� 'r i to be signed by the Chairman of the J mar... . g ^�.,., SSUri,.,. .t, - r,__ ..i. The point TicAuL r, t,ilC cesG .a ion ... . aspect ,.v ��"•- GC. r . . ..io;i as to the relationship between . ark Land Associates and Pa Inc. s also iciest 'I We believe you s.". us to clarify the vela i ..ons„ p be- ,' eon Park Land Associates aria Park Land Estates, Inc. .e did present to you evidence in the meeting on G.ce:mba .u, 1975 indicatin the dif- ference in, this relationship. We again is P` ":k Land Associates_ is a Trust managed by seven Trustees. Titleto tOL property is present.] .d i r the name of the r .rustees for the benefit of members of the Trust. a:.( Land Estates, Inc. is a Colorado corporation vAnich has been forted far - e purpose of constructing the improvements 3n the property.. Funding for tha construction of the ilm)rovements will be made t„rogh Park Land Estates,tes, Inc. At such time as thefinal approved, the Trustees the Park Land Associates Trust will convey title to each of the sites to the respective beneficiaries entitled thereto.. The covenants do define who is responsible for the installation, operation and . .tananc:. 0'f .he common facilities. We will r3v3w these covenants to determine if there are any vagaries, and we will make such modifications as are necessary to define the responsible party. 4. Items 3.a through d. under the :leso .a ion are vague because t.i exact provision of the !Weld County Zoning Or ina'n.ce to which they refer is not set forth. We will attempt to obtain a clarification of these matters from the Weld County Planning Department as rapidly as possible so as to make whatever changes may be required of us. The testimony from the Wald County Planning :Department at the time of the ✓ecemoer 15, 1975 hearing failed to clarify these points. ^ _ _ o. We have already stated .O you that "�e applicant will ;ray monies . :cu 0, a .and donation or ✓:=. ..S. ..uv.cver, there is no .,.a ..".c:" i.. which„ his can be accomplished until such time as the 3oard of County conveneapprove the a " The ordinance Cc:...: '.SS.0�8rS and a;�r0V4 ...�._ plat. to which reference. is made under N0. i . .n to Resolution r - .reu that ^.e Va:ue ..e aete."m.�ineaf' vy 'C.r. appra .Sar .,U �e ju ... .y choosee`r�y ti`etdeveloper ana :he 3oard 0' County Commissioners. It is difficult '01^ us. to comply with this req'ui'rement as a condition precedent to your ravorao:e• recd;- • . • .....,- of ..f .a.0 ilg lAi.u.:SS .VG vJ � ., _....,er 33, 1975 Four. ........union of the plat since we could 1-.0t appear before she Soard of County Comissioners for approval o : ..at until we first appeared before your uoa'rc. 0. The fu .1 ditch will be surveyed ana defined on the in . plat sepia. Fencing of both sides of the large ditch will be do.-,e at he expense of :76,y client. ?roper ea semen s for all ditches have already bean provided, inclusive 0'i easements . or changes of the locations Gt. either a portion or all 07 certain Of :,.,c" ditches•s S.. c have t0 be .:olea froai their existing location. in public t t-o -. Uy. cost of .'e..✓vas roll, public richa oI -Way w. .l have to oe •pa .a by the owners o. ....e a 1ectea a. l.cnes. conclusion We wish your to ;cow wei are happy to cooperate in this ;.,at,..,. to the best of our ability. Sut, we have no intention of being bur- dened with any requirements which are not presently of the I.:e.d ll.Ca ty ordinances relating to platting. And, we�certainly have no .n- tehtion of paying to move other peopditches to new .oca iun.n be- cause the platting in this case is not the cause for any relocation. The ditches will have to be relocate" , if at all , only due• to the fact they are situate in public right-of-way. Very truly yours, Frederick L. Ginsberg co: Xrs. Doris IXcFeeters AT;0 R N EY/°=T LA'w 1630 SOLL-. . JscN:;7E S7RLc T, SU:7E 640 SE:' VL:e, CCLQAA3O s„zzz A1. ;. coos (b03) 773-:405 .0 Gno S.D„v4s • uwn ua'ry 5, 1975 hold County Planning Co:mission Health and Welfare slog. I4osPi u l load . Greeley, Colorado Huoi. -.a: ?ark Land Estates Gentlemen: Su.)sequent to December 30, 1975 at which time I had written to you re:arding your most recent Resolution pertaining to the above matter, we have been advised that the Weld Co ty Co , sssioners are g to act as arbitrators between us and the ditch,company. This being he case, we have no way of complying with your R.LtS0-.1.:tiOri where . . . �i a� r R/ c; ieni ..as a condition precedent uu�a you 6 .. .0 _ .,� the for eetil a meeting was convened between the ditch compahy, my client cliah,t and „c Weld County Commissioners for the ";)o:;e Of i. any dis- putes between my client and the ditch co.:; a h`'. If the County Commis- sioners are unwilling to convene such a meeting, we are unzble to com- ply h Jiy with the condition precedent sat forth in the Resolution. As a means of attempting to resolve the matter t0 the sat isfaction aCtiCll of all parties, we Will forthwith request a meet :g with the oppon e-nos for the second time in an effort to resolve the differences between the parties. If the opponents are a r C to attend such a meeting riot 'CO the time that his matter coi.-.. 'before Weld lu County uu - ,.., Ssioners then we will of course have`to. rely solely onthe decision of the Commissioners. Enclosed you will a letter Which has been aodressed to the attorney for the opponents requesting the meeting which 1 suggested herein. We will apprise you further if a meeting occurs, and also as to the outcome of same. Vary truly yours, Frederick L. Ginsberg LO/on enclosure cc: Xrs . Doris MG --Gars • • OFFICE of COUNTY CLEHK ANC: RECORDLr .-.. -� S. LEE SHEHEE • COW.)Y CLERK AND RECORDER PI;ORE (303) 3532212 EXT. 200 r' ° fl � ' COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING ,6 �!� _ . ' i •1 7"' GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 L ) I COLORADO January 21 , 1976 Mr. Frederick L. Ginsberg Attorney at Law 3600 South Yosemite Street, Suite 840 Denver, Colorado 80237 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Ginsberg : This is to confirm the phone conversation of January 20 , 1976. A meeting will be held on February 11 , 1976 , for the purpose of discussing the final plat of Park Land Es- tates . Said meeting will convene at 2 : 00 P.M. in the meet- ing room of the Weld County Board of Commissioners, 1516 Hospital Road, Greeley, Colorado. If you have any questions concerning this matter , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, S . LEE SHEHEE , JR. County Clerk and Recorder ' and Clerk to the Board By: Deputy County Clerk JO: jlh i /if; • • OFrICf i ; Y CL L H1K AND r "1,H9LP -.. S. LEE SHEHEE_ _ COUiJT`( CLERK AND RECORD t?t PRONE 13031 353-2212 EXIT.200 -1 PI, 117r-"". COUNTY SERVICES EUILDII::> GHEELEY,COLORADO /0L31 COLORADO January 21 , 1976 Mr . Mark R. Klauber Attorney at Law 2141 14th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re : Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Klauber: This is to confirm the phone conversation of January 20 , 1976 . A meeting will be held on February 11 , 1976 , for the purpose of discussing the final plat of Park Land Es- tates . Said meeting will convene at 2: 00 P .M. in the meet- ing room of the Weld County Board of Commissioners , 1516 Hospital Road, Greeley, Colorado. If you have any questions concerning this matter , please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, S. LEE SHEHEE , JR. 4 County Clerk and Recorder . and Clerk to the Board By: Deputy County Clerk JO: jlh rea • • OFFICE_ OF COUNTY CLERK AND FECCH: ER S. LEE SHEREE ..__ COUNTY CLERK AND RECOi:GER PHONE (363! 3S3 2212 EXT. 200 COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING GREELEY,COLORADO 20631 4 i 1 : i F'^ l .a COLORADO January 21 , 1976 Mr . Melvin Dinner Attorney at Law 630 Greeley National Plaza Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Nr . Dinner : This is to confirm the phone conversation of January 20 , 1976 . A meeting will be held on February 11 , 1976 , for the purpose of discussing the final plat of Park Land Estates . Said meeting will convene at 2 : 00 P .M. in the meeting room of the Weld County Board of Commissioners , 1516 Hospital Road, Greeley, Colorado. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, S . LEE SHEHEE , JR. County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board By: Deputy County Clerk JO: jlh ) A T • N D A N C F; R E C 0 R Applicant : park Land. Estates Time ; 2 : 00 P .M. Docket T Date: February 11 , 1976 Request ; Final Plat • NAME ADDRESS C. tL.I!4 E Ems." h f��'t J t l,:) 0 , d-� t c � r• �- ' k 'ai l 11�F � '�,�g .C.. 1 "Jk Wit':_c-Le‘ . AA4- Frrc C�.A1 e/r'c/vc6. / i. 1~'/ \ ,'r:'V'J7�-L.- ,c:i 2JC C Sc- 43— - G>.+ [. •t -e - h�.•t<" (VA •1 r� OzSc.:iv (mac j �.1 , (u-._) &Plc,' c.)..44., (`r4.'? ;bpi(' t2f(') I: (s /T a.•)--s ,-..v..... N I • 1 ,t3 x' � is C'7• , Coj !O Alt,I/14Z qa-ioi- oc. (-1 .-) g/.1)9 1 Ito.-1--4)Ceilic:Tki,-,--v,e) fe ;iy�. /_��. .24'.: i' (! .if .3 •, . `'� 1. . / `_4—e),.._. L O .i -. I L (-).c.,.. -- -'c-" � R,.r._.'I .?.Iy. ei 73 .� j• 'I /./ / • " I e- C L /AT2V 1.24, is ' Ao7k lc; p-t,-_Nk.1 , (' ' '. %,›-?-4.1-144 -(/nr-Z4ift6)(1 - 1 /07/N:D41(St Al. ,Olk? PE/111/t74 �......t.. L._� Y ,i,..y , sly .-). .....,:i.-:;",:%),,. ;.X- L-),--u-.-,--✓c r ,7; -3'YL-1,)., I'7, it___„=rte. 15/- ,...1...4_,/ '„.. .P'97,--7--2.7 5......3c'',..-;i / :+{ i el', /6,` r ('` l J //; / J /It): t3 1.i C' 9.:s' .� /',- 1 ;9 ,e ./.. . .j/.-=,- ;,,, f_ z> N-, �0 , '' IRJ ' • .P r ;) . ,n :/ . 1/ C �/l f-,4 �C'- ) 1 Rili m-7. '/ / / J .dam /t ;I/,4 U-'f Q .1, ! ( / V Jai } _ ' '!�-1, G: I 7 '.“F y-��; % / /il ji ,1 i/ (, /-t-e. 6_-e-- _itat: ill J,, �� F? X C.: K r ' 14.- -tom '( a7 _ e _ , dv i 7- r / l'7 t' ._,-,r:: . c.:-,',f,d 6.2'17.-c--e_. CT_ _ _ 1 c::` (. ;(Lt 75,. ,/L ,__ (ACC/ ,� 7( 02 7 i-l1:-cam .3 c 7' -? /4/2., It; t c, .*'t!:L[.i f-j c? :ii cy, /4E 7=Y.,..,, 1 hill.',,7G:.A C /(Ls (t' /.. '' (' C ‘ 1-4------",-- - [L'5.r!<i<-L,� /‘/.1( i I. ,--LC N( l II CV C:% I:-, ,c( (;/ Gi r Vitt /1 11 d- i ikii'4/'nai) /V: e, __)1,.-.:/, c-,, Dr, f)--I I c 6'C-/r C,c "5 l / c c • , 4.44. Rte. 6 �o ,�, e(PA ., v c/L.7, I BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Chuck Carlson that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission : Be it therefore resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the following be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners : That the application of Park Land Associates for the final plat of Park Land Estates be denied until such time as the following changes, modifications, and/or determinations have been accomplished. i 1 . The title insurance policy being updated so that clarification • of title to the land is accomplished and that responsibilities . e for maintenance of common areas in the development may be assigned upon approval of the final plat by the Board of County ¢ o sI, 97 Commissioners. W t M m a 35 E ni 2. The proposed restrictive covenants being clarified so that the LL c) ",' w w = relationship between Park Land Associates and Park Land Inc. is w z 3 o established. Such clarification is necessary in order to determ` €'? what individuals, agency, association and/or corporation is to be responsible through time for the installation, operation and maintenance of common facilities such as the airfield, commonly owned tracts and the proposed water system. 3. The following changes being made in the proposed restrictive covenants for the property. a. Covenant concerning subdivision of land in the development being deleted or revised to reflect the State Division of (continued. . . ) Motion seconded by J. Ben Nix Vote : For Passage Abstain Against Ronald Heitman Harry Ashley J. Ben Nix Jim Graham Chuck Carlson The Chairman declared the motion passed and ordered that a certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings . S-112 Park Land Estates Resolution (Continued) Water Resources requirements and the requirements of Weld County Subdivision Regulations. b. That the section on land use restrictions and limitations require compliance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. c. That the sections referencing the use of signs and the keeping of livestock and pets be subject to compliance with Weld County Regulations. d. The addition of a restriction on use of water for yard irrigation to reflect the requirements of the State Division of Water Resources. 4. That a determination be made as to how the developer will satisfy the requirements of Section 8-15A. of the Weld County Subdivision Regula- tions. The Planning Commission recommends that such requirement be met in accordance with Section 8-15 A. (3) of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations which states: "In lieu of land there may be required a payment to the County in an amount equal to the market value at the time of the Final Plat submission of the required acreage as determined according to Section 8-15-B. Such value shall be determined by a competent land appraiser chosen jointly by the Board and the subdivider. The cash collected shall be deposited in an escrow account to be expended for parks at a later date." 5. That action be taken to insure that the intent and requirements of Section 8.12 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations is met. Section 8.12 states the following: "Existing irrigation ditches shall be incorporated within the subdivi- sion plan in a manner such that their function is not impaired. The ditches shall be protected from encroachment and may be fenced in a manner acceptable to the ditch company. " Fencing is to be located on both sides of the ditch for the entire length of the ditch. A survey showing the actual ditch position is to be made prior to submission to the Board of County Commissioners. It is proposed by the Planning Commission that within ten days after the Planning Commission Resolution is filed with the Board of County Commissioners, with referen to this application, that representatives of Park Land Estates and the ditch companies involved meet in joint session at a place and on a date and time to be established by the Board of County Commissioners. It is further recommended that the County Commissioners attend this meeting to hear the concerns of the interested parties and to determine whether or not these parties can reach any agreements relative to the problems under consideration. If no agreement is possible between the parties involved at this meeting, the following action should ensue: • • S-112 Park Land Estates Resolution (Continued) Each party involved will submit to the Board of County Commissioners statements concerning their position with reference to the problems under consideration. These statements would include those items which are felt by each of the parties involved to be actions which they are willing to pursue to resolve the Problems, as well as statements indicating their disagreements with the requests and/or demands of the other parties involved. These statements of position would be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners with a view to providing such information as may be necessary for the Board to reach a final decision, as to what requirements will be necessary for the developer to satisfy prior to approval of the proposed final plat. December 22, 1975 (Date) CERTIFICATION OF COPY I , Janna Morrow , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County , Colorado . rdopted on December 22, 1975 and re- corded in Book No . V of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission . Dated the 23rd day of December 19 75 Secretary 1-111 FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION • Weld County Plnnng Department Services Building, Greeley, Cole. FOP. PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: CASE NUM:)ER.c-- i (; : %. : ?4 SEC: TWP RANGE: LAND CODE: T: S: 1/4: KEY: SUB/DIV CODE: SUB: BLK: LOT: KEY: APPLICATION FEEL;',..'... °42 "42 APP. CHECKED BY: /v.fiL._ REFER TO: DATE REC. NO: 1':: ;�-• 2) !ATE LEGAL DESC. APPROVAL 3)1-/A- - ..�. -" DATE 4) ‘;.C,,--,,��'k.i DATE TO BE COMPLETED 3Y APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDE REQUIR- MENTS: . Print or type only, except for necessary signatures. • I (we), the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld Cuunty Planning Commission concerning proposed subdivision of the following described unincorporated area of Weld County. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The North 1 of Section 8, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridan, More particularly Described as Follows : . Beginning at the W4 Corner of Said Section 8 , Thence: . 1 . ) N 01 15 ' 00" E 2674. 10 Ft . to the NW4 Corner; Thence 2 . ) N 89° 54 ' 40" E 2754 . 79 Ft. to the N4 Corner; Thence 3. ) N 89° 52 ' 13" F 2721 . u2 Ft. to the NE4 Corner ; Thence 4. ) S 01° 07 ' 07" W 2674 . 66 Ft. to the E4 Corner; Thence 5. ) S 89° 53 ' 53" W 5482 . 53 Ft. to the W4 Corner to the point of beginning containing in all 336. 27 acres , more or less . • NAME OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Park Land Estates EXISTING ZONING "A" Agricultural District PROPOSED ZONING "E" Estates District, Planned Unit Development TOTAL AREA (ACRES) 336 . 27 • NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED 91 LOT SIZE: AVERAGE 2 . 839 Acres MINIMUM 1 . 973 Acres UTILITIES: WATER: NAME Special Water Association SEWER: NAME Individual Septic Tanks Leach Fields GAS: NAME Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company PHONE: NAME Mountain Bell DISTRICTS: SCHOOL: NAME St. Vrain Valley Public Schools FIRE: NAME Longmont Fire Protection District . DESIGNERS' NAME VTN Colorado . Inc. ADDRESS2600 S. Parker Rd. Denver ENGINEERS' NAME VTN Colorado, Inc. ADDRESS2600 S. Parker Rd, Denver FEE OWNER OF AREA PROPOSED FOR SUBDIVISION NAME Park Land Associates ADDRESS3953 Fuller Ct . NAME ADDRESSBoulder, Colorado TELE. NAME ADDRESS TEL E. I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application • are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF v0.•-L. ,lt t.l STATE OF 6G<*L'-✓ ) / • /3, Signature: Owner or Authorized Age Subscribed and sworn to before me this '/q- day of ,i- '`' •: 19 '' .• l �� 1/ .. SEAL 11if, „( l r'�f.�c,<<-� `, ��t'r:cCt Lr NOTAF PUBLIC My commission expires: My Commission Expires March 15, 1979 PC— Sub - 6 di' • • Hrl S y 'wE STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D LAMM. GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1845 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 892-2778 February 5, 1976 Mr. Glenn Billings Chairman, Weld County Commission P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Billings : This letter is to respectfully inform you that our assistance has been requested by the Kochs of southeastern Weld County. At issue is the compatibility of the planned Parkland Estates subdivision with the continued operation of the Koch' s dairy farm. Specific concerns expressed by the Kochs regarding the development include: 1) the impact of increased aircraft traffic upon their dairy herd; 2) the effects of increased numbers of uncontrolled dogs upon the dairy herd; 3) the hazards presented by children playing in irrigation ditches; 4) increased runoff from the subdivision onto the Koch' s farm. We would like to express our appreciation to your planning staff for assisting our office in generating basic infor- mation on this issue. In cooperation with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, we are generating more information which we hope will be beneficial in either substantiating or nullifying the concerns at issue. • • Mr. Glenn Billings February 5, 1976 Page Two Upon completion of our review of the issues we would be happy to forward any and all information we have to you. It was my desire to meet with you and the other Weld County Commissioners personally to inform you of the Koch' s request. However, as you know, weather conditions did not permit this . We hope our efforts will be of service in the ultimate resolutions of the Koch's concerns . Sincerely, 2 /� 6i Gtt-Yt„1 Wil Ulman, Ph.D. Land Use-Environmental Coordinator Colorado Land Use Commission WU/md cc: Fred Sondermann Philip Savage Kenneth and Shirley Koch Weld County Commissioners : Victor Jacobucci Roy Moser June Steinmark / Norman Carlson • STATE OF COLORADO 55. COUNTY OF WELD FREDERICK L.GINSBERG riled win the Gtirk of the Board ATTORNEY AT LAW of County Comr ,ssioners 3600 SOUTH YOSEMITE STREET, SUITE 840 - 1,� 2 U 976 DENVER,COLORADO 80222 AREA CODE (303) 773-1405 • 3. 'e Pfri • COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER Jacqueline S.Davis By pygj(Y January 26, 1976 Mr. S. Lee Shehee, Jr. County Clerk and Recorder Weld County Commissioner's Office County Services Building Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Shehee: We received your letter dated January 21 , 1976 setting forth the fact that there would be a February 11 , 1976 meeting to be held by the Weld County Commissioners concerning the final plat for the above cap- tioned subdivision. Please be advised that I am unable to be present on that date because I already have a trial set to be held in Arapahoe County before Judge Mark Shivers for February 10 and 11 . I am wondering if it would be possible to have us heard by the County Commissioners prior to that date, if at all possible. The trial which is scheduled for Arapahoe County will more than likely proceed inasmuch as the parties have been unable to arrive at a settlement. I would appreciate a telephone conversation with you concerning this matter at your earliest convenience so that we can establish a date convenient for all of the parties. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. ye truly yours, rederick L. Ginsb rg FLG/cn cc: Mrs. Doris McFeeters • H-C ✓).i ce • J y i - Engineers Architects Planners 2600 South Parker Road.Packer Place Four.Denver,Colorado 80232 (303) 751-9151 December 12 , 1975 VTN 1507-2 Mr. Don Marvin, Chief Longmont Fire Protection District P . O. Box 978 Longmont, Colorado 80501 RE: Final plat for Park Land Estates Dear Chief Marvin: This will confirm our conversations of Wednesday, December 10 , 1975 with Mr . J.J. Beaver of the Weld County Planning Staff. The following is in reference to your comments on this matter of November 25 , 1975 . 1. We agreed to relocate and rearrange the proposed fire hydrants as shown on the attatched sketch including the addition of 6" water main as shown . 2 . No improvement of taxiways other than compacted graded earth is contemplated at this time . It was agreed to extend taxiway easements for access from Rue-de-Trust as shown on the attatched sketch. 3. We agreed on the addition of fire hydrants as shown on the attatched sketch. 4 . It was explained that we will be governed by county requirements as to the installation of water system • first, road construction second. Also , all cul- verts to be installed will be capable of carrying standard highway truck loads . 5. All fire hydrants will have standard outlets and orientation per your requirements . Also , design criteria for the pumping system was explained in that the domestic pump is designed to provide ' Mr. Don Marvi,r December 12 , 197 Page 2 147 GPM at 40 PSI minimum, and that the fire ser- vice pump is designed to provide S94 GPM at 40 PSI minimum. Further , that the storage tank ca- pacity is based upon a two-day supply for peak domestic use plus a fire supply of 750 GPM for two hours . And maximum recover ability is planned to be approximately 65 , 000 gallons per day. New fire hydrants include a standard hydrant to be located close to and tapped directly off of the distribution £eedline from the storage tank. With regard to specifications , it will be made clear that contractors are required to obey all applicable laws and to provide access to the job site for all parties having authority under such laws . Specific language will be added to the specifications to satisfy your concerns regarding the possibility of explo- sives and/or blasting on the job site . In addition to the above, we agreed to provide automatic pressure-sensitive activation of the fire service pump with appropriate time delay and alarm devices . Also, that all water mains parallel to paved streets would be located out from under such paving . If the above correctly summarizes our conversations , please indicate with your signature on one copy of this letter in the space provided below. Yours v&ry truly, Zok-C2 tit Neal F. Godwin NFG/dk cc: . Park Land Associates Fred Ginsberg Weld County Planning Department Reviewed by Don Marvin , Chief Longmont Fire Protection District v ` :..- i /I .:tn ,....„. ...11 :I CI 1 1 I.i I, v vI I / If a' I c �� < p. /1 I 'i' C `� Nom: / / - , i / _ %/J a f:Ti „ s,,, = ; s , I/7 a: I , .//,V.,/ �- i ( .L!) „ \\ '4c.•:-..-;.:"}->'' \ : ! aLj ! Y I:� r=te— �' _ - - \ d• z : � > , I, \ Ij� D tf ' �' _ -1. .\ \\ `\ \ ,6 �� ,�'\ 117 , >, 4 �- 1:::1'� k. 1-17) -1 �_�l 7\ I I` 1 1 ) I,. C ,I `-,IL 1 `\ I I L\ 111 — — `- V j w� n II if EA -k-t. ! i 1 Y %\ I i I�i 11 i - r -- J / I I�� / Il�t i 1/_-_- O p I J / {� � f , ; f ,I I 1 � � \,� • \1 . 1 �\\ III'. �� \I ��_� "� `� J,`) ••.., L- 7.--,„. . , ,i \ ,� �r 1 f I • .l� 1 It L 11. ittt .\ I L,z�� w�\\� I • ', �'' I 1 �� fl ..,r I I .0:: .\\. ,,. ., .',--1-7 j 1�\�. _-1'1 I _ r� \ \ V 1 l _1N ..'\''.../1 1. • -.-H\-..-•-';-. \ t[[ //I-'a( .) V i) �• -� J 111 • • LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P . O. Box 978 Longmont, Colorado 80501 _c?5„1, dey November 25 , 1975 a i:. 1:75 RECEIVED c j P' C.:rq Weld County Planning Commission ;• 1516 Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 l 3 Re : The final plat for Parkland Estates , located within the boundries of the Longmont Fire Protection District Gentlemen: The following comments , suggestions and regulations of the Longmont Fire Protection District are submitted for your consideration: 1) All cul-de-sacs proposed in the plot have fire hydrants located at the end of the cul-de-sacs on dead end fire mains . Location of these are totally unacceptable to the Longmont Fire Protection District, and we will either on the final plan, or through negotiation with the developer, reach agreement on location of these fire hydrants in a different spot other than in the end of the cul-de-sacs . In addition, due to the unusual depth of the proposed lots , some running above 480 feet, a relocation of all proposed fire hydrants will be required by the Longmont Fire Protection District. This requirement is set forth to assure that every structure within the planned subdivision is within 1000 feet of at least two fire hydrants . 2) We are unable to determine at this time by inspection of the proposed plot plan, whether or not the taxiways as proposed would be substantial enough to safely carry a heavy piece of fire apparatus weighing from 35 , 000 to 43 , 000 pounds gross vehicle weight. If it can be determined that the taxiways are in fact substantial enough to carry heavy fire equipment, we will be able to use them as thoroughfares when considering placement of fire hydrants within the 1000 foot requirements. 3) Proposed tract A, which is proposed to be used for aircraft maintenance and aircraft tie-downs , as well as recrea- tional purposes , comprising 9 and a fraction acres , has no proposed fire hydrants anywhere within the tract. Due to the nature of the use of the tract, we would require that fire hydrants be installed so that no point in 'the tract would be • I Weld County Planning Commission November 25 , 1975 page two over 750 feet away from two fire hydrants . Tract B, which is to be used solely for the purpose of take off and landing , comprising 34 . 703 acres , also has no proposed fire protection in the form of fire hydrants anywhere along the length of the runway. We will require that fire hydrants either of a flush or recessed type be placed at intervals of approximately 500 feet along the entire length of the taxiway and at each end of the runway. All fire hydrants along the cul-de-sacs and the circles are more than 400 feet away from the edge of the proposed landing strip, therefore none of these hydrants could be considered as being within the 500 foot limit for providing hydrants to the runway . These hydrants placed along the runway should be expected to provide the minimum of a 1000 gallons per minute during normal water consumption use times, by the residents of the district . 4) It would also be our requirement that access roads be in , graded, and finished with at least adequate base gravel to provide for all weather accessibility by heavy fire apparatus in all types of weather conditions . In simple terms, the re- quirement is that an all weather road be constructed at least to the front of any proposed home or other structure prior to the actual beginning of construction of that structure . This rule in no way is intended to limit any contractor from putting in all roads at one time and finishing them all and making them all-weather accessibile, if that is his desire . The same requirement holds true for the installation of fire hydrants prior to beginning of construction of any home or structure in the development. There must be two fire hydrants installed within 1000 feet of the proposed structure, and these fire hydrants be in service ready for use prior to any construction starts . Again this rule will not prevent the developer from going in and installing all fire hydrants along the water main route, prior to the construction of buildings in the area. On Sheet No. 3 of 22 Section B-B, we question whether the proposed culvert to be installed at that location is in fact designed for automobile vehicular traffic , or is it in fact designed to carry the 35 , 000 to 43 , 000 pound loaded fire truck or fire truck tanker? 5) Since we cannot determine from the plans whether the fire hydrants in fact have two 2; inch outlets and a 41 inch heavy pumper connection, we would require simply that the fire hydrants conform to Weld County specifications , which do re- quire the 2; inch outlets and the larger 41/2 inch outlets . The primary stipulation would be that the fire district preserves • • • Weld County Planning Commission November 25 , 1975 page three the right , and will exercise the right , to determine which ' direction the 4 inch fire department pumper connection faces with regard to the street. On Sheet 21 of 22 , we at this point must object to items 4 and 15 , only to the extent that we have no idea from the description given, as to either the volume or the pressure of either or both of the turban pumps being proposed to supply the water to the water system itself . In addition the issue is rather cloudy as to the ratio of water usage with regard to recoverability during the normal 24 hour day period during hot weather, when usage would be the highest. This question becomes of importance due to the fact that although there is a 200 , 000 gallon storage tank, during periods of hot weather and heavy usage for lawns , etc . , the 200 ,000 gallon reservoir storage tank might in fact , be nearly empty and be incapable of suppling emergency fire department water if the need arose. We would strongly recommend that the design engineer for the pumps, piping, and the storage tank, that a valve having at least four 21/2 inch outlets , be installed, or if feasible, a single 42 inch outlet, properly gated and properly protected from freezing , be installed in this system, in a position that is easily accessible and convenient to use, or for use by a fire department pumper . The purpose for this suggestion, is that should a break occur in the water mains reasonably close to the storage tank, that both the residents and the fire department would be without a water supply until such time as the break in the water main was repaired. With the installation of the valves at the reservoir area , a fire department pumper or ether emergency pumping equipment be brought in, hose lines from the fire department stretched to the nearest fire hydrant or fire hydrants , and an emergency water supply be maintained in the system while the repairs are being made to the broken main. With regard to specifications submitted by V. T.N. , Inc . , we would make the following comments : 1) We find only vague reference to obeying the laws of the State of Colorado , however , we would want it made quite clear to all contractors and subcontractors, that the fire protection district and the fire chief, in particular , or his inspectors , may at any time day or night , while work is in progress , come on the job to inspect for compliance with State Laws and District Regulations with regard to good construction • Weld County Planning Commission November 25 , 1975 page four .. practices , fire protection , fire prevention , the serviceability or roads as required, and the fact that fire hydrants are, or are not installed ahead of time , as required by District policy, and in general , inspect for all normal areas within the juris- diction of the Fire Protection District. We include this statement only to make it quite clear , that the fire protection district will take all steps necessary to gain compliance with State and District rules and regulations, even to the unwanted, but final last step of getting legal authority and shutting the job down until such compliance is met. Regarding Part 6 , the general conditions of the specifica- tion, Item 52 Explosives , states "when and if necessary to use explosives on the project , they shall be stored , hauled, used, etc . , according to standards and practices recommended by the Bureau of Mines , etc. " , add that any explosives brought on the job site for any reason whatever , the Fire Chief of the Fire Protection District, shall be immediately notified as he has jurisdiction under Colorado Law to determine where , how much, and if any, explosives , are to be allowed or to be stored on the job site; and the safeguards to be employed to protect the explosives , the workers, and the area surrounding such storage site . Regarding Section 4 , trenching and back-filling, Item G, again the blasting procedures section , we have the following comments : 1) Prior to any blasting , the contractor shall notify the fire chief and shall receive or acquire , verbal or written approval prior to any blasting. 2) With regard to all proposed different types of pipes and fittings , the fire protection district' s position is that they are all acceptable by the fire department, since all will perform satisfactorily, if properly installed. We have other comments with regard to this proposed sub- division, however, the majority can and will be worked out on the job site , between the fire protection district, chief and his inspectors, the contractor or engineering firm for the subdivider, and with the building inspectors from Weld County. Inspection of the site on November 24 , 1975 , reveals high- voltage electrical transmission lines running East and West at the proposed North and South ends of this project creating a flight safety hazard . • • Weld County Planning Commission November 25 , 1975 page five Respectfully submitted , Don Marvin Chief Longmont Fire Protection District DM:pv iillir: .,, Li DUO A u 14"171...� L ll Ag 9 14 9 ro_ Gary Fortner Date November 20, 1975 COLORADO From== Park Land Estates Subject: The following are the Weld County Engineering Department ' s comments on . the final set of plans submitted for review on November 12 , 1975. f-, ,, , ;._ 1.) The proposed Barbara Circle, Delia Court and Clemma Court will create a serious traffic condition en County Roads 12, 3 and 5. I recommend the above streets be eli' .inated and access to County Road 12 be made directly from the adjacent lots . ,' 2. ,' The 100 year flood limit is shown on sheet 15. A 18" X 29" C.M.P. is proposed unde Rue-de-Trust at station 2+75. The flow thru this / ., I , t culvert is calculated at 677 cfs . for a 25 year storm. Our calcu- lations show this pipewill carry approximately 15 cfs . It is my recommendation that a larger capacity structure be provided and the overflow area be designed as a concrete dip. 3. in 18" C.M.P. is proposed under Cathy Lane at station 7+61 to carry t'he Smith and Conklin irrigation ditch. The ditch company should approve ,i ., (cutz.!_ this proposed size. Blockage of this ditch with trash could be a problem for the ditch owner. ,,' , i 4. The Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company's irrigation ditch , ,is inside County right of way on Road 3. It appears to me that additional ` nN right of way is necessary east of the present ditch to allow for proper ( maintenance and disposal of waste material from the ditch. The additional ditch right of way would be in Lots 47 and 46. ✓ ) N 15./ The proposed drainage structure under Rue-de-Trust at station 2+75 will concentrate a flow into the existing irrigation ditch. This concentrated flow may cause erosion or other damage 'to the ditch. This \ ( problem should be investigated and a solution worked out with the ditch company, including maintenance of the proposed drainage intersection. rC '' c 6. Drainage from Anne Place and Sylvia Lane will flow directly into the c' irrigation ditch. Erosion and other problems may occur at these in- 0 tersections . This problem should be investigated and a solution worked out with the ditch company, including maintenance of the proposed ditch intersections. , 7: The Smith and Conklin Irrigation Ditch flows under the proposed runway. The size of the proposed culvert under the runway is not shown on sheet 17. " t- 4 'r This size should be approved by the irrigation company. 71- t Park Land Estates cnued 2 i 8. A storm flow of 90 cfs is shown flowing under Rue-de-Trust at Cathy / ' Lane in a 13" X 22" pipe. This size pipe will carry only approximately \___,/10-15 cfs . 41 is 9 The side ditches along Cathy Lane flow into the Smith and Conklin irrigation ditch. Erosion and other problems may occur at these inter- (a � T 1 , sections. This problem should be investigated and a solution worked out J� ' with the ditch company, including maintenance of the proposed ditch ), ., intersections. 9-t 10. It appears the Smith and Conklin irrigation ditch flows directly -under the proposed taxiway adjacent to Road 5 and between Lots 3 and 4. e + , . :" A pipe will be necessary under the taxiway. The size and location should be noted on sheet 17 and should be approved by the ditch company. `P 11 , E Water and sewer laterals must be in place prior to asphalting the (\ streets . Open cuts in the finished asphalt street will not be allowed. G- \ ` ` t 12 . Storm water runoff from the site into existing irrigation ditches and borrow ditches will be increased. The impact of this additional „v c i runoff into the existing ditches should be investigated by the developers ' consulting engineer and should be reported to Weld County and the ditch ,NS' , 'it) companies . 1 13.2 County Roads 3, 12, and 5 adjacent to the proposed subdivision are ` graveled roads. A serious dust problem will occur due to the increased usage of these roads as development occurs in the subdivision. ,/ ' 14. Traffic control signs and street signs must be placed in accordance w ,r' with Weld County's recommendations at the expense of the developer. (15; The person or persons responsible for maintaining the on site Y" Ldrainage system (other than along public roads) should be made of record. ," �� e ,` �� ... 4 f/ O GG� ..... • G . �r -J C. L•... �� • C.J. KUIPER c� Stare Engineer • gr6 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department :if Ih.atural Resources - 300 Co.urbice Building i8'5 Sn rman Street I Denver, Colorado 80203 - 3 n'` AdHnistr_:io. (303) 892-3581 REOEil/ • J •• Ground V Ater 1303) 892-3587 = !1 18 , 1975 November Mr. Thomas Honn Weld County Planning Commission 1516 Hospital Road Greeley , Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Honn: This is to acknowledge receipt of final plat information for the above referenced subdivision. In reviewing the preliminary plan material, I find that a water district was proposed which would act as the legal entity for ownership and maintenance of the wells and central water system. Now it appears that a Water District may not be created which could seriously affect future land owners within the subdivision in that they may not have any control over the water supply system . If a water district is not to be formed, I would like additional discussion from the developer on the private water company that will supply the 91 lots within the subdivision. The Restrictive Covenants state that a lot owner may subdivide his lot after June 6 , 2003 . Due to the availability of water for the present 91 lots , I believe this statement should be deleted or re-written to state that subdivision could occur if additional water resources are obtained and approval is given by the water district. The Restrictive Covenants do not contain any statement concerning the limitation of lawn and garden areas to 10,000 square feet or less . It would be desirable to include this statement on the final plat in case the covenants are changed. If additional information is provided on the above comments , I would be most happy to review it at your request. Yen rule yours /CL,Li ?eris A. Danielson -Et; H DS:r':"c State Engineer • (jean 4-p/dnv,«te/ -' MELVIN. DINNER i ' GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 • l . I� AJSOCIA-E TELEPHONE i 303) 332-2O8. THOMAS E. HE_LERiCH October 24 , 1975 Mr. Frederick L. Ginsberg Attorney at Law 3500 South Yosemite Street, Suite 840 Denver, Colorado 80237 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Ginsberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of October 21 , 1975 in connection with the Park Land Estates matter. This letter shall serve to advise you that I will be in St. Louis , Missouri the week of October 27th through 31st as a result of pending litigation in the Federal Courts . I note from your letter that you indicate that you are submitting to me a copy of Mr. Telep's letter, as well as a copy of a letter which you state you received from the Colorado Department of Health regarding the water and water system. Neither of these items of correspondence were contained with your letter of October 21, 1975 . I would appreciate your forwarding these letters so that when I return to Greeley these letters will be available for my examination and for consideration by my clients . Upon returning to my office I will ar- range and schedule a meeting with you and such of your clients who desire to be present with me and my clients . As indicated previously, I will be unavailable on October 28th to meet with you and with the Weld County Planning Commission Director to discuss the final details for placing the Park Land Estates plat on the Planning Commission agenda for sometime in November, 1975 . I will accordingly submit a copy of this correspondence , together with a copy of your correspondence of October 21st to the Director of the Weld County Planning Commission for his information in connection with this matter. V Very truly your \AA MELVIN DINNER M D/a s cc: Director, Weld County Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Erie Coal Creek Ditch Co. Mr. and Mrs . Kenneth Koch Mr. and Mrs . Donald E. Smith / ,//: • , S 3h(10 SOUTH YOSEMITE STREET.SUITE 840 LEN VER,COLORADO 80237 Jacqueline S.Deals October 21 , 1975 Mr. Melvin Dinner Attorney and Counselor at Law 630 Greeley National Plaza Jreeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Dinner: in response to your letter of October 14, 1915 you are advised that on October 28, 1975 we will meet with the Weld County Planning Director to discuss the final details for placing the Park Land Estates plat on the Planning Commission agenda for sometime in November, 1975. These actions on the part of the Weld County Planning Department and its Director are in accord with their understanding that the Weld County Commissioners con- sider the conditional zoning status to still be in effect. I enclose here- with a copy of my most recent letter from Mr. Samuel Telep which re-affirms this stance. Again, I wish to state that my clients and I together with our engineers are ready, willing and able at any time to meet with you and your clients to discuss any "matter of substantial substance" that they believe would be an impediment to the finalizing of the Park Land Estates plat. I am also enclosing for your review a copy of the letter which we received from the Colorado Department of Health giving full approval to the water and water system which will be used in the Park Land Estates subdivision. Please feel free to contact me at any time if and when you deem it advisable to meet with us. Very y yours, ,1 Frederick L. Ginsb —\ FLG/cn cc: Mrs. Doris McFeeters ?, • • T-= OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER � `'*:' PHONE 1303) 353-2212 EXT.221,222& 2: P.O.BOX 7! f , v GREELEY,COLORADO 806. ) h r.. ,. h 1 t� rrz , f ?,L„�> rte.. >r... •,. a'o ORADO October 7, 1975 Mr. Joe W. Fuss, Fire Marshal Dacono Area Fire Protection District Dacono, Colorado 80514 Dear Mr. Fuss: The proposed subdivision of Parkland Estates is still in the planning stage. To my knowledge, there is no proolem with Parkland Estates developing their own water and sewer system. The requirements which you feel necessary to insure adequate water for fire fighting purposes do in some ways exceed the minimum county requirements. Since this is the case, you could possibly contact VTN Associates, the firm currently working on the plans for the subdivision. Their address is 6875 East Evans Avenue, Denver, Colorado.80222 and their phone number is 759-4271 . At this time I am not aware of any scheduled hearings or meetings concerning Parkland Estates. If you need further information, please feel free to contact our Planning Department. Regards, Glenn K. Billings, Chairman Board of Weld County Commissioners WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN K. BILLINGS VICTOR JACOBUCCI o.2CFR a MELVIN DINNER • GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 ASSOCIATE TELEPHONE 13031 962-3001 THOMAS E. HELLERiCH September 26, 1975 Mr. Frederick L. Ginsberg Attorney at Law 3600 South Yosemite Street, Suite 840 Denver, Colorado 80237 Re: Park Land Estates proposed subdivision Dear Mr. Ginsberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence of September 18, 1975. This letter shall serve to confirm that VTN Colorado, Inc. has submitted copies of the "so-called" proposed final plat for the above captioned subdivision to my office and I in turn have submitted copies of this so-called proposed final plat to my clients . I note by your correspondence that you indicate a desirability of meeting with me and my clients at the earliest possible date for the purpose of discussing problems which might or could cause confusion between the parties. Needless to say, there are indeed numerous problems concerning your client's so-called proposed final plat and other related matters that need to be resolved. They are not simply matters of confusion, but matters of substantial substance and not merely matters of form. It is necessary to indicate as I have in the past that the total group of clients which I represent, Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Koch, Mr. and Mrs . Donald E. Smith, and the group designated as Citizens Com- mittee for Planned Community Development (which group largely consists of the adjoining landowners) are strongly opposed to your project in its present form, as well as the development project in general. My clients are firmly convinced that the property in question is best suited to agricultural development, and should remain in this form -- certainly, for the time being. It is also necessary to set out at this point the position of my clients: That is , that at the June 4, 1975 ≥,afore the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado an additional 90 days was granted to resolve all of the issues involved and failing to resolve these issues, the conditional rezoning would expire. I call your at- tention to the fact that the resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado on December 10, 1973 granted only a conditional approval of the change of zone from A-Agricultural District to E-Estate District, Planned Unit Development for the area described as follows: NZ of Section 8, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P. M. , Weld County, Colorado, containing 336.2 acres , more or less, and subject to all easements, roads and rights of way existing or of record r • • -2- the change of zone was granted under the conditions following: "1 . That any water and sanitation facilities to he installed shall be approved by the State Health Department. 2 . All applicable subdivision regulations and zoning regulations shall be followed and complied with in accordance with the zoning resolutions of Weld County, Colorado. 3 . Subject to complying with the recommendations of the Town of Erie , Colorado regarding adequate sewer and water service for the area rezoned. 4. That said change of zone herein granted is conditional only for a period of twelve (12) months from the date hereof, on condition that developer proceed with due dilligence to begin development of the area rezoned and sub- mit plans for such development for the approval of the Weld County Planning -,a cnrding Of said plans in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of WeldCounty, Colorado; and that major construction shall commence thereon with said twelve (12) month period; otherwise, the County may take action to rezone the property to its present classification. " It would appear that there are sketchy and vague extensions of the twelve month period involved, some of which appear to be dubious , doubtful and questionable, and certainly the legality of any such extension appears to be extremely doubtful at this point. It is quite apparent that during the 90 day period involved my clients have stood ready, willing and able to proceed with any such meeting requested, but that no such meeting was ever requested during the time period involved . This letter shall serve to notify you on behalf of my clients that in event the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado determines that the conditional change of zoning status is still applicable and that the Board of County Commissioner, desires to consider the so-called proposed final plat on behalf of your client, my clients are certainly prepared to proceed to meet with you to continue to attempt to resolve the various problems involved, as they have stood ready, willing and able to resolve all of these problems from the beginning . Under the circumstances, it would appear that we should obtain some clarification from the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County and perhaps from Mr. Sam Telep who is the County Attorney in connection with these matters because of the "clear-cut confusion" which presently prevails concerning the present zoning status of the property involved. { Very our' , MELVIN DINT R � M D/a s cc: Board of County Commissioners Erie Coal Creek Ditch & Reservoir Co. Mr. and Mrs . Kenneth Koch Mr. and Mrs . Donald E. Smith .. ill ' • • A Dacono Area Fire Protection District / Sent 2 , C1 � ;�r . fl ¶l1 is .n re fled s to tiie 1r lnnd L;es "nth-Divis= nn, l.oc ,^d cost f 'ri e r'nl e rado, 'n " r f;re ,'-i str; et. /c le V!' no r seen an,- de ri.n 1te -^1a r . n'o this `hut do ,1nd.,rf,tnnd k*°t i_t s rleni .-' o' occo>Ty, '1i^ fie p 'v^t^ sir- cr^i't at on'. of th, 1, , 1 , ` n l h ,l, h^vo ^. c ,,,,,,n st,. i1--croft h-moor also. e grim al. _ e ln.re of t n roh .o s they 9 1 nvin^ 1n obta' n-- 'it,^ f� t deve ^o t. ill -lb- alarr"s nr. I feel ti-lnt tho d.evelnrnr of en n e ench 9 , t S S .^t live ^r ,e t?..,r.nPlt t„ tho c.,nfets -n h' 11io ,irCe,^.e'_'. Tf s 'ff '.cent 7Ater ;nos and rc res g e not nv^il n in, tno n no ,. <r to - .,t f•re jn an a.lr-cr"ft and. osnec 31 ,'- i f t se re".ds-. to o l'^"-^. rrglonn n,,n -o-0 ' h • l. .ti flq n ilo a-._nn of n-n.on the, re() ono heryf • Also 2 t -ill n hard for tllo n rchane" t elf.'"gin 'nr' nr �n yr nC^ on h ^ horn tf vie c`,-,.not n” 00 '.romp fi no nrntnPt- '. nn. Pi„ ', con-n .. 1ne done if C'e d'o not. h^vn fire h'rr1r^nts at he -..Cone. o rig-, t stte-. nt t tr,.ns.no rt rotor t - n7f. roe do h o a tr^-c' at .hi .n 1 0 the;; 'n'-ld Cr, en l nn n7 e^ , e. ', a d. e 1r11 •'-o st. ' on 5-t r t' c o':.e grng, i_`f ^^,r' - _ r t. 'h'_ , tr 'c''C a 7r-in l ion ^r ,1„i n n , n„.1 .j 1 pond o r 'od ^ ,,.,r .," 1• t^ do or offec i •e no. !p event "of a f ec rev„lvifn'4 amr_crafft a i ^•a..^^l ire, otc. ire ,...' n1- need h drafts that, con nrodl,_ce at 1ca''; 7Kn cal p-o ,, •n.rtn e ,, , 16. vn an^^, f-,t con ' a .. ' i1_ o1_,� h^ ^ o re drarts ho nl co,' sn ti" ar ae e on.^r.bile to o run_...air. o feol 471;h^, h _u^ n m. +.,e ht Irani (' s' .,,_1_d -,_nn - e as 4- ' nt;1n", t.or'ne, not over inn feet ,'1.'nart. re can Pen {fhe dnnrer thni; en'_. Co r o•:�2 fnr,.. t. , time nro- th '-;o se l he-,n a. ,i as'- r oilr cons 'dorati on an of ho1 n hr th for ''.rso _ - o rend. the fl ,meet en of ';hr, fit'.-e 'n -..ner .. 10 n' e e'^I; 1 ^ 1 i,' :.., -'os d_nr^.t i nn. ilo o.d`. ce -fin of n e'-o '-n nn op +,. • n ..i-+.' - "n tnni 1 ton,G.nCt;n,• 1_, -- X r, t1 — '-n s.. /,. .'p ^,.07 DACONO, COLORADO 80514 ✓ /: '', FREDERICK L.GINSBERG - ATTORNEY AT LAW N 4/ 3600 SOUTH YOSEMITE STREET SUITE 840 DENVER,COLORADO 80237 I I / AREA CODE 13 031 vva-i ms r x v u' C'\' \ Jacqueline S.Davis ; i September 18, 1975 Mr. Samuel S. Telep Attorney at Law 220 First National Bank Bldg. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates - Final Plat Dearllf- Telep: The engineers for Park Land Estates have been instructed to proceed with the submission of the final plat in accordance with the existing Weld County regulations. In addition I have asked Mel Dinner who represents some of the opposition in this matter to meet with me and my clients for the purpose of resolving any confusion that might exist concerning the final plat submission. I expect that Mr. Dinner will try to arrange this meeting insofar as he indicated in past discussions that this would be his desire. During the course of the meeting which we had with the Erie Town Council at the end of August, we taped all of the proceedings. These proceedings were then typed by a member of the Erie Twon Administration and a member of the Park Land Estates group so that there could be no confusion as to what was said. These written proceedings are now available for review by either yourself or the Weld County Commissioners. We will expect to make the whole or any portion of these proceedings available for intro- duction as evidence into the record at the time of the hearing before the Planning Commission and the Weld County Commissioners. Please let me know if you and/or anyone or more of the Commissioners would like to review the minutes of that last meeting in Erie, and I will be happy to have a copy of same forwarded to you. Thank you again for your assistance in this matter. Ver truly yours, rederick . FLG/cn cc: Mrs. Doris McFeeters • MARK R. KLAUBER • ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW SUITE 3 — PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 2141 14TH STREET BOULDER. COLORADO 80302 LCp f 2 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 442-3400 iOEI"_I: Of "."Mtn' .. ail. cu'li:-:' fl. '.!.O leelth Lib - os"itai 1 or_tdo He ctalLrs it ol'os Cl 1cbc Hrmcnt in L1-i0 _,= !'a ar it . 1n osc'i finest Lind coo}' or I1100- one . _lnn as :stir- . '1'2 thc or C-c-I! ..Cc on ,l':alis': 2_, �� 7� :.0ncrrnin ten 1rn- t.gte:: ii (.fin ;a.` l IR FL to in _ . . _ :•on,_l: •�cc, „ 'flrc;f l ,)th 20'2 .. `h, volution of ,7(Lrnar, ' 3 , 1.97., , ' ^L1Ilr: 1x0 ttiDS' '_:1 1- COIL '."Pu; truly 'ours. „1 _c Tour .ttornc' ?roc=er.ic': iinsber ; ':ttocney at La: ._.. !ll South. Voc.i-ua .. trec i. in\ ff, 2_2_L iota - 2uar : J : .ist• ._s ':ow,) - d o :. 9 A.- a I RESOLUTION AND MOTION RE: PARKLAND (ASSOCIATES) ESTATES (INC. ) PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY TOWN BOARD - AUGUST 25, 1975 It is hereby Moved and Resolved regarding the proposed Parkland Estates development as follows: 1. That no Agreement, regarding the delivery of water from the Town of Erie to Parkland Estates, has been reached. 2. That on the basis of no such _agreement being reached, we, as the Board of Trustees of the Fawn of Erie, are not able to recommend to the held County Commissioners approval of the Petition as heretofore submitted by Parkland Estates in this matter. CERTIFICATION The above Resolution and Motion is an exact copy, without change, of that Resolution and Motion passed unanimously by the Erie Town Board on August 25, 1975. kessibas A #1.16LAS Mark R. Klaubet Erie Town Attorney tkir OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORN f SAMUELTEI COUNTY AT TORT PHONE (303)352-: 220 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILD GREELEY,COLORADO BC O September 4, 1975 L - STATE OF COLORADO ss. • COUNTY OF WELD COLORADO f with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners SEP 8 1975 COUNTY acar nvo accoan=a By Deputy ', Mr. Frederick L. Ginsberg Attorney at Law 2040 South Oneida Street Denver, Colorado 80222 Re: Parkland Estates Dear Mr. Ginsberg: Please be advised that the matter of Parkland Estates was brought to the attention of the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado at its regular meeting yesterday, September 3, 1975, and after discussion was had between the Board and the Weld County Planning Staff, it was decided that you should proceed on behalf of your client through regular channels. That is to say, you will be asked to apply to the Weld County Planning Commission pursuant to our Weld County Subdivision Regulations as outlined to you in my letter of August 8, 1975. We regret that any differences your client may have had with the Town of Erie could not be resolved; however, as outlined by you in your letter of August 27, 1975, copy of which the writer has received, you will probably have to proceed as stated in your letter. As hereinabove stated, we certainly regret the fact that you may have been subjected to any unnecessary delays; however, we assure you that such was not the fault either of the Weld County Planning Staff or the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. Sincerely, Samuel S. Telep SST/jib County Attorney cc: Mr. Glenn Billings, Chairman Board of County Commissioners WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONE HARRY S. ASHL GLENN K. BILLI • ROY MO: -es• r ,i.., et' en m .... xi.:1 a '' soc lair I A;p'1c j4�<. ° L- .;.1 ° A C A fir- "--2 a CONSULTING ENGINLEF, S c� '` y • SOIL&FOUNDATION 96 S. ZUNI • . DENVER, COLORADO 80223 • 303/744.7105 ENGINEERING 1924 EAST FIRST STREET • CASPER, WYOMING 82601 • 307/234-2126 ' August 28, 1975 Subject: Pavement Design for Park Land Estates and Foundation Investiga- • tion fcr Proposed Pump House • Northeast of Erie , Colorado, Weld County, Colorado. • Job No. 12,466 VTN Engineers 2600 South Parker Road Parker Place #4 4. Denver, Colorado 60232 Gentlemen: • As requested , we obtained samples of the subgrade soils for the . proposed streets at the locations shown in Fig. 1 . An exploratory hole was also drilled in the area of a proposed small single-story slab-on- grade pump house. Pavement Design : The subgrade soils generally consisted of slightly to very sandy clays. The subgrade soils were tested in our laboratory to • . determine their standard properties. A summary of laboratory test results is presented in Table I . The subgrade soils have a group index from 8 • to 13 with an equivalent R value of 35. A California bearing ratio test was run on a typical sample of the subgrade soils remolded and compacted to 95% standard Proctor density at optimum moisture content resulting in a CDR value of 5.3%. Annie Place, Beverly Lane, Cathy Lane , Doris Circle and Sandy Circie are classified as residential streets . Based upon' the group index methou of design , these streets should be designed for a minimum pavement section consisting of 2 inches asphalt , 6 inches base course , and 3 inches sub- base or an equivalent section of 2 inclies asphalt and 3 inches base course. Rue de Trust is classified as a collector street and should be designed for a minimum pavement section consisting of 2 inches asphalt , 8 inches base course , and 5 inches subbase.' All pavement courses should conform to Colorado State Highway Specifications. We recommend that the subgrade be scarified for a depth of 9 inches , moistened to optimum moisture. content, and recompacted to at least 95% standard Proctor density. r • VIM Engineers August 24, 1975 Page 2 Pump House Foundation: The subsoils In the area of the proposed pump . house generally consisted of 6* feet of very stiff , slightly sandy clay overlying hard claystone-siltstone bedrock to the depth investigated, 15 feet. Results of a swell-Consolidation test presented in fig. 3 indicate that the lower bedrock possesses a slight swell potential . We believe the most safe and desirable type foundation for the proposed pump house would be spread footings placed on the upper clays" designed for a maximum soil pressure of 3,000 psf . Footings should be. placed below frost depth with foundation walls reinforced top and bottom • to span an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. The on-site soils arc suitable to support slab-on-grade construction. The slabs should be separated from all bearing members with a positive expansion joint and be adequately reinforced. A ti inch layer of free draining gravel should be provided beneath the floor slab to distribute the floor loadings . Good surface drainage around the building should be maintained • at all times. • If we can be of further service, please call . -••"; Very truly yours , . D C. rw'�R:---....„(A,is ,c; CHEN AND ASSOCIATES , INC. Fa a , a' a�� livid W Ay /'l/ L.�� / ``�'�'f>i,� q, , �.< / David H'. /.dams DHA/bn COl.O incls. Rev. Dy: R.C.H. • couIITY ROAD No. 3 ' • \ Mull( PLACE • 3 • . .. . u 12 DORIS , C CIRCLE o O C IC n • • O • 1 M • y m q • O • .I °, gn y W 00 • • C IInn C. oro DF.VERLY LANE • m • p N , • • • ° SANDY _C CIRCLE • • ° I CATIIY VANE /� ° • COUNTY ROAD NO. 5 • Cs n 7 • N 0 " C n " n • y ''0 on O ] O ] — O 0 0 0 y o U 0 N i ] 0•` • y rr • a • _ < u n • `C 1 9ro y-. H —n n' _¢ • _r v n CO n Y Y 1 1 \ \ O 00 C. n C.•C l n 11)1 •-•Oa p N u ] n ' ✓ n F K n. N S v C • u u - • 1 9 r O C, N 1 ry C A• • CN 0 ^ n a O'N-.Y l0`.... 01111,. S.0 C N S -. ] -, Y •0 N Y w-. n • 4on , - C, 4 O o 9 e 4 O n I w -.- 0 N 0. C N 10 O.U -•• 0 o • '. n Ji 10 p ▪ a .. h;:.. cl1 IT A r ] `C • 011v—ow \O10\ O n AlN IIJ-- 3 O • • N P 037:037:9 -. 0 • " t N r„....n . 'O N •C 0 N • 3 ,o • o • •� 0 • i r0 P C ] A r H U_ ,• 9 • O D 0 1 0^ 1 .0ro r— C N • • P O �_P 4NO>Nw In .. 0 _V N NV•)O• N v• _ r::U\\\ tct� 2 N N J to m N• Nrr0ON 0, 0\ • 1 9 r o 0 -1 p � N...r on n O • N_N On N II ON 1 I N . _ • O.. NL • ' • - 0 9 r o c ]COT • . NOn 5 Y n C n C n • VI . O. • o'. p Of."r o - o �n • • • Q, V) m -.n Q • 9 o _ • P _ P . m e .i•Q 0 \ n N q N 0•O • 0 C O Cr r• VI \ N • J N C • • n O N O N O T • 1 1 1 , 1 i U 1 I I L I I I I I I I I • • P . DEPTH - FEET 0 .. 4 • ' Nulul 1' , "pit Yleipnl I 'I.0 pcf w I" Natural Moisture Content a 13. 1 percent it 1 r t $ _.--__ il — k xpnn : ion trder constant pmAs1ut pon wet ling 1 ‘>? 0I , i 1. --7t._ 1 `--I I /i i..- I ' 1 I R -11 3 , - Jkl 'i 1 1 71 _J_l, 1 ._._ 0 to $00 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf Typical sample of claystone-siltstone bedrock from I1ole. h of depth 7'-0" • Swell - Consolidation Test PotliltS 5VIv /11`1 U . ,, 0 • I �s Coniultinu Engineers • Soil and Foundation Engineering • R yer:0I4[T[R A ALYS I1 ANALYSIS Hl-9 I.e I-1C (AbINv5 $1[, �IIA v 1 —� v S 5-.10990 SC 9"(5•.1 ��GEC A• J0u.e 1 i+n•ten <+,A •)ew ow• •.�.• ova •rM_.��0 •w ••o•u. •.• �. [ 0rE w:wB ____=-_-__=.1-n- __.—t—_. .._ :._ __`S_ L^ .;_ . L. .... --_ _.-..;_•• :__ —••--J --^—r_ ...:-...-• I- -::7-__ —.is-= • u f` � --I--I-- _ t— _. .- --�_ - _�— t _ • ♦ —1.. +-t-15ou z �- ,-.71:7--1-I-7-1, t • wl -- _ .ICI _t 1 ' _1 11• 1•2_1_7- 4, . =-1 1 -'TC_-`-` I I (Ct ua Ow oil 03? 0•♦ „eA fne•i1'_ ..o.:.�^W 9. MI ?S(II• �i �• I-- -- . u• .,;[5nc ��r I�xJ. .•. B5i ... »1 r.( .I Lei"�I DIAM((Cif OP PAR 11{.(( IN Y!l�r•f(1(115 CLAY 1 'ClT0 !0.T INO.I•I,Ae•�CI�- • p0.&ILL ICI • GRADATION TEST RESULTS GRAVEL % SAND V. 511.1 ANO CLAY /0 ' LIQUID LIMIY 01 L I'PAS TICIY IYDE'\ e • MOIS WYE - PLRCCNT OF ORY WCIGNT e '0 15 20 99 ),) ISO l.-• _ ♦ . - -•- * _ f..MO.5.�N.0(_ 0R• 0[N51•• Gc R915 ��' I ... I.. 4.9.4 11 1 _ _ I_ 1 .7 U .tot __I_._.__—... 1` -�.—__.-- —. .." • • • • •• I .tL ._r_.•__.___-.L_.._- 1 - . ... —__..�.. -.. ., r • 1 , • 1 1 • 1 50 _. -1 -_•r .-i. ._ _ ,-_- -�__• 4- --- --- —� • ...._. ._.._ '-04.... ..•-4......•........•-.4.4.•-•- _.• -a----•__ —. • .- B 0 .. ._ • COMPACTION TEST RESULTS • ' CIIMPAC •IUN I't%T POU"LII5AIRE ASTM 0696-70, Method A .. sAMrLI (rl• Sandy clay :76 rnrM HO ICS I - 7 Pr.n•n Subnrade • _- • e . WCIC MUM GU tmmuncw FREDERICK L. GINSBERG AUG 7S 1975 II AREA ATTORNEY AT LAW L�I ___ 2040 SOUTH STREET ;nR EELEY. COLO. DENVER, COLORADO 90222 APEA CODE (303) 059-6474 August 27, 1975 Mr. Glenn Billings lig Weld County nn Health and Welfare Bldg. Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Commissioner Billings: of August 25, 1975 the Erie This is to advise you that on the evening Town Council adopted a Resolution relative to the above matter which stated in general as follows: (a) That no agreement pertaining to water service for the Park Land Estates he has been reached. e request r for T approval (b) That because no agreeme�ovalhas ofbeen therpending the Erie Town Council by recommended County against approval for Park Land Estates. Weld County of the p o e We taped the entire proceedings, and the contents before fh the will be The Eriadditional TowntCounclwParksrepeatedly placed into the record at the time of the hearing Commissioners sked tat relative to the plat. to which ke. No see to at if it ctimes d pertinentore nhereto been willing Estates espo hasa at all to is p that the Town l is un- willing was given to these requests for an answer. It was clear to us during with respect to concluding an agreement with my the course of the Erie Town Council meeting to do anything client. neioially, client owed a bill to Ray & Associates. Mr. Ray the Council took the position that the reason it could not client, and testified was that ttht myeighty- five a accepted his word in the matter. Thus,presence of testified the bill has never been a responsibility of m the i Town e firolly which we hadeint atheae pre to f the is Weld l County oleCo nissionersm the s before�we could even g dis- cuss mt previous correspondance to Erie and its attorney this have v in awll ss My all cases been forwarded to you, and until the evening • Mr. Glenn Billings August 27, 1975 Page Two. of August 25, 1975, no response was made to such correspondance save for a letter from Erie's attorney, Mark Klauber, claiming that my client owed a bill to Ray & Associates, which it is now clear is not the responsibility of my client. We honestly believe there is no further room left for a de- lay in our being able to be heard in connection with receiving approval for the subdivision plat. We therefore request from the Weld County Commissioners the following: (a) That an immediate extension be granted to my client under the Weld County Rules and Regulations from and after September 1 , 1975 during which work can begin in the subdivision. This extension will preclude an expiration of your prior thirty day extension and preserve the zoning of the property. (b) A hearing in accordance with notice as required under your Rules and Regulations for the purpose of presenting our plat for ap- proval by the Weld County authorities. This letter is being hand delivered to your office so that we may pre- serve our rights within the pending thirty day extension period which the Commissioners granted on or about August 1 , 1975. Please assist us in this matter in any way possible. Thank you in advance for your con- sideration of the matters set forth herein. Ver uly yours, l Fr derick L. Ginsbe FLG/cn cc: Mr. Samuel S. Telep Mrs. Doris McFeeters • • MELVIN DINNER AT t ORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 63O ..REELEY NATIONAL PLAZA �,/��yy GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 �02223kQ ,S� ASSO,!ATE e [ TELEX E ,303i 352 2O61 THOMAS E HETLER iCH \ AUG1975 N cp August 21 , 1975 1n RECEIVED Weld County Frederick L. Ginsberg coPlanning Commission Attorney at Law 2040 South Oneida Street !� y69L9�� Denver, Colorado 80222 Re: Park Land Estates - Erie Coal Creek Ditch Company - Smith, Conklin, et al Dear Mr. Ginsberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence of August 4, 1975 in connection with the proposed subdivision development plans of Park Land Estates . It is necessary to indicate at this time that neither my office nor my clients ap- preciate the threats which you have outlined in your correspondence of August 4th. As you well know from the information provided by my letter of July 24, 1975 and from the information supplied at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, my clients have pursued legitimate objections to the proposed subdivision plans of your client for a long period of time. As neighboring landowners they have con- siderable involvement in the results of this project. It would seem to be a sad day of American Democracy when adjacent landowners are denied the opportunity and privilege of exercising their right of objection and the right to make their voices heard with reference to items which affect their lives and their property. Perhaps you have designed a new definition of spurious harassment. In any event, neither my clients nor my office are interested in these type of threats . My clients intend to pursue their legitimate objectives . It is quite apparent from the items outlined in my letter of July 24, 1975 that these clients have good cause and basic reasons to object to the plans that you have submitted to date in connection with the proposed subdivision development of your client, Park Land Estates . I am also quite disturbed by other items disclosed by your correspondence . Page 3 of your correspondence indicates that copies of your correspondence were directed to my clients without my permission and without my consent, that is , that letters were submitted to Mr. and Mrs . Kenneth Koch, Mr. and Mrs . Donald E. Smith and to the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company. I call your attention to the Canons of Ethics and specifically to Canon 7, a copy of which is enclosed herewith, which reads as follows: "(A) During the course of his representation of a client a lawyer shall not: (1) Communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party he knows to be ' -7 represented by a lawyer in that matter unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized by law to do so. " In view of the statements appearing in your correspondence and what appears to be your intentional violation of the Canons of Ethics , I am herewith requesting that you promptly and immediately send a letter of retraction and apology to each of my clients . As you are fully aware, breach of the Canons of Ethics is indeed a serious matter and something not to be taken lightly . I assume that you will give this matter your prompt attention. ly yo s , -4.... a � IVILLVII\ DINT' ; MD/as , enclosure cc: Board of County Commissioners Weld County Planning Commission Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Koch Mr. and Mrs . Donald E. Smith Mr, Jack Mleynek , President of Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Co. V • FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 2040 SOUTH ONEIDA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80222 AREA CODE (909) 750-6474 August 12, 1975 Mr. Samuel S. Telep Weld County Attorney 220 First National Bank Bldg. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Telep: I thank you for your letter dated August 8, 1975 regarding the above matter. We have finally been invited to appear before the Town of Erie on August 25th for the purpose of discussing the possibility of resolving the question as to water service for this project. It is interesting that Erie should wait until approximately 5 days before the September 1 , 1975 date referred to in your letter before issuing its invitation for our attendance at one of its town council meetings. We have instructed VTN Colorado, Inc. who is the engineering firm repre- senting Park Land Estates to proceed with the submission of a final plat for this project. We have also instructed VTN to comply with Section 6-3 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. I agree with you that lawsuits in this case should be unnecessary, but let me also state that it may be Erie's actions will compel us to seek re- lief from the courts. The fact is that we have done everything humanly possible to get Erie to sit down and work with us. To date all we have received has been a complaint for our alleged failure to pay a bill owing to the engineering of Ray & Associates. We have contacted Ray & Associates and they have assured us in writing that no such bill is owed by Park Land Estates. Accordingly, we requested the town of Erie to submit to us a breakdown and factual data showing how and why the bill might be owed by Park Land Estates. Here again, Erie has failed to even respond to our requests. You can therefore understand why we feel the courts may be our only arena for relief unless the Weld County Commissioners are willing to act on the plat after September 1 , 1975. We will apprise you of the outcome from the meeting which we are scheduled to attend in Erie on August 25, 1975. Thank you again for all of your assistance. V y truly yours, rederick L. Ginsberg FLG/cn cc: Mr. Glenn Billings Mrs. Doris McFeeters 4/ 44 • • OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTOF ^�! SAMUEL S. -1' { COUNTY ATTC PHONE (303)35 220 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUI GREELEY,COLORADO s O August 8, 1975 • COLORADO Mr. Frederick L. Ginsberg Attorney at Law 2040 South Oneida Street Denver, Colorado 80222 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr, Ginsberg: I have for acknowledgment your letter of August 4, 1975, accompanied with copies of letters to Mr. Billings, Chairman of the Board of Weld County Commissioners, and to Mr. Mark Klauber, counsel for the Town of Erie, and have noted the contents of your letter along with the other letters referred to hereinabove. Please be advised that the Board, after looking into the matter quite thoroughly, has decided to adhere to the ninety (90) day extension period up to and until September 1, 1975, and to look into the matter further after that period of time depending on what, if anything, has been accomplished between your client and the Town of Erie. For your further information, I am advised to report that should this matter not be resolved soon after the expiration, namely September 1, 1975, you will have to proceed further by applying to the Weld County Planning Commission for final plat pursuant to the Weld County subdivision regulations and especially Section 6 thereof. Let me say that Section 6-3 of the Weld County subdivision regulations lists the procedures to follow for final plat review. I trust that I have fully answered your inquiry and that you will go along with the wishes of the Board and with the hope that this situation may be amicably resolved without any further unnecessary hearings and hopefully, without any unnecessary lawsuits which most certainly will subject certain parties to the unnecessary expense and embarrassment incident to suit. Sincerely, Samuel S. Telep SST/jib County Attorney WELD COUNTY COMMISSION cc: Glenn Billings, Chairman HARRY S. AS GLENNK.BILL Board of County Commissioners .. ROY M • FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 2040 SOUTH ONEIDA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80222 AREA CODE (303) 758-6474 August 4, 1975 Mr. Mark Klauber Attorney at Law 2141 So. 14th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Klauber: Several weeks ago I sent you a letter requesting a breakdown of the amount of money that my client allegedly owes to Ray & Associates. I say allegedly because Ray & Associates claims there is nothing owed to them by my client. I would appreciate a written explanation covering this purported bill . On numerous occasions over the past sixty days we have requested an opportunity to meet with the Erie Town Council or with representatives from Erie relative to negotiating a solution for the water situation. We have as of this date received no responses to our inquiries. Each time a inquiry was made, a copy of the letter to you was sent to the Mayor of Erie. There is some indication the town council has us scheduled for an August 25, 1975 meeting. However, we have no notice from either the Town or from you confirming this fact. We think that for the Town to wait until the end of the ninety day period during which the Weld County Commissioners expected us to resolve the problem about the water is certainly an act which leaves a great deal to be desired. Even if it were so that a meeting is scheduled for August 25, 1975, it would be next to impossible for any form of agreement to be concluded between August 25 and approximately seven days thereafter which is the end of the ninety day period. Accordingly, if such an August 25th date has been scheduled, we will attend but we expect nothing to materialize. Let me say that the dilatory tactics employed for whatever reason in this case will be brought to the attention of the Courts if necessary. Let there also be no doubt that the final plat for Park Land Estates is going to be submitted, reviewed by the Weld County Commissioners, approved so long as it conforms to Weld County Rules and Regulations, and all of this in spite of the Town of Erie and its desire to waylay the matter. Very truly yours, Frederick L. Ginsberg FLG/cn cc: Mr. Glenn Billings Mr. Sam Telep, Esq. Mrs. Doris McFeeters • • FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 2040 SOUTH ONEIDA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80222 AREA CODE (303) 758-6474 August 4, 1975 Mr. Glenn Billings Weld County Commissioner Health and Welfare Bldg. Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Commissioner Billings: On July 22, 1975 I forwarded a letter to you requesting that this matter be set down for a hearing before the Weld County Commissioners in order that the final plat for the above subdivision can receive approval . Since that time I have written to Erie, and again no response to my letter has been forthcoming. Enclosed is a copy of another letter which was sent to the attorney for Erie on this date. You can see from the content of that letter that we have no intention of attempting any further negotiations with Erie. For one reason or another the town of Erie simply refuses by doing nothing to negotiate in connection with the water for this subdivision. We are therefore requesting that the Weld County Commissioners set this matter down for a formal hearing within the next two weeks so that we may conclude the final plat. I have taken the liberty of advising the Weld County attorney of these matters, and you might discuss the problem with him at your earliest convenience. Any other help you can give to us would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance. Ver truly yours41 , ederick L. Ginsbe FLG/cn cc: Mr. Sam Telep, Esq. Mrs. Doris McFeeters • • . FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 2040 SOUTH ONEIDA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80222 ARCA Coos (303) 758-6474 August 4, 1975 Mr. Melvin Dinner Attorney at Law 630 Greeley National Plaza Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Park Land Estates-Erie Coal Creek Ditch Company- Smith, Conklin, et al . Dear Mr. Dinner: We have reviewed your letter dated July 24, 1975, and in response there- to, we wish to point out the following matters. The plats have been changed to reflect the proper easements for the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company ditch. The plats have also been changed to identify the private laterals which are used by Mr. and Mrs. Koch, Smith and Conklin. These laterals will be shown in easements which will be dedicated for the benefit of the parties who are taking water from them. Provisions have been made to cover the problem of depositing excess dirt obtained during the course of dragline operations by the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. We have letters in our files which substantiate the amount of easement needed for the dragline equipment. These letters have been pro- vided to us by people who do this type of work. The question with respect to the dumping of drainage into the Erie Coal Creek Ditch is one which is moot provided that the drainage is no greater than that which is going into the ditch at the present time. The law in this state is clear that a ditch which impedes the ordinary course which water would take must accept the water. In the instant case the Erie Coal Creek Ditch does, in fact, impede the flow of water which, but for the existance of the ditch, would traverse onto lower lands. Secondly, since the waters which you have brought to our attention have been emptied into the ditch for so great a period of time previous to this date, there is by law an easement to accept it. If the ditch com- pany had objections to receiving these run-off waters, these objections should have been made years ago. Why is it the ditch company was quite willing to accept run-off waters while this land was being used for agri- cultrual purposes, but suddenly, it has objections if there is some develop- ment which occurs? Mr. Melvin Dinner August 4, 1975 Page Two. The area which comprises the lands owned by Park Land Estates is not with- in a flood plain area. Even so, this would be a question for Weld County and not one for the ditch company. However, since there is no flood plain in this area, it makes no difference. I call to your attention that flood plains are designated on a county basis, and also by the Corp. of Engineers on a national basis. We find nothing in the records of either the County or the Corp. of Engineers which indicates the area which Park Land Estates will be developing is within a flood plain designation. We have every right to dump drainage into the County barrow pits. The purpose of barrow pits is to accept drainage, and keep it from crossing a roadway in any event. We think this point is one which can only be objected to by the County, and we have already been informed that the barrow pits may be used by us for drainage along with anyone else who pre- sently uses these pits for the same purpose. There is no doubt that the Erie Coal Creek ditch does cross a part of County Road No. 3, and we see no reason why this should be changed. If you wish to change the location of your ditch, then it is up to the ditch company to do so in accordance with law. The ditch has traversed County Road No. 3 for many years, and we see no connection between this and the plat which we will be filing for approval with the Weld County Commissioners. We have lots which are split bythe Erie Coal Creek Ditch, and this can make no difference to the ditch company so long as there is an amply ease- ment provided to permit the ditch company to do work as it deems fit. We are making no crossing of your ditch at any point, and therefore, we have no reason to request your permission to cross the ditch. If a party wishes to cross onto the other side of his site, it will be necessary for that party to simply come up the road and come into the subdivision on the other side of the ditch. In any event this bisecting of the sites is more of a hinderance to the owner of the site than it is any bother to the ditch company. The placement of improvements on these lots is quite ac- ceptable so long as the improvements conform to the Weld County Regulations. relative to setbacks, etc. These placements and construction of improve- ments will be done in accordance with Weld County Regulations. You make reference to a letter received from the Longmont Realty and In- surance Company relative to insurance liability problems. I have no such letter or a copy thereof in my files, and therefore it is impossible for me to make response to your point. However, the insurability as to develop- • • Mr. Melvin Dinner August 4, 1975 Page Three. ments and people along the ditch is no greater or less than it is in the Denver metropolitan area in numerous places. I suggest that your ditch company representative carefully examine all of the buildings abutting the Farmer's Highline Reservoir and Ditch which is owned by the Denver Water Board. If you would be so kind as to forward a copy of the in- surance letter to me, I would be happy to respond to any point it might raise. You have provided a note about health, safety factors and fencing which leaves me totally in the dark. Let me also state that I have been ad- vised by my client to litigate for damages if we continue to receive spurious harassment from various parties. The fact is this property was previously zoned for useage as single-family, residential develop- ment. The only matter in question at this particular time is the filing of the final plat. There have been on numerous occasions attempts through various parties to impede the filing of this plat. We are presenting our final plat to the County Commissioners for appropriate action. Spurious harassment, as I explained before, will cause the party initiating such action to be subjected to litigation for the recovery of damages. We are happy to work with the ditch company in those instances where it is necessary. We have provided the easements and done the things which will make the ditch company comfortable. We have likewise made provision for the easements to cover the lateral ditches which service the private parties for irrigation purposes. These easements are substantial in nature, and make ample provision for any of such parties to be able to enter into the lateral , clean or service it, and do whatever things are necessary to insure continued use of either the major Erie Coal Creek Ditch or the particular small laterals. I will await to hear from you concerning the question of the letter re- garding insurance. In any event you can expect that we will proceed with the processing of the final plat. Very truly yours, Frederick L. Ginsberg FLG/cn cc: Weld County Planning Commission Board of County Commissoners Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Koch Mr. and Mrs. Donald E. Smith Mr. Jack Mleynek, President of Erie Coal Creek Ditch & Reservoir Co. Mrs. Doris McFeeters i0v ��j O4eS 191� MELVIN DINNER r- q�''4/0,``/` T ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW �P n14p/ O CO 630 GREELEY NATIONAL PLAZA 4 / GREELEY. COLORADO 60631 / jloy00 \-;77 ASSOCIATE Ti4l-rht* I13301;13301;g5-12iG9yz zoai THOMAS S. HELER!CH July 24, 1975 Mr. Frederick L. Ginsberg Attorney at Law 2040 South Oneida Street Denver, Colorado 80222 Re: Park Land Estates development Erie Coal Creek Ditch Company Donald E. Smith and A. W. Conklin Route I, Box 202A Erie, Colorado 80516 Mr. and Mrs . Kenneth Koch Route 1, Box 204 Erie, Colorado 80516 Dear Mr. Ginsberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 10, 1975 concerning the proposed Park Land Estates development project in Weld County, Colorado. I have submitted a copy of your letter of June 10, 1975, together with a copy of your letter of June 10, 1975 addressed to VTN Colorado, Inc. , as well as portions of your Groundwater Availability Study and the maps that you submitted to the officers of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company for their examination, review and analysis . As indicated at the time of the meeting held with the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado dealing with matters pertaining to the proposed Park Land Estates development project on June 4, 1975, I represent the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company. In addition I represent a group of local residents residing within that same general area and territory, many of whom are the land- owners adjacent to the proposed Park Land Estates subdivision development, all of wu ,u are highly opposed to the Park Land Estates project and all of whom believe the project to be impractical, poorly planned and detrimental to the general area . The ditch company, as well as the group designated as Citizens Committee for Planned Community Development have provided me with numerous other reasons why they oppose the project, all of which information and objections they are anxious to provide and submit to the Board of County Commissioners at any further hearings scheduled in connection with your project. It is also necessary to point out that in addition to my representation on behalf of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company and the group designated as Citizens Committee for Planned Community Development, I also represent Mr. Donald E . Smith and Mr. A. W. Conklin, Route 1, Box 202A, Erie, Colorado 80516 . Mr. Smith and Mr. Conklin are the owners of the private lateral that traverses • • • -2- through Block 4 and part of Block 2 of your proposed subdivision. This private lateral has a headgate in the Community Ditch out of Marshall Lake . In addition I also represent Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Koch of Route 1 , Box 204 , Erie , Colorado 80516. Mr. and Mrs. Koch utilize a private lateral that comes out of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch near Lot 46 of Block 2 of your proposed Park Land Estates sub- division. This private lateral is owned and used by Mr. and Mrs . Koch. It is interesting to note that none of the subdivision plats submitted to me in any way identify either of these two private laterals , nor is any provision made for them on the proposed subdivision maps that you submitted. No easements of any kind have been shown covering these last two ditches or private laterals . It is quite apparent from the information provided , and from an examination, re- view and analysis of the plat submitted in connection with the proposed Park Land Estates subdivision ihai: numerous matters of substance have been totally omitted, nor has any attention been given to numerous other matters which are of vital concern to the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company, as well as the neighboring landowners , such as: 1 . The maps submitted do not properly identify the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company ditch. 2 . The maps do not in any manner identify a farm lateral coming out of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch near Lot 46, Block 2 of Park Land Estates , which private lateral is owned and used by Mr. and Mrs . Kenneth Koch. 3 . The maps do not identify a private lateral owned and used by Smith and Conklin, neighboring landowners , which private lateral traverses through parts of Block 4 and part of Block 2 of the proposed Park Land Estates subdivision. 4 . No provisions or arrangements have been made for drainage waters . The Park Land Estates development has no authority or right to dump its drainage waters across or into the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. It is interesting to note that no permission has been requested, nor has the ditch company granted permission for the dumping of drainage waters into the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. S . Flood plain area. Officer's cf the ditch CGsapa:i'y indicate tc to rice `..at it is not unusual for considerable run-off during storms to accumulate on various portions of the Park Land Estates development. No arrangements whatsoever have been made for solving these excess and flood water problems . They point out particularly problems on Lots 48 and 49 , Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 1 of your proposed subdivision. 6. Drainage into barrow pits . It would appear from an examination of your maps that the drainage is designed to be dumped into the barrow pits of the county and onto the county roads. 7. The maps submitted of the proposed subdivision indicate that the Erie Coal Creek Ditch is located upon County Road No. 3 at the North end of the 1• • -3- proposed subdivision and that the ditch utilizes all of County Road No. 3 . As a matter of fact, all of the ditch is not even shown on the map and it would appear that County Road No. 3 is entirely bisected by the ditch system. 8. The proposed easement as shown on your maps describes an area of 35 feet on each side of the centerline of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. It would appear that in certain areas that an equal division on each side of the ditch would not be satisfactory because additional ground would be needed on the low side for the purpose of depositing dirt obtained by draglines during the course of cleaning operations . 9 . Splitting of the lots by the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. It is quite apparent from an examination of your maps that numerous lots are indiscriminately divided Erie Ditch the course of the Erie Coal Creek L•tCli and no arrangements are made for proper usage of this property or proper placement of improvements . No permis- sion has been requested from the ditch company to provide means of crossing over the ditch nor, of course, has the ditch company granted any such authority. 10. Insurance liability problems . In connection with these matters , I call your attention to a copy of letter dated June 27, 1975 submitted to the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company by Longmont Realty and Insurance Company. To date neither my office nor the offices of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company have received any further contact from either the engineering firm, VTN Colorado, Inc. or from the office of the Weld County Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado. 11 . Health and safety factors . Fencing, etc. As you can readily see, numerous problems need to be faced head on in connection with this matter. Accordingly, I would appreciate your advising me whether your client still desires to proceed forward with this proposed project. As indicated earlier, my clients are prepared to meet with you and with members of the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in connection with these matters . Ve ly y Ors , hJ MELVIN DINNER MD/as cc: Weld County Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Mr. and Mrs . Kenneth Koch Mr. and Mrs . Donald E. Smith Mr. Jack Mleynek, President of Erie Coal Creek Ditch & Reservoir Co. FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 2040 SOUTH ONEIDA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 130222 AREA CODE (303) 758-8974 July 22, 1975 Mr. Glenn Billings Weld County Commissioner Health and Welfare Bldg. Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Town of Erie - Park Land Estates - Plat Dear Commissioner Billings: On June 10, June 20, July 1 , and July 10, 1975 this office sent letters to Mr. Mark Klauber, Esq. who is the attorney representing the Town of Erie, Colorado. Each of these letters requested a meeting either before the town council or representatives of the town to discuss and formulate an agreement with Erie relative to the water system for the Park Land Estates subdivision. These requests were made in an effort to conform with the desires of the Weld County Commissioners as a prerequisite to obtain approval for the final plat. The only response we received from Mr. Klauber was his letter dated July 1 , 1975, a copy of which he forwarded to the Commissioners. I responded to Mr. Klauber's July 1 letter on July 9, and it is now July 22, yet we have received no further communication from Mr. Klauber. We have already placed in record a copy of a letter from Ray & Associates, Inc. stating to us that Park Land Estates is not responsible for the amount which Erie is attempting to get my client to pay. You will note in my last letter to Mr. Klauber I asked him to give a proper statement covering such amount. The fact of this matter is my client can no longer sustain delays in ac- complishing approval for a final plat. To the best of my knowledge all of the necessary engineering work for the final plat has been concluded and submitted to Weld County. We are unaware of any objections from the County pertaining to this final plat submission. We therefore are re- questing a proper hearing before the Weld County Commissioners for the month of August, or sooner is possible, in order that we can proceed to obtain final plat approval . Our efforts to conclude an arrangement with Erie have achieved nothing, and it would appear future efforts in this area will be equally futile. Please, if you can, do try to assist • • Mr. Glenn Billings July 22, 1975 Page Two. us in expediting the date for a hearing on the final plat. I think that we can all agree that it becomes imperative for this matter to be speedily resolved in view of the Resolution adopted by the Weld County Commissioners on June 25, 1975 which extends until September 1 , 1975 the present zoning for the property owned by my client. Please advise this office if you need any additional information relative to this matter. Very, t+uly yours, j Frederick L. Ginsberg FLG/cn cc: Ms. Doris McFeeters Mr. Sam Telep, Esq. Mr. Tom Connell , Esq. , .\ iD:RICK L. GINS,.IYnG ATTORNEY AT LAW £040 OOOTH ONOiDA 64RZET Ou,,V.R, COLORADO 80222 AezA C00: (303) 768.6474 :0, 1975 . „ark Klauber Attorney at Law 2;4; South ,4th Street • Joinder, Colorado 80302 Re. Erie - Park Land Estates M bear KlfiUue'r: nave read your letter dated July 1 , 1975 in which you suggest the Town unwilling to further negotiate about anything with my client untit the sum of $1 ,527.75 is paid to Ray &Associates. You are aware Of the fact that Ray & Associates does not consider this bill to be owed ay Park Land Estates. We have nothing in our files from Ray & Associates wnicn indicates that the work for which payment is claimed was done on behalf cf Park Land Estates. We believe the excuse that is being given tG ;;S for the Town 's refusal to negotiate any further until this bill is paid by Park Land Estates leaves much to be desired. 73 expedite this matter we would appreciate your formulating and remit- ting to us a letter substantiating that this work was done by Ray & Associates on behalf of my client. If, on the other hand, you are un- able to do so, please so advise so that we can proceed to negotiate for an agreement which covers the water system problem. Further delays in this instance are intolerable. If we are unable to obtain relief from either the Town or Erie or the Weld County Commissioners on an will feel compelled apply forthwith to the eru:table basis, then we �...., to . . , court for relief. I would be happy to further discuss this matter with you at any time if you would please telephone me. Very truly yours, Frederick L. Ginsberg • -LG/cn • cc: Mrs. Doris McFeeters Mr. Glenn Billings, Weld County Commissioner • • MAC {<. XLAL; ATTGRNEY AND CGUNSELCR AT LAW • SUITE S - PRGFZSSIGNAL SUILCING 2141 14TH 5TRZ.E7 BOULDER, COLORADO 30302 • July 1, 1.975 AREA CODE 205 TELEP„ON'E 442-3400 . rea._iiek L. Ginsberg ...:torney at Law 4'343 South Oneida Street Deriver, Colorado 80222 • Re: Erie - Park Land Estates • Dear Mr. Ginsberg: In at least partial reply to your letters to me regard- inj he above matter, may I advise that Erie Town .Board Meetinczo a_:: scheduled in July on the 7th and 21st, and certainly you can ... i ear at these times to discuss with the Board those matters that you deem relevant. There is no point in my responding further, or. a issue by issue basis, to the various matters you raise in your letters . These havebeen, in my opinion, thoroughly aired previously, includ- ing the Public Hearing held in June before the Weld County .. previously, V Commissioners. The TOP):. Board has, as have mentioned expense r -:1::::i:.e4 that I not expend further time, at additional , 4 the matter, until the $1,627. 75 the Town believes is owed, is 1-d-Lc. by ?ark Land, as regards the billing to the Town by Ray and AG.icctaces for work done for Park Land on your venture (perhaps almost all o2 which was done before you became succes sc.: counsel for the Pa k Land group) . The Town Board, . ds previously mentioned as well, is :.u.. able at this time to pass favorably on the Park Land project, but ii the payment the Council believes is fairly and lawfully owe::. is da, 1 would see no reason why further consideration and nG'`ya- _.ions could not then be entered into, and possibly some agreement, ..l satisfactory and advantageous to both parties, could be reached. Very truly yours, 'MRK/ec Mark R. Klauber cc'. Town of Erie - Board of Trustees e sk w 7 w''e /CI 7 7/ Town Hall Box 93 Erie, Colorado 80516 • Weld County Board of County Commissioners Health and Welfare Bldg. - Hospital Road ._,rooj.oy, Colorado 80631 • • • .\C.J r.\,�.,\ L. VI.N;J.:iAAN ATTORNEY AT LAW • 2040 SOUTH ONE, A 87REE7 Od,NVZR, COLORADO 80222 APIA CQ X303) 76a-6474 0,:-,y ?975 • , ,, . ;4ark Klauber Attorney at Law El c,l So. loth Street 3oLlder, Colorado 80302 Re: ?ark Land Estates :ear Mr. K1aube�cr: , ::;;:-:; we are writing to request that a meeting be held forthwith with either yourself and/or representatives from the Town of Erie for the of the �� agreement to satisfy the requirements�,;.-p;,sa of negotiating an };eld County •Commissioners for some form of water service from Erie to the ?ark Land Estates project. l;a have on numerous occasions over the past thirty days repeatedly made =quests for a meeting in order to expedite this matter. No response • whatsoever has been received in either verbal or written form from either the Town of Erie or yourself as the Town's attorney. What is it that we must do to cause the Town of Erie to at least give us some response to our inquiries for negotiations? :n addition, and only last week, the newspapers and other media reported the Town of Erie was without sufficient water to create ample pressure Liring the course of a fire, thus frustrating efforts to fight the con- f.agration. If this be the case, then surely the Town of Erie should nave the courtesy of telling us that it is unable to supply water to -,e ?ark Land Estates project. We have in prior communications sug- gested that in light of Erie's inability to supply water, an agreement the water could at least be concluded which would permit Erie to manage system proposed for installation in the Park Land Estates project, vis-a-vis wells and onsite storage. Therefore, will you please, please arrange for a meeting, and if nothing else, attempt to get us a hearing :,afore the Town Council so that we may proceed in some orderly fashion in the pursuit of this matter?? Thank you very much for your cooperation. Vary truly yours, • Frederick L. Ginsberg , uG/cn • cc: Mr. William Lawley, Mayor, ProTem Mr. Glenn Billings', 'Cha.rman, Weld County Commissioners —J Cane 2'0, 1975 • • I. . .c, .. c aubcr • Attorney at Law • • So. 14th Street CV.......", Colorado 30302 du: Park Land Estates . On June :J, 1975 we wrote to you au th2 attorney for the sown o? end requested that we be { Vm. ..-e to �?ea be.orc your nenu e. u. �G..'.. meeting, and .. S�: a meeting prior -i:0 such •L•.1:C to %S- t.:./. .. a procedure for resolving the .... .U7P4r k Land Estates water :).lam alley l..'.. days have now elepu :, and no response has boon received from either youruclf or i rem the Erie Town Council , to w;:o,1 ..e sent a copy of our June IU e1,{....". . ne are again r questing that either you 0:' a representative of Erie u.-... with us and our engineers iedr for purpose o`f discussing an z pertaining o 1 n , ) k Es project,u «. �dl tdlfj]lig to.water d. J ' � the Land Estates ll VJUd ty t i Cl' ,'.... that we may be GV:G V�/ snow satisfactory progress to Sul. 1.(.:J Comi ss Please tyour 4r-"-d' e at V V.��:.rJ 1.v�lY:.f J:a 1Ql{\:I J. /�.d J.: give this matter l.d iU•I.d 41. Very truly yours, Frederick eric. L. Ginsberg cc: rs. Doris NcFeeters - .T." Glenn n.; 1,I i CoOnty C ....-css' n r.. , c.d:::: 6.�i7ngSy Weld W..ruiJJ:uaerS • • 4,4• L. ATTORNEY AT LAW .7.C.AO SOUTR O\E,OA BiB`cc Ju\Vc.R, COLORADO &0222 An:A Coo. (SOS) 76&•6474 June O, l97J Y, . Mark Klauber tsGr,.ey at aw 2:cl So. l4th Street • boulder, Colorado 80302 - Re:; Town Erie - Park ..and Estates u7 Scur Mr. ,Llauber: again try - time _ seems we will to formulate an arrangement . e ee the w ofLand Estates concerning the water ..:.,,,gee;, Town Erie and Park� ^" r Erie really has system for the Park Land project. Since the Town o capacity to increase its storage, there is little likeli- Put got s problem for my - - - that aco,ulSltivr. OT Water would help solve the be concluded hood r ,. d c , ,� However, � � ,sign;. be that a � a, viaion would allow the Town of Erie to manage the water system to be installed by my client. Perhaps, a reasonable monthly fee could be -_ the Town for this function, and sometime at a later date when tneuTown is able to supply water to this development, itthe ehpartiesi,„ could then arrange for such a supply to occur. But, would be practical to permit the water system to be under the Town's cIn any event this would control by virtue of a management contract. ch)viate the necessity of my client having to be concerned with the actual maintenance and operation of the system. Secondly, by per- mitting the Town the management of this system, it would allow the parties to develop a working relationship and live as good neighbors. )ia would appreciate the opportunity to appear at your next regular meeting for the purpose of discussing .het suggestion necessary, we have giver. to you in the above paragraph. And, ., ,. ,d be snappy to meet with the Town lorits pseativessprior whto sucn meeting so that we might puSSl Y develop re nt .cirocedure could be employed to develop a working arrangement between „` Town of Erie and Park Land Estates. • Another matter I wish to cal; to your attention is the fact that ` .nave only visited with Ray & Associates on one occasion, and that was only for approximately one half hour. Moreover, neither I nor my clients have had any contactlwith thiRRay h ;,&gAssocin ate• srin theipa past t swe ix ul^!e months. Accordingly, • • • • .., . Xark ;dauber June 1C, 1975 • gage • /.u. .s a matter between the Town of and Ray & Associates. The letter from Ray & Associates which I presented to the Commissioners makes i & clearthat Ray Associates�C$ wG$ acting for and on behalf of the r Town in doing work in connection with Park Land Estates, and not at ..q L of either n' elG other member Park request u1/$C � or any of ar i( Land Estates, Ins. I would therefore appreciate it if this could be put to rest once and all that there arefurther allegations ther /� I Vr . SO no by either M.II.. ne own or yourself that the bill is owed by Park Land. can fie.' to this matter a nd hopefully,l ly it� will 1 i await t hear from you ��i , be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties concerned. In ny event we do wish to appear before the Town council between now and its ng early in Julyeither conclude an arrangement; or, de- finitely meeting ul to arrangement e^ x with respect determine that an ar a. ya„lent cannot be concluded ` in water to the Park Land project. The requirement that 'e to supplying h p'. j T e rLquirement that we with Erie m d by the Weld County • attempt an agreement wl f r14 was one imposed 1 L Commissioners for the purpose of making sure that there would be no difficulties with the water and/or sewer system in the Park Land states project once it was totally built. However, the sole issue before the Commissioners at this time is to complete the final plat- ting of the subdivision. -The zoning as we all know is a fait accompli . Therefore, if the Town of Erie cannot find its way clear to execute an agreement for the supply of water to the project, then we would think it only fair that the Town apprises us of this fact, and then we can proceed with our platting. The oteswhich we have carefully taken during each of the Town Council meetings which we have attended show clearly an indecisiveness on the part of the Town of Erie. We can understand this insofar as Erie is a very small municipality, and it more than likely does not wish to .nder;:ake making promises which it knows it would be unable to perform. oeiieve in light of this that our suggestion that Erie become the manager of zinc water system probably makes more sense than either the Town pur- chasing, or Park Land Estates undertaking to supply water to the Tow;, which in turn would be used in the Park Land Estates project. In any event we wish you to know that we are ready,• willing and able at any time to meet with the Town's representatives either now or at its next • • r. Xar:< Kl auber gene lC, ;970 ?age Three scheduled meeting at the beginning of „uly to openly discuss and re- sc:Ve this matter. 1 will await to hear your further disposition in recarl. to this request. • • .hare( you oya :. for your assistance. • • Very truly,. ,. ,J yours, , • erg \ • Ginsberg edarick L. �, • F LQ/cn cc: . William Lawley, Mayor, Pro T en' Town of Erie, Colorado • . .and Use Waster Rains • Vialer and Sewer Utl y Design Geologic-Hydrologic Studies . FeaSluili;y St,.dLes 'J ncnginefanning \ j //////��._ i� CM;Engineering l / 2GDu 1�0a'iJ de �. Boulder,CoJor aac,00301 , --r- , ._ �/L._.. 303/442-SF ' May 14 , 1975 File No. 552 Ms . Doris McFeeters Parkland Associates 3;53 Fuller Lour o-- L• oulder, ColOlado . Dear Me„-- McFeeters : lie. siding of Park Land Estates review to the Town of Erie. My secretary informs me that you- called recently to request an itemized bill for any charges for our services to the Town oz pie relative to :ark Land Estates . At the present that , we nave an outstanding account with the Town amounting to $1, 627 . 75 for various services performed at the express request of the Town /relative to your Park Land P .U.D. • project. I have attached a statement showing the cur ; ent. charges against this account and an itemization of these c..arges as they were incurred from .arch, 1973 to the present. i It should be- emphasized that this billing involves work and 17-ttendance at meetings specifically requested by the Erie Boara Of Trustees and/or the Erie Manning Commission and the services ' \ were performed for them and on their behalf . As far as we are concerned, these charges are due this firm from the Town and, therefore, no billing has ever been made to Park Land Associe.:es. \-' .Themethod or source of funds used by the Town to pay this obligation is not our business or concern. Our sole position relative to this account is that these charges were incurred _:y the Town during their review and consideration of your project ar.a we are looking to the Town for payment. N I am informed that one of the conditions which the Town has established prior to executing a water service contract with Park Land is that you reimburse the Town for such expenses as have been incurred by the Town in regard to this project. I would assume that there are other expenses such as publication costs and legal fees in addition to our charges / however, I am only aware of any costs incurred by the Town with this firm. • • Ms . Doris McFeeters Page 2 . May 14 , , 1975 • • Rav & Associates does not wish to become involved in the internal business affairs of either the Town of Erie or Park Land Associates . If the Town is requesting reimbursement for costs from Park Land, then Park Land should make payment directly to the Town, if Paric Land Associates chooses to do so. We expect payment of our account directly from the Town regardless of their disposition of a proposed contract with Park Land and irrespective of any reimbursement payment to the Town for costs incurred. • I hope the enclosed information is adequate for your needs. However, if you have any questions , please do not hesitate to con..ac.. ma. Very my your • Phillip W. Ray, President • PWR:yr ' pc: Jim Redderson, Town Clerk, Erie Mark Klauber, attny. Serb A. Shatz, attny. i • woo tibe r<,,,.,l_i 1 1,4,la . • orator and Sewer Utility Design Geologic-Hydrologlo Studies • Feasibility Studies Municipal Planning . _,,,,r �..----••„ Civil Engineering • !� ''� Y nc. _ . 1 I : 2550 Pearl Street Boulder,Colorado 80301 Statement • . Jt. 303/442-3877 Date: Nay 1: , 1975 • PrciectNo.: 552 To: _ Project Description: Town of Erie Erie Park Land Estates Review Colorado 80516 . ITEMIZED STATEMENT ac.c Ending 3/17/73 • . Review ini tial written material and preliminary plat of Park Land Estates P .U .D. submitted to Erie . for review by Weld County. Prepare letter report for Town of Erie Planning Commission. Attend work session with Planning Commission. Principal ' 8 .0 hrs @ $25 . 00 $ 200 . 00 Planner 4 .0 hrs @ $17 .00 68 . 00 Engineer 8 . 0 his @ $17 .00 136 . 00 Associate 1.0 hr. @ $19 .00 19 . 00 Typist 3 .0 hrs @ $ 5. 75 17 . 25 Sub Total $ 440 . 25 . Wsek Ending 4/7/73 Discussion of Park Land Estates P.U.L . project with Erie Planning Commission • ' Principals-. 2 ,0 ' hrs @ $25 .00 • 50 . 00 Sub Total $ 490 . 25 Wee::: Ending 4/28/73 • Work session with, joint meeting of Board of . Trustees & Erie Planning Commission re Park Land Estates P .U.D. ' ' Principal 2.0' hrs @ $25 .00. • 50 . 00 Sub Total $ 540.25 • Weak Ending 5/19/73 • . Attend public hearing of Erie Planning Commission re Park Land Estates . Assist Planning Commission in • the preparation of response to Weld County Planning • Commission re Park Land Estates P .U.D. Statement is due and payable upon receipt.Finance charge of 11/2%per month will be added to all balances 30 days past due.This is an annual percentage rate of 18%. • • E.:1ZLD STATEMENT (Continued) Page 2 . Park Land Estates Review s;'552 . • Principal 4 .0 hrs @ $25 . 00 100 . 00 Planner 4. 0 hrs 0 $17 . 00 68 . 00 Engineer 2.0 hrs @ $17 . 00 34 . 00 Typist 3 . 0 hrs 0 $ 5 . 75 17 . 25 Sub Total $759 . 50 • . Week Ending 6/2/73 • Meeting at Ray & Associates with VTN re Park Land Estates Project. and Erie Standards and ' • Requirements . , • • Principal 2. 0 - hrs @ $25 . 00 53 . 00 Planner 2 .0 hrs 2 $17 . 00 34 . 00 Engineer 3 .0 hrs 0 $17 .00 51. 00 • Sub Total $394 . 53 • Week Ending 6/23/73 • Attend Planning Commission meeting on Park Land Estates ' • Principal • ' 1.25 hrs 0 $25. 00 31 . 25 Sub Total $925. 75 H Week Ending 10/6/73 Attend public hearing held by Erie Planning Commission and Board of Trustees jointly re • • :ark Land. Assist Planning Commission in preparation of ' a response to Weld County. . Principal 5 . 5 hrs 0 $25 .00 137. 50 Engineer 5 . 5 hrs 0 $17 . 00 . 93. 50 • Engineer Aide 1 , 0 hrs 0 $13 . 00 13 . 00 Typist 2. 0 hrs 0 $ 5. 75 11. 50 • Sub Total $1,131.25 Week Ending 11/10/73 • Attend Weld. County Planning Commission meeting re Park Land Estates at request of Town of Erie Principal • 3.5 hrs @ $25 . 00 87 . 50 • Travel (50 mi . one way 0 10 /mile) 5 . 00 ' Sub Total $1, 273. 75 . Week Ending 12/15/73 Attend Weld County Commissioners hearing re • Park Land Estates at request of Erie Board of Trustees - Principal.' , , :3..0 hrs @ $25 . 00 75 . 00 Sub Total $1, 348 . 75 • • • • 1- .;i$ED STATEMENT (Continued) Page 3. Park Land Estates Review -- 1;552 • Week Eliding 12/22/73 • Attend Erie Board of Trusteesmeeting re Park Land Estates and report on results of Weld County Co;.rnissioners hearing. Assist Town in preparation of letter to' Park Land Estates. • ' .Principal, 2 . 75 hrs @ $25 .00 • $ 63 . 75 Typist 3. 0 hrs @ $ 5. 75 • 17 . 25 Sub Total $1,434 . 75 • Week Encling 7/6/74 • • Meeting with Town attorney re Park '.Land Estates Principal 1. 0 hr. . 0 $25. 00 25 . 00 Sub Total. $1,459 .75 • Wee;: E nc ing 7/20/74 Meeting with Mayor of 'Erie, Town attorney and representatives of Park Land Estates Principal . . 2 . 0 hrs @ $25 .00 50 . 00 • Planner ' . 2 .0 .hrs @ $17 . 00 34 . 03 • Sub Total $1, 543 . 75 Week Ending 7/27/74 • • Meeting with VTN re Park Land Principal . 2.0. hrs @ $25 .00 ' . 50 . 00 • Engineer - 2.0 . hrs @ $17 .00 • 34 . 00 • • • Total . Due . $1, 627. 75 0 r FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 2040 SOUTH ONEIDA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80222 AREA CODE (303) 788.6474 July 10, 1975 Mr. Mark Klauber Attorney at Law 2141 South 14th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re: Erie - Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Klauber: I have read your letter dated July 1 , 1975 in which you suggest the Town in unwilling to further negotiate about anything with my client until the sum of $1 ,627.75 is paid to Ray & Associates. You are aware of the fact that Ray & Associates does not consider this bill to be owed by Park Land Estates. We have nothing in our files from Ray & Associates which indicates that the work for which payment is claimed was done on behalf of Park Land Estates. We believe the excuse that is being given to us for the Town 's refusal to negotiate any further until this bill is paid by Park Land Estates leaves much to be desired. To expedite this matter we would appreciate your formulating and remit- ting to us a letter substantiating that this work was done by Ray & Associates on behalf of my client. If, on the other hand, you are un- able to do so, please so advise so that we can proceed to negotiate for an agreement which covers the water system problem. Further delays in this instance are intolerable. If we are unable to obtain relief from either the Town or Erie or the Weld County Commissioners on an equitable basis, then we will feel compelled to apply forthwith to the court for relief. I would be happy to further discuss this matter with you at any time if you would please telephone me. Very truly yours, Frederick L. Ginsberg FLG/cn cc: Mrs. Doris McFeeters Mr. Glenn Billings, Weld County Commissioner • Richard DLamm • . cot • S C. J. KUIPER F. p State Engineer 1876 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 300 Columbine Building 1845 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 July 9 , 1975 Mr. Thomas Bonn Zoning Administrator Weld County Planning Commission • 1516 Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Parkland Estates Dear Mr. Honn: This letter is in regard to your request for information concerning the above referenced subdivision. This office recommended approval by letter on October 3 , 1973. I am enclosing a copy for your files . The developer obtained two additional well permits in August, 1973 and the wells were drilled during the summer of 1974, according to our records . The four wells have an appropriation of approximately 96 acre feet per year which should be sufficient for the 92 lots if lawn irrigation does not exceed approximately 10 , 000 square feet per lot. Also, a water dis- trict was proposed which would act as the legal entity for ownership and maintenance of the wells and water system. If you have additional questions , please feel free to contact me . Very truly yours , Hal D. Simpson ///O 15.1;3:1y1e Branch ./ HDS:mvg Enclosure H — \1-`- i VF • 1i.,-( I , ' I FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 2040 SOUTH ONEIDA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80222 AREA CODE (303) 758-6474 July 1 , 1975 Mr. Mark Klauber Attorney at Law 2141 So. 14th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re: Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Klauber: Again we are writing to request that a meeting be held forthwith with either yourself and/or representatives from the Town of Erie for the purpose of negotiating an agreement to satisfy the requirements of the Weld County Commissioners for some form of water service from Erie to the Park Land Estates project. We have on numerous occasions over the past thirty days repeatedly made requests for a meeting in order to expedite this matter. No response whatsoever has been received in either verbal or written form from either the Town of Erie or yourself as the Town's attorney. What is it that we must do to cause the Town of Erie to at least give us some response to our inquiries for negotiations? In addition, and only last week, the newspapers and other media reported the Town of Erie was without sufficient water to create ample pressure during the course of a fire, thus frustrating efforts to fight the con- flagration. If this be the case, then surely the Town of Erie should have the courtesy of telling us that it is unable to supply water to the Park Land Estates project. We have in prior communications sug- gested that in light of Erie's inability to supply water, an agreement could at least be concluded which would permit Erie to manage the water system proposed for installation in the Park Land Estates project, vis-a-vis wells and onsite storage. Therefore, will you please, please arrange for a meeting, and if nothing else, attempt to get us a hearing before the Town Council so that we may proceed in some orderly •fashion in the pursuit of this matter? Thank you very much for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Frederick L. Ginsberg FLG/cn cc: Mr. William Lawley, Mayor, ProTem Mr. Glenn Billings, Chairman, Weld County Commissioners al • cor`i . MARK R. KLAUBER ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW SUITE 3 - PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 2141 14TH STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 ARE. CODE 303 July 1, 1975 TELEPHONE 442-3400 Frederick L. Ginsberg Attorney at Law 2040 South Oneida Street Denver, Colorado 80222 Re: Erie - Park Land Estates Dear Mr. Ginsberg: In at least partial reply to your letters to me regard- ing the above matter, may I advise that Erie Town Board Meetings are scheduled in July on the 7th and 21st, and certainly you can appear at these times to discuss with the Board those matters that you deem relevant. There is no point in my responding further, on a issue by issue basis, to the various matters you raise in your letters . These have been, in my opinion, thoroughly aired previously, includ- ing the Public Hearing held in June before the Weld County Commissioners . The Town Board has, as I have mentioned previously, requested that I not expend further time, at additional expense, in the matter, until the $1,627. 75 the Town believes is owed, is paid by Park Land, as regards the billing to the Town by Ray and Associat for work done for Park Land on your venture (perhaps almost all of which was done before you became successes counsel for the Park Land group) . The Town Board, as previously mentioned as well, is not able at this time to pass favorably on the Park Land project, but if the payment the Council believes is fairly and lawfully owed is made, I would see no reason why further consideration and negotia- tions could not then be entered into, and possibly some agreement, if satisfactory and advantageous to both parties, could be reached. V�eryy truly yours, ///j./AVM elt- MRK/ec Mark R. Klauber cc: Town of Erie - Board of Trustees FaIF 7vw.v 4T ~/ Town Hall - Box 98 Erie, Colorado 80516 Weld County Board of County Commissioners Health and Welfare Bldg. - Hospital Road yam' Greeley, Colorado 80631 • • RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR PARK LAND ESTATES OF WELD COUNTY A planned unit development (P. U.D. ) consisting of the North z, Section 8, Township 1 North, Range 68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. 1 . DEDICATION AND INTENT. The Park Land Associates (P.L.A. ) , a group of airplane enthusiasts, having pooled their money, talent and considerable effort, have planned and created an exclusive residential community - the Park Land Estates (P. L.E. ) consisting of dwelling sites having taxi easements radiating to an unique common real property area of joint owner- ship and responsibility consisting of approximately (40) acres dedicated to the use of and for their aircraft and that of their guests. Further, the P. L.A. not wishing or intending to cause a noise or hazard nuisance to either the public or to its own people do agree to limit any and all aircraft to be based on the P. L. E. to the light aircraft standards as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A. ). Also, all such based aircraft shall comply with any and all regulations as enforced by the F.A.A. and the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A. ) as empowered by the 92nd Congress in the Noise Control Act of 1972. 2. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT. All lot owners in the P.L. E. - P. U. D. shall be members of Park Land Estates, Inc. , a Colorado non-profit corpor- ation (P. L. E. , Inc. ) and shall be governed by these rules and covenants. The enforcement of these rules and covenants shall be the responsibility of the P.L.A. Trustees in accordance with paragraph 5. hereof. 3. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF COMMON REAL PROPERTY. Certain property identified on the P.L.E. Final Plat will be developed and beneficially owned by P.L.E. , Inc. and such property will be jointly used with equal privileges and responsibilities by all members of the P. L.A. and dedicated toward their pursuit of recreational sport flying and related activities. 4. CONTENTS OF COMMON REAL PROPERTY. Approximately (40) acres consisting of a runway with its necessary clear areas to be built to F.A.A. utility aircraft standards. A tie down, hangar building area for the exclusive use of all P.L.A. mem- bers and guests aircraft storage and display. Additional improvements to be included wihtin this area may consist of, but not be limited to club house building, maintenance equipment and storage building, under- ground gasoline storage and parking area for autos. An open area of approximately (4) acres dedicated for picnic activities, recreational sport activities (tennis, swimming, etc. ) and similar common areas. • • 5. RESPONSIBILITIES. P.L. E. , Inc. shall be solely responsible for all maintenance, taxes and improvements of the common real property. In- ternal governing by-laws necessary for a democratic use of these premises shall be the responsibility of the P.L.A. trustees, which is in accordance with Trust Agreement dated August 27, 1972 and, said trustees shall have powers as are necessary to bring suit, negotiate and do all other neces- sary things to enforce these covenants for and on behalf of the owners of lots in the Park Land Estates subdivision in Weld County, Colorado. Title to all Common Real Property shall be vested in the Trustees for the period of duration of these covenants for the use of the members of P.L.A. , Inc. The Trustees are further empowered to levy such assessments against the owners of lots in P. L.E. as shall be reasonably necessary from time to time to off-set expenses incurred for the maintenance, taxes and upkeep of the Common Real Property. Any such assessment shall be required to be paid in full within (20) days after date of notice there- of is given to a lot owner by registered mail . Failure by a lot owner to pay such assessment, when due, shall mean the Trustees shall have a right to (a) file a lien upon the lot against which the assessment is levied and (b) bring an action for judicial foreclosure of said lien in accordance with the laws of Colorado. Any such unpaid lien shall bear interest at the rate of (12%) per annum from the date of its filing. The owner of the lot charged shall also be responsible for all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees incurred on account of any such foreclosure. 6. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. There will be an Architectural Con- trol Committee (A. C. C. ) to consist of (6) members of P.L. E. , Inc. , who shall be appointed by the P.L.A. trustees or as appointed by their suc- cessors after the time the trust is dissolved. Each A. C. C. member will serve a term of (3) years, beginning on the date that he received and accepted appointment to serve. In the event of the death, inability or refusal to act of any of the A.C.C. members, the trustees (or their successors, if the trust has expired) may appoint a substitute A.C. C. member; and such A. C.C. member shall thereupon succeed to all the rights and duties of his predecessor. 7. ACTION BY ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. The A.C.C. may provide rules governing its procedures pertaining to a quorum, application forms, posting of notices and similar matters. It is expressly provided that any person acting pursuant to an instrument in writing signed by one or more members of the A. C. C. and by its terms purporting to reflect a duly authorized action of the A.C.C. shall be duly protected in the premises and shall not thereafter be enjoined, restrained, hindered, delayed or penalized in such regard. (The P. L.A. trustees are hereby empowered to enforce the rules promulgated by the A.C.C. , and such enforcement may be pursued at law or in equity in any Colorado Court of competent jurisdiction). Enforcementshall be by proceedings at law or in equity -2- against any person or persons violating any covenant to restrain vio- lations or to recover damages and shall in no way subject any individual trustee or the trustees to personal liability so long as said trustee or trustees were acting in good faith in accordance with the tenor of these covenants. 8. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgment or court order shall in no way effect the validity of any other pro- visions, which will remain in full force and effect. 9. RE-SUBDIVISION. No lot owner may re-subdivide his property until after June 6, 2053, and then, only if the Weld County Authorities and the State Division of Water Resources (and/or their respective successors) are assured that water and sewer facilities are sufficient to serve the re-subdivided lands. 10. AIRCRAFT STANDARDS. Each aircraft operator shall abide by all rules, regulations, and standards set forth by the P.L.A. trustees or successors concerning the operation of same in or near the P. L.E. subdivision. It is not the intent or purpose of P.L.A. to create or condone a com- mercial aircraft environment, but rather aviation of a private or sport nature. Crop dusting, flight instruction for profit, commercial air- craft activities and/or maintenance for profit will not be allowed in the ' P.L.E. subdivision. No visiting aircraft will be allowed to remain anywhere on the P.L. E. subdivision for an accumulated period in excess of (10) days during any (12) month period without written permission from the P.L.A. trustees or successors. Except for visiting aircraft, no P.L. E. , Inc. member shall supply parking space for any aircraft which is not owned (at least kith) by a P. L.E. , Inc. member or a member of his immediate family. Neither any P.L. E. , Inc. member nor the P. L.A. trustees shall knowingly allow any visiting aircraft to be anywhere on the P. L. E. PUD until the aircraft operator responsible for the liability of the aircraft has signed a liability release and has filed it with the P.L.A. trustees. This liability release shall release all P.L. E. , Inc. members and the trustees, individually and collectively, from liability of any kind for the air- craft, any and all occupants and contents while any or all of these are on P.L. E. subdivision common real property. 12. LAND USE. MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES. a. No plot shall be used for any type of storage of house trailers, trucks, machinery, heavy equipment, goods, wares, merchandise, material , rock, gravel , sand, earth or the like except for the storage of such materials in connection with the construction of the improvements. -3- • • b. No trash or other refuse may be thrown, disposited or dumped on any lot or P. L.A. property. Each lot and the improvements constructed there- on shall be kept in a sanitary and sightly condition at all times. If the lot owner does not comply, the lot will be cleaned by order of the P. L.A. trutees at the owner's expense. Excessive growth of weeds on a lot is to be regarded as an unsightly condition. No more than 10,000 square feet of any lot shall be used for lawn and/or garden area. The balance of any lot shall be used, inter alia, for construction of a single family residence and accompanying garage facilities. c. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be conducted as to become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood, or that could de- press property security and value. 13. LAND USE. RESTRICTION AND LIMITATIONS. a. Subject to Weld County and F.A.A. rules and regulations, outside aerials or antennas, such as TV, amateur, FM, CB radio, communications etc. must be approved by the A. C.C. before erection. b. Antennas must also meet Weld County, F.C.C. and F.A.A. requirements for lighting and height. c. No trees may be planted of a species whre they potentially would grow to a height contrary to F.A.A. recommendations in regards to the safety of the normal traffic pattern. d. Overnight parking of vehicles of any type will not be permitted on streets or roadways. e. No partial vehicle, part from a vehicle, vehicle under construction or repair, damaged aircraft or no operable vehicles shall be stored or parked in the open or plain view at any time. Exceptions will be for displays only and permission must be in writing from the P.L.A. trustees or successors. f. Only currently airworthy aircraft and operable vehicles (including utitlity vehicles with current licenses and state inspection stickers, (if required) , will be allowed to park on the common runway or adjacent facilities. • g. No vehicle other than aircraft or airpark maintenance vehicles shall be operated or parked on taxiways or runways at any time. h. Illumination of any plot must be installed so as not to distract or annoy adjoining property owners or traffic on roadways, runways and taxi- ways. -4- i. A.C.C. may, upon investigation, require the owner to alter illumination sources to eliminate a light nuisance. k. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the publice view on any plot except: A professional sign or not more than 1 square foot. A sign of not more than 5 square feet advertising the property for sale or rent. A house street number not exceeding 2 square feet in size. A sign naming who the residents are which does not exceed 1 square foot per resident. Neither neon signs nor signs of a flashing or animated nature will be allowed. Provided, all of the above are also subject to Weld County regulations. 14. Fences will not be allowed within any of the aircraft taxi easements as shown on the final P.L. E. plat. Any and all fences must be approved by the A.C.C. prior to erection. 15. SAFETY MEASURES. Except for heating, cooking and cleaning purposes, no flammable liquid may be stored above ground and outside of a structure in any container exceeding 5 gallon capacity. 16. LIVESTOCK AND PETS. a. Pets and animals may be kept on the owners' lots as long as the owner maintains and restricts them to the degree that they present no safety, health hazard or nuisance to neighbors or aircraft operations. Safety, health hazard or nuisances includes, but it not limited to insects, noise and smell . Unleashed animals or pets within any of the P. L. E. , Inc. property or taxiways will be considered a safety hazard. Caution is stressed toward such practice as the aircraft shall at all times have the right-of-way within these areas. Complaints from other members shall result in a hearing before the A.C.C. If the A.C.C. decides that any or all animals shall be removed from the P. L.E. , Inc. member' s lot, the member shall remove the specified animals within (10) days of the decision. b. Only (3) major animals of (80 pounds or more) will be allowed on any lot. c. More than (3) major animals may be allowed by the A.C.C. provided that in their opinion the animals will be properly cared for, and will not constitute a nuisance of any kind to any part of the balance of the community. d. The raising of livestock for comercial gain is disallowed as this is primarily a residential community. Such practice will not be a basis for exceeding the normal limit of (3) major animals if, in the judgment of the A.C.C. , the increase in number will result in a nuisance to neigh- boring lots owners. -5- • • • e. Care of all animals and household pets must be in a manner consistant with good animal husbandry. 17. TEMPORARY AND/OR PERMANENT STRUCTURES. a. Temporary residence facilities will be governed by Weld County Regu- lations. b. No structure, addition thereto, or modifications thereof shall be started, placed, erected, installed or completed without written approval of the A.C.C. and the proper Weld County permit. c. Two sets of plans which clearly illustrate any proposed structures locations, layout and standards of construction shall be submitted to the A.C.C. , one set shall be returned to the member submitting, with the comments of the A.C.C. attached thereto. The other set shall be retained by the A.C.C. for use in inspection of the structure by members of the A.C.C. Should the A.C.C. fail to approve or disapprove said plans within (10) days after submission, then such approval will not be required and the requirements of these covenants will be deemed to have been met. The member will allow the A. C.C. to inspect the structure at any reasonable time during construction as often as deemed necessary by the A. C. C. It is not the purpose of these covenants to restrict either the style of architecture or the type of materials to be used in building con- struction. It is anticipated that there will be a great variation in these areas. However, structures such as unattractive pole barns or hangars, unfinished corrugated sheet metal siding and/or roofing and other materials and methods comparable to these will not be allowed. No residence or building shall be erected such that any part is within 50 feet of any street or 30 feet from any lot line or taxiway easement. Special cases will be considered where the owner shows that hardship is created by peculiar lot geometry, and subject also to any variance requirement imposed by Weld County regulation. The exterior of any building shall be completed within one year after foundation work is begun. The A.C.C. Will be notified as to the beginning date prior to commencing construction. Any residence having a maximum of (2) stories shall have a minimum "main living floor area" of 1200 square feet. "Main living floor area" excludes any patio, porch, attic, garage, breezeway, workshop, basement or similar, except any basement having at least (40%) of its average interior wall height above grade may be considered "main living area" provided this area is finished to livable standards. -6- • Total height of any structure, exclusive of chimneys, will not be more than (25) feet above the finish grade. Finish grade shall not exceed more than (2) feet above existing natural grade unless additional grading is proven to be necessary for proper drainage. No outbuilding of more than 2,500 sq. ft. may be constructed on any lot. Open faced structures shall be screened by fences or plantings in such a way that they do not present an objectionable view from the street or adjacent sites. No part of any building or structure shall be within any aircraft ease- ment, or within a distance from the runway which would conflict with F.A.A. recommendations. 18. MAINTENANCE OF WATER AND/OR SEWER MAINS, FACILITIES AND STORM DRAINAGE. The P.L.A. trustees shall be responsible for the operation, repair and maintenance of all water wells, pumps, water, sewer and storm drainage mains and facilities within the P. L.E. community. Septic systems, water and sewer laterals extending from a lot line to an individual residence shall be the responsibility of the owner of the residence served by same. The P.L.A. trustees are empowered to levy such assessments against the owners of lots in the P. L.E. subdivision as shall be necessary from time to time to exercise the intent of this proviso. Payments and enforcement for the collection of such levies and/or assessments shall be accomplished by the P.L. E. trustees in the same manner as prescribed in paragraph 5. of these covenants. Provided, that if at a future date, the Agreement between P.L. E. , Inc. and the Erie Water and Sanitation District dated November 11 , 1974 becomes operative, then said Agreement shall govern as to sewer mains and facilities within the P. L.E. subdivision and the P.L. E. trustees are hereby directed and empowered to implement the performance of said Agreement on behalf of P.L.E. , Inc. 19. These covenants run with the land, and shall be binding on all per- sons claiming under them for a period of (2) years from the date of re- cording, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of (5) years unless there is executed an instrument signed by a majority of the then owners of the plots, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part. Provided, any such change shall first require approval of a majority of Weld, County Board of Commissioners be- fore becoming effective. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the trustees of Park Land Estates, Inc. have here- -7- • • unto set their hands and seals on this day of , 1976, hereby declaring the real property first described above to be subject to the restrictive covenants, rules and regulations contained within. Wayne Barton Dean Cochran Herbert Ruthledge Elbert G. Sharp Ken Tallman Dean Dugger Doris McFeeters TRUSTEES • -8- mORAnDUM To Commissioners Date March 1 , 1976 COLORADO From Parkland Estates Drainage Review Subject: I was asked to review a final submittal of Parkland Estates development plans by the Planning Commission on February 11 , before the hearing on that day. They were under the impression that Richard Straub ' s original comments in a memorandum to Gary Fortner dated November 20 , 1975 had been conformed to by Parkland' s engineer. A quick review revealed that not all of Richard' s requests had been taken care of . This was brought out during the hearing and Mr. Billings requested I supply the Board with copies of correspondence and a copy of the "Sup- plementary Drainage Report" as submitted by VTN which had comments about "Special Hazard Areas" . In further review, trying to decide what to supply to the Board, I realized that certain design aspects had been changed and remitting what information I did have might be misleading. I indicated my feeling to Mr. Billings and Mr . Moser in this respect on February 17 and was directed to further study and report on the matter. The following is therefore submitted. I noted one major design change . Natural drainage entering the site in the southwest portion is planned to be diverted into a ditch and carried to Road 5 as opposed to draining under Rue- De-Trust at Cathy Lane , then along Cathy Lane and into the Smith and Conklin Ditch. The effect would be to increase the flow along the west side of Road 5 from 37 to 111 cubic feet per second, an increase of 300%. I am not satisfied that the plans as submitted show proposed improvements along Road 5 as being sufficient . If plans and data are supplied showing this increase could be handled in the road ditch this change would be acceptable because the drainage ends up at the intersection of Road 5 and Road 12 . The County would have this channelized flow to contend with along Cathy Lane and Road 5 if it were not diverted. Small internal flows are the result of rerouting flow and less of a problem is likely to develop . The 100 year flood limit as shown on the improvement plan and the record plat are in error in specific places . There has not been enough technical data supplied by VTN to varify any of the flood limits shown. I am certain when thorough data is supplied the flood limits will have to be revised and the acceptability of some lots will be questionable. These were the two major points of my review. There are several other detail changes in internal design that require revision but do not warrant discussion in this report . They are referenced • 2 in a letter to Neal Godwin of VTN Engineers dated February 27 , 1976 , which is attached to this report . On February 25 , I had a person to person review of Parkland Estates with Mr. Godwin in our offices. We discussed drainage aspects for three hours. Mr. Godwin concurred that all of my questions and revision requests were justified and indicated he would comply. I am presently waiting for revised plans and further technical support data that Mr. Godwin promised to supply. I feel that the Engineering Department can not approve the plans as submitted. Upon compliance with requests of my letter on February 27 , 1976 to VTN, engineering aspects of this project would be acceptable. The water distribution system and septic system aspects of this project have not been reviewed by this department and should be referred to the Health Department . If there are any other questions regarding drainage or roadways on this project , I am prepared to answer . Drew Scheltinga CC : Gary Fortner • OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER s COUNTY ENGINEER PHONE (303) 353-2212 n EXT.216 ®y P.O. BOX 758 GREE LE Y,COLORADO 80631 COLORADO February 27 , 1976 Mr . Neal Godwin VTN Engineers 2600 South Parker Road Parker Place Four Denver, Colorado 80232 Dear Neal : This letter is to follow up on our conference on Wednesday , February 25 . Although our discussion was lengthly I have condensed my- comments to eight points which should cover all my concerns , They are as follows : 1 . The culverts under all court entrances off County Road 12 are to be 18" X 29" and placed on slopes as shown on your plan . 2 . The ditch between Lots 37 and 38 as it flows down the excavation slope to the runway is to receive erosion protection , such as grouted riprap. 3 . The ditch on the southern line of Lots 18 thru 23 is to he checked for capacity and velocity . 4 . The two 30" pipes under Rue-De-Trust are to be replaced with a single structure capable of passing a 25 year storm without local back water. WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIVISION SUPERVISORS GLENN K.BILLINGS EUGENE WHITE-BRIDGE NORMAN CARLSON VICTOR JACOBUCCI WILBUR SCHMUHL-TRAFFIC JUNE STEINMARK ROY MOSER s • Mr . Neal Godwin 2 February 27, 1976 5. A clarification is to be made how a 25 year storm will be handled in the Road 12 ditch as it passes over the Smith and Conklin Ditch . 6 . A clarification is to be made on storm quantities at study points 1 ,3 , and 6 . 7. Grouted riprap is to be shown on detail "E" on sheet 18 . 8. Further technical data is to be supplied in support of the 100 year flood limit areas shown on your plans . If further study indicates the flood limits should be revised. If you have any further questions or comments do not hesitate to contact me . It was a pleasure to handle our business in this matter with a person to person discussion . I am sure our contacts in the future will be as productive. Sincerely , Drew Scheltinga Civil Engineer DS/mm CC : Commissioners Tom Honn ., )cyD„ re0 • To Board of.County_Commi ssioners_ pate iebrua y 23, 1976 COLORADO From_1o.ning_Administrator 6' `,-. Subject. Parkl and_Estat_es The following items were discussed during the February 11 , 1976, hearing by Parkland as being complete as per Planning Commission Recommendations: 1 . Update of title insurance. 2. Clarification of covenants regarding responsible entity. 3. Changes to portions of the convenants (some clarifications must still be made). 4. On the ground survey to correct ditch locations. 5. Seven lots in the NW corner of the subdivision will not utilize standard septic systems. 6. Fencing of the Erie-Coal Creek (Cottonwood) Ditch would be made through the entire subdivision. 7. One drainage structure (detail ) on the construction plans would be changed to satisfy the ditch company. The following items were discussed during the February 11 , 1976, hearing by Mel Dinner, representing the ditch interests and surrounding property owners: 1 . Comments on the Zoning (Conditional progression, Comprehensive Plan, etc. 2. Title was not correct. 3. F.A.A. indication on flight patterns. 4. Cost of moving ditches 5. Parkland should be required to pay for movement of the ditches. 6. Smaller ditches (Smith and Conklin) should not have conduit. 7. Liability for the ditch company. Protection from law suits. • i Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1976 Page 2 8. Property owners adjacent to ROW fence keeping the fence line clean. 9. Drainage of subdivision flows into Erie Coal Creek Ditch, surfaced or sodded runway will increase existing runoff patterns as indicated. 10. Trash racks where conduit will be used. 11 . Stated County Roads should be upgraded now. The following are items addressed or discussed by the staff during the February 11 , 1976 hearing: 1 . #9 regarding resubdivision. COVENANTS 2. #12 b. regarding water limitation (10,000 sq. ft. ) COVENANTS 3. #12 d. add statement regarding holding ponds for runway if paved (this item should be written on the final plat). COVENANTS 4. #16 c. regarding livestock and animals (the above 4 items were discussed with Mr. Ginsburg on the phone after the meeting). COVENANTS 5. A signed copy of said covenants should be submitted. 6. The subdivision improvements agreement should be changed or amended to reflect any changes or requirements (i .e. fencing, ditch structures, etc. ). 7. Park fee in leau of land. The following are points raised by the Board of County Commissioners during the February 11 , 1976 Hearing: 1 . Statement in the covenants regarding holding ponds if runway is con- structed. Board of County Commissioners should approve prior to construction. 2. All irrigation ditches will be fenced. 3. McGee from F.A.A. (discussion of Mrs. Hamilton is titled "Air Space Specialist" in the Air Traffic Division in Denver. A conversation with him indicated the "General Aviation and Safety Division" is housed at Broomfield (JEFFC0 Airport). This office reviews air safety. Each training school is responsible for setting up each training area. No problem or conflict is anticipated. • • Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1976 Page 3 4. Developer responsible for road movement if widening is required. 5. Payment of money in lieu of land for Park fee. 6. Update improvements agreement. Also: Upon review of the attached Supplemental Drainage Study, the final plat does not show the flood plain location affecting Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 , and 12 of Block 4. It has been shown on the Water, Grading and Drainage Plans, but not on the record plat. It should be shown for Building Permit control . The Colorado Water Conservation Board is currently reviewing the drainage and flood plain supple- ment. An answer is expected shortly. In summary, it appears the following list are items that should be considered and or required of the developer: 1 . Determination of whether the ditches should be moved prior to develop- ment or some time after development has occured. If moved, who pays the cost? The Erie Coal Creek and the Koch laterals are located in the ROW of Co. Road 3. If the ditches have to be moved due to County Road widening, does the developer pay? 2. Methods of ditch protection (i .e. fencing, culverts, trash racks, etc. ). Also cleaning of the ditch on private owner side. 3. Liability protection for the ditch companies due to seep water in base- ments, ditch maintenance and personal liability. 4. Seven lots in the NW corner should not use standard septics. 5. Protection in the covenants and on the record plat referencing holding ponds to control runoff from a surfaced runway. The runway surfacing should be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to im- provement. 6. Minor changes to the Parkland covenants as per the hearing of February 11 , 1976. 7. Update of the subdivision improvements agreement to incorporate required ditch improvements. 8. Settlement of money in lieu of land for park fee. Section 8-158. (1 ) (Subdivision Regs. ) formula: 3.34425 acres 9. County Engineer comments; some of these include floodplains delineation. • t■' SWEMENTARY DRAINAGE TNFOR WION Description of Site Parkland Estates is located in the north 1/2 of Section 8 , T. I . N . , R. 68 W. , about 1/2 mile north of Erie in Weld County . There is about three acres per lot . The proposed development is currently an agricultural area with irrigation ditches traversing the site . The land slopes gently from generally the south to the north . Small ridges lie in a north-south direction in the site and the land is relatively flat between the ridges and normal to them. This results in sheet flow over much of the site with few exceptions . The areas where channels exist are usually not continuous and disappear into sheet flow. Summary The original drainage report has been revised where necessary to reflect the final grading plan and to obtain a more detailed analysis of the flow patterns across the site . All drainage structures (excepting two structures) have been designed to pass the runoff resulting from a 25-year frequency storm with no head above the pipe . Sufficient capacity exists in these structures to allow passage of a 100-year runoff without water leaving the banks of the ditches . All flows leaving the developed site will have lower peak dis - charges (cfs) than the original site and a slightly lower total volume (acre- ft .') . This is due to the increased vegetation re- sulting from established lawns and increased concentration time . Almost all flows across the developed site will be less than that of the existing site . Flood plain limits have been redefined to account for backwater effects and increased channel roughness . All finished floor elevations should be a minimum of 18 inches above original ground at the highest corner. Lots 1 through 7 should base their finished floor elevations a minimum of 24 inches above original ground at the highest corner . Methodology The same methods were used as outlined in the preliminary report . The Soil Conservation Service method was used to determine off- site and existing site flows and volumes . The rational method was used to determine the developed site flows . Mannings formula was used to calculate channel flows but the original report has been revised to reflect the use of a roughness coefficient (n) equal to 0 . 03 which is a more suitable value when compared to site conditions . Hydrology • • Runoff patterns resulting from 5 , 10 , 25 , and 100-year frequency storms were established for both the developed and the existing site (see enclosed maps) . GeneralLy , the developed flows follow the pattern of the existing site . Ditches and roads , of course , result in small direction changes . The offsite flow from area "B" has been diverted around the east edge of the site via ditches to keep this large flow from entering the developed site . The flow patterns for the original and developed cases are enclosed herein. Volume calculations also were made by comparing volumes at outlet points 1 , 3, and 25 . It can be seen that a total of 295 acre- feet of water left the original site during a 100 -year , 6-hour storm and th)t 286 acre- feet of water will leave the developed site during the same storm. The volumes at individual concentration points are less than that of the original site excepting point 23 where increased drainage area results in a slightly larger volume . Peak discharge (cfs) at all concentration points analyzed will be less for the developed site than that of the original . This is due to the increased water holding capacity of lawns , relatively large percentage of lawn to impervious area , and the increased flow time in the developed site . The exception to the above is point 7 along County Road No . 5 where the flow from area "B" has been diverted around the site . This increased flow is dis- cussed in the next section of this report . The peak discharges at each concentration point has been individ- ually calculated. Individual peak discharges cannot be added down stream since as a flow proceeds down stream, its flow spreads out resulting in a lower peak discharge but approximately the same total volume . Hydraulics All drainage structures (except adjacent to County Roads 3 and 12) have been designed to handle runoff resulting from a 25-year frequency storm with no allowance for head above the top of the pipe . Enclosed is a cep/ of a-culvert -capacity chart from the Bureau of Public Roads , 1963 . All structures analyzed had at least an available head equal to 50% of the diameter of the cul- vert . As can be seen on the enclosed chart , this would result in an increase of about 660 (for example shown) in capacity . The actual increase in flow from a 25-year to a 100 -year storm will average about 20% (see "Runoff Distribution" table enclosed) . There is sufficient reserve capacity in the pipes designed for 25-year storms to pass a 100-year storm without overtopping the_, ditches . The structure beneath Rue- de-Trust has been designed to pass a 100-year runoff. This is due to the increased flow from Drainage Area "B" which has been diverted east of the site . The structure beneath Rue-de-Trust at the west side of the site has been designed to handle a 10-year storm (agreement from County Engineer) with the remaining passing atop the road . / The discharge capacity of the various ditches has been analyzed (see enclosed capacity curves) and compared to flows listed on the "Runoff Distribution" table . One hundred year flows will stay within the drainage easement areas . Flood Plain Delineation An analysis was made of the flows at the west end of the site passing over Rue- de-Trust and County Road No . 12 to better delineate the flood plain resulting therefrom (see enclosed capacity curves) . The flood plain has been expanded to include these effects . It should be noted that although part of Barbara Circle will be in a 100-year flood plain , it will not occur from a 25-year or less frequency storm. A similar analysis was made for the northeast corner of the site (see enclosed capacity curve) . Again, although a portion of Clemma Court is shown in the 100-year flood plain , it will not be inundatated during a 25-year -or less storm. Special Hazzard Areas Sheet flows across the developed lots could result in problems if the finished floor elevations are at grade . The lots lying below the Erie Coal Creek ditch might pose special problems should the south bank of the ditch break during a major storm. There is no feasible way to predict if or when this might occur since it depends on stability , erosion, and maintenance considerations . It is , therefore , recommended that all finished floor elevations be a minimum of 18 inches above the original ground at the highest corner of the house . Additionally , lots 1 through 7 should not be allowed to have base- ments , and have their finished floor elevation a minimum of 24 inches above original ground at the highest corner . This is for both drainage and septic tank considerations . 7 t?.. yy,•.«...r. ...:._ �u !.�• �rv.N:.�,,. c.z.�«:,,.mLv to ,.:.L ..u.,.., e_ �'hs� _ ,.. r,....»... .v r✓.a�'..i+i�w ..:a..r- � yam N 3 .d ,ry '.'.' it •` S1 HANDBOOK OF CUNLIIETE CI LOEICr PIPE HI DR'-LI,S n �i.4. lY .1,32,Y 1 B I --r / / 16 r „.„t„..., ,.. 7 L. J 14 Li 12 � w la(d ; � /I : y 5 / / I rOUS _ ✓ I > to r Z 100 ' 1 / 515o/ .y oi' ¢ a _v' ��F 34 /I1 I / . /� 1 f H-u- ? Ba If Y* = 3 !I / i �I iii i� '�— f j-__—_ W6 I � �L /rt' /— �,�c % 1I I ill �. � i � I , I /I 2 /lry ;. l 4 /1V'I � �I%� /,' .c � �I I I r- /dii' 1"xS [t 0 10 20 30 40 50 6J 0 5 `FA " $ DISCHARGE-O-CFS y'4TH ITd 8 r-.- 16 -_,T f H REFER TO UPPER CRAP', FOR __ 1 I /`1 -- 3OF I REFER TO UPP GREATER IOOSo VALUES - DTI 1- --_1._ GREATER --tf� # 1 s 5 _. ___�— _ /�. .�Iel / 1 ! �1 I rl _._.-1 I _,I ,.f ii/�Il/I~t:6y u_ IIO t x y s Li '..'''....14. a 4 lUos =� Fr;,� 5l r e B IOOSO 3 % a - of i_ 1 _ •? I ,� _ I 4 .- _�I / f- _• I 1 0 z3 1I_ _A. / it 1 I. III I , I w 6 r�� tKy /' ✓ , -- - - FOR 25R, PAVED CULVERTS I ;,lY _. __`l� __r_.-4 �.1''/ �-- I REDUCE LENGTH TO 015 ACTUAL L / / TO COMPOTE IOO 50 I '1,:c3?� 2 _ I I,/i/I / I 1_ •_ - _1 _� j 4I , `1'�t % 1 i// I I 1 —1 I— 2 � ^ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 'At* DISCHARGE-O-CFS rX a EXAMPLE: ® GiVEN. EXAMPLE: ® Grvf fl» 43 CFS- FH24•4.9 FT CULVERT CAPACITY STANDARD 130 L°72 FT-• 5 -0.003 L`11 CZ) SELECT UNRAVEL, CIRCULAR CORR. METAL PIPE m S HW•44FT" HEADWALL ENTRANCE 11,01 SEL E v - BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN 1963 IS" TO 3611 O BUREAU OF PU61 II,! Fig. A-5 Fig. A-6 1F1 2ly �it„...... „ ' ,.x i , y Rt3"""9q'a""„fsCPw7wr a w -,c4'<7i m44-4,^"Mi'gn4 he„„:„.147th, 1""4 ki ,, ,,4;* :C p..,s:A Yt« _v-a... ,szci,�.,�� yAfr^ y?t LF.4 i,Ej' t72 FS„� t 5 CS''.11", 4 x }I T' ..",Pe u>'.';:_\1• n , 1 01. �';n}7 Yw,t5� t' 711 iY ¢^° n 1 Ty1T+ i :h H 4 � t Li ii flw4 'i engineers Architects Planners DATE QUO South Parker Road,Parke,Place Four, Denver, ratio 80232• llC".1 l7gi4 JOB NO. _. BY CHK•D — SHEET ..OF.. i IC I/)/ 1 ' r%� I v I I — _ I I. - C •I L I( C: II ill ] I 1 I I I { I • I I I : 1 ' I 1 • / T i I I I I I I I „ I 1 L _I � ' I L.I 1 414 - t --- — f j_._. fi _?,.i • I, 1 V 1_ I I r ' I I— t—I -1— — ' I Ai I I I LtTh � �'o I 1 I A 'ov _ �_ ' ; — — i —t--�-- I 1 � �I L. F—Jra, j j I I I I { ° _C I _ . fi � j I I t l I , I . 1 I t� - - ; V. [ F1 \�5 r - - F . ._ L—_ —_.i__ __ - I___— �.— - I_ AJJFFF r I �_. L--.r I t -___*— _ , I 1 I / I ', ,lit I I �.:____ j /:1j r / _ I C11• I /ry:I r - t C I _I/G U '.._—1 F i 1 —i I% r i t 1 1 I I 1 I a ,,,. .,.•,.�. nglneers Architects Planners . •-,_ DATE ;00 South Parker Road,Par Place Four,Denve•rado 80232 JOB NO. - �' t� .t - .a r'' . t /• % • - BY CNK'd r. SHEET- OF I_ t________ - 1^ i-T-7_ __..�__._.� I . 11 _ -i _l___ _____:I- [ �.- I ___�_ _. 1 — ._-I I I -_] -7'-_ _�-.-., _I- ` ill_ r•----...1_ r_l___I____;_. ill ] I _1_ t 1 I [ i I [ i .1_....;! ,.. i i ! : „ , , , i ,I , I I 1 I, , ,' I _ , � I ; ,, , ,• , I, . . , .kfy:.... ....4..............-F..--_;--4.--•----7— • II I 1 I I I I _- I I t- i ",/lI I /. T--- _. ' _. ...—._ _r_ .1� .._..1...._..1---;_ I._-- __t___.i.- .._.4. .—...--1—.1---i... .._—_ _.. • I I I l , I — I i I 1 I-- .. .--J-----, - ---!---.--•- -•-*-----1---1- • —- 1 - • _ -_-_i ._ ( l I - 1 i ____1____i_ ! . i i---I__ ' _ ...1__' I I • —1--1 —1—._a._! _ r-- -- --� — • 1.—.. , r--- • •• Illi i - ---; f -rt.— i.._ —�—�.-� ---� .!. ...y_...---'I•-- ---1--. ;.._..i_C'r?_f":.:.-rS--'Jr�' •t r��r -- /' �`. I ! I l { 1-• ------- -•- ___ CM. •! f -ALL._ I I• -•- a•._.i.- { I _ It � I ` I •r I i I ., /2.4,/ . -1---} /I, ,: 1 . r/ ' F ' 1 I I r • i : ii ! ii j _.., .._cu — -, ._.1___. yam_.i ] I ; I I I I_i_ .,. I--—1... ....-f----.. . .r."-It—.-.7 -I. J ; / . I ! ' I r rl -r- ! Iii i ill If ' "I : I i I 1 I t_ -1I i I '- - ' TL Il --I - ' ; I • 1 I I !I i•I : I ... , � ` Ii I ( I ; . .__ 4-I-, I I' ,, I : HI ri [ _ i i 1 i • 1 i I 1 1 li • Ill .L [. [ i HI r--- : -Fi Ii I '1-.----•••,.•--7 - i --1--I I I I I I I h t . . ._ ,. ' 3 „, j-.. .-.- I crr=r�. �_...'_. i !;:'),. :�i-'<, ' .. . !�r ... -�--- . i. - i ' .. ._ r. . t .; f 4. .- `I 4 • L1. .;:/...' ' L p.-- , -_ - -..t. ----'., t....- ......_._4_.l..__1...._.1. .!. _`.. .- '..._! ... �.. .!....._... I. .._.+.-- '._ ..1..............! I+ II , ..._..........._ ._.� i_........_ ,,.. I :n:_1 Engineers Architects Planners , . tj1 •OCJSouIrl F'3rkNr Hoad.Parka: °lace Four,Denvelprado 80232 DATE BOB NO. /1i' "'2. T. 1/}/-' /l Cs:••.-.J�:e -.i -- f�, . 4.7 ;/. /..-- BY 1 CHK'D • 4 3,--. i-•"^ ,- -- _ i SKEET OF I -�— -�{ i i 1 1 __ _ - ELI I I : jII • I i i 1 1 � f i I , >- -; 1 • �_.__ I _ -�____f-- _ _ i. -j- - ' I i ' I I I I I I I 1 i ! I_ i I • i I i j i � � � I 1 , I III ' , i 1 j I ff 1 j j l l I I I i i --�-�- I i ' -I.—I - —I-- I ! I I II L— I -}-.—_1.__l._4_—tom II! • i I I I , I I , t,7,_; i ! ?i /' I i i . �1 ! : I I I 1 ' • I i i - i I ' Lit_-I • - r- i i i i i-�-- ° -�~ I I ` I I _ T i I I i_- I i �. I.._ 1 I J_n4 2 e"'_t,-- _�_` 1 i I i I i -�- i f I t • i I i I ' i i, ,•i , I I I i ! i L I , I I 1 i l_ i I.... ii ' I r l i jI -t ,--- I ! - i- j I III ,-I I r ! �. I I I i 1. r.��. r_ �. a I { I I F I 1 i ! i I , , ! I , 1 { , I I i i i • : i i i I : 1 I I •!ft I r ' I I IiiE[JIrI7riiI _LLt_LjII I ! I I iiI I I I I I . y✓ j� ! �. I I I I 1. I I I : Ili i II I ' j i ' ; ' I I I i I I j -I I 1 _ ! I ` I i 1 j I I 1 ' _..� --- 1 j I I I I t 1- I iI 4 • I I I i I e 1 ..1 I i __ t•-, ' _I. _ I.._—' ' t. 3. - — I I , GOO. ' j ' j I i I.___i_.. .... _..... . .......__i. __I 1 I i. r I • I -L _ 1 i 1 i ! I Li • I- -i _.. 7 —FI- I i r lt. r:1,I gineers Architects Planners DATE //' •'/74; • t it 00 South Parker Road,Parker?Ixe Four,Denver rado 80232 ;� i, JOB NO. / i ,').:51 T. /,•,-.--...,c/rl/... !.-(2,r. /_ .....//: '/ /�•/ T.- AZ BY •`✓'I / i.NK'D /` `-j - .1::',„,:'.-- C ',,C..f.:;j' ,•r- ' ' ` .' / SHEET CF. � - � i III I I I I 1 { ", �.._....-•.•I I -- r.��s-/[:•r'^.- c/i_-rA _ I I I �; -1-- I i I I i _. _.ug.;..: _... ' _. + _ ' _ i I I_ I ; .. ! illt __ ..__' __ _..` _-•E ___-- �i __...------...___,_ - _. r; \ . y-----�-- .—__t—.____._— __ 2 %`�`' -' • I - I Lys/ i-- - - _ + / t...__ t . I-- -_._--•-1---.• t ' �'! —Qom'a c'i�e j r `I • , I I I i 'j' : I / ! I I I i • I I ` I �9 __ I i jr -._ ___ 1 I I r-- s.\ I ._...__�_._—._.._.—....rte— ---.... ....... I t_._4_._ Ii! IQ iJ • � / I - i- i i i i I , I 8 . • I , ' I • I_ • . I , ! I I, I / I ' I i f T I 4 , I F- l j _ •i , • I _ I f I - I -I - i , I i 7 I _ I I- t.; I ' C �' _. /• __l._ -.. ,' r� • '�� - 7 i , t ;,��...,,, -mincers Architects Plannp:rs DATE � /' •��'� 00 South Parker Road,Parke Place Four,benvPr�rado 80232 . - 3 JOS NO. t f.' 7l it,:-•t! (-,•"% Z;),TC:,-- r- "�'/ BY .-•..i CHK.D 7): ' !--/../7/ll,_. C,sf,'•1i 'G'/T: . 1/,:. .-!e;/-fir SHEET OF 1 ^ 1 I ! I I _- , _ I —�—, iii f I , I i I , . ,'a • 1 • I .....__,__+. _ ,I --l..—,..._l_. .....I___r: .__J._:__....,____i ... ..:._.L, ___.;___:-.-4—.4...__;._;_l_ • • .././ i i i I I I • 1 i 1 i I j i \ •_.___ Vii.._..... ..._ __ I_ ...1 . ......�. - --- I -- . ___ j I �' — — �_� I I i I ' — — — S. , v —T— _._.-._ _ __ _—�._ - .._I.... ,•• n\ !ter I I ! / I . �•U ....................7_. . I 1—��_._ �, _ :.___..__— .. ..I ... ... .. I __T - �- - I 1 • F1 ti I — �— —---- — — ' t �lr f _ i i !� /G' D / i • • C• I • • �— i I i I ''.....-••••""•••••,:,.......................: ' ' I ; V ,f/ ! • i -...-.I.----.-i ��•�I I I I I I i ' •_ ' . I i._ -_. I-" i I 1 ' • • ` J L ` ` • I I -I I I • I I 1 I 1 I i I I I I , I I I i • • •r . '1 'Or_ 'orn -r JorI -1 ... .ti N CC. r-i M • • N Lc) r-1 ri r-1 r--i .--I o CIS • O rti • 3 D O 0 ri 0..-,ix) N) LJ co NM T ,--• .--J- d 1.Nt-- op OO1 N [-. N LDO M ri-S CO CO..1 [ti 0 t/1 O1 M N Gl r i Hi .-1 N ti ti r-ti N M HI N Lr1 r-) ti LIH d r l r LD .ti X 0 U ro > .. a) C) 0 CO <I- ?H H.4 N CO ti --J M O V D N v0 CO 00 00 1. N N L n O) M M t 1 O ' a (� .ti O l!1 .-1 .i rti co N rl •-1 .-I r-1 N r1 •ti Cr r'i V Lc) LD M M CO01N N LO Cr)OM V of N M.O .-I .-, . I V V d.Hi N,0 LnN. N- '.D M in ,--4 r-1 .-1 NJ r-1 ..-.1M M M O ,0 N. M CO in N,0 O M Opt in M r-1 a0 ri M .-i O HI r-1.-4 r-I r-i r1 O rI ri can In 0) 00 0 n V 00.H p., 0 vI N M N. M M m N. M .HI 4i N I. n .ti X p0 U 0'r1.-+ 0 1.-r 0 Ni I-- C' n 01 n In . GL O r-1 n LO M N LO Ln al v •H N IA • Ln N 01 N. ^ LO N Ni rH LD V r-i d' M L0 .i M M • H v.c • 0 • . LO(4-1 a.i-, . wow Z •• 0 rI I 0 • 0 0 0 01 In 0) d 1 Mr--c 1-r M 7 C) H N N M .ti .--I- rti N N N 0 I W O L..+ f-I o a .-I . H M H o w k i E 0 Z LO 41 d N L0 'I EE VIVi a W 0.' ^ 0•.i I O LD.-i cr ' Ln LO d' 0 0C) M M• 0 0d. I .i .--4 NI V • H 7•M H Ni N I In H >.C H U >. I Oct o k o o >.o .a 1 .a 0 0 0. r ti - 01 . .D) r-4 O II • ro •w ror. NW 'H 0 U .0 V 01 O 00 M• CO M 01.i II O 4 H F Q I-- L D N O 01 01 ‘.0 N W0 F Q v.ri rti M V .--I W,--I H ,--Ir--I O C O a v C a) 4 00 O y ro tiv 0 ti)H 0 • • VD LO LD Cr) Lp In 0I N ti r-1 r--I OOCO CO r-- O P. .O 0 U 0 HI O '.1 0 Uri MLD I"-CA N- CI M CO N- '.0 NI co Ln.-1 Ln LD MN O NNof LO N-i 0.-0 H .< 0 n in co•-♦N CO N ri N V Lnr-1 LD M .i n Co Ni 0 0 F Q`-, > r-I M M r-i .rl O 0 .-I .-1 p0 0 Q •H •0 H O H • 0 H W O W Le) 0 O M N N -CO00 • M II II 11 O 4+ z z H 0 U U 4)•,i r i N M'4 L n LO I-CO 0) 0 .1 N M C In VD r-CO 01 O‘--I N M d' in O n O O .-1 .'i .i.-i r1 .--I .i r--1 r-I .i N N N N N N N N Dar U ytn In 11 . I I 9� I „., . 1. '� '�'N _ y I _1.y ' ',s II 1p`',I t / Jq (z.4, -2,f\, . , , .,,iis, . ,,, .„,_ d__, , , N a :,__ _ a, ,,,,. C.≥-,----_-„,/ ca . ,, \ \ `\ t \\ / to �i t �� y ` /i h.,:''' I CH / ro r - < / I > � e �y �\i \d __-_---- Vi _=i\1/4... N ,:7 / : , :- '--,. • c2) I�ce„cfo r rviinoJ ,, �A� v� 1, F` � � k Si � . `. i In ' ll i- P /i:< i�'Q i l . . ..._ I '. .� { u. 1317 ,f� f I �"7 (I ° i J titl�)-/ �i�`1 I.i _ 7E7 AP:,rr2 -Zbcon X157---t- n' ! . 6^/r' i � � _- _-_-_,4-_/ �/ t 1 O 1 O J O. J I. `I ! I \ \ I• L • - = : . i I f „nu c . lb 0 Wite Mali rWi.;,..WittIS IL, t.•' iv li FEB 18 1976 Iii. GREELEY. COLO. February 18 , 1976 Dear Commissioner J ' Attached is a petition containing 227 signatures of local citizens who are definitely opposed to the construction of a proposed runway located near the intersection of load 5 and load 12 in Weld County. Because of the shortness of time, the people signing this petition are only a sampling of the population who live nearby or in the vicinity of the proposed airstrip, which also includes the town of Erie. Our petition is submitted as a representation of the feelings expressed by those in the surrounding Comunity who are most effected by the safety hazards , noise and air pollution caused by a concentration of aircraft in a populated area . Your kind assistance in protecting the lives and well-being of our concerned citizens is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, The Concerned Citizens Ad Hoc Committee Of Southwest Weld County • February 18, 1976 Dear Commissioner Attached is a petition containing 227 signatures of local citizens who are definitely opposed to the construction of a proposed runway located near the intersection of Road 5 and Road 12 in Weld County. Because of the shortness of time, the people signing this petition are only a sampling of the population who live nearby or in the vicinity of the proposed airstrip, which also includes the town of Erie. Our petition is submitted as a representation of the feelings expressed by those in the surrounding Community who are most effected by the safety hazards , noise and air pollution caused by a concentration of aircraft in a populated area . Your kind assistance in protecting the lives and well-being of our concerned citizens is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, The Concerned Citizens Ad Hoc Committee Of Southwest Weld County • • February 18, 1976 Dear Commissioner Attached is a petition containing 227 signatures of local citizens who are definitely opposed to the construction of a proposed runway located near the intersection of Road 5 and Road 12 in t+eld County. Because of the shortness of time , the people signing this petition are only a sampling of the population who live nearby or in the vicinity of the proposed airstrip, which also includes the town of Erie . Our petition is submitted as a representation of the feelings expressed by those in the surrounding Community who are most effected by the safety hazards , noise and air pollution caused by a concentration of aircraft in a populated area . Your kind assistance in protecting the lives and well-being of our concerned citizens is greatly appreciated . Sincerely, The Concerned Citizens Ad floc Committee Of Southwest Weld County s • February 18, 1976 Dear Commissioner 477 7.22.---0---ce.L Attached is a petition containing 227 signatures of local citizens who are definitely opposed to the construction of a proposed runway located near the intersection of :toad 5 and Road 12 in Weld County. Because of the shortness of time , the people signing this petition are only a sampling of the population who live nearby or in the vicinity of the proposed airstrip, which also includes the town of Erie. Our petition is submitted as a representation of the feelings expressed by those in the surrounding Community who are most effected by the safety hazards , noise and air pollution caused by a concentration of aircraft in a populated area . Your kind assistance in protecting the lives and well-being of our concerned citizens is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, The Concerned Citizens Ad Roc Committee Of Southwest Weld County 0 • February lW , 1976 Dear Commissioner d 2.A,_ Attached is a petition containing 227 signatures of local citizens who are definitely opposed to the construction of a proposed runway located near the intersection of Road 5 and load 12 in Weld County. iiecause of the shortness of time , the people signing this petition are only a sampling of the population who live nearby or in the vicinity of the proposed airstrip, which also includes the town of Erie. Our petition is submitted as a representation of the feelings expressed by those in the surrounding Community who are most effected by the safety hazards, noise and air pollution caused by a concentration of aircraft in a populated area . Your kind assistance in protecting the lives and well-being of our concerned citizens is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, The Concerned Citizens Ad hoc Committee Of Southwest Weld County PEIITION le the undersigned are strenuously and unalterably opposed to the construction of an aircraft runway on the Park Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps , plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft , at (toad 5 and Road 12 , Weld County, Erie , Colora 3?'!flLniNTY ChM i for the following reasons. It will be : (1 ) within 1000 fe VF 12 (approximately) of an existing 75 unit Subdivision , plus mE_____- individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to t airstrip; (2 ) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution E8 181: levels , particularly on week-ends ; (3 ) a hazard to the lici,S A' and properties of these residences in such close proximity; GREet.ey. cot (4 ) completely surrounded by electric power lines - some nearly 100 feet high; (5 ) within one mile of a Weather Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high; (6 ) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7 ) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds . Name 7 Address Phone z .-,.,<: z r " c �. VY /t'�"(/ � ' / A 4,/a t/ - �4�-,�iJ ,A77— Leib/ ,7-c-,e) ' C /yre,ti'-C 6 - `_ 727114,4 T / Vi// /F ( 6_s 3 R tg-- i 2 \ ft ; /YV / 3z7 : ;4?4411P5 if r 1 /-f Sui Y g:5,1 1/ "/✓!72``'e ,7.t 2/2.2c7��.. -2 7 3 Y (-/ 5 J 2_ • � , a13/ k d l .>/e-z-vii �C/i go F,6 / ' / `V4Q--aii A ?Pe -g 2 a...Ny/7 A/ 0,7z 6,2 ,,,,,,e,r2b 4 /az ft.,,,e,‘ ei, r.:--;-'-'7 r1/4\ it f, Mt 4_ er 1 Te, y Jo igfk 4.6 .� v4o a3°V J?I /z Diu C- 3,4yi t `-i�,4_ jed/a7P, i«- ; 30 / /-Z �� i 66 _ -)( 2.1- Y Y ,-) a e. (6,-2,1„, 23 Wye )2 > eetler o 6 5-- .,S ( / i- d iti tii 1.44,, - :Y 3/ y' s,lJ U ',DJ Y-C ) oe. (3d-g " 3 / 7 4' `� ,Y�,, 3,50 (rte , cc, RD i"-c3 2 / // C, V, Pi- geAlk,iwe J 67 7 6.--A fd U � 6. 1,2Y-5 3 u 51 ',''5i' z L a.a Lvn,n i _5£ 51 / /2Z '- &t. _ F ? - 3 .5 / •`� ; `, L5-6_5-/ dam, l/��. c. �fa - 3 s i / 16142 / / n 2\ i 1 cf 1/41 G 72 Il K2,K-Y5 ' \r' j / " 741 I _- _( __e ii z/L ri 7 e r _ ,�c-l_.�c_' /-r.c.<_ ;`'L.c-�- :3'� - " -,7"5-3/ i l 71 -axe � - 0 0 We the Undersigned are strenuously and unalterably opposed to the construction of an aircraft runway on the Park Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps , plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft , at Road 5 and Road 12 , :geld County, Erie , Colorado, for the following reasons. It will be : (1) within 1OOO feet (approximately of an existing 75 unit Subdivision , plus many individual homes outside this subdivision , but even closer to the airstrip; (2 ) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels , particularly on weekends ; (3 ) a hazard to the lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity; (4 ) completely surrounded by electric power lines - some nearly 100 feet high; (5 ) within one mile of a Weath«r Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high (6 )detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7 ) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds. Name Address Phone . / 2 u a ‘611/e____ /q/-Nt5e.te A_ . 5 c-21.7Yolve. ....._______4711.Y_44,47V ____?at-_-11,4,,_ 6 99__d�- oi �? ---- —-------- 7�2_ o ff -- ...� _. ----. .-__L L._ _ i ,�` c `, ., :. -S 7 SC\ 7 N, ,_titi_ (--- - /()l 4_:',(r Pair -. 4,;_ip.kc.,,___Cy. . .cie r-.3'37 ----7 er'G 2 Y__..._.."�?_.?.. _ f 4 • a _ _ _ _s -E roe. ff ? f� - ,M3;2 yeiceJt..) , _ .z.:ti, /r4/(2.,,.?0 :7 _.. . "''7 --!-i ZI-JO -424-i-1- - 6'C Ce -36 5 d- (/„..4‘. ...67.X.,.;%-' .0,. .4.:2Ac......-:._._ ...... _..777‘..(7. ,... ... --- .-.442- — _CIZA/L-A--e- _4 . I.M__i_17,;24_,..-c_c_.., Q62/. _____________ , LAA.x.rrAl /� = r' • ° , L /M40114", 4 . . _ y . ..:._.___4„..44.... ' 1- _ _V iL1h2'7c. _../..X.,2,?_._ : A___ i i5 - — - .5. 457,46tM44 . d1-1/- 3.33?__ G _. - _ s-G G 'Aj , f:Rief,em4...1 f2 ?-33.5 7 /7 ' _pc t /`7,o • rmc J v, r� �,-<. -- s:2,. ./ *____ ,,,..,, (A2-// c)---/e-- _// ,P. e'_____74.-e-e. ' 9 . - , 7c 0 .. . O" . / - - ,-, _ , 1 Lei rmKc-Ai- /7 . lic.he 71,' 'yL 4 L ' ----- ) ' ,.,L Az. .,,-).,,,, — We the undersigne-' are strenuously and unalt^rably opposed to the construction an aircraft runway on t• Park Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps, plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft, at Road 5 and Road 12 , Weld County, Erie, Colorado, for the following reasons. It will be : (1) within 1000 feet (approximately) of an existing 75 unit Subdivision, plus many individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to the airstrip; (2) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels, particularly on week-ends ; (3) a hazard to the lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity; (4 ) completely surrounded by electric power lines - some nearly 100 feet high; (5) within one mile of a Weather Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high; (6 ) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7 ) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds . O?4/ _______...___.___ :Is C / 1 /1 ki. ) 7. '-( ,,z ,?q2,,,, :'6. c/ -1.44...a.„,.... ;.........•• c , ,, ,., . .. -1 c -4/7;lei �'.1LG%�,-_ 11: , c- • • io oil __(,.'.._.,_S..._ _ ' l�.t.c.r/2 �.� F.,,,,,,.. � c.. ...s_.r'_7r� -- rte�// • .,;�._ .-- y 21 i iZ ' '� C..4-"- --1, 5` /old _ 'L.,(; z.L.-� 1. %i` ./ i , d LY JC J �..,.7 •i�/ , C •6-:;-C, -,.IV 7 -6- S -7 - J/ --2.- * c---z .j i . :,7 6 7/r 4)61/,3"...-4,,..e 6 14 x.. �c 7/ / 3- e,,,,,„?. . :: '31 1G-df G � � ' f) 2/7,:, (. 6-2-v (i. ge-o--z-6 • 57/ OS . Co4) 7 ' . c �� .:1 s`� (/ l;L. I ,Pi Ac" / , c ' s 3 / G ✓. ...s799 u/�/r7& s" ---*. e __ �,; I ___ ,27`l 1. X ,z-/' E e_ (mod . l • • .;i..de, . / /7/ - ;/1 / Apr.�orifi;C' G' �// • '-'). *) t,.. .,i. 4.:II,. 3 C. ,,,---Z._.- ( .52' i 41,-,,, ,_, (\e/-/q,e/ --cs1,., ,.__/_ _..„ ,. ....._, . , , ____• .. _ / . , j/ e . ..e.,-CLA.-0.C n/ if/ =. ge �� 14c, 9_ /Y Cr .< Ga 2 - 1_\ Tl\r \--0.4}-------) '- u 1? I z-/l ' ( /o i.,,., Cr,±): --; ,..././, , . . 7 ' ' LI( e.....7e'74 t) ,,---;;;//21.4_,R. ,-7-' '.4 ------",a,)/).0.e.X- 7Z)/ e/c7...e14--- 06 C ' -W,2> I/Li Ur-57/1'V/, ' . /-1; ----t---"'OYI/ ./)/a/a''e. Ore- Or I/)//1/1/Vi"Zr1-69 (:-----)L---' -e:-----.4."--- --- / ,...-- 6/ /-, /.1(____,<r/-- re„c:e.• -z.-0.-4:- /•./. -7,(7 -77-7 /47/ze..".•4-- ". .e.-re4:/e" '---'1 /33 . 11/4/ode' A e-7 i (- '7..i. 7.----'4.4 •• L' ./ fi 1% i .' ' .):1 . 4a.. :-.: L..i, ,... •• ..._,-&-i-1 ,75- ,- L/7-G,-,4 /v io, . _.9 -2 •1 A / .), -1 ,...) ....) / 1,1-4.--6. :1-c-4=c,-). ?-ri• &-e-e—....._ (.......- 4. : 1, _, // -.—i-x--"_..i..,----- ! 1' • 14?-' )i ex:,(- )iiL t�� "..� t6.'L1J-•L (-t-.iv Ad (_ I' / t.: ! �I f)i%17 1i�� '`. tt jc 3 i, '.1 l / --Ce t-�el Q-- --/,/',..a., ,--r‹.../ 7%�;:4" (.._. -,7`-/4i L/ �`z- , V • '4e t°.-,e undersign' are strenuously .and anal' -a : 7.y oP-poser+ to the constructi,•n an aircraft runway on ti. Bark Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 6.i planes on its residential parking ramps , plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft , at ioad 5 and Road 12 , 17eid County, Erie , Colorado , for the following reasons, it will be : (1 ) within 1000 feet (approximately) of an existing 75 unit Su division , plus many individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to the airstrip; (2 ) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels , particularly on week-ends ; ( 3 ) a hazard to tie lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity ; (4 ) completely surrounded b ; electric power lines - some nearly 100 feet high; (5 ) within one mile of a weather Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high ; (6 ) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7 ) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds . � Z (L-.. z >-( - _( (' /C -L C -' ki /CV - / / -' I / 1 ` a ��/ /J - ) •�, 6 (�;At 7Ze-vc/ '�.e� ��%�c.c_ � � �G�J Vic-L.. � L d ��5 - `� �-. l .7..J bi, -4,47,(1 ) -4i> ,g / - VTR_ erg• E .2, �4:2104., 7,-5 5--.# tAt aft S.rao / V-3 3, 2/ X/7.4:S, 7.C rk-lt-• 8 2? 1160 A.eg4t; 2 Y 3 ? / 7 ey fr ' 4 - [. c Lc Lt a I:LQ-t1-ey✓ l' '�C E7 2 �� _ ,S 1: L. LS, 1. ' 24, � �Oo__ Z � 7 0, pl 11/1/4-f 4 4 -kid 7 .3. G c- 37z . > CQ ' ),„ iLe 7s J Z z� � �� `z1 � tz7- 3� , 3 741 ?7,7„,... 4),LA, „ , -,-, 77ze--%/6,1-- ,( Cia , &a y /Me g ,3P-://) S3 We the undersigned are strenuously and unalterably opposed to the construction of an aircraft runway on the Park Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps , plus an uncertaa.n number of visiting aircraft , at Road 5 and Road 12, Weld County, Erie , Colorado, for the following reasons. It will be : (1) within 1000 feet (approximately) of an existing 75 unit Subdivision , plus many individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to the airstrip; (2 ) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels , particularly on week-ends ; (3) a hazard to the lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity; (4 ) completely surrounded by electric power lines - some nearly 100 feet high; (5) within one mile of a Weather Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high; (6) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds. Name Address Phone 2.._........___-_,...,1 t = • f�. '^..�lc:L-r-- -_.._.—......_.- •'c--�,t - t�. A ,it... ......_441.4.1. _ ...,71e-_ -_4_,,ut, i, 2-.1, e L' r)-(e° co," l,1- t•; • - • .? . A , . L�( 3 .ec-a-c 4,,,i-,0-:IA, L, rt-L.Le/ -=-- _(._1.4.k.„. .-A(-e • -2? - .3-51.( 7.t 7 ' .. Z.6 e: ' ii:0-4C4_ 5 a:5 - 3 3 3.---:--L----- i 9 r (,-' :- �, .• /_ y.)_ r V c __ f 1(1 O-4--C. -04 t• •c'rL ( y -, t.•L ./'-�f1 L. ____„_ t Y-!l_ �,.__ -, L ; _�.y ( ../)4...;-4._ i <r-_. p_f_____,4E1___AL ' , ____.,)/ . 141 1_,ALLM-Lizfl (Li_74,1e S_, - (1.6 ( L'..) , 20 - et, : . ?.c- -1' �i.Z._ C6�l,L4 - {J,t,v. • __.____._.. �� !��:' N..... .. ri , ,,4 4. Y ��_—_---- ct- _ ------ -----l 3 Y _---- -- - : 1= t ----, - k c . c , L] 72 /Z.1--9 , 6 1 :Cefi•t. t'..:y,,/. (-, -2.4-t We the undersign are strenuously and unal' -ably opposed to the construction _i an aircraft runway on t,. Park Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to actcommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps, plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft , at Road 5 and Road 12, Weld County, Erie, Colorado, for the following reasons. It will be: (1) within 1000 feet (approximately) of an existing 75 unit subdivision, plus many individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to the airstrip; (2) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels, particularly on week-ends ; (3) a hazard to the lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity; (4) completely surrounded by electric power lines - some nearly 100 feet high; (5 ) within one mile of a Weather Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high; (6 ) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7 ) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds. ' R-114-e- `.re 4-e-0_-.c-- ,9 1147-• -- ' --V( i - �S' - ' ."49(- 07-)te-4-A-.--- T-�� S d)1 25-3_93.6 - -2� 6e ec;',- , y,z, 3J73 I/1 7:: : Li , , a , A k A< •` �, �� t�- —�� :- .� Lam. '�;/' l r . ‘ci cri(.?..„ ' .""). , )...//4,...a.c.-.7,---; .- 1/,S .. (2; ) , i, ) - ,ci /c_ (2.c C- a. 1 , 'L2.-642--A-..i V/2Lc�-e" '_ -- -- -...1*-• / . f (e 't_r�• . 3:74 C•::i>. .. - :�/ �-cam.. L�63 491 / / / �. 3� / , e�--�- ._s c' •7 ,/1,pr1, ,f L-- S 3 lVn .' / ,...--r-. • .. 4 -- �..�<<.. i, _ .E=<: . . L. r .. 37 .;;Gt 4- �)'."1,c.r..iil cLA-L 5..>in , ; f 8 3.747 n / 1 3c,/ �� I ' �. 1 117 r 12:;r7( . _I I D e i( ce.,/i, e.ea- s /' • / 9 a..-_,.. --4.../-4"(-:,,,4----- ,i--, ,/ „so-v- ?/../ •2 �4 G ✓ '` ., i qI __�C 1"L•tt:.L ti. .- �1.y4' �t.'L„.:, `A' (i�7,. / � 1 ; L .... -- :_c-''t. J ,i - Z� :7e f 'L.- 7 /1 ---1 .."--)e--3--1,-----•-- fi 7'/ /3 .)‹- .=.2/ -2- C.,- Z--47/-:-.: •... e7,-:, a f(47( • - �� gS - g, /7 i- .-zi7t _ ,5 `7/. 7 &Jr", CD \--..).43p. .1-(!..)-- E,:it . i-/ ___: tt-_ett-JI__ ,t., ,t, .62 . 17 jjtjjQ a r - -./. i' 7 T 1 \' r-1 / J� Yom. c' f C: r ^�g . I. +.,`\:may �� r ` `\ \\ ,6. t Pfr. '-kuyt--- Gi . We the undersigned are strenuously and unalterably opposed to the construction of an aircraft runway on the Park Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps, plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft , at Road 5 and Road 12, Weld County, Erie, Colorado, for the following reasons. It will be: (1) within 1000 feet (approximately) of an existing ?5 unit subdivision , plus many individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to the airstrip; (2 ) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels , particularly on week-ends ; (3 ) a hazard to the lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity; (4 ) completely surrounded by electric power lines - some nearly 100 feet high; (5) within one mile of a Weather Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high; (6 ) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds . 71. -2-1.e___ C-L h -' •••r-----er--..-4--e_ 77-7-C 3 --/ • 6.-8) ��._.._ ...._- _. _ �+ter, % --- --- ...._ .. ., ..5...3.__. / -. ' -- y`.r j s %!f_(f /f ( .,. 5 _ f- r f r f fC t/' s/ / _ �� /L C'I ✓ l .f_, , fi] rl. . j! ��jj ti 57 /-'✓�*11.Lz,Cif. Ve3d, Li- zt 17 6 t , - �../.2..; u< •,- �. d. •)1' ` C_N.\.-Tew_ :J.)._ -i. :tip.. `.�i, C&�\,; L__„\_-:-A, 't.Z . _'\�`'t _ -4../.,./e4-0---.--- '52:Z.-7 i 9: 4(,F /47 . , , , • ,.1. . . / 1.. -64= 4_...",), .7 1/ ,..i. - zY/Cet_.. I : .‘ ii ..(7-1//- -S i.1 270 C.,,_ ------ pc-/- z/ q -f)ci _ C, (O / 1 Y LY L,2 ;076.?„4/./., - 7.7,3 1/4,Ao-Az,,,,-. - - ' . 1 _...., --6/7 ' ----- Q i 5P . &A.-:-R Cd.__e _ S'',. .4)_49 q .5 C ff .--PA -h--.. , i1c71 )1Cd2\V.,-).._ .. , 6 � G. :.€ ........r. .. .... __--_ -- e S - r .J 7y ' ( f. — —• _ --.._.._ _ ____—. i;.. _' ---k--_ G _3 G ✓ S-'. 170 • ,,, , , 4 ... � _____. __ 7 • _______-___,,,_!�. � ... :__.__-- , , ____.__ rl ‘' 7L 117� � yg0 9 * - We the undersign are strenuously and unal atl.y opposed to the construction of an aircraft runway on the Park Land L;states Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps , plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft , at Road 5 and Road 12 , Weld County, Erie , Colorado, for the following reasons . It will be : (1 ) within 1000 feet (approximately) of an existing 75 unit Subdivision , plus many individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to the airstrip; (2 ) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels , particularly on week-ends ;; (3 ) a hazard to the lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity; (4 ) completely surrounded by electric power lines - some nearly 100 feet high; (5 ) within one mile of a Weather Observation Tower , approximately 985 feet high ; (6 ) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7 ) a nuisance factor which knows no/ bounds. i ' d /J.:�: !�� -<.' �r ti (1y/. • ,79' -ems- 61a--1-a-4-1_ 7D f -- u lS' :. _ . __K.. 30 ,,: ', -(1, Y)ti,e-cr ,-- 6 cry imp sh;?.?-2 6 6, Y-1. �,, 7ja go 1 V- S-2-8,- -- 377y ' /?"'lc, _e(Lu-> .•->' ;7' //✓'?-C • -(7C - l- s." G , -K1/4 <ss (J / .,c -1P5 / }tat - ktrri g:-7S y/77 S 7 coat —a. `17a- Rext\b ,.,Qa ��"�. s2. 3110 9d.-0.7�1 5t 4 77c2 5$tP idtiWa-el 0,7,57 CJc4fcru<.) ec,4. 6,6, 5 -? I7S of o X1 gr6(58 l6S -y/1Sz 7'? aax c`d. a. — ,/ ny3 flc. /, � SCs6 , ti4 a 9 y7 `s/9 tt1I .. �. .. -' ) s'y . e.s.,a 9 xg- 12. sJ ,- d • 3 94-7 er-4-4.e... _4e e., ..,, e..4, F-.5--, 3-? r/ aa4 � aell 2,,i4dA/i ea r x 5-7r i £ ad - 4 At. ij AQ 9 . 7, 7 larka-- 7i 3-'3/4A----, 7 "-s-- ;?ate X _ 6. e a ) -2' '__� a A 9..173. /-, q- 700 favtlez _4--7,4;y-e/---a-- /7//S- ute-Zir_e-e-1 ices vzL' L �l� cam- G‘ vcAceldia Isis /4/0(6-b-mk _Pl< . 7 . 0.� e ,, - 3641 det - 6oadc- 3ays— /O.._an 70 - " ' e�vvaU��1 , , a �� c QA Pte ; Le the undersigned are strenuously and unalterably omiosed to the construction of an aircraft runway on the Park Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps, plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft , at }goad 5 and Road 12, Weld County, ttrie , Colorado, for the following reasons. It will be : (1) within 1000 feet (approximately) of an existing ?5 unit Subdivision, plus many individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to the airstrip; (2 ) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels , particularly on week-ends ; (3) a hazard to the lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity; (4 ) completely surrounded by electric power lines - some nearly 1OO feet high; (5) within one mile of a Weather Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high; (6) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7 ) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds. 7/ LL /mil-a=C__ L/ xi' 1_�.t: •,� •f 1.t+ //I 1MA I &ill-, a _ 1(.) 2,,r7)144S± 60 4/ Y24..a.,,„, Gide //1.. 41A-"(21-' ' /LC /IL !. C . .. ...._ _ ._.. .. . ......_ ....._ ... ..... ........ _._.- __._.._._.. /.v . /1.1 . • . .. . .. . . . . ..... /2'/ • /y.. • • .. . . . .. .. .._....---•-••---......._-- -. -. ..... 1;15. .. .. _. __. .. ......_.............._........_._-_._..._. .... /3/ i5z 13 .. . . . /j) • /3L • /3 • .... . . . . ..... . .... .. .. . .........._ /3y lefl We the undersigned are strenuo;sly and unalterably opposed to the construction of an aircraft runway on the lark Land Estates Subdivision which is designed to accommodate 68 planes on its residential parking ramps , plus an uncertain number of visiting aircraft , at Road 5 and Road 12 , Weld County, Erie , Colorado, for the following reasons. It will be : (1 ) within 1000 feet (agoroximately) of an existing 75 unit Subdivision , plus many individual homes outside this subdivision even closer to the airstrip; (2 ) creating wholly unacceptable noise pollution levels , particularly on week—ends ; (3 ) a hazard to the lives and properties of these residences in such close proximity ; (4 ) completely surrounded by electric power lines — some nearly 100 feet high; (5 ) within one mile of a Weather Observation Tower, approximately 985 feet high; (6 ) detrimental to the value of these properties ; (7 ) a nuisance factor which knows no bounds . s z I/J c-L-i-e, .. ----62' � - -1 (� $6io ev_ 5-k • _ //( G & ca, . s1i3 47, g v . In (jai)/ 6_, -A-U 6 . §a�� 26 6 9Z(3--11(y' ifs ! a_ 6 EL- c S‘)/. a 6/ S2gcm? ', , a / ,, 7C /. G)go a ' P 7_ r � �(_6 ,'0_,,,,(_4,- f/ l - (, , - c5 5/- i��f. ec 1-c LE. (ii r / K— J t/ '.7/ , L , 333/ 0 � O f g� ca 6� if v ) 5�-�.- 57,7 �� c `f ,/ 2-o f,3 )8 Lit I 9(fl�'/ s cam' L February 13 , 1976 Dear Commissioner Billings, We attended the hearing on the final approval of Parkland Estates on February 11, 1976. We would like to go on record as k.eing highly opposed to this development for many reasons. Commissioner Billings stated you have no control over the schools, but surely you rust realize that in granting final approval of this development, you would be adding to the already overcrowded situation in our schools . The current high school was completed five years ago and it is already much too small - can you imagine what conditions would be like by adding 91 more families in the area: At the present time, we do not have adequate fire protection and this certainly would do nothing to improve the situation. We also have some developments in the area that have been constructed by contractors that consist of substandard housing. What is our guarantee that Parkland Estates will not add to these conditions? I know that you have certain building codes that should be met, but obviously they are not watched as closely as they should be. You may contact any of the families that live in the Carmacar Estates division and they will gladly verify this fact. Mr. Ginsberg stated that presently we could expect about twelve aircraft in the development , but there is a possibility of having as many as 273 aircraft since each resident of Parkland is entitled to own one-third interest in three different aircraft while only one of the owners must live in Parkland - what kind of effect would that have on the community: We also feel that as elected public officials, your first responsibility should be to the people currently residing in this section of Weld County - their welfare should come first. We honestly hope that you will see no other course of action to take and deny approval of this development. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs . George M. Daniel 2244 Weld County Road 12 +(t1\ Erie, Colorado 80516 - 76 ``J-�-� r j c_ w �� ts • • Fidelity National Title Insurance Company �...... .. SUITE 1000 1776 SOUTH JACKSON DENVER, COLORADO 80210 Telephone 303 758-3030 February 9, 1976 Mr. Frederick L. Ginsberg Attorney at Law 3600 South Yosemite, Suite 840 Denver, Colorado Weld I . , . I ) I -_ r of the -rl (i I ,>-cl Vayne Barton, Dean Cochran, Herbert Ruthledge, Elbert G. Sharp,___. Ken Tallman, Dean Dugger and Doris McFeeters, Trustees for Park Land Associates of Weld County in Weld f If i .. l' i't.. ')' 11 1.: ro,/ 1 „ !i, 'inl�r, :yft.'r., _-.i I tic, TJ . in c ii . . .. DTI Y ' ' ' LIB- l';.) lc ;3. l � / _ ..-_':) December 19. 1972 and including instrumentrecorded February 9, 1976; Reception No. 1680883 , ' I Inc; . I I, I:.) )..T; • • •• • •••• • • ••••••••• •• •• •• • •• • • • •••: Chuck Wiitala I ' • • 1. Quit Claim Deed recorded February 9, 1976 under Reception No. 1680883 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The N 1/2 of Section 8, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO; EXCEPTING therefrom a strip of land ten feet in width through the N'N 1/4 of said Section 8 conveyed to The Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company by deed recorded February 13, 1909 in Book 289 at Page 530, weld County Records; ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that certain parcel of land conveyed to the Union Pacific Railroad Company by instrument recorded June 13, 1912 in Book 359 at Page 418 Weld County Records ~ r • STATE OF COLORADO FREDERICK L. GINSBERG ss. ATTORNEY AT LAW COUNTY Or WELD rii=o m.'., n,. `.:,_rh of the board 3600 SOUTH YOSEMITE STREET, SUITE 840 o: County Comm sinners DENVER,COLORADO 80222 AREA CODE (303) 773-1405 F Z 6 1. ' 1976 Jacqueline S.Davis COUNTY CLERK MND RECORDER By D February 16, 1976 Weld County Board of Commissioners Health and Welfare Bldg. Hospital Road Greeley, Colorado 80531 Attn: Mr. Glenn Billings, Chairman Re: Final Plat - Park Land Estates, Inc. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the hearing which was held before you on February 11 , 1976, relative to a request for final approval of the above captioned plat, please be advised as follows: 1 . As a rebuttal to the remarks made by Mr. Dinner who represents the opposition to the plat, and specifically with respect to zoning and beginning of construction within the applicable 12 month period as established by your regulations, the fact is that at all times pertinent we have repeatedly requested extensions of this time period due to the inability on our part to obtain cooperation from the town of Erie. Your records are complete in this regard, as we wrote ap- prising you that Erie refused to respond to our request for negotiations. Your records will also reflect that in June, 1975, you gave both parties 90 days during which to conclude an agreement for water service. It was only on August 25, 1975, that we were finally advised by Erie we could appear for the purpose of discussing such a contract. The re- sults of our appearance are shown in the form of a Resolution adopted by Erie, a copy of which is also in your file. We think that inasmuch as the County did at all times ask us to proceed toward prosecuting the final plat to completion, there is no doubt, but that it was intended the periods of time were continuously extended to permit us to act in this endeavor. 2. There were certain additional changes which the Planning Staff requested us to make on the protective covenants, and these have been done. A copy of the final , revised covenants is enclosed with this letter for your review. We have underlined the changes on your copy. • • Weld County Board of Commissioners February 16, 1976 Page Two. 3. My clients would have no objection to construcitng a 6' chain link fence along both sides of the large ditch, and then having a 3 strand barbed wire grab at the top of each of the fence railings. Additionally, we are amenable to installing fences on the other ditches if it is the desire of the owners that this be done. In speaking with Mr. Smith after the meeting he thought that our erection of fences might make it difficult for him to clean his lateral and that as long as there was no problem incurred by him in the event the lateral were to remain unfenced, that he probably would not want us to install the fences. We will of course help Mr. Smith out in the regard to the best of our ability. 4. We will need to know the amount of money of which must be paid to the County in lieu of land dedications for parks, etc. There was no mention made of this at the time that we had our hearing before you, but we would like to know what this will be as soon as possible. 5. We are prepared to provide a Letter of Credit covering the costs of installation of the improvements, and also to execute with the County its standard subdividing agreement covering the installation of such improvements. Here again, the exact figure will have to be coordinated between the engineers for my client and the Weld County Engineer. 6. Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the letter which was sent to me by Mr. S.A. Marshall , who is a member of Park Land Estates. He is a pilot, and he obtained this letter based on a comment made by one of the opposition members relative to an alleged telephone conver- sation with a Mr. McGee in the Federal Aviation office. The informa- tion in this letter copy should be helpful to you, and we urge you to contact Mr. Kramer who is the Safety Director mentioned in the letter copy. 7. We are also amenable to placing on the plat a notation that the seven lots lying below the large ditch cannot have residences built on them with basements. In addition the owners of these lots have agreed to indemnify the ditch company in the event of any damages • Weld County Board of Commissioners February 16, 1976 Page Three. caused by seepage. Moreover, these seven lots will be limited to the use of evapotransporation sewage systems. Here again, it is our suggestion that the plat be modified to reflect that this type of system must be employed for these particular seven lots. In conclusion we wish to thank the County for its assistance in this matter, and we will await your further disposition on our request for your approval of the final plat. Ver ruly yours, F ederick L. Ginsb 9—� FLG/cn cc: Mrs. Doris McFeeters Mr. Neal Godwin, VTN Ms. Cindy Telep, Esq. 840 City View Dr. Denver, CO 80229 ."r. Fredrick I. Ginsberg ;;Suite 40 0303 So. Yosemite St ,.dnver, CO 631222 Dear Mr. Ginsberg: I done some checking today with the "GADO" Office. F.A.A. Safety Director of our district. Mr. Rick Kramer 466_7326 He said, he would be glad to talk to you, Commissioners or any other interested parties on the regulations I checked my "Federal Air Regulations" with his and mine are up to dace. These pertain to questions heard at meeting yesterday. FAR #91.71--ACROBATIC FLIGHT. (A) No person may operate an aircraft in acrobatic flight- 1. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement. 2. Over an open air assembly of persons; 3. Within a control zone or Federal airway; 4. Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or 5. When flight visibility is less than three miles. For the purposes of this paragraph, acrobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft ' s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. (B) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approves parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft, carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds-- 1. A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or 2. A nose up or nose down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon. CAR #91. 79-- MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES: GENERAL. Rxcept when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) ANYWHERE. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an -_- _ ancy landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) OVER CONGESTED AREAS. Over any congested area of a city, tows, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) OVER OTHER THAN CONGESTED AREAS. An altitude of 500 feet above tRe surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) HELICOPTERS: Helicopters may be operated at less than the mini- mums prescribed in parahraph (b)or(c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. ! i Ginsberg Febuary 12, 11976 In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with _uucas or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administ_ator. .,_. Slassfl informed lee several calls had been received today from rlc -;osi. 'o , and mire was the first call from -�'.b.A. , he was very glue s(, emus- e other side of storyand seemed quite enthused about the pro _c. _,lso .:U4 Mr. McGee at the General Aviation Office. Cali me it I can be of further assistance. Yours truly // , 0058 A. T ARSRALL 840 CITY VIEW DR. DENVER, CO 80229 287-8338 • a RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR PARK LAND ESTATES OF WELD COUNTY ,hec whit development (P. U.D. ) consisting of the North 1/2, Section 8, .:....,ship I North, Range 68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. DICATION AND INTENT. The Park Land Associates (P. L.A. ) , a group of a:ra,ane enthusiasts, having pooled their money, talent and considerable effort, have planned and created an exclusive residential community - te ?arK Land Estates (P. L. E. ) consisting of dwelling sites having taxi „ents radiating to an unique common real property area of joint owner- ..,. ,., and responsibility consisting of approximately (40) acres dedicated to these of and for their aircraft and that of their guests. F,rther, the P. L.A. not wishing or intending to cause a noise or hazard nuisance to either the public or to its own people do agree to limit any anc. all aircraft to be based on the P. L. E. to the light aircraft standards s CCT nea by the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A. ). Also, all such sasec aircraft shall comply with any and all regulations as enforced by are F.A.A. and the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A. ) as empowered by the 92nd Congress in the Noise Control Act of 1972. 2. CESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT. All lot owners in the P. L. E. - P. U. D. sndT ] be members of Park Land Estates, Inc. , a Colorado non-profit corpor- ation (P.L. E. , Inc. ) and shall be governed by these rules and covenants. The enforcement of these rules and covenants shall be the responsibility of the P.L.A. Trustees in accordance with paragraph 5. hereof. 3. O',;;NERSHIP AND USE OF COMMON REAL PROPERTY. Certain property identified o the P. L. E. Final Plat will be developed and beneficially owned by P . L.E. , Inc. and such property will be jointly used with equal privileges a:;c responsibilities by all members of the P.L.A. and dedicated toward their pursuit of recreational sport flying and related activities. 4. CONTENTS OF COMMON REAL PROPERTY. Approximately (40) acres consisting of a runway with its necessary clear areas to be built to F.A.A. utility aircraft standards. A tie down, hangar building area for the exclusive use of all P. L.A. mem- oers and guests aircraft storage and display. Additional improvements to be included wihtin this area may consist of, but not be limited to club house building, maintenance equipment and storage building, under- gro.sd gasoline storage and parking area for autos. on area of approximately (4) acres dedicated for picnic activities, recreational sport activities (tennis, swimming, etc. ) and similar common areas. • • 5. ? ' SI ILITiSS. P.L. E. , Inc. shall be solely responsible for all nance, taxes and improvements of the common real property. In- governing by-laws necessary for a democratic use of these premises sr. :ibe the responsibility of the P.L.A. trustees, which is in accordance .. . t:; Trust Agreement dated August 27, 1972 and, said trustees shall have ers as are necessary to bring suit, negotiate and do all other neces- sary things to enforce these covenants for and on behalf of the owners lots in the Park Land Estates subdivision in Weld County, Colorado. .--. ;le to all Common Real Property shall be vested in the Trustees for the period of duration of these covenants for the use of the members of P. L.A. , Inc. The Trustees are further empowered to levy such assessments against the owners of lots in P. L. E. as shall be reasonably necessary from time to time to off-set expenses incurred for the maintenance, taxes and upkeep of the Common Real Property. Any such assessment shall be ruquired to be paid in full within (20) days after date of notice there- of is given to a lot owner by registered mail . Failure by a lot owner to .ay such assessment, when due, shall mean the Trustees shall have a right to (a) file a lien upon the lot against which the assessment is levied and (b) bring an action for judicial foreclosure of said lien i„ accordance with the laws of Colorado. Any such unpaid lien shall tear interest at the rate of (12%) per annum from the date of its filing. The owner of the lot charged shall also be responsible for all costs, 2XpeliSeS and reasonable attorney fees incurred on account of any such foreclosure. c. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. There will be an Architectural Con- trol Committee (A.C. C. ) to consist of (6) members of P.L.E. , Inc. , who shall be appointed by the P.L.A. trustees or as appointed by their suc- cessors after the time the trust is dissolved. Each A.C.C. member will serve a term of (3) years, beginning on the date that he received and accepted appointment to serve. Sr. the event of the death, inability or refusal to act of any of the A.C.C. mamberrs, the trustees (or their successors, if the trust has expired) may appoint a substitute A.C.C. member; and such A. C.C. member shall trereupon succeed to all the rights and duties of his predecessor. 7. ACTION BY ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. The A.C. C. may provide rules governing its procedures pertaining to a quorum, application forms, posting of notices and similar matters. It is expressly provided that any p2rson acting pursuant to an instrument in writing signed by one or more maffsors of the A.C.C. and by its terms purporting to reflect a duly a. t h:orized action of the A.C. C. shall be duly protected in the premises :nail not thereafter be enjoined, restrained, hindered, delayed or penalized in such regard. (The P. L.A. trustees are hereby empowered to enforce the rules promulgated by the A.C.C. , and such enforcement ma; Lye pursued at law or in equity in any Colorado Court of competent risdiction) . Enforcementshall be by proceedings at law or in equity -2- • aainst any person or persons violating any covenant to restrain vio- toas or to recover damages and shall in no way subject any individual _:astee or the trustees to personal liability so long as said trustee or trustees were acting in good faith in accordance with the tenor or t ..se covenants. 3. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgment or court order shall in no way effect the validity of any other pro- visions, which will remain in full force and effect. 9. RE-SUBDIVISION. No lot owner may re-subdivide his property until after June 6, 2053, and then, only if the Weld County Authorities and the State Division of Water Resources (and/or their respective successors) are assured that water and sewer facilities are sufficient to serve the re-subdivided lands, and that re-subdivision complies with all of the requirements of Weld rdaty then applicable to such re-subdivision. 10. AIRCRAFT STANDARDS. Each aircraft operator shall abide by all rules, regulations, and standards set forth by the P. L.A. trustees or successors concerning the operation of same in or near the P.L. E. subdivision. It is not the intent or purpose of P.L.A. to create or condone a com- ercial aircraft environment, but rather aviation of a private or sport nature. Crop dusting, flight instruction for profit, commercial air- craft activities and/or maintenance for profit will not be allowed in the P. L.E. subdivision. ;;o visiting aircraft will be allowed to remain anywhere on the P.L.E. subdivision for an accumulated period in excess of (10) days during any (12) month period without written permission from the P.L.A. trustees or successors. Except for visiting aircraft, no P.L. E. , Inc. member shall supply parking space for any aircraft which is not owned (at least 4th) by a P.L.E. , Inc. member or a member of his immediate family. ;either any P. L.E. , Inc. member nor the P.L.A. trustees shall knowingly allow any visiting aircraft to be anywhere on the P. L.E. PUD until the aircraft operator responsibile for the liability of the aircraft has signed a liability release and has filed it with the P.L.A. trustees. This liability release shall release all P.L. E. , Inc. members and the trustees, individually and collectively, from liability of any kind for the air- c:raft, any and all occupants and contents while any or all of these are on P.L.E. subdivision common real property. 2. LAND USE. MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES. a. No plot shall be used for any type of storage of house trailers , trucks, machinery, heavy equipment, goods, wares, merchandise, material , rock, gravel , sand, earth or the like except for the storage of such materials in connection with the construction of the improvements. -3- S. Igo trash or other refuse may be thrown, c i sposi i.ed or dumped on any lot or P.L.A. property. Each lot and the improvements constructed thereon shLl be kept in a sanitary and sightly condition at all times. If the ow her does not comply, the lot will be cleaned by order of the P.L.A. trustees at the owner's expense. Excessive growth of weeds on a lot is to be regarded as an unsightly condition. Irrigation of lawn(s) , gardens cr other areas on each individual lot shall be restricted to an area not to exceed 10,000 square feet per lot. The balance o any lot shall be used , inter alia , for construction of a single family residence and ac- ccmpanying garage facilities. c. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be conducted as to become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood, or that could depress property security and value. L. The aircraft runway to be constructed in P.L. E. shall not be paved without the prior approval of the Board of County Commissioners. of Weld County. At such time as paving does occur, retention ponds shall be con= s7T'ucted on the premises by P. L.E. , Inc. to retain additional drainage oGs resulting from the paving of the runway. Such retention ponds snail t constructed in accordance with plans approved by Weld County authorities. !h.e operation and maintenance of the ponds shall be the responsibility OT P.L.L. 1C. LAND USE. RESTRICTION AND LIMITATIONS. a. Subject to Weld County and F.A.A. rules and regulations, outside aerials or antennas, such as TV, amateur, FM, CB radio, communications etc. must be approved by the A.C.C. before erection. b. Antennas must also meet Weld County, F.C.C. and F.A.A. requirements for lighting and height. c. No trees may be planted of a species where they potentially would grow to a height contrary to F.A.A. recommendations in regards to the safety of the normal traffic pattern. d. Overnight parking of vehicles of any type will not be permitted on streets or roadways. e. No partial vehicle, part from a vehicle, vehicle under construction or repair, damaged aircraft or non operable vehicles shall be stored or parked in the open orplainview at any time. Exceptions will be for displays only and permission must be in writing from the P.L.A. trustees or successors. f. Only currently airworthy aircraft and operable vehicles (including utility vehicles with current licenses and state inspection stickers, (if required) , will be allowed to park on the common runway or adjacent facilities. g. No vehicle other than aircraft or airpark maintenance vehicles shall be operated or parked on taxiways or runways at any time. -4- • • ,.. Illumination of any plot must be installed so as not to distract or anoy adjoining property owners or traffic on roadways, runways and taxi- A. C. C. may, upon investigation, require the owner to alter illumination sources to eliminate a light nuisance. . No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any pot except: A professional sign of not more than 1 square foot. A sign of not more than 5 square feet advertising the property for sale or rent. A house street number not exceeding 2 square feet in size. A sign naming who the residents are which does not exceed 1 square foot per resident. Neither neon signs nor signs of a flashing or animated nature will be allowed. Provided, all of the above are also subject to Weld County regulations. Fences will not be allowed within any of the aircraft taxi easements as shown on the final P. L. E. plat. Any and all fences must be approved by the A.C.C. prior to erection. 15. SAFETY MEASURES. Except for heating, cooking and cleaning purposes , no flammable liquid may be stored above ground and outside of a structure in any container exceeding 5 gallon capacity. IS. LIVESTOCK AND PETS. a. Pets and animals may be kept on the owners' lots as long as the owner maintains and restricts them to the degree that they present no safety, health hazard or nuisance to neighbors or aircraft operations. Safety, health hazard or nuisances includes, but is not limited to insects, noise and smell . Unleashed animals or pets within any of the P.L. E. , Inc. property or taxiways will be considered a safety hazard. Caution is stressed toward such practice as the aircraft shall at all times have the right-of-way within these areas. Complaints from other members shall result in a hearing before the A.C.C. If the A.C.C. decides that any or all animals shall be removed from the P.L.E. , Inc. member' s lot, the member shall remove the specified animals within (10) days of the decision. b. Only (3) major animals of (80 pounds or more) will be allowed on any lot. a. 1?ore than (3) major animals may be allowed by the A.C.C. provided that in their opinion the animals will be properly cared for, and will not constitute a nuisance of any kind to any part of the balance of the ct unity, and that the keeping of such animals shall be in accord with I;eld County regulations. C. The raising of livestock for commercial gain is disallowed as this is primarily a residential community. -5- • • e. z.re of =-.l animals and household pets must be in a manner consistent c33 an i nu5oandry. 7. "v,i- AV)/OR PERANENT STRUCTURES. a. emporarj residence facilities w be governed by Wald County Regu- b. ;o structure, addition thereto, or modifications thereof shall be started, placed, erected, installed or completed without written approval of t;ne A. C.C. and the proper Weld County permit. c. "wo sets of plans which clearly illustrate any proposed structures locations, layout and standards of construction shall be submitted to the A.C. C. , one set shall be returned to the member submitting, with the cc:.ie is of the A.C.C. attached thereto. The other set shall be retained by the A.C.C. for use in inspection of the structure by members of the Y. v.v. Should the A.C.C. fail to approve or disapprove said plans within (10) says after submission, then such approval will not be required and the recuirements of these covenants will be deemed to have been met. The a ,ber will allow the A.C.C. to inspect the structure at any reasonable time during construction as often as deemed necessary by the A. C.C. it s of the purpose of these covenants to restrict either the style of architecture or the type of materials to be used in building con- strcction. It is anticipated that there will be a great variation in these areas. However, structures such as unattractive pole barns or han ars, unfinished corrugated sheet metal siding and/or roofing and other materials and methods comparable to these will not be allowed. ho residence or building shall be erected such that any part is within 30 feet of any street or 30 feet from any lot line or taxiway easement. Special cases will be considered where the owner shows that hardship :s created by peculiar lot geometry, and subject also to any variance requirement imposed by Weld County regulation. The exterior of any building shall be completed within one year after f undation work is begun. The A.C.C. will be notified as to the beginning date prior to commencing construction. residence having a maximum of (2) stories shall have a minimum living floor area" of 1200 square feet. "Main living floor area" e :cuces any patio, porch, attic, garage, breezeway, workshop, basement or sii ar, except any basement having at least (40%) of its average iterior wall height above grade may be considered "main living area" provided this area is finished to livable standards. -6- 7Jtal hdght of any structure, exc 'usive of chimneys, will not be more (23 feat above the finish grade. Finish grade shall not exceed . .a: a than (2) feet above existing natural grade unless additional grading is :coven to De necessary for proper drainage. o outbuiding of more than 2,500 sq. ft. may be constructed on any lot. 02dn faced structures snarl be screened by fences or plantings in such a .;ay that they do not present an objectionable view from the street or adjacent sites. .:art of any building or structure shalt be within any aircraft ease- : -, or within a distance from the runway which would conflict with F.A.A. . econe Inda t ions. TES,. CE OF TAND/OR SE " 'fir FACILITIES STORM DRAINAGE. ,�� .:f{;CR SEVER �°..;:,,J, AND Si nil Th& '. . .A. trustees shall be responsible for the operation, repair and •. ein tenance of all water wells, pumps, water, sewer and storm drainage rains and facilities within the P. L.E. community. Septic systems, water and sewer . a'ae:'a IS extending from a lot line to an individual residence shall be the responsibility of the owner of the residence served by same. The trustees are empowered to levy such assessments against the owners of lots in the P. L.E. subdivision as shall be necessary from time to time to exercise the intent of this proviso. Payments and enforcement for the collection of such levies and/or assessments shall be accomplished the P.L. E. trustees in the same manner as prescribed in paragraph 5. of these covenants. Provided, that if at a future date, the Agreement between P. L. E. , Inc. and the Erie Water and Sanitation District dated e.tber 11 , 1974 becomes operative, then said Agreement shall ,;overn as to sewer mains and facilities within the P. L. E. subdivision nee the P. L.E. trustees are hereby directed and empowered to implement the performance of said Agreement on behalf of P.L. E. , Inc. 9. These covenants run with the land, and shall be binding on all per- so:,-;s claiming under them for a period of (2) years from the date or re- cording, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended tar successive periods of (5) years unless there is executed an instrument sidled by a majority of the then owners or the plots, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part. Provided, any such change shall first reauire approval of a majority of Weld County Board of Commissioners be- fore becoming effective. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the trustees of Park Land Estates, Inc. have here- -7- Their hands and seals on tI ' s day of , 1976, nJr;,.:7 declaring the real property first described—Tibove to be subject to '�.:d restrictive covenants, rules and regulations contained within. Wayne Barton Dean Cochran Herbert Rut'nledge Elbert G. Sharp Ken Tallman Dean Dugger Doris McFeeters TRUSTEES -8- • • RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR PARK LAND ESTATES OF ELD COUNTY A planned unit development (P. U.D. ) consisting of the North 2, Section 8, Township 1 North, Range 68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. 1 , DEDICATION AND INTENT. The Park Land Associates (P. L.A. ) , a group of airplane enthusiasts, having pooled their money, talent and considerable effort, have planned and created an exclusive residential community - ne Park Land Estates (P.L.E. ) consisting of dwelling sites having taxi easements radiating to an unique common real property area of joint owner- ship and responsibility consisting of approximately (40) acres dedicated to tneuseof and for their aircraft and that of their guests. 1Thrt�er, the P. L.A. not wishing or intending to cause a noise or hazard nuisance to either the public or to its own people do agree to limit any ar.o all aircraft to be based on the P.L. E. to the light aircraft standards as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A. ). Also, all such based aircraft shall comply with any and all regulations as enforced by the F.A.A. and the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A. ) as empowered by the 92nd Congress in the Noise Control Act of 1972. 2. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT. All lot owners in the P.L. E. - P. U. D. shall be members of Park Land Estates, Inc. , a Colorado non-profit corpor- ation (P.L.E. , Inc. ) and shall be governed by these rules and covenants. The enforcement of these rules and covenants shall be the responsibility of the P.L.A. Trustees in accordance with paragraph 5. hereof. 3. C'.:NERSHIP AND USE OF COMMON REAL PROPERTY. Certain property identified on the P.L.E. Final Plat will be developed and beneficially owned by P. L. E. , Inc. and such property will be jointly used with equal privileges and responsibilities by all members of the P. L.A. and dedicated toward their pursuit of recreational sport flying and related activities. 4. CONTENTS OF COMMON REAL PROPERTY. Approximately (40) acres consisting of a runway with its necessary clear areas to be built to F.A.A. utility aircraft standards. A -;lie cow:, hangar building area for the exclusive use of all P.L.A. mem- bers and guests aircraft storage and display. Additional improvements to oe included wihtin this area may consist of, but not be limited to c .uo house building, maintenance equipment and storage building, under- ground gasoline storage and parking area for autos. open area of approximately (4) acres dedicated for picnic activities, recreational sport activities (tennis, swimming, etc. ) and similar common areas. • • B. RISPGSIBILITIES. P.L. E. , Inc. shall be solely responsible for all n in:enance, taxes and improvements of the common real property. In- ternal governing by-laws necessary for a democ, .:.,;ic use of _ ese premises shall be the responsibility of the P.L.A. tru :sees, which is in accordance with Trust Agreement dated Au:st 27, 1972 and , said trustees shall have ers as are necessary to br ;..b suit, negotiate and do all other neces- sary things to enforce these covenants for and on behalf of the owners of lots in the Park Land Estates suodivision in Weld County, Colorado. Title to all Common Real Property shall be vested in the Trustees for the period of duration of these covenants for the use of the members of P. L.A. , Inc. The Trustees are further empowered to levy such assessments against the owners of as shall be reasonably necessary frcm time to time to u. : ,,.ses incurred for the maintenance, taxes and upkeep of the Common : uperty. Any such assessment shall be recurred to be paid in full within (20) days after date of notice there- of is given to a lot owner by registered mail . Failure by a lot owner to pay such assessment, when due, shall mean the Trustees shall have a right to (a) file a lien upon the lot against which the assessment is , evied and (b) bring an action for judicial foreclosure of said lien in accordance with the laws of Colorado. Any such unpaid lien shall bear interest at the rate of (12%) per annum from the date of its filing. The owner of the lot charged shall also be responsible for all costs, exsenses and reasonable attorney fees incurred on account of any such foreclosure. 6. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. There will be an Architectural Con- trol Committee (A.C.C. ) to consist of (6) members of P.L.E. , Inc. , who shall be appointed by the P.L.A. trustees or as appointed by their suc- cessors after the time the trust is dissolved. Each A. C.C. member will serve a term of (3) years, beginning on the date that he received and accepted appointment to serve. In the event of the death, inability or refusal to act of any of the A.C.C. mamberrs, the trustees (or their successors, if the trust has expired) may appoint a substitute A.C.C. member; and such A. C.C. member shall thereupon succeed to all the rights and duties of his predecessor. 7. ACTION BY ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. The A.C. C. may provide rules governing its procedures pertaining to a quorum, application forms, posting of notices and similar matters. It is expressly provided that any person acting pursuant to an instrument in writing signed by one or more members of the A. C. C. and by its terms purporting to reflect a duly a tnorized action of the A.C. C. shall be duly protected in the premises ant shall not thereafter be enjoined, restrained, hindered, delayed or penalized in such regard. (The P. L.A. trustees are hereby empowered to enforce the rules promulgated by the A.C.C. , and such enforcement may be pursued at law or in equity in any Colorado Court of competent jurisdiction) . EnforcementshallTbe by proceedings at law or in equity -2- against any person or persons violating any covenant to restrain vio- ations or to recover damages and shall in no way subject any individual otrustee or the trustees to personal, liability so long as said trustee r trustees were acting in good faith in accordance with the tenor or these covenants. 0. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgment or court order shall in no way effect the validity of any other pro- visions, which will remain in full force and effect. S. RE-SUBDIVISION. No lot owner may re-subdivide his property until after June 6, 2053, and then, only if the Weld County Authorities and tne State Division of Water Resources (and/or their respective successors) are assured that water and sewer facilities are sufficient to serve the re-subdivided lands, and that re-subdivision complies with all of the requirements of Weld County then applicable to such re-subdivision. u. AIRCRAFT STANDARDS. Each aircraft operator shall abide by all rules , regulations, and standards set forth by the P.L.A. trustees or successors concerning the operation of same in or near the P.L. E. subdivision. It is not the intent or purpose of P. L.A. to create or condone a com- mercial aircraft environment, but rather aviation of a private or sport nature. Crop dusting, flight instruction for profit, commercial air- craft activities and/or maintenance for profit will not be allowed in the P. L.E. subdivision. ho visiting aircraft will be allowed to remain anywhere on the P.L.E. subdivision for an accumulated period in excess of (10) days during any ( 2) month period without written permission from the P.L.A. trustees or successors. Except for visiting aircraft, no P.L. E. , Inc. member shall supply parking space for any aircraft which is not owned (at least 1/4th) by a P.L.E. , c. member or a member of his immediate family. :ti., ther any P. L. E. , Inc. member nor the P.L.A. trustees shall knowingly a;low any visiting aircraft to be anywhere on the P.L. E. PUD until the aircraft operator responsibile for the liability of the aircraft has signed a liability release and has filed it with the P.L.A. trustees. This liability release shall release all P. L.E. , Inc. members and the trustees , individually and collectively, from liability of any kind for the air- craft, any and all occupants and contents while any or all of these are on P.L.F. subdivision common real property. 12. LAND USE. MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES. a. No plot shall be used for any type of storage of house trailers, trucks, machinery, heavy equipment, goods, wares, merchandise, material , rock, gravel , sand, earth or the like except for the storage of such materials in connection with the construction of the improvements. -3- • b. No trash or other refuse may be thrown, disposited or dumped on any tot or P.L.A. property. Each lot and the improvements constructed thereon all be kept in a sanitary ana sightly condition at all times. If the lot owner does not comply, the lotwill be cleaned by order of the P.L.A. trustees at the owner' s expense. Excessjve growth of weeds on a lot is 30 be regarded as an unsightly condition. Irrigation of lawn(s) , gardens c:^ other areas on each individual lot shall be restricted to an area not to exceed '. 0,000 square feet per lot. The balance of any lot shall be used, inter alia, for construction of a single family residence and ac- co4anying garage facilities. c. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be conducted as to become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood, or that could depress property security and value. d. The aircraft runway to be constructed in P. L.E. shall not be paved without the prior approval of the Board of County Comimissioners. of Weld Count. Atsuch time as paving does occur, retention ponds shall -be con- structed on the premises by P. L.E. , Inc. to retain addition . drainage flows resulting from the paving of the runway. Such retention ponds shall oa constructed in accordance with plans approved by Weld—County authorities. Tne operation and maintenance of the ponds shall -be the responsibility o-. 13. LAND USE. RESTRICTION AND LIMITATIONS. a. Suoject to Weld County and P.A.A. rules and regulations, outside aerials or antennas, such as Iv, amateur, FM, CB radio, communications etc. must be approved by the A.C.C. before erection. b. Antennas must also meet Weld County, F.C.C. and F.A.A. requirements for lighting and height. c. No trees may be planted of a species where they potentially would .row to a height contrary to F.A.A. recommendations in regards to the safety of the normal traffic pattern. c. Overnight parking of vehicles of any type will not be permitted on streets or roadways. a. No partial vehicle, part from a vehicle, vehicle under construction or repair, damaged aircraft or non operable vehicles shall be stored or parked in the open orplainview at any time. Exceptions will be for displays only and permission must be in writing from the P. L.A. trustees or successors. g. Only currently airworthy aircraft and operable vehicles (including utility vehicles with current licenses and state inspection stickers, if required) , will be allowed to park on the common runway or adjacent facilities. g. No vehicle other than aircraft or airpark maintenance vehicles shall be operated or parked on taxiways or runways at any time. -4- • • h. Illumination of any plot must be installed so as not to distract or annoy adjoining property owners or traffic on roadways, runways and taxi- ways. A. C.C. may, upon investigation, require the owner to alter illumination sources to eliminate a light nuisance. k. No sign or any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any plot except: A professional sign of not more than 1 square foot. A sign of not more than 5 square feet advertising the property for sale or rent. A, house street number not exceeding 2 square feet in size. A sign naming who the residents are which does not exceed 1 square foot per resident. Neither neon signs nor signs of a flashing or animated nature will be allowed. Provided, all of the above are also subject to Weld County regulations. 14. Fences will not be allowed within any of the aircraft taxi easements as shown on the final P. L. E. plat. Any and all fences must be approved by the A.C.C. prior to erection. 15. SAFETY MEASURES. Except for heating, cooking and cleaning purposes, no flammable liquid may be stored above ground and outside of a structure in any container exceeding 5 gallon capacity. 15. LIVESTOCK AND PETS. a. Pats and animals may be kept on the owners' lots as long as the owner r::,intains and restricts them to the degree that they present no safety, health hazard or nuisance to neighbors or aircraft operations. Safety, health hazard or nuisances includes, but is not limited to insects, noise a.-a smell . Unleashed animals or pets within any of the P.L. E. , Inc. property or taxiways will be considered a safety hazard. Caution is stressed toward such practice as the aircraft shall at all times have right-of-way within these areas. Complaints from other members shall result in a hearing before the A.C.C. If the A.C.C. decides that any or all animals shall be removed from the P.L.E. , Inc. member' s lot, the member shall remove the specified animals within (10) days of the decision. b. Only (3) major animals of (80 pounds or more) will be allowed on any lot. c. .ore than (3) major animals may be allowed by the A.C.C. provided that in their opinion the animals will be properly cared for, and will not constitute a nuisance of any kind to any part of the balance of the community, and that the keeping of such animals shall be in accord with Feld County regulations. d. The raising of livestock for commercial gain is disallowed as this is primarily a residential community. -5- • • e. Care of all animals and household pets must be in a manner consistant w: h good animal husbandry. 17. TEP0RARY A :3/0R AXD/OR PERANENT STRUCTURES. a. Temporary residence facilities will be governed by Weld County Regu- : ,. or;s. o. .;o structure, addition thereto, or modifications thereof shall be started, placed, erected, installed or completed without written approval of the A.C. C. and the proper Weid County permit. 0. Two sets of plans which clearly illustrate any proposed structures :ocerions, layout and standards of construction shall be submitted to the A.C. C. , one set shall be returned to the member submitting, with the comments of the A.C. C. attached thereto. The other set shall be retained ey the A.C.C. for use in inspection of the structure by members of the S:a ld the A.C.C. fail to approve or disapprove said plans within (10) days after submission, then such approval will not be required and the requirements of these covenants will be deemed to have been met. The member will allow the A. C. C. to inspect the structure at any reasonable time during construction as often as deemed necessary by the A.C.C. It is not the purpose of these covenants to restrict either the style of architecture or the type of materials to be used in building con- struction. It is anticipated that there will be a great variation in these areas. However, structures such as unattractive pole barns or hangars, unfinished corrugated sheet metal siding and/or roofing and other materials and methods comparable to these will not be allowed. ;o residence or building shall be erected such that any part is within 0 Poet of any street or 30 feet from any lot line or taxiway easement. S:ecial cases will be considered where the owner shows that hardship is created by peculiar lot geometry, and subject also to any variance reeyei, ement imposed by Weld County regulation. -•.e exterior of any building shall be completed within one year after foim,dation work is begun. The A. C.C. will be notified as to the beginning date prior to commencing construction. r••y residence having a maximum of (2) stories shall have a minimum living floor area" of 1200 square feet. "Main living floor area" exc'.aaes any patio, porch, attic, garage, breezeway, workshop, basement cr s milar, except any basement having at least (40%) of its average interior wall height above grade may be considered "main living area" provided this area is finished to livable standards. -6- • • 7otal height of any structure, exclusive of chimneys, will not be more (25) feet above the finish grade. Finish grade shall not exceed more than (2) feet above existing natural grade unless additional grading is proven to be necessary for proper drainage. outbuilding of more than 2,500 sq. ft. may be constructed on any lot. O�enfaced structures shall be screened by fences or plantings in such a '::ay that they do not present an objectionable view from the street or adjacent sites. crt of any building or structure shall be within any aircraft ease- ent, or within a distance from the runway which would conflict with F.F.A. racomaendations. TS. AiNTENII CL OF WATER AND/OR SEWER ;.AiNS, FACILITIES AND STORM DRAINAGE. The P.L.A. trustees shall be responsible for the operation, repair and .:i tenance of all water wells, pumps, water, sewer and storm drainage .. .s and facilities within the P. L.E. community. Septic systems, water and sever ,.orals extending from a lot line to an individual residence shall be the responsibility of the owner of the residence served by same. The P. L.A. trustees are empowered to levy such assessments against the owners of lots in the P. L. E. subdivision as shall be necessary from time to time to exercise the intent of this proviso. Payments and enforcement for the collection of such levies and/or assessments shall be accomplished the P.L. E. trustees in the same manner as prescribed in paragraph 5. o these covenants. Provided, that if at a future date, the Agreement between P. L.E. , Inc. and the Erie Water and Sanitation District dated ve.ber 11 , 1974 becomes operative, then said Agreement shall govern as to sewer mains and facilities within the P. L.E. subdivision and the P.L.E. trustees are hereby directed and empowered to implement he performance of said Agreement on behalf o. P.L. E. , Inc. l9. These covenants run with the land, and shall be binding on all per- claiming under them for a period of (2) years from the date of re- cor: ing, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended successive periods of (5) years unless there is executed an instrument sined by a majority of the then owners of the plots, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part. Provided, any such change shall first recuire approval of a majority of Weld County Board of Commissioners be- fore becoming effective. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the trustees of Park Land Estates, Inc. have here- -7- • • uhto settheir hands and seals on thi5 day of , 1976, herc.ay declaring the real property first described above to be subject to the restrictive covenants, rules and regulations contained within. Wayne 3arton Dean Cochran Herbert Ruthiedge Ebert G. Sharp Ken Tallman Dean Dugger Doris McFeeters TRUSTEES • -8- Hello