HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081525.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF BOARD CONCERNING REVOCATION OF CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ#1043,
FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT - SHERRY LAWLEY
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution #2005-0638, dated March 23, 2005, the Board approved the
application of Sherry Lawley, 26658 County Road 74, Eaton, Colorado 80615,for Change of Zone,
PZ #1043, from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zone
District for eight (8) lots with E (Estate) Zone uses, for a parcel of land located on the following
described real estate, to-wit:
Lot B of Recorded Exemption #3581; being part of
the SE1/4 of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range 64
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has been presented with the request of Sherry
Lawley, to withdraw the Final Plan application, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 27-8-50, Failure to submit a PUD Final Plan, the Board
may revoke the PUD Zone District and order the recorded PUD Zone District reverted to the
original Zone District, and
WHEREAS,after hearing all testimony presented,the Board deems it advisable to continue
the matter to July 23, 2008, at the applicant's request, in order to allow the applicant time to discuss
additional options with the Department of Planning Services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the matter regarding the revocation of Change of Zone, PZ#1043,from the
A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned Unit Development)Zone District, be,and hereby
is, continued to July 23, 2008, at 9:00 a.m.
2008-1525
PL1765
C( '. PI, /+L Db - (I -Og
REVOKE CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ#1043 - SHERRY LAWLEY
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 21st day of May, A.D., 2008.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�������� WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: L /�'!/YG EXCUSED
William H. Jerke, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board C\13-\
l Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tern
BY: F1LIG� =r LF C�L�e�/
Deputy Clerk the Board
William F. Garcia
APPR¢GED AS b w�� C
David E. Long
ounty At rney — o
Doug; Rademac r
Date of signature: 9Af
2008-1525
PL1765
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today concerning this project. The project
basically started in 2004. The original design included 8 lots on approximately 115 acres ranging
in size from 3.5 acres to 80 acres. Three of the lots boarded the Nazarenes Ditch. In December
2004 I went before the planning commission for change of zone. At that time there was
significant opposition from the Nazarenus Ditch Company concerning the 8 lots and the impact
on the approximately 5 foot wide and3 foot deep ditch. This ditch also has a 120 foot right of
way on the West side of it and a 50 right of way on the East side of it. As a result of the potential
impacts to the ditch company, I moved the lot lines to the far West edge of the right of way and
redesigned the plan so there were only three lots instead of four boarding the West edge of the
right of way. Thus reducing the lot sizes and potential income and increasing engineering and
surveying costs. This left the 120 foot right of way access free solely for use by the ditch
company and the owner of the larger 80 acre lot. In March of 2005 I came belbre this board for a
change of zone hearing. At that time this board required me to enter into an agreement with
Nazarenus Ditch Company addressing: •
.
-review of drainage plan
- fencing type
-maintenance of the strip of ditch right-of-way
- ditch company access
The Nazarenus Ditch Company hired an engineer to review and design the drainage plan. This
was in addition to the public works review the county required. The requirement by the county
commissioners to get an agreement with the ditch made it impossible for me to get approval
through the county until I met all the Nazarenus Ditch Company design criteria demands.
EXHIBI In
T
ViLe
t
jcc'?- lsas - Z
•
In addition, the agreement with the Nazarenus Ditch Company was to include fencing type,
maintenance of the strip of ditch right-of-way and access. This added to the impossibility of
moving the project forward without the ditch company approval. These were the impacts that I
tried to avoid by moving lot lines off the right of way after opposition was expressed at the
planning meeting. The ditch company was in opposition of this project from the start. With that
in mind the requirement for me to get an agreement with the ditch company gave them the ability
to dictate all design aspects and increase cost for all four of the items the county wanted
addressed. Indirectly the county gave the ditch company the ability to require higher standards
and implement lofty design criteria that the established county codes were designed to address.
If there is any doubt about the authority the ditch company perceived they had, a letter dated
February 29th 2008 by the Ditch Company Attorney demonstrates their perceived power by
requiring the applicant to:
-provide a performance bond in the amount of$20,000 and an additional $2,500 for professional
services, installation per design standards.
- to limit the applicant to one crossing and that no other crossings be allowed in the County right
of way.
- to require the applicant to provide liability insurance coverage in adequate and proper amounts
on behalf of the Nazarenus Ditch Company with premiums to be paid by the developers or some
type of homeowner's association which will be kept in full force and effect with proof of
payment of the premiums.
-to hold the ditch company not responsible or liable for any losses that occur to livestock or from
other damages or losses incurred from their usage of lot 4.
- require the applicant to install at her or her successors in interest sole expense and cost, any
fences and all fences and gates requested by the ditch company and at reasonable and mutually
agreed upon locations. The developer or her successors in interest shall take necessary measures
to timely; adequately and properly maintain proper drainage to prevent erosion of the surface of
such easement premise.
The very nature of the ditch company demands would give an indication that the ditch company
believed they were given the authority rights granted to the county by law. It would also suggest
they were granted the full rights of the landowner without the cost and liability associated with
developing this project. In spite of this, there were also other issues concerning drainage.
The county requirements concerning urban drainage standards for land owners desiring to create
non urban scale planned unit developments added financial impacts to this project. The drainage
concerns could have been easily addressed using a less restrictive or rural standard. In fact they
probably should have taken into consideration the impact of 8 lots on 115 acres. My engineer
Brain Shear of Shear Engineering in Fort Collins indicated to me yesterday that they have never
had to build non urban scale planned unit developments to urban drainage standards. The costs
verses the benefit associated with building a nine lot non urban planned unit development to
urban drainage standards is cost prohibitive as evidenced by the attached cost projections.
The final item that I would like to address is the inconsistencies in reaching cost for
proportionate share of offsite improvements for Weld County Roads 55 and 72. In a letter dated
July 24, 2006 from Drew Scheltinga he indicated my proportionate share of paving would be
$49,000. In another letter dated June 07, 2007 from Jesse Hein and Brain Varrella my
proportionate share of$49,000 was reiterated. On or about June 23, 2008 I had a phone
conversation with Brian Varrella where he indicated the cost would be $76,000. 1 asked him to
send me the proposed changes in writing. In January of 2008 after I paid for a new traffic study
and provided the information to Brain Varrella, I received a letter from Brian Varrella indicating
that my proportionate share would now be $122,000. There were also additional costs in the
amount of$15,758 for road stabilization for Weld County Road 55 and $10,224 for Weld
County Road 72. This brought the offsite agreement amount to $147,982. Please see cost
projections from the improvement agreements. On March 21, 2008 my engineer and I met with
several members of publics works to discuss proportionate shares for paving and dust abatement.
In that meeting I proposed a non refundable fee in an amount between $ 40,000 and $50,000. On
April 22, 2008 I submitted a letter and improvement agreement proposing a $ 40,000 non
refundable cash payment in lieu of offsite improvement agreements for Weld County Roads 55
and 72. On May 9, 2008 I received a letter from Brad Mueller indicating that public works
wanted $113,724 in cash in lieu of offsite agreements. Please see attached letter dated May 9,
2008. It is important to note the inconsistencies associated with offsite improvements as another
element that brought this process to a close.
I understand that deciding land use cases are difficult and respect the fact that the decisions you
make in attempting to facilitate amenable outcomes without compromising the health and safety
of the residents of Weld County and the codes that govern development.
However, consideration has to be given to the fact that the ditch company was given the latitude
to place restrictive requirements on the development that were unwarranted and significantly
increased the cost of finishing this project. In reference to urban drainage requirements the
design and the restrictive covenants associated with them are not realistic for non urban scale
projects. Logically, one would have to consider the value of this type of design criteria in a rural
application. Finally, the inconsistencies in applying a dollar amount to offsite improvements
need to be addressed. A landowner cannot be expected to complete a project of this type when
costs cannot be locked in.
I have spent over$100,000 on this project. I am not willing to spend hundreds of thousands
more as a result of the issues outlined above. I urge you to consider the impact of these types of
issues on farmers and ranchers of Weld County who have the desire or need to develop their
property in the future. Consideration must be given to making the necessary adjustments in
policies and procedures to mitigate these problems.
Thank you.
MELVIN DINNER, P.C.
ATTU:810FM' AND COa AT LAW
522 7TH STREET, SUITE 540
GREELEY, CO 80531
15701 352-2081
FAX (970) 352-9172
E-mail: meldinner9earcniink.ne0
February 29, 2008
Weld County Planning Department
918-10`h Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Attention: Brad Mueller, Planner
Re: Case No. OF-1043
Applicant: Sherry Lawley
Construction plans for Lawley Estates PUD
Lot B of Recorded Exemption No. 0801-4-
4RE-3581 located in the SE/4 of Section 4,
Township 6 North, Range 64 West of the
6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Mueller:
As you are well aware from my prior correspondence and contacts with you, I represent the
Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company, with address do Curtis Foss, Secretary, 35490 WCR 61,
Gill, CO 80624.
As you will note from examination and review of your records, I have heretofore submitted
correspondence to you relative to this matter dated August 29, 2006, together with copy of a
report dated August 22, 2006 prepared by Don Dunker, P.E.. Engineer retained by the Board of
Directors of the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company. Mr. Dunker has offices located at 33504
WCR 53, Gill, CO 80624. The information provided in August of 2006 was with reference to
matters dealing with the drainage report and construction drawings for the Lawley Estates PUD
and its potential impact on the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch and the right of way system.
Mr. Foss, the Secretary for the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company, has recently made available to
me a set of nine sheets pertaining to the construction plans for Lawley Estates PUD prepared by
Shear Engineering Corporation with offices located at 4836 S. College Avenue, Suite 12, Fort
Collins, CO 80525 on behalf of Mark and Sherry Lawley, which documents indicate that a
similar copy of this material was received by the Weld County Public Works Department on
January 3, 2008. It is my understanding that a similar copy of this engineering project and the
construction plans for Lawley Estates PUD were similarly provided to Mr. Dunker.
February 29, 2008
Page 2
It is also my understanding that you have requested comments from the Board of Directors and
Shareholders of the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company pertaining to the set of documents
prepared and/or submitted by Shear Engineering Corporation to the Weld County Public Works
Department on January 3, 2008.
Based upon the latest documentation submitted by Shear Engineering Corporation and a review
of this material by Don Dunker, P.E., as well as the Board of Directors and Shareholders of the
Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company, I am submitting herewith on their behalf the following:
1. Copy of letter report dated February 9, 2008 submitted by Don Dunker, P.E. to the
Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company in connection with matters required prior to any approval of
the construction plans for Lawley Estates PUD.
At the annual meeting of the Shareholders of the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company held on
February 16, 2008 the Shareholders and Board of Directors have indicated the following items
would be required for approval to be provided to the Lawley Estates PUD plans.
2. All of the items in the letter as outlined by Don Dunker, P.E. in his letter of February
9, 2008 should be required and shown on the engineering plans and all of which must be
performed as part of the approval project.
3. Sheet 1/2 of the documents for the Lawley Estates PUD PF-1043 prepared by Coffey
Engineering & Surveying, LLC describes a portion of Lot 4 which is the Nazarenus Lateral
Ditch and the roads within the easement area utilized for the ditch company; this easement area
is solely for the use of the ditch company and not for use by other individuals or other entities.
4. As you will note from information and documentation which has heretofore been
presented to you, there is to be a suitable, proper and adequate fence approved by the ditch
company to be constructed at the sole cost of Sherry Lawley and/or Mark and Sherry Lawley on
the west side of the right of way of that portion of Lot 4 as shown on this Sheet 1/2. The
remaining portion of Lot 4 which lies to the north of the right of way and ditch location is
currently undeveloped and is not a part or portion of the present development project of Lawley
Estates PUD PF-1043.
It is my understanding that neither Mr. or Mrs. Lawley have any ownership of what is described
as Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 0801-4-4 RE3581 and this is not shown as part of this
project on Sheet 1/ 2. It is also my understanding that there is a fence or a fence to be
constructed along the north border of this Lot A as well as along the east side of the right of way
of Lot 4 as shown on Sheet 1/2 of the document submitted.
February 29, 2008
Page 3
I enclose for your benefit the following:
(a) Copy of Warranty Deed dated July 19, 2002, recorded July 22, 2002 at
Reception No. 2970916 of the Weld County records executed by the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch
Company, a Colorado corporation, as grantor, to Sherry Lawley, as grantee, covering the
following described property located in Weld County, Colorado:
N/2SE/4 and SE/4SE/4 of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range
64 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
(b) Copy of Right of Way and Easement Agreement dated July 19, 2002,
recorded July 22, 2002 at Reception No. 2970917 of the Weld County records between the
Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation, as First Party, and Mark Lawley and
Sherry Lawley, as Second Party.
5. It will he the obligation and responsibility of the ditch company to provide the
maintenance services as required within the right of way and easement area.
6. Outlot B. As you will note from examination and review of the plans, Outlot B as
indicated on the plans containing 26,943 square feet or a total of 0.85 acres is the location for a
planned detention pond to be constructed by the Developers. In connection with the construction
work to occur and the long-term maintenance problems that could impact the right of way and
the Nazarenus Ditch the Board of Directors and Shareholders of the Ditch Company believe that
a proper solution in order to keep the Lawley project moving forward would be to have the
developers obtain and provide a performance bond to the Ditch Company in an amount of not
less an $20,0 . 0 for and on behalf of the Ditch Company, together with a letter of
agreement. In event the plans are not followed and any damage occurs either during construction
or for a period of at least three years after construction, that the_performance bond would be
capable of thus providing directions for payment for damages that would occur to the ditch, the
right of way and to the shareholders who use the ditch, such as crop losses, etc.
,
,:_.x Ac w 1- h cn..a cL;' � [�,..x ,L�2 i"�.r� wait w��1.7 21~�rtc.
4...-..� ((��rr cvJ ly (/YLck 1 w0 .ry<y.;..u..L
7. Crossing of the Right of Way. The Nazarenes Ditch or Lateral has a culvert which
goes underneath Weld County Road 72. As you are well aware, Weld County Road 72 is a
public right of way 60 feet in width. Based upon the engineering plans as provided, it appears
that if there is overflow drainage from what is described as the Outlot B Retention Pond, the
overflow drainage would go subsurface underneath the Nazarenus Ditch and right of way in an
easterly direction, eventually going into a barrow pit located east of the right of way and
Nazarenus Ditch or Lateral. The ditch company is requesting the payment of a sum of not less
February 29, 2008
Page 4 u i,L
V +nn ` cAptrpi- O1°
trb
N �u d cr ydil
s t
than$2,500.00 in order to provide for the capability of providing for professional services to
oversee the construction matters dealing with thirossiiig. The plans pertaining to the crossing
to be made within Weldtounty Road-7-2 under the right of way and ditch lateral need to provide
that proper and adequate notice is provided to the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company in advance
so that representatives and professional personnel on behalf of the ditch company can he present
and available where the pipe for the overflow is to be constructed beneath the Nazarenus Ditch
or Lateral and right of way underneath the culvert providing irrigation water for the ditch
company and through the right of way. The plan should also provide that approval for the
crossing by the developer or any other entity underneath the ditch is limited to this one crossing
and that no others in the County right of way be allowed. There is no provision as of the present
time to the best knowledge of the Ditch Company for any allowance or approval of any other
crossing of the ditch either above the surface or below the surface of the ditch and right of way.
8. Portions of undeveloped Lot 4 lying to the north of the Lawley development project.
Portions of Lot 4 of the Lawley Estates PUP project lie north of the developer's project on both
sides of the Nazarenus Ditch or Lateral. The Nazarenus Ditch or Lateral at this location, as well
as the area south of this location, is presently a concrete structure. Mr. and Mrs. Lawley intend
to pasture livestock in this area. " '
r � , J-�} +
<,)c-1-L 4 ��--.,.�_e �. tom- i_
Some years prior the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company constructed a surface bridge across the
ditch in order to have access from west to east and east to west across the ditch area in that
portion of Lot 4 of the Lawley Estates PUD which is not presently being developed. Lawley
Estates PUD and this Lot 4 actually owns portions of Lot 4 on both sides of the Nazarenus
/\ Lateral Ditch in this area. Livestock being pastured on the Lawley property could apparently
utilize this bridge to go from one side to the other. It would also appear that at the north end of
that portion of Lot 4 which is adjacent to what would be Lot 2 and Lot 3 that access is potentially
available to livestock and other sources; accordingly it would appear under the circumstances
• TA that the plans for the Lawley Estates PUD needs to provide for providing liability insurance
�G coverage in adequate and proper amounts on behalf of the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company
with the premiums to be paid by the developers or some type of homeowner's association which
will be kept in full force and effect with proof of payment of the premiums.
.- ( - Gc 5.i& a.0 t--/-1_t--/-1_ a.) (x.- —L(6x] - ci LIC ,
n -
9. The Lawley Estates PUD provisions should clearly provide that the Nazarenus Lateral
Ditch Company shall not be responsible or liable for any losses that occur to livestock or from
other damages or losses incurred from their usage of Lot 4.
10. That Sherry Lawley or any successors in interest shall install, at her or successors in
interest sole expense and cost, any and all fences and gates requested by the ditch company and
at reasonable and mutually agreed upon locations. That the Developer or her successors in
, .�V 'LA(T. Cli Iii.'.) LA c�� u.-)
y(
Llj..e-y't —
February 29, 2008
Page 5
interest shall take all necessary measures to timely, adequately and properly maintain proper
drainage to prevent erosion of the surface of such easement premises.
I suggest that after you have had an opportunity to review these matters that you contact me, as
well as Don Dunker, the Engineer who is currently representing the ditch company, in
connection with these matters. As you will note, I am also submitting a copy of this
correspondence to Mr. Dunker, to the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company and to G. Brent Coan,
of the law firm of Otis, Coan and Stewart, LLC, who has heretofore been representing Mrs.
Law-ley.
I look forward to receiving your comments or any and all other information or documentation
pertaining to this matter.
Very truly yours,
MELVIN DINNER
MD/as
enclosures
cc: Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company
Don Dunker
G. Brent Coan
On-Site Improvements Opinion of Cost
Project Name: Lawley Estates P.U.D.
Location: Weld County Road 72 and 55
Material Testing LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
$5,000.00
Record Drawings LS $3,500.00 1 $3,500.00
$3,500.00
Construction Management by Owner LS $2,500.00 1 $2,500.00
$2,500.00
Water Line Construction
6" PVC C900 LF $25.00 1405 $35,125.00
6"Gate Valve w/Box EA $700.00 3 $2,100.00
6"Fire Hydrant Assembly EA $3,000.00 2 $6,000.00
6"x6" Swivel Tee EA $250.00 1 $250.00
3/4" Water Service/Stops/Pit EA $1,200.00 8 $9,600-00
$53,075.00
SUB TOTAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: $283,966.12
Engineering and Supervision Costs (15% SUB TOTAL) $42,594.92
GRAND TOTAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: $326,561.03
Off-Site Water Line Construction (NWCWD Water Service Agreement)
4" PVC C900 LF $20.00 28 $560.00
4"90 degree bend (w/joint restraint) EA $250.00 1 $250.00
4'Tee EA $200.00 1 $200.00
4" Gate Valve w/Box EA $500.00 1 $500.00
4" Sleeve EA $200.00 1 $200.00
4"Cap EA $150.00 1 $150.00
8" PVC C900 LF $30.50 694 $21,167.00
8"plug (w/joint restraint) EA $300.00 1 $300.00
8"x4"Tee EA $300.00 1 $300.00
8"x6" Tee EA $350.00 1 $350.00
8"W/L Lowering LS $3,200.00 1 $3,200.00
Total $27,177.00
Page 2 Lawley PIOC_April-2008
Exhibit"A"
On-Site Improvements Opinion of Cost
Project Name: Lawley Estates P.U.D.
Location: Weld County Road 72 and 55
Public Improvement Item Units ' - Unit Cost ;-- Item Cost
Erosion Control
Rock Dike EA $150.00 11 $1,650.00
Sift Fence LF $1.85 2217 $4,101.45
Vehicle Tracking Control Pad EA $640.00 1 $640.00
Riprap(6'x6'x.75') D50=.75 CY $52.00 233 $121.16
Type L Grouted Rip Rap CY $79.35 54 $4,284.90
Type M Grouted Rip Rap CY $84.35 478 $40,319.30
Rip Rap Bedding Material 12"Type 2 IS $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00
Seeding/Mulch AC $640.29 6.4 $4,097.86
$75,214.67
Street Improvements/Grading
Site Gracing overiot&fine CY $3.00 2800 $8,400.00
Fine Street Grading up to base CY $3.00 5478 $16,434.00
Street Base 7"ABC Class 5 or 6 SY $12.50 5478 $68,475.00
Mobilization LS $2,500.00 1 $2,500.00
Strip&stockpile Topsoil 4" CY $1.60 1176 $1,881.60
Replace Topsoil CY i $2.00 1176 $2,352.00
$100,042.60
Traffic Signals,Signing and Striping
'Standard Street With Stop Sign w/Post EA $300.00 —7 $300.00I
$300.00
Work Zone Traffic Control
Traffic Control [ LS 1 $200.00( 1 $200.00
$200.00
Storm Drainage Facilities
30"CMP Storm Drain LF $58.00 169.5 $9,831.00
30"CMP Flared End Section EA $375.00 6 $2,250.00
18"RCP Storm Drain LF $41.04 49 $2,010.96
14"x 23" HERCP Storm Drain LF $41.04 252 $10,342.08
14"x 23" HERCP Flared End Section EA $416.00 1 $416.00
Water Quality Outlet Structure EA $3,870.00 1 $3,870.00
60"Diameter Storm Manhole EA $3,978.81 1 $3,978.81
Flow Fill at HERCP and Ditch Crossing LS $1,620.00 1 $1,620.00
4'Tall x 8"thick Cut-Off Wall LF $1925 380 $7,315.00
$41,633.85
Construction Surveying/Staking LS $2,000.00 1 $2,000.00
'Survey boxes EA _ $500.00 1 $500.00
$2,500.00
Page 1 Lawley PIOC_Aprii-2008
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Brad Mueller, Dept. of Planning Services DATE: July 24, 2006
FROM: Drew Scheltinga, P. E, Public Works Department
COLORADO SUBJECT: PF-1043 Lawley Estates PUD(Final Plat)
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed the final plat application materials.
Comments made during this stage of the review process may not be all-inclusive, as revised-
materials will have to be submitted and other concerns or issues will arise during further review.
The final plat shall not be recorded until all issues in this memorandum have been resolved.
Final Plat:
The title on the plat shall be shown as Lawley Estates PUD PF-1043.
Lawley lane will not be maintained by Weld County because it will not be paved; however, the
right-of-way must be dedicated to the public. Dedication of rights-of-way and easement
language shall be contained in the plat certificates.
Tract A is not dimensioned and does not match the geometry of the construction plans. The
final plat and construction plans shall be coordinated and Tract A dimensioned.
The 200' radius oil/gas well easements shall be located by dimension_
Thereare a 120' and 170' easements shown for the Nazarenus Lateral. If either or both
easements are existing, the documentation creating the easements shall be shown on the
record plat. If they are to be established by the recording of this plat, dedication language shall
be contained in the plat certificates.
A School Loading Area (Pedestrian Shelter) is called for in the construction plans and shown in
the right-of-way. The shelter shall be located outside the right-of-way on an out lot tract The
tract shall be shown and dimensioned on the record plat.
Additional drainage easements shall be provided on WCR 72 and Lawley Lane in conjunction
with ditches shown in the construction plans.
Drainage:
A Final Drainage Report has been submitted by Team Engineering, dated June 12, 2006.
Attached is a review memorandum from Brian Varrella, P. E., of the Weld County Public Works
Department, dated July 24, 2006. A revised drainage report and construction plans addressing
all of Mr. Varrella's comments is required.
Page 1 of 3
11T ERAS fAI OrION datalCL, tst-CIinnls,LaMsy Max awl 51,0n 02270Oi 1ROi 01 Laity 4 aalDu ncrl if cspandac;‘C lay Comments Recavan D3-17-0711 Medley
F 9Ste3 Vaal%(X RCvlfw 7.74 nc 4�
•
Construction Plans:
A vertical control bench mark shall be shown on the plans.
Geometry for the landscape median shall be coordinated with the record plat.
A pedestrian shelter is shown within the right-of-way. The space between the edge of
pavement and the right-of-way line is 8'which does not provide enough room to construct a
shelter and provide a safe space for children to congregate. The bus shelter shall be located
outside the right-of-way on and outlet tract to provide access by the homeowners association for
the purpose of maintenance. The Statement of Compliance, dated June 1, 2008, indicates
there is an agreement with the Eaton School District. A copy of the agreement shall be
provided to Public Works. The final configuration of the School Loading Area (Pedestrian
Shelter) shall be approved by the School District. •
Erosion control measures and construction details are not shown in the plans and must be
provided.
The following note shall be added to the plans:
-Unlined drainage facilities and all areas disturbed during construction shall be actively
revegetated. Seed mixes should be selected to match the conditions where they will be
used. Recommended seed mixes may be obtained from the Weld County Public Works
Pest and Weed Supervisor.
At approximately station 44+00 two 18" culverts are called oui. It appears from the roadway
profile the cover over the pipes is approximately 6"which is not adequate. A cross section of
the pipes shall be shown on the plans and adequate cover provided based on the manufactures
specifications. The type and class of pipe shall be indicated. Plastic pipe is not allowed.
The typical street section calls for a 2' ditch but the contours on west side of Lawley Lane
indicate a 1' ditch. The ditch shalt be sized based on the drainage report and the contours
shown to reflect the designed ditch size.
The ditch on the north side of WCR 72 is shown to be graded into a new ditch on the west side
of Lawley Lane. There is not adequate room for grading within the rights-of-way. Additional
drainage easement shall be shown on the record plat and on the plans to provided adequate
room to grade and maintain the ditches.
A street and stop sign shall be shown on the construction plans and the following note added:
The street identification and stop sign are to be manufactured and installed in
accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Irrigation Ditches:
Sections 4.A. and 4. G. of the Board of County Commissioners zone change resolution
required the applicant to provide an agreement with the Nazarenus Ditch Company. A copy of
the agreement has not been provided. A copy of the agreement shall be provided and
requirements contained in the agreement shall be reflected in the drainage report and
construction plans.
Page 2 of 3
NTERASTATIOMnyndttenati CAcnts'aw4ey Man and SherrtA2270-01-0I Latley EstattadDwurnattalCadadtadtattaatCoarly Cvim,n4s,Re,.ene00S-12-0illavaey
tsta:es hind Plat Review 1-24-W doc
Improvements Agreements:
Section 4. C. of the Board of County Commissioners zone change resolution required the
applicant to enter into an agreement with the County to proportionally share in the paving of
WCR 55 between WCR 74 and SH 392 and to submit a proposed agreement. An off-site
agreement has been submitted for stabilization of WCR 72 but nothing addressing WCR 55.
WCR 55 is presently on Weld County's 2006 dust management program. The County has
taken three traffic counts on WCR 55 between WCR 74 and SH 392 as follows:
2005— 188 ADT and 287 ADT
2006—349 ADT
The average of the three counts is 275 ADT. Lawley Estates is expected to generate 76 ADT
and if half the vehicles go each direction at WCR 55, Lawley Estates will add 38 vehicles to the
existing counts. The proportional share to pave WCR 55 would be 38/275 = 14%. The cost to
pave WCR 55 with 4' of asphalt will be approximately$350,000. The proportional cost sharing
for Lawley Estates would then be $49,000 or$6,125 per lot. The applicant should amend their
proposed agreement to meet the Commissioners zone change resolution using these
proportions and costs outlined above.
The applicant has submitted an on-site improvements agreement for private road maintenance
which is appropriate. The agreement cost estimates in Exhibit"N' shall be revised to meet the
changes required in this review. Also, in a telephone conversation with the applicant's engineer,
Jeff Couch, some of the quantities are expected to change.- Unit costs for the following items
shall be increased as follows: -
Site grading $3.00
Street grading $3.00
Street base $25.00
Survey boxes $500.00
Street names $800.00
Electric $35,000.00
Engineering and Supervision Costs shall be 15% of sub-total.
Street and Drainage Facilities Maintenance:
In the submitted Declaration of Covenants, Article 1, Section 1.12, "Common Elements"are
defined. Storm water drainage facilities and streets shall be specifically called out as common
elements. Article 7, Section 7.2, "Maintenance by Association" shall specifically call out storm
water drainage facilities.
Attachment: Drainage Review by Brian`✓amella, P. E., dated July 24, 2006
PC: PF-1043 Lawley Estates PUD
Email &Original: Brad Mueller, Dept. of Planning Services
PC by Post Applicant &Engineer Jeff Couch P. E., Team Engineering
Page 3 of 3
11TERASiA1NNAualalCIAAIAL.ClienlstLawley Mark and SIrerry12270-O1-0/LavAey Gslatesulocianentsleonespaltlwlce,Counry Commenis\Rereivetl 0}12-01LLawley
Fermea rine'Pim Rev,.?w ZJbf5 doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brad Mueller, Plannins Services DATE: 07-June-2007
FROM: Jesse Hein, Public Works Dept., and
Brian K.Varrella, P.E., CFM, Public Works Dent.
SUBJECT: PF-1043 Lawley Estates PUD(Final Plan), Drainage Review#2
Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Final Plan request. Comments made during this
phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the
remaining application process.
CnmmPnts
Final Plat:
1. Right-of-way for Lawley Lane has been dedicated to the public. Dedication of rights-of-way and
easement language shall be contained in the plat certificates.
2. A written letter requesting a gravel interior roadway must be sent to the Weld County Engineer for
approval. If approved, then the plat shall be revised to show a gravel cross section (typical)
roadway.
3. The post office box kiosk must be placed inside an outlot that is maintained by the homeowners
association (HOA). Please update the Final Plat, and associated construction drawing sheets.
4. The landscaped median at the subdivision entrance shall be placed in an outlot that is maintained
by the HOA. Please show and dimension the outlot on the plat.
5. There are 120' and 170' easements shown for the Nazarenus Lateral. If either or both easements
are existing, the documentation creating the easements shall be shown on the record plat. If they
are to be established by the recording of this plat, dedication language shall be contained in the plat
certificates.
6. Additional drainage easements shall be provided on WCR 72 and Lawley Lane in conjunction with
ditches shown in the construction plans.
Construction Plans:
1. A vertical control bench mark shall be shown on the plans. Please reference the appropriate
project vertical datum; either NGVD-29, or NAVD-88.
Irrigation Ditches:
1. Sections 4. A. and 4. G. of the Board of County Commissioners zone change resolution required
the applicant to provide an agreement with the Nazarenus Ditch Company. A copy of the final
agreement shall be provided and requirements contained in the agreement shall be reflected in the
drainage report and construction plans.
Improvements Agreements:
1. Section 4. C. of the Board of County Commissioners zone change resolution required the applicant
to enter into an agreement with the County to proportionally share in the paving of WCR 55
between WCR 74 and SH 392 and to submit a proposed agreement. An off-site agreement has
been submitted for stabilization of WCR 72 but nothing addressing WCR 55.
Page I of - _
2. WCR 55 is presently on Weld County's 2006 dust management program. The County has taken
three traffic counts on WCR 55 between WCR 74 and SH 392 as follows:
a. 2005 — 188 ADT and 287 ADT
b. 2006—349 ADT
3. The average of the three counts is 275 ADT. Lawley Estates is expected to generate 76 ADT and if
half the vehicles go each direction at WCR 55, Lawley Estates will add 38 vehicles to the existing
counts. The proportional share to pave WCR 55 would be 38 /275 = 14%. The cost to pave WCR
55 with 4" of asphalt will be approximately $350,000. The proportional cost sharing for Lawley
Estates would then be $49,000. The applicant should amend their proposed agreement to meet the
Commissioners zone change resolution using these proportions and costs outlined above.
4. The applicant has submitted an on-site improvements agreement for private road maintenance
which is appropriate. The agreement cost estimates in Exhibit "A" shall be revised to meet the
• changes required in this review. Unit costs for the following items shall be increased as follows:
a. Site grading $3.00
b. Street grading $3.00
c. Street base $25.00
d. Survey boxes $500.00
5. Engineering and Supervision Costs shall be 15% of sub-total.
Drainage Comments:
u Public Works received a Final Drainage, Erosion Control, and Water Quality Report for Lawley
Estates PUD (PF-1043) on May 16, 2007. The report was submitted by Brian W. Shear, P.E.
#20262, of Shear Engineering Corporation, and is dated May 2007. This report will herein be
referred to as the Final Drainage Report.
❑ The Final Drainage Report is stamped, signed, and dated by a registered P.E. licensed to practice
in the state of Colorado. All construction plan sheets included as attachments to the Final Drainage
Report must be wet-stamped, signed, and dated by a registered P.E. licensed to practice in the
state of Colorado. All construction drawings included in the final plan set must be wet-stamped,
signed, and dated by a registered P.E. licensed to practice in the state of Colorado.
u Shear Engineering has prepared a good drainage report that is well documented and supported
with engineering calculations. Public Works appreciates the clear level of effort that was placed in
the report. Please address the few outstanding comments as follows:
1. The applicant has proposed the construction of a pipe under WCR 55, and is required to submit an
offsite improvements agreement to Weld County. Appropriate right-of-way permits must be
approved prior to construction in the County ROW.
a. The outlet of the detention pond pipe may not discharge to or be constructed on private
property without the written consent of the affected property owner(s). Please provide copies
of all necessary written permission in the appendix of the Final Drainage Report.
2. The Final Drainage Report proposes only partial detention of onsite developed flows. The total
property is approximately 114.3 acres, but the subdivision lies on 29.7 acres of the property. Lot 4,
as shown on Sheet 6 of 9, is 83.8 acres, and borders the 8-lot subdivision on the north and eastern
boundary.
a. If Lot 4 stormwater runoff will not be detained, the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners must approve a variance from current County Code 24-7-130 and Ordinance
2006-7.
b. If a variance is requested and approved by the BOCC, the approved detention pond size and
release rate for the proposed 29.7 acre subdivision shall be calculated from the 29.7 acres
only. Future development on the 83.8 acre Lot 4 will require a separate detention facility.
Please note, the current detention pond and outlet structure for the 29.7 acre subdivision will
be too small for future expansion on Lot 4, and retrofitting of the proposed detention pond and
outlet structures will be extremely expensive. Public Works is concerned that Lot 4, if
developed, will face significant difficulties trying to route flow from detention facilities on Lot 4
Page 2 0l4 'Junc 2"`T
to roadside ditches east of the Nazarenus Ditch.
c. A note must be added to the Final Plat stating any future development on Lot 4 shall be
required to construct stormwater detention facilities. These future facilities shall be sized to
detain flows from the 100-year storm falling on the fully-developed subdivision, and release at
a rate not to exceed the 5-year storm falling on the undeveloped (historic) site, as per Weld
County Code 24-7-130(D) and Ordinance 2006-7.
3. Please provide a figure showing the flowpaths, lengths, and slopes used to calculate the time of
concentration (Tc).
a. In-house calculations show the 5-year historic stormwater runoff, also known as the allowable
release rate from the proposed detention pond, to be 4.56 cfs. This is 9% less than the 4.99
cfs calculated in the current drainage report. Please double-check the historic runoff values,
and the associated detention pond sizing.
b. It appears the calculated detention volume may include offsite flows. Current Weld County
Code does not require the detention of offsite contributions; they may be passed through the
system undetained. Please double-check detention calculations to include only the onsite
100-year peak inflow discharge, which shall be released at a rate not to exceed the onsite 5-
year historic outflow discharge.
4. Please add an appropriate scale and north arrow to the vicinity map, as per Weld County Code 23-
2-50(C.2).
5. The swales and rundown between Lawley Lane and the proposed detention pond are not designed
according to UD&FCD standards. Table MD-2 from the USDCM(UD&FCD 2001) is reproduced in
the appendix of the Final Drainage Report. According to this table, proposed open channels shall
not be designed with Froude numbers greater than 0.80, and longitudinal slopes exceeding 0.60%,
without proper permanent erosion control. Please prove that all channels are stable as designed,
or prepare appropriate permanent erosion control (revetment) solutions for these swales.
6. The 11.5% slope on the rundown into the detention pond will require grouted boulders per USDCM
criteria. Please provide engineering calculations to support the appropriate rock size. As an
alternative, the applicant may choose another revetment for the rundown if it can be proven stable
under proposed topographic and hydraulic conditions. Alternative revetments may include, but are
not limited to, articulating concrete blocks (ACBs), turf reinforcement mats (TRMs), or other
reasonable solutions that are supported with engineering design calculations.
7. The current design calls for Type-M grouted riprap, per review comments from the Nazarenus Ditch
Company, but the size has not been proven stable with engineering calculations. Please check for
stability, using a minimum factor of safety of 1.5.
a. A self-launching termination key with a design detail is required for any rock riprap protection
located on the emergency overflow spillway. Please follow guidance provided in the USDCM,
Chapter 4.4.2.4 (UD&FCD 2001). Another useful guide may be HEC-11, Chapter 2 (FHWA
1989).
b. The applicant may choose an alternative revetment for the emergency overflow spillway if it
can be proven stable under proposed topographic and hydraulic conditions. Alternative
revetments may include, but are not limited to, ACBs, TRMs, or other reasonable solutions
supported with engineering design calculations.
8. Please provide appropriate permanent erosion control at pipe outlets and inlets, channel bends,
high shear stress channels and swales, or any other areas requiring erosion control. Engineering
design calculations must be provided to support the selection of any and all erosion control
measures, and must demonstrate that the proposed designs provide stable channel conditions prior
to the establishment of vegetation.
a. Please specify the size of all rock riprap protection at all culvert outlets for in the construction
drawings, and include rock size (D5o) and apron limits (length, width, and thickness).
b. Please provide engineering calculations for all culvert outlets.
c. Riprap outlet protection for culverts must wrap around flared end sections to prevent local
erosion and scour around the FES.
9. Please update the culvert calculations in CulvertMaster to utilize HDS-5 Chart 1, Scale 1 the
Page 3 of 4 -hm.?on-
proposed pipes under Lawley Lane. According to HDS-5, Table 12, the appropriate entrance loss
coefficient (Ke) for a flared end section is 0.50 (FHWA 2001/2005), similar to that of a pipe with a
headwall and a square edge entrance. The current Ke value of 0.20 is incorrect.
a. The Manning's-n for a CMP shall be 0.025, per the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria
(WCSDC). Please update the analysis for the Lawley Lane culvert crossing.
b. All culvert inlets shall include debris racks to prevent clogging due to debris accumulation and
to protect the public safety. Debris racks shall be sloped at 3H:1V or flatter per UD&FCD
research.
10. There must be a minimum drop of 0.1 ft through the proposed manhole on the proposed detention
pond outlet pipeline.
11. Please show the 100-year hydraulic grade line (HGL100) for all pipes, and show the energy grade
line (EGL100). Ensure that the design provides that the 100-year EGL is at a minimum of 6 inches
below the final finished elevation of any manholes and inlet rim elevations, per WCSDC.
12. Please update the SWMM model to show the same pipe lengths as the plan set. Update all other
information for consistency with the construction drawings and Final Drainage Report.
13. Please specify minimum driveway culvert sizes for all lots. These culverts may not impede flows in
design ditches, and shall be sized according to the WCSDC.
14. Please include a revegetation plan utilizing approved seed mixes published in the WCSDC
Addendum. This plan shall be discussed in the Final Drainage Report.
15. Please include all CUHP input and output data in the Final Drainage Report appendix.-
16. Please add the following note to the Final Plat: "Weld County will not be responsible for the
maintenance of drainage related areas."
17. Please show offsite contours for a minimum of 200 ft outside property limits on construction drawing
Sheets 1 of 1 (Final Plat), 4 of 9, 5 of 9, 6 of 9, and 8 of 9.
18. Please add a permanent revegetation plan for all disturbed earth. This plan shall comply with all
standards defined in the Revegetation section of the WCSDC.
19. Please address all redline comments in the drainage report and on the construction plan drawing
contained therein.
20. Please provide a copy of the final Water Service Agreement from the North Weld County Water
• District, once signed and approved. This agreement shall be added to the appendix of the Final
Drainage Report.
21. Please provide a copy of the final ditch agreements from the Nazarenus Ditch Company, once
signed and approved. This agreement shall be added to the appendix of the Final Drainage Report.
Recommendations
The above comments are prerequisites and shall be fulfilled prior to recording the Final P/at.
The applicant shall address the comments listed above during this Final Plan review process. Comments
made during this stage of the review process may not be all-inclusive,as revised materials will have to be
submitted and other concerns or issues will arise during further review. The review process will continue
only when all appropriate elements have been submitted. Any issues of concern must be resolved with the
Public Works Department prior to recording the Final Plat.
PC. I.aN‘tec I'states Rccie 6-0S-07-DOCC
1-mail..X Orieinal. Planner: Bra,? theeller
l'( In I'o.t -Applicant. .Shrnr La,,kg
P( h' Poa I ,e[neer , , ". r ,. oii •,
Page 4 of4 -' -
, :ta
ali; MEMORANDUM
TO: Brad Mueller, Planning Services DATE: 22-January-2008
FROM: Brian K. Varrella, P.E., CFM, Public Works Dept.
COLORADO SUBJECT: PF-1043 Lawley Estates PUD(Final Plan),Drainage Review #3
Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Final Plan request. Comments made during this
phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the
remaining application process.
Final Plan Requirements
Irrigation Ditches:
1. Sections 4. A. and 4. G. of the Board of County Commissioners zone change resolution required the
applicant to provide an agreement with the Nazarenus Ditch Company. A copy of the final agreement
shall be provided and requirements contained in the agreement shall be reflected in the drainage
report and construction plans.
Improvements Agreements:
1. Section 4. C. of the Board of County Commissioners zone change resolution required the applicant to
enter into an agreement with the County to proportionally share in the paving of WCR 55 between
WCR 74 and SH 392 and to submit a proposed agreement. Prior to future paving, the applicant shall
enter into an agreement with the County to proportionally share in dust stabilization operations on
WCR 55 and WCR 72.
2. WCR 55 is presently on Weld County's 2006 dust management program. The Applicant noted that
previous traffic count data was outdated, and hired Matthew J. Delich (Colorado P.E. #15263) to take
three traffic counts on WCR 55 between WCR 74 and SH,392 in July 2007. The following traffic
information, as documented from the Delich study, supersedes previous traffic counts on WCR 55 as
follows:
a. WCR 74 to WCR 72 — 328 ADT
b. WCR 72 to WCR 70 —472 ADT
c. WCR 70 to SH 392 — 629 ADT
3. The average of the three counts is 476 ADT. Lawley Estates is expected to generate 76 ADT and if
half the vehicles go each direction at WCR 55, Lawley Estates will add 38 vehicles to the existing
counts. The proportional share to pave WCR 55 would be 38 / 514 = 7.4%. The cost to pave WCR
55 in 2007 figures is approximately $550,000 per mile. The proportional cost sharing for Lawley
Estates would then be $122,000, as calculated at Public Works on October 16, 2007. The applicant..
is requested to amend their proposed agreement to meet the Board of County Commissioners zone
change resolution using these proportions and costs.
Drainage Comments:
• Public Works received a Final Drainage, Erosion Control, and Water Quality Report for Lawley
Estates PUD (PF-1043) on January 3, 2008. The report was submitted by Brian W. Shear, P.E.
#20262, of Shear Engineering Corporation, and is dated December 2007. This report will herein
be referred to as the Final Drainage Report.
• The Final Drainage Report is stamped, signed, and dated by a registered P.E. licensed to practice
in the state of Colorado. However, the drawings included in the map pocket were not stamped or
signed. All construction plan sheets included as attachments to the Final Drainage Report must
Par, I III . L,nu,uv 211'3
V1 PIiWVI�O URILUrUrv10.1•tuN..L-I vuI PIm W1.An.M L}LI'I ]o4:I.o.J.. I .ee>I'1-Oi,n '.a'.�Heue.0.-",nu Do(
be wet-stamped, signed, and dated by a registered P.E. licensed to practice in the state of
Colorado. All construction drawings included in the final plan set must be wet-stamped, signed,
and dated by a registered P.E. licensed to practice in the state of Colorado.
• Shear Engineering has prepared a good drainage report that is well documented and supported
with engineering calculations. Public Works appreciates the clear level of effort that was placed in
the report, and the progress made since the June 7, 2007 submittal.
1. Public Works requires 3 sets of the construction drawings and 2 copies of the Final Drainage Report.
2. Please address all redline comments in the Final Drainage Report and in the construction drawings.
3. Please note, Per the review memorandum dated June 7, 2007, the applicant has proposed the
construction of a pipe under WCR 55 and is required to submit an offsite improvements agreement to
Weld County. Appropriate right-of-way permits must be approved prior to construction in the County
ROW.
4. Per the review memorandum dated June 7, 2007, if Lot 4 stormwater runoff is proposed to be
released un-detained, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners must approve a variance
from current County Code 24-7-130 and Ordinance 2006-7.
a. Per the review memorandum dated June 7, 2007, if a variance is requested and approved by
the BOCC, the approved detention pond size and release rate for the proposed 29.7 acre
subdivision shall be calculated from the 29.7 acres only. Future development on the 83.8 acre
Lot 4 will require a separate detention facility. As noted in prior comments, the current detention
pond and outlet structure for the 29.7 acre subdivision will be too small for future expansion on
Lot 4. Future development of Lot 4 will require additional detention facilities on Lot 4.
5. Per the review memorandum dated June 7, 2007, please include a revegetation plan utilizing
approved seed mixes published in the WCSDC Addendum. This plan is included in the erosion
control Sheet 6 of 9, but is not discussed in the Final Drainage Report, as previously requested.
6. As stated in the review memorandum dated June 7, 2007, the design of proposed swale D4 is not
erosionally stable and will result in repairs at the expense of the Homeowners' Association. Please
refer to Table MD-2 in the USDCM (UD&FCD 2001), particularly in Major Drainage, Chapter 7,
Sections 1.5.3, and 3.2.3, for possible solutions, and adjust the swale D4 design as requested from
the June 7, 2007 review memorandum.
7. Please correct driveway culvert riprap sizing calculations for the proposed circular pipes. The
December 2007 Final Drainage Report analysis utilizes methodology for rectangular pipes.
8. The headwater-to-depth (HW/D) ratio shall not exceed 1.50 in the 100-year storm event, per the Weld
County Storm Drainage Criteria (WCSDC) Addendum, Page 37. Current design calculations show
the HW/D ratio to be 1.93 for the 100-year storm. It may be necessary to increase the size of the
culverts to maintain appropriate HW/D ratios.
Recommendations
Please provide corrected construction plans and text prior to recording the Final Plat.
The applicant shall address the comments listed above during this Final Plan review process. Comments
made during this stage of the review process may not be all-inclusive,as revised materials will have to be
submitted and other concerns or issues will arise during further review. The review process will continue
only when all appropriate elements have been submitted. Any issues of concern must be resolved with the
Public Works Department prior to recording the Final Plat.
PC I..➢SICv I n.1k>ti I Sue F,,I('
1 maul.l' IF! Innl Ila nnc Mu,/1Lirll.r
PC PI I I r•nl,as I�„ •I .n
Pura 2 ur 2 2222 Junu.in
Weld County Public Works Department
Summary of Estimated Future Paving Share
(ict
Case#: PF-1043, Lawley Estates PUD
' Date: October 16, 2007
C. For Road: WCR 55
COLORADO Between: SH 392 and WCR 74 (3 miles)
User Instructions: Enter only values in red.
One-Mile Costs
Material Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Complete 24' Paved 3 mile $ 550,000 $ 1,650,000
Roadway, full construction
One-Mile Percentage
Applicant ADT 38
Current AADT 476
Total Traffic 514
% Participation 7.4%
Applicant's Proportional Cost of
Future Paving (3-miles) $ 122,000
M'.\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEWI3-Final Plat(PP,MF,MJF)\PF.1043 Lawley Estates PUD\WDR 55 future pave(10.yrs(.xls
Weld County Public Works Department
6 Estimated Construction Costs for Stabilization#11r Case #: PF-1043, Lawley Estates PUD
T ID Date: October 16, 2007
WI C
For Road: WCR 55
COLORADO Between: SH 392 and WCR 74 (3 miles)
User Instructions: Enter only values in red.
One-Mile Quantities
Material Length Width Depth Area Area Volume Volume Tons
(ft) (ft) (ft) (s.f.) (s.y.) (c.f.) (c.y.)
Street Grading 5,280 26 0.25 -- -- 34,320 1,271 --
Street Base 5,280 26 0.25 -- -- 34,320 1,271 --
(Class 6)
Chemical 5,280 26 -- 137,280 15,253 -- -- --
(DC2000)
One-Mile Costs
Material Quantity Units Unit Total
Cost Cost
Street Grading 1,271 c.y. $ 3.00 $ 3,813.33 One-Mile Percentage
'
Street Base 1,271 c.y. $ 24.80 $ 31,523.56 Applicant ADT 38
(Class 6)
Chemical 15,253 s.y. $ 1.75 $ 26,693.33 Current AADT 476
(DC2000)
Engineering & 1 I.s. $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Total Traffic 514
Supervision
One-Mile Total = $ 64,030 % Participation 7.4%
FINAL PROJECT COST
Project Road Length = 15840 ft.
Material Project Units Unit Total Percent Percent
Quantity Cost Cost Share Cost
Street Grading 3,813 c.y. $ 3.00 $ 11,440.00 7% $ 845.76
Street Base 3,813 c.y. $ 24.80 $ 94,570.67 7% $ 6,991.61
(Class 6)
Chemical 45,760 s.y. $ 1.75 $ 80,080.00 7% $ 5,920.31
(DC2000) _
Engineering & 1 I.s. $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 100% $ 2,000.00
Supervision -
i
Applicant's Grand Total = $ 188,091 $ 15,758
M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\}Final Plat(PE,MF,MJFFPF-1043 Lawley Estates PUD\WCR 55 Dust Mitigation ESLxls
Weld County Public Works Department
Estimated Construction Costs for Stabilization PI--;ICCase#: PF-1043, Lawley Estates PUD
TT ' Date: October 16, 2007
WI`P c. For Road: WCR 72
COLORADO Between: West of WCR 55 (700 ft)
User Instructions: Enter only values in red.
One-Mile Quantities
Material Length Width Depth Area Area Volume Volume Tons
(ft) (ft) (ft) (s.f.) (s.y.) (c.f.) (c.y.)
Street Grading 5,280 26 0.25 -- -- 34,320 1,271 --
Street Base 5,280 26 0.25 -- -- 34,320 1,271 --
(Class 6)
Chemical 5,280 26 -- 137,280 15,253 -- -- --
(DC2000)
One-Mile Costs
Material Quantity Units Unit Total
Cost Cost
Street Grading 1,271 c.y. $ 3.00 $ 3,813.33 One-Mile Percentage
Street Base 1,271 c.y. $ 24.80 $ 31,523.56 Applicant ADT 38
(Class 6)
Chemical 15,253 s.y. $ 1.75 $ 26,693.33 Current AADT N/A
(DC2000)
Engineering & 1 Is. $ 2000.00 $ 2,000.00 Total Traffic 38
Supervision
One-Mile Total = $ 64,030 % Participation 100%
FINAL PROJECT COST
Project Road Length = 700 ft.
Material Project Units Unit Total Percent Percent
Quantity Cost Cost Share Cost
Street Grading 169 c.y. $ 3.00 $ 505.56 100% $ 505.56
Street Base 169 c.y. $ 24.80 $ 4,179.26 100%
(Class 6) $ 4,179.26
Chemical 2,022 s.y. $ 1.75 $ 3,538.89 100% $ 3,538.89
(DC2000)
Engineering &
1 I.s. $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 100% $ 2,000.00
Supervision
Applicant's Grand Total = $ 10,224 $ 10,224
M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\3-Final Plat(PE,MF,MJF(\PF-1043 Lawley Estates PUD\WCR 72 Dust Mitigation Est.xls
April 22, 2008
Department Of Planning Services
Brad Mueller
918 10`° Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Lawley Estates
Dear Brad,
As you know we met with Public Works on March 21, 2008 to discuss:
Paving of a proportion of County Road 55
Dust control for a portion of County Road 55
Dust control for a portion of County Road 72
Based on discussions in that meeting, Public Works would support alternatives to the previously
proposed proportionate share of paving, dust control for County Road 55 and 72. Therefore, I
am proposing a non-refundable cash deposit in the amount of$40,000 in lieu of proportionate
share of paving and dust control on County Road 55 and 72, to be paid prior to the start of any
construction or improvements. A letter of credit will be provided for collateral until such a time
construction begins.
Sincerely,
Sherry L. Lawley
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
918 10"' Street
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
E-MAIL: bmueller@co.weld.co.us
C. PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT. 3572
FAX (9 O) 304-6498
COLORADO
May 9, 2008
Sherry Lawley
26658 Weld County Road 74
Eaton, CO 80615
RE: Lawley Estates PUD
Planning File No. PF-1043
Dear Sherry:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 22, 2008, in which you relate that Public Works
indicated to you at a meeting on March 21, 2008, that they would support alternatives to the
previously proposed mechanisms to provide for the proportionate share of paving and dust
control for County Roads 55 and 72. You also propose a cash contribution of $40,000 in this
letter.
I have spoken with Dave Bauer, Public Works, about your proposal. He has relayed to me that
Public Works would in fact consider a lump sum non-refundable contribution for off-site impacts
resulting from subdivision of the property. That amount totals $113,724 and is based primarily
on the original calculations for the off-site impacts.
I recommend that you contact Dave at 970-304-6496, extension 3739, to discuss any questions
about the calculation or mechanism for payment. You should also contact Dave to determine
how this off-site contribution should be reflected in the Improvements Agreement.
Regards,
Brad Mueller, Planner
Weld County Planning Services
cc: David Bauer, Weld County Public Works
Richard Hastings, Weld County Public Works
I.
4
a • t '' • .:•
ii
:3 %e V
-o. O k
',lit_ �{ 1
I - - - `fit' ,\ IY .+. J ` '
As �, ` 'i.:• , '�� ,. St ; ,� _ i1" G• 14. 'ter r
i tit
ui ti .,r`• 'i
- -,a,, FI.
. . . -• •
V k. If �,,, '.\ �, r \ \,�r • . • -
.. , • .,•:.Y" �`: ^ •�..Y � •' ' , �1is •• ; �,.••�Adry . :,t. 1
'� �-"- _ ? - e.g. f�` ` /'`{o Dili' / yam\ •c . � .
•
II
•
94.
• , -µ
` s,
•
•
•
s:
4 . 4'lli 4 '
•
AN • +♦ Y - s • y.
�, t y r,. r: }: .� . •- r r. r •4t••• -
• j --} -
i•r, 1p r- - —
S.
+� J x.:_ ! a l- V.
``
iii
•t I• •., 1. ., r •
_•� -' v - - _
• 1
ar—
re
i .:%, ,, ,.... 7kgik. ----41 ..-'"
4.
-Tv ii
•
• lti •r.. . ��' •_�I• ''yam ., rya i. 1 .�:
1 ' kr
Hello