The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081941.tiff • Memorandum TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 6, 2008 C FROM: Brad Mueller • COLORADO Department of Planning Services RE: Lawley Estate PUD Final Plan CC: Planning File No. PF-1043 The owner of the Lawley Estates PUD subdivision, Sherry Lawley, is requesting approval for the Lawley Estates PUD Final Plan, Planning File No. PF-1043. History The Final Plan for the Lawley Estates PUD subdivision was administratively approved by Planning Services staff on September 9, 2006. The approval was based on completion of 32 Conditions of Approval, most of which have since been met. • However, because three Conditions have not been met, the Board is being asked to approve the Final Plan. The Board approved the Change of Zone application on March 23, 2005. Conditions of Approval • Condition 1.A — The applicant shall submit evidence of a ditch agreement with the Nazarenus Ditch Company covering drainage, fencing type, maintenance of the strip of ditch right-of-way, and access for the ditch and maintenance of that area. If an agreement is not reached, the Board of County Commissioners shall review the Final Plat for acceptance. Concerns of the Nazarenus Ditch Company are noted in their letter of July 24, 2006. The applicant has not been able to finalize a ditch agreement with the Nazarenus Ditch Company. The applicant believes that she has met the items listed in the Conditions of Approval and discussed during the Change of Zone hearing, as indicated in her letter dated April 22,2008. The Ditch Company, however, indicates in a letter dated February 29, 2008,that they would require a number of concessions of the applicant in order for them to provide their approval of the Lawley Estates PUD plans. The Weld County Code requires that all easements be shown on a subdivision plat, but it does not specify how much consensus between two parties is required when exercising the terms of the easement as part of a subdivision. • EXHIBIT IhE I C 1 • The landowner and the easement beneficiary will both present their positions to the Board at • the hearing. Staff believes there are four items of disagreement: 1. Ditch company's request for a $20,000 performance bond & $2,500 for professional oversight. 2. Ditch company's request for developer/HOA to provide liability insurance. 3. Fencing along the ditch within Lot 4; installation of two cattle guards. 4. General access by the lot owner into the ditch easement area. • Condition 1.B. The applicant shall amend the Improvements Agreement According to Policy Regarding Collateral for Improvements to include the development sign, pedestrian shelter, postal boxes, landscaping and fencing. Provide bids for landscaping estimates. A revised Improvements Agreement for Public Road Maintenance shall be submitted, reflecting the changes indicated by the Department of Public Work in their referral dated July 24, 2006. This agreement shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant has not submitted an Off-Site Improvements Agreement that has been approved by Public Works. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the paving requirement for CR 55. Public Works and the applicant will present their positions concerning this item. Terms of the On-Site Improvements Agreement have been agreed upon by the applicant and Public Works. • • Condition 1.J -- "The applicant shall submit evidence that the mineral rights purchased from Anadarko have been deeded to the Homeowners Association." Staff supports eliminating this Condition, which was carried over from the Change of Zone approval. The applicant has questioned the basis for this requirement. While it may be convenient for the HOA to own the mineral rights, staff could not find any actual requirement that the mineral rights be deeded. Staff will also request a minor change to Condition 1.C(1), changing"retention ponds"to"detention ponds." The other Conditions in the draft Resolution either have been met, or the applicant has agreed to complete them prior to recording the Final Plat. • 2 I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today concerning this project. When we last met, I • came before this board to ask that they revoke my application for my PUD. The premise behind the request was a result of several issues. If you recall, I indicated this project basically began in 2004. The original design included 8 lots on approximately 115 acres ranging in size from 3.5 acres to 80 acres. Four of the lots bordered 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 by 3 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 bordering the West edge of the right of way. Thus reducing the lot sizes and potential income and doubling engineering and surveying costs. This left the 120 foot right of way access free solely for use by the ditch company and myself the owner of the larger 80 acre lot. In March of 2005 I came before 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 -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. In addition, the agreement with the Nazarenus Ditch Company was to include fencing, 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 easement after opposition was expressed by the ditch company at the planning meeting. The ditch company was in opposition of this project from the beginning. 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 perceives they have, in a letter dated February 29, 2008 by the Ditch Company Attorney demonstrates their perceived power by requiring me to: • EXHIBIT IPP#/ *S -provide a performance bond in the amount of$20,000 and an additional $2,500 for professional services, installation per design standards. -to limit me to one crossing and that no other crossings be allowed in the County right of way. -to require me 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 me 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 gives an indication that the ditch company believes they were given the authority rights granted to the county by law. It also suggested 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. I also discussed 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. It was and still is my belief 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. The costs verses the benefit associated with building an 8 lot non urban planned unit development to urban drainage standards is cost prohibitive as evidenced by the attached cost projections. In addition, there were several inconsistencies in reaching cost for proportionate share for 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. I 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 Brian 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 1- agreements. On March 21, 2008 my engineer and I met with several members of publics works • to discuss proportionate share 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. It is important to note the inconsistencies associated with offsite improvements as another reason for the request to revoke the application. At the last meeting in front of this board in May of this year I was optimistic and pleased the county recognized the issues associated with the project. Since that time, I have had several meetings with public works and planning to address drainage standards. We have tentatively agreed to several changes without compromising the county code. However many of those changes resulted in the removal of several ditch company requirements that did not pertain to crossing the ditch and exceeded the county code or were restrictive for no apparent reason. The drainage plan and detention pond as agreed on by public works meets county code and incorporates the ditch company's comments as it pertains to crossing under their ditch. The other items concerning the ditch company fencing, maintenance of easement and access has also been addressed in the following manner. The fencing is noted on the construction plans and surrounds the cluster development. The • fencing keeps the owners of the lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 out of the easement. The fence was designed to their specifications as requested by Don Dunker their engineer. In addition I also agreed to pay for the materials and installation of the fence around the cluster development. The ditch company can maintain the easement as they have in the past, and I will maintain the same rights as the property owner. The access has not changed and the subdivision has no impact on ditch company access. (The ditch company can access on the easement as they have in the past). I have in good faith attempted to resolve these issues. I requested a meeting and met with the ditch company on July 28, 2008 with several members of the ditch company and their attorney Brad Mueller and myself. The meeting was intended to resolve the four outstanding issues that the Board of County Commissioners identified(drainage, fencing, maintenance and access). At this meeting the ditch company informed us that they would be fencing both sides of the easement, requested that we pay for 2 cattle guards and install them. I was also informed that I would not be allowed to access the easement for any purpose. Despite their tenacity and lack of legal authority to enforce such measures the meeting resulted in no forward progress towards the Board of County Commissioner direction in obtaining an agreement. • The Board of County Commissioners identified four items at the change of zone hearing they • wanted addressed. That included: -drainage review - fencing -maintenance -access Since that time the ditch company has made the following demands: -provide a performance bond in the amount of$20,000 and an additional $2,500 for professional services, installation per design standards. -limit the applicant to one crossing and that no other crossings be allowed in the County right of way. -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. • -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. As recently as last week the ditch company has asserted they intend to: -fence both sides of the easement to prohibit my use. -request I pay for cattle guards for use in their plan to fence the entire easement. -that I not be allowed to access any portion of easement for any purpose including grazing and maintenance. They have also requested that I add them to my personal home owner's insurance policy making them the payee for any loss and damages claimed against them. • I have tried to meet the Board of County Commissioners request and have in good faith tried to • execute an agreement with the ditch company. The reality of an agreement is not possible or needed. The immediate and direct impact of crossing the ditch has been addressed in the design of the ditch crossing and approved by their engineer and is noted on the construction drawings. The crossing also occurs in the non-exclusive portion of the easement and in the county right of way. In addition the original purchase agreement provides a means for the ditch company to be made whole should damage occur to the ditch occur while crossing. It specifically indicates that I would be responsible to restore the easement or ditch to their original condition at my sole expense. (Please see the attached document). In addition the county will also have a letter of credit for the entire cost of infrastructure to complete the project as designed should there be issues. The remainder of the drainage plan meets county requirements and is not located on the easement. The fencing that will occur is noted on the construction drawing. The ditch company can maintain the easement as they have in the past, and I will maintain the same right as the property owner. The ditch company can access the easement as they have in the past and as the property owner will also maintain the same right as the property owner. Several of these items are private property rights issues. I own the property and the ditch company has an easement across my property. I have not in the past, nor do I have any intentions now or in the future to prohibit the ditch company from accessing or maintaining the easement. It is not realistic or legal for them to assume that their rights to the easement grant them the authority to prohibit my use of the property to any degree then what is specified in the original purchase agreement. • In moving forward to a resolution, I would respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioner consider: -The requirement to get an agreement with the Nazarenus Ditch Company be waived in its entirety and no other requirements be imposed related to the ditch or Ditch Company for the reasons outlined previously. -The requirement to submit evidence that the mineral rights purchased from Anadarko be deeded to the Homeowners Association eliminated as a condition of approval for the following reasons: There is no basis or code to support the request. -Grant a variance to allow a sign in out lot c as indicated on the revised plat. -The applicant would request that the requirement to pay a proportionate share in paving 3 miles of WCR 55 be waived. WCR 55 is currently a gravel road with dust abatement. To pay a proportionate share of paving would be cost prohibitive to this project. However, I do realize my obligation and impact of the development on county infrastructure. I intend to share in dust abatement for 3 miles of WCR 55 and WCR 72. Agreements are drafted and amounts for dust abatement have been verbally agreed upon with Dave Bauer of public works as of yesterday. • C Since this project has started I have placed 40 acres of non productive pasture land in agricultural • lot 4 under pivot irrigation through cooperative agreements with neighboring farmers. This cooperation with neighboring fanners has led to another two hundred acres being place into productive irrigated farm ground by removing fences along the western and southern boundary of agricultural lot 4 allowing for pivot irrigation to occur on over 240 acres of land owned by myself and neighbors. It is my intent to explore irrigating another 20 plus acres of lot 4 placing a total of 60 plus acres into productive irrigated farm ground in agricultural lot 4. I believe this is consistent with the county goal to preserve agriculture and a rarity in this generation to have anyone who develops take such extreme steps to enhance and preserve agriculture. I have a vested interest to preserve the agricultural heritage in Weld County for future generations. It is my belief that this can only be done through responsible development. I have been responsible and attentive to the ditch company in preserving their rights and interests as it pertains to agriculture as well as working with surrounding neighbors to insure an agricultural strong hold remains in place for future generations. I have met or exceeded any applicable county requirements as they pertain to this development and the 9 lot minor subdivision process and would ask that you grant my request. Thank-you • IC) MELVIN DINNER, P.C. ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 622 7TH STREET, SUITE 540 GREELEY, CO 80631 • (970) 352-2081 Weld County Planning Department FAX (970) 352-9122GREELEY Oi , S.;j E-mail: meldinner@earthlink)net MAR 04 RECE1\° LD February 29, 2008 Weld County Planning Department 918-10`h Street Greeley, CO 80631 Attention: Brad Mueller, Pinner 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 6`h 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 c/o 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 I/ 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 6`h 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 be 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 than $20,000.00 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. 7. Crossing of the Right of Way. The Nazarenus 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 9 February 29, 2008 Page 4 than $2,500.00 in order to provide for the capability of providing for professional services to oversee the construction matters dealing with this crossing. The plans pertaining to the crossing to be made within Weld County Road 72 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 be 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 PUD 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. 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 that the plans for the Lawley Estates PUD needs to provide for providing liability insurance 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. 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 ID • 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. Lawley. 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 3/i3 — S( 1 � /- t : / • 11 Exhibit "A" On-Site Improvements Opinion of Cost Project Name: Lawley Estates P.U.D. Location: Weld County Road 72 and 55 41, " Pii[�c r emer t item Unitsflit Unit Co� , m"Cost"- Erosion Control Rock Dike EA $150.00 11 $1,650.00 v Silt Fence LF $1.85 2217 $4,101.5 Vehicle Tracking Control Pad EA $640.00 1 $640.00 Riprap(6'x6'x.75'} D50=.75 CY $52.00 2.33 $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 LS $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 Seeding/Mulch AC $640.29 6A $4,097.86 $75,214.67 Street Improvements/Grading Site Gracing overlot&fine CY J $3.00 2800 $8,400.00 Fine Street Grading up to base CY $3.00 5478 $16,434-00 Street Rasp 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 $2.00 1176 $2,352.00 $100,042-60 Traffic Signals, Signing and Striping • [Standard Street With Stop Sign wl Post I EA I $300.001 11 $300.001 $300.00 Work Zone Traffic Control {Traffic Control [ LS r $200.00 1 $200-001 $200.00 Storm Drainage Facilities 30"CMP Storm Drain IF $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 $19.25 380 $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_April-2008 12 On-Site Improvements Opinion of Cost ' Project Name: Lawley Estates P.U.D. Location: Weld County Road 72 and 55 LS $5,000.00T$ Material Testing 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 wl Box EA 5700.00 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%OF 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 530.50 694 $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 53,200.00 1 $3,200.00 Total $27,177.00 • Page 2 Lawley PIOC_April-2008 i3 MEMORANDUM • TO: Brad Mueller, Dept of Planning Services DATE: July 24, 2006 ID C. 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 oiVgas well easements shall be located by dimension. There are 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 • ,TERASfAI IOM,aaCllent'LCIPenUrlarby Mark ale slulyfl]0O101 Laic"EsWtez1Doca unteCceresp denacGounly Lg atent Rma en D3.1T0Tlawl y Estates Ernl Plat RoMcn 7J41K ant 1 1 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 outlot tract to provide access by the homeowners association for the purpose of maintenance. The Statement of Compliance, dated June 1, 2006, 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 al!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 out. 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 shall 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 • 11TERASTATIONWsnn Msll_C..M1crkslLaWe'y Mark and Sheri 2270-01-O7 Lavloy aGIsiOu:umwt4lCwlewvrik kCWnly Cuim,e,YSWecerved 03-12-0/LLawey estates final Plat Renner 1-24-06 doc C • 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"A" 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 Varrella, 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 • IITERASTATIOMdalalCrauilbLL-ClientaLLawley Mark and Sherryl2270-01.0/Lawley tsiatosL}oanwnts\;mesporgence\County Commams\Received 0312-0TLawley FNMP.4 rw,NI rat Review 7-24-06 doc ib MFMOR ANDY TM • TO: Brad Mueller, Planning Services DATE: 07-June-2007 FROM: Jesse Hein, Public Works Dept., and Brian K.Varrella,P.E., CFM, Public Works Dept. 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. Comments 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 of4 ?June 20fl C Docume t;and dlak A I a le, real ca,lr,1 m-an Ixe. F C,rOrle^t`.E WE ROW>L! E 'e R eue,R ,-n I DO(' 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: ❑ 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. ❑ 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 of 4 June 2007 r n meats a.. , e y1ari a i e'i Oal ce Ter -an m r' t r..er',m- ceaonn>i.i r ierE a,erae oar a 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 (D50) 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 of4 7 June 200- 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 Plat. The aQ Leant shall address the comments listed shove duri this Final lan Ire a omments .# ua *. 1. 'X rc v .w r x xM N'r}�sn,. a _t "made , his tatgeoff renew<� 1 1i �' � 3 a submittedand other conce►`ns or issues will a ise during`f`ur ty'ar v Th ri i ,pioc abntoipe a only when ali applropr ate elements#4***submitt d Any uies ofconcerni must be,rr lved • ,+ e Public Works Department prior tae recordingtfu Final 'lol 'PC: Lawley Estates Review 6-05-07.DOC Email S Orieinal:Planner Brad 1/uei/er PC by Post: Applicant: Sherry Lamer PC by Post Engineer: Poear Lpei„eerine C,rvora!ion PC in Post C.rkcNgr ! r. ,;.,eer -/5,»ernie. LLC • Page 4 of 4 7 I une'00? e D ,.r..�rr e •`1-r.-> r..- (^rte,,t E.ArRoBDdrl Lw esReU •i Y I DC/C 2c MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Mueller, Planning Services DATE: 22-January-2008 WIIDCFROM: 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 Page I of 2 22 January 2008 Al WI.ANN NO-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-3-Fnal Plol(PE.Mr.MI1YPF-1041 LaWe.[slates PLO-Las,lea Ernes Rene..01-:2-08 DOC 21 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 auks I states lie%le, 0].'24'8 nO Entail S.Orla'nat. PlanmoF [Owl Maellzr PC h), Post Applicant Sherr;L,nrin PC'Lit Poo Fneuwer She..,r Jnrrneervng(tn poi anon 41 Page 2 oft 22 January 2008 ,PLANNING-DI_VELOPMLN'I RE,/IEN^.l-F ma]Plal(PF.MF MJF)'PF.IIw3 lama 2taes PUD..LaOe'[stales Rene,01-22-Mt DO( Weld County Public Works Department ‘71"t C(1:1 Summary of Estimated Future Paving Share • Case#: PF-1043, Lawley Estates PUD Date: October 16, 2007 Igoe 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 REVIEW\3-Final Plat OFF,MF,MJF)\PF-1043 Lawley Estates PUD\WCR 55 future pave(10-yrs)xls Weld County Public Works Department 6 Estimated Construction Costs for Stabilization• r‘a- Y1 Case #: PF-1043, Lawley Estates PUD Ince: October 16, 2007 n`o For Road: WCR 55 COLORADO Between: SH 392 and WCR 74 (3 miles) . User Instructions: Enter only values in red. One-Mile Quantities Length Width Depth Area Area Volume Volume Material 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 Unit Total • Material Quantity Units 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 Applicant's Grand Total = $ 188,091 $ 15,758 M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3-Final Plat(PF,MF,MJFI\PF-1043 Lawley Estates PUDtWCR 55 Dust Mitigation Estsls ay Weld County Public Works Department 6 Estimated Construction Costs for Stabilization • Case#: PF-1043, Lawley Estates PUD ID Date: October 16, 2007 Wi 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 I.s. $ 2,000.00 $ 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 REVIEWU-Final Plat(PE.MF,MJF)\PF-O043 Lawley Estates PUD\WCR 72 Dust Mitigation Est.xls 25 April 22, 2008 • Department Of Planning Services Brad Mueller 918 10th 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 • • Kit. cittlo DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 918 10th 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 • Z-i Ill1111 1 111 111111111111(111111111111111111111 liii IHI yh x t 2,ti b?, fi A ry ° a v 3 " iii 3 «` '+s=S-q ,rte.. f' `v 2970917 7 07/22/2002 000J11:13A Weld County, of 't„, � X � # 917 . 1 of 7 R 35.00 D 0.00 J.A.,'Suki' Tsukamota y - � , �F4 air ,. sr" RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT " �' art r : ' r , r. 'f e' '"T'? 3y `♦. ` airs-3'✓a' :, THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTAGREEMENT("Agreement )ismadethis tic a t:-ap n 19`" day of July, 2002, by and between Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company,;a Colorado::41-,,,*-31",-4, °= corporation., (hereinafter"First Party")and Mark Lawley and Sherry Lawley whose address is 26658 WCR 74, Eaton, CO 80615, (hereinafter"Second Party"): .r WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, First party owns a parcel of land in the County of Weld, State of Colorado described as: the North one-half of the Southeast Quarter (NYZSE'Y,) and the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE%SE'/.) of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.; and WHEREAS, Second Party is purchasing the above described lands owned by First Party; and WHEREAS, the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch runs through the property hereinabove described; and WHEREAS,First Party desires to retain an exclusive easement and right-of-way for the ditch, roar and appurtenances on a portion of the above-described property, and a non- exclusive right-of-way and easement for the ditch, road and appurtenances on another portion of the above-described property. • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the understandings, mutual covenants, rights, duties, and obligations herein created, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. All of the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein and made a part of this agreement. 2. An EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT, is hereby established, the metes and bounds description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A," and a diagram of the same is shown on attached Exhibit"C." 3. On the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT described on attached Exhibit"A"and as shown on attached Exhibit"C,"said EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT shall be perpetual,exclusive and Second Party shall not be permitted to cross under or over said described EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT with any structure, fixture, property or appurtenance of any type or for any reason without first receiving written approval of First Party. 4. — Also created and established is a NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT, the metes and bounds description of which is attached as Exhibit"B,"and a diagram of said NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEM=NT is shown cn attached Exhibit"C". • 2� . '. _IilN11111111111I IllllIIIilllIIIllI1 III 111111111IIII ' ,2970917 07/22/2002 11:13A%Weld County, CO a ; ,., 2 of 7 Ft 35.00 D 0.00 J.A. "Sukl Tsukatnoto r ` ,m� r �1 g mss, ^`, k,. �,•` 5. As to the NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT described :-1 t`' a. on Exhibit "B" and shown on Exhibit"C," Second Party shall have the right ' ' w- " to cross under and/or over said easement so long as any crossing does not cause damage, injure or harm First Party's right-of-way and easement, including but not limited to the ditch, road and any other appurtenances. A v. 6. In crossing over or under First Party's NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT, any such crossing shall be done in such a manner as to not damage the easement, road, ditch, appurtenants or the embankments thereof and so as not to interfere in any with the flow of water in said ditch. Second Party shall always be required to restore First Party's easement including the ditch, road, bottoms, sides, banks and all other portions and appurtenances of First Party's ditch and easement to their original condition and at the sole cost and expense to Second Party. Second Party further agrees that any crossing underneath the ditch will be done at a depth of not less than three feet below the bottom of the ditch and any crossing will be clearly marked to show the location of such crossing. 7. The provisions of this Agreement shall bind the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns, personal representatives and administrators; and the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the title to the lands described hereinabove. FIRST PARTY: SECOND PARTY: • NAZARENUS LATERAL DITCH COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation B � �t/ ��4,nA De f,', Mark Lawley — �_-- _ .yam. .. . IC"'I ,.,s • cT4, r U . W= t t ;, '. Sherry Cawley . t STATE GE:COLORADO ) t y:,'. : .t• ) +•. QQ \J )3... Q ss. '� �Q�Tt0AUF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lQt —day of July,2002 by 115rnr. .yyC ,. fad as ` bkc\c,,,d. of the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch, a Colorado'torporation and Mark Lawley and Sherry Lawley. MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. aF 'on expires: b l (t- -- a 1 r-1 ` McCARTY ; `��.1/4% Ad> moo,/ Notary Public • F:KFLWAZAREMJ$`,4 'Right of Way 6 Easement Agreement �... vn1 F • EXHIBIT C • ®N d 1k. SE YaW Cat.of Pk. EYy © E%4 Corner NEt'OE111: 167510 i N61'07'57-E 1512.61' I ... '1 1015.09 • 1 \ to I a I \ K I b vO• I CrIck I elk, P N `• NE IH 5E 'A ad I 4- • u A �6 n 1.-,® w k"1\ Vn DI • CtA .0 ryT3t } O a N C. .o I ti a I ,a W I P a I I . N I Cat.rai oath C.nisr Car d Ile.I p NE C«.of the 7 • —4k• 5E '/4-- '--r'--it( t-411.26' _ 5E%4N.. SE yt \ ® \t Sb�03 2l « .I 0-1 m 0 A U SE y1 5EA — M •cu'ie ll'<40D a zoo Sad 400' • N " \ -9 ^— b sLW51'scw \ \ 5a.55' , � lateral o.1e6 w Arto. V^ �� No.2 I sei Gross. 111.5b11 Act I 20 Rata Rqw at7074 Act 5 . 6: N5E56'57'E Net a //6.6232 Act Cr.- 'n 55.05' N 3 6 6 1 1 Cr'' , I I 40'N...-E..Iwue Ecw1 I I 10' 581'17'021J 1275.57' 40' I I I Trw r.:at of 6.{..:..5 ——— �i%j%%%� _��dut v. E.n.t. SWCard N./— - SE Y. of 1k. dCR72, ® 5S Cot 5tc4 J h:ai of bo, na2 SE 94 �V/O COU,ur C/ /gone -7 -z_ w Nan C.dw:+e E.mt sw .rr nr/anion or me cum mimosa£45 P77 am amons*.Mga S .A.. J:Anal".r ms M 14 M a.MO air: as nf(Iprs w moors— al—so:at co aa'rfa.At mars M-Mae 10000010704 w Mr Mgt IMO OM"w rIOM1Ea'. • BMC• Acraw.v re w.aoeao La,roomer Orance an nom Harrow AA¢I.. m.Air river5 am Ann snow nom tram Arno am:war rnovnI.l mat sorer. 0 SO-A VanVanN on Anse saws crow air area a•arm moor or awomrsP ARK:ma row KW.noo:We Mr!Of rpm oatnnano. arms lam. McRAE S SHORT INC. its, ern AIC ca22£Y, caa 90', • scowl e,I• ONN CM : ,I 0411• wee prat NO. a ' LAND 5UAYEY PLAT I DITCH EASEMENTS \ 0 2 N.. . r Latcc.I Dik Eaton CO. N :cM _ _ .J —wl•rdlrllIYY- Y- ii - N.A. —we s cs EA}" 4 6 64 ern 30 • t.••""�� ,}} ` 4.- : v. lei ` . .`---,--.7%.-'--;-•„7"-:"...,‘ .: , ). 1 •y �wM.T �`�1 . �•i•C\.. .•.V". - ea' I • ter" Vs+a t • , s�. '�Y,� 1•.• fY • •` i ''t•'• r C-)rte ••. `� ic 1 t- . 1 - - ..- ''' ; -1;"-•': -LI--7.17;I it.._ .. ... -..}7-.4%.,, -, -_-) ......,)0. - cis-1.f fre.:.:Ic....":.1.--c:::....:. .-.....-. •a. - ML .. M / _-etc.f �. ; 'C•_CSt. . ). ,.T. 7 ,fir .,, -a - ).44,'•,••• `v-- - _ ,•. i --f w.•7 ---,tit, (tit ; � r` 6--: .s4- •. ' >- „r.. _ �_.1. ' .:Wit,,lli- .r Z. t •��'. 'ifs' . .a 1 �- j"" _ _ /r � , ' r r -� _ 1 .� •/ •.'.j 'l i / f • • . I - � I I 1 ,•• ` J , S - r - , _ _ , 1, 'fit • a-. - f . I, .. ' • /mot • �� ., J .wY = t • _ • ,y • -•� r r 1Y SS ~. t *4141t:c44-7)tir Wit S 3 ' -• M •tom ' 1. •._ I _ . ‘i 0 • vQ A rile �': . ,rye - \i,:.4 • 1 .. _ ... 11 * :".. • I) •• 44 - - - -.. • 4.11 1 , • • L .. • \vim,_. - _ • �'1 '� — Jy.� •ViJ.• �^ .•I i • -fre. t),I` • •` .N •µ•itH fir filiikobasky.a^ ACM. :. N_ l(, • r C__6. .rtre - -.. •.. 1• .:S.a ; t: ' 1/4 ' ' tr.),`_ •\ -r• -" N '• � t .. ...., .. . , c ,..,T.a .�; ^�1 ,� fly i k. r�.4 :\ • �<•ice' • .��5dK-., /rw" •Y' 'ti,.•. r ,. • - ''' 2•• . , :( - IZ - • - - • ' ' /•- 0 4 1 y • ••• r,� \.,%Ili • •C1: rl= • •., err h • ...L•r . . }��•• .73 •1Jf • ♦ . j. {n i * - ••-.:i �l Jt,. . 11t I •, .� \ 'T 1' y 1•�. . ��111 . •, • .e.• per. ,. _. , . , .. , , ...,, • ,,,.,. ,.. N.,7., • , ..., •.. , . er4 - : 1 • • C \ri`_�A t "!+ A�, : h: AT3 .c� •'• S yr'' I r,460. ii • • 1/2, -1": # - • , t l It • bk. ii 4, Jlita.eilidaiiii ital....ill...40S . • .. ,..., ...it; • • .... 1 t �: - , ,•-• •_.,.• tT Air'• .A } , • re P( •7Td� ,A4�7J•r \ - 'xi, •In.".}+v+• � Ac- ...,e �%• QI. 1 1 s,: .cH1 ir r F. t ,tt ' R4_:♦ 'i ''3 Wr '-v4obi �• yv. � . • •+ I - ice..fi.r t --tat • •^' �''• j�'.y{ t 1 . . rl• A. 1 ,. , r4:_,19%rd. t--;, • 11 _^/.� ._, � '_ '1 y�' *1**** J1,� . .•'4411.1¢�)j,}•, • 3:' '-•,,� -.;Sit .' tJ ..' r',' yr ,a 11 •A rl ,. _1.•j•' r r` X71\ '>fi• ' ^• -• ` 1, i • irk � _ 4� ly�, r .� ` k t'! Or t. - • •r' " 1-+' �J° • �' •� , .'� �.'...^ _ '\ • f•'K ti ' . �. 5..r1.S Lei- ••1 S '�� 1 'mot - •1+,• -t l ` 1 '•n� `+ � . + , -_ Y I+ i.,, ate- - . .r; . • 1 v y�• .rr' ->i •^ ,. ,' ' 'l 4bt . •� • •ti` � I 40yti• " - • , , - • r t Law. . . raritY.��••J\. fir., '`�_l„ 4r.• 1 �r u n� .er b, wq r d..1„— , '-'i '-`-' ' • :4;-1.---- • ic79. ‘ 41 I. 1• • . . - I ,•',4 • •- ...,_savi'-' it • ry ' ,.: "„,_`4,.r • Ifl 11111111111111111IIIIIIII1111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 0l 1 R 6.00 D 12.86 J.A. 'Suld Tnkamolo Warranty Deed THIS DEED is a conveyance of the real property described below, including any improvements and other appurtenances (the 'property')from the individual(s),corporation(s).partnership(s),or other entity(ies)named below as GRANTOR to the individual(s) or entity(ies)named below as GRANTEE. The GRANTOR hereby sells and conveys the property to the GRANTEE and the GRANTOR warrants the tide to the property,except For(1)the lien of the general property taxes for the year of this deed,which the GRANTEE will pay(2)any easements and rights-of- way shown of record(3)any patent reservations and exceptions(d)any outstanding mineral interests shown of record (5)any protective covenants and restrictions shown of record(6)any additional matters shown below under"Additional Warranty Exceptions", and(7)subject to building and zoning regulations. D.F. $12.85 The Specific Terms of This Deed Are: Grantor: (Give nane(t)and Meech)of residence;if the spouse of the owner-grantor is joining in this Deed to release homestead rights.identify Branton as husband and wife.) THE NAZARENUS LATERAL DITCH COMPANY,A COLORADO CORPORATION Grantee: (Give minas)and sddrna(ea):statement of address.including available road or sues number.) SHERRY LAWLEY LEY 26658 W CR 74,EATON, CO 80615 Form of Co-Ownership: (if Nac are two or more grantee monad,they will be considered to take as imam in commie unless the words'in joint tenancy"or words of the same meaning are added in the apace below.) Property Description (Include county and noel The N1/2$E1/4 and the SE 1/4SE1/4 of Section 4,Township 6 North,Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. TOGETHER WITH ATTACHED RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT Property Address: (TO BE DETERMINED) Consideration: (The stamen of a dollar amount is optional,adequate considerauiou for Nu deed will be promo]unless Nu conveyance is identified • as a gift. In any cue this conveyance Is absolute,final and unmditioeial.) ONE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 Raevationi-RMrietione: (If the GRANTOR Intends to merve my interest N the property or to convey less Nan is owned,or if the GRANTOR is manning the GRANTEE'S right in the properly,make appropriate indication.) Additional Warrteolp*Anions: (Include deeds of trait being teamed and she mmen not coveted above,) •t,4 Ihiecutdd bWEi dAnmr on JULY 19,2002 �QrbRIGe for"Coronretlon,Partnership or Auociatioa: Signature for Individual(s): THE NAZARENUS LATERAL DITCH COMPANY,A COLORADO CORPORATION Name of Grantor: Corporation,onn,Parmeenhip or Association Grantor Byc'� (N-T'ry Grantor ri TOMMY.wk R PRESIDENT • By ,y� Grantor Attest: STATE OF COLORADO ; ".COUNTY OF WELD The foregoin instrument was acknowledged before me this 19th day of JULY,2002 B RESIDENT, Or THE NAZARENUS LATERAL DITCH COMPANY,A COLORADO CORPORATION it ITNESS,,,',}�ry*Q".'+rattail I seat a try is y mmmslg a fu:;M 28,2005 ATE*CA14 :o f as. 1221 8TH AVE, ELE D 811671 OF ? ) • T ins . was acknowledged before me this day of By 1 EJ(HI81T (*name individual Grantor(s)or if Grantor is Corporation,Partnership or Association.then identify signers as president or vice president and secretary or aulsiant secretary of corporation:or as outmost of partnership or as authorized=mix-Us)of association.) WITNESS alhand and official seal. Notary Public My I NESS my om ex and comm0 1981 UPDATE LEGAL FORMS WCTC No.201-L 1111II III11111111111111 III IIIII 1111111 III it111 IM III' 2970917 07/22/2002 11:13A Weld County, CO 917 1 of 7 R 35.00 D 0.00 J.A. "Suki" Tsukamoto • RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS RIGHT-OF-WAYAND EASEMENT AGREEMENT("Agreement")is made this 19th day of July, 2002, by and between Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation.,(hereinafter"First Party")and Mark Lawley and Sherry Lawley whose address is 26658 WCR 74, Eaton, CO 60615, (hereinafter"Second Party"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, First party owns a parcel of land in the County of Weld, State of Colorado described as: the North one-half of the Southeast Quarter (N'V2SE'/.) and the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE'/.SE'/s) of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.; and WHEREAS, Second Party is purchasing the above described lands owned by First Party; and WHEREAS, the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch runs through the property hereinabove described; and WHEREAS, First Party desires to retain an exclusive easement and right-of-way for the ditch, roar and appurtenances on a portion of the above-described property,and a non- exclusive right-of-way and easement for the ditch, road and appurtenances on another portion of the above-described property. • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the understandings, mutual covenants, rights, duties, and obligations herein created, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. All of the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein and made a part of this agreement. 2. An EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT, is hereby established, the metes and bounds description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A," and a diagram of the same is shown on attached Exhibit "C." 3., On the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT described on attached Exhibit"A"and as shown on attached Exhibit"C,"said EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT shall be perpetual,exclusive and Second Party shall not be permitted to cross under or over said described EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT with any structure, fixture, property or appurtenance of any type or for any reason without first receiving written approval of First Party. 4. Also created and established is a NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT, the metes and bounds description of which is attached as Exhibit"B,"and a diagram of said NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT is shown on attached Exhibit "C". F 1111111111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111111 0111111 2970917 07/22/2002 11:13A Weld County, CO 2 of 7 R 35.00 D 0.00 J.A. "Suki" Tsukamoto • 55 As to the NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT described on Exhibit "B" and shown on Exhibit "C," Second Party shall have the right to cross under and/or over said easement so long as any crossing does not cause damage, injure or harm First Party's right-of-way and easement, including but not limited to the ditch, road and any other appurtenances. 6. In crossing over or under First Party's NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT, any such crossing shall be done in such a manner as to not damage the easement, road, ditch, appurtenants or the embankments thereof and so as not to interfere in any with the flow of water in said ditch. Second Party shall always be required to restore First Party's easement including the ditch, road, bottoms, sides, banks and all other portions and appurtenances of First Party's ditch and easement to their original condition and at the sole cost and expense to Second Party. Second Party further agrees that any crossing underneath the ditch will be done at a depth of not less than three feet below the bottom of the ditch and any crossing will be clearly marked to show the location of such crossing. 7. The provisions of this Agreement shall bind the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns, personal representatives and administrators; and the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the title to the lands described hereinabove. • FIRST PARTY: SECOND PARTY: NAZARENUS LATERAL DITCH COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation / Mark k Lawley 'y s ••c 1, r— , �J >- = '- '. Sherry (-3ey r Y icri j ..A: .D %, ,,,c• STATF� OF- ORADO ) .t ) ss. atlf +cOiII Tir°$F '...XX59d ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l&s—day of July,2002 by }c -y&�',t L. tax-)\ as .- --,\R-1:=4 kc- .0.-- .- of the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch, a Colorado`borporation and Mark Lawley and Sherry Lawley. MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. �` ,. o esion expires: 5 astc cc �J Li >� C Xf �t � i ': McCAf1TY Notary Public �txO • _ . Q 7 F:\KFL\NAZAREMI$'}4 Akita of way 8 Easement Agreement EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION • (EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR THE NAZARENUS LATERAL DITCH) A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 64 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID' SECTION 4 AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER AS MONUMENTED TO BEAR NORTH 01° 08' 52" WEST, AND WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE NORTH 01° 08' 52" WEST, 40.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT BY THE FOLLOWING THIRTY-ONE (31 ) COURSES: 1 ) SOUTH 89° 27' 02" WEST, 164.05 FEET; 2) NORTH 01° 12' 45" WEST, 307.09 FEET; 3) NORTH 03° 38' 11 " WEST, 173.84 FEE1 ; 4) NORTH 14° 43' 04" WEST, 25.09 FEET: 5) NORTH 30° 32' 32" WEST, 120.34 FEET; 6) NORTH 42° 45' 00" WEST, 205.47 FEET; 7) NORTH 31 ° 07' 50" WEST, 394.26 FEET; 8) NORTH 11° 58' 13" WEST, 183. 17 FEET; 9) NORTH 01° 46' 17" WEST, 574.99 FEET; • 10) NORTH 15° 03' 09" WEST, 154.83 FEET; 11 ) NORTH 43° 43' 57" WEST, 55.84 FEET; 12) NORTH 71° 19' 19" WEST, 145.24 FEET; 13) NORM 47° 57' 42" WEST, 183.01 FEET; 14) NORTH 26° 36' 32" WEST, 120.50 FEET; 15) NORTH 50° 58' 07" WEST, 77.92 FEET; 16) NORTH 33° 34' 33" WEST, 279.24 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; 17) NORTH 89° 07' 57" EAST, 202.04 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE; 18) SOUTH 33° 34' 33" EAST, 144.06 FEET; 19) SOUTH 50° 58' 07" EAST, 88.61 FEET; 20) SOUTH 26° 36' 32" EAST, 125. 14 FEET; 21 ) SOUTH 47° 57' 42" EAST, 115.82 FEET; 22) SOUTH 71° 19' 19" EAST, 151 .84 FEET; 23) SOUTH 43° 43' 57" EAST, 141 .04 FEET; 24) SOUTH 15° 03' 09" EAST, 218.08 FEET; 25) SOUTH 01° 46' 17" EAST, 579.62 FEET; 26) SOUTH 11 ° 58' 13" EAST, 139.31 FEET; • 1111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 2970917 07122/2002 11:13A Weld County, CO 3 of 7 R 35.00 0 0.00 J.A. "Suki" Tsukamoto ►i11111111►►1►►►11►I►►II►1►111►► 11►►►II►►►111►►1 l 2970917 07122(2002 11:13A Weld County, CO 4 of 7 R 35.00 D 0.00 J.A. "Suki"Tsukamoto 27) SOUTH 31° 07' 50" LAST, 348.27 FEET; 28) SOUTH 42° 45' 00" CAST, 206.36 FEET; 29) SOUTH 30° 32' 32" LAST, 162. 14 FEET; 30) SOUTH 14° 43' 04" LAST, 77. 17 FEET; 31 ) SOUTH 01 ° 08' 52" EAST, 494.71 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT CONTAINS 11 .6459 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND IS SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAYS OF RECORD OR AS NOW EXISTING ON SAID TRACT OF LAND; AND THREE LATERAL IRRIGATION DITCHES FROM SAID NAZARENUS LATERAL DITCH, SAID EASE- ___ BEING 30 FEET (30' ) WIDE AND EXTENDING FROM THE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT DESCRIBED ABOVE TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, THE CENTERLINE OF SAID EASEMENTS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LATERAL DITCH NO. 1 : COMMECING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4, THENCE NORTH 01° 08' 52" WEST, 1332.59 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 86° 03' 27" WEST, 429.28 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT; LATERAL DITCH NO. 2: • COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4, THENCE NORTH 01° 08' 52" WEST, 678. 16 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAIOSECTION 4 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 84° 31 ' 56" WEST, 54.48 FEET TO THE CAST LINE OF SAID EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT. LATERAL DITCH NO. 3: THIS CENTERLINE or THIS DITCH LIES NORTH 01 ° OB' 52" WEST, 484.04 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4 AND ALL IS WITHIN SAID EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT. I do hereby certify that under my personal supervision, this legal description was prepared on July 18,2002 tom, v- Gerald B. McRae, Professional Engineer and (% ,' Land Surveyor, Colorado Reg. No 6616 • tvD p' 2 of 2 • EXHIBIT B • LEGAL DESCRIPTION (NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT) A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 64 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLO- RADO AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED•AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4 AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO BEAR NORTH 01° 08' 52" WEST AS MONUMENTED AND WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE NORTH 01° 08' 52" WEST, 40.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 27' 02" WEST, 164.05 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH 01° 12' 45" EAST, 40.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 89° 27' 02" EAST, 164.00 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 0. 1506 ACRES, MORE OR LESS AND IS SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR AS NOW EXISTING ON SAID TRACT OF LAND. • I do hereby certify that under my personal supervision, this legal description was prepared on July 18,6002 Gerald B. McRae, Professional Engineer and (--t —I•r Land Surveyor, Colorado Reg. No 6616 ..... '° 11 `AND P• $°, l ll'lll�'II'11111111111,3Su I1i1I"I lI131:1,011\11111 2970917 0712220 U 0.00 J.A. ki Tsu S of 7 B35. • • EXHIBIT C • must canimpJ yy19CMT 9t.WATER, SECTION 4.)PRIMP B MOH. APSE 64 vat or DR Ern P.M.. WW2 MINTS, COMA= © .• corms SECTION DNS 2-iIr AYMINM CAR SET NO I(FOECRD SY L.5. • EYE ON 7.4JBBJ. • ® yyLSIERST OWNER OF iv*EAST Nor If ME SOARS-kV'VARIER: 2-I/r ALA- MOM W sEr MO BErIE'CW BY 1.1. VYE W 7-6-2100. © EAST worm QOSN: 3-1/4^NIWIIW W JCS MO REFEROCW BY 1.5.23513 OR 12-3-1KE. S ® ROOMINESS UMR it 7242 VI 6-11-Asi $WMIEST WARIER 04 DIE r WM ER: 3.1/4^ WANTON CM SET YD Q CENSER WEE!O nit SOUTHEAST VARIER: 3-I/0.A1uMIMM W SET 4V REI- ERNCW BY L.S. 7742 ON 6- Il- 2QU. p MANU1I W C6 or ME SOUNEASI VAREEA OF NE=MEW VARIER, 2-1/r • IANIRM CAP SET MO REIEKICED BY L.S. 96.4 d 2-24-IME. ® SOON oWITER COWEP 2-I/7"ALUMNA CAP SET NO MFERENCED BY 1.5. 9641 CR 1+IP0. ® Y.11NWESI WRIER OF ME SOJTRAST MARTO of II4t SETLJSE COMMA: }-I/Y 4411.411.1.814 W KT MO REroRM:ED BY L.S. 964E M 1-4-INN. p S OMYSI SECTION COYER: 1-1/4^MAMMA CAP SET MO KFEIIEICM BY 1.5. 7247 Co.P32-1001. • 120' 50 C/E Wtat East • 2'-b" rriteuDLIch action • Man.Ae.+.f.Ad:LS 1NL Unita O"AReslsc Described Co Planoneni, Sat Me.4 Reber u/Cer L]T242 !Mien o/FErwY Det.ElYd 111111111111111111111111 III 11111 Ell III III 2970917 07/22/2002 11:13A Weld County, CO • 6 of 7 R 35.00 0 0.00 J.A. "Suki" Tsukamoto 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C • NW C.ac( Me E y, © EACern.r .401'01 51L 26151L 6 n. SE'N SI . MS 1111'07457 E I'M 43 S • o \ 3I 1011 D• O y � ��C3 E I Cr'''' Vv I Sng ..m I = NE 1/1 SE Fl °O C a n m- 0 Q�q Ira;It�,17,,�/�D� w I r o ai ° N 'V a'AEt w X00 11' 0 '- O - I E .. I Y0 ENO - I W < I —N LO �^ M 13'till I� ai to IS fC n r 0 . n I I �� LIt°f el PicN J� Q Center Coe.d Me I V NE C...i the • -Ail SE 'N-- _--_ ___ SF 416 H.SE y1 I ki 5E Y1 SE Y1 Q \ A • \�^� S�caleI"_40O ia o 'roes r .2 , yO ,400. _ �\ \\\ a ia Li )11 \CrNI _ aI45I'u'w \ \ ,� Lateral 0.1•11Ho 2 Art., lJ '(> ®i� Gt.... "‘ 111.5311 Act o R..4 R4w.L7079 Ac= ` C 1115.O'5VE �'}.l 55.05' S Net = //6.6231 Act Ld.1.1 Dt4A 61 I N.] l 50 I I 1 1f^ ' I .O'N•e-t dente G.1 I ' 1 .581'17'02-Wi'w 1275.51' ey 7...r...t f h••..;.y .o'E.dv4v. Ice$- SW Car o15.a'N" - - _ _ _ _ e E 4...._.1 St •4 4" �wt.R72 en S[co. See 4 J Not' o1 1y.•..') SE', TeN,1361 w 11.n [.elms E.mt Air n roc anew r ow atom relwrl re re wen.e ir a WINSI Sr on•a—r now MAE SW guerre r.w.ee+^ Mr N Mln,Mf IVO M..as Iea.r.Ir[Ye SW mar NO/CS maw •eraesee• e wn ewer V,re r.re . VAL .elver Ida S./V a/ntir wen.. n rani'was✓n.. rev nan intern o na IACI. ar Is• Arnow ass wee in new..O r no et e. -t*ma mew. roe neam.reet lrf MR V tot .eee O MOICAIrlw I .Wee. MCRAE d SHORT INC. Mil ern AVE ovener cao. saes SCALP I • OW.ta 6P :VSOAF., .r{:y L:Sinew AG .I LAND SURYEY FLAT a DITCH EASEMENTS • 1 of 2 „ sari Ditc' Eton CO. _ —Mwv I I7 — — N It A. We • '5E4� + 6 64 arm Jennifer VanEgdom From: Don Dunker ent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:41 AM Jennifer VanEgdom; Esther Gesick lirc: Don Dunker; David Bauer; Pat Persichino; Donald Carroll Subject: FW: Lawley Estates PUD BOCC hearing August 6, 2008 Attachments: FW: Lawley Estates PUD BOCC hearing August 6, 2008 FW: Lawley Estates PUD BOCC he... Jennifer and Ester, Attached is an email from Pat Persichino Public Works Director giving me permission to testify at the Lawley(PF-1043) hearing yesterday, the Board wanted a copy of it to be a part of the record. Let me know if I need to do anything else. Thanks, Don Dunker • • , � t Jennifer VanEgdom From: Pat Persichino ant: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:52 PM Bruce Barker; COMMISSIONERS c: David Bauer; Don Dunker Subject: FW: Lawley Estates PUD BOCC hearing August 6, 2008 Bruce, Don Dunker has my permission to act as the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company Engineering Representative at the August 6, 2008 hearing for Lawley Estates PUD. Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Pat Original Message From: Don Dunker Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:40 PM To: Pat Persichino Cc: David Bauer; Don Dunker Subject: Lawley Estates PUD BOCC hearing August 6, 2008 Pat, or an email from Bruce Barker I need your permission and the BOCC board's permission to act as the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company Engineering Representative at the August 6, 2008 hearing for Lawley Estates PUD. I will take vacation for the time away from work. I have recused myself from all decisions concerning the case while being employed by the County. I started this review project of the Lawley Estates PUD and its affects on the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company ditch and exclusive easement for the Ditch Company in June of 2006 a year before starting to work with the County. Please let me know. Thanks, Don Dunker, P.E. Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street Greeley, CO 80631 phone: 970.304.6496 ext. 3749 fax: 970.304.6497 ddunker@co.weld.co.us • 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING • CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS June 21, 2008. THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, Brad Mueller, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR A FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FOR THE LAWLEY ESTATES PUD SUBDIVISION (PF-1043). 3PA0 1-1:1c-- t_t 'C • Name of Person Posting Sign • Signature of Person Posting Sign STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) r-tn The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this`` day of hl(,(( 7 , 200S WITNESS my hand and official seal. J iad , 4 ` �NDI"IN��F�4 Li.. ' 'otary Public j ►. I.T •..• �O • C y F�F.......��\, My Commission Expires: L f , "01.,= • I My } wee... . P}. .ro.w QY"" d-i A 'a ' • '$ate } a2 • P" fitim .. .la 'z E q ,,-Y( .. .- �y 1 x u r.r` ':1-141;:c er ..: .^. �{.,4:F. • to rz 4"5�.' •ate, _••'l .• 3 s+ +aPr s"am.. ,4::. • ,• 44,e, `W '4:.� .'mss., it.. .. • •• k Y C l'. v ht • +�. F' • • - .... y, �.. V RSSS • C N s' I yM� 0 I • AR•�j y. ,� �w >5' i Fir 3 rz d 4 .a:, . ` 1 • • :: gfjy�� ,tea ut€ 4.{ > ^ ,"'PT '�. "`—y,yam, 4 »isI • 75r,",g.'3•,I -4Y P f.'T°'� T✓✓"N' "'4T3a"" Yf44,` F. �` • �. • � i 4'.:::•1•47• :,.. ,$$ + ' <%4. ti w. r—I' . x �1 "":•",{74 •1 �` - .. } 'aT G t��'' am r1[ { {. ... h x 4 t r; • L `t • 1 :14"` € k L ,,, +. .,,� gip .s" ;r 0 j 44 I , dI gtdl{_m z x .r u 4:i .'* t 4` r „r,tad`s f,t,st ��s �, ax t,, !v m,Pnr•11,1111101s a t t ,:i s an gSk's s s-*, s t �. t+.rvt t ' ` t P' ili v 111.411451.;;;,,' r t ` m ..................tt ' a t ! t ' 2, a K ,f lEi ;;; Lim" t , `ti; 3 t:.! r ,": r, °::Y 4t: '` zjiQrb`�t : !:}r! e '' ° ,J 1 $Pub Ht a11 CO' et6tng - :t e F ' Th$'PR0PERTY W,14 w H@I ' t ' s CXd,rrvsuane s Hcac. d Roe • s t g Yeltl CoWnry Certr9i ! - t w ' k' #a �:IE P fp f :',y4/ 9t X^^$S.VOPt a[C ..fit}' ` F i , 1,.1%11p tr q `n r Ta 7+;„ i s 4 g ri i '1 r t a i»`. 3 t T 1.14,V1 '#` .� "b '14 ▪ r 'p tz : 1f* ts .gP% p,x AU S�jPi93 kaemah d ^t >' t� " *,t ! 15::/I fl g 'i11 ,�d a a i '1 ,td `� ry it l: i! t'4 rvr 6 _,; 'fi r t▪4 �.l Y ',1,;"; „�d+iD---_.4r 'S +' Y t a ,;,•' k -,: s. y s.•? dp s! t t; ;r� '.it-..-,: a -tt 5= t'`• • • ° Y �' r ! a � . SS ar ddE. 32A.T ,*� F s � 1 r.�: tt AI( t � 1 f ,P '+sq%� 'k � :S C a Y q.4. f ' :":4;:',:i,,':ii., �ye (gyp c' ,1 i F grE- iPQPAfila- 'tEtl , � rrnielit irk , '3 g .r 1 11'.r.,.�'I. P - :1r. / • r a .{ 1 '��, 4: sf J.. `"'7 : . r� 1,1 aim .. i.i t�k . ,i21442/1:::".„2/ 7 �! - y4 y. 111?!./1:11,f] fi t • "t .. t t rF' " s!, 1t l` 4 , 't ,i k 4 '''.1:::;%;/' ! *w"4 h * *�s, 1 .-e °}'{",.n', 1s 4 {.{r+- N \ n}{j" l s. jt, n : ;F ''',''''''<i:::+:1, ,'..,.',1-4.;:i.';'. .."‘",\H.,. . ' 04 , .4444.'1-- . :' .'''.' '',"'"04 :: ',4,.,-..1.2.. �t k if t`', rt l,!4 �I ' �� 1 �j !.,r---". t,. h .A '4i t OA) a1,"", .�. �� 7 � t rlyry�6 i� � q. ��'.�y{�1 .',A,,,: :';' by SY ? '', e'I ": t :r t t 4 • y 4. A F,} 1 t l t� 1 gg yY 1 r to F * a :.� t 9 ! \ ;` it r ; s �F . t 1' ,i1"••:' a �' ['1 .1/, k #.p 'c m,:t A Hello