The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20080064.tiff • rto Memorandum TO: Brad Mueller, W.C. Planning WI lip DATE: August 21, 2007 C FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Department of Public COLORADO Health and Environment CASE NO.: PZ-1125 NAME: Pioneer Communities Pioneer Communities, Inc. and HP Farms, LLC own the property under consideration in this request. The property is located in southern Weld County, generally in the intersection of CR 49 and CR 22, and north of Hudson and Keenesburg. The development includes residential (9455 dwelling units max.), neighborhood commercial, schools, and parks as well as other mixed use uses. This Change of Zone request does not include the northwest area (Section 2, Planning Areas 1-6) that was reviewed at the Sketch Plan phase, at this time. General Overview Lower density housing is proposed on the perimeter of the community to compliment the rural character of the area, while higher density housing is concentrated in the center. A centrally located Town Center supports the commercial and retail needs of the community and the region. Commercial and retail opportunities may include businesses such as banks, day care facilities, • restaurants, offices, recreational centers, places of worship, public gathering areas, etc. These mixed commercial and retail uses are planned in such a way so as to offer alternative modes of transportation (biking and walking)for the residents to these destinations. Parks, Open Space and Trail System Planning Areas have been designed to provide access within walking distance to a park or open space area. An extensive trail system throughout the proposed development also offers links between neighborhoods and adjacent schools, parks and open space areas. This integrated network of alternate transportation opportunities also allows citizens the opportunity to move within the community without being vehicle dependent. Water and Sewer The development has met the criteria for water and sewer service providers. Entities are being created concurrently with the Weld County Planning review process. Appropriate documents were submitted at the Sketch Plan for review. No new documents were submitted at the Change of Zone application. Change of Zone application observations While the Sketch Plan application provided details regarding parks, commercial, schools, and trail connectivity for evaluation and comment, the Change of Zone application materials do not supply the same level of detail. For example, the Change of Zone has 'place holder' parks located in the Planning Areas, while the actual park location will be determined during the initial development of each Planning Area. However, the details provided as additional information during the Sketch Plan review were approved in a memo dated January 24, 2007. The Department expects the same sort of detail will be provided at the Final Plat application for review. • 1 2008-0064 The Department recommends approval with the following conditions: • 1. Water service shall be obtained from Resource Colorado Water District. P ` f 2. Sewer service shall be obtained from the Resource Colorado Sanitation District. 3. Passive and active recreational uses shall be clearly defined. '1 4. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within easy access of the public gathering areas. Describe the type and location of all permanent restroom and handwashing facilities available within easy access of public gathering areas. This shall be submitted at Final Plat application. 5. All planning areas, commercial areas, public facilities planning areas and school areas shall have direct trail connectivity. Provide a layout similar to the approved Sketch Plan ,„ documents demonstrating there is trail connectivity to all planning areas and school sites. This layout shall be submitted at Final Plat application. 6. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development/redevelopment /construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado f' Department of Public Health and the Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information. 7. During development of the site, all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request of i' the Weld County Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted. • 8. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and practical methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust emissions. 9. If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6 months in duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan, submit f' an air pollution emissions notice, and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 10. "Weld County's Right to Farm" as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code r shall be placed on any recorded plat. 0:\PAM\PLANNING\CHZONE\PZ-1125 PIONEER.RTF • 2 k 4006 r‘tis It t.1:' • Weld County Referral l'Jrlt r ;iy I d�rL - OFFICE July 5, 2007 'mil . ,,,_ j e Jr,, • C. 1LavCE1VE COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Pioneer Communities Inc. & Case Number PZ-1125 HP Farms LLC 4 Please Reply By August 2, 2007 Planner Brad Mueller ; Project Change of Zone application from A(Agricultural) Zone District to a PUD (Planned Unit Development)for a maximum of 9,455 residential dwelling units, 1 commercial I. tannin area, 7 school planning areas (for 10planned schools), 12park planning planning P 9 areas, 2 public facilities planning areas, and various agricultural and open space 3 planning areas. Legal Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18, T2N, R64W of the 6'h P.M.; and Section s 32, T3N, R64W of the 6`" P.M.; and Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, T2N, R65W of 9 the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. • Location In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49. Parcel Number See parcel list �....._.r.a.�__.I The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. r. !l @ 07 15 Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 16, 2007 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ 4'e have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached letter. J Please notify me of any public hearings regarding this request. Comments: • Signature /L��,7ji%r _ Date of 07-7,7 Agency %JC'GD etfF Coo irs- _574e @Weld County Planning Dept. 4918 10th Street, Greeley,CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax • Weld County Sheriff's Office Me mo To: Brad Mueller From: Ken Poncelow Date: July 15,2007 Re: PZ-1125 The Sheriffs Office recommends the following improvements for this housing sub-division: 1. The Sheriffs Office requests that builders and developers designate an area by the entrance of the sub-division in which to place a shelter for school children awaiting the school bus. This area should also include a pull off for the school bus which enables it to safely load and unload children out of the roadway. 2. Either mail distribution within the sub-division or a central drop off location within the sub-division should be developed so that residents do not have to cross a county road to obtain their mail. • 3. A permanent sign should be placed at the entrance to the subdivision detailing the name of the sub-division, address, and a graphical presentation of the roadways within the subdivision. There should be a plan developed to maintain this sign. 4. If the roadways within this sub-division are not maintained or adopted by the county, individuals purchasing property in this sub-division should be notified that the Sheriffs Office will have limited traffic enforcement powers. 5. A plan should be developed to maintain roadways within the sub-division especially during inclement weather conditions for emergency vehicles. 6. The Sheriffs Office is very supportive of homeowner funded homeowner's associations. These associations provide a contact for the Sheriffs Office and a means of maintaining common areas. 7. If there are oil or gas production facilities within this sub-division,they need to be fenced off in order to mitigate the potential for tampering. These facilities are known to create an attractive nuisance for young people. Tampering not only creates a significant danger to safety but also of environmental damage with extensive mitigation and clean-up costs. 8. The names of all streets within the sub-division should be presented to the Sheriffs Office for approval. This will eliminate duplication of street names within the county. 9. The Sheriffs Office encourages Law Enforcement Authorities to provide additional funding for law enforcement requirements in the future. •The Sheriffs Office lacks the ability to absorb any additional service demand without the resources recommended in the multi-year plan provided to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners or as 1 • indicated by growth not considered at the time the plan was developed. I have no other comments on this proposal. • • • •Page 2 • a � ' MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Mueller,Planning Department DATE: 08/27/07 W FROM: S.Lewis,Public Works Dept. . (Drainage) D. Dunker,Public Works Dept. (Drainage) D. Bauer,Public Works Dept. (Floodplain,Geotech) COLORADO SUBJECT: PK-1125 Pioneer PUD(Change of Zone) Weld County Public Works Department staff, has reviewed this Change of Zone plan request. Staff 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. The applicant submitted a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (LSC Consultants, April 26, 2007); Sketch Plan Addendum Submittal document (Reutzel & Associates, December 15, 2006);Master Drainage Report(Carroll&Lange, November 28, 2006) and Downstream Boxelder Creek Watershed (November 29, 2006). The Department of Public Works has reviewed these items, along with drainage and transportation criteria and offers the comments below. The August 14, 2007 traffic study review memorandum to Gloria Hice-Idler (CDOT) and Todd Frisbie (FHU) from Karl Buchholz (NavJoy on behalf of CDOT)and a letter from the Town of Hudson were also reviewed for this Change of Zone memorandum. RECOMMENDATION The proposed Pioneer Community plans have unresolved significant infrastructure planning and funding • issues that will have major cost and functionality impacts on the surrounding communities and taxpayers of Weld County. The Weld County Public Works Department recommends that the Pioneer Community's Change of Zone application be denied at this time pending submittal of new information and commitments. Detailed comments are provided below. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Weld County concurs with the concerns and conclusions enumerated in the August 14, 2007 traffic study review by NavJoy on behalf of CDOT. This review identifies the need for critical offsite improvements and raises significant issues regarding impacts to I-76, WCR 49, and WCR 22 caused by the Pioneer development. That memorandum is attached. Please address CDOT's comments prior to approval of the Change of Zone. 2. The proposed Pioneer Community will have substantial impacts on the regional roadway system. The traffic increases resulting from development of the community will overload existing roadways that are now operating at acceptable levels of service. Public Works requires, as a condition of approval of the Change of Zone and recorded with the Change of Zone plat,that Pioneer Communities provide a fine letter of commitment that: - enumerates all of the offsite improvements that need to be constructed through build-out to service the new community, - identifies the 2007 costs of these improvements, - estimates the future costs (inflation adjusted to date of construction) for these improvements, - documents Pioneer Communities' commitments for funding the future costs of construction of all of these improvements, - gives a detailed schedule for these improvements that includes timetables (start dates, building permit triggers, completion dates) for planning phases, EIS, designing, • purchases of Right of Way,and construction, M_N AVAIhG Ui IP`-(PAIL."oi/(.2t/ / P/ A1/.AIP/'I/II - -nuuci PK-II -PionceirCO/('ammenu-FINAI_•emon dot Sc 200' Page 1 of 13 - identifies ongoing operations and maintenance expenses and funding mechanisms for the • expenses such that the County and surrounding towns are not adversely impacted by the development of the Pioneer site. 3. Item#17 in the General Notes section of the applicant's Change of Zone application(sheet 2 of 25)is unacceptable to Public Works,please remove this statement. 4. Sheet 1 of the applicant's Change of Zone application must show the proposed WCR 53 / I-76 interchange. 5. The applicant has not demonstrated that variable density development is compatible with drainage designs that protect the public safety and water quality. Therefore, Weld County will require that in final drainage designs, the applicant assume worse case (high) densities for all drainage facility designs. 6. The applicant has not demonstrated how roadway designs are functional when variable development densities may significantly change the amount of traffic on roads constructed early in the Pioneer project. Therefore, Weld County will require that in additional Right—Of—Way be reserved to allow for future road widening due to future density trades. 7. As a public safety issue Weld County will require a grade-separated trail to facilitate pedestrian crossing of regional truck route WCR 49 prior to approval of any development west of WCR 49. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS 1. For the Change of Zone,the applicant is requested to provide a Transportation Plan that provides connection to adjacent parcels and communities. The proposed roadway network(applicant's Change of Zone application,sheet 5 of 25),does not show roadways connecting or providing potential connectivity to adjacent parcels not owned by Pioneer. The Pioneer community,if built,will engender other development in the vicinity including development of adjacent parcels. The Pioneer development should not be allowed to"landlock"adjacent parcels. Pioneer is required to contact • those parcel owners to negotiate future roadway accesses and show roadway"stub-outs"or other future connections on the plans. 2. For the Change of Zone, Pioneer Communities needs to provide plans and commitments for a roadway connection to Keenesburg. As high school students residing in the Pioneer Community will be attending Weld Central High School in the interim period until such time that the Pioneer population warrants a Pioneer High School,Keenesburg Parkway will be a necessary safer route to school as compared to diversion of teen drivers and school busses to I-76. Earlier submittals showed a Keenesburg Parkway;the construction of a direct connection between Pioneer and Keenesburg along the approximate alignment of WCR 22 to WCR 59 must be part of the overall Pioneer project. Prior to approval of the Change of Zone,Pioneer is requested to provide a firm letter of commitment that identifies the 2007 costs of this improvement,an estimate of the future costs(inflation adjusted to date of construction),and schedules with triggers for planning,designing,Right of Way purchase, and ongoing operations and maintenance of this necessary connection of Pioneer to surrounding communities. 3. The applicant's revised traffic plan provides more detail on needed I-76 interchange improvements including replacement of the existing WCR 49 interchange. Pioneer has proposed to initiate the 1601 Feasibility Study after 1500 building permits have been issued. And Pioneer proposes that the new interchange needs to be in place prior to the issuance of 2500 building permits. Minor improvements to the existing I-76/WCR 49 interchange are proposed to occur to maintain an acceptable level of service during the first phase of the development. A detailed planning, 1601 feasibility study,EIS, and ROW acquisition process and construction schedule for this improvement including Pioneer's committed financial contribution needs to be defined and included as part of the Change of Zone submittal. The applicant's offer to pay a proportionate share(amount to be determined later) is inadequate;a firm financial commitment for the WCR 49/I-76 interchange needs to be determined before Public Works can recommend approval of the Change of Zone application. Consistent with the August 1,2007 CDOT comments and in order to allow for sufficient time to complete the 1601 • M PIANNINC. OEVEI OI'MtV I RCV IF W Clunks of/one{Z P/ M/ AAIP9 PZI] Pioneer*.PKII 2-Pioneer(0/C ommmis-PIN Al -r,.on doe 9:9200' Page 2 of 13 Interchange Feasibility Study(likely 4 years),Weld County recommends initiating the 1601 study • now. 4. For the Change of Zone,Pioneer Communities needs to provide plans and timing and financial commitments for the WCR 49 roadway connection south of Interstate 76. Public Works disagrees with the applicant's contention that no Pioneer traffic will head southward of the WCR 49/I-76 interchange. Denver International Airport will be a major employment center and destination for Pioneer residents. The railroad crossing south of the WCR 49/I-76 interchange needs to include an overpass to safely convey WCR 49 traffic. Pioneer's financial contribution to that interchange and rail overpass improvement needs to be defined and committed to as a condition of approval of the Change of Zone. This needed extension of WCR 49 to the south to link with Adams County arterial roadways and connect to the employment center developing around DIA raises the importance of early planning for regional connections including Right Of Way reservation and purchases, preliminary intersection and interchange design,and negotiation with CDOT and the railroad for the design requirements of an overpass. Weld County recommends initiating the 1601 study now. 5. The applicants' assertion that the WCR 49/I-76 interchange would be needed due to WCR 49 widening to four lanes consistent with the County classification of WCR 49 as a Strategic Roadway is misleading. The roadway currently carries 3500 vehicles per day and would operate with adequate capacity and LOS well(decades)into the future. The County has no plans or need to expand this roadway and has merely used the Strategic Roadway plan to reserve ROW. The relative immediacy of the need for WCR 49 upgrades and WCR 49/I-76 interchange improvements is,however,caused by the applicant's proposed development. 6. A detailed planning schedule for the WCR 53/I-76 interchange, including Pioneer's committed financial contribution,needs to be defined and included as part of the Change of Zone submittal. The applicant's schedule for the WCR 53/I-76 interchange proposes construction before 3800 building permits have been issued. The application documents refer to an unspecified proportionate cost share to be paid for by Pioneer;the amount to be determined later. This is not sufficient commitment for an • interchange that is needed to provide service primarily to benefit Pioneer. Before Public Works can recommend approval of the Change of Zone application,Pioneer is requested to provide documentation of its commitment to fund and accomplish this future improvement including the timing(trigger)of initiation of the 1601 feasibility study,2007 costs of the interchange,an estimate of the future costs(inflation adjusted for future construction costs),a schedule for planning,EIS, designing,Right of Way purchase,and ongoing operations and maintenance costs. 7. Pioneer proposes a variable planning area approach to this development that includes allowing densities to change up to 25 percent. A variable approach to planning area densities directly affects traffic volume assumptions. The applicant has not yet demonstrated how roadway designs are functional when variable development densities may significantly change the amount of traffic on roads constructed early in the Pioneer project. The applicant proposes a traffic area zone(TAZ) concept to manage the flexible density and associated traffic changes;this approach might work. The developer will be required to ensure that Level Of Service and traffic thresholds are within the limits proposed for each TAZ including transfers between zones. This will require re-analysis and modification of the Traffic Impact Analysis at appropriate phases of the development. However, upon review of specific proposed roadways,Weld County will require that in additional Right—Of— Way be reserved to allow for future road widening due to future density trades. The County may require the applicant to modify their proposed plans in order to accommodate the traffic variables caused by density changes. 8. As stated and recommended in the applicant's updated Traffic Impact Study,the applicant will be required to submit a Development Monitoring Program to Weld County which specifies procedures to effectively monitor traffic in order comply with the phasing of needed roadway improvements. The applicant is to pay all of the cost of developing and performing the Pioneer Communities Development Monitoring Program. 9. The applicant has provided more detail on the issue of offsite road improvements and has identified over$80 million dollars of needed off-site roadway improvements. While recommended funding • mechanisms such as Transportation Impact Fees (TIF)and other Funding Agreements are mentioned, M-FlA\NIVG—DEVELOIMI NT RI II 2-(Iw1e 912 is IZ.(/ I% M/ AM1II'/l PZ II,?PioneeNKll 2n.Itioncel COl Comments I INAI ttrmondoc 952t 7 Page 3 of 13 Pioneer has failed to demonstrate the capability to fund these improvements necessitated by their . proposed development. In particular,the applicant proposes to use TIF to support the WCR 49 widening efforts. The TIF fees are based on Service Benefit Area needs(Weld County Code section 20, Appendix B),proportionate shares are suggested but not detailed. Public Works cannot recommend approval of the Change of Zone without specific details as to the source of all of the funds needed to construct these offsite improvements. For the Change of Zone,identification of triggers,costs,and guarantees, including inflation adjusted costs and future funding guarantees,are needed to ensure their completion. 10. The applicant has proposed a 38-ft radius for all residential cul-de-sacs and 50-ft radius for right-of- way. This is not consistent with Code section 24-7-20, A, 14. The previous Sketch Plan comment is repeated: Please revise road designs to provide a 50-ft radius for all residential cul-de-sacs and 65-ft radius for the cul-de-sac right-of-ways. 11. The applicant has proposed a reduced cross-section for the local residential road classification. The main change in the cross-section is in lane width (10-ft vs. 12-ft— travel; 8-ft vs. 10-ft for parking). The reduced cross sections on local streets maintained by the Metro District are acceptable to Public Works, however, as stated in Item 7 of this memorandum, Weld County will require reservation of additional ROW to accommodate potential future roadway widenings necessitated by development density trades that change traffic patterns and/or amounts. 12. The Right-of-Way width should allow room for utilities (wet and dry) as well as provide adequate access for residents and emergency vehicles. The Final Plans shall include schematic street cross sections that show locations,spacing,sizes and depths of all utilities proposed to be located within the Right-of-Way. The schematics should also consider curved street sections and cul-de-sacs, not just straight sections. 13. Sight distance conditions at the current intersection of WCR 24 and WCR 49 will need to be addressed in the Final plans. . DRAINAGE The applicant has submitted a Change of Zone Master Drainage Report by Carroll &Lange, Inc. dated April 23, 2007 stamped and signed by Clifford D. Netuschil, P.E. 38138 on April 26, 2007 and received by Public Works on July 5, 2007. Many of the comments below apply to requested additional data or requirements for the Final Plans;requirements for the Change of Zone are so labeled. For Change of Zone: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that variable density development is compatible with drainage designs that protect the public safety and water quality. Weld County Drainage Criteria (Ordinance 2006-7, and the Urban Drainage Criteria follow established engineering practice wherein proposed development characteristics (percent impervious) are known. The Pioneer Master Drainage report provides no information on how future increases in dwelling units per planning area will be compatible with any completed drainage infrastructure constructed at that time. Higher densities upslope of existing drainage facilities sized for lower imperviousness will potentially result in multiple cases of drainage system re-design. Substantial changes to the proposed facilities (swales and detention ponds) will be required as a result. Therefore, Weld County will require that the applicant assume worse case (high) densities for all drainage facility designs; preliminary detention pond and swale sizings in the Master Drainage report will need to be re-designed for the Change of Zone. 2. The applicant's proposed ratios of home types understate potential higher amounts of runoff that may result from density trades resulting from marketing decisions. A worst case scenario with multi- family residential densities is required.• M:PI.ANVICG-UFVEIOPMFVI @I VIFW_,-Change of Zone(!.C/ 1'/ N/.AM41 P111251'ionea"K-I12,Pioneer CO/Commeno-F IN AL version doc 952007 Page 4 of 13 3. Many of the proposed detention ponds are shown as discharging to private property. These point discharges will be required to have an acceptance agreement and easement from the receiving property owner. Construction of offsite channels and drainageways on private property shall be required to safely convey these flows to natural drainages. 4. Errors in delineation (sizing) and modeling offsite basins and peak flows to the major drainageways through the Pioneer site need to be corrected. Residential setbacks,bridge and culvert sizings at these drainage way crossings will need to be re-evaluated. 5. Some of the detention pond discharge points to Box Elder Creek and the Unnamed drainage are located some distance from those water courses. These discharge points will need erosion protection to prevent headcutting; some of this needed erosion protection appears to be offsite (on private property). Construction easements will be needed for construction of these offsite erosion control structures for these discharges. 6. Hydraulic analyses of the capacities and flow and erosional stability of the channel features are public safety concerns and design constraints on the amount of land suitable for development in the Pioneer project and will need to be addressed. Appropriate setbacks and channel widening may be required; these may impact the number and location of proposed residential lots. For the Change of Zone, please provide preliminary channel sizings. Please see the geotechnical comments below. For Final Plat: 1. The submitted Drainage Report attempts to address the drainage system impacts of development density trades by assuming a maximum number of houses to be built for low density and medium density areas. However,Public Works disagrees with the method of calculation of the imperviousness for the variable density scenarios; the proposed method understates the amount of runoff. As stated above, Weld County will require that the applicant assume worse case (high) densities for all fmal designs of drainage facilities. • 2. Inclusion of any commercial or other highly impermeable area (parking, large buildings) would increase peak runoff and adversely impact already constructed installed downstream infrastructure. Please show the locations of all commercial or potentially commercial areas and size drainage facilities appropriately to handle the flows from these high-intensity,high runoff sites. 3. In some cases, the applicant's drainage report incorrectly delineates basin boundaries and areas, incorrect peak flow and detention sizing assumptions will result. Please edit and correct these errors. Change of Zone Master Drainage Report-Detail Comments: The Master Drainage Report (revised April, 2007), included some details for Change of Zone, and other information more appropriate for a Final Drainage report. Comments below address those topics and are provided here for use by the applicant's engineer. Page 3 The project site approximate acres within the report do not match the acres listed within the Water Quality Capture Volume calculation table for Pioneer developed basins, and the acres listed on the Pioneer PUD Zone Plat,please adjust these during the Final Plat application. Please provide data, calculations, and detailed in-situ test documentation to support the assumption that the Volume of Moisture Deficit was equal to the porosity of the soil due to the sands being so well drained. The Geotechnical Report for this project listed natural moisture contents for all the soils within the subdivision. Please supply this information and utilize the data collected at the site rather than unsupported assumptions of soil moisture characteristics in the Final Plat submittal. • M PI.A NN ING DI 7,I I 0 PM,\T RI RFW2-eh-lope of/one I/Cl..P MZ AMP7 '1-II 2,P,oneenPK II 7,Pioneer(0/C mrnls-FINALt KKon_doe 9 2007 Page 5 of 13 Page 9 • Current Weld County Code (Weld County Code Ordinances 2001-1; 2003-10, and 2006-7) specify that detention ponds collect the runoff from the 100-year rainfall event falling on the developed site and release that detained storm water at a rate not to exceed runoff from the 5-year rainfall event falling on the undeveloped site. The April 26,2007 revised Change of Zone Master Drainage Report presents detention releases that meet those criteria. Sequencing of detention pond and swale construction should be discussed in the Final Plans. Protection of watershed water quality by construction of downstream facilities should be detailed in the Final plans. Page 11 A Manning 'n' value of 0.30 or higher for grass-lined channels within this subdivision cannot be accepted unless the swales are going to be under irrigation. An 'n' value of 0.20 will be more representative of the swales in this semi-arid site with un-irrigated native grasses. Please adjust the design assumptions to reflect actual site conditions or proposed managed vegetation characteristics in the Final Plat design submittal. With the proposed variable development densities within this subdivision, and an unknown housing product mix in residential areas,a more conservative approach to drainage facility design that addresses peak flows and public safety is required. For the calculation of imperviousness, the percentages of single-family home types should be 50%Ranch style,40%split level and 10% 2-story. As stated above, Public Works will require a worst-case development density to accommodate potential future development density trades. Page 13 • For the Final Plat submittal, provide more detail about the Box Elder Creek, and the Unnamed Drainage way crossings, include flow stability,and erosion protection designs and ensure that the flow rates and acreages within this report match the numbers of the Flood Hazard Area Delineation(FHAD). Page 14-19 In the Final Plat submittal, discuss how portions of the historic basins are included in the developed basins. Include discussion of changes to historic flow paths and historic outfalls. Since the developed basins and historic basins acreages do not match, in the Final Plat submittal please discuss how the 5-yr historic release rates were determined for each detention pond. In the Final Plat submittal, include detailed descriptions of where detention ponds will discharge and what path the discharge flows will follow into drainage ways. Basin C-I shows WCR 22 going through the basin and across the Box Elder Creek floodplain. The developed basin map shows planning areas within this basin,therefore,the County considers this to be developed basin that, per County Code and Ordinance 2006-7, shall be required to detain the developed 100-year storm runoff and release at the 5-year historic rate;please correct. For Final designs, filter fabric will be required under all riprap, and should be supported with description of manufacturer specifications and called out on the construction plans. a. The geotextile product specified for use throughout the proposed subdivision must meet minimum AASHTO standards for grab strength,tear strength,and burst strength with a Class 1 protection. The USDCM,Chapter 7, Section 4.4.4.2,discusses the use of filter fabric under • riprap,but does not assist the design engineer in selecting an appropriate geotextile. A useful NI-PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2-Changer(Zone Z.C7.PZ,M7.AMPZ P7-I 2,Ponca PR-I Pioneer COZ Comments-FINAL'ening doe 9521X19 Page 6 of 13 guide for minimum specifications may be found in Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Geosynthetic • Design and Construction Guidelines (FHWA HI-95-038, 1998). b. All filter fabric for riprap shall have a minimum termination bury depth of 2.0 ft,as per the USDCM,Chapter 7, Section 4.4.4.2,Page MD-68 (2001). This is critical as the fabric separates channel flow from groundwater flow in the downstream direction,parallel to the longitudinal slope of the channel,and prevents the piping of fine materials. c. To provide adequate protection,any non-woven products specified for use must have a mass/area ratio in excess of 12 oz./sq. yd.,and porosity greater than 30%to allow for water movement through the plane of the fabric without clogging. d. Slit film fabrics and spun-bonded fabrics shall NOT be permitted as geotextile for any proposed channel revetment. For Final designs, all porches, decks, stoops, window wells, air conditioners, bay windows, and other appurtenances must meet utility and Weld County Code setbacks and provide adequate drainage corridors between structures. Appendix A: For the Change of Zone,please provide a description or table giving the correlation between soil types(A,B,C,or D)and the Soil Conservation Service(SCS)characterizations. Appendix B: In re-submittal of Change of Zone documents„ please revise the drainage calculations to utilize an imperviousness of 75 percent for all High Density land use areas. This shall be required in order to provide sufficient drainage facility capacities and to ensure public safety in the event that • the developer alters the development density. In the Final Plat submittal,please show an overlot type B Lot(Typical) in profile view for a walk out basement. In the Final Plat submittal, please show the top of foundation elevations and the minimum opening elevation (i.e. garage threshold,top of window well,walkout basement threshold)so that there is a minimum of 1-foot of free board above the allowed street capacities, adjacent swale maximum flow elevations, and for any adjacent detention ponds. Explain and show this in the plan views for the type A and B residential lots. Please provide the maximum and minimum backyard slopes of type B lots for walkout basements in the Final Plat submittal. Due to the sandy soils on this site,please discuss and provide calculations to ensure that lots with basements or crawl spaces surrounding the ponds, swales and water courses will not be affected by high ground water. Where high ground water is expected, identify the lots that cannot have basements and list the minimum elevation above the high ground water a finished floor or footer must be constructed. Appendix C: In re-submittal of Change of Zone documents, please include a digital copy (CD) of the HEC- HMS model including all input and output values used to identify the 5-year and 100-year historic runoff rates. M d'IAAVIA( DI-VI I fll'MEN I RE IEN 2-(l' of/one lLC/ P/ M%.AMP/d-0]-IlC Plonm:PK-II,Pioneel(07( mmems-[NM.%enso,doc 9c 200 Page 7 of I3 • Please provide a breakdown of the relationship between historic basins and the proposed developed basins showing how the 5-year historic release rate correlates to the developed basin detention pond release rates. Since the drainage analysis utilizes the CUHP method that relies on soil classification, please include a map showing the developed basins with associated soil types in the Final Plat submittal documents. Also include a description or table giving the correlation between soil types(A,B,C, or D) and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) characterizations. Weld County does not accept detention pond releases based on soil types(Ordinance 2006-7). For the Final Plat submittal, the Time of Concentration table, please show a breakdown of how the C5 values were derived. For the Final Plat submittal,please include a map of all the time of concentration pathways for all the historic and developed basins. Appendix D: In re-submittal of Change of Zone documents, please update the Planning Area Descriptions percent impervious after adjusting the High Density single-family residential percentage to 75%, and adjusting the Low and Medium Density single-family residential percentages using 50% Ranch style,40%split level and 10%2-story homes. Update the Composite Basins — Percent Impervious Calculations adjusting the High Density percentage to 75%, and adjusting the Low and Medium Density single-family residential percentages using 50% Ranch style, 40% split level and 10% 2-story homes. Provide this at • Change of Zone. For the Final Plat submittal, please include map showing the Green and Ampt Loss Parameters for the developed basins. For the Final Plat submittal, please include calculations and a discussion of how the 'C' factors were derived for all the Street Sections Composite Percent Impervious values. Please clarify whether Urban Drainage Table RO-5 used and what soil types(A,B,C,or D)were considered? The C5 values for the Developed CUHP Time of Concentration do not match the Develop Basins Map C5 values, please correct for the Final Plat. Also for the Final Plat submittal, show the calculations and discuss how these values were derived. For the Final Plat submittal, please define what equation was used to calculate the WQCV (Watershed inches), the volume (Acre-Ft), and the Release Rate (cfs) for the Water Quality Volume Calculations shown in the Pioneer Developed Basins table. For the Final Plat submittal, please follow Urban Drainage Criteria and include a work sheet for each pond with Extended Detention Basin Sedimentation Facility calculations. In the Final Plat designs,please leave the well screens off the front of the WQCV box design due to potential for clogging by debris; Weld County recommends using fewer large diameter holes in the WQCV plate. For the Final Plat submittal,please provide a compact disc with all the HEC-HMS modeling data input and output. • NI PI ANN INC DI%II DIMS INI PIN NS 2-Channeoi Icon,/ l'/ 1/ ANPZIIZ-II . Iioneer PKI R£Pioneer COZ(Jmmenl-P IN AI.'rondos Page 8 of 13 For the Final Plat submittal, please include a map or plan showing the developed basins for each • detention pond being modeled. For the Final Plat submittal,please label model design points to verify channel sizes. Include calculations to verify that the channel side slopes and longitudinal slope will be erosionally stable for the sandy soils at the Pioneer site. Please indicate whether the proposed swales and channels will be irrigated. If not, then do not use a Manning's 'n' value greater than bare soil 0.20 since native grasses at this site will not provide sufficient ground cover compared to Kentucky Blue Grass or similar type irrigated turf. Please provide the correct the Manning's 'n' value on all the swale calculation sheets. For the Final Plat submittal,please discuss the maintenance of all swales and channels. All swales,channels,and detention ponds must be within easements shown on the Final Plat. For the Final Plat submittal, please provide calculations that evaluate whether a culvert is inlet controlled or outlet controlled. For the Final Plat submittal, please include calculations to support rip rap size, length, width, depth of rock, and bedding under rip rap (geotextile fabric). See comment above for filter fabric specifications. Please note that Weld County will not accept any portion of any detention ponds within any floodplain. • Drainage Maps: Please include and update the following for the Final Plat submittal: • Existing drainage maps, • Label all irrigation ditches within the area, • Developed drainage maps. (Sheets DR1 —DR4) • Channel Section Table; include the 10-yr storm event flow rate values. • Typical Grass-Lined Channel Section view shows a 6" thick aggregate base course (ASHTO class 6)with a geotextile class B between crushed rock and soil,please provide calculations showing this will be erosionally stable when the sandy soil channels are flowing full. Define the class B geotextile and show calculations as to how this product type was chosen. • Show the easements for all offsite discharge pipes and swales (including the pathways to drainageways on offsite properties). • Update the Legend for the Developed Basin Designations. Sheet DR2. • Please define the proposed channel cross section in subbasin C-3. • Please label PA-07 and PA-08 with the correct subbasin designations(Sheet DR4) • Channel cross sections A-A and B-B collect offsite and onsite flow from subbasin Cl, please show the channel and off-site easement continuing to the Unnamed Channel. • M•.rANNING—DPVFLOPMf NT RFVIFW2-Chanee of Zone rZ CZ.PZ.ML.AMPZI PZ II <Plonen PKI 125 Pioneer COZ Comments-FINAL version doc 9•≥.2007 Page 9 of 13 • GEOTECHNICAL and FLOODPLAIN For Change of Zone: 1. For the Change of Zone, the applicant submitted Geologic Assessment report, dated August 18, 2006 by A.G. Wassenaar, Inc. The geologic assessment report mentions coal resources and states the coal in Weld County is generally of low quality. The report states that due to the depth of the coal, the poor quality, and limited coal bed thickness, extraction of these deposits is not considered economically viable at this time. This may be the opinion of Wassnaar,but may not be the opinion of the mineral rights owners. Per Weld County Code 24-3,for the Change of Zone,Pioneer is requested to provide the mineral rights owners' acceptance of the proposed development plans overlying their coal resources. 2. Sheet 5 of 25 of the Change of Zone plat shows numerous oil and gas buffers; it is not clear whether these are for well heads or tank facilities. Other facilities such as oil and gas access roads and existing and planned flow lines between wells and tanks are not shown and may encumber residential development. No mention is made of potential expansion of oil and gas facilities at the site and planned increased density drilling locations. Per Weld County Code 24-3, and 24-4-10, for the Change of Zone, Pioneer is requested to provide the oil and gas rights owners' acceptance of the proposed development plans in relation to their present and future access and facility needs. 3. The Downstream Box Elder Creek Watershed Flood Hazard Area Delineation Report, dated October 15, 2006, revised November 29, 2006, revised April 26, 2007, stamped and signed by Clifford D. Netuschil, P.E. 38138 on April 26, 2007 and received by Public Works on July 5, 2007 includes incorrectly delineated offsite drainage basin boundaries. The offsite boundaries are not drawn perpendicular to the topographic contours. The applicant is requested to revise the drainage basin boundary lines to be drawn perpendicular to contours, and to revise the calculations of offsite historic flows. Weld County Public Works will not provide further review of the details in this Downstream • Box Elder Creek Watershed Flood Hazard Area Delineation Report at this time as all the flow assumptions in this report will be revised when the basin boundaries are redrawn. The Downstream Box Elder Creek Watershed Flood Hazard Area Delineation report cannot be accepted as presented and will be reviewed when corrected and re-submitted. Please re-submit the report with corrected boundaries and revised delineation of flood-prone areas. 4. Since the offsite drainage sub-basin delineations are incorrectly determined, the peak flows in all drainages (Box Elder Creek, Unnamed Creek, all swales, others) will need to be re-calculated. The preliminary bridge sizings in the Master Drainage Report dated April 23, 2007 are incorrect for proposed conditions and will need to be re-calculated also. The geotechnical stability of the swales, channels, road crossings, culverts, and bridges including the breached Klug Reservoir embankment under peak flow conditions also needs to be addressed. The applicant is requested to revise the calculations and the report. 5. As stated in the January 27, 2007 Sketch Plan comments, the applicant is advised that, prior to approval of any construction within the FEMA floodplains, engineering analyses shall be submitted to confirm that no upstream or downstream harm will result from the proposed construction. If the Pioneer project proposes any potential fill or channel modifications to FEMA floodplains, the applicant will need to provide FEMA's acceptance of the proposed changes. Corps of Engineer's permits may also be required. Per 44 CFR 60.3(d)and Weld County Code(23-2-480 and 23-5-250), encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the regulatory floodway, is prohibited. Please provide proof of compliance with these regulations. • M.PLANNIMi DI VI tOEMFN I REV IEW.,-Chanrot/one]7 01.I'/.NI/.49rIP/i PIA 155 Pioneer l'K-I 12£Pioneer(01 Comments-I INAL rsion doe 952IXll Page 10 of l3 • 6. Discharges from the proposed Pioneer waste water plant impacting offsite properties need to be clarified and mitigated for the Change of Zone. Please describe the water treatment waste water discharge rates, channel slopes, and provide preliminary erosion control designs. Because the Klug Lake dam breach is not aligned with the creek flow line, discharges from the Pioneer waste water treatment plant will create standing water in Box Elder Creek and Klug Lake. Waste water flows will have long term offsite impact affects on adjacent and downstream properties. The Corps of Engineers will potentially have jurisdiction over long-term water discharges, standing water, and the potential creation of wetlands. For the Final Plat: 1. The applicant submitted a Downstream Box Elder Creek Watershed Flood Hazard Area Delineation Report, dated October 15, 2006, revised November 29, 2006, revised again April 26, 2007, stamped and signed by Clifford Netuschil, P.E. 38138, on April 26, 2007, and received by Public Works on July 5,2007. A file for all the modeling data input and output from this report was requested July 24, 2007; this data has not been received. A compact disc with all the modeling data input and output is requested and shall be included with the Final Plat application in order for that application to deemed complete. Following review, any substantial corrections to flood-prone areas may impact the amount of developable land and platting of residential lots. 2. A Geotechnical Due Diligence Study dated February 24, 2005 by A.G. Wassenaar Inc. stamped and signed by Keith D. Seaton, PE. 20583, on February 28, 2005 and was submitted and received by Public Works July 5, 2007. The geotechnical report included 62 test boring, logs and soil descriptions throughout the site. The study states it was not intended to provide design criteria for site development, foundations or pavement construction. Due to the presence of low cohesion sandy soils at the site, and soil variability across the site, additional geotechnical studies will be required to develop the details of roadway and bridge and residential foundation design criteria, erosion control, • and construction recommendations. A Final Geotechnical Study with design recommendations will be required to be submitted during Final Plat. In this final Geotechnical Report, please include data from drill borings along the centerline of all proposed streets,borings should be spaced every 500 feet or as required by rapidly changing soil conditions. 3. The 2005 geotechnical study shows some areas within the site that have low resistivity (ohms/cm) soils; these soils are highly corrosive to metal. In Final designs,special consideration shall be needed for metal pipes and concrete reinforcement. The 2005 geotechnical study also shows areas with expansive soils;these areas will require special attention during Final Design. 4. For the Final Plat,please describe in detail how the Pioneer project's drainage and stormwater runoff will interact with Klug reservoir. The Klug reservoir dam is only partially breached and has been observed to retain water. 5. Weld County Ordinance 2006-7 and the Urban Drainage criteria require consideration of offsite runoff in drainage design. For the Final Plat, please provide appropriate acceptance of the Pioneer drainage plans from the ditch and lake owners whose properties will be receiving flows. The current plans apparently show the abandonment of the Klug Lake and Ditch yet several active water shares exist,explain in detail how these shares will be delivered to the owners. 6. Due to the presence sandy soils throughout the area, soil erosion by wind and water will be a concern. For Final designs, per Ordinance 2006-7, and Urban Drainage Criteria (Vol. 3), Public Works will require analysis of the erosion protection and stabilization of all swales and will require channel setbacks to ensure public safety. 7. Detail values, acreages, and other data in the Geologic Assessment and the Geotechnical Due Diligence Study do not match between reports;please edit and correct these discrepancies. • M.PL D.6 DI-VFI OFMN F RI VII VI 2(hanix of/one(1.(/I! M/ AMP/ P/II ,Pioneer PK I12 Planer(0/Comment IN AI..rsinn.doc 9.52007 Page 11 of 13 • OTHER COMMENTS Metropolitan Districts Metro District Service Plans were reviewed with the initial Sketch Plan submittal. Comments that were not addressed by the applicant are repeated below. • The Metro District Service plan shows a proposed water treatment cost of approximately$230,000 for simple chlorination only. This cost estimate appears insufficiently low as water from wells will typically need more treatment than just chlorination to be potable. The applicant is requested to provide further justification of their proposed water treatment approach and should include base water samples analyses and detailed evaluation of needed treatment to render the site water potable(e.g.pH adjustment,alkalinity,etc.) • The Metro District Service plan also provides for minor amounts of operations and maintenance(O& M)costs. However,theses costs do not appear to be tied to need. Rather they appear to be possible surplus from capital expenditures with only an estimated$236,700. available in 2018 when 5,500 homes are anticipated to be completed. At that time,road maintenance costs alone will likely surpass this amount. For example,current typical local road maintenance needs range from $12,000.to $15,000.per mile per year for urban roadways with asphalt,curb and sidewalks. Just the arterial and collector roads for Pioneer's Phases 1,2,and 3 total over ten miles. This total does not include any of the local roads which typically account for the majority of centerline road miles. Considering this, the Pioneer Metro Districts should have at least$150,000 per year to maintain just the arterial and collector roadways of Phases 1,2,and 3. Public Works requests that Pioneer Communities provide detailed operations and maintenance costs to assess the feasibility of the Metro District(s)ability to perform these needed functions. Please also identify the sources of this funding,and mechanisms to • cover these costs at future(inflation adjusted)costs. • Section 14.2.11,pg. 37 of the Sketch plan submittal refers to a"service fee"that will be included in the Metro District for"roadway surface maintenance". It is unclear how this fee has been included in the Metro District Service Plan. In addition,this statement infers that the fee would be paid to the Public Works Department in exchange for these services. Currently,the Operations Division of the Public Works Department does not provide road maintenance services for private development. The applicant is requested to provide an alternative plan and describe providers, costs,and funding sources rather than proposing reliance on the County to provide road maintenance. • The proposed wastewater treatment plant site,to be located at the north end of the Pioneer development,is within 800-ft of proposed residential lots. The setback for this facility should be much greater to address compatibility with residential uses,processed effluent discharges,odor control and other issues. Note that EPA and CDPHE are considering further regulation of these facilities. More consideration to the location of this plant has not been provided with the Change of Zone submittal. Please provide discussion that addresses proximity to residential lots and the EPA's and CDPHE's current stance on the proposed location. • In the multiple districts service plan,the applicant does not address coordination of the needed infrastructure improvements and how these will be managed between the districts. The applicant is requested to provide additional detail regarding coordination of services. • N9 PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW'_'-Cin ec of/one(Z.CL Pl_MZ.ANPZ)PZ 125 Pioneer PK-1125 Pioneer COZ Comments-FINAL version doc 9/9200) Page 12 of 13 • Mineral Rights The April 30, 2007 Change of Zone documents include a letter from Pioneer communities to Jack Reutzel describing on-going negotiations between Anadarko Land (coal rights owner, successor to Union Pacific railroad) and Pioneer. The letter states that Pioneer is negotiating to purchase the coal rights. Public Works recommends that, consistent with mineral right law, approval of the Change of Zone be conditional on proof that the coal rights have not been precluded by the proposed Pioneer development or that Anadarko has conveyed the coal rights to Pioneer. Weld County Public Works agrees with the August 9, 2007 comments from the Town of Hudson: Pioneer has not provided sufficient guarantees and commitments regarding fire and school funding in the period prior to construction and staffing of these necessary emergency services within the Pioneer site. Lack of direct roadway routes to the Pioneer site from Hudson currently would require the emergency vehicles to utilize Interstate 76. This option may not provide adequate protection under all circumstances of weather or traffic on that roadway. Public Works concurs with Hudson's request that Pioneer identify the sources of funding and its commitments for the inflation-adjusted future costs of interim fire protection and for school staffing and facilities. Alternative routes for emergency equipment should be identified and provided by Pioneer. Transit and Air Quality Given the recent Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Division's indications that southern Weld County may soon be designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, more information is needed on how the Pioneer Community's development application and traffic planning addresses this issue. s .4 f. A+ - !liflgsssacttflhtltlj'w.a'-4w.u.. IC CZ-II I IIDICI fZo,e, • fuliRO III er 6rt MPLAANI< DEILLUPMLYI REVIEW -CI eofZone ?.C% P/ AIZ.AMPZCP]II.$%mrea'PK-1175 Pioneer COZ CommmLo-PIN AL versonAoe 9 200 Page 13 of 13 a4, • Weld County Referral v eitl C" 'r_ry Pi9Yg Cepatt�t July 5, 2007 FY O"iarf! r C 3 ' COLORADO c1-EIS - 14 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Pioneer Communities Inc. & Case Number PZ-1125 HP Farms LLC Please Reply By August 2, 2007 Planner Brad Mueller Project Change of Zone application from A (Agricultural)Zone District to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) for a maximum of 9,455 residential dwelling units, 1 commercial planning area, 7 school planning areas (for 10 planned schools), 12 park planning areas, 2 public facilities planning areas, and various agricultural and open space planning areas. Legal Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M.; and Section 32, T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M.; and Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. • Location In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49. f Parcel Number See parcel list E The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 16, 2007 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑/We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. g See attached letter. ❑ Please notify me of any public hearings regarding this request. Comments: • Signature Date 7.Se 6,7 Agency /1 _TA)CAtrtf,t) +Weld County Planning Dept. ❖918 10th Street,Greeley, CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 :•(970)304-6498 fax a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES BUILDING INSPECTION NORTH OFFICE • 918 10th Street GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3540 FAX (970)304-6498 O SOUTHWEST OFFICE • 4209 CR 24.5 COLORADO LONGMONT CO 80504 PHONE (720)652-4210 ext. 8730 FAX (720)652-4211 July 30, 2007 Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC Change of Zone application from A (Agricultural Zone District to a PUD (Planned Unit Development)for a maximum of 9,455 residential dwelling units, 1 commercial planning area, 7 school planning areas (for 10 planned schools), 12 park planning areas, and various agricultural and open space planning areas. PZ-1125 1. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building. 2. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Commercial building plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Commercial building plans require a Code Analysis Data sheet, which is provided by the Weld County Building Department Residential building plans may be required to bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. • 3. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the time of permit application. Current adopted codes include the 2006 International Residential Code; 2006 International Building Code; 2006 International Mechanical Code; 2006 International Plumbing Code; 2006 International Fuel Gas Code; 2005 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. 4. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. 5. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code for the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. When measuring buildings to determine offset and setback requirements, buildings are measured to the farthest projection from the building. Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior to the first site inspection. 7. There are 4 historical permits on record with final status. 8. Provide a letter of approval from South East Weld and Hudson Fire Protection Districts prior to construction. Please contact me for any further information regarding this project. • Sinc g rere,(9 Building 411 illt ' Weld Count Referral Weld County Plarminx Department July 5, 2007 GREELFY OFFICE will C t 9 ?OH? COLORADO RECEIVED The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: I Applicant Pioneer Communities Inc. & Case Number PZ-1125 HP Farms LLC Please Reply By August 2, 2007 Planner Brad Mueller Project Change of Zone application from A(Agricultural) Zone District to a PUD (Planned 1 Unit Development) for a maximum of 9,455 residential dwelling units, 1 commercial planning area, 7 school planning areas (for 10 planned schools), 12 park planning areas, 2 public facilities planning areas, and various agricultural and open space planning areas. I Legal Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18, T2N, R64W of the 6'h P.M.; and Section 32, T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M.; and Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. • Location In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49. Parcel Number See parcel list _�I The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 16, 2007 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan a We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. ❑ See attached letter. ❑ Please notify me of any public hearings regarding this request. Comm-nts �w • .S sC _ c' • _ c- • Z____ Signature z/o/ II Date liIIPS (in Agency rAj(, O s +Weld County Planning Dept. 4918 10'"Street, Greeley,CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax STA 1'E OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEEFWeld County Planning Department Gov co o vision of Water Resources GREELFY OFFICE ICE epartment of Natural Resources Department Weill CoJniy Planning 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 JULv 2 3 2607 GREE{EY OFFICE � ,..�'' Denver,Colorado 80203 «��eje r Denver, Phone(303)866-3581 FAX(303)866-3589jryQQ7 Bill Ritter,Jr. http.1/www.waterstate.co.us REc Eiv E® Governor Harris D.Sherman Brad Mueller Executive Director Weld County Planning Department 918 10111 Street (Vacant) State Engineer Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Pioneer Communities— PZ-1125 Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18, T2N, R64W; Section 32,T3N, R64W and Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, T2N, R65W, 6th P.M. Water Division 1,Water District 1 Dear Mr. Mueller: This referral does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S. Therefore, pursuant to the State Engineer's March 4, 2005 memorandum to county planning directors, this office will only perform a cursory review of the referral information and provide comments. The comments do not address the adequacy of the water supply plan for this project or the ability of the water supply plan to satisfy any County regulations or requirements. In addition, the comments provided herein cannot be used to guarantee a viable water supply plan or infrastructure, the issuance of a well permit, or the physical availability of water. • Until such time as a referral is submitted to the State Engineer's Office ("SEO")for a"subdivision" as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S., the SEO cannot provide any definitive comments regarding the water supply for Pioneer Communities. At this time the detailed subdivision plans and proposed water sources have not been clearly defined. Until such time as those details are provided the adequacy of the water supply plan cannot be determined. Should you have any questions, please contact Joanna Williams of this office. Sincerely, Kevin G. Rein, P.E. Chief of Water Supply KGR/JMW cc: Jim Hall, Division 1 Office Water Supply Branch Subdivision File NAVVY • MEMORANDUM To: Gloria Hice-Idler— CDOT Region 4 Traffic Todd Frisbie, PE - FHU From: Karl Buchholz, PE - Navjoy Consulting Services, Inc. Danny Montoya — Navjoy Consulting Services, Inc. Subject: Review of Pioneer Development Traffic Impact Study CDOT R-4 NPS Contract No. CMS ID 06-151 — Task Order#5 Date: August 14, 2007 We have completed our review of the above referenced traffic impact study. Our review included both a detailed examination of the traffic impact study as well as a field visit to the site to verify existing conditions. The proposed development is located approximately 3 miles north of the Weld County Road 49/1-76 interchange. Our primary comments are provided immediately below, followed by other comments that are more minor in nature. Primary Comments 1. The proposed Pioneer Development would construct nearly 10,000 homes and • generate approximately 75,000 daily vehicle trips onto the state highways of 1-76, US 85 and US 34. Given the existing rural characteristics of these facilities, the proposed development would severely increase the traffic flow onto these roadways and potentially change them from rural highways to urbanized highways. Comparing the 2030 background traffic (without the development) with the 2030 total traffic (with the development), the following increases in PM peak hour traffic can be expected: 2030 Background 2030 Total Traffic Percent Facility (PM Peak Hour) (PM Peak Hour) Increase 1-76, e/o SH52 2900* 7700 165 US 85, s/o WCR 22 2575 2944 14 US 34, w/o WCR 49 1820 2800 53 Based on CDOT 2005 Traffic Data,growth and DHV factors(Appendix A of Report) Given the substantial increases noted above, we recommend that the analysis be expanded to include additional intersections along US 85 and US 34 (see comment 2 below)and that a detailed analysis of the 1-76 mainline lanes be completed. 2. Page 10 of the study indicates that the US 85 Access Control Plan stipulates the intersection of US 85/WCR 22 as a right-in/right-out (RIRO) intersection, when in fact the Access Plan calls for this intersection to be an un-signalized, full-movement access. As a full-movement un-signalized access, the site-related traffic demand would most likely result in long delays and over-capacity conditions for left-turning • and east/west through traffic. Installing a traffic signal to mitigate this impact would 1385 South Colorado Boulevard,Suite 622—Denver,CO 80222-303-688-0676 Review of Pioneer Development Traffic Impact Study for CDOT Region 4 • require an amendment to the US 85 Access Control Plan, along with obtaining CDOT's approval to amend the plan. 3. Given the volume of site-related traffic that is expected to utilize the US 85 and US 34 corridors, an expanded analysis of intersections should be completed along these roadways. As a minimum, the intersections of US 85/SH 52; US 85/SH 66 and US 34/US 34 BR should be analyzed to determine potential impacts and mitigation. The State Highway Access Code should be referenced to determine the need for acceleration and deceleration lanes. 4. Due to the close proximity of the Union Pacific railroad tracks to the east of SH-85 on WCR 22 (approximately 200 feet), there is a potential for WCR 22 traffic queues to spill over the rail-road tracks. This should be investigated further within the context of comment 3 above. 5. Capacity or highway operation degradation is not discussed nor analyzed for mainline 1-76 during the peak periods. We realize this analysis will be completed during the 1601 process; however, we have serious doubts that the existing 4-lane interstate facility has the capacity to handle the added site traffic by year 2030. By the year 2030, the proposed development will add 2,425 eastbound trips to 1-76 during the am peak hour and 2,771 westbound trips during the PM peak hour. A quick HCM analysis of the basic freeway segment on 1-76 just west of WCR 49 suggests that the development will cause the freeway LOS to degrade from LOS A to LOS E by 2030. • 6. In addition to requiring a 1601 Interchange Feasibility Study for the interchanges on 1-76, the developer must follow the appropriate NEPA process for environmental clearance. Bullet 16 of the Conclusion section states that a 24-month process will be needed to proceed through the 1601 Process and Final Design. When considering the necessary environmental documentation required for the two interchanges, a 3-4 year time period may be more appropriate for the interchange approval, design and construction process. As such, the approval process may need to start sooner than the 1500th building permit as stated on Page 81 of the TIS. 7. The number of captured trips between the distinguishing land uses (residential vs. school/retail) should balance for each time period (i.e. if there are 1000 residential captured trips in the AM peak hour there should also be a corresponding 1000 school/retail captured trips in the AM peak hour). Close inspection of the trip generation Tables 1-4 suggests that there is a relatively large imbalance of these internal trip pairs during each analysis period. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook states that "the number of trips between a particular pair of internal land uses is limited to the smaller of these two values". In general, internal trip reductions should be accounted for by the number of trips rather than using a percent reduction. This ensures that the trip reductions balance between the land use pairs. Other Comments 8. The report should provide some documentation as to how the number of school students was determined given that each student has a reduction effect on the overall amount of traffic generated. NAYJY Page 2 of 3 July 23,2007 Review of Pioneer Development Traffic Impact Study for CDOT Region 4 • 9. The report should provide information on estimated queue lengths and required storage for intersections on the state highway system. 10. The report should provide an analysis of existing (2006) conditions for intersections on the state highway system. 11. There is a discrepancy in 2020 & 2030 recommended external intersection geometry and HCM intersection report geometry for the proposed interchange at 1-76 and WCR-53 (south-side interchange geometries differ). 12. 2030 external traffic volume value for the AM period northbound-through movement at US85 & WCR 22 is incorrect; it duplicates the PM value for the same movement. This error follows through for the 2030 HCM comparison report page. 13.Volume to capacity ratios (v/c)for years 2016, 2020, and 2030 at 1-76 &WCR 49 PM eastbound-left movement are .87 (1274 vph), .87 (1251 vph), .95 (1802 vph), respectively. This movement has the potential to queue out onto 1-76 and possibly degrade mainline operations. 14.The items listed below dispute the statement made on page 54, paragraph 2, " As shown in tables 5-8, all signalized intersection are expected to operate at a good level of service (LOS "C" or better) during both morning and evening peak-hours through the Year 2030. Critical approaches at all stop controlled intersections are also expected to operate at a good Level of Service (LOS "C" or better) through the Year 2030." • a. Volume to capacity ratios (v/c) for year 2030 at US85 & WCR-22 AM & PM westbound-right movement is 1.90(LOS F) and 1.33 (LOS F), respectively. This movement has the potential to queue over and past the railroad tracks, which are located approximately 200 feet to the east of SH-85. b. Volume to capacity ratio (v/c) for year 2030 at the interchange at 1-76 & WCR-49 PM (north side of interchange) for the westbound-right turn movement is 3.42 (LOS F). This is due to the fact that this is proposed to be a non-signalized intersection and the presence of a heavy volume of northbound through volume coming from the east-bound left movement from the south side of the interchange. This movement has the potential to queue onto mainline 1-76, possibly degrading mainline operations. 15. For some HCM intersection reports detailing future year intersection operation, the modeled cycle length is not feasible due to controller limitations that force phases to meet a standard minimum green values (for example a green time value of 2- seconds is not feasible at US34 & WCR-49 for the SBL movement during 2016-2030 analysis years). As a rule of thumb, 11-seconds should be used as the minimum split time (green plus yellow and all-red) for any movement at a signalized intersection. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me at 303-688-0676 or at kbuchholzcttnaviovinc.com. NAVJOY Page 3 of 3 July 23,2007 STATE OF COLORADO Colorado Water Conservation Board oscos,„ Department of Natural Resources Weld County Piarmin G9 pa[rinP,m 1313 Sherman Street,Room 721 g � 4:� i o Denver,Colorado 80203 ??FELEY OfFiCF LH O �' Phone:(303)866-3441 FAX:(303)866-4474 !_ 1 3 �;)11I 7931 www.cwcbstate.co.us -�. -- Bill Ritter,Jr. Governor July 18, 2007 Harris D.Sherman Executive Director Mr. Brad Mueller Weld County Planning Department Dan McAuliffe 918 10th Street CWCB Acting Director Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Mueller: I have reviewed the information provided in your referral dated July 5, 2007, regarding the proposed Zoning change for approximately 5,000 acres located in the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49 in Weld County, Case Number PZ-1125. Weld County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP. A review of the designated floodplains for Weld County indicates that Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA)have been identified and exist in the vicinity of the project. • A portion of the project takes place within the SFHA created by Box Elder Creek as shown on the attached Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel Number 0802660900C. No base flood elevations are given, and no floodway is delineated for this reach. The applicant is reminded that ANY work performed in an SFHA requires the issuance of a Floodplain Development Permit(FDP). This may require certain conditions according to local ordinances. An FDP should be obtained from the Weld County prior to the beginning of construction. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this review. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 303-866-4803. Sincerely, Thuy Patto , E.I., CFM Community Assistance Program Coordinator I Colorado Water Conservation Board Flood Protection•Water Supply Planning and Finance•Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection•Conservation and Drought Planning ao • J Ii C. 'E ,cita 0 o m Y 4i O Y N �Yi f� H � mW � t 2 i� i- 1ao E-528 E a 2I o.J c i ^�W zr a, cc ;1 ! F c aco "• oa 4co O t� - .- c u vE y Iii o y% AZOC O.`, . N S. N - c _ [4O48 a a E h'. .. �. o z a Eau - - fl Cp a RC Qv t„t2 a",„ E ( ' _ = �a g'E VA R �1 E o,.) X _ A g3o!Icta i rFy, A Y F kR -, fir_ ..� v __ ___ -. . _— w " r Y�'L,r (E-.N. w I -S T .C �t,�sry'F. A .y' ff dw e.c YF § ,acrmws.x^ x 4asw�. 2t;,* — , m. F`k' r r*YST � , r r � 'T'� k ..,a.t ��' I 0 .,. S9 y, { } '^ i'`"ja°._ 'r5 ' q,'-'-1.41 r ore7'7- ., t ✓} F '� �txayr'� : < zv9Zx"`s'y3�fvy'""f t"'T '7c4:440,1! 'e4 .taa t M -'a yx''1y-,7,W Y`�i. r" f ,„> \ A.,'7L� +.a.tea., .!;c1.,,,.. . t 4 )� �. , ,u ' ,_,s,.•,,. .... . r$�t', 1 Z'"' -4. t'. ".,+., r4�'zI' z r c ''ti N� �] R�' f � �A li. t i :•J ar : c ]i YS • —, ° i__ -- \ -- ° —'1 I Jul 30 07 06:02p Chris Mettenbrink ouo oo4-rnuo P.1 RECo 4ti r 2 2007 • ( it \ Weld County Referral July 5, 2007 IllipC. COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: r Applicant Pioneer Communities Inc.& Case Number PZ-1125 t HP Farms LLC f t Please Reply By August 2,2007 Planner Brad Mueller f Project Change of Zone application from A(Agricultural)Zone District to a PUD (Planned Unit Development)for a maximum of 9,455 residential dwelling units, 1 commercial i planning area,7 school planning areas(for 10 planned schools), 12 park planning areas,2 public faclities planning areas,and various agricultural and open space i planning areas. Legal Part of Sections 4,5,7,8,9, 17,and 18,T2N, R64W of the 6'"P.M.; and Section 32,73N, R64W of the e"' P.M.;and Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. • Location In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49. I • Parcel Number See parcel list _. The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have anyfurther questions regarding'the application, please call the Planner associated with the request Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information,please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing(if applicable) October 16,2007 O We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan 0 We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. kir See attached letter. Please notify me of any public hearings regarding this request. Comments: GhU./ Ec-r a.4.1 — 970-S%O -O/1 2 CAttli f eNea iv/pi/c - 'a 3 - gob - l979 / Signature J/ / / Date '�/3o" 6/ Agency GGGG l�4<oreGn 4 /OP of &J,id/l r, `n__ ni_D • 4Weld County Planning Dept. 4916 10^Street,Greeley.CO.60631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax STATE OF COLORADO `tip% Bill Ritter,Jr., Governor 'F DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • DIVISION OF WILDLIFE t '"r � 4 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER O+Y Ore Mark B. Konishi,Acting Director For Wildlife- 6060 Broadway For People Denver,Colorado 80216 Telephone:(303)297-1192 wildlife.state.co.us July 30,2007 Brad Mueller Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley,CO 80631 RE: Case Number PZ-1125 I received and reviewed the proposal for the Pioneer Communities Inc. and HP Farms LLC development. During the review Chris Mettenbrink, District Wildlife Manger, and Chad Morgan,District Wildlife Manager,made a site visit to the parcel. In this letter you will fmd the Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW) comments concerning the proposal. It is the Colorado Division of Wildlife's recommendations that: (I) Any removal of prairie dogs be done in a humane way. • (2) A survey be done for Burrowing Owls and appropriate actions taken. (3) Any fences constructed follow the guidelines below. (4) Initial groundbreaking construction take place after August 15 and before April 1 to prevent the destruction ground nesting bird nests. (5) Leash covenants be established for pets. (6) New homeowners be made aware of the nuisance wildlife found in the area. (7) The Box Elder Creek corridor be protected from pets and development. (8) Surveys for raptor nests be done prior to construction. (9) A weed management plan be developed for during and after construction. (10) Open Spaces be kept in natural vegetation and remain connected. Black-tailed Prairie Dogs The presence of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs gives rise to several potential concerns from an ecological view as well as the public and social concerns with prairie dogs and development.. This species,more than any other,seems to bring out strong emotions in people on both sides of the issue. Efforts to remove the animals from a parcel may be met with strong resistance from individuals and/or organized groups. From a biological standpoint,prairie dogs may be considered a key species in prairie ecosystems. Studies indicate that the burrow system created by prairie dogs provide essential habitat for literally dozens of other vertebrate groups. The relationship between prairie dogs and native grass stands is well documented. The National Wildlife Federation has petitioned the U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)to list Black-tailed Prairie Dogs,the species found in Latimer and Weld Counties, as a threatened or endangered species on the federal roster. Currently, in Colorado it is legal to kill and remove prairie dogs in order to alleviate nuisance/damage situations on private property. Prairie dog removal should be required prior to development. Trapping/transplant efforts or euthanasia are legal options for prairie dog removal. Euthanasia efforts must occur through the use of approved toxicants and trapping. Transplanting of prairie dogs requires prior approval of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Note that bulldozing active prairie dog colonies is not an acceptable method of removal. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Harris D.Sherman,Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Tom Burke,Chair•Claire O'Neal,Vice Chair•Robert Bray,Secretary Members,Dennis Buechler•Brad Coors•Jeffrey Crawford•Tim Glenn•Roy McAnally•Richard Ray Ex Officio Members,Hants Sherman and John Stump Burrowing Owls Burrowing Owls,a species listed on the Colorado Threatened Species List,rely on prairie dog burrows as critical nesting habitat. As a migratory species and a raptor,both the USFWS and the CDOW protect Burrowing Owls. • The species is considered primarily a summer resident of Colorado and a casual winter resident on the eastern plains of Colorado. In winter,they are found from Texas and New Mexico down into Argentina. The critical nesting period for Burrowing Owls occurs between March 1 and October 31. During this time breeding females occupy burrows, generally in active prairie dog towns,to nest and fledge their young. Females tend to raise one brood per year. Nesting owls will return to the same prairie dog town to nest year after year unless the town is destroyed. When confronted with human disturbance near nest sites,Burrowing Owls abandon the nest. Efforts to relocate nesting owls have generally proven to be ineffective. If Burrowing Owls are found on site, it is recommended that a buffer of at least 150 feet around the active burrow not be disturbed if construction takes places between March 1 and October 1. Fencing Some types of fencing can be dangerous and even fatal to deer and pronghorn(often called antelope). CDOW recommends that if any fencing is to be used within or around development sites, either during or after the project, it should be the type that would allow the free passage of wildlife. Fencing plans should avoid the use of woven wire type fences that will trap or prevent movement of wildlife. The Division of Wildlife prefers the use of three or four strand fencing with a bottom strand height of 17 inches and a maximum top strand height of 42 inches. along with installation of double stays between posts. This design allows young animals and pronghorn to pass under, as well as allows mature deer to cross over the top. Ground Nesting Birds The short grass with the bare ground and brush stands makes for desirable nesting habitat for many of the ground- nesting birds. Human activities around these nests can have negative impacts on them. It is recommended that any construction that takes place on the site occurs before April 1 and after August 15 to minimize any impacts that 4111human activity may have on these nests. Domestic Pets The residential development should include covenants that prevent domestic dogs and cats running at large. Domestic dogs and cats roaming the open space on this development and adjacent property would have a definite adverse impact on wildlife in the area. CDOW feels strongly that this wildlife corridor encompassing Box Elder Creek and adjacent upland should be protected from domestic pets of local residents inclined to walk dogs in this natural area. It is recommended that pets are kept out of an area of at least 150 feet on either side of Box Elder Creek. This is particularly important from March through July during which both migrant and resident birds will be nesting and raising young. Nuisance Wildlife One of the reasons that people move to areas such as this is to be able to observe wildlife close to home. Most wildlife try to avoid human interaction,but some will come too close for some and can cause problems for homeowners. It is recommended that the developer be required to make future homeowners aware of nuisance animals that are found in rural areas. Coyotes,raccoons, skunks,and foxes can all potentially cause problems to landowners. Raccoons and skunks often get into trash and domestic animal feed, even when stored in enclosed areas. Coyotes,foxes, and skunks will eat chickens and other domestic birds as well as their eggs. Also, homeowners should be made aware of the potential problems that coyotes and skunks can cause with domestic dogs and cats. The new homeowners should also be made aware that it is their responsibility to prevent and handle any problems that may arise. CDOW is not liable for damage caused by these species. The Division of Wildlife has brochures available to the homeowners that talk about living with wildlife and will also be happy to give suggestions on how to prevent any potential problems. • Box Elder Creek CDOW feels strongly that the wildlife corridors encompassing Box Elder Creek and adjacent upland should be protected from domestic pets of local residents inclined to walk dogs in this natural area. This is particularly • important from March through July during which both migrant and resident birds will be nesting and raising young. It is recommended that construction of trails or any development along creek corridors be placed at least 150 feet away from Box Elder Creek. This will decrease disturbances to wildlife that rely on these corridors for habitat. Raptor Nests It is recommended that surveys be done to look for raptor nests. These birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and guidelines for buffer zones have been established. If a nest is found,please contact the CDOW. The Division also maintains files and maps of Significant Wildlife Habitat available for review on any project. Keep in mind that vacant nests are not necessarily abandoned. Several raptor species move to alternative nests in different years. CDOW will assist in evaluating any suspected raptor nest. Noxious Weeds It is important to help prevent the spread of noxious weeds. During new construction, weed seeds can be carried on machinery being transported from one site to another. Noxious weeds reduce property value and wildlife habitat. Care should be taken to avoid spreading and introducing noxious weeds. Equipment should be cleaned periodically to remove weed seeds even if no weeds are recognized. Recently altered soils rapidly become infested with noxious weeds. The area should be promptly revegetated using native species to prevent erosion and invasions by weeds. It is also recommended that a weed management plan be developed for during construction and for at least 5 years after construction. Open Spaces It is recommended that any open spaces developed within the development be left as natural vegetation or reseeded with natural vegetation. These open spaces should be connected to allow the free passage of wildlife that is found • in this area. On behalf of the Division of Wildlife,I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you or the applicant have any questions,please feel free to call Chris Mettenbrink at 303-906-1979 or Chad Morgan at 970-356-6528. incerely Dave Clarkson Area Wildlife Manager Colorado Division of Wildlife Cc: Chris Mettenbrink Chad Morgan Mark Leslie Dave Clarkson Mike Sherman Scott Hoover John Bredehoft file • -1v(r) 41--i li Weld County Referral Neld County Planning Department July 5, 2007 C r,P`r I rY OFFICE R C�� • i, i... li 1111 �i.i;. t 4 zoo; COLORADO iit E'CdIVED The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Pioneer Communities Inc. & Case Number PZ-1125 HP Farms LLC i Please Reply By August 2, 2007 Planner Brad Mueller E Project Change of Zone application from A(Agricultural) Zone District to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) for a maximum of 9,455 residential dwelling units, 1 commercial planning area, 7 school planning areas (for 10 planned schools), 12 park planning areas, 2 public facilities planning areas, and various agricultural and open space g t planning areas. `I Legal Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M.; and Section 32, T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M.; and Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. I • Location In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49. I Parcel Number See parcel list ._.,, The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 16, 2007 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan We have reviewed the request and find no con licts with our interests. See attached letter. ./tf/rJipt /Sfaccir f)l ❑ Please notify me of ahy public hearings regarding this request. Comments: . W ;1 of /r lei e++ -4t Shaft &44 );s4) Fau..10..�. ayva . is 4«a.;.Qaq...D a t...a4D a...4 s co1aaL6 7 O Attar an c;. . G ..A-24.4c mA.ont sil 9 Signature ,,i), at{ {� Date 7/ 21/4)7 Agency Cr-6 VALL eat-icy/n-164YY Ptsni et +Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10`"Street, Greeley,CO. 80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 ❖(970)304-6498 fax pgo" COLii TOWN OF HUDSON • .,„a. o\ f 557 ASH STREET, P.O. BOX 351, HUDSON, CO 80642-0351 Phone: (303) 536-9311 FAX: (303) 536-4753 .L www.hudsoncolorado.orq EST,iSS$ August 9, 2007 4 t_. Mr. Brad Mueller Department of Planning Services Weld County 918 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Referral, PZ-1125, Pioneer Communities Change of Zone Application Dear Brad, At its meeting last evening, the Hudson Planning Commission considered the above- • referenced referral from the County. Representatives of Pioneer Communities, Chris Paulson and Jack Reutzel, made a presentation on the proposal and answered questions from the Commission. We appreciate the magnitude of the project, and of the County's task of reviewing something of this scale. In the course of discussing the proposal, the Commission had three basic concerns. First, the traffic from the project will impact the I-76/CR 49 interchange. This interchange is within the Town of Hudson. The presenters indicated that planning for the interchange improvements will begin with the issuance of the 1,500`h housing permit, and that needed improvements would be completed prior to issuance of the 2,500`h such permit. This appears to be consistent with the need anticipated in the LSC traffic impact study. The applicants indicated only that a combination of Pioneer, Federal, State, County and Hudson funds would be needed. However, there is no firm commitment of resources to do either the plan or the actual improvements. Second, the Commission was concerned with the timing of needed services, and the need for advance funding for these services. For example, there will be a need for coverage by the Hudson Fire Protection District to a portion of this property during construction and the early phases of settlement. However, the tax base to support the fire district will lag years behind the need. There was no plan presented to adequately fund the District during this initial lag period, raising the specter of diluting services to Hudson and to other areas of the fire district in order to expand services to Pioneer. The Commission had similar concerns for middle and high school facilities. The applicants represented that an elementary school would be built before • construction of the first residential unit in the development, leaving open the question of meeting Mr. Brad Mueller • August 9, 2007 Page 2 of 2 the needs of children in the upper grades. Finally, the Commission was concerned with funding facilities and services for such a large, urban density development with property tax alone. If revenues fall below projections due to market conditions or due to the ultimate housing mix being weighted toward lower cost units,might the early residents demand supplemental services from the County? What assurance is there that the project will support itself with internally-generated revenue, even in a slow housing market? We appreciate the fact that the applicants have limited the amount of commercial development within the project to 200,000 square feet. Deferring to the neighboring incorporated towns to provide access to the bulk of the commercial goods and services for Pioneer is a positive and appropriate design consideration. The towns will be able to support the commercial and industrial development that would be generated by Pioneer. Also, we are pleased with the communication and cooperation with Hudson by representatives of Pioneer and of Resource Colorado in the past. Should the project proceed, I am sure there will be opportunities for cooperative projects and coordinated planning. • Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please call if you have questions or if we can in any way assist in the County's consideration of this project. Joseph A. Racine Town Administrator attachments c: Planning Commission Board of Trustees • Jul 30 07 09:54a Town Of Keenesburg 3037320599 p.2 (41• • Weld County Referral hiDe. July 5, 2007 COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Pioneer Communities Inc. & Case Number PZ-1125 HP Farms LLC Please Reply By August 2, 2007 Planner Brad Mueller • Project Change of Zone application from A (Agricultural)Zone District to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) for a maximum of 9,455 residential dwelling units, 1 commercial planning area. 7 school planning areas (for 10 planned schools), 12 park planning areas, 2 public facilities planning areas, and various agricultural and open space planning areas. Legal Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18, T2N, R64W of the 61° P.M.; and Section 32, T3N, R64W of the 6' P.M.; and Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, T2N, R65W of j the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. • Location In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49. Parcel Number See,parcel list The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 16, 2007 O__We have reviewed the request and find that it does does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan Tr We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts-with our interests. Ed See attached letter. ❑ Please notify me of any public hearings regarding this request. / Comments: CAWSt'tue. coopez4icrl wi\ +he Thum OC lCee✓tics\OL1 fe%i4�,i tc{ -}Vie con v-uccicn '- 4-ke y3ctr�ty old wotktv�' 00 �le L,'al6r-rtias tela{fr 1 reftiiertf Signature Se v, Date 7-3v -D7 •• Agency f ♦«. :nO SEAL C•Welc County Plan Q pt. +918 ^Stri ( eeley, CO.80631 t(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970;304-6498 fax IN/ __.•.........:•• pe•� '•. * Weld County School District Re-3(J) 99 West Broadway/P.O.Box 269/Keenesburg.CO 80643 WELD Tel (303)536-2000!Fax(303)536-2010 311 September 12, 2007 Mr. Brad Mueller, Long Range Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 918 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Pioneer Communities PUD Zone Plat Dear Mr. Mueller: This letter outlines specific concerns regarding proposed school sites in the PUD Zone Plat and provides an update on the status of the Pioneer Communities/School District Re-33 Capital Facilities Fee Foundation ("Foundation"). It also supersedes my letters to you dated August 31, 2007. The two proposed secondary school sites appear adequate, but it is recommended that the developer consider relocating the site in Planning Area (PA) 53 due to the amount of traffic that can be generated by a high school. For example, moving this secondary campus to PA's 50 and 51 could be a better configuration IF the oil and gas well buffers . were not an issue. Three elementary sites (PA's 35, 73 and 88) should be relocated within nearby residential areas. • Pioneer's engineer anticipates approximately 6,900 trips per day past the two elementary schools in PA 73 and PA 88 (along WCR 53, the eastern collector that runs north and south). This figure is about double what we would expect for safety adjacent to an elementary school • The elementary site in PA 35 (across from the western secondary school site) also has traffic volumes that are approximately double what we consider acceptable. • We don't have enough information for the elementary school site farthest east (in PA 59), but its location should be acceptable given the data for a street farther west that will likely carry more traffic. • Traffic volumes on the streets adjacent to the southernmost site (PA 25) will be low enough that it would also work. The District remains concerned about the topography of the sites because a condition of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires slopes not exceed five percent. The District, therefore, recommends a grade of no more than five percent (instead of the six percent grade suggested in the plan). Discussions continue between Pioneer and 33, and I remain optimistic that an agreement can soon be reached regarding the terms and structure of the Foundation. • Given the fulfillment of previously agreed upon mitigation, adequate site dedication, site specific expectations stated above, and establishment of the Foundation, the District does not object to approval of this project. • The School District appreciates your continuing cooperation and the opportunity to comment upon issues of interest to both the County and the District. Should you have questions or desire further information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, /1/ia- Marvin Wade, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Weld County School District Re-3J • • Page 2of2 Weld County School District Re-3(J)/99 West Broadway/P.O. Box 2691 Keenesburg, CO 80643 / /WELD Tel: (303)536-20001 Fax(303)536-2010 ai August 31, 2007 •Mr. Brad Mueller, Assistant Director Weld County Department of Planning ServicePe1d r r°firlment 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Pioneer Communities PUD Zone Plat VED Dear Mr. Mueller: This letter summarizes Weld County School District Re-33's comments regarding the proposed school sites and related issues associated with the above Plat. District Re-3J understands that the developer has identified five 12-acre elementary school sites within this project (two acres more than the ten-acre standard). If located and configured adequately, five ten-acre sites would best serve this development (please see attached District school site policies and site selection criteria). The two proposed secondary school sites appear adequate, assuming the attached criteria are met. However, given the amount of traffic that can be generated by a high school, it may be beneficial to both the development and the School District if the site in Planning Area (PA) 53 is relocated. For example, moving this secondary campus to PA's 50 and 51 could be a better configuration IF the oil and gas well buffers were not an issue. The District would be open to discussing this and other site issues with the .County and the applicant. In addition, the District remains concerned that the school sites proposed in this plan may not meet reasonable criteria for safe access or net usable efficiency. The location of the elementary school sites is a specific concern to the District, as traffic might be greater along the adjacent collectors than the acceptable 3,500 trips per day maximum. If traffic volumes are higher than the suggested criteria, it is preferred that the sites be relocated into the residential areas nearby. The District also remains concerned about the topography of the sites, as it recommends a grade of no more than five percent, instead of the six percent grade suggested in the plan. This is a federal condition per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that requires slopes not exceed five percent. It is strongly recommended that the developer work with the County and School District in planning and locating sites appropriately to serve the anticipated student population. Given the fulfillment of adequate site dedication and previously agreed upon mitigation, the District does not object to approval of this project. The School District appreciates your continuing cooperation and the opportunity to comment upon issues of interest to both the County and the District. Should you have questions or desire further information, please contact me at your convenience. . Sincerely, Marvin Wade, Ed.D. Superintendent • • 3.0 SITES 3.1 The Superintendent of Schools is directed to identify potential school sites or sites for other school facilities consistent with the Long—Range Plan developed pursuant to this Section F. The Board of Education shall be advised of these potential sites, but if deemed advisable, such potential sites may be kept confidential. 3.2 The Superintendent of Schools may negotiate for the purchase, for a purchase option, or for any similar arrangement of any site which may be necessary for current or future use consistent with the Long—Range Plan. No acquisition shall be finalized without Board of Education approval. 3.3 The Board of Education shall approve school site acquisitions, including by dedication, only after presented with evidence that the following have been satisfied: 3.3.1 The site conforms with District site criteria/standards; 3.3.2 Statutory requirements and local government regulations have been met; 3.3.3 If purchased, the property can be acquired at a reasonable price based upon fair market value; • 3.3.4 The property can be conveyed in fee simple; and 3.3.5 The property can be conveyed free of all encumbrances, encroachments and any easements or rights of way except those easements or rights of way that do not adversely affect the full use of the sites for the District's intended purposes. 3.4 The School District shall pursue the location of school sites adjacent to public parks when appropriate and mutually beneficial. Such efforts shall include cooperation with applicable involved governmental units to plan school sites and to fulfill this policy and supporting procedures. 3.5 Should a situation arise where inadequate student generation or other factors would result in land dedication of an acreage less than beneficial or desirable for a school site, the School District shall pursue cash-in-lieu of land dedication. Should the developer, district and applicable land use control entity agree upon cash- in-lieu of land dedication, the following criteria should be satisfied: 3.5.1 Cash-in-lieu of land, as permitted by law, shall be negotiated with the developer with a goal of the amount being equal to the price the district would pay per acre for a fully improved site, as required by School District regulation, multiplied by the proportionate land need generated by the proposed development. • F-3 1 • R-1.0 Site Selection and Acquisition Criteria R-1.1 The School District shall maintain student yield generation rate information, shall calculate the student yields for elementary, junior high and senior high school levels throughout the School District, and reexamine these ratios periodically. The School District shall also evaluate demographic and development trends to assist with determining the best locations for new schools. R-1.2 Building Capacities and Site Size Criteria — The School District shall maintain facility capacity standards for each school type. The following standards apply: School Type Student Capacity Elementary 480 Junior High 675 Senior High 960 The following minimum net usable acreage standards are required: Minimum Net School Type Usable Acres Elementary 12 Junior High 22 • Senior High 50 R-1.3 Site Selection Criteria — School sites may be acquired through various methods but the following criteria shall be considered when evaluating school sites in the selection process: R-1.3.1 The net developable size of the site to satisfy the applicable school needs; R-1.3.2 Appropriate site configuration for school use; R-1.3.3 Location with respect to the area to be served; R-1.3.4 The suitability of topography for school use in; R-1.3.5 Appropriate vehicular and pedestrian access for proposed use; R-1.3.6 Drainage, flood zones, storm water systems; R-1.3.7 Availability and adequacy of utilities, including water, sewer, natural gas, electricity, and telephone; R-1.3.8 Geologic/soils report, GOP tactical consultant and Colorado Geological Survey; R-1.3.9 Compatibility with surrounding land uses; R-1.3.10 Impact of the easements and rights of way; R-1.3.11 Municipal services such as fire and police protection, recreational programs, etc.; • F-3 2 • R-1.3.12 Natural/environmental factors such as attractiveness of site, orientation, exposure, mcro climate, wetlands, air traffic patterns, electromagnetic fields, mine activity, hazardous materials, lakes, streams, irrigation ditches, etc.; R-1.3.13 Anticipated relative cost for site development, and R-1.3.14 Evidence of clear title to the property. R-1.4 Methods of Site Acquisition -- Site acquisition may be accomplished by any of the following methods: R-1.4.1 Dedication, involving the appropriation of land for school use by a private owner or public entity. The School District shall identify appropriate school sites and endeavor to obtain dedication of those sites in conjunction with the review of land development and rezoning requests submitted to the School District. R-1.4.2 Negotiated purchase or lease, with an appraisal by a certified real estate appraiser, shall be obtained by the School District to establish a basis for determining fair market value in negotiating the maximum purchase price for school sites. Sites may be purchased for an amount up to, but not exceeding, this established value. Sites may be obtained by direct purchase, • installment purchase, lease agreement with or without the option to purchase, or similar agreement approved by the Board of Education and subject to state law. R-1.4.3 Acquisition of any property by the School District shall be approved by the Board with,title conveyed to the School District in fee simple and not subject to any conditions, including reversion clauses, that would limit title to the property unless accepted by the Board of Education. In addition, the property shall not be subject to any easements or rights of way that adversely affect full utilization of property. • F-3 3 Void County School District Re 3(J 9°West Broadway!P O Box 2691 Keenesburg,CO 80643 WELD Tel (303)536-2000!Fax(303)536.2010 • 3J August 31, 2007 Mr. Brad Mueller, Assistant Director Weld County Department of Planning Services 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Pioneer Communities/School District Re-33 Capital Facilities Fee Foundation Update Dear Mr. Mueller: My records indicate that my last correspondence to you regarding the Pioneer Communities/School District Re-3J Capital Facilities Fee Foundation ("Foundation") was dated February 16, 2006. Since that time, there has been discussion between Pioneer and 3J about the terms and structure of the Foundation. At this time, the Re-33 School District remains in opposition to the Pioneer Development due to school issues that remain unresolved. Progress is being made, however, and we remain optimistic that an agreement can soon be reached regarding the Foundation. • The School District appreciates your continuing cooperation and the opportunity to comment upon issues of interest to both the County and the District. Should you have questions or desire further information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Marvin Wade, Ed.D. Superintendent • • VANDERWERF & BUCHANAN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1525 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Molly Sommerville Buchanan Telephone: 303-298-9939 Mbuchanan@vbllplaw.com Facsimile: 303-298-9944 July 24, 2007 Via Telefax and DHL Brad Mueller Weld County Department of Planning Services 918 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Pioneer Communities Township 2 North, Range 64 West Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18 Township 2 North, Range 65 West Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 aWeld County, Colorado Dear Brad: I understand that Weld County has scheduled a hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on October 16 to consider proposed planned unit development zoning for property in Weld County that includes the above-referenced property ("Property"), among other property, to be known as Pioneer Communities upon the application of Pioneer Communities Inc. and HP Farms LLC. You may remember that Anadarko E&P Company LP ("Anadarko E&P"), Anadarko Land Corp. ("Anadarko Land") and Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (collectively the "Anadarko entities"), filed an objection letter with the county dated October 23, 2006, concerning the application for development. The Anadarko entities together own all of the minerals that underlie portions of the Property, and Ken-McGee owns oil and gas leasehold interests in portions of the Property. Enclosed please find a copy of the objection letter dated October 23, 2006 entitled "Notice of Mineral Interests owned by Anadarko Land Corp., Anadarko E&P Company LP and Ken McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP and Objection"which I ask that you provide to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for Weld County to be made a part of the • record in the proceedings. The Anadarko entities continue to object to the application in that • Brad Mueller October 23, 2006 Page 2 agreements are not yet in place among the Anadarko entities, their oil and gas lessees and the Applicants; however, the parties are working diligently to reach agreements. Please send notices of future hearings on applications filed in connection with this matter pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-215, C.R.S. § 24-6-402 (7) and C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101, et. seq. Notices of all land use hearings for the Property should be sent to the Anadarko entities as follows: Anadarko E&P Company LP Post Office Box 9149 Houston, Texas 77387-9147 Attention: Manager Western Region/CBM Anadarko Land Corp. Post Office Box 9149 Houston, Texas 77387-9147 Attention: Manager, Property and Rights-of-Way • Kerr McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP 1999 Broadway, Suite 3700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Attention: Terry Enright Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me. Best regards, VanndderWerf& Buchanan, LP 7O Molly Sommerville Buchanan MSB Enclosure cc: Marla Jones, Esq. Jeff Fiske, Esq. Terry Enright Don Ballard Shari Ulery, Esq. / for Applicants • WOODROW & SOBEL, P.C. • ATTORNEYS AT LAW Denver Place-South Tower 999 Eighteenth Street,Suite 2550 Denver,Colorado 80202 Telephone: 303-296-1400 Molly SommervilleBuchanan,Esq Facsimile: 303-296-1924 mbuchanan@woodrow-sobel.com E-mail:law@woodrow-sobel.com October 23, 2006 Via Telefax and Federal Express Members of the Board of County Members of the Planning Commissioners for Weld County Commission for Weld County 915 10th Street 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Greeley, CO 80631 NOTICE OF MINERAL INTERESTS OWNED BY ANADARKO LAND CORP. ANADARKO E&P COMPANY LP and KERR-McGEE OIL& GAS ONSHORE LP and OBJECTION Re: Pioneer Communities • Township 2 North,Range 64 West Sections 4,5,7,8,9, 17 and 18 Township 2 North, Range 65 West Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 Weld County, Colorado Ladies and Gentlemen: This law firm represents Anadarko Land Corp. ("Anadarko Land"), formerly known as Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation, Anadarko E&P Company LP ("Anadarko E&P"), formerly known as Union Pacific Resources Company, and Kerr- McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation(collectively the"Anadarko entities"), with respect to the application that has been filed with Weld County ("County") for the approval of planned unit development zoning for property that covers the above-referenced fourteen sections of land in Weld County, among other property. Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P own mineral interests that underlie Sections 5, 7, 9 and 17, Township 2 North, Range 64 West and Sections 11, 13 and 15, Township 2 North, Range 65 West (collectively the "Anadarko Mineral Property"). Kerr-McGee owns oil and gas leasehold interests in Sections 4, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18, Township 2 North, Range 64 West and Sections 2, 11, 12, 14 and 15, Township 2 North, Range 65 West • • Members of the Board of County Commissioners and Members for the Planning Commission for Weld County October 23, 2006 Page 2 (collectively the Kerr-McGee Leasehold Property") and operates several oil and gas wells on the Kerr-McGee Leasehold Property. The Anadarko entities wish to give notice to the County of the mineral interests they own under the property and make the County aware that the approval of a final application for development for'the property will significantly impact the prospective development of the minerals o{ make their development impossible. The Anadarko entities object to the approval of a final application for development unless and until agreements are reached among the Anadarko entities and the applicant. The following are comments in support of this Notice and Objection: 1. The Mineral Resources Owned by Anadarko Land Corp. Anadarko Land owns all of the minerals other than the oil and gas that underlies the Anadarko Mineral Property. A geologist for Anadarko Land has reviewed the • Anadarko Mineral Property for coal resource potential and determined that the property contains significant reserves of Laramie Formation coals as follows: a. Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 64 West contains Laramie Formation coals that are 5.9 feet thick at depths of 140 to 200 feet with approximately 6.5 million tons of coal in the Section. b. Section 7, Township 2 North, Range 64 West contains Laramie Formation coals that are 12.6 feet thick at depths of 210 to 310 feet with approximately 13.6 million tons of coal in the Section. c. Section 9, Township 2 North, Range 64 West contains Laramie Formation coals that are 5.8 feet thick at depths of 174 to 305 feet with approximately 6.4 million tons of coal in the Section. d. Section 17, Township 2 North, Range 64 West contains Laramie Formation coals that are 13.4 feet thick at depths of 284 to 403 feet with approximately 14.9 million tons of coal in the Section. e. Section 11, Township 2 North, Range 65 West contains Laramie Formation coals that are 10.8 feet thick at depths of 184 to 244 feet with approximately 12 million tons of coal in the Section. • • Members of the Board of County Commissioners and Members for the Planning Commission for Weld County October 23, 2006 Page 3 f. Section 13, Township 2 North, Range 65 West contains Laramie Formation coals that are 17.2 feet thick at depths of 286 to 377 feet with approximately 19.2 million tons of coal in the Section. g. Section 15, Township 2 North, Range 65 West contains Laramie Formation coals that are 10.9 feet thick at depths of 230 to 250 feet with approximately 12.2 million tons of coal in the Section. Please find enclosed the pertinent portions of the Coal Resources and Development Map of Colorado prepared by the Colorado Geological Survey that identifies the coal resources that underlie the Property. 2. The Oil and Gas Resources Owned by the Anadarko Entities. Anadarko E&P and Anadarko Land together own all of the oil and gas that underlies the Anadarko Mineral Property. Anadarko FhP or a predecessor company has • granted oil and gas leases for portions of the property, interests in which have been assigned to Kerr-McGee and Noble Energy Production Inc. Kerr-McGee operates fifteen (15) or more wells on the Kerr-McGee Leasehold Property. Current regulations of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission provide for the location of five drilling windows in each quarter section in the geographic area where the Property is located, one in the center of each quarter quarter section and one in the center of the quarter section. 3. There is Clear Statutory Authority and Direction for the County to Take Into Account the Rights of Mineral Interest Owners in Its Consideration of Applications for Development. The State of Colorado recognizes the important rights of mineral owners and lessees in C.R.S. § 30-28-133(10) which states that both the mineral estate and the surface estate are interests in land and that the two interests are "separate and distinct." The subsection specifically recognizes that the owners of subsurface mineral interests and their lessees have "the same rights and privileges as surface owners." Further, C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101 et. seq. requires that applicants for development • approvals give notice to mineral estate owners of hearings to be held before local jurisdictions on applications for development and requires that the developer certify that • Members of the Board of County Commissioners and Members for the Planning Commission for Weld County October 23, 2006 Page 4 he has given the required notice as a condition to the approval of the application by the local jurisdiction. 4. Government Action Which Allows Surface Development in a Manner Which Precludes Mineral Development May Impair the Vested Property and Contractual Rights of the Mineral Interest Owner. Colorado case law provides that the mineral owner has the right of reasonable access to and use of the surface estate to extract minerals.' Actions by a government entity which may have the effect of reversing this basic tenet of Colorado property law and thereby deprive the mineral interest owner of its vested property and contractual rights may be violative of federal and state constitutional provisions. Union Pacific Railroad Company gave deeds to various individuals and entities for the seven sections of land included in the Anadarko Mineral Property, in which the Railroad reserved all of the minerals for the Property. The Railroad granted the minerals • to Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation by quitclaim deed dated April 1, 1971 and recorded on April 14, 1971 in Book 644 at Reception No. 1565712. Applicant had record notice at the time it acquired its interests in the Property that the minerals were severed from the surface estate and that it received less than the entire interest in the Property. 5. An Action by the County to Approve the Application May Amount to a Regulatory Taking within the Meaning of the State and United States Constitutions. Action by the County to approve an application for surface development may constitute a regulatory taking, especially where the operator is deprived of all economically viable use of land or his investment-backed expectations to develop his property.2 6. The Anadarko Entities Have Entered into Many Agreements with Developers With Respect to the Disposition of the Minerals at the Time that the Developer 'See Frankfort Oil Company v.Abrams 413 P.2d 190(Colo. 1966). Note also,Gerrity Oil&Gas Corporation v.Magness 946 P.2d 913(Colo. 1977),which discusses in a footnote on page 927 the principle that the owners of both estates must exercise their rights in a manner consistent with one another. 'See for example,Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct.2886, 120 • L.Ed.2d 798(1992). • Members of the Board of County Commissioners and Members for the Planning Commission for Weld County October 23, 2006 Page 5 Proposes to Develop the Surface Estate, and the Public Interest is Served by the Parties Entering into Such an Agreement. The Anadarko entities have extensive mineral interests and oil and gas leasehold interests throughout Colorado where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. The Anadarko entities have worked with many parties who wish to develop the surface estate in order to assure the compatible development of the surface and the minerals or to effect some other disposition of the minerals. The Anadarko entities and their lessees have been in discussions with the applicant to work out surface use conflicts and are hopeful that agreements will be reached; however, final agreements have not been entered into by the parties to date. The Anadarko entities object to any final land use approval for the Anadarko Mineral Property and the Kerr-McGee Leasehold Property in the absence of agreements among the Anadarko entities, their oil and gas lessees and the applicant. • Very truly yours, WOODROW & SOBEL, P.C. Molly Sommerville Buchanan MSB/sa Enclosure cc: Rick Mayer, Esq. Jeff Fiske, Esq. Tom Marranzino Dan Casper Terry Enright Don Ballard Shari Ulery, Esq. /for Applicant • CO • • LORADO 0 GEOLOGIC �� /7- 471.4/i � SURVEY • •• Ma Series 9 s • i • EXPLANATION • KIiH THAN IS FT. F46 I(.T OF LIGNITE � unit I50 FT. as it.) t0 L,Ooo FT • '•r, (305:IC�r OF `;= SU88ITt1NIt(OU5 OR gIS l�S OF'OYERBURp� COAL. KIAI TKAII molt. (tG H:J: ..t SU88 (911 0 ROUS OR OYI SINOIIS ( ma 150-FT. . -_ .6 mac ( HEX To 3+oax Fi-. f 'unctuous COAL VITA.y ..., THAN 3,000 Ft. (910 H,) OF *RIMER • :.;• MBRACITE MO SMIA• ® AREA OF PAST OR PRESENT COKING-COAL .OEHYER' REGION PRODUCTION <2<7 COAL-BEARING REGION ESTIMATEO ORIGINAL IN-PLACE 42:ac IN BILLIONS OF TONS RESOURCES ro 6: FT. (1820 H.), ESTIMATED REMAINING I1f-PLACES • OU • IN 8I IBS F TONS, AS OOFi/1/7ES 70:6,000 FT. (1820 N.). 7 •• SOMERSET0.25NINES AND PRELIMINARY 1977 P (FOR HINES THAT PRO MI5 IN MILLION TORS- 77)PRODUCED>0.25>0:25 HILL70H- - - - 'TONS IN 19Ti) UIfOERGROUNO HIKE (LICENSED AS OF OEC9.18ER 31, 1977) 0ABANDONED UNDERGROUND MINE • SURFACE NINE (LICENSED AS OF OECFACER 31, 1977) • �61fA ABANDONED SURFACE MINE -1 I 7O F- I 1 •9 6 vxh •ugmfa rae shy. _ r `a 3 r65 >s a py. s',.r may; g_... Tate € T 3 fl a-. Ste: S' Y'yY. ₹''y '°' _ Nil limn I $r 5 L.frAtee� m HWSpi 2 2 5 • , 2: -' ', a', ins" "'� a 't Buckeye .1aalkngieir, *Lc y.4,74 Ar*t Vera • .m, ,: l Owl Can M• or *W •I,* '✓ 1 ^" n W ve�ly � say A' yai",e ,�e,¢2°.au ; i Sun"-- • - • G Poutlre Park 2 t 8 a. y�-ry'✓ ;r•L4 1 ` R .a e aL aa�` -.•••••• ,kerreatargAttarattar•ViariitAr limitattn.N k't r r3 t laporle enyon I � ₹*' soein. • riturner -tl' a f� Fo .olli jjjf```i��_g��_liO��`; I aa: :- 't}r{.'9e1rC 11 vet . ul W 0.. I V —� e . fl r® rli hAth ® ' ev \ P€ .St INa Marn `i p...77.......„, g s Ntn� I Maslle• •sae/ IY n. n� w'�°'';fl _ i Drake I o fi III _Bracewell ly re •%`' atton. er it_-tlar me armers •"� It - Mae AltoII th, aft - I "'eee ' • I �"J� mer r 542 X -J © II re,.lt� rasters l x+{11-A 'ITb e/•-„ DearirelLyo . 1 i fl dY 13f a. one x `s Peak �. r l .s'' '' - a " amesto a xs fix �`,u. x3 _�wf is., k At'b Y .� • s • 'am$ I, 1 —� c` I` -` ' - ` ≥ gtvpafti4tj .X.• 7�L4" ` E.:y .s® �Sztxs..;� a ¢` k �__W _s18 I„ p. , t -i �.d 5 y. ri •• r 5 1 " R : ^t ¢£z�- irr I �'d i,Bt�c3 s air • , b.#.",�i 'a'; [:::,t , M!rshal�� {,. k� ( a of zs e - > /;isz t' �. 1. Y> 2i 6t :. i, is r Z I i `- �. ! F/ . x y �^ Crescent Itl}4 w- • G� :% t s� tE2d s ld t _ti5 SPn "Il "`a, 1 1 R ' i scp - L <f3tT•1 ty a Y`, 't ti''''t ' F & 1 Z" a •qx t i t , s ¢5 Fr v . ; " `"MY�-•.e.�....- e• a v L iS �' t z*\ C 4 I N r'Snl r „ -y S $�48t : t 4:11,..•:,,. 1"?.AZ !� / z: �z 5, - s �" 2 3.M®m�. ref a irk @►�<k •• z• LL i ti 11 Gode•e" ••iic tTx: ;:irt. it .----- - •1-:,7:... �Y G . u3k r: a» rr.<h Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE JUL 2 0 2007 • k1JKerrNtGee RECEIVED Kerr-McGee Oil&Gas Onshore LP July 19, 2007 1999 Broadway,Suite 3700,Denver,Colorado 80202 303-296-3600•Fax 303-296-3601 VIA FACSIMILIEAND U.S. MAIL Weld County Planning Commission Attn: Brad Mueller 918 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Pioneer Project- PZ-1125, Change of Zone Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC, Applicant Township 2 North, Range 64 West, 6th P.M. Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18 (Parts) Township 3 North, Range 64 West, 6` P.M. Section 32 (Parts) Township 2 North, Range 65 West, 6th P.M. Sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Parts) Weld County, Colorado • Dear Mr. Mueller: Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP is the owner of valid oil and gas leases underlying all or part of the above listed Townships, for which Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC ("Pioneer"), is seeking approval. KMG and Pioneer have been negotiating a Surface Use Agreement, the terms of which will govern the parties' simultaneous use of the subject property. KMG does not object to the Change of Zone approval for which Pioneer is applying. However, the parties have not yet concluded an agreement, and KMG therefore requests that the Weld County Planning Department withhold final approval until the parties execute and record a surface use agreement. Sincerely, Kerr McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP Terry D. Enright Landman Specialist cc: Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC, -Applicant Joseph H. Lorenzo —Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP • Ni', LrI (y Planning Department The Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Company 1 FY OFFICE 80 South 27th Avenue Jul l Z 1007 • Brighton, CO 80601 PH: 303-659-7373/FX: 303-659-6077 02 ) ®J C Manuel Montoya,General Manager manuel@farmersres.com `�- ,/ G Molly Lockhart, Receptionist/Administrative Assistant mlockhart@farmersres.com To: WELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 918 10Th ST GREELEY CO 80631 (970)353-6100 Date: JULY 11, 2007 EMAILED Frico Project# 3745 HARDCOPY MAILED JULY 11, 2007 APPLICANT: RE: PIONEER COMMUNmES INC.& HP FARMS LLC CASE# PZ-1125 DEAR I wish to submit the following information regarding the above referenced project. X The concerns of Farmers Reservoir& Irrigation Company are in the area of encroachment to the Right of Way of the canal. FRICO requires a minimum of 20'on each side of the canal for a maintenance • road plus the distance to the toe of the ditch embankment. The boundaries of the Right of Way must be agreed upon. X Drainage is another concern that must be addressed as FRICO does not allow any developed storm flow into our canals. X Please send additional information regarding your project so that we may complete our review and that review criteria can be sent to you, if applicable. Please email me,or Manuel, should you have any questions. Sincerely, \owvJ RCrAf t - --- - -------Molly Manuel Montoya Receptionist/Administrative Assistant General Manager For Manuel Montoya, General Manager Farmers Reservoir& Irrigation Co. Farmers Reservoir& Irrigation Co. 0 Siting and Land ghts • • 0 Xcel Energy" 550 5 Strout Su�fte 700 Denver,Colorado 802021256 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Telephone:393.571.7799 Facsimile:303.571.7877 August 2, 2007 Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Fax: 720-652-4211 Attn: Brad Mueller, Planner Re: Revised Referral Recommendations for Pioneer Communities Inc. and HP Farms LLC Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) has reviewed the development plans for the above-mentioned referral located in: (a) Section 32 T3N R64W (b) Sections 4,5,7, 8, 9, 18 & • 17 T2N R64W (c) Sections 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 T2N R65W. PSCo is recommending the gas service to be located in private streets, or easements that are provided for dry-utilities. Also, from the size of this development PSCo may require a facility site to insure reliability and adequate service. Gas facilities can be made available to serve the project by calling the "Builders' Call Line" at 1-800-628-2121. PSCo's planner'will request from the applicant to submit a design and layout to assure meeting the proposed schedule for receiving service. Within this new development PSCo owns and operates overhead electric transmission lines. With the initiation of the proposed new zoning changes, PSCo will require the retention of any current zoning uses associated with these and future electric and gas transmission facilities. Any encroachments involving our existing transmission line right-of-way will require PSCo approval regarding safety standards and liability issues. For approval, the developer/property owner must contact PSCo's Siting and Land Rights Department at 303-571-7799. As a reminder to help guarantee safety in this development please call the Utility Notification Center three working days before you dig at 1-800-922-1987. If you have any concern with this referral response, please contact me at (303) 571-7596. Thank You, • /rites„ Jon B. Keller Agent, Siting and Land Rights H OEU '°N WdEi : LOOZ 'Z 'anV 1625 Broadway 7 noble Suite 2000 energy Denver,Colorado 80202 -p,f Tel:303.228.4000 Weld GQNni iil �gl aos 2za.azfio G� tL�y Qrt7i aWilatc October 1,2007 OCT 0 �A�p07 Weld County Department of Planning Services j -ECE' W Attn: Brad Mueller 918 10th Street Greeley,CO 80631 Re: Pioneer Communities,Inc.and HP Farms,LLC-Applicant Township 2 North,Range 64 West,6th P.M. Sections 4,5,7,8,9, 17, 18 County of Weld,Colorado Township 2 North,:lane 65 West,6th P.M. Sections 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 County of Weld,Colorado Ladies and Gentlemen: Under a Development Application Referral dated September 15, 2007, Pioneer Communities, Inc. and HP Farms, LLC (the "Applicant"), contacted Noble Energy, Inc. ("Noble") regarding a hearing for change of zoning application from A (Agricultural) Zone District to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning. The PUD request proposes Agricultural, Residential, Commercial and Public Facilities/Open Space land uses over the captioned property("Property"). Currently, Noble operates thirty-six (36) existing wells and owns mineral leasehold interests to develop additional undrilled wells (the "Wells") located on the Property. Noble is very concerned about the impact the proposed development will have on lilts ability to produce, operate and maintain the Wells, pipelines and access routes on the Property. Noble has had direct discussions with Pioneer Communities, Inc. and HP Farms, LLC representatives (the "Applicant") relative to this proposal. To date, no agreement has been finalized and Noble has received no written confirmations that Noble's real property rights to use a reasonable portion of the surface for oil and gas operations and development are being preserved. Noble requests assurance from the Weld County Department of Planning Services,that the proposed development will not preclude Noble from producing, operating, drilling and maintaining its Wells, related pipelines and access routes. Until this matter is resolved by agreement with the Applicant and surface owners,Noble is not waiving its rights as a leasehold owner. Any approval of the proposed development should be conditioned upon the preservation of Noble's real property rights that allow it to make reasonable use of the surface of the lands for oil and gas development and operations. The proposed development must take into account and provide adequate setbacks from Noble's current well sites, production facilities,pipelines and provide continuous access to these assets. Noble respectfully requests that these comments be entered into the record for the proposed development and that we continue to be provided with advance notice of all other hearings affecting the Property. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned at(303)228-4020. Sincerely, NO E Y,INC. TY" y Bus ness Development Advisor cc: Dave Padgett • Reutzel&Associates, LLC C/O Jack E. Reutzel 9145 East Kenyon Ave, Ste.200,Denver,CO 80237 v RESOURCE pp COLORADO • WATER & SANITATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SENT n`; A Fri- IGfiriT July 27, 2005 Del I la ( °3 Fo ig e taA&G or ZONE Mr. Chris Paulson,Manager Pioneer Communities Inc. HP Farms LLC 9145 East Kenyon Avenue, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80237 RE: Provision of Water and Wastewater Service by Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District (the "District") to Pioneer Communities LLC ("Pioneer") and HP Farms LLC ("HP Farms") Dear Mr. Paulson: This correspondence is in regard to the provision of water and wastewater services to the property described in Exhibit A located in Weld County, Colorado and • owned by Pioneer and HP Farms (the"Property"). The District is authorized pursuant to its Service Plan to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, financing and maintenance of water and sanitation facilities. All of these powers are granted pursuant to the Service Plan for the District approved by Weld County Commissioners and the Weld County District Court. Please be advised that the District will exercise reasonable efforts to install and construct the water and wastewater infrastructure to provide water and wastewater services ("Services") in phases to the Property as needed subject to the following conditions: 1. The Service Plan permits the District to provide these Services only through Intergovernmental Agreements with service providers such as metropolitan districts and municipalities. No direct service to customers is permitted. Therefore, water and wastewater metropolitan districts must be created and approved within the Property to contract with the District. 2. Service will be subject to the lawfully adopted rules, regulations, conditions, and policies of the District. 3. Prior to receipt of Services, all fees and charges for Services must be paid in full to the District. • File Name:M:VackyeV{arvcy\Resource ColorudoWioneer Communities Water Service Ltr 9145 E. KENYON AVE., SUITE 200 • DENVER, CO 80237 • (303) 843-9742 • You have been previously forwarded information regarding the fully adjudicated water rights to be utilized for the provision of Services and regarding the initiation of the 208 Plan Amendment for wastewater treatment. If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, By: ey E. eutsch,president esource Colorado Water& Sanitation Metropolitan District CC: Brad Simons • • File Name:M:UackyeVHarvey\Resource ColoradoWioneer Communities Water Service Ltr Brad Mueller From: Hudson Fire Dept [hdsnchief1 @rtebb.net] nt: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:42 PM Brad Mueller ubject: Pioneer Development Brad, At the current time both Hudson and southeast Weld fire districts cannot provide sufficient coverage to the Pioneer developement that they are proposing in thier proposal. For a start land dedicated for a station would help. The proposed 2 mills split between the districts would not be sufficient for a station and equipment. At the current time both districts are still vol. depts Hudson has only one paid at this time. For the type of coverage Pioneer is proposing the districts would need further assistance to reach this goal. Both depts are still rural volunteer depts but are willing to continue to keep working with Pioneer to reach this goal. Thanks Chief Blackston We recently installed the spam filter from Abaca. It's over 99% accurate. Check it out - http://www.abaca.com/success/story.cgi?domain=rtebb.net • • 1 Hello