HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073269.tiff JUL-05-2007 THU 08:24 AM SOUTHWEST WELD PLANNING FAX NO. 720 652 4211 P. 02
O'1W135/2007 07!16 ST. VRAIN SANITATION DISTRICT 87206324211 NO.938 002
6
A
sot Weld County Referral
O June 5,2007 Rmn
JUN 0jj2007
C D
A
The Weld Count'Department of Planning Services has received the following Item for review:
Applicant HF Holdings,LLC; Case Number 2007-XX
c/o Orimshew&Herring,P.C.
Plow Rap&,Ay ASAP Planner Kim Ogle
Prqie'f Waterfront al Foster Lake Metropolitan District Na..1'S.
Leger S2 of Section 27,T3N,RIM;142 NW4,12 8W4.and e2 of Section 34,T3N,
REMW and NW4 NM of Section 3,TaN,ReeW of Me etn P.M.,Weld County,
Coloreds.
Location 0.5 mils south of OH ea wad and adjacent to CR 7;west of and adjacent to 1.25,
not of and adjacent to the St.Vroin River.
Parcel Number 191303 000048,120734 200031, 1207 34 000026, 1207 34 000027,
1207 27 000043.12037 27 000044
• The aPPlication der relevant tosubmitted to you for renew end recommendaton. Any cor mentsorrecommandatbnyou
consider
rel t o this your request would be adprecfated. Plane reply by the soon Ilan date so that we may
give c noa gamullo eWa re r�nnmandapon. My roaponee not received before or on this date maybe
positivepone to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, pease call 5w Planner associated with the request. Pines 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 eleparbnent of Planning Services.
•
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing(d appliwbls) July 17,2007
O Ws have rewind Me request and ffnd that It doss/does not comply with our Compn heneiva Mon e�rrlams
0 We have reviewed the fewest and era no conScu with our b terestew��*6�01k 4n mr
D Seeatt chedlatter. t4et�asTeo�
l]Roomno*me of any public hearings regarding hhie request It SLUM Wilt let
Comm •
t TglpaA.a�
110t
re $ 04R1 a es t�s
Agency *.Vt os 56.44*a1Ja tj bI o 7- d�
$Wslo Carry Planning Dept. +4209 CR 21.5.Laanont,Co.eaen. .tr2ol effi.4:io exte7a° 4(7201837.4211 fw
• EXHIBIT
2007-3269
07/27/2007 10:00 ST. VRRIN SANITATION DISTRICT 4 19703046498 NO.982 DO:
St. Vrain
• SANITATION
DI STRICT
July 27, 2007
Weld County Planning Department
Attn:Kim Ogle
918 101h Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Water Front at Foster Lake
Dear Mr. Ogle,
The above land parcel is with in the St. Vrain Sanitation District (SVSD)208 service area
and will be served contingent on the following:
• Subdivision Service Agreement signed and returned
• Approval of onsite sewer construction drawings
• Completion of necessary connection requests/agreements
•
• Receipt of applicable fees
•
Please also note, portions will tie into North Line,and portions will tie into Liberty Line.
Service will be subject to SVSD policy and rules and regulations.
Please call our office at(303)776—9570 with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Megan brec
Project istant
St.Vrain Sanitation District
•
11307 Business Park Circle Firestone, CO 80504
Phone(303)776-9570 Fax:(303)485-1966
a
•
Weld County Referral
P.agmng Department
:-ST BUILDING
Ce July 10, 2007 JUL1 7 2007
COLORADOiCEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HF Holdings, LLC; Case Number 2007-XX
Go Grimshaw&Harring,P.C.
Please Reply By A.S.A.P Planner Kim Ogle
Project Waterfront al Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3.
Legal S2 of Section 27,T3N, R68W;N2 NW4,E2 SW4, and E2 of Section 34,T3N,
R68W and NW4 NE4 of Section 3,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
Location 0.5 mile south of SH 66, east of and adjacent to CR 7;west of and adjacent to 1-25,
north of and adjacent to the St.Vrain River.
Parcel Number 1313 03 000048, 1207 34 200031, 1207 34 000026, 1207 34 000027,
1207 27 000043, 1207 27 000044
• 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) July 17,2007
O We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
r41 See attached letter.
❑Please notify me of any public hearings regarding this request.
Comments:
Signature Date ri . t 3 -C ')
Agency \.SDAI F-tc
+Weld County Planning Dept. O4209 CR 24.5,Longmont,CO,80504 4(720)652-4210 ext.6730 0(720)652-4211 fax
•
LONGS PEAK WATER DISTRICT
• 4
9875 Vermillion Road • Longmont, CO 80504 • (303) 776-3847 office • (303) 776-0198 fax
July 13,2007
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont,CO 80504
Re: Waterfront at Foster Lakes Metropolitan Districts
Dear Mr.Ogle;
We received the referral for Waterfront at Foster Lakes Metropolitan Districts 1-3, and
have the following comment:
1. The Service Plan limits the potable water powers of the proposed district
to financing and construction of necessary lines, and therefore the Longs Peak
Water District will probably have no objections to the formation of this metro
• district. Nevertheless, pursuant to Sec.32-1-107, C.R.S., this District's Board of
Directors must adopt a formal resolution of consent to the overlapping district.
We will be working on an Intergovernmental Agreement between Longs Peak and
Waterfront to accommodate their request. Once that IGA has been approved by Waterfront,
District staff and legal council, it will be placed on the agenda for consideration of the Longs
Peak Water District Board of Directors at their next available business meeting. Upon approval,
the IGA will be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder.
I hope this answers any questions you may have had regarding this matter. Should you
need additional information,please contact me.
Best Regards,
Barry yk
General 1' ager
•
- a
• Weld County Referral
IJuly 23, 2007
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HF Holdings, LLC Case Number PZ-1126
do Darwin Horan
Attn: Linda Sweetman-King
Please Reply By August 23, 2007 Planner Kim Ogle
Project PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
with R-1 (Low-density Residential), R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3 (Medium-density
Residential), R-4 (High-density Residential), C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), C-2
(General Commercial) 215 acres of Open Space and continuing Oil and Gas
Production uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District. [1804 units/ 10
acres Commercial]
Legal S2 Section 27; N2 of the NW4, E2 of the SW4 and E2 Section 34; NW 4 of the
• NE4 Section 3, all in T3N, R68W and part of the NE4 of Section 3, T2N, R68W of l,
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location 0.5 mile south of State Highway 66, east of and adjacent to CR 7; west of and
adjacent to 1-25, north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River.
Parcel Number 1313-03-000048 & 1207-34-100033 & 1207-27-300015
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
ijit 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.
Comments: \�N c-ot c Cao `c-N. , U&' c. t ce, n 1 to- JCL l cnth
• xc. n *O
Signature Date 1-7(n b'l
Agency 2�h C LrQ4
+Weld County Planning Dept. •: 18 10'"Stmt, Greeley, CO. 80631 •?(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4*(970)304-6498 fax
FROM :GERDOM & ASSOC FRX NO. :3038285244 Rug. 16 2007 01:20PM P3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Ogle, Weld County Planning Service
FROM: Joe Gerdom,Town Planning Consultant . .
DATE: August 16, 2007
SUBJ: Weld County Referral—PZ-1126
This referral is a request to create a 587 acre POD with single and multiple family housing,
commercial, community center,parks,and open space. It is located along the west side of I-25
and stretches from the south side of Foster Lake to the St. Vrain River,all east of 3r4 Street
(WCR 7). It would border the new high school site on the north, east and a portion of the
south.
On behalf of the Town of Mead,the Board of Trustee's has requested Weld County consider
the following issues and points related to this request.
1. The Town of Mead's future planning area includes this tract. In fact,the development
is bordered on three sides by Mead. The Town respectfully requests that this proposal
• be redirected to the Town to insure safe and coordinated community development.The
Town would welcome the opportunity to work with the developers in much the same
way as we have done with several recent annexation projects such as Sorrento Estates
and the Mead Place PUD just north of this site.
2. The land use layout includes commercial development immediately adjacent to the
new high school site. This should not be approved unless a detailed traffic study can
demonstrate how the circulation can be safely designed for the two,high volume,
traffic generators.
3. The proposal contains substantial areas for apartments. These are either located next to
the new high school site or internal to the single family detached areas.Neither of
these land use proposals constitutes good planning principles. We would strongly
suggest these aspects of the plan not be approved.
4. The street layout for this proposal is in conflict with the Town's Transportation Plan.
It would seem, at a minimum,that the mutual interests that the County may have in
roads in or near Mead would be better served by working with the Town on this
proposal as to location and width of rights of way.
5. The Town would ask that this application be denied and the applicant be directed to
submit an annexation and zoning request to the Town.
• WC_080807 PZ1126
•
CRDOM&ASC(r.IATts • 935 PETRAS STREET,ERIE,COLORADO 80516 • CERDOMASSOC®MSN.COM • 303.828.5244
MourlrgrN MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
• e a~� (303) 772-0710 • FAX(303) 651-7702
viers
August 17,2007
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
4209 Weld County Road 24.5
Longmont,CO 80504
Dear Mr.Ogle:
I have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the PUD Change in Zone for the Waterfront at Foster
Lake, located on the east side of Weld County Road 7, north and south of Weld County Road 28 (Case
Number: PZ-1126). The Fire District does not object to the request for change in zone and subsequent
development, provided the development is able to meet the requirements of the Fire District. Based on my
review, I have the following comments regarding the sketch plans submitted:
Fire apparatus access appears adequate as shown on the plans submitted provided that the northeast portion
of the subdivision does connect with Mead Crossing at the time that portion is constructed so secondary
access is provided. Fire apparatus roads must be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
fire apparatus(75,000 pounds).
•
Fire hydrant is not adequate in some areas as shown on plans included with the fire flow analysis. In
residential portions of subdivision fire hydrants shall be spaced along fire apparatus access roads so that
spacing between hydrants does not exceed 500 feet and a hydrant is located within 250 feet of the front
property line of all lots. Construction plans for the utilities must be submitted to the Fire District for review
and approval before street construction begins.
The Fire District reserves the right to make further comments as development proceeds. Should the project
be phased, phasing plans will need to be approved by the Fire District. Nothing in this review is intended
to authorize or approve of any aspect of this project that does not comply with all applicable codes and
standards. We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please
contact me at(303)772-0710.
Sincerely,
LuAnn Penfold
Fire Marshal
LMP/Ip
cc: project file
Ip08.01.07
•
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7
9119 Cnty Line Rd. 14308 Mead St..Unit B P.O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Dobbin Run 50 Bonanza Dr. P.O.Box 40
Longmont,CO Longmont.CO 299 Palmer Ave. 8500 Niwot Road Lafayette.CO Erie.CO 100 So.Forest St.
80501 80504 Mead,CO 80542 Niwot,CO 80544 60026 80516 Dawns,CO 80514
• 0
DEPRTMENT 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
August 17, 2007
PUD Change of Zone from(A)Agricultural to PUD (Planned Unit Development)with R-1 (Low-density Residential)
R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3 (medium-density Residential), R-4 (High-density Residential)C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial), C-2(General Commercial)215 acres of open space,and continuing Oil and Gas Production uses in
the Mixed Use Development Overlay District. [1804 units/ 10 acres Commercial.
PZ-1126
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 no historical building permits on record for these parcels.
•8. Provide a letter of approval from Mountain View Fire Protection Districts prior to construction.
Since
R ger Vi it
Building Official
• St. Vram Valley
School District Weld Count; t'la.'n,'ng Department
?F/ frf10E
August 15, 2007
U . 2 0 ?du
Kim Ogle Rtctai cc)
Weld County Planning Department
918 10'" St.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE:Waterfront At Foster Lake Change of Zone (Situated in the S %of Section 27, Section 4, the NE% of Section
3, all in T3N, R68W, and in the NE % of Section 3, T2N, R681/4/}
Dear Kim:
Thank you for referring Waterfront At Foster Lake Change of Zone to the School District. The District has reviewed
the development proposal in terms of (1) available school capacity, (2) required land dedications and/or cash-in-
lieu fees and (3) transportation/access considerations. Upon review, the School District finds that it cannot
support this proposed development at this time. The reasons for this position and other relevant information is
as follows:
• The 125% Capacity Benchmark is expected to be exceeded at the elementary and middle school
levels in this feeder and there is insufficient capacity to support this development.
• Additional capacity at the high school level will become available as High School 7 (formerly High
School 5), approved under the 2002 Bond, is completed in 2009. Until that facility is constructed,
• Skyline High School may experience crowding in the short term.
• Additional capacity at the elementary and middle school levels currently has no funding for
construction. Under current conditions, a new school bond or other source of capital revenue will be
required to provide additional capacity for these grade levels.
• The District and the applicant have begun formulating an agreement to mitigate the impact of this
development on the capacity of attending schools. According to District records, however, that
agreement has not yet been signed.
Should this development be approved, the options for managing the short and long term overcrowding in these
schools may include adding modular classrooms and implementing split or staggered schedules as needed. Other
options may include, but not be limited to, implementing year-round schools or asking voters to approve new
bonds for additional school facilities or a mill levy for additional operating funds. It should be noted that a lack of
operating funds may be a factor in delaying construction and occupancy of new school facilities in this area.
Detailed information on the specific capacity issues, the land dedication requirements and transportation impacts
for this proposal follow in Attachment A. The recommendation of the District noted above applies to the attendance
boundaries current as of the date of this letter. These attendance boundaries may change in the future as new
facilities are constructed and opened. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this referral, please
feel free to contact me via e-mail at kragerud ryanstvrain.k12.co.us or at the number below.
cer ly,
Ry re er
Planning/GIS cialist
• Enc.: Attachment A—Specific Project Analysis
Cash-in-lieu chart
ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY, LONGMONT,CO 80501.SCOTT
TOILLION, DIRECTOR.PHONE 303-682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344.
ATTACHMENT A-Specific Project Analysis
PROJECT: Waterfront At Foster Lake Change of Zone
(1) SCHOOL CAPACITY
The Board of Education has established a District-wide policy of reviewing new development projects in terms of the
impact on existing and approved school facilities within the applicable feeder system. Any residential project within the
applicable feeder that causes the 125% school benchmark capacity to be exceeded within 5 years would not be
supported. This determination includes both existing facilities and planned facilities from a voter-approved bond. The
building capacity, including existing and new facilities, along with the impact of this proposal and all other approved
development projects for this feeder is noted in the chart below.
CAPACITY INFORMATION CAPACITY BENCHMARK
(includes projected students,plus developments student impact)
School Building Stdts. Stdt. 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009.2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Level Capacity Oct-06 Impact Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. stdts cap.
Elementary 504 471 379 561 111% 660 131% 790 157% 904 179% 1028 204%
Middle 380 321 174 353 93% 410 108% 476 125% 535 141% 588 156%
High School 1323 1371 190 1433 108% 1496 113% 1086 82% 1142 86% 1206 91%
High School 7 750 - 0 "school not yet open'- 521 69% 537 72% 557 74%
Total 2981 743 2347 I 2565 I 2874 3118 3378
•swdems from new housing are added according to a 5 year buildout of approved plats w,min the school feeder.
Specific comments concerning this proposal regarding School Capacity are as follows:
• Specific Impact - This application will add up to 1804 new single-family, duplex, triplex, four-plex, town-home
and multi-family dwelling units with a potential impact of 743 additional students in the Mead Elementary, Mead
Middle and Skyline High School Feeder.
• Benchmark Determination—The elementary and middle schools in this feeder are projected to exceed 125% of
capacity in 5 years with students from this development. The School District is therefore not supporting this
application at this time.
• Additional Capacity Impacts— High School 7 will add additional capacity in this feeder at the high school level.
This facility is scheduled to open in the Fall of 2009.
• • Mitigation Options—Weld County and the developer should also be aware that the School Board has developed
a mitigation policy that would assist in providing capacity for the new students in this subdivision. Under the
policy, should an applicant wish to begin construction on a residential development prior to the District's ability to
provide additional capacity, the applicant may mitigate the development's impact on the feeder by agreeing to a
voluntary, per-unit payment. Funds would be used to provide permanent or temporary capacity within the
impacted feeder. The Planning Department would be happy to discuss this type of mitigation for the proposal
with either the town or developer.
• Phasing Plan—The District would appreciate a phasing plan from the applicant to more accurately calculate the
impacts of this development.
(2) LAND DEDICATIONS AND CASH IN-LIEU FEES
The implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Concerning Fair Contributions for Public School
Sites by Weld County requires that the applicant either dedicate land directly to the School District along with
provision of the adjacent infrastructure and/or pay cash-in-lieu (CIL) fees based on the student yield of the
development. CIL fees only provide funds for land acquisition, which is only a small component of providing
additional school capacity for a feeder. Specific comments regarding land dedications and CIL fees for this referral
are as follows:
• Dedication and/or Cash-in-lieu Requirements-The District does not anticipate the need for another school
site in this area. Since no land dedication is required, CIL fees will be assessed. Current fees are included
on the attached chart; however fees paid will be those in effect at the time of payment.
• Number of Units covered by dedication/cash-in-lieu—All residential units will be subject to CIL fees.
• Dedication/Cash-in-lieu Procedures - Cash-in-lieu payments are to be made to the St. Vrain Valley School
District Business Office—395 S. Pratt Parkway, Longmont, CO.
3)TRANSPORTATION/ACCESS
Transportation considerations for a project deal with bussing and pedestrian access to and from the subdivision.
Pedestrian access, in particular, is an important goal of the School District in order to facilitate community connection to
• schools and to minimize transportation costs. Specific comments for this application are as follows:
• Provision of Busing- Busing for this project, under the current boundaries, would most likely be provided.
• Pedestrian/Access Issues— Due to this proposal's rural location, pedestrian access to neighboring schools will
not be an issue.
ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY, LONGMONT,CO 80501.SCOTT
TOILLION, DIRECTOR.PHONE 303-682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344.
Y c c a)
-IN E
o U a
w
liro c a 0
LL c
CO m
Q L
▪ U c
c c
o m
t a
a)
m
o
a
.G
c
0
c U
o -o
o. �. c. __ .. .._
C G O
O
o U aa))
o a v
N J ¢ o
J `o. __. _
_ _ - ....
- -
_ C _ - 00 N a .C
d 0 h c c ..
a o a)
r a�0 C
•C a ¢ 111 m N 'o In• 3
N L ai II C N COI` N 6 N
C N C a a) a0 -I 'd
a7 7o p co c g? a ..
E V U a 0 o
co
__ co - _
a) C) N 'C Q
c Q a O •O-'a d W N co W (7 co m
N O R' o c a a) - o a .o o a c p
I--
0gy ; 0 a) J J e+ ? - in N- J- y N ? _ N-in II
• R N fJ _._. q)- .. - -,--,. CU _-
✓ 0 <...) 'a C a al e
N C C 'aO-+ h rn OD Q
'O N C .0 to a. N C2 (n N Z) .� N o
a g • _ ' G
U CO
o 'u o U o y .c
0 CD 'a G II 0 II +
9 12 f 'aa O Ic a `n e ? O e O N
C O N co In
R y Q a a a) a V) U
V CO - a
_ v� w. _ CO :0 CO m
a c « •`m o 13 0 ≥ o � Z.- 'a a
C -0a , C N i G Ian d G N -8 N
c it � � a � � a � a +
ea LL N Z0 Z0 Z.CO a) - -
md _ ' C'_ _. •
0 o O � N--
17 _N a) V
�' O N V a1 o V a) r r- a) OD Q N.
O y 'a d N d) d c � o ..Q 0.5
.
L '—. >. o co N M E o E o in E r- m a
a)
: w .N-) V O V O V o ..to co a)
E O c co j co j co j co 2 =
7 O- Cr Cr Nr IS (
2`. Z. . Ilki
W W W WLL d n Cy N
Y C c N
m o = E
-I N o
O U a
w a a
o c m p
u_ c >
... co on
Q L C
E U c
2 a
t a
d
a
o
.0
a
c
c
0
c U
0 o a
o _..2. . _. c . .._
.5 _ c _�.
a 0 O
o O
U e
C.) a o
C JCO 0
II o
J _.p- �. 0.
C 00. 0
a Q II d oAla to
H - T. u a N M c 14) 1-
•1 in
---1 0-
C Sa
E U V m y .03 0
CO
O.- CO '3 .a CO N 00 0 U
m m N -c
L Q C d G 9 N W N W - W to 040
c R O G' ... c =3 0 , — O) a +0 0) a t Q) O
43 — p N R R (60 .2 (.6065 0-5- 0m M ti
0 - 0 0J > » >' v) s ? y s �= 2 f u
O c u m 0
L
L.
0 o p 0 C. 0 . o co ci
'O 0 c d r ,Z N m .20. 0 ,-) Z.3. O O
J uJ c `— n.. car ≥ .� - ii' V 5.3
a G '- •' oc
U
o '
m a 0,
_. _. 0 �_ . Z � Z 8
'NO`. 0 -2 u c 00 II +
R (n 'RO pi O `INS a in .h. o — 00 a
- roc N a) 'n o 0co
R r Q a a m a 0 L.
y fn fn CO at0 . 070 0 , O 1.c r R O` O` O',. 0 . a
c a,
c in
a c o a c �',-0 c
.c a+ cos ? r j ? E ? +
R N
InLL Zt 20 Z o a a o o co m in
2g -0 0 V 1 O O N '.m M o N U M
C0 - 01 N (C) 4, O � -0 Or-0 Q
L .O a3-� } cip O0 � J. O M E d
o arm ? ? ? � w r
a es i o Lo ° ,n ° to o a
E Q c Ln `m in m in m 1n '`m
7 = V a V a V a V a (n
O Z._. _ W. uJ W W.. x
_a Z, I
o __.._ o_
C o
O co
N CO N O
a E _cN 00 W 2 F 0 N
AUG.22.2007 2:43PM N0.944 P.2
LOACtips
caC
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Viers
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 C''tort P
(303) 651-8330 / Fax# (303) 651-8696
E-mail: /ongmontg/anningedlongmoorlt,cv.ps
Web site: htto://www.d.longmorit.co.us
August 22, 2007
Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, CO 80504
RE: Waterfront at Foster Lake Planned Unit Development Change of Zone
(Case Number PZ-1126)
Dear Kim,
Thank you for sending the referral concerning the Waterfront at Foster Lake planned unit
development (PUD) change of zone application to the City of Longmont. The Waterfront at
• Foster Lake PUD covers approximately 587 acres south of Foster Reservoir, between Weld
County Road (WCR) 7 and Interstate 25 (I-25), and north of St. Vrain State Park. The project is
within the County's I-25 Mixed Use Development(MUD) area, A variety of land uses including
residential, commercial, and open spaces are identified In this application.
The City previously provided comments on this project for the sketch plan application. The City
appreciates that several of the City's comments have been addressed in the change of zone
application; the City would like to reiterate some of the concerns that have not yet been
addressed. These comments are outlined below.
This development is definitely urban in scale and thus will require a variety of urban services.
Although this property is within the MUD, the City maintains that a development of this scope
would best be served by an incorporated municipality where a full range of urban infrastructure
and services can be planned and provided.
The St. Vrain River and the St. Vrain State Park are regional amenities, providing benefit to both
City and County residents. The floodplain north of the river is an ideal location for a connection
to the trail corridors coming from Liberty Gulch and Union Reservoir to the State Park. The City
of Longmont has Identified the St. Vraln River corridor as a primary greenway, which will
eventually provide a link from the State Park to areas further west in the City and beyond Into
Boulder County, The portion of river within the northern floodplaln is the likely location for a
bridge that would tie into the St. Vraln Greenway before it passes under I-25 and continues east
into Firestone. Based on conversations with representatives from the State Parks, the City
understands that this is the area best suited for a trail connection over the river, The City
requests the applicant consider depicting a future trail connection, The City suggests the
• applicant dedicate a pedestrian access easement that would provide access to the northern
Hu6.CC.au07 2:40PM N0.944 P.4
portions of the Park. At a minimum, the City would request a note be added to the change of
• zone documents stating that a future connection to the river and the park would be permitted in
Tract H.
Another amenity for this area is the views from the State Park and views of the park from the
Interstate. The City would encourage the applicant to consider this view shed as this project
moves forward. In order to preserve the views from the park, the applicant may want to consider
screening some of the lots that overlook the park.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this referral. Should you have any questions,
please contact me at (303)651.8336 or erin.fosdickeci.Ionaptontco,us.
Sincerely, -
DIAM saieL
Erin Fosdick
Planner
XC: Waterfront at Foster Lake pup-Change of Zone(file#2051-34b2)
Phil DelVecchlo, Community Development Director
Daniel Watford, Manager of Open Space and Trails
•
•
Wel• d
Scount,Plan
ITHwF�T&Llg De arttnent
AUG•
2
eSAA- 200)
Colorado State Parks � CsE/VED
HIGH PLAINS REGION OFFICE
1313 Sherman Street,Room 618•Denver,Colorado 80203•Phone(303)866-3437•FAX(303)866-3206•vnvw.parks.state.co.us
Uepariraent
FY iCE
August 23,2007
Kim Ogle, Planner
Weld County Planning Department c4 _ ED
L C
4209 WCR 241/2 Longmont,CO 80504
Re: Weld County Referral Case Number PK-1 126
Dear Mr. Ogle:
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments concerning the HF Holdings, "Waterfront at Foster
Lake" PUD Sketch Plan and Zone District(Case Number PK-I 126), and the associated impacts on St.
Vrain State Park.
I sent a letter to you dated October 5, 2006 which outlined our concerns with this project. We did not
receive a response from you concerning these impacts. We did receive a letter from Tetra Tech Inc.
representing HF Holdings dated February 26, 2007.
• I would like to reiterate our concerns related to the impacts of this urban development project. As you
know, St. Vrain State Park is located directly south of the project site and a portion of the park boundary
is contiguous with the project site. Our interest is to protect the natural values of St. Vrain State Park and
the St. Vrain Creek corridor. Weld County has been an important partner in the preservation of the
St.Vrain Creek Corridor. This proposed development shares an important '/2 mile long stretch of St.Vrain
Creek. We believe the protection of the creek corridor is a critical issue that is not addressed in this PUD
plan. We appeal to Weld County as a Great Outdoors Colorado(GOCO) Legacy Partner to discuss all
impacts on the State Park with the developer.
As outlined in our letter of October 5, 2006, our concerns about the project fall into three broad
categories: water quality,development impacts, and trail access. Our staff has discussed these issues with
Julie A. Cozad from Tetra Tech RMC,a representative for the applicant. We believe these issues need to
be resolved before this development moves forward.
Water Quality
Due to the proximity of the proposed development,we have concerns about water quality impacts on St.
Vrain Creek. Any storm water or non-point source contaminates that are not properly contained within
the development will flow downhill into the creek. Sediment loading of the creek is a particular concern
especially during the construction phase. It appears the plan as designed will result in non-point run-off
and water pollution into the creek due to the proximity of urban level housing densities directly adjacent
to the creek corridor.
• STATE OF COLORADO•COLORADO STATE PARKS
Bill Ritter,Jr.Governor•Harris 0.Sherman,Executive Director,Department of Natural Resources
Larry Kramer,Deputy Director•Gary Thorson,Deputy Director
Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation'. •Dr.Tom Ready,Chair,Natural Areas Representative
Tom Glass,Member,GOCO Representative• Bill Kane,Member•Allegro"Happy"Haynes,Member• Lenna Watson,Member
Weld County Planning Department
Referral Case Number PK-1126
• August 20, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Development Impacts
In general, we are concerned that many house sites are located too close to the creek. We believe it is
important to preserve a buffer along the creek that is free of development. The cul-de-sac located in the
southwest corner of the development[Block 48(5)] is particularly close to the creek. This cul-de-sac may
also block the proposed trail connection to the park. We would like to work with Weld County and the
developer to preserve a '''A mile buffer along St. Vrain Creek that is free of development. We believe the flood
plain of the creek should be managed as a public asset.
The protection of the St. Vrain corridor is an important vision that has the support of a variety of partners
including Great Outdoors Colorado,the Division of Wildlife, the Town of Firestone, and the City of
Longmont. The site plan as proposed will impact the natural values of St. Vrain State Park and the creek
corridor. Houses will be readily visible form the park and creek corridor. At night, light pollution from houses
and streetlights will invade the solitude of the creek corridor. A ''A mile buffer would limit the visual impact of
development as seen from the park. We believe a 200 to 300 foot buffer as shown in the development plan is
not acceptable. The developer has provided a 300 foot setback from the edge of the water. At a minimum
this setback should be 300 feet from the floodway.
Trail Access
Most State Parks serve as regional trail hubs providing benefit to surrounding communities. A future trail
connection from St. Vrain State Park and the Colorado Front Range Trail leading north to Liberty Gulch
would provide connectivity to the Town of Mead, Weld County developments,and eastern Longmont.
Because there are steep banks on the north side of the creek, few options exist for a trail bridge to cross the St.
Vrain. A suitable site for a trail bridge exists at the southern end of the proposed development. The relatively
• flat topography along the creek at this point appears to provide a favorable site for a trail bridge. A trail
easement would preserve this important recreational opportunity. If Weld County does not support a trail
easement at this location there may not be another option for a future trail connection into the park from the
north. St. Vrain State Park will not be able to serve as an important trail hub in the future. This will be a
disservice to thousands of current and future residents who will not have access into the state park from the
north.
We believe the issues identified in this letter must be resolved before this development project moves
forward. Our staff is asking to meet with the County Commissioners and county staff in an effort to resolve
these issues. We would like to suggest an on-site work session with the Commissioners and county staff to
allow them to see the impacts in person. Please contact me at 303 866-3203 ext. 331 as soon as possible to
set-up a meeting to address these issues.
Sincerely,
Z'122--Cr—
David Giger
High Plains Regional Manager
cc: Mike King, Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources
Larry Kramer, Deputy Director, Colorado State Parks
Mayor Mike Simone,Town of Firestone
Mayor Julia Pirnack, City of Longmont,
Mayor Richard W. Macomber, Town of Mead
• Suzanne Kloster, District Wildlife Manager Colorado Division of Wildlife
Bob Finch, Park Manager, St. Vrain State Park
Tetra Tech Inc.
Weld County Sheriffs
• Office
Memo
To: Kim Ogle
From: Ken Poncelow
Date: August 24, 2007
Re: PZ-1126
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
1
/ c
•
Weld County Referral
bepartme t
ry OFFICE ,�uly 23, 2007
jt, 20Il ' t tE E4E07 1
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HF Holdings, LLC Case Number PZ-1126
c/o Darwin Horan
Attn: Linda Sweetman-King
Please Reply By August 23, 2007 Planner Kim Ogle
Project PUD Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
with R-1 (Low-density Residential), R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3 (Medium-density
Residential), R-4 (High-density Residential), C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), C-2
(General Commercial) 215 acres of Open Space and continuing Oil and Gas
Production uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District. [1804 units/ 10
acres Commercial]
Legal S2 Section 27; N2 of the NW4, E2 of the SW4 and E2 Section 34; NW 4 of the
• NE4 Section 3, all in T3N, R68W and part of the NE4 of Section 3, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location 0.5 mile south of State Highway 66, east of and adjacent to CR 7; west of and
adjacent to 1-25, north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River.
Parcel Number 1313-03-000048 & 1207-34-100033 & 1207-27-300015
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.
"441., See attached letter.
❑ Please notify me of any public hearings regarding this request.
Comments:
• Signature /� Date 7 - /j' -07
Agency
••Weld County Planning De . +918 10"Street, Greeley, CO. 80631 •:•(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
�
• Longmont Conservation District
9595 Nelson Road. Box D--Longmont, Colorado 80.50l -Phone(303) 776-4034--Fax(303) 684-9893
Site Review Memo
To: Longmont CD Board
From: Nancy McIntyre
Subject: (List site name, location, Permit#, Purpose, etc.)
HF Holdings LLC, PZ-1126;adjacent to 1-25 on east, Weld CR 7 on west, Foster Lake on north,
and St. Vrain river on south; total acreage is 587; plan is for 10 ac commercial use, 1804 dwelling
units to include single and multi-family units, and 200+ acres of designated open space.
Prime Farmland: all prime farmland except for soil unit 16 (statewide importance)and 3 (prime if
drained).
411 Water Quality: St.Vrain River and Foster Lake are adjacent to this parcel, Outlet#3 Ditch runs
through it. Storm water runoff should be managed to capture sediments.
Noxious Weed Control: Manage noxious weeds in disturbed areas and in designated open
space.
Soils Limitations: Proposed building sites in map units 41 and 42 are very limited for new
dwellings due shrink-swell potential.
Other concerns:
Summary comments: Plans appear to have buffers along river and lake. Maintain 15' buffer
along both sides of ditch to protect against erosion. Treat noxious weeds as needed.
•
CONSER VA HON DEVELOPMENT SELF GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Bernard Bernard Lyons Gaddis & Kahn Adele L. Reester
Richard N. Lyons, II Eve I. Canfield
• Jeffrey J. Kahn A Professional Corporation r Attorneys and Counselors Christopher C. Gaddis
John W. Gaddis Mark D. Detsky
Bradley A. Hall Weld Count Plannin De Scott E. Holwick
Steven P.Jeffers SOUTHWEST BUILDINGartm d;ittthew Machado
Anton V. Dworak Catherine A.Tallerico,
AUG 2 9 2007 Special Counsel
August 23, 2OO7 RECEIVED
Kim Ogle VIA E-MAIL: kogle@co.weld.co.us
Weld County Planning Department ORIGINAL VIA REGULAR MAIL
4209 County Road 24.5
Longmont, CO 80504
Re: Case No. PZ-1126,Application of HF Holdings, LLC
Dear Kim:
This letter is in response to the Weld County Planning Department referral letter dated July 23, 2007
for the above-referenced change of zone approval. This firm represents the Highland Ditch Company
("Highland"). Highland should be added to the referral list for this project as its private property
rights are affected by the proposed PUD change of zone. The contact information for Highland is
listed below.
Highland and Tetra Tech, Inc., representing the developer of this project, held a meeting in April
• 2007 to discuss the sketch plans presented in PK-1126. Highland provided Tetra Tech with its initial
concerns by letter dated May 4, 2007, which letter was included in the change of zone application
materials under the heading "Adequate Attempt: Ditch Owners." Despite the representation that the
developer would address its initial concerns, Highland has not received any substantive response or
adequate attempt to respond to any of the concerns it expressed in that letter.
The proposed PUD of HF Holdings, LLC directly affects the vested property rights of Highland. The
proposed PUD includes the redesign of the Highland No. 3 Reservoir (a/k/a Foster Lake) dam and
spillway and the relocation or alteration of several interconnections, including the outlet works of the
Reservoir. The developer states that "a new spillway is proposed to replace the existing spillway"
and the outlet works of the Reservoir will be filled in and piped. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
for the Highland Reservoir No. 3 Executive Summary. The Reservoir, dam, outlet works and spillway
are private property. The applicant has no right to conduct any work on Highland's structures or its
appurtenant easements.
Alteration of the dam and spillway is a difficult process involving approval of the Colorado Division of
Water Resources. The approval process can by very time consuming and expensive. It can only be
done with the written permission of Highland which can be withheld in Highland's discretion.
Highland is not willing to grant the applicant the ability to alter any of its structures until such time as
the applicant enters into a comprehensive agreement with Highland.
The plans and documents accompanying the PUD change of zone application, which documents
were not provided to Highland until very recently, are still only conceptual in scope and do not
provide enough information for Highland's engineer to reasonably evaluate the proposal. On page
• 10 of the Introduction to the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for the Highland Reservoir No. 3, the
applicant lists required submittals and reviews of the proposed Reservoir alterations to several
515 Kimbark Street • Second Floor • P.O. Box 978 • Longmont, CO 80502-0978
Phone: 303-776-9900 • Fax: 303-413-1003 • www.blglaw.com
Bernard Lyons Gaddis & Kahn
A Professional Corporation ( Attorneys and Counselors
• Kim Ogle
August 23, 2007
Page 2
entities, including Highland, the County and the Colorado Division of Water Resources. However,the
applicant must also obtain the written approval of those organizations in order to conduct any work
affecting the dam, outlet works or the spillway.
In summary, the applicant does not have the right or approval to conduct any work affecting the
Reservoir or its associated easements or to construct the proposed alterations to the Reservoir and
its structures, which are the property of Highland. Highland's approval of any proposed alterations to
its structures or work within its easements must be a condition of approval of this PUD change of
zone application.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
BERNARD LYONS GADDIS& KAHN, PC
By W14.
• Mark D Detsky
mdetsk blglaw.com
Please address any referral letters in this matter to:
The Highland Ditch Company
4309 State Highway 66
Longmont, CO 80504
MDD
cc: Highland Ditch Company Board of Directors
Jill Baty - Secretary, Highland Ditch Company
Duane Smith, P.E.
Julie Cozad,Tetra Tech RMC, Inc.
•
F:ICLIENTSIH{HIGHLIMID120070820-MDD-WELD COUNTY PLANNING HIGHLAND-1.0OC 08/23/07 4:29 PM
Daniel F. Bernard Bernard Lyons Gaddis & Kahn Adele L. Reester
Richard N. Lyons, II �. Eve I. Canfield
• Jeffrey J. Kahn A Professional Corporation ( ,Attorneys and Counselors Christopher C. Gaddis
John W. Gaddis Weld county Planning Department Mark D. Detsky
Bradley A. Hall SOUTHWEST BUILDING Scott E. Holwick
Steven P.Jeffers AUG 2 Matthew Machado
Anton V. Dworak 9 200/
Catherine A.Tallerico,
August 23, 2OO7
DECEIVED Special Counsel
Kim Ogle VIA E-MAIL: kogle@co.weld.co.us
Weld County Planning Department ORIGINAL VIA REGULAR MAIL
42O9 County Road 24.5
Longmont, CO 8O5O4
Re: Case No. PZ-1126, Application of HF Holdings,LLC
Dear Kim:
This letter is in response to the referral letter dated July 23, 2OO7 for the above-referenced change
of zone application. This firm represents the No. 3 Outlet Ditch Company ("Ditch Company"). This
firm first responded to the Weld County Planning Department referral in a letter dated November 8,
2OO6 for the PUD sketch plan in this matter.
Subsequent to that time, the Ditch Company and Tetra Tech, Inc., representing the developer in this
matter, held a meeting in April 2OO7 to discuss the sketch plans. The Ditch Company responded to
Tetra Tech with initial concerns by letter dated May 4, 2OO7, which letter was included in the change
• of zone application materials under the heading "Adequate Attempt: Ditch Owners." Despite the
representation that the developer would address its initial concerns, the Ditch Company has not
received a substantive response or adequate attempt to respond to any of the concerns it expressed
in that letter.
The proposed PUD of HF Holdings, LLC directly affects the property rights of the Ditch Company. The
proposed PUD includes the relocation and piping of the No. 3 Outlet Ditch, the redesign of the
Highland No. 3 Reservoir (a/k/a Foster Lake) outlet works that directly feed the ditch, the
interconnection with the outlet ditch from the Sanborn Reservoir, and at least two shareholder
headgates. In addition, the PUD plans propose several crossings of the No. 3 Outlet Ditch for roads
and trails and recreational rights within the Ditch Company's easement.
The ditch, the headgates and the appurtenant easement for access, operation, maintenance, repair
and replacement of the same are vested property rights owned by the Ditch Company. The applicant
has no legal right to conduct any work within the Ditch Company's easement or upon any of the Ditch
Company's structures.
The change of zone application and materials remain conceptual, and the Ditch Company has not
been given enough information to evaluate the possible impacts and terms and conditions
necessary to protect the Ditch Company. As a result, at this time the Ditch Company does not have
reason to believe that the applicant will address its concerns and therefore is not willing to grant the
applicant the ability to construct the proposed relocation, piping or license the proposed crossings or
recreational rights. Any agreements entered into by the Ditch Company must protect the historical
quantity and quality of water in the ditch systems, the associated easements from encroachments
• and compensate the Ditch Company for relinquishing its property in addition to deeding new
easements to the Ditch Company. On page 1O of the Introduction to the Hydrologic and Hydraulic
515 Kimbark Street • Second Floor • P.O. Box 978 • Longmont, CO 80502-0978
Phone: 303-776-9900 • Fax: 303-413-1003 • www.blglaw.com •
Bernard Lyons Gaddis & Kahn
A Professional Corporation ! Attorneys and Counselors
Kim Ogle
August 23, 2007
Page 2
Analysis for the Highland Reservoir No. 3, the applicant lists submittal and review of the proposed
alterations of the ditch to include the Ditch Company. However, the applicant must also obtain the
written approval of those organizations in order to conduct any work affecting the Reservoir.
Please be advised that at this time the applicant does not have the right or permission to conduct
any work within the Ditch Company's easements or to relocate or pipe any area of the ditch or its
associated infrastructure.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
BERNARD LYONS GADDIS& KAHN, PC
By
Mark D. etsky
mdetsky blglaw.com
MDD
cc: Number 3 Outlet Ditch Company Board of Directo s
Jill Baty - Secretary, Number 3 Outlet Ditch Company
Duane Smith, P.E.
Julie Cozad,Tetra Tech RMC, Inc.
•
F:ICLIENTSININO3DCIMID120070820-MDD-WELD COUNTY PLANNING NO 3 DITCH-1.DOC 08/23/07 4:30 PM
Daniel F. Bernard Bernard Lyons Gaddis & Kahn Adele L. Reester
Richard N. Lyons, II Eve I. Canfield
Jeffrey J. Kahn A. Professional Corporation ' "� Attorneys and Counselors Christopher C. Gaddis
• John W. Gaddis Weld Cooly Planning Department Mark D. Detsky
Bradley A. Hall SOUTHWEST BUILDING Scott E. Holwick
Steven P.Jeffers Matthew Machado
Anton V. Dworak AUG 2 9 2007
Catherine A.Tallerico,
Special Counsel
August 23, 200REiCEIVED
Kim Ogle VIA E-MAIL: kogle@co.weld.co.us
Weld County Planning Department ORIGINAL VIA REGULAR MAIL
4209 County Road 24.5
Longmont, CO 80504
Re: Case No. PZ-1126, Application of HF Holdings, LLC
Dear Kim:
This letter is in response to the Weld County Planning Department referral letter dated July 23, 2007
for the above-referenced change of zone application. This firm represents the Sanborn Reservoir
Ditch Company ("Sanborn"). Sanborn should be added to the referral list for this project as it could
be substantially affected by the proposed PUD change of zone. The contact information for Sanborn
is listed below.
The proposed PUD of HF Holdings, LLC includes the piping and relocation of the outlet ditch from the
Sanborn Reservoir ("Reservoir") and its interconnection with the No. 3 Outlet Ditch. Alteration of the
• location of the outlet ditch or its interconnection with the No. 3 Outlet Ditch can only be done with
the written permission of Sanborn.The Reservoir outlet structure and its interconnection with the No.
3 Outlet Ditch are not represented in the plans.
The Reservoir's outlet ditch and its associated easement for access, operation, maintenance, repair
and replacement of the same are owned by Sanborn. The applicant has no legal right to conduct any
work within Sanborn's property, on its appurtenant easements or upon any of Sanborn's structures.
Sanborn is not willing to grant the applicant the ability to enter its property or alter any of its
structures until such time as the applicant enters into an agreement with Sanborn.
Please be advised that at this time the applicant does not have the right or permission to conduct
any work within the Reservoir outlet ditch, the interconnection with the No. 3 Outlet Ditch, or its
associated easements.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
BERNARD LYONS GADDIS& KAHN, PC
By
Mark D. etsky
• mdetsk blglaw.com
515 Kimbark Street • Second Floor • P.O. Box 978 • Longmont, CO 80502-0978
Phone: 303-776-9900 • Fax: 303-413-1003 • www.blglaw.com
Bernard Lyons Gaddis Et. Kahn
A Professional Corporation Attorneys and Counselors
Kim Ogle
August 23, 2007
Page 2
Please address any referral letters in this matter to:
The Sanborn Ditch Company
4309 State Highway 66
Longmont, CO 80504
MDD
cc: Bill Cronin - President, Sanborn Ditch Company
Jill Baty - Secretary,Sanborn Ditch Company
Duane Smith, P.E.
Julie Cozad,Tetra Tech RMC, Inc.
•
•
F:\CLIENTS\S\SRDCO120070820-MDD-WELD COUNTY PLANNING SANBORN-1.DOC 08/23/07 4:33 PM
isesq:( Memorapdum
•
TO: Kim Ogle, W.C. Planning
DATE: August 31, 2007
FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Department of Publp
Health and Environment J
COLORADO
CASE NO.: PZ-1126 NAME: HF Holdings
The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal for 1804 residential units, 10 acres
of planned commercial/retail zoning, a community center, a public pavilion for community events, and
various other active and passive recreational uses (2 tot lots, fishing, non-motorized boating, lakeside
activities, trails, etc.). The trail system plans to connect to the St. Vrain Middle and High School site
(off property) and Kitely Farms PUD. The two pocket parks with tot lots will have enclosed portable
toilets; the public pavilion and community center will be connected to St. Vrain Sanitation District. The
picnic area (located within the 100 year flood plain boundary) is within walking distance to the park/tot
lot in the southern portion of the development. If the community center's pool will be open to the
public(memberships, swim meets for the high school and/or middle school, etc), the facility will be
subject to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Swimming Pool and Mineral
Baths (Swimming Pool) regulations. The commercial/retail uses in the development will be subject to
the Site Plan Review process once they are identified. The Department will conduct additional
reviews of those uses at the time of development.
• The application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water service. The
application states that water will be provided by Longs Peak Water District. A draft water service
agreement has been included with the application. A non-potable water system is planned for the
parks and open space areas as well as the residential and commercial lots. Sewer service will be
provided by St. Vrain Sanitation District. A draft water service agreement has been included with the
application as well.
There are existing homes with septic systems located on the property (3203, 3826 and 3854 CR 28).
None of these septic systems are documented. The Department understands that the system at 3854
will be abandoned. There is another, very old house on the southern portion of the property that will
also be abandoned (address unknown). These septic systems must be property abandoned in
accordance with Section 30-7-70. The homes at 3203 and 3826 CR 28 are currently occupied and
will remain so until that phase of the development begins (approximately Phase 2); the septic systems
must be evaluated for adequacy for the time period that they will be occupied. A fourth home with
septic system is located on the property(3042 CR 28). This system has been documented under a
Statement of Existing SE-0100120; no further action is needed at this time provided the system is
functioning properly. This home is also currently occupied and will remain so until approximately
Phase 2 of the development, when the septic system will be abandoned for St. Vrain sewer. These
septic systems will also be required to be abandoned in accordance with current regulations in effect
at that time.
The impact plan submitted in the application materials appears to address all the environmental
impacts of Section 27-6-40.
The Department recommends approval with the following conditions:
. 1. Water service shall be obtained from Longs Peak Water District.
2. Sewer service shall be obtained from the St. Vrain Sanitation District.
• 3. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within easy access of the
public gathering areas.
4. Any abandoned septic system must comply with the Weld County Code Section 30-7-70.
The applicant should contact the Department to update existing septic permits for those
systems that have been abandoned.
5. All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits from the Weld
County Department of Public Health & Environment. The Environmental Health Division of
the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment was unable to locate a septic
permit for the existing structures at 3203 and 3826 CR 28. Any existing septic system(s)
which is not currently permitted through the Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment will require an I.S.D.S. Evaluation prior to the issuance of the required septic
permit(s). In the event the system(s) is found to be inadequate, the system(s) must be
brought into compliance with current I.S.D.S. regulations.
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
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
• 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
an air pollution emissions notice, and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment.
O:\PAM\PLANNING\CHZONE\PZ1126 HF HOLDINGS.RTF
•
2
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter,Jr.,Governor `-''Ner .
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Q "U
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE y
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER _ . .• ��1T -'OF
Mark B.Konishi,Acting Director `.' `'' ` ". For lrldlife-
6060 Broadway or 4. 1e
Denver,Colorado 80216 _ _ - p
Telephone:(303)297-1192
wildlife.state.co.us
August 23, 2007
Weld County Planning
ATTN: Kim Ogle
918 10`" Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Subject: HF Holdings, LLC, case number PZ-1126
Dear Kim:
The Division of Wildlife has visited the subject property and reviewed the proposed development to
assess potential impacts on wildlife. According to the Division of Wildlife Natural Diversity
Information Source Maps for Weld County,this general area provides winter range for bald eagles,
winter range and a winter concentration area as well as foraging areas for ducks and geese,and is within
the overall range for pheasant and mule deer and white-tailed deer. Great blue herons and Great
American White Pelicans have also been observed in the area as well as other raptors and songbirds.
Coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, and herptofauna may also occur in this area. In addition, a check with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as to the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse may be appropriate for any
development that would possibly occur near the irrigation ditches and wetlands on the property. An
assessment of wildlife species and the associated habitat in the area may be warranted to determine
utilization of the area and potential impacts to wildlife.
As bald eagles and red tail hawks as well as other raptors are regularly seen at Foster Reservoir and
surrounding area as well as along the St. Vrain Creek, a raptor survey may be warranted to determine
utilization of the area and potential impacts to bald eagles and other raptors. Please refer to
"Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors"prepared by Gerald R.
Craig, Colorado Division of Wildlife, February 8, 2002. Utilization of these recommendations will
assist in minimizing impacts to wildlife. These recommendations may require additional buffers within
the HF Holdings PUD, especially in those areas surrounding Foster Reservoir and along the St. Vrain
Creek.
The Outlet#3 Ditch is located on the property. Although irrigation ditches are man-made waterways,
wildlife utilize these as migration corridors. A 100 foot buffer from ditches is recommended to
minimize impacts to wildlife and minimize conflicts that may occur.
• DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Hams 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 McAnaly•Richard Ray
Ex Officio Members,Hams Sherman and John Stump
A small pond is located in the southern half of the property. There are several large trees around this pond.
These tall trees provide potential nesting, resting and perches for raptors in the area. All native trees and
• shrubs as well as dead trees on the entire property should be maintained to provide habitat for wildlife in the
area. Upon disturbance of any areas, noxious weeds should be monitored and controlled. Homeowners should
also be aware that planting frees, shrubs and other herbaceous plants may attract wildlife. Subsequently,
ornamental landscaping may be damaged by wildlife. Homeowners will need to be responsible for damages
incurred and will not be eligible for any reimbursement by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Homeowners should also be made aware of the presence of native predators. Pets should not be allowed to
roam free. All domestic livestock and farm animals should be secured with wildlife proof fencing appropriate
for the species being raised. Pets as well may negatively interact with wildlife even on the home-sites and
homeowners will be responsible for handling these problems. Homeowners should secure pet and animal
feeds, trash containers, and charcoal/gas grills. Pets should have current shots. All control of nuisance wildlife
will be the homeowner's responsibility with the possible exception of bears and mountain lions. The
developers may wish to review the Division publication: Developing with Wildlife in Mind. Homeowners an(
potential homeowners will find additional recommendations and information in these Division of Wildlife
publications: "Living With Wildlife In Coyote Country", "Living With Wildlife: Canada Geese", "Don't Feed
the Wildlife", and "Too Close For Comfort".
Homeowners should also be aware that hunting may be an ongoing fall and winter activity on lands
surrounding the development. Shooting will occur normally in the early mornings until dark on these areas.
The sounds of gunfire may be somewhat distracting,yet should be noted to the potential owners and developer
• Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact District Wildlife Manager Suzanne Kloster at 303-485-0593.
Sincerely,
/
/// `x- 41 c Arc ems, id (, rL A .
10
Mark Leslie
Area Wildlife Manager
cc: Kathy Green,Acting Northeast Regional Manager
Suzanne Kloster, District Wildlife Manager
File: Mark Leslie,Area Wildlife Manager
Area 2 file
•
RECOMMENDED* BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
•
FOR COLORADO RAPTORS
*These zones and seasonal restrictions are recommended as guidance only and
may be subject to change. They do not represent official Division policy.
Prepared By
Gerald R.Craig
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Updated February 8,2002
Tolerance limits to disturbance vary among as well as within raptor species. As a rule,
ferruginous hawks and golden eagles respond to human activities at greater distances than do
ospreys and kestrels. Some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human
activity at a proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests. Other
individuals become sensitized to repeated encroachment and react at greater distances. The
tolerance of a particular pair may change when a mate is replaced with a less tolerant individual
and this may cause the pair to react to activities that were previously ignored. Responses will
also vary depending upon the reproductive stage. Although the level of stress is the same, the
pair may be more secretive during egg laying and incubation and more demonstrative when the
chicks hatch.
The term "disturbance" is ambiguous and experts disagree on what actually constitutes a
disturbance. Reactions may be as subtle as elevated pulse rate or as obvious as vigorous defense
• or abandonment. Impacts of disturbance may not be immediately evident. A pair of raptors
may respond to human intrusion by defending the nest, but well after the disturbance has passed,
the male may remain in the vicinity for protection rather than forage to feed the nestlings.
Golden eagles rarely defend their nests, but merely fly a half mile or more away and perch and
watch. Chilling and over heating of eggs or chicks and starvation of nestlings can result from
human activities that appeared not to have caused an immediate response.
A `holistic' approach is recommended when protecting raptor habitats. While it is important for
land managers to focus on protecting nest sites, equal attention should focus on defining
important foraging areas that support the pair's nesting effort. Hunting habitats of many raptor
species are extensive and may necessitate interagency cooperation to assure the continued nest
occupancy. Unfortunately, basic knowledge of habitat use is lacking and may require
documentation through telemetry investigations or intensive observation. Telemetry is
expensive and may be disruptive so a more practical approach is to assume that current open
space is important and should be protected.
Although there are exceptions, the buffer areas and seasonal restrictions suggested here reflect
an informed opinion that if implemented, should assure that the majority of individuals within a
species will continue to occupy the area. Measurements are somewhat imprecise (fractions of a
mile) and reflect the need to maintain some flexibility to adjust buffer zones depending upon
intervening terrain and vegetation
• screens that obscure the activity. This document is intended to be modified and refined as
additional information becomes available, hence the provision of a revision date.
• BALD EAGLE
Nest Site:
Year around closure to surface occupancy* (beyond that which historically occurred in the area)
within 'A mile radius of nest. No human encroachment from November 15 through July 31
within '/s mile radius of the nest. This closure is more extensive than the Northern States Bald
Eagle Recovery Plan due to the generally open habitat used by Colorado's nesting bald eagles.
Aside from four Colorado sites in coniferous forests, all others are in cottonwood riparian zones
that don't have the vegetational density, and therefore obscurity offered by the habitats in the
lake states. Recent evidence suggests that pairs nesting at lower elevations frequent and
maintain their nests throughout the year. If it is necessary to work within the 1/2 mile buffer, the
intrusion should be restricted to August 15 through October 15.
Winter Night Roost:
Activity should be eliminated within 1/4 mile radius of winter roosts between November 15 and
March 15. If periodic visits (such as oil well maintenance work) are required within the buffer
zone after development, activity should be restricted to the period between 1000 and 1400 hours
from November 15 to March 15. Limited restrictions may be necessary out to '/:mile if there is
a direct line of sight from the roost to the activities.
Hunting Perch:
Diurnal perches associated with important foraging areas should also be protected from human
encroachment. Preferred perches may be at varying distances from human encroachment and
• buffer areas will vary. However, at least 2 management plans recommend zones that range from
1/8 mile (200 meters) to 1/4 mile (400 meters) depending upon topographic or vegetational
screening.
GOLDEN EAGLE
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy* (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile
radius of the nest site and associated alternate nests. Seasonal restriction to human
encroachment within '/ mile of the nest and any alternate nests from January 1 to July 15.
OSPREY
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy* (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile of
the nest site. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within '/ mile of the nest from April
1 to August 31. Some osprey populations have habituated and are tolerant to human activity in
the immediate vicinity of their nests.
FERRUGINOUS HAWK
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy* (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within '/2 mile
radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Seasonal restriction to human
encroachment within '/ mile of the nest and any alternate nests from February Ito July 15. This
• species is especially prone to nest abandonment during incubation if disturbed.
* Surface occupancy includes human habitation as well as non-human habitation,examples of which would be oil
and gas wells,tanks,roads,tracks,trails,etc.
• RED-TAILED HAWK
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy* (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/3 mile
radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Some members of this species have
adapted to urbanization and may tolerate human habitation to within 200 yards of their nest.
Development that encroaches on rural sites is likely to cause abandonment. Seasonal restriction
to human encroachment should be in effect from February 15 to July 15.
SWAINSON'S HAWK
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy* (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile
radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Some members of this species have
adapted to urbanization and may tolerate human habitation to within 100 yards of their nest.
Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest from April 1 to July 15.
PEREGRINE FALCON
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy* (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within '/ mile of
the nest site. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 'A mile of the nest cliff(s) from
March 15 to July 31. A 1 mile buffer with a closure from February 1 to August 31 was
originally stipulated in the approved Recovery Plan, but recent field evidence suggests that the
zone can be reduced to '/z mile. Due to propensity to relocate nest sites, sometimes up to `/Y mile
along cliff faces, it is more appropriate to designate 'Nesting Areas' that encompass the cliff
system and a Ys mile buffer around the cliff complex.
PRAIRIE FALCON
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy* (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within `'A mile
radius of the nest site.
GOSHAWK
Reynolds et al. (1993) proposed 30 acres for the nest, a post fledge family area of 420 acres, and
a foraging area of 5400 acres in size that encompasses habitat for squirrels, rabbits, jays,
woodpeckers and grouse. For purposes here, it seems that a buffer of ''A mile around the nest
should protect the integrity of the nesting and post fledging effort. Occupancy of the nesting
and brood rearing area takes place from early March through late September.
• BURROWING OWL
Nest Site:
* Surface occupancy includes human habitation as well as non-human habitation,examples of which would be oil
and gas wells,tanks,roads,tracks,trails,etc.
No human encroachment or disturbance within 75 yards of the nest site from April 1 through
July 31. This period is necessary to avoid disturbing nesting owls. However, owls may be
present at burrows up to a month before egg laying and several months after young have
fledged. Therefore it is recommended that efforts to eradicate prairie dogs or destroy abandoned
towns not occur between March 1 and October 31 when owls may be present. Although owls
may occur throughout a prairie dog colony, they have a propensity to frequent the colony
margins and buffer zones should be applied to the colony perimeter. Measures that protect and
enhance prairie dog colonies will benefit this species.
Buffers Documented in the Literature
Species Period Optimal Authority
Incubatior Brood Distance
Ferruginous Hawk 380-488yd. 619-781yd 781yd. (.45mi) Holmes
Red-tailed Hawk 448-553yd 428-604yd 604yd (.34mi) Holmes
Swainson's Hawk 171-203yd 309-382yd 382yd. (.22mi) Holmes
• Prairie Falcon 500-1000m 1000m Holthuijzen et al.
546-1093yd 1093yd(.62mi.)
Perch Buffers
The following buffers for perches were recommended by T. Holmes (1994) to prevent flushing
of 90%of raptors wintering in rangeland and agricultural habitats.
SPECIES BUFFER AREA
(Radius)
American Kestrel 75m
Merlin 125m
Prairie Falcon 160m
Rough-legged Hawk _ 210m
Ferruginous Hawk 140m
Golden Eagle 300m
REFERENCES
Call, M. 1979. Habitat management guides for birds of prey. Technical Note No.338, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 69pp.
•
* Surface occupancy includes human habitation as well as non-human habitation,examples of which would be oil
and gas wells,tanks,roads,tracks,trails,etc.
Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group. 1996. Greater Yellowstone bald eagle
• management plan: 1995 update. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group,
Wyoming Game & Fish Dept., Lander WY 82520. 47pp
Grier, J.W., F.J. Gramlich, J. Mattisson, J.E. Mathisen, J.V. Kussman, J.B. Elder, and N.F.
Green. 1983. The bald eagle in the northern United States. Bird Cons. 144-66.
Holmes, Tamara L. 1993. Behavioral responses of grassland raptors to human disturbance MS
Thesis. Colo. State Univ, Ft. Collins. 62pp.
Holthuijzen, A.M.A., W.G. Eastland, A.R. Ansell, M.N. Kochert, R.D. Williams, and L.S.
Young. 1990. Effects of blasting on behavior and productivity of nesting prairie
falcons. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:270-281.
Martin, D.J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446-
456.
Northern States Bald Engle Recovery Team. 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 75pp.
Reynolds, Richard R.T. Graham, H.M. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the
northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217.
• Ft. Collins, CO. U.S. Dept of Agri., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 90pp.
Richardson, Cary T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from
human disturbance: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(3):634-638.
Rocky Mountain/Southwest Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1984. American peregrine falcon
Rocky Mountain/Southwest population recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Serv. 105pp.
Squires, J.R., S.H. Anderson, and R. Oakleaf. 1993. Home range size and habitat-use patterns
of nesting prairie falcons near oil developments in northeastern Wyoming. L Field
Ornithol. 64:1-10.
Swenson, J.E. 1979. Factors affecting status and reproduction of ospreys in Yellowstone
National Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:595-601.
Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport.
Condor 73:177-192.
•
*Surface occupancy includes human habitation as well as non-human habitation,examples of which would be oil
and gas wells,tanks,roads,tracks,trails,etc.
2
E
m
•
1
E
0
0
z
o
N 8
...
0
Z E
a
.0+ 0
US
0
ce
9
O S Q
v
4 o
C C
a O
r.• G
T) o
R ° a
• • Ups
m O1 a
a) a o
9 t. t
c a
RS m El
• a
0 It N E a
'- a
m
• a` $
03
.0
01
'a
c is
m 2
E
E u.
0
0
Le
0
C
a
7
N
` 0) G) CD 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0) 0 P
u t CM i }
m Q Y O V N CO O Q Q N in
Y
C
• m m = O 0 g
W g I a IL 0
C W q
C E 0 C u"' ix c
.
u• W d P W .R� E 2 a g
7 V a , 9 W 0 t
O 0 0 0 LL 0 3 a0. a U' m
• iatimILIF MEMORANDUM
Wilp es
TO: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager DATE: 5-September,2007
QFROM: Don Dunker, RE., Public Works Department (Drainage)
• Scot Lewis,P.E. Public Works Department (Traffic)
COLORADO
SUBJECT: PZ-1126 Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD
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. Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed
Waterfront at Foster Lake Metro District Service Plan related to the Change of Zone application PZ-1126.
The Water/font at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nov. 1-3 prepared by Grimshaw and Haring, dated May
31, 2007 was reviewed for this memorandum. The Change of Zone Drainage Report for Waterfront at Foster
Lake, prepared by Tetra Tech, dated July 2007 was reviewed for this memorandum. Comments made herein
may not be all-inclusive,as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process.
Comments
•
The following comments apply to the Change of Zone Drainage Report for Waterfront at Foster Lake prepared
by Tetra Tech,dated July 2007,stamped and signed by Cameron Fowlkes, P. E. #39318. Public Works received
the report July 19,2007.
Stormwater/Drainage General:
1. The applicant submitted a HEC-1 analysis of the Foster Lake dam break/overflow scenarios. Titled:
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Proposed Spillway and Channel for the Highland No. 3 Reservoir
Waterfront at Foster Lake SEODAMID 050135,dated June 2007, stamped by Richard Joseph Tocher,
P.E. 19305,Public Works received the report July 19,2007. For completeness,all model calculations
and print outs from this report should be provided to Weld County with the Final Plat drainage report
submittal. The acceptance of this report shall be through the Colorado Division of Water Resources—
Dam Safety Branch. Public Works requires a letter from the Colorado Division of Water Resources—
Dam Safety Branch indicating their final acceptance of the report.
2. Although jurisdiction over the Foster Lake dam lies with the State Engineer's Office and the Colorado
Division of Water Resources,Dam Safety Branch,Weld County requests additional information as the
implications of the dam break analysis has implications for public safety in the proposed Waterfront PUD.
Please discuss residential setbacks from the breach point of Foster Lake and from the spillway channel
though the subdivision. Typically,dam break analyses include a 500-year simulation,however the June
2007 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Proposed Spillway and Channel for the Highland No. 3
Reservoir Waterfront at Foster Lake SEODAMID 050135,did not include analysis of the 500-yr rain
event. Please provide simulation of the 500-yr dam break event and show the calculations and discuss
how the numbers were derived.
• Page I of 7 m
M PLAY\IAl DWr1 t11'MVV I RI VIIiW'-(T' cnf!ane,!_(/_PL.M/.AMP/IP/-I I.I N'mr(mnl tI uarLal.,('/-I1.(WaterInnn(.nnl ( mt�a`.Jac
3. A recent County inspection of the Foster Lake dam and spillway revealed deteriorated concrete. Please
•
provide results of geotechnical investigations that address the structural integrity of these facilities.
Please also provide evidence that this information was conveyed to the State Engineer's Office and the
Colorado Division of Water Resources, Dam Safety Branch. County concerns include the ability of the
concrete wall around portions of Foster Lake to support lake-full hydraulic pressure. Please also discuss
the erosional stability and lake management practices of the dam,wall,spillway,and lake shore areas
during lake-full periods when wave action or boating will potentially cause additional erosion and damage
to the wall and spillway structures.
4. Since the State Engineer's Office and the Colorado Division of Water Resources,Dam Safety Branch
have not yet provided review of the simulated dam break/overflow scenarios,adequate width, depth,flow
rates and capacity,and erosional stability of the Waterfront-proposed overflow channel (Clear Day
Breach Channel)cannot be assessed at this time. To ensure public safety, Weld County will defer
comment on the design parameters of this channel until receiving written approval of the adequacy of the
designs presented in the June 2007 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Proposed Spillway and Channel
for the Highland No. 3 Reservoir Waterfront at Foster Lake SEODAMID 050135 report from the State
Engineer's Office and the Colorado Division of Water Resources, Dam Safety Branch.
Stormwater/Drainage Comments:
For the Change of Zone:
1. The applicant is required to define the proximity of proposed lots to both the Foster Lake and St. Vrain
Creek floodplains. On the drawings, it appears as though residential lots are proposed within the St.
Vrain Creek floodplain. As stated in the applicant's drainage report,a LOMR and CLOMR will be
required through FEMA to address this proposed situation. In the absence of a FEMA-approved CLOMR
• that changes the location of the floodplain,the County's Flood Hazard Development permit(FHDP)will
be required. Building restrictions or prohibitions will apply to all residential lots in floodplains.
2. The applicant is requested to discuss the disposition of both the Hay Seed and Highland ditches as they
relate to stormwater flows and conveyance through the Waterfront site;more detail is needed in the
Change of Zone report. Changes in use of historic ditch Rights-of-Way will require written permission
from the ditch companies.
3. The offsite drainage basins that contribute flow to and across the proposed Waterfront development are
not depicted. These offsite basins must be shown in the report. Offsite flows to the Waterfront properties
must be calculated under existing conditions;proposed but un-constructed offsite drainage facilities do
not currently exist,therefore cannot be assumed to reduce or re-direct offsite flows.
4. Free board and set-backs from Foster Lake,channels,swales,ponds and possibly other conveyance
features will be required to ensure public safety and to comply with FEMA regulations in some cases.
Building envelopes may be required.
5. The simulated dam break/overflow scenarios,including determination of peak flow rates in the Clear Day
Breach Channel and Dam Safety Branch and State Engineer's Office acceptance of the overflow design
scenarios,it is premature to comment on appropriate setbacks,channel crossings, and other design issues
related to the channel. The applicant is advised Weld County Public Works may have additional concerns
and requirements but that these may not arise until review of the State Engineer's Office and the Colorado
Division of Water Resources, Dam Safety Branch comments on the proposed channel and related
facilities.
6. Sheet 3; it appears that the back lots of the lots north of A Street and Outlot B are not detained and
discharge directly into Foster Lake. On Sheet 4,7,9,and I I; it appears that Outlot C,basin H1, Outlot
H, the flow arrows show these areas are not detained and flow directly into the St. Vrain River. All storm
water must be detained on site and follow the requirements per Weld County Code 24-7-130 D and
Ordinance 2006-7. Please explain how all these flows within these areas are detained. Please provide
written acceptance of these flows by the owners of Foster Lake. All storm water detention facilities shall
• Page 2 of 7
M9:cm
_1'I ANN DFVtI OI'lllN I RI VItN'(heen(/om'IZ(/ I'f M/.AMP/I Y/I Ilh Watr(Mn1 In9rr I.akel/-I dm fW1nl(omP, (TnnIF1,2. o
be designed to detain the storm water runoff from the fully developed subdivision from a one-hundred-
year storm and release the detained water at a rate not to exceed the rate of a five-year storm falling on the
• undeveloped site. (Weld County Code and Ordinances 2001-1;2003-10,and 2006-7). Please provide this
information for the Change of Zone application.
7. Sheet 5; the Commercial area(10.0 ac)and Multifamily area(8.4 ac) flow arrows indicate the flow going
away from Detention Pond 1,and discharging along WCR 7 and the County Road north of the School
site. All storm water must be detained on site and follow the requirements per Weld County Code 24-7-
130 D and Ordinance 2006-7. Please explain how these flows will be detained. Please provide this
information for the Change of Zone application.
8. Sheet 6; the sub-basin H3 'C' factor does not match the drainage report 'C' factor values,please correct.
9. As accurate determination of historic flows impacts detention sizing and channel width decisions, it is
important to understand how the 'C' factors were derived for sub-basin,particularly basin H3. Please
include this information for the Change of Zone application.
In the Final Plat application materials:
1) Page 2; the third sentence in the third paragraph states that"Geology includes alluvial sands and gravel by
the St Vrain Creek in the southern portion of the site ...". This statement does not match the bore hole
data presented in the Wassenaar Geotechnical Report dated April 26,2006,and does not agree with the
Tetra Tech memorandum conclusions. The Tetra Tech RMC memorandum dated August 25,2006,
indicates that,"Review of Colton and Fitch(1974)indicates the low lying area adjacent to Saint Vrain
Creek in the southeast corner of the site is a potential source of sand and gravel. However,exploratory
drilling(Wassenaar,2006)did not encounter sand and gravel in this area. In addition,soils mapping by
the U.S.D.A. (2006)concludes that the site soils are a poor source of gravel." As foundation
requirements and control of ground water may be impacted by the subsurface conditions,please reconcile
these differences.
2) Page 3; include figures RA-2 and RA-6 of the Urban Drainage Criteria Manual. Please identify the
• boundary of the Waterfront subdivision on these maps.
3) Page 4 and 5;please discuss in detail how the Foster Lake dam breach path and spillway will safely
convey flows through the subdivision. When accepted by the Colorado Division of Water Resources,
Dam Safety Branch,please provide an executive summary of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Proposed Spillway and Channel for the Highland No. 3 Reservoir Waterfront at Foster Lake SEO
DAMID 050135.
4) Several of the proposed detention ponds discharge into the Clear Day Breach Channel;please clarify
whether these extra flows in the channel been accounted for in the Dam Breach Analysis?
5) Only one of the basins DI through D5 pond discussions describe any freeboard,please show and discuss
the freeboard of all the detention ponds.
6) Detention Pond 4 and 5 apparently are proposed to release directly into the Saint Vrain Creek,please
discuss in detail how these outfalls will be protected during the 100-year flood flows.
7) Explain in more detail the Neighboring Flows, flow rate going into Foster Lake,and any flows coming
from the High School onto the Waterfront site. Please include flow rate and safe conveyance of these
flows through the site in this discussion.
8) Page 6; please provide more detail on the proposed underdrain system to contend with the high water
table identified within this site as described by the Wassenaar Geotechnical Report dated April 26,2006.
Indicate where this system will discharge captured ground water.
9) Proposed residential lots located down gradient of Foster Lake or adjacent to detention ponds or channels
may not be suitable for basements or crawl spaces due to high ground water. For the Final Plat,please
indicate on the final plans which residential lots will not have basements.
10) For the Final Plat,please explain in detail how the High School site detains,releases,and routes
stormwater safely through and around the Waterfront site. Also describe any undetained areas within the
school site and how they will affect the Waterfront Neighboring Flows.
11) An individual(typical)lot grading plan will be required for each residential lot configuration proposed.
This plan should show how each lot is graded providing for drainage between and along lot lines. For the
• Page 3 of 7 n<a�
'I PI.AAVIA( UFVF.I I'IT1FN RI VII '-(tr E of➢.ne /.('/ ''7 M/-AMP!,P/-II' Nnedmnl I scr I.Ake(/I1 i N, lnnl(TmM< L ClAoc
Final Plat,please also include a minimum basement elevation for each lot and indicate what lots will not
be able to have basements or crawl spaces due to the high water table reported in the Wassenaar
• Geotechnical Report dated April 26,2006.
12) In the Final Plat submittal,please show the locations of ditch access for maintenance. Please describe
maintenance plans(who will mow,control weeds). Please provide written agreements between
Waterfront and the ditch owners covering these topics in the Final Plat submittal.
13) NPDES requirements will dictate that the applicant obtain a Stormwater discharge permit from CDPHE.
A copy of this permit and a BMP/erosion control plan will be required by Public Works as part of the
Final Plat submittal. No site grading will be permitted until these documents have been submitted and
reviewed.
14) Site specific water quality measures to be installed at specific locations should be shown on the plans
rather than copies of measures available from the Urban Drainage Manual and Boulder County. Include
these water quality measures in the drawings for the Final Plat submittal.
15) All drainage facilities including swales and pipes must be in drainage easements shown on the Final Plat.
Proposed detention ponds must be placed in a perpetual drainage easement along with an access easement
to be secured and maintained to allow repair and maintenance of the detention ponds and inundated areas.
Appendix A for final plat submittal unless noted otherwise:
1) Please show the outer boundary of the Waterfront subdivision on the submitted FIRM map.
Appendix B for the final plat submittal unless noted otherwise:
1) Include all of the historic CUHP input and output data sheets.
2) Historic CUHP input;please explain,provide calculations and show maps or plans as to how all the
values for the spread sheet data were derived. The maximum percent impervious for historic flows is 2%,
please update and correct the calculations.
• Appendix C for the final plat submittal unless noted otherwise:
1) Please indicate all offsite flows around the Waterfront site.
2) For the developed case CUHP;please include all of the Developed CUHP input and output data sheets.
Please explain,provide calculations, and show maps as to how all the values for the spread sheet data
were derived.
3) The proposed slope values appear to be too flat;the site has elevations between 4985' to 4920' or about
65' of fall across the site. Please provide the time of concentration calculations and show the route on a
map or plan. Any basins less than 0.141 mi^2 or 90 acres shall have the time of concentration calculated
when using CUHP.
4) The Manning 'n' values used in the EPA SWMM 5 appear to be low, see page 2 of the SWMM 5 input
data and explain these values in detail.
5) Please include the 10-yr developed storm event calculation if culverts are to be proposed within the
subdivision.
6) Please show the 100-yr storm event detention pond volumes as acre-ft.
Appendix D for the final plat submittal unless noted otherwise:
1) In the Waterfront at Foster Lake proposed drainage runoff calculations spreadsheet,please include more
detail as to how the 'C' factor values were derived by providing the amounts of roadways, sidewalks,
driveways,house and garage roofs and landscape areas for each sub-basin and basin within the
subdivision.
2) The Basin H3 100-yr composite C value does not match the drainage basin map. Please tabulate or
explain the type and locations of the sub-basin discharges.
• Page of 7 os SO
-
m PI ANAING uevrl nrwV I NI VII.V,2(hangen(/on.,r(/ 19_M/ Wig, i aicrin,n1 I ake(/-IL(Wm.,1nm Cmnh ( mnl•^d.eoc
Appendix E for the final plat submittal unless noted otherwise:
• 1) Please describe whether the Grass Buffer and Grass Swales will be irrigated. If these drainage facilities
will not be irrigated, use a reduced Manning's 'n' value to more accurately characterize these features
which will be closer to bare soils than grassed channels.
2) Explain and show where underdrains will discharge.
3) Due to the increased maintenance,Weld County recommends not using the Urban Drainage well screens
in front of the Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)plate. These well screens plug very easily
creating a pond of water that can be a breeding ground for mosquitoes. During the sizing of the holes for
the WQCV plate,Weld County recommends using as large a hole as possible with the fewer columns.
Drainage Plan Sub Basin Map Comments:
1) Sheet 1;please label the contours so they are readable.
2) Please show on a drawing the time of concentration historical paths used to determine the initial overland
flow and the travel time for the time of concentration calculations.
3) Please include the flows from the 5 acre parcel in the middle of this project labeled: "This property is not
part of this development". Flows from this Anderson out-lot parcel must be safely routed through the
development. Waterfront is not required to detain these out-lot flows. Conceptually,these flows may be
assumed to pass through the detention ponds and over the emergency weir,not through the pond's 5-yr
historic release orifice plate.
4) Sheet 2,please show the detention ponds,basins X and Y since they are not detained and release directly
to St. Vrain Creek. Also show the detention pond outlet pipes and pond overflow weirs for the St. Vrain
Valley School District High School#7 parcel.
5) Sheets 3-11,please indicate the 100-yr water surface elevation(WSEL),emergency spillway weir and its
elevation,outlet structures and free board elevation for all the detention ponds.
6) Please show and label all the existing oil and gas wells plus show the drilling windows of all future wells.
• 7) Please label all residential lots with an 'A' or 'B' lot designation and show how each of these lot types
will route the stormwater around and away from the homes and to the street.
8) Due to the presence of high ground water in some areas,per the final Geotechnical Report,please label all
residential lots as to being acceptable or unacceptable for basements,crawl spaces,and/or walkout
basements and include a minimum basement finished floor elevation.
9) Please provide a top of foundation elevation for each lot ensuring 1-foot of free board above the
maximum allowed street stormwater capacity for the 100-yr storm event. The depth of stormwater
between houses also will need to be considered.
10) Please show on a drawing the time of concentration developed paths used to determine the initial overland
flow and the travel time for the time of concentration calculations.
11) Please label all roadways on each drawing or map.
12) Please label all low and high points on all roadways.
13) Please dimension all set-backs from Foster Lake,channels,swales,ponds and other conveyance features
throughout the drainage basins. Building envelopes may be required.
Geology Report for final plat submittal unless noted otherwise:
1) A Geology memorandum from Gary Linden was submitted dated August 25,2006 to Weld County
Planning Department. It indicated the gravel and sand source rate is poor for this site. No lots or
development are planned in the low lying area adjacent to the Saint Vrain River.
2) Please discuss and show in this report the future oil and gas production locations and how accesses to the
existing and future wells and tank batteries will be handled throughout the subdivision.
Geotechnical Report for final plat submittal unless noted otherwise:
• Page 5 of 7 Sao?
M PIAANIAt, DFVEI OPMIA 1 RI VP V(2-I'range nf/one{Z.(71/. ML AMP/I P/-1196WaMromllwa l.ake(7-1126A Vann front(anallo Crnmnrc 4?doc
Tetra Tech submitted a preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study for the Waterfront at Foster Lake
Subdivision it was stamped by Patrick S. Carlin, P.E. 33289,dated April 26,2006 and received by Public
•
Works July 19, 2007.
1) The geotechnical study shows all areas tested within the site having low resistivity(ohms/cm) soils; these
soils are highly corrosive to metal and special consideration shall be give to metal pipes and concrete
reinforcement.
2) Per sheet 3 of the report, ground water was observed 12 to 13 days after boring in 17 of the 18 bore holes.
Special consideration must be taken to ensure foundations and footers are not adversely affected by these
ground water findings.
3) Text in the report does not match the Swell-Consolidation test results,please update.
4) Sheet 12,this report does not address slope stability which is required for Final Plat submittal. In
particular,please address public safety and setbacks along the edge of Liberty Gulch.
5) A Final Geotechnical Study with pavement 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.
The following comments apply to the Mead-Longmont-Weld County Sub-Area Report prepared by Felsburg,Holt
and Ullvig,dated July 2007.
Traffic and Roadway Comments:
I. The applicant is in the process of updating the Traffic Impact Study(TIS)by Eugene Coppola,P.E.,
submitted in August 2006,incorporating the review comments offered by Felsburg,Holt and Ullevig
(FHU) in November 2006. This should be completed for the Change of Zone.
2. The applicant has received the updated version of the Mead-Longmont-Weld County Sub-Area Report
• prepared by FHU dated July 2007 and is utilizing the recommendations from that report as guidance for
roadway planning and design in the study area which includes the Waterfront at Foster Lake project.
3. The anticipated roadway improvements to the surrounding roadway network,as well as those directly
related to the proposed Waterfront at Foster Lake development,need to be clearly defined for the Change
of Zone. It was recommended in the FHU comments that the developer provide a table defining when
each improvement will be required with each phase of construction. The financial contribution of
Waterfront at Foster Lake to those improvements also needs to be determined for the Change of Zone.
4. The traffic impacts of the proposed Waterfront PUD and the new High School must be addressed in the
TIS for the Final Plat submittal. The County has concerns for public safety due to the current
configuration of the intersection of Weld County Road 7 with Weld County Road 26. This intersection
curve must be corrected prior to the opening of the new High School in 2009. Although not formally
submitted,Waterfront's engineer has evaluated possible intersection upgrades that include a new
alignment with super-elevation to address the curve,and raising the roadway with fill and box culverts to
allow passage of Liberty Gulch peak flows. An alternative design,wherein there is no intersection of
these two roads,has also been discussed. In this option,the southern end of WCR 7 is terminated with a
cul-de-sac,and the eastern end of WCR 26 is terminated with a cul-de-sac. This second alternative
appears to be the safest,most economical approach and should be presented to the property owner
immediately to the west of WCR7 and incorporated into the development.
5. The long term maintenance of the roads surrounding the new High School (WCR 26.5)needs to be
addressed between the Town of Mead and Weld County through an adopted IGA.
Recommendation
❑ The Public Works Department recommends approval of this Change of Zone based on the above comments.
• Page 6 of 7 asm
M PIANVIAb DEVEt 0I'MFN I RE AIEW2-('bide of/one(I('I IY MI AMU)PZ-I 121,aterfrwfatI(mid Iake('Z-112(Wale imm Cmlho Cmmnn=2 Mx
The following comments apply to the Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3 prepared by
Grimshaw and Harring,dated May 31,2007.
Metro District Comments:
Three Metro Districts are proposed and are intended to represent various types of residential and
commercial development within Waterfront at Foster Lake. The boundaries of the specific districts are
acceptable.
2. The quantities and cost estimates shown in the service plan represent a reasonable approximation of the
on-site and off-site public improvements planned for the project. The quantities and opinion of cost are
subject to change based on review and approval of final construction plans. Additionally, final
construction costs subject to change orders,obviously,will have a direct impact on the costs of public
improvements.
3. Operations and maintenance of street improvements are specifically defined in section V.I. while
drainage facilities are not mentioned. Any facility associated with drainage infrastructure including but
not limited to detention ponds,swales,pipes,erosion protection and outlet structures should be included
in this section. Weld County will not maintain drainage related facilities,these are the responsibility of
the HOA or Metro District,please add a note to the plat so stating.
4. A statement should be incorporated in the Operations and Maintenance section to ensure timely
maintenance of public facilities. The County reserves the right to cause the repair of any public facility
• and receive reimbursement for the repair if the District does not respond to the County's request for
maintenance. The Planning and Development Department may also reserve the right to refuse issuance of
building permits if repairs are not completed as requested.
Recommendation
The Public Works Department recommends approval of the formation of the Waterfront at Foster Lake Metro
Districts Consolidated Service Plan based on compliance with the above comments.
I• 'tx .. t ll t S' TP d
' q�S`�; r V;;',7r9,.
e �6 waft . ' RV ia� t (n'n4t
PC Yh-I I➢.AA,,I F.I;I.n l,+am l.Fc l'I II IS [F,i' lain
•
P 7of7 =o�
m I'LAhVIA( OfAII tP?41 AI NI VII i0.?-tb Change of Zan(ILCL.I'%,(0/ AMP IV Page
Waterfront TTI S,10 /-I 70 Wale'FiF',rl(omhe erninni,a'.dot
Page 1 of 1
Kim Ogle
• From: Todd Tucker [TTucker@frederickco.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:22 AM
To: Kim Ogle; Jennifer Simmons
Subject: RE: Any comments for Waterfront at Foster Lake, PZ-1126 North of St. V Creek, West of 1-25,
0.25 mile south of SH 66, east of CR 7, Thanks
Attachments: Todd Tucker.vcf
Good morning, Kim,
Waterfront at Foster Lake is outside of our planning boundary. We have no comments regarding this project at
this time.
Thank you and have a great day!
Todd
Todd C. Tucker AICP ASLA
Town of Frederick
401 Locust St. Frederick, CO 80530
303-833-2388(v) / 3817(f)
From: Kim Ogle [mailto:kogle@co.weld.co.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:57 PM
To: Jennifer Simmons
Cc: Todd Tucker
Subject: Any comments for Waterfront at Foster Lake, PZ-1126 North of St. V Creek, West of I-25, 0.25 mile
south of SH 66, east of CR 7, Thanks
Kim Ogle I Planning Manager
•
09/12/2007
£..i .I)/LUur 1L:lu PAA j001
• Weld County Referral
IJuly 23, 2007
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HF Holdings. LLC Case Number PZ-1126
0/0 Darwin Horan
Attn: Linda Sweetman-King
P/ease Reply By August 23, 2007 Planner Kim Ogle
Project PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
with R-1 (Low-density Residential), R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3 (Medium-density
Residential), R-4 (High-density Residential), C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), C-2
(General Commercial) 215 acres of Open Space and continuing Oil and Gas
Production uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District, [1804 units/ 10
acres Commercial]
Legal S2 Section 27; N2 of the NW4, E2 of the SW4 and E2 Section 34; NW 4 of the
• NE4 Section 3, all in T3N, R68W and part of the NE4 of Section 3, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location 0.5 mile south of State Highway 66, east of and adjacent to CR 7; west of and
adjacent to 1-25, north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River.
Parcel Number 1313-03-000048 & 1207-34-100033 & 1207-27-300015
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.
U See attached letter.
❑ Please notify me of any public hearings regarding this request.
Comments: Please see attached letter dated October 10, 2007 from Bruce Nickerson.
• Signature ('j � Date /0 , JO d'
Agency �eS
*Weld County Planning Dept x918 10"Street, Greeley, CO. 60631 d•(970)353.6100 ext3540 4(970)304-6495 fax
iui iu�zuui 1z:1u FAA Z002
• Firestone
A Community
In Motion
190.1 'C4';*
October 10, 2007
Weld County Planning Department
ATTN: Kim Ogle, Planner
4209 WCR241/2
Longmont, CO 80504
Re: Weld County Referral Case Number PZ-1126
Dear Mr_ Ogle:
This letter is in reference to the HF Holdings, LLC "Waterfront at Foster Lake" PUD
Change of Zone application (Case Number PZ-1126) scheduled for a Weld County Planning
Commission Hearing on October 16, 2007. Thank you for referring this application to the
Town of Firestone for our review and comment.
Firestone does have concerns with this application and the potential impacts of this urban
development project, which is located directly north of the St. Vrain State Park. The Town
believes that it is critical to preserve and protect the natural values of the St. Vrain State
Park and the St. Vrain Creek corridor. The site plan as proposed appears to negatively
impact the natural areas of the St. Vrain State Park and the creek corridor. Based on our site
review it appears homes will be highly visible from the park and creek corridor. Additionally,
we are concerned that the cul-de-sac located in the southwest comer of the project is
particularly close to the creek and may block any future proposed trail connection to the
park. Moreover, the application does not appear to provide a potential trail connection in
the northern portion of the property_
We believe that the concerns noted in this letter should be addressed in a constructive
fashion. Thank you for considering our concerns and we do appreciate the opportunity to
comment on this proposal.
Sincerely,
I/tLLo
Bruce Nickerson
Town Planner
•
151 Grant Ave. • P.O. Box 100 • Firestone, CO 80520
(303) 833.3291 • fax (303) 833-4863
Hello