The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20061802.tiff EXHIBIT � y Memorandu TO: Sheri Lockman, W.C. Planning DATE: January 20, 2006 O FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Department of Public COLORADO Health and Envionment CASE NO.: PZ-1082 NAME: Kitely Farms The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal for 427 single family residences with active and passive recreational uses. The application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water and sewer service. The application states that water will be provided by Longs Peak Water District and sewer service will be provided by St. Vrain Sanitation District. A letter from Longs Peak Water District was included in the application material. This letter stated that there were improvements required before the District would have the capacity to serve the development, and that a separate, non-potable irrigation system was also required to be installed for landscaping and open space watering. St, Vrain Sanitation District states that property lies within the St. Vrain Sanitation District 208 service area, and sewer service to the property can be achieved with several conditions, one of which is inclusion into the District. Active and passive recreational opportunities will include such things as sports fields, fitness/recreation center, swimming pool, trails, picnic grounds, bike paths, playgrounds, etc. These varied recreational opportunities must address the sanitation requirements of any area where people work, live, or congregate. The Department is recommending permanent restroom and handwashing facilities be provided in close proximity to those public gathering areas where water and sewer services are available. The applicant has agreed to provide restroom facilities in the pool/tot lot park and the 1.42 acre part in the north entrance park. This is acceptable. However, there was no restroom facility noted in the north entrance park on sheet 4 of the Preliminary Site Improvements Plans. The pool will be for the private use of the residents and guests of the development and therefore will not be subject to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations. The application states that the Kitely Homestead Place will be preserved and the driveway access will be re-located to the internal subdivision. The Department found one septic permit (G19860110) for a residence address of 13522 CR 7. The assessor's records for this parcel noted 2 residences on the property. There is no documentation for a septic system for the address 13844 CR 7(the parcel address). The Department requests information whether the house(s) will be placed on St. Vrain service as part of this development or whether they will remain on septic system. Any undocumented septic system that will remain in use must be permitted and evaluated for adequacy.. 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 all 1 2006-1802 public gathering areas. 4. 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 13844 CR 7. 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. 5. Any abandoned septic system must comply with the Weld County Code Section 30-4-20 (D). The applicant should contact the Department to update ebsting septic permits for those systems that have been abandoned. 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 technologicallyfeasible 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. 10. "Weld County's Right to Farm" as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall be placed on any recorded plat. O:\PAM\PLANNING\CHZONE\PZ-1082 KITELY FARMS.RTF 2 MEMORANDUM _ it t t TO: Sheri Lockman, Dept. of Planning Services DATE: April 4, 2006 FROM: Drew Scheltinga, P.E., Public Works Department W O . . SUBJECT: PZ-1082 Kitele Ranch at Foster Lake PUD Z C y ( one Change) COLORADO Weld County Public Works provided a memorandum on February 9, 2006,reviewing the zone change application materials. Since that time, we have had meetings with the applicant and exchanged information culminating in a submittal of supplemental information and revised plats on March 30th. The following review addresses that submittal and is in addition to previous review comments which are still applicable. Comments made during this phase of the review may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. There are several important issues that were identified in previous reviews that were requested to be addressed prior to the Planning Commission change of zone hearing. They are in the process of being address by the applicant but have not been resolved at this time. If the Planning Commission wishes to hear the case and make a recommendation to the Commissioners with the information at hand, the items I have indicated to be resolved prior to the Board of County Commissioners change of zone hearing should be included as requirements in the Planning Commission resolution. Traffic Study: ' 'SC Transportation Consultants submitted an updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated March 28, 2006. A second ..view was completed by Weld Counties traffic engineering consultant, Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FIFO) on March 23ra A copy is attached. With the exception of the SH 66 and WCR 7 intersection and north-south travel, the items in FHU's second review can be addressed at the time of final plat application. On March 9`h, LSC provided a letter in which they stated impacts on the existing roadway and recommendations for improvements would be made in revised traffic reports at each construction phase. In a letter of March 28th LSC sites regional off-site improvements at the intersections of SH 66 and WCR7 as well as WCR's 28, 7 and 5.5 and further states the required contribution be based on discussions with Weld County. Because of the extent of the proposed development, Public Works has asked for the TIS to address the impact at each construction phase on the existing roadways and make recommendations for improvements needed at each phase. Also, we have requested proposed roadway improvements agreements be submitted prior to zoning hearings. The applicant has acknowledged the issue but not provided the requested information. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant shall provide a schedule of recommended roadway improvements and proposed agreements that will mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed development. External Roadways: In an email of March 15th, Gloria Hice-Idler, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Access Manager, asked for a right-of-way reservation of 100' from the centerline of the existing roadway on SH 66. The revised plat shows the future right-of-way line but does not show a reservation on the Kiteley property. Also, the proposed easement for the Highland Ditch/Recreational Trail is shown within the reservation Page 1 of 3 C\Documents and Senings\slockman.CO WELDCO\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Piles\OLKI00\PZ-I 082 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (Zone Change)04-04-06_doc Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant shall revise the zoning plat to show and dimension the SH 66 reservation on the Kiteley property and show and dimension the proposed Highland Ditch/ ecreational Trail easement outside and south of the SH 66 right-of-way reservation. My review of February 9th requested a separate easement be provided for the future relocation of the Highland Ditch when SH 66 is widened. In her memorandum, Mrs. Hice-Idler indicated the Highland Ditch is "historical" and widening of SH 66 would likely be to the north. The status quo location is acceptable to Public Works if it is acceptable to the Highland Ditch. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant shall obtain written verification from the Highland Ditch that no additional easement is required in light of the future widening of SH 66. Weld County Road 7 is within the town of Mead. Public Works required a letter from the Town that their concerns regarding WCR 7 have been met. We have not received any communications from the Town. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant shall provide a letter from the Town of Mead indicating their concerns regarding WCR 7 have been met. If that letter can not be supplied the applicant should outline, in detail, all efforts that have been made to acquire Mead's approval. In the future, extensive improvements, including turn lanes, will be required to the intersection SH 66 and WCR 7. Fifty feet of right-of-way per Mead's requirement is shown on the revised zoning plat. I have requested additional right-of-way on WCR 7 at the intersection. No additional right-of-way has been shown. Section C shows an 8' trail within the right- of-way. Clearly, there is not enough right-of-way to accommodate future intersection improvements and a trail system. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant shall provide a schematic layout of future ,.intersection improvements at SH 66 and WCR 7, taking into consideration alignment with WCR 7 to the north, and lowing and dimensioning any required additional right-of-way on the change of zone plat. Internal Roadways: Public Works requested a connection to the Mead Crossing development to the east. The applicant is not willing to do so and states the reasons in their letter of March 23`d. Public Works strongly supports interconnectivity of developments because of the traffic benefits derived by reducing trips on collectors adjacent to developments. Public Works does not agree with the applicant's conclusion that the safety of Kiteley Ranch residents will be compromised by making the connection. The applicant shall request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners for a variance to Weld County Code Section 22-2-220 and Section 26-2-30 that require an interconnected network of local streets. Should the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners require interconnectivity, the applicant shall show a connection from Silver Sky Circle to Hyland in the Mead Crossing development to the east prior to recording the zone change plat. Rights-of-way were not dimensioned on the zone change plat as requested. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing all rights-of-way shall be dimensioned. Page 2 of 3 C\Documents and Settings\slockman.COWELDCO\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Piles)OLKI00IPZ-1012 Kathy Ranch at Poster Lake (Zone Change)04-04-06.doc Irrigation Ditches: .lblic Works requested separate easements expressly for the irrigation ditches which are commonly requested by ditch companies. The revised plats indicate there will be joint use of the Highland Ditch maintenance road and the recreational tail within the same easement. We have no objection if the Highland Ditch agrees. If they do not, separate easements for the ditch and out lots for the trail system must be shown. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant shall provide an agreement between the Highland Ditch and the applicant addressing joint use and adequacy of the proposed easements. In their letter of March 23`d, the applicant indicates they have discussed relocation of the irrigation ditch serving the Anderson property with the owner. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant shall provide an agreement with the owner of the Anderson property for the relocation of the irrigation ditch. Drainage: Public Works sited three major concerns that were requested to be addressed at change of zone. They were off-site drainage, FEMA floodplain and erosion in the Highland Ditch. The applicant's letter of March 23`d said additional survey information needed to address off-site drainage has not been completed at this time and that a revised drainage report will be submitted prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing. On March 31st Public Works received a Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report from S. A. Miro, Inc. that provides additional information. Public Works is in the process of making a detailed review of the report and will forward a supplementary memorandum. On page 1, paragraph 3, the report states until a Letter of Map Amendment has been .opted by FEMA there will be no development of lots that encroach into the floodplain. On page 2, paragraph 3, the report states future supporting calculations will be performed and any erosion remediation will be coordinated with the County and the Highland Ditch. On page 2, paragraph 5, the report states it is impractical to reduce the 100-year flows traveling off-site to the 5-year release rate. Weld County Code Section 24-7-130 (D) establishes that retention requirement. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant shall address off-site drainage, erosion in the Highland Ditch and revise the drainage report to meet all Weld County drainage criteria. A Letter of Map Amendment, approved by FEMA, shall be provided with the final plat application materials and no buildings shall be allowed inside the effective FEMA defined floodplain. PC: PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD (Zone Change) Email & Original: Sheri Lockman, Dept. Planning Services Email: Joshua Rowland, Land Architects PC by Post: Jerry Eckelberger, Longs Peak Investors, LLC, Applicant Page 3 of 3 C\Documents and Scuings'slockman CO WELDCO\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Piles\OLK100\PZ-1062 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (Zone Change)04-04-06.doc • WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1111 H STREET Weld County Planning Department P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY OFFICE GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 APR 11 2006 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us PHONE: (970)-304-6496 RECEIVED FAX: (970)-304-6497 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: April 10,2006 To: Bryan E.Clerico,P.E. S.A.Miro,Inc.,Consulting Engineers 3500 JFK Parkway Fort Collins,CO 80525-2635 Subject: PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch Drainage Review of 4/07/06 Enclosed Please Find: Memo from Brian Varella,P.E.,Weld County Public Works dated 4/07/06 Corrected copy of Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report dated 3/31/06 Submitted to you: ❑ For your review and approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved, subject to notes ❑ As requested Returned for corrections ❑ For your signature/signatures ❑ For your information Remarks: For questions regarding the drainage review,please contact Brian Varella. Sign Drew Scheltinga, P. E. Copy of Memo to: PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD(Zone Change) Sheri Lockman,Planning Joshua Rowland,Land Architects Jerry Eckelberger,Longs Peak Investors,Applicant �` a ,� , MEMORANDUM WW' TO: Drew Scheltin a, .E.,.Public Works Dept. DATE: 7-April-2006 FROM: Bnan` PI ,Public Works Dept. C. COLORADO SUBJECT: PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD(Change of Zone Plan) Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Change of Zone plan request. Comments made during this phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. Comments ❑ Public Works received a Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD (PZ-1082)on March 31,2006. The report was submitted for Change of Zone by Bryan E. Clerico,P.E., of S.A. Miro, Inc., and is dated March 31,2006. ❑ The Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report is not stamped, signed, or dated by a registered P.E. ❑ Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD is planned for up to 427 single family residential sites on 140 acres at the southeast corner of SH 66 and WCR 7. Drainage Comments: ❑ The most recent drainage and erosion submittal,dated March 31,2006 cannot be reviewed by Public Works at this time. ❑ Drainage report comments were submitted to Planning Services in a memorandum dated February 10, 2006. The items in '' ' that memorandum have not been addressed by the applicant. The applicant is requested to fully address all items contained in the February 10,2006 memorandum and to re-submit the drainage and erosion control study. ❑ The report dated March 31,2006 is textually inconsistent,incoherent,does not comply with Weld County CODE 24-7- 130(D),and is not ready for a Change of Zone request. Examples are as follows: o The first page of the appendix for the 5-year storm and the 100-year storm is repeated in the appendix. The data is the same,but the time stamps on the output are different. o The hydrologic data reported on Page 2,paragraph 5,does not make sense as reported. It appears the reference to"Pond 2"was substituted for"Pond 1." o Weld County Code specifies release at the 5-year historic rate. The 100-year flow release rates for the site exceed the 5-year historic release rate by approximately 50%. o Runoff from 22 acres(16%)of the 140 acre site is proposed to be undetained,and offsite contributions from the north and west have not been documented. o The discussion of the erosion problem on the east border of the property does not address the public health, safety, and welfare concerns identified in the February 10, 2006 drainage review memorandum. These concerns were discussed in a February 23, 2006 meeting,attended by Public Works staff,Planning Services staff,the applicant,and the applicant's staff. ❑ Until solutions to design constraints identified in the February 10, 2006 have been fully addressed and the report is numerically and textually presentable,Public Works will not continue the review of the Drainage and Erosion Control Report. ❑ Recommendation: The applicant has not submitted a drainage report meeting Weld County criteria. Public Works recommends that the Kitely Ranch project not move forward for Change of Zone hearings. The applica dr.xa i i. hste - of ewaoctffis sta'�`edatThe revIe w proce ill continue oncontiael *Jin= appropriate ereelements ensubmitted.-A 's s�oconcern must ke resolved with u cWorks Department_pri Yrecording _ g w.a nd final plats , _....._....._,__. Page 1 tistkir MEMORANDUM TO: Sheri Lockman, Dept. of Planning Services DATE: February 9, 2006 "lige FROM: Drew Scheltinga, P.E., Public Works Department COLORADO SUBJECT: PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD (Zone Change) Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Zone Change request. All items outlined in this memorandum must be addressed prior to scheduling the Planning Commission change of zone hearing. Previous comments or requirements for the zone change or final plat are still applicable. Comments made during this phase of the review may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. The review process will continue only when all appropriate elements required in this memo have been submitted. Traffic Study: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated September 19, 2005, has been reviewed by this office and Weld Counties traffic engineering consultant, Felsburg Holt & llevig (FHU). A copy of FHU's review, dated February 3, 2006, is attached. The TIA used year 2025 traffic projections to evaluate Kiteley Ranch's impact on the future roadway system. Although that analysis is pertinent and necessary to understand future impacts, the TIS must also address the impact of the proposed development at each construction phase on the existing roadways and make recommendations for improvements needed at each phase. The TIS must be revised accordingly and must address the comments in FHU's review. Because of the complexity of traffic issues and coordination that will be necessary with the Town of Mead, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and adjacent developments, I recommend the applicant's representatives meet with FHU and county staff. External Roadways: Future right-of-way for SH 66 has not been addressed. The application materials refer to a parcel of land north of Kiteley Ranch. The applicant should supply information for this parcel in order to determine the correct location for right-of-way reservation. There is no bearing on future right-of-way needs for SH 66 even if there is a separate parcel of land. A right-of-way reservation of 100' from the center of the existing highway must be shown and dimensioned on the zoning plat. When SH 66 is widened in the future, the Highland Ditch will have to be relocated. An additional reservation for the ditch must also be shown and dimensioned on the zoning plat. The right-of-way needed for the ditch should be determined by the Highland Ditch Company. Section D on sheet 3 of the zone change plat that shows SH 66 and the Highland Ditch shall be revised accordingly. Page 1 of 3 M:\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\2 Change of Zone(Z,CZ,PZ,MZ,AMPZ)\PZ-1082 Kileley Ranch Page 2 of 3 PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch 2/09/06 Weld County Road 7 has been annexed by Mead; therefore, the applicant must acquire an access permit from the Town. The application materials indicate a letter from Mead has been submitted but a copy has not been provided. This letter indicating the Town's concerns have been met is required. The letter should indicate construction and right-of-way requirements. Improvements to the intersection of WCR 7 and SH 66 and the additional right-of-way needs must be addressed. Additional right-of-way shall be shown and dimensioned on the zoning plat. Section C on sheet 3 of the zone change plat that shows WCR 7 shall be revised accordingly. Internal Roadways: Sections A and B on sheet 3 of the zone change plat that shows the internal boulevard and local roads are acceptable. There are two mail box clusters shown on the zoning plat. Two locations are not adequate to serve 427 residences unless there is to be separate off-street parking and pedestrian facilities. The configuration must be clarified so space can be provided for safe access to the mail box clusters. This configuration must be shown on the zone change plat. Connectivity to adjacent properties is essential. A right-of-way for Pioneer Drive to the south is shown. A space is provided for Harvest Meadow to be extended to the east but the Mead Crossings subdivision is plated '''nmediately to the east and there is no right-of-way for the extension of Harvest Meadow. However, there is a (ght-of-way in Mead Crossing for Hyland that can be connected to Silver Sky Circle. This connection and a right-of-way for Hyland shall be shown on the zone change plat. Accesses and parking areas for the recreational facilities must be shown on the zone change plat. All rights-of-way are to be dimensioned on the zone change plat. Improvement Agreements: Proposed agreements for both on-site and off-site roadway improvements shall be submitted prior to zoning hearings in order to determine if transportation need are being met. The application indicates road impact fees, cost sharing and funding mechanisms for roadway improvements will be addressed. If improvements are to be phased with the development, a proposed construction phasing plan, including thresholds for construction, will be required with the proposed improvements agreements. Irrigation Ditches: Separate easements expressly for the irrigation ditches must be shown and dimensioned on the zone change plat. The Highland Ditch Company shall determine the appropriate location and dimensions of their easements. M:\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\2-Change of Zone(Z.CZ,PZ,MZ,AMPZ)\PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch Page 3 of 3 PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch 2/09/06 The application materials indicate there is irrigation water being run thru the site to serve others downstream. It must be clarified how downstream water is to be delivered during construction and upon completion of the development. Easements for all irrigation ditches must also be shown and dimensioned on the zone change plat. Drainage: The Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report dated December 7, 2005, by S. A. Miro, Inc., has been reviewed by Brian Varella of the Public Works Department. A copy of Mr. Varella's memorandum, dated February 1, 2006, is attached. There are a number of items to be addressed in Mr. Varella's review. However, there are three major issues that must be addressed for zone change; off-site drainage, impact on the FEMA defined floodplain and erosion control on the Highland Ditch. Also, the zone change drainage report must be sealed by the engineer of record and submitted to Public Works. Because of the complexity of drainage at this site, I recommend the applicant's representatives meet with county staff and the Highland Ditch. Weld County will not maintain drainage facilities. The application materials indicate a HOA will be established to maintain on-site roadways and common areas. Maintenance of drainage facilities must included in the HOA responsibilities. PC: PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD (Zone Change) Email & Original: Sheri Lockman, Dept. Planning Services PC by Post: Jerry Eckelberger, Longs Peak Investors, LLC, Applicant M\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIE W\2-Change of Zone(Z,CZ,PZ,MZ,AMPZ)\PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch From: Chris.Fasching [Chris.Fasching@FHUENG.COM] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:38 PM To: Peter Schei; Drew Scheltinga Cc: Jeremy.Hahn Subject: Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake TIA - Review Peter and Drew, We have reviewed the Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake Traffic Study dated September 19th, 2005 and we offer the following comments. 1. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development is proposing 424 single family homes and a 20- acre park on 137 acre site in Weld County. The site is bordered by SH 66 on the north and WCR 5.5 on the west. 2. The existing traffic counts were obtained in February of 2004. These counts should be compared to more recent data to determine their validity and if new counts will be required. 3. Figure 3 should reflect the current road alignment configuration along WCR 7 south of the site. The figure currently shows the ultimate geometry at the intersection with WCR 28. This is not a major consideration as it is only a cosmetic change and does not impact the analysis. 4. An existing conditions level of service analysis was not included in the report. It would helpful to understand current operations of the adjacent road system. 5. The background traffic growth projections for the 2010 and 2025 horizon years seem very high. The report indicates utilizing CDOT's 20-year growth factor plus adding the trips estimated from numerous other developments including Adler Estates TIA, St. Vrain School TIA, Liberty Ranch, Anderson Farms and two mixed use parcels north of the site. Several observations here: a. The CDOT 20-year growth rate factor for this segment of SH 66 is 1.61 which translates into a 2.4 percent annual growth; the report states that 3.4 percent was used. b. The additional traffic that the study incorporates into the background traffic due to the surrounding development proposals is probably already accounted in the annual growth. In a sense, this process double counts these development's impacts. It makes some sense to ensure that these other developments are accounted in this analysis especially along the north-south routes, but the impact from these need not necessarily be additive to SH 66 traffic. c. It would be helpful to see a figure in which these development proposals are shown along with their size and trip estimates. The report's traffic SH 66 projection of 46,745 vpd is far greater than projections that have been developed as part of the 1-25 North EIS (approximately 30,000 vpd). 6. Current planning no longer includes a WCR 7 bridge over St. Vrain Creek. An update report should be prepared that addresses this change. Because this area will no longer be served by a continuous WCR 7, we anticipate that future north-south traffic movements will be accommodated by WCR 5.5. It would be of interest to understand the nature of future north- south traffic movement between SH 66 and SH 119 now that WCR 7 is not part of the plan. Intersections such as WCR 5.5/SH 119 and WCR 5.5/WCR 26 may now need to serve a significant amount of area-related traffic. This is a regional issue in which this development is a part, and it would be beneficial to determine how best north-south movement is to be accommodated in this region. es- 7. The trip generation/distribution assumed a 10% internal reduction factor for"nearby' mixed use development. An internal reduction should not be applied in this case as site traffic must exit the development to reach the adjacent mixed use parcels. If mixed uses (office/commercial) were proposed within the Kiteley Ranch development then a reduction may be appropriate. The trip generation and distribution percentages should be adjusted showing all vehicles exiting the site boundaries. Further, some site traffic onto WCR 28 under 1-25 would be logical. Relative to traffic to/from the north via WCR 5.5, the distribution percentages show 5%, but the site traffic volumes for that same corridor reflect a 10% distribution. Given these and the fact that WCR 7 will not be build across the St. Vrain, the trip distribution should be re-allocated and the study updated accordingly. 8. The capacity analysis for the SH 66 intersections assumes that the right turn movements would operate under a "free"condition. If this is indeed the case, a separate acceleration lane should be provided for these movements and be part of the recommendations. 9. A significant amount of peak hour traffic is projected at the WCR 7/WCR 28 and WCR 28/WCR 5.5 intersections. Although only shown conceptually in the study, the proximity of the two intersections to one another along with the possible signalization of WCR 28/WCR 5.5 may pose both an operational and geometric design issue in future years. The capacity analysis should study these two intersections in more detail to determine if any excessive queues between the two intersections are expected and to verify if the proposed lane geometry can be built. 10. The report identifies that left turn deceleration lanes will need to be constructed at each site access point. The design is recommended to follow current Weld County design criteria. 11. While not related to the technical merits of the traffic study, the County may want to specifically develop an agreement with the developer regarding improvements, what they need to be, when, and who is responsible. The results of the traffic study would be a consideration in such an agreement. 12. The report states that site traffic will comprise three to four percent of the 2025 traffic projections along SH 66. As another measure to relative impact and to compare the site's impact to current traffic levels along SH 66, the site would represent an approximate 12 percent increase in SH 66 traffic volumes (east of the development). If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Chris Fasching, PE Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303-721-1440 Fax: 303-721-0832 Jeremy Hahn, P.E., PTOE Transportation Engineer Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303-721-1440 303-721-0832 (fax) MEMORANDUM IDC. TO: Drew Scheltinga, P.E. DATE: 10-February-2006 Q FROM: Brian Varrella, P.E., Public Works Department COLORADO SUBJECT: PZ-1082 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD (Change of Zone Plan) Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Change of Zone plan request. Comments made during this phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. Comments ❑ Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD is planned for up to 427 single family residential sites. ❑ These comments are a result of the review of the drainage report for Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake dated December 7, 2005, submitted for Change of Zone. Drainage: ❑ The following items have been identified during the Change of Zone review,and must be addressed as indicated: o Weld County will not maintain drainage related areas. The applicant shall address this topic in the drainage report. o It is important to address the high water limits of Foster Lake in the Change of Zone drainage report, since this will affect the development layout. Furthermore, a portion of the proposed development lies within a 100-year FEMA flood zone. This drainage report for Change of Zone does not include a flood hazard review documenting any FEMA defined floodplains. The engineer shall provide flood hazard review documentation in the drainage report, and reference the specific map panel number and publish date. The development site shall be located on the copy of the FEMA map and included in the report. o This PUD is adjacent to or in close proximity to other proposed development(s) and must collaborate and coordinate drainage of the vicinity region. It is important to understand the existing drainage of the area(s) and incorporate in an engineering manner the proposed drainage with-respect-to development of the land(s). Public Works intends to preserve the safety of development in this vicinity as a whole without unanticipated surprises amounting to an isolated parcel drainage perspective. An adjacent proposed development may impact St. Vrain Lakes in a manner it was not anticipating or visa-versa. A conservative approach now may prove beneficial to future home owners. • The applicant is best served by the expertise of the Department of Planning, when investigating the proposed developments of the area. o A final drainage report stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be submitted with the Change of Zone application. o Typical residential land use: The 5-year storm and 100-year storm drainage studies shall take into consideration off-site flows both entering and leaving the development. Increased runoff due to development will require detention of the 100-year storm developed condition while releasing the 5-year storm existing condition. o Appropriate design storm periods shall be utilized for the proposed land use, see Weld County CODE Sec. 24-7-130.D Table 24.2 Storm Design Frequencies for this Change of Zone application. Comments pertaining to the Drainage and Erosion Control Report dated December 7, 2005 follow and shall be addressed during this Change of Zone: Page 1 of4 o A project vicinity map should be included as a figure in the drainage report, clearly identifying the borders of the proposed development,bounding roads and properties, water features,north arrow, and approximate scale, as per Weld County CODE Sec. 27-9-10.I. o A clear discussion of flow patterns along the northern border(SR 66),the western border(CR 7), and the eastern border of the development should be included. • It appears flow on the northern border follows the south side of SR 66 and continues east in a roadside ditch,but it is not clear where it drains from the northeast corner of the proposed development. Is there a planned provision for abandonment of the ditch? • A portion of the site drains to the west on the western border of the development, and then flows south along the east side of CR 7 to an unknown location. There is no indication where flows will terminate or how they might affect property owners to the south of the southwest corner of the property. • An historic delineation of this basin and associated 5-and 100-year discharges is required for this basin. This information should appear in both the report and appropriate plan sheets. • The proposed grading plan shows a reversal of historic flow direction in this area, which should be included as a discussion item in the Final Drainage report. • Please explain the details of the topography and offsite drainage to the two lots on the east side of CR 7 that do not have any topography in the drawing sheets. o A canal (feeder canal for the reservoir?)exists on the eastern border of the property, and existing contour data indicate a severe erosion problem on both bank slopes due to channel degradation. • These steep slopes present a potential public safety hazard for future residents in the subdivision, as well as a potential hazard to properties adjacent to the ditch. Please address these issues and discuss potential mitigation measures. • The proposed drainage pattern of the development will send some of the water to the canal without indicating where it terminates,how flows impact Foster Reservoir, or how flows may impact the adjacent property to the east. Please discuss these impacts in the drainage report. o The Drainage criteria established in Table SO-1 from the UD&FCD Drainage Criteria Manual is not applicable to projects in Weld County, as per Weld County CODE 24-7-130.D. This was identified in previous comments, and has not been addressed in this first Change of Zone submittal. • The drainage criteria indicate on-site detention facilities shall detain the 100-year fully-developed runoff and release it at the rate of the 5-year historic discharge. The 5-year historic discharge for the entire site is identified in text as 33.2 cfs,and the design discharge for the Pond 1 outlet is identified as 91.6 cfs. This is not acceptable by Weld County drainage criteria. The aggregate outflow from both ponds into Foster Reservoir shall be no greater than the calculated 5-year historic discharge for the entire site. • Please review and revise the detention facility and related outlet structures using the correct criteria. o The following comments should be addressed in the Final Plan submittal: o The potential issues surrounding pond discharge directly into Foster Reservoir have not been addressed in the text of the report. The owners/operators of the reservoir should be contacted for comment, and should have a signature box on applicable design drawings for approval. • The owners/operators of Foster Reservoir need to provide an offsite drainage easement for discharge into the lake. A record of this easement agreement should be included as part of the Final Plan drainage report, and should be accompanied by water quality and discharge volume agreements. • Should the level spreader fail to operate as designed, the homeowners' association will be responsible for repair or replacement. Please add this statement as a note to the final drainage plans, and provide a brief discussion in the corresponding drainage report. • If the applicant wishes to pursue this design, a detail sheet should be included in the plan set of design features for the Final Plan drawings. Page 2 of 4 o Any culvert outlets and open channels in the development should have appropriate erosion control measures to prevent local scour and erosion, as per UD&FCD design criteria. All spreadsheets,computer program output, and associated design calculations should be discussed in text and included as part of the appendix of the final plan drainage report. u Comments pertaining to the Drainage and Erosion Control Drawings are as follows: o Please include a drawing sheet or sheets for roadway cross sections in the Final Plan set. o Please include a drawing sheet or sheets for swale cross sections in the Final Plan set. o Please include a drawing sheet or sheets for emergency overflow cross sections in the Final Plan set. o Please include a drawing sheet or sheets for sanitary sewers (plan and profiles) in the Final Plan set. o Sheet C1.00 comments for Change of Zone: • Note for all sheets: The key map should have more detail, including property boundaries, roadway names, and approximate water's edge of Foster Reservoir. • Please identify property boundaries and contours along the east side of CR 7 where contours do not currently exist(1,100 ft south and 2,600 ft south of the intersection of CR 7 and SR 66). • Please include all existing easements and right-of-ways on this sheet and indicate in the legend. • Please add the 100-year FEMA floodplain for Foster Reservoir to the legend. o Sheet C2.00 comments for Change of Zone: • Please identify property boundaries and contours along the east side of CR 7 where contours do not currently exist(1,100 ft south and 2,600 ft south of the intersection of CR 7 and SR 66) • All easements must be clearly marked. This includes but is not limited to, utility easements, drainage easements, oil and gas easements, County and State right-of-ways, and others. Of particular interest is the overhead powerline easement identified in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of page 2 of the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report. The text indicates this easement is a drainage design constraint, and as such, should be clearly identified in plan sheets accompanying the report. • Please identify location and size of existing utilities, and associated easements. • Please show the 100-year FEMA floodplain for Foster Reservoir and add it to the legend • Can the typical water's edge and property boundary be shown for the reservoir? o Sheet C2.00 comments for Final Plan: • The type, number,rim elevations, and clogging factors of all inlets for the storm sewer system need to be indicated in the final design report and drawings. • Please number every lot in the Final Plan drawings for ease of review and discussion. • Please generate profile sheets for the storm sewer system with stationing, pipe size,material type, slopes, invert elevations,rim elevations, existing and proposed grades, and hydraulic grade line (HGL) clearly indicated. • Manhole sizes must be shown on final design profile sheets with invert elevations in and out, sizes, and rim elevations. • Please add rock riprap protection at all culvert outlets for the final drainage plans, and include rock size(D50) and apron limits(length, width, and thickness). Please utilize UD&FCD methods, and add all design calculations and/or spreadsheets in the report appendix. • Ponds 1 and 2 shall have emergency overflow features with appropriate erosion control, and calculations should be included in the report appendix. • Longitudinal roadway slopes less than 1% (i.e. Silver Sky Circle N) may be problematic for adequate drainage(6 in. max street depth for the 10-yr storm, 18-in. max street depth for the 100- yr storm). o Sheet C3.00 and C3.01 comments for Change of Zone: • Please identify property boundaries and contours along the east side of CR 7 where contours do not currently exist(1,100 ft south and 2,600 ft south of the intersection of CR 7 and SR 66) • All easements must be clearly marked. This includes but is not limited to, utility easements, drainage easements, oil and gas easements, County and State right-of-ways, and others. Of particular interest is the overhead powerline easement identified in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of page 2 of the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report. The text indicates this Page 3 of easement is a drainage design constraint, and as such, should be clearly identified in plan sheets accompanying the report. • Please identify location and size of existing utilities, and associated easements. • Please show the 100-year FEMA floodplain for Foster Reservoir and add it to the legend • Can the typical water's edge and property boundary be shown for the reservoir? o Sheet C3.00 and C3.01 comments for Final Plan: • The proposed contouring on the eastern border of the property creates a swale immediately inside the proposed silt fencing—please change grading,provide erosion control in the swale, or move the silt fence as appropriate. • Please add rock riprap protection at all culvert outlets for the final drainage plans, and include rock size(D50) and apron limits (length, width, and thickness). Please utilize UD&FCD methods, and add all design calculations and/or spreadsheets in the report appendix. • A full erosion control plan is required at Final. Extra features may be required at Silver Sky Circle near the eastern border of the development. The applicant shall address the comments listed above at the specific step of the review process stated. The review process will continue only when all appropriate elements have been submitted. Any issues of concern must be resolved with the Public Works Department prior to recording the change of zone and final plats. r•PC: PK-1078 St. Vrain lakes PUD(Sketch Plan) Email&Original: Planner C by Post: Applicant PC by Post: Engineer __. Page 4 of 4 I Weld County Referral ' December 20, 2005 C. COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑7We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 0 See attached letter. Comments: Signature ,1C9 LJ/ Date / —/8 d Agency /i(1//9 �tiTAC7701 / +Weld County Planning Dept. ❖918 10"Street, Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax 0 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES BUILDING INSPECTION ia NORTH OFFICE 918 10t"Street GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540 WI FAX (970) 304-6498 Ile SOUTHWEST OFFICE 4209 CR 24.5 80504 COLORADO PHONE (720)652-4210 ext. 8730 FAX (720)652-4211 December21, 2004 Kiteley Farms LLLP PUD (Estate) Sketch Plan for 427 D.U. in Ag Zone District. ( Kiteley Farms). PZ-1082 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. Plans shall include a floor plan. 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 2003 International Residential Code; 2003 International Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code;2003 International Plumbing Code;2003 International Fuel Gas Code; 2002 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. Distances as shown on the building setback exhibit will exceed the minimum distance for exterior walls to property lines( Sec. R302.2) of the International Residential Code and will not be required to be rated. 6. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 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. Building plans shall be submitted to Mountain View Fire Protection District for their approval. Please contact me for any further information regarding this project. Sinc�r`gly, Roger V gil Building Official ° I0H4;t6 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES BUILDING INSPECTION NORTH OFFICE 918 10th Street GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 l PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3540 FAX (970) 304-6498 Wik SOUTHWEST OFFICE 4209 CR 24.5 80504 COLORADO PHONE (720)652-4210 t.FAX(720)652-4211 December 21, 2004 Kiteley Farms LLLP PUD (Estate)Sketch Plan for 427 D.U. in Ag Zone District. ( Kiteley Farms). PZ-1082 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. Plans shall include a floor plan. Commercial building plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Commercial building plans require a Code -- Analysis Data sheet, 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 2003 International Residential Code; 2003 International Building Code;2003 International Mechanical Code;2003 International Plumbing Code;2003 International Fuel Gas Code; 2002 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 2003 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. Building plans shall be submitted to Mountain View Fire Protection District for their approval. Please contact me for any further information regarding this project. ely,Sin� Ro er di igil 9 Building Official a ( it \ Weld County Referral ' December 20, 2005 e COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A(Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 ❑ 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. y4 See attached letter. Comments: Signature Date /a—/-1-7/6s Agency +Weld County Planning Dept. ❖918 10th Street,Greeley, CO. 80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 ❖(970)304-6498 fax KITELEY RANCE. S FOSTER LAKE L/eloper: Kiteley Farms LLLP CASE# PZ-1082 Planner: Sheri Lockman Change of Zone from AG to PUD PT NW4 27-3-68 ZONED PUD/R-1 FOR 429 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, OPEN SPACE AND OIL/GAS PRODUCTION NOT IN FLOOD PLAIN (0850C) RIF AREA #3 IS IN STORM/MUD AREA LONGS PEAK WATER DISTRICT ST. VRAIN SANITATION DISTRICT UNITED POWER XCEL ENERGY QWEST PHONE SVCS ST VRAIN VALLEY SD RE-1J MOUNTAIN VIEW FPD SETBACKS DETERMINED BY LOT SETBACK MATRIX W/7.5' SIDE YARD AND 20' FRONT/BACK SETBACK REFERRAL COMMENTS 12/27/05 1. Request plat showing lot/block for preliminary addressing, prior to final plat approval. 2. I would like ALL plans examiners to meet with developers to review master building plans and requirements. 3. Suggest the cul-de-sacs/arterial streets have type designations as follows: Silent Point Lane Pleasant Park Lane Iron Gate Lane Colonial Acres Lane Hidden Falls Lane Green Gardens Lane Harvest Meadow Drive Lin Dodge, Building Tech Weld County Planning Svcs Building Inspection Dept. 12/27/05 Weld County Referral ' Weld County Nanning Department December 20, 2005 GREELEY OFFICE C. FEB 2 2 2006 COLORADO RECEIVED The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 O 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. -,.\1"-See attached letter. Comments: Signature Date fie ggQ44 2(y ace Agency AJLL,r7 Cot.-n'rr .rse,ftfrw +Weld County Planning Dept. :•918 10"Street, Greeley,CO. 80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4•(970)304-6498 fax Weld County Sheriffs Office M e mo To: Sheri Lockman From: Ken Poncelow Date: February 21, 2006 Re: PZ-1082 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. Street names are approved. 9. The Sheriffs Office encourages Law Enforcement Authorities to provide additional funding for law enforcement requirements in the future. 1 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 indicated by growth not considered at the time the plan was developed. I have no other comments on this proposal. r. • Page 2 Kitely Farms Page 1 of 1 Shed Lockman From: Hice-Idler, Gloria [Gloria.Nice-Idler@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:55 AM To: Drew Scheltinga; Josh Rowland; Sheri Lockman Subject: Kitely Farms I had an opportunity yesterday to speak to Carol Parr, Region 4 Environmentalist, and Bob Grube, Region 4 Right-of-Way Manager, regarding the Kitely Farms site and the Highland Ditch. Based upon that discussion it is our position that CDOT continue to ask for the 100' as reservation, but would not expect the county to request any additional property for relocation of the ditch. It is our opinion that the Highland Ditch is a "historical"feature and any widening of SH 66 would likely be to the north. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Gloria Hice-Idler Access Manager CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley CO 80631 (970) 350-2148 03/17/2006 Meld Rota Weld County Referral ileitis December 20, 2005 Ww.. County Planning C rtment Y OFF; JAN 1 JAN 1 7 RECEIVED Gf' DEC4TI 2005 COLORADO RECEF , , CDOT Region 4 Traffic Section. The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A (Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parce u The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any com ion ou consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so t a 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) March 7, 2006 ❑ 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. O See attached letter. • 1 Comments: t na .,4 J -�- -A k&od ` ki5 propt ftf�� i io � a8i4 rezmi 3v SN into (F i 's Wtt 1(i�¢Yl CIJ OT'5 e ✓l (u co rvf rYttt L u)&u,Ld `Iha-f -Rpropriak. iproJatri:s 10 +Lt SN (0.7 \U/CQ- 7- acco ss s'w td lo_ pi an ru-4'' For to a c c o rv) Ono el,- +kg- 2015 dd Signature /�,�`out - l� Date l'4 Iota I1ax(,*ate Agency V Cr o-r P"ccQ3.5Ntel ( 'd County Planning Dept. +918 10th street, Greeley,CO.80631 4*(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax APR-06-06 08:01 FROM-DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 3038662223 T-930 P.02/02 F-315 STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER ^ Div'ry,on of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources - oF'c• 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 �� H • Denver, Colorado 80203 : . Phone(3031 866.3581 •+ FAX(303) 866-3589 December 8,2004 • )/1176 www.warer.stare.co.,a '�'--- Bill Owen. Governor Mr. Kim Ogle Russell George weld County Planning Department Execuuoe O,rccwr 918 10`"Street Mal D.Simpson,BE Sian Engineer Greeley, Co 80631 Re: Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake Case No. PK-1082 NW1/4 of Sec. 27,T3N, RSBW, 6th P.M. Water Division 1, Water District 5 • Dear Mr. Ogle; We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 140-acre parcel into 427 single-family residential lots ranging in size from 6,000 square-feet to 8,600 square-feet. The proposed subdivision will also consist of 30 acres of open space. A Water Supply Information Summary Sheet was not included in the referral material. The Longs Peak Water District (District) has been proposed as the source of water and a letter from the does District was included in the referral material. Based on the information from the above-mentioned letter, the District le to study to adequatenot determinewh improvements onal attoDistrictbfac facilities d bethe urrequred in order ivision to provide the District the subdivision. Those improvements would be the responsibility of the developer and would have to be completed before the District could supply this development. Additionally, the District would require the developer to purchase and transfer to the District 1.4 units of Colorado Big Thompson Water (C-BT) per lot to satisfy the needs of the development. However, in this case, the District would require only 0.8 units of C-ST water per lot to be purchased and transferred to the District since a "brown-water" irrigation system is proposed to be installed as part of this project. For the 427 proposed lots in the Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake 341.6 CAT units must be transferred to the District to support the needs of the development. Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), C.R.S., the State Engineer's office offers the opinion, that by the District, the proposed wateetion of the rs pplyswr improvements cause material injury to existing water and erign service provided upply s expected to be adequate. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact loans Comaniciu of this office. ely, of e, P,E. cc: Jim Hall, Division Engineer Chief of Water Supply Scott Edgar, Water Commissioner, District 5 Water Supply Branch Subdivision File DWpC/Kiteiey Ranch at Foster Creek STATE OF COLORADO palg Bill Owens,Governor GJ O DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER '� �AiOF Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway For Wildlife- Denver,Colorado 80216 Weld County Department For People Telephone:(303)297-1192 GREELEYPlanning OFFICE January 17, 2006 JAN 2 4 2006 Weld County Planning Sheri Lockman RECEIVED 918 10'h Street Greeley,CO 80631 Subject: Kiteley Farms LLLP,case number PK-1082 Dear Sheri: The Colorado Division of Wildlife has checked and reviewed the subject property and proposed development as to potential impacts on wildlife. The parcel is currently agricultural land adjacent to Foster Reservoir. A check with the Division's Denver office or with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as to the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse may be appropriate. According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife Natural Diversity Information Source Map for Weld County,the 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. As bald eagles and other raptors are regularly seen at Foster Reservoir, a raptor survey is warranted to determine utilization of the area and potential impacts to bald eagles and other raptors. Enclosed are the"Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors"prepared by Gerald R. Craig, Colorado Division of Wildlife,updated February 8,2002. Utilization of these recommendations will assist in minimizing impacts to wildlife. These recommendations may require additional buffers within the Kiteley Ranch P.U.D. Sketch Plan. All native trees and shrubs as well as dead trees 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 trees, 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 be made aware of the presence of native predators. Pets should not be allowed to roam free. All domesticated 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 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Russell George,Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Jeffrey Crawford,Chair•Tom Burke,Vice Chair•Ken Torres, Secretary Members,Robert Bray•Rick Enstrom•Philip James•Claire O'Neal•Richard Ray•Robert Shoemaker Ex Officio Members,Russell George and Don Ament 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. 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, Tef Scott Hoover Northeast Regional Manager Cc: Suzanne Kloster Enc. FEB-22-2006 11:21 Frcm:TRI LAKES,_ 3039790602 Tq:49703046498 P.278 /� ENT ti—iA. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 'as ',__� �.= ' CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT , a-: DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE,9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON,COLORADO 80128-4901 April 15,2005 Mr. Peter R. Davis Weiland, Inc. 10395 Colfax Ave., Suite 350 Lakewood, CO 80215 RE: Approved Jurisdictional Determination, Kiteley Farms Corps File No.200580225 Dear Mr. Davis: Mr. Terry McKee of this office has reviewed this project on behalf of Longs Peak Investors, LLC. This project is located in the NW I/of Section 27,T3N,R68W,Weld County,Colorado. This review was in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material, and any excavation activities associated with a dredged and fill project, into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams,their surface connected wetlands and adjacent wetlands and certain lakes,ponds,irrigation and drainage ditches that have a nexus to interstate commerce. Approved jurisdictional determination: Based upon the ruling by the Supreme Court in the matter of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178 (January 9,2001), the Department of the Army's (DA) regulatory authority over isolated, non-navigable, intrastate waters has been eliminated if the sole nexus to interstate commerce was use of the waters by migratory birds, it is apparent under the ruling above that the DA does not have the authority to regulate work in these isolated wetlands of Foster Reservoir,the Highline Ditch and Foster Reservoir. These areas are not waters of the U.S. and therefore non-jurisdictional. No permit or other authorization by the DA is required for work in these areas. This approved jurisdictional determination and delineation is valid for a.period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the determination. The attached Jurisdictional Determination form provides the basis of jurisdiction for the above- mentioned areas. If the applicant wishes to appeal this approved jurisdictional determination, the attached Notification of Administrative Appeal Options form should be completed and sent to Mr. Mores Bergman at the address noted on the foram. Although a DA permit will not be required for work in these isolated wetlands of Foster Reservoir, the highline ditch and Foster Reservoir, this does not eliminate the requirement that you obtain any other applicable Federal,state,tribal or local permits as required. FEB-22-2006 11:21 From:TRI LAKES 3039790602 Tg.49703046498 P.3/8. t.^ If you have any questions call Mr. Terry McKee at(303) 979-4120 and reference Corps File No. 200580225. Sincerely, Timo . . T. C:rey Chie 1e Regul: . • . e tin FEB-22-2006 11:21 From:TRI LAKE _ 3039790602 -_. ._._ ..�, --,,,Tq,:.g 9703046498 P.4/8 1.Z, — .,- Weiland Inc. Enviranrrtental& ErrgJneering ,(0-03141074, b,o ' N42 -�•, l ) April 11, 2005 to Fri C3 Support h r; y i� APh 200- ''1 • Transportation Mr. Terry McKee • Land oevebpment U.S. Army Corps of Engineers \ * Denver Regulatory Office Mining 9307 S. Wadsworth Blvd, �'�rvtu' • Inks ary Littleton, CO 80128-6901 Re:Request.For_ApnmvedlurisdictionalDeterminatio txiteje _Fat ss.4 1,wCounty-,__ Colorado Dear Mr, McKee: On behalf of Longs Peak Investors, LLC, Weiland, Inc. is requesting an approved jurisdictional determination for wetlands associated with Foster Reservoir and the Highland Ditch. The wetlands are located in the NW 'A Sec. 27 T3N R68W, which is located in Weld County, Colorado and can be found on the Gowanda USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle(Figure I). To get to the site take I-25 north to State Highway 66. Turn west on SH 66 and go 1 mile to Weld County Road 7. The site is at the southeast corner of this intersection. There is a dirt road that runs along the south side of the Highland Ditch then south to Foster Reservoir. Mr. Ed Gage of Weiland,Inc. visited the site on March 30, 2005 to determine whether wetlands are present. His findings are based primarily upon vegetative characteristics. He did not perform a formal wetland delineations. Mr. Gage found a large cattail (Typha latifoita) stand present along the northwest corner of Foster Reservoir(Figure 1). The cattails extend up the bottom of the Highland Ditch which flows into the north end of the reservoir. The ditch flows along the north and south edges of the site. Upstream of the cattails the ditch banks have small stands of wetland vegetation dominated by reed canary --- -- -- . .c=rass (Phalaris_attatdirface, a.krbese vyegai}llsareparrow,and discontinuously found along the margins of the deeply p y incised channel. (Because of their small size,wetlands associated with the Highland Ditch are not shown in Figure 1). Occasional cottonwood (Populus deltoides)peachleaf and crack willows(Salix amygdaloides,S,fragilis), and green ash(Fraxinus pensylvanica) also occur along the ditch. There is also a small salt flat extending out from the marsh near the eastern boundary of the property dominated by inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Soils on this salt flat were saturated during a March 30, 2005 site visit. Because inland saltgrass is a facultative wet (FACW)species according to Reed (1.988) and the soils were saturated at the time the area was visited, Weiland, Inc. believes the salt flat is probably a wetland. The salt flat is included in the wetlands shown in Figure 1). s5 a Avenue- Suite 211 Longmont CO 80501 ph 303-532-0951 fax 303-532.0953 FEB-22-2006 11:21 Frcm:TRI LAKES 3039790602 P.5/8 _._...__. .. .. �.._...- _ -- . Tq:,�9703046498 Mr. T.McKee April 11, 2005 Page2of2 r The Highland Ditch directly or indirectly supports all wetlands on the property hydrologically. The ditch diverts from St. Vrain Creek near Lyons, Colorado. It provides a continuous surface water connection JQ St. Vrain Creek,a navigable water of the U.S. However, Weiland, Inc. believes the ditch:-G- >^^ • does not intercept 100% of the flow of any natural tributary, • has not replaced a natural tributary, and • is simply functioning as an irrigation ditch. Therefore Weiland, Inc. believes the ditch and its associated wetlands appear to be isolated, intra-state waters and wetlands not subject to sec. 404 regulation. Long Peak Investor's current design would avoid impacts to wetlands in the ditch. However,'one-plank-led road-Would-encroach-on-the,oattails near the re ets ditr herefori we are requesting a jurisdictional determination, so that Long Peak Investors will know whether they must apply for a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Thank you for your attention to this matter. • Sincerely, Weiland, Inc. Peter R. Davis,Ph.D. Senior Scientist cc: Jerry Eckelberger taki Weiland. Inc. E nvrronmente/a Engineering FEB-22-2006 11:21 From:TRI LAKES 3039790602 T2.49703046498 P.6/B JURISDICTIONAL,DETERMINATION Revised 8/13/04 U.S.Army Corps or Engineers • DISTRICT OFFICE: Omaha District Denver Regulatory Office FILE NUMBER: 200580225 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION: State: Colorado • County: Weld Center coordinates of site(latitude/longitude): 40 11 55 104 59 29 Approximate size of area(parcel)reviewed,including uplands:_ 150 acres. Name of nearest waterway: St.Vraht River Name of watershed: St.Vrain JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Completed: Desktop determination ❑ Date: Site visit(s) ® Date(s): 199780079 Jan 2001 Jurisdictional Determination(JD): © Preliminary JD-Based on available information,❑there appear to be(or)O there ppear to be no"waters of the United States"and/or"navigable waters of the United States"on the project site. A p elintinaly ID is not appealable (Reference 33 CFR part 331). ❑ Approved.11)—An approved JD is an appealable action(Reference 33 CFR part 33 I). Check all that apply: ❑ There are"navigable waters of the United States"(as defined by 33 CFR part 329 nd associated guidance)within the reviewed area. Approximate size of jurisdictional area: O There are"waders of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 328 and assoe aced guidance)within the reviewed area. Approximate size of jurisdictional area: ❑ There are "isolated, non-navigable,infra-.Yale waters or wetlands"within the nevi wed area. Decision supported by S WANCC/Migratory Bird Rule lnthnnati n Sheet for Determination of No Jurisdiction. BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION': A. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 329 as"navigable waters of the United States': O The presence of waters that arc subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or arc press tly used,or have been used in the past,or may he susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. R, Waters defined under 33 CFR part 32$4,3(a)as"waters of the United States": ❑ (I)The presence of waters,which are currently used,or were used in the past.,or may e susceptible iv use in interstate or foreign commerce,including all waters which are subject to the ebb and t ow of the tide, ❑ (2)The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands'. ❑ (3)The presence of other waters such us intrastate lakes,rivers,streams(including int nnittcnt streams),mudflats. sandflats,wetlands,sloughs,prairie potholes,wet meadows,playa lakes,or natural po ids,the use,degradation.or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce including any such waters(ehe k all that apply)' ❑ (i)which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers Ibr recreational or other purposes. ❑ (ii)from which fish or shellfish are or could he Luken and sold in interstate or for ign coamrcree. ❑ (iii)which arc or could be used kw industrial purposes by industries in interstate onuneree. ❑ (4)Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the US. ❑ (5) the presence of a tributary to a water identified in(1)—(4)above. O (6)The presence of territorial seas. O (7)The presence of wetlands adjaccntr to other waters of the US,except for those wet ands adjacent to other wetlands. Rationale for the Basis ursuristlictional Determination(applies to any boxes checked hove). If thejurisdictional water or wetland is not itselfa navigable water of the united States,describe aonnection(s to the downstream navigable waters. B.11(1)or A Jnavigability and/or P tersrate corner ()is used as the Basis Of,/Gn'isdtction, document navi• commerce connection (i.e..discuss site conditions, including why the wa/erhody is navigable and/or how the den'action of the warerbodv could affect interstate orforeign commerce). If 11(2, 4, 5 or 6)is used as the Basis eV-Jurisdiction. document the rationale used to make the determination. if B(7)is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction. document the rationale used to make adjacency determination: Lateral Extent of Jurisdiction: (Reference: 33 CFR parts 328 and 329) ❑ Ordinary High Water Mark indicated by: O High Tide Line indica ed by: O clear,natural lino impressed on the bank O oil or scum line long shore objects ❑ the presence of litter and debris line shell or deb is deposits(foreshore) ❑ changes in the character of soil ❑ physical markin s/chansetcrislies Odestruction of terrestrial vegetation ❑ tidal gages shelving O other O other: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by: OO survey to available datum; ❑physical markings; O vegetation lines/changes in egelation types. Wetland boundaries,as shown on the attached wetland delineation reap and/or in a de ineation report prepared by: FEB-22-2006 11:22 From:TRI LAKES 3039790602 Ty.:49703046498 P.772 2 Basis For Not Asserting Jurisdiction: ❑ The reviewed area consists entirely of uplands. ❑ Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR part 328(a)(I,2,or 4-7). O Headquarters declined to appn)ve jurisdiction on the basis or 33(.'FR part 328.3(a)(3). ® The Corps has male a case-specific determination that the following waters present or the site arc net Waters of the United Slates; O Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons,pursuant to 3- CFR part 328.3. ❑ Artificially irrigated areas, which would revert.to upland if the irrigation cease . ® Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating rand/or diking dry land to coil ct and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock waterer , irrigation,settling basins,or rice growing. ❑ Arl.i lieitd reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of w ter created by excavating and/or diking dry Land to retain water for primarily aesthetic rca•ous. ❑ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity mil pits excavated in dry land fix the purpose of obtaining fill,sand,or gravel unless and until the construction excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of th•United Stakes Mond al 33 CFR 328.3(a). ® Isolated, intrastate wetland with no nexus to interstate commerce. ❑ Prior convened cropland,as determined by the Natural Resources Conserval.io i Service. Explain rationale: ❑ Non-tidal drainage or irrigation ditches excavated on dry land. Explain ration-le: ® Other(explain): These wetlands associated with Foster Lake arc neither adjac of to nor surface connected to waters of the U.S. They are surrounded by upland with upland vegetation. Foster La e was built on dry land as an irrigation reservoir and is artificially tilled with water by a ditch. Foster Lake is not o en to interstate navigation. Highlinc Ditch flowing to and out or nut of Poster Reservoir dues not Ilow to waters t Ithe U.S., it divides into various ditches that terminate in uplands and other irrigation reservoirs constructed on dry Ian ,or which these reservoirs are not waters of the U.S. DATA REVIEWED FOR JURSTDICTIONAL DETERMINATION(murk all that a ly): Z Maps,plans,plots Or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant. ❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant, �,- ❑ This()nice concurs with the delineation report,dated ,prepared by( ompany): ❑ This office does not concur with the delineation report,dated ,prepare by(company): ❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps. 0 Corps'navigable waters'studies: U,S. Geological Survey I lydrologie Atlas: [23U.S.Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic maps:gowanda ❑ U.S.Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Historic quadrangles: ❑ I1.S.Geological Survey 15 Minutc Historic quadrangles: ❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey: ❑ National wetlands inventory maps: ❑ State/Local wetland inventory maps: ❑ FrMA/FIRM maps(Map Name& Date): ❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (NGVD) ❑ Aerial Photographs(Name&Date): ❑ Other photographs(Date): ❑ Advanced Identification Wetland maps: ❑ Site visit/determination conducted on: ❑ Applicable/supporting case law: ❑ Other information(please specify): 'Wetlands arc identified and delineated using the methods and criteria established in the Corps Wetland Del nation Manual(87 Manual)(i.e., occurrence of hydrophytre vegetation,hydrie soils and wetland hydrology), the term"adjacent"means bordering,contiguous,or neighboring. Wetlands separnred from other waters o the(.I S.by man-made dikes or harriers,natural river brans beach dunes,and the like arc also 8djacenl. /0" FEB-22-2000 11:22 From:TRI LAKE, 3039790602 Ta .19703046498 P.8/8 • i s . , Thomas ii f 'l m52, p 948 Li 1 T , .4,-_:',...,,, ,.....-. • ', `'. I , Halligan 12'3p H. ! •� vI / i K 1 I i 1f _ ` / // 1O c y Foster - i ;, - r. _ ,1,,, nh,e- Reeewoir ! • az • f945i .- wd8 \ t -F ♦ - - \\.....,N,kb ' C. jai `r, c; EXISTINLEGEND G FARM ROADS © EXISTING WETLANDS 5 1 asz .. ... .... 1,�-=-yes =-�__. `i .--. _ PROJECT BOUNDARY --" arf PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 1 e f!A..•em en 1"-4 2,000' iw.nve alai - � ._•�i KITELEY FARMS BOUNCE:SUMO ANDA QUAD ,.f� kit 711:,. Ct:!p d County Referral I DR1gRX WI 0t/c Do. December 20, 2005 C. ct/fr COLORADO Fo The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan aWe have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. ❑ See attached letter. Comments: Signature Date 3 / A 6, Agency 49HV65 LU.9w&E' D4r/V'iC/ +Weld County Planning Dept. +918 1 10th Street, Greeley,CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax St. Vrain SANITATION DI STRICT March 24, 2006 Ms. Sheri Lockman Weld County Planner Weld County Planning Department 918 W. 10th Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Lockman, Attached is a letter dated March 22, 2006 that summarizes the conversation Mr. Eckelberger and I had regarding Kiteley Farms. Mr. Eckelberger has agreed to all terms from the letter sent to you date January 3, 2006. Please call or write with any concerns you may have. Sin761/— Robert Fleck District Engineering/Project Manager St. Vrain Sanitation District 11307 Business Park Circle Firestone, CO 80504 Phone(303) 776-9570 Fax: (303)485-1968 7120 E. Orchard Road,Suite 450 Englewood,CO 80111 (3031 '96=555 fax(303) 796--333 "LONGS PEAK INVESTORS . LLC cckelbero r@quest-net March 22, 2006 DELIVERY VIA TELEFAX (303) 485-1968 Mr. Rob Fleck District Engineer St. Vrain Sanitation District 11307 Business Park Circle Longmont, CO 80504 Re: Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake Dear Rob: Enclosed please find Longs Peak Investors' response to your letter to Sheri Lockman, Weld County dated January 3, 2006. If this meets with your approval, please send a letter to Sheri Lockman at Weld County Planning Depaltntent. She needs your letter by April 1, 2006. • If a Metro District is used as the mechanism for funding, an IGA will need to be initiated between the Metro District and SVSD relating to sewer and treatment Response: We will use a Metropolitan District and agree to an IGA as you and I discussed. • Sewer Infrastructure plans have not been submitted or approved. The ability to gravity serve this land parcel to existing sewer must be demonstrated by the Engineer. Before construction, plans must be approved and before connection. acceptance of infrastructure. Response: As I advised you, our engineer, Bryan Clerico, advises us that we can gravity serve the land by either going to the South or to the East and connect to your North line. Either alternative is available and we will utilize the least costly. • Inclusion into the District Response: We will apply for inclusion after approval of the Change of Zone by the Board of County Commissioners. __ :fir" r, It. rt. _ 1 i . _ _ , Mr. Robert Fleck March 22,2006 Page 2 • Any connection,including the pool and restrooms will be required to purchase a tap and submit best management practices regarding the care and operation of such. Response: Agreed. - Payment of all applicable line extension fees upon first connection Response: Agreed. • Service is subject to the SVSD rules and regulations Response: Agreed. Very truly yours, //LONGS PE ESTORS, LLC am. _ ...cc-7cJ Eckelber jkb Enclosures 01/04/2006 07:22 ST. URA IN SANITATION DISTRICT 4 819703046498 NO.006 D01 in/Thirwo Weld County Referral: ' ber 20, 2005 oEM ant C. DEC 2 7 7nn5 D COLORADO Byi^� The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD(Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27,•T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 CJ 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. See attached letter. Comments: • Signature li Date / /" I d& Agency Svl0 +Weld County Planning Dept. 0918 101^Street,Greeley,CO.50631 8(970)363-6100 ext,3540 G(970)304.6498 fax 01/04/2006 07:22 ST. URA IN SRN I TAT ION DISTRICT 3 819703046498 N0.006 R02 St. Vital ni SANI TA TI ON DISTRICT January 3, 2006 Ms. Sheri Lockman Weld County Planner Weld County Planning Department 918 W. 10th Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Lockman, Upon review of the submitted referral, SVSD has the following comments: • If a Metro District is use as the mechanism for funding, an IGA will need to be initiated between the Metro District and SVSD relating to sewer and treatment • Sewer Infrastructure plans have not been submitted or approved. The ability to gravity serve this land parcel to existing sewer must be demonstrated by the Engineer. Before construction, plans must be approved and before connection, acceptance of infrastructure. • Inclusion into the District • Any connection, including the pool and restrooms will be required to purchase a tap and submit best management practices regarding the care and operation of such. • Payment of all applicable line extension fees upon first connectionM • Service is subject to the SVSD rules and regulations Sin rely, Robert Fleck District Engineer St. Vrain Sanitation District 11307 Business Park Circle Longmont, CO 80504 Phone (303) 776-9570 Fax: (303) 485-1988 Oce 4717" Weld County Referral Weld County Planning Department CREEL.EY OFFICE December 20, 2005 I JAN 1 :3 2006 C. COLORADO RECEIVED The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 Cl We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan U We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. NO See attached letter. Comments: Signature t c ( ) _'C Date t — 1 l L�L-1 — Agency tlN A \ +, c,. v r ‘-\ N.\1/4fi.--f +Weld County Planning Dept. ❖918 10"Street, Greeley,CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 •'x(970)304-6498 fax °uN7A'" MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PRO) cCTION DISTRICT A- e Administrative Office: .l �s►f� s 9119 County Line Road• Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 772-0710• FAX (303) 651-7702 VIE`$ January I I. 2006 Ms. Sheri Lockman Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Lockman: I have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the change in zoning for the Kitelcy Ranch at Foster Lake project, located south of and adjacent to Highway 66; cast of and adjacent to Weld County Road 7. (Case Number PZ-1082, Applicant Name: Kiteley Farms). The Fire District does not object to the request for Change in Zoning provided the development meets the requirements of the Fire District. All applicable codes as they pertain to water supply, fire hydrant locations, fire department artless, and street designs must be met. Before street construction may begin, construction plans for the utilities showing the location of fire hydrants, the size of water mains and available fire flows must be submitted to the Fire District for review and approval. The submittal must include a water supply analysis indicating the available fire flow at the most demanding point in the water system. We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 772-0710. Sincerely, LuAnn Penfold Fire Marshal LMP/Ip cc: project file Ip01.08.06 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 80026 80516 Daoono,CO 80514 LG res Weld County Referral I Weld County Planning Department December 20, 2005 GREELEY OFFICE JAN 1 7 2006 COLORADO RECEIVED (t� -�3.d> The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms,LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 ❑ 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. See attached letter Comments: Lt).BAL9 iti (,entivigm Q,, rL Signature , ) [PP 47 C14-6- n - Q,— Date l _ /0 - d Go Agency Cr"- C.)- +Weld County Planning Dept. +9918 10'Street,Greeley,CO. 80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 ❖(970)304-6498 fax Longmont Conservation District 9595;Nelson Road. Box D—Longmont. Colorado 80501 —Phone (303) "6-4034—Fits (303) 6N4-9/93 Site Review Memo To: Longmont CD Board From: Nancy McIntyre Subject: (List site name, location, Permit#, Purpose, etc.) Kiteley Farms, LLLP, Case#PZ-1082. South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to WCR 7. Changes of zone from A to PUD for 429 residential lots with open space and continuing oil and gas production. (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Prime Farmland: Property is prime farmland. Water Quality: Land drains into Foster Reservoir. The developer has met with the Highland Ditch company and is complying with their requests. Noxious Weed Control: There is no mention of a noxious weed plan in the information received. We suggest a noxious weed plan be developed with the Weld County Weed Department to mitigate a weed problem before and during construction. Also a dirt blowing plan should be developed. Soils Limitations: It does not appear that there are any soil limitations. Other concerns: Summary comments: CY)NSERI".iTIO.N-DEr'ELOPA/ENT-SELF GUI ERN/VENT 6 �L Weld County Referral WIIDe. December 20, 2005 COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A (Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan Dic We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. ❑ See attached letter. Comments: I`Ck1QAA> ( (`( onktiari �(i nob Onn Rif Art Signature !�1c Date I-31)0 Agency ❖Weld County Planning Dept. ❖918 10th Street,Greeley,CO. 80631 4,(970)353-6100 ext.3540 ❖(970)304-6498 fax Weld C0941st wont l 1p�"��,rtmentsoqiivit h CEIVED DEC 2 7 2005 d -MAR 1e 2008 county Referral December 20, 2005 c COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Kiteley Farms, LLLP Case Number PZ-1082 Please Reply By January 18, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman Project Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake) Legal Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 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) March 7, 2006 ❑ 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. See ,dta.J...J l.d&.,. catA. a �x cer-'r Comments: T4, Ioe yt Baalnti 4, Ira a-14, W .rtyb v+ (��llt t'ri.,em-i.— 1�.e'ttt t-4 4t, .citts/0144- t ITT Y f a�aa, an.a I "gut �B v 7fa lu.q ui u. 141 ce Fo fcfi'fie-41) `flu- run,f p-t a.,rut41(a O?t. 1rA 041i-hob, �-F- Uvwub 4144.40 p ucQ ,ur,I uL.c, 4M. £tci4a-A¢u,m EQot.{ WWCp 7 w ticG. y H To-144.4..% Signature /t,jdAa,t j.b. F.4.4. 424, a- (bun, Date ale /6lo Agency Tgn,in-t et -662421. +Weld County Planning Dept. .918 10th Street, Greeley,CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax -, 1wyiSCUrr +'a1a, Ma Lit paAt gun't SQ 4.,0 ad . iii KERB AMCGEE ROCK se 117MODUNT4!N CORPORATION 1999 BROADWAY,SUITE 3700•DENVER,COLORADO 80202 February 08, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL PHONE: 303-296-3600 Weld County Planning DepartmentFAX: 303-298-3601 Weld County Department of Planning Services GREELEY OFFICE Attn: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager 918 10th Street FEB. 1 0 2006 Greeley, CO 80631 RECEIVED Re: Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake—PUD Approval Applicant: Joshua Rowland—Land Architects 3N-68W, Section 27 Dear Ms. Ogle: Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation ("KMRMC") is the owner of valid oil and gas leases underlying all or part of Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake, for which Longs Peak Investors, LLC is seeking PUD approval. KMRMC and Longs Peak Investors have been negotiating a Surface Use Agreement, the terms of which will govern the parties' simultaneous use of the subject property. KMRMC does not object to the change of zoning for which Longs Peak Investors is applying. However, the parties have not yet concluded an agreement, and KMRMC therefore requests that the Department of Planning Services withhold final plat approval of this PUD application until the parties execute and record a surface use agreement. Very truly yours, Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC Terry D. ' n 'ght cc: Land Architects - Applicant James P. Wason—Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation JHN 18 '06 14:27 FR PUBLIC SERVICE-7TH FL303 571 7877 TO 819703046498 P.01/01 Siting and Land hts Xee/Energy" 5 0 15`h Street Suuiite 700 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Denver.Colorado 80202-4258 Telephone:303.871.7799 Facsimile:303571.7877 January 18, 2006 Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Attn: Sheri Lockman Re: Case No. PZ-1082 Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) has reviewed the development plans for Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake. To ensure that adequate gas utility easements are available the following dedication language is placed with the Plat Notes on the final plat. Eight-foot (89 wide utility easements are hereby granted on private property adjacent to the front and rear lot lines of each lot In the subdivision. In addition, eight-foot (8') wide utility easements are hereby granted around the perimeter of tracts, parcels and/or open space areas. These easements are dedicated for the installation, maintenance, and replacement of electric, gas, television cable, and telecommunications facilities. Utilities shall also be permitted within any access easements and private streets in the subdivision. Permanent structures and water meters shall not be permitted within said utility easements. PSCo also requests that these utility easements be depicted graphically on the preliminary and final plats. While these easements should accommodate the majority of utilities to be installed in the subdivision, some additional easements may be required as planning and building progresses. When PSCo has existing gas facilities in this area, the developer should contact PSCo's Engineering Department at 1-800-628-2121, regarding the use or relocation of these facilities and/or any grading activities. As a safety precaution, PSCo would like to remind the developer to call the Utility Notification Center, at 1.800-922-1987, to have all utilities located prior to construction. If you have any questions about this referral response, please contact me at 303-571-7596. Thank You, Jon B.Keller Agent,Siting and Land Rights Post-It"Fax Note '• 7671 Deter_19 p6 hue. --. To Sind"'i Loektvtavt Fmm\Tort Ke.Ate r Co/Dept. Co. Phone# Phone# Fax#970 ^_�(�{,'- T'-6EH g Rix* 11 ** TOTAL PRGE.01 -nr= Hello