HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060757.tiff REFERRAL LIST
Name: Trinity Properties Case#PZ-1102
.- unt Towns&Cities Fire Districts
Attorney _Ault _Ault F-1
z Health Department _Berthoud _Berthoud F-2
_Extension Office _Brighton _Briggsdale F-24
Emergency Mgt Office - Ed Herring Dacono _Brighton F-3
—z Sheriffs Office _Eaton _Eaton F-4
z Public Works _Erie _Fort Lupton F-5
_Housing Authority _Evans Tz Galeton F-6
_Airport Authority _Firestone _Hudson F-7
Building Inspection _Fort Lupton _Johnstown F-8
Code Compliance_S.-Ann N-Beth _Frederick _LaSalle F-9
Kim Ogle (Landscape Plans) _Garden City _Mountain View F-10
3Lin (Addressing Change of Zone) Gilcrest _Milliken F-11
_Ambulance Services _Greeley _Nunn F-12
_Grover _Pawnee F-22
State _Hudson _Platteville F-13
�--z Div. of Water Resources _Johnstown _Platte Valley F-14
_Geological Survey _Keenesburg _Poudre Valley F-15
_Department of Health _Kersey _Raymer F-2
_Department of Transportation _LaSalle _Southeast Weld F-16
_Historical Society _Lochbuie _Union Colony F-20
_Water Conservation Board _Longmont _Wiggins F-18
_Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Windsor/Severance F-17
_Mead _
_Milliken
Division of Wildlife _New Raymer
_South Hwy 66 (Loveland) _Northglenn
-- z North Hwy 66 (Greeley) _Nunn Commissioner
_Division of Minerals/Geology _Pierce — (13LI
_Platteville
Soil Conservation Districts _Severance
_Big Thompson/ FTC _Thornton
_Boulder Valley/Longmont _Windsor
_Brighton/SE Weld
Centennial Counties
z Greeley/West Greeley _Adams
_Platte Valley _Boulder
_West Adams _Broomfield
_Little Thompson _Larimer
Federal Government Agencies Other
US Army Corps of Engrs — z School District RE-7
_USDA-APHIS Vet Service —_z Greeley#2 Canal
Federal Aviation Admin (Structures y Anadarko
_
over 200 ft or w/in 20000 ft of Pub )Petrol. Dev Corp
Airport _Art Elmquist (MUD Area)
_Federal Communications Comm
2006-0757
EXHIBIT
3
c(tiv 1435.% Memorand,u
nning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
TO: Sheri Lockman, W.C. Planning
JAN 2 « 2006
DATE: January 9, 2006 E
FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Department of Public
COLORADO Health and Environment
CASE NO.: PZ-1102 NAME: Trinity Properties/Deer Meadows
The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal. The applicant proposes a 17 lot PUD
on 303.7 acres. The minimum proposed lot size (3.2 acres) coupled with the overall density of one septic
system per 17.9 acres does meet current Department policy. Lot sizes will vary from 3.2 acres to10.2,
with most in the 5 to 6 acre range.
The application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water service. The
application proposes that each lot will each be served by an individual well (17). The application states
that they have also applied for 2 irrigation wells on the property. The applicant has submitted
documentation regarding evidence of water and has applied to the water court for an augmentation plan.
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, has advised that what they have submitted should be adequate
up to the process of filing a Final Plan.
A Department review of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) data found the following well permits for
the property. It is unclear whether the wells have been drilled (ArcGIS plots the wells on the site from
DWR data), however, the application does not identify the wells on the proposed development. The
Department requests clarification on the status of these wells.
pz1102 well data
Applicant Name Permit Permitted Use Issue Date Expiration Date Acres Irrigated Parcel Size
TANNEHILL ROCKY D
243829 Domestic 09/06/2002 09/06/2004 1 40
243830 Domestic 09/06/2002 09/06/2004 1 40
243831 Domestic 09/06/2002 09/06/2004 1 40
243832 Domestic 09/06/2002 09/06/2004 1 40
244817 Domestic 10/08/2002 10/08/2004 1 50
244818 Domestic 10/08/2002 10/08/2004 1 93
The application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to sewer service. Sewer is
proposed to be provided by individual sewage disposal systems. The preliminary percolation data
conducted by Terra Logics Consulting and dated May 23, 2005 indicates that the areas where the lots
have been located will be suitable for conventional septic systems. Because of the range of lot sizes, and
the expectation of conventional septic systems, the Department is not requiring septic envelopes be
placed on the lots. However, since all lots are anticipated to be served by individual wells and septic
systems, care will need to be taken to locate the septic systems a minimum of 100 feet from all potable
and irrigation wells. The slope of some lots may be an issue for the location of septic systems, but septic
EXHIBIT
1 IlL
systems appear to be feasible on all lots. The location of the Greeley#2 Canal should have no negative
impact on the location of septic systems. However, there is a concrete ditch identified on the Sketch Plan
that is show crossing Lot 5 that could impede locating the well and septic.
The application states that Outlot A is expected to be transferred to the ownership of the HOA, and that
there is a potential indoor/outdoor arena that could be placed on the lot. A manure and stormwater
management plan should be developed that describes how manure generated on site will be stored,
managed, removed, land applied, etc.-Additionally, a water storage tank for fire suppression is also
planned to be located on Outlot A. The Department requested that the management of that water tank be
addressed in the Change of Zone application. There was no mention of either in the draft covenants
submitted with the application.
The Department recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Water service shall be obtained from individual wells.
2. This subdivision is in rural Weld County and is not served by a municipal sanitary sewer
system. Sewage disposal shall be by septic systems designed in accordance with the
regulations of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality
Control Division and the Weld County Code in effect at the time of construction, repair,
replacement, or modification of the system.
3. A Manure and Stormwater Management Plan should be developed for any indoor/outdoor
arena on Outlot A and included in the covenants.
4. Management of the water storage tank for fire suppression, also located on Outlot A, should
be addressed in the covenants.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any
development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and
practical methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to
minimize dust emissions.
8. 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.
9. "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\GHZONE\PZ-1102 TRINITY PROPERTIES 17 LOTS W-INDIVIDUAL WELLS.RTFS5
2
S
„
C• 61 ' -
th ,
PZ-1102 ' 3 a
' . - 4 4
Wells/Septic 3
n. .F ,,.mow mm. CR 70
Yk
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sheri Lockman, Planning DATE: 12-Jan-2006
111 D C FROM: Jesse Hein, Public Works Department
C.
COLORADO SUBJECT: PZ-1102 Deer Meadows Cluster PUD (Zone Change)
Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this zone change 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
General Comments:
❑ The Deer Meadows Cluster PUD Subdivision is planned for up to 17 single-family residential building sites.
External Roadways:
❑ This development will introduce 163 additional (9.57 x 17) vehicle trips per day to the off-site roadway system based on 17
single-family residential homes. Based on the proposal of limited development,a traffic study is currently not required.
o There will be no traffic study necessary if the land uses are limited to"in-situ"owners.
❑ Weld County Road 70, to the south of the site, is a local gravel road which terminates at the intersection of WCR 61 1/2. The
applicant shall be required to build this roadway in accordance with Weld County standards for local gravel roads the entirety of
the frontage associated with the proposed cluster PUD terminating at the eastern entrance of the subdivision.
o The applicant will need to contact the property owner south of and adjacent to the property to offer notification of
the reserved 60' of right of way for the expansion of WCR 70.
o The applicant shall be required to relocate the existing property line fence south to the appropriate right of way.
❑ This development will introduce additional vehicle trips to the roadway system. The proposed subdivision increases traffic on
unpaved County roads, creating fugitive dust and surface maintenance problems. The applicant will be required to apply dust
suppression chemicals (magnesium chloride or calcium chloride) on WCR 61 yz adjacent any existing or future structures
between HWY 392 and the main entrance to the property. Applications will be done three(3)times per year, or as directed by the
Weld County Motor Grader Supervisor.
o The applicant shall submit an Improvements Agreement (off-site for dust suppression) with the final plan
application. This agreement must be reviewed by Public Works and shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners(BOCC)prior to recording any final plat.
Internal Roadways:
❑ Internal roads shall meet Weld County criteria for a PUD. The internal roadway right-of-way shall be sixty(60)feet in width and
dedicated to the public. The typical section of interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot paved lanes with 4-foot gravel
shoulders on the change of zone plat. Roadside drainage shall be contained within the right-of-way.
o The applicant in the sketch plan materials indicates a gravel interior roadway system.
o Section 27-2-20 states: All PUD developments will be served by an internally paved road system according to
County standards.
o The applicant must provide a pavement design, prepared by a professional engineer along with the final plat
submittal.
❑ The sketch plan drawing shows two access points to the proposed cluster PUD interior roadway. Typically, Public Works grants
one access point from a County Roadway to the subdivision. Considering the number of lots, length of interior roadway, spacing
between proposed access points, and general wellbeing of the residents utilizing the transportation system, the two access points
from County Road 70 is an acceptable configuration.
Page 1 of 2 _
❑ Easements shall be shown on the fmal plat in accordance with County standards (Sec.24-7-60) and / or Utility Board
recommendations.
❑ Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance(s) will be required. All landscaping within the triangles must be
less than 3%feet in height at maturity,and noted on the final roadway plans.
The applicant shall submit to Public Works stamped,signed and dated final plat drawings and roadway/ construction& grading
plan drawings for review with the final plan application and approval. Construction details must be included.
❑ Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections and shown as a signing plan on final roadway plans. The
current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD)shall govern the signing plan.
❑ The applicant shall submit Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding Collateral for(on-site) Improvements with
the final plan application. These agreements must be reviewed by Public Works and shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners(BOCC)prior to recording any fmal plat.
Drainage:
❑ The Drainage Design Considerations - for - Deer Meadows P.U.D. — Weld County, Colorado — Sketch Plan Submittal by
Wohnrade Civil Engineers,Inc.,dated November 21,2005, is acceptable to Public Works.
❑ A final drainage report stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be submitted
with the final plan application. 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. The final drainage report shall include a flood hazard
review documenting any FEMA defined floodways. The engineer shall reference the specific map panel number, including date.
The development site shall be located on the copy of the FEMA map.
❑ The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage for the final plan application.
Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed. In addition, drainage for rear and side lot line swales
shall be considered. Building envelopes must be planned to avoid storm water flows, while taking into account adjacent drainage
mitigation.
❑ Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report) stamped, signed and dated by a
professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be submitted with each final plan (phase) application. These plans
(stormwater management plans)may be based on Urban Drainage methodology.
Recommendation
❑ The Public Works Department recommends approval of this zone change based on the above observations.
The applicant shall at dress the comments lisle above at the speeitie step otthe review process stated. The review
process wilt tantiri•ue only when aft appropnaite •• .
Pelements have heultsubmitted. Any issues of concern must be
resolved with the Public Works Liepartment pri• er to recording the change of zone and final plat• `
PC: PZ,-1102 Deer Meadows Cluster PUD(Zone Change)
^Email &Original: Planner: Sheri Lockman
2C by Post: Applicant: Todd Hodges Design, LLC
PC by Post: Engineer: Wohnrade Civil Engineers, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
7cld County Planning Depart--_rrt
ritp MEMORANDUM GREELEY OFFICE
MEMORANDUM JANE 0 9 2606
' rk
TO: Sheri Lockman, Planning r Mt. 6A-aD96
WI I I Q FROM: Jesse Hein, Public 2 js Department
COLORADO SUBJECT: PZ-1102 Deaf Meadows Cluster PUD(Zone Change)
Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this zone change 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
General Comments:
Li The Deer Meadows Cluster PUD Subdivision is planned for up to 17 single-family residential building sites.
External Roadways:
❑ This development will introduce 163 additional(9.57 x 9) vehicle trips per day to the off-site roadway system based on 9 single-
family residential homes. Based on the proposal of limited development,a traffic study is currently not required.
o There will be no traffic study necessary if the land uses are limited to"in-situ"owners.
❑ Weld County Road 70, to the south of the site, is a local gravel road which terminates at the intersection of WCR 61 1/2. The
applicant shall be required to build this roadway in accordance with Weld County standards for local gravel roads the entirety of
the frontage associated with the proposed cluster PUD terminating at the eastern entrance of the subdivision.
o The applicant will need to contact the property owner south of and adjacent to the property to offer notification of
the reserved 60' of right of way for the expansion of WCR 70.
o The applicant shall be required to relocate the existing property line fence south to the appropriate right of way.
❑ This development will introduce additional vehicle trips to the roadway system. The proposed subdivision increases traffic on
unpaved County roads, creating fugitive dust and surface maintenance problems. The applicant will be required to apply dust
suppression chemicals (magnesium chloride or calcium chloride) on WCR 61 'h adjacent any existing or future structures
between HWY 392 and the main entrance to the property. Applications will be done three(3)times per year,or as directed by the
Weld County Motor Grader Supervisor.
o The applicant shall submit an Improvements Agreement (off-site for dust suppression) with the final plan
application. This agreement must be reviewed by Public Works and shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners(BOCC)prior to recording any final plat.
Internal Roadways:
❑ Internal roads shall meet Weld County criteria for a PUD. The internal roadway right-of-way shall be sixty (60) feet in width.
The typical section of interior roadway shall be shown as a 26' wide gravel road with 4" aggregate base course on the final plat.
Roadside drainage shall be contained within the right-of-way.
o The applicant in the change of zone materials indicates a gravel interior roadway system.
❑ The sketch plan drawing shows two access points to the proposed cluster PUD interior roadway. Typically, Public Works grants
one access point from a County Roadway to the subdivision. Considering the number of lots, length of interior roadway, spacing
between proposed access points, and general wellbeing of the residents utilizing the transportation system, the two access points
from County Road 70 is an acceptable configuration.
LI Easements shall be shown on the final plat in accordance with County standards (Sec.24-7-60) and / or Utility Board
recommendations.
❑ Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance(s) will be required. All landscaping within the triangles must be
less than 3'h feet in height at maturity,and noted on the final roadway plans.
.i The applicant shall submit to Public Works stamped,signed and dated final plat drawings and roadway/construction&grading
plan drawings for review with the final plan application and approval. Construction details must be included.
Page 1 of 2
❑ Stop signs and street name signs win be required at all intersections and shown as a signing plan on final roadway plans. The
current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD)shall govern the signing plan.
❑ The applicant shall submit Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding Collateral for(on-site) Improvements with
the final plan application. These agreements must be reviewed by Public Works and shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners(BOCC)prior to recording any final plat.
Drainage:
❑ The Drainage Design Considerations - for - Deer Meadows P.U.D. — Weld County Colorado — Sketch Plan Submittal by
Wohnrade Civil Engineers,Inc., dated November 21,2005,is acceptable to Public Works.
❑ A final drainage report stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be submitted
with the final plan application. 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. The final drainage report shall include a flood hazard
review documenting any FEMA defined floodways. The engineer shall reference the specific map panel number, including date.
The development site shall be located on the copy of the FEMA map.
❑ The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage for the final plan application.
Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed. In addition, drainage for rear and side lot line swales
shall be considered. Building envelopes must be planned to avoid storm water flows, while taking into account adjacent drainage
mitigation.
❑ Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report) stamped, signed and dated by a
professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be submitted with each final plan (phase) application. These plans
(stormwater management plans)may be based on Urban Drainage methodology.
Recommendation
• The Public Works Department recommends approval of this zone change based on the above observations.
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 plat:
PC: PZ-1102 Deer Meadows Cluster PUD(Zone Change)
Email&Original: Planner:Sheri Lockman
PC by Post: Applicant: Todd Hodges Design, LLC
PC by Post: Engineer: Wohnrade Civil Engineers, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
• IJ
jessea
Weld County Referral
December 9, 2005
wiipC.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Trinity Properties LP Case Number PZ-1102
Please Reply By January 9, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman
Project Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 17residential lots, 2 non-residential
agricultural outlots and .8 acres of open space along with oil & gas production.
(Deer Meadows )
Legal Part of Section 7, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location North of and adjacent to CR 70 approximately'/, mile east of CR 61.
Parcel Number 0799 07 000025
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) February 7, 2006
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ )Ne have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
/�Y See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature �°cc 0 Date /a ,4724
Agency /� �
❖Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10th Street, Greeley,CO. 80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax
rit t 11-6. , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
BUILDING INSPECTION
NORTH OFFICE
918 10`h Street
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970)304-6498
iglip0 SOUTHWEST OFFICE
4209 CR 24.5
LONGMONT CO 80504
COLORADO PHONE (720)652-4210 ext. 8730
FAX (720)652-4211
December 20, 2005
Trinity Properties LP
Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 17 residential lots, 2 non- residential agricultural outlots and .8
acres of open space along with oil & gas production.
PZ-1102
1. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any structure including the mail
kiosk, bus shelter and the monument sign.
2. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Two complete sets of
-- plans are required when applying for each permit. 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 residential 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.
Please contact me for any further information regarding this project.
Since ly, j
RbgdrV' it / g
Building Official
L.u'LJ
a
eNssit Weld County Referral
' December 9, 2005
Ci
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Trinity Properties LP Case Number PZ-1102
Please Reply By January 9, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman
Project Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 17residential lots, 2 non-residential
agricultural outlots and .8 acres of open space along with oil & gas production.
(Deer Meadows )
Legal Part of Section 7, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location North of and adjacent to CR 70 approximately%mile east of CR 61.
Parcel Number 0799 07 000025
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) February 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:
Signature ' 14..2. 1944 � n • Date 72-/3 5
Agency t/I/ ' 2.1Z444 t
tWeld County Planning Dept. +918 10th Street, Greeley, CO. 80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
DEER MEADOWS "'1D r"'•eloper: Todd Hodges
PZ-1102 (Change of Zone from A to PUD) Trinity Properties LP
PT 7-6-63 Planner: Sheri Lockman
ZONED PUD/ESTATE
IS NOT IN FLOOD PLAIN (0675C)
RIF AREA #2 - NOT IN STORM/UGB AREA
NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS
XCEL HOMELIGHT POWER
LP GAS
QWEST PHONE
PLATTE VALLEY SD
GALETON FPD
GILL PO
17 NSF LOTS - 2 OUTLOTS - 1 NON-RESIDENTIAL TRACTS
Lot 1 30495 Tannehill Trail
Lot 2 30529 Tannehill Trail
Lot 3 30539 Tannehill Trail
Lot 4 30496 Tannehill Trail
Lot 5 30508 Tannehill Trail
Lot 6 30520 Tannehill Trail
Lot 7 30530 Tannehill Trail
Lot 8 30888 Tannehill Trail
Lot 9 30869 Tannehill Trail
Lot 10 30859 Tannehill Trail
Lot 11 30840 Tannehill Trail
Lot 12 30850 Tannehill Trail
Lot 13 30860 Tannehill Trail
Lot 14 30870 Tannehill Trail
Lot 15 30880 Tannehill Trail
Lot 16 30889 Tannehill Trail
Lot 17 30879 Tannehill Trail
12/13/05 Lin Dodge
THE NORTH SIDE LATERAL COMPANY
THE NORTH SIDE EXTENSION DITCH COMPANY
(970)352-0222
Weld County Plan
January 4, 2006 CREEi'Eya-ePartment
OFFICE
Weld County Planning Department JAN 0 a.
Sheri Lockman 200E
918 10th Street RECEIVED
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: PK-1102 Trinity Properties
Dear Ms. Lockman,
The plat presented to the North Side Extension Ditch Company
shows a 50 foot easement for the canal. I talked to Intermill
Land Surveyors and they stated that this was 50 foot from the
centerline of the canal. This complies with our specifications.
I would like to reiterate that any activity, (including but
not limited to erecting structures, fences, landscaping,
participating in recreational activities, such as 4 wheelers,
horseback riding, etc. ) within the easement of the company is
prohibited and any activity must be approved by the directors in
writing.
Also, the ditch company would like to mention that due to the
fact that the irrigation canal adjoins the property, there is
potential for groundwater problems along the canal. There could
be high water at times that could impact homes with basements .
This needs to be considered in relation to the site.
If you have further questions regarding these comments, please
contact our office.
Sincerely,
�
n —41-614)"14
Dale Trowbridge
Office Manager
33040 Railroad Avenue • P.O. Box 104 • Lucerne, Colorado 80646
Weld County Referral
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE December 9, 2005
IDc JAN 11 9COLORADOECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Trinity Properties LP Case Number PZ-1102
Please Reply By January 9, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman
Project Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 17residential lots, 2 non-residential
agricultural outlots and .8 acres of open space along with oil & gas production.
(Deer Meadows )
Legal Part of Section 7, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location North of and adjacent to CR 70 approximately IA mile east of CR 61.
Parcel Number 0799 07 000025
•
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) February 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. ll1 , ''II \\
Comments: INN-C I B(v sto. ffSpc,..aer/I enflieer by le 1'1W ( C ? Ce)
1� +N•4 I-a Gkel+. ) hc.-.i� I�
s 4o f '^� 417 Cq—• 7 Cr: ••v r Cor oralrr
OQGJ• re<cry. ,.•d:'�, c- ,} IN "Leis 0)eve lop FL./FIc.N .
Signature _ Date ) c3lo6
^Th
Agency Q ;1; �� of L.) r)1,�
,, e
+Weld County Planning Dept. ❖918 10th Street, Greeley, CO. 80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax
tin
4-lett
Weld d County Referral
IDecember 9, 2005
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Trinity Properties LP Case Number PZ-1102
Please Reply By January 9, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman
Project Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 17residential lots, 2 non-residential
agricultural outlots and .8 acres of open space along with oil & gas production.
(Deer Meadows )
Legal Part of Section 7, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location North of and adjacent to CR 70 approximately Y mile east of CR 61.
Parcel Number 0799 07 000025
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) February 7, 2006
qv-We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
veg We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter. /, and
Comments: u. A Q mite QJ my `G-firt 'e4 ann y�r 7
r76CNlfiart4 u2OAt /tiii&.
Signature � Date 12-13_O6
Agency la/l!/j5, (2a ipLa/ze
+Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10'Street,Greeley, CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
•
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER �oe cow
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources it"
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
h��Mk
Denver,Colorado 80203 January 10, 2006 ;,876 f
Phone(303)866-3581 De artment
FAX(303)866-3589 Weld County PlanningP
www.water.state.co.us GREELEY OFFICE Bill Owens
Governor
Russell
Ms. Sheri Lockman q Lxecut George
utv
JAN 1 2 2 c006 Executive Director
Weld County Planning Department Hal D.Simpson,P.E.
918 10t'' Street RECEIVED State Engineer
Greeley, Co 80631
Re: Deer Meadows PUD- Rural Cluster
Case No. PZ-1102
Sec. 7, T6N, R63W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 1, Water District 1
Dear Ms. Lockman:
This referral does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in Section 30-
28-101(10)(a), C.R.S. The material submitted appears to be only for a change in zoning
on the proposed Deer Meadows PUD. Therefore, pursuant to the State Engineer's March
4, 2005 memorandum to county planning directors, this office will only perform a cursory
review of the referral information and provide comments. The comments will not address
the adequacy of the water supply plan for this development or the ability of the water
supply plan to satisfy any County regulations or requirements.
Additionally, we have previously commented on the above referenced proposal for
the division of 303.7 acres into 17 single-family residential lots on 87.7 acres, two out-lots
of 202.6 acres, and 13.4 acres of road right-of-way by our letter dated August 25, 2005.
The proposal is to be developed as a rural cluster in accordance with the provisions of
Section 30-28-403, C.R.S.
Information from this new submittal indicates that the water supply for this
development will still be provided by 17 domestic wells (Trinity Well Nos. 1-17) and 2
irrigation wells (Trinity Non-Potable Well 1 and 2). These wells are proposed to be
operated pursuant to the plan for augmentation pending in Division 1 Water Court case
no. 2004CW342.
Furthermore, information from this submittal indicates that a Substitute Water
Supply Plan ("SWSP") has been presented to the State Engineer to allow for the
construction and operation of the 19 wells while the augmentation plan is pending
approval of the water court. We do not show that a request for such an SWSP has been
submitted to this office. In addition, in accordance with item #2 of the State Engineer's
Policy 2003-2 (copy enclosed) regarding SWSP's, it is the intent that new residential
developments not rely on the approval of an SWSP for their water supply because of the
potential the SWSP will not be renewed. Under these circumstances, persons purchasing
lots and constructing homes could potentially be faced with mandatory curtailment of their
water source for their single-family residences. An SWSP has an approval duration of only
one year. That temporary aspect of such a water supply makes it unreliable. Without a
Deer Meadows PUD Page 2
Weld County Planning Department
decree for an augmentation plan signed by the judge, there is no assurance that the
SWSP can operate perpetually. This puts homeowners, senior vested water rights, or
both at risk.
Therefore, as mentioned in our letter dated August 25, 2005, the applicant will
need to obtain well permits for Trinity Well Nos. 1-17 and Trinity Non-Potable Well 1 and 2
in accordance with CRS §37-90-137(2). Well permits for these wells could not be issued
by this office until the water court decrees an augmentation plan that replaces depletions
caused by these wells.
If you have any question in this matter please contact loana Comaniciu of this
office.
Sincerely,
Dick Wolfe, P.E.
Assistant State Engineer
Cc: Jim Hall, Division Engineer
Brent Schantz
DW/IC/Deer Meadows PUD Rural Cluster
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER ov cow
Divisionartof water Reso Rees
sources
Department of Natural Rso
*
1313 Sherman Street,Room 818
•
Denver,Colorado 80203
Phone(303)866-3581
FAX(303)866-3589 Bill Owens
www.water.state.co.us Governor
Greg E.Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D.Simpson,P.E.
State Engineer
POLICY 2003-2
IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 37-92-308, C.R.S. (2003)
REGARDING SUBSTITUTE WATER SUPPLY PLANS
The following general statement of policy is adopted to explain the State Engineer's
implementation of HB 02-1414, HB 03-1001 and SB 03-73 regarding substitute
water supply plans.
Considerations and Background for Policy
Subsequent to the Supreme Court ruling in Empire Lodge Homeowners v. Mover,
the 2002 and 2003 General Assemblies granted additional authority to the State
Engineer that allows limited approval of substitute water supply plans involving out-
of-priority diversions. According to section 37-92-308(1)(a), C.R.S. (2003), "There
are certain circumstances under which the time required to go through the water
court adjudication process can be problematic for some water users. Prior to
January 1, 2002, substitute water supply plans had come into common usage for a
number of water users, and based on this precedent, it appears desirable to
establish additional authority for the State Engineer to approve substitute water
supply plans." Substitute water supply plans provide water users a mechanism to
replace out-of-priority depletions on an interim basis. This allows temporary
changes of use and in the case of permanent changes, the protection of other water
rights during litigation involving water change cases and augmentation plans.
Approved substitute water supply plans include stringent terms and conditions to
ensure that operation of the plans will not injure other water rights.
This statement of policy generally explains the State Engineer's interpretation and
implementation of HB 02-1414, HB 03-1001 and SB 03-73 with respect to the State
Engineer's review and approval of substitute water supply plans; however, the State
Engineer will make the final decision regarding approval of any plan.
Policy
1) Implementation of this policy hereby revokes Policy 2002-2.
2
- 2) Requests for substitute water supply plans for providing domestic water within
new or proposed residential subdivisions will not be granted because of the
potential of the substitute water supply plan not being renewed and a permanent
plan for augmentation not being approved by the water court. Under these
circumstances, persons purchasing lots and constructing homes could potentially
be faced with mandatory curtailment of their water source.
3) Requests for substitute water supply plans involving not-nontributary ground
water will not be granted because statutes specifically require a judicially
approved plan for augmentation prior to the pumping of not-nontributary wells.
See section 37-90-137(9)(c)(I), C.R.S. (2003).
4) The Proof of Notice required by section 37-92-308(4)(a)(II), C.R.S. (2003) shall
be a copy of a certificate of mailing or equivalent by first-class mail from the
applicant.
5) The notification required by sections 37-92-308(3)(b)(IV), 37-92-308(4)(11), 37-92-
308(5)(a)(II) and 37-92-308(6), C.R.S. (2003) shall include a statement that a
response to the notice is required to be considered a "party to the application".
This response indicating party status must be sent to the State Engineer or his
designated agent by first-class mail or by electronic mail. The applicant should
state in the notice that a response to the State Engineer must be received within
30 days of notice. All responses to the notice and SWSP must be sent to the
State Engineer's Office and the Applicant.
6) The Division of Water Resources may act on a request for approval of a
substitute water supply plan prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period,
if comments have been received from all opposers or noticed parties. See
sections 37-92-308(4)(a)(lll) and (5)(a)(III), C.R.S. (2003).
7) Section 37-92-308(6), C.R.S. (2003) directs the State Engineer to establish a
notification list for each water division to notify interested parties of requests for
approval of substitute water supply plans (including emergency approval for
augmentation wells):
To be placed on the notification list, parties shall pay a fee of twelve dollars per
calendar year, per water division. The notification lists may be posted on the
Division of Water Resources' website.
The requestor shall provide copies of the proposed substitute water supply plan
to all parties on the list and shall contact the Division of Water Resources for the
current notification list at the time of mailing.
8) A hearing shall be held pursuant to 37-92-308(3)(b)(IV), C.R.S. (2003) (aka, SB
03-73), regardless of whether comments are received from any party.
9) Only one emergency request pursuant to section 37-92-308(7), C.R.S. (2003) will
be allowed per applicant in any twelve-month period, unless the State Engineer
specifically allows a subsequent request. Emergency requests are limited to
3
situations affecting the public health and safety and are not intended to be used
for situations including, but not limited to, crop relief, piscatorial or recreational
purposes.
10)No substitute water supply plan shall be granted pursuant to 37-92-308(5) if
stream depletions from out of priority diversions are projected to occur more than
five years after diversions begin or if the applicant has sought water court
approval of a plan for augmentation or a change of water right for some or all of
the same structures or water rights.
11)The conversion of a substitute water supply plan applied for under section 37-92-
308(5), C.R.S. (2003)to a substitute water supply plan applied for under section
37-92-308(4), C.R.S. (2003) shall not occur without prior approval from the State
Engineer.
12)The time periods allowed for approvals and renewals of requests submitted
under section 37-92-308(4), C.R.S. (2003) shall not be dependent upon the time
the water court application has been pending with the water court prior to the
request. If the conversion is allowed, the State Engineer will count any years
operating under 37-92-308(5) approval towards the annual renewal limits
contained in 37-92-308(4).
13)Emergency requests for substitute water supply plans under section 37-92-
308(7), C.R.S. (2003) shall have the highest priority for evaluation. Every
attempt will be made to process emergency requests as soon as possible.
Requests submitted under sections 37-92-308(4) and (5), C.R.S. (2003) shall be
evaluated chronologically based on the date of submittal to the State Engineer
unless directed otherwise by the State Engineer. Evaluations for requests
submitted under section 37-92-308(3) shall be pursuant to timeframes
established in this section.
14)Waterfrom wells decreed in Larimer County District Court Civil Action 11217
shall not be used as a source of replacement supply or substituted water supply
in a substitute water supply plan.
15)The State Engineer's Office does not have the authority or resources to provide
consulting engineering services. Thus, a substitute water supply plan request
must be complete upon submittal to the State Engineer. Often, consultation with
a professional engineer may be necessary to address the technical and
engineering issues involved and to assure that a complete request is prepared.
The following items must be addressed when submitting a request for approval of
a substitute water supply plan.
a) Provide a statement regarding the justification and need. Please cite the
subsection of section 37-92-308, C.R.S. (2003) under which the request is
being made.
b) Show Proof of Notice as required in sections 37-92-308(3)(b)(IV), 37-92-
308(4)(a)(II), 37-92-308(5)(a)(II), and 37-92-308(7), C.R.S., (2003), by
providing a copy of a certificate of mailing or equivalent by first-class mail
from the applicant.
4
c) Submit a narrative description summarizing the water resource aspects of the
proposed or existing operation including water usage and consumption and a
proposed plan for replacing out-of-priority depletions or for change of water
right.
d) Provide an affidavit of ownership or a consent agreement to utilize an existing
water right. If leased water is being used, a copy of the agreement between
the applicant and the lessor must be submitted.
e) Provide an engineering report for the substitute water supply plan. The report
should include, but is not limited to, all pertinent information regarding the
replacement water and its water quality, historical and proposed consumptive
uses, return flows, diversion records, aerial photographs to document
historical use, well permit numbers, location maps, transit losses and the
time, location and amount of stream depletions. The engineering report must
be prepared consistent with the "GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR
SUBSTITUTE WATER SUPPLY PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE
ENGINEER PURSUANT TO SECTION 37-92-308, CRS (2003)" attached to
this policy. The guidelines may be updated and amended from time-to-time.
To assure that you have the most current version, contact the DWR website
at www.water.state.co.us.
f) Submit a proposed monthly accounting form for the substitute water supply
plan that includes all diversions, stream depletions, and replacement water
deliveries. The accounting must be provided to the water commissioner and
division engineer on forms and a reporting schedule that is acceptable to
them. The accounting form should contain all information necessary for the
administration of the plan. The name, mailing address, and phone number of
the contact person who is responsible for operation and accounting of this
plan must be provided on the accounting form.
g) All water diverted or used for augmentation in the proposed substitute water
supply plan shall be adequately measured to the satisfaction of the division
engineer or a designee.
h) The approval of a substitute water supply plan may require the issuance of a
well permit, if applicable. The well permit application process, timelines and
fees are not waived under this policy. Consent of adjacent well owners or a
hearing may be required prior to issuance of a well permit if another well is
located within 600 feet. See section 37-90-137(2)(b)(I), C.R.S. (2003).
i) An approved substitute water supply plan may be revoked or modified at any
time should it be determined that injury to other water rights has or will occur
as a result of the approved plan, or if the applicant has violated any term and
condition contained in this or any prior plan.
This policy becomes effective immediately and can only be modified or revoked in
writing by the State Engineer.
60We 3
State Engineer Date
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICALSURVEY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 r- w ILCD
Denver,Colorado 80203 Weld County Planning Department G rp_ C
Phone 303.866.2611 GREELEY OFFICE1101
Fax 303.866.2461
SEP - 9 2005 DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RECEIVED RESOURCES
Bill
September 2, 2005 Gove nora
Russell George
Sheri Lockman Executive Director
Weld County Department of Planning Services Legal Description: Vincent Matthews
Located in S7,T6N, R63W Division Director and
918 10th Street
of the 6`h P.M.
Greeley, CO 80631 state Geologist
Subject: Review of Deer Meadows P.U.D. Sketch Plan
Case No. PK-1102, Weld County, CO; CGS Unique No. WE-06-0010
Dear Ms. Lockman:
Colorado Geological Survey has completed its site visit and review of the above-referenced project. I
understand the applicant proposes to subdivide this 303.8-acre parcel into 17 residential lots of approximately
3.2 to 10.2 acres each, with two large outlots. With this referral, I received Sketch Plan Application
documents (Todd Hodges Design, July 20, 2005), an Engineering Geology Report by Thomas Finley of Terra
Logics Consulting(May 23, 2005), and Sketch Plan drawings (h termill Land Surveying, July 13, 2005). An
individual well and onsite wastewater system(OWS) are planned for each of the 17 new lots.
I visited the site on August 31, 2005. I did not observe any surface conditions that would preclude the
proposed development,but there are several significant development constraints that will need to be
considered:
Groundwater is the most significant factor affecting the proposed development. I agree with Terra
Logics(page 8) that shallow groundwater levels "will limit foundation and floor construction depths in lower
areas." The Larimer County Soil Survey describes the soil unit in the central portion of the site,roughly
corresponding to proposed lots 11, 8 and 17, as presenting severe limitations for construction of dwellings due
to wetness, and groundwater was encountered at very shallow depths of approximately one to nine feet below
the ground surface in three of the seven borings drilled by Terra Logics. Groundwater levels should be
expected to rise seasonally and in relation to the water level in the Greeley Ditch that borders much of the site,
and perched water is likely to form above the site's clayey, less permeable soil layers and on top of the
bedrock surface as a result of landscape irrigation and runoff from roofs and paved areas.
Since lowermost floor and crawlspace levels must be located at least three feet above maximum anticipated
groundwater levels, basements should not be considered feasible on proposed lots 11, 8 and 17, and
basements on all other lots should only be considered if site-specific water level observations indicate that the
3 foot separation between lowermost floor or crawlspace levels and maximum anticipated groundwater
surface can be maintained.
We recommend that individual perimeter foundation drain systems be constructed to help prevent infiltration
of perched water(on lots where basements are determined to be feasible), and to help control wetting of
potentially collapsible or expansive soils in the immediate vicinity of foundation elements. It is critical that
the perimeter drains, if constructed, are sloped to discharge to an interior pumped sump or a gravity outlet that
discharges water as far as possible away from all structures.
Weld Deer Meadows
2:08 PM,09/06/2005
Sheri Lockman
September 2, 2005
Page 2 of 2
Soil engineering properties and foundation design. Terra Logics' report contains a good description
of existing site conditions, and makes appropriate general construction recommendations for addressing
the low-strength and slightly collapsible soils that were encountered in the test borings. I agree that
additional, site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigations including drilling, sampling, lab testing
and analysis will be needed, once final building layouts are known,to further characterize soil and
bedrock engineering properties such as expansion/consolidation potential, density, strength and
allowable bearing pressures. This information, along with more specific information about depths to
bedrock and seasonal depths to groundwater, will be needed to design individual foundations,
foundation perimeter drains, floor systems, and to determine if basements or crawl spaces are feasible
on lots other than 11, 8 and 17.
OWS. Most of the soils beneath proposed building envelopes should be suitable for conventional
OWS. However, it is likely that local areas of shallow groundwater will cause engineered/mounded
systems to be required on several lots.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need
clarification of issues identified during this review,please call me at(303) 866-2001, or e-mail
jill.carlson@state.co.us.
Sincerely,
l -1,
Jilllarlson, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
C:\Docmnents and Settings\CarlsonJ\My Documents\Carison LURs\Weld Deer Meadows.doc
2:08 PM,09/06/2005
fgOrtE
Weld County Referral
Weld County Planning Department�ecember 9, 2005
I •
DGREELEY OFFICE
C. DEC 1 9 2005
COLORADO RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Trinity Properties LP Case Number PZ-1102
Please Reply By January 9, 2006 Planner Sheri Lockman
Project Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 17residential lots, 2 non-residential
agricultural outlots and .8 acres of open space along with oil & gas production.
(Deer Meadows )
Legal Part of Section 7, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location North of and adjacent to CR 70 approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 61.
Parcel Number 0799 07 000025
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) February 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:
���11) n
SignatureN I ` «`
Date \ �S
Agency W\ (j✓ c`^
+Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10'Street,Greeley,CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 ❖(970)304-6498 fax
Applicant: Trinity Properties LP'
Planner: Sheri Lockman Case#: PZ-1102
\"---- / 72
ri
Jk
74 c�
R61 { 69
7 4
cj 73
7 \ ' 72
70
nm.... 73
L \ 70 /I "�"'"`^--.
73
70
72 73 4''', ---------N\ 1 ) I/ c\---- )1\
0.4 0 0.4 0.8 Miles
Weld County Referral Map N
/ \ / Highways `
Major Roads
N Local Roads ��] \1/41 /
niYY
Railroads ' r E
iv &reams&Ditches
Lakes S
Floodplains
r. r-
I IN o
• I a) u) N
E a)
•
o a'
0 . . E w cD
o
o F2 a)
o a
>. -o E V)
Q a) 0
D E w o o u_ m
i_ 0-
0 E C 0) O >.
(4C. C
.r= OOOOOOO 3
a J ZZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z Z m
C Y C c'
= C O O r
i O N w. V) 0 1-2U I- 75-"0 T U
I 12 'Q vO) u: a) rr .cr .cr CU •—
CD < U)Ci) W U) CO co. co. O N
< m u) ay
o ❑ - ` o� L
cla) Ca) � o
_ v
a D E • •_� u) o
o 0 o m cn v) () u) 0 .~
WO) a) ti
,•-•.---.1 0° - II o
� co C m ai p ()
a) O v 3 � > c)rng)rna)rn aa)) �
2 C O UO) CO U) U) U) U) V) 'OO °>
0 V) g C a)
C o)-- c U
_ 0 — U
� O C a) _
_ O
cts a) - E o_
•
}, a) a) rrrrrr O E
E a 3 a') .rn.g)-- -- .�.rn a)a) 5
U) •
U) CO U) U) U) (f) L O
• .— C c0 U
. 3 O y C O
r fi
r
CL -D N > N _ N N _ _ OU 17)C r W a) a) a) r r r C
to 0 w 0 (7) cn cn c.) c) (n E a) °
O c•O-i c°) a a)
No ,
Q) (al a)
0 - (
ch
- I 3 .` 0 O
C•1 a O O a) ca
C C C a c
+; I- O c0 as O _
— .� = = - J U) CO C O TD
I CID ca 13v-av E E E co -0 0
N - c v_) sCoa ccc Z —
y v,
,. _ LL U) V) (AJJJ uJ a)
C
L CD m U Y a)
O CO E > — Y
Z to - - 5 w a
E _ a) C r
a.; o a° u gwccc o6 v
Z C N QO » » > N o 3
Z v
O • c o NTamF � � ti a) fl- , o
Q O a r .5 o a
U Q a � � a) N
H -O U
WELBORN SULLIVAN 82Den17th Street,Suite 500
Denver,Colorado 80202
MECK & TOOLEY, P.C. Telephone:303830-2500
Facsimile:303-832-2366
ATTORNEYS AT LAW E-mail:wsmt@wsmtlaw.com
Stephen) Sullivan
Weld County Planning Department John F Meek
GREELEY OFFICE Keith D.Tooley
Kendor P Jones
JAN 0 5 2006 Brian S.Tooley
Thomas C.McKee
RECEIVED Stephen A Bain
Kathryn Haight
January 4, 2006 Amy E Seneshen
Sheryl L.Howe
Danielle V.Wiletsky
Via Federal Express Blake M.Pickett
David J.Fennell
Mi Young C.Kim
Ms. Sheri Lockman
Special Counsel
Weld County Department of Planning Services William R.Rapson
918 10th Street Norman S.Farly,Jr
Greeley, CO 80631 Of Counsel
Robert F Welborn
John B Welborn
Re: Deer Meadows (Cluster PUD Sketch Plan 17 Lots)
Township 6 North, Range 63 West
Section 7: E/2 (approximate 303.7 acre parcel) Weld County CO
Dear Ms. Lockman:
We represent United States Exploration, Inc. ("UXP") with respect to the
application that has been filed by Trinity Properties, LP for a change of zoning from
agricultural to PUD for residential lots for the property referenced above. UXP is a current
lessee of oil and gas interest underlying the property. UXP acquired its oil and gas
leasehold interest in the property from a predecessor entity to Anadarko E&P Company, LP
("Anadarko E&P").
As you know, by letter dated August 30, 2005, Anadarko E&P gave notice of its oil
and gas interest underlying the property and objected to the approval by the County of a
final development plan for the property unless, and until, an agreement on surface use is
reached with the applicant with respect to the oil and gas interest underlying the property.
UXP joins in the objections set forth in Anadarko E&P's August 30, 2005 letter and
incorporates them herein by reference. Please provide a copy of this letter to the Planning
Commission and the Board to be included in the record of the proceedings to be held on the
application, as well as all subsequent proceedings for the property.
Anadarko E&P and UXP are in discussions with Trinity to work out an agreement
for the compatible development of the surface estate and the oil and gas estate; however, no
agreements have been reached to date. UXP therefore files this objection with the County
in order to preserve its rights under Colorado statutes and to request the County make any
approval for an application of a final development plan conditioned upon an agreement
between UXP, Anadarko E& P and the developer.
UXP requests notice of any and all hearings on Trinity's pending Application For
Development of the above-referenced property. Notice of hearing should be provided to me
and also to UXP as follows:
United States Exploration, Inc,
Attention: Joe Owen,
1500 Poly Drive, Suite 100
Billings, Montana 59102.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me.
Yours y,
rian S. To ley
BST/sc
cc: Joe Owen
G. Brent Coan, Attorney for Applicant
Dewey Gerdom, Petroleum Development Corp.
Todd Hodges/for Applicant
Molly Sommerville, Attorney for Anadarko E&P Company, LP
Lockman.0103.1tr.revl 2
WOODROW 8L SOBEL, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1660 Wynkoop Street, Suite 1100
Denver,Colorado 80202
Telephone: 303-296-1400
Molly Sommerville Facsimile: 303-296-1924
msommerville@woodrow-sobel.com E-mail: law@woodrow-sobel.com
December 29, 2005
Via Telefax and Federal Express
Sheri Lockman
Weld County Department of Planning Services
918 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Deer Meadows (Cluster PUD Sketch Plan for 17 lots)
Township 6 North, Range 63 West
Section 7: E/2 (approximate 303.7 acre parcel)
Weld County, Colorado
Dear Sheri:
As you know, this law firm represents Anadarko Land Corp. and Anadarko E&P
Company LP with respect to the application that has been filed by Trinity Properties LP for
a change of zone from agricultural to PUD for residential lots for the property referenced
above. I have previously provided you with a letter dated August 30, 2005 and also a letter
to the members of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
dated the same date that constituted the objection by the Anadarko entities to the
application because of the oil and gas interests that they own under the property.
Attached to this letter is a copy of my letter to you and to the Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners, all dated August 30, 2005, which I ask that you
provide to the Planning Commission and the Board as a part of the scheduled hearings and
for any subsequent hearings that affect the property.
As the letter indicates, the Anadarko entities and their lessees are in discussions
with Trinity to work out an agreement for the compatible development of the surface estate
and the oil and gas estate; however, no agreements have been reached to date. The
Anadarko entities therefore are filing the objection with the County in order to preserve
their rights under Colorado statutes and to request that the County make any approval of an
r—
Sheri Lockman
December 29, 2005
Page 2
application for a final development plan conditioned upon an agreement between the
Anadarko entities, their oil and gas lessees, and the developer.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me.
Very truly yours,
WOODROW & SOBEL, P.C.
Molly Sommerville
MS/sa
Enclosures
cc: Tom Marranzino
Dan Casper
Don Ballard
Marla Jones, Esq.
Todd Hodges / for Applicant
Joe Owen/United States Exploration, Inc.
Dewey Gerdom/ Petroleum Development Corporation
Brian Tooley, Esq.
Brent Coan, Esq.
WOODROW 8c SOBEL, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1660 Wynkoop Street,Suite 1100
Denver,Colorado 80202
Telephone: 303-296-1400
Molly Sommerville Facsimile: 303-296-1924
msommerville@woodrow-sobel.com E-mail:law®woodrow-sobel.com
August 30, 2005
Via Telefax and Federal Express
Sheri Lockman
Weld County Department of Planning Services
918 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Deer Meadows (Cluster PUD Sketch Plan for 17 lots)
Township 6 North,Range 63 West
Section 7: E/2 (approximate 303.7 acre parcel)
Weld County, Colorado
Dear Sheri:
This law firm represents Anadarko Land Corp. ("Anadarko Land"), formerly known as
Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation, and Anadarko E&P Company LP ("Anadarko
E&P"), formerly known as Union Pacific Resources Company, with respect to an application for
approval of the Cluster PUD Sketch Plan for Deer Meadows ("Application") that has been filed
with Weld County by Trinity Properties LP that covers the property referenced above.
Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P together own all of the minerals that underlie the E/2
of Section 7, Township 6 North, Range 63 West, the majority of which is included in the
Application ("Property"). Enclosed is a letter to the members of the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners for Weld County entitled "Notice of Oil and Gas Interests
Owned by Anadarko Land Corp. and Anadarko E&P Company LP and Objection" which I ask
that you provide to the Planning Commission and the Board to be included in the record of the
proceedings to be held on the Application as well as all subsequent proceedings for the Property.
Sheri Lockman
August 30, 2005
Page 2
As you are aware, C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101 et. seq. requires that developers give notice to
mineral interest owners of hearings on applications for development and certify to the local
jurisdiction that notice was given. Local governments are to require the certification as a
condition for the approval of the application.
Notices of hearings should be provided to the Anadarko entities as follows:
Anadarko E&P Company LP
Post Office Box 9149
Houston,Texas 77387-9147
Attention: Land Manager—Western Region/CBM
Anadarko Land Corp.
Post Office Box 9149
Houston, Texas 77387-9147
Attention: Manager,Property and Rights-of-Way
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
WOODROW& SOBEL, P.C.
Molly Sommerville
MS/sa
Enclosures
cc: Tom Marranzino
Dan Casper
Don Ballard
Donna Powers, Esq.
Todd Hodges/for Applicant
Joe Owen/United States Exploration, Inc.
Dewey Gerdom/Petroleum Development Corporation
r.
WOODROW & SOBEL, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1660 Wynkoop Street,Suite 1100
Denver,Colorado 80202
Telephone: 303-296-1400
Molly Sommerville,Esq. Facsimile: 303-296-1924
msommerville@woodrow-sobel.com E-mail:law@woodrow-sobel.com
August 30,2005
Via Telefax and Federal Express
Members of the Planning Commission Members of the Board of County
of Weld County Commissioners of Weld County
918 10th Street 915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631 Greeley, Colorado 80631
NOTICE OF OIL AND GAS INTERESTS OWNED BY
ANADARKO LAND CORP.AND ANADARKO E&P COMPANY LP
AND OBJECTION
Re: Deer Meadows (Cluster PUD Sketch Plan for 17 lots)
Township 6 North,Range 63 West
Section 7: E/2 (approximate 303.7 acre parcel)
Weld County, Colorado
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This law firm represents Anadarko Land Corp. ("Anadarko Land"), formerly known
as Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation, and Anadarko E&P Company LP ("Anadarko
E&P"), formerly known as Union Pacific Resources Company, with respect to the application
that has been filed with Weld County ("County") for the approval of the Deer Meadows
Cluster PUD Sketch Plan ("Application") for property that includes approximately 303.7
acres in the E/2 of Section 7, Township 6 North, Range 63 West, in Weld County
("Property"). The Anadarko entities own all of the minerals that underlie the Property.
Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P wish to give notice to the County of the mineral
interests they own under the Property and make the County aware that any subsequent
approval by the County of an application for a final development plan may make the oil and
gas resources that underlie the Property undevelopable or more difficult to develop. Anadarko
Land and Anadarko E&P object to the approval by the County of a final development plan for
the Property unless and until an agreement on surface use is reached between the Anadarko
entities and the Applicant with respect to oil and gas.
The following are comments in support of this Notice and Objection:
Members of the Planning Commission and
Members of the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County
August 30, 2005
Page 2
1. The Oil and Gas Resources Owned by the Anadarko Entities.
The Anadarko entities together own all of the oil and gas that underlies the Property.
A predecessor entity to Anadarko E&P granted an oil and gas lease to United States
Exploration, Inc. ("UXP") that includes the Property. Petroleum Development Corporation
("PDC") operates one producing well on the Property in the SW/4SE/4 and records at the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission reflect that PDC has acquired permits to
drill three additional wells on the Property in the SE/4SE/4;NE/4SE/4 and NW/4SE/4.
2. There Is Clear Statutory Authority and Direction for the County to Take into Account
the Rights of Mineral Interest Owners in Its Consideration of Applications for Development.
The State of Colorado recognizes the important rights of mineral owners and lessees in
C.R.S. § 30-28-133(10) which states and acknowledges that both the mineral estate and the
surface estate are interests in land and that the two interests are "separate and distinct." The
subsection specifically recognizes that the owners of subsurface mineral interests and their
lessees have "the same rights and privileges as surface owners."
Further, C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101, et. seg. requires that applicants for development
approvals give notice to mineral estate owners of hearings to be held before local jurisdictions
on applications for development and further requires that the developer certify that he has
given the required notice as a condition to the approval of the application by the local
jurisdiction.
3. Government Action Which Allows Surface Development in a Manner Which
Precludes Mineral Development May Impair the Vested Property and Contractual
Rights of the Mineral Interest Owner.
Colorado case law provides that the mineral owner has the right of reasonable access
to and use of the surface estate to extract minerals and that the surface owner and mineral
owner must exercise their rights in a manner consistent with one another.' Actions by a
government entity which may have the effect of reversing this basic tenet of Colorado
property law and thereby deprive the mineral interest owner of its vested property and
contractual rights may violate federal and state constitutional provisions.
'See Frankfort Oil Company v.Abrams 413 P.2d 190(Colo. 1966)and Gerrity Oil&Gas Corporation
v.Magness 946 P.2d 913(Colo. 1977).
Members of the Planning Commission and
Members of the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County
August 30, 2005
Page 3
Union Pacific Railroad Company gave a deed to Fred P. Newman and William W.
Louden dated May 26, 1914 and recorded June 3, 1914 in Book 393, Page 389 in which the
Railroad reserved the minerals for the Property. The Railroad granted the minerals to Union
Pacific Land Resources Corporation by quitclaim deed dated April 1, 1971 and recorded on
April 14, 1971 in Book 644, Reception No. 1565712. Applicant had record notice at the time
it acquired interests in the Property that the minerals were severed from the surface estate and
that it received less than the entire interest in the Property.
4. An Action by the County to Approve the Application May Amount to a
Regulatory Taking within the Meaning of the State and United States
Constitutions.
Action by the County to approve an application for surface development may
constitute a regulatory taking, especially where the operator is deprived of all economically
viable use of land or his investment-backed expectations to develop his property.2
The United States Claims Court and the Federal Circuit Courts have awarded
compensation or affirmed decisions to award compensation to energy and mining companies
based upon claims by the companies that their mineral properties had been taken by the
government without just compensation because of government regulations which disallowed
the development by the companies of their mineral rights.;
5. The Anadarko Entities Have Entered into Many Agreements with Developers
With Respect to the Disposition of the Minerals at the Time that the Developer
Proposes to Develop the Surface Estate, and the Public Interest is Served by
the Parties Entering into Such an Agreement.
The Anadarko entities have extensive mineral interests throughout Colorado where the
surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. The Anadarko entities have worked
with many parties who wish to develop the surface estate in order to assure the compatible
2See for example Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct.2886, 120 L.Ed.
2d 798(1992).
3See for example Whitney Benefits,Inc.v.United States 18 CI.Ct.394(1989),corrected,20 CI.Ct. 324
(1990),affil. 926 F.2d 1169(Fed.Cir.),cert.denied 112 S.Ct.406(1991);United Nuclear Corporation v.
United States 17 CI.Ct. 768,affd.,912 F.2d 1432(1990).
Members of the Planning Commission and
Members of the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County
August 30, 2005
Page 4
development of the surface and the minerals or to effect some other disposition of the
minerals.
The Anadarko entities wish to work with the Applicant in the same manner that they
have worked with other developers. The Anadarko entities object to the Application,however,
until such time as they reach an agreement with the Applicant with respect to their oil and gas
interests and request that the County make any approval of a final development plan for the
Property conditioned upon an agreement between the Applicant and the Anadarko entities.
Very truly yours,
WOODROW& SOBEL, P.C.
Molly Sommerville
MS/sa
cc: Donna Powers,Esq.
Don Ballard
Tom Marranzino
Dan Casper
Todd Hodges/for Applicant
Joe Owen/United States Exploration, Inc.
Dewey Gerdom/Petroleum Development Corporation
Hello