The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20060708.tiff At \*I MEMORANDUM WigC TO: Board of County Commissioners COLORADO DATE: February 8, 2006 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Request for Continuance of Approved Pre-Advertisement Carma Colorado, PZ-1078 do Tyler Packard and Tom Morton Tyler Packard, Development Manager, on behalf of CARMA Colorado, Inc., requested a Pre- Advertisement hearing date of February 8, 2006 for the Change of Zone for the St. Vrain Lakes PUD. This request was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 4, 2006. Today Mr. Packard is requesting consideration of the Board of County Commissioners to reschedule this hearing to March 15, 2006, as the Planning Commission on January 17, 2006 elected to continue this land use case to a special hearing date of February 16, 2006, thereby allowing full consideration of the application. The Department of Planning Services is in support of this request and recommends approval by this Board. 2006-0708 EXHS f CASE NUMBER: PZ-1078 APPLICANT: Tom Morton PLANNER: Klm Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD with (E) Estate; (R-1) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District (St. Vrain Lakes PUD) LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located East of and adjacent to thel-25 Frontage Road, South of and adjacent to State Highway 66; west of and adjacent to CR 13 and north of and adjacent to St. Vrain River. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, provided opening remarks concerning this case, followed by Staff's presentation. Discussion from the Planning Commission Board is presented here: Mr. Ogle stated that the applicants were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 4, 2006 for a pre-advertisement of the Board of County Commissioners hearing which had been scheduled for February 8, 2006 at 10:00am. Mr. Miller said that it was totally unreasonable for them to have a hearing of this type with the limited time schedule they had to consider a development that would become essentially the third or fourth largest city in this county. Mr. Miller said he was not in favor of continuing with the hearing and would much prefer to set a special hearing date in which they could devote an appropriate amount of time to a development of that scope. Mr. Miller said they had previously held a special hearing for a development that was ten percent of this size and this application could potentially have fifteen to twenty thousand people living in it and we have been asked to hear it in a couple of hours, and he did not believe that was appropriate. Mr. Miller said he would like to know what their options were as he understood that it had been approved for pre-advertisement for the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller said he got the feeling that it was being shoved down their throats because there wasn't time to schedule another hearing, and he said again that he did not think that was appropriate. The Chair asked Mr. Morrison for his input. Mr. Morrison replied that the Planning Commission was not bound to keep to that schedule. Mr. Morrison said whether continuing it would make them any better prepared to evaluate the case was really the issue. As a group if they felt a continuance was needed, there would not be any fewer items or complexities on the agenda in the future. Mr. Morrison said it was ultimately their decision whether to hear it today or not. Mr. Miller said starting this type of a hearing at 3:30 in the afternoon with an application of this complexity, he could easily see them being there at midnight if they continued the hearing. He felt that was not appropriate, fair to the board, or to the residents of this county to try and tackle a project of that size in a couple of hour time limitation. Mr. Holton asked Mr. Ogle how much bigger than Lifebridge and Pioneer the Carma project would be. The Chair replied that Pioneer was approximately fifty six hundred acres and Carma was at one thousand three hundred thirteen acres. According to Mr. Ogle, Carma was approximately one thousand acres more than Lifebridge. Mr. Miller asked a question of Mr. Ogle that was unintelligible. Mr. Ogle replied that Lifebridge was one hundred ten for the single family residences and they also had an assisted living component and multi- family housing. Mr. Holton asked about the mixed use component. According to Mr. Ogle, the Carma commercial areas were similar in scope to the Lifebridge project. Mr. Branham inquired about other problems that might be associated with continuing the hearing to another date as Mr. Miller had suggested. Mr. Ogle said they would need to re-advertise the case fifteen days prior to hearing, legal notification would need to go to the county paper, repost the sign and notify surrounding property owners of the new hearing date. Mr. Morrison said they might be able to dispense with the surrounding property owner mailing because that was a different level of requirement under the code and under state law. The publication was most critical with a date certain for those in attendance. Mr. Morrison asked Mr. Ogle about the length of the mailing list. Mr. Ogle responded that it contained twenty five names. Mr. Morrison said the Board of County Commissioners would also need to re-notify because they have sent out notices, so essentially there would have to be two more rounds of notification. The Chair asked about a date for continuance and how much time would be needed. Mr. Morrison replied they would need a month to set up publication properly. Mr. Ogle asked the Chair to poll the audience in order to determine who was for and who was against the application. There were nine or ten hands raised in the audience indicating their interest in the application. Mr. Miller asked about the relevance of audience approval/denial and said the issue was whether they could evaluate the application fairly in an amount of time, not whether the people in the audience were for or against it. Mr. Miller said the matter was they had to determine a lot of issues Mr. Ogle brought up where they were requesting variances from county ordinances and there were a lot of issues to be dealt with whether the audience was for or against it. Mr. Miller said the application deserved a fair hearing and the Planning Commission doesn't just represent the audience, they represent everyone in the county. The Chair expressed his support for Mr. Miller. Mr. Branham asked Mr. Miller, based on his experience, how much time he felt was adequate to allow for a hearing like that. Mr. Miller suggested that a special hearing starting at 10:00 a.m. in the morning just for this case as it had the potential to be a six or eight hour hearing. The Chair again expressed his support of Mr. Miller's comments. The Chair asked for a motion and suggested the planning staff work on a date for the hearing. Mike Miller motioned to continue Case PZ-1078 to a special hearing date, determined by staff, to begin at 10:00 a.m. in the interim week between the scheduled hearings to address the case. Paul Branham seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael Miller, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Morrison asked the Planning Commission to get a date certain so they get the benefit of notice to those present before this hearing closes and also so the decision was in the record. The Chair asked Mr. Ogle to determine a date as soon as possible. Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services asked for a five minute recess in order to allow Mr. Ogle to arrive at a date. Her request was granted. Mr. Ogle said that Thursday, February 16, 2006, 10:00 a.m. at the Greeley Planning Department Hearing room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, CO would be the continuance date for Case PZ-1078. Mr. Ogle said they would re-notify via mail and forward any changes or modifications to the Planning Commission. Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:41 AM To: Esther Gesick; Voneen Macklin; Donita May Subject: Carma Colorado Applicant has agreed to the following schedule: Hearing held at: Greeley Planning Office Hearing Room 918 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 On: February 16, 2006 Name: Carma Colorado, c/o Tom Morton Request: Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD with (E) Estate; (R-1) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial, (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District (St. Vrain Lakes PUD) Case No. PZ-1078 Acres: 1313 +/- Hearing held at: Centennial Building Commissioners Hearing Room 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 On: March 1, 2006 Name: Carma Colorado, do Tom Morton Request: Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD with (E) Estate; (R-1) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial, (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St. Vrain Lakes PUD) Case No. PZ-1078 Acres: '1313 +/- 1/19/2006 Page 1 of 1 Carol Harding From: Glenn Vaad Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:12 PM To: Carol Harding Subject: FW: St. Vrain Lakes Carol, Please place in the file. Thanks, Glenn From: Dale Charles [mailto:dale@primei.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:46 PM To: Dave Long; Glenn Wad; Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; Mike Geile Subject: St. Vrain Lakes Gentlemen—I am writing to express my concern for the very large subdivision,St. Vrain Lakes,in planning for the area bounded by Hwy 66, I-25, CR13 and the St. Vrain River. I am part of the development team that developed Pelican Shores at Rd. 13 & 26. I also plan to live in that subdivision shortly. I strongly believe that the planned subdivision is way too large for the area, and does not fit the rural feel of the area. Pelican Shores has lots ranging from about 1/2 acre to 1 acre, and that type of development fits the rural area nicely. There is no large city in this rural area,and that is exactly why it is attractive to so many people. Placing this many homes in this area would be a planning mistake, and create a large city,without a city to support it. I encourage appropriate development, and that many units is not appropriate for the area. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further,if you would like additional input. Thank you for your time. a Dale Charles River Runs Through It, LLC (303)944-2804 t °' 1/26/2006 Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle — Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 7:35 AM o: Esther Gesick; David Bauer Subject: FW: St Vrain Lakes - 7)2 t 10777 Attachments: Master Drainage Comment Response.pdf; Phasing Figurel and Improvements.pdf FCF ehe 0 Master Drainage Phasing Figurel Comment Respon...and Improvemen... Original Message From: Fred Tafoya [mailto: ftafoya@carroll-lange.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 5: 10 PM To: Kim Ogle Cc: Tyler Packard (E-mail) ; Ben Waldman (E-mail) ; Katherine Strozinski (E-mail) Subject: St Vrain Lakes Kim, Please find attached our St Vrain Lakes Phasing Plan for your inclusion in the BOCC packets. This plan has been reviewed and found acceptable by the Public Works department. I am also including our response to the Master Drainage Study comments for your use. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information prior to BOCC. Thanks, Fred Tafoya, PE Engineering Manager Carroll & Lange, Inc. 303 980-0200 ph 303 980-0917 fax ftafoya@carroll-lange.com soHIBIT 1 t.c ihan V -1 ..._.. S np7.:"7-/Irrk ,s, SH 66 ,nk"«*' f . f a ■ 3 & 4 ■ oe od I3+7 I V.c ■ Q CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY 09 SIGNAL AT IRfNJTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION AND UNDERPASS WCR 28 s k1 \\---------.. 2 j_ ______/ i .., 3 Ln N iiii • 111 •. ADD SECOND EASTD •••• .07/ ,LEFT TURN LANE SH 119 ?'"''"' Phase 1 So =Traffic Signal/Turn Lanes figure 1 =Phase 2 O =Roundabout St. Vrain Lakes =Improvements By Others Phasing Plan Phase 3 and 4 St.Vrain Lakes(LSC.040840) N r O 0_' a' t co 3 0 o o o S . N aco 0) o r O7 o x cci CL CC 0 CO K 3 r- n 0 U -65 O v E x ac m 3 '- o g i 2 'E € 2 P. U • �O N N 0 LL c r O c 3 o a a o 12 r 0 2 :C 0-73 03 v 0C it 0 0 0.) U ro 0. a s a a 3 coco o 0 c E 2 (� a L `a 03 ° 0 E 0 0 a o t '3 N 0 c c o N Q o p 0 0 a a 0H co c L. 0 U N O c c N U EC I O N 3 N E c v d a m � 002 r 0 0 0 N C N N '5 r O) C P O c.) co V = o _v o E a L c c0 c0 X ° U 0 2 i-.3 OD CDL 2 U a o t E J ai 3 J x 2 Lo r U c O u> L CD N 3 U D a N C C = N N C U U O) ✓ O N 113 4_ U ry co !0 0 Y _ cx ' m c E v r2 y £ tC m m U o U ct yr N CC o a �, 0) C O 2 CC 0 d .c J a U o -00 � 3 C 0 m o N C O O o U > U b 0 0` 09 N X c o H F rn a F K r a C 0 U C a E LL OI co - N ca c C D 0 2 5 `2 U t0 t0 SC N E CD ~ 0 Toi 3 !° `v a C N - 0 C 2 _ U U £ 0 3 `° <° v `m E W SCR a c o ` O 2 N m ci N N O O a 9 O N c crs CO ^•V aNi o m " '' 1° w°N N co p. o an o O� p� U 0 N a B 2 cc >0 Y 2 V LL a L re = N 2 of i0 J O O) 0 0 co N w N > `� J E 0o22 U u 'c r a t 2 ,\> :20 U U p X `2 N I cC .5 0 O) E m an d O d 2 E c E a0, 2 .2 00 O U U O 0 U> 0-Ws 2 0-0 $ 0 « 3 > N o �' (4 fn U0 X u_ m 8 CN p t 0 d0 m m 2 co co E E E d ELL 2 2 E 015 • o i o 3 V aN o m ° co_ U2 o'o o'o ' 0 J 0 0 co 3 co- 8 0 U E y m o rn = o w co a a c N m d v H o N 0 N //� Nn « - O O .-a J 2 LL co O N 2, C 0 .2 0 r c. N N C Ni C V� C C O 3 N U V l0 o d N U CO Of W O O O N o O N O co co m - 0 m " 0 m L ce au an ce d E E a rn$ tan o 0 I- E ~ # c 2 0 3 E > N L .J- 'J' E O C s N N a E a 'C E N D ... a 2 J C .« 5 E E 2 2 .� "m E E c - c o a° a a s ° �Jo z . C C 2 c c o o f `o a C L CO N L Ca co c 2 a 0 L a L > N 0 L N t N L L N L N 0 o E o 5 .2 o CO 0 3 fc > 0 y 2 E to t fe r w h !e E E O) w0 , 05 i N A 0 ° N a EE N A O co N N l0 00 d o co a L� CO N d o 3 E 3 « c «�° o 3 « in « t t t 2 t ! T.) "5 t t t t 0 t t 2 t t t t t Ti t 0 0 2 0, 2 2 0 2 •- 2 y 2 2 2 2c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 •— N .2 N h ' N N y Vow N ryl c) N V1 N 41 !/! ai N N 41 Q E 0 0 0000 co0 000 0 00 0E `000 00 00 0 `000 00 = _ 0 K 00 U3 Um 0 00 02 00 00 00 0 00 00 d a N 0 CC 0 rn co c 2 0 u_La. up 13 O) N co m N N r 0) (Lo cc.-4 co N K It It 4_ K 0! x 0 K It K IX m reo 0 14 w 3 0 h 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 w m a CO 1- N C r m a M Carroll & Lange V Processional Engineers&Land Surveyors Lakewood • Winter Park March 6, 2006 JN: 3075 Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Southwest Service Center 4209 County Road 24.5 Longmont, CO 80504 Dear Kim: We have reviewed the comments from Dave Bauer in the memorandum dated January 6, 2006. For ease of addressing the comments, I have included the comments and offered our responses in bold. 1. The submitted Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide was not stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. Response: The Master Drainage Report has been stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. 2. As discussed on the telephone with Kevin Jennings on January 5, 2006, the method for conveying offsite flows through the St. Vrain Lakes PUD site, as presented in the submitted Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide, must be re-designed so that onsite flows resulting from the 100-year storm falling on the fully-developed site are detained in onsite ponds designed to release at the rate of the 5-year storm falling on the un- developed site (5-year historic event), and offsite flows are conveyed through the St. Vrain Lakes PUD site. Response: The Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide has been revised to model the detention ponds with a release rate of the 5-year historic event for the onsite basins. The revised detention methodology is discussed on page 4 under the Proposed Drainage Basins and sub-basins section. 3. As discussed on the telephone with Kevin Jennings on January 5, 2006, summation of offsite and onsite flows for sizing detention release structures is not acceptable and is contrary to established practice. Response: The release rate for the detention ponds have been revised so that the outlet structure releases at the 5-year onsite historic flow rate and passes the offsite flow over the spillway. P.O.Box 3345 .-. 63 Cooper Creek Way, Suite 328 165 South Union Blvd., Suite 156 Winter Park,CO 80482-3345 Lakewood,CO 80228 (970)726-8100 Fax 726-9100 (303)980-0200 Fax 980-0917 Denver-Winter Park Dir. 980-9600 Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Southwest Service Center March 6, 2006 JN: 3075 Page 2 4. The Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide provided by the applicant did not provide the requested construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage for this Change of Zone application. Front, rear, and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed. For Final Plat approval of each Phase of the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, Weld County Public Works will require these construction details for lot grading need to be provided and indicated as to each building lot on the Final Construction Plans. Response: A typical lot grading detail for a front draining lot and a split draining lot was provided on sheet DR6 of the proposed master drainage plans. Prior to final plat of each phase, detailed lot grading will be provided for all lots within each phase with the final construction plans. 5. The submitted Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide had numerous inconsistencies between the plans, tables, and text. Response: The inconsistencies within the Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide have been addressed and corrected. 6. Public Works requires that, for Final Plat approval of each Phase of the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, the Final Drainage Report and final Construction Drawings and Plans must: • Provide calculations of groundwater drawdown rates in relation to soil types, water table, seasonal variability, and proposed future land uses (e.g. open space vs. residential lots). • Provide evidence of the Colorado State Engineer's Office approval of groundwater discharge system • Provide evidence of CDPHE approval of the groundwater discharge system. • Provide description of the interaction of under-drain system discharges with storm drainage and proposed water quality treatment features (swales, ponds, the St. Vrain River). • Provide a copy of the St. Vrain Sanitation District approval of the proposed under-drain system. • Provide Final Construction Plan grading plans for all drainage features (swales, channels, water quality ponds). Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Southwest Service Center March 6, 2006 JN: 3075 Page 3 • Provide Final Construction Plan erosion protection designs, calculations, and specifications for all proposed swales, ponds, and each pipe outlet location (give Q100 flow rates, velocities, D50, quantities, extent of riprap apron, etc.). • Provide Final Construction Plan hydraulic grade line for proposed storm pipes and street inlets (showing Q100 street inundation). • Provide and show on the Final Construction Plan cross-sections of each swale and channel indicating developed case Q100 water surface elevation and freeboard in relation to adjacent proposed homesite finished floor elevations. • On the Final Construction Plan, provide invert in and invert out, diameters, and materials for all proposed storm drainage pipes. • Account for all offsite flows (adjacent roads, offsite properties historically flowing to the proposed site) • Provide street inlet capacity calculations for each proposed inlet, including clogging factors. • Show the proposed water quality ponds and swales on the landscape architecture plans. • Demonstrate that ALL of the site runoff receives water quality treatment. • Describe detention and water quality pond ownership, maintenance requirements, and erosion control. • Add note on plans that all pipes, swales, water quality ponds, and drainage easements to be maintained by home owners association or property owner. • Describe required maintenance (e.g. frequency of inspections, clean-outs) for drainage facilities. • Provide evidence of easement agreements for all storm water discharges from the St. Vrain Lakes PUD site to private property, in particular to the south and east. • 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 FEMA FIRM maps on the area. • Public Works requires that, for Final Plat approval of each Phase of the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, the Final Drainage Report and Final Construction Drawings and Plans must provide calculations showing the effectiveness of the proposed stormwater capture/water quality features and is Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Southwest Service Center March 6, 2006 JN: 3075 Page 4 demonstrate the effectiveness of the applicant-proposed best management practices in protecting water quality of all stormwater discharges as required under NPDES Phase II regulations and other applicable regulations. • Stormwater runoff shall not adversely impact downstream storm drainage facilities; especially the St. Vrain River. • 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) shall be based upon the best management practices and accepted Urban Drainage methodologies. • Public Works may have additional comments and concerns that arise when requested details and the Final Drainage Report are reviewed. Response: The comments above will be addressed with the final drainage report provided at the final plat of each phase. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or comments. We look forward to working with you as we progress through the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearings. Sincerely, C LL & L 6€,�IIN_C.. Fred G. Tafoya III, PE Engineering Manager cl cc: E/ R Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle went: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:37 PM a: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: St Vrain Lakes Attachments: St. Vrain lakes referral letter-will serve 1-06.doc 1 St.Vrain lakes referral lette... Original Message From: Fred Tafoya [mailto:ftafoya@carroll-lange.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:07 PM To: Kim Ogle Subject: St Vrain Lakes Kim, Please find attached a new letter from the St. Vrain Sanitation District regarding service. I asked the district to forward a signed copy to your attention, but I don't know if they had done that. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Fred Tafoya, PE ,engineering Manager irroll & Lange, Inc. .f03 980-0200 ph 303 980-0917 fax ftafoya@carroll-lange.com 1 January 17, 2006-resend November 15, 2004 Weld County Planning Department Kim Ogle 91810` Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: St Vrain Lakes Subdivision Dear Kim, The St. Vrain Lakes Subdivision lies with in the St. Vrain Sanitation District(SVSD) 208 service area and will be served contingent on the following: • An alignment and easement dedication for a parallel sewer line to the North line. The current line was sized to serve areas east of I-25 and section 27 west of I-25, which is the SW corner of I-25 and High way 66. • Inclusion of all the remaining land parcels that make up the subdivision • Sign a new subdivision service agreement • Determination of the ability to fill over the existing pipe to the depth required by CARMA, in process. Service will be subject to SVSD policy and rules and regulations. Please call our office at(303) 776-9570 with questions or comments. Sincerely, Robert Fleck District Engineer St. Vrain Sanitation District Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:36 PM a: Esther Gesick; Jacqueline Hatch; Voneen Macklin; Donita May Subject: FW: Bayshore-Ownership Map Attachments: 3075-OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT.pdf 3075-OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT.pdf(59... Please add to file and presentation. Thanks, Kim Original Message From: Fred Tafoya Imailto:ftafoya@carroll-lange.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:09 PM To: Kim Ogle Subject: Bayshore - Ownership Map Kim, Please find attached the color graphic for the property ownership at St Vrain Lakes. Please let me know if this is what you are looking for or let me know if you need any changes. :tanks, Fred Tafoya, PE Engineering Manager Carroll & Lange, Inc. 303 980-0200 ph 303 980-0917 fax ftafoya@carroll-lange.com k }' 1 N HWY 66 C 2 SCALE N. T.S. - D M o 5 eE w U U 0 9 z CR 28 Lc N z' 6 L o z y� U L-f -St� r 5 x- Fyx• 3 sYt 9 i I 1. WAGNER, CHRISTOPHER J. & rs- 8. SIEGRIST, ROBERT L. b: =I 2. WAGNER FAMILY FARM, LLP 9. CONSTRUCTION LEASING INVESTMENT CO. 3. FORD. BYRON M. & SHIRLEY A. 10. SIEGRIST. ROBERT & NINIFRED J. 4. RADEMACHER FARMS LTD LIABILITY CO. A. DE CINO, ANTHONY A. & JUDY D. 5. L & J R. FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP B. EDWARDS. CHRISTOPHER DAVID & 6. R & M LAND CO. C. BODA, SHERRILYN S. Sc ARLO E. 7. HAMLIN, GERALD D. & KATHRYN J. D. UNITED POWER, INC. \ Carroll & Lange ° ST. VRA/N LAKES NhN G)POR f Z 0917PHONE (1113)980 1 IAx f,Pd OWNERSH/P EXHIBIT Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle --'gent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:37 PM o: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: St Vrain Lakes Attachments: St Vrain Lakes Local Street Section.pdf F�F' St Vrain Lakes Local Street Se... Original Message From: Fred Tafoya [mailto:ftafoya@carroll-lange.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:28 AM To: Kim Ogle Cc: Tyler Packard (E-mail) ; Scott Pessin (E-mail) ; Ben Waldman (E-mail) ; Katherine Strozinski (E-mail) Subject: St Vrain Lakes Kim, Please find attached our revised/proposed local street section for St. Vrain Lakes. The section represents a 36-foot flowline to flowline dimension within a 60-foot wide right- of-way. This section is to supercede the 32-foot wide section on the PUD Change of Zone plan. I anticipate that we will need to update the PUD with this information prior to recording, but not prior to the BOCC hearing. Please let me know if you have any ...questions or need any additional information. I am assuming that you will utilize this chibit in the County Commissioner packets for the BOCC hearing. Thanks, Fred Tafoya, PE Engineering Manager Carroll & Lange, Inc. 303 980-0200 ph 303 980-0917 fax ftafoya@carroll-lange.com T 1 2 #f1618 ST. VRAIN LAKES 3 3 0 o 60' ROW 36' FL- FL 1' 5' 5' 1' 8' 10' TRAVEL 10' TRAVEL_ 8' 1' 5' _ 5' 1" WALK TREE PARKING LANE LANE PARKING TREE WALK LAWN LAWN 2% MIN TBC 2% 2% TBC2% MIN. Zge FULL DEPTH ASPHALT \\ 6" MOUNTABLE OR ASPHALT/BASE `6" MOUNTABLE CURB & 2' COURSE COMPOSITE PER CURB & 2' GUTTER (TYP.) SOILS REPORT GUTTER (TYP.) LOCAL RESIDENTIAL '"S ` Carroll s&. Lange %oteselonal Englneeis a land Surveyors 165 Saul,Union do 80228 8 158 ood165 Soul.union Blvd.. Pt4 E: 303)980-0200 FW�30�R90 E1NGE.OOM Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle --gent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:43 AM o: Esther Gesick; Jacqueline Hatch Cc: Kim Ogle Subject: FW: St Vrain Lakes Attachments: Mtn View Fire -Cul-de-sac Ltr.pdf FCff Mtn View Fire- Cul-de-sac Ltr... Original Message From: Fred Tafoya [mailto:ftafoya@carroll-lange.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:14 PM To: Kim Ogle Subject: St Vrain Lakes Kim, Please find attached a letter from the Mountain View Fire Protection District regarding our proposed cul-de-sac section. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Fred Tafoya, PE ..Engineering Manager arroll & Lange, Inc. 303 980-0200 ph 303 980-0917 fax ftafoya@carroll-lange.com 1 -' - Mar 08 06 04:09p oeisrnenn 303-651-7702 p.1 NTH' MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Administrative Office: a 9119 County Line Road•Longmont,CO 80501 y . a (303) 772-0710•FAX(303) 651-7702 VIEW • Maith 8,2006 Mr.Kim Ogle 970-304-6498 Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: This letter is written regarding the zoning change application for the Saint Vrain Lakes/Carma project,located east of and adjacent to the east 1-25 Frontage Road;west of and adjacent to Weld County Road 13; and south of and adjacent to Highway 66. (Case Number PZ-1078, Applicant Name:Tom Morton). The Fire District has reviewed the proposed cul-de-sac detail dated March 2006. The District finds that the cul-de-sac design and radius meets the requirements of the Fire District. We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 303-772-0710. Sincerely, . \`Ck LuAnn Penfold Fire Marshal LMP/Ip cc: Mr.Fred Tafoya, Carol!&Lange, Inc., 303-980-0917 project file (p03.07.06 Smlon 1 S46on 2 SY6en 3 S100ea 4 Stson 5 Smton 6 Sloon) 0119 Cnly Una Pe. 1430311000 M.UM 8 P.O.Box 575 P.O.Bolt 1' 10911 Dobbin Run SO Sonanu Dr. P.O.Box 40 Lonoron1.03 Lonpront CO 299 POW/a 8500 MM1wt Roab UInds.00 Edq CO 100 So.Forst St. 00501 00304 urn,CO 50542 Moot,0080544 00020 60615 Dacono,CO 00514 Mar 08 06 04:09p ceismann 303-651-7702 p.2 U4/utl/YuQb 14:00 FAX l®VOJ/OVA ST. VRAIN LAKES TYPICAL CUL-DE-SAC EXHIBIT R.O. W. R= 50.0' T. R= 38.0' 36. 0' - FL 4 60. 0' R.O. W. -e- t) elIl% Carroll a Lange g SiV � SCALE: 1"=30' ^4 Stara MARCH 2006 Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle -akent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:46 AM J: Esther Gesick; Jacqueline Hatch Subject: FW: St Vrain Lakes Attachments: St Vrain Utility Coord Ltr.pdf; Wetland Determination by Corp.pdf PpF- it Vrain Utility Coorc Wetland Ltr.pdf... termination by Corp More incoming . . . Original Message From: Fred Tafoya [mailto:ftafoya@carroll-lange.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:32 AM To: Kim Ogle Subject: St Vrain Lakes Kim, Please find attached the utility coordination letter, as well as our letter from the Corp regarding onsite wetland delineation. Only a portion of the wetland areas identified in our previous wetland delineation report are considered jurisdictional by the Corp. Please email me back to verify that you have received this information. --hanks, rred Tafoya, PE Engineering Manager Carroll & Lange, Inc. 303 980-0200 ph 303 980-0917 fax ftafoya@carroll-lange.com p.s. Have a great time in Hawaii. I am so jealous. WOW 1 * Carroll st Lange C1N Professional Engineers&Land Surveyors ^-- Lakewood • Winter Park March 9, 2006 JN: 3075 Kim Ogle Weld County Southwest Service Center 4209 County Road 24 %: Longmont, CO 80504 Re: St. Vrain Lakes Dear Kim: I am writing you regarding our development team's ongoing coordination with the various utility companies that have facilities located within or adjacent to the proposed St. Vrain Lakes community. The utility companies are Pacific Energy Partners, L.P., Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., Kerr- McGee Corporation, United Power, Kinder Morgan, St. Vrain Sanitation District, Little Thompson Water District, and Central Weld County Water District. We will continue our coordination efforts with each of the various utility companies during the final plat process for each phase of the community. Appropriate easements will be dedicated for facilities that require relocation. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-980-0200 should you have any questions related to this matter. Sincerely, CA L 8rEt. Fre G. Tafoya Ill, PE Engineering Manager cl cc: E / R P.O.Box 3345 63 Cooper Creek Way, Suite 328 165 South Union Blvd., Suite 156 Winter Park,CO 80482-3345 Lakewood,CO 80228 (970)728-8100 Fax 726-9100 (303)980-0200 Fax 980-0917 Denver-Winter Park Dir. 980-9600 OCT-04-2004 1702 ERO RESOURCES 303 630 1199 P.02i08 • k. �� r n ,lJ(1r-�pn 'r 1 r" DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY • :� CORPS OF+ENGP11iaRS OMAHA " DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE,9307 SOLfr?WADS WORTH I'H BOULEVARD LITTLETON,COLORADO S012t-6901 1 , September 30,2004 `"" Ms.Denise Larson ERO Resources Corp. 1842 Clarkson Street Denver,CO 80218 RE: Wetland Delineation of St. Vrain Ponds Development Site,Jurisdictional Areas: St.Vrain Creek,Wetlands 4,5,9, 10,11 and 12; Non-Jurisdictional Areas: Wetlands 1,2,3,6,7,8 and the Open Water of the Ponds Adjacent to the St.Vrain Creek Corps File No.200480464 Dear Ms.Larson: Mr.Terry McKee of this office has reviewed this project located in Sections 25,35,and 36, 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 United aStates any Waters of the United States include ephemera intermittent and lillproject, and perms al tstreams, their surface connected wetlands and adjacent wetlands and certain lakes,ponds, irrigation and drainage ditches that have a nexus to interstate commerce. Under the authority of the Clean Water Act, an annrnvnd uriadirHnn t d .etininant has determined that St. Vrain Creek,Wetlands 4,5,9, 10, 11 and 12 are waters of the U.S. If a proposed activity requires work within the above-described waters of the U.S.,a proponent of the project should notify this office for Department of the Army permits.This jurisdictional delineation is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the determination. Approved inr' dieHn .+ s Bagel matter of uPo n the ruling by the Supreme Court in the (January 9, 2001), the Department of the Army's(DA)regulaytory ,No. 99-1178 intrastate waters has been eliminated if the sole g interstate s commerce was ise of olated,the water byte, migratory birds. It is apparent under the ruling above that he DA does not have athe authority to regulate work in isolated Wetlands 1,2,3,6, 7,8 and the Open Water of the Ponds Adjacent to the St.Vrain Creek. These areas arc 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. My office considers your wetland delineation map and report for this project accurate and acceptable. OCT-04-2004 17 02 ERO RESOURCES 303 830 1199 P.03i08 • Th • • The attached Jurisdictional Determination form provides the basis jurisdiction for Wetlands 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11,12 and the Open Water of the Ponds Adjacent to the St.Vrain Creek. 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 form. Although a 17A permit will not be required for work in Wetlands 1,2,3,6,7,8 and the Open Water of the Ponds Adjacent to the St.Vraln Creek, this does not eliminate the requirement that you obtain any other applicable Federal,state, tribal or local permits as required. If you have any questions call Mr.Terry McKee at(303)979-4120 and reference Corps File No. 200480464. Sincerely, Ti. : + y T. Sr. Chi- s - v ulatory s ffice tm OCT-04-2004 17:03 ERG RESOURCES 303 830 1199 P.04i08 1 . JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION • U.S.ArmyCorpa of Engineers Revised 8/13/04 - DISTRICT OFFICE: Omaha District Denver Regulatory Office sPitma R: 200480464 PR LOCATION INFORMATION: State: Colorado County: Weld Center coordinates of site(latitude/longitude):40 10 55 104 57 30 Approximate size of area(parcel)reviewed,including uplands: 1,280 acres. Name of nearest waterway:St.Vrain Creek Name of watershed; St.Vrain JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Completed; Desktop determination Site visit(s) r2 Date: Jurisdictional Determination(JD): Date(s): Septctaber 28,2004 nary JD-Based Prelim Spec and/or on available information,❑there appear to be(or)❑there appear to be no"waters of the (Reference 33 "navigable waters of the United States"on the project site. A preliminary JD is not appealable CFR ® Approved JD—An approved JD is an appealable action(Reference 33 CFR part 331). Check all that apply: O There are"navigable waters of the United States"(as defined by 33 CFR part 329 and associated guidance)within the reviewed area. Approximate size of jurisdictional area: Er There are"waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR pan 328 and associated guidance)within the reviewed area. Approximate size of jurisdictional area: 95_acera im There 12(are "isolated,non-navigabla,intra-state waters or wetlands"within the reviewed area. Decision supported by SWANCC/Ivl Jurisdiction. r8tatory Bird Rule Information Sheet for Determination of No 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 are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or arc presently used,or have bean used in the past,or may be susceptible for use tM.lrsila rt interstate or foreign commerce. 0 B. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 328.3(a)sue'waters of the United States"s (1)The presence of waters,which are currently used,or were used in the past,or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce,including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. fl0 (2)The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands. (3)The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes,rivers,streams(including internment streams),mudflats, sandttats,wetlands,sloughs,prairie potholes,wet meadows,playa lakes,or natural ponds,the use,degradation destruction of which could affect Interstate commerce including any such waters chee ❑ (i)whicha or are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. apply): ❑ (ii)from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in i P erce, 0 ❑ (iii)which are or could be used for industrial interstate st to cam commerce. (4)Impoundments of waters otherwisepurposes the industries in interstate commerce. ® (5)The presence of a tributary defined as waters — 4 bo. a (6)The presence of territorial seas.water identified in(1)—(4)above. _ (7)The presence of wetlands adjacen9 to other waters of the US,except for those wetlands adjacent to other wetlands. Rationale for the basis of Jurisdictional Determination(applies to any boxes checked above), gib jurisdictional water or wetland is not ltsella navigable water of the United States,describe connectlon(.r)to the downstream navigable waters. 1f8(1)or B(3)is used as the Basis o ✓uri (l.e.,discuss site conditions,including of-Jurisdiction, navgabint nadlor how and/oriructi see co why the watarbody is navigable and/or the destruction of the Ovate rce connection affect interstate or foreign commerce).1fB(2,4,5 0r 6)is used as the Basis a ens/c could 'Hake the determination.IfB(7)is used as the Bans I✓eriationioe.used to m the rationale determination: oJ7urtsdictiaq document the rationale to make adjacency used to Wetlands W4 and WS flow to the St Vraln Creek that flows to the South Platte River,which Is en interstate waters, Wetlands We and W10 ere adjacent to the St.Vrain Creak. Wetland 11 and 12 are riparian wetlands that are hydrologically connected,via surface flows,to the St Vrain Creek OCT-04-2804 17:03 ER0 RESOURCES 303 830 1199 P.05/013a • Lateral Extent of Jurladletianr• Ordinary High Water (Reference:33 CFR parts 328 and 329) — Bier Mark of St.Wain Creek indicated by:® clear,natural lino Impressed on the bank ® High Tide Line indicated n by: ❑ the presence of liner and debris oil or scum line along shore objects fine shell or debris deposits(foreshore) changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation physical markings/characteristics shelving ❑ tidal gages ❑ other: Q other; 0 Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ❑survey to available datum: 0 physical markings;❑vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types, ® Wetland boundaries,as shown on the attached wetland delineation map and/or in a delineation report prepared by:ERO Resources Corp. basis For Not Asserting Jurisdiction - The reviewed area consists entirely of uplands. s Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR part 328 a 1 Headquarters declined to ( x >2,R or 4-7). ® The Corps has made a prove jurisdiction on the basis of 33 CFR part 328.3(+x3). United specific determination that the following waters present on the site are not Waters of the 8 States: Waste treatment systems,including treatment ponds or lagoons,pursuant to 33 CFR pail 328.3. Artificially Irrigated areas,which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. ❑ Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for sack purposes as stock watering,irrigation,settling basins,or rice growing. ❑ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. ❑ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for _ the purpose of obtaining fill,sand,or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States found at 33 CPR 328.3(a). _ Isolated,intrastate wetland with no nexustointerstate ❑ Prior converted cropland,as determined by the N atural Resources Conservation Service,Explain rationale: ❑ Non-tidal drainage or litigation ditches excavated on dry land. Explain rationale: ® Other(explain):Upland areas exist between the wetlands of WI,W2,and W3 and St.Vrain Creek (wetlands are not adjacent or connected to St.Vtain Creek via a drainage w/continuous wetlands and/or ordinary high water mark). Wetlands W6,W7 and Wg do not flow to a waters of the U.S. The open water of the gravel pit ponds Is non-jurisdictional,because,while the ponds are adjacent to St.Vniht Creek,adjacency only applies to wetlands(the triage wetlands of these ponds are jurisdictional. DATA REVIEWED FOR JURSWDICTIONAL DETERMINATION(mark all that apply): Bi Maps,plans,plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf ofthe applicant. ® This office concurs with rho delineation report,dated September 3,2004 prepared by(company); ERO Resources Corp. • ❑ This otAMce doese�not by concur he with the delineation report,dated ,prepared b 0 Data sheets by(company): I StPa�lvigabla watcra'studtes�i .U.S.Geoloogial SpryHydrologic Atlas: U.S.Geologies Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: U.S.Geological Survey 74 Minute Historic quadrangles: USDA of gicai Survey 15 Minute Historic quadrangles: Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey: National wetlands inventory maps; State/Local wetland inventory maps: PEMA/FIRM maps(Map Name&Date): 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: i (NGVD) Aerial Photographs(Name&Date): QQQ Other photographs(pars): Advanced Identification Wetland maps: Site visit/determination conducted on: -- .s Applicable/supporting case law: t 28,2004 Other Information(please specify): OCT-04-2004 1703 ERO RESOURCES 303 830 1199 P.06/08 • •• 'Wetlands am Identified and delineated using the o occurrence of hydrophyyc vegetation, methods and aiutlo ana4ahed in the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual(ih Manual) hydNe mile and weaned aydmwsrA term �i� �o and like aneighboring. alsadjacent ibnds separated from other wnra of the'U,S.by men-made dikes w OCT-04-2004 17:03 E�R0 RESOURCES 303 830 1199 P.07/08 • • A. lh'cant: Carina- Colorado Attached is: File Number: 200480464 Date Se t 30, 04 _ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of .ennission) See Section below _ PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of In PERMIT DENIAL ermission) © APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL P Meal s '� s J r t r4 DETERMINATION D a l Js r-- '''''11.--::','';':T j .i1kiti kte j'-P`x 1 J i5 Li gr �l�y e 1 al], tit cf ! 0 1 f oad ntY'Y�' J J' 1- } `+*'* � +� nry' 6 • �,' �'r �'"w 'r, ,�y�. i •Q .e I &rte . d !J] 5a P' 447"3t.':;;;1'7$17.":". n >hit •] .kt 1 e r ? cr ! 4� oK'Id �r A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: , You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCBPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer . authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the Lop andyour work is authorized. signature on the Standard Pngineer for final Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the waive Your appeal the permit, including its terns and conditions,and approved jurisdictions determinationit in s assts ociated d with the permit. rm . to • OBJECT: If you object to the permit(Standard or LOP) t' permit be modified accordingly.You must complete Section II of this cform aann dr�coe forms the district you may request Your that the objections must be received by the districtnotice,thee or to the will f ht to appeal the permit in the figure, engineer within 60 days of the date of this or engineer. a the a Upon receipt of your letter,the district engineer will evaluate your objections andmay:your (a) modify permit to address all of your concerns,(b)modify the permit to address some of your objections,or(c)not modify the _ permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration,as indicated in Section B below. : PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization if you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit,including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal date and sending the form W the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the t Process s by completing Section 0m II this date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may C: PERMIT y appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by Section of form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer completingwithin days ti the date istornatice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved ID in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with e appr oved of this,you may rm and send appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section the by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice form to the division engineer. This form must be received E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETE regarding the preliminary JD RME`iATION; You do not need to respond to the Corps re (which he el The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an Y appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may proved — • information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the ID. Y Provide OCT-04-2004 17:04 RESOURCES 303 830 1199 P.08i08 19 n yilais REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: '. ` l a , ,, N ?��;Mil ;;;-- REiniti proffered O in clear R statements. (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an or objections proffered are d permit in c in tements. You may attach additional information to this the administrative record.) form to clarify where your reasons • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record,the Corps record of the appeal conference or meeting,and any supplemental information that the review officer has do eded to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor theeto h erecoum However, o the rovide additional information to c CorpCoo and new information in the analyses at v record.ed is nc P.9It a the location of information that is ahead in the administrative record, • if you 4questions4. .': „T :;:lt .�'�, a i9 i"Y ai v.:3 Z r2 2Skili ca y,regarding this decision and/or the appeal � 'e i `^ � `t [' ...sr 3`t process you may contact: pP If you only have questions re } �' also contact: regarding the appeal process you may Timothy T.Carey US Army Corps of Engineers Chief,Denver Regulatory Office Northwestern Division Attn:Mores Bergman,Appeal Officer 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton CO 80128 12565 West Center Road (303)979 4120 Omaha,Nebraska 68144.3869 RIGHT OF Telephone(402)697-2533 ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers consultants,to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of an site jaws 'lotion, peraonnal,and any government hon,and will have the op.orhmi to ! "eipare in all site iavesti, lions. TOTAL P.08 Page 1 of 2 Carol Harding From: Brian McCormick[brianmccormick@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:54 PM To: Mike Geile; Bill Jerke; Rob Masden; Glenn Vaad; Dave Long Cc: Carol Harding Subject: Carma Land Use Hearing, 15 March 2006 Respected Commissioners, I am writing to you regarding this hearing because I am concerned about the manner in which this development will be done, the costs I believe will be imposed on the County and nearby municipalities, and what I consider to be a lack of complete analysis and planning for the true impacts of this development on local roads, schools, and utility systems. This item proposes changing the zoning of an excess of 1,000 acres from agriculture and related to residential and commercial uses. This is expected to result in approximately 5,000 new residential lots in the rapidly growing south-western portion of our County. I live within a few miles of this proposed development and am deeply concerned by the possibilities. I have no opposition to people being able to develop their land, but I feel that things must be done equitably and with respect for all. My concern is that the appropriate government bodies make decisions in an informed and considerate manner. I personally feel strongly that the county should administer rural development and leave urban planning to established towns and cities. I feel this way because rural folk tend to be more independent and require only basic services such as the sheriff. By their very nature of having many fewer people and fewer personal interactions, rural areas require much less government support and oversight. Conversely, in urban areas, the high density of people with different ideas, beliefs and needs living close to one another require much higher levels of government interaction and intervention. Only healthy municipal or city entities can provide this essential support and provide for the common good in such an environment. I believe that the interests of future residents of this proposed development as well as all surrounding Weld County residents will be much better served by requiring the developers to become annexed by an existing municipal entity such as Mead, Firestone, or Longmont. Failure to require this annexation will result in great taxation of County resources such as sheriff, planners, building inspectors, public works, streets, stormwater, code enforcement, and others at significant cost to all County residents. One can easily foresee the residents of this new community unfairly utilizing the parks, recreation centers and other public facilities supported by residents of nearby municipalities. I foresee further issues such as the likely future annexation of such a development, possible overwhelming of local school, water, and sanitary services and lack of clear, cohesive planning and leadership in the development of roads, parks, and other essential community resources. Allowing developers to pursue the easier and cheaper avenue of urban development through the County rather than local municipalities significantly reduces the ability of local governments to plan their futures and effectively reduces the ability of local residents and businesses to have a say in the future of their area. Instead, decisions are made in the county seat 30 plus miles and a world away from the residents who will have to deal with the impacts of such a decision. As a resident of the affected area and the fastest growing area of the county, I am very concerned that there is little communication from our county leadership. This hearing was posted in the Fort Lupton Press. I do not know anyone in the tri-town area that reads this paper—we read the Farmer and Miner, the Longmont Daily Times Call, the Denver Post, and the Rocky Mountain News! I guarantee you that very few people in this area have any idea about the enormous decision you will be making. I ask you to direct your staff to publish future notices in the Farmer and Miner and Daily Times Call in addition to any other newspapers in the County. I urge you to consider these and many other significant impacts of this development and require the I. EXHIBIT 3/10/2006 "Pz #io7P Page 2 of 2 developers to work with the existing local municipal governments to achieve annexation before continuing their development. At the very least, I ask that you would postpone a decision on this matter ^ for a period to allow for the following: 1.) Local posting (Farmer and Miner and Daily Times Call and possibly others to North) of the hearing with a change of venue to the South West County Service Center and time to early evening to facilitate local understanding, involvement and participation in this significant decision 2.) Commissioning and completion of an independent financial analysis of all the costs of such a development, to include provisioning of all necessary services and expansion and maintenance of all infrastructure Thank you for your interest in my concerns and your service to our community. Sincerely, B.A.M. Brian McCormick (County Resident, Public Service Worker, National Guard Officer, Engineer) 5128 Mount Saint Vrain Avenue Frederick, Colorado 80504 3/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 _ Carol Harding From: MUCK605@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:31 AM To: Carol Harding; Dave Long; Glenn Vaad; Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; Mike Geile Subject: Carma Colorado Dear Weld County Commissioner, I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed Carma Colorado project. It is opposed by both neighboring communities and by virtually every citizen in Weld County (at least everyone I've spoken with). The citizens of Colorado LOSE - particularly the Immediate neighbors of this enterprise, while once again a rich developer WINS. I ask you not to support this project. but rather stand up for the citizens of Weld County and vote against it. Please include this email in the public record Respectfully yours, Susan Kelly W ndsor Colorado (4.- EXHIBIT h 3/15/2006 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS FEBRUARY 28, 2006 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, KIM OGLE, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ-1078 PUD CHANGE OF ZONE FROM (A) AGRICULTURE TO PUD WITH (E) ESTATE ; (R- 1) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-2) DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL; (R-3) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-4) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (C-1) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND (C-2) GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND CONTINUING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION USES IN THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (ST. VRAIN LAKES PUD) KIM OGLE ame of Person Posting Sign Signat f Person Posting Sign STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF WELD The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this ISI day of MeliO ) , 2006. WITNESS my hand and official seal. [Dad Notary Public 9 Q EXHIBIT My Commission Expires: O f? #/07? F# O O p a O N N O co CII N O NCV O N O .11-2112 = QI �+ N i= yg.„,„ W.W z�YE(�'�' a Ill - r 3w OW; N 1 Y ' 4- mV..a "O 31� gip i`` r :7:1---; I ,a g e � ' zap-- ..rStIlE j411 5::111:-.: lei q . F 4'". (.0m 0 .. `�"-n s o O 0 0 0 0 f- N N N ac,N N N p ^. wm�Li C , i'r at p$ E 0tl7 a atl W 44 d i k i, a j D tYM d n it% I . gym» .'.ra Wt i S0eir.4 V4 ti ;SSA 41 ' • •�..lit"' u4„„.: f.L as. N I z ,t 6 u 3 O 0 O 0 0 0 a N N Nco C iv N ?z.,'' N N a O Agi V` rSilva « V Leg_ LOS i,,!Biti,33 +. '` f ._ s � 3C iZ� 77r, %, L S3. sB aiP Syr. 4 s► e'� S ' V is x k EL1s� ;_ n p$� riôiIahi z E I1 if $ 1 ( _V-co i u 1 O Lo O f p y / , 2 . co 3 a s ic. Atli 3��Jj' � � � u a P p . . I CC - { t - Y o e t N - ,' v ` C0.4 N .. O N 3 T ' a .V CO . I _ c 3 . lt.it giOtili .41: Sp ' f i SJ d 2 j Y �,, A ei t. V =��iW F O O O O Ni O O O DO N N N CO CO N N N O N O CO t1_,,-;,,,,:, Mr Artie Elmquist — 87241-25 Frontage Rd. E Longmont, CO 80504 March 13, 2006 Weld County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioners: I am writing a personal letter to express my concerns regarding your upcoming hearing on the St. Vrain Lakes project. Due to another commitment on Wednesday, March 15,2006, I will be unable to attend this very important hearing regarding the St. Vrain Lakes proposal. I was also unable to attend the Planning and Zoning Commissions hearing of the St. Vrain Lakes proposal. I must say I was deeply disturbed that the commission did not vote to deny the change of zoning request for the St. Vrain Lakes properties. I want to voice my opposition to this proposal and detail my many concerns regarding this unprecedented development plan. While I do realize the importance of the need to protect the"private property rights" of the current landowners, I believe you as a board have the right to look out for the best interest of the taxpayers of Weld County as well. First let's examine what is in the best interest of the taxpayers. It seems your Planning Department's current policy of embracing high density development in the MUD area is a bit pre-mature. Especially when you consider the demands for service these high density developments will place on the county, school district, law enforcement agencies, and fire departments. I would think the Planning Department would instead be placing all MUD development proposals on hold for the following reasons: 1. The MUD study for Southwest Weld County is not complete. 2. The MUD study is attempting to define if and how the county can support high density development in the MUD area. 3. The MUD study will provide recommendations as to how necessary services can be provided and supported financially(i.e. Possibly creating Special Districts). 4. How these services can be provided with the least amount of impact on the taxpayers. During each of the past two years,the taxpayers of the St. Vrain Valley school district have turned down mill levy override proposals to keep the school district in the black financially. It is unclear as to how the district is going to go forward and remain financially stable. Numerous articles have appeared in the Longmont Daily Times-Call regarding the concerns of parents who live in the Clover Basin area in southwest Longmont and are facing the fact the school district is unable to build one the of the new elementary schools in that neighborhood that was approved with the last bond issue. The school district currently has no money to fund the "day to day" operations of such a school. Therefore,some of the elementary schools in that area are now at 125%+of capacity. While the cit EXHIBIT IP P Iflan of Longmont has a benchmark ordinance that is suppose to put the brakes on all building permits or development proposals that would push a school's capacity above 125%; the city is not wanting to put the brakes on development at the present time and enforce the ordinance as written. Therefore, the St. Vrain Valley School District is in a terrible quandary as to how to resolve this issue. Currently,the all of elementary schools in southwest Weld County are at or above capacity. When you factor in the fact that the proposed Middle/High School for Mead approved with the last bond issue has yet to be built; and the fact that no additional bond money exists to build a new elementary school in Weld County-it appears the current growth occurring in the Tri-Town/Mead area is going to create an even greater school overcrowding problem than in parts of Longmont. If current voter trends continue, the school district will be unable secure additional taxpayer dollars anytime soon to staff and build the necessary schools to service the current growth within the district. Approving the St. Vrain Lakes proposal will set a dangerous precedent and result in a continuous flood of other PUD plans in the MUD area prior to the adoption of any policy recommendations from the MUD study. Currently,southwest Weld County developers are enjoying the ability to build high density developments at a much lower cost than many other areas along the front range. I suspect most developers know that it is just a matter of time until the fees and costs of doing high density development in southwest Weld County will meet or exceed the costs in other areas of the front range. Therefore, the developers will want to get their PUD plans approved quickly to try and get grand-fathered in, if possible, using the current development fees and policies. Next, I want to address the property rights of the current landowners in the MUD area. Denying a change of zoning request at this time would not be taking away any of the rights the current property owners have. Please site me any county ordinance or state statute that says all property must be rezoned immediately when requested. What the ordinance and statutes do state is that a change of zoning request may be approved when certain criteria are met. I my opinion the criteria outlined in the MUD policy have not been met. Please refer to the MUD Policy 26-1-60 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan which describes how new developments must not place an undo burden on existing services and facilities. MUD.P.Policy 4.1 states that development which cannot pay its own way should be discouraged. I was unable to read in the St.Vrain Lakes PUD proposal how the policies in 26-1-60 will be met and not place an undo burden on the county's existing taxpayers. In closing,this change of zoning request should be denied. What is needed is to wait and adopt the recommendations put forth from the MUD study. These recommendation s,I hope,will ensure any future high density growth that is allowed in the MUD area will: 1. Truly pay its own way. 2. Be allowed if and when adequate services and facilities are available. 3. Preserve a quality of life that the people southwest Weld County want to maintain. When these new policies are in place it will then make sense to consider PUD plans such as the St. Vrain Lakes proposal. Sincerely, Artie Elmquist Page 1 of 1 Carol Harding From: Myrna Folsom [myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:12 AM To: Carol Harding Subject: CARMA-St. Vrain Lakes Carol: Please make this letter part of the file of the subject case. Yhanks, John Folsom Dear Commissioners: Wednesday morning, you will be hearing testimony and giving consideration to the application for approval for proceeding with the St. Vrain Lakes [CARMA] development. The Board has also launched the Southwest Weld County I-25 Corridor Study for the purpose of planning the future of the area, which includes the subject urban scale development. First, it might be well to consider how various entities will provide lacking infrastructural, educational, recreational, cultural and aesthetic services for this development's residents and the addtional strain it will bring on the resources for existing residents. Then, consider whether this development, as proposed, will conform to the planned vision for the future that will come out of the Southwest Weld County I-25 Corridor Study. There is more at stake here than just deciding whether the proposal that you are hearing conforms to the requirements of the Weld County Code. Tjhere are no pressures or urgency for this development to go forward at this critical juncture. Might it not be more judicious to delay consideration of this case until the ongoing study of this area is completed and the plan for its future is in place. John Folsom Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com g 7e /°� EXHIBIT 3/14/2006 I Firestone_ �� - A Community In Motion ,90X Weld County Commissioners March 14, 2006 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Urban Development In Unincorporated Weld County Dear Commissioners: The Town of Firestone and Weld County government have had a very positive and constructive long term working relationship on many matters. One of our great successes was the development of the Interim Coordinated Planning Agreement between Weld County, Firestone, Frederick and Dacono ("IGA"). That agreement sets forth specific urban growth boundaries ("UGB") within which urban style development can occur. Since the inception of that IGA, Firestone has continued with orderly annexation and development within its UGB to the benefit of all parties concerned. However,there is an issue that has arisen that is of great concern to the Town of Firestone. While the County has undertaken a regional planning study to look at development issues in the County's Mixed Use Development Area("MUD"), the County appears to continue to expand and accommodate urban development in unincorporated Weld County through the expansion of the MUD. Firestone is specifically concerned about the St. Vrain Lakes proposal, which lies just north of Firestone's northern border. Firestone has planned for this area to continue to be a rural agricultural "community separator". However, it is not so much the development of the area that is the greatest concern, but the densities within the development area. The densities in St. Vrain Lakes are typically greater than within the Firestone UGB. Such development appears to be inconsistent with the sprit and intent of the IGA, inconsistent with the scope and standards of the MUD as related to both the IGA and the County's own review process, and at odds with the principles in the IGA that call for the County to restrict urban development outside the UGB areas. There is real reason for concern when proposed development densities outside of the Firestone UGB, in unincorporated Weld County, are greater than the densities within the UGB. Additionally, Firestone is concerned that given the size of this development that there are too many critical urban style governmental service issues for Weld County to coordinate for this development in this unincorporated area. Therefore, if the County believes that EXHIBIT 1 51 Grant Ave. • P.O. Box 10(1 • Firestone, CO 80520 I (303) 833-3291 • fax (303) 831-4863 152--/o?4 urban development is in area is in the best interest of all citizens of Weld County, then, to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the IGA, Firestone request that the County work with an adjoining municipality, possibly Firestone, to assure that this development is properly accommodated within an urban growth area of an existing municipality. Sincerely,I/`�J e4A- ou eh Cheri Andersen Town Administrator cc: Firestone Mayor and Town Board of Trustees • Lti i �.'`r^ v pry n�+k'4 - �J�.frq�� l OO - -Fk a� �4, , RgOO , ON HW.. r r 17i rii Ili irl r f. 17 a 1 1 C ---- 1 ' Carma. L• %I a.Expeda' "° Cache la ' fierce MapPOlnt' Poudre Crow Reef: Roosevelt National Forest Fort COIF Ault' 14 Hague Creek Eaton Lost Lake . 237 LARIMER Wndsor ^ Crystal Mummy / -. Lake Mountain ��✓✓ Greeley - t <"�a77� t .. t tt v" .3y ov- ' °dad • 1 J• KerseyEstes Park 7 Campion La Salle . �, WELD ,_ J own° ° _ \ Berthoud Milliken Rocky.Mountain _ 2 _�+a�.E National Park 38 i C O L Oil A D O 1 __ Lo ng; Pe aM z, , Lyons PlatteViee 6G �., `. Ongmont�, • issj 1 • it r r o ( f I r BOULDE `2s7. .. ._ °° 52.. Fort Lupton I,. Lt • 72' • 6Erie cN ! , / Boulder ervow ? 7; afau e--Ki .Bright< ' Nederland ° ° -' a70 ° I ADAMS • f Barr Lake Arapaho National Forest • - . .. ... .C � . orthgl GILPI - - stminste �lhor • � � .. a0 tie .,, � i• / ommer ER .i Anrada0 CRy. i .....,,... Central'Ctty° '1 j'... ...' SF CL.EAFy „r C__°v� enver ss �(d�ho Springs • � :"' _, . � y® 8 `5 - �.47]D: ARAPAHO � 4))005 naaosoe OM 642004 NWh0.andfortnVlne. �:-. w. Jr Elvers c!- nr., z % rli 01. � / i • ..tfr iii : its.'{ . .. / .6 as .o� `'I ►f 19 u� '� f� ,' ' t�'i ii,Pi /2 s„ ,8 ,t IL. i c r� � MUD Plan a�; • mss . ' 7 CO ter . ... �a•Master/ ,� ' �` ~ _ —.. st Vrain Lakes - _ Change of Zone ' rv. Plan .= - t ` : - _ _ ,: . ,• . itini itilip J_ — ice.-.. .\ / `• i. \ sw ' .rwn. , --C7 YAP ,:u , �. ha:a:, r.taa St. Vrain Lakes , _ a • Site Plan `.;.C .• � = ,roi} ;:. . ' _i �,r dr ; Illustrative ' ° '�'u "'• ' ' • - Y • �� dI , .t • .H l � • .� . ; .a ..:'K. •.•�':� '� Q :ui . It .., \'• �S`��.Y_+ i� •l� a I art • J ;. ;. .. ti . ' • :.,,. P - ri ` ~� T ,• alai PLUMY mtuat 50.1414141.1 ISIS•441W4:4 ...:0, il<w«.nu •11 -1+1 . Ste; o 4 Housing Distribution Diagram SAYYSSHORE c f t0� NO W twt 1tt Ifs Percentage of Total Units SI ; ! ) psi - Town- homes Mulmti- 22% Fa y 17% Residential Unit Types 1,. �. r _ iZ h. I � r� ' `" rl �' ." atIO ' _ ! - i _ — • '`— 11 17 eir-•4 ••vc'co i •:\ taco . K • wui. �.s - -..e_ crs r . _;' N ' t .. 1... �.,�`� H it i CEl 4• 1 1 ` �p r p1 - r +C6 l 2.*P5eAr lie �• • ` , gyp.iso r r a 6 ..... c/)Jr • Mfsr . .1‘ k .�Ci4��Sct„---.:� Men r/V\ Carter lake Water Treatment Plant Race ;4:Xer S Carter Lake - /`r w _ Came Development 4 C I 0 0 ' Windy Gap Finning Reservoir My Creek ri- I/~ (2010) Reservoir (2 006) lakes Wastewater `\0 , • m03 A\ 4, o, y1'o of 1 *l m Treated �� r `3o SI. Vroin Wastorsator St. Wain Lakes �lq Wastewater • Y S • - r a\t Treatmem Plantwastewater v. 7* , Irrigation Water 0, Schematic St. Vram River rC), � eI ( cry ti ud ; " L- - krme; en-„^. d �' 0 JJ—� ;:- 4;. Ls 4x : �_ r ., gyp t. 1 . x t i%O. 4-0-"- . SPe lo- . ..t .. . . �' �. • • ar . rj ! _ � f � ( I •rI .J ( I � � E3 /..Y rIef JfIrJf .- • egi...:orytto:r....cisa.e . \ -f-S- Nrc-*.r." e' yyIet 1?) . �• I . r ` _ Ni -- ip �� ` NY• ..„... t v i in 11118 1 4 1. ,,,,-..,. _ ..„....... ...,. .. �� '~ cs� ... . 6 j t tor r-c- v f I it r ,tics ,, a . ,` 't!r 1 _ . . .`. . • a:.: 1 ` . • p1 • t . � . w r �� La � a o 9 • • o P C '�% S y V. p ._4.-- r T ,• .6 P vo• P P. • . _ $.qc c • a e P ° a .m o Ili a • . • k� • • ° • e • a .4011"1- a .....3 _____ ___._ _ C • • • i :J f, 7i' I III :sl_z •-/ 5. El CF> , pr.-�T.C�.ij'i.. )_I / ter fj.1 r iI � � , WM. J:.ii i ....~ VI .0 . ` e p _ 1110 Mr . i . j^ • .ao 9 / f Yif }it�¢x _ •i f..vsN 3 P� .i �4 " .a t y ; /f 1--II Is ,}i. ..n. . . i.- y , �; is) K ma,. •.. .r.1 f ( ,�� Tf , y J Y . " l1t. ill Yv 14 a 1 'fl�'LII � r • , j I l ;:J f.Li J J_ ;.J r :� ri i T 1 J J _ t J rl Jr. Potential Uses: `btra.T�_ • • Fire Substation • Police Substation • Public Library til • YMCA •., r • •'Millffiedilillei s _ I • I _ } _ I . .,• et ' :if I , III — ea ften •` 'ty.4 -' I J. } :I s F Entries :»t 1 7 l'iL "t ill:Mg:Is eibt; V:L'St 441/4.111 -,ilia Millkk .-- A_....____ ____ .__. 7.---n. -- r;rtekSwii 44,; 1,/,...- g.. Y . itrit _ mi. t . a ` 'z‘ 't fy . r , 4 , y,; Tr ` wy r. 7 jai r' f� -i..,,Nsl {— "!L ice+. r •". �. .I}�.0 1 1 i L ; ."tom ki cer�, e��.�.o3i/eia �r�a4.s� 'I.iir 4 I +�f t e•T ate. aAYS }-IORE f I ' f' r-a f i r I I i J J.:l '. . . . _ . . '017,71 `? 'F • s• / T:rim , Artei I A. . i .ci,h.Y srloK ` A series of smaller Neighborhoods. Built over Time. Including: • Parks • Housing Diversity • Open Space & Trails • Schools ---m ♦ a 2 y fir eil Phase 1 s ' A series of smaller Neighborhoods. Built over Time. Including: • Parks • Housing Diversity • Open Space & Trails • Schools ,w 'f, `;4 ,,,.r il;% 41R f F3 x1H).ft f.4 YV ; 4 iS I : , S In" 1i. ,:e t ix 9 a s if I ,. ..e . kr # -,...x.5.1, - .., 4c.x.-2...J . . _ P : . .. �r, ti cf:_ � �!S!:j.t f' ' Plc ' ri A series of smaller Neighborhoods. Built over Time. ;r,,;• w-,; Including: .iry; _`. 4 L =s ,; , • Parks liftSkI • Housing Diversity � . • Open Space & Trails • Schools > mss: ilase I� r i �_ � 1:;A:ifrf' _f Ici ri riju __ �1i,iy> ;' ' 1___ r� f ' ( flfrlllrlffy :et�< r ;,,,b' .. 'G�4' A series of smaller 1 ,> - Neighborhoods- ' ' �f` • Built over Time. Including: • Parks • Housing Diversity • Open Space & Trails • Schools , 14 34. ' �� . .�tit: 't", kle tt:ratAV. -. aAYSHORE `ali• SS'DK: r r l J` • 77 a�ardwaysva- . ,. .xr,•1 { r V. `_4 • 11.1 r t. • .a ,,: , ."/ E e ♦ J MORAINIMIl t : S ,` L\ . Moo Pica saw _ ..,.a i v +1, b.. 4' Townhomes t 1 !.. . - •" C' ' •4'x'1' • -• U . • � + r• 7 _r 1 9 rill' b% ( QO •4: 4.--...--.Aor'-- -,-i i ii 1 .First Phase n VI ' f • Neighborhood r. �� 4 �A J s\ " L . ❖ Single Family , , . t 1'. . V. _ Homes j _' , •• • • } Zia ♦Z • rrsK �+ ,+ •.. ►i . .•�1� SN� A ` / 4 P• W 01.i� .. j i•N.`rV Q a a ♦ A • f V`,n a 1' 0.0'4 II 1ei 'Lill ft trr i ft f _r,,1 'l • !r • • I . . 4 I j444 it, h, 1 i:a . 2� ,�: titi. :: ''''---.„._. .nllik�4' �iit a•••„•e.e. .46ts QTRCam} \} Y 7 _<41 bca,M O f} • M �l r+i APS le 911/ xt, mg all Conditio !_sue � desti ♦ i✓ . `. • a ._... .TT4..... �sr � �., pt.! .Y '+•mow . 9.. II.to rYs;l . 594 ._.._ �/ �/� J'' _�._ . v..............10 • �. .. ....... . II.-4-1,-0-4,--;.7.41..4=27.- .1( aye J,., =- _ - First Phase I:'+'- r Recreation/ Lake Plan • • •\ �'Or�YC �. ] " t .�.l� ) / \ • fw G .' S. —� •^ .. ill i r Y�� S. PV • , . Nib, 46 Y 45 r , ae �Jy sAM07 &n%4N1 •ell -. . nib, 31 a• 3e. -�s ,1'�3`'� ! 0✓f b J1A,. �� " r'Al� !. �d �. >. Hwy •s 4474. • ' • •�� r} 06•LA* ,J ) � a � inn : ronit rr s. 1 e /`' r �,.? ? s.F < no, w c AY5H • - i. 1Na,.i nfi ZJJg 9 ..0 / • ti? ' fia.. / P rilr r y$ �� + , ' '. A , ; ) - irst Pse. re vii-:..-- -- ---- - S � . ereati n 0. _• !, 0 . t0.r?. — . BAYSHORE NC:- r arzette - . .. -J -O 4 - �sl._� _ _.. Bayshore Community Village , Jr& � J/7 J J .N< ....0 J-.c..n 1a J : ,., t.4t J. .t . - J • ' E • a J J f j4 4 II�.A -, 3 : ......;;,..e.....0' Adventure Island : Y. ti _ �i< ' j 4 : S4 ,,f jib sac, si. .27.._.,,..„„..A.....a.... . t r.oss, ,, ,,..../ i...—At-___:77-7.2r; . lased". 7i' ./ vgly lc -_ `1 wif Vv. = • YSH • - E °c ; .. Y . �to. i L i � •1 1��)j� Y f1 _ • , -- t , -r • -1 -_ - -- •Local Street Standard . •Balk Standards Lot Size ,I'l Varied Setbacks I I / I — + 1I_Ayr f � � a BAYSHORE RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET _ f 60' R.O.W. FL- FL 36' SIDE- I gIDE- WALK TREE LAWN; PARKING TRAVEL TRAVEL PARKING TREE LAWN WALK i ri i / r, / / // 1' 5' 5' 1'j 8' 10' 10' 8' 11 5' 5' 1' - z ,7) C ,sL n . 44,, iiit te, ,, cD . • _ __,..., ...At..tit ! (i. 1 S 1 NTS RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET n • YSH • -ce)rri . V - it- 1 Id irti - - - � ' . tirl lllllllllll . ._ 0 S- ill I w- IIII ) /' lllllllllllhi y IIllle ;li.f JI! ,. Ut If u !T!h' y • . 4 1 • ' IS aa. t . •l i .c I't r _- r7rl 1 1 ' ' 41 iiii. I I [ 1 1 WIty fRGH14o*OLG GNNO[ I ROR11GMa0 CNW( V L.n.f.*w comer rpm (Mw we~sod r4 .T_J,mI OP Nly et*on MN Ann I I 1 Iiir Ili 16) 1 1 1 1 j I ^ : y MLIV O aO GAWK ALLEY-WADED GWCL ICIiillotant II-mkt*NNW Val r/•Llrw`' P4 MO V•yOOI IMO,—_4_OPI PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SETBACK . rIGFi 111 � �. {�_,: ll ➢- :■.--. MEW 1 0- SRCR11OtaO GARAGE I RQYI-MCfO GARAGE Nu.MI knevw Yy'+..te.me AA+tM4'v awW Y4 M.6H Vail neV pen",momsI I ; ' �pII I '';I I :Ii�I'IIJililli13 I 3 I 3 GMKi e+-ME ros--—we ONaleM.We+wawa 9.y.+. eon) weiliciON) PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL. BUILDING SETBACK Lij'S S;__ ;ly :rg' O - _ �i • _ 7aH �. I Il y I _ I . ( N 1 . 1 i • 4.4- c. — :— . - . `VnrieLI ..zie tbnck / ;iii _t,onrl : ;iiiii7 J q L� w 1 O rC. _ Sy Rgpp ON T ❖ A Great Place to Play ❖ A Great Place to Grow ❖A Great Place to Live A Community Weld County will be Proud of \ SAYSF1OFei77i 00 - 11441•44131161 ,.•••'...' a • K4e • O RAOO ON H� 44 1". PLi'l Fcfc [ LT ' (• ' 1 r I , (.n i rn Fin FL- " 1 �i Vigil' [- f r- rfjg I1 a' ri lr, fir dill i 4 • .1 • ' • _fir A. Ca� %I Best Communities. Best Value. Since 1958 t 1 4 ■ CARMA DEVELOPERS - LTD - FOOTHILL ESTATES jik, wa4 CLitlaill " , •u ! ea pcR>I�,>ay • IN ' 1j/ \ - OodlhdF iia nuvh -Aland • �1` n ho rage C. Camh tJKJ ILy r l \ r/ .�, Ih) Wit' n e• Palm, �k,h56)! / mega t'Vatdc, \ 1r 00 +%•••Kodiak �1 ch.,Hav wr y • rntr n .x Kanglgcnnlq... >• f""" D . r..t_� � ', l.fv,t.l,`.SCA \(atwn Velloxknur *Rankinfnhd �� !,• flwrHlk ) I ,.y \ (,,...O7Au., I tvtt• ll{u«e(1 I) mowed tr- wn ucr.al Y t. ./ �� Chun hJl .x IMJAY4`CIIa (nl I ILI , J lane... ' lxar>;a n Edmonton• - , .' _f , ' ' I (lend and hotjsina) (xwwnJ., (b>. la ... J , Cie' G c. ry' f+NJrth VrmK,na• 0ttawa pond) phn"x\M1unJ.r\elnnlpl:•io\ Ottawa.._� .I , I I , poo lo, n ;'.�.lon /i- O u.nnilol �_ t�, c Toronto 1 'w ,. Ocean ! ,� (land and housing) z t hi I I C. D (L,.•bnJ c° - ''' c�c "'thy" .` *SWWshinglon. U.C. Nio Ka saS City; land} N'n14oliU, 15°m,I Denver (land} ®. " M1an.a,(nv �)1 w OM.pl . t�"'• - ' STATES"I- R T E S '' atlant i c ... N. •(tem phi, Jo, ‘„g,lc •• • Oklahoma Clip. •Atlanta •k harknoa n Vif.;o• pnuanl, •, hugu,.gue U c c a ll Ili...n.O • Vmla Aostin 1landl nl. Icab., la<k.,.n.ilk 1I raw O‘14•10 s„•Odeon.. 1 e... It„u,wo ' l Ttle BAHAMA. Antonio • •Ilo,nl.,M . \Ilan'. *Welk"u 0__ 7 ^ — °9tis / ..ulf ur Mex6.' !� • •l.nnon .V.n.,mnn.. 'avan * CORR +p I P.v . M1: Ylrfl pSfl syn st 1 m . r4 "eta GREATPLANNEDapt COMMUNITIES4zt,l- . ./. . ,. „,„....... .,.. i'Llran. 1 tam _. • -_ �� • ; �� ,y -rs f�ii� is_ 7 " . . 1.11:A. ' • I '.t tl 4d.'ia I ; Liar. _ Irj; ,. ii 1 ..r,! ..7/ tAl }i. • f✓L. . iitil t r {�yamB • _:; .•. ac 4 THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE • EDITED BY JO ALLEN CAUSE I '1' I r �:; l 1 o , ;. . 1° t fi • eayshere way i i OULDER• j6'' r _ . COUNTY f. � _ � c . ., . i bye ghtep,Cr,"*1 • err ,§O ,l C t�,,.. ,4, . . ,__,,.• 1 ... ., :, ., -. .l..... . w0 f S. . _,. _..... ,, ,,,,.._ ...,.. . , , • ,,..„, -„ , , r., --.„.,-;,--.-,,,,,,,,,-,R,-,-,-,--ow- . „,. ., . , r - . - ' -'''' *UM" .1 r?.1'2,11-10E, .7---'-t;-� - - ••e_ Lh A - - 1 y'.rY # , ?' r7r,y 7` •� .• !.,•1 �� ;^ . �y. by hyJ ` y� .� • ' : y•1 �a.I.` � .a • ♦ Sr, +4, ai ?, • � J r 4h •1: < } Y ` ", .41' t.... ".1 4 . Y,z C ' �?�- • it •y�"•••• a ,,,......;,,u '' ' 4 t}. ,R (, • i 4 J 7 v i )C' • . - "h a ,• � ' A rr 444517•444:1• y.r f •S •'. . v lr ♦ n 3 1f%si ;. � : c, • ( Et . , '_Tbw r! 11 / a ^ k.. - - - _ _ k. t 4� ilir 1� ti i t ,. " dt �, 1 ,3. . r r c Jy• a_ ARCHITECTURAL IMAGE ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT 9, ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 0 INAPPROPRIATE STYLES PRINCIPLES _..OOl.. . _ ll I .may i 1 — 1 �^ EXAMPLES Architectural Conies .raw. I 4.wa I.._- ICY aI.\n FW .I la i. .J al g te.nr. Yl.ua . /yrla. neitthh.rhood oIvumpatiLle arch/ reflective of rural Colorado ar Isom.shall be desitord r a At PDT �. `_ its chosen architectural style. / J{ =r J. T. w2 J.4 � T.r� { Ip I I I rt�4 Architectural Styles . n.`+�.�s. . ., Yt • mss_; 'tr rt shall reflect the physical charm. .....„._...........,--._..._4...__.,__ tics of the site and traditional al tnlural soles found in coral C. •u wet .r .w�ww� w� N .-rl....4 ty+.wws�wr.rsraugmw. t.nlryus.u.a l. Ws n..I... rail*. The Imitate aha11 use pal 4 �\ w N^� �� "a"`.`"A AA pet ''y architectural emprrubro for in. \\ • ration,but shall Lsixn preset I I set . S '"'e , interpretations of these tra.lt _--- - •k.\jp \, y +1 • .yam architect and styles. -_ _r si n,: t T � I e4 Inappropriate Styles - styles not railer:ire of etersl (.:****"."—****""---"------ Spanish. .................._.................................................._... • y.. vJr..r owrr....., . .a..w" /Iw..4 u.i.a..... Cape t•*d. •lC A. 'la. •u IVrtl.�.. r•_ 14...--- M.n r.. ka..r.Y4 i Plantation, or \irturisn. Or ih, \� I ,M' Y with the ind.ser.ew archy,ernu .Qt+ - - ` w �.. rural L'olormbL shall not bewr )� � Prktri y<t -.I r • e• 'eI r ` -tiff I j I .. . B • r� y'. Ie,-tin NE Il •l I.N. I l �a .1 1 I \ e • \ \ e \ \ al • \ re. ,I 5\ a pi •i •\ rt.: ri a 2 iu Pi is r'm •I. 'ss. Pi. ei4 f: Le F. .m . s. . 6 .. .. a. . - I' t ." "im, I h pa vb Ali i I • . R •' � �� .,Z ' • y . - !!IMF ^ , ' CI III•••rr. •w 1 I IA. • - � • , , •� 4'_ 1 r ♦ I „ _ ' ItItill f ..r ' ✓ � � . _ • YYY � '•• r -. • - • s , . . . -Nr . ... A. \—_. -j• -yJ ac or - iI + v F r _7 .a� . � a ,. Snits / • r: • i rJ .6T � y ) ` ) 1 � .}� i f �� i 11�\ 1 1'x'1;•� - - �..+�~� �� .• ^� -v' � ate`'""'� -� - ,� f.� - • 1- . s - • - r•Sem- _ C---aG .1 1 4-itte itili r, - . .1'..? / - , - , - ,i_ irry.ii4.-firlii,gi , - , A'‘• -muirdt 11% ,r ;. , AEI, F. ,---.44,,,v-illise'-; a IL ..,, ....taLy: .., 7.7. .. �� • '• • 4$ "e• 6t . .i F.ft V - / - ryA. ... .- +Jr9u.'j R : :C 0 School _ %�//LfI�'F�� + + i c 4TIVE MASTER PI x i��.i vetil �., • .-- -- Municipal Center Retail E �♦ 1 ♦ /F •a / a- .iii 4i Hockey ` YMCA s .__ , , .5, + Homestead r � _ M = Y: _ - ' * ites 'ice it• 7' '>.._ . t • • - • F1+A. Retail ` y j y.'. Retail - i' ;; ..?fit: .. .:. : BA��•Y�1wwyySy,'.�H�O�RE ••(�•111.1'2.t �i 4.:., . .+`\ir7: J'i1.U}wS.l St. Vrain Lakes r ^ .: ::,? \' „ ',,tirv4.".,:ti.• ivv. y}SL}• i �� Site Plan -; t.i4 yi1"2 School im Illustrative Lakes t / �. r1Jlitli].. °i'T64• _,.:" .•:.;•.:r' .., Att; ^' . '.Y l � $ {1111 ;• • / ill ""`"" School k ,1�`-t ;.i?t; Rec. Gtr. i' ° •T�• , S Y “ _ _2 • ▪ 4• , � j $• � it - .q l : ,,..•-•:tv• iii t� !. I ' i1 Municipal ` tZ+ •, J4I ?fi ` °,in , Rec. Ctr• a a4, ' • 1..•.✓. _•_ i rir 014• , �� 7 • r I Lakes . ,i wrmw o -V a •..iSk. y • 4S-.,, WOCria LIA.MernA.C. _ ._ _lacer M . n Hello