The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20021662.tiff JUN-25-02 04:03PMt FROM-Davis Graham i Stubbs 4 T-576 P.002/O11 F-695 1 1 Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP June 25, 2002 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Change of Zone/Riverdance PUD Docket #2002-41 Township 3 North, Range 68 West Section 35: E/2, SW/4 Section 36: SW/4NW/4,NW/4SW/4 • • Weld County, Colorado r Dear Planning Services: This law firm represents Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation ("KMRMC"), formerly HS Resources, Inc., and Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC ("KMG"), owners of certain oil and gas leasehold and pipeline interests in the above captioned lands (the "Property"). KMRMC and KMG are aware of tomorrow night's Commissioner's hearing regarding the above change of zone for the Property and ask that you furnish this informational letter to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. The oil and gas leases covering the Property and KMRMC's rights to use the surface of the Property for oil and gas development are more particularly described in the attached recorded Notices of Oil and Gas Interests and Surface Use. You are advised that KMRMC's leasehold title includes 100%working interests in all of Section 35 and the W/2 of Section 36, as to all depths, while KMG's operates several gas pipelines that traverse the Property. The applicant for the proposed development has been in contact with KMRMC and KMG personnel, however, a surface use agreement has not been executed among the surface and mineral owners. In addition to the existing wells on the Property, there are numerous future drillsite locations that KMRMC will use to development the valuable oil and gas resources underlying the Property. Due to the extensive nature of the proposed development and oc:3 i o!Ie.MSu1{V-I I%tl RlYVfdiIRe WCN Cwn. lm.n n e 17"35r892 496O— //D4},. soda J:o�v�� Bustin M.Am��on57988 duStin.afslm0�s@tlg3law.com (4. EXHIBIT I:.co „vanrv.•. Ii,;.Tn .. .„Lr'+III \'i lc•, utiv:JQ„:Y 1:.1: .d-.', .btq .,. www.dgslaw,com we ewe. JUN-25-02 04:O3PM FROM-Davis Graham & Stubbs + T-576 P.OO3/011 F-695 June 25, 2002 Page 2 KMRMC's anticipated future drilling operations, KMRMC hopes to negotiate an agreement with your applicant that adequately addresses the leasehold and pipeline interests described above. KMRMC and KMG personnel look forward to working with the applicant and the Weld County Planning Commission as the Riverdance development proceeds. Very truly truly yours, Dustin M. Ammons for DAVIS, GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP DMA/jw Enclosures cc: C. Greneaux of KMRMC (without attachments) Voluntary Capital Mitigation St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J, Longmont, Colorado Proposed change to Item M (At the time of final plan submittal) The applicant shall agree to enter in a voluntary capital mitigation agreement, in the same form and intent as the draft copy submitted into the record if the proposed school bond issue currently planned for November 2002 fails and the St. Vrain School district adopts said Voluntary Capital Mitigation plan. = EXHIBIT 1 Coliflot JUN-24 02 14:44 FROM:TRRNS COST SERUICES 303-682-7344 TO:3034278542 PRGE:02 • DRAFT FILE: FDB VOLUNTARY CAPITAL MITIGATION New residential development has an impact on the capacity of existing school facilities within the district due to the predictable increase in students who will reside in the development. Without an additional source of capital funding, the ability of the district to provide adequate education facilities and opportunities for these students, concurrent with the need for capacity, is severely hampered. The Board of Education recognizes that the primary source for funding new school construction necessarily must be through a bond election. However, the Board shall consider other options for obtaining funding assistance and providing capacity, concurrent with the need, including the mitigation efforts of developers through voluntary gifts, donations, and agreements. Benchmark Review Each school has a programmed student capacity number that is dependent primarily upon the number of classrooms in the building and the staffing ratio of teachers to students. For purposes of determining the availability of capacity that will provide adequate educational opportunity for students of the school district, a benchmark of 125% of the building's capacity is used. The enrollment of students beyond this benchmark imposes a significant strain on the core facilities and the daily schedule for a school facility, thus negatively affecting the quality of education that can be provided. The District has determined that once a school reaches 125% of capacity, based upon enrollment and projections expected within the next five-year planning period, a referral response recommending denial of any residential project will be forwarded to the appropriate local governmental entity. Benchmark Mitigation A developer may voluntarily propose mitigation through a gift, donation, or other means to alleviate the impact on school capacity generated by students who will reside in the new residential units. Acceptance of the mitigation proposal shall be within the discretion of the district, in consultation with the affected local governmental entity, and shall be guided by the methodology contained in the regulations accompanying this policy. Adopted: LEGAL REFS.: C.R.S. 22.54-102 (4 EXHIBIT St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J, Longmont, ColoradoI G oda.. #bd2- 1 of 1 JUN-24 02 14:44 FR0M:TRANS CUST SERVICES 303-682-7344 TO:3034276542 PAGE:03 DRAFT FILE: FDB-R VOLUNTARY CAPITAL MITIGATION Definition Voluntary capital mitigation is the voluntary contribution of funds or other in-kind gifts, donations or agreements by a developer of proposed residential units that would assist the district in constructing additional classroom capacity. Method of Evaluating Voluntary Capital Mitigation Proposals Once a school has been determined to exceed the benchmark capacity and the district has commenced writing letters recommending the denial of developments in response to local governmental entity referrals, the district may review possible mitigation options from developers to determine whether a positive recommendation to the referral may be provided. The following voluntary capital mitigation proposals shall be considered by the district in determining whether a positive referral letter may be provided. 1. Construction of a new school facility or classroom space to serve the students of the proposed new residential subdivision. 2. Donation of funds that could be used toward the construction of new facilities or classroom space to serve the students of the proposed new residential subdivision. Acceptance of the mitigation proposal shall be within the discretion of the district based on an evaluation of student impacts on core facilities and the timing of the potential capacity relief. Guidelines for Determining Appropriate Capital Mitigation Donations The calculation of the voluntary capital mitigation amount shall take into consideration the following components: 1. The cost of the classroom — Standard classroom size times the construction cost per square feet, Including common space. 2. Students In classroom — Standards for the number of students per classroom at elementary, middle, or high school (staffing ratio) times the 125% benchmark capacity. 3. Cost per student—Total cost of the classroom divided by the number of students in the classroom at 125% of capacity. 4. Cost per dwelling unit— Cost per student times the student yield per type of unit. Calculations would be made for each school level within the applicable school feeder area with the mitigation amount considered only for those schools exceeding the benchmark capacity. ANY VARIATION FROM THIS STANDARD CALCULATION 1 of 2 JUN-24 02 14:44 FROM:TRANS CUST SERUICES 303-682-7344 TO:3034278542 PRGE:04 DRAFT FILE: FDB-R PROPOSED BY A BUILDER/DEVELOPER MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. APPROVAL WOULD ONLY BE GRANTED IF IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS AN EXCEPTIONAL BENEFIT TO THE DISTRICT. Timing of the Voluntary Capital Mitigation Funds Voluntary capital mitigation funds, if accepted by the school district, shall be provided prior to or at the time of the recording of each final plat for units proposed within the subdivision. This would allow for the use of the funds to begin construction of classroom space concurrent with the construction of new residential dwelling units. Other methods of staging the voluntary contribution would need to be reviewed by the district on a case-by-case basis. Use of Voluntary Capital Mitigation Funds The district will use voluntary capital mitigation funds that it has received as follows: 1. If funds donated will allow for the complete construction of classroom space to bring the capacity of a school up to the facility size standards per policy, the district will commence with the design and construction of the project as soon as possible, pending coordination with other building additions scheduled for the school. 2. If funds are not adequate to complete the construction of the classroom space to bring the capacity of a school up to the facility size standards, the district shall deposit the funds in a capital construction account for the applicable school feeder area. Design and construction will commence as soon as sufficient funds can be obtained either through additional developer donations or other funding efforts. 3. If the school is already at the facility size standards, the funds shall be deposited in a capital construction account for the applicable school feeder area for use in the construction of a new school to relieve the overcrowding at the existing school. Donations provided under this circumstance could be used to reduce the amount to be requested In future bond elections. 4. Funds may also be used to provide temporary capacity on a short-term basis until the completion of the necessary permanent classroom capacity can be provided. 5. If development causes enrollment to exceed the benchmark at one or more schools in a community that does not have a self-contained feeder system (i.e. elementary, middle and high school all in the same community), the funds allocated to the school level(s) within that community shall be used only for capital construction within the attendance boundary of each individual school that serves the community. Approved: St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J, Longmont, Colorado 2 of 2 JUN-24 02 14:44 FROM:TRANS CUST SERVICES 303-682-7344 TO:3034278542 PAGE:05 W 1.1 IA O 2 0 _ G g� < a Ia ai I W S wii a � tg M c IV $ $$ $ a N $ MONO qp0 O N 0 w O 1� 4 "4! S N h O F� N IOi^f ^ ^ q ~ P Nn N NO � a' d' COO - N E X _ '" $ 0 vw in tw NM M a a a n 1 13 arr VU 0Q 00 0 _.. t A z o x 2 oo 00 00 rD = .� § �V U gale, ge ON 0 O �na 0 C OL N , � -. 0- „8 - ; _, - ; .. - � ^� P 0 7 ti u P tie p' i '- x z $ z ag ' `, Q_ 1g $ 51 '"'r. � n G p (xJ• owu� zuj e NI J � a U J IJiN W „i N x La V 1- w X = dr= dzix WrE JUN-24 02 14:44 FR0M:TRANS CUST SERVICES 303-682-7344 TO:3034278542 PAGE:06 1 W u _I ___n 9 �, E Ci 1 - Pg I fa 8 YV S{ 1 GN $ $ $$ O6: N 88 : : 8 § t1 N a +' O N Y1 N N I in Sig ",..; h OO O. 1`1 V' 'Cf `d •P. •• 'q r1 SON n 's p Invn n M a N Nn NN NO '�* * odd 1— X N E M M yy ** NM - - - - 1 4. t � ^ _ _ fig�^^^ � E uu v « in < 4 « 7 ,p cr � �' 2 h < 31 ii M -§ w x d S X888 ��80 00 r = z 12 y2 o Y s U ° G_ N O N 'O4 = W Er � Uu O O 44�� (0, 0 @r . O '^ $ a {t;iAZ Va S ' .d ^ h» VG 'N �.' ° �' g etc (Y ° ecll,w xUx ° as 3 R t O W , W W F lS �I AI f t71 rap H Z ow o & d Z W 5 x l-ri ,L W = a Z' W W N 0 N = E 2 t5 JIli'U WW aC V N O °W W Xi r W Ei= diEI= Wax P JUN-24 02 14:45 FROM:TRANS CUST SERVICES 303-682-7344 TO:3034278542 PAGE:07 I i O ai . 3 i8 u 0 U IS . ..... 1___r_ _r_ _ , — --- _ — l a a O 5 --- — -- Q -- 1 Q 8 8Q Op o t' �p 8 74 4:4 as U 8 N ^�. v F O N in in N in �'1 O N O b 'TO M C" VI P NM NN N •O 'b'r' a OO4 N M — M M N M a N M C - L to fa a' N o 88 88 88 a.'zit I i 0- a o ~p74 2 iiii rDzI ' o'*P 0— YO rnlWl siO ., • °`. is o1r0201-7: 13 F N0 ''y�! W ti W Qf^ Q17 x2 =t8 OW !hi d r Y CIS W F. S JUN-24 02 14:45 FROM:TRANS CUST SERVICES 303-6B2-7344 TO:3034278542 PAGE:08 i • R. - ! I . in • u i C C G A m. s e 5i {{p 8 $ p$ 8PN 88 ; 4;1 p8 N 8 p 'i NN 8PN — In R � am. � V1 O N M N t' in G N — 4 t 2 in 1n N et RI N N N o w O O o 2rn O M N a a a a a a a il FF ti M a N x 8'3 88 ii �OIi- l- 1 0 • Fn ° 00 00 00 rz hi 'U 8g � .vei gill iQ al �, 0 N N W 2 ? P Q G Q NI U a J�- H HQLi W gal;" w NUI 2 id , 21 I w11= Zs. _ dEE JUN-24 02 14:45 FR0M:TRANS CUST SERVICES 303-682-7344 TO:3034278542 PAGE:09 W I I E1 - 8 . 11. u i pl n 12 -�-- - � .. l.. - _L - — _ o 8-_$ i ��y5in • SS o. « $ � � . v 6 N a Y O N O H p N N G G .- N " N ' O r M M m o O; NM NN N X t4 wV' w COO - E 0 y, N NNN MMM M __-.. - - x-11 U g uu Vu uu z N S °� ad I— E _ E a Q U O U U W' 7 E O �V� Ir'bwI liii `W,dlO0I� 6 � �2 in IA 1, N N O g ozu ;uo� 2 O31 �< � `� Zlinl� � �iP � E H c x 5 y£y��i ox JI- u E g Vx N 0 .O iW� x _ W fx _ Weld County Planning Department ■i<� GREELEY OFFICE JUN 2 7 2002 Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP RECEIVED June 25, 2002 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Change of Zone/Riverdance PUD Docket #2002-41 Township 3 North, Range 68 West Section 35: E/2, SW/4 Section 36: SW/4NW/4, NW/4SW/4 Weld County, Colorado Dear Planning Services: This law firm represents Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation ("KMRMC"), formerly HS Resources, Inc., and Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC ("KMG"), owners of certain oil and gas leasehold and pipeline interests in the above captioned lands (the"Property"). KMRMC and KMG are aware of tomorrow night's Commissioner's hearing regarding the above change of zone for the Property and ask that you furnish this informational letter to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. The oil and gas leases covering the Property and KMRMC's rights to use the surface of the Property for oil and gas development are more particularly described in the attached recorded Notices of Oil and Gas Interests and Surface Use. You are advised that KMRMC's leasehold title includes 100% working interests in all of Section 35 and the W/2 of Section 36, as to all depths, while KMG's operates several gas pipelines that traverse the Property. The applicant for the proposed development has been in contact with KMRMC and KMG personnel, however, a surface use agreement has not been executed among the surface and mineral owners. In addition to the existing wells on the Property, there are numerous future drillsite locations that KMRMC will use to development the valuable oil and gas resources underlying the Property. Due to the extensive nature of the proposed development and • EX1 ISU DCS-W P-aa<5525v1<iManage>-1178 Riverdance Weld County Info-Notice letter.wpd June 25,2002 3:07 pm Dustin M.Ammons . 303 892 7488 . dustin.ammons@dgslaw.com ----- t #lso2_ 1550 Seventeenth Street • Suite 500 • Denver Colorado 80202 303 892 9400 . fax 303 893 1379 #-(QD`L w w w..dg slaw a w.com C:NL P�«o) /'*" June 25, 2002 Page 2 KMRMC's anticipated future drilling operations, KMRMC hopes to negotiate an agreement with your applicant that adequately addresses the leasehold and pipeline interests described above. KMRMC and KMG personnel look forward to working with the applicant and the Weld County Planning Commission as the Riverdance development proceeds. Very truly yours, e... Dustin M. Ammons for DAVIS, GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP DMA/jw Enclosures cc: C. Greneaux of KMRMC (without attachments) r H. 111111111111111111111111 " 'iiIli1111111IIIiiiiiIiii1111 ��/ 2812809 12/12/2000 11:50A JA Sukl Tsukamoto (f.:-'7:ti 1 of 2 R 10.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO NOTICE OF OIL AND GAS INTERESTS AND SURFACE USE This Notice of Oil and Gas Interests has been prepared and is being filed of record by ❑S Resources, Inc., (hereinafter,"IISR") whose address is 1999 Broadway, Suite 3600, Denver, Colorado, for the purpose of providing additional public notice of its rights to make use of the surface of the lands described below for oil and gas exploration,development and related operations. For such purpose, I ISR hereby stales as follows: I ISR is the owner of or has the right to an undivided interest in and to that certain Oil and Gas Lease dated April 29, 1970, recorded in I3ook 626, at Reception Number 1547776, of the records of the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder, from Carl II. Adler,as Lessor, to T. S. Pace, as Lessee,as may be amended(hereinafter referred to as the"Oil and Gas Lease")affecting the following described lands, in Weld County, Colorado (the "Lands"): Township 3 North Range 68 West 6th P.M. Section 35: W/2 Under the laws of the State of Colorado and the provisions of the Lease, I ISR has certain rights to occupy and make use of the surface of the Lands,which rights include but are not limited to the right to PROSECUTE OIL AND GAS DRILLING AND COMPLE'T'ION OPERATIONS; PRODUCTION, 'I'ItANSI'OR7'A'I'ION AND MARKETING OF OIL, GAS OR OTHER HYDROCARBON PRODUCT'S AS WELL AS RIGHTS OF ACCESS AND USE OF THE SURFACE OF THE LANDS FOR CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION,MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT AND MONITORING OF WELLS, WELL LOCATIONS, EQUIPMENT, MUD AND RESERVE PITS, SEPARA'T'ORS, TANK IlATTERIES, PIPELINES,GATHERING LINES,FLOWI.INES,PIPELINE INTERCONNECTIONS AND ANY AND ALL OTllls'R REASONABLE OR CUSTOMARY USES OF '1'IIE LANDS RELATED TO SIJCII OPERATIONS. Exhibit "A" attached hereto is a plat of the Lands showing the allowable locations under Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rule 3 I 8A and indicates potential drillsite locations where oil and gas Willing operations may occur. 'Ibis Notice is intended to remain in effect for so long as the Lease, or any extensions or renewals thereof, remains in effect as to any portion of the Lands. It is not intended to enlarge, diminish or in any other way modify the respective rights, interests or titles of any party owning an interest in the Lands, but is to be construed only as giving notice of I ISIt's lawful rights under the applicable Lease and the laws of the Stale of Colorado. ITS RESOURCES, INC. 2 By: / (- - - -i_____.„. / ames P. ,as n ' ��'IL' ti� j. (Denver Basjn Land Supervisor r TtW • ilOIZADO ).ilirl' • .. ea..,qh k C J ` i7or 1 N7 OF DENVER ) ;t' 1 4iitilregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1st day of December , 20b0w°13y r)alpea''P. Wason, as Denver Basin Land Supervisor of I IS Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Publi My Commission expires: a - 4 `o & -j . • w1111 1111111111111111111111 III 1111111 III 11111 llll till 12809 12/12/2000 11:50A JA Sukl Tsukamoto 2 of 2 R 10.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO EXHIBIT A Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission GREATER WATTENBERG AREA Special Well Location Rule 318 A 320 Acre Spacing Unit 2640'. - --- 400' C❑ 800' 0 920'-g-- 460' 920' 460' n- 400' tl❑ 800' 0 920'-g- go 48014 ga 920'- 460' ❑ 400' x 400' Sec.35 - T3 N - R(c3W 800' x 800' I f060FI Scale 111111111111111111111111 "II IIII 111111 III RENAL IIII 2812810 12/12/2000 1 i.oOA JA Sukl Tsukamolo �h'C1 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO 9 NOTICE OF O11, AND GAS INTERESTS AND SURFACE USE This Notice of Oil and Gas Interests has been prepared and is being filed of record by I IS Resources, Inc., (hereinafter, "I ISR") whose address is 1999 Broadway, Suite 3600, Denver, Colorado, for the purpose of providing additional public notice of its rights to Make use of the surface of the lands described below for oil and gas exploration,development and related operations. For such purpose, IISR hereby states as follows: I ISR is the owner of certain oil and gas leasehold rights affecting the following described lands in Weld County, Colorado (the "Lands"): ' Township 3 North, Range 68 West, 6th P.M. Section 35: E/2 I/SR's oil and gas leasehold rights in the Lands derive from those valid and subsisting oil and gas leases which are described on Isxhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, and have been duly recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Weld County (the "Leases"). Under the laws of the Slate of Colorado and the provisions of the Leases, I ISR has certain rights to occupy and make use of the surface ante Lands, which rights include but are not limited to the right to PROSECUTE O11,ANI) GAS DRILLING AND COMPLETION OPERATIONS; I'ROI)IIC'I'ION, TRANSPORTATION ANI) MARKE'T'ING OF OIL, GAS OR OTHER r HYDROCARBON PRODUCTS AS WELL, AS RIGHTS OF ACCESS AND USE OF THE SURFACE OF THE LANDS FOR CONSTRUC'T'ION, INSTALLATION,MAIN'T'ENANCE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT ANI) MONITORING OF WELLS, WELL LOCATIONS, EQUIPMENT, MUD AND RESERVE PITS, SEPARA'T'ORS, TANK BATTERIES, PIPELINES,GATII EKING LINES, FLOWLINES,PIPELINE INTERCONNECTIONS AND ANY AND ALL OTHER REASONABLE OR CUSTOMARY USES OF THE LANDS RELATED TO SUCH OPERATIONS. Exhibit "B" attached hereto is a plat of the I,ands showing the allowable locations under Colorado Oil and (;as Conservation Commission Rule 318A and indicates potential drillsite locations where oil and gas drilling operations may occur. This Notice is intended to remain in effect for so long as the Leases, or any extensions or renewals thereof, remain in effect as to any portion of the Lands. It is not intended to enlarge, diminish or in any other way modify the respective rights, interests or titles of any party owning an interest in the Lands, but is to be construed only as giving notice of l ISR's lawful rights under the applicable Leases and the laws of the State of Colorado. IIS RESOURCES, INC. By: § e) / \`a L . J mes P. Was n I enver Basin Land Supervisor ST�`nfE.Q1J )LoRADO ) :c1' a3,''s., ; ) ss JNI'Y OF DENVER ) Wit ; j)' 144e'Cyrywiag instrument was acknowledged before me this I st day of December 2 0 byJapies'P.'Wason, as Denver Basin Lund Supervisor of 115 Resources, Inc., a Delaware . 144191b‘5 Ni‘ \ WITNESS my hand and official seal. ' ,Olt k. pt N. CV— Notary Publi My Commission expires: /A N--r1Ot i 1'. EL W on G11i "i C O W Q in 1. at,%/ w in ❑ C ❑ rn E w ❑ co •o w r ' I ❑ ❑ c,;;Lal..,. . Z Z rn 0 !;ut 0 p f5: 0cn Op w3 } to to qw Z Z In Q •-\17 b Qco Fw V' it LL u7 a co U) r.P..1,. . � Z 0 :'i i'r Z iii in to N in N in Q •Mil (/�� co ch cO CO CO CO H k:, Co LLIre Z CO 03 CO 0° CO 11.1 ,,:.‘l. co co oco co Z ma. Q 0 I .l i, O F N wr NS N to cr; W J o ( r Q J O 'c Y co O M }co in U. �� C cco o m cNo co .;;; m O Z F- p?d;'t,' ,pi a. co C W F- W U �' r. o to O U) r "{ o U.- ❑ tY J O W t�'�tr� • z z z z Q O 0 p Q 41); LL ul D C a. cc 0 re 0 Q z OQ O ¢ F— 0 < a O 0 W Un. ct �'� � Q < O 2 O { Q U Q U a Q O 9 ! Z S \YY 7 zQ W lam Q c,Yi K W ob ❑ O F,.i.'" LL Y CO 06 w ci W O� U �2 :'::u` N Q W vi X a U F' y.;. . W ' Q Z urine.. Z � a zz Q O �.rn0 Q J W W W d Ina-3 Mall j W W m m 0 co �a3 0 YS 00 r 5 ny_ . o - '� O 0o aoo r�FP; o a (1) 4o 9EL 7 O 9 9 c 9 3 �0 c.3 1 IICH 11111 111111 NUN MIME III 11111 IUI IIII 2812810 12/12/2000 11:50A JA Sukl Tsukamoto 3 of 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO EXHIBIT B Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission GREATER WATTENBERG AREA Special Well Location Rule 318 A 320 Acre Spacing Unit - -----zs4o'--- 400' _ ❑ 600' --920'-•-- -.6e: 920'-► 460' 400' v❑ 800' a • 6` 920'-0. 460'1 ! 400' x 400' T JN - RCc8 W 800' x 800' 1060 F1 Seale w�nS 1111111HII111111111111P1 'IIII11111111111111111111111 2811909 12/07/2000 02:izI3 JA Sold Tsukatnoto • 1 of 3 11 16.00 D 0.00 Weld County Co L,)c'+ NOTICE OF OIL AND GAS INTERESTS AND SURFACE USE This Notice of Oil and Gas Interests has been prepared and is being filed of record by HS Resources, Inc., (hereinafter, "I ISR") whose address is 1999 Broadway, Suite 3600, Denver, Colorado, fix the purpose of providing additional public notice of its rights to make use of the surface of the lands described below for oil and gas exploration,development and related operations. For such purpose, I ISIt hereby slates as fidlows: I ISR is the owner of certain oil and gas leasehold rights affecting the following described lands in Weld County, Colorado (the "Lands"): TownshiL 3 North1 Range 68 West, 6th P.M. Section 36: W/2 I ISR's oil and gas leasehold rights in the Lands derive from those valid and subsisting oil and gas leases which are described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, and have been duly recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Weld County (the "Leases"). Under the laws of the State of Colorado and the provisions of the Leases, I ISR has certain rights to occupy and make use of the surface of the Lands, which rights include but are not limited to the right to PROSECU'T'E OIL ANI)GAS DRILLING AND COMPLETION OPERATIONS; PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND MARKE'T'ING OF OIL, GAS Olt O"I'IIER ITYI)I(OCAItIION PRODUCT'S AS WELL AS RIGHTS OF ACCESS ANI) USE OF 'I'IIE SURFACE OF THE LANDS FOR CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REPI.ACEN1EN'I' AND MONITORING OF WELLS, WELL LOCATIONS, EQUIPMENT, MUD ANI) RESERVE PI'T'S, SEPARATORS, TANK RA'rl'ERI►i:S, PIPELINES,GATHERING LINES,FLOWI,INES, PIPELINE INTERCONNECTIONS AND ANY AND ALL O'I'IIER REASONABLE OR CUSTOMARY USES OF '1'IIE LANDS RELATED TO SUCI I OPERATIONS. Exhibit "13'" attached hereto is a plat of the Lands showing the allowable locations under Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rule 318A and indicates potential drillsite locations where oil and gas drilling operations may occur. This Notice is intended to remain in effect fin so long as the Leases, or any extensions or renewals thereof, remain in effect as to any portion of the Lands. It is not intended to enlarge, diminish or in any other way modify the respective rights, interests or titles of any party owning an interest in the Lands, but is to be construed only as giving notice of IISR's lawful rights under the applicable I.eases and the laws of the State of Colorado. IIS RESOURCES, INC. a:. ilrii:%• ....: J' neson • I'Cnver l)asiu .and Supervisor Ar t• i tk�Ct)1,ORADO ) ss C 'P,�,'$I.fiY .OUNTY OF DENVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I 0th day of November , 2000, by James P. Wason, as Denver Basin Land Supervisor of I IS Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation. �(l (� 1 1^ ' WITNESS my hand and official seal. C x\1 k )\\f?kt-�- • 1 Notary Public \ My Commission expires: r1 •a,N4 wv•( W aC co u)0 3 W : `5 at %,,Q 3 3 0z z 4 D o .... co co co c)Q r) o) Z Q - W co co co WI-1m cZn rZi Z Q O U c0 c7 O u)in in in Z N O Y Q ----. co Q _J J m m F,_ O cO M O ' W C• o C C Z O Z • o o a• 1l cn .. X OF- OO • W I- W U O W W w w Ca I W If Z LL LL QX -i 4 —' z z r; O F F W 0 2 2 O Q r Y U) W Ca 6 Z cc MIMI Z A g 4 N u. o p o r 0 o — a mos 0 ~ N 0D k. D — E D rt ( H ... CA W 0 w ch'-0 U JO z i- MN= 0 -G-'a' I Y _CC o 0 W W —-'c 0 a) Q U) c7 i �N3 0 O Oo �N zO O O ��G o a 0 0) 0 p W 0 O O op O armN LLl O 0 9 O anp o9 =O id • o o 0 mi..N.- U O O �r oC a c. —o CI =a) — a; o m —NN J1111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII 1111111 111111111111 It J ot0 39 R116 00 0 D 0.00 1WeldJA Sukl kamolo County CO EXHIBIT B Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission GREATER WATTENBERG AREA • Special.Well Location Rule 318 A • 320 Acre Spacing Unit ---2640'----- 400' ❑ B00' El -920'._.. 46 ' 400' B00' ❑ ' �-920'-► 46� -920' ••- 460' , .I 400' x 400' I Sec. % — T3 N - RGBVv 800' x 800' t999 r. Scale ead Town 2of6 Mead P.O. Box 626 441 Third Street Mead-"A Little Town Mead,Colorado 80542-0626 With a Big Future" (970) 535-4477 • July 31, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Commissioners: Please accept the comments below as the Town of Mead's response to the referral letter sent by the County on the proposed 488-acre RiverDance project. We understand that this development is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday,August 12, at 9:00 a.m. Officials from the Town of Mead plan to attend that hearing and testify in order to amplify some of the following concerns. The topics discussed below are in no particular order. Transportation and Street Issues We understand that the I-25 frontage road will be reconfigured to turn into a continuation of proposed WCR 9 'h,with the south portion of the combined"new" frontage road/WCR 9 'h starting from the existing bridge over the St. Vrain River just north of the Southwest Weld County Complex building, turning to the right north of the lakes, and bearing east on a gradual curve up the river bluff before turning north again. The north portion of the existing frontage road will then be reconfigured to "tee" into the new WCR 9 %2 at a 90-degree angle. We support this reconfiguration and the retention of the frontage road. However, we have concerns that the stubbed street, labeled Wind Spirit Lane, is not configured correctly to intersect with the frontage road. This is due to both topographical considerations and proximity to the new intersection with WCR 9 'h, which would create turning movement conflicts. This stubbed street and the commercial lots in that vicinity should be revisited with a different configuration compatible with the proposed St. Acacius development to the north that Mead is currently reviewing. We understand the desirability of providing a major collector street that intersects with WCR 9 'h at approximately the half-mile mark south of WCR 28 at a 90-degree angle. However, we have concerns that this intersection may need to be moved somewhat farther north to ensure that sight distances are good for drivers due to the grade change to the south of it, as well,as the expected speed and driving conditions that a major regional arterial like WCR 9 %2 would represent. There is no street stub provided at the easternmost border of the project to the adjacent parcel. We believe that this is a mistake. We believe that it is appropriate socially and from planning and public safety viewpoints to encourage interconnections between subdivisions. EXHIBIT ce .• PL fl Me_ leoz 4P4o7 As currently proposed, the major collector street, Riverdance Parkway, terminates at the extension of WCR 28, which is shown as only a one-lane street. This in effect creates a stubbed street for which the entire residential area has only one viable means of ingress and egress onto WCR 9 '/2. Due to the large number of homes that are projected for this development (618), it is essential for public safety and driver convenience that there be at least two means of appropriate ingress and egress at the outset of the project. Mead defines appropriate ingress and egress as access to two different paved roads that are at least two-lane in capacity. The development should be required to provide two lanes of asphalt pavement on WCR 28, with a recapture mechanism created for half of that cost from the developer to the north, should RiverDance be started first. The same would apply to building two lanes of WCR 9 %z, with recapture from the St. Acacius developer, should RiverDance be started first. We also believe that WCR 28 should be boulevarded, with a landscaped median. Furthermore, given the density of this project, it should be required that WCR 9 1h be constructed as a two-lane cross-section all the way north to Highway 66 at the outset, again with recapture from benefited properties. Otherwise the entire project is essentially a giant cul-de-sac. The townhome area just east of WCR 9 'h and south of WCR 28 is shown with what appears to be narrow private streets. We believe that this is a mistake. Private streets have historically proven to be financial and social burdens from many perspectives. They are ordinarily not constructed to public street standards and thus fail sooner; they induce parking and traffic regulation problems, rather than discouraging people from parking along them,because people will try to treat them as standard-width public streets anyway; they become a burden to a homeowners association(HOA)to raise assessments to pay for their maintenance and replacement; there is no guarantee that an HOA will plow them as quickly and well as a Public Works Department; the residents inevitably ultimately complain to their elected officials that they are second-class citizens because they pay taxes and yet have to pay for their streets; and so forth. This plan is particularly problematic because there is no evidence of guest parking areas for the townhouse section. The typical planning formula is the provision of a one-half guest parking space for every townhouse. Given the proposed density, the proposed use of four cul- de-sacs for townhouses, and the postal service's requirement for mailbox clusters, which also need good street access, this area will be a constant headache for school bus and delivery vehicle maneuvering as well as general parking. Other Infrastructure The Town of Mead is concerned about the proposed use of a Metropolitan District. It generally does not favor such mechanisms to pay for infrastructure. The cost of water and sewer mains, roads, and other public improvements should be built into the price of the lots/homes, rather than being a separate tax. In addition, such a district is govemed by a separate board of directors, creating another layer of government. It is more appropriate to develop a project of this scale in a municipality, where the entire responsibility for a development is instead ultimately answerable to one set of elected officials, rather than as an unincorporated project under a metropolitan district. 2 .-� The proposal states in several places that certain amenities and infrastructure may be owned by such a district or by an HOA. It is not clear in this respect. This kind of decision, i.e. what the total financial picture of improvements is, should be made at the time of initial approval (as opposed to the total cost of improvements, which of course would be refined later). By shifting improvement responsibilities around, the project could be financially impacted in such a way that good aspects of the plan would be financially unfeasible; for example, making HOA dues unaffordable, or otherwise as a segue for the developer to ask for concessions on issues that should be negotiated to conclusion now. The developer should not be given this much discretion at this stage. In addition, Colorado law requires that a metropolitan district must furnish at least two services. What the developer ultimately proposes for this district is unclear. The Town is also concerned that there are not adequate drainage easements and drainage ways to convey historic off-site stormwater flows southward. Significant stormwater calculations are necessary in order to determine how detention and release should be handled, given the combination of the density of this project, upstream flows, downsloping geography, and the existence of the lake system ultimately draining into the river. The project description is very vague on this issue. It appears that engineering issues are being deferred to a later time that should be addressed now. Open Space, Parks, Trails, and Recreational Amenities While this plan offers considerable open space, much of it is there by virtue of its geography and particular site circumstances, not because the developer made any particular sacrifices. While of course the lakes are a nice amenity, they were already there, anyway, as is the draw that runs along the eastern edge of the project. The Town's philosophy is that park land should ordinarily be"high, dry, flat, and usable," meaning land that the developer could just as well use for homes, rather than land that is otherwise unsuitable for building. Along this same vein, oil/gas wells should not be given credit towards park dedication requirements because they are not fully usable. Given the density of this project, there should be additional clear park space provided, rather than just the threads and odd-corner pockets of open space shown in various places. The Town believes that a trail system is a public amenity that should be available to all "publics." We disagree with the philosophy of this development that certain trails would be private. We also believe that the trails should connect to a regional trail system; this project proposes specifically NOT to connect to the St. Vrain Valley Open Lands trail system, which is unfortunate. This is the public's river, and people should have access to it. There should be a trail provided along WCR 9 %2, so that the trail system is looped to the north as well. Otherwise it goes nowhere. The Town's pedestrian/bicycle trail standards are for 8 foot wide concrete paths, which are consistent with other municipalities. It is not clear what standards would be used in this project. The proposed clubhouse site, while situated to have access from both the residential and the commercial portions of the project, ought to have a better, almost direct means of access from a 3 subdivision collector street than that which is shown, where traffic will be required to drive past large numbers of homes to get to it. Public access to the lakes should be provided along the north shore. Who would own the lakes is not clear, and the suggestion that an HOA would regulate use of them(e.g. as to whether or not motorized boating, etc. would be permitted) is a recipe for constant dissent among factions of control of the association. The scale of these amenities suggest that a municipality is the better governing body to represent the interests of the entire neighborhood as a whole in this respect. Land Uses and Dwelling Types This project proposes a range of four different housing types with four sizes of typical lots in the residential section. While the concept of providing different housing types in a development of this size is understandable, the land plan situates them in unusual patterns. Some of the largest lots, called"large suburban," are sandwiched between townhouses, the densest product, and patio homes, the next densest product. Another section of patio homes is clustered at the eastern border of the property after large suburban lots. This is illogical. One would expect to find higher-density dwelling areas adjacent to the arterials, and a feathering out of density to the areas where the largest lots are the most desirable land use. We predict that the northern large suburban lots will prove difficult to sell, not only because of this,but because in several places they are laid out in such a fashion so as to hem in other lots of their type, when view corridors and avoidance of double-loaded lots should be the key. This is not good planning. Much of the core of this project should be redesigned to create more compatible patterns. We are also concerned that some of the lotting over or at the top of the eastern draw as shown may be more dense than is appropriate, or is environmentally injurious, due to slope considerations. The setbacks shown for the lots are in several instances inadequate. All of them propose a 20- foot front yard (except for townhouses, where the setbacks are not even given). That is equivalent to a parking space, which means that cars parked in driveways at the front (depending on the sidewalk configuration) will extend practically to the street, leading to a very unattractive streetscape. The lake front lots should have a 30-foot minimum front yard (absolutely essential to attracting custom homebuilding), and the other lots should have a 25-foot minimum front yard. In addition, the patio home buildings, also known as zero-lot-line homes,will be only 10 feet apart, given the side yard setback shown. These will look very cramped and unattractive. A minimum distance of 15 feet between buildings should be required. All rear yard setbacks should be a minimum of 30 feet. Twenty feet is not enough for people to enjoy recreation in. Accordingly, the minimum lot size should be greater than 5,500 square feet. Mead's minimum is 7,000 square feet, because that size has proven its better practicality for the typical use a homeowner puts on a property, as well as how it improves the streetscape. No industrial uses should be allowed in the "employment center"portion adjacent to the lakes or WCR 9 'h, given the aesthetic character of the lakes, clubhouse, and adjacent residential uses. 4 The developer's interest in having C-1, C-2, and I-1 uses all as permitted uses in the employment center could result in some incompatible juxtapositioning of land uses. Ordinarily it is necessary to be very careful to separate retail, service, office, and institutional uses from industrial uses, even the so-called"light industrial" types. This area would be more suitable for a"business park"designation with higher standards on types of uses and buildings than ordinarily encountered in general business districts in the County. Standards The proposal states or implies in numerous places that standards for what will be built or be done will be decided later, and that most of them will be up to the developer's discretion. The Town's philosophy is that all principal standards should be established at the time of approval, and not subject to interpretation, negotiation, or developer discretion later. A promise to consider something means very little; a requirement to do something means a lot more. The Town has design standards for commercial property, including building design, signage control, lighting plans, and so forth, and such an instrument should be imposed for the"employment center" portion of the project. Similar comments would apply to landscaping standards. The Town could furnish a copy of such standards that were established for one of its business parks as an example. School Issues The Town already has in place basic funding mechanisms for school land dedications or cash in lieu thereof, and it is already the Town's policy to require development to further satisfy the school district in mitigation issues in some fashion. It is absolutely essential for a Town and a developer to partner in providing appropriate school services to development. As currently proposed, the County is apparently willing to allow far more developer discretion on this issue than the Town of Mead feels is appropriate. General Suitability and Contextual Development The majority of the parcels adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the RiverDance project are annexed to Mead or in the process of being reviewed for annexation and/or platting in Mead. The Town has recognized that this area is suburbanizing and is prepared to treat the area as urban development, because that is what market forces are driving. Accordingly, a project like Riverdance, which is also of urban density, can best be served by integrating it with a municipality for good planning, for service delivery, for consistency of amenities, for good street and trail connections, to foster a sense of community identity, and a host of other considerations. To have such a large project be allowed in unincorporated Weld County on Mead's borders will have a tremendous impact on the Town without any control by it. We respectfully submit that the County specializes in the management of rural development, and that urban.development, particularly in this case and in this location, belongs in a municipality. We believe that we are in the best position to coordinate all these developments and issues. We .-� furthermore have a more involved public process, including a range of public hearings and a popular vote on annexations, which results in better plans because there is more citizen input. 5 4 We think we can improve upon this project so that it would be a credit to the community and the community-at-large. It would be the logical southern border of the Town at the St. Vrain River. Conclusion We therefore request that the County Board deny approval of this project and require it to annex to the Town of Mead. If you have any questions that you would like Mead to prepare for prior to the August 12 hearing, please let us know as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Sa...,2 b. 1-44. Michael D. Friesen Town Administrator on behalf of the Town Board cc.: ,..-14‘ica Daniels-Mika, Director,Department of Planning Services, Weld County Dr. Ken Kirkland, St. Vrain Valley School District 6 Exhibit K is an oversized map Please see original file St Vtain Valley sdroipa August 5, 2002 Glenn Vaad Weld County Commissioner P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80623 Dear Mr. Vaad: As you are aware from previous meetings, the St. Vrain Valley School District has been discussing a policy on voluntary capital mitigation, and has now adopted it in final form. The policy, the regulations implementing it, and the exhibits demonstrating the fee levels are enclosed for your information. Briefly, the policy requires our planning staff to respond with a negative referral letter to any proposed development that would cause one of our schools to exceed 125% of capacity. If a developer has concerns that a negative referral may cause their project to be rejected by a land use body such as yours, or if it is your policy to refer developers to the school district when it appears that a negative referral may be forthcoming, then this policy would apply. The district would be willing to consider writing a favorable referral upon payment of the voluntary mitigation fee, which would then be used to add permanent classroom space at the affected school(s). The fee is based on the cost of adding a classroom to an existing building; the fee per household uses the historical student yield numbers in the same manner as our current cash-in-lieu methodology does. In other words, the calculation is the same as our cash-in-lieu calculations, but is based on the cost of a classroom rather than the cost of land. Please note that if this fee applies, it will be in addition to the requirement to dedicate land or pay cash in lieu of that dedication. The district has adopted this policy in order to provide a consistent methodology district wide, and ensure that any such discussion with developers will apply the same approach regardless of the jurisdiction in which the development is located. This policy is for voluntary mitigation, and applies only in those instances in which a developer is willing to offer mitigation. But should mitigation be offered, then the district expects the mitigation to meet the requirements of this policy in order for the district to be able to offer a favorable response. Should you have any questions about this policy and its application, please feel free to contact our Planning Department at 303-682-7365. i rely, Kenneth J. kland Assistant Superintendent for Business Services g. EXHIBIT L Cnati✓l/ -44D Dr.Ken Kirkland•Assistant Superintendent for Business Services•kiridand_ken@stvrain.k12.co.us 6 r ph: 303.682.7203• fax: 303.682.7343 .395 South Pratt Parkway•Longmont•CO . 80501-6499 Orr /L File: FDB VOLUNTARY CAPITAL MITIGATION New residential development has an impact on the capacity of existing school facilities within the district due to the predictable increase in students who will reside in the development. Without an additional source of capital funding, the ability of the district to provide adequate education facilities and opportunities for these students, concurrent with the need for capacity, is severely hampered. The Board of Education recognizes that the primary source for funding new school construction necessarily must be through a bond election. However, the Board shall consider other options for obtaining funding assistance and providing capacity, concurrent with the need, including the mitigation efforts of developers through voluntary gifts, donations, and agreements. Benchmark Review Each school has a programmed student capacity number that is dependent primarily upon the number of classrooms in the building and the staffing ratio of teachers to students. For purposes of determining the availability of capacity that will provide adequate educational opportunity for students of the school district, a benchmark of 125% of the building's capacity is used. The enrollment of students beyond this benchmark imposes a significant strain on the core facilities and the daily schedule for a school facility, thus negatively affecting the quality of education that can be provided. The District has determined that once a school reaches 125% of capacity, based upon enrollment and projections expected within the next five-year planning period, a referral response recommending denial of any residential project will be forwarded to the appropriate local governmental entity. Benchmark Mitigation A developer may voluntarily propose mitigation through a gift, donation, or other means to alleviate the impact on school capacity generated by students who will reside in the new residential units. Acceptance of the mitigation proposal shall be within the discretion of the district, in consultation with the affected local governmental entity, and shall be guided by the methodology contained in the regulations accompanying this policy. Adopted: July 31, 2002 LEGAL REFS.: C.R.S. 22-54-102 St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J, Longmont, Colorado File: FDB-R VOLUNTARY CAPITAL MITIGATION r. Definition Voluntary capital mitigation is the voluntary contribution of funds or other in-kind gifts, donations or agreements by a developer of proposed residential units that would assist the district in constructing additional classroom capacity. By definition, voluntary capital mitigation funds will be used for capital improvements or projects and not on operating expenditures. Method of Evaluating Voluntary Capital Mitigation Proposals Once a school has been determined to exceed the benchmark capacity and the district has commenced writing letters recommending the denial of developments in response to local governmental entity referrals, the district may review possible mitigation options from developers to determine whether a positive recommendation to the referral may be provided. The following voluntary capital mitigation proposals shall be considered by the district in determining whether a positive referral letter may be provided. 1. Construction of a new school facility or classroom space to serve the students of the proposed new residential subdivision. 2. Donation of funds that could be used toward the construction of new facilities or classroom space to serve the students of the proposed new residential subdivision. Acceptance of the mitigation proposal shall be within the discretion of the district based on an evaluation of student impacts on core facilities and the timing of the potential capacity relief. Any cash-in-lieu of land payment or land dedication requirement based on IGA's with the cities, towns and counties shall not be considered to be a capital mitigation for purposes of this regulation. Guidelines for Determining Appropriate Capital Mitigation Donations The calculation of the voluntary capital mitigation amount shall take into consideration the following components: 1. The cost of the classroom — Standard classroom size times the construction cost per square feet, including common space. 2. Students in classroom — Standards for the number of students per classroom at elementary, middle, or high school (staffing ratio) times the 125% benchmark capacity. 3. Cost per student — Total cost of the classroom divided by the number of students in the classroom at 125% of capacity. 4. Cost per dwelling unit— Cost per student times the student yield per type of unit. Calculations would be made for each school level within the applicable school feeder area with the mitigation amount considered only for those schools exceeding the 1 of 2 File: FDB-R benchmark capacity. Any variation from this standard calculation proposed by a builder/developer must be reviewed by the Board of Education. Approval would only be granted if it was determined that there was an exceptional benefit to the district. Timing of the Voluntary Capital Mitigation Funds Voluntary capital mitigation funds, if accepted by the school district, shall be provided prior to or at the time of the recording of each final plat for units proposed within the subdivision. This would allow for the use of the funds to begin construction of classroom space concurrent with the construction of new residential dwelling units. Other methods of staging the voluntary contribution would need to be reviewed by the district on a case-by-case basis. If a sufficient revenue stream is provided for and assured through an agreement with the developer that allows the district to fund necessary capital improvements up front, the district would consider forwarding a positive referral letter. Use of Voluntary Capital Mitigation Funds The district will use voluntary capital mitigation funds that it has received as follows: 1. If funds donated will allow for the complete construction of classroom space to bring the capacity of a school up to the facility size standards per policy, the district will commence with the design and construction of the project as soon as possible, pending coordination with other building additions scheduled for the school. 2. If funds are not adequate to complete the construction of the classroom space to bring the capacity of a school up to the facility size standards, the district shall deposit the funds in a capital construction account for the applicable school feeder area. Design and construction will commence as soon as sufficient funds can be obtained either through additional developer donations or other funding efforts. 3. If the school is already at the facility size standards, the funds shall be deposited in a capital construction account for the applicable school feeder area for use in the construction of a new school to relieve the overcrowding at the existing school. Donations provided under this circumstance could be used to reduce the amount to be requested in future bond elections. 4. Funds may also be used to provide temporary capacity on a short-term basis until the completion of the necessary permanent classroom capacity can be provided. 5. If development causes enrollment to exceed the benchmark at one or more schools in a community that does not have a self-contained feeder system (i.e. elementary, middle and high school all in the same community), the funds allocated to the school level(s) within that community shall be used only for capital construction within the attendance boundary of each individual school that serves the community. Approved: July 31, 2002 St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J, Longmont, Colorado 2 of 2 a o N O L o ce p O N m O CO N c J c H c O a° m H `o m to m O i LL N U w -0 N O L V c 3 Cl) 00 0 om.N pN'O f J of 149 c0 �D O o cn o o'oi oho co co.t o 00 0 Nn N 0 0 r r O 7 0 Ni r f0 ' CO N O N N co N N N t .V RIQ 0 0 co cN O V .I t» fn s'ito t» W eaIWIt»t»I en m > N Z LL t}- t}- H I- I- I- I a I o 0. - U'.U- IU U U U 21H N CO CO d 0- a s O. a a 0_ M ' p; o C1 = d WW 0 M. co OO OO -I CL w E Rol- H O0.o.�. ;o.'u\i o�c°r\i J o zW z V'� c. O r-. 2 W: o r 8P, o � p LL pa? O h0 i0 W�'I-9CW re-' N 0 Cop d .0 co U Wx a,pra LL.0 o Z 000I z u.. v'm I- O r cor 0 pm'p o'� W � upilo � O g ° -ICC W =' W o, Iw W W = Jp W CI='w 0ICe t,o Cr F- 00 D 0 � � co cn o O D rIl w x ~ r'co'ID ... < O ,-,—cn II o C7 p_O.� J W.W CO J N CO U) 4.W.J-cO W W j�O) d LLJ J.CO `w F' N Q zCil Ho H p'W , v N'W00 0,M Om xU' NW o m 2 00/) 00 OF NW 1 0W � x cOIWrx UWx a V I. I'. Q a rn a cv r O t CO 0 y C C W ,N - B Q 0 O —1 w _ 2 O co ta C I 0 Z 0 L O N co H N en O o Q cn T2 N Q Cu_ 5 O o LL CO L F v : a N _= co O T.) L O �. - 3 i 0 0., p 0 01N 10 0en OIC0 co . J o o in O!O'CV -.0) 0,0 �I._ O O N, '2 in in N OHO] CO r N !O CO'9 OIL O 7 0 N �. R t0 M (OiN N'-' O COIN'N N. N O O O) N CO N N N O •zrIV',V 0 0 0 ,-,. E Z N M O o 63 63 - ''i Ce a CFIW fA t31M EA1 y LL U U U U H al a s a s .LL LLI W W' JIW H eCe n d a' N CC O O Wla = r N E re OO ee s elam' E � �cy3. U re --I o o'�' o � O', Ore Wd:� O JOi cn N O: KCDU U !II @ CO Wcx� J 00 a'� �,a LL � J V goo O ? > W ° wo w y � ='o W!T. �'� w �'� ° o 0 O O F' _(-1 W W O J col— U O U G"W J,w w w u CO a al W J W y i_ o cc z a O w' O OI cj W O''O MIW'Q O N'WOO 0 _- OHO O o--.J O J H.J Q 9 O J - - U 0 n O m w x O W.fl w W x t0 W.� x ' W a ' en co - _ 2 3 O N To - O CC o 0 C 40 m O ..1 U U O In O V �. C J O Q C O .^. Z N O d m G E ) p: OO 4- N I J Ct N1.5 O N d U, F N U CO g - `m O z $ U c I''; co O O OO) N O O-Om) 00) 0 J of o )n o'o1N OCO M 'v O Or N O Q O N M R) N 00r M r O O). M V 'O L {p MfO N M r O .tOM �t l0 O O N M. N N N O 'el:,CV OOO .. N, E = I CO I O m y Pc Or Q ; HH . - Ii �I mLI- O O v re N d w O O'O 00 00 -I o_ w CO E - * O a h O.J O Lt)) Ott)) o in J G.Z w z U J d • O 0 an < U) N r r ON O, w,a � p O � vi8 v yo2rUd @) U W2 ..—I- OLLO cn x O Z: y a z LL uio O r co �IJO Glu~i'W!� I.O. x • JU.O. O Z!K W2 WO, W N•C 2I0 w = D W M = %o m Q )U. D' O � F1 oO m!2 'D "- I- W2 I—I—MID w FINi2 o O O'� ic J W'W y'j. CO �' !V) &UJ CO W W J'� dIW W � �, `w H Z W < 0,2 O S ~'2O.2 0.M'.O'2 D S m H U7.Q Z H 7' . U' 0 W.O,G =IW,p.o ... w1O,o 'U O.I-'O O CO J O J; HIJ —�- U.cnU F fnW S U',w 2 M.W.m'2 U'w''� S w U Q 0. y V) a ca 2 3 N p r Io O U) . m o O m g o 2 J o Z c c O a° m r co a) G E a' o m • N J • Co 0 v U. en a f~A t m m O L U c ct 3 O O O'O N O'N!N O J 0 O u) o p.N m iri v v a O ON O t0 N .O OI'i, 0 N N Q N W O t O r O V O N {p 'M tD'N r 0 0 O M M • O N N M N N N 0 V . 7 O O O r E O M N Vi fH5 W'(A fA to (A: N Co Z LL FF Fr Fr r OO OO OO EI 01- H 7) N co op p' o J W - Q W O f'; OO 1 ' '.0 O O O W;aiz�r NI o �▪ ' 2 a '.Oa' 8 n n c e 3 rIK!Z m 2O )- W K'o C,N 00 g 00_� O UIW'..d a, VIO. N LL 8 'o' 5 cn(0Or z0 WOtow o0 0 O z w O. O x U @) r @) 61 aip'r a a,S U Z ma -0 LLO 0U)JO O J 'r o o,�'WiF rim O ¢ Q ' J U r F Z � WO=, W O IW fr/) aO O wKn W mIa' = O w H OOO' to 0 < OO OO O QUO >-:< I_ U ~ < OO E Q O < z OO Z Z' r W 1=- 0 1=- a Z Co U Z'Z''W 1=- l' l- U 0 r.Z �' < O M m 0 fn = mI M O I 020'2 r�M0r ' w m ~ O H�.O' O rw. �O O'er OC9 F!JoC9 pw U 2 0 0)'O 'H N.W ' I U W E N W,2 2 U W.m'2 I I i I W 0 Q 0. y co O ' co Iy • L N IX v o W . co c gm ti 0 2 O c J a o a C 0 !^ Z N O d N 17- co 0 E 6 0 o t0 00 0 co O v I I I m U. d , U CO m O U G .; CO 0 0 O CD CV 0 co Ice no O Mr O J, OF O N o o N CO GG 01 in -o O O N Oinin N O OCO O N P-- N O N O N (p M f0 N N O O r (h M CO N O O r N N M N N N M V'R'.V 0 0 0 ,r .. E 'j r O U 2 CI) V: tn m Z I- F F F- F- F- IL i d N LL LL. LL LL LL LL a ww. a 2' 00 OO OO -I 0_ E ma O: a e' e e e 3'IxZ QJ �, • CIO F- O a.co,0 O N 0 5' 0 r J o Z W:- o f I U) LL 0 0 O ¢ fp'O r Zi0'. Woo WIIW O O O re mu v x 'Ud Ud! Ws arF.. a OLLIs' 0 Z y ¢ z LL V t 0 F-- Fes- ='ai'0 O.� w co . x.00 x • 5O' O ?,� w Ox w.JO I,w y:CC °'° WICC D!w 7:x,2.0 0 Qlo •-<4 W'W co J. co co a'w I!± h WIWi J''CO a WIJ;U) I0 �` . 0 QZ O w 0. CD: fn LLl,2, =0iW'�01C7 WW 0g,a ' to • 0 (0 0 vO al i O'w'M'i CA UJ I C.) 113!MI= _- Good Morning, Kim Ogle/ Department of Planning Services Through oversight by the Department of Planning Services in not sending a referral for this development to the Town of Mead, and via action by this Board, the Town of Mead was provided the opportunity to review the proposed Riverdance PUD application and submit a referral and provide testimony at a public hearing. Michael Friesen, Town Administrator for the Town of Mead has provided comments in a letter addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, dated July 31, 2002. As an overview, the application under review is CZ-602, a PUD Change of Zone to create 618 Residential zoned lots and 31 commercial zoned lots on a 486 acre parcel including 239 acres of open space. The applicant is Mike Siegrist. This site is located east of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road, and south of and adjacent to WCR 28 and is within the recognized boundary of the Mixed Use Development area. The property slopes north to south to the St. Vrain Creek and the adjacent lakes, once part of a gravel mining operation (SUP 441 and USR 489) the property is waiting for final reclamation. The property is not currently in agricultural production. There are oil and gas production facilities on-site. Lands directly north of this site are in the Town of Mead (E2 26) and are in agricultural production. Lands to the east are also in agricultural production with rural residences. South of the site is the St. Vrain Creek, the County Gravel Mining operations and the South County Administrative Office Building. To the west is 1-25 and Barbour Ponds State Park. The town's letter has several headings pertaining to specific transportation and land use components that will be addressed by either Frank Hempen with the Department of Public Works, Pam Smith with the Health Department or myself. It is the intent to discuss each topic in the order it appears in this letter. The First heading is Transportation and Street Issues. Frank Hempen, Department of Public Works will address this heading. (St Acacius Subdivision was submitted for review in July 1999. Comments to applicant were drafted in a letter dated October 8, 1999. Staff had concerns with the adequacy of public water, public sewer, and emergency services providers. Staff did recommend the applicant proceed to the Change of Zone, pending resolution of these items. Staff did not receive a Change of Zone application for St Acacius Subdivision. No referral has been sent to Department of Planning Services from the Town of Mead for comment on this pending application) This issue has been addressed in the following Sections of the comments: #2.b.1 - Section 27-2-20 (WCC) - Access Standards #2.b.3 - Section 27-2-50 (WCC) - Circulation #2.b.4 - Section 27-2-80 (WCC) - Design Standards & Improvements Agreements #2.b.9 - Section 27-2-150 (WCC) - Parking Requirements #2.e - Section 27-6-120.D.5.e (WCC) - Street or Highway facilities providing access ? EXHIBIT CZ-602, RIVERDANCE page 1 IObi *tit m The second heading is Open Space, Trails and Recreational Amenities. The Department of Planning Services will address this heading. Generally, The Town of Mead has several concerns with the placement of open space, the internal pedestrian/ trail network and the location of the clubhouse facility. Regarding open space within the development. The applicant has submitted a plan to take advantage of the existing site features, including but not limited to, upland and lowland slopes, wetlands, lakes, areas impacted by oil and gas facilities, and areas that may be in the floodplain. The applicant has also provided detailed schematic sketches demonstrating the intent of the pocket park development, the parkway circulation systems, the entrance and common open space, signs and landscape treatment and the internal pedestrian and bicycle paths. The application states that 239 acres or 49% of the site is common open space. As proposed, the site does meet the open space requirements of Chapter 27 and Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code. Each Commercial zoned parcel of the PUD shall adhere to the standards of Chapter 23-2-160 (Site Plan Review). And shall undergo a site plan review process, as defined in Chapter 23, Article II, Division 3 of the Weld County Code. The St. Vrain Valley Open Lands and Trail system is located south of this development on the southern side of the St. Vrain Creek. At present there are no plans in place for a community trail network on the north side of St. Vrain Creek. Presently, the Development's trail system is internal to the development; the previously noted schematic sketches delineate a pedestrian/ bike trail system adjacent to the Collector Status Road in the Development and also within the open space areas. The Clubhouse site is centrally positioned between the Commercial component and the residential component of this development. Access is via an extension of local paved roads from the east and west into a surface parking area. The internal bike/ pedestrian trail network also links to the clubhouse facility. Access to the Lake front area is via the internal trail system. As proposed in the application, the open space amenities will be governed by the Home Owners Association. #2.b.2 - Section 27-2-30 addresses buffering and screening #2.b.6 - Section 27-2-100 address Landscape Standards #2.b.7 - Section 27-2-120 addresses the Mixed Use Development Area #3.c - Section 27-6-60 address Landscape Elements #3.d - Section 27-6-70 addresses Site Design, specific to site advantages & limitations #3.e - Section 27-6-80 addresses Common Open Space #3.g - Section 27-6-100 addresses the MUD Impact CZ-602, RIVERDANCE page 2 The third heading is Land Uses and Dwelling Types. The Department of Planning Services will address this heading. The Town of Mead is concerned with the concept of a mixed use development and the siting of specific building types within the development. Mead states "that the location of some housing types is illogical and may not exhibit good planning." The Department of Planning Services has reviewed the layout and finds the development meets the intent of the Weld County Code. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the developer has the right to design, develop and market the development in the manner that meets the market demand and market segment forecasts as proposed by the developer. Staff requests that the applicant address this topic in further detail at the conclusion of staffs comments. The minimum setbacks for R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts is twenty feet as proposed by the applicant. Bulk requirements are located in Section 23-3-160 and Table 23.4 of the Weld County Code. Further, in the PUD application process, the applicant is able to deviate from the required bulk requirements. Section 27-2-40 of the Weld County Code states "The normal bulk requirements for minimum setback, minimum offset, minimum lot size, minimum lot area per structure, maximum height of buildings and lot coverage may be varied as specified in a PUD final plan." (Al! other performance standards applicable to a PUD Zone District may he required to be as strict as the performance standards contained in the zone district in which the use would usually be allowed.) The applicant has meet the intent of the Code with this proposal. The commercial area delineated on the applicants drawings is taken directly from the components of the MUD Structural 2.1 Land Use Map. This area is identified as a High Intensity Employment Center. The Town of Mead has concerns with the type of uses allowed in the area designated as an Employment Center. Reading from the definition, Chapter 26, of the MUD Ordinance, the definition of an Employment Center is as follows: Section 26-2-30. Structural land use categories. A. Employment Centers. 1. The structural land use plan provides a unique opportunity to create major centers of new employment in the MUD area, which employment centers are linked and orientated toward the network of regional and national roadways serving the area. Employment centers are orientated around major roadways to allow for goods and services to the traveling public. These centers may also accommodate high-intensity industrial uses which create minimal negative visual impacts. 2. Employment centers characteristically have high transportation impacts and environmental concerns such as noise, dust and pollution. Even with the associated impacts, these centers are intended to provide pleasant and safe environments for employees and visitors through planning and design standards. Outdoor eating and seating areas, pedestrian routes within parking lots and other pedestrian amenities should be provided for employees and visitors. Employment centers include, but are not limited to, the following activities and services in higher density commercial and CZ-602, RIVERDANCE page 3 industrial zone districts: a. Hotels and motels. b. Restaurants, including drive-in restaurants. c. Utility service facilities. d. Police and fire stations. e. Any use of a research, repairing, manufacturing, fabricating, processing, assembling or storage nature as long as the use is conducted entirely within enclosed buildings. The Town of Mead proposes this area, High Intensity Employment Center, be limited to the business park designation as per their Town Plan, including higher standards of the type of uses and buildings than ordinarily encountered in general business districts of the County. The Department of Planning Services shall ensure a quality development through the enforcement of the MUD Development Standards, Chapter 26, Chapter 27 - PUD, Chapter 23 - Zoning and all appropriate and applicable referral comments obtained through the Site Plan Review process. #2.b.3 - Section 27-2-40 - Bulk Requirements #2.b.7 - Section 27-2-120 - Mixed Use Development Area #2.c - Section 27-6-120.D.5.c - Compatible with Master Plans & Structural LU Map #3.g - Section 27-6-100 - Mixed Use Development Impact The fourth heading is titled "Standards". The Department of Planning Services will address this heading. The Town of Mead has concerns with the design standards for Commercial property. The Department of Planning Services created and the Board of County Commissioners adopted development standards to regulate this area. These development standards apply to all structures and land within the MUD area as shown on the MUD Structural 2.1 Land Use Map. These regulations provide development standards to implement the goals and policies in the Mixed Use Development section of Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code. This development is within the Mixed Use Development Area and shall adhere to all of the design standards of Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code. Chapter 26 has very stringent requirements pertaining to maximum lot coverage, open space, landscape treatment, sign treatment, circulation, screening and buffering. #2.b.2 - Section 27-2-30 - Buffering and Screening #2.b.6 - Section 27-2-100 - Landscape Standards #2.b.7 - Section 27-2-120 - Mixed Use Development Area #2.c - Section 27-6-120.D.5.c - Compatibility #2.g - Section 27-6-120.D.5.g - Requirements of Chapters 19, 23, 26 and 27 #2.h - Section 27-6-120-D.5.h - Consistency between proposed zone districts #3.c - Section 27-6-60 - Landscape Elements CZ-602, RIVERDANCE page 4 #3.d - Section 27-6-70 - Site Design #3.e - Section 27-6-80 - Common Open Space #3.f - Section 27-6-90 - Signage #3.g - Section 27-6-100 - MUD Impact The fifth heading is titled "School Issues". The Department of Planning Services will address this heading. The Town of Mead states that they have in place basic funding mechanisms for land school dedications or cash in lieu thereof. The applicant has agreed in public hearing before this Board that he will enter into a voluntary Capital Mitigation Agreement. The exact language is as follows: "The applicant shall agree to enter into a voluntary capital mitigation agreement, in the same form and intent as the draft copy submitted into the record, if the proposed school bond issue currently planned for November 2002, fails and the St. Vrain Valley School District adopts said Voluntary Capital Mitigation Plan." This statement has been agreed to by the applicant and is required per Condition of Approval 4.M. The sixth heading is titled "General Suitability and Contextual Development". The Department of Planning Services will address this heading. The Town of Mead notes that a majority of the parcels adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the Riverdance PUD are annexed to Mead or in the process of being reviewed for annexation and/or platting in Mead. It is the opinion of the Town of Mead that "the County specializes in the management of rural development and that urban development belongs in a municipality." Further, the Town states "that a project like Riverdance, which is also of urban density, can be best served by integrating it with a municipality for good planning, for service delivery, for consistency of amenities, for good street and trail connections, to foster a sense of community identity and a host of other considerations. To have such a large project be allowed in unincorporated Weld County on Mead's borders will have a tremendous impact on the town..." The Department of Planning Services notes that the Riverdance PUD is outside of the IGA with the Town of Mead, although the project is within the three mile referral area. The graphic on the overhead delineates the area in question. As stated previously, the Riverdance PUD is located in the Mixed Use Development Area of Weld County. The Mixed Use Development area was specifically developed to provide urban density development, such as this proposal. Paraphrasing from Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code. The Mixed Use Development area (MUD area) provides a unique and challenging opportunity for planning, design and development in an area which is experiencing increased growth and development. The presence of an interstate and state highway system and the external growth pressures from municipalities have added to the interest in land development and population growth within this area. The MUD Structural 2.1 Land Use map acts to guide and implement planned land use changes in the MUD area, particularly the CZ-602, RIVERDANCE page 5 conversion of rural lands to more intensive urban-type land uses. This increase in development has resulted in the creation of development standards to regulate this area. These development standards shall apply to all structures and land within the MUD area as shown on the MUD Structural 2.1 Land Use Map that has previously been discussed. The intent of these regulations is to ensure the compatibility of various land uses, buildings or structures within the MUD area. These regulations are intended to allow flexibility and encourage creativity in development of the area in regard to density, height of structures, setbacks and common open space. The development standards found in this plan (2.1 Land Use) are the minimal development standards allowed in the MUD area. Further, the Department of Planning Services and the various referral agencies that have reviewed this application have determined that the project has merit and is a well thought out and planned development. There is a wide range of amenities found on site, including four different housing types, a commercial component, large expanses of open space, water features, wetlands, changes in grade, views to the surrounding land forms, including the front range, and a circulation patterns that consists of a hierarchy of roads and pedestrian movement paths. It is this inter-connectivity of development types and land uses, including roads for vehicular movement, bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths, including the internal trail network linking areas of the site to other areas of the site that demonstrates an integrated development, and a development that fosters a sense of community and community identity. The Town of Mead implies that they are in a position to provide for service delivery. As stated in the application materials and has been stated for the record during public hearing, the applicant has entered into an agreement with the Little Thompson Water District. In a signed agreement between the Little Thompson Water District and Mike Siegrist, of the Siegrist Companies, dated May 30, 2001, fifty (50) commercial lots and the six hundred fifty (650) residential lots can be adequately served with water. Sewer for this site is proposed by the St. Vrain Sanitation District. The District stated that they have the ability to serve the Riverdance PUD in a letter dated May 2, 2001. In an electronic mail memorandum dated February 1, 2002, from the Weld County Attorney's office, Attorney Morrison stated that the development has an adequate water and sewer connection. Requirements of the Mountain View Fire Protection District pertaining to water supply, fire hydrant locations, fire department access and street design are addressed through the Conditions of Approval for CZ-602. Emergency Responders providing Ambulance and medical service will come from the Mountain View Fire Protection District. In a letter dated February 24, 2002, the Weld County Sheriffs Office states that "the Sheriffs Office lacks the ability to absorb any additional service demand without the resources recommended in a multi-year plan provided by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners or as indicated in growth not considered at the time the plan was developed. It appears [to this office] that the developer has a plan to subsidize CZ-602, RIVERDANCE page 6 county resources being used through this development." Further stated, "The Sheriffs Office is very supportive of Homeowners Associations that require annual fees in order to maintain the development and enforce covenants. We [Sheriff's office] are also better able to address neighborhood issues that may develop with an existing neighborhood governing body." Issues from the St Vrain School District have been addressed through Condition of Approval 4.M as discussed previously. It is the understanding of this office that the Town of Mead does not have a municipal water or sewer system, including plants for the treatment of wastes and recycling. Further, the municipality is part of the Mountain View Fire Protection District boundary, and is within the St Vrain Valley School District. It is the understanding of this office that the Town may have a municipal police department. Given that the proposed Development is outside of the IGA for the Town of Mead and given that the County and the service providers are in a position to serve this development as reflected in the referrals received from the various agencies, it remains the position of the Department of Planning Services that the Change of Zone for the Riverdance PUD be approved with the amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as previously discussed during public hearing before this Board on June 26, 2002. The applicant Mike Siegrist is present and is represented by Clayton Harrison and Kris Pickett of Pickett Engineering and Vern Nelson, professional engineer. Staff would be happy to answer questions from the Board. CZ-602, RIVERDANCE page 7 MEMORANDUM i` lug TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: 8/14/2002 FROM: Frank B. Hempen, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works/ C County Engineer • COLORADO SUBJECT: Riverdance - Transportation Issues Raised by the Town of Mead Department staff has reviewed preliminary roadway plans for this development grades and alignment issues, if any. A much more detailed review of final plans will be required prior to final approval. Several of the comments offered by Mead are detail oriented. Detail oriented issues are normally addressed after zoning approval but prior to final plat. The following represent staff comments on the Town of Mead's concerns regarding Transportation and Street issues associated with the Riverdance proposal: 1. Wind Spirit Lane intersection too close to the WCR 9 % and CDOT frontage road intersection. Based on preliminary plan review, the separation between these two intersections is approximately 750 feet. This should be sufficient distance for low speed routine turning movements approaching a stop condition at the WCR 9 1/2/Frontage Road intersection. 2. Riverdance Parkway and WCR 9 'h Intersection may have sight distance issues. This issue will be reviewed during the final plan approval process. If a sight distance issue does arise, it could be dealt with by either relocating the intersection or adjusting grades at the proposed location. 3. There is no"stub"street provided at the easternmost border of the project for future cross connection to developments east of this project. It is difficult to determine at what location such a stub should be located. Prior to considering such an addition,the applicant should discuss what types of development property owners to the east may be planning. With a stub street configuration, it is probable that Morning Sun Circle will have to be designated a collector street instead of a local street. It should be noted that connections to Riverdance Parkway could be made south of WCR 28 without construction of a stub street. 4. The Riverdance Project should be required to provide two lanes of pavement for WCR 28 between WCR 9 '/: and Riverdance Parkway. We agree. That type of issue will be finalized as part of the improvements agreement. The MUD standard allows the construction of one half of a street standard which will allow two lanes of traffic. I EXHIBIT Riverdance, Page 2 5. Two lanes of WCR 9 1/2 should be constructed to SH 66. We concur. The developer is currently exploring alternatives including a Metropolitan District. The final disposition of this issue will be determined prior to final platting as part of the improvements agreement process. 6. Metropolitan Districts are not favored by Mead. The County has allowed the use of these districts in the past to insure improvements. The latest example is the Pelican Lakes development. Hello