HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040626.tiff 11. . talarr
1269 North Cleveland Avenue Loveland CO 80537
(970)613-8556 Phone / (970)613-8775 Fax
Letter of Transmittal
Date: 3-Feb-04
To: Ms. Sheri Lockman, Weld County Planning Services
Project: PZ-613, Condition of Approval Item 1a
Via: Fax UPS
Mail Overnight
Pick Up Courier
X Hand Deliver
We Transmit for your: Informatior X Files X
Approval X Correction
Signature Return
Number of Copies: 1 Number of Pages: 3, Including Transmittal
Remarks: Please see attached letter and map regarding Condition of Approval Item 1 a. Please
schedule the Board of County Commissioners hearing at your earliest convenience.
Todd Hodges Design, LLC
EX •I:
E
2004-0626
Cattail Creek Group,LLC
George DuBard,Managing Partner
304 Immigrant Trail
Windsor,Colorado 80550
February 3, 2004
Ms. Sheri Lockman
Weld County Planning Services
1555 North 17"Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: AmPZ-613, Cattail Creek PUD Change of Zone Application, Staff Comments
Condition of Approval la.
Dear Ms. Lockman_
Cattail Creek Group,LLC is willing to work toward a Surface Use Agreement with
Bonanza Creek Oil Company,LLC. If this agreement is not able to be obtained,we have
met the intent of protecting their current and future operations by the following steps:
1. Our representative and Mr. Patrick Graham of Bonanza Creek Oil
Company spoke on January 28,2004. Mr. Graham indicated he is still
supportive of the project as planned. The attached graphic is a response to
this conversation.
2. If an agreement is not obtained,all oil and gas operation setbacks affecting
this development will be observed and placed on the plat. These setbacks
are prescribed by the Weld County Code.
Sincerely,
George DuBard,Managing Partner
Cattail Creek Group,LLC
•
) ) )
•
:ININ;RA'..ANO,5E MAY AND P.IEU4.MRT LANCISCAPE PLAN rUR
CATTfkIL CREEK P . U . D .
D(IS71NG ZONING - AG - -- .r TN.. _0NIN,". - A DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING P.UO
alran ••- r pP WLN:tL, ..'r'r>M K C. i.•E:4PTON NO :537 SITUATE AV SECTION Y, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH.RANGE 66 WEST
•.fI y:+E,:[Tv PRINCIPAL AlEMOAN,r.C.I.P4TT Of WELD.STATE OF COLORADO.
I ININCIK MTh*
��°li! RIR mi.
IR O. IOW '.w IhreAr.** ••
w s.Nr N.. SAN O.
Y •..a..S•mods .Y b•m..r..a Is m e ow.•• Y 1.••..r t Warr ... 2 ...o.•......1'm ride•ea.w
er.e tf MIN 1...rats.••a•1.J
T O -le..a u. •r.w..P.m.55)PMS
Y . • •pr NI RIO.0.P.A.A.rwww.
J a _M...rv.NNW.a.awns m.a.
' ~rW~• •. OW-5,.-'-,lemon a el/•w•.o....
O•K P Ohm*O••IY
• i TYPICAL MAD SECTION to•.....•.a•V...w.N .rm.w.•r••.•• .w...1.........mTJ
h for • (c;.ca..........I.../..Nurse
< 1MIK M a al.. CNNI aw Orme'AL
':' .w0'�ir1�W 1 1 I 7i a•�. ...r iosTP
11I
III :;r. . ION lOf.A a,I ile wo EIS[enofwlon
i C7 .ora vrt rs..ac..rs•T..c. I Ra.m•t
1'I .::::� i P tIli
ot.t0.-au•0OL•r (1mJ I-•1•Itt<`m.�(Z W*W:
I'! $ A /1"‘ \r ,Itier to.
RA .Or.VALI torxA•aE�0•N WOW RS
.1nJ
III ,.L> .n>[5
1
1 r&Mr /k \ :'•'t�- I
I ill
L., 1 �'l♦\�•f 'i ins Y '� 1 x 1 J. II s.�R10R5�a
♦ L1E'rf�li• mot edo 2.
!N•I.A•nDM .fw rJo.ota Sarw• C...•�...,..�La.•. ;.IM.o bier*b
1 ill
! �r..r . ll ��i.r..l vas...r.......al "°^drew t�w..11.or.
e.•.ww..et=c.o...
e.a ci eai.
▪ 1 I � 1 'f:•ii:5::;::(:•.'. ..P A, ()OWING ZONING - AG _I`�Raw r.A..ae• '°•.�.�ta uw+r••..a N.N.N..,.�..t.�..+r.•.
I` a * • ,...•'•c..,� ir ��'U IIOND rind. two. SOW.ore
O/ 1 M MI• Wmnlim..M.�N 11 sy.. .INN. t<e.. o
1 w •rr'r+• r•aar �v!D•, •".•'tA .. a�IiW r W aa.
t9 C:1—5214 J �I. + meag,�p TIOD=MTh wart TO F100
• 1 A 1 ••'•
•. *•NM= .w c.•... wr•.....•ma..et...rro.•w t.w.s Iv....a•..IMO..,
Z p I I I ` .�1-n �rl r�[ ••.:•• w*s.+.eu r w••oro..,�r.s.m n.., s..r�.a••w.mow w era
p V I I YE'a7/11! 1(hl " Y ..... w.r+ r et.a•Mt.. w�cw. ..s'aw"�r.•....•
N III
fwI/0►-0 `' �f v 1•:t;,. •N'ii1'trl•""� •..w•.ar m... .....a..........•o.woo tor.-:r.1.w.aw.e.....
`1 /\\�\ • •..WIN We..w• ...1...•.• W..rrr M..aN.w••M
1 11
11 ....,.V tr•1 r ter` w................a. es N .... e� sans.qe•.f....
w�n.�.nom•1Q� 11i 1 \♦ ....o.. i, aG 7 i `.\ •
— ..L P.N.,•°" •r�m••d.e.r°.•.�.r.��r:a'WON. ••w asp.:°►rr.°rortar<• •►,.ra
W I I W t k `� � Jl `� ♦ ••••••..•.::'• r:...r....wr°�..w.n•.�a....•"goa rr..r•'arw�°s."..n.ao'.+.r♦...w«.e prom•.v r u..•
1 �111fA ' ,,i\ . I W.a+.l.Mw•oN wa.•w•P.M..^•w'niso•...••a....w or4 w•r III , ` 10 r L�,.,•',,` ti•:�:%• ,adds•I..w n s.1 vwro ol.P•w.r.a....+
• 1•.. H.+o..w r w..>•wa.•wa•.....rr1 w•.a.,n..way w•rwwe
III •! a ♦\ \ � •�.�I. .• ft..a.00rto a..<.M.1..��a tor...P.on r
1 I 1 1 l ` T......”-,•-...: ..a...w.a •I••.••..••..•... r.... .war.
+1 1 \ a•....a.Iwe•`•m+..ar'F°or w ..........
.•.••o..a
1 I.1 'MO'. ».w to 250 e• �.w.w.w...m.•'R,a.r•awr r,.:MPMI�.. tn..Iw.won..a
I i 1 I re*no a..•.oaf•n••.or s.50 M ..O rVw W. dad ...... 1
Orr M 1 + / I, 1 ••E• :. '— f ne......w St.r..owr rtes r
1Mill.
rr�•P a•.•w WI•OW re ewe.*o WWI....moo
w1
ammo wr+.ws rs •r..r WWI. ...r.w...rra a.
�"',,y 11
fir— __ dm
OG_y- e ..:-. �.• -,-,- _ M.... ....°�woo'�::aWWII ID WWI"" °"..�.w".....
Ma4"71, 1 1War I awn 0111111 •s. ir.laUr o...•.a.m..m Oh.rase..w.w•.0.••10 e•mew vow.*r..a I.
Wind County Rood 70 w �L•i r7':7� �"P�.'rot rte 'a woo.al' ''.:w No• .•to..
0 root
r...1...a,.• c••••••••
(5' .,.r,•1...•.a.IMa....••t.... ..a•..M7.
w I.•••.b M w•••.•�•••.•••..r. Nnr.to ors mom.ra t•••dap.,
M Mr •ti POSTING ZONING— AG
fPfTERMILL LAND SURVEYING. INC. -� a a aJ�a•• _IL, r ��a —a . e ZI�a
a rS rM MOM a�•IM•Plra/ill 1110•4194,11,1110•4194,11, - ►M .:^t[. �:r.L�P,u c f a 1.0ATTPA.'.1tt:,o u 0
I WO
AW�A� MR a s,•a r►NOM MOM= I l MINIM
WELD CM
Ruben Hergert CO' 7°'.
12315 CR 72
Eaton, CO 80625-8621 2hI MI 15 PM t1= 01#
RECEIVED
Weld County Commissioners 3-8-2004
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
3-9-2004
Re: AMPZ-613
Dear Sirs,
I am writing this letter to express my concern and opposition to the proposed Cattail
Creek PUD, AMPZ-613, proposed for CR 70 across from my 237 acre farm.
I am very much opposed to this plan because the applicants are not providing enough
water to effectively irrigate this parcel. One half(1/2) share of the Larimer and Weld
water stock won't deliver enough water from Woods Lake. Larimer-Weld water is early,
free water that is flow through water and not supposed to be stored. The availability of
this water, when available at all, is generally gone by June in an average year. The
remaining Woods Lake water rights will only deliver about 1 V2 to 2 acre feet of water
this year, and this year is a pretty good year. Without adequate water these parcels will
dry up causing dry land conditions which will cause dirt and sand to blow onto my
cropland causing crop damage.
This type of development is not compatible with this area and should be denied, as
was the previous application.
I have been the President of the Woods Lake Mutual Irrigation Company for the past
19 years and know the delivery capabilities of this system very well. The claims made by
the applicant regarding irrigation simply won't work.
Sincerely,
41 yv
21! G 22 t,ti 11: t'3
March 20, 2004
RECH,
Weld County Commissioners
915 10`" St.
Greeley, CO 80631
Subject: AM PZ- Cattail Creek PUD
Dear Commissioner;
I am writing to express my objection to the new development proposed by the Cattail
Creek Group. The Department of Planning Services is under the impression that this
development would fit into, or be compatible with the surrounding area. This is not true!
Every home within a mile in every direction(much more in three directions) is on at least
five acres of land. The proposed development would be on four acre lots. I am
wondering why the county has a 35 acre rule that is so easily bypassed!
Our greatest concern at this point is how they plan to supply enough water to these people
to water a pasture. All of us have been short of water during these drought years. They
fail to meet county standards requiring that they have sufficient water to maintain the
property. The county requires that an application have 15% common open space. This
application has only 7 acres of 161 acres of common open space, or 5%. Please don't
allow another"pocket development"to mar the landscape in our county!
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
ch
//e .74.444
Nancy Kurtz (Mrs. Dwaine)
33693 WCR 31
Greeley, CO 80632
U
VIZ (? n
i
Weld County Commissioners "
P. O. Box 758 t.`R 22 PH 3: 33
Greeley, CO 80632
REC ,E
RE: Case AM PZ-613 Cattail Creek PUD
Gentlemen:
I am addressing you once again to express our concerns regarding the amended application of the
referenced case. We feel that the applicant has failed to properly address the reasons that denial
was based on previously, as well as others which are as follows:
1. The amended application tries to address previous reasons for denial by moving the access
road, enlarging the lots and adding some trees. This does not solve the problems. The larger lots
consumed the common open space that was in the previous application. The previous
application had one large open lot which was not able to be irrigated with the available water.
Now the lots are 4 acres each and the lots are on both sides of the road. They still have minimal
water available and now have to split it 8 ways and coordinate with each other to do so. The
water they have will allow for only 1 watering a year so the acreages will be basically dryland
dirt lots. This is a wreck looking for a place to happen.
2. The county requires that this application have 15% common open space. This application has
only 7 acres of 161 acres of common open space or 5%. The open space they do have is adjacent
to the Page property and Miller's drainage slough and is in 2 narrow strips of land. This is an
open invitation for trespass on the neighbors land. These 4 acre lots will be designed to attract
horse owners and they will have little space to ride except on their 4 acre dirt lot or the roads.
They fail to meet county standards for common open space.
3. The water available to this property is grossly overstated in the application. If it can be
delivered it is insufficient to adequately irrigate the property. They are now stating they will use
the North Weld Water to irrigate their lawns and now propose to do so and also to irrigate the
common open space plantings. The land under the center pivot hasn't been farmed for 3 years as
stated by their property manager. If there was sufficient water why hasn't it been farmed? They
fail to meet county standards requiring that they have sufficient water to maintain the property.
4. The Board of County Commissioners denied the previous application because it was
incompatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed use was poorly represented from the
beginning and with the exception of a couple residents who are neutral, met complete rejection
by all informed property owners and residents within about a 2 mile radius. This applicant has
already contributed to more growth in Section 9 over the past few years than any other land
owner. They purchased the land in August of 1999 for a price of$480,000.00, sold most of the
water for about that value, sold several lots and now are attempting to market the depleted land
with a paper development for $850,000.00.
Trz-
They feel the market for the build sites are in the range of $150,000.00 per site or greater.
Comparable build sites in this location without the density bring $80,000.00 or less. If those are
the projected numbers for sales in this proposal the entire project is questionable. Historically
when land values are oversold the quality of the improvement diminishes or fails to sell at all.
This is not compatible with the surrounding area.
Also, I feel that the rural sector is going to continue to suffer from the recent drought conditions
coupled with the affect of the failed augmentation plan (GASP). This will cause agricultural
operators who need to sell sites in order to continue operating to have to compete with lot sales in
a market that is already in equilibrium or declining.
Since the applicant and their dream team of hired lawyers and experts will be accessing
everything in this file they will then be prepared to "band aid" together solutions to all problems
that are presented. Often times these solutions are very superficial and only serve the purpose of
satisfaction during a hearing to reach approval. My concern is that after all the paper solutions
are put into place and those dressings begin to fall off in the real world, it leaves a mess for some
party to deal with. I have witnessed similar situations where protective convenants are put in
place and there is nobody to enforce violations until our court systems becomes involved. This
solution is usually quite lengthy and costly to all parties like the recent case in Kelly Farm which
the Tribune reported. In addition this proposal started out poorly and met resistance from
practically the entire community.
I have been actively involved in real estate sales for the past 27 years, specializing in the sale of
all types of property in the rural sector. I strongly believe in the rights of land owners to utilize
the benefits of property ownership to its fullest potential or "keeping farmers land use options
wide open and diversify the county economy". However, I also believe in the rights of
landowners protecting their interest from those who pose adversity by exceeding certain
boundaries while achieving that potential. This happens to be one of those circumstances.
Please deny this proposal once again as it does not meet the criteria required to be a viable
P.U.D..
Sincerely,
Patrick
1,;,:111)i, {
James&Tricia Mangum
Ili' • , •._
14520 WCR 72
Greeley,Colorado 80631 17` i 2 Pik 3 3
March 18,2004 `"'—(D
Weld County Commissioners
915 10`"
Greeley,Colorado 80631
Re: Cattail Creek Group,LLC#PZ 613
Dear Commissioners,
We are writing to you again, to continue to express our concerns about the above purposed development.
As previously stated in my letter of September 27,2002 I was raised in Weld county and excluding a few
years in Boulder,have lived here all my life.We moved back here and choose where we live today,solely
because of the agriculture community and a great place to raise our five children.
This development backs up to the rear of our property,the density of the number of homes in such a small
acreage demises the reason we moved here.The reason we moved from Boulder was Urban Sprawl,
Resolution 7,1985 if this is allowed than you will be creating urban sprawl in our back yard.This
development is not compatible with surrounding land uses, Sec. 27-6-120.6.c.I believe that the code for a
PUD requires at least 15%common open space,as planned this common open space will encroach on
adjacent land owners property lines.Inadequate common open space Sec.22-2-190.d.2.b Pud policy 4.2
and Sec. 27-6-8.
The Larimer-Weld water that has been allocated to this piece of land,as you know,is early water only and
is not a viable source of dependability for water to these 8 or 9 homes.Even if there were enough river
water available,they would only be able to irrigate once through the entire season and to split this little of
water between so many properties would be of little value.The larger lots,seems like a potential eye sore
more space to pile belongings.
We have a heart and passion to unite together on this,you are not looking at one or two people who oppose
this,it is the majority of the surrounding community.
It would be our family's request that you honor your original decision to deny this application, in hopes that
we will not have to move from here.
Thank you for hearing our concerns,
James&Tricia Mangum
r
t4; LU G
Board of Weld County Commissioners
P O Box 758 701 !",R 22 Fib 3: 33
Greeley, CO 80632 F
March 16, 2004
Re: AM-PZ 613 Cattails Creek
bear Sirs:
I am an immediate neighbor. We supported and attended the hearing in 2002
where your office unanimously denied the change of zoning. I have reviewed
the purposed substantial change and it looks like pencil pushing to us. First,
still the same number of homes, the substanial change must be that they
moved the location of the road. It appears that they created more of a
nightmare to irrigate rather than resolving their former problem of lack of
water. It is still incompatible of surrounding land uses. Sec.2761226c. The
few trees they have added for screening will take years before they'll do
anybody any good, funny how they have paid everybody and his brother to
get this approved so they can moved ahead and make a lot of money, but I'd
say they are doing very little for the folks that will have to put up with the
mess they create. Buffering is lacking Sec. 27235,27230. What about our
rights of being surrounding landowners; I would recommend that they seek
other areas where their PUb will be welcomed. Nor should we feel like our
lifestyle of an agriculture community is in jeopardy, which we do.
Landowner rights is a big issue these days, remember it works both ways,
this is our home and where we live, we are registered voters of this county
and this will impact our community!
Please, we ask you to continue to deny this development as before.
Sincerely.
Anderson L
14200 WCR 70
a y 1
o. ,
March 18, 2004
ZLi tar; 22 Pit 3: 33
Weld County Commissioners
PO Box 758 rC
Greeley, CO 80632 R� — `V-U
Re: AM PZ 613 Cattail Creek
Dear Sirs:
I am a resident of Weld County and live in the area where the purposed PUD
is being reviewed again. In the fall of 2002 your office voted unanimously to deny the
change of zoning for this. I understand that the Applicant is stating a substantial change
to the plan. The number of houses has not changed any, they just put a road in between
the houses. This will make it even more difficult to irrigate with the small allotment of
river water. Increasing the lot sizes from 1 & 'A acres to 4 acres does little for improving
the former problem of incompatibility with surrounding land uses. The buffering they
speak of is a joke, both you and I will be dead before there will ever be substantial
screening for the neighbors with adjoining properties. What about the rights of
surrounding landowners, they will have to put up with a constant flow of construction for
several years to come. This is not why I am here and I'm sure it is not why they moved
here.
I hear a lot of talk about the rights to do what a person wants with his land, well that's
fine and good until it impacts your neighbor, or in this case an entire community! This is
an agriculture community and we are united as residents of Weld County to keep it that
way. I consider this as urban sprawl. Nothing will change the fact that this is a poor plan
for this area.
I request that you please continue to deny this PUD as it was before.
Best regar s,
,,
Do ayw d Z/-
33993 WC R 29
-37 rr T
b El_? C. ._;
March 17, 2004
Board of Weld County Commissioners
?Ell '.`,.4 22 U 3: 33
915 10th Street r
Greeley, CO 80631 REC1 _i' J
Dear Commissioners,
This letter is being sent to express our continued opposition to the proposed subdivision north of
CR 70 between CR 29 & CR 31 along Coal Bank Creek.
1) First and foremost, the lot sizes, which are now 4-acre,parcels instead of 1 or 1 'A
acre parcels, are still incompatible with surrounding properties and their uses. Sec 27-
6-120.6c. This proposed HOA governed group of houses will be a glorified"dog and
pony" show to look at in three to five year. Also the second application has virtually
erased the common open space that was shown in the first application. The
developers have designated a strip no wider than 30 feet wide that runs along our east
and north property line to be the"Common open space"for use by the homeowners.
This is neither practical nor convenient for the residents to use. Sec 22-2-190.D.2.b
PUD Policy
4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8.
2) A screening problem also still exists. You can see in the second application
(substantial change)that an approved row of 14 frees has been added to the plan
along our east property border. These few trees will not block any of our view to the
proposed lots. Our home and yard sits substantially higher than the land where the
homes are to be constructed. Also, I have yet to see any approved
landscape/irrigation plan showing how these trees will be watered. They are to be
planted in a compacted field road and it would be costly and difficult to run a water
line to them from a point of connection by the paved road in the middle of the
purposed plan. We did not move to our property
to worry about screening ourselves from a development. Sec.27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30.
3) Irrigation water to open spaces, septic and leach areas at the rear of each lot
still remains an unsolved problem. How will the HOA coordinate all eight or
nine homeowners to take their share of water at the same time and where
will it eventually drain to?There is always runoff when a person irrigates a
piece of ground. Will the developers construct special waterways and ditches
on each property so the residents can water exactly where they want to?
Will this water flow right over their leach fields and eventually end up in the
creek?The developers keep saying, "We will make it work". That doesn't
sound very convincing to us.
Commissioners, it is a general consensus that no substantial changes have really been
made on this case. Please support us and deny this application once again.
Thank you for ye_14me,
/1 freL., Vcs1
C— (- /
Mike and Debra Page
j
Tt -441,81
Petition itts
jt
4^�
- ,
le
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application # PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the aoolication as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
=:3
I7 „)cD
m
CD Na
Name Address Prxme# Ni
l:`�Cu eci d , ,� j5'7C { to 7v G'ro�/y f9`'0_3
2. I/Y Z 1 n, lJ,timp,,. /s c WCe 9 ) .S( 2 35_3 - Yp�3
3
� 1`rt. DW 3'j��J� Lo (it ''4. L_ i
G-redeLi
5. t. b 33 83rj (out, 3( 3 et( ;`-)( 1-0
I1 LoctC w „ r
7. /3Qq& 1 R 7Z (reefe--(7 yW.- /413
s. l s 3V- 7775
9. I i ia, _,UCIE', 7o &mete 38$-►3Fs3
� p
10 - 1 J y1�(Q, 'uwittaioHay aus tadm b`6' 9 )39
11.Ni 741-7f fl To - ov-%71
12. Xrut.eL 6.10-Um /5374 LUCR 70 G->cree l ey Co 6,-veRti
13. AVVu\t, 5$1A MIL In�,Cn it ( tc, CO 35z-5�
14. 9 J `Jo8 te) 7O tne 3g x(5-6410
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application # PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
Name _ Address _... Phone#
�3v� 6 / we24-Sf, &_ ,-, CDVsv-ann
2. . j39(o l W ( ; EAreCU 91O-4S423. 11-er' 1 m/ bo F. 7Z Cr � LA
AMY
5. / e ' lt(k 34 6co co- .3/ Li/�kLL� CCU C/,5il-3636-
6. Ad� / n J i
tAA, Y 4k( 1 3coO gQat k.eoP CO .`5 ;3�3J
7. I el) fs-4. ?r k)c; 70i x/.kt4J C" c? Yrt'43cs..3
8. ea. (a 4 -
9. l/' 3P-t2 11c#e / 6 -cc/ 7 Co 36-3 -2Zc7
1_10.
7Gaiii ,x)
LAI am 3' 1 IA/CR 3/ l0 353-28s7
11 ,4feLcP,,,.-�...
`'s01 r t c .G Co
tz. /45 JCR 7e/ 7 \, , 5v -z22z,
/475-O G se 2c( Fati.e Co 5.5 2?cs
t /exc C ed //7/506 c&cg ca Co , s/.5s/.z2t
Petition
r
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application#PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to den the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
Name_ _ Address Phone#
/ 1A _
1. i 1C-ri !S -/e/7 y 3V2 —s clic /7�
2. '5, Lei, 3(1416 luitt ;27 ‘Aer
3. >L✓✓✓k— tiSSY:: -lien_ AC LRC!- bit
/
4. 1`tlt,i A y ono 3r:590 CR Z C) f anon. CO &k(015 lofib,-1•25?_
5. L� l Yo% w 215-1/-o%/3
6. '� i` ( x( 74- Luce 7O Lis - 7z_/
7. \'\` 2 . Z cke �. Z
8. 4442 fhl1 j 312 QttattV %2-3146-
4,917() WI? 7n ihig f &o?/
10. ,)¢I, a /-&Gr tr / 72 4/14 (-'o eb kg/
WC/2 7o ' C s'61,031
12.
13. LiOryt'l� vrtz'v..I 4-at- / 7 /3 1DC R 70 Offe F �t 6:96‘.
14. f(C27a Vi4aintca/ /,7Q/ 7 1d P 70 „VYee/ eye) R0v 3/.
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application# PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002..
Name _.. ,..._= Address Phone#
I. 6j �J/DN `//([I/�//1 y /� q 9 70- g8�/ - 2 277
c..,64 ✓'- ' t� '- /2 3/J leiC of 7z et:L., ca. ge ,s-
2. Z a A /..?3/5Jk/I' 7 -t L tie
3. $rencJo. 5net e_ 172%1 Wcl12- +y, CD cVLP1�' - 1O1-1-1IQUD-.
4. .%'i ?Gs =-�E� I22g1 INCIZ 1Z fcjtr ( 0tD1S - lflt H1DyP-
s. hettaA .. 3c1 r l2 27 C-.-trio ,rD C-,1 - G,'Iv•- •",-)I i
6. C'. , • )7-Le
e.� ��11/2 7,;cn � (1 e C„ fr L.e1 &Pl• I
']?4
7. (?(1 ;. . L Nn- -` 3`f/SK Ljc≥ z l (..".„,,j1/2 C ,z( 61S(� S/T(
8. • ( ,�7 Attu di - /etas
9. �o ,,33741 ale/d7 /zetiv Ve&3/
r'i.L( C � d3 a 3 to a7 6reticv Cl r� ft t7-?/
10. ✓' J
G&W P J •*L'v 31 �� l}�C .� �� ( ` I{et 043 lGln?!
cro- 1n 14
12# 33767 Gt9e---k a? (:., !'3/ 4 1-477_
13. �iv�liu , � �' 33/,93 it'd/2 yd alc4 LO 60'3/ 5` 761 l'tG' "1963
14. e- Y ) LA-27 G n.ek/Y I/ Lo ` ? 6
��y- ys7y
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application#PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
Name Address - Phone#
I. 2 — \-4(1:7(.4:41"2-5/7 4t/i r 7:-/ 27U" p-uot c
2. z-6p-i 7 Ate
70 /y�9 7/O 68'6 9O fl
3. L? 7 / Ate 70 Q o-biet 'q0474/
36,o, r weft 27 q70-4"123616
i
5- ,.. y _ /3y.‘ I WtA 74 y7d- e 55' 3i).'j
6. ii„> :r / ( ( taxi- 7 i7o- S -? 71/
7 9. L62. 4Qnunen( , /079/ 7 /26(112,7() Y'7 - 6J _9?320
_'_
8. ft e, ( ILKI 15 uJ '�7 970 >t/-d
9. . 1,. ///q7) 70/72/77 9/o (// -1`/47 5
C/107
/ey-o odre 72 17 - yuq.7
1 . -,2o C3(Y3 ► y T C2 3 ',/
12. 41,Jlw\ //I Ittli 13S eA)CJC /) 2 ys 7- 3 Loll
13. l; /mirk 1310-' tvitit ')Z VS-LI -51v)
c Oil
14. (14-, tr l 33773 G1aR ;.? et'-s-6/ ;rs- s
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application #PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
Name Address Phone#
1.
2. -7
3. "3-40-WA / �iy / W&2 z
� -1 t / 1
4. 1,4 it3A-
5. l3.s-4— 1 .2o- j /3 14/3 4t,hoz. "? 2-
6. �,'d rgent_ 1 t it
7. btu C' rt
8. e. B-4A.-xin 13SM'7 WCi.2. 7a ^""0-1 (.Z? WC /
l3irll wGIef 90 ��Y�-
10. >1 Ott 138II gal 70 ( ee� Cto k'o 63/
tot
12. 1(/`C' �'Y/� 3 391O ft)eQ. � Orecic ( �c ecs
�� l
13. 114,=:Ca (Oa-. X k��a, /_.5 `f7uL„'ct 76) t�� (.cc ‘4' r �l
14. //7-7f �� , ,1$ 7e L� c/� ?d O
/�/� ZG'G; cPGj�
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application#PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to den the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
•
Name Address Phone#
1. i te c_355/z) r ≥ 3/ &4-P go - -074-/0`/0i
2. 1p�ti - _ , 7n/ d 45,E t(/ r.r��j . 6 '6-6,�9'7 t .t131
4. P 4 R. fl VflisaL.. 24 y 7 I- Jca -3 J (rd./ etc rOf 3
454 -
5. dc Cite- n7 it,U 34x143 mace_ CTreelel Co 8oco3( zi.et
-
6. ->-.4 S- -,4,Lte 355 iS wC R 3 i , E 4€ ('o R�/o /5aoo9
i
-2.7 /, / \tA4 p
7. 7 j`� A 355 15 VJGJR 31, E-fon,Co '154{ =20°98. .221„-, AC ' 2CS-42 tic A° - 3/ 7-0/ 96-4/ i04q
9. Arhfel-,a-ej /4'379 wcR 70 C-rc(e3 CO , W./ 1-iis72�p�,
Y>- '
- ,[ i 19IC ' 70
12.
13.
14.
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application# PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
Name Address Phone#
it'izZr0 CIL 72
1. L ,, A A,A,,SL-A ,),WW 12(1 AX. Git -LLY 5o- s/
2. Nil* LL 2JL I L c)C. 1 &1 (- -
17fabl Y / "))/Z CJ z 7 tht/L (L Y 330
4. 3.3z Ocg etbcitm74 TOY i-P '
6. 3 , `ik3 Rd-15! o SO(o31
7. r -a���/ CCJ1 3-392 ed 2g gvait Oo 3S 6--YES'
9. A e7 s 1)j y /94) s nit,9 3V /2‘,f-/
10. 77/a4 /r /P C/ . eb) 7c'12. ILLLY,°-e- 6 S`b 35:-y j3
11. 5-01Pd,i, exek P -o_ Liox la U&cpv ?C( '4{D 353 -1o55
12.
13.
14.
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application# PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the re'uest for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
Name _.. . Address Phone#
k4-4)
. �, �, . ,L Z J z�a.�r�z9 6 5/5-41 ,7s�
2. . 1 . AQ.Q. . 3Ya24 ur,,,2_ 29 ,e ,e6 W5L{22.L/3
7-_ 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application #PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
Name _ .. Address Phone#
&at<<r CU sock C7O 5% -903
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application # PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 2,6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequat&rfigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27,2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the aualication as it was unanimous voted on by
office in November 2002.
Name Address Phone#1. bnit�hi lc, 9cylL3Iv.;aWcfi v ;z 22oA--7O6 _9/f
2. *-7
4. 5,50( eck £-con CIO
970- 2 '5 -Co22t .
5.
6.
7.
S.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application#PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to den the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
Name _-_ _._ Address Phone#
1. ''S7a2,6e Meayi 33535" Lac-43/ 970-/7„70 -a983
•2. iI/O /7k is n i �37i/CPC if 3s O7 If
3. dre375/wt?J2 3/ 970-3s- -O-7(713
�� /5(7.Jr �G C - �1'b -J SL _ J cv
4. -'
5. n/1O. - ki ?1 970 3s,3 f7Z
6. 72,ebtelt -T 1a43 Wet 3( 110
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
i 1
coyk
March 10, 2004
7:1.11 !:',R 23 An 8: 12
t_D
Weld County Commissioner's
915 10th
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case Number AM PZ-613
Cattail Creek Group, LLC
Dear Commissioner's:
• We attended this case last year and want to thank you very much for your denial
against the case. It was approved again this year by the Weld County Department
of Planning Services and the application is still very undesirable for our country
living.
• They have made a design to enlarge the lots which does not meet the common
open space requirement of the county.
• It is still a mystery to me regarding the delivery of water to these acreage lots,
who will own the water and where will it come from, as having a dry lot is not
desirable.
• Still a very important concern of ours is the paving of WCR 70 and WCR 29 as
outlet country roads from the designed development in question—this would be a
very important factor in the area and would like it considered a requirement.
• Somewhere in mention the buffering and screening of the neighborhood is to take
place by the developer's of planting approximately sixteen (16)trees—it seems
more like one hundred sixteen(116)trees would need to be planted.
• A big concern is the location of this area that it is certainly in a low area and not
desirable for families with children.
I am asking that you take into consideration the concerns of the families in the area and
once again we are asking for your denial of the case and that you be in favor of all the
homeowner's and farmers now living in the area.
Thank you,
-- Barb rusek
34024 WCR 29
3ioZ9 teCte- i EXHIBIT
A0 c0 Ebel/
t $
March 20. 2004
15374 WCR 70
Greeley, CO 80631 —
Weld County Commissioners
P.O.Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioners;
This letter is to address case AM PZ-613 Cattail Creek PUD. This application was
previously denied by the County Commissioners because it was incompatible with
adjacent land uses. I believe the property as planned is still incompatible. I do not
believe they have made improvements to the plan that would change my opinion.
One of my main concerns is the use of irrigation water for a housing development. The
water available to them is not enough to make a significant difference,yet it is being
diverted from agricultural use to lawns. This will make the area dryland dirt plots. Not
acceptable.
Another concern is the location in a low area. W hile we are now experiencing a ven
dry spell,this will not always be so. Many years this is a flooded area and not
appropriate for homes. Adding septic tank systems for each home would certainly
present problems as well
Is this property actually meeting a need? It seems there are many developments already
in progress that would qualify as the same or nearly the same type of development. I do
not see our county as needing this inappropriate use of this particular space.
I would urge you to vote against this development and keep this area for its present use
as farm land. Thank you for your consideration as you make this important decision.
Sincerely. C� >
onia Burron.
EXHIBIT
ti
/91)1,1z-- k,43
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PAGE 01/13
NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
33247 HWY 85
P . O . BOX 56
LUCERNE , CO 80646
( 970) 356 - 3020 PHONE ( 970) 395 - 0997 FAX
FACSIMILE 'TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO FROM:
Esther GesiCk Ann
COMPANY: DATE:
03/23/2004
FAX NUMBER' TOTAL NO.OR PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
970-352-0242 13
PHONE NUMBER SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
Water Service Agreement
❑URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 4 PLEASE REPLY O PLEASE RECYCLE
NOTES/COMMENTS:
na
-L C ) .
rn O r-I
c) . f-
tv ' C��
m
r a.
, 5 ,;
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PACE 02/13
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
(DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION-SINGLE SYSTEM)
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 8th day of March, 2004,
by and between the North Weld County Water District, acting by and through the North
Weld County Water District Enterprise (hereinafter "District') and George DuBard,
(hereinafter"Developer),of Cattail Creek PUD,(hereinafter"Development").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, District Is a statutory special district formed under the laws of the
State of Colorado and is a quasi municipal corporation;and
WHEREAS,the District Enterprise was created by the District,in order to comply
with the provisions of Section 20,Article X of the Colorado Constitution and Article 45.1
of Title 37 of the Colorado Revised Statutes,as applicable;and
WHEREAS,the District owns,maintains and operates a system for the storage
of and distribution of potable water within Weld County and Larimer County,Colorado;
and
WHEREAS,the Developer desires to contract with the District for certain potable
water supplies and services for the Development known Cattail Creek PUD;and
WHEREAS, Developer intends to plat and/or develop more than three residential
lots which will require dedication of raw water and/or payment of cash in lieu of raw
water dedication in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and
agreements hereinafter set forth,it is agreed by and between the District and Developer
as follows:
ARTICLE 1
WATER SUPPLY/FACILITIES
1.1 The District shall furnish a customary supply of water for a total of nine(9)
Individual resIdental water taps("Taps"). The District shall furnish 70%of an acre foot
(228,000 gallons)of water per tap per annual water year, if the allotment for Colorado-
Blg Thompson (CBT) project water, which is determined by the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District, is 50% or greater. North Weld County Water District will
restrict the delivery as necessary when the CRT allotment Is less than 50%.
1.2 The water to be furnished by the District shall be potable water, which
complies with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and any other applicable drinking
water regulations. No promise or guarantee of pressure is made by the District or is to
be implied from anything contained herein.
1.3 The District shall use reasonable diligence to provide a constant and
uninterrupted supply of water, except for interruptions due to: (1) Uncontrollable forces;
(2)Operations or devices installed for water system protection; (3)Maintenance, repair,
replacement, installation of equipment, or investigation and Inspection of the water
system, which interruption or reductions are temporary, and in the sole opinion of the
District, necessary.
1.4 The District shall install and own a meter vault at each individual lot.
7VtlN.bbrrAmilemMWewuen4a mourn 2,24M)dos
03/23/2009 14:32 970-395-0997 IERTH WELD WATER PAGE 03/13
ARTICLE 2
RESIDENTIAL TAP COSTS AND EXPENSES
2.1 The Developer shall pay the full portion of the construction for water lines
within the Development(or that exclusively serve the Development)that will serve the
individual taps. The District must approve engineering and construction plans of all
water lines before construction. Once the District has approved the final water line
construction and Installation,in accordance with all District policies and engineering
requirements,the District will conditionally accept the water lines by issuance of a
conditional acceptance letter(see Exhibit"A"). Two years after conditional acceptance
of the water lines,subject to final approval by the District, Developer shall dedicate
ownership of the water lines to the District. The Developer may use the District's
existing water lines to serve the individual taps, if the District determines in Its sole
discretion,that the water line may be accessed and has available capacity and pressure
to serve the Development.
2.2 No residential water service will be provided to any water tap within the
Development until all fees,expenses and charges as determined by the District have
been paid and/or water dedicated. The fees,charges and expenses,and/or water
dedication shall be as determined and defined by the District and based upon such
fees,charges and expenses,and water dedication requirements then in effect.
Developer understands that the amount due for such fees,charges and expenses,
and/or water dedication are subject to change or modification at the sole discretion of
District.
2.3 Pursuant to this Agreement,the fees,expenses and charges for a water
tap consist of(1)Infrastructure Enhancement Fee as determined in Paragraph 2.4;(2)
raw water or cash In lieu as provided in Paragraph 2.7;(3)Plant Investment Fee as
provided in Paragraph 2.5; (4)Mileage Charge pursuant to Paragraph 2.6;and(5)
Meter Fee as provided pursuant to Paragraph 2.10. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary herein, payment of all fees,expenses and charges as established pursuant to
this Agreement shall be a condition precedent to the District being required to provide
water service to any tap within the Development. If the total fees,expenses and
charges are not paid,all prior fees,expenses and charges paid by the Developer or any
Improvements made by the Developer shall be considered as forfeited to the District as
liquidated damages as accurate calculation and determination of damages would not be
possible. The District requires that the(1)dedication of raw water or cash in lieu as
provided In Paragraph 2.7;(2)Plant Investment Fee as provided in Paragraph 2.5;(3)
Mileage Charge pursuant to Paragraph 2.6 requirements be fulfilled in conjunction.
After the raw water dedication or cash In lieu,the Plant Investment Fee and the Mileage
Charge have been dedicated and/or paid,the Developer or Lot Owner will have up to
one year to have the meter set. Once the meter has been set or after one year of the
payment and/or dedication of Raw Water,Plant Investment Fee and Mileage Charge,
the District shall begin billing the Developer or Lot Owner a minimum monthly charge,
as established by the District and in effect at the time.
2.4 The District may be constructing substantial offsite infrastructure
enhancements. A portion of these enhancements will be attributable to the
Development and an Infrastructure Enhancement Fee will be charged to the Developer.
The infrastructure Enhancement Fee shall be solely determined by the District,and for
this development said fee shall be the sum of$195,000.00. Payment of said Fee shall
be made prior to commencement of construction of water lines that will serve the
Development,or the issuance of any residential building permit,whichever occurs
earliest. The Infrastructure Enhancement Fee,as established in this paragraph 2.4,is
non-refundable.
2.5 The Plant Investment Fee for a minimum of three(3)taps shall be initially
paid to the District In a single lump sum on or before the 1"'day of June,2004. If the
Plant Investment Fee for the initial three(3)taps has not been paid by this last
mentioned date,this Water Service Agreement shall be deemed null and void and the
P:V,&tlly ioe,YhailOaNWeblSU,ie•A/eaMl(01-Y0,).tx
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PAGE 04/13
District shall be entitled to keep,as liquidated damages,any sums or fees previously
paid by Developer. The Developer will be responsible for making payments of the Plant
Investment Fee in groups of a minimum of three(3). Said payment shall be made prior
to the issuance of any residential building permit or the installation of the water
service(s),whichever occurs earliest. All Plant Investment Fees paid,shall be In
accordance with the Plant Investment Fee as established by the District and in effect at
the time of the lump sum payment. No portion of the Plant Investment Fee shall be
returned or refunded once established pursuant to this Agreement and the Development
is approved by Weld County,even if the number of lots and/or taps in the Development
is later decreased or unsold. However,If the number of lots and/or taps increases
beyond the number established in this Paragraph 2.5, Developer will pay the Plant
Investment Fee for each new tap within the Development at the rate for Plant
Investment Fees then In effect.
2.8 Aloo,the Developer shall Initially make payment for the Mileage Charge
for a minimum of three(3)tape to the District in a single lump cum on or before the lot
day of Juno,2004. If the Mileage Charge for the initial three(3)taps hao not boon paid
by this lost mentioned dote,this Water Ser./toe Agreement shall be deemed null and
void and tho District shall bo entitled to keep,ao liquidated damagoc,any cures or foes
previously paid by Developer. Tho Developer will bo responsible for making payments
of the Mileage Charge in greups of a minimum of throe(3). Said payment shell be
made prior to the issuance of any residential building permit or the installation of the
water corvioe(o),whichever occurs earliest. NI Mileage Charges paid,shall be in
accordance with the Mileage Charge as established by the Dietrict and in effoot at the
time of the lump cum payment. No portion of the Mileage Charge°hail be returned or
refunded once established pursuant to this Agreement and tho Development is
approved by Weld County,oven if the number of lots and/or taps in the Development is
later decreased or unsold. However,if the number of lots and/or taps Increases beyond
the number established in this Paragraph 2.6, Developer will pay the Mileage Charge
for each now tap within the Development at the rate for Mileage Charge then in effect.
The District has waived the Mileage Charge for Cattail Creek PUD because of the
District's ability to utilize the off-site infrastructure to supply additional pressure and flow
to the area surrounding the development.
2.7 The raw water requirement shall be the dedication of at least one(1)Unit
of Colorado Big Thompson (CBT)project water per Lot,or at least one(1)share of
North Poudre Irrigation Company(NPIC)stock for every four(4)Lots. In addition to the
dedication of the water rights,the Developer shall be responsible for a raw water
storage fee. The Raw Water Storage Fee shall be applied once for each Unit of CBT or
four times per share of NPIC that is dedicated to the District. The Raw Water Storage
Fee payment shall be made in conjunction with the dedication of the water rights. The
District requires that a minimum of three(3)lots receive water dedication. The initial
raw water dedication shall be three(3)units of CBT. Such water rights shall be
dedicated to the District and payment of three Raw Water Storage Fees shall be paid on
or before the 1't day of June,2004.
-OR-
The raw water requirement shall be met by payment of cash in lieu of the dedication of
raw water. The initial cash in lieu fee shall be a single lump sum payment for a
minimum of three(3)taps and is to be paid on or before the 1M day of June,2004. If the
Cash In Lieu Fee for the Initial three(3)taps has not been paid by this last mentioned
date,this Water Service Agreement shall be deemed null and void and the District shall
be entitled to keep,as liquidated damages,any sums or fees previously paid by
Developer. The Developer will be responsible for making payments of the cash In lieu
fee in groups of a minimum of three(3). Said payment shall be made prior to the
Issuance of any residential building permit or the installation of the water service,
whichever occurs earliest. All Cash in Lieu Fees paid,shall be In accordance with the
Cash in Lieu Fee as established by the District and in effect at the time of the lump sum
payment. If the number of lots and/or taps increases beyond the number established in
.An6a W b.`hmla..lw.vaervrouo.amam-2.a.l arc
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 I'RTH WELD WATER PAGE 05/13
this Paragraph 2.7, Developer will pay the Cash in Lieu Fee for each new tap within the
Development at the rate for Cash in Lieu Fee then in effect.
2.8 The Developer shall provide the District with security to secure the
installation and warranty of water lines within the Development during the two-year
conditional acceptance period. Said security shall cover 25%of all costs for
construction of said water lines,which shall be released at the expiration of the one-
year warranty period and upon full acceptance of the water lines by the District. The
type of security to be accepted shall be at the sole discretion of the District which will
normally be a letter of credit,certificate of deposit,or bond.
2.9 During the two-year conditional acceptance period the Developer will be
responsible for any repairs or maintenance of the Development water line
improvements. All such repairs and/or maintenance shall be in accordance with the
District policies and engineering requirements,and shall be reviewed and approved by
the District prior to any repairs or maintenance being effected except in emergency
situations.
2.10 Prior to a meter being set and water service being provided at or for any
tap,the Developer or parcel owner shall be required to complete the District's tap
application form,pay the Meter Fee,and pay any remaining fees,expenses and
charges,if any,in accordance with the policies and procedures of the District at the time
of any tap application,or any other expenses or costs that may be incurred by the
District in relation to the Development.
ARTICLE 3
FIRE PROTECTION
3.1 Fire protection is a basic provision generally required for development
activities in the County for which this Development is to be constructed. The
Development may be located within an established fire protection district("FPD")which
has Its own policies, procedures and requirements concerning fire protection which may
be in addition to or supplement any requirements Imposed by the County. Developer
understands that District is not responsible for compliance with any such FPD or County
requirements and such requirements are the sole responsibility of Developer,FPD
and/or County. Developer further understands that District is not required to provide fire
flows or even allow fire protection devices,including but not limited to hydrants,water
lines,sprinklers,and valves,to be installed, inspected,serviced or provided by District.
3.2 However,as a courtesy and public service,District will permit Developer
to install certain fire protection infrastructure pursuant to the provisions of this Article 3
and any other provisions or requirement deemed necessary by District,in its sole
discretion.
3.3 Developer shall provide to the District,FPD and County plans and
specifications for fire protection infrastructure,including but not limited to location and
size of water lines to serve fire hydrants("Fire Facilities"). Said plans shall be in
accordance with any specifications and requirements established by District,County
and/or FPD. Raced upon the plans,the District hac determined that Developer shell be
required to Install separate and dedicated Firo Facilities which are water linos and
hydrants separate and apart from tho water corvioo linos that provide potable water to
the roaidential taps within tho Cattail Creek PUD Development. If Developer is unable
to provide adequate or completed plane at this time,the District,in its sole discretion,
may subsequently require tho Developer to Install cuch separate and dedicated Fire
recilitioc prior to final approval and cubmiccion and/or recording of any final
development plan.
3.4 Upon final approval of the plans and designs by District, County and FPD,
Developer shall be responsible for installation of the same including all costs incurred by
rwee.imsiiiami .nw.reua,.ns..angvr2404.a.
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 FQrTH WELD WATER PAGE 06/13
District to review plans,installation,and inspection of the same by District. Upon
approval of the installation of all such fire facilities by District,County and FPD,District
will thereafter assume the responsibility for effecting maintenance and repairs of such
facilities but District will be compensated for such maintenance and repairs,in
perpetuity,by Developer or Homeowners Association in the Cattail Creek PUD
Development. Additionally, responsibility for all costs of maintenance and repairs shall
become a part of Covenants that run with the title to all lots and property within the
Cattail Creek PUD Development,and which shall constitute a first and prior lien upon all
lots and property in said Cattail Creek PUD Development.
3.5 As a consideration for this Agreement, Developer releases District from
any and all liability or claims that may be made against the District concerning lack of
water,pressure, maintenance,etc.
3.6 Any final approval of this Development must make reference to the
responsibility of the property and owners concerning expenses of maintenance and
repairs for the fire facilities pursuant to Paragraph 3.4
ARTICLE 4
PETITION OF INCLUSION
4.1 The Developer agrees to sign and execute the attached Petition of
Inclusion,Exhibit"B". This Agreement is conditional upon execution and recording of
the Easement and Right-of-Way Agreement,and until such Easement and Right-of-Way
Agreement is finalized to the satisfaction of the District and recorded,District shall not
be required to provide any services of any type.
r
P�3tdt W bromici.a�W W.9..�.,y,..,„gpsa.a.)ex
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PAGE 07/13
•
ARTICLE 5
EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY
6.1 Ac additional consideration for this Water fiorvioe Agreement,Developer
agrees to sign and execute the attached form Eacemont and Right of Way Agreement
(Exhibit"C")with the specific locations,widths,size of pipeline(s)and doocriptione to be
dotonninod all of which shall be catiofootory to the District,at its solo discretion. This
Agreement is conditional upon oxocutlon and recording of the Easement end Right of
Way Agreement,and until such Easement and Right of Way Agreement k finalized to
the satlsfaotlon of tho Dlotrlct and recorded,District shall not be required to provide any
corviooe of any typo.
5.2 In addition to execution of the attached Easement and Right of Way
Agreement,any plats submitted for approval to any governmental authority chilli provide
and indioato the location of the easements and rights of way as provided in this
Agreement. Said plans and plats must bo approved by the District prior to any final
approval by any governmental authority.
ARTICLE 6
MISCELLANEOUS
6.1 This Agreement is conditional as the final plat of the Development has not
yet been approved by Weld County. If the final plat is not approved on or before the 1°1
day of January,2005,this Agreement can then be terminated by Developer and the
same shall be considered null and void. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary,
Developer shall be entitled to a refund of 98%of costs and expenses paid pursuant to
Article 2.5,2.6,and 2.7. The 2%retention by the District shall be considered as
administrative expenses. Any costs or expenses the Developer occurred pursuant to
Articles 2.1 and 2.4 shall not be entitled to a refund of any amount.
6.2 This Agreement cannot be assigned by Developer without the express
written approval of District.
6.3 This Agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the parties hereto and
their heirs,executors,personal representatives,successors and assigns.
}Mwm.A4rr.mno.mw,r esvleMpuon(m-x04)eoc
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NI]TH WELD WATER PACE 08/13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement the day and
year first above written.
DEVELOPER:
By: Afe. or/m1 ie. /evriru
DISTRICT:
ATTEST:
/e //// NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
By:fdeta.,.fi,P�X/ By/ C� XI
Secr�6ttaary Presiders/ ��f
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 day of
March , l004 ,by liliketv,/ cKen r4
Developer. �sNsssnamwwryy
sr e
Witness my hand and official seal. g��.,.•? r`�
•4; OTAip
My commission expires: 07/18107 w
Notary Public 011`°`
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF WELD )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 8" day of
(hsrGl•. , aoo4 ,by Qa.r.1 S:.,..�ss.. as
President and R...6.-r+ Arnbr.<J.+ as Secretary of North Weld
County Water District.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: O8-at-o C.
Can.. (t�rA+U4A
a M`... Notary Public
'8NOTARY% �0,
PUBLIC
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PAGE 09/13
EXHIBIT"A"
.h9mai..b.`L».lIc•s.Mw.v9ervle.AveimangUY24u,7 eee
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PAGE 10/13
BOARD OF DIRECTORS NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
GARY SIMPSON •
G33247 HIGHWAY 86 • LUCERNE, CO 80846
ROBERT ARNBRECHT
CHARLES ACHZIGER DON POSSELT, DISTRICT MANAGER
RALPH PRIOR
JOHN JOHNSON P.O. BOX 68 • PHONE(970)358.3020 • FAX(970)395-0997
e-mail; water@nwcwd.org
Date
Name
Address
City/State/Zip
Re: Conditional Acceptance ("Name of Development")
Dear •
North Weld Water District hereby acknowledges that, as a result of visual inspection,receipt of
engineering documentation, construction,and installation of the water line at("Name of
Development"), all requirements have now been met for conditional acceptance of water system
improvements as constructed for the("Name of Development")project located at
As of the date of this letter,a two-year warranty period shall commence on the subject water line
improvements. The improvements are now also approved for service upon completion of a tap
application and payment of all fees,costs and expenses and/or dedication of water,if required.
During the two-year warranty period, any repair or maintenance of the improvements shall be the
responsibility of the developer. Please note that this approval is for water line improvements
only,which includes all delivery lines and lines up to the meters. Individual water service from
meters to each individual residence is not the responsibility of the District. Furthermore,please
note that such conditional acceptance does not extend to any associated soils compaction. Final
approval, dedication and acceptance of these improvements are then projected for(two years
from date of letter).
Very truly yours,
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PAGE 11/13
EXHIBIT"B"
P: obelivuloWCamOLnal WOldmviaNrnm®t02'16W}Me
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PALE 12/13
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF WELD ) S.S. PETITION OF INCLUSION
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
TO:THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
I/we,being all of the owners of the below described real property,which property is capable
of being served with the facilities of the aforesaid District,hereby petition the Board of Directors
of said North Weld County Water District to include the below described real property within the
boundaries of said District.
A parcel of land being Lot C of Amended Recorded Exemption RE-2637,located in the
Southwest Quarter(SW Y.)of Section Nine(9),Township Six North(T6N),Range Sixty-six
West(R66W),Sixth Principal Meridian(6th P.M.),County of Weld,State of Colorado.
Assent to the inclusion of such property is hereby given by the below signers,which signers
constitute all of the owners of said below described property,(attach legal description).
Date J '` day of ^ /
e ,'c� , zoo
Owni� fer-
a// Owner
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF WELD
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing Petition was acknowledged before me this 3 day of
March iooy/ by iitiod <La
Witness by hand and official seal:
Notary he
My Commission Expires: wetsa`aaorwmmsx„Z�
0» 3
i MUeuc / j
e
4saeoama,,o`
03/23/2004 14:32 970-395-0997 NORTH WELD WATER PAGE 13/13
EXHIBIT"C"
Not Applicable
P:�4WG.�.Pamaar�w.�.9.r.�oeApw�(ozf�alme
n '7;1;7.'7
Petition 1°
gY 1
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application#PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the a0plication as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
a_
-- -, ^r
0 N
Name r..,.., -•
,'o
Address
�° e
at 0 ,o
1. x;7) n'1dci22 /3og 50%e C!, 353 -(D.y, ' ,
•
2. ry?oses 4 eeCL Alain?, ,i)0 l'Yt due. 35/-0553
pp 3. /Wits i 3 4/Ys„ 0.226-4 //4'5 q 4Kr Ro Ai-/// IOC-OO0 I
I
4. ``vucn 34,44"--e#4-' 551.,-? L`e- �� t J 7 iC.[L
(IN'(416.Oa- J /
5. '3 I - No AV Mk r 1 N � val
6. - - e)'0
7. Qzs 1'l0 ,ti o,c n s-04. 3 X84
9. ails eirt.staid4 WE z5 rise cfr S 4/ /QS 971 9ser
10. _ AA, 7A4 329fp
1t. ii / si-_3 V9r ' 4e- T 4-7:-/yy VV. 92f 6u/4
12. 4 R'I /� �- ( i r�ti, 7 41 3_
13. / le 7sfirk4dg lug- hi�non ) n 36-)963/7
14. --)----C1---">'•=1"•-• 1erli kJ. `1 I 1 .-- 1.;ti,1 ) ✓l ,309 -Gig
Petition
r
' We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application#PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15% common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to denv the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
r-..z
P>
c:?
M :“ ni
Name . .) 1—
Address .m =c
eft .m ..
�� //� //'
fJ
1• �n�.so /+cal— g9i l/YA[/ViP Z � ,) 1 Ti
2. Ilk ICA .nAl.w \ 3`7c t ,1/43. [CI I1-1-1 < ( OA e TS-7 i "CP S-- )(4
3. CMS / Ct.IA 5-401 W l4 th rh 5-1. , 353 - 2zfb
4. AVW ILADAc�, yo st fr, st �6l,osgo - c19 5C
5. A.k:. t L1> _‘ 7 7 1 rf [f- 1-5-eL1 ,C 0`Q,al If 353 oZ
6. -,--a // 2 .-3 / S 1- Ci- C?rt i 1, c' > J')� tf
C
310 CRAke 4ict/C4f/
7. / ' y 47A7/ C, ' ;
8. ;.�-, tt6 ? gd1j ��z�_C- e -- ygsa
9. Zs39 0A44 ( 9 a 3-6-92 V.-
10. / �'ia-14 j '/ Si //$7I, S /4 Pa . fir- /5 3c)._.
10.C
11. O e>2 4 i l l tixi{ 6ttn4IeOf (,)r- 39 1041-k Nut C033c -?026
12. ! "`AC MCM.A151 CA c c...z O 2 3 rd 11-`C n
13. Jol^ kJ Isfrs 7 2(.p ___3 T
14. a1, rc}_ c 0,X) OA-\/ ituj0 R�� (no/2 -0/51
Cu-)
�aVv3-'v VCS 'Ka% v� �� u -(0 6-o*
3410-10
o 1L. el\ain vl ato a`a S . 2
Petition
We the undersigned residents of Weld County hereby request that The Board of the County
Commissioners deny the requested change of Zone Application#PZ-613 Cattail Creek, LLC for
the following reasons:
Sec. 22-2-190.D.2.b. PUD Policy 4.2 or Sec. 27-6-8 Inadequate Common Open Space. The
Applicant has failed to meet the 15%common open space requirement as required. Sec. 27-6-
120.6c The Subdivision is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Inadequate Irrigation The
Applicant has failed to show the ability to adequately irrigate the property. Sec. 27-2-35, & Sec.
27-2-30 Buffering & screening are inadequate. We ask that you review these issues and
continue to deny the request for the application as it was unanimous voted on by your
office in November 2002.
na
E
f i_i ; irl
Name -.Address - - - Ph n # r-
r
7U
Sri
1. Davy BelosAea 13x49 Wck 7.2 Gredeita. -3WQ ` +
to
z.
t-1S - C
3/
f (tee
344, —saya-,
4. 2-01---- 3M(141 97A- aretleti/ 6970-q s`/ -glee°
rr� Z f i
6. en-L, 313 z a r L , e. 970 3`/b 0C-67
/-1^ H 4 ,56, 6
7. 7,774-t. .0),,,„-A, mac'^ 4a./ ` .. 5 N,J/4 v p el 7/S • 57715--: 656
/ �Y7
z .S� 388 .1 C'a
9_ � Earl _ ��f t
75 1/ /'YJ /1 }( (-crh ( 79i( _)i� 7.1)-/5--
10. ; i�odi tA.,,. (a NA (AU 5 /a a.) -(77'4 c riivii', fee (97oL35d -rytc/
/ Clink C •
Q z/(lX2
1 1S.
12. I i / ("71)-- ;71) -
-tilt) c/I - ce p-I �-,,��ii�P"� � L'6 ,y e1YL A r Fv n) 0p- , - 6 l'curro„4 �. : nl c 9 `CD - 7. 4-1" 3
13. i
14. e� yq 4 CSC £ co 35,) -GF1)
cerlAe
• uos-=
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING
CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS MARCH 9, 2004 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, SHERI LOCKMAN, 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 AMPZ-613 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT.
SHERI LOCKMAN
Name of Person Posting Sign
Sign cfre of Perso osf g Sign
1/??, 21P-Ppn 4
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss.
COUNTY OF WELD
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this day of , 200
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
u
riiii 77 2w
Notary Public �l
My Commission Expires: V __
f z
qq��ryryyyA
4 - s
I
Itx
.. u,•
* CYtti.A$$$* n7
tit ttal 6ftNlM.. ..�
'4 7 t�LIM.t$o 4y,tefl
a .. � #ti+
Mar . 23 . 2004 5 : 50PM West Greeley Law Center No .7201 P . 2 CFCS OTIS,
COAN & STEWART, LLC
Attorneys And Counselors At Law
Jennifer Lynn Peters
jlpeterseocslaw.com
March 23,2004
VIA EMAIL,FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL
Sheri Lockman
Weld County Planner
WELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
1555 N. l7'''Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
Re: Cattail Creek PUD
Dear Ms.Lockman:
As you may know,this office represents Cattail Creek Group,LLC with regard to certain
aspects of its PUD application. Specifically,our office has been in contact with Bonanza Creek Oil
regarding its interests in the land at issue.
I am writing to advise you and the Weld County Commissioners that I have spoken with
Patrick Graham of Bonanza Creek Oil regarding this matter and he has authorized me to state that
Bonanza Creek Oil has reviewed the current plat,has no objections or concerns regarding the plat
and agrees to the plat contingent on a surface use agreement being executed that addresses
appropriate setbacks,maintenance of existing structures and continuing operations. This is the same
position Bonanza Creek Oil expressed in its previous letter to the Commissioners.
For your information,Bonanza Creek Oil and our office are currently negotiating the surface
use agreement. We therefore believe that the interests of Bonanza Creek Oil have been adequately
addressed.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter,please contact me.
Sincerely,
r _
Jennifer Lynn Peters
yf
cc: Ann Johnson
Patrick Graham
The Doyle Building, 1812 56th Avenue,Greeley, Colorado 80634
Telephone: 970-330-6700 Fax: 970-330-2969 Metro: 303-659-7576
)
) )
AU LI
•
Vicinity •
,
Map
6
�j • 5 -"' EA T�3 N
SEVERANCE,
'(Tit WCR 72
C
.-- WCR 70
V-19NDSOR
,. 4
MiIt A t M LGREE,111I-
4igwn
i►1c1i tuuni� iQbraio t a 1 o ord.
I
i
+q�� Y
,4 otitis Jr
LU
y RR Sn . 7„4 LLI �r
,»tr
Lu
1 `+4 x _ , A S S5 T^g41.
'j` . R • ,, w �, �' y ,.rk } k
as
jllrw
�" #
- � fit 30 C --@.-f"1:-.' . 7
11
0 s, -• { � E
r o
CV
2 c
•c
CU Q o
) 1 )
(':1'I-1-,1II. ('IRF�.'F.'K 1'. 1,-. I).
Site Des.s.�V�• ■ 'f: W:. :' C.-•1'1 •Ii;J^Y...:t 1.0" :. �
•
1'!'� A!1::-OIL: :) ..
`/ ♦,•Vti J:i�:4� - �Y y. Ali
•. F.e 1.
• -. ..._. "•.
••g .._ •
•
• f r
Change of Zone Criteria :
Weld County Code Compliance
• 27-1-10 Intent of the PUD
• 27-2-60 Common Open Space
• 27-6-120.6.c Compatibility
• 22-3-50.B. 1 & 22-2-190. D.4 & 22-2-210. E
Availability of Adequate Facilities and Services
• 27-2-10 Performance Standards
• 22-2-60 Center Pivot Irrigation System & Building Envelope
• 22-2-210.D Flexibility, distinct character and identity,
conservation of natural site features
• 23-1-90 Common Open Space, Non Urban Scale Development,
Weld County Prime and Non Prime Farmground
• Consistent with Proposed Zone Districts and Uses
I
Board of County Commissioners
Criteria for Approval :
Change of Zone ( PUD) 27-6- 120115
5
• An Urban Growth Boundary IGA does not affect this
property (a);
• Uses proposed conform with Performance Standards (b);
• Uses proposed are capable of being compatible with the
surrounding area (c);
• Adequate public water and sewer service are available (d);
• Adequate street and highway facilities (e & f);
• Overlay District compliance (g);
• Consistent between proposed uses and Specific
Development Guide (h) .
r CATTAIL CREEK P.C.I.D. / SIII3STAI•1 ••=.:••.-: {a
li i
vs-
1 r
:. ., rAL= ....' 1 .a[..e
vs= z-5
F :I .::- _ 4 r �� -�. `s .•.,....r,_,_..-
3 !, '.� -_ma y , x,� --
t Ili, sE_ 7 s c'' t =�"A..�.'_Y'. __ill 1i •,. a"'+ ,A' �o� -
{1}I '`R i _ __ 4s_ ,• 6 \`I1 a.04b:-%
" � E--
ss .�+,r.__.' Obit Cam-
•
Zz+_. w Cg...4*rd 70 at 4- ..
��-.tL y�1 -.y, Ld.Q
SCHOOLS 14265 Weld County Road 70
Eaton
ELEMENTARY: Eaton $845,000
JUNIOR HIGH: Eaton
SENIOR HIGH: Eaton
INCLUSIONS 161 . 34 Acres
180 Shares of Woods Lake Mutual Irrigated cropland with pivot, a
Irrigation Company, 3 3/4 Shares Larimer-Weld Irrigation Company, and building site and the potential of
additional lateral shares, irrigation pivot, fUtUre development. Close location to
concrete ditch, gated irrigation pipe,
mineral rights, surveys and engineering three major cities, great views, easy
UTILITIES access and Eaton school system. Call
REA Rick or Doug for more details!!
North Weld Water
Septic Marketed by:
Propane Rick Koentopp 970-222-4841 THE
Doug Miller 970-481-9444 GROUP
DIRECTIONS Broker Associates/Partners INC.
The Group,Inc.Real Estate
(970)221-0700 Office Real Estate
_ Weld County Road 70 at Weld County 401 W. Mulberry St.
Road 29, between Highway 392 and Fort Collins,CO 80521
Weld County Road 74
Information in this brochure is from sources believed to be reliable,but is not guaranteed.
Distances and measurements are approximate and are subject to correction.
) ) )
Photo
t
. t.c A
I n d ex , „,..i.
otA,
. ,
,, ,,,...
}
, , .,
.....,,,..... ,
Slide 5a: -a'
a_
Taken from Position "X" _
�.uau a��a vm.0 .•
Looking South - Southwest.
J, \ A.
o.4..
a „ " f 4.14' v L=2.4 � *
e 4 'I}".j4 i
Y � £+ ` . n
5 Ji r .. .
j ab
�r
_._._
- said,i
vi
_._
EXH
•
•
r
t'''
„;Y
r
i
4
#1
k4`
f
` {
f
a.1.. - r• ,j
4` t
v
i,
i.
1,
•
•
,F ka
.' "S
, ;.4 x
n s a
;lb Fd,
f • •
` e.Jr A.,
y
J ii c44..•=';4•.'
.� 3 a9_
a
r ,?
II:.
�r
q `,:,:ii,*:,;(
}' T'"4 S
� �
I
Surrounding
Property
Subdivision - --
History
? 4
i a
{
y{1 4 S
±H _
GREELEY
NOTE: Parcels Highlighted were 1
created through the RE process w.rdcaunt„.cola(*Jo a . ___ _ —i't d i
according to Weld County Merrick
Web site records, 3/22/2004. Extusff
�„ 1
Hello