The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20012735 PROPP REALTY MANAGEMENT LLC -12600 West Colfax Ave., B-130 ikewood, Colorado 80215 Tel: (303) 233-4000 Fax: (303) 233-3100 www.propprealty.com June 23, 2000 Julie Chester Weld County Planning PO Box 758 Greeley, CO. 80632 Re: Case # Z-543 Daryll & Carol Propp (Long's Peak Estates) Dear Robert W Deming & Richard Bower: In a continuing effort to inform those, concerned with the above-mentioned project we have set up a meeting to openly discuss this project. The meeting will be held on July 18, 2000 at 7 p.m. the location is 3000 Youngfield St. # 100, Lakewood, CO. 80215. (From Erie go South on 1-25 to 1-70 West then exit#264 (W 32nd Ave.) turn Left on to 32nd Ave., then Right on to Youngfield St., 3000 Youngfield St. will be on your left (next to Taco Bell). We feel it is essential to get together to resolve any issues and hopefully work out a plan that is acceptable to everyone. We eagerly encourage you to attend the meeting if you have any concerns. Feel free to call me if you have any questions at (303) 233-4000. Sine rely, G Daryll Propp Propp Realty, Inc/Long's Peak Estates cc: Barbara Kirkmeyer—Weld County Commissioner Julie Chester—Weld County Lead Planner Robert Gollick— Robert Gollick LLC John Rinko — Sear-Brown Group Evan Lipstein —Attorney at Law 2001-2735 MAY- 15-00 00= 55 FROM.EPD - ' 5r��y= '- May 12, 2000 Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Ms_ Julie Chester, Planner Reference: Case No. Z-543, Daryl and Carol Propp (Long's Peak Estates) Dear Ms. Chester, We the undersigned live in close proximity to the property identified in the referenced case. We draw irrigation water from laterals that traverse this property, specifically from Farmer's Irrigation and Ditch Company, Community Il, Headgates 80 and 81. We strongly oppose the plat plan filed in the referenced case for the following reasons: 1) As of May 5, 2000, neither the Propp's nor their engineers, nor their development consultants have contacted Farmer's irrigation and Ditch Company to discuss the impact of the proposed PUD on the ditch company or on the water users. 2) Headgates 80 and 81 are active gates located on the northeast corner of the lot identified as No. 7, and we, the users who obtain water through these headgates, have not abandoned our water rights. a) The proposed north/south roadway passes directly over (under?) both the laterals fed from Headgates 80 and 81. b) The plat plan removes a critical portion of the lateral fed from Headgate 81. This portion passes directly through the center of the lot identified as No_ 5. It should also be noted that the plat plan does not illustrate the fact that the lateral is at the highest elevation of Lots 1 through 6. In fact, the bottom of the ditch is several feet above the grade, which slopes downhill from the ditch to the north and to the south- in fact, the area of Lots 5 and 6 to the south of the lateral is presently under water as a result of prairie dog damage to the lateral during the winter. 3) The plat plan shows that the Farmer's ditch will become a`green space' with a 10 ft h s an easement to either wide trail. It is our understanding that the ditch company side of the ditch, which means that this trail will encroach on the easement. Further, there are deeded easements to the laterals fed from the aforementioned headgates. MA'/ 15-0i0 08 55 FROM : EPD 1D-970532226S PAGE 1/2 4) Also, please note that the proposed east/west mad crosses Farmer's Ditch to Peak View Road. The existing bridge will not sustain, nor was it intended for the amount of traffic that will result from the construction of 13 new homes on the subject site. Clearly there are some fundamental iss'ir,c that the developer has failed to address, and that must be taken into consideration by the Weld County Planning Commission, The following questions, among others must be satisfactorily answered before the requested change of zone is approved: • How will the developers ensure that the users of the irrigation ditch, the headgates and the laterals continue to receive their full, uninterrupted allotments of irrigation water? • Who will be responsible for maintenance of the ditch and the laterals? • How will access for ditch and lateral maintenance be ensured? • Who will be liable for property damage resulting from inadequate ditch maintenance? • Who will be liable for damage to the ditch or laterals resulting from use as a "green space' and trail? Because the properties surrounding the proposed development continue to utilize the land for agricultural purposes, the availability of irrigation water is very important to us. Asyou are aware, land has very little value for agriculture if it does not have water. We hope that you will make consideration of this letter a serious priority in you review Cordially, Paul Bartholf 2434 Weld County Road 12 Erie, CO 8O516 303-828-3120 viiictr y atoy6 c�c2 t E ' Co 3oJe1e 3z�e MR 4 M Rs oAva. -SosnsKy i 67R twit It Cale Co yoS/c 261-82P-3&S3 r r ,�CF� �d� '/? wcRs �'✓ _d��/G col d�2P3e3'?fr2 Weld County Planning C ep. MAY 11 2000 May 9, 2000 RECEIVED Ms. Julie Chester,Planner DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1555 N. 17TH Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Chester: I am writing in regard to Case Number Z-543, the proposed Planning Unit Development Change of Zone submitted Daryl and Carol Propp. This proposal asks for the approval of thirteen residential on a properties on the south side of WCR 12, between WCR 5 and 7. I have reviewed the drawing of the lots and the road location. I have a serious concern regarding the traffic that will be turning north on Peak View from the development. Currently Peak View ends in a circular turn around area because it does not go through. The addition of this access will create an intersection that must be controlled. Traffic now either turns around or goes straight through to either my property or to my neighbors' property. Because of trees and vegetation, this will be a"blind" intersection to vehicles traveling south and vehicles traveling east and then turning north on Peak View. A STOP sign must be installed for the eastbound traffic. I have included a crude sketch to try to show the traffic situation I am describing. I wanted to bring this to your attention. I know Weld county is very concerned with eliminating and preventing un-safe traffic conditions. If this proposal or an alternative is approved, the traffic pattern on Peak View must be included in the entire plan. Please call if you have any questions regarding this letter. Thank you for your consideration. Since yid Te Rhodes Phone: work - 303 277 5831 4590 Peak View home - 303 828 3453 Erie, CO 80516 C:mydodpropptrafficl Noier671 trAze Mew aoe'a Co ," cc sS T /7!o oo c,-yetAPM N7 Aziv ire D.eive /(57voic S'G4/ o ¢590 ` eS-qureEc7 117/ t idge €4/ Thursday,May 04,2000 d C n u n I't a r;:' i ' : Department of Planning Services-Weld County 2000 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case#Z-543 Dear:d I am writing this letter out of concern for the proposal from Mr. Propp to build houses on his 32 acres in SW Weld County. I am extremely concerned about the irreparable damage that this many houses will cause to the neighborhood. This proposed subdivision is completely surrounded by a rural and agricultural lifestyle neighborhood. I am also very concerned about the increased dust,traffic,and pollution this will bring to a very proud and cohesive neighborhood. I would also like to inform you of the sinkholes caused by the underground mine shafts in the area. I leased this specific 32 acres from Mr. Prow from approximately 1981- 1994. During this time I repeatedly filled large sinkholes on the front 10 acres of his property. I believe that there would be serious problems with homes built in this area. Mr.Propp has never contacted the neighbors of his land to discuss what options may fit better for everyone involved. I am not against growth or the rights of Mr. Propp to develop his property. However,I do believe Mr. Propp has the responsibility to develop his land in accordance with neighborhood and county concerns being addressed Thank you for your concern and effort to keep the heritage of Weld County as a pleasant and peaceful agricultural lifestyle. Sincerely, did County Planning -- Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C. APP. 21 20Q0 Attorneys at Law 1775 Sherman Street,Suite 1800 RECEIVED Facsimile: 303-832-2366 E-mail: wamt@aol.com April 20, 2000 John F.Welborn Stephen J.Sullivan John F.Meck Keith D.Tooley Kendor P.Jones Via Facsimile 970-304-6498 Brian S.Tooley Mary V.Laitos and U.S. Mail Thomas C.McKee Molly Sommerville William R.Rapson Julie Chester, Planner Stephen A.Bain Weld County Department of Planning Surfaces Danimey E.s ann 1555 N. 17th Street Rebecca N.Welborn Greeley, Colorado 80631 Special Counsel Jan G.Laitos RE: Daryl and Carol Propp (Long's Peak Estates) Norman S.Early,Jr. Township 1 North, Range 68 West Of Counsel Section 9: Portions of the NE/4,NW/4 Robert F.Welborn Weld County, Colorado Dear Ms. Chester: This letter is written on behalf of Union Pacific Resources Company ("UPRC") with respect to an application that has been filed by Daryl and Carol Propp (the "Propps") for a planned unit development ("PUD") on portions of the property referenced above("Application"). I understand from you that the PUD covers approximately 32 acres in approximately the E/2E/2NW/4 and SW/4NE/4, of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. UPRC owns all of the oil and gas that underlie the property. UPRC has given a lease to develop the oil and gas for the NE/4 to United States Exploration, Inc. The purpose of this letter is to let you know that UPRC and the Propps have reached an agreement in principle for the compatible development of the oil and gas and the PUD. UPRC has no objection to the Application provided that it is able to reach a final agreement with the ropps. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me. Best regards, Molly Sommerville MS:crh cc: Mr. Tom Marranzino Mr. Don Ballard Mr. Robert Gollick(via facsimile) p,y printed on recycled paper n7/03/1994 17: ©1 30137443243 ROBERT GO'_LICK LLC PAGE 04 • 8 Waiver e the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Comm ss t ion (` COGCC") has rules anands and acknowledges d regulations that apply to the distance between a wellhead and public roads. production facilities, building units and surface property lines. among other things. Developer hereby waives its right to assert any and all setback requirements in COGCC Rule 603 (or its successor provisions), or any amendment to the COGCC setback rules, and to any other state or local setback requirements that are or become inconsistent with this Agreement or that would prohibit or interfere with the rights of the Oil Companies to explore for and produce the oil and gas in accordance with this Agreement. Developer understands that the Oil Companies may cite the waiver in this Section 3 in order to obtain a location requirement exception or variance under COGCC rules or from a local jurisdiction. Developer also agrees that it will not object in any forum to the use by the Oil Companies of the surface of the Property consistent with this Agreement _3- Jni7n 'J gebb9LE£0E 'ON KVA Rd 99!80 OEM 00-61-8dd ,.eld County Planning Dept. APR 20 2000 Waken Goat Dairy RECEIVED 2434 Weld County Road 12 Erie, Colorado 80116 April 15, 2000 Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Ms. Julie Chester, Planner Reference: Case No. Z-543, Daryl and Carol Propp (Long's Peak Estates) Dear Ms. Chester, This letter is in reply to your letter dated March 23, 2000 requesting comments or objections to the referenced request. My family owns and occupies 10 acres of land located immediately to the west and adjacent to the property belonging to Daryl and Carol Propp. My property is correctly zoned for agricultural use, and is in fact sustaining a small commercial Grade A goat dairy and cheesemaking operation. We also raise hogs and chickens on this property. The Propps do not live on or near the subject property. In fact, this property has been vacant since my family moved here 13 years ago. Until several years ago, Mr. Propp leased the land to one of my neighbors for grazing horses. Otherwise, there has been no effort by Mr. Propp to maintain or use the property in any fashion. I wish to draw your attention to several facts that should be considered before allowing this property to be developed: • An artery of the Farmer's Irrigation & Ditch Company crosses through the subject property, providing seasonal irrigation water to my property and to several other homeowners to the west of me. Mr. Propp has never contributed to the costs and labor necessary to maintain the ditch, even though over the years he allowed tenants' horses to impart significant damage to it. Year after year, my neighbors and I have born all the expense and labor of ditch maintenance, and we have always paid our ditch assessments to ensure that we will continue to receive much-needed water to irrigate our pastures. You should note that the portion of the ditch crossing the Propp property is above the elevation of his land, something like a viaduct. In the event that the Propps are permitted to develop their land as described in your letter, what requirements will the county impose on them to ensure that the flow of irrigation water is not interrupted? ■ The Propp property has two other significant topographical features. The north portion of the land has a large sinkhole that periodically requires back filling because it continues to reappear. In the past, Propp's tenants took care of the backfilling to prevent injury to their horses. The south portion of the property, as well as the surrounding properties sustain a natural marsh area that provides homes to an array of birds and small animals. The water collects in this area because it is low and the soil is mostly Bentonite day. Your engineers will confirm that homes built on Bentonite-rich soil tend to "move" with the seasons, and that soil must be replaced if septic fields will be used for sewage disposal. • While we presently do not belong to the town of Erie, our neighbors and we recently voiced strong opposition to the development of Northfield, just across CR 12 from the Propp property. Our "neighborhood" currently consists mostly of five-to-ten acre single family homesites surrounded by farmland. The Northfield developers wanted small lots (Y4 to Y2 acre) interspersed with multifamily and commercial. Northfield has been stopped, at least for now, and not just because the town and the developers are greedy people, who have no regard for the wishes of the current residents of this area. We do not believe that either the town of Erie or the developers have the right to take away the rural character of our"neighborhood" without our consent. We do not oppose growth, but it is unthinkable that Propp's property would have 13 homes on it. If they were reasonable people with some level of civic integrity, they would be proposing only a few homes, something more compatible with the surrounding region. As you can readily surmise from this letter, we strongly oppose the proposed PUD change of zone. We urge you to do the right thing for our community and for the county by denying this request. Sincerely,piltv re 15 Dvit V Paul Bartholf 2 April 9, 2000 Ms. Julie Chester, Planner 1/4-,d Copn'"y. F'l'rn , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1555 N. 17`h Ave. AP ? - Jo Greeley, Co. 80631 e ` Dear Ms. Chester: This letter is in regard to CASE NUMBER Z-543, the proposed Planning Unit Development Change of Zone submitted by Daryl and Carol Propp. This proposal asks for the approval of thirteen(13) residential lots and 3.3 acres of common open space. We are asking that this proposal NOT be approved. Below are a list of issues and reasons that the proposal, as submitted, would not conform with surrounding properties and the activities in this rural area. ✓ The surrounding properties are in an agricultural environment and support various agricultural operations and rural activities. Many people in this area derive their incomes from their agricultural operations. ✓ The proposal as submitted, is urban in the size and scope. The largest lot is 2.7 acres. ✓ The proposal includes a homeowners association with governing covenants. This is completely inconsistent with the existing agricultural and rural operations. ✓ The proposal includes a through access to Peak View road. Peak View is an unpaved county road that receives minimal county maintenance and is intended as an access for the residents that live there. The additional traffic would result in a significant degradation and increased traffic load to the mad. Attached is a list of people in the surrounding area that have signed this letter asking that the proposal be REJECTED as submitted by Mr. And Mrs. Propp. C:mydocs/proprezonel Name tr. p6,G.d ehtlar Address ¢590 Signatures' Name RANO/ Port � Address 4 Bo t pea K.:e r4-. Signature 're Name I_)Ef Tice?Cr\ cX I -cx A�� Address 4?3I F k_VVie,t.) Signature Name keua Knuth" Address yb'g Pelt µ;<w Signature lenbakt Name sfei;c?. /r/k /u '1 t/ 7L� Address 17 yy7o2 �Pa,� /J,`2 c,c.) Signature �i/ Name_ 6tteretke M CLIL(11 q � � Address Lf7�L P? tau Signature liiY� a 'Mc(� Name Tateme O 74etie Addressg�Iy� pried° Rd Signature Name 1-vm m,-f,c-\ ca Address L/70/ \ U L c, - Signature ps i L p� Name (n i L L Aj LA- F Ptfn Address Li 0 L .Q A.K- V a Signature lytt C E 1CO /0 Name ,i 1 d t• ( ee LQ �� / Address a8 y 5ra G�O7 2� Signature %We N 110 Name 0 0 t° Address u 7 PQ V U1'e Ltd Signatur FLOP, CID c(Do Name Address n 7/ /-74,E) //!t g Signature tli 24#7 . \ Name I ( 6' U ,t- Address 1/t/7 / P le CA ut.. Signature Name Address Signature Name Address Signature C:mydoc/addresslist2 Hello