HomeMy WebLinkAbout20012729 JULIE Chester- Longs Peak Estates Page 1
From: "Greenman, Celia" <Celia.Greenman@state.co.us>
To: "'jchester@co.weld.co.us"' <jchester@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 6/27/01 9:56AM
Subject: Longs Peak Estates
Hi Julie,
I will try to start reviewing the Long's Peak Estates reports within the
first 2 weeks of July. I intend to start next week, but we have some
personnel changes that will require extra time on my part, so I'm not
promising anything.
Celia
2001-2729
EXHIBIT
A
aid County Planning I t • •,e D
- 4 iti- icv.-,,,. APR 10 2000
r'' Nip ` q Wed raftity Referral
IIiDc ° 0EO/ 8000 March 23, 2000
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
io
Applicant Daryl and Carol Propp Case Number Z-543
(Long's Peak Estates)
J
Please Reply By April 14, 2000 Planner Julie Chester
r
Project Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for thirteen (13) Residential Lots and
3.3 acres of Common Open Space.
Legal Part of the NW4 and part of the NE4 of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 68
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to WCR 12, between WCR's 5 and 7. 4
Parcel Number 1467 09 10004 .�. - ,
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) May 16, 2000
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter. I
Comments: Wizd1 a-il a no Oi Q c 1-70" l z C Ji C1,f,"t (vl ,? i,Le
G;-- 1" 5csbvvtt5StOn /9v‘efivo)vleu� 1/& svl.US� ke Licrdvvr/Ociw ' ed
79
a. vCOhSI d-eMr 1 k1v0s7"d4-170 � i2jr- aNz,rknd (76S Le Ile_t-1,
•
Signature 3 .
L AAA---z,.,",.._ Date 4/ej/66)
Agency 6-C 6,2.) S UYL'�
•:•Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley, CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax
JULIE Chester- long's peak 4.doc Page 1 !,
i
_l
August 13,2001
Mr.John Rinko
Rinko,LLC
P.O. Box 28218 #16
Lakewood,CO 80228
Dear Mr.Rinko: Ali
The following is a review of the Long's Peak Estates property in Section 9, Township 1 North
Range 68 West in Weld County. The reports that were included in the referral were Subsidence
and Surface Strain Analysis prepared by John Abel(June 2001);Review of Mine Subsidence
Investigation prepared by Greg Sherman(June 2000; and Third Party Review Subsidence
Potential prepared by John Ivey(June 2001). A summary report by you indicated the proposed
building envelopes for lots 3 through 7.
Nature of Subsidence. There is discussion in all of the reports of how much subsidence has
occurred and what is the surface expression of subsidence at the site. Greg Sherman of Western
Environment&Ecology analyzed drilling data from the E-21 investigation to interpret the
"collapse is confined to an interval of 20 to 40 ft above the workings". However,there is at least
some sag related to subsidence that has occurred at the surface of the site and is manifested in
topographic contours. John Abel's report looks at the layout of the mines and the topography of
the site to make interpretations about past and potential future collapse above the mines: The
topographic contours are depressed around areas shown to be mined out, suggesting that collapse
in these areas has occurred. Conversely,the topography is slightly elevated over areas where
pillars are shown to remain.
However,there are places across the site where topographic contours do not correspond to what
is shown on the mine map: a pillar shown as mined out located about 100 ft north of the 6W
entry shows topographic contours similar to those where Dr.Abel judges pillars to remain(E-21
found workings at borehole WI just west of where the contours indicate a pillar exists).
Similarly,the topographic contours diagnostic of remaining pillars are offset about 30 ft from
chain pillars shown on the mine map near the 1 W entry,west of the 6 N entry; and also around
the barrier pillar about 150 ft north of these pillars. In other areas of the site, such as the chain
pillars between entries 3W and 4 W,and the small pillar about 150 ft south of the 1W entry,
there is no clear topographic expression that corresponds to these remaining pillars. In addition,
the investigation conducted by E-21 located a pillar at borehole W-2, a location that the mine
map shows as being worked out.
The purpose of the summary is to point out that there is not 100 percent correspondence between
topography and reported pillar locations. If strains are calculated and subsequently,building
envelopes are identified based on the locations of pillars shown on the mine maps,the accuracy
of these features must be assured. This may require additional drilling.
JULIE Chester- long's peak 4.doc Page 2
Strain calculations.Based on the four borings that intersected the mine workings,Mr. Sherman
calculates the mean theoretical void space(1 ft),and then uses methods from the National Coal
Board to arrive at a"worst case"theoretical horizontal strain(0.46%), and a safe foundation
length of 42 ft. The standard deviation of his mean theoretical void space is 0.5 ft,which means
there is a 68 percent probability that the theoretical void space is between 0.5 and 1.5 ft(a 34
percent probability that the theoretical void space is between 1 and 1.5 ft). At 1.5 ft,the"worst
case"theoretical horizontal strain becomes 0.6 percent,with the maximum allowable structure
length of 32 ft to avoid appreciable damage(based on findings by the National Coal Board).
Drilling at the site showed the water table to be below the level of the mine. This condition
subjects the pillars to weathering and slaking,which reduces the strength. Dr.Abel has
calculated strains based on failures of chain pillars,and has selected building envelopes in areas
of 1000µe or less. The current plan shows that utilities and roadways will be in corridors
subjected to higher strain, and will require the appropriate mitigation for installation.
My view on the strain calculations is that while they provide an indication of where best to locate
a home and with what design limits,the conclusions contain some uncertainty and risk.
Structures built at the site may be subject to less risk of damage than roadways and utilities,but
homeowners still may experience post-development repair costs.
Possibility of chimney subsidence. Pertinent questions to ask about chimney subsidence are
where is it likely to occur and from what depth. Dr.Abel states that there is no evidence of
chimney subsidence(pits, sinkholes)on site. However,a review of historical aerial photos
shows that the site has been regarded within the last 40 years, so sinkholes may be obscured.
There are features suggestive of sinkholes on neighboring properties to the west in the 1963 air
photo, and there is an active sinkhole on the Fares property north of the site(although the mine is
about 30 ft shallower at this location). The topography shown on Figure 3 of the E-21 report
shows a number of closed depressions that may be the result of chimney and trough subsidence,
combined. However,one that is about 25 ft in diameter,located just east of the 5 North entry
and about 100 ft south of the 5 West entry(at the intersection of a main and secondary entry)
may be the result of chimney subsidence,alone.Chimney collapse is not unknown in the
Boulder-Weld coalfield. Although most occurrences are from shafts or from haulageways at
depths of 60 ft or less,the Office of Surface Mining has documented instances in the 1990s of
holes developing from haulageways at 200 ft below ground surface in the Simpson and Acme
Mines.
The three maps included in the John Rinko report show recommended building envelopes per
WE&E,per Abel,and a combination of the maps. The building envelope on lot 5(Figure 3)
contains two of the closed depressions discussed above. This is a potential sinkhole area. It is
possible that loading these areas differentially may cause future subsidence to occur.
The data evaluation by the investigators on the project has resulted in identifying what are
probably the optimal building sites on the Long's Peak property. However,the subsidence
hazard presents uncertainties and risks that remain with residential development. These risks can
be reduced through further drilling and data acquisition in some of the areas discussed above.
As an option to requiring further investigation,Weld County may consider dealing with Long's
Peak Estates and similar situations in the future procedurally with the formation of a"geologic
JULIE Chester- long's peak 4.doc Page 3
hazard abatement district". This treatment has been used in other geologic hazard areas and
would involve contribution to a fund,which would deal with damage to buildings,roads and
utilities that is related to subsidence. Contributors to the fund would be the developer,on a one-
time basis,and the homeowners,who could be assessed a fee similar to a mill levy. Potential
problems with this system are that if no subsidence-related damage occurs after a number of
years,the HOA may decide to dissolve the fund.
Long's Peak Estates also faces the question of disclosure to second-generation homebuyers. The
initial homebuyers will be aware of the subsidence risk,but there should be an airtight way to
ensure that disclosure continues to subsequent residents.
In addition,CGS recommends that the county not assume ownership of the subdivision roads,as
they are located in a higher risk area.
CGS appreciates the effort by the consultants to address a situation that is not clear cut. Please
feel free to contact me with additional comments and responses.
Yours truly,
Celia Greenman
Geologist
Cc: Julie Chester
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PPPIPre
Division of Minerals and Geology frit
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone(303) 866-2611
FAX(303)866-2461 DEPARTMENT OF
May 12, 1998 NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
Mr. Scott Ballstadt WE-98-0029 lames 5.tochhead
Weld County Planning Department Executive Director
1400 N. 17th Ave. Michael B.Long
Division Director
Greeley, CO 80631
Vicki Cowart
C _ I I State o
Re: Longs Peak Estates S 9 i J/ and Director CGS Review No. WE-98-0029
Dear Mr. Ballstadt:
In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972)I visited this property to
review the plat. A Soil Percolation Test Assessment prepared by O'Brien& Gere Engineers, Inc.
(October, 1997) was included in the referral.
1) Subsidence. O'Brien& Gere Engineers (O&GE) correctly identified the site as lying within a
subsidence hazard zone, due to previous underground extraction in the area by the Clayton Mine
and the Morrison Mine from the 1920s to the 1950s. A study performed by Amuedo and Ivey
labeled the subsidence hazard severe in the subject area based on available mine information.
O&GE reference Amuedo and Ivey in stating that if the majority of the pillar support has been
removed beneath an area, it is likely that subsidence occurred shortly after and is essentially
complete. This is a dismissal of a situation that requires more analysis. The Amuedo and Ivey
study was regional in nature and was not meant to supplant,but in fact, demands a detailed
investigation in areas of severe subsidence hazard. A detailed study of the subject area should be
performed that evaluates a worst-case subsidence occurrence, calculates the strain on surficial
materials, and then recommends design parameters that would accommodate the situation. The
study should be conservative,yet reasonable; for instance,there is little likelihood of surface
rupture, so this need not be factored into the evaluation. If the design parameters are deemed to
be too burdensome, then the responsible party has the option of performing a subsurface
investigation to substantiate that a less critical situation exists.
This analysis should be performed by the developer before the lots are sold. The study would be
more comprehensive and meaningful if the property is reviewed in its entirety. It is possible that
potential problems may be solved by replatting.
2) Surface and subsurface drainage. Lots 6 through 13 are characterized by uneven terrain and
internal drainage that may be attributed to subsidence in the past. Lot 6 is not viable because of
the extent of ponded water on the lot. Lots 7 through 13 are large enough so that acceptable
building sites might be found, but the depth to groundwater should be determined property-wide
before development begins.
tom'
Longs Peak Estates,p.2
3) Septic systems. Six percolation tests were performed that showed generally acceptable
percolation rates, although no map of the test holes was included in the report. Also,no test hole
was advanced below 5.9 ft. As stated above, I recommend that borings be drilled across the
property to determine the depth to groundwater. Leach field sites that show acceptable
percolation rates may still fail prematurely if shallow groundwater is present. Also, State
regulations require a 4-ft minimum interval between the base of a leach field and the water table.
If this cannot be achieved, engineered systems will be necessary.
4) Soil. The site is covered by eolian loess that is predominantly silt and clay. This material may
show a tendency to change volume when subjected to load. As part of a subsurface soils
investigation of the property, the developer should drill a minimum of five boreholes across the
site for the purpose of collecting samples for geotechnical analysis that would include
determination of density, moisture content, strength and swell-consolidation potential.
Subsurface information is particularly important since it appears that some subsidence has
occurred, and the surficial material has probably not compacted uniformly.
All organic soils should be removed from the building sites, as this material will consolidate over
time and depending on the degree, will cause settlement damage.
5)Wetlands. Part of the site in the vicinity of lot 6 and the irrigation ditch may possibly be
classified as wetlands,based on the vegetation and fauna. This issue should be investigated by
qualified personnel.
In summary, the developer has not proved the viability of the property as a 13-lot PUD. The
following studies must be performed before development proceeds:
• a subsidence analysis
• a subsurface soil investigation that determines the soil profile, the depth to groundwater, the
depth to bedrock(if within 15 ft of the surface)and geotechnical characteristics of the soil at
proposed foundation levels and 5 ft below these levels.
• a wetlands survey
In addition, a map showing the percolation test hole locations must be provided. Lot 6 should be
incorporated into neighboring lots or designated as open space. Without all of the above
information, CGS cannot recommend approval of this PUD. On a non-geologic note, County
Road#12 should be evaluated as to the impact of increased traffic.
Please call me if there are any questions.
ours truly,
Ceha Greenma
Geologist
JULIE Chester- Longs Peak Estates Page 1
From: PAM Smith
To: Chester, JULIE
Date: 6/26/01 4:59PM
Subject: Longs Peak Estates
Julie,
I received soil test and percolation test results from Rinko, LLC on June 21, 2001. I will not be able to
review and make comment before July 6, 2001. If I need additional time I will let you know.
Pam
Pam Smith
ISDS Program Coordinator
Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment
email: psmith@co.weld.co.us
phone: 970/304-6415 x2211
fax: 970/304-6411
EXHIBIT
JULIE Chester- Longs Peak Estates Page 1
From: PAM Smith
To: Chester, JULIE
Date: 7/6/01 3:18PM
Subject: Longs Peak Estates
Julie,
I have not had a chance to review the soil/percolation test data submitted by Rinko, LLC for Longs Peak
Estates.
I am on vacation next week and will review it when I get back. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Pam
MEMORANDUM
TO: Julie Chester, W.C. Planning DATE: July 25, 2001
W�`pC FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Department of Public Health and "
Environment T:„)
�
COLORADO
CASE NO.: Z-543 NAME: Long's Peak Estates
The Weld County Health Department has reviewed the subsurface soil investigation for the proposal.
The applicant has evaluated the proposal for 7 lots. No minimum lot size was indicated in the
subsurface soil investigation. In a previous application submitted, the applicant had revised the
proposal from 13 lots to 7 lots, with a minimum lot size of 2.87 acres.
The application has satisfied PUD Ordinance No. 197 in regard to water and sewer service. Water
will be provided by the Left Hand Water District and sewer will be provided by septic systems. The
proposed lot sizes(minimum of 2.87 acre)and the overall density of one septic system per 4.5 acres
meets current Departmental policy.
Percolation test result indicate that there are suitable locations for absorption fields. Lots 1, 5, and
7 found unsuitable areas, and care will have to be taken in locating the fields. Boring log information
indicate that four(4) of the seven (7) lots may require shallow or engineered septic systems due to
the proximity of bedrock(ranging from 4.2 feet to 6.7 on Lots 3, 5, 6, and 7). The site map included
in the subsurface soil investigation has two 5000 square foot septic envelopes indicated in close
proximity to the soil boring locations. The Department recommends these envelopes be recorded
on any plat. The Department further recommends that the secondary absorption field envelope be
preserved in a manner that will allow its future use. Language for the preservation and/or protection
of the second absorption field envelope shall be placed in the development covenants. The
covenants should state that activities such as landscaping (i.e. planting of trees and shrubs) and
construction (i.e. auxiliary structures, dirt mounds, etc.) are expressly prohibited in the designated
absorption field site.
The Department recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Water service shall be obtained from the Left Hand Water District .
-1. A Weld County Septic Permit is required for each proposed septic system and shall be installed
according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations. Each septic
system shall be designed for site-specific conditions, including but not limited to maximum
seasonal high groundwater, poor soils, and shallow bedrock. tic stem
J3 envelopes should and secondary
thtecrequired m esetbacks ases all be descdribedn in ted on each lot.the Weld County Individual
Sewage Disposal System Regulations.
'4. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the second absorption field envelope shall
be placed in the development covenants. The covenants shall state that activities such as
landscaping (i.e. planting of trees and shrubs) and construction (i.e. auxiliary structures, dirt
mounds, etc.) are expressly prohibited in the designated absorption field site.
4. The applicant shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the Water Quality Control
Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, if required. Silt
fences shall be maintained on the down gradient portion of the site during all parts of the
construction phase of the project.
-6. During development of the site, all land disturbance shall be conducted so that nuisance
conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request of the
Weld County Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted.
7. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any
Longs Peak Estates
Z-543
Page 2
development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and practical
methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize
dust emissions.
-8. If land development creates more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6 months
induration,the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan, submit an air pollution
emissions notice, and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment.
9. "Weld County's Right to Farm"as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall be
placed on any recorded plat.
0:\PAM\Planning\chzone\z543-2.WPD
rite MEMORANDUM
WI
TO: Julie Chester, W.C. Planning DATE: April 27, 2000
.e d County Planning Dept.I D O FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Health Department
CASE NO.: Z-543 NAME: Long's Peak Estates "Pf' 28 2000
COLORADO
FCE vFD
The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal.
The application has satisfied PUD Ordinance No. 197 in regard to water and sewer service. Water will
be provided by the Left Hand Water District and sewer will be provided by septic systems. The
proposed lot sizes (minimum of 1.0 acre) and the overall density of one septic system per 2.5 acres
meets current Departmental policy. A commitment letter from Left Hand Water District was included in
the submitted materials. However, a review of the USDA Soil Survey Map of Weld County indicates
the soil permeability is moderately slow to slow and available water capacity is high. Thus, a large
absorption field may be required on each lot. A large absorption field coupled with the proposed lot
sizes will reduce the area available for a replacement absorption field, outbuildings, and possibly
influence the size of the home.
t` As a result, we request that the applicant have a site evaluation (percolation test and a logged profile
pit/hole to 10 feet) conducted on each of the lots in the approximate location where each septic system
will be installed. We recommend that the applicant designate two septic system envelopes and a
building envelope on each lot. The results of the site evaluation will help dictate the approximate
required size for the septic system and thus the septic system envelope. If the site evaluations are
conducted in one of the envelopes the future lot owners will likely be able to use the site evaluation to
obtain their septic permits (they can be used to obtain septic system permits if they are conducted
within 50 feet of the location of the proposed absorption field). We also recommend that the location
where the site evaluations are conducted be marked with some type of semi-permanent marker to 9
demonstrate where they were conducted. This will assure the owner and our staff of the exact location
the site evaluations were conducted.
It should be noted that in the event clayey soils existing at the site, which dictate large septic systems,
we may recommend that the lot sizes be increased. It should also be noted that Lot 5 has an irrigation/1-
ditch crossing the site. All absorption fields must meet a minimum setback of 200 feet from the ditch.
This lot may be un-buildable due to slow percolation rates and setback requirements..
Due to the relatively small proposed lot sizes, we recommend that the secondary absorption field
envelope be preserved in a manner that will allow its future use. Language for the preservation and/or
protection of the second absorption field envelope shall be placed in the development covenants. The
covenants should state that activities such as landscaping (i.e. planting of trees and shrubs) and
construction (i.e. auxiliary structures, dirt mounds, etc.) are expressly prohibited in the designated
absorption field site.
The initial impact plan provided in the application materials appears to adequately address all potential
impacts as required by section 4.2.5.14 of the PUD Ordinance.
The Department will withhold our formal recommendation and referral until the above requested
information has been provided and reviewed by our staff.
If you have any questions, please call me at extension 2211.
M..\PAM\planning\chzone\z543 wpd
VpUNTxw,
• MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
11 Administrative Office:
��I'�� • 9119 County Line Road •Longmont, CO 80501
e � E (303) 772-0710 Metro (303)666-4404 FAX (303) 651-7702
NNW Weld County Planning Dept•
SEP 05 2000
August 31, 2000 `
D C^E' V e D
„ G EXHIBIT
Ms. Julie Chester a r
Weld County Planning Department �_
1555 North 17'h Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Ms. Chester:
I have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the zoning change for the Longs Peak
Estates, located south of Weld County Road 12, between Weld County Roads 5 and 7 (Case
Number: Z-543). The property named is within the boundaries of the Mountain View Fire
Protection District and receives service from the District. The District does not object to the
zoning change and subsequent development, provided the development is able to meet the
requirements of the Fire District. All applicable codes must be met as they pertain to water
supply, fire hydrant locations, fire department access, and street widths and designs. Based on
my review, I have the following comments:
• Adequate water supply for fire protection must be provided for residential subdivisions. This
is beginning to be a problem within these types of residential estate subdivisions because
large lots promote larger homes where the water required supply for fire protection (fire
flows) is not available. For example, the minimum required fire flow for a residential home
between 3,600 and 4,800 gross square foot is 1,750 g.p.m. measured at a residual pressure of
20 p.s.i. Larger homes require even higher fire flows. The applicant needs to submit the
civil engineer's water system analysis and utility plans to the Fire District for review. The
availability of the fire flow needs to be confirmed before the subdivision proceeds to final
plat so that, if necessary, appropriate language can be written into the subdivision covenants
addressing fire flows available and requirements for homes that are larger than what
available fire flows can support. When required water supply for fire protection is not
available, the Fire District has accepted the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems
as an alternate method to supplement the required water supply for fire protection.
• Fire hydrants shall be spaced along fire apparatus access ways so that spacing between
hydrants does not exceed 500 feet and a hydrant is located within 250 feet of the front
property line of all lots. All fire hydrants and water mains must be approved and in service
before combustible building materials are delivered to any lot.
• Fire apparatus access roads are satisfactory as indicated on the plans submitted. Roads must
be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds).
The applicant must submit plans or a report, indicating the weight bearing ability of the
proposed roads.
Station I Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7
9119 Cnty Line Rd. 10971 WCR 13 P.O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Dobbin Run P.O.Box 666 P.O.Box 40
Longmont,CO Longmont,CO 299 Palmer Ave. 8500 Niwol Road Lafayette.CO 600 Briggs 100 So.Forest St.
80501 80504 Mead,CO 80542 Niwot,CO 80544 80026 Erie,CO 80516 Dacono,CO 80514
Ms. Julie Chester
August 31,2000
Page Two
• As soon as the final plat is approved, the applicant must provide to the Fire District an eight
and one half inch by eleven inch map of the subdivision showing the street configuration,
street names,hydrant locations and addresses of the lots if available.
Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve of any aspect of this project that does
not comply with all applicable codes and standards. The Fire District reserves the right to make
further comments as development proceeds. We appreciate being involved in the planning
process, should you have any questions,please contact me at(303) 772-0710.
Sincerely,
Cam' 0i• \� k
LuAnn Penfold
Fire Marshal
LMP/Ip
cc: John Rinko Jr., Rinko,LLC,P.O. Box 28218 #16, Lakewood, CO 80228
project file
file
Ip08.43.00
Weld County Referral
IngC.
March 23, 2000
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Daryl and Carol Propp Case Number Z-543
(Long's Peak Estates)
Please Reply By April 14, 2000 Planner Julie Chester
Project Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for thirteen (13) Residential Lots and
3.3 acres of Common Open Space.
Legal Part of the NW4 and part of the NE4 of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 68
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
•
Location South of and adjacent to WCR 12, between WCR's 5 and 7.
Parcel Number 1467 09 10004 •
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) May 16, 2000
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
U fie have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
I . See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature DateI -Loaa
Agency M0UNTAI VIEW FINE PROTECTION� DISTRICT
9119 County r
7�!1Loongmont,, CO
Orp80501 666-4404
+Weld County Planning Dep(.303p56TF.-wa%AN30Ag y- D 641 •••(970)353-6100 ext.3540 •.(970)304-6498 fax
g,ouNrgiy MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
a Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road• Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710• FAX (303)651-7702
� F
VIEW Planning Den
„aid County
APR 7 9®O
April 4, 2000
RECEIVE
Ms. Julie Chester
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case Number:Z-543
Long's Peak Estates
Dear Ms. Chester:
I have reviewed the submitted materials for compliance with the adopted codes and
standards of the Fire District. The project is within the boundaries of the District and
will be served by the District. The Fire District has no objections to the Change of
Zone. My comments are outlined below:
1. Most of the concerns of the Fire District are correctly outlined in the applicant's
response in Section 6.3.2.2.1.3 of the Conceptual Development Guide.
2. Submit the civil engineer's water system analysis and the utility plans to the Fire
District for review. The utility plans will need to show the location of fire
hydrants, and water main pipe sizes. It is questionable whether the required fire
flow will he available to the subdivision. The availability of the fire flow needs
to be confirmed before the subdivision proceeds much further.
3. Submit plans for the access roads, showing width of travel surfaces, radius of
turns and weight bearing ability, to the Fire District for review.
•
Long's Peak Estates -referral response to Julie Chester, Weld County Planning Dept.
1 of 2
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7
9119 Cnty Line Rd. 10971 WCR 13 P.O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Dobbin Run P.O.Box 666 P.O.Box 40
Longmont,CO Longmont,CO 299 Palmer Ave. 8500 Niwot Road Lafayette,CO 600 Briggs 100 So.Forest St.
80501 80504 Mead,CO 80542 Niwot,CO 80544 80026 Erie,CO 80516 Dacono,CO 80514
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Boyes
Fire Prevention Specialist
CC: LuAnn Penfold, Fire Marshal
Robert Gollick, LLC
Long's Peak Estates - referral response to Julie Chester, Weld County Planning Dept.
2 of 2
ounty Planning DO
0 E M O RAN DU M
f 28 2000
TO: Julie Chester DATE: August 24, 2000
IVED
FROM: Diane Houghtaling P.E., Traffic Engineer C!v\
WI I P C. SUBJECT: Longs Peak Estates, Z-543 Change of Zone
COLORADO
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Subdivision's Change of Zone request.
COMMENTS:
External Roads: WCR 12 is designated as a local road in the Weld County Comprehensive Transportation
plan. The road has the required 60 feet of right-of-way.
Internal Streets: Internal local streets require 60 feet of right-of-way. All internal roadways in a Planned
Unit Development are required to be paved. The minimum paved roadway width is 32 feet wide(two 12-foot
lanes and two 4-foot gravel shoulders). The minimum centerline radius is 100 feet. Cul-de-sacs have a 55-
foot edge of traveled way radius within a 65-foot right-of-way radius. Normally only one access would be
allowed for a development this small. Multiple accesses were requested by the neighbors and are
acceptable to Weld County Public Works since it utilizes existing intersections. The developer is
encouraged to contact the appropriate fire district to verify that this layout will provide adequate emergency
access.
Drainage: The detailed drainage study, signed by a Colorado licensed engineer,was not submitted. This
report will be required for the final plat. The developer will be required to submit proof of the irrigation ditch
company's acceptance of the road crossings. All roadway culverts will need to be evaluated in the study.
Traffic Report: A traffic impact study was included in the submittal package. No further study will be
required. This development will impact the adjacent subdivision and will be required to mitigate the impacts
to Peak View. This project falls within the Southwest Impact Fee area.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (If Approved):
A detailed drainage study shall be submitted at the time of final plat.
The impact on Peak View shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
The cul-de-sac radii shall be increased to 65 feet.
Final roadway plans will be required at the time of final plat.
If you have any questions, please call me at(970)356-4000 Ext. 3788.
pc: Z-543
M:\WPFILES\diane\DEVEL0PMENT2-543a.wpd
EXHIBIT
D / 5
4:16Q41 MEMORANDUMid County Pian ;ing
APR 17 2000
TO: Julie Chester DATE: April 4,
' t V
Fn
FROM: Diane Houghtaling P.E., Traffic Engineer
trOS
eD SUBJECT: Longs Peak Estates,Z-543 Change of Zone
COLORADO
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Subdivision's Change of Zone
request. Our comments and requirements are as follows:
External Roads: WCR 12 is designated as a local road in the Weld County Comprehensive
Transportation plan. The road has the required 60 feet of right-of-way.
Internal Streets: Internal local streets require 60 feet of right-of-way. All internal roadways in a
Planned Unit Development are required to be paved. The minimum paved roadway width is 32 feet
wide (2-12 foot lanes and 2-4 foot shoulders). The minimum centerline radius is 100 feet. Public
Works will require the lots to be reconfigured to fatten the south curve and eliminate the excess
right-of-way. The roadway does not appear to line up with Peak View Road, please adjust the
roadway alignment.
W. Drainage: The detailed Drainage study, signed by a Colorado licensed engineer, was not
submitted. This report will be required for the final plat. The developer will be required to submit
proof of the irrigation ditch company's acceptance of the storm discharge. All roadway culverts will
need to evaluated in the study. Lot 5 will need an easement for the irrigation ditch shown on the
Final plat.
Traffic Report: A traffic impact study will be required for the Final plat. This project falls within
the Southwest Impact fee area.
If you have any questions, please call me at (970)356-4000 Ext. 3788.
pc: Z-543
•
M:\W PF I LE S\d is ne\Z-543.wpd
404 Weld County Referral
1 March 23, 2000
C.
COLORADO
•
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Daryl and Carol Propp Case Number Z-543
(Long's Peak Estates)
Please Reply By April 14, 2000 Planner Julie Chester
Project Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for thirteen (13) Residential Lots and a
3.3 acres of Common Open Space.
Legal Part of the NW4 and part of the NE4 of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 68
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to WCR 12, between WCR's 5 and 7.
•
Parcel Number 1467 09 10004 k
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) May 16, 2000
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
iL.We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments: Pkc t 1\khcf "(Q ArCkm , C1-> CtflaNC 7.Cc <iec ViD((k:ht;
ec bur cO11 nd \iC OtTclUdai.
Signature )S-1 f 1 Date L\ \\ 11{j
Agency \. ,Qt 5�YlpttoA Yl(^P1
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 ❖(970) EXHIBIT
/b
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER —
�oF eOto
Division of Water Resources - o
Department of Natural Resources eid County Planning Dept. Sri
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 *)
Denver,Colorado 80203 .1876*
�
Phone:(303)866-3581 APR 18 2000
FAX:(303)866-3589 April 13, 2000 sill Owens
� � � � Governor
http://water.state.co.us/default.htm
Greg E.Walther
Executive Director
Ms. Julie Chester Hal D.Simpson,PE
Weld County Planning Dept. State Engineer
1400 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Longs Peak Estates Subdivision, S-543 (S-458)
N112 Section 9, T1N, R68W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 1, Water District 5
Dear Ms. Chester:
We have received the above referenced proposal to subdivide 32 acres into 13 residential
lots. The proposed water source is Left Hand Water District (District) and a letter of commitment has
been submitted.
The District will supply treated water to the development. The applicant has an
existing tap on the property and has obtained a contract from the District to obtain an
additional 12 taps. As a condition of activation of the taps, the applicant must transfer 20 units of
Colorado-Big Thompson Project water raw water, administered by the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, to Left Hand Water District. It appears that the District can adequately supply
this proposal.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), C.R.S., the State Engineer's Office offers the opinion
that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to existing water rights, and with the Left
Hand Water District serving the proposal, the supply is expected to be adequate.
Should you have any questions, please contact Heidi Frey of this office.
Sincerely,
4 Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK\HCF:word\longs peak estates
CC: Richard Stenzel, Division Engineer
Water Supply Branch
EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARmY
't qqU p CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT
(4e DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 5. PLATTE CANYON ROAD
i lr M� LITTLETON, COLORADO S0120-6901
— L4:\ REPLY TO 1
T1q,} Y ATTENTION OF: April 5, `2000
Ms. Julie Chester
Weld County Planning Department
1555 North 17°i Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Planned Unit Development Change
Case Number Z-543
Corps File No. 199880380
Dear Ms. Chester:
Reference is made to the above-mentioned project located in the Northeast '/a of Section 9,
Township 1 North, Range 68 West, Weld County, Colorado.
Before any work at this site begins which may involve the excavation in or the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States which may include streams, open water lakes,
ponds or wetlands, the property should be examined for these areas pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Any wetlands should be delineated and mapped.
This office should be contacted by a proponent of the project for proper Department of the
Army permits or changes in permit requirements prior to any work in waters of the U.S. A list of
Environmental Consultants who may assist in a wetland delineation and mapping has been sent to
the applicant along with a copy of this letter.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Terry McKee at 303-
979-4120 and reference Corps File No. 199880380.
Sincerely,
Tim y T. are
Chief, er Regu a ry Office
jb
Enclosure
EXHIBIT
/se
_ �
•4• Weld County Referral
' March 23, 2000
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Daryl and Carol Propp Case Number Z-543
(Long's Peak Estates)
Please Reply By April 14, 2000 Planner Julie Chester
Project Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for thirteen (13) Residential Lots and
3.3 acres of Common Open Space.
Legal Part of the NW4 and part of the NE4 of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 68
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to WCR 12, between WCR's 5 and 7. •
Parcel Number 1467 09 10004
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) May 16, 2000
O We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
B"-See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature ! Date 34.7 0 p
Agency N� ieirg/0
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO..80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4•(970)
EXHIBIT
/9
;;;;T;'\
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION
1555 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
' PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
C. FAX (970) 304-6498
COLORADO
March 27, 2000
Daryl and Carol Propp
13-lot & 3.3 acre Common Open Space PUD
Z-543
1. Proper building permits shall be obtained prior to any construction or excavation.
2. Building permits are required for any accessory buildings being constructed or moved onto the
property. Additionally, permits are required for any decks and patios.
3. Any construction or electrical work associated with the common area shall be permitted and
inspected.
4. All foundations of principal dwellings will be required to be engineered. Foundations shall be
based on a site specific soils report or an "open hole" inspection performed by a Colorado licensed
engineer. Any fill material placed under foundations must be of the type allowed by the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC) and be compacted to a minimum of 90%. The test results of that
compaction shall be supplied to the Weld County Building Inspection Department.
5. Normally structural and foundation engineering is not required for accessory buildings. However,
there are exceptions. (See Section 20.1.13 of The Weld County Building Code Ordinance).
6. All buildings or structures shall maintain distances from property lines and adjacent buildings as
outlined in Table 5-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
7. When building permit applications are accepted, a complete plan review is done. A review of the
building or structure by the Weld County Inspection Department may reveal other building issues
or areas needing attention.
V;2tffile
Building Officia
Service,Teamwork, Integrity,Quality
St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J
395 South Pratt Parkway • Longmont • CO • 80501-6499
303-776-6200/449-4978 • FAX 303-682-7343
April 21, 2000
Julie Chester
Weld County Department of Planning Services .2+ct
1400 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, Co 80631
RE: Long's Peak Estates (Part of the NW4, Sec. 9, Ti N, R68W)
Dear Julie:
Thank you for referring the Long's Peak Estates to the School District. The projected student impact upon the
St. Vrain Valley School District of 13 single family units on 32 acres is a total of 9 students. Any students
living in this subdivision would attend Erie Elementary School and Erie Middle /High School under the present
school boundaries. However, due to potential growth in these schools this development and other existing
developments in this feeder could be placed in another attendance area in the future. Bus transportation would
likely be required.
THIS PROPOSED DEVELOF tug so IHNAi OPetfr -N'ii PROP OS S r Capacity Enrollment Impact �Pr opt r L Q �1� e L�l�u�Man ,
Building I Oct. 99 Student Projected Over is �� m' �� n CUM,u,
p , p �� j
CIS ' � � � _ De
Elementa , 408 408 5 413 a,,
685 500 4 504 No �' �,� 3( ` ,6:
r
i
9 � , �ti' /ray%`, '.
The District is on record as not opposing growth so long as the growth is planned and is manageable from a
student enrollment stand point. While this development does not impact the middle/senior school capacity, the
elementary is already over capacity. In addition, there are other approved developments in these attendance
areas which will, together with this proposal, have a significant cumulative impact on these schools.
As the volume of developments increases in this attendance area with no alleviation of the existing overcrowded
conditions, the ability to provide the same qualify education for these new students that is provided students in
other areas becomes increasingly difficult. Therefore, the District would typically oppose this development
because it adds to the enrollment of an already overcrowded school. Should this proposal be considered for
approval, the District would request the cooperation and participation of the developer and County in
implementing a separate agreement to help mitigate the impacts on the schools. This agreement would include
the calculation and payment of an appropriate cash in-lieu of land dedication fee to address the capacity
concerns at these schools (per the attached chart). In addition, a note would need to be added to the final plat
acknowledging the fee requirement. The submittal information indicates the developer will work with the
district to meet the cash-in-lieu request. Should this be accomplished the District would not oppose the
development. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely, EXHIBIT
Scott Toillion, AICP
Planning Specialist
"Excellence - Our Only Option"
Exhibit A School Planning Longs Peak Estates PUD
Standards And
Calculation of
In Lieu Fees
Single Family
r-
School Planning Standards
Number Projected Student !—Site Size Acres of Developed
Of Student I Facility Standard Land Land Cash-in-lieu _
Units ' Yield Standard Acres I Contribution Value Contribution
I
Elementary_ 13 0.35 525 10 ! 0.09 $25,100
4.55
1 - -
Middle Level 13 0.14 750 25 ! 0.06 I $25,100 —
1 .82
-- E i -
I I
High School 13 0.17 1200 40 0.07 $25,100
I
2.21
r
Total 11— 8.58
0.22 $25,100 $5,547
9Family d is .66 $427
Single Student Yield
Per Unit
4/25/00
Hello