HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000856.tiff 41
March 21, 2000 C �
Ms. Julie Chester, Planner
Weld County Planning
1555 N. 17t1i Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Soaring Eagle Ranch
Dear Julie:
As you requested, I am forwarding copies of all of the overheads which we used in our
presentation of the Soaring Eagle Ranch project to the Planning Commission yesterday.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
Sincerely,
•
Dianne Rule
Everitt Companies
dr
enc.
20000y-0856
('orp.ira(a Of:ices 4 ItX'H::ISIT
;No• : h i II fr Anem EL)11 Ihn-•(' Iom(I 60",
IuJm� 1d h P(1 Ho).21 S•Par Col in (oloi id ROS"
Illepil 1'1701 n -oil)•I-U UI '+i. I5 ILmcrl Inc L luz,67ieUli
.137
.wo sou n[}r7
1.6 ro_`.-__..- r HI
•�l '
:t
! h
CI 23 4
9"�sussxw x 20 21
22 `e
x
/
L OP LAKE
LEE �!
\ -- 25
\le. ‘ 2
,. IlNDSOR '
30 WINDSOR oR9 SOARING
\ _
-• apau yl,r�_.�—
Nr
WIND-10■■.
WIND° LSdo . • RESERVOIR 35 36 µc'�
a.>•9 3 I 33 34 ORES --
2
WINDSOR {-� REsexv u,114DRIDs
R
O ;EVER McI
,N.RA'W I wcn , TiONPSOv J
Y J H '6N,R6YW
I 1
6N.a6]W LAKE —
l L4AA� !N
\ •_..�4 N� 3 2 A. RE Shvrix 1 )Ikpov;
tit r 1 1 \_� P —_J
A• �6�►� rh . r.
J
LAKS CANAL Y y ,. ^„I
nss. NO �, 'apA�t � 12
N7 2 8 10
1 N �, -
7 . s w�,a , a
/ �
IN ��d ��
N 13
�� 1 g �. . 1 4 s
1 .
- _ WINDSOR►INDSOR LAKE ` 1
_��I -
_ !�f f , -.,.. c ^ HW 392 \= - ________
fI
Soaring Eagle Ranch 1� f
0 2640' 3960' 5280'
Vicinity Map North
Date: March 2000
\. 1 NELSON ;' , - ;
LSE t ura WINTER DU PRIEST- I LAKE
sO I,' t 0. d' �>
1 +, WALKER 'I _
� - - WINDSOR "+a�r
"L y Z.01L
SCHLAGE "I"°
WINDSOR CULLI$Oti OARIN �: ,•
C LESOARING
WINDSO `
RANCHit
e
yr3, j i RESERVOIR
z
WINDSOR �� a 34 cREs
I 09HSNER COMPANY IFRANC RESERV
V Icuu- SHEPARD FELTE I// - we :•
i �.� 1`YOa,'SON
V L —
•
•
l� l
Eq
Y: a K C4
rAtIAL
J ia - oa
Support the Project
No Comment
Oppose the Project
(no property owners contacted were opposed to this project)
JIMIIIIIIIIMIS mIN
Soaring Eagle Ranch
0 1000' 1500' 2000'
Statements from Surrounding Land Owners North
Date: November 1999
Summary of Land Use:
Gross Land Area: 382.75 Acres
R.O.W. Area: 31.25 Acres
Common Open Space Area: 58.17 Acres (15.2% of Gross)
Net Residential Land Area: 293.33 Acres
Summary of Residential Land Use:
Net Residential Land Area 293.33 Acres
Number of Proposed Lots 114
Gross Density 3.36 Acres
Net Density 2.57 Acres per Lot
.39 units per acre
Smallest Lot 1.5 Acres
Largest Lot 11.76 Acres
Typical Building Envelope .5 Acres
Typical Landscape Envelope 1.25 Acres
(Including Building Envelope)
Average Area of Individually 1.32 Acres
Owned Natural Area per lot
Total Area of Individually 147.61 Acres
Owned Natural Area
NOTES:
1. All lots less than 2 acres are adjacent to Common Open Space.
2. 37% of the lots are between 1.5 and 2 acres.
3. 30% of the lots are between 2 and 2.5 acres.
4. 33% of the lots are larger than 2.5 acres.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
PUD. Goal 2 states: "Encourage creative
approaches to land development which will
result in environments of distinct identity and
character. "
REGIONAL TRAIL LINK:
0. Goal 9 states: 'The private sector, non-county agencies,
and other governmental jurisdictions should be encouraged
to participate in open space preservation and trails
development in Weld County."
Right of Way
-- -- - - —€
• 4'shoulder
• Landscape Envelope:
40'min. The landscape
•from ROW or envelope contains all
mm. Irrigated/ornamental landscape
wetlands
25'Mn.from •
planting including trees and shrub
plantings. See figure 4 for a
open space description of the typical lot layout.
/ Y — — —' — — — — —-(- The amount of irrigated landscape will
I be limited to 20,000 square feet unless
a xedscape landscape which will utilize
10' I less water per square foot is procosed
coca. I I
i 22.5'
max. 4,
II I I Building Envelope:
I The building envelope will contain all of
• 60'min.homIROW L I the vertical permanent Improvements,
+i I including buildings.outbuildings.I
fences.decks, gazebos.etc. This
envelope is generously sized to
accommodate these uses while
restricting the placement of vertical
I — — — improvements to the center of the lot
\ I — providing a buffer of open specs
between each residence. -
I50' in. Lot Boundary and Open
60'max. Space:
1 — _ �F —
The open space between the
it _- �- I landscape envelope and the lot
i
I i boundary will be planted to match the
I Common Open Space and wil De
�, I- I— maintained by the Homeowners
Association. This will create a butter
between homesites as well as ahalo a
• contiguous open space system. • .-..—.,......• 4\ throughout the subdivision.
Septic Envelope:
The septic envelopes shown on the plans are 2,500 square
feet(42 x 60)and are located based upon the following
criteria:
-minimum of 10 feet from any property line
-minimum of 20 feet from any structure
-minimum of 100 feet from any water course
ie:Ladner and Weld Canal,Wetlands
-minimum of 200 feet from Windsor Reservoir
Please see site plans for locations of Septic Envelopes
Figure 3
Typical Individual Lot Design Components
14
PUBLIC FACILITIES
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
P. Goal 1 states: "Promote efficient and cost effective delivery of public
facilities and services."
P. Goal 2 states: "Require adequate facilities and services to assure
the health, safety, and general welfare of the present and future
residents of Weld County."
P. Policy 2.3 states: `The County will encourage the development of
a balanced and cost effective transportation and circulation
system by promoting higher density cluster uses in and around
existing municipalities and mixed use development areas and
activity centers. This will help to ensure that maximum efficiency
and use are derived from investment in existing public facilities;"
rMONITORING/VENTILATION DIVERSION VALVE
PORTS ACCESS TO 'ZABEL'
'INFILTRATOR' CHAMBER SEPTIC TAN < EFFLUENT
SYSTEM ALTER
SEPTIC TAN<
SEPTIC TAN< ACCESS
PORTS, TYP''CAL
SIZE OF LEACH FIELD
MAY VARY DUE TO THE SIZE
OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE
AND SOILS CONDITIONS
SEPTIC LINE FROM
RESIDENCE
APPROXIMATE SEPTIC SYSTEM
L / ENVELOPE (40' X 60' = 2400 S.F.)
Septic System - Plan
Typical Septic System
Layout - Plan View o 10' 15' 20'
Bu�roing En'eope B.4d�ng en,eIone
/
ar
Stonna a r Detention
r.:. P
o-ngatam and Slormwater ond
Retention Pond Bean
f
P,npasaa a+a.te 41111111111111NIU,. �- 935
a an •.• HE
154 MO _ - - . .. - _: 4935
,v 4925
4920
Intersection of
Septic Envelope Soanng Septic En.ebpe
ynng( ne-- --- 1 33'-46'abo.e Eagle Crule 85 eel abo+e
existing grade and mist ng grade
] '.e let Tad le— -- - -- - - 9'-93 a6ova Cull
Road
Rtdge Ito 3.14'+teet abase
high water lama - Road _ f nigh water tame L ale— 514 Atl of 2-Block 19 Loth Black4
el( pi
it
Conceptual Grading Profile Soaring Eagle Ranch cEow�W�s
Not to Scale ____
Septic System Management and Maintenance
Design Approval
Weld County
Soaring Eagle Ranch Homeowner's Association
Construction Inspection
Weld County Health Department
Post-Construction Inspection
Developer's Representative
• verify that grade falls away from septic leach field
• locate and inspect access/ventilation ports
• locate and inspect diversion valve
• locate and inspect septic tank access ports
Annual Inspection
Homeowner's Association Representative
• inspect septic tank and measure sludge level
• clean 'Zabel' effluent filter
• switch septic fields by turning diversion valve
• inspect leach fields utilizing monitoring ports
• open ventilation pods on idle leach field
• close ventilation pods on active leach field
• file a report on the condition of the system
Four Year Inspection
Homeowner's Association Representative
• pump septic tank
• normal annual inspection items
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK
SOARING EAGLE RANCH
SOARING EAGLE RANCH
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BUDGET
(PROJECTED)
REVENUE:
114 LOTS @ $400 each per year $45,600
Interest from Reserve Accounts $ 1,000 $46,600
TOTAL REVENUE: $46,600
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE:
Landscape $ 7,500
Snow Removal $ 2,500
Irrigation Water $ 5,500
Pump Electric $ 1,500
Street Light Electric $ 400
Insurance $ 1 ,460
Administration $ 500
TOTAL MAINTENANCE: $19,360 $19,360
ANNUAL RESERVES:
Road (3.75 Miles) * $ 7,000
Landscape Replacement ** $ 1,000
Septic Management *** $18,240
Irrigation System **** $ 1,000
TOTAL ANNUAL RESERVES: $27,240 $27,240
TOTAL EXPENSES: $46,600
See Notes Regarding Reserves
9
1r
Ns 1
N.
14a
SI
WINDSOR g SOARING (�
c:IV. i^' EAGLE
I0 1 RANCH _4,__.____.._ ._ y •
WINDSOR— i o
t
P.-ct
1 I' '�RESERVOIR
i 3 -I 33 II 34 II ORES
WINDSOR 'l
_ /tdSER 4
I
r 0THOYPSO.V O4
'NCR ]a e; 4A.
LUCE
%I
I. 4 4 ®4, 'v 3
T
t sadtf e
® Ada.
^a ��r ��ieee 11
Yi q� n
Na I � ..,.� .v �NN, F i
" Indicates location of Existing Home - 54
Northwest Estates 56 lots
Roth Subdivision 57 lots
Alexander Estates 22 lots
Valley View 12 lots
North Shores 45 lots
Mariah 24 lots
Shiloh 14 lots
Soaring Eagle Ranch
0 2000' 3000' 4000'
Present Conditions North
Date: November 1999
ANTICIPATED LAND USES
COMPATIBILITY
Section 6.4.3.1.3: That the USES which would be permitted shall be
compatible with the existing or future development of the
surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zoning, and with the
future development as projected by the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
or MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities.
AGRICULTURAL STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
A. Goal 3 in the Agricultural section of the Comp Plan states: "Discourage
urban scale residential, commercial, and industrial development
which is not located adjacent to.existing incorporated municipalities."
A. Policy 4.1.8 states:. "Utilize techniques such as easements,_clusters,_
building_envelopes, and setbacks to minimize the impacts on sur-
rounding agricultural land when conversion to another use occurs."
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES -
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
UGB. Goal 2 states: "Concentrate urban development in or adjacent to ex-
isting municipalities or the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area, and maintain
urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation between
future urban and non-urban uses."
P. Policy 2.3 states: 'The County will encourage the development of a bal-
anced and cost effective transportation and circulation system by promoting
higher density cluster uses in and around existing municipalities and mixed
use development areas and activity centers. This will help to ensure that
maximum efficiency and use are derived from investment in existing public
facilities;"
OPEN SPACE
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
0. Goal 5 states: 'The County will strive to conserve
significant stands of trees and shrubs, large expanses of
prairie grasses, and unique forms of vegetation and land area."
0. Policy 5.2 states: "Attractive, drought-tolerant landscaping
should be strongly encouraged in all land use documents."
0. Policy 5.3 states: "Drainage channels should be designed
to incorporate natural vegetation and be constructed to
conform to the natural landscape; channelization of natural
drainageways is strongly discouraged."
0. Goal 6 states: "Provision should be made for open space
to meet human needs throughout the County in order to pro-
tect and enhance the quality of life and enjoyment of the envi-
ronment."
0. Goal 9 states: 'The private sector, non-county agencies,
and other governmental jurisdictions should be encouraged to
participate in open space preservation and trails development
in Weld County."
WILDLIFE STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
W. Policy 1.1 states: "Conflicts with fish and wildlife habitats
and migration routes shall be considered in land development.
Developments adjacent to rivers and streams, waterfowl areas,
and important or critical wildlife areas should incorporate
reduced densities, adequate setbacks and buffered areas as
prescribed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife."
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
PUD. Goal 2 states: "Encourage creative
approaches to land development which will
result in environments of distinct identity and
character."
April 26, 2000
Board of County Commissioners:
Ms. Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chairperson
Mr. Mike Geile
Mr. George Baxter
Mr. Dale Hall
Mr. Glenn Vaad
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing this letter to advise you that we support the proposed
Soaring Eagle Subdivision, north of Windsor. While our land does not
directly connect with any of the boundaries of that particular property,
we are within a 1 mile radius and consider it part of our neighborhood.
We support the approval of this subdivision for the following reasons
• The quality of the development plan is first class and will enhance
the value of the entire area.
• All of the criteria set forth by the rules and regulations of the
county have been met and exceeded. Rules and regulations are
important to all of us; however, it is our belief that when a
proposed plan exceeds those requirements, approval from our
representatives is to everyone's benefit.
• We are already seeing land in the immediate area lay idle when it
is not farmed by the owners. The current economics of
agriculture are such that it is not profitable to rent additional
land to raise corn, hay, beans, etc. That idle land will soon
become a detriment to the neighborhood, producing more
uncontrolled weeds that the rest of us will have to continually
battle.
EXHIBIT
Board of County Commissioners
Page 2
• Due to the fact that there have been no objections by land
owners that directly touch the boundaries of this proposed
subdivision, why, then, would a governing body reject a plan that
(repeating a previous point) meets and exceeds all the rules and
regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions and the trust chat
we put in you as our County representatives.
Sincerely yours,
7( L ., L (2G L/ cZC7 _
James A. and JoAnn Ochsner
41
April 26, 2000
CO lb
Ms. Pam Smith
Weld County Health Dept
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Soaring Eagle Ranch
Dear Pam:
Enclosed is a report from Dave Rau of Paragon Consulting Group regarding the issues that have
been raised about the proposed septic systems at Soaring Eagle Ranch. (Weld County Case #Z-
537). This report discussed separation distances of all septic leach fields from both historically
high groundwater elevations, as well as areas of shallow bedrock. Also discussed is nutrient
loading from pre-development and post-development land uses. I believe you will find this report
to be a thorough examination of these issues and the conclusions should alleviate the concerns
that have been raised.
Also enclosed is a letter from Dean Smith, the General Manager of Boxelder Sanitation District.
Dean has extensive background in sewage disposal,package plants for wastewater treatment., and
individual sewage disposal systems. Boxelder Sanitation District is familiar with this area and
considers it within their 70-year long-term service area. Based on their evaluation of our
proposal, they have concluded that the only feasible option would be for Soaring Eagle Ranch to
be served by an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS).
Please review this additional material. We arc schedule for a Change of Zone Hearing before the
Weld County Commissioners on May 10, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. I believe this additional
information, along with the other information that has been submitted to date, should allow you o
make your formal recommendation to the Commissioners. If you feel that further information is
required, please inform me of what is needed and we will supply it.
Sincerely,Ja4
Stanley K. Everitt
Executive Vice President
SKE:dr
cc: Julie Chester, Planner
Corporate Offices !Mifflin
3030 South( +I Im p A nut Fun Collins•Colorado•405?5
11�li ling.AV I P(1 KM I2>•Pon Collins II ns Culorrh •N05>3
This it.rid O1111 "0 1'00•FAX:(9701 223-4150
, •Z. 7
PARAGON
CONSULTING GROUP „C, ,
612NIC'E, Qt!ATHA, ANT) INN(IFAI'ON
2401 Rese.¢al Ethel,Suite 206
Ft Collins CO80526
Phone CO-0124-1061
Fax (970!24-1062
April 25, 2000 DAVID M. RA1, RE-,DEE
SCOTT A. Rc'l ERPORI PE.
BRICK SM! II. P E.
JAMES 1N1. 'hnu)mAs, E.I.
BRAD C WOII LER
STEVEN \. NI\RIF. E-I.
Mr. Stan Everitt
The Everitt Companies
3030 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Opinions Regarding Development Impacts
Soaring Eagle Ranch
Windsor, Colorado
Project Number 1099027
Dear Mr. Everitt:
The purpose of this letter is to present our opinions regarding development impacts to
surface and groundwater at the above-referenced site. Our professional opinions arc based
on information and literature reviewed, our experience and the proposed site conditions We
have also addressed the issues raised by the Weld County Health Department in the
memorandum dated February 3, 2000. It appears the primary issues relate to the separation
distance between the proposed septic systems and groundwater and bedrock. We also
compared nutrient loading to groundwater and surface water for the agricultural use versus
the residential use.
I. GROUNDWATER-SEPTIC SYSTEMS SEPARATION DISTANCE
As you know, the depth to groundwater has been and continues to be monitored via a system
of piezometers installed at the site by Earth Engineering, Inc. We believe that the
groundwater elevations recorded prior to January 2000 are often higher than the actual
groundwater surface at that time due to the fact that the piezometers were not properly scaled
at the surface. In fact, the piezometers were initially constructed such that stormwater and
irrigation water could enter the piezometer boring directly. Therefore, we believe that
groundwater elevations recorded during irrigation activities and after rainfall events were
erroneously high. These data were still used in our evaluation since they would he
conservatively high and were the largest, site-specific data set available.
We reviewed the grading plan prepared for the site. The separation distance between the
observed historic groundwater high and the proposed leach field inverts is summarized on
ENVIRONMENTAL ENLINEERINO ANI' GEOHYUROLOGY
Mr. Stan Everitt/The Everitt Companies-. Soaring Eagle Ranch
Project Number 1099027 PARAGON
ON
April 25, 2000
Page 2
Figure 1. As seen from the attached figure, the septic systems are situated in areas where at
least a 7-foot separation exists between the planned finished grades and the historic-high
groundwater observations for the site. A 7-foot separation from finished grades was used to
account for the fact that the leach field laterals will be buried approximately two 2) feet
below finished grades and Weld County regulations require a 4-foot separation d'sFance.
This approach leaves a 1-foot freeboard between planned finish grades and the squired
separation distance. Since the post-development irrigation rates will be significantly lower
than the pre-development irrigation rates, we believe that the local groundwater elevations
will be incrementally lower that the pre-development groundwater elevations for the same
climatic conditions. Groundwater elevation observations will also he made during the lot-
specific percolation testing to augment the observations made to date. We understand that
the 8-foot test hole will be completed using a backhoe which will allow for more detailed
observations of subsurface conditions than would a borehole. Therefore, we believe chat the
septic systems will not be negatively impacted by high groundwater elevations and will meet
or exceed Weld County design criteria for this issue.
2. BEDROCK-SEPTIC SYSTEMS SEPARATION DISTANCE
We reviewed the boring logs prepared for this site by Earth Engineering, inc. and compared
the observed bedrock elevations to the final grading plan prepared for the site. The
separation distance between the observed bedrock and the proposed leach field inverts is
summarized on Figure 2. As seen from the attached figure, the septic systems are situated in
areas where at least a 7-foot separation exists between the planned finished grades and the
observed bedrock elevation. Bedrock elevation observations will also be made during the
lot-specific percolation testing to augment the observations made to date. We understand the
8-foot test hole will be completed using a backhoe which will allow for more detailed
observations of subsurface conditions than would a borehole. Therefore, we believe 'hat the
septic systems will not he negatively impacted by high bedrock elevations and will meet or
exceed Weld County design criteria for this issue.
3. PRE-AND POST-DEVELOPMENT NUTRIENT LOADING
Nutrients naturally enter the groundwater system and surface water systems. The on-site lake
is for storage of irrigation water and stormwater runoff. We understand that pond is lined
and therefore will not negatively impact groundwater quality. We understand that there is a
concern that the proposed development may cause increased nutrient loading to Windsor
Reservoir. Eutrophication is the natural aging process of aquatic ecosystems. Although
eutrophication can occur in both river and stream systems, it is generally thought to he most
important in lake systems. Lakes undergo a natural succession from oligotrophic (poorly
Mr. Stan Everitt/The Everitt Companies— Soaring Eagle. Ranch
Project Number 1099027 PARAGON
April 25,2000
Page 3
nourished and lacking in plant nutrients) conditions to eutrophic (very productive) conditions
due to the influx of sediments and nutrients from the surrounding watershed and drainage
system. Eutrophication may be accelerated by human activities such as agriculture,
urbanization and increasing the rate of soil erosion and sedimentation. The subject site has
• historically been operated as a farm producing a variety .of crops including corn, wheat,
alfalfa, beans and beets. A portion of the site has also been operated as a feedlot and cattle
grazing has been allowed on the property.
The method for estimating nutrient loading was taken from Landscape Planning and
Environmental Applications, Second Edition by William M. Marsh. Marsh used the widely-
accepted reference by J.M. Omernick entitled Nonpoint Source - Stream Nutrient Level
Relationships published through the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Omernick's values for nitrogen (N)
and phosphorus (P) loading were derived from a study of 904 watersheds in the Western,
Central and Eastern United States under a variety of land-use conditions. We used
Omernick's N and P loading values for "agricultural" land use (defined as greater than 75
percent active farmland) for pre-development conditions; and Omernick's N and P oading
values for "mixed use" for post-development conditions. The mixed use category appeared
to most resemble post development at the site, since only approximately 52 acres out of the
approximately 384 total acres (approximately 13 percent) are proposed to be developed
residentially. Omernick's category of "urban" required greater than 40 percent urban
development. It should be noted that we also reviewed N and P loading references diced in
the EPA's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. The EPA TMDL N and P loading
references were consistent with Omernick's, but were actually somewhat lower than
Omernick's; therefore, Omernick's values were used as a conservative case.
For the entire site, pre-development N loading as a result of run-off was estimated to he
approximately 3,360 lb. N per year; and post-development N loading as a result of run-off
was estimated to he approximately 1,889 lb. N per year. Similarly, pre-development P
loading as result of run-off was estimated to be approximately 106 lb. P per year; and post-
development P loading as a result of run-off was estimated to be approximately 63 II. P per
year.
We also estimated N and P contributions to Windsor Reservoir from the septic systems
proposed for the site. Per Marsh, the loading potential from septic drainfield seepage is
based on the number of'homes within 100 yards of the shore of Windsor Reservoir or stream
bank, multiplied by nutrient loading rates given in his reference. Please note that the Weld
County setback distance is 100 feet and the site-specific setback informally agreed to by you
Mr. Stan Everitt/The Everitt Companies-- Soaring Eagle Ranch
Project Number 1099027 PARAGON
April 25, 2000
Page 4
is 200 feet versus the 100 yards used in this analysis. For the Soaring Eagle Ranch, only
eight (8) of the 114 lots were identified as being approximately 100 yards away from the
shore or stream bank. Of these, six (6) were located along the Larimer and Weld Canal
which appears to be topographically higher than the proposed leach fields for these lots.
Therefore, on-site surface water runoff will be away from the canal and will not impact canal
water quality. For a conservative case, the eight (8) lots were used to estimate N and P
contributions from the septic systems. N loading as a result of these septic systems was
estimated to be approximately 188 lb. N per year; and P loading as a result of these septic
systems was estimated to be approximately 5 lb. P per year.
Summing the contributions from both run-off and septic systems, post-development N
loading was estimated to be approximately 2,077 lb. N per year which is approximately a 38
percent reduction from the estimated pre-development N loading rate. Total post-
development P loading was estimated to be approximately 68 lb. P per year which is
approximately a 36 percent reduction from the pre-development P loading rate.
4. POST-DEVELOPMENT FACTORS AFFECTING NUTRIENT LOADING
The following are several development factors which we believe will reduce the rate of
eutrophication of the Windsor Reservoir.
• The Soaring Eagle Ranch has several features which should reduce nutrient loading ;o the
reservoir. Based on the proposed grading plan for the site, it appears that the Soaring
Eagle Ranch will significantly reduce sheet flow that currently enters the reservoir.
These flows will in turn be diverted to the lined irrigation/retention pond located in the
center of the development. A reduction in sheet flow to Windsor Reservoir should
decrease the sediment load entering the reservoir which should in turn reduce nutrients
entering the reservoir, especially phosphorus. Phosphorus in the form of phosphate has
been implicated as one of the limiting nutrients in freshwater aquatic systems. !t has
been estimated that sediment particles can transport two (2) to five (5) time:; more
phosphate than the dissolved P load.
• Per the site's development guide, total irrigation at the site will be significantly reduced
from approximately 380 acre feet per year for the current farm to approximately 11 I acre
feet per year for the development. The reduction in irrigation should also reduce nutrient
and sediment loads that would have been returned to the reservoir in irrigation tail water.
• The planned individual septic systems also have several design and management Ieatures
which enhance their long-term viability for domestic sewage disposal. A significant
Mr. Stan Everitt/The Everitt Companies—Soaring Eagle Ranch
Project Number 1099027 PA R CI ON
April 25, 2000
Page 5
design feature is the ability to alternate the use of 50 percent of the total leach field each
year, allowing the remaining 50 percent of the leach field to "rest" and be ventilated.
Inspection, operation, maintenance and alternating the leach fields each year will he the
responsibility of the Home Owners' Association. In addition, the Home Owners'
Association will pump out the septic systems on a 4-year schedule. These activities are
specified and budgeted for in the covenants for the community.
• The alternating leach field design feature is considered state of the art for individual
septic systems and should enhance treatment of domestic sewage and significantly
increase the life of the septic systems. Additionally, each lot has a second septic system
envelope that could he developed in the unlikely event of septic system failure.
• The EPA's 1997 Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Systems states that there are several benefits of decentralized wastewater treatment
systems. The EPA's report states that these systems can protect the public health and
environment as well as centralized systems when properly managed. The most common
factor in septic system failure is a lack of maintenance which is typica the
responsibility of an individual home owner. This problem is alleviated at the Soaring
Eagle Ranch because the management of the systems is controlled by the Home Owners'
Association.
• The EPA report states that decentralized systems are usually appropriate and most cost
effective for low density communities in rural areas. The septic system density of the
subject development is approximately one (1) system per approximately 3.3 acres which
appears to be relatively low.
5. SUMMARY
In summary, we believe that the proposed septic systems:
• Meet or significantly exceed Weld County regulations regarding leach field and
groundwater separation distances;
• Meet or significantly exceed Weld County regulations regarding leach field and bedrock
separation distances; and
• Will have a lower N and P loading to both groundwater and Windsor Reservoir than the
existing land use.
• In addition, significant steps have been taken during the planning process to protect the
integrity of the septic systems and to protect and enhance the quality of local
groundwater and surface water systems.
Mr. Stan Everitt/The Everitt Companies—Soaring Eagle Ranch
Project Number 1099027 PARAGON
April 25, 2000
Page 6
6. GENERAL COMMENTS
Our opinions relied primarily upon readily available information and site-specific
observations. Paragon does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies or other third parties
supplying information which may have been used during the assimilation of this lettc This
letter is intended to present our assessment of the environmental conditions associated with
the subject property and is prepared in accordance with generally accepted local assessment
practices within the scope of the client's directives. No warranties, either express or implied,
are intended or made. The limitations of this assessment should be recognized by The
Everitt Companies.
We hope this information fulfills your needs. If you have any questions or require further
information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP, INC. � 1/Xeer
Brick Smith, P.E. David M. au,
Senior Project Engineer Colorado Number 261 Sh
nS/I)MR:bsl/kart/jnl I
References
Enc.: Figure 1 — Groundwater-Leach Field Separation Distances
Figure 2 —Bedrock-Leach Field Separation Distances
iFTC)\\SERVER1\DATA\1999\PROJECTS\1099027\1099027NUTRIENTOPINIO N00425.LTR.DOC
REFERENCES
Brown., S. and R. van Peer. 1989. Response of pond cypress growth rate to sewage
effluent application. Wetlands Ecology and Management. Vl. NI :12-20.
Everitt Companies. December 1999. Development Guide — Soaring Eagle Ranch Weld
County P.U.D.
Froelich, P.N. 1989. Kinetic control of dissolved phosphate in natural rivers and
estuaries: A primer on the phosphate buffer mechanism. Limnology and Oceanography.
V33. N4. Part 2:649-648.
Marsh, William M. Landscape Planning and Environmental Applications. Second
Edition.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
New York, NY. 539p.
Omernick, J.M., 1977, Nonpoint source-stream nutrient level relationships. C orvalis
Environmental Res. Lab., Office of Resource Development, U.S.E.P.A., Corvallis. OR.
EPA-600/3-77-105.
Pavoni, J.L. (editor] 1977. Handbook of water quality management planning. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY. 419p.
Smith, Brick. Phosphorus Retention Functions and Interactions at the Chatfield
Arboretum Wetlands, Master's Thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado June
15, 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Total Maximum Dail} Load
Program, April, 2000. http_///www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/source.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1997. Response to Congress on use of
decentralized wastewater treatment systems.
FROM : EOXELDER FAX NO. : 9704980701 Apr. 20 2000 E9:E.3AM F2
'fit9
•X5'1'PICT
April 20, 2000
Mr. Stan Everitt
Everitt Enterprises
3030 S. College
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Mr. Everitt:
The Everitt Companies approached Boxelder Sanitation District for potential service to
their proposed Soaring Eagle Ranch subdivision. The proposed subdivision, with 114
lots on 183 acres, is situated on State Highway 257, about 3.5 to 4 miles north of the
town of Windsor. This area lies in what the District considers its 70-year long-term
service area.
The District, with its current facilities, would be unable to serve the said subdivision in
the near-term. However, in the far, long-term, the District may be able to serve the said
subdivision.
An alternative would be for the subdivision to be served by Windsor's wastewater
treatment plant. However, the said subdivision is well north of the Windsor service area
limits for wastewater collection and treatment, as submitted to the North Front Range
Water Quality Planning Association (NFRWQPA), so this option appears to be
questionable. •
This leaves two other alternatives: a community wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
such as a package plant, or individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS).
When it comes to package plants, Boxelder Sanitation District takes its cue from
CDPHE-WQCD (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment---Water
Quality Control Division), whose personnel are of the general opinion that such facilities
are difficult to run, are often out of compliance with discharge limitations, and one should
try to avoid their use and, instead, seek consolidation of many such smaller facilities into
larger plants. In fact, there are other undesirable aspects of such a facility for the
aforementioned subdivision. These include the apparent lack of a good receiving stream
for effluent, the challenges of obtaining an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) permit for such a treatment plant, and the general economic factors
associated with cuiistimaing and operating sueh a facility. If tho Dietrict were to be
asked to take over a package plant, operate it, and take liability for its long-term
performance, I believe the Board would decline to do so for reasons mentioned above.
.... ., , n:_.._.. A..- trQ snr,92
Everitt Enterprises
April 20, 2000
Page 2
In our opinion, the only feasible option would be for the subdivision to be served by an
Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS). While it is not in the economic interests of
the District to have its service area be host to ISDS based developments, the
alternatives to ISDS are quite unpalatable at this point in time.
A quick comparison of published costs for centralized wastewater treatment plants
versus ISDS is worthy of consideration. A recent publication from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Systems presents a comparison between a centralized
wastewater treatment facility and an ISDS type arrangement for a rural community of a
size nearly similar to the aforementioned subdivision. It is reproduced below.
SUMMARY OF RURAL COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY COSTS:
Note: Rural Community = 135 homes on 1+ acre lots
Technology Option: I Total Capital Annual O&M Total Annual
Cost: Cost: Cost:
Centralized System $2,321,840 to $29,740 to ' $216,850 to
$3,750,530 $40,260 $342.500
Onsite System $510,000 $13,400 $54,500 _
In addition to the constraints mentioned above, the economics of an ISDS are much
more favorable than a centralized wastewater treatment system.
In conclusion, it is the District's opinion that at this point in time, ISDS would be the most
practical and economically feasible means of wastewater treatment for the proposed
subdivision. As Boxelder's collection and treatment systems expand, perhaps at a point
in the future the District might be able to serve the subdivision with 2 centralized
wastewater treatment plant. Until such a time, however, the subdivision would be best
served by an ISDS.
If you have any questions on this matter, please do contact me.
Sinc r y,
W. Dean Smith
General Manager
c.'araviVrisc\e'.eritt.dcc
MAY-08-2000 MON 04:2.1 PM EVERITT COMPANIES FAX NO. 19702234156 p, ii '
A X Mei
.El
Ms. Julia Chester
Weld County Planning
1555 N. 17`h Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631 r,
VIA FACSIMILE: 970 3 c2-6412 3O4—(4QS�
Re: Soaring Eagle Ranch
Case#Z-537
Dear Ms. Chester:
Due to a conflict of scheduling, neither of the Department of Wildlife representatives.
David Clarkson and John Wagner, will be available to testify at the Weld County
Commissioners meeting on Wednesday, May 10th concerning the Soaring Eagle Ranch
proposal.
We are submitting a copy of a letter from David Clarkson, Area Wildlife Manager, which
explains his perspective on the wildlife issues brought up by the Department of Wildlife
and addressed by our revised environmental planning for the area.
Please include this letter in your presentation materials for the Conunissioners' review.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
yka
Stanley K. Everitt
Executive Vice President
dr
enc.
4 EXHIBIT
Corporate Offices
3030 South College Avenue•Fort Collins•Colorado•l 0525 ^^
Mailing Address;P.O.Box 2125•Fan Collins•Colorado•80522 (:.�Z *537
Telephone:(970)226-1500•FAX:(970)223 4i 56
MAY-08-2000 MON 04:21 PM EVERITT COMPANIES FAX NO. 19702234156 P.
MAY-05 00 07:2g ERomIcooW 303-498-9742
T0:19702234156 PRCaE:92
STATE OF COLORADO
Bin Owes,Governer c0117440. 6
OEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE •
A N!OUA OePo,YONIYY GMPLOYGR
John W. Mumma, Director -• Av
6080 eroaaway Oh OF"�
Denver, Celoredo aoZ1d
Tolaphona: (303) 297-11 a2 For VYiltllrfr-
For People
Stan Everitt
Everitt Enterprises
3030 South College
Fort Collins, Colorado
80525
Dear Stan,
I would like to comment on your efforts to incorporate wildlife impact planning into your projects
early on in the process. As you know, the Division of Wildlife becomes involved in providing
review of development proposals in the county referral process. Often, when the DOW reviews a
project, significant amounts of rime and resources have already been invested in the design that can
make changes difficult to make, Early wildlife planning results in fewer changes, identification of
habitat impact issues early in the process and an overall design that benefits all.
The Division of Wildlife's role is not to support or oppose any individual development, but through
both internal policy and statute, serves in an advisory capacity by providing input on wildlife
impacts on certain developments, and advice on how to minimize, avoid, or mitigate those impacts.
You approached the Division of Wildlife in July of 1999 to request wildlife input on a concept plan
for the Soaring Eagle Ranch subdivision. The Division of Wildlife commented on several concerns
regarding impact to wildlife on this project. Those concerts related to Canada goose impact,
eagles, and a wetland slough.
Canada geese use the closure both for winter resting on the reservoir and undisturbed feeding in the
grain fields within the closure. Soaring Eagle Ranch will remove some of these grain fields from
feed production. Some of the displaced getse will move into Greeley, Windsor and Fort Collins.
Many of the geese will probably remain in the area and adapt to the Ranch. The Division also
expressed recommendations to minimize goose presence within the subdivision. Geese find
bluegrass lawns and ornamental to be attractive. Your current design, with native grass plantings,
helps deal with this problem and is the right way to begin to approach nuisance management, As
the Fort Collins, Windsor, Greeley area continues to develop and grow, planning departments in
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Greg Welcher,Executive Deader
WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Chuck Lewlti,chairman•Mark LeValley.Vice-Chairman•acrnard L.Block Jr.,Secretory
Rink Enalrom.Member•,Phbip James Member•Mariann Rehepouloa,Member
Arnold Salazar,Member•Bob Shoemaker,Member •Oreg Welcher,Non-Voting Member •Don Amore Non-Voting Mambo,
MAY-08-2000 MON 04:21 PM EVERITT COMPANIES FAX NO. 19702234158 )?
MAY-05 00 07:86 FROMtCDOW 303-49g-974e T0;19702234156 p
AGE:03
each municipality as well as the counties should communicate and explore a long term approach to
dealing with the inevitable issue of Canada geese on parks, golf courses and residential lawns. This
problem will continue to grow as the area develops.
Hunting of geese in the area was also a concern of the Division of Wildlife. Hunting around the
closure has been a traditional form of recreation in the area and serves to help effectively keep the
goose population in check. You expressed a willingness to work with the county or appropriate
entity to advise new residents of the hunting activity and it's importance, and either through deed
language or other recorded instrument, gain agreement not to object to goose hunting in the
surrounding agricultural areas. I encourage you to continue working to support goose management
through (writing in the area, I also applaud your leading efforts in the Fossil Creek Reservoir area
in setting aside significant acreage that will be managed to provide grain food sources for wintering
geese,
The Division of Wildlife commented on the use ot'the area by bald Eagles. There is a grove of
trees on the west shore that is used as day hunting perches by eagles in the winter. We
recommended creating a buffer by removing development in lots 25 through 29. Your current
design has removed three of the five lots, and although this current plan will result in eagles
probably still using the area, further buffers in the other two lots would help provide greater
confidence in there use of the trees. it is difficult to predict the comfort level of eagles when
encroached by human activity. The. fact that there is no access to the shoreline from the
development will benefit both eagle and goose management,
The final concern the Division of Wildlife expressed was regarding a wet slough adjacent to the
subdivision. This wetland had a trail running through it and had lots immediately adjacent to it,
The Division recommended a forty-foot setback from the slough and elimination of the trail that
bisected it. Your current plan has been modified to reflect those concerns.
In closing, I appreciate the efforts you have made in proactive planning for wildlife and your afforts
to address the Division of Wildlife comments made on October 15, 1999, Any time that
development takes place in wildlife habitat, there will be negative impacts to the wildlife. Your
effort to try and minimize those impacts is appreciated.
41:1_ •
ar
Area Wildlife Manager
1O9 r'ollins, Colorado
4
MEMORANDUM
l �'
iglikTO: Julie Chester, W.C. Planning DATE: May 3, 2000
FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Health Department tr,,
COLORADO CASE NO.: Z-537 NAME: George Nelson Farms/Soaring Eagle Ranch
The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal. A member of our staff has also
observed the site.
The application has satisfied PUD Ordinance No. 197 in regard to water and sewer service. /Vater will
be provided by the North Weld County Water District and sewer will be provided by septic systems.
The proposed lot sizes (minimum of 1.75 acres) and the overall density of septic systems per acreage
(1 per 3.42 acres) complies with Ordinance No. 197 and our Departmental policy.
The environmental impact plan provided in the application materials and required in section €. S.1 of the
PUD Ordinance appears to address all potential impacts described in the Ordinance.
A review of the soil data to date reveal that the site is marginally suitable for individual sewage disposal
systems. However, the applicant submitted documentation regarding conceptual grading plans to this
Department on April 26, 2000. This information compares the relationship to groundwater and bedrock
separation and suitability for individual sewage disposal systems, and compares pre-and post-
development nutrient loadings on the proposed PUD. The concerns with groundwater and bedrock
separation appear to be adequately addressed, provided the applicant follows the conceptua grading
plans.
The Department requested the applicant to provide a study of feasibility for either community sewerage
or for the construction and operation of a package treatment plant for the PUD. The applicant
enclosed a letter from Dean Smith, Boxelder Sanitation District, on the District's opinion of what the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's position would be regarding the construction'
and operation of a package treatment plant. No documentation was provided directly from tt e
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which would be the regulating author ty on the
construction and operation package plants.
The Department recommends that the following items be place on the Plat as a condition of approval
1. The applicant shall obtain water service from the North Weld County Water District.
2. Primary and secondary septic system envelopes and a building envelope were not designated on
each lot. Septic system envelopes should meet the setback to the Eaton Ditch as well as other
required setbacks as described in the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal System
Regulations
3. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the second absorption field envelope n the
development covenants. The covenants should state that activities such as landscaping (i C.
planting of trees and shrubs) and construction (i.e. auxiliary structures, dirt mounds, etc ) are
expressly prohibited in the designated absorption field site.
.‘eId County PL i r oqg u
j. EXHIBIT
t.
CASE NO.: Z-537
NAME: George Nelson Farms/Soaring Eagle Ranch
Page 2
4. Each septic system shall be designed for site-specific conditions, including but not limited to
maximum seasonal high groundwater, poor soils, and shallow bedrock.
5. In the event that 5 or more acres are disturbed during the construction and development of this
site, 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. 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
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.
a) 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.
8. The "Right to Farm" covenant shall be placed on the plat.
9. The site grading plan as outlined in documentation from Northern Engineering Services Inc.
(dated 4-14-00), and Paragon Consulting Group (dated 4-25-00) shall be followed.
If you have any questions, please call me at extension 2211.
M:\PAM\Planning\chzone\z537-2.wpd
From: Diane M. Houghtaling
To: JULIE CHESTER
Date: 3/24/00 12 :49pm
Subject: SOARING EAGLE
I GOT A CALL FROM STAN EVERIT TODAY. WE TALKED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY HE
SUBMITTED. IT WAS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SUBDIVISION'S TWO ACCESS POINTS. IF
THIS PROJECT GOES TO FINAL PLAT, HOWEVER, I WILL WANT THE INTERSECTION OF
SH257 AND WCR 74 INVESTIGATED. THIS INTERSECTION IS ALREADY POOR AND I DON'T
WANT IT TO GET WORSE. I HAVE EXPLAINED TO STAN THAT THIS SUBDIVISION MAYBE
REQUIRED TO MITIGATE THEIR IMPACT AT THIS CRITICAL INTERSECTION. SINCE
MITIGATION IS VERY FEASIBLE, I HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO WAIT FOR FINAL PLAT TO
COMPLETE THIS STUDY.
ANY QUESTIONS?
EXHI■IT
etg #537
"CAROL Harding - 05/10/00--Docket#2000 21, PL1408 - Chg Zone Ag to PUD Page 1
From: <tcullison@henselphelps.com>
To: <bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 5/9/00 3:39PM
Subject: 05/10/00 -Docket#2000-21, PL1408- Chg Zone Ag to PUD
Docket#2000-21, PL1408 - Chg Zone Ag to PUD
Dear County Commissioner,
I feel more comfortable writing this letter then standing in front
of everyone giving an oral speech.
I am Tom Cullison, Manager of Cullison Family Farms, LLC. I wanted
to let you know how we at Cullison Family Farms feel about the future
of the farm land we own. My dad (Emerson Cullison deceased 1997)was
the last family member to farm &that was in the early 40's. At the age
of 80 (1988) he turned the running of the farms over to me. We share
crop with a farmer (our share of crops is his rent for the farm).
It has been since the 70's &early 80's since the farm made good
money for the family. The last four years our average net income prior
to taxes has been $13,702. Plus our property tax went up 13.5% in 2000
from what it was in 1999 ($6,388 to$7,254). Our cost to just use our
water went up 58% ($3,100 to $$4,900). a least twice in the last few
years we have had to wait to after the 1st of year to find out if the
farmer's bank would carry his loan for the next year.
My older sister is retired and would like to move to Ohio to be
close to her children & grand children. She can't afford this if we
don't sell. I lost my brother at age 50 (Diabetic w/heart problems)
in 1951. We have decided that we will try are darndest to sell the
farms for the best price we can get. None of us are in favor of keep-
ing the farms.
I really believe that Stan Everett of Everett Companies has a great
plan for that area. If this falls through, we will all survive, but we
will still try and sell the farm(s)for the best price. I have two other
parties interested if the deal with Everett falls through. Early on a
Real Estate Developer from Loveland contacted me, and I have had an
Inquiry from Best Buy Homes, LLC of Carbondale Colorado. although I
believe the later is more interested in the water rights then developing
they did state that they would also consider the land.
I wouldn't have a problem selling the land as farm land, but not to
many farmers will be able to afford that kind of cost. I'm attaching a
copy of the letter I made up for the county(Planning & Commissioners)
on December the 2nd of 1999.
Thank you for your time.
Tom Cullison,
Manager
Cullison Family Farms, LLC
December 2, 1999 ; EXHIBIT
r\
(;Sid 4531,
CAROL Harding- 05/10/00 -Docket#2000-21, PL1408 Chi Zone Ag to PUD Pace 2
TO: Whom it may concern
I am Tom Cullison, Manager of Cullison Family Farms, LLC., and I
wish to express my support for the proposed development of"Soaring
Eagle Ranch" north of Windsor Colorado, by Everitt Companies. A part of
this proposal is on our farm land.
I hold that the sanctity of private property rights was a
cornerstone in the founding of our country.
The growth of our country, including its network of highways and
infrastructure, has been most effectively accomplished when the private
sector is allowed to proceed with minimal interference from government.
One of the challenges of growth has been the balancing of the
rights and interests of the public and private sectors. An unfortunate
result of this balancing process is the increasing tendency of
government to weigh in on the perceived side of the public good often
resulting in the diminishment of private property rights and values.
This includes over-reaching land use regulations, exaction and
other limitations that significantly diminish private property rights
without compensation.
There is wide concern of increasingly significant intrusions by
government into the rights of farmers and their right to sell their
farm land at the best possible price available.
If government is going to require open space or a "Save the Farms"
philosophy, then the land owner should be compensated for any losses he
might incur due to decreased property values.
The building and development industries are two of the more heavily
regulated industries. Both businesses require significant capital, long
range planning and vision, all of which can be significantly affected
by a burdensome and often subjective regulatory environment. The
ability to deliver quality housing and a product to market requires
stability in several areas, including the regulatory environment in
which the businesses must be conducted. Yet the regulatory environment
in which business is conducted tends to be volatile and in many cases
subjective, making it increasingly difficult to operate within.
The building and development industries and government agencies
must work with each other to establish a trusting working relationship.
Quality developments in our communities are goals sought by both
private industry and the government, and can only be attained by an
attitude of trust and respect for the roles of each in the process and
not by the creation of an adversarial environment. Despite sincere
efforts by the private sector and government to establish this
relationship, there will be times when such efforts are unsuccessful.
If a breakdown in this relationship occurs resulting in an unacceptable
intrusion into private property rights, then there should be methods
that allow a speedy resolution to determine whether government has
exceeded its authority, and, if appropriate to compensate the private
FCAROL Harding - 05/10/00 -Docket#2000 21, PL1408 Chg Zone Ag to PUD Page 31
property owner for the losses suffered.
Sincerely,
Tom Cullison
Manager Cullison Family Farms, LLC
Windsor, Colorado
Contact Information:
Tom Cullison
4636 W. 1st Street
Greeley, CO 80634
HM: (970) 353-4251
WK: (970) 346-7403
alt M0 2=537
MEN f � t„m.y�mm..tic P;ya AWN.lw`
NIEOuEstai T�.l
Apoem
PROKRTv WILL EE HELD S p'HO
pRBT,maw Q01 OMAN
OM Mav ,r, EAT IG« .
RN NON Nroftwom oar
l st1ElanNotfJiIPUHNOB '
C 4
CASE NO • _"NS
NAME . . . .... ....
h g.:. REQUEST
"'- , A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERSSN)TSB
J•> PROPERTY WILL BE NILO ATBM•MS '.
STREET.GREELEY.COLORADO EBSII,
•: AT
FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL Me
WELO COUNTY DEPT OF Pa
• 1 .
EXHIBIT
t 453'7
// '
i
Ly
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
PUD. Goal 2 states:
"Encourage creative approaches
to land development which will
result in environments of distinct
identity and character. "
ii EXHIBIT
T
CA *537
Summary of Land Use:
Gross Land Area: 382.75 Acres
R.O.W. Area: 31.25 Acres
Common Open Space Area: 58.17 Acres (15.2% of Gross)
Net Residential Land Area: 293.33 Acres
Summary of Residential Land Use:
Net Residential Land Area 293.33 Acres
Number of Proposed Lots 114
Gross Density 3.36 Acres
Net Density 2.57 Acres per Lot
.39 units per acre
Smallest Lot 1.5 Acres
Largest Lot 11.76 Acres
Typical Building Envelope .5 Acres
Typical Landscape Envelope 1.25 Acres
(Including Building Envelope)
Average Area of Individually 1.32 Acres
Owned Natural Area per lot
Total Area of Individually 147.61 Acres
Owned Natural Area
NOTES:
1. All lots less than 2 acres are adjacent to Common Open Space.
2. 37% of the lots are between 1.5 and 2 acres.
3. 30% of the lots are between 2 and 2.5 acres.
4. 33% of the lots are larger than 2.5 acres.
WILDLIFE
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
W. Policy 1 .1 states: "Conflicts with fish
and wildlife habitats and migration routes shall
be considered in land development.
Developments adjacent to rivers and streams,
waterfowl areas, and important or critical
wildlife areas should incorporate reduced
densities, adequate setbacks and buffered
areas as prescribed by the Colorado Division
of Wildlife. "
r
OPEN SPACE
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
Goal 5 states: "The County will strive to
conserve significant stands of trees and
shrubs, large expanses of prairie grasses, and
unique forms of vegetation and land area."
O. Policy 5.2 states: "Attractive, drought-
tolerant landscaping should be strongly
encouraged in all land use documents. "
O. Policy 5.3 states: "Drainage channels
should be designed to incorporate natural
vegetation and be constructed to conform to
the natural landscape; channelization of
natural drainage ways is strongly
discouraged. "
O. Goal 6 states: "Provision should be
made for open space to meet human needs
throughout the County in order to protect and
enhance the quality of life and enjoyment of
the environment "
REGIONAL TRAIL LINK:
O. Goal 9 states: "The private sector, non-
county agencies, and other governmental
jurisdictions should be encouraged to
participate in open space preservation and
trails development in Weld County. "
Right of Way
4'shoulder
in
- T - �- .. - T - r
40'min. I
I from ROW or 50•
1 wawetlandsI min.
{ 1 Landscape Envelope:
25'min.torn The landscape envelope
open alpaca
r ——— contains all irrigated/
I I ornamental landscape planting
1 10' I 1 including trees and shrub
min. I plantings. The amount of
zz I I irrigated landscape will be
a4 limited to 20,000 square feet
unless a xeriscape landscape
I I which will utilize less water per
I square foot is proposed.
I 60'min.fio�ROW �,
I
I
1 I 1 Lot Boundary and
I \ I Open Space:
J
The open space between the
Ilandscape envelope and the lot
1 so min. 1
e0'max. boundary will be planted to
match the Common Open
\ I __-1— _ - ar _ _ Space and will be maintained
I I I I by the Homeowner's
1 I I I I 1 Association.
i 50'typ. L J L ...
J m.-\ -
Building Envelope:
The building envelope will contain all of the vertical!
permanent improvements, including buildings,
outbuildings, fences, decks, gazebos, etc.
Septic Envelope:
The septic envelopes shown on the plans are 2,500 square feet
(42 x 60) and are located based upon the following criteria:
- minimum of 10 feet from any property line
- minimum of 20 feet from any structure
- minimum of 100 feet from any water course
ie: Larimer and Weld Canal, Wetlands
- minimum of 200 feet from Windsor Reservoir
Please see site plans for locations of Septic Envelopes
PUBLIC FACILITIES
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
P. Goal 1 states: "Promote efficient and cost
effective delivery of public facilities and
services. "
P. Goal 2 states: "Require adequate facilities
and services to assure the health, safety,
and general welfare of the present and
future residents of Weld County. "
P. Policy 2.3 states: "The County will
encourage the development of a balanced
and cost effective transportation and
circulation system by promoting higher
density cluster uses in and around existing
municipalities and mixed use development
areas and activity centers. This will help to
ensure that maximum efficiency and use
are derived from investment in existing
public facilities;"
l
MONITORING/VENTILATION DIVERSION VALVE
PORTS ACCESS TO 'ZABEL'
'INFILTRATOR' CHAMBER SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
SYSTEM FILTER
SEPTIC TANK
SEPTIC TANK ACCESS
PORTS, TYPICAL
SIZE OF LEACH FIELD
MAY VARY DUE TO THE SIZE
OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE
AND SOILS CONDITIONS I
SEPTIC LINE FROM
RESIDENCE.
---APPROXIMATE SEPTIC SYSTEM
ENVELOPE (40' X 60' = 2400 S.F.) �
Septic System - Plan
Typical Septic System '�„
Layout - Plan View o 10' 15' 20'
/ ptic System Management and Maintenance
Design Approval
Weld County
Soaring Eagle Ranch Homeowner's Association
Construction Inspection
Weld County Health Department
Post-Construction Inspection
Developer's Representative
• verify that grade falls away from septic leach field
• locate and inspect access/ventilation ports
• locate and inspect diversion valve
• locate and inspect septic tank access ports
Annual Inspection
Homeowner's Association Representative
• inspect septic tank and measure sludge level
• clean 'Zabel' effluent filter
• switch septic fields by turning diversion valve
• inspect leach fields utilizing monitoring ports
• open ventilation ports on idle leach field
• close ventilation ports on active leach field
• file a report on the condition of the system
Four Year Inspection
Homeowner's Association Representative
• pump septic tank
• normal annual inspection items
�� IIIIIIN
� µ
loft
II II
II
STATE HIGHWAY 257 I
LJI/1
u — II - - — : I: IL � i i,
I �_� i �1 _
_ " _ get
proposed Leech Fad Ir
V`' i13 '
Z
may/ A 7
m
/ it m
o--o
<Ili 1
6 0
Omm
WPOSOR RESEAVOP -t„/' cc 3—/ <0
O C a
N Q 0
(7
n r:. cwT4 m r s ..t 'rnl w.d Ali °,;.s-_t ''. -C:-.-,14-..-..'.. t. 0 , a %': t.?44,0' �s`
_ Fig 11
., 1,11111
I II
MEM . _, sr,
STATE HIGHWAY 257
_ III ,.['. . '12-j []u FL][I I [J _ E, i rir1 1t3r3_
lir k. r- r-qtr �Ir-� � �
- I u nii , 1 %
. 1 I � 'SIC_
I. I L]C C]L� LJJ
Z
m%
O
/l H
, ' , , t a _(8
�yqr.' 7t
(� CJf l CiI�LYI �� F2
� �� - �' r ic:_il L-3:5_,/,i
f �� 1
iii
i W
''' \'
r.
�` � vm
W m m
/ _/..2' ° m o
<J
..- w C
I / o
WtcSOR RESERVOR �_ < O a
N 0 m
moo,taEF an w• , r-'-4 * , Pq 4 !: e -2: �"nt-4 i '47-,--;---�
E
.,. s ,.1 �. - �_ �* " � L.. . �a"9 s-5-L-,24;71.,> -ate � . ... x _ ,i,„b �t,F;9 2i
/ I ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK
SOARING EAGLE RANCH
SOARING EAGLE RANCH
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BUDGET
(PROJECTED)
REVENUE:
114 LOTS @ $400 each per year $45,600
Interest from Reserve Accounts $ 1,000 $46,600
TOTAL REVENUE: $46,600
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE:
Landscape $ 7,500
Snow Removal $ 2,500
Irrigation Water $ 5,500
Pump Electric $ 1,500
Street Light Electric $ 400
Insurance $ 1,460
Administration $ 500
TOTAL MAINTENANCE: $19,360 $19,360
ANNUAL RESERVES:
Road (3.75 Miles) * $ 7,000
Landscape Replacement ** $ 1,000
Septic Management *** I $18,240 _
Irrigation System **** I $ 1,000
TOTAL ANNUAL RESERVES: I $27,240 $27,240
TOTAL EXPENSES: $46,600
See Notes Regarding Reserves
9
ANTICIPATED LAND USES
COMPATIBILITY
Section 6.4.3.1 .3: That the USES which
would be permitted shall be compatible with
the existing or future development of the
surrounding area as permitted by the existing
Zoning, and with the future development as
projected by the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN or
MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities.
AGRICULTURAL
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
A. Goal 3 in the Agricultural section of the Comp Plan
states: "Discourage urban scale residential, commer-
cial, and industrial development which is not located
adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities."
A. Policy 4.1 .8 states: "Utilize techniques such as ease-
ments, clusters, building envelopes, and setbacks to
minimize the impacts on surrounding agricultural
land when conversion to another use occurs."
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES -
STATEMENTS OF CONSISTENCY:
UGB. Goal 2 states: "Concentrate urban development
in or adjacent to existing municipalities or the 1-25
Mixed Use Development Area, and maintain urban
growth boundary areas that provide an official
designation between future urban and non-urban
uses."
P. Policy 2.3 states: "The County will encourage the
development of a balanced and cost effective transpor-
tation and circulation system by promoting higher
density cluster uses in and around existing municipali-
ties and mixed use development areas and activity
centers. This will help to ensure that maximum effi-
ciency and use are derived from investment in existing
public facilities;"
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK
SOARING EAGLE RANCH
aLt
PEAK SEASON DESIGN
AND ANNUAL WATER RE UIREMENTS:
Irrigated Area
54 acres
Peak Season Design
Irrigation Requirement
0.25 inches/day
Operating Loss
0.06 inches
Total Daily Application Requirement
.31 inches
Total Daily Application Requirement
1.39 acre feet
Total Daily Application Requirement
453,742 gallons
Seasonal Irrigation Requirements
36.0 inches
Seasonal Effective Precipitation
7.0 inches
Total Seasonal Irrigation Application
29.0 inches
Total Seasonal Irrigation Application
130.5 acre feet
Total Seasonal Irrigation Application
42,537,;198 gallons
SEE "NOTES" ON FOLLOWING PAGE:
7
SUMMARY
1 ) Plan meets and exceeds the Planning
Department criteria.
2) Wildlife issues have been addressed.
3) Open Space, Amenities and Trails have
been included.
4) Access issues have been addressed.
5) Health and Safety Designs meet or exceed
requirements.
6) Surrounding Property Owners and the
Towns support the project.
7) Soaring Eagle Ranch is consistent with
Weld County Policies.
Planning Commission concerns:
► IMPACTS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
► IMPACTS TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
► WATER SUPPLY AND FIRE PROTECTION ISSUES
D. CONTAMINATION OF WINDSOR RESERVOIR FROM
SEPTIC SYSTEMS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH WATER
TABLE AND CLOSE PROXIMITY OF BEDROCK
D. LOSS OF PRIME FARMGROUND
D. SAFETY OF THE ACCESSES TO THE SITE
D. IMPACTS TO COUNTY ROADS
► CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE TRAIL TO THE DITCH
D. ACCESS FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE DITCH
D. LOCATION OF AN URBAN SCALE SUBDIVISION
OUTSIDE OF AN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
D. MANAGEMENT OF GROWTH
I. SEPTIC ISSUES
iEXHIBIT
ea 453�
Hello