The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About870123.tiff RESOLUTION RE: DENY CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) TO P.U.D. (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) FOR BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 18th day of February, 1987 , at 2: 00 p.m. for the purpose of hearing the application of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development, Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak, 1796 East Sopris Creek Road , Carbondale, Colorado 81623 , and C.R.S. Investments, 1333 West 120th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80234 , requesting a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential, and oil and gas production facilities for a parcel of land located on the following described real estate, to-wit: N1, Section 5 , Township 2 North , Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, the applicant was represented by John McCarty, of McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. , and Harvey Curtis, Attorney, and WHEREAS, Section 28. 4 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of such a Change of Zone, and WHEREAS, said hearing was continued from January 28 , 1987 , to allow further study and review of the materials presented at the earlier hearings , and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all the testimony and statements of those present at both hearings , has studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission, and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be denied for the following reasons: 1 . The proposed Planned Unit Development District is not compatible with the future development of the subject site and the surrounding area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Longmont. A portion of this site is within Longmont' s Saint Vrain Valley Planning Area and is designated for agricultural uses. 870123 Page 2 RE: DENY COZ - BAY SHORES PUD 2. The proposed Planned Unit Development district is not compatible with the previous Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is located within an area that is designated for agricultural uses and the proposed Planned Unit Development district is predominantly for residential uses. Although the revised Weld County Comprehensive Plan considers other potential uses for this site and neighborhood , the Planned Unit Development District is being considered under the previous Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time the request was considered by the Planning Commission. 3. Street and highway facilities providing access to the property are not adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed Planned Unit Development district and the proposed timing of future development of these facilities is not considered to be adequate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development, Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) on the above referenced parcel of land be, and hereby is , denied. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded , adopted by the following vote on the 18th day of February, A.D. , 1987. / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: t2Aw 7 ,( Lr.i WELD COU 9ORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board r acy an . (u-:c„,to' C.W. Kirb , Pro- em Deputy County Clerk EXCUSED APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gene R. Brantner C Ja, que a J son ' County Attorney ,. Frank Yamag chi 870123 FEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 86-78 RE: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) TO P.U.D. (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) - BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ROBERT AND SUSAN J. PIETRZAK AND C.R.S. INVESTMENTS A public hearing was conducted on February 18, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. , with the following present: Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman Commissioner C.W. Kirby, Pro-Tem Commissioner Gene Brantner - Excused Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Mary Reiff Assistant County Attorney, Lee D. Morrison Planning Department representative, Keith Schuett The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 1, 1986, and duly published December 4, 1986, in the Johnstown Breeze, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development, Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production facilities. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this matter of record and said this matter was continued from January 28, with limited additional testimony to be received today. John McCarty, of McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc., and Harvey Curtis, Attorney, represented the applicants at this hearing. Discussion was held concerning road improvements. Drew Scheltinga, Director of Engineering Services, came forward to answer questions of the Board. Public testimony was offered by: Jim Vetting, president of Union Reservoir Company; Dennis Hiatt, of the Del Camino Business Association; and Barbara Japha, Attorney representing Great Western Railroad. After further discussion, Commissioner Johnson moved to meet in executive session with Mr. Morrison. Commissioner Yamaguchi seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. (Tape Change #87-19) Upon reconvening, Mr. Morrison summarized the issues which were discussed in the executive session as being: the application of the Ordinance to the questions regarding the compatability of this proposal with the adjacent land owners; the phasing of the access in relationship to the zone change and plan approvals; and the relationship of this application to the previous and current Comprehensive Plans. Chairman Lacy explained that, with Commissioner Brantner being absent, if this hearing should result in a tie vote, Commissioner Brantner would listen to the tape of this hearing and cast the deciding vote. Commissioner Johnson moved to deny the request for a Change of Zone, saying that the request is not consistent with the previous Comprehensive Plan, under which this request must be considered. Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion. After further comments by Commissioner Johnson and Chairman Lacy, on a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. Tage 2 CERTIFICATION - BAY SHORES -This Certification was approved on the 2nd day of March, 1987. APPROVED: t, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS _ATTEST: Ql- +24, �'� WELD COUN , LORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the B(24-1 Gord cy, C a r n w X94---� o7Yzrai-c�- ,.��c- _�Ci ..Ieputy Countyrk C.W. Kirby, Pro- em -EXCUSED Gene R. Brant,er1 J. que'%ne .hn=on EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL Frank Yamaguchi TAPE #87-18 & #87-19 DOCKET #86-78 PL0095 ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY ' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS : FEBRUARY 18, 1987 DOCKET # 87-4 USR-SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, STEVE & BRENDA JONES -AND MIKE & PAULA GEBO DOCKET # 87-5 USR.SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, STEVE & BRENDA JONES AND MIKE & PAULA GEBO DOCKET # 86-78 COZ-A TO PUD, BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLEASE write or print legibly your name , address and the DOG # (as Listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending . NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING B(Li bc*a c M. claf ika_ /700 131Oc euay,SG',ie /80C .1' oir-er r+ J{/4i'c'S . L , 1� 4conl ft 4 4� c ( 7 LoN, w w «� 5 wi> f'>iyc_ �� G .J S , EL.,_ d5,_4(— L// p7 `�'/ ,i' F, Yr all ntf-Y TTZ ih a$ 1--not n- 17 gi o-rrAy //J9- ,^' �C.ty-,c 5 G, C. 'Lf a. n,_ C ;{/%f. ()S YS-S- j 1v //r d .'� t-E,-tt (3 ✓ ^f2,y 2s a J v _ t - :.r2 77/..c-cart A) rr0 ar .7—ext;&u -X,,-/ 1O7. rno.,-f dJ d_7Y . hl r--e-.0. 64244 -J e�p 47Gd - C��t_ /--- �� _____ , --") t, _�`'`r°v k---- 9 1C plc r,, l, co 20c o t i, i, +J G7 la-zre� ka;ill �r', vF id.,)0 44Y/!B. r�'��C7/� '�V c'� `J�eorc S !0123 LCM;N ULTANTS, INC. February 9, 1987 /, h f�a 7 Gordon Lacey, Chairman Weld County Board of County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Lacey: Re: Bay Shores B.U.D. , Weld County Case No. Z-430:86:5 During our presentation to the Board of County Commisioners on the Above referenced project, it became apparent that there were several items of clarification or correction which needed to brought to your attention. The first item is a discrepancy between projected property tax income found in our initial submittal, bound in the blue cover labeled "Bay Shores P.U.D." , and the numbers which I gave to the Board o£ County Commissioners during my presentation at the hearing. The figures found on page 8 in the bound submittal package of the P.U.D. Development Plan narrative were improperly Arrived at when multiplying the assessed value times the current mill levy. A corrected chart is presented below: TAX FROM CORRECTED AGENCY MILL LEVY BAY SHORE PUD TAX Weld County 19.648 $ 35.936 S -359,381 St. Vrain School RE1J 61 .890 113, 196 1, 132,023 Water 1 .000 1 ,829 18.291 Water District 0.500 914 9, 145 Longmont Fire -6.081 11 , 122 111 ,227 Protection District Library 1 .-500 2.743 27.436 St. Vrain Sanitation 15.000 27,435 274,365 District 105.619 5193, 175 51 ,931 ,750 The second item concerns the Lower Oligarchy Ditch. In testimony during the hearing, many references were made to the Oligarchy Ditch. For the record, there are actually three Oligarchy Ditches. The Oligarchy Irrigation Ditch conveys water from the St. Vrain River to an area near Hygiene. The Oligarchy Extension Ditch was built at a later date and carries water from Hygiene to the east side of Longmont in the vicinity of Weld County Road 1 . 7O3 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT,CO. BO5O1 772-7755/449-4373 ry 870123 Gordon Lacey Page 2 February 9, 1987 The third is the Lower Oligarchy Ditch. It carries water from the area of the Boulder-Weld County line (Wel-d County Road 1) to the George Adam farm which is located near Weld County Road 5. approximately one-half mile east of the north end of the Union Reservoir. The Lower Oligarchy Ditch is the ditch running through Bay Shores P.U.D. It has about 74 ehares of stock spread among 12 or 13 share holders. Only 5 shareholders are on the ditch after it leaves the Bay Shores project. The maximum water diverted into the ditch, according to Bill Shell . Ditch Rider. is about 25 second feet. We have attached photographs of the Lower Oligarchy Ditch to give you a relative size of depth and width. The location of grasses on the ditch -bank indicate that normal flows are approximately 2'3" -deep. This compares to the Oligarchy Extension Ditch in Longmont, which in some locations has been designed to carry 1.000 c.f.s in a cross-section that consists of a concrete channel 10 feet wide at the bottom, 4 feet deep with 1: 1 side slopes, and continuing up with earthen side slopes 7 feet at a cross slope of 4: 1 . Photographs of this cross-section are also attached. "The Lower Oligarchy Ditch running through the Bay Shores property does not present the type of hazard that exists with the cross-section and flow rates found in the Oligarchy and Oligarchy Extension. The third item is relative to commitments made by Bay Shores to the County Commissioners in the packet with a cover letter dated Janaury 27, 1987. In the exhibits attached to that letter, C.R.S. Investments, Inc. made commitments to the -County Commissioners regarding The Li-eat Western Railway (Exhibit 7) , the Lower Oligarchy Ditch Company (Exhibit 9) , and commitments regarding the Union Reservoir Company (Exhibit 13) . Exhibit 7, the letter regarding The Great Western Railway, contains 6 specific items that C.R.S. has agreed to, in its efforts to minimize any negative impact on this adjoining land _use. C.R.S. Investments. Inc. has agreed to also place these 6 items on the Rezoning Map. In Exhibit 9. C.R.5. Investments. Inc. agrees to protect the Lower Oligarchy Ditch through four specific items. -C.R.S. Investments. Inc. is agreeable to placing this list of items on the P.U.D. Rezoning ?lap. In Exhibit 13, C.R.S. Investments. Inc. has committed, through 6 items. to minimize the impact on the Union Reservoir Company. C.R.S. Investments. Inc. is agreeable to placing these 6 items on the P.U.D. Rezoning Map. / 123 Gordon Lacey Page 3 February 9, 1927 The -fourth item concerns statements that have been made regarding trains using The Treat Western -Railway. We believe that it is only the occasional -day when two trains use the track through Bay Shores. The decision on the rezoning of May Shores should be decided on -existing conditions. not on speculation or wishful thinking. Finally, statements have been made about controlling runoff into the Lower Oligarchy witch and Union Reservoir. The Weld County storm drainage requirements are specific with respect to controlling runoff ant Bay Shores will comply. C.R.S. Investments, Inc. is agreeable to placing language on the P.U.G. Rezoning Map which will limit runoff from Bay Shores onto any adjoining land at the historic rates. This applies to all surrounding property owenrs. We hope that this information will be valuable to you in correcting, expanding, and clarifying testimony which was given at the hearing on January 28, 1987. We will be available at the continuance meeting on February 18 to answer any questions -which may come up at that time. Sincerely yours, McCarty Engineering Consult-ants, Inc. �J hn A. McCarty, .E. JAM/sm cc: File -#1687 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. Harvey Curtis Lee Morrison Keith Schuett Neal Pillar William Southard Pete Ascher Betty Ann Newby 870123 r�� . - r L t ,I, 71k 3t' -r. . ,g� • .? R 13 ""it 4� •. , y ' ' r• • N.h{i h 'tie _Z\`x11,1 IC K 1{ s WF'P.� !9 /�� ji If -Ter‘Yii- "^ir ..I. 11F IYh' rilel..v .. „ rM'h,• b,.•1E' - rt- . -9-81 Ui: J ERS! OF -o &C CW& RC'li 1-9-8'7 Ukr-U0 LcoKiri(i WEST FRCr-I R si UntER Waco CO RD 3Y2 WELD CO, , -3 /- LcwE. CucAK- r�, 35'rxS6 A.1Ct-: RUG C D -1 IAL. C--k7" DcTCI-t, 3'A E ' w tE ir0 iooIFT-'Ct--I; -,I Ht "V1 Wit)E RT c.N' OF bcPTH \. \YtAl �i 'e ----i . , .4r �� 1 • Ai: ,A . 4. • t 7tir — °a•. qZ.. X _ T �, itAl:: L 1 '-' tt -. .4, f `,` a-9-''7 Oiu� lcn) s- c URE BOG' CST .-9-87 OF J NU:, cr G -P,RQM*tt ,- C- ' A)CR 3/a_ cti l.-c.4),.. CLc-r*Rcrn / Stcr., ,-__R 5ir.:C- U/COC �.: 9 i /\,C LIILTt. �;KUc.71-IRc. Is ?"J r FAD. '7' IKi LC &NC,\) T. „ "iCH wttTH IC'. vAFDE. WP\-1-E'2,,, F.AC-K RT DS' WA c,c HFRK d` UP tir CernCKC iE BF'AFc 8'70123 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AVENUE SHOPS ,t11414* 1� � P. 0.MIOX 537 \w LOVELAND, COLORADO 60539 i� 410 JOHN P. ASCHER PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER A O February 9, 1987 ;FAST FREIGHT] • Mr. Gordon Lacy - Chairman, Weld County Commissioners Mr. Gene R. Brantner - Weld County Commissioner 7r�lh«N Ms. Jacklyn Johnson - Weld County Commissioner JI-- ' . 7 Mr. Frank Yamaguchi - Weld County Commissioner , . . FE81 19p7 Mr. Bill Kirby - Weld County Commissioner LS .//Ye ,yam RE: Bayshores Planned United Development Rezoning. - - ca Herewith is The Great Western Railway' s package for your reference and consideration as follows: 1. Red Book. 2. Mr. Bobl-ak' s letter and cost impact analysis -of January 6, to applicants. 3. Greeley Tribune page ]. "Bleak Pictur-e" article and GWR' s favorable input to Weld County' s economy. 4. Greeley Tribune. . .December 14, 1-986. . .25th Anniversary article 20 children killed in school bus at railroad srossing. . . if the Weld County Commission for some reason approves the Bayshores rezoning, we think it would be unconscionable not to nequir-e the developers at their expense, to construct a grade crossing separation at Road 3 1/2. We respectfully submit that continued economic development and safety to the county' s residents, deserve your rejection of this residential rezoning as previously turned down by Weld County' s Planning C-ommission. I look forward to working with you to promote Weld County' s and Colorado' s interests. Please advise whenever The Great Western Railway can assist you. Yours very truly, John P. Ascher JPA:es cc: Mr. lack Baier - Transportation Engineer, State of Colorado Mr. Lee D. Morrison - -Attorney, Weld County Mr. Keith Schuett - Planner, Department of Planning, Greeley Ms. Barbara Japha - Attorney, Holme Roberts & Owen SERVING COLORADO, OREGON. AND CALIFORNIA 870123 INDUSTRIAL SITES AVAILABLE IN OUR EXPANDING MARKET AREAS c)(jflh%T TELEPHONE: (303) 667-6803 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AVENUE SHOPS It Tilts P. O. BOX 537 11 i t LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539 y FAST FREIGHT] February 6, 19_87 Mr. Kim Collins CRS Investments Inc. 1333 West 120 Avenue Suite 308 Denver, CO 80234 RE: BAYSHORES PLANNED UNITED DEVELOPMENT REZONING Dear Mr. Collins: CRS Investments has offered $12,500 for full s-atisfaction with regard to the Bayshores rezoning issue. We feel that this settlement is neither fair nor equitable. We base our decision on the following three reasons which -I have outlined below: 1. Additional costs borne by Great Western Railway to maintain the crossing. 2. An adequate safety program to protect the residents of the development. 3. The Loss of potential industrial development in the area. Please find attached a 5 year cost impact analysis for the Great Western Railway if the Bayshores project is approve-d. The financial analysis only takes into consideration the cost to Great Western Railway of this project. it does not take into consideration the lass of life and injuries which may occur due to the close proximity of the railroad to this development. I have presented a five year time frame for illustration purposes only. In reality, these costs will be incurred permanently _over time. The Great Western Railway has been a -faithful Weld County taxpayer -for over 85 years and realizes what a project like this means in terms of safety and cost. The Railway operates a similar line in California/Oregon. This was featured on the CBS Evening News in May, 1986 with -Dan Rather, as being one of the most efficiently run short—lines in the -country. Our safety record is equally as impeccable. Colorado, specifically the -Front Range, is trying to attract industries to relocate in this area. With -no navigable waterways, railroads become even more important in developing the industrial -potential that many of our current public officials are trying to accomplish. The Great Western Railway is attempting, and succeeding, in bringing new industries to the area with additional increases in jobs contributing geometrically to Weld County's tax base. SERVING COLORADO,-OREGON,-AND CALIFORNIA 870123 INDUSTRIAL SITES AV-AILABLE IN OUR EXPANDING MARKET AREAS TELEPHONE: (303) 667-6083 Mr. Kim Collins February 6, 1987 Page Two One of the biggest concerns the Great Western Railway has, is not in terms of profit , but in terms of safety. If a traffic fatality occurs at the crossing or anywhere along the tracks in close proximity to this project , questions will arise as to why residences were built so close to a railroad. Great Western Railway and CRS will become -embroiled in expensive and lengthy Lawsuits with injured residents and/or their heirs. Once the project is completed and CRS is no longer tied to it , the Great Western Railway will stand to be viewed as the "sole bad guy" in the aforementioned situations. A similar situ ation occurs with individuals who decide to move near Stapleton Airport and begin to wonder why it ' s so noisy. These same residents also live with the ever present fear of an airline accident. There are developers, now as we speak, attempting to put on the drawing boards residential projects extremely close to the new airport that will be replacing Stapleton in the future. Noise, congestion, and the fear of accidents, will most certainly follow. This type of situation is what the Great Western Railway is trying to avoid, hence our stand on this issue. With safety and efficient service its primary objective, the Great Western Railway continues to seek ways to re-zone rail operations out of the highly populated areas -and/or congested areas. With traffic to reach 5,000 vehicles per day, as projected by CRS, the Great Western Railway views the Bayshores proposal as potentially dangerous with no adequate coverage for Great Western Railway and the surrounding residents. We are not trying to present to you an impossible situation to overcome, -but we would like to explain to you some of the problems that we face in operating the railroad for profit while trying to balance the delicate nature of community, safety, and growth. The Great Western Railway will not "profit" from any offer made by CRS Investment. Any monies received -by Great Western Railway from CRS should be to cover direct and indirect costs incurred over the life of the project. • To date, no such offer -has been presented. We feel this situation is serious enough to pursue our views in a court of law if the project is approved without addressing our concerns for both the residents of this development and the financial burden to Great Western Railway. If you have any questions concerning our views, _please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Steve _Boblak Enclosures 870123 Mr. Kim Collins February 6, 1987 Page Three cc: Mr. Jack Baier - Transportation Engineer, State of Colorado Mr. Lee D. Morrison - Attorney, Weld County Mr. Keith Schuett - Planner, Department of Planning, Greeley Ms. Barbara Japha - Attorney, Holme Roberts & Owen Mr. Gordon Lacy - Chairman, Weld County Commissioners Mr. Gene R. -Brantner - Veld County Commissioner Ms. Jacklyn Johnson - Weld County -Commissioner Mr. Frank Yamaguchi - Weld County Commissioner Mr. Bill Kirby - Weld County Commissioner 870123 06-Feh-97 Great We=stern Railway Cost Impact Analysis - baysheres Growth Factors Per Year: Net Income (1) 5.001: Maintenance 5.007. Accident Costs 5.001 Accidents per Year 4 Insuranc-e 5.00'!. 1907 1988 1989 1999 1991 Revenue Net Income Loss $45,000 $47,250 549,413 $52,093 154,599 Maintenance -Expense: Gate Crossing $500 $525 $551 $579 $60E Flashers/Signals (2) $2,020 $2, 100 $2,205 $2,315 $2,431 Accident Expense: Investigation/8upervision $10,000 $10,500 $11,025 $11,575 $12, 155 Train Delays $2,000 $2,100 $2,205 $2,315 $2,4;;1 Equipment Repair $10,000 410,500 $11,025 $11,576 $12,155 Insurance Expense: Premium. Increase $20,000 $21,000 $22,050 $23,153 $24,310 Total Costs - -Baysshores $B5,500 $53,975 $98,1674 $123,607 $138,780 tffffffffffiffff*ftfiffffffffffffffffii4fiiiififfffft * PV of Total Costs Over -5 Yrs @ 131 5270, 142 i * Offer Proposed by Bayshores ($12,500). + f * NPY - 5 Year Cost to BWR Today $265,642* iff.ff iiifff*i**iii**ffff**tf*Offiffii**+***1**filft*If (1) Based on gross revenues of $250,200 with en estimated 18X net income impact. (2) If gates were to be installed, the yearly maintenance would be $9,000 per year. 870123 Please note that Weld County unemployment (excluding the City of Greeley) is 2853. The Great Western Railway (a county operation) by virtue of its strategic location, competitive pricing and customer—oriented service, has in the past three year' s at industries to Weld County that have added 270 quality—type jobs. If GWR were abandoned (and a large segment of America ' s low traffic density rail lines have been scrapped — over 3000 miles in Colorado alone) , 294 existing jobs would be lost to Weld County. 11 Area unemployment 10 April through December 1986 - D 7 ?. 9.9 9. y 9 Greeley 9.2 • 9.5 O i 4410 8.4 8.8 8 8.7 9.1 *a*#i+it`y�V 9 8.1 8:1 a a+ a is 4a 4 lr,iNie`�. 1 Weld 7.8 8.1 +� a a"+ c.� 7.5 -1It- r�i 7 7.4 e �- .� � rib 6.9 6 Unadjusted figures provided by Colorado Dept.of Labor and Unemployment p • JIn Apr May , -June- July ", r u>1 '45ept • v *� NRv z•- — `"�` / LLH", ""m..Bleak picture here for jobs Friday, February 1987 GREELEY (Cob.) TRIBUNE Stephen Frayser, director of the Greeley/Weld Economic 58597 found jobs while 5,896 were Development Action Partnership, out of work, according to state fig- By MARK STUTZ said he is not as surprised with the rrmunestowmer Nationally high rate. Although Greeley-area ores. companies announced plans for Colorado's unemployment rate The Greeley and Weld County also continued upward in unemployment rates climbed to January rate 1,500-plus jobs last year, 1,000 of December, reaching an adjusted those remain to be the highest levels of the year in rate of 8.1 percent compared with December to end what many of- is 6.7 percent "I felt all along that it would con- 6.3 percent for the same period in ficals thought would be a better tinue to rise until the end of the 1985. Local adjusted figures were year for the job market. WASHINGTON (AP) —The year—and that's what happened," not yet available for Greeley,. According to the Colorado economy created 375,000 to Frayser said. "I still think that although Weld's adjusted rate was Department of Labor and 450,000 jobs last month to hold we're going to see a decline by the 8.6percent. Employment, Greeley's the civilian unemployment end of the current year." December's total unemployed of unemployment rate climbed to 10.7 rate at 6.7 percent, the lowest For December, 25,329 people 138,300 is a record for the number. percent in December from 9.5 per- in nearly seven years, the were employed and 3,043 were un- cent in November. Weld posted a government said today. employed in Greeley; countywide, _ See UNEMPLOYMENT,Page A14 rate of 9.1 percent, up from 8.1 The number of unemployed UNEMPLOYMENT percent the previous month. Americans, meanwhile, rose Several Greeley officials said the by 74,000 to 8,023,000 after dip- best thing about the report is that it ping below 8 million for the of out-of-fork Colorado residents, signals the end of 1986, although first time since mid-1981. surpassing the previous high set in some are surprised that The job gains almost mir- September 1982 by 200. In 1982, unemployment went up during a rored a growth in the labor however,the labor force was much strong year for construction. force of 450,000. In December, smaller, resulting in a high 8.6 "It's disturbing to us (the City the labor force had dropped by jobless percentage, the report Council) that we have these fig- 90,000 and the jobless rate fell noted. ores; although I don't completely 0.2 percentage point from agree with them' Mayor Bob November's 6.9 percent. The December figure was 1,200' Markley said. "I really have to The Labor Department said more than November, and 29,500 question the validity of the report the normal seasonal decline in above the number recorded a year for the last month because we've employment after the ago. had such a good winter and fall in Christmas buying season did The high rates for Greeley and commercial construction." not develop this year, as some Weld reversed a downward trend. Markley said the one possible economists had expected. For reason for the unemployment in- instance,employment in retail Greeley's unemployment was high crease might be that Greeley is at- stores and restaurants grew by early in 1986 but reached a low of tracting more people looking for 165,000 in January after 8.1 percent in September.The Weld work. It would be an ironic twist in seasonal adjustments. rate dropped to 6.9 percent during light of the city and county efforts Without the seasonal .ad- - the same month. to increase employment and im- justment process, however, prove the economy,he said. the bureau reported an actual However, that trend reversed in "I'm discouraged— but I'm not drop of 650,000 in retail trade October and December's figures really discouraged,"Markley said. jobs. now represent three straight mon- "I really don't expect this (high Construction employment the of increases. September's fig- unemployment) to last for a long also declined less than in a ures also marked the last time that time." normal January — by 225,000. Greeley and Weld's rate dropped Councilman Jack Cochran also is After seasonal adjustments, suspicious of the figures because that job total rose by 140,000. while the state and nation increas- other indicators — such as retail Manufacturers, meanwhile, edinunemploymenttotals. sales and construction activity — added 3,000 jobs, seasonally Adjusted unemployment rates in show the Weld area is doing well. adjusted, much fewer than the other areas include Denver, 7.5 He said he doesn't think that 41,000 December job gain, but percent; Boulder-Longmont, 6 many more people were moving to still the fourth straight mon- percent; Colorado Springs, 8.1 vreeley looking for jobs because thly increase. percent; Fort Collins-Loveland,7.0 apartment vacancy rates remain After retail trade, the percent;and Pueblo,12.2 percent. •elativelyhigh. largest job gain was posted by p �y�+,.q "It's really surprising — I'm business and medical services, 8 V 123 The highest unemployment in the iinrl of at a loss to explain the high 115,000. state was Costillo County with 25.3 lumbers,"Cochran said. percent, and the lowest was 3.0 - _ percent in Pitkin County. Loss of GWRy and its unique capability to attract industries would represent a potential 10.3% base increase in Weld County's unemployment. Demographic studies indicate that dependent service, retail and other, unemployment could drive this unfavorable increase to well over 257! The CWRy respectfully requests that the County Commission not remove from inventory the prime industrial property proposed by CRS Bayshores for a residential project of questionable value and safety. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AVENUE SHOPS / (1� P. O. BOX 537 (I LOVELAND, COLORADO 8O539 JOHN P. ASCHER PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERdr‘f i t-® [FAST FR7QMi1 870123 Memory of bus-crash t rror By MIKE PETERS still �] r Tribune Siamv,"er • It was cold that morning of Dec. 14, 1961 — 25 years ago today—with the chilly ground mist that 4G It was very quiet and calm forms on a hazy, frosty day in December. The children talked and laughed on Duane Harms' — a Stillness you can't explain. It school bus like they always did. was like the angels were gather- Harms stopped the bus along the route east of Greeley and Evans,picking up the children, some ing up the children. ,1 sleepy-eyed, some loud and boisterous, some anx- ious to get to their schools—Greeley High,Meeker Loretta Ford Junior High,Delta Elementary School. It was about 8:30 in the morning,and people said behind the school bus. We came around the corner later-it was possible Harms didn't hear the train and saw the bus torn in half and the train sitting • because the children were singing Christmas there.We ran to the bus and kids were everywhere. carols. We saw Glen step out of the bus and his face was It was near the intersection of Weld County Roads bleeding.We found Jimmy's body there,too. 52 and 43, east of Evans, when the bus started to "The man who was the first one there left to call cross a set of railroad tracks. The southbound, an ambulance and we were alone with the high-speed train hit the bus in the rear section, bus for a few minutes," Loretta Ford said. tearing it to pieces. Twenty children Bled; 17 were "You'd think there'd be all the noise of the injured.It was the single worst school bus accident thus far in U.S. history, and it plunged an entire children crying and screaming, but there town into mourning. wasn't. It was very quiet and calm — ea Some good things emerged from that tragedy and stillness you can't explain. It was like the the despair of losing 20 children:a toy store owner angels were gathering up the livren." in Greeley sent each of the victim's families a box of Joe and Katherine Brantner lived a short distance from the scene of the accident. toys for their remaining children; a Canadian woman who had lost a child sent a plant to each When a neighbor ran.T and told them,-they two family; thousands of cards and letters from around rushed to the crossing.There,they found the world came to comfort the survivors; and school children in Greeley were suddenly brought I together,transformed into a close-knit family. 20 Children Killed as Passenger Some memories of the day are hazy—lost in the -Train Hits School Bus East of Evans defense system of the mind that tries to block out tragedy.Some memories still hurt. I60than(*Was City°I Denver "I remember getting on the bus that morning, _ Plows Into Growler?School D,,t Bus and I sat in the second seat from the front," said _ Glen Ford."My brother Bruce was in the middle of the bus, and Jimmy —my oldest brother—sat on the back seat where he always did." Because of ` where they sat, Glen and Bruce lived through the '\ �' accident;Jimmy died instantly. .. "» After the accident, Glen and Bruce Ford, now - -__ residents of rural Kersey, said they couldn't "A"-IA' 'Z:74'711..71= -- remember the accident—only the aftermath. if SM is ht - • ' Bruce, a world champion rodeo cowboy, said he - - can't recall the day at all. "I doubt if you'll find anyone who was on that bus who can remember what happened." _ __ _ Glen,who is older,can't remember the accident, i but recalls momentary consciousness at the scene • after the collision."The next thing I remember,"he �•"'�� ri.,.p frn,M h, - -said, "was hearing my dad talking to me and the �.r.x"a,s,...m. kids crying.I heard Joe Brantner telling us we'd be all right. - "I woke up in the emergency room of the hospital. - _ Two days later,a kid called to talk to me. He was - a„. the first person to tell me Jimm had ""` _ Loretta Ford,mother of Bruce and been killed." -s • remembers the morning, although the memory _ ^ remains painful. "My husband was taking me to — work that morning and we were a short distance Page 1,Greeley Tribune,Dec. 14,1961. BUS TRAGEDY of their children—Kathy,9,and Mark,6— and check for the train.The road and track One of the key moments in the trial. he both dead. intersected at an angle then, and the bus said,was when a second-grade boy who lost Joe immediately started putting the in- driver had to look back over his shoulder to an olds sister on the bus and was injured jured children into the back of his station see if a train was coming.The road has been himself,testifiedon the stand. wagon. He sped off to Weld County General changed since then so it now is at a 90-degree "The big question was whether Harms Hospital before ambulances had arrived. angle with the tracks and it's easier to look stopped the bus before crossing the railroad The Brantners now live in Greeley only on both ways for a train. There also was no . tracks,"Shelton said."That question wasn't some weekends and spend most of their time signal at the intersection at the time of the answered until that little boy said he looked at a mountain home in the Red Feather accident, and it remains without signal out the bus window through a small space in Lakes area..Last week, while bluejays and lights today. • the frost and saw the ground stop moving. magpies scrambled for bread scraps under: Although the community initially was He knew the bus had stopped." the mountain pines outside their window,the angry with the bus driver — 23-year-oldAfter three days of testimony, the jury Brantners sat at the dining room table and 'Duane Harms—many of the survivors were went into deliberation at 11:30 at night and recalled the day. They tried to hold them forgiving. "I wrote him a Christmas letter, discussed the case until 6 a.m.the next day. back, but the tears from 25 years ago .and I think it helped both of us," said - They found Harmsinnocent. returned. Katherine Brantner."I think it made both of 'I'm not sure what happened to him "It was the worst thing you can imagine," I us feel better.' (Harms)after that,"Shelton said. "He lest Katherine said, "the worst thing that can • John Roberts, who was one of Harms' left tow-happen to you...this time of the year is still bosses,paid the man's$1,000 bail out of his , Roberts said Harms moved his wife and hard for us. 'own pocket. "He was a good boy, I know baby to ChristmasCalifornia.He and Harms exchang- "I remember two Catholic priests came• I that, the now-retired Roberts said."I never d cards for about three years. out to the accident and blessed the children :told anybody this before,but before his trial "After-that, they just stopped coming," and gave them the last rites," Katherine I Duane told me'H my going to jail will make Roberts said. "I don't know what happen- said."I remember it was a good community I those families feel better, then that's what before, but the accident brought us even ' I'll do."' As a result of the accident. each Greeley closer together." I But Harms never had to Chargedoto'ail- busschool. At now hasaoad crossing,adult riding its Joe said several factors contributed to the i with involuntary manslaughter, a misde- the bust the every railroad tthe rider accident. The bus windows were frosted I meaner that could have resulted in a prison leaves f the ubse and walks across the tracks over,leaving only a 2-inch space at the top of; term, Harms went before a 10-man, 2- before old Delta an chose. the windows for the driver to look through -woman jury in Weld District Court. His i The t was slta School near the site the i court-appointed attorney was James Shelton accident Memorial tom down shortly l afterward. of Greeley. In 1963, East Elementary School was built. The word "Memorial"- in the "I learned something in that trial," school's name is in honor of the children who Shelton said. "What high-quality people we died.A plaque in the main hallway lists their have here—people who were hurt,who lost names. children, yet they believed in the justice Next spring,when the snow melts and the system." ground is no longer frozen, the children of Although some people hated Harms for the East Memorial will plant a tree in the school accident, many more were forgiving or yard. understood how devastating the accident The tree will become a living memorial to was for the young bus driver,Shelton said. those children who died 25 years ago. 8t7®123 t;1 z mi Crib, nr 25 ' _ _ windier,Calanae 86550 Velume 89,luue No-85 h 8.250 JTrl988 &flCflfl 11 The Great Western Railway Co Proudly Welcomes The Amalgamated Sugar- Co to Windsor . g/ Li � FAST FREIGHT! I GWRr: - Attracts Industries That Create jobs ------------ New industries taking advantage of competitive pricing and on-demand service offered by the Great Western Railway and GW Trucking: WINDSOR Co. LOVELAND Co. JOHNSTOWN Co. LAKEVIEW, OREGON Universal Forest Products Colorado Pacific Coors Bio Tech Deline Box Co. Frontier Industries Louisiana Pacific American Coal Co. Amalgamated Sugar Co. Fremont Sawmill Amalgamated Sugar Co. LONGMONT Co. Lakeview Lumber Co. Goose Lake Lumber Co. l� Western Sugar Co. �I 3 SHIP BY GWRY. , (303)667-2384 (503)947-2444 l� SHIP VIA GW Trucking (303) 659-7444 Loss of GWRy and its unique capability to attract industries would represent a potential 10.3% base increase in Weld County' s unemployment. Demographic studies indicate that dependent service, retail and other, unemployment could drive this unfavorable increase to well over 25%! The GWRy respectfully requests that the County Commission not remove from inventory the prime industrial property proposed by CRS Bayshores for a residential project of questionable value and safety. • THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AVENUE SHOPS T^\ P. O. BOX 537 ��11 LOVELAND. COLORADO HO539 JOHN P. ASCHER PRESIDENT AND CHIEF E%EOVIIVE OFFICER '�ei�aeo [FAST FREIGHT VW,- *� -4 ^K :n, e r�n fx ti. ,;iS a .g o r •r n - t. J ,"2 ?ts ," = t� a .,C - . F 5Js"i x Y ?$j : ',�yyQ s a ' t ,L 4.O,-,444,-$,V:,'1,:-.":"...,;:. .' r.Y x, x. y, ;y -,,,,,"'',"-yr2 1 --4:.--4-c-,,,..!,,,,,,,.'1,2-44,4,, :�,� r r v4 •i ' S� 22s . ; sake `n i �4. .� � pp , "1; ,{,= St fy � :a +d1a `4 Aa'kx -, ea a ; f e • t o s. nT ;x';s ,y aspF. .z' n}' -..1<Sp r,r Z n^ a x F A.'''.:.-.}.'1",''':',:, >• / 4 M Z �, G k r ,.{ ;-....41:2...,:...4q5,,, C \ z r r it ,c • -''--= _'w . y kS..C �'Y T P i 4 % 31:4:,1#1y ) A BIZ � c li _n[ .'' ,41 LL}f"n t t. r .G std s / WELD came O Iss P, .X Y L'24.4 }fir - _ t 1 • rn '..l 7� s Y " x 4 t do, ilOPl h. of AIKI.Coot LA -.COLPRAM.GOSSIPdt7 INTRODUCTION This packet of useful information has been compiled by the Great Western Railway to aid the County Commission of Weld County, Colorado, in regards to proposed residential development by Bayshores. We ask the Commission to consider our need, and more importantly the need of the community, for zoning the site in question for industrial use rather than residential use. zoning for a residential area has many drawbacks. By sacricficing vitally needed industrial development in the area, the county faces additional losses in taxes, employment, industrial and community growth, and property taxes. If, however, the Commission approves the proposed residential zoning, we ask the Commission to take a strong look at the need for a grade crossing separation. Bayshores has projected a volume of 5000 daily vehicle crossings at Road 31. Such vehicle volume would therefore justify a grade crossing separation at the developer's expense in the interest of public safety, in contrast to other warning devices at the grade. We at the Great Western Railway ask you to review the package being presented herein. The Great Western, as you well know, attracts basic industries that create jobs, such as the Amalgated Sugar Company. Basic industry is the very bedrock of our economy. The Great Western Railway is interested in discussing the zoning issue in depth with the County Commission of Weld County, and we hop the information packet you will now review will be useful in seeing how the Great Western has enhanced both the business and local communities alike. Sincerely, John P. Ascher President and Chief Executive Officer The Great Western Railway 870123 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND The Great Western Railway operates freight service from Loveland to Longmont, Colorado, 29 miles, with branch lines from Officer Junction to Kelim, Wind- sor, and Eaton, 19 miles; from Johnstown to Welty, 6.2 miles; and from Johns- town to Milliken, 2.6 miles. Connections are made with Burlington Northern at Loveland, Longmont, and Windsor, and with the Union Pacific at Kelim, Eaton, and Milliken. Rail traffic consists fo agricultural products. The Great Western also operates the former Southern Pacific branch from Alturas, California, to Lakeview, Oregon, 54.4 miles. The Great Western was incorporated October 16, 1901, and began operation a short time later. Passenger service on the Colorado lines was discontinued around 1927. Great Western began operation of the Alturas-Lakeview line on January 31, 1986. The company, long owned by the Great Western Sugar Com- pany, is now independent. The line operates 133 freight cars, which include the following: 114 hopper cars 4 gondolas 2 box cars 11 tank cars 2 flat cars The following pages depict the location of the Colorado lines of the Great Western Railway. The first map is a close-up of the local lines, with the second map depicting the line in relation to neighboring counties. 870123 N N CO N liell N ro N N N O it W WU d v to co co Na 3 Mr' o N. D J n° t0 N t a N 6 U o co (o a kg lks IV sii.ta., rl W m ��'-f�fr -(- -..t.. !! V j Y_....j d/ S J = illa oI . CO �, WEI U z O !,i J W ell Z I- W Q J Cd N a J Z Z 2 Y 0 y I- w ill O d F iU U Z J Z 0 Q Z a a. =O 7 m O X . (7 y cc ray o o[ U) p Q 9 m O N Z p� y - m Emi O I- o x Cl) d y Z W J c N W Q V i y ° Y oO 6 N. ~ 6 o a !LiO = S >O OO N e N U gal oD W z CC W YOL u ya cc 0 -3 -w. a. IL D Q O 6 QZ • W g s. s U W J j o > 0 ¢ vL H o Z o W > F" -Jo 0 W QQ m J a ` co W ItU 3 t d `O co O Fa } N o rt' m Ct n Ca y UU a m ` 0 ill «4, C..- _ N N- 0 O c UU U L D ea ` a O Z En' 870123 x 66 65 64 • aria `a 9 I ri V. 1 •Nunn VI p I 4.4 1 T•Weill on ♦, Ie �\ r' $ •McMn • a 141e C a • i{r� � • ` .� /Cs Ap 8 • • I Pierce. �e i --�, `T _ ce GMdl `\ Y. �`.Z' : Seers�J F}I:Q,OLLINJ • • rn� •Aul} �rrI r N%� • Drake• •CvN4k.• e^ rF `(-�!.'`")- rr�r_eesea1 i . t. 1 n Clete, • •�'n S•w.a.. �r ": ear' _A.TON I — -�� t ee .a+ _ .•Gilman JI _m . tl` I Lucerne'tTS1 (≤111.J. b. F D1'4 1 4•g•y--- -' • 1..•y G 6AE-.J' Y i.f LAND I t � .. „-;4!Y . 6 ^ • • • m •nmplcn .• 1 :`:Ent l.q•11. ItsaT IyYY1•;T me norm I •a .Ire .A.,.# li. r,,e r• vv t ste c ti I Mr-SFr• n•r..y , • t Walker. .. _ H.411 e . " Mead•.r I 1 1 ` R a N, LI°^!Q , Morey • •se. 3 Libe rty Meade _ _ \,( 1449 lent' •knht.nd ...ciJ LoxoMonrr • w Ny C • Iona F ' 1 Q e"" m.Dani., • eea.w. C I z red .Idaho t lu f e 1 m, Nlure4• \ P No • ... V n in. 0 e 'F 1 < a' .•moo .rPr , N.He•n is LA. .9^•.•ev n e iI.t b� q • • • . ,J'__ .� dP)• •<.rad.le,u •:Eris a TIN. l•r • Ten.Ill• °Y• a prise Liar BRICIIT0 Louisville• p' t•Dory,.. I , •CI keen `•Bait •Kl1k Nerth.re O JOHN P. ASCHLR 11s. .m1r•d i er •Derr .e..,...e. ,,aria.a.... Dum•Juno,.• •C5 •igh t•k • �� r d ar LOVELAND COLORADO 80539 Chu �. Gallup /(V� !J cox <``I s."pe . wrr Ra .• THE GREAT WESTERN °; -- we,emal, 7 RAILWAY CO. • Pelops COI Arvada `C r Jeri/e/Y Ye": amd.-(e•o F • • ��.• fi Revre ro `;'� i off Rae• L_E G E N D '/v I . CPf o I 'h G�etilArnhrnigs/aerce• i 4V " DEN I ER .oUS.Rin�SITES A,<, e n ., n,e, PaE. "•.r- �w.,r e�lo..�s�<,r- 6.E„ CA 7,," ft-, ,ELEF,.C)NE IIDJI se,an..l r.!" aria _,v_ — — 1 8'70123 DEDICATION TO SAFETY The Great Western -Railway is dedicated to the -safest rail operations possible. _I-rt -addition to public information campaigns on safety and harmony between motor vehicles and trains, the Great Western continues to fight attempts to lessen the importance of adequate warning systems at crossings and in residential areas. -As some of the stories that appear on the following pages show, however, failure to comply with either of the above suggestions can and often does prove fatal. one of the primary reasons for the Great Western's opposition to the Bayshores development is that the safety of the residents of the development and the employees of the railroad cannot be insured. Parking lots and fences will not keep children and teenagers away from the tracks. 870123 1 Ili 1.1 1 1 2r-R X11lilijit ; 111r 1 11,f" ,,. li 1,� j14'111 � 1 „A �{ 1 11i II 1j1 Johnstown 41.71, l Y Hold roa., co Se►viny the Johnston/ft-Al/When Area Silica 1 P1)4 o%�riti�..nof 60534 CP Sailety at the Cr-ussiuij 1 SAFETY LAWS . . In order to he licensed to drive in Colorado, motorists are expected to comply with the Colorado Drivers Manual. Page 18 is reproduced as follows. i. t .f,...),.;''.4-:,. . .; 7 K.11 wYH - ^ ` , . — P.n�rHGn4Gnq'•nan ...)�.. . -..qa.r .aN - rrnr.'''' riroru..pn'r,ur'c..a �,. ....nin r""'''' , ,...env ...r ...' ... .ri .o r�.p..,n e....m u....ar- ....on . I''' ,'In . P• '''' f .„anyx 'F'F',.r.,rr..,h, 'I he engdnyecs and msnaer'mrnt of the (heat \\'estryo paibvat' resprr-tfiilly tore that tlt"ir Motorist friends respect et ossing signs, locomotive whistles and hells, and ground flagmen. the life you sace will be your own. S ! 0123 Saicty al the CnissThhg . "Safety-at the Crossing" is-presented in the interest of saving lives and avoidingproperty damage at railroadxrossings. These articles are partially reproduced by permission of Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and will include comments of local concern by Mr. John T'. Ascher, Vice President and General Manager of the Great Western Railway. In recent years. approximately 43,000 Americans have died in highway traffic accidents annually. _Of this number, some 1,700 are killed in collisions at highway-rail crossings. Every one of these 1,700 persons could -have been "saved if laws-requiring driver caution at grade crossings had -been observed. Passeuger car drivers are involved in 73 percent of these accidents, motor trucks in about 10 percent, and other types of vehicles, the remainder. Continued failure of the driving public to-accept individual responsibility for safety at highway-railroad grade crossings is the primary cause for these accidents. - • Ihe railroads and highway-officials of the nation urge you to make this a basic driving rule: Watch for the round advance railroad warning sign wherever you drive. \\hen you see it slow -down and he prepared to stop" It has been our experience locally that-often rn.torists, when stopped at crossing-, become impatient with what they believe are siow-moving trains. I hey start ahead, and if not hit by locomotives, they often stride the sides of engines and ears. Ilecause of their relative sire. trains often actually move at rates of speed greater than what uncmning motorists are inclined to believe. Remember, a-minute spent at the crossing can save you hours at the body shop. dais at the hospital. or even eternity. Respect the railroad stoning signs and other warming devices. 87-0123 Safety at the Crossing - . Saitety at the trossiag - THE TIME ,„c_--- _,"r_- ,�----Z1--.7--$L7.-=‘-•-- TO KEEP GOING 4,:e -tea r • - ?�� FAMILIARITY r BREEDS C .,,,. I !1. CONTEMPT -' c��. :. You-go back and forth across the same track-daily,perhaps If it told-happen that you fort over a crossing and the several dines a day. You have lived here all your life andJmow 'flasher llghu start flashing or gates start down,don't beat,keep time every day. _going; it will only lake seconds to cleat Abe rails. The gate on that trains only run at night or at a your What about the special or extra train? You and your family the other side will=Ado k you. It is impossible tome trapped • -will be justas dead when hit by an unscheduled train. Death is by gates.If you stop-and try to back-up,you may kill yoursngioe. -waiting whenever awareness stops. -Aho, asin added accommodation, Great Western-Railway personnel • often voluntarily add flag protection_at crossings-even though they_are not Mon grade crossing accidents experienced on the Great Western Railway required to do so.Some motonsts refuse to heed the protection. ..have seem to fall into this category. Although sometruns adhere to a schedule, second thoughts and freeze on the oaninp,and some evm come close to the railway tailors service to fit its customers needs.. .-so,always expect striking_down she flagmen. a train at every crossing, at any time. 30, if in doubt, op clear before nng, . . . make certain of safe ..,�,,,w,.,•�• , conditions proceeding Safety at theCrossing 0 Safety at the Crossing• v w - BOXED IN Vt -0 CAN E FATAL .. - N.fir, ' • .c �� _ • gmhabiasiait -Ibe flasher lights are fl a g:th : coming town. I \ r \\//''��\\ YOU cane the train d u tc q. r men e �`\ \ to beat a train one or a .inn _ Ian<. - 11 once? Some surely lose 0, sec ri i. . , ,r;t . thirty per cent of the gr_dt .:o--.iny ., or - Neva-drive onto a railroad track until you am certain you at grade crossings protected by lla-her end cr ,,i. , can drive all the way across. Re sure the traffic ahead of you Motorists who strike trains will usually attest to the fact that the will not stop and box you in on a track. Wait for the traffic to tlashers-or red fights were properly displayed. Mint oflrreat Western's the If you make the mistake of getting trapped, abandon trams are short in length and its crossings are occupied fo tuiusually shoo periods of time . . so, why_assume that the red light is an invitation to. beat4he train% A short wait at the crossing always takes much less time' than a long stay at the hospital . . . or the cemetery. 870123 — Windsor Iteeren Thuredey July la,1116-Mae a LOVELAND DAILY REPORT-ER-HERALD C/� FRIDAY,JUNE 6, 19863 -P lV q�� ` e Weld �ounty, railway team up to study safety of rail -rossing c . By CAROLIBORCHERT thasesigns convery any definitive enure beginning to feel the heat," .O O Staff-Writer meaning to the motorist of the dan- -Ascher said. 4. 'The-railroad crossing three gersat that intersection." Bruce Barker, :assistant Weld iCreg,miles north of Johnstown Weld County Road34 has been the Since the two accidents, one in called y mike - - { �scene of two recent accidents,one October one in November of d a fatality.H3ut now,through the ef- last year,Ascher said he-has been the-crossing safer.. _ ___ ,f forts of thelreat Western-Railway [rghting with Me county to make "We discussed altenativeswnd ---___ and Weld County,_that crossing the crossings safer. • awhat we could do and-now we-will may,become safer. "1 sent letters to every level of tome up 'Atha definitive4lap," Earlier this week, OW-Railway government,local to state,"Asch- Barker-said. - ' - superintendent Pete Ascher, Weld er said, "trying to get people to YIELD - County, Public Utilities Commis- take some action on thisissue." The answer now wooers to be - sion and State Patrol represents- reducing speed-limits by incre - - - tives met wt the crossing in Ascher saitl rue sou tonally fors- mentasrld putting a stop signs question to discuss how the danger- trated when none of-his letters Barker said. But first ail engi- ous intersection could be made were-answered and decided that neertng study will have to be done - safer GW Railway would have to_take to determine-what will be best at • - "1t felt good to finally get togeth- matters its own hands, the site.Work will-most likely be- • er to-work outs solution to this "We did what any Jim i m edately,Barker said. J, w,.; property own• �a dangerous problem,"Ascher said. er would do,protect our_property A large part of the problem at the - - - "S.. r- _But the meeting is only the first _and. "I fellhose using it,"Ascher intersection is not those who use it - 1�•'��step in making the crossing_safer. wail. felt obliged to do what I infrequently, Barker said, but / -Engineeringg studies need to be could to protect the motoring pub- those who use it daily and becomeliar _ proposals need to be written Uic." oblivious to the danger on the ' 1 , up,and,finally,all must meet with lacks because not many trains use - Rj/f r . She approval of the Weld County But the signs had not been ap- them. - -' . Commissioner. But the meeting proved and the railway was told to - - was the first,and important step. take the signs down. Since then, "We are dealing with people who — • `s - "When we met at the crossing,I though, Weld County has gone to have been over the tracks so many �- ae.wa GW Railway to arrange this weeks times they don't even think about - .1 pointed out that the avers a motor- 4' _ se may average n, marker said."So whatever we t..-s I ist would be boggled by the smor- emraoss�unge work on making the do will have to be enforced by the — gasbord of signs up and down the $ law a get people to pay attention to -•- _ •-, road,"Ascher said. "And none of "The Weld County Commission- the dangers around them." " - , Sign removal Cart Hudson,superintendent al equipment ter the Groot Western Railroad tales down the yield sans a requested by the sate highway aulhsrldes.Photo by Martha sernhan. Page 6 - Rocky Mountain News Monday,October 13, 1986 Local Site -of fatal auto-train wreck criticized By KAREN BOWERS Scott,who was thrown from the vehicle on Impact,was dark at night and that a dip in the road partially obscures a Pony',minion News Sian Wolin where by ambulance to Humana Mountain View Hospital, view of the tracks. where be was treated for cuts and bruises and released. Joe Windsor.who works at Anthony's Rua,a few blocks Two men were killed Saturday night when the FoM The vehicleaas destroyed.said Lt.Kevin Sweeney of the from the crossing.said he once came very close to having an gWest Adams County Fire Department,and firefighters were accident there."At night,it's hard to see,and ii you have the Bronco in which they were riding was hit by a train at a called in to extricate the two passengers.The two men were stereo on n's hard to hear."be said. Nortaglenn railroad crossing that some residents Say IS dead at the scene,Sweeney said. Sharon Carlson,whose home sits about a quarter of a mile dangerous. - from the crossin Thc driver was treated at a local hospital and released. No one on the train was injuredg, said she has seen other car-train acci- The railroad crossing is marked with at leesl_three signs, dents there."It's a dangerous intersection."she said."Use- Norlaglenn police said no charges had been filed against Cannosino said, although_there are no gates or ➢ashing ally the trains blow their-whistles,but it they would happen 4k driver pending completion of the investigation. lights. - not ta,you Could be in trouble very easily.There's a little -Kllle were Joseph Louis Marfil, 34, of 1861 E. 112thrise on each side of the railroad track,and there's a_good p A stop sign at the crossing was replaced with a yield sum possibility that you couldn't see(a train)." ♦Mace.orthgie .andrelativesman whoseos notified.said Sgt name police .d not about a year ago after local residents complained that them John Holiday. era, of 146 E. 12 St.. Rifle,-died early 1]ease untilo the eora co could be Department. s were too few trains a day to warrant coming to a lull stop, yesterday morning of injuries sustained is a one-car ace,- s • as"fon Rastellane, who operates a business near the Went in Adams Covg,the Colorado Eat 96th ttrAl reported. The Bronco, driven by Keith Leroy Scott. 37, ot 1W1 crossing. • Holiday r was driving about westbound m on nrl Avenue the nAueco Si..Fort treat at was t 10 42 p on East was h rye- insAlthough Mastellone whistles sale the trains am lthe and the roadaan Staat t an a.m. when gn car ran off o t - by near Yorkhbou duUni nl aacifi ei pm ain p l was struck of sin blow rosii g id erfus reaching the e road and hitug a fence post de highway d.The fence post gigs southbound Union Pacific freight train,police said. -others say the crossing is dangerous because d is extremely went through the windshield,striking Holiday. 870123 late Hoscmht'pvru-nrrnn signs in and I'm kill interested in ;,,,,,,AR "I was embrealer. disappointed °ith them ro protect human e'I.r., ' ppointed that he said. "I'm nor mine In to they took the stop signs down," negative. I'm just trine to saw she said. "Their reasons weren't lists." good enough." "I don't want another accident to happen."Morgan said. Referring to the decision to Page 10 Thursday May 29, 19811-Wlndsor Beacon Crossing danger examined • by Bruce McKInste ad v' speed limit sign. crosses es ties Commission Aver r and Drew i i County authorities. it appears the first set of tracks and then has Sehcltinga, county engineer for - arc finally going to take positive no prominent warning at the most Weld. ' steps to eliminate a dangerous dangerous intersection 500 feet A stop sign is probably one of the �P!� traffic situation that claimed the (usher on—the intersection where more effcnis 'ea)s of approaching ��17:.-$ life of a Windsor man, the two accidents took place. It only took about seven months. the problem. said Barker. "I like ,,ff,��a -• , On a /oggy. misty morning last Pete Ascher, general manager the idea.personally,"he said. i'y✓/ �'g j�.s October.Jerry Morgan was travel. for Great Western.took the matter A crop sign in conjunction with a - a. into his own hands about six weeks continuous flashing device might ' j J ing to work on Weld County Road ago, Using Great Western funds be a good idea,the attorney said put 54 northwest of Johnstown. h put p stop signs on both sides WCounty � s The outline of a Great Western Weld hash v Railway train was obscured.There °f that rntcse up a permanent stop sign at te \ l were no prominent warning signsSeveral weeks ago, the signs intersection because the Manual on 1 vi or flashers. 8 came down. Uniform Traffic Canted Devices "They weren't put there legally indicates stop signs should he used { s His family and friends have originally," said Jim Colorado e only on an interim basis-while I suffered grief ever since. lieutenant for the Colorado State other measures are being .Ivaco- Twenn•two days later, another Patrol. F t man,Robert Jamison,tried to to pass The state trot re aired Ascher ' said Barker. the same intersection when a Great g It doesn't make much sense," Windsor residents Shall'Morgan hell!,her mother Marlene and ear h to remove the signs, "An indivi. he said,but the county is required brother Justin hove made efforts since lest October to get better Western train was going throw it. 8 dual can't go out and hang a stop by the state to follow the manual. warnings for the Weld County Road 54 and Great Western Beltway He was lucky, thou h. He sign on past,"Sanderson said. Just having a stop sign there will Intersection northwest of Johnstown.Their efforts may be starting to 8 "There's a legal way to do it and tell people to stop,look and listen, bear fruit.Photo by Bruce MCKtolle. walked away from the demolished an illegal way to do it," the the attorney said. adding that he vehicle that had caused the lieutenant said."From our point of will talk to Ascher next week. derailment of three railroad cars. view it's unenforcable,"and stop "pis • I dimperative that we get Family sod f took u tyna authorities at that point nt signs must be put up legally so that something done,"he said. angry indicated kcts .They pntil p signs d Crosat violators can be ticketed,he said. The lieutenant said he thought a be Brace Mcminde remove the stop signs from the ing" and posted advisory speed stop sign would he desirable at that -"What sticks in m theau limits of 30 mph. intersection. but on crossings that someone had done s something ve intersection. she ll "they have There was. however, one pro- arc open and visible he couldn't ere to. my lough wouldn't t hav the authority to decide if those sop Mein. any need to stop trelfic,he said. signs can be placed there, and if Two separate sets of tracks cross particularly - had en through this." they can do that morally..." WCR 54 at that point--one "That one is articularldanger- Marlene Morgan is sad and Morgan did say shwas thankful set of oars."he said. angry Union Pacific tracks on the east Sanderson also indicated that the She is sad because her husband that the Weld commissioners neer the crown of the hill and a set Weld County Commissioners will died seven months ago in canrec he idea the problem. but she of Great Western tracks further putting 8 feels there is something more that down the hill on the meet nest week to consideraccident that was (Seepreventable- can be done. west. The stop signs rap at various railroad accompanying Sheitmd because westernmost tracks are blind.-e crossings in the county. She said she the c Pete driver going west can't see a train She is mad because all of her Ascher's efforts, and both she and coming on those tracks until it is But a meeting by the commis efforts to improve a dangerous Ascher agree that the county actually crossing the intersection, cleaners to discuss the matter is not traffic situation have mostly gone should put up yield Or slop signs at according to Marlene Morgan.wife scheduled, and a rail to the unheeded. that intersection with continuous of the Jerry Marlene commissioners'office revealed that Morgan has worked for the last warning flashers. That late the spot both there is no such discussion on the seven months to get warning Any warning has to be visible. ' Morgan and Jamison where ed into agenda for nest Week. improvements at the train internee. said Ascher, general manager for Great Western trains. However. County Amaner titan where her husband had his Great red flan. This must be As the situation exists presently. Bruce Barker said he plans to fatal traffic accidt considered fast." he said. Speak• a drier er proceeding west on WCR discuss e.r rag morovemems for She even put up her eau sign, tg for he rt'ur a.. Ascher said V sees the w the WCR S.I.Great Western but she was required to put itin e n We eta out rat our war to be a¢"e warning sign and the intersection with gm l'nhiic I'fdl field I W feet from the muddle of the nmghhor,sod"e world like ter Seit e road•.hardly a conspicuous warn. the public Berme go out its„auto ing. protect fifes. At the midpoint of the Memnriol -We hunk then were - uma• Day weekend. with moist eyes she product',e when they said we had said."Normally err would he rip in to tube Ginn the aigns ' the was 5 c t'hen-." Am her earl he A'iild ! - ac It was great Alien the rail,a, put than pleased tomyei wnhih-c Weld up stop signs at the intersection, commissioners n the mailer. she said, and she appreciated it nuor;hink :he precm-Won of when the rs nity put up warning bunion Ines should be a ',been, and addsore speed limit signs in and I in Brill interesedl mining late November. with p them to protect human Ines, ' "1 was really dstop that he yid. "I'm not n.nrg to be they took the stop signs down," negative. I'm just tiling to case she said. "Their reasons weren't lives." good enough." "I don't want another accident to happen,"Morgan said. Referring to the decision to • 870123 I ,16.,.. 0i. i. ,./ 1 I LOVELAND DAILY REPORTER HE WEEKEND.MAY le II.19M 3 CrOSSI Uestion g11 + . Rail crossing stop 11 1 F 1 I I:u d r.yr )u,s • + sign removal stirs r +f n , 1 1 1 1.: 1 11"91 .:1,. debate over safety int .A °t sii ii,a f. + 1 By CAROL BORCNERT `' ;n t , 4y s i 11 1. 6ts1t Weller -` t�It, i - tmq.It 6.� , I always had and Its tracks have , yt II -at it it. L always had a mystique—e I l J , 1"t r'h:J 5 J . 4 ,,romanticism that eludes definition •, i"t tJA told 1 t •I " but captures the ima atca But 1 1. n I,rtgl "- I ."�llall ++' I f; •there L blood on these tracks that cannot be i I I :.I i, ',Lai( pt.r. 0 l I washed away by romanticism or mysticism. . I I 1,en ,l 1 I• �A The place is close to home,about three I 1 ,,.;II,. I ,, miles north of Johnstown along Weld County• -I 1 I .e ;I Road 54.In October 1985,it was here that t r. ��;,y Gerald Morgan lost his life,his pickup truck ., ,ail I L .s_ 'Q l no match for an oncoming train.There are r I those that say had the crossing been adequately marked,Morgan would be alive today i tL t' eft• �4 €1 4' And there are those who say there are Just 1 i , , j 3, `•-+i 'mss .n't . �. A , • . , J. • going to be accidents,no matter how many , .,, ' signs you put up 1 There was another accident,between a r (J ' i train and another pickup truck at the same N + ' }r Intersection,about a month after Morgan was ( • k. r ' killed.This time the driver,Robert Jamison was luckier.He walked away from the yr, accident with only cuts.But that second • � ,,a 'k• • 1 t1y,!*re r F kr� +la�t,^,��rs�a J; r I rse. accident was enough to prompt action } s Y y1 ". .y{4,74 I 'fN R 'rt•{ Ig F N a result of the crash,additional elana . :�: e y "I`._ �f a^'W vide y J• ••• were put up at the crossing.The two original i �.aF y •+al.k:. • P.114- r'a a w.+t 1, 'I!' signs,the circular railroad crossing end rr•IR'e' 'fw�y ..e q"" • crossbuck railroad crossing signs,werepsr}'p '" r Joined by a 58 mph speed limit sign and a 'gss,v_C'anC,I I t 1. "Blind Railroad Glossing"sign. Ys� Y`'r' F '", .., y r ' But some felt that additional slgnage was Ae ire I ' �/ I not enough. " s L About four weeks ago at the fateful .6 � + e , sy • Intersection,Great Western Railway ,;� tef C1- workmenputupstopsignsinhopesofkeeping • . _ a,,,; y g1�Ld / y. Thanursday, y,th est n frommehappening., On 1 !e i,ri Lt-y I r`a4 A l Thursday,the sign came down,victim of 4-� kre jp`3 i t n local laws that keep the railroad from putting , .e .•OJ {1 up stop signs. 777 r �.I l' y 1 This particular Intersection along Weld 0:54ep .V.21: i, k 1 vl. - y County Road 54 is a dangerous one.Railroad ry+L�r4' ' 1.),..'S 1 e officials and county officials agree on that - r44 r�,�s � ,''yJ�t }j,y1 ,fact.But what can be done to make It safer Is r 4• )' iIir i i1 a matter of contention. ' r• t' 'A !Itr r, "Whether they should be allowed to put the ++' t• w.e 1 signs up or not to me li not really the g I 1 J, �jTet, argument,"said Jack Baler,lrasportallon / f •k,: f. ' "engineer with the Public Utilities a '� r T' y 1% 4s .y •a +� I Commission."Whether stop signs work or not k jt 'X / I ••). Is the argument.There are two theories on r}�7Ja�� a• !'v { this.The first one Is that slop signs take away 'Lw"W [ 1 K�/ + + ' •t•r ' f liability.stopi The second one is that e t pulling up y ' /7, J 1 4 / 1, ,Y' s . •ri ign,you encourage peopleloduregard 5'"1' +ds • - // r r • .y r.4.... the sign. a{ r• ,i1 fyh + a _.r�,, 'If you go to a crossing that does,l have a 1 � ,+1'rl. " w •♦ _r lot of traffic on it,like this one,mostof the 3" itne you stop at the slop sign and there is no ' t't e' i... • ate, a sD train.Far the first month or so,people would ;F frA` Y •1 probably look both ways and then go across �'R I the tracks But then,people would start to gel 3, y `. _f L� 11 R,ly.+.�. '417‘,4V-Pict-44— usedtonotrainsandwouldprobablystop,but py. ' i• '+ . M1 ,a.L .l,.' • ,„ts not look both ways.Then you could get into FrXo .'l a t'+ a`.•.�a 1 ry' a., t vJl*r�i 1 some accidents." ' I-+, 4 . i +�, a '•Y r? f•S r. I , Baler said that ideally,stop signs would be ks� �, ., 1"t ?4 � •. put up and people would stop and look both I -ways all the time. :I Repona NelAla onoloInrai loogER "It would he hard to argue that then they ,Tom Wlnegarden,Great Western Railway equipment specialist,takes down a slop sign • wouldn't see a train,"Baler said."But we that the railway put up a month ego at Weld County Road 54.OW Railway manager Pete For Pete Ascher,general manager of OW Ascher paid that the order to take down the signs, which OW had put up for safely Railway,there was good reason for wanting reasons, was given by the slate highway department. It was at this Intersection that !hose signs rip. Gerald Morgan was killed In October 1885. "It scares me to death every time I go to that crossing on one of the trains,"Ascher that and with that cnunfy'5 • who thought we needed snore signs.We've got said."You put never know who's going to pop signage department.Stop signs for railroad the blind r nili oral mu-sing,the speed limit out into that Intersection going 75 nines per crossings along county roads have to be sign and It"'others rant l I rally in,,t know approved by the commissioners and proposed what II"10 1:"''an do.it's a had(a.,:.im;, hour.We feel we haven trim al obligation to do what we can to keep accidents from .by the slgnage department, lllnl's!nr Fn I t i,I know if we full really -Y0J happening." "When those signs went up,we got a Int of ' ever m.at'svr"111"re ore nn mnre aceidrnls." 1 8 1 So,for Ascher,a bit of comfort came by complaints from people who didn't think they grodcll'aid Clint flailing tiaras were putting up those stop signs.The only problem should be there,"said George Goodell,Weld di.en«nd,Dal Ibn rust of sill]a mot"would was that be did not lime the authority to do so. comity road and hridge director.'Before lh^ lie p,e!dLut."t•.tl,"ci^„dy lint au ii",LWs That authority lies with the Weld county signs went up,we got complaints from people monadhlug mote Decd',in be done. COMMITMENT TO REZONING FROM CONGESTED AREAS With safety and efficient service its top objective, the Great Western Railway continues to seek ways to oppose rezoning that places rail operations in heavily populated and/or congested areas. The articles on the following pages display our commitment to this ideal, which is a major objection on the part of the Great Western toward the residential zoning proposal of Bayshores. Public and rail safety are extremely important to Great Western. Because the railroad lines bisect the proposed residential development and nrearly 5000 vehicles will cross the tracks daily, we urge the Commission to deny the pro- posed rezoning in the interests of public and rail safety. 870123 Windsor i• s out of rail proposal Greeley route still possible By LISA WADE Hoy cited two reasons why • nc,m.s.n w A relocation was not feasible: O BN is not expected to maintain FORT COLLINS—A committee its track in northern Colorado studying alternate routes for the much longer. BN's Den- city's heavy Burlington Northern ver/Cheyenne route runs through railroad traffic no longer will pur- Fort Collins and also has a connec- sue plans to divert such traffic ting spur running from Fort Collins through Timnath and Windsor. to Greeley. "Burlington Northern Train traffic through Greeley, has indicated to me the however, could increase if BN of- Cheyenne/Denver is for sale,"Hoy ficials opt to move their main line said. traffic on the Union Pacific tracks ❑Even if BN continues its route from Cheyenne to Denver.Another from Cheyenne, through Fort Col- alternative is for BN to switch its this,and south to Denver,it would _ main line traffic from Cheyenne to be costly to repair the track along • Sterling,then south to Denver. the Fort Collins/Greeley spur. BN officials did not attend Fort "And it wouldn't be the railroad Or.= . Collins. Railroad Relocation who would repair that track, it 1 Committee meeting today; the would be the city,"he said. ' 1.,.-t �� , fuel decision on relocation rests Fort Collins officials, he said, w •ith • �� with BN. could solve the problem of heavy �.• ? r • During today's meeting, the train traffic rumbling through itsKa i ;l,_ •"" i ��CCC f Railroad Relocation Committee: downtown if it found a short-lines f.�r - ,�, i 1.i) ❑ Abandoned the Timnath- operator to take over BN's nor- - Y ' �f I 'f( Jf •• Windsor route that would have sent them route through Fort Collins. ' - s&ia -0 trains south through Greeley to He emphasized, however, that it d M: -"w•" Denver. would be in the city's best interest -.ti, ❑ Directed consultant Richard to buy BN's rights of way through �✓ :.- ;— " Hoy to contact BN and Union Pa- the city so it could have some say in _ .. cific railroad officials to see if when,and how many,trains would �� k '- +._ they're interested in selling por- run through town. tions of their tracks in the Fort Col- H the city owned the rights of .- - - lins area to a short-line operator. say,' Hoy added, it also could ❑Direct Hoy to let BN officials decide how the tracks would be know the city is interested in buy- used in the future. "One of the op- ing its rights of way in town.If the lions would be to operate.a trolley city owns the rights of way,it can along the track through the city," control how many trains run he said. through Fort Collins, and when The short-line operator's role, they run. City officials say they Hoy said, would be to sprve want the trains to run only at night. customers along BN's route. Ar- The committee's actions come in rangements would be made be- the wake of months of debate tween the operator and city of- regarding the proposed railroad ficials regarding when, and how relocation. Opponents of the plan many trains, would go through that would divert the traffic Fort Collins. through Windsor, Timnath and Peter Ascher, president of the Greeley have said the additional Great Western Railway, said his trains — six daily and some that company is interested in taking are 100 cars long—would reduce over BN's track as the'short-line property values and hinder operator. He also said he has no ill be affected if train traffic on resolved. "But at least everyone is emergency services in the cons- problems with the city's plan to LP's Cheyenne/Denver line in- working toward a solution in a mumues. allow such traffic only at night. reases. more logical approach. I'm real Opponents of Fort Collins' plan, "All this means is that they're encouraged by that." who have accused the city of dum- of going to go through Timnath ping the problem in their nd Windsor,"Kinkade said."Asa Concerns of other communities backyards, initially applauded the Ireeley councilman, I'm pleased potentially affected by the in- committee's decision. ...mouse it eases our concerns creased train traffic will be ad- But Greeley City Councilman about increase traffic in north dressed during a meeting at 7 p.m. John Kinkade,'chairman of the Greeley. But as chairman of Monday in Windsor City Hall. Committee Against Proposed CAPRR, I've got a lot of other Larimer-Weld County Council of Railroad Relocation, warned the communities to worry about." Government officials have invited problem isn't over; Greeley and Weld County Commissioner Bill CAPPR and Fort Collins officials communities north and south of it Kirby agreed the problem isn't to the meeting. 870123 Rail officials seek to allay A-12 GREELEY(Colo.) TRIBUNE Tuesday, December 16, 1986 CORAIL HEARING ounty fears c He added Fort Collins is willing planning and surveys are being -to give a financial incentive to BN done from a Fort Collins' view- °' =to reroute the trains,but added the point. By PAM SHOUP -money is not sitting in a bank ac- "I don't think any of us are so TribunecocreeGwWenl count. naive as to believe decisions aren't WINDSOR—Railroad officials Monday sought = "We would have to go to the. made in other high places," Kiin allay concerns of Weld communities that Burl- 1Noters for a sales or property tax," wo k wi said. CAPRR wants to ington Northern might reroute heavy rail traffic : Clarke said."Those kinds of things Fork wth UP,he added. from Fort Collins to areas east including Greeley. don't happen quietly, not without The Fort Collins problem should Craig Kloer, BN operations analyst, and Terry lengthy public discussions." be addressed as a regional issue, Greene,Union Pacific district sales manager,said Kinkade said.about is collecting Burlington Northern is not negotiating to use Union Kinkade said rerouting oppo- information about the impact Pacific rails. Rather, they said,BN and UP are cents realize "Fort Collins has a rerouting would have on member merely having ether,inary discussions at the re- legitimate goal. They do have the communities,he said,and a press quest of the Fort Collins Railroad Relocation need to relocate some of the train conference has been called for 10 Committee. th rough augh their city. The a.m. Monday to pass on that in- The two spoke at a two•6our round-table discus- CAPRR position is to assist Fort formation. sion at Park Building on Monday night.Tom Cur- -Vo in relocation,but it does not Terry Greene said UP is con- ren,executive director of the d Larimer-Weld Coup• involve an offer to relocate those cerned about affecting the com- cil of Governments,coordinated the discussion,in trains to our communities." munities its rails run though. Any which railroad representatives and members of _He said he was concerned that decisions UP might make would be •the Fort Collins Railroad Relocation Committee _... •responded to questions from COG and the Commit tee Against Proposed.Railroad Relocation i (CAPRR), chaired by Greeley City Councilman business decisions with basic said he could individually make John Kinkade. benefits to UP.He noted consolida- that commitment and would feel an The audience, which aLso directed questions i tions and mergers in the railroad obligation to come to CAPRR if a the group,included Greeley City Cn,nr' � business are the current trend as tentative agreement be- and city staff, Windsor Town Board members, railroads s e to remain com- lween UP and g is made fm Weld county officials and rural Fort Collins rest- �� dents who may be affected by railroad relocation. petitive with other forms of Windsor Mayor Fort Collins has been studying various routes to transportation. Wa yne Miller Y said he felt much better about the divert heavy rail traffic from its downtown.Pro- The railroad officials were asked situation. "The Burlington Nor- posed routes would bring six BN trains,averaging what level of management is then and Union Pacific people 50 to 60 cars, each day from Cheyenne through reviewing the proposal.Kloer said have been honest and open. We Greeley and other Weld and Adams county com- all levels of management at BN are heard it might happen tomorrow. munities to Denver or from Cheyenne through aware of the proposal,but no study We've been misinformed so Sterling and Brighton to Denver. is being conducted. • much.'• Earl Wilkinson and John Clarke, representing the Fort Collins relocation committee,emphasized Greene said he would be involved Addressing Clarke and esilkin- their studies are preliminary and said relocation in any decision to relocate rail son, rural Fort Collins resident may never happen.They are working with a Texas traffic on UP lines in Colorado or Robert H. Hall said, "You guys firm,Richards and Associates tosdrdy loos,routes Wyoming. ought to come out in the newspaper in an earlier study. Last week, the CurrenUP asked for a commitment and say you don't have a route go- suggestedcommittee instructed the firm to start preliminary from UP to inform COG or CAPRR ing in any on.You owe that negotiations with a short-line operator to serve of any change in status. Greene to the community." - customers along Burlington Northern routes from -- - Fort Collins to Denver or Cheyenne to Denver.The committee also decided to abandon a proposed He said the people who live in route through Timnath and Windsor. areas being considered for railroad Kinkade asked Kloer whether BN wasconsider- relocation are having trouble sell- ing rerouting train traffic before the Fort Collins ing their houses because of all the study. publicity. "They approached us; we had no plans,"Kloer "I think we said that," Clarke replied. "We get proposals all the time and we're replied. always open to listen to someone who may have a better idea.We hadn't planned to relocate and we Asked by Greeley officials to still don't have any plans. establish a time frame for here's "It's extremely early in the game,"he said of the lion, Wilkinson replied, "'!'here's discussions."H any decision are fo he made,they no way we can establish a time are way down the road." frame.It will be at least six months He noted that the main line south from Cheyenne before there are any indications we still will serve Fart Collins because it has a com- might have a time frame." mitment to serve the new Anheuser-Busch Brew- He added that the firm studying ery. the proposal could come back in 'We have no reason to reroute our track and no three months and say noshort-line incentive to do so," he said. "We left the ball in operator intends to use the BN their court." track. H that happens, he said, Fort Collins'Clarke said, "We're just talking to• "we,mitt committee,are dead." Burlington Northern.We don't have any deals with 870123 them.Most of the work is ours to do." BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY COMMITMENT The Great Western Railway is committed to enhancing the business community while educating, informing, and delighting the local community at large. The chart on the following page is used when weighing the Great Western against other railway lines. It shows at a glance the stability and dependability of a railway dedicated to excellence for nearly a century. The Great Western is run by men and women with vast experience in the past and a bold vision toward the future. The President of the line himself has 42 years experience in the railroading industry, and a rundown of his experience is detailed on the second page following. The Commission's attention should also be directed to the recent economic development spurred by the existence of the Great Western Railway in Weld County and neighboring counties: 3 new firms with more than 100 employees and still more with smaller payrolls. Our record and strength stand for themselves. So does our reputation. Also included in this section are a number of newspaper articles depicting the business and community participation the Great Western plays in Northern Colorado. an the interests of public and rail safety and because of the importance cf the land in question to the future industrial and economic development -of the county, we urge the Commission to accept the findings of the Planning Commission and deny the request for rezoning. 870123 WHEN CONSIDERING SELT•.CTION OF A RAILWAY OPF.RATOR, EXPERIENCE SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING "BOTTOM LINE" COMPARISONS • ::WRy CANDIDATE CANDIDATE P.O. Box 537 2 3 Lov"land, CO 80539 OPERATOR'S STABILITY YEARS CONTINUOUSLY IN BUSINESS 85 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS NET INCOME 85 ADEQUATE WORKING CAPITAL YES • INSURABLE YES YEARS OF HANDS ON MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE • PRESIDENT -42 GENERAL MANAGER 20 ROADMASTER 34 SUPERINTENDENT-EQUIPMENT 22 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT NEW SHORT LINE -RAIL CUSTOMERS -SINCE 1983 OVER 100 EMPLOYEES 3 25 to 100 EMPLOYEES 1 UNDER 25 EMPLOYEES 3 MAJOR PLANT UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1 (NO EMPLOYEES YET) LOGISTICAL SUPPORT LOCOMOTIVE SHOP YES CAR SHOP YES MACHINE SHOP YES INVENTORY LOCOMOTIVE YES CAR YES TRACK YES BRIDGE YES IMMEDIATE CONSULTATION YES _BACK—UP LOCOMOTIVES YES START UP_ LEGAL 14 days INSURANCE 10 days LOCOMOTIVES IN PLACE 9 days DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION (All occurred Feb 19, 1986) REBUILT DESTROYED BRIDGE 5 days REMOVED 3 MOUNTAIN SLIDES 10 days REBUILT TRACK AT 23 WASHOUTS 11 days REHABILITATION OF TRACK WITH INTERNALLY GENERATED FUNDS YES TtECOMMENDED CUT 1N FREIGHT RATES YES CONSISTENTLY OPERATES UNDER BUDGET YES DUII AND -BRADSTREET TREND RATING "Up" S70123 RESUME -OF JOHN P. ASCIIER PRESENT POSITION: President and C. I. 0. The Great Western Pailway to. Lovel-and, Colorado. Operating rail tines in Colorado, Oregon, and California; plus GWR Trucking in forty-eight statee. 1944-1952 Maine Central and Boston & Maine System. Station and Train Service. Passenger and freight. 1953-1961 Pennsylvania R.R. Conduct-or, Car Agent , Trainmaster, Night Superintendent , Sn-dustrial Ingineer. Developed and implemented the first railroad facsimile communications operation, resulting in substantial cost reductions and improved customer relations. 1962-1964 Chicago -Indianapolis and Louisville—New York Susquehanna and Western. Superintendent . Functioned as chief operating officer. Develope-d daily operating controls enabling flexible adjustment-s of expenditures to meet inherently changing demands for service. Reversed net losses to met bottom lime profits. 1964-1971 Peading Co. — Central PR of New Jersey. Superintendent Car Service—Acting -General Manager. Modernized car accounting procedures involving a cash flow equal to about one—fourth of gross revenues at over $100,000,000 annually, producing about $5,000,000 additional a year to net . 1971-1978 Emerson, Fain, & Johnson. Law Offices. Business Manager. 1978-1983 Chicago, -Rock Island and -Pacific R.R. — Terminal Superintendent—Administrator Liquidation, Operations. Im depth analysis of top offer at $47,000,000 for major lime segment between Minneapolis and Kansas City, plus grain gathering lines; established benefits of over $200,000,000 to buyer as confirmed by their consultant ; closed at 325% over offer. 1983—Present Great Western Railway. During 1984-5, eliminated debt of about one—half million dollars and accumulated nearly $700,000 mash from about $8,000, concurrent with a 65'/, loss of carloads due to liquidation of parent company. Attracted eleven new industries with payrolls of about 600. FAMILY: Married Mary Jane Ascher (formerly Rule) . Four children, six grand-children. EDUCATION: -B.S. University of Tennessee 1953 , transportation curriculum featuring accounting and law. LECTURER-TRANSPORTATION: Several universities, regularly scheduled at university of Wisconsin. 870123 . TiltIItb Qr LOVELAND DAILY REPORTER•HERALD WEDNESDAY.NOVEMBER 5,ISM S IllWindsor,Colorado 00550 e' _ Volume 59.lame No,22 •"�aaP USP9 6.62.0 '' Phone:aka-9640 3 St Thursday,October 20,190. v - r Y I t rDK 'y G .Ls e_Yb Irf '1 {.. It' �,. 11 ale ...Sugar firm • storage deal • keeps railroad r in Loveland • IJ � • B• By CAROL BORCHERT Business Writer Amalgamated Sugar Co., head- . ' quartered In Ogden, Utah, re- �• L - ' celved bankruptcy court approval � J Tuesday to purchase Great West- 1h I em Sugar Co.warehouses and silos . . l Jnl,oveland. • . Amalgamated Sugar will use the s` J `•i , warehouses,located at the GW fac- t., tory, for storing refined sugar. , \5'. While the purchase may not mean many additional Jobe for at Urer \ l land area,It does mean thxtTxreat •e�'y Western Railway Company grill r :.VA \ -stay In Loveland. ` -Pete Ascher, general manager •• q1�B'• and part owner of the railway,said ad4fy - . that with the Amalgamated Sugar e�� - �� now In Loveland,It makes econom- 'R`\ : lc sense for the railway to keep Its -�► will be providing freightuarters here. anRaporaY- �e.��i '' • lion for Amalgamated Sugar from ;.,r.a r Rehm to Loveland • - i • - '• "In order to get Amalgamated in I r here-we have been doing months of negotiatloning.freight weights • 1rr`�; y •x3 r I and have had to come up with some r'. .•- innovative pricing," Ascher said. 1%'But we worked hard for It." y. .r !,gs i v='ay'q ,�_, ' ,,,,, �$i-aw $•41,N1-‘4Ascher said -GW Railway had v • e-4 e ro 9 -v' '•' been considering moving Its head- r ,a •akk'NJ..>Eri t^�eJ a i` • t;• a t gk ,''� ... '' •quarters elsewhere because of the 5,d" -1 q r `,,: w,h• low volume of business It does in s: 5 .,. ,r, •r e, ti E 5 y, "P', ,= Loveland. The railway lraffie rte. 1.•^'..y, r 4:,444, •e+ .ti ..` base Is in Windsor and Johnstown �� ''.r�'f' '` -_ and GW Railway crowd save a lot of r :4:ol•,_a',,,�sa' - money by operating out of that „ s. .. i -t � area,Ascher old. O iL. ,�•� L'-• r "We Loveland la Midi(' Carloads a year ��ir`o • +• �;p:yy• t ,n•h in Loveland and Loveland taxes ,r Wit'-''•+ _. - ,"",w,"'"r� r.sascw •' t ry c+ alone are 20 times our gross rive- a' -. 'w�Lataa..i.C.9-:a.•:`^.≥� nut In Iarimer-County;' Ascher said. "But now, with Orlin Waobrn Railroad workers Juan Trances.,Louis Castro and Jesus Cane use a rail is metre our by new rail being Installed Info the Universal Forest Products.The new track was laid Ibis week.Photo mated,we will be able to keep our by X.11h Johnson. headquarters In Loveland and that GW lays new track end u keeping our payroll taxes end supply purchases In Loveland also. by Keith Jehnaae earlier this week. will pri- the Great v Western Railroad. Ascher said Amalgamated Sugar In a day when many manly service the expansion "Irs significant of the interested m the GW factory railroads are tearing up of Universal Forest Products ongoing good things that are site capacity. G of hold storage tracks because of lacking at east Walnut and Colo.257 happening in Windsor." . The silos hold 956,500 financial incentive, approsi- and should be complete by Ascher said the additional bushels, end the warehouse holds mately h00 feet of new Friday,weather permitting. tracks will be sufficient to I 210,000 100-pound bags. Amalga- railroad track is being laid in "11 speaks very well for hold about a dozen rail can mated needs storage spare he- Windsor. Windsor's economic moan- and will extend into Univer. The new track.constructed Sion. said Pete Ascher of sae's treatment facility. the . the a most sugar Is not sold during approximate three-month pro- '-ductlon period.but Is stored for lat- • ter sale and good market conditions. 870123 Loveland Dailytrail, F" -- - --� THURSDAY NOVEMBER 27, 198C „ ,- , , 1 F r 1L+ay',yyr t'�' •x / V � 1' '4'Ju�Mt.. 1 r '.. It-?"- jotT l yj as :�,-. _�, t . I t vim, .u,>! t , y , II� f r '4 a +.� r.;. P r+ 0" ` gy ft `` s'3'fTi: j/ �''' '- - - - Photo by BRIAN LINCOLN John "Pete" Ascher, president of the Great Western Railway to the silos at the defunct Great Western Sugar Co. east of Co.,engineers three railroad cars containing 300 tons of sugar Longmont. `Sugar Express ' makes sweet trip area's sugar industry for more than 80 years. were expanded in 1905, concurrent with the For the Reporter-Herald They brought a ray of hope and nostalgia to building of processing plants in Longmont and the area's reviving sugar beet industry. Johnstown. A train ride into Longmont Wednesday was short and sweet. Most of the assets of Great Western Sugar, The last of Great Western's six sugar pro- Three railway can of the Great Western including the silos,were bought by Tate and ceasing plants,located in Loveland,closed in Railway rolled into town carrying a little bit Lyle,a firm from Great Britain. 1985. yeste roll—m the form of processed However,the local railway,which connects . The new railway,Ascher said,is still depen- ofof The p suB- former processing plants in Longmont,Love- dent on what he calls "basic industries" — sugar will be stored in the silos of the land, Eaton, Windsor and Johnstown, was Industries such as agriculture that produce now-defunct Great Western Sugar Co.The si- purchased by Loveland's John P.Asher and consumer goods in bulk quantities.But agri- los,which can hold 500,000 100-pound bags of incorporated as The Great Western Railway culture is no longer the railway's primary sugar,have been empty for at least two years by Asher and his partner,Pat Broe,a Denver business. Instead, Ascher said, the railway now following the collapse of the sugar com- developer and financier. helps connect a variety of industries in the pany and its parent company. The railway was started in 1901 to connect communities it serves with the major railway But today's incoming sugar cars,each con- Loveland, where Great Western's Charles lines—offering an option to other carriers. taming 100 tons, from nearby Johnstown ar- Boettcher built the first Colorado sugar pro- Ascher's firm also offers trucking services for rived on the same tracks that served the ceasing plant,with other railways.The tracks local industry. 870123 I.\KE COUNTY-EX.UIIN VII.Lake.iew,Oregon Thursday,Nov.1:1.Ihda Page:l A';a�, 1 "A 1(611\iti / ; 1 `j 1 • 4 jj4sr �.se •r + Taxes paid • With commissioner elect Jim Ogle looking community , says -Ascher, because the on, Pete Ascher of Great Western Railway railroad is contributing tax and other dollars (left) hands-a check for-1,233.67 tolake to the county'where there was previously County Assessor Gary Partin. The check gone. To -date, the railroad had pumped represents one installment of railroad's 3300,000 into the local economy. (Examiner property taxes. This is significant for the photo by David Sneed) LOVELAND DAILY EEVO.I Se WEEKEND NOVEMBER if ti 1•Y] ith ,frsy 1!t !$ ,• 1 x'41�" s E�-T -L �Y"` J' E A .. 4' , „ » d0,V. .. 114 �/ hlit �I e t \V ' cx ti ' L?Iy4 a (Fr r ; ; t,y ,064 L r IUv �� yY' Tl} y1: . Y `. \� ,.a, R— ij't•... ''Ii;. .y I I P-:;‘.0% •� 1S s . l :i:1 flhfhtEH 11a¢aWnarP•V.nnO.N LLVPFP • • All aboard! . Students Lem Loveland Preschool,including magma Walton boon nuhlnebenfaon.11en In echoer and loot m•ride to see n.board lot Otaal Wenern flally.r Caboose balwe taking a tow a rut train it aka. ride on It Friday morning.The 3-and I-mild•tudant'lop 870123 LOVELAND DAILY REEL. -R HERALD WEEKEND,DECEMBER 6 7,19863 Iov-eland homes are open for holiday tour By PHYLLIS WALBYE —Mr. and Mrs. John Haskew, Wagon New- 2219 Flom Court: The charming I t S Et i g home of the Haskews collections. John then i � �t,�t rs$ corners Loveland Welcome hold its Annual home o m Haske col- 7 i r ty w ii F. Christmas House Tour from-noon !eels old tin toys while Lu has more I t4•477,7 Y K r • . �'I `y until 5 p,m. tomorrow (Sunday) Nan dolls and bears Both e `-'� a 1 . ,R� �tv.-.?i,.,01,,,,iii-ctrii/.:1-11, asit,:risli!"t An Old-Fashioned Bake Sale is an predate antique furniture. In the `- qt t y Y r ~C 1 7 --G '' cam,',.' v a'7`- added attraction, during room,large German bisque •:‘,.#,-4,,,,.., 'e'°""` ` r,:„.;,,..( �+.( fr . There are four Loveland homes dolls,circa 1900,will be seen sery Jy.... _°W, r ?� y -F't 4r,`v,.... i �',y"n :r,. l and a surprise attraction on the Ng cake. In the Bring room art- "t"t s •4114". :' r( ^r''. Y d .-"sYni tour, each chosen because design tique bisque dolls decorate then qs�y,;; >.. r s -w_..� c '�U aspects ere just right for special tumbleweed Christmas of " S J• sx , —.jam* r•R 1 -mow.:""t" . , , s_. kinds of Christmas decorating. many John and son Denny have -®T-i Ai 'a. corlsl ucled thr° h the ears. 6+L "'` r �t` Proceeds from the tour benefit the TY, > { Tro Newcomers Club scholarship fund. —Dr.and Mrs.John Curtis,2857 ♦'V- Tickets for the tour are$5 and Sally Am Drive:The Curtis home �a _, -t ,'I 1� -w1.1 rzk . �r. are available at Trends,Plants'n' is decorated in colonial style remi « Things,Gallery East or by calling ascent of 18th century America. .,s - r .' ' Wanda Morton at 863-5418. The Pictures and coHectables found t�•{ ..,� '♦'�,�§ . c',.. awn 6�I ` ticket (it has a map showing the _throughout the house recall-meth IF r.} •"a• `i.A a 1 w;,:}`f � s:, ;' - I I 4.. '. way to the homes)also entitles the Dries of tired;spent In such special �! C E . -. holder to refreshments at Bank places as New England, Colonial 4-.-. r �� - r. !Z •I. { -f -' p. -Western,29th St.and Highway 287. Williamsburg and rural Virginia. ' " - 6 .+ F The Old-Fashioned Bake Sale will Debbie Curtis' aunt did the oil '� • Tor L i •�..1 ri +^,-"$j. be held at Bank Westem, ling of the Connecticut what --._. -. i. yY, 'y 4.:: r4 • I l t :;.,o The following descriptions of vessel "Charles W. Morgan I r pti cram the and !'Y homesthe tend a special railway car) that theme found gin the(amirti '°x LL• ''r `- , \1 1 �r , on the tour are provided by Love- Y r^ t , land Newcomers Club. room f°r(h°r eryresses the affect 7 '.2°�' HontnefeatefnAmerthecontoi „ ♦ - ✓✓�y� ^-,fie r { —Crest We em Railway Car, region of eastern America. 930 Monroe: The Great Western f 1 i -" • --7 -Railway's official business car has — Mr. end Mn. Greg Derck° Y .,.�' "s'( „ R. ! ry solid mahogany doors, stained 1957 Carol Drive:This home is der j�."r� ,• — • i °� glass windows and a refinished orated in"New World Country,"a ii ,1 is v �1� ,f wood and red velvet Interior.When blend of antiques and new furnish- It was.purchased-In 1984 at the Ings.The parlour and dining room Denver Railroad Yards by Pete have lace panel window coverings Reporter-Herald photos/DAN LOOPER Ascher, Loveland, its decor fea- and replicas of antique light fix- John, Shannon and Debbie Curtis enjoy the fireplace of their colonial-style home at 2857 Sally lured old mattresses,wine battles tures. There!s a cradle built by Anne Drive. and Stereo cans.Jane Ascher re- June Demko's brother and an old stored the interior herself end fur- gate-leg table that June painted maintenance retirement home. It - I s 1 t f wished It with reupholstered and stenciled.A hand-quilted,an- was designed and built by the Ne- et ,f railroad seats and attic treasures. aligned wall hanging is the focal meths and decorated primarily to .•ln�t Cl- 4 -?y't �u,/4 t' " The car was built in 1907 as a coin- point of the casual family room.In blue to reflect the Colrado sies ' � 1 y A , binatlon coach-railway post office. the kitchen there is a collection of and nearby Rist Benson Lake. r� . f , , Kph Research indicates that in 1910 it works by Danish artist Kurt Ord. Christmas decorations accent this S i y'cr s,ri,.1 J r ` _ may have been the target of the cool, crisp theme. The Christmas .2.-";' 'Yif ' 7 •'r l a last recorded robbery of a railway —Mr. and Mrs. John Nemeth, tree to covered with stars and id- ��qar.� �t y;r 1.post office car. The perpetrator 2844 Farislia Drive:The 2-year-old des. White reindeer stand by the ` �ryi\ , .,vtyv ry-g r r' -was infamous Black Jack Ket- home of the Nemetls is a fine ex- woad stove,and candles and white ^' . • A•' • chum. ample of an energy-efficient,low- lights abound. I I 4 �`k j{t,►I+ , y',� �i7•,y l_ •4‘"1•141441€4.1; • - ,te t + r•-lb? ` i r igli „.g••• r * � 4•'`4". , . ,; _ • r' R .,rw , • iiti, f\, . • 4, t ; .,, F� �S• i , .. jJ rig ,.e• , . # + - ^r'.+ti - I 1 Nisi''j ''/ f..- I {l im,. . ,-t s .,_.. . ,-,- a ':,t, r.a • y • I@ ii._ a N � r c . 'Lit "1 I f dig, ,i,‘ p � �FE J�ca .454 ( I 7 1 i ". r_. =1f -rF f-7 � y , s r,,. t / l . 1 ,N J ) ',141 elsw 4.V Af.♦ S, ,........l., 3{ r a �,�1 f •.` y�� rr• - .: .,, 1,t t 7-da `C '• tip. Jane Ascher,right restored the Interior of this historic railroad car.Kay O'Keefe and Sharon Nyga Lu Haskew displays some of her antique dolls,a teddy bear (in back,from left)enjoy the antique organ. and 1912 child's pedal car by the tumbleweed Christmas tree. 870123 aMcCARTV ENGINEERING ICNSULTANTs, INC. raW January 27, 19_87 JAN 28 N87 Weld Co. Planniug4o&wissioa Keith _Schuett, Planner Weld County planning Department 91 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. , Weld County Case No. Z-430:86:3 A staff memo was prepared on November 4, 1986, to -discuss the above referenced Change of -Zone request. In this memorandum, the staff discussed several areas where, in their opinion, the applicant had not demonstrated that the application materials were in compliance with the standards and conditions of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. -Since the Weld County Planning Commission meeting, the applicants have worked diligently to resolve the issues that were raised by the planning staff. Through this letter, and the enclosed attachments, we -will demonstrate how the majority of the concernsraised in the November 4 memorandum have been successfully resolved. In Section I .A. 1 , the staff indicated that the Great -Western Railroad cut diagonally through the proposed property. The staff raised several issues in an attempt to demonstrate the noncompatability issue. Exhibit 41 is a copy of a letter prepared by Jack Beier, railroad engineer or the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The applicant has -met with Mr. -Beier and Drew Sheltinga, County Engineer, at the site. In tie letter, Mr. Baler indicates his belief that the crossing should be controlled by flashing signals end standard advance warning signs. Additionally, CRS Investments, Inc. , the applicant, has dilligently pursued discussions with The Great Western Railway Company. -Although these discussions have not resulted in an acceptable agreement between the applicant and The Great Western Railway Company, substantial progress has been made. -Exhibits 2 through f, reflect the diversity of opinion regarding the reasonableness of -a solution _for resolving this issue. Exhibit 7 is a letter from CRS Investments, Inc. , summarizing their continued commitment for protection of the crossing and buffering between the railroad and the residential uses. 703 THIRD-AVENUE •1.ONGIVIONT,CO. 80801 772-7755/449-437387 f_ xsieri ( I ®l�ri3 Keith Schuett, Planner Page 2 January 27, 1987 In Section I .A.2. , the staff indicated that a potential conflict existed between the residential uses and the production of oil and gas within the P.U.D. District. The applicant has revised the allowable uses within the P.U.D. District to provide dor production of gas and nil . Further, negotiations have been held between the applicant and Macey and Mershon Dil, Inc. , the oil and gas mineral lease holder. These discussions have resulted in an agreement for continued use of the mineral lease in a compatibl-e nature with the residential development o£ the property, as demonstrated by the agreement attached and labeled Exhibit 8. In Section I .A.3, the staff discussed the Oligarchy irrigation ditch and the compatibility issue of this ditch running through a residential subdivision. The applicant has met with the Oligarchy Ditch Board, and their attorney, Neal E. Filler. Dn December 16, 1986, CRS agreed to enter into a -written agreement along lines discussed by -Mr. Pillar and as -written by Mr. Curtis, CRS' attorney, in a separate letter. On Jan. 26, the Ditch Co. abruptly decided it did not want any agreement and it would oppose the rezoning. However, as stated in Mr. Curtis' letter, attached as Exhibit 9, CR5 Investments, Inc. will protect the ditch. In Section II of the staff memorandum, a concern was raised as to whether the applicant had demonstrated a willingness to upgrade county roads. -Again, several meetings have been held with the County Planning staf₹, the bounty -Attorney, and the County Engineer. These have resulted in an Offsite Improvements Agreement, attached as Exhibit 10. This agreement has been reviewed by Drew Sheltinga and is acceptable to him. It includes 5 pages of cost exhibits and a fold-out -map to show the -phases and their locations. In Section III of the staff memorandum, slated November 4, 11986, compatibility issues were raised regarding the development adjacent to Union -Reservoir. -Again, the applicant has attempted to resolve this issue. -Previous correspondence _with the Union Reservoir Company is attached as Exhibits 11 and 12. Exhibit 11 is correspondence indicating the acceptability of housing adjacent to Union Reservoir, as long as certain conditions are met. The applicant has agreed to these conditions. Exhibit 11 is a letter which was written by the consultant for the applicant, dated January 9, 11987, to Mr. Southard, the attorney for Union Reservoir Company. Except for a brief telephone call betwween Kim Collins, representing the applicant, and Jim Vetting, president of Union Reservoir Company, on January 20, 1987, there has been no response to the letter dated January 9, 1987. Exhibit le is a letter from CRS Investments, Inc. , summarizing their continuing commitment to resolving the concerns of the Reservoir Company. 870123 Keith Schuett, Planner Page 3 January 27, 1987 In _Section IV, the staff has indicated a non-compatibility issue with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Longmont. The applicant is unable to resolve this issue. In Section V, the staff indicates -a non-compatibility _issue with the Weld County Comprehensive -Plan. This paragraph concludes with the statement the Planned Unit Development District -should not be approved before the Weld County Comprehensive Plan update is complete." The Weld County Comprehensive -Plan update bas been fi-nally -adopted by the Board of _County Commissioners. In conclusion, we -would suggest that the applicants have proceeded diligently towards resolution -of all issues raised by the planning staff in the their memo dated -November 4, 1986. Two issues, the Great Western Railroad Company and the Longmont Comprehensive Plan, have not been -fi-nally resolved. There is a divergency in views -with The Great Western Railroad as to reasonableness. The applicant is willing to adhere to the requirements of the RUC and has stated so repeatedly since initial submittals on this project. Other -attempts to work out reasonable final solutions with the railroad have not been successful . -This does -not mean that the applicant will not continue to pursue resolution of these items prior to a final P.U.D. plan. As stated earlier, the City of Longmont Comprehensive Plan issue is unresolvable. We feel that it has been -mitigated by the adoption of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, which provides recommendations for the development and land uses i-n -the Del Camino 1-25 area, including this property. The applicant respectfully requests your -positive consideration of the Change of Zone request from A - Agriculture to P.U.D. If you ha-ye any questions regarding this request, -we will be available to make a presentation and answer questions at your Board of County Commissioners meeting on January 28, 1987. Thank ynu for your consideration of this request. Sincerely yours, McCarty -Engineering Consultants, Inc. John A. McCarty, P.E. JAN/sm cc: File #1687.1 Kim Collins 87-0123 EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit 1 Letter from Jack Beier of Public Utilities Commission Exhibit 2 Letter from C.R.S. Investments, Inc. to The Great Western Railway Company dated November 10. 1986 Exhibit 3 Letter from The Great Western Railway Company to C.R.S. Investments, Inc. Exhibit 4 Letter _from C.R.S. Investments, Inc. to The Great Western Railway Company, dated December 22, 1986. Exhibit 5 Letter from The Great Western Railway Company to C.R.S. Invesments, Inc. , dated January 9, 1987. Exhibit 6 Letter from C.R.S. Investments, Inc. to The Great Western Railway Company, dated January 20, 1987. Exhibit 7 Letter from CRS Investments, Inc. to Weld County Commissioners dated January 26, 1987. Exhibit 8 Agreement with Macey and Mershon Oil, Inc. Exhibit 9 Letters from Harvey Curtis to Meld County Commissioners dated January 27, 1987 addressing Oligarchy Ditch Co. and JCK -Farms, Ltd. Exhibit 10 Off-Site Improvements Agreement, dated January 16, 1987. Exhibit 11 Letter from William H. Southard, Atty. , Union Reservoir Company, to Keith Schuett, dated November 3, 1986. Exhibit 12 McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. letter to William H. Southard, Atty. , dated January 9, 1987. Exhibit 13 Letter _from CRS Investments, Inc. to Weld County Commissioners dated January 26, 1986 addressing Union Reservoir. 870123 STATE OF COLORADO EXHIBIT 1 Richard D.Lamm,Governor emir di., Department of Regulatory Agencies E.Webb.Executive Director /+l COMMISSIONERS- WellingtonRonaldLLeh THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Ronald L Lehr.Chairman Administration 120]1!66.1156 a . �� Edythe S. Miller Transportation U0M)566-1255 Andra Schmidt Fixed Utilities(303)1663151 Executive Secretary Counsel O03)566-3155 1550LOrlin OGAN ST ST LEM 2 Harry A.Gallows.Jr. DENVER,COLORADO 10203 December 17, 1986 Mr. Kim Collins • CRS Investments, Inc. 1333 W. 120th Ave. Suite 308 Denver, CO 80234 Dear Mr. Collins: Re: On site meeting ip WCR 3 1/2 & _Great Western Railway Co. 's _crossing On October 28, 1986 I met with you, Drew Scheltinga and Pete Ascher at the grade crossing of WCR 3 1/2 across the Great Western Railway's main line track to discuss the potential impact of your planned development. Based upon the present information available concerning train and vehicle volumes at that location if your -development proceeds as discussed, my preliminary recommendation -is that the installation of standard flashing light signals and standard advance warning signs would provide adequate warning at that location. As additional detailed traffic data is developed my initial recommendation could be modified to include the addition of crossing gates. If you -have any additional questions, please contact me. Sincerely, 41-0-17:6 Jack Baler Transportation Engineer (303) 866-4286 1533B:JHB:nj 870123 C It S INVESTMENTS INC 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE EXHIBIT 2 SUITE 308 DENVER, COLORADO 80234 (303)4529955 November 10, 1986 Mr. John P. Ascher President and Chief Executive Officer The Great Western Railway Co. Taylor Avenue Shops P. O. Box 537 Loveland, Colorado 80539 Re: Bay Shores - 280 Acres, Weld County Daar Pete: I tried to contact you today by phone and was infotucd that you were out until Wednesday, so I decided to write you this letter. This is to confirm to you and Great Western railway Co. (GWR) , CRS's formal offer as discussed with you on November 3, 1986 in our telephone conversation. CRS will pay GWR a fee of $10,000.00 for your support, agreement and the granting of the following items and easements: 1. Support of flashing signal with improved at grade crossing at Rd..3' w7P.U.C. and Weld Governing Agencies. 2. Granting all the necessary easements for the proposed development adjoining GAR right of way, including but not limited to, gas, telephone, water, sewer, storm water, cable, fiber optic, surface crossing necessary to develop the said property into residential dwelling sites. 3.. Full oaupensation for any possible loss of revenue by GWR for residential zoning. 4. Full compensation for any future maintenance of grade crossing (signal or surface) . 5. Full compensation for any additional insurance liability that _GWR may incur. . . . 2 870123 Mr. John P. Ascher Page 2. President and Chief Executive Officer The Great Western Railway Co. CRS will, of course, build the crossing at Rd. 31 to P.U.C. standards and requirements. All crossings, utility or surface, will be to P.U.C. standards and requirements. All improvermnts to the 31 RD. surface crossing and all utility crossings will be at the expense of CRS. CRS believes this is a fair and equitable offer to GWR. It is my understanding that the P.U.C. has jurisdiction over road and surface crossing requirements. Per the P.U.C., 99% of all road crossings in Colorado are the railroad's responsibility before and after the developer has improved the crossing to the P.U.C. requirements. I know of no regulation, State, County, City, which mandates a developer to compensate a railroad for possible loss revenue in a land zone change. CRS will pay the above $10,000.00 to GWR with $1,000 cash down- payment due on mutual execution of a definitive agreement that will describe in detail the above items. The $9,000 balance will be paid within two (2) years on or before completion of the developments 1st Phase. CRS will be anxious to have your input and comments to the above offer at your earliest convenience. Please feel free to contact me at 457-3775. Sincerely, CRS INVESTMENTS INC. Kim Collins KC/kel cc: Mr. John McCarty/ Harvey Curtis, Esq. Mr. Roger Seaton Mr. Keith Schuett, Weld County 870123 EXHIBIT 3 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AVENUE SHOPS P. O. BOX 637 (pt. � LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539 Nws JOHN P. ASCHER \\\ PIMSE ENT 41'ID CHIC,p(ECVTVE°Alan November 17, 1986 (FAST FR IGHT1 Mr. Kim Collins CRS Investments Inc. 1333 West 120th Avenue Suite 308 Denver, CO 80234 Dear Kim: This will acknowledge receipt of yours dated November 10 relative to Bay Shores. GWRy is, of course, willing to support. a residential—industrial rezoning if you can arrange for financing of the following: 1. Grade crossing separation at Road 3 1/2. 2. Future maintenance of such separation. When I estimated the value of our losses at some $43,000 during our recent meeting at Mr. McCarty's office, I omitted additional exposure and future railway insurance costs. Therefore, Mr. Huston's original estimate of $70,000 would, indeed, be appropriate. Inasmuch as we have not yet discussed a possible combined industrial— residential configuration, I view this matter as still open to further talks. Will look forward to your advice. Yours very truly', John P. Ascher JPA:es cc: Mr. John McCarty, Longmont Mr. Keith Schuett, Weld Count Planner - - 870123 SERVING COLORADO. OREGON. AND CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL SITES AVAILABLE IN OUR EXPANDING MARKET AREAS TELEPHONE: 1303) 667-6SP3 __. C -c S INVESTMENTS INC. EXHIBIT 4 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER,COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 December 22, 1986 Mr. Pete Ascher The Great Western Railway Co. Taylor Avenue Shops P. O. Box 537 Loveland, Colorado 80539 Hoar Pete: We have asked The Public Utilities Conmission to confirm their preliminary improvements reoamendation on the grade crossing at WC-R 31 and Great Western Railroad. (attached) . CRS believes our written offer contained in the letter of November 10, 1986 (attached) is fair and equitable and requests that GWR will reconsider its position in this matter. If you would like to meet and discuss the above, please feel free to call 457-3775 and we will make ourselves available. Sincerely, CRS INVESTMENTS INC. Kim Collins KC/kel Attachments cc: Harvey Curtis, Esq. Drew L. Scheltinga John McCarty✓ Keith Schuett Lee Morrison 870123 EXHIBIT 5 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AVENUE SHOPS Y• T r", P. O. BOX 537 LOVELAND, COLORAD O B0539 � JOHN P ASCHER ••••ElIEW1XT AP.C CI.W EXECUTIVE OFFICER S January 9, 1987 d L .. FAST FREIGHT Mr. Kim Collins CRS Investments Inc. 1333 West 120th Avenue Suite 308 Denver, CO 80234 Dear Kim: I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter dated 12/22/86 concerning the Bay Shores/GWR situation in Weld County. Based on your letter of 11/10/86, GWR would accept a cash offer of $20,000, payable in full on 1/16/87. I feel this to be a fair amount given the level of risk involved. If the Bayshores project runs into financial difficulties after the crossing is built, GWR will have to assume all liabilities and expenses for the crossing which could be substantial. The aforementioned amount would be payable to GWR after a mutually definitive agreement would be signed by the parties based on the terms set forth in your 11/10/86 letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Steve Boblak or Pat Broe at (303) 393-0033. Yours very truly, John P. Ascher JPA:es 870123 SERVING COLORADO. OREGON. AND CAUFORNIA INDUSTRIAL SITES AVAILABLE IN OUR EXPANDING MARKET AREAS TELEPHONE: (303) 657-6803 C .. S INVESTMENTS 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE EXHIBIT 6 SUITE 308 DENVER,COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 January 20, 1987 Mr. Jahn P. Ascher the Great Western Railway Co. Taylor Avenue Shops P. O. Box 537 Loveland, Colorado 80539 DART Pete: I wanted to follow up a telephone conversation that I had today with Steve Boblak of Pat Broe's office. CRS is unable at this time to accept your offer of $20,000 cash and $10,000 to be reimbursed to CRS if CRS is unable to rezone the Bay Shores P.U.D. We feel that The Great Western Railway Co. has absolutely no exposure unless the land is rezoned and there is not any justification for a $10,000 fee. CRS does continue at this writing to offer to GWR, $12,500 based on items and easements described in our letter of November 10, 1986 payable $5,000 cash downpayment within ninety (90) days of rezone approval, the balance due within two (2) years, or camenoement of Bay Shores, Phase I .construction. We hope that GWR and Mr. Broe will reconsider the above _offer. If you have any questions, please call me @ 457-3775. Very truly yours, CRS INVESTMENTS INC. Kim Collins cc; Mr. Pat Broe Mr. Steve Boblak Mr. Lee Morrison Mr. Keith Schuett Mr. Drew Scheltinga Mr. Harvey Curtis Mr. John McCarty boo: Mr. Roger Seaton 870123 C .. S INVESTMENTS INL. 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE EXHIBIT 7 SUITE 308 DENVER.COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 January 26, 1987 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Railroad Grade Crossings - Mile North Hwy. #119 WCR 31 Dear Commissioners: CRS Investments Inc. (CRS) has tried in good faith to successfully negotiate a reasonable agreement with the Great Western Railway (GWR) . CRS has agreed to and will continue its efforts to minimize any negative effect on adjoining land uses. 1. CRS will build at its expense and @ Grade Crossing to P.U.C. specifications in the first phase of construction. 2. Minimum lot depth of 150 feet adjoining the R.R. easement when combined with the R.R. easement would leave an average distance of 125 feet fran trackage to the back of the home. 3. Locating Parks and Open Space when possible, adjacent to R.R. easement. 4. Making a lwrp sum payment ($12,500) to GWR for any additional insurance liability premiums, possible loss of revenues; and for the granting to CRS easement and crossing necessary for Bay Shores development. 5. Using fencing, berming and other landscaping techniques as additional buffer between R.R. easement and residential lots. 6. TO maximize line of sight at R.R. crossing by restricting fencing, landscaping and increasing set backs where applicable. GWR has responded to the above offers with a demand of $20,000 cash prior to a change of zone and with a $10,000 refund to CRS if the . 2 X3'7®123 Weld County Commissioners Page 2. January 26, 1987 change of zone is denied. CRS' offer is reasonable and generous and we believe that the above conmitment should satisfy the concerns of the County Commissioners. Respectfully, CRS INVEsr•ia INC. Kim Collins KC/ke1 870123 EXHIBIT 8 1: iNvy : 44 94 7. January 26, 1987 CRS Investments, Inc. 1333 West 120th Avenue, Suite 308 Denver, Colorado 80234 Attention: Mr. Kim Collins, Vice President Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. Pt of N/2 Section 5-T2N-R68W weld County, Colorado Gentlemen: Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. ("Operator") and CRS Investment, Inc. ("CRS") , by F execution of this Letter Agreement, agree that the following terms and #` conditions will form the basis of a Surface Use Agreement ("Agreement") to 2Y be executed between the parties within sixty (60) days after approval of ti `` the Change of Zone ("COZ") Submittal for Bay Shores Planned Unit Development ("P.U.D.") (Case Number Z-430:86:5) by the Weld County t Commissioners ("Weld County") . The Agreement will incorporate the following in addition to any contingencies or responses to issues which may be created that burden either party by Weld County upon approval of the COZ or P.U.D. 1. CRS, as successor to all of the surface lands and certain minerals owned by Susan J. and Robert Pietrzak, agree to abide by the terms and conditions of that certain March 16, 1981 Letter Agreement as executed 0}�y by W. B. Macey and Paul M. Mershon, Jr. ("Lessee") and Susan J. Pietrzak, et al ("Lessor") and the Oil and Gas Lease ("Lease") dated March 17, 1981 by and between Lessee and Lessor, except as superceded herein. 2. CRS acknowledges, honors and respects the rights and obligations of ftOperator (by appointment under the terms of the unit Operating Agreement dated October 1, 1981) , to prudently manage and protect the mineral interest of the working interest owners, Lessees and Lessors, in addition to those acquired by CRS. 3. In the event Weld County approves the COZ application and subsequent Bay Shores P.U.D., CRS will not restrict, hinder or impede Operator's operations of the well presently located on the premises or operations of future wells and activities contemplated by this Letter Agreement, including drilling, completing or producing (herein collectively referred to as "operations") the mineral estate. MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. 870123 SUITE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER. COLORADO 80202-4970 • (303) 861-9183 Letter Agreement January 26, 1987 Page 2 4. Operator reserves the right to perform all operations necessary to test the "3" sand formation at a legal location within the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) as determined by the State of Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. CRS will designate a minimum of three (3) acres of open space common to both the defined legal location and open space. In addition, Operator will retain the option of performing those operations required to produce any other oil and gas bearing formation(s) within the wellbore of this future "3" test well and the existing Pietrzak #1. This will include, but not be limited to, CRS providing sufficient surface acreage to perform the operations necessary to put those formations into production. Any additional operations that Operator desires to perform that affect use of the surface acreage of the P.U.D., in addition to those described herein, will be evaluated on an individual basis and subject to the mutual consent of the parties. 5. All designated operations and terms and conditions contained herein will be grandfathered with the COZ and P.U.D. until such time as the Lease terminates. 6. CRS will provide adequate surface area, free of cost, to construct and install and will reimburse Operator for reasonable cost of the natural gas pipeline(s) from the production equipment of the well described in Paragraph 4 above, as may be installed by Operator, to a mutually agreeable point adjacent to Weld County Road 3 1/2. At said point CRS will provide adequate surface area for an interconnection with Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company ("PEPL") . PEPL will be provided adequate surface area to construct a pipeline from the existing pipeline, which begins at the southern boundary of the property and runs to the Pietrzak #1 well located in the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) , to said mutually agreeable point unless another route is designated by PEPL or either party. Operator will, in its notice to PEPL that the future well requires connection, limit the request to only equipment and appurtenances required for a direct connect. Should CRS and PEPL enter into an agreement to move and relocate the existing pipeline used to transport gas from the Pietrzak #1 well, Operator will coordinate the production schedule for a reasonable period of time, so as to allow the relocation. 7. Vehicular access will not be restricted by load limits or otherwise on roads constructed within the development. Both parties will work together in minimizing the disturbance caused by vehicular movement and other operations within the P.U.D. 870123 Letter Agreement January 26, 1987 Page 3 8. CRS will pay to the Operator and Working Interest Owners the sum of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) as compensation to confine surface use and conduct any and all operations required to explore for and develop oil and gas formations from drillsite locations within the two (2) surface areas defined in Paragraph 4. Payment will be scheduled in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) with the first payment due one (1) year from P.U.D. approval and annually thereafter until the total amount of $90,000 is paid in full. Interest will be due on the outstanding principal balance at the time each payment is due and will be calculated based upon the Prime Rate as established by the United Bank of Denver at the beginning of each payment period. 9. In the event Weld County creates any burdensome obligations or operational constraints upon Operator which become part of the COZ or P.U.D. approval process regarding current or future operations, Operator and CRS will incorporate those obligations as part of the Agreement. Should the COZ application be denied by Weld County, this Letter Agreement will terminate. 10. Any covenants created will provide for Operator's use of the surface acreage as described in Paragraph 4 for the operations defined herein and not create any additional burdens of fencing, landscaping, berming or otherwise to enlarge the financial obligation of Operator's operations, subject to the surface use requirement of Paragraph 7 and 8 of the March 16, 1981 Letter Agreement, except as modified herein. 11. Failure to timely pay the amount as set forth in Paragraph 8, in and of itself will terminate the obligations of Operator contained herein and CRS will forfeit all opportunity to restrict through covenants of the P.U.D. or otherwise to restrict Operator from conducting operations on any portion of the surface lands of the development. In addition, CRS will forfeit any monies paid to Operator and Operator shall have the right to collect, prorata based on four (4) 80-acre spacing units, the entire balance of the $90,000 along with all of Operator's costs of collection, including attorneys' fees, only in the event construction begins within any of the spacing units within said lands. 12. This Letter Agreenent is subject to the approval of the working interest owners, Lessees and Lessors of the Lease as recorded March 23, 1981, Book 931, Reception No. 1852853 in the records of Weld County, Colorado. 13. The Lease will be modified by the terms and conditions of this Letter Agreement. Where provisions of the Lease differ from those contained in this Letter Agreement, the provisions of this Letter Agreement will control. 870123 Letter Agreement January 26, 1987 Page 4 14. This Letter Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original for all purposes. 15. All terms and conditions contained herein shall inure to the benefit of either party, their respective successors and/or assigns, including but not limited to successor interest of CRS in the development project. If the foregoing is acceptable to CRS, please so indicate by signing below and returning one copy of this Letter Agreement to this office. Very truly yours, MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. James A. Brown Agen & Attorney-in-Fact for W. B. Macey, Mershon, Inc. and Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO THIS 27—t4 day of C(-,4 v�P f., 1987. CRS INVESTMENTSS�,p INC. Kum Cdllins, Vice President 870123 EXHIBIT 9 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L.WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES&PHILLIPS,P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 January 27, 1987 HAND DELIVERY Board of County Commissioners Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P. U.D. - Oligarchy Ditch Company Dear Commissioners : 1 am writing this letter as the attorney tor the applicant in the Bay Shores P.U.D. rezoning matter which is scheduled for hearing on January 28, 1987. As attorney for the landowner , I have attempted to work an agreement out with the Oligarchy Ditch Company. This includes a meeting held on December 4, 1986, which resulted in my letter to their attorney, Neil E. Piller , on December 17, 1986, setting forth the terms of a proposed agreement as Mr . Piller and I had discussed at the meeting. When I had not heard anything back, I wrote Mr . Piller again on December 31, 1986, copies of both of these letters are attached hereto. Mr . Piller responded with a letter on the Ditch Company's concerns with the proposed agreement on January 5, 1987. Principally these concerns went to the future liability of the Ditch Company for any ditch relocation. A copy of this letter is also attached. On January 16, 1987, I again wrote Mr . Piller outlining an agreement which included a 100% payment of the Oligarchy Ditch Company ' s current insurance premium by my client and by future lot owners as well as an agreement to give the Ditch Company a 40 foot deeded right of way if the ditch is relocated, and to line the ditch and install ditch protection structures requested by Mr . Piller . A copy of this letter is attached. On January 21 , 1987, Mr. Piller responded. According to his letter , a copy of which is attached, the Ditch Company was still concerned with payment of future insurance premiums by the lot owners . He proposed that this liability be the subject of homeowner covenants and he proposed that the ditch 's right of way 870123 Board of County Commissioners January 27, 1987 Page Two be 16-1/2 feet on either side of the ditch rather than the 20 feet we had proposed on either side of the centerline of the ditch . On January 23, 1987, I wrote Mr . Piller and stated my client 's agreement to these liability terms and ditch width. A copy of this letter is attached. On January 26 , 1987, the Ditch Company abruptly changed its mind. By Mr . Piller 's letter , copy attached, he says that despite our client 's acquiescence to the Ditch Company' s language, the Ditch Company has now decided it does not want to agree to any ditch relocation and will continue to oppose the zoning change. We have proceeded in good faith to negotiate with the Ditch Company's attorney along the lines that they had requested. Frankly CRS Investments , Inc. is surprised by the sudden change of mind. Nonetheless , CRS respects the Ditch Company's rights and agrees that its ditch will be protected in the P. U.D. rezoning as follows : 1. CRS Investments , Inc. will agree that the Oligarchy Ditch will not be relocated but will be left in its current location. 2. 16-1/2 feet (one rod as requested by Mr . Piller) on each side of the ditch will be dedicated as an easement for ditch operation and maintenance purposes . 3. CRS will agree to the insurance proposal by Mr . Piller 's January 21, 1987 letter: that the Ditch Company's insurance premiums will first be paid by CRS, then paid by the homeowners association and will also be secured by a covenant running with each lot. The covenant shall allow the Ditch Company to recover costs and attorneys fees of enforcing the covenant and shall allow its board to review the level of coverage from time to time , and if it deems the coverage to be inadequate , to notify the homeowners of the need for an increase. If the homeowners object, they shall have the right to submit the matter to arbitration at their expense as proposed by Mr . Piller . 4. Drainage water will only be allowed to enter the ditch at historic flows . It should be pointed out that under Colorado law, the Ditch Company does not have a deeded easement. It does not have any right to indemnity or to insurance . However , CRS is willing to give what the Ditch Company now has asked for: to leave the 870123 Board of County Commissioners January 27, 1987 Bage Three ditch in place , unlined, with insurance protection against future liability. Sincerely, Har ey W. Curtis HWC/bm enclosures cc: Neil E. Piller , Esq. - U.S . Mail lee D. Morrison, Esq. - Hand Delivered Keith Schuett - Hand Delivered olefin McCarty - Hand Delivered Kim Collins - Hand Delivered 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 STAR L.WARING, OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYEB 8 PHILLIPS,P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 January 27, 1987 HAND DELIVERY Board of County Commissioners Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. - JCK Farms , Ltd, Dear Commissioners : I represent the applicant in this rezoning and I am writing this letter regarding the effect of the proposed Bay Shores P.U.D. on JCK Farms , Ltd. JCK Farms owns property adjacent to the property proposed for rezoning. Its interest in this rezoning case appears to be the ditch laterals it uses to receive water out of the Oligarchy Ditch which cross the Bay Shores property and in an underground drain on the property. I wrote Mr . Neil Piller , the attorney for JCK Farms , on January 16, 1987, setting forth a proposed agreement on those laterals and on an underground drain. A copy of this letter is attached. I talked to Mr. Piller on January 27, 1987 and he indicated that his client did not have any objection to undergrounding his laterals but preferred that they not be relocated. CRS Investments , Inc. , the applicant, has agreed to that. CRS will also agree to locate the underground drain on the plat if Mr. Hamm and JCK Farms wish that to be shown on the plat. Sincerely, Ha ey W. Curtis HWC/bm enclosure cc: Neil Piller , Esq. - U.S . Mail Lee D. Morrison, Esq. - Hand Delivered Keith Schuett - Hand Delivered t,John McCarty - Hand Delivered 870123 Kim Collins - Hand Delivered EXHIBIT 10 1-27-87 COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO -ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (OFF-SITE ) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1987, by and between the COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, hereinafter called "County, " and CRS INVESTMENTS , INC. , a Colorado corporation, hereinafter called "Owner" and/or "Developer" . WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to the County for approval of a change of zoning for Planned United Development, Case No. Z-430 : 86 :5 , for R-1 and R-2 P.U.D. uses , including residential , open space , and oil and gas development uses on land located on part of the north one-half of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development will generate additional traffic on the access road and other nearby roads , and WHEREAS, the existing County roads which provide access to the Planned Unit Development will require improvements to adequately serve traffic, and WHEREAS, Developer has offered to accept certain road improvement actions . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the County and the Developer mutually agree as follows : 1. Primary access to the Planned Unit Development shall be via Weld County Road No. 3-1/2 from Colorado State Highway No. 119 north approximately one-half mile to the Planned Unit Development southerly property line . 2. Other nearby roads are Weld County Road No. 26 which lies adjacent to the north property line of the Planned Unit Development (the "P.U.D. " ) . 3. All construction and materials under this agreement shall be in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction of the Colorado Department of Highways , with reference to the edition current at the time the project is initiated. The County shall review and approve the construction plans prior to construction and shall have the same authority as 870123 the Engineer , as defined in the specifications for the project , to inspect construction. 4. Phase I. A. Developer agrees to pave the one-half mile portion of County Road No. 3-1/2 to the Planned Unit Development, as flefined in paragraph no . 1 above . Phase I of the improvements ahall include the items shown as Phase I on page 1 of Exhibit No. l appended hereto and hereby incorporated herein. Said Phase I improvements shall include interim paving of two lanes of County Road No. 3-1/2 for the one-half mile described in paragraph no. 1 above, permanent paving of four lanes of Road No. 3-1/2 to the railroad crossing north of the two lanes , and the improving of aaid crossing. a. Developer agrees to initiate action to accomplish the Phase I improvements after recording of the final plat for Phase I of the P. U.D. at such time as construction of homes begins but prior to occupancy of homes in said Phase I. C. If , prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Phase I of the off-site road improvements , Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential , commercial , or industrial development, or any expansion of any agri-businesses , that will be using as access any of the portion of, or which is located adjacent to, County Road No. 3-1/2 paved at the expense of the Developer , the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost of the road, pro rata as the projected use of the road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the road . 5 . Phase II . A. Developer agrees to pave four lanes of the portion of County Road No. 3-1/2 extending north from the railroad crossing on the P.U.D. to the intersection of Road No. 3-1/2 with County Road No. 26 in accordance with the Phase II improvements identified on page 2 of Exhibit No. 1 , and to pave four lanes of the first approximately 1,000 feet of County Road No. 26 lying west of that intersection, also identified on page 2 of Exhibit No. 1. S. Developer agrees to initiate action to accomplish the Phase II improvements after recording of the final plat for Phase II of the P.U.D. at such time as construction of homes begins but prior to occupancy of homes in said Phase II. C. If , prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Phase II of the off-site road improvements , Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential , commercial, or industrial development, or any expansion of any agri-businesses , that will be using as access , or which is located adjacent to, any of the portions of County 2 870123 Roads No. 3-1/2 and/or No. 26 identified as phase II paved at the expense of the Developer, the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost of the roads , pro rata as the projected use of the road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the roads . 6. Phase III . A. Developer agrees to pave four lanes of the remaining portion of County Road No. 26 -extending from the Phase II improvements to the westerly property line o₹ the P.U.D. as more specifically identified as the Phase III improvements on page 3 of Exhibit No. 1. B. Developer agrees to initiate action to accomplish the Phase III improvements after recording of the final plat for Phase III of the P.U.D. at such time as construction of homes begins but prior to occupancy of homes in said Phase III. C. t₹ , prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Phase III of the off-site road improvements , Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential , commercial , or industrial -development, or any expansion of any agri-businesses , that will be using as access , or which is located adjacent to, any of that portion of County Road No. 26 identified as Phase III paved at the expense of the Developer , the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost o₹ the road, pro rata as the projected use of the road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the road. 7. Phase IV. A. Developer agrees to pave four lanes of that portion of County Road No. 26 lying east o₹ the intersection o₹ County Road No. 26 with County Road No. 3-1/2 extending to the easterly property line of the P.U.D . , as more specifically identified as the Phase IV improvements listed on page 4 of Exhibit No. 1. B. Developer agrees to initiate action to accomplish the Phase IV improvements after recording of the final plat for Phase IV of the P.U.D. at such time as construction of homes begins but prior to occupancy of homes in said Phase IV. L. If, prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Phase IV of the off—site road improvements , Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential, commercial , or industrial development, or any expansion of any agri-businesses , that will be using as access , or which is located adjacent to, any of that portion of County Road No. 26 paved at the expense of Developer as Phase IV of the improvements, the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost o₹ the road, pro rata as the 3 870123 protected use ofthe road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the road. 8. Phase V. A. Developer agrees to add two 12-foot lanes of County -Road No. 3-1/i between the intersection of County -Road No. 3-1/2 with Colorado State Highway No. 11-9 extending north to the southerly property line of the P.U.D. , plus 250 feet o₹ 12-foot left turn lane on Road No. 3-1/2 at Highway No. 11-3, which improvements are more specifically identified as phase V of the improvements as listed on page 5 of Exhibit No. 1. These improvements are in addition to the Phase I improvements which were the interim two lane paved roadway identified in paragraph no. -4, above . B. Developer agrees to initiate the action necessary to accomplish Phase V of the improvements after the recording of all final plats for the Q. U.D. at such time as 500 dwelling units on the P.U.D. have been completed and certificates of occupancy issued therefor by the County of Weld, State of Colorado . C. If, prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Phase V of the off site road improvements , Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential, commercial, or industrial development, or any expansion of any agri-businesses , that will be using as access , or which is located adjacent to, any of the approximate one-half mile of County -Road No. 3-1/2 paved at the expense of the Developer, the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost of the road , pro rata as the projected use of the road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the roads . g. 1t is the intent of the parties that this Agreement remain in full force and effect until it terminates according to its own terms and that it be binding upon the Developer and its successors, and assigns , and on this -Board and future Boards to the fullest extent permitted by law. Should this Agreement, or any portion thereof, be found to be void or voidable for the reason that it binds the Board of County Commissioners for more than a one year period of time, this contract shall be construed as a one year contract with automatic annual renewals . 10 . It is the intent of the parties that a separate agreement regarding collateral for construction for each phase of the o₹f-site improvements will be proposed by the Developer prior to review by the County of the final plat for each phase of the development, to be executed prior to recording of each such plat. 870123 4 11 . The addresses of the parties are as follows : Weld County Board of County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street P.O. Box 1948 Greeley, Colorado 80532 CRS Investments , Inc. 1333 West 120th Avenue, Suite 308 Denver , Colorado 80254 It shall be the obligation of the parties to notify each other of any change of address , registered agent, or change of ownership. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto -have duly executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board By: Chairman By: Deputy Clerk CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. By: Its 870123 5 BAY SHORES P.U .Q. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE I UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY TRICE EXTENSION y -•• ***• i****1 * STATE HIGHWAY 119 IMPROVEMENTS - ACCEL/DECEL LANES Deceleration Lanes = 570' Length • 600' Taper x 12' Width Acceleration Lanes = 1 , 170' Length • 600' Taper x 12' Width Clear and Grub S.Y. 6,200 S1 .00 56.200.00 Subgrsde -Preparation S .Y. £,200 $1 .00 $6 ,200 .00 Base Oonrae - 14" CL 6 S.Y. 6,200 $6.00 $37,200.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S .Y. 6,20_0 S5.00 $31 ,000.00 SUBTOTAL $80,600 .00 * WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - ST HWY 119 NORTH TO SOUTH P.L. Two 12' lanes plus 250' x 12' lest turn lane at SH 119 intersection. Asphalt overlay on existing gravel roadbase _with compaction. Clear and Grub S.Y. 1 ,000 $1 .00 $1 ,000 .00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 7, 300 $1 .09 S7,300.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S. Y. 1 ,000 $5.00 $5,000 .00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 7,300 $5.00 $36,500.00 SUBTOTAL $49,800.00 * WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - SOUTH P.L. NORTH TO RAILROAD Four 12' lanes with concrete curt and gutter. Drain-age -ditches to be eliminated- Clear and Grub S.Y. 9,900 50.50 54,500 .00 Grading - Excav and Fill O.Y. 3,500 52.00 $7,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 7.200 51 .00 57,200.00 Base Course - 1O" CL 6 S.Y. 7 ,200 $3.00 $21 ,b00.O0 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 7,200 -55.00 536,000 .00 Curb and Gutter L.-F.. 2,700 58.00 $21 ,600.00 SUBTOTAL 597,-900.00 • RAILROAD CROSSING L.S. 1 580,000.00 $80,000.00 SUBTOTAL $80,000 .00 EXHIBIT NO. 1 TO ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMP120VEMENT AGREEMENT (OFF-SITE) Page 1 of 5 87O1213 BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE II UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION }}}}# -0* }}Y,} # •}}y}ff}#} WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - RAILROAD NORTH TO WCR 26 Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter. Drainage ditches to be eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y. 8.000 50.50 54.000.00 Grading - Excav and Flll C.Y. 3,000 52.00 56,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 6,400 51 .00 56,400.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 6.400 53.00 $19,200.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 6,400 55.00 532,000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 2,400 58.00 519,200.00 SUBTOTAL- 586,800.00 WELD COUNTY ROAD 26 - WCR 3 1/2 WEST 1000' Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter. Drainage ditches to be eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y. 6,700 $0.50 53,350.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 2,350 52.00 54,700.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 5,350 51 .00 55,250.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 5,350 53.00 516,050.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 5,350 55.00 S26,750.00 Curb and butter L.F. 2,000 58.00 $16,000.00 SUBTOTAL $72,200.00 870123 Page 2 of 5 BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO • PHASE III UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION • w w w-w • WELD _COUNTY ROAD 26 - WCR 26 EXTENSION TO WEST P.L. Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter . Drainage ditches to be eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y. 14,800 50.50 57,400.0_0 Grading - Excav -and Fill C.Y. 5, 150 52.00 510,300.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 11 ,750 51 .00 911 ,750 .00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 11 ,750 53.00 535,250.00 Aaphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 11 ,750 $5.00 558,750.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 4.400 58.00 535,200.00 SUBTOTAL . 9158,650.00 670123 Page 3 of 5 • BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE IV UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION w woo WELD COUNTY ROAD 26 — WCR 3 1/2 EAST TO EAST P.L. Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter. Drainage ditches to be eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y. 18 ,000 50.50 59,000 .00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y . 6,500 52.00 S13,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 14,400 51 .00 514,400.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S .Y. 14,400 $3.00 543,200.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 14,400 55.00 572,000 .00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 5,400 58.00 543,200.00 SUBTOTAL : 5194,800.00 870123 Page 4 of 5 BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE V IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED DEPENDENT UPON DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION **** * WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - ST HWY 119 NORTH - WIDEN TO FOUR LANES Four 12' lanes plus 250' x 12' left turn lane at SH 119 intersection. Remove overlay, eliminate ditches, add concrete curb and gutter. Clear and Grub S.Y. 10.000 $0.50 55,000.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 7,000 $2.00 $14,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 14,000 51 .00 $14,000 .00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S .Y. 14,000 $3.00 $42,000.00 Asphalt .- 3" Grade E S.Y. 14,000 55.00 $70,000 .00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 5, 100 $8.00 $40,800.00 SUBTOTAL 5185,800.00 870123 Page 5 of 5 N ea 0 Cl I i3 F_• i r! ii ; m °i41.1:1e 0 = u'a9z ▪ i 1.0Lt14 x 'F1 $ < a E Wn' ≤ •fie s• z I l \ it. 1 t ga !J' IU Ili• I CO I _ 4 - \ \ ') a ail a I I < s 3 r 1 S,. \ i 1i 4 z r, ♦ «' ■ « . 4 \0�� \ \ 1 42'N ti M ZF 2 o N \ .in1- N u -s Z a t \ \.,--•�� R 0 xsaa w n Sr W Z Yw 1p = aT� \ \ 4 E.9 if-'217: ..m. N'r' \ J 3 J T�W�‘ �µ I• ' 4 - LL d�r�wl h b: h H Si 9 �� N N c 9 9 \ . - " I,, 01'2 :: j —.:11 J J ..1 F� r� �, `\ \ 7 apt 1s 3 ii Ili W s .3 lj 3 •1 1 = tit I' . N \` 8 5 :il j, .i 3, ii ii I j ,.. .. .�, Q t\ \ �� a - 111.1 i= - ,1 it : it : _! i 's s-4:-.- %, o r m Ell, jt ;3 r` 1i i :s i jri 11 �1 I \.� 1 Iii si Ti r. ij i 11 E :s-j is1. } a �� 1-ii- : r• el :i. I -1 If i. 9 ti i j II a.- iill. "j tisr3ii i= + 1 !III • p n� ! ,j '[10 i isiiii isi i is ; a ' ji . *A \ ., d�ii ill;i1 ii .1: i :g1i sij ljl l i, . 4\A ;Isj s'i j.1.!_l.pqp E ill 3! } . 10 ♦ • _' Ijjii tiiili :? l t °i'. III hi' ii i, i Z \A \. N i..••.j it!! . ₹i: F. li31 lilt sP \ ljii! iliniJ iiiij 1 iii ii . 4 . , , ,\ .11 Ei } -`` II .\\ ii pi : i - i 1: s t f si 'Fy 1 i i sj i l r al �� • Pt .� ti lii: 3 s 3 ij r i. : ; i i es s:. Y o� : s '1 \ i :ii 3 3 3 it r s l I - W €F ; � ' ♦ •k\ tiiiii : 1 1__ �'� �\ \ ii ji1I :, 9 iii 2= z 4.. i. \ \ is r I • 33 ; 1!ii iiji : iti' i t! t 0 ti a I <, o As .A\ ;_ \\ i . smith sis Q I!j @@A.1104s : : • 1t t. ..3 .s; 31 • :i Ili!: i :1 ii • 011 4":131 pj rill 11 !- 1 Si• sill�=} €ii :ill if 1ii1 :;1111ill ill? " 1 e3 11 I ! i iiili1i)l1111 !i ijill :I laI11 lib! 1 , P EXHIBIT 11 WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. SOX 449 209 FIRST NATIONAL SANK BUILDING GREELEY. COLO. 80632 GREELEY, COLORADO (303) 353.1292 November 3 , 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett 11 . n!. 1986 Current Planner Department of Planning Services L- 915 - 10th St. Weld Co. Planning Itun!ulsslun Greeley , CO 80631 Re: Case Number Z-430 : 86 : 5 Bay Shores PUD Dear Mr. Schuett: Representatives of Union Reservoir met with the developer and had a very satisfactory meeting. The parties hope that some of the reservations expressed in the October 16 , 1986 letter can be worked out . On the location of lots , if appropriate provision is made to buffer or protect the access onto the lake from trespass , the platting of lots next to the lake could be feasible . If any houses are put in along the shore , adequate provisions must be made for claims against company for seep, erosion and dust blowing from exposed shorelines . The lot owners next to the lake must execute or have in their deeds some form of waiver , disclaimer or release directed to the reservoir company not only for accidents from drowning, but also for the storage of gas and oil. The plans in this development show there would be about 1500 linear feet adjacent to the reservoir where houses would be located. The concerns expressed in the letter of October 16 regarding the inability to obtain liability insurance remains a severe problem. Any relocation of the road should be designed to reduce and discourage access to the lake . The silt and storm run-off into the lake , and the problems of water entering the reservoir from the subdivision should be controlled by detention ponds and other means . It is the understanding of the Union Reservoir Company that the proposed open space next to the lake has been deleted from the present plans and proposal. 870123 • Mr. Keith A. Schuett November 3 , 1986 Page 2 Lots developed next to the lake would be better protection for the reservoir recreation operators by requiring some type of fence , or requiring the lot owners to all become members of whatever re- creational organization would use the lake . If any wall or riprap material was used, appropriate aesthetic principles must be addressed. The biggest problem discussed at the meeting, without any definite answer for it , is the proposal for Longmont to acquire a major interest in Union Reservoir, and in connection therewith to raise the water level ms much as 15 feet. If this proposal were undertaken, any houses placed within that 15 foot area would have to be moved out voluntarily or through emminent domain proceedings . Additionally the re-located road may have to be moved again. The awkward problem is that the developers hope to commence construction in the spring of 1987 and it is unknown at this time the position to be taken by Longmont and the parties who have acquired majority control of Union Reservoir Company. It would be useless to change the road, build a large number of houses bordering the lake and then in a short time have to remove the houses and re-locate the road, because the lake level is raised. Yours very truly, r ` err 11 I ' William H. Southard WHS : dl 870123 -EXHIBIT 1VA EING MaCON ULTANTS, NC. January 9, 1986 William H. Southard Attorney-at-Law P.O. Box 449 Greeley, CO B0632 Dear Mr. Southard: Re: C0Z Case Number Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.D.D. It has been over a month since the above referenced project was -presented before the Weld County Planning Commission. Mr. Vetting and other parties from the Union Reservoir Company -were in attendance at that meeting. Due to the length of time since we have had contact with Union Reservoir Company, we -felt it important to write you a letter updating our project. T-he Change of Zone request was originally scheduled to be heard by the Weld County Commissioners on January 7, 1987. Due to progress being made by C.R.S. Investments, Inc. in resolving concerns by referral agencies, we requested, and were granted, a continuance of the hearing until January 28, 1987. We feel that it is important to continue communications with your office and your Board of Directors in order to make sure that concerns of your organization are being addressed by the developers and their consultants. In reviewing my files, I have examined letters from you to Keith Schuett, in the Weld County Planning Department, Gated October 16, 1986 and November 3, 1986. As you indicated in your November 3rd letter, we had just completed a meeting between the developers and members of your board . The meeting was very satisfactory and resolved several outstanding concerns and issues expressed by the Union -Reservoir Company. In reviewing the November 2rd letter, C.R.5. Investments, Inc. has not changed its position on agreeing to mitigate problems such as seepage; erosion and dust control ; recreational use for adjoining property owners, as permitted by the holder of the surface lease; protection for the reservoir company against accidents involving property owners and the reservoir; relocation of Weld County Road 26 to reduce and -discourage access to the lake; control of silt and storm runoff into the lake; removal of the previously proposed open space next to the lake; and requiring protection for the reservoir operators by providing some type of fence or other barrier to reduce accessibility to the lake. We have agreed to provide a 50-foot easement, and to require a minimum rear-yard setback of 25 feet beyond the previously mentioned 50 feet. 7O3 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT,CO. 80501 8701.23 772-7755/449-4373 // Vti Ifi William H. 'Southard Attorney-at-Law Page 2 January 9, 1987 C.It.S. I-nvestments, Inc. acknowledges that Iurtter negotiations will be required -on -many of these issues prior to Final Plat submittal, if the change of cone is approved. If there ars any remaining concerns that have not teen addressed, or if you have other information regarding the proposal by C.-R .S. Investments, Inc. for Bay Shores P.U.D. , please contact this office immediately so that we might attempt to resolve those issues - wall in advance of the January 28th County Commissioner's meeting . Thank you for your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, -McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. Jahn hn A. McCarty, P.E. J-AM/aa cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. Harvey Curtis Keith Schuett • 870123 C ' S INVESTMENTS IN '. EXHIBIT 13 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER,COLORADO 80234 (303)-452-9955 January 26, 1987 Weld County er nnissioners 916 10th -Street Greeley, Colorado 20631 Dear Commissioners: As the Board is aware, the City of Longmont ₹:as purchased -a controlling interest in the Union Reservoir Canpany. CRS Investments Inc. (CRS) has net with city representatives and an attorney representing the City of Longmont. CRS has made written piuyusals to the City so that it could satisfy any possible conflicts. Although CRS has received no -written response fran either the City or-the Reservoir Company, we feel it important that -the Board is infotfLil of the following: 1. Both before andafter construction of Bay Shores, CRS will take whatever measures _necessary to insure that silt and storm water run-off do not pollute the reservoir. 2. CRS will create covenants that provide the Reservoir Ga pany with sufficient rights of way to maintain its shoreline, and provide for measures necessary to control -soil erosion, seepage. The covenants will also provide that lot owners adjoining the Reservoir will fence between their homes to help control possible trespassing. 3. CRS will create covenants that the :Reservoir Canpany has no itianal liability for injury to person or property damage for non-permitted use of Reservoir Property or facilities, or for surface or ground water damage caused by fluctuation in the water level of the Reservoir. 4. There will be mo open space within the P.U.D. adjacent to the Reservoir shoreline. . . . 2 870123 Weld County Cannissioners Page 2. January 26, 1987 5. As previously requested, we will work with the Reservoir Company so that the realignment of WCR 26 will not tempt trespassing. 6. Work in cooperation with the owners of the recreation rights (surface rights) . On January 26, 1987, CRS was infoiued through a third party that the City of Enngmont filed "A Plan of Exchange" for Boulder, Weld and Morgan Counties along with a "Conditional Storage Rights" in Weld County, for the enlargement of Union Reservoir. aihe above proposal will not infringe on the rights of union Reservoir or the City of Longmont. Sincerely, CRS INVESTMENTS INC. Y Kim Collins RC/kel 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L.WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF L.WA EL 1350 SEVENTEENTH-STREET HAYES 8 PHILLIPS, Pt., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 • OFCOUNSEL y.•-• - (303)825-6631 January 27, 1987 JAN 2 81987 HAND DELIVERY Board of County Commissioners Weld County 915 10th Street "`e Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shares P. U.D. - Oligarchy Ditch Company Dear Commissioner-s : I am writing this letter as the attorney for the applicant in the Bay Shores F.U.D. rezoning matter which is scheduled for hearing on January 28, 1987. As attorney for the landowner , I have attempted to work an agreement out with the Oligarchy Ditch Company. This includes a meeting held on December 4, 1986, which resulted in my letter to their attorney, Neil E . Piller , on December 17, 1986, setting forth the terms of a proposed agreement as Mr . -Piller and I had discussed at the meeting. When I had not heard anything back, I wrote Mr . Miller again on December 31 , 198E, copies of both of these letters are attached hereto. Mr . Filler responded with a letter on the Ditch Company' s concerns with the proposed agreement on January 5, 19-87- Principally these concerns went to the future liability of the Ditch Company for any ditch relocation. A copy of this letter is alto attached. On January 16, 1987, I again wrote Mr . Piller outlining -an agreement which included a 10D% payment of the Oligarchy Ditch Company '-s current insurance premium by my client and by future lot owners as well as an agreement to give the Ditch Company a 40 foot deeded right of way if the ditch is relocated, and to line the ditch and install ditch protection structures requested by Mr . Piller . A copy of this letter is attached. On January 21 , 1987, Mr . Piller responded. According to his letter , a copy of which is attached, the Ditch Company was still concerned with payment of future insurance premiums by the lot owners . He proposed that this liability be the subject of homeowner covenants and he proposed that the ditch's right of way 870123 ,xh 7�is" 1' Board of County Commissioners January 27, 1987 Page Two be 16-1/2 feet on either side of the ditch rather than the 20 feet we had proposed on either side of the centerline of the ditch . On January 23, 1987, _I wrote Mr . Piller and stated my client 's agreement to these liability terms and ditch width. A copy of this letter is attached. On January 2b , 1987 , the Ditch Company abruptly changed its mind. By Mr . Tiller 's letter , copy attached, he says that despite our client ' s acquiescence to the Ditch Company's Language, the Ditch Company has now decided it does not want to agree to any ditch relocation and will continue to oppose the zoning change. We have proceeded in good faith to negotiate with the Ditch Company's attorney along the lines that they had requested. Frankly CRs Investments , Inc. is surprised by the sudden change of mind. Nonetheless , CRS respects the Ditch Company's rights and agrees that its ditch will be protected in the P. U.D. rezoning as follows : 1. CRS Investments , Inc . will agree that the Oligarchy Ditch will not be relocated but will be left in its current location. 2. 16-1/2 feet (one rod as requested by Mr . Piller ) on each side of the ditch will be dedicated as an easement for ditch operation and maintenance purposes . 3. CRS will agree to the insurance proposal by Mr . Piller ' s January 21, 19437 letter: that the iDitch Company 's insurance -premiums will first be paid by CRS, then paid by the homeowners association and will also be secured by a covenant running with each lot . The covenant shall allow the Ditch Company to recover costs and attorneys fees of enforcing the covenant and shall allow its board to review the level of coverage from time to time , and if it deems the coverage to be inadequate , to notify the homeowners of the need for an increase. If the homeowners object, they shall have the right to submit the matter to arbitration at their expense as proposed by Mr . Piller . 4. Drainage water will only be allowed to enter the ditch at historic flows . It should be pointed out that under Colorado law, the Ditch Company does mothave a deeded easement. It does not have any right to indemnity or to insurance . However , CRS is willing to give what the Ditch Company now has asked for: to leave the 870123 Board of County Commissioners January 27 , 1987 Page Three ditch in place , unlined, with insurance protection against future liability. Sincerely, /f Har ey W. Curtis HWC/bm enclosures cc: Neil E. Piller , Esq. - U.S . Mail Lee D. Morrison, Esq. - Hand Delivered Keith Schuett - Hand Delivered John McCarty - Hand Delivered Kim Collins - Hand Delivered 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW WARMARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 STAR L. , 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES &PHILLIPS, P.C.. OF COUNSEL DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 December 17 , 1986 Neil E. Piller , Esa. Schey & Schey P.O. Box 267 Longmont , Colorado 80501 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D . - December 4 , 1986 Meeting Follow-Up Dear Neil: This letter is intended as a follow-up to the meeting between you, myself and Kim Collins of CRS Investments , Inc-. regarding the Bay Shores P. U.D. held at your office on December 4 , 1986 . As we discussed at that time , the objections with C.K. Farms will be resolved by a written agreement to be drafted by me after I obtain the information from you regarding the drain: 1. The developers will agree that any changes of the laterals utilized by C.K. Farms and Mr . Hamm, its owner and operator , will be replaced by buried pipe(s) to deliver the Oligarchy Ditch water to C.K. Farms at the locations at which deliveries are made now by the overland laterals . 2. You will let us know where the underground drain is located which C.K. Farms desires to protect on the property so that it can be identified upon platting. 3 . Upon signing of the agreement, C.R. Farms and Mr . Hamm Haa1. will withdraw their objections to the Bay Shores P.U.D. prop As discussed with regard to the Oligarchy Ditch , the following was agreed upon which will be reduced into written form once you furnish the information promised at our meeting: 1. The ditch company wants -money paid to it by CRS Investments , Inc. to compensate it for its attorneys ' fees and engineering costs . You agreed to provide me with numbers for those fees which Are need as soon as possible . 2. The ditch company wants to be given a deed in fee for the ditch right-of-way . The deed dimensions would call for 20 feet on either side of the centerline of the relocated ditch. The fee would terminate in the event the lands deeded are no 870123 o .' Neil E. Piller , Esq. December 17, 1986 Page Two longer utilized for ditch purposes . It was agreed that the ditch company would continue to be responsible for all maintenance of the ditch. 3. The ditch will be lined by CRS Investments , Inc. if it is in fact relocated. The ditch company prefers a concrete lining . 4. The ditch company would accept historic flows of drainage water into the ditch from the Bay Shores P. U.D. 5 . Any ditch relocation and lining effort would be at CRS Investments , Inc. ' s expense and accomplished at the time development begins in the affected area . Such relocation will include protection for the ditch so that water will_ leave Bay Shores and enter the existing ditch on properties north of the development at historic velocities to avoid injury to the ditch. 6. Indemnity and insurance protection will be provided by CRS Investments , Inc. The ditch company had asked for a policy in the amount of $5 ,000 ,000 against claims which may be raised by land owners adjacent to the ditch. You said at the meeting that you would furnish us with copies of the indemnity agreement you have with the City of Longmont and their insurance policy. When I talked to you on the phone last week, you said you had yet to obtain those. Also, you had promised to get us a premium quote from an insurance company for this new policy. We are also still waiting for this quote. 7. CRS Investments , Inc . will establish permanent funding for the insurance policy via an assessment upon the Bay Shores homeowners ' association. 8 . CRS Investments , Inc . will employ a licensed engineer to design the relocated and lined ditch and any velocity protection structures . CRS Investments , Inc. would then submit the plans to the Oligarchy for review by its engineer of the plans and for approval of the specifications prior to construction. 9 . The ditch company will withdraw its objections to the Bayshored P.U.D. proposal upon execution of the agreement. I thought that since it had teen nearly two weeks since we had met , I should get back to you in writing to refresh your memory and my own as to what we had worked out. Your prompt furnishing of the indemnity agreement , the insurance policy and the quote therefor , the location of the underground drain , and the 870123 Neil E. Piller , Esq. December 17 , 1986 Page Three attorneys ' fees and engineering fees for which the ditch company wants to be reimbursed would be appreciated in view of the • January 7 , 1987 meeting set on this provision before the Weld County Commissioners. Sincerely , Ili/Harve W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Rod Allison Lee D. Morrison , Esq. - Rim Collins , Vice President, CRS Investments , Inc . 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 STAR L.WAKING, 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES&PHILLLLEL OF COUNSEL DENVER,COLORADO 80202 IPS, P.C., OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 • December 31 , 1986 Neil E. Piller , Esq. Schey & Schey , P.C. P.O. Box 267 Longmont , Colorado 80501 Re: Bayshores P.U.D. Rezoning Proposal Dear Neil: This letter is written as a follow-up to my letter to you of December 17 , 1986 . I have yet to hear back from you with regard to this letter or my phone calls since . If the ditch company and Mr . Hamm, doing business as C.K. Farms , intend to go ahead with the written agreements ents which we formdiscussed n at our meeting of December 4 , 1986 , I do which my letter of December 17 , 1986 requested. Again , I await your response on this . Since we have been delayed due to the holidays ,untilJanuary am asking eh, g the Board to put off the hearing on this proposal to give us time to consumate this proposal. Sincerely , eve W. Curtis HWC/bm cc : Rod Allison Lee D. Morrison , Esq. Kim Collins , Vice President, CRS Investments , Inc . 870123 SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST.V07 THEODORE D.SCHEY,JR. THE PREMIERE BUILDING NEIL E.PILLER 700 FLORIDA AVENUE DONALD H.ALSPAUGH SUITE P'J06 PHILLIPS.WONG P.O.BOX 247 JAMES H.NELSON JdnuaY 5 , 1987 LONGMONT.COLORADO Ii102-0267 Y TELEPHONE:OBJ)WWII JACOB S.SCHEY(1001.1967) METRO:(JR71 442-6011 Mr . Harvey Curtis Attorney at Law 1350 17th Street Denver , Colorado 80202 Re : Bay Shores - Oligarchy Dear Harvey: oThank you for your patience in awaiting information from me. Your letter of December 17 , 1986 , was-not received by 1`- me until December 22 , and by that time , I was involved in a crush o of year end real estate transactions which were conflicting with z �Q scheduled vacation time . Also , I was waiting to hear from the • sztOligarchy engineer with respect to his anticipated fees which I now have. L7 yz W Wm ccc) The information on the fees and costs is as follows : • w U A. The insurance premiums currently run $ 960 .00 per C year for $500 ,000 .-00 basic coverage and a $ 1 ,000 ,000 .00 umbrella . B. Engineering review fees should not exceed $1 , 000 .00 . C. Legal fees are currently about $ 3 ,000 .00 and I would anticipate no more than $2 , 500 .00 more to complete the contract and documents with your clients . D. You will find enclosed a copy of the Oligarchy Agreement with the City of Longmont, and I direct your attention to paragraph four on page three . With respect to your restatement of items concerning J.C .K. Farms , I believe you have correctly recounted our conversation and what I understand to be J.C.K.'s position. However , I am not authorized to _bind J.C.K. to those terms. I would suggest an agreement be prepared with respect to those terms and submitted to Mr. Hamm for his review. Mr. Hamm will no doubt ask me for my input at that time . 870123 With respect to the Oligarchy Agreement, again you have accurately restated for the most part, what I understand to be the position of the Oligarchy , but I am not authorized to bind the Ditch Company to those terms without review and approval by the Board of Directors . The areas of disagreement with your letter of December 17th are on the following points : 1 . Paragraph two includes reverter language. I have not discussed this with the Board and I would doubt that they would approve a reverter. 2 . Paragraph seven does not accurately reflect our position. I indicated at our meeting that I had trouble with figuring out how to fund this continuing obligation for insurance and also how to anticipate future insurance coverage needs. A contractual relationship between the Oligarchy and the Homeowners Association is not adequate because the Agreement can always be voided through Bankruptcy. I think what is needed is a covenant running with the land binding each lot owner to pay into the Homeowners Association a pro rata shar-e of insurance premium expense for the benefit of the Oligarchy. If the Homeowners Association goes bankrupt or ceases to exist, the Oligarchy would have the right to enforce the liens for any unpaid premiums. I believe drafting this provision will be our most difficult obstacle. Also, some sort of inflationary protection needs to be included perhaps on a five year review basis . If you need further insurance information about quotes, you should contact Dale Richter at 776-4726 . Very truly yours , SCHEY & SCH-EY, P.C . By : ,/-P-11 ) 2)/P(6--\ Neil E. Piller NEP : lm 870123 2 %( MASTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF LONGMONT AND THE OLIGARCHY IRRIGATION AND DITCH CO. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1984 , between the City of Longmont ( "City" ) , and Tte o i.garchy Irrigation and Ditch Co. , ( "The Oligarchy" ) ; WITNESSETH : That , koisi WHEREAS , historically The Oligarchy and the City have had an informal agreement in which the City has been allowed to place storm water in Oligarchy 's Ditch where it is found on the property within the City ; in consideration for which the City has agreed to and has maintained the Ditch within the City limits ; and , WHEREAS , the parties, have been able to work successfully with each other withip the informal agreement that each has acknowledged ; and , WHEREAS, the increasing conversion of farm lands into urban, residential, commercial and industrial uses has created an ✓ increasing need to enter into a formal agreement for the parties; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to establish formally the terms of their informal agreement to assist future representative of both parties in complying with the rights and obligations of the parties as established by their prior dealings ; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants, promises, and conditions, the parties agree as follows : 1. Storm Water Access. The Oligarchy grants unto the City for a term of years the right to have excess storm water flow and to be discharged into The Oligarchy Ditch where it is found within the boundaries of the City as those boundaries are now defined or may hereafter be modified by future annexations . 2. Maintenance - Repairs - Capital Improvements. The City agrees to maintain The Oligarchy Ditch within the City boundaries performing such work as may reasonably be necessary to maintain an unimpeded flow of water and to preserve the Ditch in a proper operating condition. To that end , the City shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning the Ditch within the City boundaries and performing routine repairs mot involving capital improvements or capital repairs , except as provided below , at least once each year in the spring before the beginning of irrigation season. In the event other maintenance is required during the year , the City shall perform those maintenance obligations and repairs as they arise. The Oligarchy shall also have the right to inspect the Ditch within the City boundaries and to notify the City of any maintenance or repairs that The Oligarchy finds . The City agrees to perform the repairs which are found by such inspections within a reasonable time after notice is received. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require the City to perform any maintenance or repairs on The Oligarchy Ditch outside the City boundaries- The City obligation to xepair and maintain The Ditch Cs1j within the City boundaries shall include the obligation to rl perform capital improvements and repairs on The Ditch if the need C for such capital improvements andjrepairs is created by the flow N of excess storm water from adjacent property into the ditch. Any 7) . capital improvements or repairs that are not related to the flow of excess storm water into the Ditch within the City shall remain the responsibility of The Oligarchy . Where used in this Agreement, the term "excess storm water" is defined to mean any water over and above the decreed flow of The Oligarchy Ditch together with surface waters that historically drained into the Ditch. Wherever used in this Agreement "historic levels" of surface water draining or flowing into the Ditch is defined to mean that level or amount of water entering the Ditch from any given parcel of land prior to development of that land for other than agricultural purposes. reN 3 . Future Developments of Land Within the City. The parties expressly understand and agree that future land 1 developments within the City will in most cases cause changes in the amount of surface water flowing into the Ditch or in the manner in which such surface waters and excess storm waters are delivered to the Ditch. The parties further understand and agree that such changes may have an adverse effect on the property rights of The Oligarchy, and that approval by The Oligarchy must be obtained before the delivery of any such additional run-off can be initiated. The parties therefore understand that whenever the approval of The Oligarchy will be required , The Oligarchy will gives it approval only upon a showing that the following minimum design standards have been met: A. Preservation of Access. The parties agree that The Oligarchy has historically used an area of land one hundred feet wide , fifty- five feet on both sides of the Ditch measured from the center of the Ditch for access to maintain the Ditch. Any future developments must be designed to preserve this access on both sides of the Ditch. f B. Flow Capacity _ Design. Any future developments that require relocation of the Ditch or the construction of any facilities in or across the Ditch must be designed to accommodate a flow of at least 1 ,000 c.f.s. , unless a lesser flow would provide such accommodation and is mutually agreed to by the parties in writing. The developer will be required to construct concrete linings in the Ditch to accommodate the historic flow of the Ditch at a minimum, and will be required to reshape the Ditch to a 4 to 1 slope . All plans for realignment of the Ditch , reshaping the Ditch, construction of concrete linings, bridges, crossings or other facilities in or across the Ditch must first be submitted to The Oligarchy for its approval. Any legal or professional fees incurred by The Oligarchy to review Ditch changes must be paid by the developer as part of the consideration to obtain approval by The Oligarchy. C. Bridges. Any bridges in future developments to be constructed across the Ditch must be constructed as a single span. No supporting members will be permitted which would in any way obstruct the flow of the Ditch. D. Conduits and Obstructions. No future developments may replace the open Ditch with conduits in any form nor will The Oligarchy permit obstructions of any kind to be constructed across the face of any openings. The Oligarchy would consider trash racks across openings, in appropriate circumstances. E. On-Site Retention. Any future developments will be . required to design and construct facilities to retain storm water on-site with gradual release into the Ditch at historic levels as defined above. The Oligarchy reserves the right to specify the reasonable retention capacity of all such retention ponds. Such retention ponds shall ,also be equipped with control gates which may be closed to preygnt the discharge. of any water into The Ditch. Said control gates may be cygulated by the City or by The Oligarchy as the need arises. Each party agrees to give the other reasonable notice of any ,Changes in the control gate settings which either party undertakes. -2- 870123 F. Additional Design Standards . The Oligarchy reserves the right to require additional design standards of any project whenever The oligarchy determines such additional standards to be necessary. 4 . Indemnification. The parties recognize and agree that the increased use of The Ditch by the City which The Oligarchy is permitting has increased the potential liability of The Oligarchy in the following respects: A. Bike Paths and Green Ways. In planning for future land developments , the City s considering approval of the construction of bike paths and green ways adjacent to The Oligarchy Ditch. Tha City recognizes that such bike paths and green ways may attract more users of those facilities to areas immediately adjacent to The Oligarchy Ditch. Such increased use may also increase the possibility of a person or persons suffering injury from entering the Ditch, either intentionally or accidentally . Because of this risk , the City agrees to indemnify, save and hold The Oligarchy harmless from any claims, damages or liability asserted by persons who claim to have been injured in The Oligarchy Ditch within the City boundaries as a result of any act or omission by the City , its agents or employees ; however, it is agreed that such liability for indemnification shall not exceed those amounts set forth in the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act now existing or may be hereafter amended. B. Increased Downstream Flow. As developments of the property adjacent to the Ditch increase , the total amount of water being carried by the Ditch is increasing as additional excess storm water is introduced into the Ditch. Such increased flow has heightened the possibility that the downstream capacity of the Ditch will be insufficient to carry the increased flow downstream, thereby increasing the risk of flooding. Because the City receives significant benefit from being permitted to discharge excess storm water into The Oligarchy Ditch, the City agrees to indemnify, sav-e and hold The Oligarchy harmless from any claims , damages or liability from persons who may suffer injury or damages from excess storm water causing an overflow or breakout of the Ditch within the boundaries of the City or downstream from the City as the result of any acts of the City , its agents or employees ; however, such liability shall not exceed the amounts set forth in the Governmental Immunity Act now existing or as may be hereafter amended. C. Future Changes. During the term of this Agreement, other land use changes may be approved by the City affecting land adjacent to The Oligarchy Ditch which the parties cannot at this time foresee. With respect to any such changes, the City agrees to indemnify , save and hold The Oligarchy harmless from any claims , damages , or liability which may be asserted by persons for injuries or damages suffered as a result of any use of the Ditch or any property immediately adjacent thereto within the boundaries of the City , which are caused by any acts or omissions of the City, its agents, and employees; however, such liability shall not exceed the amounts set forth in the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act now existing or as may be hereafter amended . D. Limitation on Indemnification . The parties -r expressly understand and agree that the obligation of the City to indemnify , save and hold the Oligarchy harmless from claims , damages and liability asserted against The Oligarchy shall not apply to any injuries,;or damages which areattributable to any acts or omissions :4f employees , agents or authorized representatives of The Oligarchy with respect to their continuing obligations under this Agreement. • E. Liability Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, the Oligarchy shall purchase and maintain at its own coat and expense, a liability insurance _policy with policy limits of -$1 ,000 ,000.00, with ' a $2,500.00 per loss deductible provision. f 870123 The City will pay all remiums for an "umbrella" liability policy insuring The Oligarchy against liability claims for damages and injuries in the amount of oet$1 ,000 ,000.00 aa€i. up to a maximum of $5,000,000.00 policy limits. 5. Attorney's Fees. The parties to this Agreement agree to share equally and to pay their respective share of fees to Schey 6 Schey , P.C. charged for the actual drafting of this Agreement and any revisions to it. 6. Modification. This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of the parties. 7 . Effect. Upon execution of this Agreement , this Agreement shall become binding upon the heirs and successors of the parties. Executed on the day and date written above. THE OLIGARCHY IRRIGATION THE CITY OF LONGMONT, a DITCH CO., INC. Municipal Corporation By : By : I r Director Mayor Attest : Director Director Director of Finance I fit n, IL „, 870123 - -HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 STAR -WAKING, 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF COUNSEL DENVER,COLORADO 80202 HAYES &PHILLIPS,P.C-, OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 • January 16 , 1987 • Neil Piller , Esq. PC Schey & Schey, P .O. Box 267 Longmont, -Colorado 80501 Re: Bay -Shores P.U.D. - Oligarchy Ditch Company Dear .Neil: Thank you very much for your letter of January 5 , 1987 . My client , CRS Investments , Inc . , is prepared to proceed to resolve the concerns of the Oligarchy Ditch Company along the lines outlined by your January 5 , 1987 letter . We propose accomplishing this by a letter agreement and then coming to a final written agreement after the rezoning is approved. If the rezoning for some reason is not approved, then we will not have spent a lot of our time drafting an agreement. The proposal which CRS Investments , Inc. would agree to with the Oligarchy Ditch Company is as follows : 1. Upon final platting , the Oligarchy Ditch Company will obtain the liability insurance coverage you have described in your January 5 , 1987 letter at the present premium price of $960 .00 per year for the $500 ,000 basic coverage and a $1,000 ,000 any umbrella. CRS InvThments , Inc . will homeowners associationrse to be e Ditch formed for for this ethe policy . Bayment Shores P.U.D.Howeverl,eindividual sdeed trestrictionsuasewell as a notes on the plat will provide that if a note on the first page of the final for some reason the homeowners associationthen that ceased payment lto woud bexist or a failed to make the payment , bpased by liability of the lot owners on a pro rata basis as p your letter . This restriction will give the Oligarchy Ditch the right to enforce the liens against the lots for any unpaid premiums . 2. CRS Investments , Inc. agrees to reimburse the Ditch Company' s cost for the engineering review of drawings hereafter Ditch. prepared rmpany1987 maximum CRS Investments , Inc .Ias stated inlyoureJanuaryr5 ,y The dmbent of ,000 , Inc. ' s payment of letter , would be the cap on CRS Investments , those fees . 870123 f Neil Piller , Esq. January lb , 1987 Page 'Two 3 . Upon rezoning approval, CRS Investments , Inc . agrees to pay within 90 days the Ditch Company' s legal fees incurred in • relation to this matter which ar $ t of e2 Sre placed on the$3, 000 . There would be a cap fees , the amount stated in your letter as the anticipated maximum additional fees . 4. The Ditch Company will continue to be responsible for all maintenance of the ditch. 5 . If the Oligarchy Ditch is relocated, CRS Investments , Inc. will grant by deed a fee simple interest to the Ditch Company for a right-of-way 20 feet in width on0 each achtside w of tthe Your of the uarelocated 987tch,indicatedtotalling that the Ditch Company wour letter of nouagree,to a reverter , but that you had not would probably ed not agree discussed this with it. My suggestion that the ditch right-of-way revert is based onv weed control for the he fact that someone ee wills need trip to maintain , mow grass , and p rof ground if the Ditch Company ever ceases to use it. It makes sense to allow this strip to revert to the landowners . However , please let me know the Ditch Company' s thoughts on this .ed 6. If the Oligarchy Inc . ,is ittwillcbeslined at the yCRS ' Shores P.U.D . by CRS nge . The lining wthe Oligarchyll be te DitcheCompany. Any P • ditch lg is approved by relocation and lining will be accomplished at the time development begins in the affected doarea. t u Such relocation t water construction will include p n for hatch to will leave Bay Shores and enter the existing Oligarchy property north of the development at historic velocities to avoid injury to the ditch. 7. The Oligarchy Ditch Company will accept historic flows of drainage water into the ditch from the Bay Shores P.U.D . 8. CRS Investments , Inc. will employ a licensed engineer to design the relocated and lined ditch and any velocity protection structures . CRS Investments , Inc a lit . wil then submit the plans to the Oligarchy Ditch Company evi w b by its s engineer of the plans and for approval of the sP prior to construction. The expense of oof th is review would be compensated as stated above in paragraph 9. In consideration of all of the above agreements , the Oligarchy Ditch Company will withdraw its objections to the Bay Shores P.U.D. rezoning proposal. 870123 , w Neil Piller , Esq. January 16 , 1987 Page Three If this proposal is acceptableto the and Oligarchy closedDitch Company ,licate •• please have this letter agreement • original executed in the space provided below. As stated above, the formal final written agreement will b condition nzof ththe rezoning and will be completed upon approval of Please return both originals to me for execution by CRS . I will thereafter return one of the originals to you. Sincerely, J, -Raa- ar y W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Kim Collins , CRS Investments , Inc. Lee D. Morrison, Esq. , Weld County Attorney Keith Schuett, Weld County Planning Department OLIGARCHY Ditch Company By: CRS INVESTMENTS , INC. By: Kim Collins , Vice President 870123 SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW NSF.1907 THEODORE D.SCHEY.JR. THE PREMIERE BUILDING 700 FLORIDA AVENUE NEIL E FILLER SUITE P-300 DONALD H.ALSPAUGH P.O.BOX 267 PAILS Y S.WONG JAMES H.NELSON LONGMONT.COLORADO 105024267 January 21 , 1987 TELEPHONL13031 T16.3511 METRO:(303)442-6081JACOB S.SCHEY(1511.1%3) Mr. Harvey W. Curtis Attorney at Law 1350 17th Street , Suite 450 Denver , Colorado 80202 Re : Bay Shores - Oligarchy and JCK Agreements Dear Harvey : c I have reviewed the letters you sent to me dated January 16 , 1987 , concerning proposed agreements with The Oligarchy Ditch c�+l and JCK Farms. I have torwarded these documents to my clients for N 12.--,2r review. The Ditch Company Board of Directors will have to meet Scbefore any action can be taken on the proposal , but the Chairman c< has been alerted to this . From my review of your letter agreement, I do rind some ro areas of deficiency in the language which you have proposed. W Paragraph one does not clearly reflect a continuing liability for U 4 the insurance premiums. I think language should also be included indicating that the obligation to pay these insurance premiums is a covenant running with each lot since deed restrictions may be construed as personal obligations. second, • there is no provision for periodic increases in the amount of coverage. Since we are talking about this obligation continuing ad infinitem , an escalator must be build in. I would recommend to the Board that they be given the authority to review the level or coverage from time to time, and it they reasonably determine the coverage to be inadequate, they can notify the Homeowners of the need to increase the coverage and the etfect on the premium. The lot owners , it they choose , could object and submit the matter to arbitration at their expense. Also, the Oligarchy would have to be given the right to recover costs and attorney' s fees for enforcing the covenant against any who do not pay. 870123 a Paragraph five is the other area of concern. I would prefer having the right-of-way defined as one rod (16-1/2 feet) in width on either side of the ditch rather than 20 feet on either side of the centerline. It the engineers reconfigure the ditch when it is relocated to make it wider , the 20 feet may not provide adequate access . How the Ditch Board may now react to the proposal to relocate the ditch is up in the air. At the last Board of Directors meeting , they reviewed all of the problems they have had with past ditch relocations and relining and found those experiences to be decidedly negative. They do not want to have to suffer through that again. The Board did ask me to write to you to emphasize their position that until we have an agreement firmly established, the Oligarchy continues to be opposed to the chance of zone and residential development of the Bay Shores property tor the reasons stated in my letters of June 26 , 1986 , and September 8 , 1986 . Very truly yours , SCHEY & SCHEY, P .C . $y :SYD, ?. Pte, Neil E . Piller NEP: lm cc : George Adam Richard Hamm Leroy Rider Keith Schuett , Weld County Planning 870123 2 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 STAR L.COUNSEL WARING, 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES&PHILNLIPS,P.C., OF DENVER,COLORADO 80202 DF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 January 23, 1987 Neil Piller , Esq. S chey & Schey , P .C. P.O . Box 267 Longmont , Colorado 80502-0267 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. - Oligarchy Ditch Company and JCK Farms Agreements Dear Neil: Thank you very much for your letter of January 21, 1987. I appreciate your forwarding my letters regarding the proposed agreements , both dated January 16 , 1987, on to the Oligarchy Ditch Company and JCK Farms . Based on your concerns , I have discussed the future obligations of the lot owners for the insurance premiums with CRS Investments , Inc. They will agree to your proposed language in the second paragraph of your January 21, 1987 letter . This includes a covenant rather than a deed restriction running with each lot , and will include a provision that the board of the ditch company will have the authority to review the coverage and if they reasonably determine that the coverage is inadequate, notify the homeowners of the need to increase the coverage, and if the homeowners object , the matter will be subjected to arbitration at the lot owners ' expense. Also , they would agree that the covenant would include the right of the ditch company to recover costs and attorneys fees for enforcing the covenant against any lot owner who refuses to pay. With regard to your suggestion of describing the ditch right of way as 16-1/2 feet on either side of the ditch rather than 20 feet on each side of the centerline , CRS Investments , Inc . will agree to that. I believe this will resolve all of the points in your letter . If If not, please let me know. As I pointed out inm January h16, 19 letter , I would appreciate having a letter agreement the ditch company and then finalizing the written agreement following rezoning approval. That would be a condition to rezoning approval. 870123 Neil Piller , Esq. January 23 , 1987 Bage Two Your January 21 , 1987 letter did not state whether you had heard • back from JCR Farms or Mr. Hamm. I would appreciate being • advised. Sincerely , Harve W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Kim Collins Lee D . Morrison, Esq. Keith Schuett 870123 SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST.1907 THEODORE D.SCHEY,JR. THE PREMIERE BUILDING NEIL E.PILLER 700 FLORIDA AVENUE DONALD H.ALSPAUGH SUITE P-J00 PHILLIPS.WONG P.O.JIO%367 JAMES H.NELSON LONGMONT,COLORADO 80502-0267 .January 26 , 1987 TELEPHONE:13031776.3511 JACOB S.SCHEY(1861-1963) -METRO:I303)442-6031 • Mr. Harvey Curtis Attorney at Law 1350 17th Street Denver , Colorado 80202 Re : Oligarchy Ditch _ Bay Shores Subdivision Dear Harvey: 1 have reviewed your letter ot January 23rd with my clients along with our other correspondence, Despite your client's acquiescence to the changes in language I suggested, the Ditch Company will not approve the agreement and is no longer interested in agreeing to have their ditch relocated. As I indicated , after reviewing the past experiences they have had with ditch relocations and in analyzing the addiitonal administrative problems that will be created by entering this proposed agreement, they conclude that the disadvantages far outweigh the anticipated advantages -resulting from the relocation and lining. Therefore, they asked me to notify you ot their decision not to agree to the ditch relocation and they will continue to oppose the zoning change . Very truly yours , SCHEY & SCHEY , P.C. • By : -)/ \ L. Neil E . Piller NEP : lm -cc : The Oligarchy Board ot Directors 870123 51ATE OF COLORADO EXHIBIT 1 Richard D.Lamm,Governor Department of Regulatory Agencies Wellington E.Webb,Executive Director Efe COMMISSIONERS THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Ronald L Lehr, Chairman Administration (3071 866-3156 �,• aav Edythe 5. Miller Transportation 1303) 866-4288 Andr tve Schmidt fixed Utilities O031 866-3181 OFFICE LEVEL 2 Executive Secretary Counsel(303) 866-3188 1580 LOGAN STREET Harry A.Gartman,Jr. DENVER.COLORADO 80201 December 17, 1986 Mr. Kim Collins CRS Investments, Inc. 1333 W. 120th Ave. Suite 308 Denver, CO 80234 Dear Mr. Collins: Re: On site meeting @ WCR 3 1/2 & Great Western Railway Co. 's crossing On October 28, 1986 I met with you, Drew Scheltinga and Pete Ascher at the grade crossing of WCR 3 1/2 across the Great Western Railway's main line track to discuss the potential impact of your planned development. Based upon the present information available concerning train and vehicle volumes at that location if your development proceeds as discussed, my preliminary recommendation is that the installation of standard flashing light signals and standard advance warning signs would provide adequate warning at that location. As additional detailed traffic data is developed my initial recommendation could be modified to include the addition of crossing gates. If you have any additional questions, please contact me. Sincerely, da-e-krt Jack Baier Transportation Engineer (303) 866-4286 15338:JHB:nj 870123 C Yc S INVESTMENTS INC. 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE EXHIBIT 7 SUITE 308 DENVER, COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 January 26, 1987 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Railroad Grade Crossings - 1 Mile North Hwy. #119 WDR 3'5 Dear Commissioners: CRS Investments Inc. (CRS) has tried in good faith to successfully negotiate a reasonable agreement with the Great Western Railway (GWR) . CRS has agreed to and will continue its efforts to minimize any negative effect on adjoining land uses. 1. CRS will build at its expense and @ Grade Crossing to P.U.C. specifications in the first phase of construction. 2. Minimum lot depth of 150 feet adjoining the R.R. easement when canbined with the R.R. easement would leave an average distance of 125 feet fran trackage to the back of the hone. 3. Locating Parks and Open Space when possible, adjacent to R.R. easement. 4. Making a lump sum payment ($12,500) to GWR for any additional insurance liability premiums, possible loss of revenues; and for the granting to CRS easement and crossing necessary for Bay Shores development. 5. Using fencing, berming and other landscaping techniques as additional buffer between R.R. easement and residential lots. 6. It maximize line of sight at R.R. crossing by restricting fencing, landscaping and increasing set backs where applicable. GWR has responded to the above offers with a demand of $20,000 cash prior to a change of zone and with a $10,000 refund to CRS if the . . . 2 870123 Weld County Commissioners Page 2. January 26, 1987 change of zone is denied. CRS' offer is reasonable and generous and we believe that the above comnitment should satisfy the concerns of the County Commissioners. Respectfully, CRS fl VEST_'•ia INC. . Kim Collins KC/kel 870123 Q- EXHIBIT 8 1\\/;,Set January 26, 1987 CRS Investments, Inc. 1333 West 120th Avenue, Suite 308 Denver, Colorado 80234 Attention: Mr. Kim Collins, Vice President Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. Pt of N/2 Section 5-T2N-R68W Weld County, Colorado Gentlanen: Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. ("Operator") and CRS Investment, Inc. ("CRS") , by execution of this Letter Agreement, agree that the following terms and conditions will form the basis of a Surface Use Agreement ("Agreement") to be executed between the parties within sixty (60) days after approval of 4; the Change of Zone ("COZ") Submittal for Bay Shores Planned Unit Development ("P.U.D.") (Case Number Z-430:86:5) by the Weld County Commissioners ("Weld County") . The Agreement will incorporate the following in addition to any contingencies or responses to issues which may be created that burden either party by Weld County upon approval of the COZ or P.U.D. 1. CRS, as successor to all of the surface lands and certain minerals owned by Susan J. and Robert Pietrzak, agree to abide by the terms and conditions of that certain March 16, 1981 Letter Agreement as executed by W. B. Macey and Paul M. Mershon, Jr. ("Lessee") and Susan J. Pietrzak, et al ("Lessor") and the Oil and Gas Lease ("Lease") dated March 17, 1981 by and between Lessee and Lessor, except as superceded herein. 2. CRS acknowledges, honors and respects the rights and obligations of Operator (by appointment under the terms of the unit Operating Agreement dated October 1, 1981) , to prudently manage and protect the mineral interest of the working interest owners, Lessees and Lessors, in addition to those acquired by CRS. 3. In the event Weld County approves the COZ application and subsequent Bay Shores P.U.D., CRS will not restrict, hinder or impede Operator's operations of the well presently located on the premises or operations of future wells and activities contemplated by this Letter Agreement, including drilling, completing or producing (herein collectively referred to as "operations") the mineral estate. MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. 870123 SURE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4970 • (303) 861-9183 Letter Agreement January 26, 1987 Page 2 4. Operator reserves the right to perform all operations necessary to test the "J" sand formation at a legal location within the Northwest -Quarter (NW/4) as determined by the State of Colorado Oil and Gas -Conservation Commission. CRS will designate a-minimum of three (3) acres of open space common to both the defined legal location and open space. 1n addition, Operator will retain the option of performing those operations required to produce any other oil and gas bearing formation(s) within the wellbore of this future "J" test well and the existing Pietrzak #1. This will include, but not be limited to, CRS providing sufficient surface acreage to perform the operations necessary to put those formations into production. Any additional operations that Operator desires to perform that affect use of the surface acreage of the P.U.D., in addition to those described herein, will be evaluated on an individual basis and subject to the mutual consent of the parties. 5. All designated operations and terms and conditions contained herein will be grandfathered with the COZ and P.U.D. until such time as the Lease terminates. 6. CRS will provide adequate surface area, free of cost, to construct and install and will reimburse Operator for reasonable cost of the natural gas pipeline(s) from the production equipment of the well described in paragraph 4 above, as may be installed by Operator, to a mutually agreeable point adjacent to Weld County Road 3 1/2. At said point CRS will provide adequate surface area for an interconnection with panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company ("PEPL") . PEPL will be provided -adequate surface area to construct a pipeline from the existing {Pipeline, which begins at the southern boundary of the property and suns to the Pietrzak #1 well located in the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) , to said mutually agreeable point unless another route is designated by PEPL or either party. Operator will, in its notice to PEPL that the future well requires connection, limit the request to only equipment and appurtenances required for a direct connect. Should CRS and PEPL enter into an agreement to move and relocate the existing pipeline used to transport gas from the Pietrzak #1 well, Operator will coordinate the production schedule for a reasonable period of time, so as to allow the relocation. 7. Vehicular access will not be restricted by load limits or otherwise on roads constructed within the development. Both parties will work together in minimizing the disturbance caused by vehicular movement and other operations within the P.U.D. 870123 Letter Agreement January 2 , 1987 Page 3 8. CRS will pay to the -Operator and Working Interest Owners the sum of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,-000) as compensation to confine surface use and conduct any and all -operations required to explore for and develop oil and gas formations Fran drillsite locations within the two (2) surface areas defined in Paragraph 4. Payment will be scheduled in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) with the first payment due one (1) year from P.U.D. approval and annually thereafter until the total amount of $90,000 is paid in full, interest will be slue on the outstanding principal balance at the time each payment is due and will be calculated based upon the Prime Rate as established by the United Bank of Denver at the beginning of each payment period. 9. In the event Weld County creates any burdensome obligations or operational constraints upon Operator which become part of the COZ or P.U.D. approval process regarding current or future operations, Operator and CRS will incorporate those obligations as part of the Agreement. Should the COZ application be denied by Weld County, this Letter Agreement will terminate. 10. Any covenants created will provide for Operator's use of the surface acreage as described in Paragraph 4 for the operations defined herein and not create any additional burdens of fencing, landscaping, berming or otherwise to enlarge the financial obligation of Operator's operations, subject to the surface use requirement of Paragraph 7 and 8 of the March 16, 1981 Letter Agreement, except as modified herein. 11. -Failure to timely pay the amount as set forth in Paragraph 8, in and of itself will terminate the obligations of Operator contained herein and CRS will _forfeit all opportunity to restrict through covenants of the P.U.D. or otherwise to restrict Operator from conducting operations on any portion of the surface lands of the development. In addition, CRS will forfeit any monies paid to Operator and Operator shall have the right to collect, prorata based on four (4) 80-acre spacing units, the entire balance of the $90,000 along with all of Operator's costs of collection, including attorneys' fees, only in the event construction begins within any of the spacing units within said lands. 12. This Letter Agreement is subject to the approval of the working interest owners, Lessees and Lessors of the Lease as recorded March 23, 1981, Book 931, Reception No. 1852853 in the records of Weld County, Colorado. 13. The Lease will be modified by the terms and conditions of this Letter Agreement. Where provisions of the Lease differ from those contained in this Letter Agreement, the provisions of this Letter Agreement will control. 570123 Letter Agreement January 26, 1-987 Page 4 14- This Letter Agreement may be executed in any number 'of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original for -all purposes. 15. All terms and ]conditions herein shall inure to the benefit of either party, their respective successors and/or assigns, including but not limited to successor interest of CRS in the development project. If the foregoing is acceptable to CRS, please so indicate by signing below and returning one copy of this Letter Agreement to this office. Very truly yours, MACEY 4 MERSHON OIL INC. James a. Brown Agen -& Attorney-in-Fact for W. B. Macey, Mershon, Inc. and Macey -& Mershon Oil Inc. ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO THIS -;? -7-'iday of `i--„3„,u,g\T ¢ , 1987. CRS INVESTMENTS, INC.. Kim 1 lice President 870123 EXHIBIT 10 1-27-87 COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (OFF-SITE) THIS AGREEMENT, made and enteredinto this day of , 1987, by and between the _COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, hereinafter called "County," and CRS INVESTMENTS , IR7C. , a Colorado corporation, hereinafter called "Owner" and/or "Developer" . WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to the County for approval of a change of zoning for Planned United Development, Case No. Z-430 :86 :5 , for R-1 and -R-2 Y.U.D. uses , including residential, open space, and oil and gasdevelopment uses on land located on part et the north one-half of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the :Planned Unit Development will generate additional traffic on the access road and other nearby roads , and WHEREAS, the existing County roads which provide access to the Planned Unit Development will require improvements to adequately serve traffic, and WHEREAS, Developer has -offered to accept certain road improvement actions . NOW, -THEREFORE, i-n consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the County -and the Developer mutually agree as follows : 1. Primary access to the Planned Unit Development shall be via Weld County -Road No. 3-1/2 from Colorado State Highway No. 119 north approximately one-half mile to the Planned -Unit Development southerly property line . 2. Other nearby roads are weld County -Road No. 26 which lies adjacent to the north property line of the Planned Unit Development (the "P.U.D. " ) . 3. All construction and materials under this agreement shall be in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction of the Colorado Department of -Highways , with reference to the edition current at the time the project is initiated. The County shall review and approve the construction plans prior to construction and shall have the same authority as 8710123 the Engineer , as defined in the specifications for the project, to inspect construction. 4. Phase I. A. Developer agrees to pave the one-half mile portion of County Road No. 3-1/2 to the Planned Unit Development, as defined i-n paragraph no . 1 -above . Phase I of the improvements shall include the items shown as _Phase I on page 1 of Exhibit No. 1 appended hereto and hereby incorporated herein. Said _Phase I improvements shall include interim paving of two lanes of County Road No. 3-1/2 lot the -on-e--half mile -described in paragraph no. 1 above, permanent paving of four lanes of Road No. 3-1/2 to the railroad crossing north of the two lanes , and the improving of said crossing. B. -Developer agrees to initiate action to accomplish the Phase I improvements after recording of the final plat for Phase I of the P.U.D. at such time as construction of homes begins but prior to occupancy of homes in said Phase I. C. If , prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Phase I of the off-site road improvements, Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential, commercial , or industrial development, or any expansion of any agri-businesses , that will be using as access any of the portion of, or which is located adjacent to, County Road No. 3-1/2 paved at the expense of the Developer , the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost of the road, pro rata as the projected use of the road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the road. 5. _Phase II . A. Developer agrees to pave four lanes of the portion of County ;toad No. 3-1/2 extending north from the railroad crossing on the _P.U.D. to the intersection of Road No. 3-1/2 with County Road No. 2b in accordance with the Phase II improvements identified on page 2 of -Exhibit No. 1 , and to pave four lanes of the first approximately1,000 feet of County Road No. 26 lying west of that intersection, also identified on page 2 of Exhibit No. 1. B. Developer agrees to initiate action to accomplish the _Phase Ii improvements after recording of the final plat for Phase II of the P.U.D. at such time as construction of homes begins but prior to occupancy of homes in said Phase II. C. If, prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of _Phase SS of the off-site road improvements , Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential, -commercial, or industrial development, or any expansion of any agri-businesses, that will -be using as access , or which is located adjacent to, any of the portions of _County 2 874)12x3 Roads No. 3-1/2 and/or No. 26 identified as Phase II paved at the expense of the Developer, the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost of the roads , pro rata as the projected use of the road compares to the Developer ' s projected use of the roads . 6. Phase III. A. Developer agrees to pave four lanes of the remaining portion of County Road No. 26 extending from the Phase II improvements to the westerly property line of the P. U.D. as more specifically identified as the Phase III improvements on page 3 of Exhibit No. 1. B. Developer agrees to initiate action to accomplish the Phase III improvements after recording of the -final plat for Phase III of the P.U.D. at such time as construction of homes begins but prior to occupancy of -homes in said Phase III. C. If, prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Phase III of the oft-site road improvements , Weld County issues Zoning or other approval for any otter residential , commercial , or industrial development, or any expansion of any agri-businesses , that -will be usin-g as access , or which is located -adjacent to, -any of that portion of County Road No. 26 identified as Phase III paved at the expense of the Developer , the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost of the road, pro rata as the projected use of the road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the road . 7. _Phase IV. A. Developer agrees to pave four lanes of that portion of County Road No. 26 lying east of the intersection of County Road -No. 26 with County Road No. 3-1/2 extendi-ng to the easterly property line of the P.IJ.D. , as more specifically identified as the Phase _IV improvements listed on page -4 of Exhibit No. 1. B. Developer agrees to initiate action to accomplish the phase IV improvements after recording of the final plat for Phase IV of the R.U.D. at such time as construction of homes begins -but prior to occupancy of homes in said Phase IV. C. If, prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Bhase IV of the off-site road improvements , Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential, commercial , or industrial development, or any expansion of any agri--businesses , that will be using as access , or which is located adjacent to, any of that portion of County Road No. 26 paved at the expense of Developer as Phase IV of the improvements , the County, to the extent -permitted by law, agrees to see-k contributions to the cost of the road, pro rata as the 3 870123 projected use of the road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the road. 8. Phase V. A. Developer agrees to add two 12—foot lanes of County Road No. 3-1/2 between the intersection of County Road No. 3-1/2 with Colorado State Highway No. 119 extending north to the southerly property line of the P.U.D. , plus 250 feet of 12-foot left turn lane on Road No. 3-1/2 at Highway No. 119, which improvements are more specifically identified as Phase V of the improvements as listed on page 5 of Exhibit No. 1. These improvements are in -addition to the Phase I improvements which were the interim two lane paved roadway identified in paragraph no. 4, above . B. Developer agrees to initiate the action necessary to accomplish _Phase V of the improvements after the recording of all final plats for the P.U.D. at such time as 500 dwelling units on the -P.U.D. have been completed and certificates of occupancy issued therefor by the County of Weld, State of Colorado. C. If , prior to or within ten years after the completion of the construction of Phase V of the off-site road improvements , Weld County issues zoning or other approval for any other residential, commercial, or industrial development , or any expansion of any agri-businesses , that will be using as access , or which is located adjacent to, any of the approximate one-half mile of County Road No. 3-1/2 paved at the expense of the Developer, the County, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to seek contributions to the cost of the -road, pro rata as the projected use of the road compares to the Developer 's projected use of the roads . 9. It is the intent of the parties that this -Agreement remain in full force and effect until it terminates according to its own terms and that it be -binding upon the Developer and its successors, and assigns , and on this Board and future Boards to the fullest extent permitted by law. Should this Agreement, or any portion thereof, -be found to be void or voidable for the reason that it binds the Board of County Commissioners for more than a one year period of time, this contract shall be construed as a one year contract -with automatic annual renewals . 10 . _It is the intent of the parties that a separate agreement regarding collateral for construction for each phase of the off site improvements will be proposed by the Developer prior to review by the County of the final plat for each phase of the development,to be executed prior to recording of eachsuch plat. 4 870123 11 . The addresses of the parties are as follows : Weld County Board of County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street P.O. Box 1948 Greeley, Colorado 80632 CRS Investments , Inc. 1333 West 120th Avenue, Suite 308 Denver , Colorado 80254 It shall be the obligation of the parties to notify each other of any change of address , re-gistered agent, or change of _ownership. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parti-es hereto have duly executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board By: Chairman By: Deputy Clerk CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. By: Its 870123 5 BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE I UNIT • ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION + rr• rrrr • STATE HIGHWAY 119 IMPROVEMENTS - ACCEL/DECEL LANES Deceleration Lanes = 570' Length • 600' Taper x 12' Width Acceleration Lanes = 1, 170' Length • 600' Taper x 12' Width Clear and Grub S.Y. 6,200 51 .00 56.200.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 6,200 51 .00 56,200.00 Base Course - 14" CL 6 S.Y . 6,200 56.00 537,200.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S .Y. 6,200 55.00 531 ,000.00 SUBTOTAL 580,600.00 • WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - ST HWY 119 NORTH TO SOUTH P.L. Two 12' lanes plus 250' x 12' left turn lane at SH 119 intersection. Asphalt overlay on existing gravel roadbase with compaction. Clear and Grub S.Y. 1 .000 51 .00 51 ,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 7,300 51 .00 57,300.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 1 ,000 $5.00 55,000 .00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 7,300 55.00 S36,500.00 SUBTOTAL 549,800.00 • WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - SOUTH P.L. NORTH TO RAILROAD Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter. Drainage ditches to be eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y. 9,000 50.50 54,500 .00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 3,500 52.00 57,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 7.200 51.00 57,200 .00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 7.200 53.00 521 ,600.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 7.200 55.00 536,000 .00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 2,700 58.00 $21 ,600.00 SUBTOTAL 597,900 .00 • RAILROAD CROSSING L.S. 1 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 SUBTOTAL S80,000 .00 EXHIBIT NO. 1 TO ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (OFD'-SITE) Page 1 of 5 870123 BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE II UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION ♦RR11 YP}• • WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - RAILROAD NORTH TO WCR 26 Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter. Drainage ditches to be eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y. 8,000 50.50 54,000.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 3,000 $2.00 56,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 6,400 51 .00 56,400.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 6,400 53.00 519,200.00 Asphalt - 3" trade E S.Y. 6,400 55.00 532,000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 2,400 $8.00 519,200.00 SUBTOTAL- $86,800.00 • WELD COUNTY ROAD 26 - WCR 3 1/2 WEST 1000' Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter. Drainage ditches to be eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y . 6 ,700 50.50 53,350.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 2,350 52.00 54,700.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 5,350 51 .00 55,350.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 5,350 $3.00 516,050.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 5.350 55.00 526,750.00 Curb and Gutter L.E. 2,000 58.00 516,000.00 SUBTOTAL $72,200.00 Page 2 of 5 870123 BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO • PHASE III UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION **0* • WELD COUNTY ROAD 26 - WCR 26 EXTENSION TO WEST P.L. Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter . Drainage ditches to be eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y. 14,800 50.50 $7,400.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 5, 150 82.00 810,300.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 11 ,750 81 .00 611 ,750 .00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 11 ,750 83.00 835,250.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y . 11 ,750 85.00 858,750.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 4.400 88.00 535,200.00 SUBTOTAL = 5158,650.00 • Page 3 of 5 • 870123 O9-Jan-87 BAY SHORES P.U.D. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO • PHASE IV • UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION •ww+ wwww • WELD COUNTY ROAD 26 - WCR 3 1/2 EAST TO EAST P.L. Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter . Drainage ditches to be eliminated. S.Y. 18,000 50.50 59,000.00 G gnd Grub 92.00 513,000.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y . 6,500 91 .00 514,400.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y . 14,400 53.00 544,200.00 Base Course - 1O" CL 6 S .Y. 14,400 543,200 .00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 14,400 55.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 5,400 58.00 $72 ,200.00 SUBTOTAL - 5194,800 .00 • • Page 4 of 5 ` 87®123 BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE V IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED DEPENDENT UPON DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION wwww WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - ST HWY 119 NORTH - WIDEN TO FOUR LANES Four 12' lanes plus 250' x 12' left turn lane at SH 119 intersection. Remove overlay, eliminate ditches, add concrete curb and gutter . Clear and Grub S.Y. 10,000 $0.50 $5,000.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 7,000 $2.00 $14,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 14,000 $1.00 $14,000 .00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 14,000 $3.00 $42,000.00 Asphalt - . 3" Grade E S.Y. 14,000 55.00 $70,000 .00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 5, 100 $8.00 $40,800.00 SUBTOTAL $185,800.00 Page 5 of 5 870123 • c, gg I N Ioi i !Oi a = I I w ui G I. �_GG f 41.1.— /y �11t 3.61.11.1 N c��Po a ® 3%s 1 i \ ,;sgt._ >i E gu •=k IJ I I . I \\ \/. ==.g .g -NEI g fA I = \ \ I a11 0 i S''' a a Nils � _ _ ` 21 I \\ \ ^I d ^� IO\ 1 , tea ,n .w IOa uwl.n F 1 .... \,\ \ _ - .• \ . O > ,: _. ,,,,,,, ,,,, "2 ''''' ''' �l ... ..,,._. \ NW LL =000,-9 0 / N -T.-F V .. U 2 i :5 \ I I �gC .. ! I \ \ •N y 5 alms qi?) I gm Y\ \ II Ik �l `� liir it i= ii !• _ Ili ;! W N\ , .i !i i •i I. iii OD I .,, .....+ £ 4 ''t\ \ 0 : ,. .8 I-iit i;. ;° ,i li ! ii s iii Ili iI 1 i I . . i:i i is l: Ti j :r i iri Ii 1\s\ ` •� 5 •+ W� �• I:iii !! i1 3: !i � ii i !II ili, gI a t �e II1 I !!' E i i •ii i li t i s .1 : E liii s i u:i • i : : ri el !�i i, • 4 i' i'i-:i:l.i .5 i 111 5 i . it . ≤l s\ _ rri i ri.! i i� i9 s • : � } y �i is ,�=� ri: irii l }i� It :iii ii�} rr ill!! = iiiii1 =•Ti i :i• €! iii ;l=a _ \-- \ L.N iii i!'' ii!! : :; !ii? Di!i _� _ lili. iiiiiiiii=.;ii . I i !i W et. !1 .f�\ II lI.i i i i ii r ii ; i r. 7i sl Y o k ' xl ill 3 l i! ! 3! l i i !i ii il,j Q N. gE �' MI i ' i ii ` ii ! i it Q =1 J x= � :iii s i i =' 9 iii I ' ii121 2 4 ` e£ \ \ ipi 3iii: ! i} i liia ' 7.1 ) i2 : iiil ! l = l' i !i : !• i !3 =i $}�` 1 Pi ;;1 ! = s t.; it =iis itiiiii! !i3� :, ——_ $3 . \ .ii • i_ r i r ii s ,•l!i rilgsssi ii: —�tic6lt _It_2k.,1,? ,:s ii.x : ! : :. V . is iii:-iiii •li i. n.».o=.ls 33 II!' : :, i i! i 2.... ,::::1 .si P. i— ii !LT i3:; ii 'iii If 1241! ;WWII ill! tl 5.fx_�¢ k 51 :=i ijilil€liijii Ii iiil'' !lha iii! 1 . EXHIBIT 11 WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 449 209 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING GREELEY. COLO. 50532 GREELEY. COLORADO 13031 353-1292 November 3 , 1986 B VDili:71 - Mr. Keith A. Schuett 1986 l Current Planner Department of Planning Services L- 915 - 10th St. planni!!g Ita n!eission Greeley , CO 80631 Weld Co. Re : Case Number Z-430 : 86 : 5 Bay Shores PUD Dear Mr. Schuett: Representatives of Union Reservoir met with the developer and had a very satisfactory meeting. The parties hope that some of the reservations expressed in the October 16 , 1986 letter can be worked out. On the location of lots , if appropriate provision is made to buffer or protect the access onto the lake from trespass , the platting of lots next to the lake could be feasible . If any houses are put in along the shore , adequate provisions must be made for claims against company for seep , erosion and dust blowing from exposed shorelines . The lot owners next to the lake must execute or have in their deeds some form of waiver , disclaimer or release directed to the reservoir company not only for accidents from drowning, but also for the storage of gas and oil. The plans in this development show there would be about 1500 linear feet adjacent to the reservoir where houses would be located. The concerns expressed in the letter of October 16 regarding the inability to obtain liability insurance remains a severe problem. Any relocation of the road should be designed to reduce and discourage access to the lake . The silt and storm run-off into the lake , and the problems of water entering the reservoir from the subdivision should be controlled by detention ponds and other means . It is the understanding of the Union Reservoir Company that the proposed open space next to the lake has been deleted from the present plans and proposal . 870123 Mr. Keith A. Schuett November 3 , 1986 Page 2 Lots developed next to the lake would be better protection for the reservoir recreation operators by requiring some type of fence , or requiring the lot owners to all become members of whatever re- creational organization would use the lake. If any wall or riprap material was used, appropriate aesthetic principles must be addressed. The biggest problem discussed at the meeting, without any definite answer for it , is the proposal for Longmont to acquire a major interest in Union Reservoir, and in connection therewith to raise the water level as much as 15 feet . If this proposal were undertaken , any houses placed within that 15 foot area would have to be moved out voluntarily or through emminent domain proceedings . Additionally the re-located road may have to be moved again. The awkward problem is that the developers hope to commence construction in the spring of 1987 and it is unknown at this time the position to be taken by Longmont and the parties who have acquired majority control of Union Reservoir Company. It would be useless to change the road, build a large number of houses bordering the lake and then in a short time have to remove the houses and re-locate the road, because the lake level is raised. Yours very truly, William H. Southard WHS : dl 870123 L ,t 1NVEST'MENTS Ili'', EXI-I T �1a 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER,COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 January 26, 1987 Weld County Commissioners 916 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Tear Ccnnissioners: As the Board is aware, the City of Longmont has purchased a controlling interest in the Union Reservoir Company. CRS Investments Inc. (CRS) has met with city representatives and an attorney representing the City of Longmont. U S has made written piuposals to the City so that it could satisfy any possible conflicts. Although CRS has received no written response fran either the City or the Reservoir Company, we feel it important that the Board is inforRLd of the following: 1. Both before and after construction o£ Bay Shores, _CRS will take whatever measures necessary to insure that silt and storm -water run-off do not pollute the reservoir. 2. -CRS will create covenants that provide the -Reservoir Company with sufficient rights of way to maintain its shoreline, and provide for measures necessary to control soil erosion, seepage. The covenants will also provide that lot owners adjoining the Reservoir will fence between their hones to help control possible trespassing. 3. CRS will create covenants that the -Reservoir Company has no aMitional liability for injury to person or property damage for non-permitted use of Reservoir Property or facilities, or for surface or ground water damage caused by fluctuation in the water level of the Reservoir. 4. There will be no open space within the P.U.D. adjacent to the Reservoir shoreline. . 2 67Q123 Weld County Canaissioners Page 2. January 26, 19S7 5. As previously requested, e will work with the Reservoir Company so that the realigrunent of WCR 26 will not tempt trespassing. 6. Work in cooperation with the owners -of the recreation rights (surface rights) . On January 26, 1187, CRS was inforned through a third party that the City of Longmont filed "A Plan of exchange" for Boulder, Weld and Morgan Counties along with a "Conditional Storage Rights" in Weld County, for the enlargement of Union -Reservoir. The above proposal will not infringe on the rights of Union Reservoir or -the City o₹ Inngmont. Sincerely, CRS DIVESTMENTS INC. Kim Collins KC/kel 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L.WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAVES&PHILLIPS,P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 or OOUNnL (303)825-6631 January 26 , 1987 Mr . John McCarty McCarty Engineering 703 West 3rd Longmont, Colorado 80501 Dear John: As a follow-up to our meeting on January 23, 1981 with the Weld County officials , I have drafted the following note for inclusion on the rezoning map: In the event there is a default by CRS Investments , Inc. , under paragraph 11 of the January 26, 1987 letter agreement between Las Investments , Inc. and Macey IS Mershon Oil , Inc. , then Macey -& Mershon Dil , Inc. or their successors in interest shall have a use by right for oil and gas drilling and operations on a drill site located at the center -of each of the quarter-quarter sections located in the rezoning lands shown here in the north north half of section 5, T 2 N. , R. 68 W. of the 5th P.M. -However, no such drilling or operation shall commence in the _center of -any quart-er quarter section in which construction has been commenced by CRS Investments , Inc. or their successors prior to the date of said notice of default. Such notice of default shall be given in writing by Macey & Mershon, Inc. or their successors to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners , County of Wald, Colorado, by certified mail, return receipt requested. You should draft language for the amendment to the submittal indicating that this change has been agreed to on the rezoning plat in order to allow use by right in the event of this default. Please call if you -have any questions. Sincerely ,,,lCs� i tiao Har ey W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Scott McXinl-ey - Hand Delivered CAS Investments , Inc. 8 123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L.WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF L.WARS 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET ht Y r HAYES&PHILLIPS, P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 3 ^1C OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 1' all 2 8 m987 January 27 , 1987 !I• HAND DELIVERY Boa-rd of County Commissioners Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P. U.D. - JCK Farms , Ltd. Dear Commissioners : I represent the applicant in this rezoning and I am writing this letter regarding the effect of the proposed Tay Shores P.U.D. on JCK farms , Ltd. JCK Farms owns property adjacent to the property proposed for rezoning. Its interest in this rezoning case appears to be the ditch laterals it uses to receive water out of the Oligarchy Ditch which cross the Bay Shores property and in an underground drain on the property. I wrote Mr . Neil Piller , the attorney for JCK farms , on January 16, 19B7, setting forth a proposed agreement on those laterals and on an underground drain. A copy of this letter is attached. I talked to Mr . Piller on January 27 , 1987 and he indicated that his client did not -have any objection to undergrounding his laterals but preIerred that they not be relocated. CRS Investments , Inc. , the applicant , has agreed to that. CRS will also -agree to locate the underground drain on the plat if Mr . Hamm and JCK Farms wish that to be shown on the plat. Sincerely, G t err Ha ey W. Curtis HWC/bm enclosure cc: Neil Piller , Esq. - U.S. Mail Lee -D. Morrison, - Hand Delivered Keith Schuett --Hand Delivered John McCarty - Hand Delivered 870123 Kim Collins - -Hand Delivered HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 STAR L.WARING, 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF COUNSEL DENVER,COLORADO 80202 HAYES&PHILLIPS, P.C., OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 • January 16 , 1987 Neil Piller , -Esq. Schey & Schey , P.C. P.O. Box 267 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Re: Bay Stores P.U.D. - J.C.K. Farms , Ltd. Dear Neil: Thank you very much for your letter of January 5 , 1987. This letter is intended to set forth the agreement which CRS Investments , Inc . will enter into with J.C.K. Farms , Ltd. with regard to relocation of laterals used off of the Oligarchy Ditch by J.C.R. Farms . These parties agree as follows : 1. CRS Investments , Inc . may relocate laterals off of the Oligarchy Ditch used by J.C.K. Farms . Any relocated laterals will be replaced by buried pipes or concrete-lined surface laterals to deliver Oligarchy Ditch water to J.C.K_ Farms at the locations at which deliveries are now made by the existing laterals located on the surface of the ground. 2. -Existing laterals will be maintained until development occurs on lands on which the laterals are located. For relocated laterals , any relocation and construction costs and future maintenance expenses will be borne by CRS Investments , _Inc . and its successors . 3. It is CRS Investments , Inc. ' s understanding that J.C.-K. Farms may request that an underground drain located on the Bay Shores P.U.D. lands be identified upon platting so that the drain will be protected in the future . If J.C.K. Farms will identify that location, C .R.S. will, identify it on the plat. 4. Upon execution of this letter -agreement, J.C.K. Farms and Mr . Hamm agree that they will withdr-aw their objections to the Bay Shores P. U_D. rezoning proposal. I have enclosed a duplicate original of this letter for Mr . Hamm to execute . If this letter is acceptable , please return both of the originals with Mr . Hamm' s signature to me. I will then have 870123 Neil Piller , Esq. January 16 , 1987 Page Two them executed by CRS Investments , Inc. and will return one of the • originals to you. Sincerely, 77Har y W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Kim Collins , CRS Investments , Inc . Lee D. Morrison, Esq. , Weld County Attorney Keith -Schuett , Weld County Planning Department J.C.K. FARMS , LTD. By: Richard Hamm CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. By: Kim Collins , Vice President 870123 (M In , AN 2 s 1987 January 26, 1987 Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Mr. Keith A. Schuett Current Planner Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. Case Number Z-430:86:5 Gentlemen: Please be advised that Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. , as Operator of the oil and gas minerals under the surface lands of the Change of Zone Submittal, and CRS Investments, Inc. have concluded negotiations which resulted in both parties resolving the various issues related to oil and gas operations x within the surface lands which are the subject of this hearing. Therefore, by execution of a Letter Agreement between the parties, the contents of which are agreeable to the working interest owners and Lessor of the Oil and Gas Lease between Susan J. Pietrzak, et al (Lessor) and W. B. Macey and Paul M. Mershon, Jr., (Lessee) dated March 18, 1981, Macey & Mershon will state for the record at the January 28, 1987 Weld County t Commissioners meeting that all objections to the Change of Zone Submittal for Bay Shores -P.U.D. are withdrawn. Please advise if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, MACE & MERSF N OI(IN . Scott S. McKinley Landman 870123 11• MACEY�& MERSHON OIL INC. A--x„,(3/7 /1' SUITE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER, COLORADO 80202.4970 • (303) 861-9183 SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST 1107 THEODORE D.SCHEY.JR. THE PREMIERE BUILDING NEIL E.PILLER 100 FLORIDA AVENUE DONALD H.ALSPAUGH SUITE P-300 PHILLIP S.WONG P.O.BOX 267 JAMES H.NEISCN LONGMONT.COLORADO 10502-0267 January 26 , 1987 TELEPHONE:0031116-3511 JACOB S.SCHEY 11!81-19631 METRO:1303114240M Mr. Harvey Curtis Attorney at Law 1350 17th Street Denver , Colorado 80202 Re : Oligarchy Ditch - Bay Shores Subdivision Dear Harvey : I have reviewed your letter of January 23rd with my clients along with our other correspondence. Despite your client's acquiescence to the changes in language I suggested , the Ditch Company will not approve the agreement and is no longer interested in agreeing to have their ditch relocated. As I indicated , atter reviewing the past experiences they have had with ditch relocations and in analyzing the addiitonal administrative problems that will be created by entering this proposed agreement , they conclude that the disadvantages far outweigh the anticipated advantages resulting from tte relocation and lining. Therefore , they asked me to notify you ot their decision not to agree to the ditch relocation and they will continue to oppose the zoning change . Very truly yours , SCHEY & SCHEY , P.C . By : _ Neil E . Piller NEP: lm cc : The Oligarchy Board ot Directors JAN 27 1987 87O123 Weld Co. Planning Commission Qr iJ 7 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 STAR L.WARING, 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF COUNSEL HAYES 8 PHILLIPS, P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 January 23, 1987 Neil Piller , Esq. Schey & Schey , P.C. P.O. Box 267 Longmont , Colorado 80502-0267 Re : Bay Shores P. J.D. - Oligarchy Ditch Company and JCK Farms Agreements Dear Neil : Thank you very much for your letter of January 21, 1987 . I appreciate your forwarding my letters regarding the proposed agreements , both dated January 16, 1987, on to the Oligarchy Ditch Company and JCK Farms . Based on your concerns , I have discussed the future obligations of the lot owners for the insurance premiums with CRS Investments , Inc. They will agree to your proposed language in the second paragraph of your January 21, 1987 letter. This includes a covenant rather than a deed restriction running with each lot , and will include a provision that the board of the ditch company will have the authority to review the coverage and if they reasonably determine that the coverage is inadequate, notify the homeowners of the need to increase the coverage , and if the homeowners object , the matter will be subjected to arbitration at the lot owners ' expense. Also, they would agree that the covenant would include the right of the ditch company to recover costs and attorneys fees for enforcing the covenant against any lot owner who refuses to pay. With regard to your suggestion of describing the ditch right of way as 16-1/2 feet on either side of the ditch rather than 20 feet on each side of the centerline , CRS Investments , Inc. will agree to that . I believe this will resolve all of the points in your letter . If not, please let me know. As I pointed out in my January 16, 1987 letter , I would appreciate having a letter agreement with the ditch company and then finalizing the written agreement following rezoning approval. That would be a condition to rezoning approval. oEC5 E JAN 27 1987 870123 Yield Co. Planning Commission Neil Piller , Esq. January 23 , 1987 Page Two Your January 21 , 1987 letter did not state whether you had heard back from JCR Farms or Mr . Hamm. I would appreciate being advised. Sincerely , Harve W. Curtis HWC/bm. cc: Kim Collins Lee D . Morrison, Esq. Keith Schuett 870123 • SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1ST.1907 THE PREMIERE BUILDING THEODORE E SCHEY,JR. TM FLORIDA AVENUE NEIL N L PI . ER SUITE P-700 DONALD S. ALSPAUGH PHILLP.O.BOX 297 WONG JAMES P.NELSON LONGMONT,COLORADO 00907-03U JAMES N. January 21 , 1987 TELEPHONE:17031 T16-3511 METRO:13031 443-4011 JACOB S.SCHEY(lilt-19671 Mr. Harvey W. Curtis Attorney at Law 1350 17th Street , Suite 450 Denver , Colorado 80202 Re : Bay Shores - Oligarchy and JCK Agreement Dear Harvey: co I have reviewed the letters you sent to me dated January m 16 , 1987 , concerning proposed agreements with The Oligarchy Ditch c•B and JCK Farms. I have forwarded these documents to my clients for N Fz review. The Ditch Company Board of Directors will have to meet before any action can be taken on the proposal , but the Chairman u < has been alerted to this . C3 C3 " From my review ot your letter agreement, I do tind some LJ >_ F_o areas of deficiency in the language which you have p-ropose . W Paragraph one does not clearly reflect a continuing liability for `_ 4 the insurance premiums. I think language should also be included W indicating that the obligation to pay these insurance premiums is AC a covenant running with each lot since deed restrictions may be construed as personal obligations. Second, there is no provision for periodic increases in the amount of coverage. Since we are talking about this obligation continuing ad intinitem , an escalator must be build in. I would recommend to the Board that they be given the authority to review the level ot coverage trom time to time, and it they reasonably determine the coverage to be inadequate, they -can notity the Homeowners ot the need to increase the coverage and the effect on the premium. The lot owners , it they choose , could object and submit the matter to arbitration at their expense. Also , the Oligarchy would have to be given the right to recover costs and attorney' s tees tor enforcing the covenant against any who do not pay. 0E1 ? 111 JAN 27 1987 870123 — Weld Co. Planning dommission Paragraph tive is the other area or concern. I would prefer having the right-of-way defined as one rod (16-1/2 feet) in width on either side ot the ditch rather than 20 teet on either side of the centerline. It the engineers reconfigure the ditch when it is relocated to make it wider, the 20 feet may not provide adequate access. How the Ditch Board may now react to the proposal to relocate the ditch is up in the air. At the last Board of Directors meeting , they reviewed all ot the problems they have had with past ditch relocations and relining and found those experiences to be decidedly negative. They do not want to have to sutfer through that again. The Board did ask me to write to you to emphasize their position that until we have an agreement firmly established, the Oligarchy continues to be opposed to the change ot zone and residential development ot the Bay Shores property for the reasons stated in my letters of June 26 , 1986 , and September 8 , 1986 . Very truly yours , SCHEY & SCHEY , P.G. By :�%-- 0 e= PP, Neil E. Piller NEP: lm cc : George Adam Richard Hamm Leroy Rider Keith Schuette Weld County Planning 2 870123 76 14 j January 26, 1987 i Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 F' Attention: Mr. Keith A. Schuett iCurrent Planner ( Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. E Case Number Z-430:86:5 Gentlemen: Please be advised that Macey & Mershon Oil Inc., as Operator of the oil and gas minerals under the surface lands of the Change of Zone Submittal, and CRS Investments, Inc. have concluded negotiations which resulted in both parties resolving the various issues related to oil and gas operations within the surface lands which are the subject of this hearing. E Therefore, by execution of a Letter Agreement between the parties, the contents of which are agreeable to the working interest owners and Lessor of the Oil and Gas Lease between Susan J. Pietrzak, et al (Lessor) and W. B. Macey and Paul M. Mershon, Jr., (Lessee) dated March 18, 1981, Macey & Mershon will state for the record at the January 28, 1987 Weld County Commissioners meeting that all objections to the Change of Zone Submittal for Bay Shores P.U.D. are withdrawn. r Please advise if you have any questions regarding the above. k Very truly yours, MACE & MERS N 0I/IN . LC Scott S. McKinley f Landman t t 7 1� 1\i_JAN 27 1987 i MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. [A -- l SUITE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER. COLORADO 80202-4970 •j.. .IA) sf Fl92aaauyiiSiUir 0123 C : S INVESTMENTS If 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 308 -DENVER, COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 January 20, 1987 Mr. John P. Ascher The Great Western Railway Co. Taylor Avenue Shops P. O. Box 537 Loveland, Colorado 80539 ]fear Pete: I wanted to follow up a telephone conversation that I had today with Steve Boblak of Pat Broe's office. CRS is unable at this time to accept your offer of $20,000 cash and $10,000 to be reimbursed to CRS if CRS is unable to rezone the Bay Shore;P.U.D. We feel that The Great Western Railway Co. has absolutely no exposure unless the land is rezoned and there is not any justification for a $10,000 fee. CRS does continue at this writing to offer to GWR, $12,500 based on items and easements described in our letter of November 10, 1986 payable $5,000 cash dawnpayment within ninety (90) days of rezone approval, the balance due within two (2) years, or caRnencesrnnt of Bay Shores, Phase I construction. We hope that GWR and Mr. Broe will reconsider the above offer. If you have any questions, please call me @ 457-3775. Very truly yours, CRS INVESTMENTS INC. Kim Collins cc: Mr. Pat Broe Mr. Steve Boblak Mr. Leo Morrison / Mr. Keith Schuett Mr. Drew Scheltinga Mr. Harvey Curtis Mr. John McCarty r JAN 2 2 1987 870123 Weld Cu. Plaumuk GummnlOu 1 ' E fl D I woKeith Schuett To Planning Department Date Janya 1987 COLORADO From P Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer (\ Subject: Bay Shores PUD Off-Sight Improvements I have reviewed the proposed improvements agreement with John McCarty as submitted with a letter dated January 16, 1987 by Harvey W. Curtis. Mr. McCarty and I agreed the contents of the agreement were reasonable. However, the agreement could be made more clear by reorganizing parts of the body and adding a sketch to clarify the different phases. Mr. McCarty agreed to contact Mr. Curtis regarding these changes. Also, there are several aspects that should be reviewed by the County Attorney' s office. Particularly those issues dealing with recoupment of road improvement costs. DLS/bf xc: John McCarty, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. , 703 Third Avenue Longmont, CO 80501 roiN Planning Referral File: Bay Shores PUD j\1 JAN 2 31987 870123 1— ------ waif; Cu. I'awwie sammsvm, DEPA( ?ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES =� .r---_1 . PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 - 10th STREET pt • 1 GREELEY,COL D COLORADO 80631 3'w Li -", .-, '_, . :-..Alc,, T.) iiiAt .i CASE NUMBER USR-777:87: '_ COLOR 7Th January 12, 1987 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Jack Dinis for a Use by Special Review for an BOO head dairy operation. The parcel of land is described as part of the SE} of Section 16, T6N, R64W of the 6th P.N.., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is north of State Highway 392 and west of Weld County Road 55 (on Weld County Road 55) . This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. Please reply by January 26, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Keith A. Schuett if you have any questions about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this natter. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. . 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. t ' v Signed: t ' '1.1,42.) ( L Agency: Date: f e, /. 87II JAN 221987 870123 m oRPinu istetft . Keith Schuett IlliDe. To Planning Department D,;e January 21, 1987 IL COLORADO From Donald R. Carroll , Administrative Manager - Engineering Dept. Subject: Jack Dinis s - USR-777:87 :1 No information has been supplied regarding stormwater runoff or how it will be handled. Runoff calculations and a proposed grading plan should be submitted. The amount of traffic after the dairy is constructed will still be below the 200 vehicle per day category discussed in the fugitive dust regulations. I am certain the dairy will be very concerned about dust because of the dust pneumonia problem that is common to livestock. Therefore, I think it would be reasonable to require the dairy to perform dust control , as it becomes necessary between their main entrance and SH 392 on Weld County Road 55. The additional truck traffic does not warrant the requirement for a paving agreement. Vehicular traffic shall ingress and egress onto Weld County Road 55 as shown hereon. There shall be only one haul route. The haul route shall be from the point of ingress and egress onto Weld County Road 55 south of SH 392. Weld County Road 68 on the USR drawing should READ State Highway 392. \\JAN 2- 1987 DLC/bf %anal �o• stout 870123 a /4_ J HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L.WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES&PHILLIPS,P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-8831 January 16, 1987 Neil Piller , Esq. Schey & Schey, P.C. P .O. Box 267 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. - Oligarchy Ditch Company Dear Neil: Thank you very much for your letter of January 5 , 1987. My client, CRS Investments , Inc . , is prepared to proceed to resolve the concerns of the Oligarchy Ditch Company along the lines outlined by your January 5, 1987 letter . We propose accomplishing this by a letter agreement and then coming to a final written agreement after the rezoning is approved. If the rezoning for some reason is not approved, then we will not have spent a lot of our time drafting an agreement. The proposal which CRS Investments , Inc. would agree to with the Oligarchy Ditch Company is as follows: 1. Upon final platting , the Oligarchy Ditch Company will obtain the liability insurance coverage you have described in your January 5 , 1987 letter at the present premium price of $960 .00 per year for the $500 ,000 basic coverage and a $1, 000 ,000 umbrella. CRS Investments , Inc. will reimburse the Ditch Company for this policy. The homeowners association to be formed for the Bay Shores P. U.D. would be the successor to that reimbursement responsibility . However , individual deed restrictions as well as a note on the first page of the final plat will provide that it for some reason the homeowners association ceased to exist or failed to make the payment , then that payment would be a liability of the lot owners on a pro rata basis as proposed by your letter . This restriction will give the Oligarchy Ditch the right to enforce the liens against the lots for any unpaid premiums . 2. CRS Investments , Inc. agrees to reimburse the Ditch Company' s cost for the engineering review of drawings hereafter prepared by CRS Investments , Inc. for a relocated Oligarchy Ditch . The maximum amount of $1,000 , as stated in your January 5 , 1987 letter , would be the cap on CRS Investments, Inc. ' s pa 1' L —Ir111 'r L� those fees . JAN 9 91987 870123 Weld Co. Planning Commission Neil Piller , Esq. January 16, 1987 Page Two 3. Upon rezoning approval , CRS Investments , Inc. agrees to pay within 90 days the Ditch Company' s legal fees incurred in relation to this matter which are currently in the amount of S3, 000 . There would be a cap of 52,500 placed on the future fees , the amount stated in your letter as the anticipated maximum additional fees . 4. The Ditch Company will continue to be responsible for all maintenance of the ditch . 5 . If the Oligarchy Ditch is relocated, CRS Investments , Inc . will grant by deed a fee simple interest to the Ditch Company for a right-of-way 20 feet in width on each side of the centerline of the relocated ditch, totalling 40 feet in width. Your letter of January 5 , 1987 indicated that the Ditch Company would probably not agree to a reverter , but that you had not discussed this with it . My suggestion that the ditch right-of-way revert i-s based on the fact that someone will need to maintain, mow grass , and provide weed control for that strip of ground if the Ditch Company ever ceases to use it . It makes sense to allow this strip to revert to the landowners . However , please let me know the Ditch Company' s thoughts on this . 6. If the Oligarchy Ditch is relocated across the Bay Shores P.U.D. by CRS Investments , Inc. , it will be lined at CRS ' expense. The lining will be concrete unless another type of lining is approved by the Oligarchy Ditch Company. Any ditch relocation and lining will be accomplished at the time development begins in the affected area. Such relocation construction will include protection for the ditch so that water will leave Bay Shores and enter the existing Oligarchy Ditch on property north of the development at historic velocities to avoid injury to the ditch. 7 . The Oligarchy Ditch Company will accept historic flows of drainage water into the ditch from the Bay Shores P. U.D. 8. CRS Investments , Inc . will employ a licensed engineer to design the relocated and lined ditch and any velocity protection structures . CRS Investments , Inc. will then submit the plans to the Oligarchy Ditch Company for a review by its engineer of the plans and for approval of the specifications prior to construction. The expense of this review would be compensated as stated above in paragraph 2 . 9. In consideration of all of the above agreements , the Oligarchy Ditch Company will withdraw its objections to the Bay Shores P. U.D. rezoning proposal. 870123 Neil Piller , Esq. January 16, 1987 Page Three If this proposal is acceptable to the Oligarchy Ditch Company, please have this letter agreement and the enclosed duplicate original executed in the space provided below. As stated above , the formal final written agreement will be a condition of the rezoning and will be completed upon approval of the rezoning. Please return both originals to me for execution by CRS . I will thereafter return one of the originals to you. Sincerely, e%4 _, Harvw.' Curtis HWC/bm cc : Kim Collins , CRS Investments , Inc . pee D. Morrison, Esq. , Weld County Attorney iKeith Schuett , Weld County Planning Department OLIGARCHY Ditch Company By: CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. By: Kim Collins , Vice President 870123 f Y • VCONSULTANTS, INC. LNG January 9, 1986 William H. Southard Attorney-at-Law P.O. Box 449 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Mr. Southard: Re: COZ Case Number Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. It has been over a month since the above referenced project was presented before the Weld County Planning Commission. Mr. Vetting and other parties from the Union Reservoir Company were in attendance at that meeting . Due to the length of time since we have had contact with Union Reservoir Company, we felt it important to write you a letter updating our project. -The Change of Zone request was originally scheduled to be heard by the Weld County Commissioners on January 7, 1987. Due to progress being made by C.R.S. Investments, Inc. in resolving concerns by referral agencies, we requested, and were granted, a continuance of the hearing until January 28, 1987. We feel that it is important to continue communications with your office and your Board of Directors in order to make sure that concerns of your organization are being addressed by the developers and their consultants. In reviewing my files, I have examined letters from you to Keith Schuett, in the Weld County Planning Department, dated October 16, 1986 and November 3, 1986. As you indicated in your November 3rd letter, we had just completed a meeting between the developers and members of your board . The meeting was very satisfactory and resolved several outstanding concerns and issues expressed by the Union Reservoir Company . In reviewing the November 3rd letter, C.R.S. Investments, Inc. has not changed its position on agreeing to mitigate problems such as seepage; erosion and dust control ; recreational use for adjoining property owners, as permitted by the holder of the surface lease : protection for the reservoir company against accidents involving property owners and the reservoir; relocation of Weld County Road 26 to reduce and discourage access to the lake; control of silt and storm runoff into the lake; removal of the previously proposed open space next to the lake; and requiring protection for the reservoir operators by providing some type of fence or other barrier to reduce accessibility to the lake . We have agreed to provide a 50-foot easement, and to require a minimum rear-yard setback of 25 feet beyond the previously mentioned 50 feet. 703 THIRD AVENUE • L0NGMONT,CO. 80501 870123 7012 ] 772-7755/449-4373 // X477 rfeftGed I-Ia-B-7 1' • William H. Southard Attorney-at-Law Page 2 January 9, 1987 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. acknowledges that further negotiations will be required on many of these issues prior to Final Plat submittal, if the change of zone is approved . If there are any remaining concerns that have not been addressed, or if you have other information regarding the proposal by C.R.S. Investments, Inc. for Bay Shores P.U.D. , please contact this office immediately so that we might attempt to resolve those issues well in advance of the January 28th County Commissioner's meeting . Thank you for your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter . Sincerely yours, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. rL ( John A. McCarty, P.EJ JAM/sn cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. Harvey Curtis Keith Schuett 870123 1 , 1/ , i 4 4 € January 5, 1987 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Mr. Keith A. Schuett Current Planner Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. Gentlemen: Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. has been advised by Mr. Kim Collins that CRS Investments, Inc. has requested a continuance of its hearing in front of the Weld County Commissioners on January 7, 1987 until January 28, 1987. Mr. Collins and Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. are attempting to resolve 1 the outstanding issues related to oil and gas activity on the development property. Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. agrees with Mr. 1 Collins that the requested continuance is in the interest of both parties. Please advise the undersigned if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. 4 Very truly yours, MAC & MERSHON 0 L INC. ,XtA /\ . Scott S. McKinley Landman cc: Mr. Kim Collins 1 I -Received MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. 1.4.87 5urrE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER. COLORADO 80202-4970 • (303)7 861-9183 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L.WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES&PHILLIPS, P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 December 31 , 1986 Neil E. Piller , -Esq. Schey & Schey, P.C. P.O. Box 267 Longmont , Colorado 80501 Re: Bayshores P. U.D . Rezoning Proposal Dear Neil: This letter is written as a follow-up to my letter to you of December 17 , 1986 . I have yet to hear back from you with regard to this letter or my phone calls since . If the ditch company and Mr. Hamm, doing business as C.K. Farms , intend to go ahead with the written agreements which we discussed at our meeting of December 4 , 1986, I do need the information which my letter of December 17, 1986 requested. Again , I await your response on this . Since we have been delayed due to the holidays , I am asking the Board to put off the hearing on this proposal until January 28th, to give us time to consumate this proposal. Sincerely, /Harve W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: ee Allison rep Lee D. Morrison, Veda Esq. Veda Kim Collins , Vice President , CRS Investments , Inc . 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L.WAKING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES&PHILLIPS, P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-6631 O[� T -1 (- 7 rr c' l ^( _.. �. December 31 , 1986 ; k JAN 51967 p. A C I rrid;=y CE Lee D. Morrison , Esq. Assistant County Attorney Office of the Weld County Attorney P.O. Box 1948 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Bayshores Planned United Development Rezoning Dear Mr . Morrison: As the attorney for CRS Investments , Inc . , I want to thank you very much for your letter of December 23, 1986 . As I discussed with you over the telephone today with regard to the hearing set on this matter for January 7, 1986 , it appears that CRS will need an additional two or three weeks to prepare documents to settle our disagreements with the mineral interests as well as with the Oligarchy Ditch Company and to attempt to work with other objectors . Accordingly, as we discussed over the phone , we would like to have this heard on January 28, 1987 at the hearing of the Board of County Commissioners scheduled for that day. As you suggested, CRS will have someone present at the meeting on January 7 , 1987 in case there is some question regarding this continuance , but we will not be prepared to go forward with our case on that day. Sincerely , artW.eagise----r Curtis HWC/bm cc : Rim Collins , Vice President, CRS Investments , Inc. Scott McKinley , Macey & Mershon Oil, Inc. Neil Piller , Esq. Jim Vetting , President , Union Reservoir Company John P. Ascher , President & Chief Executive Officer , Great Western Railway Company Robert J. Clair , Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company ,71�� .L ' 870123 t Aft/B/7 t1 6.7. ( -....'.....\44Z OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY : PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4391 P.O. SOX 1948 } GREELEY, COLORADO 80032 R. "a` r, h �y� i •t COLORADO December 23 , 1986 Harvey Curtis Attorney at Law Market Center Building, Suite 450 1350 Seventeenth Street Denver, CO 80202 RE: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Rezoning Dear Mr. Curtis: I am in receipt of your letter of December 17, 1986 . Your statements in the letter are essentially correct but I wanted to make certain there were no misunderstandings from your letter. It is correct that if a rezoning is denied you would have the opportunity to completely refile the application if the Board of County Commissioners , upon advise from the Planning Commission , determines that there has been a substantial change in facts and circumstances from the original application. That determination will have to be made by the Board. It was not my intention in any way guarantee that the Board would find that there had been a substantial change. However, the fact of how the two comprehensive plans deal with the Del Camino area is the type of issue which would have bearing on whether or not there had been a substantial change in facts and circumstances. The subsequent hearing process , once a determination of substantial change is made , could be somewhat faster because of the practical circumstances and one formal procedure. Length of time which would be required for staff and referral agencies to review the second application could be lessened by the opportunity to review the initial application. However , there is a minimum time required by the ordinance for referrals. There is also a procedure which would allow you to request a "pre-advertisement" of the Commissioner hearing so that the advertising for both the 870123 Harvey Curtis Page 2 December 23 , 1986 Planning Commission and the Board could run at the same time and the two hearings would be approximately eight days apart. I appreciate you continuing to keep me advised as to the course of your efforts in this matter. Yours truly, Lee D. Morrison ssistant County Attorney LDM:rm xc: ' Chuck Cunliffe, Director Planning Department \\; 1986 eunitre�misslu� l • 870123 ( It S INVESTMENTS I E. 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE v -SUITE 308 DENVER, COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 December 22, 1986 Mr, Pete Ascher The Great Western Railway Co. Taylor Avenue Shops P. O. Box 537 Loveland, Colorado 80539 jlaar Pete: We have asked The Public Utilities Commission to confirm their preliminary improvements reccniendation on the grade crossing at WCR 31 and Great Western Railroad. (attached) . CRS believes our written offer contained in the letter of November 10, 1986 (attached) is fair and equitable and requests that GWR will reconsider its position in this matter. If you would like to 1LLt and discuss the above, please feel free to call 457-3775 and we will make ourselves available. Sincerely, CRS INVFSINE IS INC. aim Collins TC/kel Attachments cc: Harvey Curtis, Esq. Drew L. Scheltinga John McCarty Keith Schuett Inc Morrison cl r---, 986 1 -87®1'2"3 Held Ca- i)laibilliV, t:si iUission • S I kTE OF COLOIvoO Richard D. Lamm,Governor (.5) opsuoay Department of bb, Executive Regulatory Agencies Wellington Department Webb, Executive Director COMMISSIONERS: THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONRonald L Lehr, Chairman Administration(303) 866-3156 ez Edythe S. Miller iransponalion (303) 866-4288 An dra Schmidt Fixed Utilities (303) 866-3181 -OFFICE LEVEL 2 Executive Secretary Counsel(303)866-3188 1580 LOGAN STREET -Harry A.Galllgan,Ir. DENVER,COLORADO 80203 December 17, 1986 Mr. Kim Collins CRS Investments, Inc. 1333 W. 120th Ave. Suite 308 Denver, CO 80234 Dear Mr. Collins: Re: On site meeting @ WCR 3 1/2 & Great Western Railway Co. 's crossing On October 28, 1986 I met with you, Drew Scheltinga and Pete Ascher at the grade crossing of WCR 3 1/2 across the Great Western Railway's main line track to discuss the potential impact of your planned development. Based upon the present information available concerning train and vehicle volumes at that location if your development proceeds as discussed, my preliminary recommendation is that the installation of standard flashing light signals and standard advance warning signs would provide adequate warning at that location. As additional detailed traffic data is developed my initial recommendation could be modified to include the addition of crossing gates. If you have any additional questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Mst-17 Jack Baier Transportation Engineer (303) 866-4286 1533B:JHB:nj 870123 I . Via : 1 II ₹I i 1 IS 1� , l 1 —nun tyvw a� 53il _ ® 1 • _ \ r I .; F, . E �: t,' 1111 1 1 �\ %------------,...‘ .; S• ' 7Y1f tet 1111 1 3 \\ §23�"s G ad_y Si . I 1 \ \\ y I ° \\ J _ ' ' °' li •se t _ \\ t I 0;9 \\ s e� \ \ ' \ \ E ! 1‘..\ \ \ \ i ! \\ l •3 9 1- �� \\\\ _ N I ' 11 .• I \ a :� 1. \\\ • t 9, I v v'' /r. Wit,\\- \ ,` ' s ,'it Ji !I '' I ;1 I III ''i :�`: rk !Pil I. 1411 I I: 1 ;I lit I 'I y I,I': 11 g ,> !i 1 JI I ,JI ;f. I 1 cg il tl 1! I, 1 1 1 J-I 1. a g \ \ � I 1' 1 i!llll I i ' 1i t IL III r' ` 1 BSI t!!ft1l1 IIi , 1 1 1 I .1y1 'sit \ 1. !!111.1 •I!Il I IliI, I II 1 tit 11 1 \..\ ] ;1 II ��.I?i!,'111 t 111 d !,ii ill} : - 11111 '1;1111:111}1 ; Il: II II'11' 1 i 7 ! Ir IIn !!I !! t1il ni' \,\w I. 11 \ y 1111! i111ii1i1!1111 111 It I(�:� -..L \ N ' 11 -t'= at .\\ 1 II !' 1 ' 1 ' I '! ' ! I ,� Y E' � . '' \\ 11 l �lj { { j, I jig iisi J lb\\\ tI 1 1 '! t 1 t 1 s: ,`�. �' \ j�1i ; I � I; i :11 tip il y 4' r: t \\\ it, !J Lip I ' 1 't , !J , ! I ': '1,J !: \`\ i iii 1i1, I 1 J II Il 111$ 111)111! 'ill !! s`___--_'nuw��' ` \:. IIt lift II I i I1 1' '111 I1i1t11!1 1!'.I 1 \ - ..i I I II 14 1 , 1 1 1 Ill 111)1411 ! , 1 !lit 1 ,I -.l n111llib) '1I 1 t• Ii ti, Inc t11 !it II '1:11 ;IRI111 1p1 +' �.__.I . ill III Iiilililil1li 11 rill 1111)11111 dill! 1 `I - 870123 Cr AN . »Sl lATL' titlJ INC. 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE • SUITE 308 DENVER, COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 November 10, 1986 Mr. John P. Ascher President and Chief Executive Officer The Great Western Railway Co. Taylor Avenue Shops • P. O. Box 537 Loveland, Colorado 80539 -Re: Bay Shores - 280 Acres, Weld County Thar Pete: I tried to contact you today by phone and was informed that you were out until Wednesday, so I decided to write you this letter. This is to confirm to you and Great Western Railway Co. (GWR) , CRS's formal offer as discussed with you on November 3, 1986 in our telephone conversation. CRS will pay GWR a fee of $10,000.00 for your support, agreement and the granting of the following items and easements: 1. Support of flashing signal with improved at grade crossing at Rd.3 w/P.U.C. and Weld Governing Agencies. 2. Granting all the necessary easements for the ptupused development adjoining GWR right of way, including but not limited to, gas, telephone, water, sewer, storm water, cable, fiber optic, surface crossing necessary to develop the said property into residential - dwelling sites. 3. Full compensation for any possible loss of revenue by GWR for residential zoning. 4. Full compensation for any future maintenance of grade crossing (signal or surface) . 5. Full compensation for any additional insurance liability that GWR may incur. 870123 Mr. John P. Ascher Page 2. President and Chief Executive Officer The Great Western Railway Co. SRS will, of course, build the crossing at Rd. 31 to P.U.C. standards and requirements. All crossings, utility or surface, will be to P.U.C. standards and requirements. All improvements to the 31 P.D. surface crossing and all utility crossings will be at the expense of CRS. CRS believes this is a fair and equitable offer to GWR. It is my understanding that the P.U.C. has jurisdiction over road and surface crossing requirements. Per the P.U.C. , 99% of all road crossings in Colorado are the railroad's responsibility before -and after the developer has improved the crossing to the P.U.C. requirements. I know of no regulation, State, County, City, which mandates a developer to compensate a railroad for possible loss revenue in a land zone change. ORS will pay the above $10,000.00 to GWR with $1,000 cash down- payment due on mutual execution of a definitive agreement that will descrihp in detail the above items. The $9,000 balance will be paid within two (2) years on or before completion of the developments 1st Phase. CRS will be anxious to have your input and comments to the above offer at your earliest convenience. Please feel free to contact me at 457-3775. Sincerely, SRS INVESTMENTS INC. Kim Collins KC/kel cc: Mr. John McCarty -Harvey Curtis, Esa. Mr. Roger Seaton Mr. Keith Schuett, Weld County $70123 S INVESTMENTS 11 �. 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER, COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 December 10, 1986 Lee D. Morrison, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 915 Tenth Street P. 0. Box 1948 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Lee: Enclosed is a copy of the Warranty Deed from Susan Pietrzak to CRS Investments Inc. CRS, as of 0cto}- r 29, 1986, is the fee simple owner of the Bay Shores P.U.D. property. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 457-3775. Sincerely, CRS INVESTMENTS INC. C. Kim Collins KC/kel -Enclosures cc: Mr. John McCarty Mr. Keith Schuett Harvey, Curtis, Esq. 870123 -Accorded at oIcli i, Reception No Recorder. N\ARRAYIN DEED • TIIISUEED, Ntadethis 29th dayof October 19 86betw«n SUSAN RINGSBY PIETRZAK, a/k/a Susan Jane Ringsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrz k, of the 'County of Pi tkin and Slate of Colorado. grantor. and CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. , a Colorado corporation, whoselegal address is- 1333 West 120th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80234 of the County of • and State of Colorado,gramoc: W ITN ESSETH,That the grantor for and in consideration of the sum of — Convenience Deed — DOLLARS. the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledeed,has granted.bargained.sold and conveyed,and by these presents does grant,bargain,sell, convey and confirm,unto the grantee,his heirs and assigns forever,all the real property together with improvements,if any,situate,lying and being in the County of Weld and State of Colorado described as follows: The property described on the attached Exhibit A, • together with a one—half interest in Grantor' s oil, gas , and mineral rights ; Grantor is reserving, however, Grantor' s working interests under leases now of record and is reserving one—half of Grantor' s oil, gas, and mineral rights. xvtxx oCc x xx x acoa eme cc,x TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging,or in anywise appertaining,and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders,rents, issues and profits thereof,and all the estate,right, title, interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor,either in law or equity,of.in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described,with the appurtenances,unto the grantee,his heirs and assigns forever.And the grantor,for himself,his heirs,and personal representatives,does covenant,grant,bargain,and agree to and with the grantee,his heirs and assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents,he is well seized of the premises above conveyed,has good,sure,perfect,absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law,in fee simple,and has good right,full power and lawful authority to grant,bargain,sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid,and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens,taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever,except all matters of record, including but not limited to those listed on the attached Exhibit B and two home leases and farm lease for 1986 (where harvesting may occur in 1987 ) . The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns,against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof.The singular number shall include the plural. the plural the singular,and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. LN WITNESS WHEREOF,the grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. SUsan Ringsby Pie rzak, ask/a -Susan Jane Ringsby and a/k/a • Susan Jane Pietrzak STATE OF COLORADO City & County of Denver }66. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in the City and county of Denver ,State of Colorado,this 29th day of October , 19 86 ,by Susan Ringsby Pietrzak, a/k/a , Susan Jane Ringsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrzak. My commission expires , 19 .Witness my hand and official seal. • - .__— -. _ . _,_......— • - Rotary n,ma -_ —. _. Address 9f in Denver.insert"City and". No.932A. Rey.7'84. WARRANTY DEED IFor PMtatnphSc Record) Bradford Pubtahina.5523 W.6th Ave,Lakewood.CO 60214-130))2)32900 py) 870123 - 2 The North 1/2 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colorado. EXCEPT lands included in Union Reservoir, as described in Deed recorded December 22, 1902, in Book 200, Page 454. ALSO EXCEPT 2 parcels of land conveyed to The Northern Construction Company for railroad purposes, in Deeds recorded June 12, 1906, in Book 241, Page 393; and Book 241, Page 392. • • EXHIBIT A. 870123 c ' 'I. 1986 taxes not yet due or payable until 1987. 1. Reservation, if any, of a right-of-way for railroad in width and manner as provided by Acts of Congress, in Deed recorded April 30, 1877, in Book 22 at Page 56. -3. Terms, conditions, and provisions of an Agreement concerning a drain in the NE I of Section 5 recorded April 5, 1945, in Book 1152 at Page 369. '• 4. An easement as granted to Union Rural Electric Association, Inc. , by instrument recorded February 26, 1970, in Book 621, Reception No. 1543076, on the South side of the County road situated on the North edge of the NW } of the NW 3 of said land. 5. A right-of-way over that portion of said land lying within County Roads 3i and 26 as shown on a survey prepared by McCarty Engineering dated May 20, 1986. 6. An Oil and Gas Lease, and any and all subsequent assignments thereof, dated March 17, 1981 , executed by Susan Jane Ringsby, a/k/a Susan Pietrzak, and Robert Pietrzak as Lessors and W. B. Macey and Paul M. Mershon, Jr. , as Lessees for a term of one year, recorded March 23, 1981, as Reception No. 1852853. 7. The existence of a gas line over a portion of said land and the Oligarchy Ditch over a portion of said land as shown on a survey by McCarty Engineering dated May 20, 1986. 870123 EXHIBIT B NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County -Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the -Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the following proposed Change of Zone are requested to attend and may be heard. Should the applicant or any interested party desire the presence of a court reporter to make a record of the proceedings, in addition to the taped record which will be kept during the hearing, the Clerk to the Board's Office can be contacted for a list of court reporters in the area. If a court reporter is obtained, the Clerk to the Board's Office shall be advised An writing of such action at least five days prior to the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. DOCKET NO. 86-78 APPLICANT: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments) Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak C.R.S. Investments 1796 East Sopris Creek Road 1333 West 120th Avenue Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Denver, Colorado 80234 DATE: January 7, 1987 TIME: 2:00 P.M. -REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) , and oil and gas production facilities LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ni, Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Mary Reiff, Deputy DATED: December 1, 1986 PUBLISHED: December 4, 1986, in the Johnstown Breeze �1 87®123 ,tXNit3,T /' N6l16. of the Batetpof zoning end the Weld Gaunt, theuCharn hifie- a t3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION County Commissions/a,,or Weld ,, County, -Color'** Weld'County .Centennial Center,. 915 1O1h ' Street, First Floor, G,,rregeeley,• . THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE Colorado, at the time specified. STATE OF COLORADO 1 All persons le any planner interested in the following pro- 1 SS _posed Change' Z df are reque sted ardatetl to attend and may be it COUNTY OF WELD 1 heard. 1, Clyde Briggs, do solemnly swear that I ` Should the applicant or any am publisher of The Johnstown Breeze;interested patty reporter desire •theto that thesame is a weekly newspaper presence record a gof tt ro d- make aaddition to proceed- in whole or inpart, and published record in ac will be the taped printed, which the rk duringhe in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, the hearing, Bla Clerk t the Board's Office can be contacted and has a general circulation therein; that for a flat of court reporters in the said newspaper has been published area If a court reporter is obtained,the Clerk to the Board's continuously and uninterruptedly in said Office shall be advised in writing of such action at least five days County of Weld for a period of more than prior to the hearing The cost of fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. first publication of the annexed legal notice IIIE IT ALSO KNOWN that the or advertisement; that said newspaper has text and man socertified by the been admitted to the United States mails as Weld County'Planning Commis- sion may be examined In the second-class matter under the provisions of office of the Cleric tb the Board of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial amendments thereof, and that said Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly DOCKET NO. 86-78 qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the. APPLICANT:Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert and laws of the State of Colorado. Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. That the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment mweatmenta) was published in the regular and -Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak entire issue of every number of said weekly East Scions Creek Road Carbondale Colorado 81623 newspaper for the period of f consecu- C.R.S. Investments tive insertions; and that the first 1333 West 120th Avenue publication of said notice was ❑the issue Denver, Colorado 80234 DATE: January7, 1987 of said newspaper datcdgZ-x... A.D. 19U.. and that the last publication of said notice TIME: 2:00 P.M. was in the issue of said newspaper dated REQUEST:Change of Zone from , A.D. 19 A(Agricultural)to P.U.D.(Planned Unit Development).for H-1 (Low In witness whereof I have hereunto set Density Residential), R-2 (Duplex my hen this .../.. day of .. ec- , Residential), end oil and gas production facilities A.D. 1(.. 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NT:, Section 5, Township 2 North, �j9 dB 68ou West of the 6th P.M. (/�� :S Weld County, Colorado 5i,,•/' BOARD OF COUNTY / Publisher COMMISSIONERS - • WELD COLORADO . BY: MARY ANN Subscribed and sworn to before me; a ECOUNTY CLRKS EIIN Notary Public in and for the County of AND , -,.RECO TO THE BOARD RECORDER AND CLERK W State of Coloradoq, this .�4:.... day of Cg-- A.D. 19k:..- BY: Mary Refit, Deputy DATED: December 1, 11)86 - i` In the J PUBLISHED: December 4,a 1986, i a Public in the Johnstown Breeze rvv ,+iM`9l F$n rirl';fsstion ex fire My c8r s 870123 v AFFIDAVIT VIT OF PUBLICA PION _State of Colorado County of Boulder I, J. R. Hofmann ,do solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY TIMES CALL is a NOTICE Pules%te ll%Bening Nate of the State W Cole- daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in r and ttu+Weld te619bK Leans idealism a Markt segAbetwid MEW cambersof thb the City of Longmont, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and of CaardYT•111hmisalaMra�a Cpunty, do, County Centennial'tenter, 915 which has general circulation therein and in parts of Boulder and 1BBt Street,First Floor,Greeley,Colorado;at the tiniespecified.All.persona In any manner inter- Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously and ested In the following proposed Change of Zone are requested to attend and may be heard. uninterruptedly published for a period of more than six months Shand the apdnent or any tnletEWE'tserty de- pre arbe et e next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice of rateidwhi hwiibeb 'a rinptl»`hearing advertisement, that said newspaper has been admitted to the ClerhtotheBoard•sMeeanbeconfectwtora let of court reporters In the area. If a court re-on United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions shall IS obtain n hewriCnuof%WB eioINibr of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that five days prior to the hearing.TMte*t of etlgag- Ing acourt reporter shall be,borne by the request- said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for ing Party. ALSO KNDWNo�thoaaut the��cbtext and maps so publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning s 'ayb�e the eldapattaePl niii°ilCa m of the laws of the State of Colorado; that a copy of each number of 1 rd of Cauuy C mMtettare, %CHed in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 fah said newspaper, in which said notice of advertisement was DOCK Third Floor,Greeley,Colorado. DOCKET NO: loon, 6-78 published, was transmitted by mail or carrier to each of the APPLICANT: Bay Shores Planned Unit Devel- opment .(Robert and Susan J. subscribers of said newspaper, according to the accustomed Pletrut and C,R.S.Investments) Robert and Susan J.Pletrsab mode of business in this office. 17%East Sopris,Creek Rob a' 4arD M,Coterniy.eTa- CR.B.-Invese %_ 133E West 1201b Man That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published 's` Denver,CSorgat D;January 7,1987 T in the regular and entire edition of said daily newspaper once; R ST:'Change to'P. .D.Zone from A nit-Dubin ram et)for (Planned(LUnit Veve opsiden fl), R-1 (Low Density e and that one publication of said notice was in the issue of said Residential), R-2 (D pev Resl- a denttehriand alt arlO when newspaper dated December 22 , 19 86 LEGAL faculties DESCRIPTION: NY2,. Section E, Tgsnship 2 North, Range SEAS of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colora- do BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FFUERSTEIN ,n-'--, �IBtlNTY-CLERK aver " AND CLERK Tra THE BOARD eV'Mast'Eeffft Deputy DATED: December 1,1986 HeC7671ra $wlanager Pebheeed In the Dally Time* Call, Leagmetn, Cole.Dec.22,WE Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 2nd day of Decem for 1)(9 ,- -i.-1 .19 gotary Public IOTA C's et' My Commission Expires . October 6, 1983 717 - 4th Avelino FEE$ 2 9 . 5 0 1, b&ouc . Longmont Colorado 83501 87®123 WI . pi !JAN .?1987 eJ -_.______- P a January 5, 1987 I Lty Weld County Department of Planning Services I 915 10th Street f Greeley, Colorado 80631 I Attention: Mr. Keith A. Schuett Current Planner Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. t Gentlemen: Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. has been advised by Mr. Kim Collins that CRS Investments, Inc. has requested a continuance of its hearing ': in front of the Weld County Commissioners on January 7, 1987 until January 28, 1987. • Mr. Collins and Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. are attempting to resolve the outstanding issues related to oil and gas activity on the development property. Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. agrees with Mr. Collins that the requested continuance is in the interest of both parties. Please advise the undersigned if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Very truly yours, F. I MACEF & MER HON 0 L INC. ' -. tA ! \ iK Scott S. McKinley Landman cc: Mr. Kim Collins I MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. -R1-4-87d 1.4 a SUITE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER. COLORADO BO2O2-4870 • (303) 861-9183 ` 870123 xit,,@,7 L 4 C S INVESTMENTS IN 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER, COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 December 10, 1986 Lee D. Morrison, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 915 Tenth Street P. O. Box 1948 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Lcc: Enclosed is a copy of the Warranty Deed from Susan Pietrzak to CRS Investments Inc. CRS, as of October 29, 1986, is the fcc simple owner of the Bay Shores P.U.D. property. If you have any questions, pleaqP feel free to call me at 457-3775. Sincerely, CRS INVESTMENTS INC. 1 Kim Collins KC/kel Enclosures cc: Mr. John McCarty Mr. Keith Schuett -Harvey, Curtis, Esq. 870123 -..Recorded at o'clock _ .,1., Reception No. Recorder. WARRANTY DEED TIIIS DEED, Made this 29th day of October 19 86 between SUSAN RINGSBY PIETRZAK, a/k/a Susan Jane Ringsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrz k, of the *County of Pi tkin and State of Colorado. grantor, and CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. , a Colorado corporation, whose legal address is 1333 West 120th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80234 of the County of and State of Colorado,grantee: W ITNESSETH,That the grantor for and in consideration of the sum of - Convenience Deed - DOLLARS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,has granted,bargained,sold and conveyed,and by these presents does grant,bargain,sell. convey and confirm,unto the grantee,his heirs and assigns forever,all the real property together with improvements,if any,situate,lying and being in the County of Weld and State of Colorado described as follows: The property described on the attached Exhibit A, together with a one-half interest in Grantor ' s oil, gas, and mineral rights; Grantor is reserving, however, Grantor' s working interests under leases now of record and is reserving one-half of Grantor' s oil, gas, and mineral rights. 2mtmxoW xixxaad:mofotoax TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging,or in anywise appertaining,and the reversion and reversions,remainder and remainders,rents,issues and profits thereof,and all the estate,right,title,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor,either in law or equity,of,in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances,unto the grantee,his heirs and assigns forever.And the grantor,for himself,his heirs,and personal representatives,does covenant,grant,bargain,and agree to and with the grantee,his heirs and assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents,he is well seized of the premises above conveyed,has good,suit,perfect,absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law,in fee simple,and has good right,full power and lawful authority to grant,bargain,sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales,liens, taxes,assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever,except all matters of record, including but not' limited to those listed on the attached Exhibit B and two home leases and farm lease for 1986 (where harvesting may occur in 1987 ) . The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns,against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof.The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular,and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF,the grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. Susan Ringsby Pie rzak, aeik/a Susan Jane Rinqsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrzak STATE OF COLORADO City & County of Denver }6s. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in the City and County of Denver State of Colorado,this 29thdayof October 19 86 ,by Susan Ringsby Pietrzak, a/k/a . Susan Jane Ringsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrzak. My commission expires , 19 .Witness my hand and official seal. Notary tWdk _ 1f in Denver,insert'City and" 'd°'et' 870123 No.932A.Rev.7-84. WARRANTY DEED(For Phaaaraphk Record) Bradford Publishing,3825 W.6th Ave.,Lakewood,CO 8021(47=(505)2556900 10.15 The North 1/2 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colorado. EXCEPT lands included in Union Reservoir, as described in Deed recorded December 22, 1902, in Book 200, Page 454. ALSO EXCEPT 2 parcels of land conveyed to The Northern Construction Company for railroad purposes, in Deeds recorded June 12, 1906, in Book 241, Page 393; and Book 241, page 392. • • EXHIBIT 8'70_123 123 1 . 1986 tax-es not yet due or payable until 1987. 2. It-eservation, if any, of a right-of-way for railroad in width and manner as provided by -Acts of Congress, in Deed recorded April 3D, 1877, in Book 22 at Rage 3B. 3. Terms, conditions, and provisions of an -Agreement concerning a drain in the NE a of Section 5 recorded April 3, 1945, in _Book 1152 at Page 369. 4. an -easement as granted to Union Rural Electric -Association, Inc. , by instrument recorded February 26, 1970, in Book -621, Reception No. 1543076, on the South side of the County road situated on the North edge of the NW { of the NW of said land. 5. A right—of—way over that portion of said land lying within County Roads 33 and 26 as shown on -a survey prepared by McCarty Engineering plated May 20, 1986. 6. An Oil and Gas Lease, and any and all subsequent assignments thereof, dated March 17, 1981, executed by Susan Jane :Ringsby, a/k/a Susan Pietrzak, and Robert Pietrzak as Lessors and W. B. Macey and Paul M. Mershon, Jr. , as Lessees for a term of one year, recorded March 23, 1981, as Reception No. 1B52853. 7. The existence of a gas line over a portion of said land and the Oligarchy Ditch over a portion of said land as shown on a survey by McCarty Engineering dated May 20, 1886. S-10123 EXHIBIT $ : r 59 1 DEC 91986 • ( z)V/ 42 cad. (H , ,;(2 2Cy(-(24 / , lg C t'' !. _ {,1.1OCGyI,G',C ' ,r,.<7 7/761 C/0 Clz/CC, ((J Gj EF` , �� 'C�f. f2Cc QJ 007,7de 'C 7 > . WeA dpi:- µr A 'c 2 1 .1.C/ fiCt ,.._ 1 CCU z a: G�d� /4 L 7. ,e,t1,tdil:g. _ ,)(-'6,1( / v__., ' 3_co,5r Zra-t-i/ )(.9679/1 ,c2 L- a '4 ` ,''2/ ,' 2''& JC72 .4, G�!,�,ez, ' ,1� '�Gt) , O_,c, C.-C� , ClL�GE"� /;)(31 t Kul" 7 [Ede_ CG- Z '/b .. Ziff- _AY,E. e�Zz' l/h� l7-Uq?t <0 Ch 2 I, ( // ] ",://1t7 /27,">4."—ct / / ) ,S''!'//,, (!� C , 7G 612-16y,, Z� G e >1ec1e:et4 1 C ZL> c / `� . / � 4 LIGt._J �C GCS//ere n�f Q�L/L cti<1 7 U^ ,. Fes° // ke. gittCkiva ti/o1/4,6/ at_ "lez � /, �'� D CLl�c-(mil - -tow' (C ti: -2e 4t 4. /.�'cL-1;y, C *K/5 v/ 6. c L X,.,E„ T , -87Q 123 DATE: December 1 , 1986 TO: The Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado ₹FROM: Clerk to the Board Office Commissioners: If you have no objections, we have tentatively set the following hearing for the 7th day of January, 1987, at 2: 00 P.M. Docket No. 86-78 - Bay Shores Planned Unit Development, COZ from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential), and oil and gas production facilities OFFICE OF THE CLE�K TO THE BOARD BY: s4 ) air Deputy The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -WELD COUNTY, COLORADO xHi,Ei/T 8 10123 : _ L'I : LC • DIL'A .) GAS CONSERVATION COMMIE. ON DLPARIMENI OF NATURAL RESOURCES SUITE 380 LOGAN TOWER BUILDING 1580 LOGAN STREET _DENVER,COLORA1)OMO2O3 WILLIAM R.ISMITH RIC-HARD D.L-AMM Director (303)866-2531 FRANK J.PIRO Governor Deputy Director PRESS RELEASE August 25, 1985 There is confusion regarding the Surface Bond requirement of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. I hope this article will -help clarify the issues involved. I hope you can publish this where it will get as much of your reader attention as possible, In 11377 the legislature felt there -was a need to protect the surface owner who does not own any of the minerals or - who has not entered into a surf-ace agreement. In response to this concern House Bill 1491 was passed and specifically provides that the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission require the furnishing of seasonable security to restore the condition of the land, as nearly as is possible to its condition at the beginning of the lease and to protect such owner from unreasonable crop losses. The bond was set by the Commission in 1977 at $2 , 000 for _any location where a surface owner 's agreement had not been made. The Front Range _Land and -Mineral Owners Association and the Weld Commission, participating in the committee that made recommendations to the Commission, suggested a higher bond be set for operations on irrigated land. At the hearing before the Cc--ission on August 21, 1986, that rule was amended to provide for a bond of $5,00A for an operation on irrigated land_ A Blanket bond of 425,O00 to cover all such operations for an operator may be posted in lieu of individual bond . Again, this bond is only for situations where the surface owner owns no minerals. If a bond is required there are some serious misunderstandings as to -what this bond is really for. First, the bond is not to cover crop losses of normal or reasonable operations; second, it is not on an acre basis; and third , it is only for the actual cost of unreasonable crop losses and land restoration. For example, if only a reasonable amount of surface was used in an operation resulting in a dry hole and the land restored for $750 only a $750 claim could be made against the bond. ,. t An agreement between the operator and the surface owner is to the best interest of the surf-ace owner and the operator . • The courts have determined that a dominant interest in the land is in the minerals. When minerals are reserved the right to obtain those minerals at no cost to the mineral owner is implied. Anyone buying land , -where the minerals are reserved , should -deduct the price they pay by the amount at burden this may impose. _For example, if a piece of lana is underlain -by gravel, coal, or some other mineral that has to be mined , it is possible that most of the surface will be used in miming the minerals. A person buying this surface, where the minerals are retained by the seller , should take this fact into accoent because the surface may not have much value. Fortunately in oil and gas -development very little is needed for "reasonable" development. I hope this explanation has helped to clarify the bonding changes which were made in response to the County and local peoples concerns. The Commission always -welcomes citizen and local -government inquires and support. Most people feel that the more you can keep government out cf business practices the better off everyone is. We agree . Respectfully Submitted by 'v,'c(.v>ts„ Js William R. Smith, T.E. Director • 870123 CZ I /j�€3 Q W N : :, N y g,,.a g.:* p y $j ®M V L V N li C.�t..'] N ro L F.D w N�.5 v",.c a i c (lqq�J�l CD a z _•na , n',; v 'v EE W on• e ,5 1 0 32 g mN$ �—g 25 v �Cla0k �cy to V'$ ; P. � U r. " '� n.cnv,n o� J �V LQ-�'� a . 9 a. .,'x. • }in • Elm-" $ " 24$_: '7,4, 1,142' t LI1 g ..a7 qu ,° is„ u . ro- § E 'JO > tro um ' w u a o c o °0 o %° c t o E� o o gZ , w= >, pa O ® .o� ca'w oo o - 3 = c V� VJ > � a, 'Z obi VV• gy' °J 5 i Li; E15 aE Lwco"—'E naE Lb �`_n GO `05 NEE , v I.a C roGi 4- Tom.J ES.o v m et;ro c2Eu °o' clooR >'9 ill II) YC.7 Y�`v 41 > r J _ UEUU ux.". of «J 05 >' 3 " 5 �v En,-i it" ` it a cIl En o 1O s.E " vgum <, >.ao vE n.6.E v v cE'Ias a>. f ca a- c a '• Nam! 'E .o. tab o v ,cn:I' Et Zi V Nrj o1oE �IC , � ,„ .a•aaa c r. mo w0 tau crania gall ,n�... y Ev ,y nvoc " o •a ry C 2 v >,coi c Pa w 5.o a w l a `fJuIII `it`t Ra ® . um `v�$ Evt Ity (\-4.i_■i..r•� f2t .c m o a a ., n •: � � !1.�11 at Gf �inr[';`�3 1`q,l C (� A.c °°E t ` n"IS,'d N.(?) Q;It�t L5lyf;',y"y f .i�.rw • • � �i -� v c zro roo: n•''UE — Ea'cu5 v.2.�c3 --9 2.2 I 771' X 14ai )74 " a p>, " �.•� •fjoo3'a ,`a 1'a,ozai'o� n`0N ta) o v v v, v - 3vQmi� �5 "" B� v� E u v o 5 ..�fE c �o ° p Eo C nv— g.a ova c. Is y I I f a voggH � a� 3. ::v �• yi {.r � Jl E.2 _ _mns C " cr�_ I . t I IIY ; f 2v,5 r( ,,,ey $ 9a-5rv�—u. 9 a� vi�vEi > II• ��`j}�rS4�. f . t≤1 e �.Ili.ls` •tI�I ;441. d o "=c jflhiiH I t1 p I!..mc �I 1� f I' r llti vm v Ii «rtt.1 (11 ,y I'5IY'- ,r 7 y,t o.9 a; co moo ESN 6a v. •�o: oF i� Ea " JiSItf1 ! ! 3 a°0 8�"A ` ST��:91N11JI. C< 1® '3;y�Evv 3c>.noa5c ti) nf." aA u ' :3 ocr2' • � .t.7..j r Y l yi �v iuL :1JtHNj! try 1,44-1 44- t' { y'� -�"5t�Ill 4 T ik'e /� ` `` to...t :--1."!i. Ii •f ® voe� � 3 ,fir f V t �1S4.Y—fli m > 3D a� 1,p�' r74 f0 A-} : 2 o�o; "`a m a tl t 1k m o E.'ux of Nv c f• • 'i 5 •' t ,t I r ii r w`' sn V -Ili! o " a 11. J . v� u s Q ® Q " I a� 3.a °mac LI 3.ma y'»'Ct' I!L" 1a^ I Kra 3s aT- SA Go ",a r . I 4 a . I. Ih g 4-d ga^ pa "[u E� 4jW y .r ,1..1'y►'jl"�' r� �I yl yti mr -a5 m,U "a .\ I March 16, 1981 • Mr. and Mrs. Robert Pietrzak 1476 Weld County Road 26 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Re: Township 2 North, Range 68 West Section 5 , N/2 Weld _County, Colorado fDear Mr. and Mrs. Pietrzak: This letter will confirm the agreement between you as lessor and W. B. Macey and Paul M. Mershon, Jr. , ("Lessees" ) 1 in connection with the leasing of the above-referenced prop- ; erty for oil and gas exploration and development. 1 . _In consideration of Ten Dollars ($10) paid by Lessees to you and the terms, covenants and con- ditions made by you and Lessees herein, you shall execute and deliver to Lessees an oil and gas lease in the form of that contained in Exhibit A hereto on or before April 1, 1981. 2. While the pease set forth in Exhibit A describes the entire north half of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West, payment to you thereunder , including bonuses, royalties and shut-in royalties shall be calculated on the basis of your mineral interest in 296. 5 gross acres , which is deemed to be the gross acreage contained in the entire north half of Section 5 , leas the acreage underlying the reservoir located on that section. You shall not warrant title to the mineral interest underlying the portion of the reservoir located in the north half of Section 5, except that such interest has not be-en conveyed by, through or under you. 3 . In the event that you are able to esta-blish market- able title to all or a portion of the mineral estate in Section 5 underlying the reservoir , then payments due under the lease shall be increased proportionately. • MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. 870123 SUIT[ L950 • I500 BROADWAY • DENVER,COLORADO 8_0202 • (303) 851'9183 Mr. and Mrs . Robert Pietrzak March 16 , 1981 Page 2 4 . In the event that Lessees shall apply for a permit to drill a test well to the Wattenberg "J" Sandstone Formation on the leased premises , Lessees shall , subject to the approval of the Oil and Gas Conser- vation Commission and in accordance with applicable law, form a unit consisting of the north half of Section 5 . 5. You hereby grant Lessees an option to renew the term of the lease for an additional six ( 6) month period. Such option shall come into effect only if Lessee is unable, after a good faith attempt, to secure an Exeter Drilling Company rig for the / � lilt drilling of the prospect during the primary term ' 3 of the lease. The option may be exercised by Lessees by providing you with written notice at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the primary term of the original lease. If the option is exercised, Lessees shall pay you a bonus of Three Thousand Seven Hundred Six and 25/100 Dollars ($3, 706. 25) , such payment to be made with notice of exercise of option. The terms of paragraph 2 above shall be applicable to thie option. 6 . You have the option to participate in the drilling , testing, completion, development and operation of all wells drilled on the leased premises to the extent of five percent ( 5%) of Lessees ' working interest for payment of five percent (5%) of Lessees ' costs. Your option may be exercised by your delivering a signed AFE to Lessees , which shall constitute notice of your election to participate, at least ten (10) days prior to the estimated spud date of the first well drilled on the leased premises. Lessees shall send an AFE to you at least thirty (30) days prior to the esti- mated spud date. If you elect to exercise your option to participate , you will execute an AAPL Form 610-1977 Model Form Operating Agreement with Accounting Procedure which shall set forth operating rates which are considered to be customary in the Wattenberg Field area . Such operating agreement shall provide for a preferential right to purchase and a three hundred percent ( 300%) non-consent penalty. 7 . In the event that any well is drilled on the leased premises, Lessees shall pay to you surface 870123 y Mr. and Mrs. Robert Pietrzak March 16, 1981 Page 3 damages in the sum of Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($5, 000. 00) per well site location. Said payment shall include consideration for the drill site location and the access routes and pipelines thereto. Upon payment or tender of such amount, you shall be deemed to have waived all future claims for damages providing Lessees conduct their activities in accordance with good oil field practices. 8 . Lessees agree to consult with you as' to access routes and drill site locations . 9 . In the event Lessees shall drill and complete a well on the leased premises capable of producing gas, you shall have the privilege, at your own risk and expense (including the cost of additional required pipeline and hookup) , o₹ using said gas by making your own connection thereto, subject, however, to the following conditions. a. Said use of gas from the lease shall be limited to three hundred sixty thousand (360, 000) cubic feet per year and shall be used by you on the leased premises . b. In the event said consumption exceeds three hundred sixty thousand (360, 000) cubic feet per year, the excess shall be deducted by Lessees from your share of the royalties at the market price at the well. c. You agree that you will forever save and hold . Lessees harmless from and against any and all damages which may result from the use of said gas. d. LESSEES DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES THAT THE GAS IS FIT FOR THE PAR- TICULAR PURPOSE INTENDED. e. If, in the judgment of Lessees , it becomes necessary to shut in, for any period or periods of time, any well or wells from which gas is produced, Lessees may do so without notifying you and without any liability for damages which may result from the stoppage or subsequent restoration of the gas flow. Lessees have advised you that you should have a backup heating system to provide for possible shut-in conditions . 870123 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Pietrzak March 16 , 1981 Page 4 f. You acknowledge and assume your responsi- bility to odorize the gas provided you and you otherwise agree to comply with applicable federal and state regulations. 10. You reserve the right at all times and, from time to time at your election, to receive all of your royalty share of production in kind at the well- head from any wells drilled and completed on the leased premises . You agree to notify Lessees , in writing, thirty (30) days in advance of such election to receive royalty in kind. You further agree to, at all times , indemnify and save Lessees harmless against all liability, loss, charge or expense of any kind whatsoever which Lessees may suffer or incur on account of having delivered to you said production in kind. 11. If there is a conflict between the terms of the lease and this letter agreement or between any operating agreement and this letter agreement, the terms of this letter agreement shall control. Lessees have made no representations to you other than those contained herein and in the exhibits hereto. This letter agreement and its exhibits contain the entire agreement between you and Lessees. This letter agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colo- rado and it shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs , successors and assigns of the parties hereto. If the foregoing provisions are in accordance with your understanding of our agreement, please execute and return to the undersigned one copy of this letter agreement and retain the extra copy for your files . - -Very truly yours , James A. Brown Agent and Attorney-in-Fact for W. B. Macey and Paul M. Mershon, Jr. Accepted and agreed to on 904v--.J7 , 1981. Lessee agrees to apply for an application to drill a well on � f` , � the based premises within 20 Robert Pietrzak days of the date hereo s-s' r • S al Pi rzak 0 8701 N0V4198� f & ' ;II(11 I%*C1 l;.1 2 ' '-' 1 ;. : f' IiOFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Lit _.!'�55 N,ndi�. �• - I PHONE(303)356-4000, EXT. 4200 P.O.33OX 758 GREELEY.COLORADO 80632 WI II O COLORADO November 12, 1986 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development c/o C.R.S Investments 1333 West 120th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80234 Dear Sirs: Your application for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D (Planned Unit Development) has been recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The legal description of the property involved is shown as Ni, Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this letter and returning it to this office. Regular hearing procedures will then be followed. This includes publishing a Notice of Hearing in the legal newspaper, an expense to be paid by you. In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by December 1, 1986. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date, the matter will be considered closed. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO o‘c-c4\1;,a-- ?i\PeNcir-- CIRMAN I wish to have a hearing on this mutter brought before the Board of County Commissioners. i agree to pay for the legal advertising expense. xc: Robert & Susan J. Pietrzak 870123 We respectively request a Dec. 4th advertising date so that a hearing may be scheduled the first week of January. Thank you. J M a 3 E o_, up W >a H p 6, w w a W W E ul — ao v ci, d -. m oa L ¢ E H a W x en 3'- al U oz a Fa H N a a> om y n U, a ozoo LL a� LL ¢ 0 i— a P. cy c0 o oa c o o '� p c" a o z a co m m rl U z¢ v cn • a a- > 'Oct Ha k3E‘ H Q p W cn H V a = a' _o as i° '3 cs cn a o 1,o p0 a U a a wi-- o z w LL = -a y o w zo M • 3 c4 o d ¢a a a° x U o VI U W m m m E° E W cn z m = a' " °' a E ¢ ..4 o M a t y N Z o a ) w v3 7,53 ~ a7 U -M+ q a U ¢ ¢3 ¢o a 'os n r Z86t 'Qed '008[ WJOJ sd 1 t 1 It _ 411 cnW I i Ww � � � RI i,i, E.:ii I gzoo pq a t Uii it I L1 , . .!if .11 17 � Li- LA:. 131 21 I s a Da Pri l�i e O .1 m X to 1C t to #S Fant8811.July 1983 447.848 re-3y,i v-yrtip DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT _Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 9 The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the audience. There was none. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning commission for their decision. Lydia Dunbar - Yes, for the reasons given by Paulette Weaver. Lynn Brown - Yes, for the reasons given by Paulette Weaver. S.eAnn Reid - Yes; Ivan Gcsnell - Yes; Louis Rademacher - No; Paulette Weaver - Yes; Ann Garrison - Yes; Jack Holman - No, since the mobile home park is already there and allows for thirty-five mobile homes, he would rather see it go to something other than the septic systems that are presently there. Since the expansion has already been allowed, something reeds to be done to handle the wastes from the expansion, plus the existing facilities. Motion carried with six voting for the motion and two voting against the motion. -Ile Chairman called a recess at 3:15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 3:25 p.m. CASE NUMBER: Z-436:86:5 APPLICANT:al. Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak ano C.R.S. Investments) REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit _Development) R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) , and oil and gas production facilities LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately 3 milee east of Longmont; north of State Highway 119 and east of Weld County Road 3 APPEARANCE: John McCarty, P.E. , McCarty Engineering Consultants, represented the applicants. Be reviewed the history of this request and explained the difference between their first application and this one. There were at least twenty-five referral agencies who reviewed this project. They have discussed the resubmittal of this application with these agencies. They have met with the Greatwestern Railroad Company and the County Engineer. The railroad crossing would require widening and signals would need to be installed. The applicant has agreed to pay all costs of these improvements. There will be two open-space areas next to the railroad and they will be landscaped attractively. He read a letter from Macy-Mershon Oil Company, stating he felt they had satisfied their concerns. The Oligarchy Ditch Company does not object to this development as long as the developer can _meet their concerns, and the developer feels these can be met. There is a proposed agreement on the streets and roads. They have met with the attorney representing Union Reservoir. He asked the Planning Commission to refer to the letter in their packets from Neil Pillar, Attorney, Union Reservoir Company. The supporting documents required in 28.5.2.4.4 and 28.5.3.2. 19 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance have been submitted. They E xN,T,T 6� 870123 Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 10 have received a letter from Tick Dill, Undersheriff, and the developer intends to form a law authority district. The Union Reservoir has a fifty loot right-of-way and this would allow them ample space to raise their banks live feet. Mr. McCarty asked that the Planning Commission not take into consideration any plans to enlarge the reservoir. -They have the means to do this by eminent domain. "Tape 255 - Side 2 The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the audience. Brian Miller, Long-Range Planner, City of Longmont, stated the city of Longmont is against this proposal. He read a letter from Mr. Sweeney, City Manager, into the record. William Southard, Attorney, Union Reservoir Company, reported they had met on October 30, 1986, with the developers. Union Reservoir is concerned the reservoir may be an attractive nuisance and there is also concern as to whether or not liability insurance could be obtained. The city of Longmont has taken an option, until November lei, 1986, to purchase one-half of the stock of Union Reservoir. Neil Piller, Attorney, Oligarchy Ditch Company, stated they are concerned about the liability and attractive nuisance concepts of the ditch. They do not oppose this as long as there concerns are satisfied, but at this time, they are not sure they can be met. Richard Hamm, Director, Oligarchy Ditch Company and managing partner JRC Farms, supported Mr. Piller's concerns. John P. Asher, Greatwestern Railroad, stated the south half of Bay Shores is between Highway 119 and the railroad and has a very good potential for a rail/shipping growth area and should be zoned industrial. It was his feeling the land between Highway 119 and the railroad should be zoned industrial, and the rest of the property should remain agricultural; that any decisions concerning this property should be delayed until all problems can be worked out, or that the request should be denied and the land remain agricultural. Tape -256 - Side 1 Great Western Railroad recognizes it obligation as a good neighbor. That is why they arc here and that is why they are not objecting, but this really would be an ideal spot for economic development. Scott McKinley, Macy-Mershon Oil Company, explained the required spacing of units in this area when drilling for gas or oil. They have no agreement with the applicant at this time. He presented a letter between Pietrzak and Macy-Mershon dated 1981. He stated traffic can be as high as two hundred 870123 Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 11 trucks in a two week period when drilling. Then truck traffic would be according to production of the well. He recommended this request be denied. Ken Neff, Right-of-Way Agent, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, explained the requirements for pipelines. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this request. Tom Check, Manager, Left Hand Water Supply, reported he had been working with the applicants and Left Hand Water would supply water to this subdivision. The Chairman asked Keith Schuett to summarize the recommendation of the Department of Planning Services statf, which is for denial, and that the recommendations in their entirety be filed with the summary as a permanent record of these proceedings. Lee Morrison explained that if anyone is interested in the staff's comments and recommendations they may read them. The staff brought several extra copies to the meeting and anyone who is interested may request a copy. MOTION: Lynn Brown moved this be forwarded to the Bord of County Commissioners with our recommendation for denial. She feels the staff has done an excellent job of summarizing their concerns. Highlighting some of the issues we have -heard today---We have listened to the concerns from the railroad, from the oil and gas interests, we have heard the concerns from the ditch company, we Lave looked at potential problems with traffic control and the impact on county roads, we have clearly indicated that this project does not appear to be compatible with the City of Longmont's Comprehensive Plan and certainly not with Weld County's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, we have seen questions raised about the impact on tire and police services, which she certainly feels needs to be considered. We have a major impact on the school system, and looking at potential overload situation. Another item that was not expressed orally, but which they did receive in their written - information is the Division of Wildlife, which expressed concern over this proposal. It distresses her to see a project of this magnitude coming up in front of this Commission and to realize that the developers have not taken sufficient effort to really communicate with the various interests. In a case such as this, many of these agreements need to be discussed in more detail and they have not apparently been prior to this time. Finally, as we look at our own criteria as a Planning Commission in evaluating a Planned Unit Development, she does not feel that any of the criteria by which we are required to grant approval to a Planned Unit Development has been satisfied. Therefore, her recommendation is for denial. Motion seconded by LeAnn Reid. The motion was tabled to allow the applicant to give his rebuttal. 870123 Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 12 John McCarty stated he believes that his application and the subsequent correspondence between the referral agencies and the county and themselves has demonstrated that the compatibility issued can be resolved. The County's own regulations indicate that the appropriate time for resolving those issues is with the Final Planned Unit Development Plan. We would just ask that the Planning Commission allow the applicants to get to this point so the issues can be resolved. He states significant opposition to the staff's recommendation for denial in Roman numeral #2. They have done exactly what needs to be done and he cannot understand why there is this recommendation from the staff. The Chairman called the motion back on the floor. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Lydia Dunbar - Yes; Lynn Brown - Yes; LeAnn Reid - Yes; Ivan Gcsnell - Yes; Louis Rademacher - Yes; Paulette Weaver - Yes, she strongly echos everything that Lynn Brown said. She also feels this property has some inherent problems including the railroad track, ditch, and reservoir that make it very inappropriate for residential development. Ann Garrison - Yes; Jack Holman - Yes, he agrees with Lynn's comments. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR-763:86:44 APPLICANT: Weld County REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a major facility of a public utility (370 foot high radio transmission tower site) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW} SW} of Section 26, T9N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately one mile east of the Town of Nunn; north of Weld County Road 100 and east of Weld County Road 33 Chuck Cunliffc recommended because of the time, and because it is election day and the hearing room is needed to tabulate ballots, this request is continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on November 18, 1986, at 1 :30 p.m. MOTION: Louis Rademacher moved USR-763:86:44 for Weld County for a Use by Special Review permit for a major facility for a public utility (370 foot high radio transmission tower site) he continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission to be held on Tuesday, November 18, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Lynn Brown. The Chairman' called for discussion from the members of the audience. There was no further discussion. 870123 NOV 1. 0 '1,; (3' BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION /.30 RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONS Moved by Lynn Brown that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: Z-430:86:5 NAME: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments) ADDRESS: Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak, 1796 East Sopris Creek Road, Carbondale, CO 81623 C.R.S. Investments, 1333 West 120th Avenue, Denver, CO 80234 REQUEST: A Change of Zoue from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) , and oil and gas production facilities LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles east of Longmont; north of State Highway 119 and east of Weld County Road 3 be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: I. The applicant has not demonstrated that the application materials are in compliance with the standards and conditions of Section 28.3.1 .1 of the Weld county Zoning Ordinance. A. Section 28.3.1.1 requires the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal is in compliance with the performance standards listed in Section 35.3. The proposal is not in compliance with Section 35.3.1. Section 35.3.1 states that: "The density of land uses within the Planned Unit Development District shall be designed to be compatible with other uses within the Planned Unit Development District. Compatibility of uses shall be determined by their harmony, carrying capacity, character, and buffering or screening." 1. A Great Western Railroad mainline cuts diagonally through the proposed Planned Unit Development District from the southwest to the northeast. The railroad company presently plans to use this track for two train movements per day. However, future plans could increase the number of movements on 870123 [fx,,,s'r 3 Z-430:86:5 -Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page 2 this mainline to sixty (60) trains per day. A potential conflict exists between the existing use of the railroad line and the density of the residential uses proposed for the planned Unit Development District. Train traffic is not normally compatible with the pedestrian and vehicular traffic that the proposed Planned Unit development District would generate. Residential uses are also not compatible with the noise associated with train traffic. In accordance with -Section 35.3.1, the application materials have not Remonstrated how a Planned Unit Development with a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre for R-1 uses and 6 dwelling units pet acre for R-2 uses with a total build-out of 1,007 units on a 280 acre site can compatibly be developed around a railroad mainline. Attached to the staff's comments are letters dated September 26 and October 30, 1986, from representatives of the Great Western Railway Company. These attachments serve to substantiate the compatibility issues raised by the railroad company which need to be resolved before granting a Change of Zone. To date, no agreement has been executed between the railroad company and the applicant, nor have development plans been submitted which demonstrate that these uses have been designed to be compatible within the Planned Unit Development district. 2. The right to develop and produce the oil and gas minerals within the Planned Unit Development District appears to be a use by right and is not -controlled by the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments. It seems there are a number of oil and gas wells that could be drilled and operated within the Planned Unit Development District. It also appears that an agreement between the mineral estate owners and the surface owners has not been executed nor have development plans been submitted which demonstrate compatibility between these uses within the proposed Planned Unit Development district. 870123 Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page 3 A potential conflict exists between the density of the residential uses proposed and the production of oil And gas minerals within the Planned Unit Development District. The heavy equipment, trucks, and production wastes associated with exploration of oil and gas minerals is not normally compatible with residential uses and residential traffic. In the event exploration is successful, a potential conflict also exists between the proposed residential lots, streets, and the future location of oil and gas production facilities such as oil and gas wells, pumps, heater treater, tank batteries, and oil and gas service roads. Given the requirements of Section 35.3.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the density of the residential uses proposed, it must be demonstrated that compatibility exists between the residential land-uses and the oil and gas development and -production uses. The application materials call for the dedication of an open space area for a well site and for the county to enforce regulations upon the mineral estate owners. These plans for demonstrating that the uses are compatible within the district are insufficient. The applicant must include an agreement between the mineral estate owners and the applicant which demonstrates, prior to changing the zone, that these uses can co-exist and be compatible within the Planned Unit Development district. The agreement should identify all potential drill sites, oil and gas roads, location of oil and gas production facilities, type of tank batteries, and type of landscaping around the equipment and drill sites. Attached to the staff comments is a letter dated October 17, 1986, from representatives of the mineral estate owners, to substantiate the _compatibility issues which need to be resolved. 3. The Oligarchy Irrigation Ditch and its lateral ditches cut diagonally through the proposed Planned Unit Development district from southwest to northeast. _Based upon a review of the application materials and letters dated September 8 and October 30, 1986, from Neil Piller, council for the ditch company, a potential conflict exists between the existing use of the irrigation ditch and the density of the residential uses proposed. • gr70123 Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page -4 While the application materials indic-ate plans to realign the ditch and to incorporate the ditch into the Planned Unit Development concept, the representatives cf the ditch company indicate that an Agreement addressing its concerns about compatibility with the type of urban area planned have not been meant. The key compatibility issues raised by the ditch company are protection from increased liability, preservation of -historic runoff, lining of the ditch, receiving title to the land upon which the ditch is to be located plus enough land for access and maintenance purposes, adequate protection of downstream facilities, adequate protection for its ditch laterals -within the Planned Unit Development, and the guarantee that all engineering, legal, and other fees incurred would be paid by the developer. -Given the requirement-s of Section 35.3.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the density of the residential uses proposed, the compatibility between the residential land-uses and the irrigation ditch and laterals must be demonstrated. This mould include an agreement between the ditch company and the applicant which demonstrates, prior to changing the zone, that _these uses can co-exist and be compatible within the Planned Unit Development district. Attached to the staff comments is the letter dated October 30, 1986, from Neil Piller, representative of the ditch company. This letter substantiates the compatibility issues which need to be resolved prior to granting a change -of zone. 11. Section 28.3.1.1.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to demonstrate: "That STREET or highway facilities providing access to the property are adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed zone district. In the event that the STREET or highway facilities are not properly sized and are planned to be properly sized in the future, in conformance with the Weld County Thoroughfare Plan or in conformance with the MASTER PLANS of -affected municipalities, the applicant may either wait to -secure the rezoning until the improvements are made by the appropriate unit of government or the applicant may express a -willingness to upgrade the STREET or higway facilities at his own expense in 870123 Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page 5 order to expedite approval of the requested change of zone. In the latter, event, it will be necessary for the applicant to either construct the -necessary improvement-s -before the building permits are issued, or submit suitable performance guarantees to Weld County to ensure construction of the required STREET or highway facility improvements." In a letter dated October 8, 1986, the County Engineer indicated that the proposed -Planned Unit Development District will generate traffic that will create demands far beyond the capabilities of the existing roan network. -A copy of this letter is attached to staff Comments to substantiate the off-site road improvement -concerns. Once it has be-en _determined that the road facilities providing access to the property are inadequate, the applicant has two _options. First, the applicant can either wait to secure the -rezoning until the road improvements are made by the appropriate unit of government; second, the applicant can express a willingness to upgrade the road facilities at his own expense in order to expedite the change of zone approval. The application materials do -not meet the requirements of this Section. The application materials on page 7 indicate that improvements be made, but that the cost of the required improvements will be negotiated and formalized by a Subdivision Improvements Agreement with the County. The application materials also indicated in paragraph 3, en page 9, that road improvements and expenses would be shared with adjoining property owner-s. According to Section 28.3.1.1.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, the applicants must express a willingness to upgrade the roads at their own expense An order to secure rezoning. The applicant-s should momplete a separate improvements agreement for off-site road improvements if it As the applicant-s' desire to obtain rezoning and share the most of road improvements with other property owners. The improvements agreement must include a suitable performance guarantee to Weld County to ensure construction of the required street or highway facility improvements. It must also include and guarantee the method -by which property owners will participate in the cost of improvements. III. Section 28.3.1.1.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance states, in part, that the applciant must demonstrate. . .That the uses which would -be permitted shall be compatible with the existing development of the surrounding -area as permitted by the existing zoning." 870123 Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores -Planned Unit Development Page 6 The Submitted Planned Unit Development District application materials plan for she realignment of Weld County Road 26 and the development of residential lots next to the shore line of Union Reservoir with a minimum rear yard setback. Residential lots on the northwest side of Weld County Road 26 are not compatibl-e with the existing development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning. The location of residential lots on the -northwest side of Weld County Road 26 could create a potential conflict with the existing recreation uses occurring at Union -Reservoir, such -as those -associated - with Water Sports West. Second, the location -0f -residential lots within close proximity of the reservoir could further encourage the use of the reservoir by children and -other residents. Third, the potential 'for trespassing by the residents living in close proximity to the reservoir could create potential li-ability problems for the -reservoir company. Fourth, the existence of lots contiguous to Union Reservoir would change -the historic runoff pattern causing the reservoir to accept additional sun-off and silt. To -date, no agreement has been executed or development plans submitted which address these compatibility problems and the ones raised in a letter, dated _October 16, 1386, from Mr. Southard, representative for the _Union Reservoir Company. This letter has been attached to the staff's comments. IV. The proposed Planned Unit Development district is -not compatible with the future development of the subject site and the surrounding area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Longmont. -A -portion of this site is within Longmont's Saint Vrafn Valley -Planning Area and is designated for agricultural uses. V. The proposed _Planned Unit Development district is not compatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The subject Bite is located within an area that is designated for agricultural uses and the proposed Planned Unit Development district is predominantly for residential uses. Although the revisions to she -Weld County Comprehensive Plan consider other potential uses for this site and the =neighborhood, the Planned Unit Development district should not be approved before the Weld County Comprehensive Plan update is complete. Motion seconded by LeAnn -Reid. 870123 Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page 6 VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Lydia Dunbar Lynn Brown LeAnn Reid Ivan Gosnell Louis Rademacher Paulette Weaver Ann Garrison Jack Holman The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy to forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION -OF COPY I, Bobbie Good, Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning _Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on November 4, 1986, and recorded in -Book No. X of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the 5th day of November, 1986. Bobbie Good Secretary 870123 Additional Comments Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Z-430:86:5 1 . Mr. Neil Piller indicated on November 3, 1986, in a phone conversation with the Department of Planning Services staff that the Oligarchy Ditch Company would prefer to have an agreement with the applicants prior to the granting of a change of zone. 870123 F r 7 f 4.3;f a'ansi 46;ut L e..�- ip'ty}4,yR�yFq S rS-t f��.f 1 T J TyL..F Lt f fi G.�a�'e<tJ'h-� 3TY+a Yv' "?'•ft °.i�'r Sev i ..4�.• c, et.... ti t✓ .ti .r • �y� ,-:.,diiY b$.x.A S i K �f .r'•l2 t' - ° '-4.yJtr 1:.., tj ..5r ± _ -C y'}�4,•- t 'j• • eta .s.+ e• 0 ,t 4•.•. ♦•5 J •4. . s• -•. p. L i'` ls;a. r •43 7�yle A ,•3i.. } -1 ..s y4 4;l i . e Ve R'..! }5.,11- F. I V 1` tq ! L 4 M : A t.t tat l' J I .iI! , 1.' y prf .L. Er n y r Y, 4D7'h v w n':tr .V Id(�t 4,• . as Ya.13 l �i 4 4, ,r, 1� rt a rS� y'�s' f s�nT♦ Y y � . L -.': yr 'I y,i '� 530 1�.S.•�r� ��?•!:':12 ..a .tray b -t ia5 f i5.. -•e _ I•'YLL• 3 y • ? L krycim'..• Arolei;lelt. , .YIXfl 1s '• lk e!'Yt3t „ ?. L to e- r2r_A- ,- itit 4 , t..t• t ) f .. t t i f1-ay-It,- -:..... ..F ,, wy ,� a. .�,e•• t4Cat a 1s:;w is.t144-1:: 1< w ,.f:' < y, 4111-4:74.-7.1;1.4, 1 a ht4 M,-.I r. c t �ti•Ir A'(ti�jr, ra.Jil_lsa 1/47.e•r . Lr -0.4.:- .-,1:4 n }tl�w.P[NYA,...-. `.—..� 4.i't".e }4r fi T . .at•.a..•w }L.. > - ^Z��'t Ii'i- -i:i�uyw >h. vn. LA:.- ;•-,+'. a.ff.. Mina-,. .54 N... v .. Q wefAm a,y amaaa-n :9ry.d...,�..(a c.—•sna.0ua -5:00,1; 6,6I x>Y Y7l.L ' f� — .— I CE �eea/ xad. Ws.el..r if. day {.dl'dry-,..Gtnr- - ........- ----- -- —I '1 IWARRANTY DEED. —:---suss -s3 -. __- I L.ehex.. yw q one ford om Moumnet trim huhdn.l al Rule Wet) bdwea a. • -.._. 0 I of Ow County e! 4Yr J,l n. . ad star, cif Colorado,of rA.lint >"rr,lad 1. Iw .(J l.tlL)wsthi la,Cr, k✓.oTst)...-........_._ 4Stare_Or COLOw-�,all.e.e�e f ih. ausiy o Tint Ow 'said part __n!Owl first ears.foWEL mid r el cd...,.re�! n,ml..m,rt Hare. 3 N of s al ar•( ,was; .fit _......_.elen.tt2..t.,�-..an(. .Ltl o..an) �.a a a.�.aa.,vuaa a Inc rbf j M trrnrc or COLORADO, _ This Warranty to o' w...;Mai or ream. 12.2., ...x.. .... OHA - to Mlle.Hid parr . /,Ae lf.+�h.•^a pa by eA<dt part .M eh..eood r+rl.rA.nanpt � I,, i 1) • e}lrr lmz /� � I:rO.t_ 1)):.tler.(hla,en4i whereof Araby nf.u.d and anigain sell•wstjed. y and confirm .al.rearguard,sat p and conveyed.LA and by 1 ....__... err Tsenl• de_(Yl^'M,barpala sell,mammy and ma//rm .trim Ou pail parr. ..^!W semd Ifl 1. .w.. ' ....__.... part._ant J..tr..ae,.1. . ...... a...pad assigns,f m.all w r ua.dap--(Ascribed lac.a,.a 'r"'' pa Lei of land,situaµ lying and being In Ow Co,..ly of Weld,and Stan of Colorado. ia,-wit: i eVati°L th&all.t_.arthl la.S.4,j .,&art: ra It ersle oat.(31)...a tl✓:et.(a)W'.eutir,e( ray_ *t Sat . I 1491 OYt4.t.ee.tLL, aka. L ,..d.r,e ant 0:4 e)auheee,ales tr Re, fl..3 1((nh l/t) eo I I %aw y°tch,l.tly -yet:.n rl:s.Lid cla.n.d.R f, 11....(.i)de ZL.J.n....r_A•.! ,./4.(k r.Mitt, /� i .W.a..,d. .•3U ,.Art .mr. 9,.....-4.).t.111-4.0 CI. Pip,.)n ea..,; ,±1.„.iP„,f.nl.�+.+.f tlt_d/.h1 tL q,....al.hl I . • L ; CA Ptryy)at See ,. -.et,Li)taw-wild.:f.twLt).)ftt .'ia...yr.yP. .2 t(Ui 0YLIL.ta.u:L. cL. i f%fLaiai: :� 4 Ceren-e en.tong,at a.)..:,..t 4.#7 ..ar.Ls I) tat_ oflahikk od ti-t.otaaZ nY,At. Ceehn a ej:Lc y%tt li !.a if 4 t.L r . ? J4 ret9., mat,*.,.kt,hl sJ:.4.br.:d..ba .ra ;aria t.al tkuort- . .1.7b..a.,..lrtnie.,.+.v.awhtulioe Jni/atora Cly)d.9ktw 1 te J 4 as lga)n.,:......Ln,$.44..,.i“.th chi.Lary GniAI/env,4,,,t,(y e)m. ,..try la t. it I.,r _R.--Heart 4 f ;j'1 1. tLr.ce, d✓•i.L9a 'Jay,tthu.(4 a)altar be.(urinary, P LAS)rr,+L...-Iay&ndt.,(sae.weeper.taLatte.U YIJuntil tt..... .N✓:Lto nit IIa„t&iil)d. A�tu•Ji t at/yaty. ,CAJ-)rn.:�..ire, tiatet9,h.t1. t..ndl.ad..J,.4. Cale GI frt.; I t ' dG.r.9u 1:..4.1..31 d}hlut4,.t),✓tity_l`.V Cas I an,L a..Iye, fin,at,lure A,....,dn.vL A.i t1116e)_tu.L; dYehaL,it:"- --4�.; -(r (a41c,jr.the,.tCh.1•1 d,o1: 7i&wk..lbw_ A,..adl:ad. ftd C3ta) ;nt, L ft t' 3.,..a.: fr_tt. wit te i j ILL c na s OY.eL e.fv..a l et Aa..L A.it.era-,...-a.lsl:rl..,..ea. a2....-tL Cr tt“. .Lnli e$ t,•,3•:.. • I 19.:h.tun.a,....(..;.ft.It„.Iza,Lla Vie )°tau..all tJ.t. etirett-daut.a(d....9..a..‘.9rt.27 a.,4a^L od Ir •I ..2 au.•tt),..(1t,r...ra(]liA2h,re:,l Dn,d U,ta,L.rt,t14.u:.bt.f. 1. .4) .I l:-3 t;.<. Lila 77....aUla 1...at.tL LS,e' afar! w-ILL.{. Ot Lend_ Wain Cre) tut ..,.d1. Wwed-Owed a.(retet.and_S....r..4,t. •"••-t .......tihr .tom.,.., . en.t.u..... nay u.aa t1J:tl t,natL4r(f `a/ia).w w ; t(.1.tl:att° Csr..n.a}4L.C(rtlu.: �rr.r aLL lua .I, Jtu.L Ill Z...r(i52)aN.t.,of�a.wL.?a+.l, .tar.,..C.t..Lt..wt.L �✓d tit.�U,.�.,a,,,,i�t�. ad�l.Jttyt/w.w t : ti,.ad rani. cal�a.-.,�.4t p;. �_rf:r.f3. j- -..tp..) 4._,,.: ).W.4e.C...l„etl,fvtatdo , L I f .a:. l.{tu w /.nl.,,tya t..fa a...( moo.. i Ja L."`L' h•t a I I L lwu.....,a .ran J......E e(..,..�.....app!Li- .thnn.,t„ .4_-7,-1.e.' rc..dl ten "' vKo TOGETHER with all Had Angular the Arndt mate and°paw l.*awes Then-male hbnq la a"a.lar nrcia ' sad...ern...na.aleder lad remntn ii),e real..Lana PMle tot and"w.elatenni.,WI&..cl tnr.a.a& ,r and dsad apart-mama Lea as ' 1. I f the said parry+t.--ofw find part,culler In law or equity,of,In and to the aka&ejoindpre-mia,MLA the hr..dilaments and apareum ' I I r0 114 YE AND TO HOLD the paid panties atoee barfal.:ed and described,with the app rteregme .ante a.raid part....y: .41 the enrond I part,.__......It, Jdn and assign,foreseer. dad flu said...(C,rauia.al_t .ure _ — aaJ pure v ,.!w N+l tars.f-JI,f,la/.�...),aw Felt!, I Ieveuion and adminl.bnl n.dater w t,Metalseenaat,leanrtals and ofres to and with elf aid part.rs ..of rhoa vnd pare r r,r.nr y I I ; and airline,that al the base of the resealing and dd4ery of 0...:praxnle.._Jf,a..1, aril wiled of as penalrs dmn em:wyed,al $ I11 I 'of fal m l.rant prrfeei,nbwlale and indefeasible rdala of L.Aeeit simple,naer.L.law,In fsimple,__'l ha_craned rip he,full pane au a and lawful thLy I L to front,bargain,sell and convey as same,L.maw mad form•f mod,and that the rune an fee and clear from all former and vela I fronts.brfa%ne,eaten Una.taon ammernle ad'a.mbronaa{;AJ.».kind....alv.._...nal-n earn:ct).re fl.ram. ------- I i.. ....... ,all. ... . I I ad w alma barfaiaed gem In la._]As_.-.-quiet alai raa..a.Llt.--4"`./LA.said wt-y_.I a.s.cmad paA...4.Y.t1—a WZ.ad aneen,apart all ad terry pro or perm. law-aliy dalsaLg a le dal. IL wad.a.y pan tabor f-........,_.._-,Ale.aid al at_{ • Ma Ant tart Mall and welt M•.rraat ad Yemr Defend 0 . f . IX fl7TXESS WHEREOF,Ow.. pari_tererm PM purllea Ar n � .=u .see_Ltd an d Free.`.art I : • a.. we rnuea (( : .ono W, u,CLAW,An aral,IXma,ar _------ isn>,n-r..nt- el sea•• --C�) 4 tr. gilik,V, 1.1 , I I ' I I STATE OF COLORADO, 44 q . `3 1g8G • �ua.T.i_a; lHadri_hr ).. r.2...e.. :..ab. h., r• _ 1 t.f I I : . 1.d fe_ I,Lt ...,a Coax.,y.La Ma Ste afinne µ ds knurly• ,Pp La.e_.A _ __ ---. - —.—__— I: p• —_--SeL�ii._F--e kr.5...m_..ts�Lc..W L.e�.�a� =.ate so W E. , ----Yti`4�a.q�rIm a asaras ay.....uL 4-r t. .at.dr..rded M e maw t R�. tb a..d Out..0 PI I. I'r U 1 '--__:{avian(u-- - and wLabrt.A W ward Y.se.(.eel firth. l+d-W>.aa • it i 1.,: ,+ f, 1, . :.I rled.�bad p' .a..ems its_._er .. _ . , ,. ., ., .� _ -.• . `.t e e �1.c . Clamant..my bad W elf$ h.a I _-__.gal Ihl`�• µ _-admy ill e. 9 T -1.1 i 4:1 '- �nq�t xy..Ylrfra�a..ih.�.+na.C_1>r11.tL. _.___ 5.-R.drum 11•...,1._ '^ '{a • - .<� ;.y t 87/0123 - t Y r P X1 .- . 02 ►- • �•t,�ttrai 1. r iii a*^ -0"<<':l r,! ti i . - N 1 I j.e3�.e p'v+i S. y t ��• ::SS'�. /«�i?�V„�wE °r+yyr! Kn f�54 a S:..ltT y,5- ♦ .+4T �.,' `�ro�.r 5 •n Ly w{y'3" ,. '".�t Tt vY 3nX�pi �S I� ff"aI"y�i�. • H�lT ry -iJir � � � 1,F.f:;V1$ 1 , {tMy �' P�rF`Y. 'sF[ 'aL t �4'1 arr's�.�er a .atri`•t'•T to ire .* Of W xa e e tit y t\s i L a +� .< tiu> 1'41,,:c1-'14 tt Y T yi l ✓ t t. S t.� ( f i lLs t,:r t ^ trl r, �t. X 13" `-`•'34;;`,._9 ,f r,•^t `s' .f n. z�• - , t tii e t' CF'I' t, � - uf. �.:n � rf t•,_"�X 1 .' - 911 1833434 fnL^:rAYs&cu �-er No ..� y-/ y • tnloro+o, Weld C., nn. Clerk S Recorder • IN -THE DISTRICT COURT -IN AND FOR THE i Y COUNTY OF WELD AND STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. t80-CV-403 O THE UNION RESERVOIR COMPANY, ) o . a Colorado corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs . ) DECREE ) L1 JACOB HETZEL, MARTHA M. ATWOOD, ) o JOHN COMSTOCK, BENJAMINE W. ) CALKINS , CARLTON C. CALKINS , ) LEVI V. NICHOLS, JOHN W. REDD, ) 5 £MMA JOHNSON, JOHN D. BLACKWELL, ) SAMUEL ARMSTRONG, PELHAM K. ) '-1 PATTERSON, JENNIE COMSTOCK, ) _JOHN COMSTOCK, JR. , NETTIE: L. ) JCNAPP, AND ALL UNKNOWN PERSONS ) • WHO CLAIM ANY INTEREST IN THE . ) SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION, ) ) Defendants. ) . THIS MATTER heard this day. -THE COURT FINDS: That each Defendant herein has been properly served as required by law and rule of Court; that — -Robert M. Gilbert , attorney at law, has been heretofore appointed and appeared for any and all Defendants who are in, or who may be in, or who may have teen ordered to report for induction into, the military service as defined by the Soldiers ' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 , as Amended; that this is an action in rem affecting specific real property; that the Court has jurisdiction of all parties to this action and of the subject -matter thereof; that the allegations of the Complaint are true; that every claim made by said Defendants is unlawful and without right; that no Defendant herein has any title or interest in or to the property -described herein or any part thereof; therefore: IT IS ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT The Union Reservoir Company, a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, at the time of the commencement of this proceeding, was, and it now is, the owner in fee simple, with right to possession, of the following described real property situate in Weld County, Colorado, to-wit: • -1- o 15-- ? 9 1986 870123 Weld Co. Fannin Commission 5,iLil f . • TRACT 2 53.3 acres of land ii the Sl:^, of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 68 -West, more pal-titularly described as follows , that is to say: Commencing at the south one-quarter corner of said Section 30, thence by true bearings , variation 14 Beg. 10' East as follows: Vest 510 ft; thence N. b5 deg. 20' 41est 407 ft; thence North 45 deg. 5D West 282 feet; thence N. 48 -deg. 50' West 284 feat; thence N. 69 deg. 20' West 220 feet; thence A. 67 deg. 5D' West 194 feet; thence N. 3 deg. 50' West 26-0 feet; thence N. 20 deg. 20' East 330 feet; thence • N. 15 deg. 0' East 356 feet; thence N. 72 deg. 15' fast 352 feet, thence N. 12 des. 10' East 331 feet; thence S. 21 deg. 43' Fast 253 feet; thence S. 45 deg. 35' East 251 feet; thence S. 40 deg 5' East 402 feet; thence S. 86 deg. 30' East 543 feet, to the half • section line; thence South to the section line, at one-quarter corner to the place of beginning, comprising 4B.1 acres; also a strip of • ground 30 feet wide around -and above said water line, containing 5.2 acres , containing in all 53. 3 acres; and also, TRACT II The W' of the SEA. of Section -30, Township 3• North-, Range 68 Vest, containing 80 acres , except -47.S acres in said 80 acres deeded by said company to John Comstock by instrument recorded in Book 218, Page 41 , Weld County, Colorado, records , said excepted land so sold being described more particularly as follows: 47. 9 acres, more or less, in the SE; of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 6.8 West of the 6th P.M. , and more particularly described as follows: 'Commencing at the center oT said Sec. 30-3-68; thence S. 1325 feet; thence S. 66 deg. 15' T. 5-91 feet; thence S. 68 deg. 15' E. 315 feet; thence 5. •65 deg. E. • 279 feet; thence N. 68 deg. E.- 261 feet to the North and South center line of the SET< of said Sec. 30-3-68; thence N. on said line 1678 ' to the East and West center line of laid Sec. 30-3--68; thence W. 1329 feet to the place of beginning; also, -TRACT III 22.4. acres in- the 51;. of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 68 _ Vest of the 6th R.M. , more particularly described as follows: Commencing 'at a point 962 feet North -of the quarter corner, on the south side of . said SE; of Sec. 30-3-68; thence by true bearings, variation 14 deg. 45' E. , North 80 deg. 5' East 292 feet; thence 5. -67 deg. 25' E. 373 feet; • thence 3. 18 deg. 25' E. 137. feet; thence S. 37 deg. 45' E. 230 feet; thence S. b5 deg. 45' E. 164 feet; thence N. 88 deg. 45' E. 204 feet; thence S. 67 deg. 30' E. 147 feet; thence S. 428 feet; thence W. 1329 feet; thence N. 962 feet, to the place of beginning; also, TRACT _IV The WA of the Ws of the NE: of Section 31 in Township 3 North, -Range 63 West, containing 40 acres; also a p-art of the Nhr4 of Section 31 in Township 3 North, Range 68 West , described as follows: Commencing at the North quarter corner of said section; thence by true bearings, variation 14 deg. 10' East, West 510 feet, thence S. b3 deg. 40' fast ' 293 feet; South 29 deg. •15' West 395 feet; S. 19 deg. 35' East 595 feet; S. 19 deg. 30' West 696 feet; 5. 2 deg. 45' West 344 feet; S. 31 deg. East 700 feet to the Half section line; thence E. 150 feet to the center • of said section, thence N. 2640 feet to the place of beginning, containing 22.3 acres; the above tract being a part of the Union Reservoir site and the above line being the high water line thereof;also, a strip of land 50 feet wide around, above and contiguous to said high water line, containing • 3. 5 acres, and containing in all 65.8 acres; also. 'RACT V The Eli of the 11,5 and the E?; of the W4 of the ;RE: of Sec. 31-3:t-68W containing 120 acres; also, all that portion of the Ti of Section 32-3':-63W, described as follows: Cor..-.encing at the Northwest corner of said Section 32 thence by true bearings, variation 14 deg. 10' East , East 370 feet; thence South 40 feet ; East 943 feet; South 67 deg. E. 416 feet; South 78 deg. 5' Tact 104 feet; South 48 deg. 25' E. 235 feet; South 24 deg. 20' East 230 • feet; South 20 deg. 45' East 567 feet; South 5 deg. 5J' East 300 feet; ' South 11 deg. 10' West 453 feet; South 18 des. 40' West 400 feet; South 33 -deg. 10' West 317 feet to the half section line, 173 feet Vest of the center said Section 32; thence West 2467 feet, to the quarter corner; thence North 2640 feet to the place of beginning, containing 154. 5 acres. The above described tracts being a part of the reservoir site of the Union reservoir and the above described line being the high water line thereof. Also a strip of land 50 feet wide, around, above and contiguous to said high hater line, containing 4.25 acres , and containing in all 273.75 acres; also, • -2- S70123 - 41 3 • TRACT VI AU th-a-t portion of -the Ss of the SW'i of Section 31 -3N-6BW, described as follows Cornencing at the South quarter corner of said section, thence by true bearing, variation 14 deg. 10' E-ast, West 127 feet; thence I. 57 deg. 50' West 12D feet; North 31 deg. 35' West 407 feet; North 57 deg. 40' East 127 fret; North 18 deg. 2' West 126 feet; South B2 deg. 25' West 106 feet; North 13 deg. 20' East 145 feet; North -43 deg. 45' West 272 feet; North 3-8 -deg. 40' West 506 feet, to the 8D acre line;thence last 945'to the -half section line; thence South 132D feet to the point of be- ginning, containing 15.1 acres. -Asa part -of the Union -Reservoir site, and ibe above described line being the -high water line thereof; also -a strip of land 50 feet wide, above, around -and adjarent to said high water line, containing 2.1 acres , and containing in all 17. 2 acres: also. TRACT VII All that portion of the ua of the SW; of Section 31 , 3ti-68W, described as follows: ton.,.encin5 at the center of said Section 31 , variation 14 deg. 1D' East, true bearings. West 150 feet; thence S. 26 deg. 25' West 532 feet; thence S. 39 deg. 55' West 158 feet; thence South 79 deg. 15' W. 336 feet; thence S. 33 deg. 25' East 230 feet; thence 5. 47 deg. 13' Vest 255 feet; thence 5. 77 deg. 25' West 275 feet;thence S. 38 deg: 40' East 335 feet, to the 80 acres line; thence East 945 feet to the half section line; thence North 1320 feet to the place of beginning, containing 18.6 acres. Being a part of the Union Reservoir site and the above being the high water line; also a strip of land fifty. feet wide lying around, above and contiguous to the said high water line, containing 2.5 acres, and containing in all 21 .1 acres; also, CT VI The SET; of Section 31-3N-68W,• containing 160 acres also the _.__ - rila of the NE; of`. Section b-2N-48W, containing 76.85 acres; also, that portion of' the NW: of Section 5, 2N-58k. described as follows: Com-encing at a point 51 feet North of the Southwest corner of the n of the NW; of said Section 5, thence by true bearings , variation 1-4 deg. 1D' East. North 52 deg. 40' Fast 340 feet; thence N. 43 deg. 25' last 290 feet; thence N. 51 deg. 25' last 306 feet; forth 5 deg. 35' last 260 feet; North 36 deg. 30' East 350 feet, to the section lint; thence West to the Northwest corner .of said Section 5; thence south to the place of beginning, containing 13.8 acres , All the des- cribed lands being part of the reservoir site of the Union Reservoir and the above described lines being the- high water line thereof. Also a strip of land fifty feet wide, around, above and contiguous to said high water line, containing 1 .3 acres . the tracts containing 252 acres of land; also. • TRACT IX A tract of land in the Sk; of Section32-3N68W,described as follows: Cosrnencing at a point 173 feet hest of the center of Section 32, thence by true bearings. variation 14 deg. 10' Fast, South 46 deg. 5D' West 815 feet; thence S. 17 deg. . 40' West 322 feet thence S. 68 deg. 10' West 595 feet; South 22 deg. 45' West 294 feet; 3. b deg. 1D' West -900 feet; South 16 deg. 20' East 281 feet; South 49 deg. 50' West 220 feet. to the section line; thence West to the NW corner of Section 5-2N- W; thence North one-half.mile to the quarter corner; thence Tast 2467 feet to the place of beginning, containing B6 acres. The above line being the high water line of the Union -Reservoir. - Also a strip of land 50 feet wide. -and around, above and contiguous to said high water line. containing 4 acres. The above containing in all 9D acres of land; also. TRACT X A strip of land in the N' of the NW1/4 of Section b-2N-68W, described as follows: Commencing at the north quarter corner of said Section S. • thence by true bearings , variation 14 deg. 10' East as follows: West 127 feet; thence South 1 deg. 35' East 240 feet; South 76 deg. 35 East • 129 feet; North 272 feet. to the place of beginning-. containing 8/10 of an acre. The' above described 'line being the high water line of the union -Reservoir. Also a strip of land 50 feet wide. around, above and contiguous to said high water line, containing 45/100 of an acre. All of said tracts containing 1 .25 acres of land; also, • -3- 870123 1.. .3.t'a ) ,. • 'RACT XI. All the land within the following boundries: Commencing at the Northwest coiner of Section 6-2N-68W. thence along the North line of said sec- • Lion East 2551' ; thence South 70 feet; thence West 1260 feet; thence North 20 feet; thence West 1251 feet; thence North 50 feet. to the point of beginning; comprising 3.-4-6 acres . more or less .all being in the N11; of Section 6-2N-68W; also. 'RACT XII 3.05 acres. more or less . in the NO. of Section 6, 2N-661i, mart particularly described and bounded as follows: Commemcing at a point on the South side of a County Road 1290 feet North of the East quarter corner of said Section 6, and running thence (true bearing) along the South side of said County toad. South 87 deg. 45' West 1375 fret; thence South 73 de-g. 1=5: Cast 3-48 fret; thencz South 81 deg 15' East 363 feet; thence North 73 deg. . 15' -fast 112 feet to the place of beginning` That fee simple -title in and to said real property be and the -same hereby is quieted in the -Plaintiff, and that each of the Defendants has no right , title , or interest in or to the said real property or any part thereof , and that they are forever enjoined from asserting any claim, right , title, or interest in or to the said real property or any part thereof. Signed Auguet 1-9 , 1980 . BY THE COURT: DISTRIC-T JUDGE AP-PROVED AS TO FORM. FEE RECEIVED. :' 1 // A - ano cones' i % s.....r.— f�C t� .td to be.- m cwtodY�(� // �� 4':-/A-11 �; .?Y Y' try,b°'9mo1 �lC.Ill" Robert M. Gilbert - Reg. Nb. 4_373 ; r a<a3 t Military Attorney Vt .�e ✓ 'vve� Ev • • • -4 870123 k\ri4 SAINT VRAIN Dr. F. Keith Blue VALLEY Superintendent of Schools PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.RE-1J 395 a PRATT PARKWAY LONGMONT,COLORADO 80501 October 15, 1986 Mr. Keith Schuett Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street _ Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Bay Shores P.U.D. Subdivision Dear Mr. Schuett: We have reviewed the proposed Bay Shores P.U.D. Subdivision and have determined the student impact upon the St. Vrain Valley Schools based upon the 1007 units in the October 3, 1986 rezoning request. STUDENTS STUDENT OVER CAPACITY ENROLLMENT + PROJECTED = IMPACT CAPACITY ELEMENTARY: Mead 384 423 + 342.38 = 765 Yes JUNIOR HIGH: Mead 218 193 + 165.15 = 358 Yes HIGH SCHOOL: Skyline 1119 976 + 151.05 = 1127 Yes Several bus stops would be necessary in a development of this size. When final plat plans are submitted, bus stops should be assigned. The developers may contact the Transportation Superintendent, ,Lames Allen, at 449-4978, extension 253. I concur with the paragraphs (3 and 4) related to school site needs and • location in the attached letter dated October 7, 1986 from John McCarty. If the PUD is developed to the maximum allowable density the district will need to analyze the need for an additional secondary site, as well as the elementary site, due to the increased impact. If you need any further information regarding this planning referral please call me at 449-4978, extension 209. Sincerre/ly, Dorothy Flores, Director DP L J @ Planning, Evaluation and Communication �l l' `� �2 ] �,` DH/ss ��I 1986 8701.23 weld Co. Planing i;nmmission L\ ISAUS rNTVRAIN Dr. F.-Keith Blue VALLEY SuperintendentofSchools PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.RE-1J 395 S.PRATT-PARKWAY LONGMONT,COLORADO 80501 October 15, 1986 Mr. Keith Schuett Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street _ Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Tay Shores P.U.D. Subdivision Dear Mr. Schuett: We have reviewed the -proposed Bay -Shores T.U.D. Suhdivision and have determined the student impact upon the St. Vrain Valley School-s based upon the 1007 units in the October 3, 1986 rezoning request. # STUDENTS STUDENT OVER CAPACITY ENROLLMENT + PROJECTED = IMPACT CAPACITY ELEMENTARY: Mead 384 423 + -342.38 = 765 Yes JUNIOR SIGH: Mead 218 193 + 165.15 = 358 Yes HIGH SCHOOL: Skyline 1119 976 -+ 151.05 = 1127 Yes Several bus stops would be necessary in a development of this size. When final T1at plans are submitted, bus stops should be assigned. The developers may _contact the Transportation Superintendent, James Allen, at 449-4978, extension 253. I _concur with the paragraphs (3 and 4) related to school site needs and location in the attached letter dated October 7, 1986 from John McCarty. Zf the TED is developed to the maximum allowable density the district will need to analyze the need for an additional secondary site, as -well as the elementary stie, due to the increased impact. If you need any further information regarding this planning referral please call meet -449-497-8, extension 209. Sincerely, Dorothy uHores, Director Planning, �'`�nj .J�a') �ty��"� -Evaluation and Communication 1 : 186 DH/ss l 870123 Weld Co. Planning Cnrnmissinr {_ a _____,.... DEPARTN 4T OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 �. -.[ lmcd7 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 tip. 1. att°�iz°F. } , ell i `N_• ',-• COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I I Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and L.R.S. Investments, for -a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to T.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and -oil and gas production facilities. The parcel of land is described -as part of the Ni of Section S, T2N, R68W of the 6th 1P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application fias been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union Reservoir. This Applicationis submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any Comments or -recommendations you Consider relevant to this request would be -appreci-ated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt _consideration of your recommendations. if a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. Check she appropriate boxes thelow and -return to our address listed above. Please reply by October 17, 1-986, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much for your -help and _cooperation in this matter. 1. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will Be / submitted prior to 3. -Please rife to the enclosed letter. Si. Vrain Valley Signed: Agency: School ]District Date: 10/15/86 ��t7/411 i� ,��1� �x •ll l r ui VS - of 1� 1-2-1) i It_ Keith A. 5chueit � — -- ---- Current Planner Cr r 1f' P 1 _, ) - 870123 Weld-Co. Planing 0mmissiav RECEIVED OCT 1 0 1986 CONSULTANTS, INC. 'NG October 7, 1986 Ms. Dorothy Hores, Director of Planning, Evaluation, and Communication St. Vrain Valley School District - 395 S. Pratt Parkway Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Dorothy : Re: Weld County Rezoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. Due to changing circumstances and conditions, the Weld County Planning Commission has -continued the above referenced rezoning hearing until November 4, 1985. The applicant was also requested to revise and resubmit his application. Therefore, you will be receiving a new referral package from the county sometime late next week . Please disregard the information -which you have received previous to this submittal. The biggest -change which you will notice in the application is that land use designations for densities are being requested. If, in fact, these densities were built to the maximum potential, a total of 1,007 dwelling units could be built on this property. Therefore, according to the requirements of the geld County Subdivision -Regulations, we have to recalculate the land dedication requirement for the School's District. In a telephone conference with you on October 2, 1486, we discussed how the land -dedication, based on the maximum number of dwelling units of 1,007, might require a significantly larger dedication than for a 10-acre elementary school site. It -would not he fair to the developer to dedicate the site until actual number of dwelling units are determined from final P .U.D. Plan submittals. The School District would also benefit by waiting for the -e .U .D. Plan in that more information might Pe available to help decide whether or not land dedications (in addition to the el-ementary school site) ; cash-in lieu payments; or a combination of land and cash, would best serve the interests of the district. You will also notice that we have shifted the location of the school parcel to the southeast corner o£ the intersection of County Road 3-1/2 and County 26. We believe that this location more realistically anticipates future residential developments being located east, west, and north of the Bay Shores development, as opposed to closer to State Highway 119 where we anticipate more commercial and industrial development might occur. 703 TI-IIRO-AVENUE •10NGMONT,CO. 80501 -870123 �� 772-7755/449-4378 Ms. Dorothy Mores Page 2 October 3, 1986 If you have any concerns regarding the size of the school site dedication, or the revised location, please feel free to contact this office. Otherwise, we ask that you send a copy of your response to Weld County to this office. Thank you for your consideration on this referral . Sincerely yours, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. hn A. McCarty, P.E. JAM/sm cc: File #1687. 1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. • rn 5-1 1—:.r n� I� V. 198E 870123 Vieth Co. Planning ueoossum its ` DEPARTIv.ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES s,tT PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 915 10th STREET .. . GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 • 5t ��G r �yay, la } apt T e • COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 • • t TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: i Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production facilities. The parcel of land is described as part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this i application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of 1 Longmont; one-half mile north of St-ate Highway 119 and south -of Union Reservoir. i This application is -submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you -consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt Consideration of your recommendations. 1 If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. Check the -appropriate boxes below mnd return to our address listed above. Yieaac reply by. n_._.. -- 17, '985, so that we may give full ccrridi-nt_r:' , to _ your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. XX We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: , i2 4- Agency: Longmont Fire Date: 16 October 1986 Wm. R. Emerson Protection District Fire Marshal all / //Keith A. Schuect Current Planner II : 1: 198` i 870123 Weld Co. ?)inning dnmmiSSIOD DEPART _NT OF PLANNING SERVICES v t PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4400 � `s 915 10th STREET r" ;l1 *LBGREELEY,COLORADO 80631 x-4.0 f COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. September 9, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed additional information from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investment-i7 fora change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned • Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) and recreational uses. The parcel of land is described as part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union Reservoir. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed -above. Please reply by September 15, 1986, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. We have reviewed the- proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. X ��//// Please refer to the enclosed letter. 4t Signed: „ ep Sri,:at Agency: LONGMONT SOIL Date: OCT. 16, 1986 CONSERVATION DISTRICT cX 4� �7 s L 4h2 I 5 \ /IF Current Planner �� 1- �' ( 1 17 1986 8701_237lammn +:nmrniSS 0i, Longmont Soil Conservation District 9595 Nelson Road, Box D - Longmont, Colorado 80501 October 16, 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case Number Z-430:86:5 — Bay Shores P.U.D. Dear Keith: We have reviewed the application of Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C. R. S. Investments for a change of zone from Agricultural to P.U.D. and have the following comments: The Longmont Soil Conservation District feels that a P.U.D. is an entirely inappropriate use for prime agricultural land. The land use surrounding this property is agricultural and allowing 4,000 people to move into this property will have substantial impacts on neighboring farms. The urban/rural interface typically results in nuisances in the form of litter, motorcycles, vandalism to farm machinery and equipment, and interference with irrigation systems. Specific reference was made to the approval of the St. Vrain Sanitation District as a reason why the approval of Bay Shores should be granted. Although the sanitation district has been approved, it is the opinion of the Soil Conservation District that growth should occur in a contiguous pattern. If a P.U.D. request is submitted, it should include a detailed report for both Erosion and Sediment Control and Storm Water Management. The speci- fications, quantifications, and drainage for detention ponds and runoff calculations should be included. A drainage plan map with specific erosion control measures should also be submitted for review. Weed control should be practiced from the time of over-lot grading to the sodding of lawns. As stated in earlier letters to the Department of Planning Services, the soils have a high shrink-swell potential which restricts the suitability of this site for foundations and basements. High water tables exist near the reservoir. It is the recommendation of the Longmont Soil Conservation District to not approve this request for rezoning. Sincerely, Luther Stromquist 7 \ � Idt?ii,Ln. c v1 I7 '' i / E President f?(r 1 I LS:rah ._j 1 . 1988 f ✓ CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT 1370J1..23Wetie Co ilhIIiI I2 G0ilPlll$51[If. DEPART: .cNT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1 y' PHONE(303)356-4000 1510h T.STREET �tT 400 915 10th STREET roil ►� GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ,29 • COLORADO CASE NUMBER 7-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production facilities. The parcel of land is described as part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union Reservoir. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. Please reply by October 17, 1986, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. X We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached Policy. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. Pl refer to the enclosed letter. „cease` St. Vrain Sanitation Signed: '�c-iiCet rA ene district Date: 10/14/86 g g Y allace H. Grant 7r Keith A. -S.-chug-lit Current Planner (— 1-i 1986 8'701.23 Weld C6. 2):11eleie LummtseloIi SAINT VRAIN SANITATION DISTRICT POLICY NO. 86-01 INCLUSIONS/SERVICE CONTRACTS 1. The District is committed to servicing (if feasible) those users within the District's "Potential Service Area - Drainage Basin" as shown on the attached Exhibit No. 2 to the District' s Service Plan. Service to users outside of the service area shall require modification of the Service Plan in accordance with Section 32-1-207, C.R.S. 2. Service to users within the service area shall be subject to the following: 2. 1 Users are to pay all costs of servicing the user' s property including the cost of increased size of lines, line extension, plant modifications or expansions, etc. as set forth in the District' s Rules and Regulations. 2.2 The sale of taps shall be subject to the then existing availa- bility as determined by the capacity of the District' s facilities and plant. Capacity shall be determined by the District' s engineer in conformity with all applicable federal and state regulations. • 2.3 The tract of land to be serviced by the District shall be either included into the District or serviced pursuant to a written service contract in accordance with the District' s Rules and Regula- tions and policies. The size of the tract may be a factor in deter- mining whether the tract shall be included or serviced by contract. 1y 9,31 II � It 1986 870123 L \ r teed Co. PI si I iE i;nmmfssinr 3. The District's Board of Directors shall have the discretion to determine if the tract of land shall be included as a condition to serv- ice. Preference shall be for inclusion of the tract of land if the following factors are present: 3. 1 The tract lies within the service area. 3.2 The tract is contiguous to the District' s existing boundaries. 3.3 Inclusion would be in the best interests of the District as determined by the District's Board of Directors. 3.4 An inclusion agreement is executed between the owner and the District which shall contain, as a minimum, an acknowledgment by the owner that inclusion does not automatically guarantee service to the tract and that service is contingent upon compliance with the Dis- trict's Rules and Regulations and upon the District's capacity. 3. 5 Inclusion shall be contingent upon payment of the inclusion fee in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. 4. If any of the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 are not met, the District' s Board of Directors may enter into a written service contract with the potential user. The written service contract shall : 4. 1 Conform to the requirements and conditions of the District's Rules and Regulations as to rates and fees. 4.2 Provide for payment of all costs of servicing the user' s prop- erty, including the cost of oversizing, extensions, plant modifica- tions , etc. by the applicant subject to rebate in accordance with the District's Rules and Regulations and/or by statute. 2 870123 4.3 Provide for execution of an intergovernmental agreement if a metropolitan or other service district is formed within the area of tract to be serviced. 4.4 Address the issue of possible future inclusion upon the occur- rence of enumerated events (e.g. , contiguity, number of taps sold, retirement of infrastructure indebtedness, etc. ) . 4.5 Provide for a commitment to purchase an established number of taps over a period of time, thus enabling the District to make planning decisions as to retirement of indebtedness, plant capacity, etc. �,. / - G� Adopted: e ,e4, "" / , 1986. 870123 3 of C9<o titiqRICHARD D. LAMM F� �9xa JERIS A. DANIELSON Governor `^ State Engineer /876 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 October 14, 1986 Mr. Keith Schuett Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Bay Shores PUD Dear Mr. Schuett: We have reviewed the additional information submitted on the above referenced project. Our earlier comments still appear applicable. Sincerely, 1. .Hal D.D. Simpson, P.E. Deputy State Engineer HDS/JRH:ma/8620H CDC I 2 01986 1 Weld Co. PlannIng CnnmIISS1n0 870123 PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY P. 0.90% 127 BRIGHTON, COLORADO 80601 October 17, 1985 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Current Planner Department of Planning Services � z1 1`/ fi 915 1Dth Street Greeley, CO. 8D631 OCT 20198g RE: Case 7-430:86:-5 Bay Shores P.U.D. Weld Co.Tlanning Commission Dear Mr. Schuett: This 1-etter is written as response to your 10/3/85 referral , and McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. letter of 10/1/86. On September 10, 1986, Mr. Ken Neff responded to the referenced P.U.D. , stating Panhandle's position on the development; however, since that time, we have had sever-al conversations with Mr. John McCarty and Macy-Mershon Oil , Inc. , and wish to expand upon our previous correspondence. 1 . Regarding the reroute of our facilities, Panhandle will not place our pipeline within County Road right-of—way. The placement can to adjacent to, but not within, the -County right-of-way. 2. We will not allow our pipeline to be located within a utility corrector because of safety re-quirements. The closest we will allow _utilities to our pipeline is 15 feet, tut perferrably 25 feet. 3. If our line is placed 10 feet from a flow line of a concrete curb, it must be understood that iduring the maintenance of our pipeline, access upon that interior street and curb will be permitted. Panhandle is under a gas purchase contract with Macy-Mershon Oil , Inc. to transport natural gas from this acreage to the market place. It is dependent upon Macy-Mershon's drilling oppurtunities per future development in the way of drilling wells, which dictate any future ingress and egress of Panhandle Eastern pipelines. It is perferrabl-e that these future routes te worked out at this time and-made a part of the change in zoni-ng. I wish to thank you for the opportunity to work with Weld County in regards to the Bay Shores P.U.D. Very truly yours, RJCl air/113TR/gw xc: Mr. John A. McCarty Mr. Scott McKinley - Macey-Mershon 870123 File £ DEPAFi ,. ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES - a i F PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 ✓ 915 10th STREET �E EGREELEY,COLORADO 80631 c I yk fir.• COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production facilities. The parcel of land is described as part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union Reservoir. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. Please reply by October 17, 1986, so that we -may give lull consideration to your -recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. _ We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: 4'Cvi'-, „t ).-c12,,,,__ Agency:19.-,_f. Leo f,- ate: / c /t'/ r ;/ ze e-_ e ce 75so c1?,,,-7 a 6 ] cr1 [1 Keith A. SchueCt fl I 9 01986 Current Planner Weld Co. Planning EummisSion 870123 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS N`ENi OF Nk` P.O.Boxt50 C,,5s -r�i �= Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850 4! n (303)353-1232 € ", ,o°roNOctober 14, 1986 ( Weld Co. , Off-Sys. i 2 0 1n Tay Shores P.U.D. 1 Mi. N. of S.H. 119 and a1/2 Mi. E. of Mr. Keith A. Schuett Well Co.-Planning Commission Cdr./Weld Co. Line Department of Planning Services DOH File 45100 Weld County - -915 10th Street Greeley, CO £0631 Dear Mr. Schuett: We have reviewed the Ptetrzak/C.R.S. -Investments zone change request for Bay Shores P.U.D. , and we note that the number of proposed residential units has increased from 424 in the previous submittal to 1,007. This will significantly increase the amount of traffic affec„ing ;he State _ ighway 119/ -County _toad 32 intersection. As indicated in our September 9, 1986, letter, it is necessary to have a detailed traffic impact analysis to help determine the design of improvements at this intersection. In addition to turn lanes on S.H. 119, it is also possible that sufficient traffic to warrant a traffic signal would be generated. _This possibility should also be evaluated in the detailed analysis. There are several sections in the submittal which pertain to traffic impacts and the developer's responsibility _or offsetting those impacts. As indicated in these sections and Exhibits "A" and "B" for 0ffsite -Roadway Improvements, the applicant intends to construct the right- and left-turn acceleration and deceleration lanes at the S.H. ll-9/C.-R. 31/2 intersection with -the first phase of development. In view of this commitment, the Condition No. 26.6.2.4 on P-age 11 should be revised by deletion of the second sentence. We want to emphasize the need for coordination with this office on the traffic impact analysis and the:construction of highway improvements. An Access Permit should be obtained from this office prior to any construction work in the highway right of way. Thank you for the opportunity to review this zone change request. Please contact Wally Jacobson if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ALBERT CHOTVACS DISTRICT 'ENGINEER J oho I�- Crierf, D'strict Planning/Environmental Manager JKC:mbc(WJ) cc: D. Yost Area Foreman 870123 File: Crier-Jacobson via Chotvacs DEPAR1 ...INT OF PLANNING SERVICES y 3 j PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4400 ki 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 o �;a[\7jl I _ OT 2 01986 ta --4-2,4y,• Yield Cu.-Plana GnmlItt Slon COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores -P.U.D. October 3, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a _change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production f-acilities. The parcel of land is described as -part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for - which this application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union Reservoir. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure -prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response from your office is not received, it may he interpreted to mean approval by your office. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. Please reply by Dctober 17, 1986, ao that we ray give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much _for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. We have reviewed the proposal and 'find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. X Please refer to the enclosed letter By: Signed: Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. AgeWSMCJ L'I ate:October 17, 1986 Scott S. McKinley c Keith A. Sehuect Current Planner 870123 r6 / IN/ 4 1T it 2�nIGJ October 17, 1986 t Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services Weld Co. Planning gammas'on 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Mr. Keith A. Schuett, Current Planner Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. Case Number Z-430:86:5 Gentlemen: Pursuant to your letter of October 3, 1986 which accompanied the Change of Zone Submittal for Bay Shores P.U.D. dated October 1986, Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. has reviewed the same and vigorously opposes that portion of the application pertinent to oil and gas development and production based upon the following: 1. Messrs. John McCarty and Kim Collins, at a meeting on September 15, 198i, indicated a willingness to work with Macey & Mershon to solve the issue of protecting the mineral estate. The promised communication from the applicant to address specific } issues did not materialize until the formal application was received with your letter. s 2. The application would allow for only one (1) of a possible nine (9) future wells to be drilled. The remaining eight (8) could be drilled from the open spaces in Parcel A or C, but only with additional costs of drilling and operations of $600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand Dollars) at current prices. The proposed allowance that Macey & Mershon Oil be permitted to develop only twenty percent (20%) of the mineral estate for which time, effort, risk and money have been invested is ludicrous. Macey & Mershon has performed faithfully under the terms of the oil and gas lease granted by Mrs. Susan J. Pietrzak, the current surface owner, COZ applicant and mineral interest lessor. 3. The Affidavit of Interest Owners-Mineral and/or Subsurface signed by Mr. Jonathan Zimmerman (dated October 3, 1986) is incomplete. MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. Sui 2150 • 1600 BR0ADAAI • DENVER. COLOHADU 80202-4970-0 {303) 861 8183 870123 Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services October 17, 1986 Page 2 4. The additional lessors, lessees, mineral and overriding royalty interest owners who derive revenue from the minerals under the subject property will be notified by copy of this letter and we surmise that those individuals may wish to respond to the application. Macey & Mershon is very appreciative that the Weld County Department of Planning Services requested input regarding the oil and gas portion of the application. It was our hope, based upon the results of the September 15, 1986 meeting, that the applicants/developers and Macey & Mershon could work together to address, understand and resolve mineral interest development to our mutual satisfaction. Since the results are otherwise, Macey & Mershon Oil hereby requests that the application be denied. Please advise if further information may be required to further evaluate our position. We will be at the November 4, 1986 hearing and available to speak to the Planning Committee. Very truly yours, MAC & MEALI HONOI INC. .)� Scott S. McKinley Landman cc: Robert J. Clair Zenith Drilling Corporation John McCarty Ted E. Amsbaugh W. B. Macey Barry L. Snyder Mershon, Inc. Stephen B. Evans Barrett Energy Company _ Susan J. Pietrzak Excel Energy Corporation Calvin Petroleum Corporation Alarado Resources Limited Miller Resources Corporation Murray J. Herring 870123 DEPART "NT OF PLANNING SERVICES sYeEr PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 915 10th STREET /'� GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 .4 ® • COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production facilities. The parcel of land is described as part of the NI of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union Reservoir. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. Please reply by October 17, 1986, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be / submitted prior to 3. ✓ • 3Pleease refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: C \ Agency: v j lJ\o)1,-e Date: ir-in g6 Keith A. Schueit �� _�..� 1.`"/.� Curreut Planner 2 01986 Weld Co. Planning Commission 870123 STATE OF COLORADO Richard D. Lamm, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES C��p1L4 DIVISION OF WILDLIFE67. James B. Ruch, Director b e i - H 6060 Broadway `rip �v� Denver, Colorado 80216 'yOF Telephone: (303)297-1192 OCtOber 11, 1986 Larry Rogstad, District Wildlife Manager 1528 28th ave ct Greeley, Colorado 80631 352-2143 Mr. Keith Schuett, Planner CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Weld County Planning Department Bay Shores P.U.D. 915 10th street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: District Wildlife Manager, Ron 0ehlkers, and I did an on site assessment of the Pietrzak Farm on 10/9/86, Ron is the D.W.M. in Longmont, and is familiar with the recreational and wildlife uses in the area around Union Reservoir. Ron expressed several concerns akout the proposed zoning change from Agricultural to P.U.D. .Jnd the development of a residential subdivision to the south east of Union Reservoir. Wildlife species of principal concern in this case are: waterfowl (ducks and geese), pheasants, rabbits, and furbearers, and to a lesser degree deer. Pietrzak farm is on a flyway between Union Reservoir, and the St. Vrain bottomland. Geese and ducks feed in the fields and pass over the farm throughout the fall, winter, and spring. Hunters hunt the waterfowl along the shore of the reservoir, and the railroad right of way. Development of a residential community on the Pietrzak prop- erty would probably change -the use along this flyway and feeding area. Certainly, there would be conflicts between hunters and home owners. Placement of blinds on the lake is such that shot fallout would rain onto the homes. The rail road right of way, and the several ditches that pass through the farm pro- vide resting and nesting habitat for pheasants and rabbits. Development, concrete ditch lining as an example, will reduce nesting area with a resultant drop in the pheasant population. The right of ways also provide a "wildlife highway system" through the property. Skunks, racoon and deer all frequently use these travel 'corridors. Development of the P.U.D, would present a barrier for deer movements in this area. On the other hand, skunk and racoon populations would fare well as the development proceeded. Both skunks and racoons feed extensively on human refuse and on the pet food left out for dog and cats. Generally residential developments in agricultural areas suffer chronic skunk, racoon and rodent infestations. The Division of Wildlife will not be responsible for these problems at the Bay Shore P.U.D; Ron's greatest concern is with land use trends in the area around Union Reservoir. Currently this area is rural and agricultural. The nearest residential development is the east edge of Longmont, approximately three miles to the west. When you stand on the Pietrzak farm you are in the country. A residential development on this farm DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, David R. Getches, Executive Director• WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Timothy W. Schultz, Chairman Rebecca L. Frank, Vice Chairman • George VanDenBerg, Secretary• Richard.Divelbiss, Member• Donald A. Fernandez, Member Robert L. Freidenberger, Member• John Lay, Member• James T. Smith, Member 870123 would, by itself, probably not harm the waterfowl population. The damage to wildlife would occur as a result of the statement the Planning Commission would make, if it decides to change the zoning from Agricultural to P.U.D. R-land R-2. This would set a precedent for other land owners. The area around Union Reservoir would be ripe for residential subdivision. The Planning Commission could not deny other requests for zoning changes in the area because of this precedent. If the land in this area is changed to a series of subdivisions, with increased traffic and increased numbers of domestic dogs and cats we would see a drop in waterfowl, pheasant and rabbit populations. Goose problems would arise as the geese fed on the blue grass lawns. In short, the wildlife would suffer by large scale development in the area around Union Reservoir. The development plan men- tions the fact that the area has a panoramic view of the front range. We need to be certain that as we develop areas like Union Reservoir that we consider the future needs for recreational lands, and places of aesthetic value. Once an area is developed it is almost impossible to redeem these qualities. The Division feels the developers of Bay Shore P.L'.D. have not looked at the wildlife needs in this area, nor hate they adequately addressed the future recreational needs, i.e. parks and open space development on this property. Therefore, we do not agree with the proposed zoning change. As always, the Division of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to make comments to your department Sincerely yours, Larry Rogstad cc/ Ron Oehlkers, District Wildlife Manager Carl Leonard, Area Wildlife Manager Di 1^ (I' & 198S 870123 r� Weld Co. IMaroirg Crmmissira 1EMORAnDU To Weld County Planning Dace Oc er 14. 1986 COLORADO From Health Protection Services W subject: Case Number: Z-430:86:5 Name: Bay Shores P.U.D. Pietrzak, Robert & Susan J. Health Protection Services has reviewed this proposal and recommends for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Sewage disposal is required to be by -a municipal sewage system. St. Vrain Sanitation District shall specifically commit to servicing the development prior to final approval of the P.U.D. By Direction of Ralph R. Wooley, M.D. D I•~ r 7�17� OCT 201986 Weld to. ?tanning cemmissiaa 870123 k r qn ..Lux• ,•34 , q '. � /^ �. a 4--*' air ,s k;: CITY OF L0NGM0NT Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 776-6050, Extension 330 November 3, 1986 OLORA9O Mr. Keith A. Schuett Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: The City of Longmont is concerned about the proposed Bay Shores PUD for several reasons. In addition to the planning impacts previously addressed, Longmont has interests from another perspective - that of the potential owner of stock in Union Reservoir Company. 1. The enlargement potential of the Union Reservoir could be negated or at least make much more difficult with the development of the proposed subdivision. There is limited existing potential for water storage in the St. Vrain Basin, and the Union Reservoir is one of the viable sites. The City of Longmont needs additional storage capacity and opposes any development which would preclude potential water storage. 2. The increase of -population in the area could change the rating of the Union Reservoir dam to a high hazard status, greatly increasing liability and standards of maintenance. 3. Drainage and runoff from the subdivision is a concern, not only in terms of restricting amount to historical levels, but also with regard to the water quality. Adjacent development would negatively affect water quality. Weld County is respectfully urged to consider these concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input. V y truly yours, 4; 2.we ey, City Manager 870123 svgs -ST VRAIN C LEFT HAND WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT November 3, 1986 PRESIDENT Vernon E. Peppier Mr. Keith A. Schuett Director at Large Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th Street VICE PRESIDENT Greeley, Co. 80631 George Patterson District? RE: Case Number Z-430 : 86 : 5 SECRETARY Dear Mr. Schuett: Frank E. Gould District 5 The St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy TREASURER District has some concerns regarding the proposed Bay Harold Nelson Shores P.U.D. District 1 The City of Longmont may become an owner of Union David Macy Reservoir and their ownership could, in time, lead to DirectoratLarge an expansion of Union Reservoir. The St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District supports any potential Leslie Williams slieWi increase in water storage within the District' s boundaries . Glenn H.James The agricultural community has had a good relationship District3 with the City of Longmont over the years. In particular, the City has rented surplus raw water to the farming Harold Leonard community and an expansion of Union Reservoir could very District2 well benefit the farmer by making more rental water available. Bruce Kester District 6 We feel that any encroachment by a subdivision onto the possible dam expansion site should be avoided. Any EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR proposed subdivision should not be located below the darn. Barb Poquette The location below the dam will result in a change of SECRETARY rating to high hazard. We feel that subdivisions should Cynthia Einspahr be located away from reservoir spillways and drainage areas. LEGAL COUNSEL Grant, Bernard, Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input. &Lyons We hope Weld County will consider our concerns . CONSULTING Sincerely, ENGINEER • Rocky Mountain ST. VRAIN & LEFT HAND Consultants, Inc. Robert C. Brand WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT jejc///dad Leslie J. Williams Jr. Executive Director 870 023 500 Coffman Street, Suite 106 Longmont, Colorado 80501 c7 (303) 772-4060 N' FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: Z-430:86:5 DATE OF INSPECTION: /^G .2K- !- NAME: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N1 of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County LAND USE: N 7-, --4 vru S ZONING: N cet LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles east of E Longmont; north of State Highway 119 andri S east of Weld County Road 3 W COMMENTS: 870123 DEPARC NT OF PLANNING SERVICES ri PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4400 915 10th STREET 1 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 �� • COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 ' TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 1 Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. lInvestments, for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned i Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production facilities. The parcel of land is e described as part of the NI of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this Iapplication has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union ' Reservoir. I I This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would 0 be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. I If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to ' mean approval by your office. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. Please reply by October 17, 1986, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. i 1. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed c�i ilri _ Agency)ti�c. y .,.,�. ,pr::l, Date:,, _-5-,_,y(- _,a,_ ✓ 13t- xo c/1 # Keith A. 5chuect Current Planner h. C : S INVESTMENTS Ir 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER. COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 D I I Jr1 l . 'j Litl October 29, 198b „ J9SS Mr. Scott S. McKinley Macey & Mershon Oil, Inc. Weld Co. Planning Commission 1600 Broadway, Suite 2150 Denver, Colorado 80202-4970 Re: Bay Shores PUD, Case No. Z-430:86:5 Dear Mr. McKinley: I am writing on behalf of CRS Investments Inc. regarding the above application and your letter to the County Planning Department regarding this. As you are aware, the law in Colorado does not permit an owner of a mineral interest to prevent use of the' land by the surface owner. The proposal by CRS to allow a permanent future drilling site for Macey & Mershon plus -open space locations is in our opinion more than adequate since your company has not shown any interest in developing this resource under your current oil and gas lease. It would be unreasonable to allow additional sites for any length of time. Your lease will expire by its own terms if production should ever cease. We will be watching you closely in that regard. However, in the interest of cum_remise, we are agreeable to giving you additional sites which will only be open for your use for one year from the date of this letter. If you wish to meet with us on what we think is a reasonable proposal , please let us know. We are not going to give up any more of our surface rights or any cash consideration for a resource you never seriously plan to develop. We await your resfronse and look forward to a productive meeting. As you are aware, the new proposed regulations of the Oil and Gas Commission support our position in protecting our surface rights, and will require your agreement with the surface owner before coamencing a drilling operation or as an alternative . 2 870123 r Mr. Scott S. McKinley Page 2. October 29, 1986 will require a bond in amount which may be necessary to restore the surface. Our proposal accordingly, is quite reasonable. Sincerely, CPS INVE S I . e- C. Roger Seaton President CRS/kel cc: Harvey Curtis, Esq. John McCarty Keith A. Schuett f 870123 • N.L.t \ ' ��`R .. , a .r .,:. .. �3iL► �,—;. .. •s.., .. ~ �.WL�s��y wr s DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT V PLANNING DIVISION Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 776-6050, Extension 330 pGLORP'90 October 13, 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: The City of Longmont is very concerned about the latest proposal for the Bay Shores PUD. None of the concerns that we initially expressed in our letter of June 19, 1986,to Ms. Dunn have been addressed by this latest proposal , which more than doubles the number of units. A high density, urban development at this location will be detrimental to the development concentrated around the SH119 Interchange, as well as the City of Longmont, as it will lead to the extremely inefficient provision of services to the future residents of the area. It will also have very detrimental effects on surrounding agricultural uses. We respectfully urge Weld County to fully consider all the impacts, particu- larly the offsite traffic impacts. We believe that the trip distribution on Road 26, presented by the applicant, is too low, since people living in the development would use this road westbound when heading to Skyline High School , Northeast Junior High, the Longmont United Hospital , the FAA facility, neigh- borhood shopping facilities and all other destinations in Longmont north of 9th Avenue. If the applicant is not required to improve the road, we believe that it will have to be done by Weld County in the future. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into this process and look forward to continuing our cooperation with 41eld County. Since ely, /, ✓'i ;,�Y/G2� Brian J. Miller, AICP Planner III BJM/kmh File: #3050-12 . ` 198 S Nell' ca. Piauamk i:::mnnssinu 870123 FITIP )-7\ff �T CHEY & SCHEY, P.C. il - `;i ;, 1986 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LL FST.1901 �c,n/ THEODORE D.SCHEY,�JR. THE PREMIERE BUILDING NEIL E.PILLER �•1FBd Zn. &Wag_£14{1DS$IUP 700 FLORIDA AVENUE DONALD H.ALSPAUGH SUITE P-300 PHILLIP S.WONG P.O.BOX 167 JAMES H.NELSON October 30 , 1986 LONGMONT,COLORADO/0502-0267 TELEPHONE:13031776-3511 JACOB S.SCHEY(1551-1963) METRO:1303)442-6081 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Weld County Planning Department -915 10th Street -Greeley , Colorado 80631 Re : Bay Shores P.U. D. Oligarchy Ditch Dear Mr. Schuett : Pursuant to your letter of October 3 , 1986 , I am writing on behalf of the Oligarchy Ditch Company with respect to the most recent Change of Zone proposal far Bay Shores P.U.D. The submittal addresses the Oligarchy Ditch on pages four and ten , specifically . The Applicant states at page four , a meeting was held on September 30 , 1986 , between the Oligarchy Board of Directors , Mr. Kim -Collins , and Mr. John McCarty to discuss the concerns about the development whichthe Oligarchy voiced in response to prior rezoning submittals for Bay Shores. The results of that meeting are accurately reflected by the Applicants report as it appears on page four ; however , I would like to elaborate on those points and also mention some other conditions upon which the Oligarchy would insist for their approval of a relocation of their ditch to be given. First , it is the position of the Ditch Company that they are not opposed to rezoning of the land from agricultural to P.U.D. residential nor to ultimate relocation of their ditch as long as a number of conditions could be met. Those conditions are as follows : 1 . Protection from Increased Liability. It has been the unfortunate experience of the Ditch Company that when urban areas are developed around the Ditch, people are attracted to the water in the Ditch as a recreational opportunity. The Oligarchy has done everything it can to warn people of the dangerous nature of its ditch and has attempted various means to discourage access without great success . The development of a residential area around an existing ditch creates a risk of personal injury to the residents of the neighborhood , particularly children. The fore- most concern of the Oligarchy is therefore obtaining some form of protection for the increased liability to which it will he 870123 exposed . As I advised Mr. McCarty and Mr. Collins , this is a very significant problem for which there is no easy solution and I am not altogether certain it can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Oligarchy Board . The Oligarchy is unalterably opposed to any plan which represents the ditch to be a recreation asset for property owners in the P.U.D. because of this liability problem. 2 . Preservation of Historic Runoff . The Oligarchy Board would insist that appropriate designs be adopted to insure that the historic runoff of water from the Bay Shores land into the ditch not be increased as a result of the residential development. The Oligarchy would want any plans addressing this condition reviewed and approved by an expert of its choice. 3 . Lining of Ditch. As another condition for its approval , the Oligarchy would require the Ditch to be lined with concrete in accordance with designs approved by its own engineers . 4 . Deed of Land . The Oligarchy also advised the developer that its approval would be contingent upon receiving fee simple title to the land upon which its ditch is located plus 16-1/2 feet on either side , measured from each bank top, for access purposes. 5. Protection of Downstream Facilities. The lining of the Ditch will result in an increase in the velocity of water moving downstream. It has been the experience of the Oligarchy that when its ditches are lined within a subdivision , significantly greater pressure is directed to downstream ditch facilities which are outside of the development boundaries. The Oligarchy would therefore require the developer to incorporate improvements that would eliminate any risk of damage to downstream ditch facilities and adjacent properties. Again these designs would require review and approval by experts representing the Oligarchy. 6. Lateral Ditches. Lateral ditches which branch off of the main Oligarchy within the P.U. D. to sarvice shareholders in the Oligarchy would have to be preserved in accordance with their historic rights , including maintenance access . 7 . Fees. Finally , the Oligarchy would require as a condition of its consent that any engineering , legal and other fees for experts incurred by it in regard to the Bay Shores development be paid by the developer . 2 870123 These are the major conditions which the Oligarchy can now foresee which must be satisfied for the Board to give its approval . The Board is willing to work with the developer in good faith to try to reach an agreement on these issues and any others that may arise. However , the Weld County Planning and -Zoning Board should be advised that an agreement may not ultimately be possible even with good faith efforts , particularly because of the concern over increased liability exposure by the Ditch Company. Very truly yours , SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C . �.pi A eil E. Pi ler NEP: lm cc : Mr . John McCarty The Oligarchy Ditch Board 870123 3 Af(aiit , Ga, ursda 10 .30 86 g. 41111, &k1 it rent 2/annex' Svc:rfrng of /anrlixe inerYiecr - 0)aa„If�ti 9/s /oF Si. 0 _ Greet', Ca. - 806_3! 1986 'i fear 4T, Sc4uet: Weld Co. Alawuun commission �e•' . Say SXores CJ z - Case A(rm6er Z- 43O. ad S. _ _ er your refuesf ir - the C'aicerni -7 e Gea/ Meer r To/A /h affilinan delay/s pJLiOllowf: _ /. $//roaQls die neresrary arromm0c671 .ie /reels oi.k^g /Li 9ertrafe ids dm( Aka/74 Ar "saee/'le i clusf ies , --services, an( /ivuri i the fat /iair g,-f%laref err fa( is s,/a//afc( a/c q dua( �4j4e07 /19 —a'4 _k re ax-fie neY4 & fie Greg/ ergs wledzr. �anlnq 41-5 �ro�er/r : a/ oe 7%er __fan inr(uc/ria/ a/ou/c(_ 6e _irtconrPaf,66 w,/l i/ in/i erenf Valaa . ar economic _ 2 . Wei( m'lure s s/irinA nq due % 1/14-0‘/S/e /,'kwe so( -an _ C_1 inflect, 6y nid�r Co7rr,'er n&pe>!•/ o�urlhp' /�(e P`�ieserIc �� ue i fit/us . - Once $'e l pricer _ dailies 4ntandf 7aruPor/alio+‘ will i>c1edse on /4 fu 'yiy, /rarAaje 3. / cz1lroaols ,Drovicle /oaJ cost` kWh 7ranspoifaf ar( service! /4,21 - 870123 connot cecczorrnfocr c ovn 1�e �i,�4c✓a�s ; //e ellfeyna(.ve Z, 6Ja/er /r&&nt prla I scax . C/ardo is one • ofla/ _11/4117 4/1 owf! rlaY J/e r�r %revoys ; _ /err ire gr -54 Te ,this J red / t�^¢,6asI< //gait/ej � _ 1'dl ✓oac�s In arnle� _� �/tract" Ile cesr7 /0 prevent crfer era/for( of kJ 1)d4 _. enlpl/rtj wit ‘d/it4 !7 furn__sap/ 01i �`iC ercifo 'i(' esAtls men l. 4_.-_S e gas Shore! proposal _'s--noi. on f -eowiranmemlJncvmfa>=/1 W,/4 / e prp-r'es ' _ ,'AeYen/ irldcc/ dl -_ r r ,. 41/ 't temoic1 -- . yet an filey Eve/I - %c{ Ia,"l- poieer5 lent %r'C700.t ;n✓ /1T< 7 nee essery 719 /breven _ rtl4'er cfs,crOleOr/una/e - t`Si/ es �/ eroscon of 41�-- eC0170171/( _ �'D1611//dI. 870123 h4117115 : /3y J!'�'YPI dC�rd r S le de I/no r �_ �r/ ff// JJ por,cif. I Oor, J .;ime scar- ersou15 .__ , am y a, fl(77 4w e1picer,'ifnf wadi 4. RI fit/ 1;lei riJ o , /Ls r;10o.:(J7c 5 1442ti ha/isl ' —Lye r,-(e5 A, 0( a do Ie.!ce.ii/sokKic/i� . {rags ref se <71 n4_ v.0/ 47 era,I_- /cca1rls-- c7}1%:7I1sm ir, h frit ,7 roe.iR7 Aa55.,a 7fra-7 � , 07/so are of fre;snit urfIf cr ea(2Y'4e.ril /ri C1ek)s_ �J b. o'acti . % apse;rs - _A e oni ier erg /r,11eo( :e 13" ,'sec7no ��-__gores . Me GGc//2� s c,onceni c. �` I __ ;Jou( __LTA of '/cris a ,-Tdeg'ciool 7Oraf c - _ he - /1"ves .73fal 5/ rest 1/4,1771;1; Canpowiled _ _4, incI of Ai eJ "rcen ent d rat/r0al grsde CrafP4s (' J j C . /1;e 1:yrPg it d re eXF ec/ed p f edif<er c(141;13-1 _ r / _ J r7 f/ _/le- . r-��1/wff f sx} roc�e/nq _ Msccrynce 06 R_ ns . di aces iwiS c?Yi5e concern( Ca./R5., 3rBents of. _ - ( ) easerY\chfs a,nK Camptill 4e /00 Y/ /f i 870123 �f waj // .sutr��ir74.- l frl- la's/ / n s1&1 , /-,-)„,2' a nn, er5 o dVise %'cv /?O00 'd /5000 v %;le CooMS/r 5 fees 17 /J71 2ccefr oYer GaiR ire?eEs . I. Gv SeYvice /3 eaiec1©( Sporn .fie resfq-P11 f/� %rains Pr c/a,• , 1/706veo( <n /AA-51,A . cf%rQ _-f (74)- • /6157: —<n- (7P11nfri it h/!/ _ /LO//I7s_- — Gei - re railing - o at . /o fir,:en - Gl)1s pr Jaya e,oir iderr/'ae, is aso 6e/i^, JrYeik /3 rad Gasleiljer' - J service_ hi /G�e area _. anct •.M OIa2 - d f ill saltahm,( dal Yrwi i 1/�� One d?r, ZP .2: 94-ri eci c . Grp/ .. v,eki5 // ` .), slrF5 g /w lit/cl L74r. i jS r?Qu rr; in 4 q e I�1s rV /- e Is,eerirw� cl arrp�( ,i. , o n urJer ass- . ,ppears /ease corf/y. —, -_ �f � r d. 7G- SeQaraf A rs_ red"ect ( 6-k72ys — Yesources rot . tiprient io - 6/4 c71W Dhif /IL Croirizc Sucre.., s13n,i;s, , ,:2 -,6( 127 E, (jrc6r owC;rccin/J?rice ) can C(Jl2r 07CR), rile pia/rose"__- Vok:z'e vet; Gs -a isit-c - wi4c4u / s )f sins f F,r041 All 4e NI(WMI G:( �6O4 Via,,, /a6,/.7 ..n /le crrf rum ) r7 Cai/ reel G((3/�'FS5 /5 /a1 stir{/sea ) 777eya�rl e �ie5 may 14" 54 A/ ate P / 'd)ser;1er serw;cc arcs - 870123 1. (c � c . vW��Y v vekis 4e Cross Ind _ ce/ 2 SA - s pr V&A -''ryer5, d/?di a cN,o2)yeP /rL // Irofee/ve GCS'vice! a,(4/ coil ix O/ t 7/7/ A re7er,re /fie ye,/wys _ C'vrrcrfYtulce f8cAyea ,c of 2i,ii-c_ Ro?,,ots t, rrna Seek _70 SCi�,00tG' c_ qr c(e Crosn,tz seizrat yk c 7 . ac _4 rc/ag/% lXe . LJ1 -3/lutes prof afa( /17,3/eriak . g, r/ ri'1'raT . J eigr5 ofP_ClrNC _.s4L(ij pl 6-Tha . l`rdik s/�'uc(c'( _ hic/sf alsu De �Can riJC ereo( Sores / ?C Oevelo 'moil' rr4i e , / In ;ca�es/ - to.4 .3%; //K tecogiie� a ,� �1 Yo/civic dr7(erioe rac�7c7Wdy. f iclr� r"1 Saf'prfs /h /?eel ff. a' (3M-1e (-Tosith Sc' ard44c• l J l CJ 870123 6. Jum,mcz.r� / / CV/-21 Gel 4191 % C in, �'i.) /zi es 71; 077;7 n 4;45 A'Y J� n.,�' - 1 ei71.4Dr a" � Cooke/e in eNJxe tars /9175/_-r �, i7mccm1/ a.� /M e , Lie_ r�,/✓� nas- J // r,(.4Cc 5a r4 _ expreshoot'S. IMP ^ifeW fey avt4 e?r V l^�f c✓r;4 , Cde _ K/ar%� a -re_irse - 6(4 R510 r /1 IRTres/ e Cc,r� O%Im/i S c p)(_ _ 7(0 (/(7e _ Ms's (0/moil <7n 7e Order a:227-1-yenvice )a /. G-one 7�e Sores flroPPJPc-47 Era/De o-j _ _Zhc-7as/14( .:e s7do�_ 3 _ .0e7 any{ / r _ A r, crr(rrrrd( di ��S 7 ,l / Z. i. G one prorcr'4 le7(uinr .MAJv _//9 P2 ( 61,i/RR �i os/r a ! a I"( pre/Deli) Ylprq c/ 6aftir ,4eep i gr/cu//c(rwl r ‘''f,/reseal . -__-/ J /VC COMi.der ) •rui cl pa erly et5a, d�tahie _- 70 t�e QV7 eY__fxr _ irc(ccs riul Ii/- us .Sr7es _ 074 at'P prPP km ( fa Coraa � 1'7 "// /ep p/cMn7(_ /a Rc ve A's LY1ro re /✓'tray a"/lr?C11 _1 L7, faro. fc7 J rrMc45. e'le5 as 0�AosEC� 7os/r, /r € i,10(crsf/a tr 9: er 10 )e$/ ert`• � 1cv'l a 870123 y, OOH— nenctA.P11 /P (..7r1/4,7a1PSI'vn AiilloJa I WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 449 209 FIRST NATIONAL BANN BUILDING GREELEY COLO. 80632 GREELEY. COLORADO (3031 353-1292 November 3 , 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett �- 1986 Current Planner Department of Planning Services 915 - 10th St . Planolnuocn!u+ssioa Greeley , CO 80631 V1eIdCa - Re : Case Number Z-430 : 86 : 5 Bay Shores PUD Dear Mr. Schuett: Representatives of Union Reservoir met with the developer and had a very satisfactory meeting. The parties hope that some of the reservations expressed in the October 16 , 1986 letter can be worked out . On the location of lots , if appropriate provision is made to buffer or protect the access onto the lake from trespass , the platting of lots next to the lake could be feasible . If any houses are put in along the shore , adequate provisions must be made for claims against company for seep , erosion and dust blowing from exposed shorelines . The lot owners next to the lake must execute or have in their deeds some form of waiver , disclaimer or release directed to the reservoir company not only for accidents from drowning, but also for the storage of gas and oil. The plans in this development show there would be about 1500 linear feet adjacent to the reservoir where houses would be located . The concerns expressed in the letter of October 16 regarding the inability to obtain liability insurance remains a severe problem. Any relocation of the road should be designed to reduce and discourage access to the lake . The silt and storm run-off into the lake , and the problems of water entering the reservoir from the subdivision should be controlled by detention ponds and other means . It is the understanding of the Union Reservoir Company that the proposed open space next to the lake has been deleted from the present plans and proposal . 870123 A v Mr. Keith A. Schuett November 3 , 1986 Page 2 Lots developed next to the lake would be better protection for the reservoir recreation operators by requiring some type of fence , or requiring the lot owners to all become members of whatever re- creational organization would use the lake . If any wall or riprap material was used, appropriate aesthetic principles must be addressed. The biggest problem discussed at the meeting, without any definite answer for it , is the proposal for Longmont to acquire a major interest in Union Reservoir, and in connection therewith to raise the water level as much as 15 feet . If this proposal were undertaken , any houses placed within that 15 foot area would have to be moved out voluntarily or through emminent domain proceedings . Additionally the re-located road may have to be moved again. The awkward problem is that the developers hope to commence construction in the spring of 1987 and it is unknown at this time the position to be taken by Longmont and the parties who have acquired majority control of Union Reservoir Company. It would be useless to change the road, build a large number of houses bordering the lake and then in a short time have to remove the houses and re-locate the road, because the lake level is raised. Yours very truly, William H. Southard WHS : dl 870123 JA\ UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. 1�I>_1�I P.O. BOX 929 (303) 659-0551 0//Uo Brighton, Colorado 80601 ENTERPRISE 222 ` Di) z4i J November 4, 1986 �; ., , 1 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett, Current Planner 'field Ce. Thant LiemlihlSsinir Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D., Case Number Z-430:86:5 Dear Mr. Schuett: As McCarty Engineering has correctly noted in its development plan narrative, Union Rural Electric Association, Inc. will provide electric power to Bay Shores. Union acknowledges the change in density limitation proposed for the development. Neither that change nor any other issue addressed in the plan narrative will alter Union's ability to serve the development. Union's greatest concern at this stage of development is the recognition of existing easements and electric facilities as well as the provision for future easements. There are currently two (2) electric lines located within the proposed development. One is an overhead line located along the east side of Road 31; the other is an underground line along the southeast side of Calkins Lake. Enclosed are copies of the particular easements for those lines. Union regrets its tardiness in responding to the planning process for this case. However, Union did not receive the narrative from the county until November 3, 1986, when it was picked up at your office. Regardless of the timing, Union supports the proposed development and urges its approval by the respective county agencies. Sincerely, UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. 2 e /7„1„....tre,c. Bill Meier Right-of-Way Engineer BM/slt ec: McCarty Engineering 870123 "A Consumer-Owned Utility Serving Five Front Range Colorado Counties" Gwendolyn E. r,Veat'1 n. yK k:+cc+ceJ ai 1 ot:vci.._1..i.-..- ' Rae. No r' nr%�+i tl won Saor'er, 3accrdw RIO-HT-OF-WAY EASEMENT j_ The undersigned Grantor for the consideration of sTive ($5 . 00)Dollars, hereby grants, bargains and conveys unto UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., its successors, assigns and agents, a Right-Of-Way Easement, and the right to construct, operate, maintain, replace, enlarge, reconstruct, improve, inspect, repair, and remove such electrical facilities and appurtenances thereto, either above ground or underground,as said Union Rural Electric Association, Inc. may from time to time require on, over, under and across the following described strip of land which the undersigned Grantor owns, or in which the undersigned has an interest, to-wit: DESCRIPTION Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Nuarter. of Section 5 , Township 2 North, Range 68 West. This easement is to be on the south side of the county road situated on thn n „ hl SITUATE in the County of WPjd State of Colora ltogether With til9pf14llo'''""t, � g rights: (a) of ingress and egress over and across the lands of the undersigned to and from the above describe atrlp-f purpose of exercising the rights herein granted; (b) to place location markers on or beyond said stripp.- (g) t5( clear and keep cleared all trees, roots, brush, and other obstructions from the said strip, without Grantee being ohl4 ht01.tbhtyIllte);iri(lfl1Rtx!piermit other public utilities to attach wires and fixtures to above-ground electrical facilities or to use trenches jointly in the event of underground installation; and (e) to open and re-close any fences crossing said strip or, when agreed to by Grantor, to install gates and stiles in such fences- THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, reserves the right to occupy, use and cultivate said strip of land for all purposes not inconsistent with the rights herein granted to Union Rural Electric Association, Inc. and does hereby covenant that no structures shall be erected or permitted on said strip and that said strip shall not be used in any manner which will interfere with or damage the electrical facilities installed pursuant to this grant, or interfere with the maintenance, repair and replacement of said facilities or any of the facilities or others in joint use. UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. shall originally place all underground electrical facilities at least Eighteen ( 18 ) inches deep in order to reduce the possibility of interference with the ordinary and reasonable use of said land by the undersigned Grantor, and to pay for damages to fences, landscaping, and growing crops arising from the construction and maintenance of the electrical facilities and appurtenances thereto constructed, operated, main- tained, replaced, enlarged reconstructed, improved, repaired or removed in accordance with this easement. l Cy,, Signed and sealed this / c' day of ' f It C L k i.t-¢' A.D., 19 'f 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement all as of the day and year first above written, GRANTOR(S)• - n UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. ec e i(-rxt1'�' C�f ri- (.A tt}( {{L.s.) r/ By: - (L-S.) President Title Title if Officer* *If other than president, vice president, partner or owner, a power of attorney must accompany contract. STATE OF COLORADO ) The foregoing instrument was acknowjeY7w • Y fore?ms1 Chts s s 30th day Janucr 3 ^ COUNTY OF=wnLD ? ,t-.• 19L.e._i, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heDeutzti t'�i tha'n d• V' ?- official seal. 'J- id/A, \titrt1L � a Notary Public.** :•••'\, h•,,,,ft••... . "> 2 My commission expires January 16, _, ]972 CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF COLORADO ) The foregoine instrument was acknowledged before me this s OtF1 day, February 1r 0 COUNTY OR Adams Joseph ^.-reen Presiden t IN WITNE'SS411EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and e-"SJfieial seal. U / �= 4F � J' 3 - t* = . 0 ; Notary Public •�Jy:'coniniissa e Tres January 16, 1872 ]-59 a ry 870123 L. fL it Li I I i J ki. /Lif7?l=a4T J 7:. EASEMTNT KNOW ALL LEN Si THESF PRESENTS, That the undersigned c c fa,.' a good and m.luable cone1deration, the receipt wit? ' f 13 hereby acknowledged does hereby grant unto UNION RURAL :-1L 'CRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. , a corporation, ..7h09e postoffice ad rest j.s 3ri„hton, Colorado, end to its successors End assigns, the Liza ; to enter upon the lands of the undersigned, situated in the County of �e.0 , State of Colorado and more particularly described as follows ; 7/, W. ! , c T R ‘ Y ry and to place, construct, operate, repEir, maintain, relocate and replace thereon and in or upon all street , roads or highways abutting said lands en elet4Srbc transmission or distribution line or system, and to cut and trim trees and shrubbery to the extent necessary to keep them clear of said electric line or system and to cut down from time to time all dead, weak, leaning or dangerous trees thet are tall enough to strike the wires in falling.The described lendsnandsthatdthevsz id lendst he is are freene and.lclear.er fofiie above eicumbrance and liens of whatsoever character except those held by following persons: It is further understood that, whenever necessary, words used in this instrument in the singular shell be construed to read in the plural and that works used in the masculine gender shell be construed to read in the feminine. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand and seal thist0 ].,,„ day of 19 5LO . STATE OF COLORADO ) SS COUNTY 01a64,—....„ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day o f$1 199p_by dr- �n — Witness my bend and offfpici�aall seal. DJ commission expires J6yco KALCEWc Nnr SM� 27l /L Acams Ca ry u^ty, Color�lgt-' r Public. ' Y Commiss:on expu.s Fc5�., 19ti1 870123 CASE SUMMARY Z-430:26:5 Bay Shore -Planned Unit Development 6-5-26 Application and related materials were submitted for a sketch plan for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) and Recreational Uses. 7-28-86 A letter dated July 25, 1986, was mailed to the applicant from the 1epartment of Planning Services review and recommendations for the Sketch Plan. 8-15-86 An application for a Change of Zone and related materials were submitted to the Department of Planning Services. 2-19-86 The staff determined that the application and related materials were incomplete for a Change of Zone application. $-25-86 The applicants' representative was informed the application was incomplete. 8-28-86 Applicants' representative informed staff that they wanted the change of zone case to be considered by the Planning Commission on September 16, 1986 8-29-86 A letter dated August 29, 1986, stating items that are incomplete for the application of a Planned Unit Development Change of Zone were given to Mr. John McCarty, McCarty Engineering Consultants, and Mr. Kim Collins, C.R.S. Investments. 8-29-86 The Change of Zone case was setup and referrals were mailed out. 9-3-86 Mr. McCarty delivered additional materials for the Change of Zone application. This information was mailed out to the referral agencies. 870123 Q • x. p V 25 x• t- x• . sy;ret ' , .. :> I s.•• i r� �., • •k AAA • �••' • 6 • , \-271—K,_, G 1 �s° •• ral y ,• u C a F-• ; g. G. F, Y� p �. .,0--e-lip' 7 '. is .oe .$?,• t o 1• •:• 2 , 0`Y �1'P A r•:� • L •i ,t d' C • al 4 .S��x= �� I i • • Ac.� t ra �.k 1':gi le,I 99 i -• • i . .99 .�r. G, Lh\ x ��1 , '� e1 L'viuE $e L: i0..a •G GP SdAm L -'^Res'�rylf x r• 23 2 • t x x .i. >x > / ' zv = �Y c •teTh 1 II aC'� G ,o 1';� t I. (tN�� ,.i �'461•30,5 k Ytt .Ct`Y ^,6 • // �-,7`, • a..a...�,._� i; \ f ;viii. • ■ 1—. 4 = i 47 » 3. i. b » CRCX�MT[ N w• Cam.'- 2 •.<. I 0 Qri of r G. I O G3 • I • F tI � Y r �t}�� G• •„, A L •� xx x> i • _ 0 Y L+ _/ G L.:: :0,it..� o ®r.,..7.:trienviu_o3,:r ..4•.:4: : . i I- I r. „ G o f ,M Eo1;NF , • f334 3 �P, G• /27/ r .�•® 1 :� u� c - / 1. 1 ▪ It i• c\ 1• •r ,S l f, ',^(({yl�(l 35 '•"•• -I tl �3 �� • 0/ -u L S� L • �t _ G2 2G=l - • i / i /'i� f • { )31 K2-2, -.. I: L� ' %/ , z - ' /o '/ —i ei a iN c� G�▪ '1 a „4 !fA Qa ✓i illll e`t �f r� G, N �- nCae>lit — C r r,I.• p • —4.J G ( '" [14 /.. ,,� L ,' L'4 ' pi / (1" h / •• \ i i K /-° 1 /, s • • �. .•..,. • - - x i L •k ///� �. • I IT 2/4E KE5:',Y :14 %tf/' IC • . 1 I .. � d �, N / ' li L 4 / SJ .7/I. G G, L e•Tt •(• ° •r '' .'iii>^: j 1 7 P° ' '/i ' �, ' -iv ,.11/...,0 G . i // x. x i b, ; '.. •1,-;:,',•••) e I y p 'i I r �.� :.i G� G 4 % • 0, . ( 22 .8.,�°��t.▪ L� _ L• war rrXgcL I _ xr�• � z• �;G'l ' .co WJtt • ki\i , L I;i' I T . �, 9 ter. . >x Iu 1'� » s » Y B' , •x ( G e> G' >< • � I \ 5: (227 631 )12. /MF • x .....- •_ C�Aep .G .+ -e G • L _ L r �'-ie pSle LC�, . 7 • I; ! • 2 30 «93 _ . 29 2 L _ l<9______.2) � ISa it: h 1 9B: �IAIPhhBpri • CALKINS LAKE ,,, • � i 31 ` UNION RE. F ( Y .hD'0(R3 I. _-.-32 �. F / �, 955 VSO N — — — •4<966 ll vig- GRE A � i _ d✓ES TE RN 4 .. ��b h / I M �. i�c5/4 +�.�_5�/.9 938 • A Cr a ens Home r .y r j9 • � lid -________ if- ..Grivel RI o c ,'//7 ®�-re 0123 * �.$s.`. "wfi.t, ''+;, "�ektt s+' ¢ A• ' -✓:, _` £ S J �;'"'a'., ry •a , vas '?�' '� S yr' s s z' x C 41 {.d{[( 2f y(, 1l ₹,. { y{�,f"' V 'C.{rv- Y'RSJWIY +i4!i• � r X''" •• n �,• +�,n., i 3ir.. q ry is Y Mf / t L El 1 A e tr..... �, Y t _ h r .] , .%} gyp _ y .: f.y 4 d 1, t f .. y^f!' 3[y�4 Q k, ffi j} x / . ` ; 4- ° ''s : vow ,: 4, t } }� y� i VW' Vf� 444 i � i.Y: ,i � „� F f •T.i 'IC, L� K4t y 4 ,:r , Y ',4, + ` T ( p . f { t a 1 it•S'r,i A y. r •;a :tom S z -I '. . "` i • R f k . s t w .1 �(�'y�yp�1C j ".}4,.,‘41.4.'4.fw Y¢ ' Y, }' ,'$y! rl . %, {. !'t#' i, `4' 'nit. rcr, •5 344 te : - T. 3:"$...4 C.' " r f raz' A_,F' Alit `Y . ,. y Y 4 p4kw- • Ju / y y r n'A t,Y ' • €u,-. y „.f .WL� . n.t•xa'. /. Y °' `+r '�, ' tf c"Rfy a• Y '` $ QY' .. t - S;4,x w it,+ , . . , DEPART' .NT OF PLANNING SERVICES n r`. PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4400 ; r 915 10th STREET F ' s X GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 Ir x 1' W COLORADO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on September 16, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. to review a request from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S Investments, for approval of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development, a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) and recreational uses on a parcel of land described as part of the N} of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, containing 280 acres, more or less. The property is located approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union Reservoir. The public hearing to be held by the Weld County Planning Commission for the consideration of the above referenced request will be conducted in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Room 342, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on September 16, 1986. Copies of the application are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services, Room 342, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado, - Phone - 356-4000, Extension 4400. Jack Holman, Chairman Weld County Planning Commission To be published in the Johnstown Breeze To be published one (1) time by September 4, 1986 Received by: Date: • 870123 REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Bay Shores P.U.D. CASE NUMBER: Z-430:86:5 SENT REFERRALS OUT: August 29, 1986 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: September 14, 1986 NO SR NR NO SR NR X County Attorney X Longmont, Soil Conservation District X Weld County Health Dept. 9595 Nelson Road Box D X Engineering Department -Longmont, CO 80501 X Great Western ilroa¢ X Oligarchy Ditch Company c/o Ascher 1?f$ c/o Dan Grant 950 Monroe P.O. Box 1826 Loveland, CO 80501 Longmont, CO 80501 X Union Reservoir Company X St. Vrain School c/o Donna L. Coble District RE-1J P.O. Box 449 395 S. Pratt Parkway Greeley, CO 80632 Longmont, CO 80501 X State Engineer X Weld County Sheriff's Division of Water Resources Department 1313 Sherman St. , Room 818 d/o Rich Dill Denver, CO 80203 TX State Highway Department X Longmont Fire Protection 1420 2nd Street District Greeley, CO 80631 9119 County Line Road Longmont, CO 80501 X Colorado Department of Health X Boulder County Planning Water Quality Control Division Department 4210 East 11th Avenue 2040 14th Street Denver, CO 80220 Boulder, CO 80302 X Longmont Planning Department X St. Vrain Sanitation c/o Brian Miller District Civic Center Complex c/o Richard Lyons Longmont, CO 80501 515 Ximbark Longmont, CO 80501 X Water Sports West 0461 Weld County Road 26 X Louis Rademacher Longmont, CO 80501 Planning Commission Member 13184 Weld County Road 13 Longmont, CO 80501 X Colorado Geological Survey Attn: Louis Lodwick 1313 Sherman Street NO=No Objection Room 715 SR=Specific Recommendations Denver, CO 80203 NR=No Response 870123 C MAILING LIST Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Z-430:86:5 Edmund C. Dworak 445 Main Street Zongmont, Colorado 80501 iDonald H. and Genevie Hornor 8055 West 88th Street Arvada, CO 80002 Trustees and Heirs of Paul W. and Nellie G. Newby c/o Raimon K. Newby 12260 Weld County Road 5 Longmont, CO 80501 Donald M. Lesher Trustee for Wilson Family Trust 3201 East 2nd Avenue Suite 300 Denver, CO 80206 JCK Farm, Ltd. 1239 Third Avenue Longmont, CO 80634 Barbara J. Johnson 6170 West 24th Street Greeley, CO 80634 Mayeda Farms George I. and Sumiye Mayeda John Y. and Betty K. Mayeda 10701 Weld County Road 1 Longmont, CO 80501 Ramona E. Helton 0545 State Highway 119 Longmont, CO 80501 Lois S. Jones 18442 Weld County Road 17 Johnstown, CO 80534 Union Reservoir c/o Mrs. Francis Hill, Secretary Y.O. Box 276 La Salle, CO 80645 870123 MINERAL OWNERS Bay Shores Planned Unit Development 2-430:86:5 Macy-Mershon Oil Co. 1600 Broadway Suite 2150 Denver, CO 80202 870123 4 ` � �` DEPAR"N _NT OF PLANNING -SERVICES mA PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT 4400 915 10th STREET 1Ital GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 L COLORADO July 25, 1986 CRS Investments, Inc. c/o Kim Collins 1333 West 120th Avenue - Suite 308 Denver, Colorado 80234 Re: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan on a parcel of land described as the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Collins: The Department of Planning Services staff has reviewed the sketch plan -proposal for a 424 lot R-1 (low density residential) Planned Unit Development (PUD) . The staff review includes the recommendations of referral agencies. The referral agencies and Planning staff have tried to identify the major concerns in their review of your sketch plan application. Copies of the following referral entities' comments have been attached to this letter: 1. State Division of Highways; 2. Weld County Sheriff's Department; 3. Weld County Health Department; 4. Longmont Soil Conservation Service; 3. Longmont Fire Protection District; 6. Longmont Department of Community Development; 7. Weld County Engineering Department; 8. Oligarchy Ditch Company; 9. Boulder Land-Use Department; 10. St. Vrain Sanitation District; 11. Union Reservoir Company; 12. St. Vrain Valley School District; and 13. State Division of Water Resources. The Boulder County Road Department, Great Western Railroad, Water Sports West, and the State Health Department have not yet returned written comments to this department. If responses are submitted in the future, they will be forwarded to you. 870123 c2;9 c/ reg9/4G • CRS Investments, Inc. July 25, 1986 Page 2 Many of the referral entities contacted by the Department of Planning Services issued specific concerns and questions. -Before the Change of Zone application is submitted, is is recommended that the applicant contact all the referral entities involved in the sketch plan review process. Items of concern can be addressed or incorporated into the Change of Zone application. The Change of Zone submittal should comply with Section 28.3.1 of the Weld County Zoning Zoning Ordinance. Section 28.2.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and Section 4-1 C. of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations set forth the duties of the Department of Planning Services for review of a Planned Unit Development sketch plan. -The Planned Unit Development proposal for the 280 acres incorporates -phased residential development with variation in lot size and open-space. The Weld County Future Land-Use Map shows the subject site is located one and one-half miles from the proposed future urban development area -of Longmont. The proposed Planned Unit Development does not comply with the Urban Development Section of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The type of uses proposed are urban in nature, requires urban services and should be accommodated within a municipality or adjacent to a municipality in an area reserved for future commercial, industrial, and/or residential growth. Section 28.5.2.4.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Planned Unit Development does not comply with agricultural policies as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The first long-range land use policy gives direction to retain prime agricultural land for agricultural use and to protect the land from encroaching urban uses. The historic use of the subject parcel is crop production, which is a low intensity land-use. A portion of this area is also part of the St. Vrain Valley Comprehensive Plan area, which designates the land for agricultural uses. Section 28.5.2.4.4 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to demonstrate how the uses allowed by the proposed rezoning will be compatible with the surrounding area adjacent to the Planned Unit Development District. The 280 acre parcel is surrounded by rural land-uses on all sides, the majority in crop production. The Great Mestern Railroad bisects the proposed development. Approximately three-fourths of a mile of the Oligarchy Ditch is contained within the 870123 CRS Investments, Inc. July 25, 1986 page3 development. A portion of Union Reservoir lies adjacent to the northwest boundary of the development. It appears that these existing land features would add unique characteristics to the Planned Unit Development. However, the presence of 424 home sites at this location would _inevitably pose safety and liability issues as well as interfere with the functioning of these entities. It is the staff's opinion that the Bay Shores development will create a density which is not compatible with existing uses or uses planned for the future in this area. Section 28.5.2.4.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance addresses the issue of the adequacy of street and highway facilities required to meet the needs of the proposed development. In addition to the requested traffic study for Weld County Road 3-1/2 and 26 and State Highway 119, please prepare a statement regarding the anticipated impacts to these roads. If the applicants choose to proceed with the Planned Unit Development application process, the next step is the Planned Unit Development Change of Zone application. The following information shall be submitted in addition to a complete Planned Unit Development Change of Zone application. 1) An explanation detailing how the proposed Planned Unit Development demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies of Weld County and Longmont. 2) An explanation detailing how a 280 acre parcel supporting 424 residences is compatible with existing and future surrounding land-uses. 3) Proposed improvements to Weld County Roads 3-1/2 and 26 and State Highway 119 and suitable performance guarantees to ensure construction of the improvements. 4) Economic impact statement. 5) Traffic impact analysis. 6) Soils study demonstrating the suitability of the soil for intensive residential use. 7) Proposed measures to mitigate impacts to the Oligarchy Ditch. 870123 C • CRS Investments, Inc. July 21, 1986 Page 4 Sketch plan comments and referral responses are not intended to be all inclusive. Other concerns may arise during the Planned Unit Development Change of Zone application process. If you have questions concerning the foregoing items, please call me. Sincerely, Glo a V. Dunn Current Planner GVD:rjg pc Paula Fitzgerald McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. 703 Third Avenue _Longmont, Colorado 80501 Enclosures 870123 r ='4 I =NT OF ?!ANNINGSERViCES ₹ i- PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT 4400 i1p - _ 915 10th STREET ) GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 cR s • '£t.ivar COLORADO August 29, 1986 McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. c/o John McCarty, P.E. 703 West Third Avenue Longmont, Colorado 80501 Re: Change of Zone application from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) R-I (Low Density Residential) and recreational uses located in the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Dear Mr. McCarty: Thank you for the application materials for the Change of Zone for Bay Shores Planned Unit Development. The Department of Planning Services staff has reviewed the application materials and determined the submittal requirements of Section 28.5.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance have not been met. The staff is requesting the items listed below be included in the application to fulfill the submittal -requirement: - A copy of a deed or legal instrument by which Susan J. Pietrzak obtained an interest in the property under consideration. - A statement from Left Hand Water District indicating they are . able to provide the water taps and have adequate supply capabilities to provide services to the proposed development in accordance with the Division of Water Resources letter of July 3, 1986. - A statement from the St. Vrain Sanitation District which indicates they are able to provide service for the site. The letter dated June 17, 1986, from Mr. Grant, President of the St. Vrain Sanitation District, only indicates a willingness to issue a letter indicating its preliminary commitment. 870123 McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. August 29, 1986 Page 2 Additional information concerning the soil limitations on the property. The information shall address the following items: Potential adverse impacts to proposed structures and the plans to mitigate those impacts. Also, please be advised that due to the poor nature of the soils at the site for urban development, an application referral is required to the Geological Survey Division for its review and recommendation. The Geological Survey may be contacted at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715, Denver, Colorado 80203, or by phone at 866-2611. The review by the Geological Survey does require an additional fee. Information which clearly identifies the proposed off-site road improvements, including proposed width, structural capacity, and classification. The willingness and financial capability to perform the work must also be shown by completing an improvements agreement according to the Weld County policy on collateral for agreements. If the costs are to be shared by others, as indicated in the application • materials, then a plan for sharing those costs must accompany the application. — Information which clearly addresses the concerns of the Union Reservoir Company in its letter dated June 23, 1986. - Evidence which clearly demonstrates that a legal binding agreement between the developers of Bay Shores and Union Reservoir exists to allow the recreation uses as described in the application materials. - Information on how internal street improvements are going to be made and maintained. - Information on how the common areas and recreational areas are to be developed and maintained. - If covenants are to be used to address style, design, landscaping, and off-site land-use compatibility issues, then a copy of those covenants should accompany the application. If covenants are not going to be used, then an explanation of how concerns about style, design, landscaping and off-site land-use compatibility issues are going to be controlled. 870123 Hello