The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About871839.tiff RETAKES . " for month of FERRi1ARY a -19 87 - . - - The following documents are being re-filmed: • DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DAY FILE AGREEMENTS: MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRONICS 212/R7 • • The following is a Service Agreement with MOTOROLA Communications and Electronics, Inc. for radio maintenance beginning 2/1/87 and ending 1/31/88. Supporting documents are also attached. The Board of County Commissioners approved this item February 2, 1987.' M ' • Address Reply to: MOTOROLA 20 Inverness Place East Communications and Electronics Inc. Englewood ) 799.60 co SUit2 (3%)799-60p0 January 27, 1987 Ms. Bette Rhoden Weld County Purchasing Director 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Rhoden: Motorola welcomes the opportunity to respond to bid request #006-87 regarding the annual maintenance contract for Weld County's two-way communication system. Every effort has been made to adhere to the requirements of the bid specifications, which will show the numerous advantages of a Motorola maintenance contract. The following pages provide Weld County with the important information needed to have proper, productive, and competent service support. With a Motorola maintenance contract, Weld County will have a full cadre of Motorola service, sales, engineering, management, and other support personnel available to ensure a high level of customer satisfaction. All departments, up to the area management level, have personnel located in our area office in Englewood, Colorado. Ms. Rhoden, if you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. We at Motorola are looking forward to continue working with you and Weld County. Regards, Motorola/la� C&E S-LSII---- Eric M. Clausen District Service Manager cc: K. Mulford B. Fleming attachments /1 nn v rs l / ✓ J 3, 871268 '.301 E-Ahonquin Rd..Schau U c :i;'.roi- GGi86 ,S12) .1;9; 1030 • BID REQUEST NO. 006-87 EO, TPHENT INVENTORY 4.0 CATEGORIES. For the purpose of determining installation and removal costs the following vehicle categories are defined: INSTALLS REMOVALS Category One (I) . Vans, light weight trucks up to li ton. $100.00 $25.00 Category Two (2) Standard American made Sudan (not to include luxury vehicles, i.e.- top line car with electric seats and plush interiors). $150.00 525.00 Category Three (3) Wreckers, semi-tractors or trucks from 2-ton capacity, Blazers, Jeeps, Scouts, Broncos (4x4 drive), and station wagon. JILLSIL 25.00 Category Four (4) Emergency vehicles • (i.e.-fire and police vehicles.with all peripheral equipment such as lights, sirens, cages, act.) , and undercover disguised units. $200.00 $25.00 Category Five (5) Construction equipment. (such as motor graders, loaders, ect.), and buses. TEN TBN 4.1 Response Time. The following listed designations will identify the response time required for any specific equipment: Response time is defined as acknowledgement by the Contractor of a request for service from Weld County either during or after normal working hours of the Contractor. Additionally, the response times listed are to be used as goals for the contractor to have a technician at the site of the equipment failure. Response tins are not to be construed as teetotal times. 17 - ' S BID REQUEST NO. 006-87 "COUNTY" 4.3 Fixed Antenna Systems/Towers. (Roof/Side Mounted, Tower Tower Self Supporting, Coat Per Hourly Location - Height Type Guyed, etc.) P.M. Climb Rate Weld/Foster Sits 370 ft. R80 Guyed $ 450.00 $ 78.00 (North): 16054 WCR 100 (County Owned) Weld/Kuaub Site 350 ft. R80.Guyed' $ 425.00 $ 78.00 (South) 18490 WCR 38 (County Owned) Grover Tower Site 120 ft. Tri-angle $ 300.00 $ 78.00 (RYCU Owned) Self Supporting Empire Tower Site 237 ft. Self Supporting $ 300.00 $ 78.00 2109 23rd Avenue, Grealsy, 80631 (Empire Dispatch Owned) Weld County 50 ft. Guyed R-45 $ 67.00 $ 78,00 Centennial Complex 915 10th Street, Greeley (County Owned) Horeetooth Mountain 80 ft. Self Supporting $ 300.00 $ 78.00 Site (To Be Vacated Upon 5 Miles SW Of Ft. Collins Activation Of Weld/Foster • (Motorola Owned) Site) PLEASE NOTE THAT ERRORS MAY SOMETIMES OCCUR IN THE LISTING OF THE EQUIPMENT MODEL NUMBER EVEN THOUGH EVERY EFFORT IS MADE TO AVOID THEM. TEE INTENT OF THIS LISTING IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION SO AS TO INDICATE MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR ALL ENTITIES SERVED BY THE WELD COUNTY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM. luminary of equipment is attached as Exhibit 'B". 19 . 871268 • s • BID REQUEST NO. 006-87 4.6 Above Contract Labor Rates. 4.6.1 Above contract labor rates, normal working hours, less holidays. $ 60.00 per hour. 4.6.2 Above contract labor rates, after normal working hours and Saturdays. $ 78.00 per hour. 4.6.3 Above contract labor rates, Sundays and all holidays recognised by Weld County and the Contractor. $ 78.00 per hour. 4.6.4 Normal working hours of the Contractor are: 8am-4t3Opm; M-F 4.7 Above Contract Parts. 4.7.I Above contract parts costs will be at the national rate as published by Contractor's corporation, parent company or manufacture affiliation. 4.7.2 If the Contractor is not a corporation, owned by a parent company or has a parts inventory with a particular manufacturer, or who's parts pricing is not determined by any of these aforementioned or otherwise not priced at a national rate, the Contractor must than indicate a fixed percentage increased that will be charged ( n/a ) on a cost plus basis. Coat plus. Z on above contract parts. 4.8 Dedicated Time/Technician - Van. * For section 4.8.1, *4.8.1 Bidder will quote monthly/hourly charge for dedicated please also refer service (ie. - for twenty-four (24) hours per week, to Attachment "C". [103.2 hours per month] is current usage). $3800.00 mo. - 103.2 hours per month. 4.8.2 This dedicated service will include time in-shop and/or any mobile van service conducted in-field. 4.8.3 Normal service hours will be 8am to 4:30pm on any days identified during the normal Monday thra Friday work week. 4.8.4 Rates for any call-out repairs for other days of the week or after normal working hours, weekends. and holidays will be billed at $ 78.00 per hour. 4.8.5 Rates for any travel time or mileage incurred, not included in monthly charge will be billed at $ 60.00 I hr. 871268 is r • BID REQUEST NO. 006-87 4.8.6 This service agreement will include all parts and labor, less the standard exceptions listed is the Service Contract. a.) Call-out service will be charged for labor only; parts, less standard exceptions, will be included as part of the Service Contract. 4.9 Bid Summary. Please also refer *4.9.1 Provide listing of all information in response to to Attachment"D" Section 2.12, Contractor's Liability Insurance. * Please also refer *4.9.2 Provide past and present service references43nd a to Attachment "A" complete resume of service capability including and Attachment "B" certifications/ratings of all technicians per Section 3.0 (f) and Section 3.1.1. 4.9.3 Installation/Removal Cost: (Section 4.0) Category One (1) $ 100.00 $ 25.00 Category Two (2) $ 150.00 $ 25.00 Category Three (3) $ 175.00 $ 25.00 Category Four (4) $ 200.00 $ 25.00 Category Five (5) $ TBN $ TBN • 4.9.4 Fixed Antenna Systems/Towers: (Section 4.3) Cost Per P.M. Climb Hourly Rate a.) Weld/Foster $450.00 S 78.00 b.) Weld/Knaub $425.00 $ 78.40 c.) Weld/Grover S300.00 _ $ 78.00 • d.) Empire $300.00 $ 78.00 e.) Veld/Centennial $ 67.00 $ 78.00 f.) Horsetooth Mtn. $300.09 $ 78.40 4.9.5 Above Contract Rates: (Section 4.6) 4.6.1 $ 60.00 4.6.2 $ 78.00 4.6.3 $ 78-.00 4.6.4 $ Sam-4:30pm 'M-F • - 22 871268 • BID REQUEST NO. 006-87 4.9.6 Above Contract Parts: (Section 4.7) 4.7.2 n/a % (Percent) Please also refer *4.9.7 Dedicated Time/Technician - Van: (Section 4.8) to Attachment "C" 4.8.1 $ 3800.00 mo. _ 103.2 hours per month. 4.8.3 8am--4:30pm M-F 4.8.4 $ 78.00 per hour. 4.8.5 $ 60.00 PAYMENT TERMS: Payment will be tendered monthly, not more than thirty (30) days after submission of the invoice by the Contractor. The undersigned Bidder hereby agrees to execute the Contract in conformity with this Bid and also to furnish the required bond in the sum of the full amount of this Bid, executed by a surety company acceptable to Weld County ' at any time within ten (10) days from the date of a written notice from Weld County to do so, mailed to the address hereinafter given. ADDENDA: The undersigned Bidder acknowledges receipt of the following addenda: Addendum No.: Date: Addendum No.: Date: Addendum No.. Date: Addendum No.: Date: Failure to acknowledge receipt of all addenda may cause the Bid to be rejected as non-respona ve. SIGNATURE: The undersigned Bidder, having erumined the Request for Proposal and proposed Contract Documents, as designated and enumerated in the Instructions to Bidders, and any and all addenda thereto, and being acquainted with and fully understanding the requirements covered by the Request for Proposal, _' 23 371268 a, {' • • • BID REQUEST NO. 006-87 HEREBY BIDS, pursuant to an advertisement of Request for Proposal first (1st) published Thursday, Jan. 15, 1987, to provide all services in full accordance with and in conformity to the Specifications and Contract Documents hereto attached or by reference made a part hereof, at and for the price(s) cited in parts 4.0,4.3, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 Motorola C&E proposes to provide the services describcc (NAME OF BIDDER) or shown in the Bid Documents and as listed within Bid Summary. The undersigned Bidder certifies that it and each of its subcontractors possess and adequate supply of workers qualified to perform the work specified herein; that there is no existing or impending dispute between it and any labor organization; and that it is prepared to comply fully with prevailing wage requirements, minimum wages, maximum hours of work, and equal opportunity provisions. This Bid is submitted upon the declaration that neither I (we), nor, to the best of my (our) knowledge, none of the members of my (our) firm cr company have either directly or indirectly entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive bidding in connection with this Bid. Dated at Englewood, CO , , this 22nd day of January, 1987. Signature of Bidder: \_ For: Motorola C&E (CONTRACTOR NAME) 20 Inverness Place East Address Englewood, CO 80112 City State Zip 303 799--6000 Telephone ACCEPTED BY: , and ty Commissioners, Weld Conn ,. Color Weld,Coanty Clerk Recorder and Cler to the Board Ln7"��jj QX .4ni 'a• •ty County Clem .. 24 871268 • Attachment "A" • ` 9Maintenance Contract Requirements Weld County's two-way radio communication system will be maintained by: Motorola Northern Colorado Service Center 2985 W. 29th Street Greeley, CO 80634 (303) 330-9415 Please feel free to visit the facility anytime during normal business hours, 8am-4:30pm, Monday-Friday. The phone number listed above may be called 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Greeley facility is managed by Kerry Mulford. Please see Attachment "B" for a list of the Northern Colorado Service Center's team of certified technicians and installers. The Northern Colorado Service Center has six Motorola service monitors which can examine any type of radio frequency unit, plus four mobile/portable bench setups. There is also an extensive technical library of service manuals, with continuous updating of manuals for all of our equipment. The service center can work on upwards to five vehicles in their service bay. The Northern Colorado Service Center uses Motorola parts, or parts of equal quality, in the servicing of your equipment. This assures you of continued quality performance, because components similar to those originally selected for quality and reliability during equipment design are used for replacement. These parts are stocked: in our five fully equipped service vans, one four-wheel drive vehicle, at the Northern Colorado Service Center (presently an inventory of $15,000 in parts on hand), and at our factory depot. Therefore, equipment outage tithe is kept to a minimum. The Northern Colorado Service Center is backed by Motorola Service Centers in Cheyenne, Boulder, Colorado Springs, and two Motorola Service Centers in Denver. In addition, there is an Area office in Denver (Englewood) with its staff of engineers, field technical representatives, product consultants, service representatives, an arm of the National Parts Department, credit and accounting analysts, and management personnel for every department. In addition, the service centers are structured in such a way that personnel can be "loaned out" in ':he event of emergiencies or large projects. Consequently, Weld County is assured their communication system will continue to perform as originally der:igned, The Northern Colorado Service Center will keep adequate records of all service, install, removal, and preventative maintenance checks at no charge to Weld County. These records may be examined at any time. These records are an excellent tool in determining a particular radio's life span, or providing the information needed in case a radio is lost or stolen. Fixed equipment will be maintained on site, if at all possible. When a service request is made to the Northern Colorado Service Center, a technician will respond to the site needing service within two hours of the request, if Weld County has indeed indicated a need for response time "A". Motorola realizes that the County's '' 1268 • contract requirements, continued, page 2 CA-Ahi) fixed equipment effects lives and property, so this equipment will be treated with the utmost priority. All fixed equipment will receive preventative maintenance checks upon the request of Weld County - this in addition to the preventative maintenance checks done every time the unit is serviced. There is no charge for this service. Mobiles needing installation, removal, and/or service will be done at the three requested locations by Weld County, or at the Motorola facility in Greeley. When a request for service is made, a technician will respond according to Weld County's response times of "B" or "C",whichever is needed. Portables and pagers will be repaired at the Northern Colorado Service Center, if at all possible. All mobiles, portables, pagers will receive preventative maintenance checks upon the request of Weld County - this in addition to the preventative maintenance checks done every time the unit is serviced. There is no charge for this service. As also required by the bid specifications, a list of service references currently being handled by the Northern Colorado Service Center has been furnished. Also included are references who have used our service in the past, but because of their current economic condition, they no longer do. Please feel free to contact any or all of these references, last or present, as listed below. References Present Past Weld County Communications Smith Energy Services 915 10th Street 12556 Weld County Road 21 Greeley, 80631 Brighton, 80601 356-4000 659-8700 Mr. Rich Estreich Mr. Craig Hunter City of Longmont Pride Oil 1100 S. Sherman PO Box 445 Longmont, 80501 Brighton, 80601 776-6050 659-6682 Mr. Gary Bagwell Mr. Roger Goodwin Morgan County Communications A&W Water PO Box 1099. PO Box 446 • Ft. Morgan, 80701 Brighton, 80601 867-8531 659-6323 Mr. Phil Davey Mr. Ron Wright Colorado State University Estes Park Fire Department 32 Student Health PO Box 1287 • Ft. Collins, 80523 Estes Park, 80517 491-6425 586-8344 Mr. Dan McGrew Mr. Sack Ruuley S71268 • Attachment "B" Northern Colorado Service Center Manager: Kerry Mulford Started with Motorola in 1978 FCC License l/ PC-15-10819 Certified Technician Shop Supervisor: Andy Bellendir (Greeley) Started with authorized Motorola Service Shop in 1973 Came to Motorola in 1984 FCC License 1/ PG-15-4029 Certified Technician Shop Supervisor: Dennis Climp (Boulder) Started with authorized Motorola Service Shop in 1981 Came to Motorola in 1982 FCC License # PG-15-6612 Certified Technician Sr. Field Tech: Mike Bales Started with Motorola in 1979 FCC License # PG-15-5009 Certified Technician Field Tech: Kent Osborn Started with Motorola in. 1984 NABER License (FCC Equivalent) #35111 Certified Technician Jr. Tech: Brent Lodwig Started with authroized Motorola Service Shop in 1982 Came to r'otorola in 1986 FCC License 41 PG-15-1227 Certified Technician Installer: Dave Walker Started with Motorola in 1984 Shop Clerk: Lew Prettyman Started with Motorola in 1984 Note: All of the above personnel, except for Lew Prettyman, are also qualified and available to perform installations. 871268 • Attachment "C" • Ell1/4701/4 Dedicated Technician Section 4.8.1 Special Notes 1) Should Weld County desire, they may include any and all installations and/or • removals as part of their dedicated tech time. 2) Weld County may choose to pay this contract on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis. 3) If Weld County does pay annual, they will receive a pre-payment discount of $1775.00, making the new annual contract amount $43825.00 ($3800.00 per month x 12 months = $45600.00 - $1775.00 discount = $43825.00) 4) At any point during this contract, Weld County may choose to add or delete or full days of dedicated tech time. The new amount of the contract will then be increased or decreased by a proportional amount. • 871268 t t t sJt riw a= :, Of CERTIFICAtk OF INSU Phi PRODUCER I THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS 744 4'- ROLLINS BURDICK HUNTER no ILLINOIS INC. ! N°R GHTs UPON THE CERT F CATS HOLDER.Tr.;s CERTIFICATE f+ES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFT-ORtED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. 10 South Riverside Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60606 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPLY A Zurich Insurance Company l OOMPANY St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company INSURED LE`ytR B '_— Motorola, Inc. & Its Divisions i9 0,74v American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co' & Subsidiary Companies ; 'E ER 1303 East Algonquin Road ICOMPANY ® -' Schaumburg, IL 60196 LETTER 'y,. COMPANY ��+ ' LETTER {G �.r.'` ;K COVERAGES • . • .-i % • t`'sr'.i' ,r,. . 2`'f.. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN KV IEOTO THE INSURED NAMED ASOVE FOR THE POLICY PEPJOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO AU.THE TERMS.EXCLUSIONS.AND CONDX- nONS OF SUCH POLICIES. - . TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER pot), `C'.`F pox.,'YPrv1T9v LIABI I`l'::NITS IN THOUSANDS.. DAT:ilAWD '1M DWI(MMODNY FAYa ; AGGREGATE 1 (�i 1PRf NCE ' GENERAL LIABILITY °Dl L1/2. r WAPREHENswE WPM. ,. :wuaY 18 Oil .S OW • PREMISESVPEfATIOt 4 'i PNWEaty WC EXR�ONU4 COLLAPSE:HAZARD I !DAMAGE $ .E, s Ice *r PRODUGTS/DJMrLETEDbKIIIGI NS i CGL34-03-364.00 i 7/1/86 i 7/1/88 'EASAC'uAL ED �... ! e:6 P] ;COW:1N13 NT S X INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS I 513 SROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE ! . © PERSONAL INJURY i P=_RSOUAL INJURY $ 2,000 E . . : . . is _e AUTOMOBILE WIBILITY. >a7r I I. at, - Tcd f?SY:, iS i I AL DWNEo:. lw(PR V. PAs.) STATES: i snr I IlE ALL OWNED ALMS(TArla) BAP34--03-365-00 7/1/86 7/1/88 I �';S �j HIRED AUTGG - Na.. MA34-03-366-00 ;PRO?FA^'' E NON-OWNED AUTOS 1 TX: GA34-03-367-00 °A .O !$ © GARAGE UABIIJN Is;SP I COvt"i' ''$ 1 000 EXCESS LIABILITY BM UMBRELLA FORM LC05517404 7/1/86 7/1/87 COVE 4E, 5 1,00o S 1,000 g OTHER THAN UMBREL A FORM EXCESS AUTO LIABILITY , WORKERS'COMPENSATION -TAr,;$1 I A 1 CA: WC34-03-363-00 1 ,Sl 000(ACH A D 't•n AND & ALL j 7/1/86 ' 7/1/88 S1 000XDs`-PD.LY Mm EMPLOYERS LUBILrry C STATES: WC34-03-248-01 .$1 000(C*S`iz=`EC ENPLD"Er4 1 OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSIL°CATIONSNEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEu5 Radio and Electronic Installation and Maintenance United States and Canada qq, ^, ,i''CERTIFICATE.HOLDER '` �`.,.. .01 ` Y,Sg ",s . 147,1fiv Iy� t;i .2;,&I 1 T4 r,?,`.. . .>_.n .sb 4 n, t^L3.� 5 v 1x". ."�'.. .W "I - SHOULD AN Y ABOVE D SCR•: PO S S CANCE' E_EEFORE THE EX 't `? Bette Rhoden PRAT'ON DATE .Eft OOF THE 'SSI. NG COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR. TO IF ',VII t ''„,l Weld County ..14- MAIL 30 D WRITTEN-S WRIEN NOTICE -O THE;G R"F�•A,E HOLDER NAME";TO •fit A. �, F'• 915 10th Street n —7S'rt 7C7{XS -• Ih° ''roe ey Colorado 80631 iaJt 871268 �y r K�;!ii "r Y,)1 A..:` ' )`wTT.�ei' a "1,i L Y - w H+ f 1r t, r ,t*5Z,,f v Y ,}^t ..k >"'Et Y ..''S i 4 1 De 1 y; Eiem m 11 > z;m> < - ? rno m c3 >yi m m., - r_, i n Y. • > o < ≤ _ .. < m7m f. m_< $'••fit D - m m: cy _ a i� sr m Z ��.. Ar off. ZRm 7`'�' .qO re, Dp xnmam Y 11 Z ?erg r la" z a> Om $ • $a • Ar YY _ H - - fm0£9 r - I 1 a. • A-242, gn. w Scpz I ff 'S •> <u<- >mmr 1 r "7 - — _ _ ♦. •Po . z - A�p ny°C 4> i = Ay Z •a i b>Zm s 3•, o p _ 3fd11:(. ;'Nt ,w mZ£ . -.grt - ` <G . •• rev' Os ;Lit - a z ' o ci0OA In is- w nF4 _ - O e - �u G • , c . M o V 0 y -: 1... } r �' z ..C C.. >Y n - r 9 SC OC F OP nen nn en _>n. is 32 CI ., w .-a< S O_ ~p O w 1 - O n~ r* s K 6. .:n ^o gz io u �w _N^- III • - Z F^�.i .0 .D• w c a : - 41 Q" L Q yw "w af> [• Z c - 0610 $pr V o $ y' M -o > - '� '0- Y> : 0 -'D < >>:. _ - �� n � � � so z jJY n }.� w a m I! Y" 4 En A +7 Yp: +t pf� > N qp( w w Mg i }¢1 4 z z - L Z L ; la. _Fr K% �.'• i m gas " D O n ti s a,• 0. M: r i _ D :ti x I•: - i. M K F l a e r _ i O- O Id .: . - .168:.. :, Sze as 1 Nm a b`en -iw Cm Y_ T my �.:Q no- an 33 �� m ti 3.anm D.0 man Aaas 0 =< m 0.9.•-•4-4 yt ;m m-- coo-- Z w ooc� $n h=mho 000— oda. mwS2m J� o._. pm• $ .imp Or r ?m Jm Gn'um rc , =a Ga m T r 3 al -= 2 ,,It amen :aass-2 oJ =n •x o„mw x 3= m� f^a2 m- n< a m-.3E- 3'?3 0w.. pa o°- - -a0acoam Y'� o'o=._ £.< o",00 = 3a et_ r • ao ac,11 ..7; n a o. N ^. a Y SYJ. Imam O ==A o^ nu-'m m o' o. J m^m p. m0 ° O ". ' am °02,,,^0,2 pm S O..`� d K Ou9 m •02 an < o J �n -.7_,:-.m O 9m3. cr p m . oo ' m ms^ m -go $ °'m £ J . o.°RR $'a1 m •mc na a -1*Enaanm.�� -m0as cc°3a 'm£.. ° ;. 0 3 mR-i'Am' f' :'C O. ° 0 t o.'a of 3 c.m m �r:�'o co_l E on co o -03 -.5'..=. 20 d o -m 9 o 2 m — •0-,- S o �� x 0 q rj .¢ N o t f . '� 0-_: .^ ry E- o !a i a_ -, am o r-• =m N-a o ry g o m.> ... a s S ry l • d r-o--- T Fl n< g . 3 n O'.• c ,3 ..4-. 3 o , ° m m o m 2 a fli 511 y ° �_01 m -O m 3-~m 3 ^m n.. m c mo m m3oom J '- oo m�oo o o- ocna g .e, oo mm:? 3 os $ ... no °� im _m : J'� 2s ° a f m6 c < m O w O nw Jo5°O _3m m * n 'a -2•• om =n n3 -0 :v <•Oim < 3 J . 0a .- 3.5%3.7;3 a m'. bm3.2mom o z -0 $=mC< Dag o m mmano om m -0 n= co3':» cm am 0. mm @ccc, =Tp .s- -° .i...... y ^0 L Q :J am = C .Oa ..a _ m0•0 $ `'43 2m>"'.p ma * aa o..° O• o.-. o ° "' m3F-$ o '$m.m =m Fa 3 m ^- m a w, J 0, a ^ O o: c d .0 O 2- 9 a N ° -. ea. ° — ° o J ^ m m m°m m r • n m a s m. a F c m y 0 1 0 • J J r J^.. m J 3 m x. 3- J mn« co aO Q� m G ` = .15-. 3-,. .a Oa :-• 3. :2.m 0�.Oro m .9Jo.ry �a ,.g °n.mm= < :.w w3 O.S�a as, is, U...° °i tf 3 J = m n N 0 , mm -fa n •m < 5D "0 a. 'o o am Rn g3m me m X 'm $ o - o ' a3g� am _.ao4 =» p ° zc m g`e mn3-a m »2a _-; = Om =m3'c. a - m_ o me ., _»q Q£ oon a> g fl Rm — o..E. :p^. of5 2a -aam ° - 2'0 C3 o°v r•t,np '=R m- ° o -J 3o n, °^3..3 no3.0—asa00. p Ndm ¢ 'm_. , m3m° R»' ; . ; mp om Jcmp o•3R gym- ;6�'nmg - m.'°.'.o p '7o `� qA � ..00 mm 3�y° � =d 33 o9.ag 3m?=°_ o- Q� m � 3 m3 mQam °.io@ap- �< < ;3n oo.R, $ c m�•oo Ja3'�n es --,..g.-...$000.„0- _. ° � o=gin 3 .- 's < » 6y^°mm- ppa^. oa10 ^� 3 » m 8 Ka 9 ,,, _-,s .mmw9 g Nn Q..g-tT(L, m=T:; Onan;90aO <<l:m 03 m 0.Om f aC 0 Tt m'1 .duo • m'fa o9 6 ..n 3 ro_nom0-• J 3oa m0c-m6 ' 25 a 0 3" a _ a$ c-8 �,^�� m o g'° Wt.. $gw" m3 o'm ...7<'•'3...o � ° - 3 (We • a-3 aa-.o m„ .fie n° �-c c �,� m ° � p'N a Rant?. mS� _. <ac3 m ,°, gm vs',f, a: 'n° 3 n R�.,. ca i:R 3.m �n• °-3 -3 =0 0 oYo`ai'gm ;9- } ' m' m ..9.�a E- c` -= : m a9 ° 3. Q. 00, =$ saao n^-mm ,, m J ¢ • ,,��ryry O p6m ^ m b + ad 3, 3•- m my , (jig o ' 2• °x.13.-• o .o.. . 'c ° p %=m< r---„-=3 3-- .£3- to °'n e'n Aao-, II o •C �,�- m. CO ..'^ma., m nrD J i- '0' 3 »-r m m ro 1 oF < 3$ Jr m .7 ^� 3f 41 0. R. al{z R.ma a< a- � a5} R Ct ma m oom RO o' m' m°,Ng (SC a-i6 �--s - - o a 'hi -- 3 '0 < n»�a:"`aa<. ^ _ ,=,mc0 anion °4bm c �' bb om. -om m < an N.a 4 - o e m -Ens on J a,-n o •r y- °ma J$$'"< $$ To.cF 3c R., a - °_s 7. . 1J ., n3mm0 , a =Uo °„ s� =O O . J a.o Zi „mm, m m.m m. m '-:ypyyp_�-,y:�f L r'a °a J -c -- 00,77. 0 _ ° 3=000 l7�s CD m.,»^ N n 4 00 3.u3'm •A y30 �. ° J j.< c `Cj1'gm gM = m -•^.030,90 m p0 m�°O m a atga w° - v o 3-22,2 = O m ambo< y =agar mmm fgm - 33 al aft,o3 0- z pm i�3 g-1 +}m •S0 99° 33,"_rFr O. =m`�, ep epa:0 E.m a;- m_o ° _t _r a ..00• EC 09 5.• c --- Om i .o-2° c ` o J o•0m3 3O t2' m <£-o mmp m Car0mm 7p =- ' 4a :maa '63ri m. ;f, o _o mmm$ < 99' 90 m'm $a m' is ....r_$0 ab? mr m r.- - .. 3 0 al 3a g' a < ;m-. 2. off: a�° cR 3< Z€ms- 'a nao 3F =n- omaa ^b= 0E... aoa o-=».wa - � »mm v_ a =. a 0.g.- 03 ''» s=� m Z < mim3 " 3.a-. am '"» ^ o m =<m -3 J 3aE ba f ° _ " N , t ata ,"og0.° ac= m2 < O m' Jam v,. a R-.m5g6 mr a.- =-m bn m=-- G•. n ^ - c a ° ° o° 5- .< Ram :m E,m< a•cs =.,° m • ocC -It Jm•ma JSI a- .-"mg a.3 a,a m 3m,m an o moa o ^ ac�oZrc� .mt.a s;G -.a3 •mm n a� °).-Z° -0 mr owona�3,1 -, ..aoca -Com m- . °Z ...«a1 m y $-m m'< R0 s-mmq �.oim0 "O -&2 ,Li - mam '" - _= a om9 R ¢-Da ° - m gr%= 3 a^'O u51 cc ia' m.3a a„ or o m»' < a-o- 00.3 " 3. Z g 2 -.m a Wi ze '""o c--01 -c O N a °, l ° a w. a y a m 3 9.-- a g 0 � 9-° O ffT J aO n-0. 30 Fa °= m.J mm-• 3 o-r_ °m• a. -p' m s o`: c m J-.ao ;_ m £m—°mo - m o a 3 b a aet.Op IX. ..q;03 ^m •y o 0 0 3 m ° `12,0„, _et c°Q 0.0. < en o = ° =o--3 ;14:0 m 00'40 "�° +,S m, mac' ` 0 .3'x=< gnaJo� dco a.< Mal 0-3 " m= og:' ofma=6T ¢ -s-s a3 -.Lm n-- o m m = o30-"--> 3 ' n < < m =m oo ',WZ mQ s a— o m3 .'. D m 3n o c � ' 5"..g":). " om RRor. 3 wy ,Zo f Mc, Q �% o r'a 7,m 'o O-- 'm= 0.01 m 9Gb 3 moron. m .^g�_ 00.gqJ��.i' m m ° oo r' ecmmmmoma =oRffi R ay mon mm.<ar0 m ma `° o ° ,e a< a - - `$ im-g 2n0 -"'m_ .c _y < �3 _ J =3a =p - f, $.: v_< $ m3 _ j ° „ 3 'D O a n D .,. m J». —A p R 6 a -••••••O m 0 J 2 x J ° n b p ' m v El. a — mc'< o3 �o os R'_ am c . m ` smm 99•. $ o ° y m:3 c.3 -, 3m3� m t-J c N a 3 'n -C J _ 3 m R» ..c; m aC. o Cm 3. o -s m J- a 0.3"—G o J' d0• ^ iO �O " y_, m`N °'F ur 922 ° 0 =m m.n a 61 m_..'"n �__� T~3 Op< a ?a s.�00 J20 % L_i 5.g?4 dp 2:‘,"0.0 a-3. 0 =g i=•< g mmao.=�p0` mm. m (->aa Jc So. f ua.m 3 iP:d. C•�' C•° qg O..e.. _S 3 ` J._: c6 ▪ m ? i.a ,, mco oam= `Ti 5-a> =5 c•m Qca nJ—a`. S3° rOb mo<. -tm Jm m a-7;3 3« Si o p o a. ,g`g c o Eta', e. :m m a a _• ° 2=a 3 nn•2 3 � m a m m caom« o on ' pv _ ,-4 - s o,I.» a°o- „., m4 .ncax„^O mnA.gm pm m.0 m3 n ,rte maim aaa-J0 .-m -0 .- O . ¢^P ,om3m m 'r-, .z.mm_.3. m.- =3:,.. Q 5-3 aa= c = o ;m .c c-.m- 0 7.. , m »3a o� . m 0 '8 a„o. °m m3ym',Temcal' pm,<7 oa3.9 3 agm 3a-. icon < 3 m ,Qa, =i 0.a R �m o - Jo- 3 -° , a o ^ m Jw m 'm 3a, -m a m mo am" 0R ,$ yJ a2 - . a gK R'C3 a2 S•a mm0-= o..oz c oo crt3 w = °Om =" a m m° aT K .:° m ra1C R a cm a ao mim -302 0gc.0_o-£?S -ti re = c na^g. _a ,:- c- o0.GAD go_=N3:m o' u3nm m £m �no, al ,..o o = N �Jm=J m i ° m r 6� Sjp NmR'0 O _�' < FM : j910C - °- E�-'-c ,-3 om•C- mf -Taa • y on .+g N 'o w n a F��m J'< S r o.a' m�m= N W m C o a -o m» , 'n G_6 m o off TI m o 9 m , 0 a,o a: p< 3'—. m.. .ig ca F-„n.0,�3'a»._o•0 - m ;»£ a :-.5.,..2.0t)—- oo m.00 ° mQ. =gm`nmm ry ay $m m,a gca to CL-3.-. 3_. am 3 "' Q`a < 0.n co , .•O• =to izm J mm TO.�°�Jo 5,, l n ,2= n a ',.,a • . r �:a • E g . ...s m-a N a m J.C 5- ° m=m - s_< -, d V 4-_q O m-' sr.;m.2 ° 3 , •Pe- ;`eoF o, m5 m • 'g <'R' y'gar' _=°.3—.a - n'm"co-* o Tn -I no 5216-.2- Nm ym ==� $ `m .,. a c o^..m.g .=.Q =m ^ o mm aamc o- 3.rm dm- >• oo 3 3 = 31.2 . 4 < 'm f 3—o Co 0g 'R 3 r'°^ m 0-m m o¢ -. I 0 . 6w .^. R $.� O.@3o.° '�m_mmo=.1 »m = m <ra o0- ^&Cz1 A0.ar =- a J o 8' o o"" r;.•m a B. 3 3.e m o s ° a <<g..s -op g 2a 3 ao $.o:sm_.F $ � a m -51_ G n^ k` i ao -38_17 i6 m x c'»$ cgo`. g ma o ?4, m m�a- '3 m.£ 0Rm3•mo cmm_m^ 63 =2 • n J 0 m o ° m o m 0- J �. 1a o a oG < o m a 'g:m =Fpk Cr' s`Ro 3Oa r ' . armor ran a tor$. 0, =.c sy to ° 0,, - 3i . $ _2g' m ap lo@4 go D � m mQgtpqpf "F,'° m� .=•=:;,-r."5. a. � 3 om - .,• _' ?' °3 o.o A',x•000$- -to <,.... -.< la.•er; a-0 ..-" g ao;ta- .a•.,s m o$0S.:. a o i - 'J -. O O , a g =J 2 qm =m s 3-_ =-3. Co G m o m ... � � gym- a m. . < m» -c�; m mm m<:a nor^o Ta �o!3m a -“* f _ - - RETAKES for month of FEBRUARY , 19 89 The following documents are being re-filmed: DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DAY FILE CERTIFICATIONS - USR� AURORA CAPITAL CORP 2/9/87 RESOLUTION RE: DENY USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION, 1 ,200 HEAD DAIRY - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION 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, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 4th day of February, 1987, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of considering the application of Aurora Capital Corporation, 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, Colorado 80301, for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation , 1,200 head dairy, on the following described real estate, to-wit: The SWa, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Kenneth Lind, Attorney, and the Attorney representing the opposition was Thomas Hellerich, and WHEREAS, Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Use by Special Review, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, at hearings conducted January 14, 1987 , and January 19, 1987 ; heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County staff and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, Commissioner Johnson moved that this request be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brantner and carried with Commissioners Johnson, Brantner and Yamaguchi voting aye, and Commissioners Lacy and Kirby voting nay, and WHEREAS, it was determined that this request shall be denied for the following reasons: 1. It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. 1 F 7'' ._.1 870073 Page 2 RE: DENY USR - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION b. The use of the land as a dairy would not be complimentary to nor compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, as the surrounding land uses are not used in such an intense manner. c. The uses of the land which would be permitted will not he compatible with the future development of the area, because the surrounding land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and because of proposed future development of rural residences in the immediate vicinity of the site. d. The proposed Development Standards do not give adequate protection for the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the County, especially in the area of odor control. While the Corporation has made proposals which are intended to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, the odor problems inherent in the proposed design are not adequately mitigated by after-the-fact odor abatement programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation, 1 ,200 head dairy, on the hereinabove described 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 4th day of February, A.D. , 1987. BOAR ATTEST: 1 , 7� WELD DCOUNTY,OF �COLORADOTY SSZONERS Weld County Clerk and Recorder EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING (NAY) and clerk to the Board Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman r / /l p ,r",fi� (NAY) fi. C. . Kir y, Pr Tem eputy County er APPR D AS TO FORM: Gene R.B antner (AYE) Iron (AYE) � ��rf�� 3a que t ne 3oh s n A44 -x -.County Attorney (AYE) Fran Yam guchi 870073 l ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: FEBRUARY 4, 1.987 - USR,LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending- ? NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING CYQ O/7` OW.:-.,_ -.3 J1r1 S -" / M 4� _ -.(-,-r a/1,t4 v, 779��C• 1s' 94(.44, 4%20k, e. ,o,�& frfex- /3 rile& `p 4, /! �( 51tn , L3k)AAThr•n ale00Q Wee, 3h�- . eSC�F�;€-CL 8 ` eat19a -73 U& SYIsk / lb k' c'$ I, , r unt 4/ . ½ a7O2/Pd�f 7,/pt Gff ,oAert� r ,, jS el .7z4, 46 4- fiD, goy in 1-/fr-Kir " I, L a bPo 6-e-tc 1199? atom.t L , rare, 113 Ksrj Ate • Titinsiez « ' . i, / / .-S-71F7( X 2 /,7/ Par-in Le/. -1'7;1,P 7L. , (4?4, A 1, H u i. „ „ F I. ifV5a i2/7 � 4 , / e.rat.ca,-,c, L, s /aY/ nre/t / 7(1)2L.47,477. , // 1 , .J`. 'Site-. 41 g. -M411;At{. 4)rSotts ', ki..--) -1,Sb w-(- Q 3g ,,,a (( I ( ` /60_,LA, /...„/ /1 7 aJ c g /3 ',/ /cr1 .cr74 /e if 7 4I. 1 l / , d FR e r Fr 88. 4 wertz� /k17eZ re if J/e 74/4 Se« t - 7/ 7/ (L) GR 31;-%<2_ Q/%f45,,%o ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING C. 3-4271 w C° , 3 6 Plifit4S � 7Th , r�r✓7 ✓!r va? WC ✓1 36 /( ert C., ,• 90_4- 74Ance-c--,-- az.2-3b eo ,a/ set izzate9, 4- r K, I: S 19 872 wr1s ) Ohn 'r co 11 St RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST OF AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION FOR A DAIRY 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, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 19th day of January, 1987, at the hour of 10: 00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of continuing testimony regarding the application of Aurora Capital Corporation, 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, Colorado 80301, for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation for a dairy, on the following described real estate, to-wit: The SWy, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Kenneth Lind, Attorney, and the Attorney representing the opposition was Tom Hellerich, and * WHEREAS, Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Use by Special Review, and• WHEREAS, the Board, having heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, and having studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter, deems it advisable to continue said hearing to Wednesday, February 4, 1987 , at 10:00 a.m. , for deliberation only: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the hearing to consider the application of Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation for a dairy, on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is, continued to February 4, 1987, at 10:00 a.m. for deliberation only, with no further public testimony to be heard_ • a _> 870047 nom'1. ;:y7, Page 2 RE: CONTINUE HEARING - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 19th day of January, A.D. , 1987. BOARD Or COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: rd WEL%O �goLORAiO Weld County 'Clerk and Recorder l.� % .pi r-t and Clerk to the Board Got �1 Lacy, Crtnan/edayBY:_� y�awt l �.�c �{-i✓ C.W. Kirby, Prd Tem jepLLy County Clerk �C APPROVED AS TO FORM: ene R, antner .nzc,,uab,ntsia. r�fv Y4 acquelipe Jokron ,County Attorney Frank Y aguchi 870047 /-e HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 86-82 RE: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION FOR A DAIRY - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION A public hearing was conducted on January 19, 1987, at 10:00 A.M., with the following present: Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman Commissioner C.W. Kirby, Pro-Tem Commissioner Gene Brantner Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Mary Reiff Assistant County Attorney, Jan Rundus Director of Planning Services, Chuck Cunliffe Certified Court Reporter, Barbara Billings The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 29, 1986, and duly published January 1, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation, reduced to a 1,200 head dairy. Jan Rundus, Assistant County Attorney, made this matter of record and stated that this hearing was continued from January 14. Robert B. Willson came forward to complete his testimony. He introduced Exhibits YY and ZZ, and AAA (Tape Change #87-7) through KKK. Thomas E. Hellerich, attorney for Citizens Opposed to the Dairy, came forward to make further comments and introduced Exhibit LLL, an excerpt from the Johnstown Breeze. Edward S. Reichert spoke in opposition to this request and presented Exhibits MPA1 and NNN, both dealing with water. Mr. Reichert, a realtor, said that people are not interested in purchasing property near a feedlot. At this time, the hearing was recessed for lunch until 1:30 P.M. After this recess, the following people spoke in opposition to this request: Roberta Reichert; Duane Frye; Nyla Frye; Charles Stieff; Barbara Kowalik; Chip Kraynyk; (Tape Change #87-8) Greg Brown; Joe Elms; Faye Elms; John McCahan; Janette McCahan; and Charles Gray. Mr. Hellerich then summarized the contentions of those opposing the Use by Special Review. Speaking in favor of the proposal were: Dick Folkman; Jake Salazar; and Jim Martin. After a short recess, Mr. Lind came forward in rebuttal, assisted by Ken Dell and Robert James, of Rocky Mountain Consultants; Barney Little, general manager of Colorado Dairy Farms; (Tape Change #87-9) Ray Volle, of Aurora Capital Corporation; and Brad Anderson. During this rebuttal, Exhibits PPP through YYY were submitted. At the close of public testimony, Commissioner Johnson commented that the vast Amount of technical data which has been submitted must be evaluated, and she moved to continue this hearing to February 4, at 10:00 a.m, for the purpose of deliberation only, with no further public testimony to be received. She said that the data presented will be referred to County staff members for evaluation, and she felt it necessary to identify the concerns to be addressed. Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion and outlined the concerns to include: impacts on roads; ground water; pond lining; domestic water supply; 100-year flood plan; and odor standards. Commissioner Brantner expressed his thanks to the audience for their cooperation during this lengthy hearing and included the following as concerns to be considered: flies; fire protection, noxious weeds; odor; water pollution; neighborhood impact; storage and removal of manure; removal of liquid wastes; and the 100-year runoff. Commissioner Johnson added treatment of solid and liquid wastee as an item of concern. The motion to continue this hearing carried unanimously. i ` 870044 • Page 2 CERTIFICATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION This Certification was approved on the 21st day of January, 1987. APPROVED: ‘71BOARD OF COUNTY CO}TiiISSIONERS ATTEST: �--4/.. (1.4\A"--11-47-4-42.44-4¢-4,..,, WELD COUNTY, c ORADO _. Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board Gord acy, ha By-:. X ��?�1�4a-2 � yti`-`J� �✓ l�il .4' / Del)uty County C e C.W. Kirby, Pro*em: SkillGene Brantner t uel a Johnson Frank amagdchi TAPE #87-6, 087-7, #87-8, and #87-9 DOCKET 086-82 PL0097 870044 • ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JA'N'UARY 19, 19878 (10:00 A_M.) DOCKET #86-82 - USR, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING Pg 1/i 64RL7?i PP'"" 1-,iTkta1" R3 G ss o, -e C5 76 - ? . . Aja-r p�r(,. 0/Lcin LiSit/74(. )2 o Jz3 R.tfo u-iE& , 4 • h%Ire` - ,/.�,._.z a(e/F ci (7�. , , J .� fr ay - Y`31 1 ( 1. rc i SR 1TT?0- `YPX 7C/g p LJ:1cP-_ f,r - aU-.�:.A e, .� 5 7 , ,2 �,� , ff, A0 a 4, .z6 -( dr", —F P � .//�,�ex-lli. 3 G �`��i ,-:P/� C c _ _ ( 8 G - $ Z /LQ-rt�C.r t ('', l cci�d . .6 66 4'1ck 0 G p,.E'a .k g4475/ fl — cc .41. -� I r ! 25- , ift,� ,,, -a /' z,„ , i____,prz �y"1 /SW,-e-e_riPa// 7 ( At-etc, 1Coa3V (S-4 1:2-- _ StEu °,4914-trig 9YD13 I y�A 3bP A) 6I>,J gO�3ct c% 3d ,n Xrir�s� -SP,�'v/_' 93-7e ,�D 47‘S, 4//<G/ttF,</ frV3 6 - 8-z (3 irrewevzi 437° f 44x- 7ny�y .,, q/3-4L 3 8.6- 7>__, ./- c 6 o a1 cpf c/i 7 11A n L.1L 44./ /6.5-.3 V S76 -7 ..#� ,SfraA_Ad- R44o laic-lay , R0 8 (8 1 ”-Z-17 s717 ll C 1 13 .- "& o_±i X6 -81 A fa7 id - _41. / Yos-3 n-or-i- 06 G_ g / 1279 L) e_ C /7 u.. �.... 5c53Se fb -25 f 41 e-,x S /et f 3 b e,e /s fi 1 r- M. oS35( 7.4 -, / : /mss. /yam "rayC.e 2s-„Z/A,7 cr�o, ri �y ��2 voil114- g ffiee rr i v 4/c R ? - Pia ttiv ,/7L- pars/ 16— & 7,ti Si co tics 36 16 j/Rift/ dih. Vs" gt— g —74 -riedf_ R- OA E4, t 30 //J(1,2 JL P/niteui//t e667 g6 - s • �{� V VJe-S O �T€-Y- waled C> 14-e4 € ':, -_.;_r ?6--g7_ ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 19, 19878 (10:00 A.M.) DOCKET #86-82 - USR, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING A.1644,-5 &ro y 3g t weA 4; L(zf �; ,ti eo 86 -8? ,2 A.3 7# £n,ed Ski j1 r e-/i S S: 4iccAltti) /Ail-- In it /7 alrpoo.) (;70 a'6-n o&yw ne',Nlt RESOLUTION RE; APPROVE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST OF AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION FOR A DAIRY 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, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 14th day of January, 1987, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Aurora Capital Corporation, 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, Colorado 80301 , for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation for a dairy, on the following described real estate, to-wit: The SW1, section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Kenneth Lind, Attorney, and WHEREAS, due to the length of the presentations and the amount of testimony still to be presented, the Board deems it advisable to continue said hearing to Monday, January 19 , 1987, at 10:00 a.m. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the hearing to consider the application of Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation for a dairy, on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is, continued to January 19, 1987 , at 10:00 a.m. Iz A. 870037 Page 2 RE: CONTINUE HEARING - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION The above and foregoing Resolution was , on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 14th day of January, A.D_ , 1987 . n �. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 0.4,,E I yeum„2i�1.n/ WELD CO T OLORADO Weld County' erk and Recorder and Clerk to, the Board Go do c , irman BY: ) c7A-,7zg C. . Rirb , Pro- em Deputy County Cilerk pker, APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gene Brantner :7 Ja.que • e o nson County AttorneyCa J4, Frank Yana•uchi 870037 HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 86-82 RE: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION, 2,400 HEAD DAIRY -. AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION A public hearing was conducted on January 14, 1987, at 2:00 P.M., with the following present: Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman Commissioner C.W. Kirby, Pro-Tem Commissioner Gene Brantner Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Mary Reiff Assistant County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker • Director of Planning Services, Chuck Cunliffe Certified Court Reporter, Barbara Billings The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 29, 1986, and duly published January 1, 1987. in the Johnstown Breeze, a public hearing was conducted to consider the application of Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation, 2,400 head dairy. Bruce Barker, Assistant County Attorney, made this matter of record. Chuck Cunliffe, Director of Planning , Services, read the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial of this application into the record. Mr. Barker read into the record the Use by Special Review standards which the Commissioners are to consider when making their decision and asked that public testimony be limited to these areas. Ken Lind, attorney representing the applicant, said that their presentation will show that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will meet the standards for a Use by Special Review. Re said the application for a 2,400 head dairy was divided into two phases, each serving 1,200 head. The applicant would like to drop Phase 2, and consider only Phase 1 for 1,200 head at this time, with the understanding that at a later date they may request an Amendment of the Use by Special Review. Mr. Barker advised the Board that it must decide whether this matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on only Phase 1 or continue this hearing today. Mr. Lind stated that the applicant is willing to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial as a recommendation of denial of Phase 1. Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt that a second hearing by the Planning Commission for a reduced number of cows is unnecessary and moved to continue with this hearing today. Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Before proceeding further, Commissioner Johnson asked how many cattle could be on the property as a use by right. Mr. Cunli££e advised the Board that this parcel of ground could contain 644 head of cattle as a use by right and explained the process which must be followed to amend a Use by Special Review. Mr. Lind said that this parcel has been used as a family farm and feeding operation, which in the wintertime often contained 900 to 950 head of cattle. Re pointed out that the application was submitted under the old Weld County Comprehensive Plan, rather than the recently—adopted Comprehensive Plan, so will be considered under the old plan, but he feels it complies with both plans. Mr. Lind presented Exhibit GG, a 870034 /DLOO97 D Cc ' is Page 2 CERTIFICATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION USR Comprehensive Plan map, and Exhibit HH. Pat McNear, realtor with Scott Realty, testified concerning the effect this operation would have on land values, Ken Dell, planner with Rocky Mountain Consultants, • explained the design of the dairy. After a short recess, Mr. Lind presented petitions said to contain 196 signatures in support of the dairy (Exhibit II) and a letter from Mountain Empire Dairyman's Association (Exhibit JJ) . Robert James, engineer with Rocky Mountain Consultants, explained the differences between the existing Colorado Dairy Farms operation located on Highway 66 and the proposed facility. Steve Rivas, employee of Colorado Dairy Farms, discussed the odor problems at the Highway 66 location and the improvements which were made when Colorado Dairy Farms took over this operation. (Tape Change #87-4) He also explained the lagoon design for the proposed operation. John Ewing, veterinarian serving Colorado Dairy Farms, testified that the dairy has a program which stresses preventive medicine and fly control. Jim Martin, owner of Colorado Animal Health, spoke regarding the insecticide which is used by Colorado Dairy Farms. Barney Little, general manager of Colorado Dairy Farms, spoke about the economics of the proposed operation and explained how the operation would be managed. Mr. Lind spoke briefly about the traffic impacts of the project and stated that the applicant would be willing to enter into a road agreement when necessary. Ray Volle explained the proposed road traffic patterns and said there would be a total of approximately 21 trucks per week delivering feed and picking up milk. Mr. James informed the Board that engineering design reports have been submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and approval is pending. He submitted Exhibit MM, showing the design of the ponds. Mr. Rivas explained the microbial activity of the lagoon and stated that the proposed system is over-sized for this facility. Mr. James explained how the waste water which has gone through the system, will be used for irrigation. He submitted Exhibit NN, typical data for nitrate levels in irrigated farms in Larimer and Weld Counties. (Tape Change #87-5) Mr. Rivas and Mr. James made further comments and Mr. Dell explained the proposed water supply. Mr. Dell submitted Exhibit 00, a letter from John Ewing, and Exhibit PP, a schematic drawing of service connections for the Little Thompson Water District. Mr. Lind asked that the applicant be allowed to rebut after the opposition has presented information. After a short recess, Thomas E. Hellerich, attorney representing a group named Citizens Opposing the Dairy, outlined ways in which he feels this application does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and submitted Exhibit QQ, a letter from the Little Thompson Water District. Judith Green, speaking for the residents of Northmoor Acres, presented their concerns regarding quality of life and land values. Nanette Adler presented Exhibit RR, a map showing the location of those 330 persons who signed the petition submitted January 13, opposing this request. Sim Stroh, who operates a feedlot in the area, came forward to explain the significant differences between a feedlot operation and a dairy operation. Following a recess, Robert Willson, engineer, came forward to make a presentation. As part of his presentation, he submitted Exhibits SS, TT, UU, VV, (Tape Change #87-6) and W. A short recess was called at this time. After this recess, Chairman Lacy explained that, because of the time and the length of the presentations still to be made, it would seem advisable to continue this hearing to 10:00 a.m. Monday, January 19, with the understanding that testimony will be taken from 10:00 a.m. until noon, with a one and a half hour lunch break, with testimony will be heard until the conclusion. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue this hearing to 10:00 a.m., January 19. Commissioner Yamaguchi seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 870034 Page 3 CERTIFICATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION USR This Certification was approved on the 19th day of January, 1987. APPROVED: BOARD OF CCUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ` -e4 �, WELD C UNT" OLORAD Weld County C erk and Recorder and Clerk to the Boar r . acy n G'7 ct✓ D putt' County Cler C. Kirby, Pro-Te G R. B ante \.\^Y -� ac lit) John o' ",\1' vv� Frank Yaiaguchi TAPE #87-3, #87-4, #87-5, & #87-6 ROCKET #86-82 YL0097 870034 ,>4 •4>. ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 14, 1987 DOCKET #86-81 - USR, CHANGE IN NON-CONFORMING USE (CULTURED MARBLE FABRICATION BUSINESS), ROBERT SEE DOCKET #86-82 - USR, LIVESTOCK C0NFINE:"fENT OPERATION (2,400 HEAD DAIRY) AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING r 2D?C5n ( c)e\ _�ts D0csk0A- SG-q D.. t 8D %9 WCR 17 1 , r4.44/7 .k,ce, A____, ,19•af9 V1CP, 17 4 puv1-2 8(9-6e2- 4 /9L.— / 797ac/cA'- iS Te,/,frsTu,,,, A7O,1„. .f ., /7f7O, cd- r R-/T Ms—Cit.,—o— zi 7 r- 4 t -✓I 2t6 eI- irea iscin r'CTA, Gi' ,-/ �Lc( ,7a 4 ,,%- ,gm / l/6(7il �id -0 7 � h 12 ,7 31 t/l.L(.C�!j th 7 s a- c? - b� do 4, 19420 W,#II co, a /, friars/4,, ,i, - i b' 2z t`` �,' g /v A a 0 clod (22. Pei, /7 Ln ea „ i / S s /AM-t-0 /7508 iuCA_ IS PL,4'TTaxa6 ° 210- S>2. �R / lJltl 1?Wewi,* /iCY3b , .9,i F,cs-el; a . ,6- cc'�.- � / drr )a 5- /S d 6 A- v Y:e1, ^y ¢fi�1/ J.., /7300 E. .7-z- /rrT v 76- ,• /fee CO '� 14 — fl $7,447/,7F ar Coo& Wei? 3 ` .Y4��'�•`•�=z /� /J_� X16 - s z , 4 Y �m✓. P /1,� 0.7 idGf-5-/S- �.4---�-f'/—e-M t-„e" , 45-lo — Sia_ All.,,-,-,., • 0247, 4?i 7o v,,. a R 6 fi S ei S 4.—.S7- - - ,- t. - _As sx t h , 7 6 U c (? 5? t Azr- ` asp g6 — .-. 2� a111 `l510-0 1 ).C.Q. 37 C nhRS76wR,�- 810- c3a -,'c/5.. /9/02 o/K,: / 9 4 ciezp, Clo A6 f7,./ lQ1.ti v,"„j„ . 6J 21 We-9, Lc- Co g-n,crfhezdo A' fro Al e-a.--- 6 _ ?“A 6) C it. 3,y 9,e4Ala..„4 C 'z4 fi-ef 2- 74(/ k 7J7/ / 7.6( Jr r , p(-- 8Z. i�lJd-!�/f�,F�71 r✓vr//� �i °��S ' 1 / iy�CZBrnl6 �o �� 4 • ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 14, 1987 DOCKET #86-81 - USR, CHANGE IN NON-CONFORMING USE (CULTURED MARBLE FABRICATION BUSINESS), ROBERT SEE DOCKET #86-82 - USE, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION (2,400 HEAD DAIRY) AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE 'write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME i� ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING...„,_,,,,c,,, ,„,„,,. O,4).;it- 7V-27-e- 9-- i.,7 gi, 75-7/4:7C:-/ ) 7 iii.,,ale-l-, -tpI. 'yr /7s‘ Q, - rd, r�p,-, gb -� til,40 i q ql} 'toe V; '1\picL-L g - ?- _ 2- at?? . " etyy1�2 o/i',�/� dm/ .4 d6-sly 1l iiK li1/y� ID 1Mg .4airo, & . 84) - 32 -o ej //(pc s Pas A%Co-,., c y�c4 L,e Q\a4vb3_:-\\\e Ct 616 ,-- 677, V/tRl got 74/0` / e≤c n J % Ai 4n7 0,A/ , gki- C/2- 1.-th) ._.1/4.ni 74u4( wcR1ig:. 67/ \--1 8682 ,kilt., . S:&u,zg 256 tc- 4,c2, 67 `/Z Grtekj 86-8? 70\h fkns4r lac 23CJCIN3 1-kv,d,5c,, Cc. )4 8G-8z t.6. l3t( 9V.'foi 1 . &Z�L/Lt/ri /7 ,�fc,r/s/7�1/, r�o W -ST2 —j rft, rt,11 A! 17)?/ / 7/^.4-71(///eke &7-L y 4j,_Cr' g6r `g in, r�1414 30 /her y (ago 'q�tRm y1� CO Sh_-82 r t't' C ap 3 , ��tl.��, .�� F t ce\t1vl . Co - 8C,-8'a l JIG, tc > 02Z4f 9. A) A 75' ,.a--74>A.J 56 j sz1�= 72 e,, ,DE/ / fly} .94.,etyclo 1'-'7 i1 / Jo� ,� S% /7�tr� U6 �Gp/(r/frcn/T, Le.A- Q. P / 7. -i- (moo � l n,�- Cam( 6k- f-zf e £AcmC 1, ..2.4 3300 A(t rc!<zg L 20(. 441 - c .: I( Zeit p R ,v46 C v( Lam,. ?(r -,cL &) £1 Zoiter, 0707-(3),-XF 72de ...- i��E 5 4,a7wt. /ef:_7 r7t bk,. P ; 7 y ,,/ • • ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 14, 1987 DOCKET #86-81 - USR, CHANGE IN NON-CONFORMING USE (CULTURED MARBLE FABRICATION BUSINESS), ROBERT SEE DOCKET #86-82 - USR, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION (2,400 HEAD DAIRY) AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING iesksi� .43..-A-�G.� __ _ 7�/ 740 roy .2 S ii,. 4,77, 2A-9„. o-S' S` or . 41)(12 9o8 R0, YB�� JGHyvSlow kt; a--t q c 1 r 4 z o n 1l�216z.r vis w.i a -g- Z 717' disi 4,-0,A,ALi f9(oS0 'CD )5 ,�OPn1STow,� RG-r C 27UwSK )S lAhs-9dIrvr 8t0— r r - . S EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SniET Case DSR, Aurora Capital Corporation Exhibit Submitted By .L,xhibit Description A. 12/17/86 George Smith Request to proceed B. 12/19/86 Planning staff Inventory of items C. 12/19/86 Planning Commission Resolution of recommendation D. 12/19/86 Melvin Rahn Letter E. Planning Commission Summary of hearing F. 12/24/86 Jake Salazar Letter G. 12/29/86 Clerk to the Board Hearing date approval H. 12/29/86 Clerk to the Board Notice of hearing I. 1/9/87 Nyla Frye Letter J. 1/12/87 Lorraine & Clyde Hairston Letter R. 1/12/87 John S. McCahan Letter L. 1/12/87 Christine Marostica/John & Mary Marostica Letter M. 1/12/87 Duane Frye Letter N. 1/12/87 Judith Green, et al. Letters (15) 0. 1/13/87 Surrounding landowners Petition in opposition P. 1/13/87 Maxine & Stave Koester Letter of opposition Q. 1/13/87 Milo & Margaret Ballinger Letter of opposition R. 1/13/87 Ehmann, et al. Letter of opposition S. 1/13/87 Adrian & Louis Ciancio Letter of opposition T. 1/13/87 Erkenback Lateral Ditch Co. Letter re: Request for condition if application is approved D. 1/13/87 Steve & Meryl Lee Seewald Letter of opposition V. 1/13/87 Drew Scheltinga, Engineer Memo re: Haul routes & dust control W. 1/13/87 Faye L. Elms Letter of opposition E. 1/13/87 Joseph Elms Letter of opposition Y. 1/13/87 Robert B. Willson Engineering analysis & possible violations of Zoning Ordinance Z. 1/13/87 Gary & Nanette Adler Letter of opposition AA. 1/13/87 Greg & Anna Spaur Letter of opposition BB. 1/13/87 Bennett &Marilyn Spaur Letter of opposition CC. 1/14/87 Roberta Reichert Letter DD. 1/14/87 Jo Ann J. Gettlein Letter EE. 1/14/87 Clerk to the Board Summary of telephone call FF. 1/14/87 Clerk to the hoard Summary of telephone call r'. Page 2 RE: EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL -- USR, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description GG. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Comp map RB. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Plot plan map of Phase I II. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Petition ' JJ. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Letter / KK. 1/14/87 Barney Little (Applicant) Blueprint of facility LL. 1/14/87 Applicant Map entitled "Aurora Dairy Farms" -"MM. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Diagrams d'NN. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Graphic --00. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Letter APP. 1/14/87 Ken Dell (Applicant) Graphic Qq. 1/14/87 Tom Hellerich Opposition) Letter ERR. 1/14/87 Nanette Adler (Opposition) Map SS. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter ITT. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Maps UU. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter /VV. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter WW. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter n. /Alf S M Jah(flzavnXl OiClit1 YY. i/!9/93 E ett��l "(V,f iQ") san - 'v:612 tiaw { J ZZ. VMin 5 I MI/ Dpi t, Qf AAA. yq187- ` Dt 11 -Stoll kg`)}a ` S J — 100 c Sir�r�, tim BBB, u p��; {, �y (� I� CCC. ,i fit`Sk ��(Mij' �[d114t'! -�I( Q,Ik4aralx� DUD. '� �1 Slw y bilis111 ta-atYQYSc it. o .A J ERE. 'I kt\A1ks.,s rk-csJ fC 1.1.‘ togiae q 11 iv FIT. ue4� {'1O l - ,1 ;06 ce i (T, 1cc GGG. 't '1 i 1{�!to 4t- ''Lik5t wit h cn rk?... } A `l . c J III. Suleoic\ rp S/ri . p(.i1 l . ,i 4 4 ^�1i L} JJJ. - �.J144,Attgry et_6cot.cat ."1 Q. . I KKK. " S(�VAtakt 4' Gikci s loss La. '1 - }6'M1/2-0th A\ " \goi cc.' J(XlnSp1Ait .UiPP-4 rirrytt MM. � '� MM. Ea �' Map — f mpg h0. 1 5j,k NNN. Q p 000. '� X40 1, 4 tA .�Iic nl) L tc ,._,.,. . �,� � • • Page 3 RE: EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL - USR, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description PPP. / i4? I an NI (fog40 ) Zc 'i t �I �• Mitt— iJtR'e .1075% ,7ct EPA/ - 3SS. It arieS tt $'ie r P �t� 6e 4 TTT. pp f t' WU. " 1�aVnn �i�I� " !-.eitet - -16? (10 WV. gape Angrj VW. _ I. idler J alb .t m. 4 B1C ° rm� _ s► YYY. it deifrzr �fJimiAJ 1 AAAA�/7 00000 �� -illJh10a4 BBBBA ate i� of /Y " � �-1-412 CCCC. DDDD. EEEE. rr1EN. GGGG. HBICS. JJJJ. RRRR. LLLL. MLII4M. NNNN. 0000. PPPP. QQQQ. RRRR. SSSS. TTTT. DDDD. WWWW. XRRX. r,. ;r YYYY. • AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION USR-170:86:51 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Use by Special Review permit be adopted and placed on the Use by Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. 2. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department of Planning Services' office and the plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Within thirty (30) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant/operator shall submit to the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, an engineering report, prepared by a registered professional engineer, demonstrating compliance with its Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities._ The applicant/operator shall submit evidence of approval by the Colorado Department Health, Water Quality Control Division, to the Department of Planning Services within ninety (90) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the applicant has entered into a road maintenance and improvements agreement with Weld County. The agreement shall include provisions for dust abatement on Weld County Road 15, designated haul routes for vehicular traffic, and the maintenance of the designated haul routes. 5. The Use by Special Review plat shall be amended to: a. Show only those facilities designed for the 1,200 head dairy Livestock Confinement Operation. Any references to facilities designed for phase two shall be deleted from the Use by Special Review plat. b. Show the ditch day lighting immediately to the west of the confinement area and not to Weld County Road 15. c. Show the proposed cistern for water storage on the plat. d. Show a 40 foot turning radius at the entrance to the property from Weld County Road 15. : ,Gxn'Q'T eeee DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 1. The Use by Special Review permit is for a 1,200 head dairy livestock confinement operation as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. The maximum number of cows shall not exceed 1,200 head. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining the runoff retention and containment facilities in accordance with the engineered report, as approved by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. All runoff retention and containment facilities shall meet and be maintained in accordance with the State Health Department's Guidelines of Feedlot Runoff Containment facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for any additional requirements issued by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. 3. All Construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 4. All stormwater and dairy operation runoff shall be controlled an! confined within the boundaries of the subject property as identified in the submitted application materials. 5. No permanent buildings or structures shall be built within Panhandle Eastern's gasline easement or the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company's • easement. 6. The addition of residential dwellings, including mobile hones or manufactured homes, on the property not shown hereon shall require an amendment to the Use by Special Review permit. 7. The applicant shall design and construct a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will divert any and all floodwater runoff around the confinement area. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the confinement area at any point. 8. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of asphalt that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical cleaning and removal of settled material. 9. The applicant shall submit design for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes the perched water table and lowers the groundwater table at least two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. Development Standards Aurora Capital Corporation DSR-770:86:51 Page 2 b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading on the groundwater table at the point of discharge, and demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. The design shall be approved by the Weld County Health Department. A copy of the approved design shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. 10. Odor levels detected off-site which have been diluted with more than fifteen volumes of air shall be considered an odor problem and he applicant/operator shall be required to submit an odor abatement plan to the Weld County Health Department. The plan shall be submitted within five (5) working days of detection and shall be reviewed and approved by the Weld County Health Department. The odor abatement plan shall be implemented within ten (10) working days from the date of detection. If an odor abatement plan is required, an approved copy shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. • 11. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage site shall have a water-tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into the ground. 12. All alfalfa or straw stacks located on the property shall be kept safely apart to mitigate potential fire hazards. The minimum separation distance between the stacks shall be approved by the Johnstown Fire Protection District. 13. Any buildings or structures constructed after the approval date of this Use by Special Review permit shall be accessible to fire department apparatus in accordance with Section 10.207, Articles (a) through (f), of the Uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition. 14. The required number, type, and location of fire extinguishers on the property shall be approved by the Johnstown First Protection District. 15. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. • yam, Development Standards Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 Page 3 16. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 17. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department of Health, Johnstown Fire Portection District, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to insure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County and State Regulations. 18. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans and/or Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 19. The property owner and/or operator of this operation shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. v E g !E !rte mEmORAn®Um JAN 28 t°87 W iii Chuck Cunb ffe {� � To Planning Department Date Oa ua 987 COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga,nga, County Engineer k„. subject- Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation USR - 770:86:51 At the Board of Weld County Commissioners hearing further questions regarding storm drainage and road impact have been raised. My comments and recommendations are as follows: The 100-year storm drainage criteria as contained in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance under Section 24.5.1.5.1. has been confused with Health Department criteria for the protection of livestock holding pens. The criteria in the Zoning Ordinance deals with detention ponds that collect non-contaminated overland flows when there is substantial increase in storm water runoff due to carrercial or residental development. The dairy proposal will not change the runoff and therefore a detention pond for the overall site is not necessary. I will not address the retention pond required by Health Department regulations, except to say, I have reviewed the calculations and found that capacity to protect the livestock containment area exceeds the 25-year requirement. There is a proposed diversion dike and ditch along the north edge of the confinement area. It's purpose is to divert runoff away from the confinement area. The plot plan indicates a ditch would be run to the west and day lighted at CR 15. I recommend the plan be revised to show the ditch day lighting immediately to the west of the confined area and not to the road. Runoff could then flow south between WCR 15 and the confinement area. The proposed runoff collection dike on the west side of the containment area would protect the containment area. The plot plan shows the existing entrance is to be improved and widened to 30' . This is acceptable. However, I recommend the requirement of a 40' turning radius. The roadway width varies from 22' to 24' between the proposed entrance and WCR 38. According to criteria contained in the publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1984, as published by the American Association of State Highway a and Transportation Officials, the width of the traveled way for local rural roads with an average daily traffic count of less than 250 is acceptable between 22' and 24' . Therefore, I do not recommend the widening of CR 15. Page 2 Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation USR - 770:86:51 The amount of traffic that will be generated from a 1,200 head dairy has been disputed. I am sure the accurate number is probably somewhere between the high and low claims. However, the increase, even on the high side, would not change the classification of the road in terms or requiring paving, widening, or the addition of turn lanes. The geometry of CR 15 as it connects to CR 38, is somewhat irregular which is typical of gravel roadways. However, the road is 24' wide with roundings that give an access of 70' of gravel frontage against CR 38. A semi-tractor trailer can negotiate a low speed turn thru this intersection without creating an unusual hazard. As I indicated in my January 12, 1987, memo, a dust control program seems reasonable, although the average daily traffic will remain below the 200 vehicle per day category outlined in the fugitive dust regulation. In order to mitigate traffic impacts, the establishment of a haul route maybe beneficial . Two factors will affect road maintenance problems. If all solid waste must be hauled from the site the affect on roadway wear and tear will certainly increase. Also, if there are preiods of heavy hauling during inclement weather, the impact on the road can be dramatically increased. I recommend a road maintenance agreement be entered into between the applicant and Weld County. DLS/bf xc: Planning Referral File: Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation MEMORAfDU To Chuck Cunliffe, Planning Date To 26, 1987 COLORADO From' Wes Potter, Health Protection Services 1,(/,o'GI subject: Proposed Development Standards for HSR 770:86:51 1. The applicant shall design and constrict a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will divert any and all floodwater runoff around the site. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the site at any point. . 2. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of a permanent, impermeable, durable material (such as asphalt) that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical cleaning and removal of settled material. 3. The applicant shall submit a design for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes the perched water table and lowers the groundwater table titleast two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. - b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading on,^groundwater table at the point of discharge, and demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. 4. The odor standard can stay the same except for editing the time frame as suggested by the Board. A detailed explanation of the reasoning behind these Development Standards will be available later this week. [ti JAN 261981 Iditlisigtomi gab MEMORAnDUM W�`TP To Department of Planning pm„ January 30, 1 87 COLORADO From Health Protection Services - Wes Potter Aurora Dairy Manure Handling - The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nusiance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage site shall have a water-tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into . the ground. W idjs JAN 3 0 1887 *So Ca. 41anaai ussminim• iff mEmoR�n�ur FEB 4; ;o County Attorney/Planning Dam COLORADO Frjes Potter, Director Health Protection Services a'c subliark Session with the Board regarding USR 770:86:$1 The Board called the work session to discuss the various concerns that had been pointed out during the hearings. The questions that were addressed by the Health Protection staff were limited to the groundwater table at the site, potential sources of GW pollution, the capacity of the runoff containment ponds, biological treatment of wastes, pond liner integrity and potential problems, odor sources, and environmental impact of manure handling, stock-piling, and removal. A technical summary prepared by the staff provide pertinent data for the Board. The concerns or potential problems that were discussed by the Health Department centered on five points: 1. The problem of floodwater flowing onto the site and off from the site. The Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities states in section 8.3.4(2): (2)" All possible means to minimize quantities of contaminated runoff should be implemented. Uncontaminated storm runoff from areas external to the feedlot should be diverted by means of interceptor ditches, earth embankments, etc., from flowing over the drainage area." Therefore, it was suggested that a development standard be • proposed to divert the floodwater around the site as much as possible. 2. The system for biological treatment of wastes is delicately balanced and depends upon regular cleaning of the settling pond which pre-treats the effluent by removing solids. Clay liners . in this type of pond are very exposed to mechanical damage during the cleaning process. The possibility of inadvertent damage to the liner during cleaning would increase the potential for percolation of pollutants into the groundwater table through the comprised liner. It was suggested that a more permanent, permeable, durable material (such as asphalt) be used in the construction. This material would also be resistant to chemical deterioration as well as resistant to mechanical damage. 3. It was pointed out that there is in fact a perched water table at the site. In order for the ponds to be constructed in compliance with the guidelines and to operate properly, the french drain was required. While it is possible to construct the french drain in a manner which would lower the water table, no data or specifications have been submitted which detail the point or configuration of the drain discharge and what impact i ,5xi/nsir TOMB C;M- y•"r Page 2 County Attorney/Planning that discharge will have on the water table at the point of discharge. This data needs to be submitted and evaluated to ascertain the impact at the point of discharge. 4. Odor problems, potential sources and impact were also a concern. The staff has previously suggested an odor standard and the Board indicated that a time frame be considered for compliance and abatement of odor problems. 5. Nuisance conditions that could be potentially associated with the manure removal, handling and storage facilities were also a concern. It was suggested that standards be established regarding this potential problem. The major problems could be odor, flies, other insect pests, runoff, and groundwater pollution. S'� y^ AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Geology and Groundwater of the Site The site is a surface expression of a shale/sandstone unit which is overlain by approximately 48 inches of silty loam soil. There is a variegated layer of caliche and sandstone below the soil which causes a perched water table to occur during the summer when irrigation water is influencing the site. Below this layer is a fairly continuous medium dense sandstone unit which extends to a depth of 12 to 30 feet. Shale bedrock exists below the sandstone. Pertinent Observations The groundwater table is perched upon the caliche and sandstone layer at 48 to 80 inches. - The groundwater table is seasonal and influenced by irrigation on the site and up slope. - A french drain, constructed around the site as proposed, will lower the groundwater table and remove any problems from the perched water table. - More data is needed from the applicant regarding the direction of flow from the french drain and how it will influence the groundwater table at the point of discharge into the water table. Potential for percolation and infiltration from livestock pens into the groundwater table is minimal due to compaction and small partical sealing. Phase I Run-off Containment Pond Evaluation 1. Total area of Phase I Runoff 700,000 sq. feet 2. Total Holding capacity of ponds as proposed 800,000 cu. feet 3. 25 year storm run-off (3.8" yeilding 2.65" runoff) = 154,583 cu. feet 4. 10 year storm run-off (2.9 at 20% of 2.35" run--off)= 27,417 cu. feet 5. Total storage required by State Statute = 182,000 cu. feet 6. Total annual waste flow from dairy 274.475 cu. feet 7. Total storage required for proposal 456,475 cu. feet 8. Total site runoff expected for a 100 year storm = 233,100 cu. feet 9. Total annual waste flow from dairy = 274,475 cu. feet Total pond storage required at 100 year storm = 507,575 cu. feet 10. Total pond storage available with 2 foot free board= 1,120,000 cu. feet - 507,575 cu. feet 11. Storage available for USR run-off retention = 612,425 cu. feet 12. Total evaporation at site = 240,000 cu. feet annually try-,.- y. AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Biological Treatment Evaluation Annual waste flow = 274,475 cubic feet per year. Annual net evaporation at site = 240,000 cubic feet per year. Potential annual waste gain 34,475 cubic feet. Proposed method of waste treatment 1. Solids sedimentation (Pre-Treatment) 2. Breakdown of organics A. Enzymatic digestion B. Chelating agents to facilitate breakdown " C. Aerobic aquatic algae flora Comments Depends upon a delicate oxygen balance in the ponds. - Removal of solids strongly influences balance. Cleaning sedimentation ponds will potentially disrupt balance. Any significant run-off event will disrupt the balance. - Pumping could disrupt the balance- - No significant documentation has been provided by the applicant regarding the performance of the proposed treatment. - Opinion of staff - Proposal will probably work. Standards can be established to monitor performance. Pond Liner Comments - Clay liners are commonly used successfully. - Organic sealing of run-off ponds reduces the potential for leaking. Groundwater will not be a problem if french drain is installed to remove perched water table. Odor Sources and Potential Impact 1. Livestock confinment pens - ammonia base odor -- highest when pens are wet - low impact. 2. Manure storage area - odor impact less than pens and highest during handling. 3. Sedimentation pond - will probably be anerobic most of the time. Hydrogen sulfide organics odor impact will be high. 4. Holding ponds could be a significant source of odor if anerobic conditions develop. Odor standards can be established and, with proper evaluation and treatment, corrective actions are possible to abate the odors. • 461116- MEMORAnDU To Chuck Cunliffe, Planning Dee January 26, 1987 COLORADO From Wes Potter, Health Protection Services 114044 • 1 subset: Proposed Development Standards for USR 770:86:51 1. The applicant shall design and construct a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will diver? any and all floodwater runoff around the site. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the site at any point. 2. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of a permanent, impermeable, durable material (such as asphalt) that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical cleaning and removal of settled material. - 3. The applicant shall submit a design for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes the perched water table and lowers the groundwater table to least two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading on groundwater table at the point of discharge, and demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. 4. The odor standard can stay the same except for editing the time frame as suggested by the Board. A detailed explanation of the reasoning behind these Development Standards will be available later this week. t�. mEmoRAnDum 1011 e To Department of Planning _ Data January 30, 1 87 COLORADO From Health Protection Services - Wes Potter sunjact_ Aurora Dairy Manure Handling The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nusiance conditions. The manure wiles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage sire shall have a water-tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into the ground. WP/djs . AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Geology and Groundwater of the Site The site is a surface expression of a shale/sandstone unit which is overlain by approximately 48 inches of silty loam soil. There is a variegated layer of caliche and sandstone below the soil which causes a perched water table to occur during the summer when irrigation water is influencing the site. Below this layer is a fairly continuous medium dense sandstone unit which extends to a depth of 12 to 30 feet. Shale bedrock exists below the sandstone. Pertinent Observations - The groundwater table is perched upon the caliche and sandstone layer at 48 to 80 inches. - The groundwater table is seasonal and influenced by irrigation on the site and up slope. - A french drain, constructed around the site as proposed, will lower the groundwater table and remove any problems from the perched water table. More data is needed from the applicant regarding the direction of flow from the french drain and how it will Influence the groundwater table at the point of discharge Into the water table. - Potential for percolation and infiltration from livestock pens into the groundwater table is minimal due to compaction and small partical sealing. Phase I Run-off Containment Pond Evaluation 1. Total area of Phase I Runoff 700,000 sq. feet 2. Total Holding capacity of ponds as proposed = 800,000 cu. feet 3. 25 year storm run-off (3.8" yeilding 2.65" runoff) = 154,583 cu. feet 4. 10 year storm run-off (2.9 at 20% of 2.35" run-off)= 27,417 cu. feet 5. Total storage required by State Statute u 182,000 cu. feet 6. Total annual waste flow from dairy 274.475 cu. feet 7. Total storage required for proposal a 456,475 cu. feet 8. Total site runoff expected for a 100 year storm 233,100 cu. feet 9. Total annual waste flow from dairy m 274,475 cu. feet Total pond storage required at 100 year storm a 507,575 cu. feet 10. Total pond storage available with 2 foot free board4 1,120,000 cu. feet - 507,575 cu. feet 11. Storage available for USR run-off retention = 612,425 cu. feet 12. Total evaporation at site a 240,000 cu. feet annually ,L''XN/FJ/7 4/7 /T f. AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Biological Treatment Evaluation Annual waste flow a 274,475 cubic -feet per year. Annual net evaporation at site = 240,000 cubic feet per year. Potential annual waste gain 34,475 cubic feet. Proposed method of waste treatment 1. Solids sedimentation (Pre-Treatment) 2. Breakdown of organics A. Enzymatic digestion B. Chelating agents to facilitate breakdown C. Aerobic aquatic algae flora Comments - Depends upon a delicate oxygen balance in the ponds. Removal of solids strongly influences balance. - Cleaning sedimentation ponds will potentially disrupt balance. - Any significant run-off event will disrupt the balance. - Pumping could disrupt the balance. No significant documentation has been provided by the applicant regarding the performance of the proposed treatment. Opinion of staff - Proposal will probably work. Standards can be established to monitor performance. Pond Liner Comments - Clay liners are commonly used successfully. - Organic sealing of run-off ponds reduces the potential for leaking. Groundwater will not be a problem if french drain is installed to remove perched water table. Odor Sources and Potential Impact 1. Livestock confinment pens - ammonia base odor - highest when pens are wet - low impact. 2. Manure storage area - odor impact less than pens and highest during handling. 3. Sedimentation pond - will probably be anerobic most of the time. Hydrogen sulfide organics odor impact will be high. 4. Holding ponds could be a significant source of odor if anerobic conditions develop. Odor standards can be established and, with proper evaluation and treatment, corrective actions are possible to abate the odors. j,�... ra. 3 e� ... ..,.. January 14, 1987 LC^ ; Jr~ 606 Ululani JAN St. f Kailua,ua, Hawaii 96734 f 7 `2 (808)261-3750 ♦ 9ap ��' `v.' To: Gordon Lacy, Chairman, Boa. of Commissioners, Weld Cty. , P.O. 758 Greeley, Colorado (with cc. for members) Re: Colorado Dairy Farms petition for Dairy proposed for Glen Anderson Farm, Weld County We have registered our objections to the dairy proposed by CDFACC for the Glen Anderson Farm, corner of Weld Country Rds. *15 and *38 in a letter on Nov. 22, 1986. Subsequently ws had an opportunity to visit the large dairy (3500 head) on Rte. 66 in Weld County in early December, and meet with representatives of the Dairy. The present dairy has one of the most serious odor-pollution problems we have ever encountered. I have served =gi-iculture as a Professor in Horticulture and Genetics for the pas`_ 35 years, and as President of a 1100-member international tree association since 1980. As landowner of property bordering the Glen Anderson farm, I seriously doubt the ability of CDFACC to meet pollution standards of Colorado or any other State. The presence of such a dairy in the midst of Colorado's prime land would constitute a serious error of the Board. Some facts apparent to us in Hawaii ; o CDFACC is built on people new to the region who have no clear sense of the true value of this extraordinary strip of irrigated farm land in crop production, like a Texan moving into Hawaii o Weld County abounds in "junk" land; the Glen Anderson farm can produce 200 bushel corn or 38 ton beets or 120 bushel barley; the farm can, and should be zoned for that purpose o Glen Anderson was eager to sell and CDFACC simply got a steal for excellent farmland o There is abundant poor land for sale near the present dairy on Rte. 66, and it is the only logical place for expansion for traffic management , pollution management, personnel movement, and economy of their own operation o Despite beliefs to contrary, such dairies impact negatively, not positively, on surrounding farmland when it is of exceetional crop-production value, as is this land o A dairy needs only a fraction of a 160 acre farm for a 2400- head dairy, let alone the 1200-head dairy now conjured up to appease complainants o The CDFACC greatly underestimate problems with polluted lateral water movement on a slope such as Anderson farm has o Finally, and most important, expansion in dairying today-- coming as it does at a time of major federal buyout programs to reduce overstocked and overproduced dairy products--must be viewed with great caution, especially by Holding Corporations largely funded outside the region. 1 > 7 WxHIBIT G. ' y Aurora Capital Corp. was proposing a need for only 24 acres for its original 2400 animal herd, as I recall ; reduction to 1200 animals should bring this need down nicely to fit on their present dairy property along Rte. 66. Until they can show ability to reduce the gross pollution of their present catchments. and also an ability to stop periodic storm runoffs--a major hazard for which they seem wholly naive--it would be a serious error of the Commission to consider this development. We respect the tough decisions facing your Board in land use. After watching some of Hawaii 's best farmland go down under asphalt and flag-waving tourists, we urge you to zone industrialized and pollution-belching agriculture as carefully as you would a pesticide factory or parking lot. The extent of community opposition to this proposal hardly needs mention. These people are largely long-term Coloradoans who know the value of this crop land, and seek a County of which they can continue to be proud members. Please support them in this search. Sincerely, ames L. Brewbaker orticulture and Genetics, Univ. of Hawaii President, Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association • 2 3 7. 4, 0 LO 1 - - - Q V/ f1ti 0 ! L Il-r" 0 0 0 0 0 ++ Fri i I 1 8 . . .. . - ... ,, .• . , . ., C' rn • ..., I j j � , ry N + j• �o 8 • a 141, N. 14 lit-. 9. \‘'‘ E. < . s . . A . _ , _., ...c + - - • - r. .• • ___,. 8 ---k\ „, _ 0 ::-.3, i ;-, T NI . N rn x + 0 , co \t I�F.t f,. I\ \. \\,., ( \11\1/44\ \ \Ns.,,,,...... l ..._ \ .\\ l } I i I. � 1 ' _...i 17._..... \ . \ / • .....„ . . . .... ll * ! - t 1 i 1 1 r / e- at 1 i I / / / ` / / • / -)• .4% i t I ► i I i -. . j . N , I sail . . • • I I •''♦'nom RC rah ,.� • JJ$a Jam! ,-...1.!x` f� 71). ' . •� t 2 1 r .�f y 1 1 • "'•,-'.s,, , O 11 7.1•x°9:010 ° !t� i j{ QM, { J c T./ ffS rs „ 1ti 1 ; , '\N l r N. • l '� • e • ..yam_ _�. r - '" • • (.1......\\ft: I ea • 5> . , ter'^,, � \\- i ' •XH BIT CURTIS STRONG NOME 785.2283 OFFICE 785.2255 WWW P. O. BOX 70 317 CHERRY AVENUE PLATTEViLLE: COLORADO 80657 January 10, 1987 Mr. Barney Little Colorado Dairy Farms 7388 Hwy. 66 Longmont, Co 80501 Dear Mr. Little, If there is some doubt about the disposition of manure from the proposed dairy on the former Glen Anderson farm. You may be assured that we can handle all surplus. We had to cut the 1000 acres of our farms short last year in order to take care of some of our old customers. Any surplus could be added to our existing contract. Si�erely !/ �� ' j�f�Q Curtis Strong Strong Farms Inc. CS/pm • .♦ so * • • a • • • • • • • rfit o .cc arm., _Lc/. _ Cu _.,-__.____ coccam_ _tet t, Caao___,a gel- ._4,0/ca-a.eG_.i . an._ °c,t v-- .C6n_-.r _ -A-} - ca-A-e- Y41-C 7. 4 EXHIBIT OfI = ^ti tt't Jan. 8, 1987 Dear Barney, In reguards to your new dairy site on Rd 38 and Rd 15 I would be anxious in talking to you about the manure contract for the dairy. I own 320 acres and Lease another 500 acres in the area. Your dairy would be a convient haul for me. Please keep me in mind and contact me when you know more. 1/7 7 Sincerely ��/1VJ e Gable General Manager Douthit Farms 4 XHISI p/ D /C. Tt-D claw vs iftvc stir &,0 i---` .R0 5O .__. 7r) 3orid YA-/71 -4 NJ (3/4110 40 to t-- / Ta ? c# Ly —�So 11/4 kk 20 . . 4CoJ rkb bEwA0b (21. 4 3? * ) 3ti,200 gib) `a /0 - . . 10 IS f 2 . 3 `i` c- a --,--.; P"c D/AM[fati �/iv( A/E.•!3 ) 2 tit . 1. is. -4 (A 2D ,l cC . 70 ' z Is r> t� m t' N I Cr)) . --- , % , . k 04. r I) M Di w yrr ' 11) a•. --->.t'D, r tea\ j t ....,...O*--;-- .s!w',,,,....:c...c•x ..3?' r 7'`.r- .3r.."'..Sa4 +..." 'xcw..,,,� ,•,; '^G.:::icti s. �.s+x�.-..-S tr.rs'?"7./.4','Lc5.,:,e,:,;1:":"...of .Y, .,_ z _ _ _o1_____W QI).) s M yr= ic,"••., ry,� - • � L {• /S in iS.nt1. -77 a Y Fly i �-ai ,..yam .�f z� X O Cr‘ y1t7lr . . R, to n a n v d — _ ti At. a in r rn n `i ' ice*` Pi • rp % Tv O o IN 1 0 2 �� c o m o v r Is n 4....a,, < .— Z d �' r D r x o to �` N -- Q A b-to b ' 2 to -• �, -� Inillianil.. (A lb 10 n 14.-t Phi M1 DREXEL, BARRELL & CO. S ENGINEERS — SURVEYORS 740 WOOTEN ROAD#108 OFFICES: COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80915 BOULDER (303)591-5151 COLORADO SPRINGS January 13, 1987 ;.., EXHIBIT Mr. John Gruner --1-3Z - 3732 ` Little Thompson Water District 307 Welch Avenue Berthoud, Colorado 80513 RE: HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS, WELD COUNTY ROAD NO. 38 Dear Mr. Gruner: We were asked by Mr. Ken Rollins with Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. to review a hydraulic analysis which they had performed regarding a potential tap on the 3-inch line along Weld County Road No. 38. We have reviewed the information provided by RMC and concur with their recommendation that you allow no more than 70 gpm to be taken from the 3-inch line. They also recommended that the tap be placed as close to the 4-inch line to the west or tapped directly into the 4-inch line if possible. We concur with this recommendation also. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Best Regards, Drexel, Barrell & Company 0 R/01 ph D. Dwyer, III, P.E. Manager, Colorado Springs Office RDD/ms (GRUNER.LET) LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DIRECTORS. January 15, 1987 Telephone 532-2098 Carey J.Sabrnonson. 307 Welch Avenue Pres,dem Drawer G Charts Alen Berthoud.Colorado 80513 Leo Bakel Kerni Crovneued Dane McGee Dean EThorenoorson° • - X-Iti SIT l' MANAGER yonn M,Groner Aurora Dairy Farms 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado, 80501 Re: District Policy on 5/8" Water Taps Gentlemen: In accordance with a verbal request from Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. of Longmont, the following information is provided relative to the District's policies on water taps. The District does not have any restrictions or specific rules which state how our domestic water service may be used. Specifically, domestic water service via a 5/8" tap, or any other size of tap, may be used for commercial or residential use. Although the District does keep a record of the primary use of the tap, there is no restriction on the use and in fact the use may change from residential to commercial. Additionally, as a matter of information, the rate structure on the 5/8" tap remains the same, regardless of the primary use. I trust this will provide you with the information requested by your representative from Rocky Mountain Consultants and if I may be of further assistance, please advise. Sincerely yours, -mow` J N . GRUNER, Manager i . DAILY WATER USAGE BARN FLUSH 4 FLUSHES @ 800 GAL @ 3 SHIFTS - 9600 GAL PIPELINE WASH 350 GAL X 3 SHIFTS = 1050 GAL ` TANK WASH 150 GAL X 1 SHIFT a 150 GAL BARN CLEANUP 100 GAL X 3 SHIFTS a 300 GAL SPRINKLERS 600 GAL X 3 SHIFTS - 1800 GAL HAND LINES 100 GAL X 3 SHIFTS = 300 GAL COWS DRINKING 15 GAL X 1200 COWS = 18,000 GAL PHASE I TO LAGOON 13,200 GAL • PHASE I ANIMAL DRINKING 18,000 GAL TOTAL WATER USED 31,200 GAL DAIRY HOUSES 170 GAL X 4 HOUSES = 680 GAL 31,200 GAL DAIRY 680 GAL HOUSES TOTAL WATER USED - 31,880 • • • ------- - WATER STORAGE 31,200 GAL BY 1440 MIN = 21.6 GAL PER MIN PHASE 121.6 GALS PER MIN WATER STORAGE - 36 x 8 x 10 = 2880 CU. FT. 2880 CU. FT. X 7.4 GAL = 21,312 GAL STORAGE = 16.4 HRS. STORAGE WATER LINE ONE INCH = 50 GALLONS PER MINUTE = 72,000 GAL PER DAY WATER LINE 5/8 INCH = 12 GALLONS PER MINUTE = 17,280 GAL PER DAY TOTAL WATER AVAILABLE TO PROJECT 89,280 GAL PER DAY TOTAL WATER USED AT PROJECT 31,880 GAL PER DAY TOTAL SURPLUS WATER 57,400 GAL PER DAY s i.X H 161st QQd LIND & OTTENHOFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE LAW BUIDENO 3011 ELEVENTH AVENUE P.O.BOX R6 GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 OE00.CE H.OTTFNMOFF TELEPHONE KENNETH F.LLND co,)3c,m' January 19 , 1987 Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR-770: 86:51 (Aurora Capital) Dear Chairman Lacy: Pursuant to the testimony given in the above referenced application on Wednesday, January 14, 1987 ( and , presumably , additional testimony to be given on Monday, January 19, 1987) by Mr . Robert Willson , this office had an opportunity to review certain State Statutes concerning the registration; licensing and the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado . Our investigation determined that the right to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado is a privilege granted by the State of Colorado through the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors requiring (among other things) examination, admission and the issuance of a Certificate of Registration , being a license to practice engineering in the State of Colorado (See C.R.S. 1973 12-25-101 ) . A Certificate of Registration and license means the formal legal permission to practice engineering as granted by the State Board. The practice of engineering is the performance for others of any professional engineering service or work including (among others ) consultation investigation evaluation and planning. (See C.R.S. 1973 12-25-102 (B) and ( 10) ) . Additionally, C.R.S. 1973 12-15-105 states that unless an individual is licensed in Colorado it is unlawful for any person to use the word "engineer, " "engineered, " or "engineering" in an offer to the public to perform the practice of engineering. Copies of the applicable Statutes are attached to this letter for your reference. Based upon the testimony given by Mr. Willson, this office caused a transcript of that testimony to be transcribed and a copy of the first five pages of that transcript are attached for your reference and appropriately highlighted concerning statements by Mr. Willson. Board of County Commissioners January 19, 1987 Page 2 Specifically, at Page two, lines one and two, Mr. Willson was introduced as "Our engineer" . Immediately thereafter , at Page two, lines twelve through seventeen, Mr. Willson stated that certain neighbors (the public) asked Mr. Willson as a "consulting engineer" to review the proposal. In other words, certain members of the public asked Mr. Willson to review, investigate and evaluate the application from an engineering standpoint . Furthermore , at Page three , lines six and seven , Mr . Willson specifically stated that his testimony was to perform a "engineering review" . Mr . Willson further indicates that he performed an "engineering analysis" at Page three, line thirteen of the transcript . Shortly thereafter , Mr . Willson again referred to himself as a project engineer and engineering consultant at Page four , lines fifteen through eighteen . Finally , Mr . Willson specifically stated that he intended to address the "technical scope" and the "engineering" of the applicant ' s proposal at Page five , lines twenty through twenty-three. Quite clearly, Mr. Willson is representing himself as a qualified engineer in giving public testimony and by investigating and evaluating the application he is specifically engaging in the "practice of engineering" as defined by the State of Colorado. Based upon the transcript and applicable State laws, the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors was contacted on Friday, January 16, 1987. It was determined that as of 3:00 p.m. on January 16 , 1987 , Mr. Willson is not currently registered in Colorado as an engineer and has never been registered in Colorado as an engineer. Furthermore, Mr. Willson stated that he was a "certified consultant" at Page three , lines sixteen and seventeen of the transcript . This office then had occasion to contact the Commission for Certification of Consulting Engineers of Colorado. As of 4: 00 p.m. on Friday, January 16 , 1987, it was determined that Mr. Willson was not listed as a certified consultant. Based upon this information , the applicant must therefore object to Mr. Willson 's investigation and evaluation of this application as an expert engineer. Obviously, you can consider his comwents as a citizen but you cannot consider them from a Board of County Commissioners January 19, 1987 Page 3 technical or engineering viewpoint as Mr. Willson is not entitled to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado as defined by Colorado State Statutes. Very truly yours, LIND TTENHOFF Ken eth F. i KFL/cg Enclosure HEARING BEFORE • THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY A public hearing was held , pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning ordinance, commencing at 2 :00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 14 , 1987 , in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center , 915 10th Street , First Floor , Greeley , Colorado, concerning the Matter of the Application of Aurora Capital Corporation , Docket No. 86-82. This is a transcript of the p presentation of Robert Willson given on this date , which is to be continued on January 19 , 1987 - i } COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gordon Lacy , Chairman Jackie Johnson Gene Brantner • Frank Yamaguchi Bill Kirby APPEARANCES: 1 For the Board : Bruce Barker 11 For the Applicant : Kenneth Lind For the Opposition: Thomas Hellerxch Barbara Billings , CSR 800 8th Avenue, Suite 315 Greeley , CO 80631 c _, %� o 356-3306 • Page 2 1 MR. HELLERICH : I would like to call our 12 engineer, Mr . Robert Willson , and his testimony .will take 3 more time than the other speakers . t4 MR . BARKER: Will you have any exhibits? 5 MR. WILLSON : Yes , I will , and I will request 6 exhibit numbering at this time . Mr . Chairman , 17 Commissioners , Mr. Barker , and friends and relatives , or f8 neighbors , that are still with us here , my name is 9 Robert Willson , two L ' s , 4200 Weld County Road 38, 10 approximate distance three miles west of the proposed 11 facility . 12 Shortly before the planning commission ' s 13 hearing , my neighbors came to me and asked that I sort of 14 get involved . I really wasn ' t too aware of this, and as 15 we got involved , they ultimately asked me . as a, 16 Consulting engineer, to simply e_t ew- the applicant 's / 7 __proposal with respect to the applicable Weld County lb documents , and of course, it has been mentioned there are 19 two principal documents , the Weld County Zoning 20 Ordinance , latest issue , July 1 , 1985 , and of course , the 21 1973 Comprehensive Use Plan , which is the overriding 22 document rather than the 1986 plan. 2. S This has all been previous testimony . I had 24 documents hand—carried to each of you as commissioners , 2 ' including Mr . Barker , the attorney , with copies of my P?oe 3 1 transmittal letter . It ' s dated January 10. This 2 document is in your packet , but for purposes o£ the } 3 exhibit , I would like to re—enter it , even though you ( 4 have copies of it . 5 The letter refers very briefly to the 6 opposition . My request for approximately a half an hour 7 to 45 minutes of testimony as an engineering review, it 8 includes the summary of those areas of it -- I can ' t read 9 my own notes here -- the summary of the zoning ordinances 10 and those specific sections that the proposal as 11 submitted in the case folder are in violation . 12 It also lists the data source list of all the 13 information that I utilized in mv' e__ rineering anal'vsij . 14 and it covers two pages . I ask that be entered as part 15 of the written testimony . 76 And finally , my credentials as a certified 7 consultant , just apparently since everyone does , I will 8 give you a very brief background , even though this data 9 is available to you . ' 0 I have 20 years of experience in agricultural 1 rowcrop production and livestock production, and current 2 operation has been anywhere from two to three hundred 3 acres. I have had six years as a research and design engineer with General Electric Nuclear Facility at Hanford , Washington , in which I specialized in yaste.,.n Page 4 1 treatment facilities , lagoons , soil contamination , and 2 nuclear production systems maintenance . 3 I have nine years of combined experience with 4 two corporations, Martin Marietta Corporation based in 5 Denver , Colorado , as missile launch systems installation , 6 ground support system. I have additional experience with 7 Chrysler Corporation at Cape Canaveral in which I was the B engineering manager for Chrysler at their launch vehicle 9 complexes , and my staff generally , for a few years , went 10 up to 45 accredited engineering personnel . As a result , 11 I was responsible for the design and installation of •12 Saturn IV B, Appallo launch , tower support systems, 13 ground support equipment , waste retention ponds , and all 14 other related systems. 15 I have nine years.' experience with Hensel ;16 Phelps Construction Company here in Greeley , Colorado , as 17 my base , as a construction manage , ,,project :engineer ,` and ,18 engineering, consultant . In the aggregate , the principal 19 projects that I was totally responsible for included 50 20 million dollars of work at Eastman Kodak in Windsor , 20 ' 1 million dollars ' worth of construction at Stapleton International Airport , 12 million dollars for a hotel and ki office building across from the airport , 6 million dollars ' worth of a Veteran Hospital in Boise , Idaho , r: and at the Aurora Mall , 7 million dollars ' worth of • Page 5 compressed construction schedule designed with J . C. 2 Penney ' s , and finally , treatment , water treatment plant 3 for -the City of Greeley , that ' s located near Fort 4 Collins , and the aggregate value of that is 5 one-and-a-half million dollars. 6 I am currently a full-time farmer , but I . 7 continue to provide engineering consultant work for the # 8 major construction companies in the area upon request , as 9 well as steel fabrication . 10 I think that probably covers qualifications , 11 and I ask that an exhibit number be assigned to that , 12 Mr . Barker , if you would , please. 13 MR. BARKER: It already has . It ' s noted as 14 Exhibit Y. (5 MR . WILLSON: Thank you , sir . I prepared , .6 hopefully , a very brief summary on the proposal , because 7 we have been here a lot of number of hours and we have ,b heard expert testimony and other testimony , and I would 9 like to just kind of get started . U I will address simply the technical scope of 1 the applicant 's proposal , the substance of the applicant ' s special use request proposal , and his engineering , and of course , the data that was given to us today which we will have to adjust my figures somewhat in It dropping it from a 2400 to 1200 head facility . • O} �� = N N NNNN N N ea NN N N N N NN NN a fr CAn " �en a> (/] C N NA)NN N N N N Al N u NNUN � < n C 3 O J J CY Y N y. N co.U to N to N N V. u v N n^`� C.O N � 'y•- i = w 9 5 ` = • - - u a O o 0000 .o3 G9 '� • If Ty�J y a, n VI t0 m•1 P•w a N _. o.D Oo -J C .o h w N.-- a^ r O O yes a ToTX1 o n = o c n N a- _ C0 4 F+ L 2.P w y00 s'n t,• .C — �O m 0 — = ( a C :c te c o n .n 0 3 n !i L c 9 L O y a ? L x A z P .p nun Xi m v, n ac) o.. n3nan 0dn -' '—' 0e es it — Ecn m3 n0_ta z ma - ---" MI ia tn.0w 0 � 0 < C ,'. 1m3'n0= c3'^r a.P= ='o a h coo t^p! -£i= n•0 •c _ D n < wrn 1_• • N n g 'en a- Z ,J to U- n n.N' O-t D ce TI Pi O£.C 541 n -n<DD =-W.�_ ow is" • nm ^-, O ,j .. QI *I cC=n 9 en D3 r' w n. _� w • �$ g ' y na�cja 3gan90 - o Z - a3 dd L. 000 ce cr= 7 :;:R. 0'0 =:my, 0 y 0 0•"' oa n$ an?.3aaR !0n ^ � co ✓n^,. Pc. 9 0 oo _ a o o ti Rn o.= n nab 0 Sr. a '9 C 30 � a nn ' 3e a m' ^ .. psy 4 SO Q•< b ' ? m v - n n. -n = t co • c Fri O ✓c. 3- a .w•. �" nO °. ", o n �' oD ��''R ,.n„•=+ In "0 -. 0 • y r - n A .. a 'J• 0 a W m m o y N is .- m fn 'e'c m ti .:. F �F�n a F_ a n n n w n p o a y N Lw rn +' o coa v < eD Cn o 0 0 7 m ' .... a o n o 5- - ay a.a z 0 = = = ? ? a ? = l a $ 0•a ? R c<D ,t` m0 0 a n n w03 w H 9 O*i _ d z A - c 0. nU (9 ^J 71 y N N NNN N N N NN N N N NNNN et2. nO A 1: -o N U N NNnu u N IJN N N N A) NNNN 6C ('] a >f " w m.0 • r0 77 t.. M �.. t.. von. v. a.. ... H T+.N N 4 s n n P.' Ce N N NNN N N N N NN N N NNN n p N2y .ry. ��N, ..7 t0 OJ ...a Es-,to A {-. Ni — OV cc OY O+ AWNS OCy w �Fn as J w y Oo o `-o 3 $ o - -' - ,O :n A ;n aC _c v = c n:-oo en 0.ra H y yn� 3 o m'� c - ._ c e --. ,,,.= t 0 = 0 ) C % C - o n oti � � C1 = 0-. � 3 °'n"-° nn � ' -Ewa -am°n°v= nn mma l v .3 '� - ' 3 &nr n .n � rn 0337, 7 C1 mn.='i c�n+ c'07 _�N0 cv',� 6aE ^ v --- < D n u3 •. a2 < A �..� o•£•c = n'.: c » c.e ? ?'oo - 0X00• 310=��o�b K •x-) s0 n :n 0 Pb1 '< � o'o �e .a a F3 ^ao a O N � c ¢ 9n n GUt < • • ' O rtti tit, -,' ✓ G= .—' n 0 L' n 33v0t•.,are: .T O Yi 'o v o 0 0 , n a - y yc N _ v. C n -S O J A L' { 3 a Ft43 a'WI O .a .e. On 0[ 9 0 c ✓ -13n 0-_ R n ^p to =- vn . tents O'L i0 `G a C n n 7 7 .c van v ^ JZ O Ran _ aw c r c L: .P OY `: = ••J _C f •m.Ft--, .^J ri 07. i c,v C 0 y _ = 0.Y 0 L.1e.-. _L' I` ! r s r. t. C 4 , �t < v ^ Co rti F 2 0.7` a - . c_ ? O'.. ^ ?^ Pf C ea J O V � C N � . f O. d.• t 0.. :rt . o n j n c ei 2 r0-+ , n0 eD to n o: n c'• �' 0 •iO- n 3 O O mot O '-7 C w c C n n J - G tr1 C : e w :0 - _ • c -5-6, 11 o 7;- 0. �`C t r -, a rn "''1 w m '-i m w =n =--= J C--at c ITS n p ^7 .+n = - -d V n n c.N O < .+ j'j,' $ .= JS-0? JJ' J0o Fan G- .J Dow JO n =.ni Gn7O N .1s 7j TT O Q• nnt, .T •a..i;J v. 024 w•< J G•; G n m a to a. ,n 3 O J - =0_02 O tzD O a -x d c c n•n '- p z —t y on ti O Jro, F fD . „ _ O O n 3• O O ,_, ,,, = ,„ 0„ = CD •-)J J n .='t-On C -, ? O ^ e a- O O C t w n -„ PJ ea m n . •gc • Y O n m = '-•0 n -t'0 J d 3 ^ J 'J H cr n v. •1 F - N -e 0 a 0 w n ti.m 0 n ^ N Y n 3- ^ woo J n - -a'J <?o 5 J = n c c s 0 is a n w•. ID, not, o 0. FED ?'3 " �n g.'C tD o <° r a 0 ==:n -ty CD 3 J Q' = n =n s n =' o O n 3et, N 0 d. c m n 2 O y n. H so 0o 3 h J >e n N 3 Oo N y w 4 fly 'a A v = °' 0°.c c < n n >r N d a - S 0o = J 4 n•O - n n a = w •y w w J . N n -,o.' 'n >a 'C • = --)7... ,‘" ?,- -. nen "~+ = H J �^:n •n O � n w v00 NQ,mw avJi 0.a' J vno� n n eh N - . ..'. O n O a SOo _ O•J O J v S O = 2 N ym' ?�' 3.• = — J O e.n J n 3 -1 �G es no r') a n - 0- n = Cc•3 s n n < w = P E a -1 a.nt x Oo O < An — 3c = nowea m S- . n < n n 0 -} T C C: n :n y 3 an n P__ z ; .m n n _< O' ,�' _w ,...,n _ mg3 F nu, ✓, fs o •< G os cR _ - 5 n O w .rEro':Sp w H C r-C. C O 3'R Lc.le wa. :n a CV m.00 - 0 G to w _G O J 3 c er re e u e.a E 'G rn IV G G A .• ��"3 cu C =-5 0 C ry `0 ° el d .n' G O O = 0 C• S n w rn 4 r _ w m , N ebD n ,, w• 3 � �� O d o?- ro floc-c v cg "g- - J w 0 in-• n o 3 ^e ,n c- - G Y Cl ' 1Yl CS, U, a n a n. $6 �. "•1 Oa G FK ..na - n .r b a U O O• w .4 O L„ C 0 n J O 0-v-,•=i On .< .< 7 G -I - O C n o n ^ ^ -t ^ G !ro 3 J n m J La- n n .. a n.c P _.o=.-Z O 5 < O - ,Q —J -°ti'n • " 3 _ < 3 71 J 3 J 0.n. y -n. O-- .J a v i a G_ 0 < O •'n.,. - N O n O 00 3 n --• -,0 L .^ y w OS x y c= »H 'An"10" -0i z v - 1 C - ?. .n 0 ena Sn y eD 0 _ A O J 0 .S = uc`U .�,.Pc- vM a O 0.•; -i 3 O o A 3 -ti Q:j n ^ 4 G ° u. - = w J n - H, ^.+ m T^•n -= J 3,; a 0 3 n w Y L . G= =.� G n T_S 07 w O O a •.0_•-i" y_n `a O w E-y 0- :, V.0 C n G 7 w m -3i n Y QY cn n N " 0 G 3f C.i O 3 E G=3 n »q r-U v G �- S n .0 'U, _.^ =Y Y -.3 aa v O n n 14'v. On_e1 0 3 w Pj J G G.a O N - G?O n < G. v el w Y o-1 - J d S n n n 0 Co -< r .- v a•w• v—'-'3 = .=. - n = o•aC s - c f ^�9 Y 3 n n`0o V A m u. n u. O O O .G^� ^ C. ^ S_ 64:.1 m n eD •0 w g _ 0 J,n b n ✓ O _G - L• 1 < CD ""� - —'e -` C - L• t11' J 0 w z w O .C-� ... •'h w w •n n < n n .vim E_` o a w n r-."O- - ue v a a is =.n n O a GJ J C- v X Pn a— ,`.— 0e_ w ° R G n < n -5 n w n P' = 0 = < P- r r..._' - 0 !�yd ry G�. f f9'e (5 '0 J.C a �.� Gv eG v"•.� OeJ•1 J C �: Lwa n�-.41 x N a. Si = ,- L _ L , -, -113 4 ' `C rvn n =-co Win _ nn ctm _ Yc 7-c.m.' r-a SZ w m. 4� v. 3 ^ C n n 0. v 0 •c m et 0 e: 0 G GY 0 0 00 Y 0m u. �- v. : a = '. r -it; ?7 .. e.. 7, = ON p , n n = Co 'J • N PO < -- �' = = O O - •'< �' — cn N or.a —-.to = 0 = ro4 n A `< 0 ^Wo .�-..0- ^ G- - —-v w t— s, Gr A A N t� t `<Q T •-A V .w. 5 N i O � C N.O O, 0.h = n m. y V0> G CO C r J= < `.' < 0 .: n — .-'. 's ,", QAFvo o ..,..� 305n5.= (.0 en -_ ?' aen cA — c c " to `6tr. — n , = J 'O a rN = a-- `3� .� -0 O.m-1 o C N o ie zt < � p A O fi,iLJy> rt 'V O ey :'3 �'� .AO G J 4 0.ka-pk w b ,On = y to m y y 'O O F G C C c „7='.N3 O N r.0-0 N kp p -... V 7 to oCi 4� m A+ W C.= hN. co N B-;a kcal ca a M1 tan < -I O n `<< - p rt �° 3 n J p a _0 ry, x1 <n y .N,. n n A = -,-5 n N n c 00 =-h- . < 0 _!a O sy n N -_ .N. n>. A h -9 = ... Y a sr n QO - -n 3 A •''1� A. We 3 O G J- !G F = CD a mn O h p yt c;,� G C' U y M`/-'.<> O N a �ti c 0 ,,< O n c a O,.. n n....lo.p n n p } O 60 .n..-*Ma a N N n . O ms = - +-≤ r J N H a h G" .: v O to g ° a" .".O N.,,, A. R. Os e on Y y -G+ O - - `<'6 CD P -, = o p•' c -7 n N -� y h 7 co a• to `n N N p O J = a 0 G,�a,-.o..ty. G O :� t-...."0 O Ga R C5 N = S 7:— ca CC n n ow * 3 ^ O N Y `< a n a. - n 3 r a -� ' .O. - �- ≤13 N a R Ca.> t' O n cN J n F lan O = p a•.t n.a-• = ,a'�. 7 - C o C' N A C O OO O a - O � a-. 3 A O `C O h l�n n.a c� a A - � tr� O o - _.d r) A:.— cs a'••a F y n J ^'p a -- (t O � y O A. 7 h O Y ..a. O `,C . 3 V, n p -n N rn v h P X•-�. '- - .J Y. ••-n ul N C = nin J =eaa'pa =AV -Y =.< an _a,� a a nsry -, aac . 5 H n a w O a h n =_n O —c. ! O'O Cr y n t' < a 00n = C 0-‘7, -0 , Y r- C' o 3 A, ro 3n = H 3 3 -J a h antra c �°. m -F :} c- m a a°' -c A ≤ A c� n » a -G -^ Pl an O y -a 3.C-'.a.N .-.1_' �,r•. n - o� 3 _o e so = c� a - n -tr • �o v n o. N CM — . o n O C y C.P, y "' G r> - 5 `O< -•° 3 ≤a o c c_.0o r., o.,v.. Q y - = Cr 0 E G o . _ N = ° "G'g c nAn a ca n cm= tip �' _ a -Cain y. _ n F., _a: g Ys -.. C .. O C -L 7 0 `C O 0" p=j O'O N 0 0.-. �: L'.. n.a in - 0 n v < ' -- _ «- ... - n N ,n a Co = 7, g = ~< ?' S= =� cba (6'7-•'fl� .-.3 -- c - O OO -.K A n = = GO a O O = i- 0?.5- O O O tr5O n o n n �.m e.'-0n n;•O' N n O = A = 3 p2 - O » n d j 0 ? N n -y N "'0 N = n N•-0 C'N n 2, ,G - Gm O = -y = - Sj ? - - A CD P.- .- O y G N C _ o O_O 7.; 0 A -. -. - = cm = 9, 0 = - p o_- ,-,.i n f Y i G`G G ».d n = y H a (ND_1: �_ J� `< N r � Y N•N -C t-> C c a _.n A A - Y _ =.C .p = N N O q O N = Y = n G h <' :. 0 Cr - 0000 nO0 O g•a", Oy0 C N MOO•(�a O. n -= - OA T? .. A R 7 v 3 - a O - Y = O_ _= A a - Fnn3•nnCtP/, f� 6O 7a nN 4 =t M .., 0 3 2.=0-O o na n -A N _ - A t= L -, nz a- G A N ` OzO J -"mT 3 .7 = y v 3 a » .'.GtoT Y o o .< a n 0MN g.0..2: AC d= - a ' C-5- O = O J J «.. - .> A EC* - G S A A $•S• , n v - i., O _-_ .•ri; fP C c Lz �-3 3 n =c = f =3 • L�3 3 0 F z j c .. c 3 _ ..> n c J = - L _.n 0 _ 7 C 7 ^ V X a n J X w a pi, n ice. c1 :' X - n ti 7 7 r Ls x C r. r. - _ - G7 a. N .T-� vrtr. ~ nN ■ t ?Y 0-,a•ri J.' r � -' D� . LA a ' -.n �.M1 N. �iM1es, O a R L = 3 o n L a y.- c - .i C = p = ea .. -- 't TS O.c.Try O'np' _ _.Oa a =J0O =O _ == .9i ~ -- 6za OA -Y M1 nV t. CD 3 . X n G = a V a ^J rn n CD z N J c-n T O h a 0 V f.. h P O O Oo N < O = ,n N -'G a Rp a'ry v rai, N -. 0 A '• ='y P'a n a N H �A cy �o a p '3 N C. J n a n a J c a+r ''C = ? p c n 00`< r V 0='� = L.'II U ;--6 DIE 7n r'C 00.] a0 �faa y S vKNT nMI =.O n = ti= - O h F 0•,a n O C+ O r=., om r7 m `CG y J '< y n - FFFA ; cJCT; "h = GOJ0QjROa yY '< _ N.._'-.' o Oa O'� O- Om3 m1H on n y C o - = T. 7 Cr y --.6?ena 7 ,0 --O =3 r o 2- n• n T� 3 J •t e n0 n v. = acc to, G w =.O o- n Qj h F .n O " 0 Q' � l a "' ,., tp A �< O =-= .. n n a c e a A J f] F N A p C.n p ^ R N N O `O[ N i .O = -- `C O n y O 3 c=r. G S o 71 A .c< 0 p y 9a v S=.A r.;t o F.c N N H n y t-..�d •o- c A p A < 00 1 n3 c y — 3.C — n= _ a .-. O 'Sep -s a n w p J Qp J ?O =_ P L. O 3 `C • ca 00 �. 'o c n P3 CO, F = 0v - ,P., = finCZ w � !y3TreD C b?.Z7 [� C W `0 c'a =• a — O ^'NQ,a =7— n SHAn -A OP c: 0 G.-C N00 Ili rr `< nn co C .m Y � O0o _ -c L• � J ..j n -o n l pi --D J - N <.O 00 n -I S p b �:� O - y 0 C^ _ _ 3.•`< O n m i n 0 C n n a va GG n `- 0nN SN .-1.cm G� 0'n 00 O.t -A = fijaCn � 'Z' - 0 a Y a y -... = N.n N a -^ y.r 0 3 `< =t y Fa n .y-. 0 cT k < U? O ,-. n 00 a.a F.', P+ O•Fa J n = C = co,_ a' co, 4'-c CC a•--.n j-0 p 0 .. A p N -, N = y n C -, p n - a e-= - n = .c C,.-. = J G O n a 'N C m= n _ • '= a. Y •O a = n = - L N ='_•N. A N O n _c•0-••,c^ _ y Oa a. o ra ry^ry CO. s •C = F N V ",--a = L G- '? .< .a i-> N. '� ^ c G -7 N N'. O ° =0 C =C 0 II. -n S N .. J p•N L = aw ' O R, =n. a'� n O. p,_•..-7 a 9 -, /n 0 _ `< G n fHa 3. per= J --� T'O 3'F j'a O - 'P 7 0 = N C - O. _ a. N '+ 3 O - n O. "0 y n 2 v O S rn ' a.= fpD - ^ G H X N ='rt C v = cr' •n-t = O -n b' C J a N '-DCo yn. .-.- n -to - = N O CD _S O' I: �r. a..-• .A. =tr., a n C S O n.13 y 0 b A Cr w ? IV O^ �'3 =. ca 7 G_ r~, cnnv_ a wVj0 �c 00 c., 2; _ cart. 0, v, 7 A Egg O .N . P.a•y c G S n n N O N n ^> .O < N n_V Aa a -N.p ,•... - - - C a 0 . n c r: r <•= n O -0 --ins,o 0 - � :n N.` A N --, "n aN n 1.-;. N r. C:O.n 0.= O _. • = A O n = n n ;v r7 • ' •.JC -.J .f.Y = r a 'a -°C J -L•n tr tT C. .- r a• - - ^c"_ .'r m a.o.c re - n ^ _ - •« J- c rt 0 -z N a G - — z Z. _. `,1 N C I - = r =n < 0= p n a G - O = C �.., ca 1 n _ < D• ^. to -• 0 d'O -.d. G-' O ^3 J b 0 0 0 -" . J i_. c - C O n 0 n j = y S=—J d J ,.< 3. 0 n O CD 'N'o-..0'— J 0 <.n ° J ,0.t — I• nNp -INNN L'^ T3 0 -nrm .,≤ m� vs0 at — -.g.-0 .n, _�.w-; a �:n n0 d �T ti•��Nm 'O Ora U - ; at A OOd� n w ti 7`n< 7 � Jm ..G..O Oo �w N•6. 0?-� L � �OJ.1 p -,s cm p w _.,_O v.:' n a 3 Sn V''n n �� " O 'a"' 5-'4 n� y ._ J oa C _ n ^ o- •- a < H N N Ot to a .0.� .X W.O O Oo (D J 3 O0 ,t n^'-. n v' -1 v, 9 �_a n n .d.. n 2 p J ern dS. w n n• 2 W ta t..;to n 3 3 0 .d-. In =I-7 ,d J v,'° = C n C S.--pj ^' N r_- n O V' N < S n n'O a y P]L- n tin N •• ° C. n < S S 3 5 < = 00. 00,.- J ° '" O c d Or5ci, wn o ?'� � � � n en --o HOJ3 Qi �o•o � � _H v. 3 J-o'sC a,< 5 c :-o o u. 7� Oo S a 2. n d x n Oo n SO x_ - E. i' �'iYs 1- d en a,� o'~° f-p> " -",0 n'•<< J a 530•° JN 0 c =Q'c� Ca -OL to C C �' N " NJC aTF, -3a'≤D ,-„o go • oo �yd < cOOo . 0 100 -s —' m•-.07-yrn 0 cn c ro a trot•--� ° 0a=c . J •0 n0 O. n_ o U " - wN 'p O30 n0 ° O SQ3 CM =-C" p' .C ton 0 -1v OS•J " -• �- `0 ;3a —to - <- L L N 3 J czEga—U O.n�•-, -, 7.C n0°.N n J -n F ^'=�Q-`<`00 -1 , -00 _n •J y p a >; .a �, N NeD O_.�-p 0,5P-- Qp�� O 'Ov' O - Ocn - O a .< n`< 0OSa-a .y. J % .< (n V.p n°OCI N O Fi A ^ r ° .0•...—. . 0 .d.. S - 0 d n 00-..0 -.4 I n n jJ t-.)0 `01 -9 -'O ° S.' o .7 0.-,e —� _ G. n n s d .< r 0 0'G rata n -. n ti h < N II n ^ S O 3 • so n 7 O O S•< O bn w+ n7nSn - Jd'C3 C yVJA tin O } 'd+ ° �,c ° n G H In y O J ro d N O C G w H ° J D =-•-c- 6 v. ° d 7 n ° y"N n FR TS• a J15.O '<'..._ d C Da A' G - d �g y d~.. O 1/4< .y �< w J tj _ » J J C C 0 p �O^.c C co" n P.sn ° 000.Zy < °nc n73 ≤ rv'i. 00 ° O On O`G0.t no C 3p,° O.kT+ n a pC wa• rp ° 7 0 ^ ns• J ° Cd awoo ,.0 Z FFss 9.-, OCI aJ - Jd 3etD o' O O y ° C H9 f 3 C^J-- 0 V d ,r = n =_ p' N J p 0 3^ y ^ n n n O C J O O = y 'G �• A J c =n a o.-• ry w O n_ ,-. o d ~ faa J ° 0 a U O s `� J cD . n -an•0 �__ tJ n —N y^ n c y u,„ -d N�-H C�n C O d la y 3 �. 1 h ^ ° ° R (�y►"+y G 5. N cn 0-d G r..' .d•. �' U v, '?-O _.< G —3 J �< o G 07 `� L't� n J top n^ wn M -6- .d - o p n a' -s •d O.`< N - J-S 3 O S PO m :n N»'.-. m Win. aJ Oo �'Jy nn J.< 3 � 3n A - .; ._ aN 3 O O 0 - t-, a y J d e< oG-00 d n A y, O. O 1HP : 3� -.0.a00 04 mo d 7 J t-AJd o X £ ` = o' ml �7sl= oo_„ _ ppN��o ;? _.D- n -� J -z C n y J a}D 0 . n v y. " J `C G -n a n n » S .r S" d _ a r- ci,Q 0 0 C 3 v. » O t7D Y- O .'Ui F v- d a n > > a S 7 K < - = 5 ttt ^ O +n A C o n - 0 ° = H-n n . 0a7,- Ci ry a L 3 go = n n 0 n =.. J mt uw n n^ n C .yn 0J ° n Li t} O ✓•L 5 ` c n „ =2c 3n .i.". c _e f ° SJ TNT c Ff 7J 3 n C o - .. . c., =n . c 4 .J it 7•� 7G c o w L 5 H O i;--S ?. -art O• n • 5 p - o _n -- _ v 3 �� _ • c .. _ ad 3•0 _ 3 a c r. c. n . pal.-..• ^ Is 1ti� -� � J � v. R7 not - g•c... n � SSa nLC -3�-� nf. ° ^ c a' w v-. 4 n J G Cr c C.— c n -T.J La --IJ v Sw t 7.c- L Gn p r. v h G n L3- S.� n a 11.-< J n CD tD5 J J .'a J L n a L• v 0 a n tsar ?�.n n Cr t-. •O p 0 - n 0 l ,.A' n 7J H U c ri 67 a- J ti O 3 O O u a.0 0-n ,3-ca n -O .J O-tp » C ti0 J n Ste.- O YI c.^� C N n -'C' n O -3, -'H n-0 n n a yT7 o w J a Ca 3.O n a•n lD < w •y -0 0 C <.ro `v" j0 za 0 n.0 'a 00—3 -S O.' .., .3 G J a T' 0 to ra • rn CD '4 H - 0< n C.0 O J -C ... n n n C ? n Cr< 3 O C O _.tra ≤a »,C J 0 -1 n C-_ -- - c n y < R GO 0 ho co ft: 0 O �G 3 Cr 1O-•°`< CD O n 0.—6 J y -= Sac.' n ,-C-°O J - -v. n o.. v, y v n D - v. C. o p n J -t C n c n » .-•c _n -' = J 3 J < v - G n ea 3• OJ . °.,G3 a 1 p CI' 3 tin - F--:C �.a •n d 3 ' -_ N< 0 v J n° = ,..L,.,0 L r n _.__ P i n y 7 9 O IA a 3 J.J .s =� a J C•O J 0 3'S.C. <•p —d 0 O 0» N O J O y d =-n q O S O n -"'., ° d N, OCI �.j H C a. ? G 7 00,E £ Oa f?`. La _ v y d n P J L av en J rn Y C i' ° "---P. n 3• d t r'.y -L•. i C P O ton d• r to n `G =i S�D7 % 00 y n n n C. J no -..O' < ° 3 w J n 'T `ate • O p, - a a -m n :.n ^,v 3 S n 3 d - -, c, d n » J a ti n t'i O O w L 3 ti J-o a O — y c d n 3 is 3 C S n c~So s » o S •< n —'.O F. <, w v a C w. �_ d < n r a J C 'n c nn -1 d O J ,.. _ . N y'Ca �. n o v a ? - - - .< G 0' 3 ° 3 >0 tY n c w La a Oa -a 3 > v } -t p 3 } S G a - p t^. O 0 n 3 C°a = O d O•'0 n O d ° F. O f»'D n Z, n J vi n'a J a n e° — •y _ -" O J _ to 0 _•0 n v d o .. —y S J G- n N .... a a � ""7CG __ 00 Xo -d -,1--')ao -, - H- S,.. = — n Gny �v, _ J_ 3 o --. =-— = 7 in eca - -- c it. - -, on. Oa'aC .< n O- as o _ 00 n O 'O3 n c _ n o - H s -. = nn _ ^^- -t - ._ ,-• »ap 3 co a n � -e, n £ 3nn :. a V' £ -. 7 ;° OF E O'n 0 G R N 'n.' a H o a -' 3 3 OC �eo t7 n Crap -„n-< o a :-'0 a n'g Cr 00 n p n Q7-, -, a'G O.. S Cr _ C—.` y 3 ?• O d O 4, -, =' 3 J • :n C . ' en to L R< _ • rt n O a 0• -•n n O S n n r�'a G(0 .N. J 0 0 Oo ^ 0- £ v, = • n x ° Sp n v ±v .' v. -in n-v. S, 9 W Cs n 3 to 3•n 00 n n 0 SPJ ^.- LJ ✓.. r. `-'.v <D 3p Nt 3L3.o E>T La-o -Con ,c -zT• ioao- G s � 3 -cc -_ 3,ca G S U J L O O 0 J N —0 0 _3 _ -S. t LJ ^ U n -, n _ (n fl = d O . y J - a n o -0G— `v—=G O� -'C n n S o o » ?Fa S?3 Fr. J 3 G° CD J ,, - = 00 o oc c j 0 7,v a e'n m, 3 - _•o_' `° ca c, ' 2 n"- � �a -2 ` z 3 .c�= c n r.. . �� fr v .! c. _ BOG y £ ? v(n '�•Ow0 — vC vin °-» � JJ oc - ' a C a .< n '+ C -t L C. ' J• O G C.�-�O f—r m y- " (ti ry n.7 ut ° r, n r ^.n — ft'':-) r- r° u a 3 G� p — 3 7 O C ♦S 5-c .0 - O n n — = a vn, 3 r, en- J a O � C. F v 'a...2- -a S tL o-1 _ _ - v v. 0 -'tS >•n 0 3 _ n`C 1 0 :r. n S -'Fr ?G T n _ :N D•G-, 5 N n '':r n G 7 n --i n v C a O J n .fr i � S 3 a s 3: a 7 a • iJ 2. -. C _ -' J - G ! » G CrY ••C a o r[ n.n r 'C c J '�• O t i C O -, y r n = — Y 3 v ©,2 J-=D V. .7 — n . - - I se z• -a9c bon • - --t fioSilt/6oW Pf a^ 0 v _ El 0 n z W H " � a \9` v y �°,� e i T1. ,off 8N Q c CG Cl o N 4. r-,ay lT _ 1E - yp �� ty ,Afi i � O in N� ) N. • "' - S -1-->_ M K 0 -J kli O - - ' CU n ssr,- ise r ;> un wiir� �9f os≤ 1n�ds. � LLI W - �1 � -\N FRI1 C e .t., t C - ay "c v cym o2 c °),bm 0 r, O� V V V‘ri * '40 '. N);1`-m ,-_- ' rip v.t � ,� � O �� 410 • 1 4....._k ._.5....:.;!- ' l� -E.1, c e z r Lel f--- ( v och o, �. F v k k m J i' >E1tNa�'� U W _ • . illr n uos-esp up' m) -1. . XH1't. . -cv 4G: L; t � ,It � ? OJL.92Or1 ` -caNs..\ \ca.,'" ) . -1 co,--, 1_S7 Cc _ ¢_.. 5. _�3._ cam! __ ___Q_`) .r e 1_. 15 _.�2ccN. • -1 - - --..__ _-::3._2--gp .1..._5:C. -� `.5 co_____....5_3Qn._ --- ___z..4S ern Qc.-4. : \9 G 1 1,_._5cn 0 ,. 5 cQcn - —_. . _ ______19x7 __. ,__o....8 _62.;:a_-- O. -g c ` r / 1 f O e CD "C p -- •J / I - is J1/:J � p O tr / :Soli l �� I Z D -\ . (1. : 0 :: 7 L�' M R /� C � .. %, i ' .. . . a /4 6 . t VVV I r Cr j ,,.--t. - I xf V � / a t 7 a hfs / ,Z (3d?, 52:P.. M i Qom' _ u r 'Jry � -. ��i a f a if o ROAD "' " • ►., ° 2" • ;o $ • 1 i $ 1 ' _eta, :—.).1 ., I: :. � "0 r \ • 1 ti, ! < m r tat S o ; . . 4 • _ w � , . • i -. 'h ; . Ip�1 — .� /1 . N x rQ�b i� N //1��+a\\' $ t L • I r •• tS. O r . �• - i n i 1 T t• j--'4 ,\ i l / 21 a ��1 r 2 3 . s St } . ._ LH L L;L Detember D 27 December 11 43 g December 12 43 13 ,. _ Dcemba-13 .. 3i 30 Dacmbed 14 r' 4F 1g Des 15 44 I8 ' December 76 49 2D i ` OFFICIAL LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR WELD COUN I �, 250 I I e I i�l I'li. . ,,,,,, ill i i W it ill J ,, „+„ , e Johnstown 1 1 f,I '1 •' I THURSDAY Weld Co., CO DRCMM�tR 18, 1086 . 80534 Serving the Johnstown-Milliken Area Since 1904 Yol az MO. ., ' �— ea Paving work continues despite winter • . Altbaegh the paving is ova-for this err eo paved a budget and winter stem, then s still lost d' a➢pro naaiom for 1987 which includes . . ( tome berry bra Miw An curb, genet fund of t262,95P,water fund rnsaao.'stet Paving soier,andmob, mtoaoat,have been c sewer, moil oC 1172&27; 5atonalimprovmenu " psdiog, have completed on the fend of 11,085,2(15;mmen'uion trust .r,y} smth lade of Broad Street,Dccaccording fund of 112,121;and the polio ivn•s .".n �.. :'[11 Cl,) pennon hand to a report to the board Dee 10 by id of 124,442.According to i . 's y_ mono=Jeff Couch Work on signs, b°Ivourg manager Gavle Packard-See. - R r ays new mulupe mailbox units and forger- the budge 're presents a vet:, .e- over di work arc now being done ugh,budget:'We a basically cut to r ^' ove the asb months Grading and the bone to and raising o properly s�1 44 ,f drainage by been accomplished on the "An.' The board base to keep the ,,. a 1 er if and all the water said 19 Al of 3L -a mills. r • : ' s a s Couc �n supposed to go- aid Also approved was the transfer of ♦ , t lch In the spring unpaved stress 1n. ,919 Iron, he genera: and to the � will be re}pade,. and work will be police department t - ant. flu: r s - . finished up. money is the as, of the town's ' 'r w`J, e ,, The winter months will also give revenue :hang funds, _ 1 _ Goocb and the board rune to go Over The 1916 budget a. also intended j t what else needs o be done and to reflect unanticipated expenses s 5, -- f' a - bow -Such it win cost to do is bebtt within ihe pc/ace pc/ace Oman:nem 3160,322 A _ work commence, n the spring 'The foe waterline and equipment repair - tits r4s way it :mks now is that we're pretty and $:,075,091 for costs in the 51,52 r,— much on track(with expenses): said million street improvement district. Couch. "lIe don't expect too many Monica for the transfers have been surprises on the north tide with obtained by the street project bonds. ` �. ie, wilconstruction - the gi Construe. the revenue.harm fun“ fn,transferred t w.�le Imp will also on Special r he police Lion o m t and team a 1 - tmpro. ion with District No. 'three, in wanted unration of revenues for the Department, tier rework th h wy }-phxad• xa r us d •�: DcparL.en4 teHwy.60 sector a ICJ arcs of and by }fay. 257 .A St. and give the downtown senora and tfe,d County Road 54,be:ongmg , new look to Edith Hankins,could be sub:sided, I 7 Board mmbas. at their meeting, but should be annexed into the town ty gave approval to a 5171,652.35 of Milliken so that proposed develop- ii� . lilt payment to RensWay Paving men; of the property could be ' Company for work done on the paving monitored by the town. That u the .- . project to date, and paid Couch she recomstenCauon that the board will 641 rat of Isis total amount due on the make to the Weld County Planning . - '� ' - e s projet, 111,435. The council also Commission concerning a request by . . approved 1220,390.23 worth of con- agent Ramon Moore in behalf of Mrs. sommicm Mange by Best.Way, Hari+^• The mcwat would be m Jennifer Grable, 6, visits with Santa_ The Jolly O A pnmon wag be grcpared for subdivide the property for develop- old man in red made his appearance Saturday at circulation which could get to ball soon and Moore said;,here would be rotting toward a vote elaam,moy no problem with anoQation if to the Chamber of Commerce Christmas promotion, whether Or not Milliken will have town wanted it lioyte tab for consumption on the 0 Approval was given to a 1987 m��1 signed Hthinthci withthe Way Charlotte bridge finished,paperwork continues f by hi percent of the town's registered trot of animals, if needed. master of honoring to pay fee the t demon could repel she peohaafira D The town board will be the J?hmtown matte ma in Bernd be,* l created in town since the 1950. spout's Honor for the Whiten session Friday afternoon to work on Tromp Imms at Me me+in8 t The bard is seeking repel of the Sanitation D'ntricti s applieDm hoe the matter of paying for.the new (pew.Arndt and In,Vohr were not ord in= which bow liquor coo- EPA grant funds and Gayle Packard- 140,000 C barbtte San= bndgn The in mmdaaee)votes by oedman=to ;' motion in dtiying atabinbmos Sobmla ton giv, wrborlb m sign town hired Western C muuaioa, terafa 140,OOD fines the+ter nand i, bauac of the possibly am®Sim d. rise great applkston. Ite is ticA Inc,of Greeley,to bald the concrete saving saws to the genash gaud so • the Ehttieh Mad Ranian d wrist ism applied Son nmdng m box bridge and it was finished two that the bell from Weaan can be paid 1. which is clonally outside WWII limit& bar der wale"la the town's tratalent li- ti weeks ago, but financing has not yet beta the and of the year.The board 0L. The aomcil voted m rod a been complied will then complete the psyches,lit is Was to the Weld County e?9*itia and tom=state regvlr The bridge eonurucuen was domed okayed at the special bearing, by '; Commission .Hating that P>�� moan an t5oa city house of advaocd scam* a task loan to repay the i; proposed a a dairy at.weld fly ❑ Dan Gonzales of 310 Harriet daaioratron of the stratum and the water.fund swings neat I bWarnc, i.Fads 15 apd:5*i.Sr nova any asked the bard how assessment will bard chat to have the tebmidng whrtb now stands a $100,0* The from ten iiaa a-sot'to,impatt be done m he home, which bus toe while the water level in the ditch repays'of the loan will come three* MDlkm The beard made no-tconw Green St. (which will not be paved) was low. New that construction is budgeud general hind monies and not n agHlm far tithes-en ' but with a side street addrea. finished,however,the board is finding through any ass- - s to she popin denor of a special c err ps�t Gooab' home, and Bavarian= ohm, that a loano peep canoe he sweated 'earl Adam 1n.that basin has not been :red flaky.pss� ha a aide Heat ad&re and6bdoy that Las been a public blaring m the ego".sa pmp.lidot y opamon y wadyn,a.edfartMaidcocapavrog- inn mm9ews limo the Minikes®Odtat ,*Hie Cava Si. well not be paned. Th""'J-..`n.5 re • EXHIBIT 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS r\ n K SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1 . Applicant has provided no written or documented proof (only testi- mony and his submitted plans) that he can substantially meet any requirements of Zoning Ordinance covered by Sections 24.4.2, 24.5, and 24.6. 2. Applicant has the burden of proof to show complete compliance of all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. Lack of proof of compliance for any one Ordinance Section must be the basis of disapproval by the Board. 3. Applicant has reduced his scope from the 2400-cow dairy as proposed to the Planning Commission, to a 1200-cow capacity as a direct result of denial by the Planning Commission and opposition testimony at the Planning Hearing - possibly with the hope of getting a toe- hold in the neighborhood to help lever his position back to 2400 cows at a later date. 4. Will the Applicant again reduce his herd size to a theoretical 644-cow dairy (conforming land use) in his rebuttal period as a result of the expert witness and documented exhibits presented by the opposition? Incidentally, the actual land use area of this farm is 140 acres - not 161 - as the Road 15 and. Road 38 right-of- ways w/borrow pits , have to be deducted as well as the buildings shops, etc. , and the Ekerkenbeck Ditch area or an actual conform- ing land use herd size of 560. 5. The ability of the Aurora Capital Corporation to operate a large, milk-producing facility has never been questioned. In fact, as far as milk production is concerned, they are one of the best in the state. The serious question of their waste management system, ,c selection of location for their proposed dairy, and ompliance of all elements of each specific requirement of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Use Plan, are the only considerations addressed here. 6. I ask you - Has the Applicant satisfactorily proven complete compli- ance with all Weld County Requirements? 7. Attached is a written confirmation of the availability of non- productive farmland just east of Platteville. 8. Also attached are comments made by Planning Commissioners during their voting for denial of the Applicant' s Special Use Review Request. 9. Finally, I again urge you to contact CSU and tour their dairy and Waste Management Facilities before reaching any decision on this proposal. I promise you, it will be very enlightening and will s.- ��.7 2 _ • help dramatically in drawing together all of the testimony; and, in particular, all of the submitted documents_ Thank you for your attention and patience ❑n this lengthy (and sometimes technical) review and analysis ❑f the Applicant' s proposal_ Qty O R. 8. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, S.S.M. E. , for "Citizens Opposing Dairy" DATE: January 17, 1987 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS _ AVAILABILITY OF NON-PRODUCTION LAND EAST OF PLATTEVILLE, COLORADO Extensive verbal discussions via telephone with Mr. Ivan Gilbaugh, Real Estate Broker and Owner of Gillbaugh Realty located in Greeley, Colorado , revealed the following : 1. Several reasonably level, non-productive grazing land properties are available for sale east of Highway 85, adjacent t❑ Platteville, Colorado. 2. One 80-acre and one 160-acre parcels have been listed for several years for sale. They are located on a graveled Weld County Road, very close to an existing large-production turkey facility, an excellent location in terms of no neighbors, available power, etc. 3. Central Weld County Water District has a very large water main feeder loop in this area; and, after discussion with the CWCWD Office Manager, it was determined that the Applicant ❑nly had t❑ apply to obtain adequate (150,000 GPD +) water commitment after the CWCWD Board of Directors approved the request. Line extensions might have to be run at the Applicants expense at an estimated cost of $35 ,000.0❑ per mile for a 6" diameter line. 4. Land sales in this generally non-productive farmland area have been well below $500.00/acre. 5. Ample land is available for purchase to sprinkler irrigate for grass pasture production with no consequence❑f soil sterilization due to insufficient land. 6. To Mr. Gillbaugh' s knowledge, N❑ inquiries have been made about purchase of land in this area for many months. INTERVIEWED AND PREPARED BY: R. 8. WILLSON, 8.S.M.E. Engineering Consultant; DATE: January 15, 1987 ll:Summary of the Weld County Planning_Commission Meeting • -Uecember 16, 1986 Page 14 . • .:`:"3te: tChai aaira•aalted- -formzdiscussion..tom. ;the:_ Commission. Discussion followed. -.members. ,vf `'the•"iY3aaning The Chairman reminded the Planning Commission members -that since the recommendation is for 1.1.14i14 10 and the staff's recommendation is for approval, reasons should be given for their decision. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision: LvdiaJDni,ai. _ Yes, •her.reasons are ve Ann Garrison. rY similar to the reasons outlined by Also, this type of an operation should be taken into an area mkgre them is �o<$ Dou ulation and it_ would blond in better with other agricultural uses. -Ivan Gosneil - Yes; for the same reasons. He also feels there could be' some potential traffic problems that have not been studied. Trouts Rademapher - Yes. Because the landowners in the area are against having an operation such as this, and for the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. . Paulett�� a Wi12am� - Yes. She. agrees with the comments made b Ann Garrison. This ma be a yell deli nod facility, but well designed facilities must be located in appropriate locations ecause as Lydia Dunbar stated, re rob t e oC un typo of development, but this. area, southwest Weld County, d the owe like It or not is whether we like owing residentially and tbis type of uses nst campatilla with this current and uture growth'. son -, Yes. Jack rear—Bolman - Ahsra1n "because of a possible conflict of interest ecause he too dairyman. emotion for denial carried with fivo votino for th and one abstaining. - emotion The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. • - Respectfully submitted, %CL_l. ,_ Q+na • Bobbie Good 1 _ - Secretary • i EXiti:BFT : SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24. 4. 2. 1 - "Proposal Must Be Consistent With Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1 . Comprehensive Use Plan, Article 1 , states in part : "Agriculture must be protected. Any uses of prime irrigated farmland othen than agriculture will be critically reviewed. " 2. Applicant will take prime irrigated farmland out of production and will adversly affect the interests and use of the local effected part of the County (Reference Summarys presented on Zoning Ordinance Sections 24.4.2.2 and 24. 4.2.3 ) (Article 2. violation). 3. Agri-Business will be encouraged IF it does not affect economy or environment (Article 2 violation). a. Drastic environmental impact to polution, traffic density, drinking water availability and other factors presented by all submitted analysis shows this proposed use will adversely impact the neighborhood' s environment. b. Adverse economic concerns if proposed use is permitted include : (1 ) Cost to Weld County for providing widened roadways at Road 13 and Road 15. (2 ) Cost to Weld County to asphalt Road 15 for 1/2 mile. (3 ) Cost to Weld County to provide increased Public Health inspections. (4) Cost to Weld County to periodically inspect proposed dairy herd for maximum permitted size (240❑ head of cattle total) and to establish appropriate fines_ (5) Cost to Weld County to establish appropriate special tax structures to assess Applicant for as yet undefined damages to Weld County Roads and Bridges cn Roads 15, 38, and 13, caused by Applicant' s proposed high-intensity traffic. (6) Added burden of snow removal in this location. 4. By reducing neighborhood drinking water supplies to a minimum, creating. water, air, surface, visual, sad noise pollution and not locating proposed facility in a non-productive "A" district with minimal or no residences , Applicant is in violation of Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Weld County Comprehensive Use/�Plaan{. } �p PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Cu3 `v F" •''v Engineering Consultant, B.S.M. E. DATE: January 10, 1987 !�r,• .;,.yst WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE USE PLAN - 1973 Edition Pages 48, 49, and 50. owner to be able to expand his agricultural activity and productivity and, at the same time, be able to take maximum advantage of the inflated land and water values. Further, these policies should provide and maintain a quality living environment for the agricultural citizens throughout theme; county. The following is a statement of these policies and objectives. 1. Agriculture is considered a valuable resource in Weld County which must be protected from adverse impacts result- ing from uncontrolled and undirected business, industrial and residential growth. In Qrder to maintain and pro- mote this important segment of the county's economy, the cultural and human values associated with farm life_ and the overall benefits of an agri- cultural _environment, a'�_uses. o£_ prime irrigated farmland for uses other than agricultural will be cri- tically reviewed to insure the pro- posed development will not adversely impact_the agricultural interests of the county and that the development will positively contribute to the over- all economy, environment and tax base of the county. 2. The expansion and development of agri- business and agriculturally oriented ina try will be encouraged, provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy or environ- ment. 3. In order to minimize conflictin_g_ Land uses and minimize the cost of new facilities and services to the tax- payer, industrial , commercial, business and residential development will be encouraged to locate adjacent to the existing 27 incorporated towns and in accordance with the comprehensive plans - 48 - ; i - and stated wd.1.14s ct each community. where new developments desire to locate in te coral 3.Y...i: away from the existing m :ilt es . they will be required to just;.fy their developm:i _ wi,j, a detailed plan (Planned Uni . ovticpr..ent) accom- panied by an r,cr.cmic impact state- ment and an envzrcume tea:: _i.pact statement prepared by recognized experts, .S.hcwi g 311 details of how the proposed development would affect the loop.;, and county's eco- nomic base, the tax revenues and cost of public services such as schools, utilities, roads and health services, an,3 the immediate and longterm impact on the existing environment.. 4. Fecause _ -uplzes are essential for a_;.cieu'_tc:- s_i production, each nonagr .cui ra.: a; development will be encourage; :C obtain its necessary water from scuoes are consid- ered nonessential nr the maintenance of agricultural cr_od!.•o ion in the par- ticular area. in sur.r.o:r:t of this con- cept, highest ,riorl:ies will be given to those develo r.e:jts that have low • rates of water co,_sumot ion- In pur- suit ot these objectives, it will be the policy to obtain comments from those ditch coMpani , water_ disc • tr. i.cts and :,ther water resource agen- cies w icn :;:ai:::: ; r: _._cods and con- trol the transfer nsfer of wa :er properties in a 1 iarcicul%or a„`_ca 5 . B .c3use ;eater, air and surface pol- lution are of vi al concern to all residents of the cc. nty . the state and the nation, it will De the policy to encourage only those ,:,evelop„errs that can show that they will not con- tribute adversely to_poliuti on; or if they do contribute to the pollu- tion problem of the area, that they are prepared to either build appro- priate control devices at their own expense or will pay sufficient • -- 49 - -'9r• revenues to the existing pollution controlling districts or agencies to insure proper treatment without increasing the cost to the existing users of the system. 6. I:_ order to promote the agricultural economy and to enhance and maintain the gualitz of life and environment in Weld County, developments that utilize nonproductive rural land and water surpluses will be encouraged, particularly where productive irxi-. gated farmland can be preserved as agricultural greenbelts and open space. Construction in flood plains, seep areas, geological fault areas and other dangerous or undesirable build- ing environments will be discouraged. However, development of these same areas as parks, recreation areas, water and land reclamation areas, sand and gravel sources, commercial feed lots, and areas for hunting, fishing and other activities which contxabute to the economy or improve the environment will be encouraged. • • 50 SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2.7 - "APPLICANT MUST PROTECT HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF INHABITANTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1 . From the .Traffic Study Analysis previously reviewed, show no provisions pi Applicant for high intensity, high volume, maxi- mum axle loading traffic caused solely by his proposed dairy (SAFETY)_ 2. From the Available Water Analysis previously submitted , Applicant' s 1 " water tap committed by Little Thompson Water District can, during peak periods, reduce neighboring existing water tap pres- sure to a minimum (WELFARE). 3. Applicant has not provided minimum required water storage ponds for proposed dairy' s effluent (HEALTH). 4. Applicant has not considered the 100-year storm runoff require- ment of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore severely jeopardizes property and life south of proposed facility (PROPERTY LOSS - PERSONAL 8 WELD COUNTY). 5. By placing proposed facility in center of the proposed location, the facility will disrupt historic storm runoff wasteways and divert runoff into a non-historic wasteway (Road 15 borrow pit ) WELFARE - VIOLATION OF STATE CODES ON WATER WASTEWAYS). These major points indicate that Applicant has no significant provisions to meet the requirements of Zoning Ordinance 24.4.2.7. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS NOXIOUS WEEDS MIGRATION - CSU/WELD COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE: In telephone conversation with Dr. Zimdaul, Colorado State University Weed 8 Pest Research Department , and Mr. Ron erode, Weld County Extension Service, Pest and Weed Specialist, the following data was obtained : 1. Both Prosso Millet and Musk Thistle are being added to the Noxious Weed List for Weed Control Districts in Weld County. 2. Prosso Millet, in particular , is slowly invading Weld County, starting in the north end, as a result of inter-state seed migration, from northern states such as Wyoming and Nebraska. 3. Both Prosso Millet and Musk Thistle seed are found, sometimes in abundance, in cattle forage foods such as : baled hay (alfalfa or grass) , straw, silage, haylage, etc. 4. Weed seed will pass through all livestock, without harm to germination ability, end be retained in the animal wastes. 5. Spreading of animal wastes (with week seed inclusion) on irrigated prime farm land is the most common and prevalent source of noxious week introduction to Weld County. 6. Pross❑ Millet is an annual weed that spreads by producing a tremendous quanity of seed which spreads by shatter - i. e. , impact by harvesting equipment with seed distribution int❑ equipment that moves from farm to farm and particularly by lodging in the crop being harvested. 7. Musk Thistle is a perennial weed that spreads its seed by wind to neighboring farms. 8. Neither weed can be controlled at all - except in corn fields ❑r roads and ditches. No control is possible in forage crops such as alfalfa, grass, or haylage without destroying the crop. 9. Cost of partial control in corn, subject to corn height ❑f 23 - 3 feet , is a minimum of $25.00/acre and requires at least three spraying trips through the field. Aerial spraying, for herbicide purposes, is not possible after a corn canopy is formed. CONCLUSION Migration into Weld County of Prosso Millet, Musk Thistle, Canadian Thistle, and other noxious weed seed is a very serious and economical threat to Weld County agriculture - particularly raw-crop production. 2 - Importation of large quantities of baled hay, straw, and other dry forages from nearby or adjacent states into Weld County is particularly detrimental. If the cycle of weed seed import - cattle feed- waste to row-crop fields - silage or forage - back to cattle feed is once started, propo- ' gation of the noxious 'deeds to all areas of Weld County is very probable. At the present time, no Prosso Millet has moved into this part of Weld County. Some Musk Thistle has been found, particularly on irriga- tion ditches , and roads and highways right-of-ways. If the cattle waste is dispaaed. nf. .an. non-irrigated Land - or non- productive land, the dangers are minimized. Weeds, like crops, require sufficient water to thrive. The Applicant has not even demonstrated knowledge of this problem; and, in fact, is purchasing large quantities of out-of-state alfalfa and straw that have no source inspection of weed seed contamination. No documentation or proof of preventing this problem has been sub- mitted by the Applicant to support the welfare of . Weld County. ti SUBMITTED BY: R. B. WILLSCN Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 17, 1987 IXlfISIT SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2.2 - "USE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH _ 'JTENT OF DISTRICT" APPLICATION IS IN VIOLATION 1 . Intent of use of the "A" District is agriculture - spc :ifically , crop production and livestock production. 2. All of Weld County is Zoned "A" District, except for t .ose areas such as Municipal Districts, P.U.D. ' s, overlay use suci as air- ports, flood planes, etc. , and other Approved "Specia' Use Review" permit areas. 3. The Weld County Zoning Ordinance of July 1 , 1985, pro\ :des ample recourse for any applicant to define his proposed neecs , select the best geographical location for his purpose (consistent with the Zoning requirements) and submit a request for "Spstial Use Review" in accordance with all Zoning Ordinances and ` -1e Planning Commission requirements. 4. The Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan of 1973 is very specific in this regard, requiring location of agri-business (tst not crop production) facilities be located in areas of Weld County that do not adversly affect the economy or environment. 5. The 1973 Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan also requires agri- business facilities be located on non-productive rural land in order to promote, enhance, and maintain the quality of life and environment in Weld County. A 6. This proposed facility is therefore in violation of Section 24.4.2.2 if located in its proposed "prime" farmland location. It is recom- mended that a dilligent search for non-productive classed land be made - such as, east of Platteville. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultz -t, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 I 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION OF SECTION 24.4_2.2 - "INTENT OF DISTRICT" Since the Applicant wants to locate his facility in Weld County, his proposal must address all the issues, including that ofconforming to the intent ❑f the district in which he wants to install his facility - in this case, agriculture district - prime irrigated farmland. Since all of Weld County is zoned agriculture (with noted exceptions) the actual use ❑f the ground for agriculture must be examined to deter- mine the intent ❑f the "A" District. 1. For prime irrigated farmland, numbering in the thousands of acres, 99% + of all Weld County prime farmland, is and has been in continuous row-crop production. 2. For prime dryland farmland, numbering in the thousands ❑f acres, 99% + of all Weld County prime dryland is and has been in con- tinuous dryland crop production. 3. For virtually all of the non-productive "other" classified Weld .aunty land, livestock production by grazing of natural grasses (sometimes 25 acres/cow) is and has been the practice. 4. A very low percentage ❑f Weld County land (many times less than 1%) has been or is now used for large confinement areas for livestock and feeding operations or dairies -- usually on non- productive land and forming a part of row-crop or livestock production activities. 5. Since its concept inception, the Special Use Permit Review process used by Weld County requires 911 Applicants to situate their desired facility in an appropriate land use location. 6. Highly intense agri-business facilities such as the Applicant' s are required to geographically locate in Weld County in such a manner as to not violate the Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan. In summary, the Intent of the Weld County Agriculture District is to promote prop production - both dryland and prime ir.r_igated farmland, and livestock production on grazing of pasture-type;- non-productive land. The Intent of the Agriculture District is to also channel Agri-Business _ to land and locations in the county more suitable to their impact on adjacent properties and prevent the removal of crop production or live- stock production from the "A" District. The burden of proof that the Intent of the Agriculture District is anything ❑ther than the above is on the Applicant. dkr3 0;2144—. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.h DATE: January 17, 1987 "♦ rsb SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2.3 - "USE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1 . Surrounding land use is single-family crop-production acreage, scattering of residences, high-density housing development within three miles ❑f proposed facilities - virtually no traffic on Roads except commuter traffic to and from St. Vrain Power Plant. 2. Proposed use will generate constant, daily , high-intensity traffic on Roads 15 and 38. 3. Proposed use will develop odors and polution on a daily, year-round basis, that do not occur ❑n surrounding land. 4. Proposed use increases intensity of people, livestock , vehicular, noise, and nighttime activity C24 hours, 365 days/year operation) many times over - none of which is produced by surrounding, adjacent land. 5. This proposed use is totally INCOMPATIBLE with surrounding land. 6. Weld County Planning Commission denied Applicant' s Request for Special Use because of violation of Section 24.4.2.3 (reference Planning Commissioner' s. Recommendation to the Board of Commissioners dated December 17, 1986). PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 r• � i,� �� 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION OF SECTION 24.4.2.3 - "COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND". The use of land surrounding the proposed dairy site is specifically agriculture row-crop production. The Intent of the District in which this land is located is also _row-crop production. All of the adjacent, touching land is prime irrigated farmland production high-yield agricul- ture row crops. Many. acres "of the land nearby (to the northwest) is prime dryland crop production farmland. As far as the eye can see in any direction, there are no high intensity agri-business locations. In fact, the closest small dairy (worked in concert with row-crop production) is several miles away. A very few small livestock containment feed operation's are located miles to the north or south; but, again, they,' too, form an integral part of row-crop production. One large livestock feed operator is located several miles to the north; however, it is isolated from neighboring residences, located on totally non-productive land, and, again, this facility forms a part of a large acreage row-crop production farm. This operation, with SCS designed 100-year capacity runoff lagoon, is a virtually dry operation and compares in no way with the Applicant' s proposed facility. It produces minimal traffic and odor due to its location and on-farm grown feed. The prior use of the Applicant' s prime irrigated farmland - which he proposes to use as a dairy site - was, again, a livestock feeding opera- tion, worked in conjunction with row-crop production on the farm, as well es row-crop production on ±he next farm adjacent to the west of Road 15. The sales weight of feeders grown on this farm was on the order of 750 lbs. Total water requirements at peak conditions for stock drinking, residence, and farmstead use was 7.8 GPM. Again, a dry operation with minimal odor and on-farm grown feed that required little county road traffic. It was an all daylight-hours operation, all waste disposal on-site, with no employment requirements except for father/son work, and a possible hired hand for peak row-crop production requirements. I.n conclusion, the proposed high intensity dairy, 24-hour operation, with its inherent high-density traffic, heavy and oversize load volume feed deliveries, odor polution., ground water polution; light polution, and large number of employees, visitors, milk trucks, and general overall activity of business, to say nothing of the very poor visual image of this very high (21 ' ) earth work berms to contain liquid waste - cannot be considered to be in any way compatable with surrounding land uses. The very act of continuous sprinkling of liquid waste on former high production row-crop land negates any compatability. The Applicant certainly bears the burden of proof to a high degree to even begin to show any compatability. SUBMITTED BY: R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 16, 1987 /R (L OS 1. 'lugs;ti'7 FFF SUMMARY : ZONING ORDINANCE 24. 5. 1.8 - Provisions for Added Traffic. .nrFLICANT IE IN VIOLATION 1. Applicant does not address serious traffic that his proposed facility generates; only states entrance and exit roads to his facility and assures only 2 milk trucks and one commodity truck per day. 2. Analysis shows minimum of 160 trips per day, 51 of which are maxi- mum axle loading , 37 are medium to high-axle loading , and the balance light passenger or pickup truck vehicles. 3. The volume and weight of traffic generated by Applicant' s proposed facility will require, as a minimum : a. Widening and asphalt paving of Weld County Road 15. b. Addition of acceleration lanes and declaration lanes at the Road 38 area of Road 15. o. Traffic signs , markings, stripping , and warnings_ d. Widened entrance/exit to facility e. Establishment , by Applicant, of a Weld County Reserve Tax Fund to pay for Weld County Road and bridge damage generated by Applicant ' s additional traffic. PREPARED 8Y: R. 8. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , 8.S.M. E. DATE : January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE LOADING REVIEW The Applicant has not addressed the problem of protection of the public safety due t❑ hazards he will create from the proposed facilities demand for daily increased traffic on Weld County Road 38 and especially Road #15. This use will generate high traffic volumes, large number of large, slow accelerating and decelerating vehicles, and maximum volume delivery semi-trucks hauling massive loads of hay into the facility. A summary of the analysis of traffic intensity shows the following DAILY traffic compositions of the estimated 160 minimum trips into or exiting the site : 1 . Axle loading above 16 , 000 lbs 28 trips 2. Axle loading @ 9, 000 to 16,00❑ its 3 trips 3. Axle loading @ 2, 500 to 9000 lbs 37 trips 4. Axle loading below 2500 lbs 92 trips Daily total minimum estimated trips 160 trios The Applicant does not provide any means of solving his proposed facility generated traffic problems and in particular, none of the following : 1 . Widening of Weld County Road 15 from dairy entrance south to Weld County Road 38. 2. Asphalt paving of Road 15 from entrance cf dairy to Road 38. 3. Acceleration lanes east bound on Road 38. 4. Deceleration lanes/exit lane west bound on Road 38. 5. Acceleration lanes west bound on Road 38. 6. Deceleration lanes east bound on Road 38. • 7. Traffic signs, warnings, etc. 8. Lane markings. 9. Widened entrance/exit to dairy with culverts, etc. , to accommodate wide-turning trucks. 10. Establishment by Applicant of a Weld County Reserve Tax Fund to pay for damage to Weld County roads and bridges by facility-generated traffic damage. t .? PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B. S.M. E. DATE : January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS MISCELLANEOUS DATA 1 . Discussion with Harry Wiediman, January 7 , 1987. Typical Dairy Cow (milking ) Daily Ration Hay 13 lbs Corn 23 lbs (ear or shell - ground -high moisture ) Silage 25 lbs Protien 3 lbs Cottonseed 4 lbs Miscellaneous 1 lb 69 lbs/cow/day Rolling herd daily milk production average - 60 lbs/cow Estimated bedding per cow/day (Guess only ) - 5-10 lbs/day 2. Discussion with Francis Gregerson, January 9, 1987. a. Has Public Health Certified Stock Well - ample for all needs. b. Fills 10, 000 gallon net capacity storage tank 3 times per day for vacuum-pump cooling , bulk tank compressor cooling, milking equipment, and line flushing and dump surge flush of facility floors. Use for 800 milkers is 28,000 GPD net. c. Scrape corrals and stock piles, produces about 50 ton/day from 800 milkers - spreads solids over 300 acres on adjacent farms. d. Pumps all liquid wastes into lagoon - dilutes w/irrigation water and flood irrigates on 100 acres with reuses pool- catching runoff. e. Uses 1800 bales (4' X 4' X 8' ) at 1100 lbs/bale of bedding strew per year - 7 lbs/cow/day for milkers only. 3. Discussion with Ed Wiedimen, January 9, 1987. a. Water requirements - All water used is metered by City of Greeley - data of 83 GPD for 400 cows is very accurate. b. Bedding use is 480 ton/year or about 7 lbs/day/cow. c. Liquid waste is ponded, diluted with irrigation water and flood irrigates sandy soil - no acreage given - area appears to be at least 160 acres. G6' O PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10 , 1987 txaka1r 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS E ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC INTENSITY INCREASE Currently, Weld County Road 38 has two significant peak periods of vehicular traffic primarily light passenger and small pickup trucks traveling to and from employment at the Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant - from 6 :30 a.m. to 8 :00 a.m. and from 4 :00 - 6 :00 p.m. Density is estimated at 30 - 50 units per hour during those peak periods. Off-peak hours intensity drops to less than 10 light vehicles per hour. During summer and fall harvest, heavier traffic ❑f average 20,000 lbs gross farm trucks use Road 38 and Road 13 for hauling to market. Road 15 is a typical gravel-surfaced, narrow Weld County Road that normally is graded every two weeks in dry weather. Residences are light to the north from Road 38, but school buses travel morning and evening during school months. Vehicular traffic is very light and often, during daylight hours, there is no traffic at all. Night traffic is seldom. The following represents conservative estimates of the massive increase in traffic intensity on both Road 38 and particularly Road 15. Accurate estimates of vehicular weights are given to assist in the assessment of significant increase in road/bridge repair costs caused solely by this proposed dairy - particularly to Road 15. 1. Milk Hauling based on three times per day milking, full-head production and mature cows - (70 1b/day) (2400 head)=168,000 lbs/day assuming 80,000-lb truck gross load limit, about 60,000 lbs (6900 gallons ) of milk will be hauled per truck sound trip (20, 000 lbs empty weight ). This will require daily three (3) 80,000 lbs exit trips and 3 20, 000 lbs entrance trips - not the estimated 2 trips—daily. 2. Bulk Feed Handling - Haled Alfalfa - Hay requirements, on a daily basis, for 2400 head of heavy producing dairy cattle approach 15-18 lbs/head/day - or an upper limit ❑f 43, 200 lbs (22 ton) while corn and hay prices are depressed. Because ❑f volume, only 18-ton can be hauled on standard semi-truck flat beds (big 4' x 4' x 8' bales average 1800 lbs/bale). With 20 bales per truck, the daily trips for hay will be two entrances @ 56, 000 lbs and two exits @ 20,000 lbs for alfalfa. 3. Dry, Ground Corn (or High-Moisture Corn) - In the dairy ration will range from 20-25 lbs per cow or a total of 60 ,000 lbs/day for 2400 cows. If the corn is ground or flaked on site, one 80,000 gross-weight truck entrance and one 20,000-lb empty exit will be required each day. 4. Silage (or Haulage) Requirements will probably average 25 lbs per day for each cow or a total daily need of 60,000 lbs/day. All silage must be hauled in a 30-day period during harvest in the fall, s❑ a total yaar's need of (365)(60,000) ❑r 21 ,900,000 lbs - about 11 ,00❑ ton per year. Most silage • - 2 - trucks in the area will haul about 10 ton or silage or a total of 1100 exit loads of 15,000 lbs and 1100 entrance loads of 35.,0.00 ihs.. This is the da.iT* equivalent of 3 loads of 35,000 lbs and 3 loads of 15,000 lbs daily. 5. Other Daily Nutrients required in the ration, such as protien supplement, cottonseed, and other nutrients, will weigh about 8 lbs/day/cow or 19 , 200 lbs/day. It is assumed that the equivalent deliveries will be one (1 ) truck per day @ 30, 000 lbs gross in and 10, 000 lbs take weight out. 6. Semi-Solid Waste Product Removal - From the daily animal waste analysis, there will be a total of 97 tons semi-solid waste per day scraped and stockpiled for removal. This is the equivalent of 6 manure trucks per day out at 50, 000 lbs gross weight and 5 trucks in at 14, 000 lbs empty. 7. Excess Liquid Waste Removal - Liquid waste removal on an equivalent daily basis will be 12,300 , 000 gallons/year, assuming no 25-year ,or 100-year event (see Waste Management Analysis ). This is 33, 700 GPD or 5 7000 gallon tankers out @ 80,000 lbs and 5 tankers in @ 20 ,000 lbs empty. 8. Stock Bedding Transport to Confinement Area - Estimates given by SCS tables and data supplied by local dairies indicate average bedding requirements per cow/day is about 7 lbs - or a total annual need of 6, 132,000 lbs (3066 ton). This requires a daily equivalent of 8.4 ton per day or one trip entrance at 27,000 lbs and one exit of 10,000 lbs. 9. From the Water Source Analysis, 60,000 GPD must be hauled into the site. This is an average daily trip into site of 9 80,000 lbs trucks and exit of 9 20, 000 lbs trucks. SUMMARY The following summarizes average daily inbound and outbound trips, including weighed loads and axle loadings for all increased high inten- sity traffic to the proposed dairy site via Roads 38 and 15. Routes of trucks have not been established; but, it would appear logical for hay trucks from Southern Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming (which is the current purchase practice of the Applicant for their 3500-cow facility on Highway 66 ), to come North or South Interstate-25, Exit Mead Exit 245 or Berthoud Exit 250, continue on the Frontage Road to Weld County Road 35 and due east to Road 15. If ear corn is also purchased out of state, because of price considerations, these trucks would also follow the same route. Road 38 is, of course, gravel unimproved for two miles, very susceptible to drifting of snow in the winter for most of the two miles of gravel , with snow depths exceeding 5 ' at times. Normal County snow plows and grading efforts ,will leave Road 38 impassable for 2-3 days in severe conditions. Oran`x/-57 . - 3 - TABLE DAILY IN/OUT TRIPS TO DAIRY ACTIVITY # WEIGHT # WEIGHT TRIPS TRIPS AXLES IN IN - OUT OUT - MILK HAULING 3 20,000 lbs 3 80 ,000 lbs 5 HAY DELIVERY 2 56,000 lbs 2 20,000 lbs 5 CORN DELIVERY 1 80,000 lbs 1 20,000 lbs 5 SILAGE HAULING 3 35 ,000 lbs 3 15,000 lbs 2 MISCELLANEOUS (FEED) DELIVERY 1 30, 000 lbs 1 10, 000 lbs 2 MANURE HAUL 6 14 ,000 lbs 6 50,000 lbs 3 LIQUID WASTE HAUL 5 20, 000 lbs 5 80,000 lbs 5 BEDDING HAUL 1 27, 000 lbs 1 10 ,000 lbs 3 EMPLOYEES 35 4,000 lbs avg 35 4,000 lbs 2 SALES/VISITS 10 4,000 lbs avg 10 4,000 lbs 2 MAINTENANCE 3 7,000 lbs 3 7,000 lbs 2 INSPECTION 1 4 ,000 lbs 1 4,000 lbs 2 POTABLE WATER HAUL 9 80,000 lbs 9 20,000 lbs 5 DAILY TOTAL TRIPS SO 80 NOTE : The above reflects the readily identified traffic to and from the proposed dairy. Additional heavy traffic will be cattle delivery trucks (potts ) gross loaded in and out with up to and/or 80 ,000 lbs gross weight for the removal of spent animals and replacement with fresh milkers. This will occur every year replacing up to 30% of the herd or 600 head/year. With 40 head per load this is about 1.25 trips/month for a total of 15/year. It is quite obvious from the above that this intense traffic situa- tion is vastly different than the existing "A" District zoned useage. In addition, a significant amount of tax dollars will have to be allocated for repair of new chuckholes on existing paved rcads and additional road base for gravel roads as a result of massive rutting caused by 80 , 000 lbs gross weight vehicles, which these roads were not designed to handle. The danger to ancillary traffic, farm vehicles and implements, commuter traffic, school buses, and other existing traffic is enormous, particu- larly with the huge trucks and gross weights involve//d14 ��. / PREPARED 8Y: R. 8. WILLSON UZ Q L�" Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10 , 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS SUMMARY DAIRY SURVEYS AND UNIVERSITY DATA 1 . Typical Daily Milk Cow Feed Ration Hay 18 lbs Corn 25 lbs (all types) Silage 25 lbs (or Haylage ) Protien 3 lbs Cottonseed 4 lbs Miscellaneous 1 lb Total 69 lbs/cow (This is low - highest is 79 lbs/cow/day 2. Bedding Requirements - Average 7 lbs/day/cow. 3. Semi-Solid Manure Hauling - Average between .04 and .06 ton/day/cow including soiled bedding. 4. Milk Production/cow/day will average between 55 to 70 lbs. High output dairies are in the upper 60' s. Rolling Herd averages of 70 lbs/cow maximum is available with slight use of chemicals and steroids. 5. Average Daily Water Consumption Drinking water per day/cow 40 gallons (low to average) Barn use/day/cow 12 gallons Note ; Wash, flush , equipment rinse, and all daily barn use varies from 30,000 GPD for 800 head (38 GPD/cow) to as law as 3 or 4 gallons per cow for the smaller dairies without deluge flush. The University data appears the most reasonable at an average of 12 gallons per day. 6. Residence and Employee Daily Water Use Residence in area = 170 gallons/day. Medium employee levels 2Q .-. 50. Employees plus daily visitors traffic will average 30 gallons/day per employee. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSQN Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 • TNDEPF MENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- lkill iV/DI A r�4r-s 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? • 2.) Number of milkings per day? 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 'iSre, fre • 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? Information approved by: 41:€ Op Date: 7 / L d 7 IND£P,_ "?= T SURVEY . Name of Dairy --- •6. 4 O.F it(_! t hn eo p 1 ty 1 eilize sr, 6W 1.) Approximate number of adv'..t milking cows? 6/00 2.) Number of milkings per dP.-? 3.) Average quantity of potab- e water consumed per cow, per day? 23 3 (5 p Ohy IQ CLMes A.) Estimated gallons of wat< ^ �zsed per cow for washing per da, . /ab o vas. Information approved by: po by 2 00cyL > p 40/167,- SLIgri TYPICAL DAILY RATION p Date: G' Qy b a czMeoia w Hay Ty S7 Ear Corn fy Silage Z5 Cottenseed # Protien �, (y �1' AP Misc. salts, etc 7J C.7 Total 170 it per cow/day { • INDEPF,.:DENT S TRVEY , Name of Dairy --- j e E1 4 e k 5 o D D Pt U R 1 { • 1,.) Approximate number of ad+.at milking cows? gob C06.75 ) 2.). Number of milkings per day? ' • 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 1�or nAgArswni-,6-0 - asp Sroett, (het 4.)' Estimated gallons of watT used per cow for washing per day? (A) 1 # 3 (A SL` s . '3 G, O ►tt ..70 Pry Cell) F G--<Py A' ≤ C o≤5 "Zo Op Cy P4171 0 lry !,50)*U approved by: I M. l�C Pa, x,. 5 p& 11 cal b y 6,)/t o sow 9 c�. Oiynt $ Qab of iz aor TYPICAL DAILY RATION Date; �� Hay /4 - O7 1/4;) 24CbsoZ-1 Ear" Corntave-ivi.AQ. 20 silage.11 7.ind. Zz Cottenseed Protien 7r? Misc. salts, etc t ic Total .f3# per caw/day • INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy — GC7 r Z e g? 1, O L( J r t/ (Tv 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 2.) Number of milkings per day? 3 3.) Average quantity of potab':e water consumed per cow, per day? 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? • Information approved by: • Date: /- g - g 7 MAW INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- (cApLSL 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? O° 2.) Number of milkings per day? • 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? GL,s 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per bow for washing per day? Information approved by: � 1 _2/ Date: tj ,Tl -1 INDha.n,INDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy 1 ei/ND 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? C! 2 S' 2.) Number of milkings per day? (..? o o 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? 162 • Information ed byc /7, Date: 7-9/ • n_ tt INDEPENDENT StRIEY Name of Dairy -- �e�< /YOBS ;v0 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows?�uz 2.) Number of milkings per day? _ex 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? /d information approved by: 1 Date: /— • e7 - ' d INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- / ' ' L ( (�Vei I Z�l bct:t 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 9c) 2.) Number of milkings per day? • 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? "4'S . 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? /0 f ' Information approved by: • Date: .1 r ' 1 lr INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? SLrt) • 2.) Number of milkings per day? 6 d... 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 7a 1& 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? O G ,_ Information approved by: r *' D Date: / - 7 _ 97 INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy — fij 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 2.) Number of milkings per day? <13 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? cp Cr • Information approved by: i 7��L ez-d � 7 d- EiG e—c� Date: 7 _ r7 7 / INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy G!// e7$lc-' 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 9 G 2.) Number of milkings per day? 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed.per cow, per day? /7)‘) • 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? /tl • • Information approved by: �• hate: / - 12 - s7 INDEPENDENT SURVEY .Name of Dairy --- Mast lisksis 2OT18 OD Cass XL17 9 Comdr Sc$34 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? <C7 2.) Number of milkings per day? 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? ytrrai i • 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? atra, formation approved by: Date /0 / 917 f?"7" it e Cooperative Extension Service Montana State University, Bozeman, MT er 4 TABLES Table 22 Farm end Morn*W44..R.ptdnmeM. Tanks a.Water Cwnumpton of Daley Canna Fern Waite Requirements GaVUIy Aye or Galena Oats or Cane Cadman sit Day(.1 Beal steer or cow t-1.2;107 lbs wt Sheen ?sheep Nast...Mies imp Id to to a.l'Se . .-.. 10-IS-no-se Monta.ncahn 2rne- 19102a Sows 1-S.'hoo no:stew.nh-n 3 e`O 2./ is 2' 4!a,krt hdcs _ n Ztit..n calls a aar 30 to3S Clean,ng 1/hog ;'Ou'd fe.C'ng 2'hwg no111re.Misfits S mho 38 team _. 2 Manure. . ... . ... .. . 14--;nog nolve'n hewn tl•10'*0 59 to:.1 Milk cow (drinking) . .. . .-_. ..-___.. . . 35 cow nase..n t...leH t•-2a no :3 tote Dry cow 12 cow J.rs.y Cows 30 la masonry 40 t to 144 ` Cow -('i washer , w GO .uw t nsey caws Je errs slay 17 17.71 a "losing floor.. . ... .. . .-.• .. . . 15.'-00 so ft an"... Brown Swiss 30 to .-.homy 13 a q la 1 \ . •_.. 3 Manure..- .-..--.. 3 Cow ana natter,.cows 1010 nws day 21 I to322 'Cleat-ono milk tQu:prnont ..... .... .. .. ?:cow &IT cows Pregnant 4-4 me a to 13 Livestock waterer -sresi /Till Cask OAS jdrrrlklllg) 5 100 b.r3s ;.1 A.'tan.oerat.rre range sr to arc- _— Turkeys (drinking). .. . .., - to'100 b"n_i Ctoan.nO cage* and pens .'.•1yr 5.r„1 Dairy laiefamenoe Manual. Collge of AgneWtura.. Nome Sealer A.gurr.m.m► Tnr P.nnsytranla Stan Vntaerlty ---- - Un.lerny Park,Pena Each person for ab purposes - 50 gal Automgt.r. Washer . .. . .-.. 30-•o 'oil p.inwasner 5.15 :gad Shower Or tub 20•SJ.ea. Hose and floral* . . . 200.300 or Lawn Sprinkler i20 go" ,-,c) ?_., I " +ItI�G �/� i� 1 ., I - ! 6,10f`� y Ptafy� 1�1 / (` f 61c.� JI j�o • IA f, '.- ,'Ira. . J -- 2200.14 - .. :. .a COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY In conversation with Mr. Bill Wailes, Dairy Manager for C.S.U. Dairy, the following information was provided to Mr. Melvin Brown, 6859 Weld County Road 56, Loveland, Colorado 80557 : Milk Cow (milking ) Drinking Water 33-40 GPO Dry Cow Drinking Water 13 GPD Milk Cow Udder 8 Body Wash/Cow 10 GPD Barn Floor Wash/Cow 3 GPO Equipment Wash 8 Flush 2 GPD Total Daily 55 GPD In addition, Mr. Wailes stated that the Larimer County Public Health Department requires n❑ liquid waste be stored in the storage lagoons of the CSU Sophisticated Waste Treatment System. All wastes must be hauled away from the site, due to Public Health hazards and terrible odors. Mr. Brown stated his company hauls 200, 00❑ gallons per week of liquid waste from the CSU dairy facility , keeping its lagoons in a virtual dry state - odor free. Mr. Brown disposes of this liquid in many areas of dryland farmland far removed from Fort Collins, Colorado. 6e. 6 Clifton.. ISSUED AND REPORTED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B.S.M.E. DATE : January 10, 1987 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS ANDERSON 5/8"TAP FROM LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT peak measured output of the Glen Anderson 5/8"by 3/4" residential tap, located in Section 32 - on Road 15, approximately 1/2 mile north of Road 38, is 7.8 gallons per minute. This data is supplied by Mr. Barry Dykes, Operations Supervisor for Little Thompson Water District, on Thursday, January 15, 1987. REPORTED BY: R. 6. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 15, 1987 I ti Ly • ~� � � Lt f f1eThn_y'tlat �I r f � e•ve �,, e �.�-- r . . 4. Rules and Leuulatiens • • • L LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT RULES AND REGULATIONS INDEX Section Page No. 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 • 100. General 1-1 101.. Board of Directors 1-1 102. Manager of the District 1-1 103. Tapholders of the District 1-1 104. Future Changes to these Regulations 1-1 105. Approval and Date of Adoption 1-1 2 LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2-1 200. General 2-1 201. Organization and Powers of the Board 2-1 202. Duties and Responsibilities of the Manager 2-5 203 : Financial Operations of the District 2-8 204. Insurance and Bonding Requirements for the District 2-9 205. Public Right to Information 2-11 206. Legal Notices 2-11 207. Fee and Rate Schedules - Procedures for Increases 2-12 2O8. Regular Scheduled Meetings for the District 2-12 209. Special Meetings for the District 2-13 210. Normal Working Hours for the District 2-13 211.. Place of Business 2-13 3 INDIVIDUAL WATER TAPS 3-1 300. General 3-1 301. Application for Service 3-1 302. Installation and Location of Water Meters 3-3 ' 303 . Relocation of Water Meters 3-4 304. Requirements and Restrictions on Water Service 3-4 ar 305. Additional Residences on Same Property 3-7 306. Individual Tap •Fees 3-8 4 ADMINISTRATION OF CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNTS 4-1 400. Normal Billing Cycles and Meter Reading 4-1 401. Discontinuance of Service for Non-Payment 4-3 402. Delivery of Official Notices 4-6 403 . Returned Checks 4-6 404. Customer ' s Payments 4-6 405. Change of Property Owners 4-6 406. Water Service for Rental Properties (Single Family) 4-7 407. Perpetual Property Lien for Non-payment 4-9 408 . Special Rate for a Residential Tap .4-9 Page 1 of Index • 304 .9 High Pressures and Damages to Customer 's Property. The District operates main transmission lines at pressures up to 150 PSI . Individual meters have a regulator to ensure that the customer' s delivery pressure remains at 45 PSI . In the event this regulator fails , and over a period of time they frequently do fail , the customer will experience high pressure throughout his residence. For this reason, the customer' s service line (all material and equipment from the discharge side of the meter yoke) must be designed and installed with the capability of withstanding pressures up to 150 PSI. The District will not guarantee that the regulator or any other equipment will not fail and the District is not responsible -for any damage to a customer ' s property caused by high pressures . Additionally, any metered water lost because of a water leak due to high pressures remains the responsibility of the customer. 304.10 Pressure Settings cn Regulators. All water taps installed by the District have a pressure regulator • which is pre-set at 45 PSI . Customers are not permitted to adjust the regulator or accomplish any modifications within the meter pit. A customer • experiencing high or low pressure should contact the District offices so District personnel can • correct the situation. 304.11 Financial Adjustments to Water Bills. The District will not make any financial adjustments to a customer ' s bill because of high usage due to a water leak on the customer ' s service line or within the residence/business. As an exception to this policy, if special circumstances prevail and the' customer feels that an adjustment is warranted, then the special circumstances should be documented in writing and the matter will ' be considered by the Board of Directors at the next regular scheduled meeting. 305. ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES ON SAME PROPERTY. Customers have ' been permitted to provide water service to a second and additional residence on the same parcel of property from • one water tap. Although the District, in the past , did not encourage this type of arrangement, the previous rules and regulations did not positively restrict customers from adding on a second residence to an existing water service. Upon adoption of these rules and regulations , one water tap may serve a second or additional residence providing that there is only one owner involved and one specific parcel of property, subject to the following restrictions: 305.1 As of June 5 , 1986 no additional residences may 3 - 7 Joe connected to any existing water tan without the specific 'written approval- o£- the District , unless the size of the meter serving the property is l" or larger . Customers desiring approval for this type of service should request same in writing to the District. 305 .2 Water service which involves two or more residences on the same water tap .generally means . 'that both - pressures and - lows 'are inadequate ' during periods of peak usage..' The District ' s' ,responsibility . ends_ at the customer ' s side; o£ 'the meter yoke in he meter p,t it and poor' pressures or f t ow5 attributed to second residences are the•responsibuj,ty of the customer, 305.3 Effective ,June 5, , 1986, or; upon adoption- of these rules and regulations , whichever occurs later , customers having second and additional residences will be sub'jectto a revised' rate 'structure which will reflect the,',additional service being;provided_ The revised rate structurewill only applyto water .taps:• smaller than 1" . ;..The; rate` : structure will be - established as if there-'were two or: more taps/residences-involved and will be iiCaccordance with Section ' 15, (Rate and `FeeSchedule) - to these regulations. 305.4 Once a customer 's water, service. has been designated as having :an additional residence involved, the service will remain in this rate structure indef- initely, regardless of whether- the additional residences." are- occupied or not In the event that the additional residence has - been removed from the property, or the' water service line has been permanently disconnected to the additional residence , 'the:'customer may request that their rate - schedule be modified: `This' request will be in writing to the District. :' - '' 305.5• In the event that the parcel o£ 'property involving additional residences is sold, so that the "one owner - one property rule is violated, a second water tap will have to be purchased to serve the additional residence. • 306. INDIVIDUAL TAP FEES. All tap fees will be as prescribed in Section 15 (Rate and Fee Schedule) to these regulations. * * * .* * * END OF SECTION 3 * * * * * * 3 - 8 prig '', ., 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS SUMMARY • APPLICANT' S SIZING OF STORM RUNOFF AND LIQUID STORAGE PONDS - 100-YEAR ' STORM 1. To be in compliance, Applicant ' s water storage ponds must be about 420,000 SF - NOT 161,225 SF as shown - an underdesign of 2.6 times. 2. Diversion of upstream (north ) rain runoff by Applicant' s dikes and roads remove that water from historic waterways and put flow into non - historic waterways (Road 15 borrow pit). 3. Worst case runoff - Diverted Runoff Flow (100-year storm) is about 30 cubic feet per second. By dumping into Road 15 borrow pit, will wash out Road 38715 junction and cause major_ structure/crop loss to adjacent farmers. 4. Diversion of even average (2" ) runoff into Road 15 borrow pit will inundate adjacent downstream agricultural irrigation systems and cause crop damage/loss. REVIEW OF APPLICANT' S WASTE RETENTION POND' S SIZE From the requirements of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the standards required by the Weld County Planning Commissioner' s staff for the Applicant ' s proposal, the following design criteria must be met : 1 . Facility must retain all storm water runoff on-site from a 100- year storm (relative only to the area of Applicant' s facility ); Reference : Zoning Ordinance Section 24.5. 1.5. 1 . July 1 , 1985. 2. Compl; with all Colorado Department of Health - Water Quality Control Commission Guidelines , current edition. 3. Referenced Guidelines definitize, in general , all aspects of designing large livestock containment facilities. In additon, the USDA Soil Conservation Agricultural Waste- Management Field Manual - current issue - should be used as recommended by the Guidelines. The SCS Design Guide states that : 1 . A 10' operating depth of pond liquid is very necessary to minimize pond odor and maintain anaerobic action. 2. Prior to the startup of the facility, all ponds must be filled to their operating depth. 2 _ 3. Lagoons should be aerobic in nature to remove milk fats and protiens and reduce odor. If odor is of no concern, and milk fats and pro tiens can be satisfactorly removed from the liquid storage 'ponds, th-en en anaerobic system may be used. Also, from SCS Design Guide, a 25-jeer event is estimated to ba 3.8" in a 24-hour period and 4.6" per 24 hours for a 100-year event. From the above, and using data from the waste management disposal analysis, the following depicts actual needed requirements : r -5 d FREEBOARD OPERATING DEPTH • Waste Disposal Storage Pond 1. Required capture storage capacity during 6 winter months : a. Barn Effluent 1 , 130, 940. CF b. Rain capture (3"/limos) 381 , 15❑ CF c. •100-Year Event (4. 6" ) 583,704 CF Total 2, 095 , 794 CF • * Worst case - saturated soil profile and occurs in non-irrigating season. 2. This alone will require a storage pond surface area of 139,720 SF or about 140, 000 SF to contain the 100-year event, normal rain capture off-irrigation season, and average dairy barn and cantain- ment area effluent , assuming ponds were dry to start. In addition, to insure that the waste storage ponds will act in an anaerobic manner, the final storage ponds must contain a full 10' depth of liquid to function properly (at the beginning ❑f the cold season to obtain makimum storage need). It must be assumed that the sedimentation ponds must remain full and d❑ not contribute to storage of liquids. Hence, the actual area required to meet all conditions is: Pond Required Area = That area above 10' of liquid required for anaerobic process • - 3 - (5' depth ) Area = 2,095, 794 CF Area = 419 , 159 SF or about 420, 000 SF for the three proposed storage ponds This is 2. 6 times more than Applicant proposes. Finally, the provision of runoff from 100-year event rainfall from upstream (adjacent ) sources has only been covered in the Applicant' s proposal by mention of dikes and roadways transferring runoff to the Weld County Road 15 burrow pit, a non-ajudicated wasteway. No prcvi-= Sion has been made by the Applicant to store, capture, or divert the water runoff from the Road 15/Road 38 junction to the Road 38 historic wasteway running east on the Road 38 borrow pit. This means overflow over Road 38 literal inundation of the residence and property south ' of Road 38, with possible contaminated runoff and overflow into the yard, basement, and amenities and fields of the residence and neighbors. A sample calculation of the worst case runoff of the 100-year storm, assuming full soil profile and occurance during irrigation months (Ekerkenbeck Ditch Lateral at normal full capacity) is as follows : 1 . Total drainage basin above proposed dairy (owned by Gray and Camenish ) is approximately 200 acres draining generally west- ward and southerly towards the proposed dairy , north property lane, runoff total = 4. 6" X (200 )(43, 560) = 3, 339,571 CF 12 OR 24, 979, 983 gallons - about 25,000,000 gallons in a 24-hour period. This is equal to 39 _C.F.S:_ (cubic feet per second). Assuming 66% will now be directed as runoff overflow sweeping over the Ekerkenbeck Lateral Ditch onto the Applicant' s diversion dike/roadway and will now travel westward, instead of historically south, emptying into th? Road 15 borrow pit. This means a 100-year event diversion of (.66) (39) 26. C.F.S dumped into a non-historic wasteway. Since no provisions ere made by the Applicant for retention or diversion at Road 38 or any other means or control, the results will be catastrophic to landowners and residents in particular downstream or south to Road 38 at the Road 15 junction. More to the point, any runoff will now be diverted to the junction of Roads 38 and 15. G 6.2 ;-(2,(4,--- PREPARED 8Y: R. 8. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE; January 10, 1987 SUMMARY APPLICANT' S WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1. Applicant' s facility will discharge about 47,000 GPD - not 25,000 GPD as stated in proposal. —` 2. Applicant should have provided a minimum liquid waste storage capacity of 1 ,900,000 cubic feet not considering 10' operational depth recommended by ASCS oil any abnormal storms. 3. Applicant only_ provides approximately 1,600,000 cubic feet in his proposal. 4. Applicant did not consider sterilization limit on 100 acres in disposing of liquid waste. 5. Applicant did not consider the need to haul liquid waste off site. 6. Applicant does not propose containment of possible waste runoff at south end of property due to storm runnoff, pond overflow, or french drain effluent. 7. Applicant has chosen the least expensive technique of waste treatment - anaerobic treatment - if ponds are not maintained full to 10' operating level , severe odor problems will result in addition to the odors from functioning anaerobic systems. 8. Applicant has not provided means to seal the surface of the contain- ment area for livestock (30 acres ). This unsealed area will con- taminate ground water and soil as well as being a source for air- borne contamination. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF APPLICANT' S WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Review of the Applicant' s design parameters for the proposal show the following assumption: 1. 25-Year Event Rainfall @ 3.8" depth over the area of 1 ,305 ,000 s.f, (30 acres). 2. Actual Runoff Water in the amount of 3.22" depth was assumed over the 30 acres. 3. Storage and solid ponds also will receive the same 3.8" depth - no runoff. (4. 16 acres ) 4. Total average precipitation during the months of November, December , January , February, and March - or 5 months = 323, 254 CF or total rainfall of 2.61 " for the 5-month period. 5. Total dairy facility effluent to ponds will be 499,045. CF for N, D, J , F , M (5 months) or a per day discharge of approximately 25 , 000 GPD as stated in proposal. 6. Total designed proposal storage of 1 , 612,250 CF included a 31% ❑verdesign with the above data for a 5-month, non-irrigating , season. Briefly, the design analysis of this study assumes the following : 1 . Total actual waste area of facility that will be captured in the proposed ponds (total 181 ,225 SF) is 35 acres or 1 , 524, 600 S.F. including berms that slope to ponds. 2. Dairy liquid waste product effluent delivered to ponds is 78, 330 gallons/day (See Animal Waste Analysis ). 3. Total Annual precipitation in this area is 12"/year. 4. Lake and pond evaporation rate (best condition) is 40" of depth/year. 5. The limit for application ❑f liquid wastes (from dairy lagoons ) without soil sterilization an a consistent yearly basis is 6" depth/acre/year (S.C.S.Tables based on average salt and nutrient content of 400% diluted animal waste). 6. No waste crust will be allowed to form on crop production areas irrigated by the waste. The waste must be mixed into the soil and subsoil continuously by cultivator or other soil mixing practice. 2 7. Weld County Zoning Ordinance Section 24.5. 1 .5. 1 requires a 100-year Water Runoff Criteria. The Applicant only chose to use a 25-year event, for whatever reason. This analysis will thus. use Applicant ' s 25-year data including runoff, but it is noted to be incorrect. 8. Since ground and climate conditions can easily be frozen or snow covered as early as October 15 and as late as April 15, a more reasonable 6-month period for non-irrigation sprinkling is assumed rather than 5 months. 9. Only 100 acres of crop production land remains after complete dairy is built. The following analysis is made based on the above assumptions, not those provisions by the Applicant' s Proposal for Special Use Review. 1 . Limit of pond waste storage use for sprinkler irrigation. Limit = (6" waste/year )(100 acres) = (.5 ' ) (43,560 )(100) = 2,178,000 CF/Year or 16,291 , 440 gallons/year limit. 2. Total liquid run into ponds, annually Dairy effluent - 78, 330 gal/day = 28,590, 450 GPY This includes average annual rainfall, barn wash effluent, and net liquid waste from cows not trucked out as semi-solid waste. NOTE: This excludes the 25 year event of 3.8" rainfall w/3.22" runoff. 3. Exclusive of the 25-year event or the required 100-year event , the liquid surplus to be hauled offsite to prevent soil sterili- zation due to excessive salts applied by over-irrigation of liquid wastes is : Yearly diluted liquid run into ponds - 28, 590, 450 SPY Less maximum applied to 100 acres/year- (16, 291 , 440 GPY) Yearly net to be hauled offsite - 12, 299, 010 SPY This is the daily equivalent of 7000 gallon tankers 5 times @ 80,000 lbs out and 5 times @ 20,000 lbs in. If the 25-year event is considered, the storage pond design capacity must be at least as follows : (assuming 6 months storage, not able to sprinkle irrigate) Ira - 3 1 . Total 25-Year Event on 35 acres as captured runoff, Total = (35 )(43,560 ) (3.22" ) = 409, 178 CF 12 (Neglects the .58" Jiff_ in rainfall of ponds that will result -from 3.8" rainfall or about 8800 CF ) 2. Total Process Water w/o Rainfall Dairy total daily effluent 47, 130 GPD For 6 months = (47, 130) (180) = 8,483, 400 = 1 , 134, 144 CF 3. Average precipitation on 35 acres for 6 months Assume winter distribution of 3" total precipitation. Rainfall equivalent = 3 (35 ) (43,560) = 381 , 150 CF 12 4. Must assume minimal evaporation due to scum and floating sludge, plus low or no-heat days during the 6-month period. 5. If the perfect evaporation over the entire ponds area : (40" depth annually) Annual evaporation removal = (40" ) `` 1(181 ,225 SF) 603 ,479 CF possibly, 20% efficiency due ta2 1ldw-heat days and 10% of that due to scum can be assigned. This is only a guesstimate = 12,000 CF. 6. Total liquid to consider for retention during 6-month period : a. 25-year event 409, 178 CF b. Process effluent 1 , 134, 144 CF c. Precipitation on 35 A. 381 , 150 CF d. Less possible evap. (12,000 CF) Net Required Storage 1 , 912,472 CF OR an under-design capacity of 300, 222 CF 7. The total surplus to be hauled offsite yearly due just to 25-year event is : 409, 178 CF = 3,060, 651 GPY. The number of 7200 gallon truckloads required at 7200 gallons/truck is 425 80,000 lb loads. ea:C r 7, • - 4 - SUMMARY The total waste removal management system proposed is grossly under designed, necessitating physical hauloff ❑f liquid waste by truck.. . .In _addit.icn, no mention is made in the proposal of utilizing the 100-year rainfall criteria as required by the Weld County Ordinance Section 24.5. 1 .5. 1 . This would increase the under design by at least 2-300%. No mention is made in the Applicant ' s proposal of how they plan to retain runoff et the south end of the proposed side, running west to east on Weld, County Road #38. Significant concerns about area pollution, ground water contamina- tion, and odor have not been addressed. Specifically, there is no mention as to how the Applicant proposes to solve the following : 1 . Ground water contamination due to seepage in the containment corrals. 2. Runoff of surface water caused by the proposed French Drains (to be located downstream, but adjacent to the ponds t❑ prevent pond bottom rupture in the summer ), discharging for approximately six months. 3. Capture of crop land surface runoff of wastes caused by heavy summer rains, which are quite common. The clay soils on this farm, and all in this area, seal up and discharge runoff during a 11" - 2" rainfall. 4. The application of pure lagoon wastes on cropland in the summer without burial, the resultant 100-acre site (encrus- ted with deposits from the maximum 6" waste application ), will be highly polutting in the following areas : a. If crop production is grass or hay, no agitation is possible. The odor from 100 acres will be unbearable. b. Ground water contamination is very probable due to soil penetration of the wastes at this high rate ❑f appli- cation. c. Physical penetration of this long-term pollution (as carried by ground water ) into exposed building basements such as the Adler Home next to Road 38 south of the pro- posed facility. They consistently pump seep water from the proposed site each summer during irrigation season as it passed below Road 38 in the existing shale formation. 5. The system as designed, is anaerobic in nature and, in our climate, is not considered a true waste treatment facility. • - 5 6. The anaerobic system generally stops functioning in cold winter months. High surface odor is common in these lagoons. Mechanical surface agitation helps the odor problem somewhat , but Applicant does not propose to do this. 7. Fats and protiens in the milk that finds its way to the storage ponds is a major disposal problem. They will not decompose in anaerobic system and cannot be removed in settling ponds. The Applicant has not addressed this problem. 8. The area of the ponds falls within the very low side ❑f design perimeters (50 to 125 SF)/cow. This dairy is 67 SF per cow and should be toward the upper end due to tempera- ture and elevation conditions of the site year round. 9. Prevailing winds in the area of the proposed facility are generally from the west and northwest in the summer time. At times, strong east winds occur. The upslope conditions of the mountains tend to deflect southerly winds since this area is close to the foothills. Thus Stapleton wind rose is not accurate for this area. Summer winds will distribute severe odors over residents at Northmcor Acres (a very large family residential area ) as well as all farm residents within several miles distance. 10. Odor problems at the CSU Dairy Waste Disposal System have forced the closing of a very sophisticated lagoon system, and now requires removal of all wastes by truck. All of the foregoing shows that the Applicant' s proposal is in direct violation of the Comprehensive Use Plan as well as several special Sections of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance — current edition. PREPARED BY: R. S. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 ^` 1I ��• I I•o - :tee ,, .• 144.4:4 igthas war,- lit i mA, 4, • duillail%44 . , • ....,,,. • $ 441 '4, 4 ' ' .. ‘ . • 4000.... A. 7 - ,- ..-- f. ,- ,.. fiztaloolit ...ff..- '00 , , ej f -IIIL 1 ...., •—... .1)11: \I . lit , 0141:rAallikifbkiliftw: r\Ct..; 411, -jr.\1\ .4gr. ir 4 ear .2.,, ‘ . " Intl/ Op ,oll 7. ---1" e 1/4., 0,4ive • .frAitep '4••%-‘\ ! • yrs, 4 . .-•--- ., it. a ir fc. .svIAL., viLici e.,.....4...—al.." .....iima.: , _ ye,. it.% 0 (R... . ktlik.iltir „..L..,Allai • • ii if . . lifill st.r...lifitii..-: - • r tIr, r 11/41 . . rkftjers . \ _., Nalii&1/414\ --- ii: 1 if . I t 47 qrAd e -.-.,. r-7, ..n. 2 ets..44,444:4batizercti ,I t 7 k+ w we .% 4fr;cy _C I C.... • we Ir . "Piz --pgrITIS_ ,„,, ... .4.1.eir : 1.5.131 r�•,_..ti .rte. ��,a. ....aaPtahillittaft„, , .A 4 . .°...::. " .-1A:e•:. ..ti ' _ ..asiX41"1.1"AP%tkii isit 1 ‘i •t, J •J ors i h • ''• + i�'� �!1 n i r - s 7 of f��^�ti i1 ' .�)f`•,1�'!tLjf.�r . All ;rat ��.� � � , + • - u,� f.- ,Y,..s.---.i* t •M_ �`�iii kiteM- .r . ::' i s .., � � ; /`ltvil�¢l.4L L•4K� E�.c�v;e,4r..' ai�.C ' � . .. P r . .„ Tfg. ,,, ,. ./„. :,...-:„.„(... . , . , . - .i -µ1, i;It •• .. 'i1I :! 1 r • -V • • • COLORADO'DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH • WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION • GUIDELINES • DESIGN OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTAINMENT FACILITIES . VAY 1978 • ';COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH `Water Quality Control Commission -4210 E Ilth Avenue Denver. Colorado 80220 Adopted May 3, 1978 Effective May 3, 1978 • . 8.3.0 GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTAINMENT FACILITIES 8,3. 1 AUTHORITY C.R.S. 1973, 25-8.202(1) (i) and (2) and 25-8-205(1)(b) and (c) , as amended. 8.3.2 PURPOSE The purposes of this publication are to provide guidance for the design and construction of runoff containment facilities .to comply with—state and federal regulations and to provide technical informa- tion o' a ich to base the review of plans and specifications. Al- ternate criteria will be accepted if it can be justified. • 8.3.3 DEFINITIONS • (1) "COMMISSION" means the Colorado Water Quality Control Com- mission. (2) "DIVISION" means the Water Quality Control Division, Colo- rado Department of Health. (3) "FEEDLOT" means a concentrated animal feeding operation for' meat , mill , or egg production, or stabling in pens or houses wherein the animals or poultry are fed at the place of con- finement and crop or forage growth or production is not sustained in the area of confinement. (4) "10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM" means that storm of a 24-hour dura- tion which yields total precipitation of a magnitude that has the probability of recurring only once every 10 years. Such values are provided in Figure 1 . (5) "25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM" means that storm of a 24-hour dura- tion which yields total precipitation of a magnitude that , :- has the probability of recurring only once. very 25 years Such values are provided in Figure 2. P"'":r .� • • Gu.idclines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3, 1978 (6) "WATERS OF THE STATE" means any and all surfaceand sub- surface waters which arc contained in or flow in or through this state, except waters in sewage systems, waters in treatment works of disposal systems, waters in potable water distribution systems,- and all water - withdrawn for use until use and treatment have been completed. (7) "DRAINAGE AREA" means feedlot containment areas, alley- ways, manure holdings and storage areas, and other ap- purtenant area soild be manure excrement. 8.3.4 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS (1) Provision is required for adequate drainage to prevent the col- lection of contaminated waters within feedto3 or stockyard en- closures, areas where manure is stockpiled. or other appurte nant areas. All livestock confinement areas, alleyways, etc. , should be graded to_prevent accumulations of surface waters and • to drain allcontaminated water to adequate -retention facili- ties. Drainage ditches shall be provided as necessary. (2) All possible'means to minimize quantities of contaminated run- off should be implemented. Uncontaminated storm runoff from areas external to the feedlot should be diverted by means of interceptor ditches, earth embankments, etc. , from flowing over the drainage area. (3) All runoff 'containment facilities should be designed with the means for proper and efficient maintenance in mind. - (4) An engineering report should be prepared and submitted to this Division 60 days prior to construction for- review for any type of control or treatment facility. The report should be prepared under the seal of a professional engineer licensed to practice engineering in the State of Colorado or ;*.m...m..dpis the Soil Conservation Service may agree to design containment facilities at a feedlot. Such plans prepared by the Soil Conservation Service do comply with the professional en in .fir requirement. The report should contain all pertinent in- formation that will affect the feasibility_ and acceptability of the proposed facility and shall include but not be_limited__ to the following: • (2) GGidVlines ror Design or Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: Hay 3, 1978 Effective: Hay 3, 1978 (a) The location and direction of all residences, • commercial developments and domestic -water supplies or sources within 1/2 mile of the proposed facility. (b) Results of soil studies to determine surface and subsurface soil characteristics of the area proposed for location of the facility. (c) Direction of prevailing winds. (d) Acreage of pen; and appurtenant areas. (e) Dimensions (feet) and capacities (acre-feet) of_containment structures. - (f) Design storm in inches per 24-hour period. (g) Acreage available for disposal of liquid and solid waste and location of'the acreage= _ • (h) A map of the drainage area arid containment facilities drawn to a legible.. scale. (i ) Projected seasonal high groundwater through-g of the retention facilities. This will generally occur in the spring of • the year, (5) One of the niain considerations in the guidelines is proper operation and maintenance of the pens apd containment facili-. _ ties. The above includes but is not limited to maintenance of grades for drainage, proper disposal of runoff with the allotted time, cleaning of pens on .the average- of once a year and cleaning of runoff containment ponds as necessary but at least once every four years. Facilities as exist at . a dairy may require more frequent cleaning due to the daily volumes. (6) Runoff containment facilities must be capable of containing + 6,... runoff from a 10-year 24-hour or 25-year 24-hour design storm. 70-1, 7 f For facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 4,,o-&E2 System (NPDES) permits, the design storm must correspond with that stated in the permit . The design engineer should refer to the appropriate seate'and federal regulations and laws relative to feedlots for determination of the proper design Storm. . - • • Cm]d":47l .. -3_ .Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3, 1978 • (7) From a review of documents and data, it has been determined • that the volume of containment facilities should "be based on runoff, as opposed to actual precipitation. For feedlots that have an earthen base, runoff may be obtained by using the Soil Conservation runoff curve 91 shown in .Figure 3. For feedlots that are primarily paved, the Soil Conservation Service' runoff curve 95 shown- in Figure 4 should be used. . if conditions at a facility would result in more•than-average runoff (excessive slope), partial pavement, etc.) a more conservative runoff curve than required above should be utilized. More conservative curves can be found in the National -Engineering Handbook , Section 4 , Hydrology. (8) Containment of ruhoff 'need not always be controlled by actual .ponds. If containment can be guaranteed by location or by diking or terracing an area, this will be acceptable. In- the. case of containment by location, an onsite inspection by per- - sonnel of this Division will be necessary. Diking or terracing to provide containment will require an engineering report as discussed in Section 8. 3.4(4) . Water originating -upgradient of the: drainage area" will need to be diverted around the feed-. lot and any manmade structures designed and constructed for containment of feedlot runoff. 8.3. 5 SEALED STRUCTURES • All runoff containment structures that will hold liquid must be sealed. Removal of porous top soil and proper compaction of suitable sub-soil improves the water holding characteristics of the bottom. - Removal of porous -material such as gravel or sandy pockets and replacement with suitable material may be required. Suitable materials for sealing may include a clay blanket, asphalt coating or manure. 8.3.6 RUNOFF CONTROL FACILITIES (1 )• Sedimentation Structures: Sedimentation, ponds or .sedimenta- tion ditches should be provided ahead of all evaporation and_ retention ponds. (2) Sedimentation Ponds • (a) Capacity - The capacity of the pond should be on the • order of 20t of the runoff volume_from the .10-year 24-hour design storm_ ruidclincs for Design of Feedlot • Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: Hay 3, 1978 (a) Inlet and Outlet Structures - Inlet and outlet struc- tures of the pond should be situated ' so as to avoid short circuiting of flows through the pond. In addi- tion, the outlet structure should facilitate dewater- i`.g of the solids. An example is the use of a flash board overflow weir. • (c) Depth: The pond depth should be minimal , less than . 3 feet (0.91 meters) , and facilitate easy maintenance ' • by mobile equipment, (3) Sedimentation bitch • (a) Location - Lt should be located outside the pen area for easier cleaning and maintenance. (b) Gradient - Where site conditions permit,- the gradient should allow a 'velocity of flow; under design storm conditions, of not more than I ft/sec. (30.48 cm/sec.) . (c) Side Slopes - The side slopes should be at least 8 to I . 8.3.7 RETENTION PONDS WITH LAND APPLICATION All retention pond systems shall be sealed and have a means for proper disposal of the retained wastes within 15 days after each Storm. (I ) Capacity - The pond should be capable of containing al.)_runo_ff fspmxhe'feedlQt and appurtenant areas that results from the design storm. Precipitation resulting from a 10-year 24-hour and 25-year 24-hour storm event * /O% yR„ are shown by isopluvial lines in Figures 1- and 2. If a Rat. / sedimentation pond cannot be provided ahead of the re- tention pond, the capacity should be increased by 20t 44F C of the runoff volume from the t0-year 24-hour storm. (2) Shape - The shape of the pond should facilitate case of cleaning and maintenance with the equipment to be used. • (3) Depth - A maxin.um depth of 15 feet (4:57 meters) . is -recom- mended. -in addition, a minimum of 2 feet (0.6! meters) should exist between the poa d nvert and the projected • seasonal high water table. (5) • eurdelines for Design of Feedlot • Runoff Containment Facilities'• - - - Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3,. 1979 • • • (4) Surface Area - Exact criteria do not exist on this sub- ject. However, retention ponds of several surface acres_should be avoided due to potential odor roblems. I recommended .that onds a r C is >? �P-P oaching_severahacres_shou�be separated into at least 2 ponds. The first pond in series should provide 20 to 25 percent of the total de- sign capacity with the second pond providing the remainder. In this way, the smaller volumes of runoff normally en- Countered can he collected in the first pond, • (5) Bottom - A slope, not to exceed 0.5:i. should he provided toward the pump. This will aid in dewatcrinq and help to minimize odors • .. (6) 'Embankments and Dikes - Embankments and dikes should be con- structed, of relatively impervious materials and compacted • sufficiently to form a stable structure in keeping with standard• dam construction practices. All vegetation should be removed from the area upon which the structure is to be placed (7) Side Slopes - Side and end slopes, both inside and out, should been no steeper than 2 feet (0.61 meters) horizontal to 1. foot (0.30 meters) vertical . However, the equipment for cleaning and maintaining the facility and soil charac- teristics should actually dictate the slope in the event it should be flatter. - (8) Width - The:top width of the dike should be a minimum of 'feet (2.44 meters) to permit access of maintenance vehicles. • (9) Spillways '- ' Spillways should he provided on all retention ponds to prevent a washout of the pond during a precipita- tion event exceeding the design storm. The volume of the pond to the invert of the spillway should be atleast that • required in Section 8.3.7(1 ) _ (l0) Freeboard - .Freeboard of at least 1 root (0.30 meters) should exist around the pond and should he measured above the invert of the spillway. Greater freeboard should be -wind action sProvided where dictates such. (II) Erosion Protection - Provision should he made to protect 'the • -6- • • ass • Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: May 3, 1978 EffectiJe: May- 3, 1978 • embankment from erosion. Normally, seeding with suitable grass above the high water line is acceptable. However, greater protection such as riprap may he necessary de- • pending on soil conditions and pond size. (12) Fencing - The pond should-be enclosed with a stock cue _ fence. A vehicle access .gate of sufficient width to accommodate maintenance equipment and trucks should be provided. (13) Land Disposal Systems - A retention pond is designed to contain runoff from one major storm only. Distribution of the waste may be achieved by tank trucks, irrjgation systems or other methods. Iris mandatory that the land distribution system provided be capable of removing the . - . volume of :waste at designed 'retention capacity within 15 days after the storm. In addition, the disposed waste cannot return to waters of the state. ./“:.-061•L.- 8.3.8 TOTAL EVAPORATION SYSTEMS ta Q f-ft., - j Iritec -; systems_ of this type are not suitable for use in many areas of the state due to odor problems and land requirements. An additional problem for a system of this type lies- in designing a suitable. system that guarantees compliance with state 'ard federal regulations but yet is not drastically over-designed. The Soil Conservation Ser- vice has a procedure based on the annual rainfall expected 1 year in 25, and the annual evaporation expected 9 years in 10. If .a total evaporation system must be utilized, the design should be based on • .this SCS 'procedure. Information relative to the procedure. can found in Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual , August 1975, pages 12-70. 8. 3.9 BIOLOGICALTREATMENT Biological treatment systems for runoff from feedlots would be -diffi- cytt_and a pensive_to operate. In some operations. such as totally enclosed facilities, a biological treatment system may be 'desirable. However, land disposal of the waste may still be required due to stringent effluent limitations. Completed plans and specifications for any biological treatment system shall be sulmittedto this Divi- sion for review before construction is initiated. 8. 3. 10 ENCLOSED LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT FACILITIES Enclosed facilities such as dairy or some swine operations produce a • -7 • rya:J • '. Guidelines for Design of Feedlot - Runoff Containment Facilities - Adopted: Hay 3, 1978 Effective: May 3, 1978 rather continuous waste stream. General practice is to collect this waste in liquid manure holding tanks for extended periods followed by land disposal . This system has proven successful . Twin-cell settling basins, two in parallel , have also proven successful . While one is used, the other is dried and cleaned. The sizing of the ponds need not be excessive as' flow to them is usually limited. 8. 3. 11 NOTIFICATION Upon completion of a containment or treatment facility immediate notification, in writing, should be made to the Division. In- cluded with this notification should be "as built" dimensions of the respective ponds: • • -8- 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS REVIEW OF PROPOSED WASTE POND DESIGN From Drawing Sheet 1 of 2 of the Applicant' s proposal, the Profile of the proposed ponds is as shown on Sheet 2. The next exhibit, entitled "Waste Pond Profiles" expands for your clarity the proposed pond design of the proposal, shows the Colorado Health Department Guideline Require- ments for Sedimentation Pond depth and proximity to:projected ground water, and, finally, a pictorial representation of what those guidelines require for the proposed waste treatment facility. Looking at Profile D (or Section A-A for 1200 cows) on sheet 1 , the proposal shows the pond bottom (invert ) at 4934' and existing ground elevation of 4949' at the north end of the pond. This is 15 ' of excava- tion to finished bottom; but proposal also calls for 2' of compacted clay, or 17' depth of penetration from the surface. The finished pond bottom of compacted clay would then be 11 feet below the top of ground water (4' below grade) found by the Consultant during test borings. Final excavation depth would be 13' below the top of ground water eleva- tion. The 4' below grade depth to top of ground water was during October - well past the irrigation season. A reasonable projection for ground water et peak irrigation and soil water profile saturation is June, July, and August. At this time, from the irrigated basin above (north ) of the proposed facility, water movement to the south would be anticipated, due to the shale shelf throughout this area. First indication of water levels in this area, just by putting in fence posts, is 2 - 234' during this time. Guidelines call for pond invert to be no lower than 2' above projec- ted ground water profile. The ponds will therefore be required to be composed of berms of earth hauled in, compacted and standing some 15' in height at the north end of each pond and approximately 21 ' at the south end. This is a huge quantity of dirt and must all be removed from elsewhere on the site to be even realistically economical. Again, the Applicant did not consider all the rules. French Drains, by the way, would never solve the ground water problem in the Applicant' s proposal. If, for some reason., the Colorado Health Department accepted the proposed design, some form of ground water drainage would be required, and it would have to be pumped into the waste storage ponds due to contamination by waste postulation._from the cow confinement area, which at present, shows no sealing systems to prevent ground water contamination. . . . . In conclusion, the applicant ha.s not addressed .the. design parameter requirements required Li. the Colorado Health Department. SUBMITTED BY: R. 8. WILLSON Q '✓("-" '��Q""-- Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 16, 1987 f 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS TECHNICAL; SUMMARY OF APPLICANT' S PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITY 1 . Applicant fails to provide documented proof of compliance to all re- quirements of waste, treatment. 2. Applicant admits that Consultant has never developed a dairy proposal. 3. Applicant could have used Soil Conservation Service (S.C.S. ) - a fres service - as the planner, whose Base Criteria and Field Design Manual form the basis of Colorado Health Department guidelines. 4. Applicant fails to consider the 100-year requirement. 5. Applicant chose the most odorous but cheapest waste storage system. 6. Even by reducing herd size to 1200,. Applicant does not consider sterilizing soil (SCS recommends not every year application - only alternate years. This means that the same waste volume size must be hauled off as for a 2400-cow herd: ) In fact, Applicant has testified they will use only 50 acres to sprinkle, not the 100 acres as the 2400-cow system proposed. 7. Applicant fails to consider those steps that can be taken to minimize odor, i.e. , keeping ponds full (10' depth) to maximize anaerobic action (lower odor ), aereation of surface to cause aerobic action during summer months, design review by users of these types of Waste Treatment Facilities in the area. (Example : CS0' s Mr. Bill Wailes, Manager of C5U Dairy and Facilities. ) 8. Applicant provides only testimony as to the injection oT sprinkling on the ponds of a "blue-green" algae substance that would be provided by a. local product sales company, whose salesman testified only that they had "great confidence" in using their product - none of which is currently or has been used in Colorado for reducing odor for any large confinement operations waste storage lagoons - no written documentation or proof of chemical composition, S. C. S. acceptance, Colorado Water Quality Health Commission acceptance, or even useage of the material, has been submitted - only oral discussion. 9. Applicant provides no monitoring of the proposed French Drain for ground water polution; and, when questioned by the Board of Commissiona^s proposes to discharge effluent from the French Drains ' opening into the field below. .the ponds. In fact, however, the ColoradoGuidelines requira .the bottom of the ponds (invert) to be a minimum of 2 ft from the projected_ seasonal high-water table (4' below surface as tested by Applicant on October 16, 1986 - well past the maximum irrigation season). No design intent has been shown as to technique of removal from the facility of French Drain effluent, its composition, or the quantity of water involved. As a minimum, written documentation as to the proposed solutions of the problems should have been presented. 10. Applicant has failed over and over again to document his solutions to problems he apparently is unaware of. Submittal of sufficient data for review is mandatory to enable the Board to reach denial (or approval ) decision. ;lam _ 71 2 11. Oral testimony, with statements such as "We will comply with req.u.lat.i.o.ns°, ar. ."We want to be good neighbors" , is certainly insufficient proof of the Applicant's fulfillment of Weld County Ordinance Requirements - and certainly not commensurate with sound engineering and planning operations. 12. As a professional Engineer and Consultant, with over 26 years of formal education and experience all over the United States - dealing with governmental requirements, waste and facility water system design and planning of large and small facilities_ .for a great number of clients (both private and government ), I am saddened to see such a low level of effort put forth by the Applicant in addressing this proposal to the Board of Weld County Commissioners - and, for some reason, not even commenting on many basic requirements. This shallow review of the proposed waste treatment facility is just one example of non-compliance with the regulations. 13. In conclusion, I urge the Weld County Board of Commissioners to actually visit The Colorado State University' s Research Dairy Facility. Mr. Bill Wailes, General Manager for the Facility , con- ducts daily tours for a variety of visitors. He will personally conduct you throughout the entire facility and discuss any aspect of dairying you wish to know. They are recognized as one of the leading authorities in the United States ❑n design, research, operations and management, of simple or complex dairy systems. At the same time, please, before reaching any conclusions on Applicant' s proposal, please ask Mr. Mel Brown to give you a guided tour of the CSU Dairy Facility' s Waste Treatment Facility. Mr. Brown has been operating this system for several years and is extremely knowledgeable of the pitfalls and problems associated with large confinement livestock facilities waste treatment. Tours may be arranged with only 3- day' s notice. It would be most expedient to arrange with Mr. Brown to accompany you and start the Waste Treatment Tour immediately after the Dairy Tour. You may contact : 1. Mr. Bill Wailes (or Mr. Willy McConnell or Mr. Men Schallenberger ) at 491-1239 or 491-1279, Fort Collins_ 2. Mr. Mel Brown - 587-2249 (evenings - Mr. Brown has several field locations and cannot normally be reached in the day. ) o L.) SUBMITTED BY: MR. R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M. E. DATE: January 16, 1987 ' Cr { o C S U - 400 COW a u) a WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY E r W U) FLOW DIAGRAM a r O r H au. ,.._ o cn cc cn a w co m J r c l o z m II► 0 2 C7 a a w o F, • f-' • - -� ...... •••••• l ' cn ' y C C _ - - 4atil 0 W ad 3 _ ., W H r 2 0 0 F- W O W .__.`.-.. H 6 0 W U7 F- H0 --- CO a O 2 ¢ O O J - -' O O a O a 0 J CY l.� 2 U' F- O W r F4 FI 4 2 0 -W CO 0 a • F- W 0 J W O .:....O H C CJ W J a a 2 H r 2 W C X S C C O e IllrU O F- 0 - C F- J m } H2 F- .1-i Cl_ a N O 04-- O H F- cc ¢ ;.. m m ' O -C a S o w W CC O ._,.1x1 W 3 v w SUS W 2 w :. C ,. 0 C ti a a w U' a a ow w ¢ ¢ cc c U] W W M O w a 'W O o S r+ CO a - m r a H W L. 0 0 U] c J J H a 0 C U7 3 .....- 0 1- m w H U) 1- G C -J W .J a m 4 % • 4 LO 0 -C CO - N M d it1 0 m' F- ' x H 2 J W J J Q ti F- lL O W EXERCISE 2 CONFINEMENT c o r, 2 H O z . r ' H a Q.. - P cc r H LOAFING H w .,..:_.n .w. o 0 m w cc O . m a a J SHED/' a s a s a a CC 0 0 W CONFINEMENT a a o r III cc ma a a F- a ,.-O a J CC cn 3 0 Cu , 0 a 0 r 0 F4 -- O 0 J Cr - c .. O 0t , , 3 CU a MILKING GU 2 sa ` BARN " cc a F- C w m ® taltast3O . O PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON , Engineering Consultant , B_S.M. E. 1-18-87 CMT erAi ri • ";,f: `r�� /0-4:4 tf ! January 1 1987 ti Dear Weld County Commissioner ` da h a C ', J I was saddened not to have the chande %o address you today; therefore I hasten with some comments which I sincerely hope you will take the time to read. Please excuse typing errors. It has been a long day for me as well. I thought as I sat that how ironic it was that exactly 36 years ago today my-Father--purchased -ur 320'•acrei-whi'chr 'lie.directly south -ant1:-~across the road from the proposed dairy farm. Dad was Dr. Harvey Brewbaker, Ph.D. in Agronomy from the U. of Minn. and for many years director of research at the Experiment Station, G.W. Sugar Co. of Longmont. Dad knew then he had purchased prime agricultural land and it has proven itself all of these 36 years. In retirement Dad traveled with with International Executive Service Gjs g to many lands. He was internationally known as an agricultural wizard. Upon his death my only sibling, Jim, and I became the co-owners of the Brewbaker-Sorensson Weld Co. Farm. Jim is Dr. James L Brewbaker, a graduate of Cornell University in Agronomy. For almost 30 years Jim has headed up the Horticulture Department, University of Hawaii. John was my husband of almost 32 years. His background was ranching, farming and industrial management. He managed the farms until his sudden death in a car accident in 1984. At that time I was suddenly left with all the problems a relatively young widow faces with 3 children, but almost also the managemen- of 320 prime acres in Weld Co. I have been forever grateful, then, for the help, concern, and clever manage- ment of our tenant farmer Gary Adler. Gary was hired by Dad 14 years ago and moved onto the farms with a darling wife and 2 year old son. I point out the above only so that you will know that all these important men in my life have known agriculture so thoroughly and so very well. They recognized this acerage was prime and should be respected, managed that well. Thanksgiving, '86, Jim and family spent 3 short days with us. We all recog- nized at that time that we needed more information about Co. Diary Farms. Nov. 29th, at 4 PM we approached the mother facility on Hwy.66 heading west. We parted by the side, tested the 'winds on this very chilly afternoon and to be very polite, were extremely offended by the odor. We could estimate that where we were parked was about where the home of our tenant, Gary Adler, would be located should the dairy farm go into existar. '. Stated more corredv his home would be located about that close to the lagoons proposed. We then visited with Asst. Gen. Manager, Mr. George Smith. Cur visit lasted slightly over two hours for we discussed the proposed farm and its implication from all angles, pro and con. We saw and discussed the blueprints and asked all manner of questions. When we left we were unsatisfied and remain so today Is the proposal consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan: ; ;? We think now, that i4 is not. Unanswered are such concerns as: 1) What about the environmental 'yriwymtT,made on otherwise peaceful prime agricultural land. Traffic, air and water pollution? The very real danger of underground pollutants seeping onto our property? 2)Could this not drastically alter the life-styles of those who have chosen to live on the land, love and protect the land. Survive from, whatthe land will give them. Given the number of people I know who wish to sell now, won't land values plummet? They all believe so . These people are suffering They are being faced with changed life-styles that directly affect themselvc and their families. Ex/I/8/7 X0' -; _, l S t Page 2 3) We asked ourselves how dan such a facility be allowed or even thought of in view of the 1985 Federal Government buy-out program to reduce the quantities of dairy products being produced? I realize, as of today) this is not supposed to be a major concern of yours but I can assure you the taxpayers who can be directly affected are certainly ing that question of us, who are involved. We can find no logical reason ' for--approva3 's' mplybecause,.of that question to begin with. 4) We asked Mr. Smith, wasn't land in the immediate area of the mother facility for sale and he answered that yes, there was, but it was considered far too expensive. We wondered aloud why the company was not willing to pay for land more expensive, initially, which lay immediately adjacent to the mother facility and thereby centralizee the entire operation? Surely by doing so soethe r eecompanys of owouldiregain t tinitial expense rather quickly rea- lize a dividend on that money. Mr. Smith' s answer en this was very vague at most--he referred to higher level management. As you will recall that very question was raised today. I can not take time from my job to attend more meetings, but I earnestly hope you listen for some kind of answer to this in the rebuttal. 5) We asked about the incestides that would be used to control pests and Jim, who works not hi k with tpes with the answers. . ticesiy on is experimental farm in Hawaii, So, as statejbefore, we left this discussion very unsatisfied with the answers and remain so today. However, before leaving I did ask Mr. Smith if he would answer one remaining question as honestly as possible said yes. L. I asked if it were his home or the home of persons especially dear to cm as the Adlers are to us, and if his home or theirs was located as close as it will be to the catching ponds of the dairy-- concerns? He thought a moment before answering that yes, he would share the same concerns. I have 3 other witnesses to his response which he made with no urging on our part and to which we believe he answered honestly. Finally, I refer to the following from the Code: 24.5.1 .11 Uses by Special Review in the A-District shall b located dlons the least productive soils on the property in question the applicant can demonstrate why such a• location would be impractical or infeasible. I strongly believe the applicants have not addressed themselves to this issue in anyway at all. The application has been reduced, as of today, from 2,400 head to 1,200. Which reminds me of a question asked of Mr. 5o Smith ithn Nov. 29th. Jii many how large the- acerage was on Hwy• e to cattle, answer 3,700. It -wouldem to be out of reason, therefore,utation look at these 161 acres and in the future, somewhere, envision a pop of that size or larger. In conclusion, I sincerely hope you will, deny this application as being unnecessary for the enhancement of the persons -of Weld Co. Very truly yours, caw Ann Brewbaker Sorensson 1 • • SUMMARY I. Zoning Ordinance Section 25.5. 1.5. 1 - 100 Year Runoff Applicant is in violation A. Does Not address requirement (used 25-year runoff ). 8. System is grossly under designed for waste storage ponds, including 100-year runoff. C. Applicant does not consider waste runoff impoundment at south end of property nor disposal methods of same. II. Applicant' s dairy waste management systems are in error or do not eddress the solution to the following : A. The method and means of daily removal from site of 97 tons solid waste (6 truck loads/day ), and 36,000 gallons of surplus liquid waste daily by trucks of 7200 gallons capacity weighing 80,000 pounds (5 trucks daily ). B. Applicant does not demonstrate how he will : 1 . Prevent ground water pollution at the confinement area. 2. Prevent odor pollution of neighborhood due to overloading 100-acre crop production area with crusted liquid wastes becoming air borne. 3. Prevent polluted ground water from entering residences' basements. 4. Provide French Drain Effluent capture. 5. Techniques of removal of fats and protiens in settlement ponds and particularily in the storage ponds. G� 6 sr--- PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 • 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DAILY ANIMAL WASTE From SCS Charts and review by local dairys, the following criteria is used : 1 . Maximum daily feces and urine production for peak milk production is 90 lbs/1000 lb live weight cow or for 1400 lb adult milkers - 126 lbs/day. Volume of waste is 1.37 CF/1000 lbs liveweight or 1.92 CF/day for 1400 lb dairy cows. 2. Lagoon solid sedimentation is about 40,00❑ MG/liter, assuming 4.00% dilution of influent waste remaining after most solid removal or .333 lbs/gallon of retained, diluted dairy facility effluent. 3. Of the daily waste production ❑f 126 lbs/day, approximately 37 lbs is compacted solids and 89 lbs is liquid waste or urine. It is estimated that ❑f this total, only 63 lbs, or 50%, can be removed ❑ff site by manure spreaders as semi-solid waste. The makeup of this will be 30 lbs dry solids and 33 lbs ❑f liquid. 4. Added to the removal of the semi-solid waste by truck is the bedding used. Study ❑f local daries shows use of 7 - 1❑ lbs/day/animal. Total daily solid waste removal then is as follows : a. Direct waste 63 lbs b. Bedding 7 lbs Total Waste 7❑ lbs/day/cow Dairy semi-solid waste removal per day = (70 )(2400 ) = 188,000 5. Sedimentation pond waste cleaning must be done periodically (Applicant states possibly every 3 months). This waste must be dried to haul off, so while one sediment pond is operating, the other can be pumped dry into other pond and scraped clean. Expec- ted sediment sewage is as follows : a. Influent to Ponds (Daily ) (1 ). Direct cattle waste - (63 lbs) (2400) - 18, 130 GPD 8.34 (2 ). Dairy barn and equipment wash/flush - 29,000 GPO (3 ). Average rainfall (12"/yr avg) daily equivalent over 35 acres = 31 ,200 GPD (4). Total retained daily - 78,330 GPD. Assume no evapora- tion due to surface scum. • • - 2 _ b. Daily equivalent pond waste removal : (.333 lbs/gal)(78, 330 gal) = 26,083 lbs/day 6. Total Equivalent Daily Waste Removal a. Dairy semi-solids 168,00❑ lbs b. Sediment solids 26,083 lbs Total waste 194 ,083 lbs or 97 ton/day (.04 ton/cow/day ) This compares with local dairys that average .06 to .07 ton per cow per day without waste lagoons_ 7. It must be assumed that the cattle confinement areas are sealed to prevent liquid percolation into the soil, thereby producing ground water contamination. 8. Haulout will be 97 ton/day - average manure truck capacity is 18 tons - or 6 trips out @ 50,00❑ lbs gross and 6 trips in @ 14,000 lbs empty. orkobiLatzr✓ PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 0 • SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.5. 1 . 1 -- ADEQUATE WATER SERVICE APPLICANT IN VIOLATION 1. Applicant requires a minimum of 132,000 gallons per day, requested Little Thompson Water District to supply 144, 400 gallons per day_. 2. Little Thompson Water District will only commit to deliver 72,000 gallons per day. 3. Dairy daily need short fall is 60,000 gallons per day. 4. NO ajudicated wells OR drilling permits available in four-mile radius of site for pat quality or quanity of water. 5. Water must be hauled in -- minimum of 9 daily truck trips @ 7200 gallons/trip. 6. NO documentation has been provided as to Applicant' s alternate source cf potable drinking water, in quantities needed. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 :a"X[! 1_ • • 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WATER REQUIREMENTS - DAILY 1 . Assume 2400 head ALL milking 3 times a day as MAX. 2. Average daily drinking water per 1400-lb. cow = 40 gallons per day (GPD) - normal days - minimum 3. Four (4 ) Residences 4. Equipment and Udder Washing - 12 gallons per cow/day (Assume vacuum pumps and bulk tank compressor cooling are part of this) 5. Employees ' (35 ) Toilet and Sanitary (includes general public consump- tion) - 30 GPO/man 6. Sprinkler Systems Flushing - daily - 1/2 hour run time - 2 pumps - 150 GPM each 7. Contingency - Hot Dry Spells, Equipment Breakdown, etc. - assume 1.5% 8. No Reserves Assumed CALCULATIONS (Peak Demand ) 1 . Drinking - 2400 x 40 96,000 GPO 2. Equipment, Lines & Udder Wash - 12 x 2400 29,000 GPD 3. Sprinkler Flushing (30 )(300) 900❑ GPO 4. Employee Sanitary (35) (30 ) (Septic) 1000 GPD 5. Residences - 4 x 170 GPO (Septic) 700 GPO Average Daily Input Needed 135,700 GPO 6. Assume Barn Flushing is REUSE of Line & Equipment Cleaning (5700 GPD) Daily Net Input Need 130, 000 GPD 7. PLUS - Reasonable Contingency for 3 months Hot Weather & other miscellaneous needs - 1.5% 200❑ GPD DAILY TOTAL NET INPUT NEED 132,000 GPD PREPARED BY: R. 8. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. Re C.)akta.. January 10, 1987 • • 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT POTABLE WATER SUPPLIER Meeting with John Gruner, Manager, and Barney Dykes, Operations Super- visor, ❑n January 6, 1987, regarding request by Applicant. 1. Little Thompson Water District (LTWD) will commit only to a 1 " water tap w/meter at the 4" diameter trunk line on Weld County Road 38 - junction with Weld County Road 15 - with a 50 psi, 50 GPM restriction at the meter. The Applicant must install his own trans- port line from the meter to his point ❑f use, at his expense. 2. Maximum water delivery available at the meter will be 72,000 GPD. 3. In the hot weather (approximately 5-6 months), the peak residential tap demand along this main feeder line is about 2.5 GPM continuous duty. The Computer Study of this section of the LTWD distribution net (from the 8" main feeding the Road 38 trunk to the end of service) shows the pressure drop to be about 50 psi at the area of the proposed new 1 " tap. This would diminish the normal line pressure from 110 psi to GO psi , which Mr. Dykes feels is an abso- lute minimum pressure to preclude minimal service to existing residential and farm water taps. 4. Actual output of the proposed 1 " tap at minimum 60 psi upstream pressure conditions in the main tank is indeterminable; but the 72,000 GPD full-flow condition at 110 psi trunk pressure will de- minish , possibly 5-10% or a possible lowered output during peak demand periods of 65-68,000 GPD. 5. The possibility was discussed of system expansion by installing larger trunk lines, bigger pumps, etc. , by the District - for the benefit of the Applicant who had requested a 100 GPM tap (144,000 GPD). Mr. Gruner stated that LTWD' s commitment of 72,000 GPD maximum is all that can be provided by the existing system. He further stated that LTWD had authorized a computer study ❑f the existing residential taps with a 50 psi , 72,000 GPD 1" tap. The study showed this is the maximum load increase without deleterious effects to existing taps. 6. A discussion was held to determine if the alternate-day watering full tap conditions would apply (voluntary) to the Applicant as well as all other system users. Mr. Gruner stated that it would not apply since the 1 " tap is deemed commercial. 7. Mr. Gruner stated that LTWD' s position is one of service. The system is approaching maximum capacity in some areas, and the possibility of mandatory water use restriction in the future is quite foreseeable - particularly in light of the new zoning for the Race Track on Road 9, 5 miles south of Road 38; the possible sewage district in the Del Camino area, and other high-family density units planned or zoned in the immediate area. As the exis- ting reserve for the Road 38 feeder line is used up, the possibility of any additional flow to this requested area will disappear. .1nT • • - 2 - B. The CWCWD (Central Weld County Water District ) has an 18" main line running north to south on Road 15 from their 20" main running west to east on Road 42. Both lines are main feeders to their water districts. CWCWD must coordinate all water usage with LTWD, since they share common treatment and feeder facilities. IF LTWD turns the Applicant down for any water service, then applications to CWCWD would require hydraulic analysis, review of current requests, such as the 12" main tap from CWCWD' s 18" main at Road 15 and Road 24 just to feed the proposed St Vrain Sanitation District at Del Camino, and majority approval by the Board, inclu- ding meeting all conditions set on the Applicant by the Weld County Board of Commissioners as condition for approval by Special Use Review. SUMMARY Based upon Mr. Dykes' letter to the Applicant, letter from Mr. Gruner (attached), and the above data, the following facts are presented : 1. Applicant will receive a maximum flow of 72,000 GPO potable water at the junction of Roads 38 and 15. 2. High-peak demands in the summer months may reduce this to 65,000 GPD 3. Expansion of the existing system will not be made by LTWD for the benefit of the Applicant. 4. When the system reserves are diminished, mandatory full-flow restrictions will reduce Applicant' s water by 50% - or 36,000 GPO.+(1-- 0-)PREPARED BY: R. 8. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS SUPPLEMENTAL POTABLE WATER SOURCES 1 . REQUIREMENTS Without consideration of peak demand days ❑f water consumption by the Applicant due to long periods of high-heat days in the summer, hot blowing winds, or drought conditions (all estimated t❑ raise cow drinking consumption another 10 gallons per day maximum or a total dairy needs of an additional 24,000 GPD), and no mandatory water restrictions of up t❑ 50%, the short fall of water provided by Little Thompson Water District (LTWD) is : Total Deily Average Consumption 132,000GPD Maximum LTWD Commitment 72,000GPD Average Daily Short Fall 60,000GPD OR 42 GPM delivered to the Dairy Watering System This short fall is consistent with the Dairy' s original request to LTWD of 100 GPM when added to the 50 GPM commited by LTWD. 2. Provision of Daily Short Fall of 6OL000 Gallons The availability of potable water in this area is restricted to two other sources: a. Adjudicated and Public Health Tested Wells. b. Hauling from a certified source, such as Platteville, Greeley, Johnstown, etc. - IF AVAILABLE. 3. Since the Applicant stated that the entire source of water will be LTWD, no indication or information is available as t❑ the source for the additional 60,00❑ GPD. Applicant was notified by LTWD of the maxi- mum amount to be supplied (72,000 GPD) long before the Planners from the Planning Commission completed their report. 4. A survey conducted by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources (Mr. Les Dolby in Allen Berryman' s office, Greeley, Colorado ), failed to uncover any ajudicated stock well - Public Health Tested or not - within a 4-mile radius of the Applicant' s site. In addition, very few domestic wells are in use due to the very high nitrate content of well water in this area. All ajudicated domestic wells, of course, are limited to a maximum flow of 15 GPM. Since the Applicant must make up the short fall for this proposed dairy, the following data must be supplied by Applicant to the Board of Commissioners for their review to determine if the Application meets USR standards and the Evaluation Guidelines : - 2 1 . Letter of Commitment of supplemental water to supply up to 60,000 GPO 2. If well supply, what ajudication number? 3. If well or wells ajudicated for stock use, state code. 4. If well or wells, is water certified by Public Health Department? 5. What is water decree to use water for dairy? 6. If water is to be hauled , who is transport company? What is their certification? List Public Health Hauling Permit Number. 7. What is cost impact on roads, highways, and bridges, of the added intensity of 9 dairy trips (7200 gallons or 80,000 lbs/trip gross weight) delivery and 9 trips empty of 20,000 lbs, every day, 365 days per year - or 3285 round trips per year? From where? GZ 6, CD PREPARED 9Y: R. 9. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. January 10, 1987 LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT December 18, 1986 dnECTOR532-2096 307 Welch Avenue Corey J.$abmo,"on. 307 Wryoll Avenue RnYoanl Crones Men CrawerG Loo(We8erthOud.Colorado 80513 KoimCroorposl 0w4 McGee E TMmas Rloord Oran Anderson MANAGER John M.GNM+r Mrs. Nanette Adler 17972 weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 • Re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy in Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 67 West Dear Mrs. Adler: _ This letter is in response to your telephone request of December 17, 1986 relative to precisely what commitment the Water District has made for the proposed dairy. The commitments of the Water District are public information and as a District tapholder who may have experienced low water pres- sure during the summer months your concern on this matter is understood. Based on a telephone request in early August of this year, the District reviewed the possibility of providing water service to the proposed dairy. This review included an engineer's hydraulic analysis of our water mains in the area of Section 31 (please see enclosed sketch map) and this analysis concluded that the District could permit one new tap at the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and 38 if we allowed no more than 70 gallons per minute for that new tap. Based on this engineering analysis the District did commit to serve a single 1" water tap, subject to a 50 gallon per minute restriction and subject to that tap being placed on the District's 4" water main located on Road 38 west of the intersection of Roads 15 and 38 . The letter of commitment specifically stated that we would not commit to 'the full 70 gallons per minute figure identified by the engineering report as we did not want service to our existing tapholders placed in a "marginal" category. At this point and time, the limit of the District's commitment is for the single 1" tap with 50 gallons per minute, which equates to 3, 000 gallons per hour or 72,000 gallons per day. The District could provide additional water for the dairy, up to 100 gallons per minute; however, to do this the one mile of 4" water main on the south section line (Section 31) would have to be replaced with 6" water main. The proposed dairy would be responsible for the costs associated with this one mile of new line and this in fact could be Page 2 December 18, 1986 Ltr to Mrs. Adler re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy accomplished providing the dairy agrees to fund the new water line. I trust that this will provide you with the information you have requested and if you need additional information, please advise. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Mrs. Reichert as she was also inquiring about this matter. Best wishes for a happy holiday season. S'ncerely yours, JOH M. GRUNER, Manager Encl: Sketch Map of Area Copy to:. Mrs. Edward S. Reichert 19279 Weld County Road 17 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 1/4 r \ c — i I / e t .'� .'r _ C,,, - / _:\ N / ,.,% 44 ' Jai �aIE to' AP": 1 z p ( i q a. (. m al (l , ._.i cc!W• .! . t o. ]r.Q -_ -\ a `per. ju ,�a 4 ./4 rill I ` J}�.:: /: $a > I �O oy y al • / �'Allikj I 0 1 + 1 ROAD •i5 ?�: 14. I., • . e I z o — Oti :' t: CL p $I Fe O LiT ;s O 12. w `l7 (I • - x 4O6�. ,` Q Y i .c. .. . - t 1, Am : ‘, 11( St - 1Z it . 9 et ,,,,, ,. ,,,, ,___ • ..., ,. . .. ,..,,, 7--"/ ., .„- ,,.., ,• , , 1 O 1i . t T i 1 ( ( 4)' r1 , ' ' ::I - -:/, P • LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DIRECT0R5' January 9, 1987 Te,eybne532-2096 Carry J.Saamorgon. 307 Welch Avenue arevdem Drawer G Char:os men Leo Reta: Berthoud.COWatlo 80513 Keen Crowquer OaNd McGee E.Thames Rice,d Dean Anderson MANAGER Jonn M.Gruner Mrs. Nanette Adler 17972 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 Re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy in Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 67 West Dear Mrs. Adler: The purpose of this letter is to confirm some of the information that we discussed in our meeting of January 6, 1987 regarding the water commitment for the proposed dairy. The Water District has made a commitment for water service and that is identified below. Additionally, it appears that there is an existing residential-sized water service which presumably could be utilized by the proposed dairy and that is also shown below: Flow in gallons Flow in gallons Tap Size-Commitment ter minute per day One inch Tap (Commitment) 50 GPM 72,000 gallons 518"x3/4" Tap(Existing) 10 GPM 14,400 gallons Totals 60 GPM 86,400 Gallons It is to be emphasized that the Water District has only committed, to fifty .gallons per minute, via the one inch tap, to the proposed dairy and the relationship of the existing 5/8" tap to the proposed dairy is not known. This Water District has not made any verbal or written commitment to Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. of Longmont relative to any amount of water being available to the proposed dairy. Each summer the Water District has encouraged all tapholders to participate in a voluntary program involving Odd/Even watering days for outside irrigation. It is anticipated that this will continue. The District does not have a mandatory program for residential tap- holders or for commercial tapholders. In the event you desire any additional information regarding this matter, please advise. 4 Sincerely yours, J 'HN M. GRUNER, Manager i S SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2.6 - "DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORT TO CONSERVE PRIME LAND AND LOCATE IN NON-PRODUCTIVE AREAS" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1 . Applicant chose proposed facility in heart of Weld County Prime agriculture crop production area (See USGS/SOS Aerial Overlays ). 2. Applicant has demonstrated no effort to choose non-productive land for facility. 3. Applicant is apparently unaware that non-productive land that meets the Zoning requirements is available just east of Platteville, Colorado - at a much lower cost per acre - $400-$500/acre and not the $2200/acre he paid for the proposed facility (without irriga- tion water). Re PREPARED BY; R. 8. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10 , 1987 rt_ ;txxlwiiiIt 00 a • 2400•-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DILIGENT EFFORT TO CONSERVE PRIME AGRICULTURE LAND The Applicant does not discuss what efforts were made to locate his facility in a Weld County land area not detrimental to prime agriculture land. The Warranty Deed enclosed in the Applicant' s proposal is dated August 7 , 1986. No water rights were passed on to the Applicant frcm the seller - Mr. Glen R. Anderson. The purchase price of $350,000.00' for approximately 160 acres (140 farmable acres ) is about $2200/acre, or approximately 2 3/4 times the selling price of good dryland acreage in this area. Since there is no valid reason to purchase prime farmland in the heartland of Weld County' s prime agriculture land, far a non-crop production facility, it must be assumed that proximity to Applicant' s existing facility and some sense of urgency to start the new dairy were the only considerations. HOWEVER, "A" District property just east of Platteville, Colorado , is available, and just a few miles from Applicant' s existing dairy on Highway 66. All land classification east of Platteville is "OTHER or non-productive in nature as classified by USGS/SCS, an abbreviated copy of which is enclosed. This land of non-productive classification is located east of Platteville, Colorado , adjacent to Highway 85 (a four-lane major artery State Highway) , the Central Weld County Water District ' s main feeder domestic water lines, subsurface water potential of stockwate- ring quality due to gravel strata of the South Platte River and ample electrical power that could be extended to a site in the area selected by Applicant. The Applicant has not submitted any information showing pursuit of property in this area. As a minimum, letters from Real Estate Agents, copies of newspaper "For Sale" columns, or any other data showing at least an intent to locate in a lesser than "PRIME" classi- fication have not been provided. It is obvious that Applicant has not even considered Zoning Ordinance Section 24.4.2.6 far any locational decision in an attempt to conserve productive agricultural land. ri,n / 1 — ^g--- PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: ,January 10 , 1987 87Oen'7 IMPORTANT FARMLANDS OF WELD COUNTY COLORADO FARMLANDS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE al PRIME (IRRIGATED) FARMLANDS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE IRRIGATED LAND (NOT PRIME) HIGH POTENTIAL DRY CROPLAND - PRIME IF THEY BECOME IRRIGATED OTHER CATEGORIES PRIME IF THEY BECOME IRRIGATED W m URBAN AND URBAN BUILD-UP LAND WATER OTHER LAND M \ P744 • • �` tYs ,:x :', 1 t •4 ...e. ;SPrns a - .".40144-1-7r-c- t k,.. A'..Z.f F., e an�""'h+fr_'.. w w /� I v"r. t ti 1 3 tom.. ,. i,j vt:iar, qe � ±r C ,ct. F�rtve 1,„• --./ zv ® e ,`r r . "‘,4•24.,'j mow± saizi s ef.R + `),7 l/ S+ .yke'^ [CAltie,,i04 pp�� ;.kN e= �''.tie t cyn ✓ 'K fD ? 14;' • ,spjmay, r1' 14 ]'i `7/t i / L—r 4 kWX1 Mfr ep,ry>. •f)t.. 3ty ;. �g .r. P ' •"-- - ✓ .i), 4, �ftt1 -,Z.be %fI r;,.'t .'1>. A :AVOQ,' .{-'t•F1J 0y:4Ce.a. "v Ptin5 U Gl,^ ,xl; t.'4 li .4-04.1-‘:-`' / . .� -° bowv SA" t' vflr:ErAtet L l•-k✓%:r rd • It ttTKpfr�ii s• ` e �M j F' .t„, i t. ,p/ s 4,`.?? .nct tFJ• "".,...; f - \ :� "u� i$3a '..'"F�. `�� r`.444 R •Y-�y......7.7 ' a �a f•.�%r3 '.1.4-‘- `'z _ - ��i�jj' 41 M w:,w- „ad ..a,,--4,19e-C4-'-'14,,..-1..„9� .• t.As �`' t* �7't�� ng. ,y 83tm.w"'klf4 dsl7s. • bC ..€410.2412:.i.'_ hind j' rtjI l/ dAC/�4C{04 .n*. oaton�F m.n'( 47',/ is.,. 11i 12) rasa.'.? )'.ry,ji' n. C� . It Tirceit 1 " altti�j+�k! trAJ .r .,.� ,/ rIE . s sixl1..YU.'.fsf J K . • --r :.6'.1 1 `' t- (J( R c �aSS,s _ �g' }1j •../ f K $6 ,r v� f \ z , ,:;:‘ X: . //' - r , el ll , ,. ,, i t �`c .__._.. , / Whecie k4t4 t. 3 t F .. tir'�' ��p� Lake l l ‘ c IP WWW r 5 g y,14�� 7 ,�,x te Y?+ W Will'�erromt I t _.ft Z.. t,.. E i. 'pr ems• ! 't t ¢15t r!d�-�i'(''jj ?G i lai ®� 1\ Ci ••I r rr�'{; p� ryi TTj?Y`4��?- .!.L F « < lp I ..yy-f vb - r' • J' .. l ,,,, r • C7 wa , Q to u Ih�C �,y -...X 1 rxi o .. .." Ike IlL ' 9 r 4....4-.," •;,ji,!...-0,..,.,-4", , ; c-e-\\ kik • < Y • • . lJ ,_.74i., .C W s1c A \.a a .tt) _i1; •�A 1 } r t, t,S h. "I*In 'r � eft .I P"... tr tom' Nr \ ` \ t•e• 45'44:0`4‹.:- • P---: �._ rt•Hitt•+{(t' iS fr."'sla"f :l , _ } ' ti,� rwL L .r� . u�'t iYF1'�i, s \;, t•KY )tom ��r ��?/i4y�E'b r.. i- ..i tM i: ! .,,c - _ ty >,liiir',4T,.f �o*fit ,. Y-• Y 1 ,, or t!4G+ i I .�. SW.,* _*qv',�� ca— ?silo..yyr , >rs t r e s.' b.:I *[? y�I /e t,,t• ywe // e N -�.,_, 2l.`ty�l ner J° ,;y �f:nr,rf�a.gtrii RAZ.2/3 -1 ( , (� \ tt ° Rdtli° . s.;.. ,1. '1:i�. I:4ig Ore h i - • / -, � j. .• r \e _'\ ' r r i 2400--COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS - SECTION 24..4.2 1. Consider the Weld County Planning Commission' s recommendation - which is, as follows, dated December 16, 1986 : "This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. While the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also, the uses of the land (as a dairy) would not be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land-uses as the surrounding land-uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future, land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and, therefore, the property would be not compatible with future development of the area. " 2. Information in the Planning Services Case File, including Applicant' s proposal shall be considered. 3. APPROVAL MUST BE DENIED IF APPLICANT FAILS TO MEET ONE OR MORE GF THE STANDARDS OR CONDITIONS OF WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 24.4.2, 24.5 and 24.6. 4. The Applicant has the BURDEN OF PROOF to show that the standards and conditions of Sections 24.4.2, 24.5, and 24.6 are met. p REVIEWED FOR EMPHASIS FOR THE WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE - current edition \ J R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 -a [Xt$1S ds P -- _._---- . 34 r F- Li) ui -.----------a S. oA. co Res; cietik 5 i: 32 i )( i T f'�r„Lt s os�oQ ,i ko..,,dow'te's ( F , a • •❑..-•r \.r 1 ►JJ. 4.G ►� caS `o F,4S' ✓O;h ffSrOWn TG JCr. U_S.287 ■a• am► ■s %----- --..,/ ` r f?B5. • a tih a 60 ur a • >- • ,� a ❑t _r -`,..,Sit- F AS = Cam, "1 a a a `_�, a BliGA RY ,� ► s w'a►o❑ 1�❑ n❑li r. y E5r_RL' 1 f _- • y KAHIER �'" \ '. ° NummB, wg,TY a z' M �a • 1� • • 46 • 111 -Al 3- NBovE�l ,6 • C- C,4 • �..110 a Lak C 17 t,s ��+. _.- FA5 '�74 _ • • a•a a a s FAS ,,• ❑ ❑r� fi` t T ,•a n • 4.0 • TO JGT u.5.28 sn us ❑ 44 ° \ i i 2t ► TL}N. \\,______$,„0 ❑ 2� ► a e *Sec 4 1 a t •tii a ii Ca 2 - it- zs ► 4 2 • •� — 0. 3p • •R 1 CC a At I Ill -.Wis.-rs s ► - 33 40 • ' Q ► 33 I • 32i 1 • a• 7 • N ANA+• -❑ .._. • \1 • .3 J 1 5 `.� :�ram LAKE NG O ,fir 7 e�•i try, F� t 1 • a a . 0' -� .-P 40°/5'— �� r•a �� 13GRE ) ► 8 '\ o• 3 7 ! �� (.. s .t- 1 ' rw.w.a MEAD ,� ��NNN.wN ❑T•aaT+, • a /-—tt,ti, 1-1 ; 5 , rr e7.:12"--. • '► �- �wN.w ►+ i, P, \\\ • 2S • 32 • . . . ' T. 3N. zo �,BER YI. ► 9 • 31 s k 3 f ► �66 a ,As • • - ❑ a -.-CO ;y Ja a • ❑ 66 T YO Jar U.S 28T F Is 4.G ^'r s 26 JC fit . .r,:•; n•C v '/ '� ►R f 9 n 2a ■ ► *Pi •r t • ' a� r\w war w r tpA as y' a - 1. b �3a 1. ■ 1�. : 1 7 i ~1� f9 +} a11c0ENIG a 21 22 a at I 23 24 p�1• 19 ? �� 441 MS ptiNh tr I 1 tilh a" gams a w 7 I OM II• W N1 , ' `a� IA 30 ■ 1 a 1 i 2? \ 26 Ong' 25 ! 30 1 Lj� a �t t ■p isa 1 1 --- is c MPG Ili\k‘.1--e-i • a, V GI II 8 1 ... 1 \ � 0 �{ 1/ 31 i ° -1 • q34' a o■ 36 ' v31' 'ia pk \ First Correction ...Ma ..rte w-�� .� .rte _ vi /OWs ' I--J • 'J:JHNSTC .N . • - ;.• '` .. ,' � / 5 rr' Res. /�Le t,1 . .-ter c_. w ,,..7.-t,7 ,ice : a � a2 4 a 6 t:stl:5 rF tt k•.• _,ti i v1 ., •t .� �---- .<' u ' :„/4I,H am r s ,...® — �'hY - wNv ':..., �Yv!' _. I "� Y1.. s<loa._-___ A • ..r• .-w z L MINIM _ L \ < • r - • - -r r r- r- Y - -. - R 6 INN ¢ a a i C• . a CI = ° -1 \L_ 9 t � �" El J a 1 r .� r . L• . .c.^�' i1..............-.......- 1!'rast.p. Sr.4 a'" _ '—I 'a__ /_ I 7j 1 I %, za 7 S,r? A , /, o I /pri..§.10M 1", " I / r, /� ur, - . &sm. 34- .\\ E' - - 35 36 41 --- --- ..m�r�r.w��'.r•- . r-arems ��r�r ter. r 'a`,3 \\\_________c_!,-,. I / ■ �' _ ..��r' 7 .� 2f ITGl 7 i�i f i l� �E. a ► 4, . /Ie, .�.fl: - _ _ r 1. i 11\O\ ' r----. • L:a •� ■�' o•/ . lo v i/N, i \ A A 1 ti St 2 I ® • � r • aaa -r Y I mil \--1 a mg II 13 f..' AMIr r6 = \ �nx 15 r •• l`1 L ' f i al a • • �� 1 j1 1 • p { '• � 2a �1 • a old a 22 `-+0� 23 '. 1 , i 1 LA7T.� • 77 a'1 v '` to a u ;d pla . ....'• 9 pl .•. ,Wri'. • ■ ' ■aFAS • is 4.2 1 I .1. _e {t :a L .r �... ..- - '� , FAS •1 •a TO• • qe a • • tap aro T p • b' GOWANDA : '�vc^,'.cy ') z1 1 2 30 l S 29 \�\G /,✓ 28�; 27 `"i '� A 26 a 25 f i G 1 r-J / / \ ' } T ■ a --"P-■ ■as L -; •a\_ ■ _ -_ l: LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT D,RECTGRS: January 9, 1987 reledeene 532-2098 Carey J.5abmormn. 307 Weigh Avenue President - Drawer G CMtea Mien Leo Bake, Benhou0.Cdoratlo 80513 Keith Croc q iiei Dayid McGee E.Thomas Pima Dean Anderson x y . MANAGER :" MIMI1t 1: Jahn M.Groner r' Q a Mrs. Nanette Adler 17972 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 Re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy in Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 67 West Dear Mrs. Adler: The purpose of this letter is to confirm some of the information that we discussed in our meeting of January 6, 1987 regarding the water commitment for the proposed dairy. The Water District has made a commitment for water service and that is identified below. Additionally, it appears that there is an existing residential-sized water service which presumably could be utilized by the proposed dairy and that is also shown below: Flow in gallons Flow in gallons Tap Size-Commitment per minute per day One inch Tap(Commitment) 50 GPM 72,000 gallons 5./8"x3/4" Tap (Existing) 10 GPM 14, 400 gallons Totals 60 GPM 86,400 Gallons It is to be emphasized that the Water District has only committed to fifty gallons per minute, via the one inch tap, to the proposed dairy and the relationship of the existing 5/8" tap to the proposed dairy is not known. This Water District has not made any verbal or written commitment to Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. of Longmont relative to any amount of water being available to the proposed dairy. Each summer the Water District has encouraged all tapholders to participate in a voluntary program involving Odd/Even watering days for outside irrigation. It is anticipated that this will continue. The District does not have a mandatory program for residential tap- holders or for commercial tapholders. In the event you desire any additional information regarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely yours, HN M. GRUNER, Manager - r te N 4x {$ Z es—0 1 19‘--(7' z rz fu r =` —�- 10 " c\ 0 1 i —_-7 _A 77 N O C 'ea - i 3 • rAA al 4 vi Q st �A 4:4r I 76 u=itT x N 0 es-1 J‘... ......./ Q � N © p � era tP 11 1 1101 al lel ii a am r, UI quirements and Waste Volumes 105 1,600 _ ._ 1,400 C 0 1,200 90 day without .. rain. 1,000 c> - O- o 800 r C c 600 00 r > . 90° day with ram" ' sa 1 E • 0 . Y. .. 7 •r 12 4 8 12 . P.m. 8 12 a.m. . . Time of Day FIG. 4-5. Daily water-use patterns in R-6 area—max- :. imum day and minimum day,' (Courtesy of the Resi- dential • _ - Water-Use Research Project . of The Johns ; i-xuistt Hopkins University and the Offiice .of Technical Studies of the Architectural Standards Division of the Federal 2716.2 Housing Administration.) • gip Gordon D.Brown,DVM . Fort Lupton (303)857-6671 Robert O.Dull,DVM Greeley-Platteville Area (303) 785-2104 John R. Ewing,DVM.... Glenn S.Cook,DVM ANIMAL CLINIC 232 First Street Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 January 11 , 1987 To whom it may concern: This letter addresses the daily water consumption of dairy cattle. As a general rule cattle consume 10% of their body weight in water daily. For example a 1200 lbs. cow would consume 120 lbs. or 15 gals. of water daily. There are many factors which can affect this intake including temperature, milk production and feed intake. In general daily water intake will run between 15 and 20 gallons. This is the total water intake; in cattle fed silage, high moisture corn, green chop or haylage as much as 3 gallons of water may be in the feed. This would reduce the fluid water intakee to 12 to 17 gallons daily. Reference: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants, Vol. 2. D.C. Church„-T774 John R. Ewing, DiIN.A o • 4 t 6 8 10 _ _ 12 14 - F; LL 16 X la a 18 20 _. - i 22 24 26 - r 28 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 NITRATE-N (PPMI FIG.5.2-C AVERAGE NITRATE-N DISTRIBUTION WITH SOIL PROFILE LJ DEPTH UNDER IRRIGATED FIELDS I al LARIMER & WELD COUNTIES .. �e XM18LT (a1 based on Stewart et a1., 1967 52 K �z k 1w4.�tiaa #. 1, ;k yl a $ A o oN 8 S o o O 8 STA. 0.00: STA. 14`:05 L{NE-••A1' ' '7__---1- I- B STA.l9.10 L1N£•€8• _ .b z _ 8 I, m m [ cY iii py � . " n ,. r 0 2 — kz 4 f: - i $ ' i, c.) ---....,5::i,•.::.--:,1t ef , ;: ' n < t .1 1 - �_ , . 8 <= -p o ''‘.--,..•i - I $ r- l o z z o ; < m M °I+- ./1.4.,-#.';- z o 1 ilr C- ., xim It:,...',':,-, - - r r 'i Z. I z. 4 ov o co r , ti T c.° , .C i ce I _ m t - _ f C, r uN V 8 2f 44 , . r _ m r rya : • • • ti .. S • • LA/OUNTAIN eMPIRE AIRYMEN'S LelkSSN. • F', : err:':St•' �' ti" R'?ie�YK, .:.. 12450 N. Washington Thornton, Colorado 80241 Phone (303) 451-0422 January 13, 1987 Colorado Dairy Associates c/o Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court, Suite 201 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Dear 't. M.B. Peperzak: In regard to your inquiry as to MEDA marketing the milk that you produce, please refer to the membership agreement that you have entered into with Mountain Empire Dairymen's Association. Article 2. During the life of this agreement, the Producer shall deliver all milk and dairy products produced by him for market to such person or persons and at such place or places as shall be designated by the Association. Article 3 The producer hereby constitutes the Association his sole and exclusive agent for the purpose of marketing such milk and dairy products delivered by other members signing similar agreements. Article 4 The Association accepts the appointment and hereby agrees to market the milk and dairy products of producer in such a way as it shall deem best for the advantage of producer and of other members collectively. It is my understanding from this agreement that Mountain Empire Dairymen Association will market your milk as long as you produce milk for this Association. Sincerely, �r .c�JXHtB.tt •:a Richard C. Bender Membership Relations Mgr. RCB:nh inks; "31.•1 At /yo .; :11. 14111T T0: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ; J ' We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) - and recommend your approval of said Application. 33 NAME 2f P dl• U{Li3I ADDRESS S Si'dc. J4cy a ` ?�D`iti,P Ggl co-t.1-) c c(�,� /? ' L c if. /7 -)f - . w 7 ' 4 a- ) ii,ok,o) o Z 7' g8 s •?G✓Ti�- ��«� . 72 %D' _sip i../�%Sc-1 CG 2C C•..% hy- c!Ga, 1 `, 7724' CO'l& A��!� ) .�Q,gdl`/ 02?Pr& %22 - �-e - mic l� 3 - J 7,2e-// 7% 6 plc '71--4,.b nc v--b S Cr icc-C) Ave jerd/ /7/e Er� ‘ /52 sr' /ad /'rc z�cvzc� , o'.04,L� At/ _Retie.- /3t 90 wcf?77 ;PG-3)e(A Gib. � A ,.�( L /3 c� _ .e,r L 'r / -2,•6 3 / wuc /7 Acre C te "0,1 / 7 o 7� // ( -yR67ZU; i �� zoso � � H� 4t9 ;,?6 iron'/Q0. 2 . iron' -- $07- 1fh y yty ,6f tymc- % t/ % gti 7/ yv l' /_ J e-,75,7„,:-/-,-(2_,, . • / / %��J/lll.,f� �.aid, ' 7 /14 ,i- fri,-Y �n,6 by ,, v la/ 411--`" • - -, TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) " and recommend your approval of said Application. • NAME ADDRESS .:v r.fr gr: ! lax gs C_ / rK�F' ' J -- I + :.2 [art 97 [�{/LAe r,n, Co. - 3+E� C n O /4/`f `�i 4$ % ��66. ale,to S 4 E 2 Girt C., /„ & k 77 c sap 4, ol-11-1 AL7 4_7A-1211,--j��a. 4 ,f; .,. /V3 /t cobidy- �.�-rk / / /5e.osi Axe/7 -' eg/o A., A x I . ear.~hi. Q. x4S(o -(1 u.dso O Cr) le,' A-, t oM .p &SO'I Lk)cALCO, Rh.?)4 CC,fi-CU;t( cCctcJ t4-GIs tocez 6 Z Vz G re.€ 1s5. Cd, Pall 1/ r� ///41(:‘,-/ /4 1 "!_<-"!_<- �'d z/CZ //O / n '207,4-a re-( y. -rz _ 7/74' $ Td re fire/I/ G C Lofr Col,- - �.,oi11-fLift 4/ fl s.97e,,,.,2 7 FX_ 5- at.go,), :: 7/ 97 =�a to Hwy �s L ��- • �Yo at _.�.. _.awl _ (4_, - • 1 ! //J � ��y _4,/1 /� /r a7 (, y . 44-1 SO r„:"/HEris,---7 ' t(6 o /70, / x2777� • A: . �_ ; eft' / (16-/o di dil� o/ *J- TOLE - 1 \ �vu Qal/' ?a/J Ray (6 43 14.7o'7 4 6 /. • • Fir,-,3=-;77, -. - - r TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:61) ' • 6 and recommend your approval of said Application. SoNBk) _ NAME ADDRESS a..-r 4- 1 143 'f 2_ a 64L 3 r4 ale 8072 �`- ///4 in faniVern tri70/ . ---(c..-4,6: .3oi5- a yfoRO ,, ta, , eon: d7a. • t / , - 1/4 0;n440-3 /. . a- -aa7o -72/da a sue, g CJ . R 1 &._,M7..2 3 oil 217, CO R")7.-2 tie, aA A e,,ea / M 7012 . K X742 7/ Qindo% R'o7��3 ,122 a.) / 2,F), c c ni ucL4 SL4%d 5F.7z3 , ' �'l tit Li " H/L. � 4mai - 1. .0 7,2 l ' //-.4,/KrJ �G/7� (�(uP7( rX�s� LL 3 7 a . 7/}��1, 1 C S0/9 0s�iPc�l.ft • 6//v-411404 ,.7ra 7.5•'t .,AS�,/.-a,. 7�7 r. J<r. f= a- 4 0"-'' --� �1r��o - A 2-4 ,Z8rr� % s ' 0," ' ./.....4,;,.... . o / _.r`IA L _ _ . a ' I g L . c1 ti.~ ' v I/ . f€I,.s a - 0tt& '--4.94o- / 67 itintairza ,r-,..,,.t C e'er, ao2 `A 7 s-leez41 itc27.23 S i) (;k- 'z3 e t, • • rn TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS 7 a )/1j- 6---777Z � I / % 0., r . /al Vg7/D /2/ Id X -c-Cg64' „i-5? O3 /./c / SZ 37. G(, • T0: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OP WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 1•xrr We., the undersigned, sppport the Use by Special Review 's Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51) and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS• u�- ..... - ., •r cell . © —Gt ' 7737 tve;„f/ co - .0...t i-act c lam, • J • 1017/ 'Pc/128 'f. rk7).. P' Pg n;r cJ p p �f tC 9t� /U 9 5- 5 ,c--/ T�Gc eye •4)•��Gal�� r y' `"hetaiLe". �0.A—A.A. V 2 14 2O LRd 3O l-1. • - L4i-C l` 1)fi gn y c-1 /an thnrZ Li) gg 6 -111 e„, Nj sib+-t. •r�ti: fir„lc(I SOT L& "_ [- - • S •. ySl. 1•.• • • , e ,.aWw't• • • yr `etl d Y TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO V` We, Vibe undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application Of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. ADDRESS ! 7 •fin; /Late au� Lk. �� /Late ) tZktre-E, J.. ... k 3 355 ex-24C/ Pr , At mutt, fly/<20kA )7 r�lC &v,//e �o - . VLL4 I * • T0: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 07 WELD 'COUNTY, -_= . Q We., the undersigned, sppport the Use by Special Rev11;1/ " ., , Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No.. 770:86;51) , s 0;wr and recommend your approval of said Application. "{r Nag ADDRRriS ..... .';4.4"=;00)4-4...t) -1 ...-‘ r ( S )/ IL -2. Cr./ ` `. . i , ` ?7'`-4- ae "> : yyt a S .0S Xc 4c��K.il (a- DC14:7 S7 cc-zi agns/a77,.:Sottylii u 4- ,- v L t141. 11 Q4 0 33 Qai &on .co -- •4S iiiiit;414 6F,-zg-/ ar-> rt PA, 2 el B7Q! oil- &r): ., 2- // l.. t,. L. frja D 7 • /.., 3 ALA Z 6 1)J Occ, Y ke.S ° ' ,fc-JP'0 Q Nk 6 1-K �e'�:r aa-PI � �n £C 14 ✓� ie l c\ �"1'Eh 4:35 JA3 t n�ntrtr��- (� �7 °. �y" Ze z7,4i7ebt: YGcs lion l a :.,�-...�- "6' - ' N Y t mss°- 1.' 1 ig:. :;1411 . • 4:74 ✓ 4'72 r'' :..ML'. 0 1; ,.'jtAl • TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. 77A1Z- AleTO -Eke asiv_o Greratro_h f 3≥4 5 3%0 9 #4-i-PliiA ' moony �n4, C /J i ` �? &oaf 6/r/� �r , 1.5, teboonj ( O/, / G< vv z i fJ� .;�s�o c� �✓m� ��r4 . r • Cap Y ‘_.. Tel' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said.,Applioation. N }�/ /i ADDRESS v�ut.. . �/1/ � T/Ro1, i—,✓; /J5 /_op4e4, G 0,-/-171.-ZLI9416 :) 7cg so Cc(;.5Z 60(11.7,r42/1227.::0 r ' t \per N) 13-114 (' �+e100 n. ) 11,n - .f vs! l4it-t( A01 i if /2- t lll7a if/c/o(c/ g r 5 '3 17 _�2'1-�,7 .l it/Air reC IA /!r- Co/o, V1 J ia3 •�vzy 7 %h�a c d 4II J A AC 379 i) /6?/ ro. ,-G,' .2 41 -5-2-,3 2 ,,,4iv1? Aft- t f,4r2 �/QEZ"o� ---7 )t' 7tido I cZ 7oc r.", -Qc .V :P I-5- 1I cii it;05J ,-Vt./C M2 . J1177J. -)/ if Wi-y%� / iiin frill CO T 824 7 F-7E.g IOC'ccr K;tr,ryn 'RCS Cr y 1qv / n �.e*Ya-c 72 /9 ,2/c�I� G6 ton a 4, : a eoX Al /z/ 5-- Wit n , 9 ----ti— 47-e-.`Lm 9 fo/ r�,l / ; /. .„... rcy ,r �rype nu,- /-rr s7 � ,aQQ X01_ — d � , /J% �` .-� `T/c E s iI , .Apcelta.-A, //SS W, 41/3St�xaxt avi72) 7.7t28 66, Lo ,,,p� � — �' 1 Arty ,.-3, 3 : `~ _ . =r- :-,,e. < { eJ / • • TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO \3 _- We, the undersigned, support the Uae by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51) and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS AMN.dri1 - r0767-rz�-.- (.79 gas /ft -,._ `\\t` 7h\.1\ \\C\-W\ +` '�" CCU� Oa'or Aft° tat lrit_sz _ Ail. 0 • • - ._.� �.. _ •..ar16s�e-�: ,�� tea= / ..e•:: .� a ^ ), • January 14, 1987 1:15 P.M. To: Board From: Mary Susan Maass, whose residence is located at 17500 I-25 Access Road East, called to tell the Board that she and her husband will be unable to attend this afternoon's hearing concerning the request of Aurora Capital Corporation, but they oppose this request. She stated that their property abuts the property under consideration. January 14, 1987 10:55 A.M. To: Board From: Tommie Audrey Anderson of 17164 I-25 Access Road East, called to tell the Board that she is opposed to the request of Aurora Capital, Inc. She said her fence line is approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed facility. 0 Y' C" ! 7, s__;;./? 1,--7C-:z-C-CjIl /�/1�� jh JM 41419ST 'I I ,i.L — dr . free a"1” bc e/rn��2 , i - . r,-, a - --t"a Cam/' �+�� 10112,t4•_-!--,-)2., U y A 1 /UIZ:,-vz-- (//(�-�-fG! Ante.," /_ti . de ez!/ tS.i',-4.-- OL- ow--04 --at, ----77ea-s-Z , ja . ,2,---12-o-±A‘cz _Zee-a_e, __,;2,t, a) ze )ateti .a . A Al `_ ✓ ei-�'- sue-' ' G -c4/ 1r1 -/L i� G _ ---10-Cat---e &�C_ ,_,-( -'°'/yam` ve-P - f _„S2),A.. „adef,,..zzA4- 24,277. A z-zze. - _.e:2, .>‘2.z---,--}z., e--;-,y. bc, C 07% a_ d¢-c4 amp - _ d_- = , -_z__Z_ r '•`" ix_<- _ ,�e �� r``/t e-�.- �-. e" y�, - Je-&2?c - Se. �,rC�-/—� .-i�G� /L.lf:.�/� .,� , . --?-#77“a1 7/ .. -cite() /J --a-z4 1 �'.,; � (Ai &2,21.1/2t0--ti --c-S;14 om _4 Ica�,�' ;:i `(..„ _ V g ` .`- krr.wsir yd 3, 4j Gt amCL-4--- G� �`" ! " GU "//'�Z �-� �� / G a Cr//u.2� a � "• 11144- Gs • • ral. 7:° Ett,fat January 12, 19 JA t 14 r.i i1 ;fu Weld County Commissioners; GR COL n. In regards to the Colorado Dairy Hearing for January 14. We live 3/4 of a mile from the proposed site. I am concerned about the affects that something of this magnitude could have on this prime agricultural area. It just doesn't fit in this particular spot. There is one word in this whole thing that I think is going to affect a lot of existing residences. That is WATER. This operation needs about 130,000 gallons of water every 24 hours, for the dairy and their households. We use about 30,000 gallons of water a month for our household and lawn. The dairy would be using equivalent to what 130 residences would use. Can you visualize 130 residences added to the water lines, and in the same small area of land that the dairy would be built on. This is a drastic change of water flow to the water lines. This will effect a lot of peoples water pressure, which is alre2dy a problem in the summer months. Don't forget the dairy would be using water 24 hours a day. Cows need water, so do HUMAN BEINGS. Please give this strong consideration before making a decision on this. Thank You A Concerned Citizen 19279 N.C. Rd. 17 Johnstown, CO 80534 (1 /-7 7L- Exit's" vny u / 411 s b;,(% il JAN 135987 Johnstown, Co. m dw- Juanuary 9 ,1987 Ga` E .d -c.1/40-..d Dear Aa ‘P-t-g As a landowner of the N.E. - of Sec. 5-3N-67JV. I feel that the - special use permit should be- denied for—.Aurora.—Capital Corp. proposed dairy. Our farm borders the S.W. -- of Sec. 32-R67 W. . Shale depths in this area ranges from 5 to 15 feet below the surface of the ground and is on a South Southeasterly slope, drainage or seep from the three proposed holding ponds will ruin two farms to the South and ours to the South East. It is also a fact that land is being devalued in the area pending the outcome of the special use request. I do not believe farmers should be expected to endure this, in view of the current economic crisis. It is my belief that this use by special review is not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Thanking you for your judgement in this matter. Sincerly, 420-/-4-t.._ Bennett and Marilyn Spaur 18547 Weld County Road 13 Johnstown, Colo. 80534 5K I i3T OD .4 ccixr! cs. iNP.S January 9, 1987 11987 �f :5JAN 1 3 cute_cute_� a ad-'t'Qa Dear � " �v This letter is in regard to the Aurora Capital Corporation to obtain -a special use •peiniit for a livestock- confinement operation for 2,400 head of dairy cow at the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and 38. First, I would like to point out that we are located on the South-East corner where the dairy is proposed to be built on Weld County Road 38. The nearest lagoon or catch pond will be just 1,600 feet from our home. We are very concerned over this type of operation being situated in a place that - in the opinion of nearly all people in that area - would have a definite negative impact on this area. There are other factors which must be addressed with this size of operation are smell- The proof of this can be found on the large dairy operationof the same proprietors of this proposed dairy West of Platteville on Hwy 66.- Increased volume of heavy truck traffic to haul feed, milk and manure; which would contribute to further deterioration to road conditions in the surrounding area. Also, drainage and seepage problems from the corrals and catch ponds. Which could pollute irrigation water - and shallow wells, and the flys. What is going to happen to our neighborhood? We have two small children, a four year old- who takes medication for Asthma, and a one year old- who was born premature with a breathing problem; an immature larnyx. Their health is a very big concern to us. It is hard enough for them to breath at times and than have to breath that smell always accompany with a dairy, (and if it will be anything like their dairy already existing on Hwy 66 West of Platteville) , I think that is very cruel and unfair: What about all the other children in the surrounding area (and thereare a lot of small chilren in that area)? I don't care what the proposed dairy says, their safety will always be injepordy with all the heavy truck traffic hauling feed, milk and manure. In conclusion, the negative aspects (as mentioned above) could result from this type of operation. We are not opposed to a dairy operation in the ordinances of Weld County, but we don't want an operation of this size to be built in the proposed area. I would also like to ask you to consider how you would feel if proposed dairy were built adjacent to your homes? Thank you for your judgement in this matter. Sincerely, . -9 T-W i•e- Citizens Opposing Dairy Fr7-1/2 - /- Greg and Alma Spaur ` Y E)04 C ,T A F- flit • 'worn '• lgp,q .#A�{131987 and Nanette Adler - Cary o1 17972 Weld •^,n, Rd. 19 GREELEY. COLO. Johnstown, Colorado 80531i January 8, 1987 Pear a-0 rao lac This is an appeal to you, as cur elected official, to consider the disastrous effects that the proposed Aurora Capital Dairy ex_an- aion could have on the new site at Veld County Roads 15 and H. We live and are the operators of the farm directly south from this new proncsed site. We cannot. ;tr,-n: to you (,,!ntiria cop-enuen- ces and dama,res this dairy would have on us personally as well as for the land and surrounding areas. The surroundinr farms as well as the proposed dairy site are the highest productive agricultural land in Weld County. As you can see on the SCS Soils Classification Mac, Analysis of 1078, we are totally PRIME, PRODUCTIVE, AGRICULTURAL LAND! The President of Aurora Capital Corporation has stated, Quote, "This is the most I have ever spent for land." The reason for this hirh cost is the quality and production potential of this land, zoned PRIME AGRICULTURAL! With such a large commercial , high density dairy not only will this land be taken out of 'production, a commercial operation of this size develops problems which are not compatible with the surrounding area. There will be underground water pollution, seepage, air pollu— tion, noise rl'ution, enormous amounts of heavy truck traffic, '.abor traffic, service vehicles, -disposal of by products, and this will be 2/1 FOURS A DAY! Underground water is a problem in this area. The fact that a sutra: pump is required in our basement and pumps water out almost year— round makes it very obvious. We do not want this polluted water in cur home! We feel it will he a hazard to our health and to cur 2 sons, since the basement is used solely for food storage. Cam , p r !Z cro : 5 omrn. r/-El ( U I-7 • . We urge you to protect and keep prime agricultural land in pro— duction as farm land and consider applications of this type be placed on non productive rural land, which would utilize both types of land to their highest potential. As a farmer located directly across the. road froth'this proposed site, our concerns for the remaining land not in the dairy operation are great. We do not believe that the care and maintenance of this land will be a major concern to the Corporation. The main usage in their design is to dispose of the dairy waste on this productive land. Mr. Peperzak's statement to us at our meeting with hi^ on Dec. 3, 1986, stating that if the dairy is turned down, they can legally stockpile their manure on this PRIM ground makes clear their attitude toward the land and surrounding residents. We as 3rd generation family farmers in Weld County feel it is VITAL to preserve the small amount of PRIME land in Weld County. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. We STRONGLY urge you to VOTE NO on this proposed dairy! Sincerely, Sara OdtU Gary Adler Nanette Adler `Cii C • • 4200 Weld County Road 38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 January 10, 1987 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 RE: Use by Special Review: Livestock Confinement - 2400 Cow Dairy Dear Commissioner : ATTN : Weld County Commissioners Attorney This letter is written as opposition to the Aurora Capital Corporation' s Request by Special Review, the Hearing for which you have scheduled on Wednesday, January 14, 198'7, at 2 :00 p.m. I am a full-time farmer in the immediate area of the proposed site and abject to the proposal of this facility being located in this particular area. Friends and neighbors have requested, since I am also an accredited design and consulting engineer, that I perform an engineering analysis and review on the proposal to determine if all Weld County ordinances have been met. I look forward to the opportunity to address the Board and pro- vide each of you with detailed written analysis of eight (8) specific Zoning Ordinance Section violations as well as verbal review of each for the benefit of those attending the Hearing. My part of the Hearing will require at least 30 minutes. Enclosed are copies of the Summary of Section violations, the Engineering and Data Source List fnr the analysis and my credentials for this review. Request this letter and all enclosures become a part of the written case file of the Weld County Commissioners for this Request by Special Review. Very truly yours; 6 - SiaiLD ROBERT S. WILLSON, 8.S.M.E. RBW:lhw Enclosures : Summary WO COMM C11lSl ERS Data List Resume jJ F JAN 13.tit ' GRc£LEY. COLO• • 7LL `c . P ��L t-i raj /TV SUMMARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF 2400-COW S.U.R. COMPLIANCE - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION This analysis was made strictly on the specific requirements of the Weld County Colorado Zoning Ordinances (current edition), The Policies of the 1973 Weld County Colorado Comprehensive Use Plan, and the needs of the "Use by Special Review" as required by the Weld County Planning Commission. Data for this analysis was derived from all sources listed on the enclosed Source Reference List. An engineering analysis of those specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance Violations, with no adequate corrections shown by the applicant in his submitted proposal, has been prepared and will be submitted to the Weld County Board of Commissioners and discussed in detail during the Hearing to be held on January 14, 1987, at 2 :00 p.m. Zoning Ordinance Violations Section 24.4.2. 1 - Proposal is not consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan. Section 24.4.2.2 - Proposal is not consistent with the intent of the "A" District. Section 24.4.2.3 - Uses proposed are not compatible with adjacent land uses. Section 24.4.2.6 - Since Proposal is for location in the "A" District, no effort at all has been shown to conserve productive agricultural land in the Applicant' s Locational Decision. Section 24.4.2.7 - Adequate provision has not been made by Applicant to protect neighbor' s health, safety, and welfare. Section 24.5. 1.1 - Adequate water services are not available to the proposed site. Section 24.5. 1.5 - For some reason, Applicant' s Consulting Firm designed_ storm-water retention facilities for a 25- year storm - NOT the specified 100-year storm required by this section of the Weld County Zoning Ordinances. Section 24.5. 1.8 - NO solution to the high-volume, heavy, large, or slow-moving traffic generated by this application is shown in the proposal - particularly Weld County Road #15 and Weld County Road #38. - 2 - The ' Applicant` s proposal violates major elements of the above- listed Zoning Ordinance Sections. Detailed analysis will be provided at the Hearing. (A.MS_03 PREPARED BY: R. 8. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant January 10, 1987 • • s r ANALYSIS OF 2400-COW DAIRY PROPOSAL ENGINEERING DATA SOURCE LIST 1_ United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services, Longmont, Colorado, District. Source Library on Dairy Systems Design, Waste Management Design, and Water Body Evaporation Tables - all Design Specifications and Tecinical Guides : a. Animal Laste Management Field Guide - 1978 b. Waste Management Systems - Code 312 c. Waste Storage Pond - Code 425 d. Waste Treatment Lagoon - Code 359 e. Waste Utilization - Code 633 2. Colorado State University - Dairy Cattle Water Consumption Daily Requirements - Mr. Bill Wailes 3. Colorado Division of Water Resources, Greeley, Colorado office - Mr. Les Dolby 4. Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan. - 1973 5. Weld County Zoning Ordinances - Current Edition 6_ Informal Surveys of local dairys - water and feed consumption, milk production, waste-systems management, and bedding require- ments. 7_ Little Thompson Water District Management - and letter 12-18-86 8. Central Weld County Water District - Applicant for Water Service Requirements 9. Colorado Department of Health - Water Quality Control Commission - Guidelines for Design of Feed Lot Runoff Containment Facilities. 10. Aurora Capital Corporation' s Proposal for Special Use Review, prepared uy Rocky Mountain Consultants. 11. Weld County Planning Commission' s Planning Services Case File - this Applicant. 12. Montana State University Co-op Extension Service Table - Water Consumption of Dairy Cattle, Farm, and Home Per Day. 13. Soil Conservation Service Charts of Annual Lake or Pond Evaporation - inches of depth per year for Rocky Mountain Region. - 2 - 14. Colorado State University Dairy Waste Problems - at University' s Dairy - Mr. Bill Wailes. 15. United States Geological Survey/SCS Weld County Colorado Topo- graphical Soil Classification Map - 1978 ISSUED BY: R. 8. WILLSQN, B.S.M.E. Engineering Consultant DATE: January 10, 1987 • • --' R E S U M E -- ROBERT B. WILLS0N 4200 Weld County Road 38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 Age - 52 years 9 months Birthdate - April 20, 1934 - Weld County Hospital, Greeley, Colorado Education : 1. Greeley High School - Graduate 2. Colorado State University - Graduate (Colorado A & M) H.S.M.E. - Minor in Mathematics, Irrigation Engineering. 3. Post-Graduate Work (no additional degrees) a_ University of Washington - Nuclear Engineering. b. University of Florida - Fluid & Waste Controls Aeronautical Engineering Work Experience : 1. 20 Years - Agriculture Rowcrop Production, Livestock Production, Current operation - 300 Acres 2. 6 Years - Research & Design Engineer - General Electric Nuclear Facility, Hanford, Washington, spedal.izing in Waste Treatment Facilities, Lagoons, Soil Contamination, and Nuclear Production Systems Maintenance, Design & Repairs 3. 9 Years - Missile Launch Systems Installation, Ground Support Equipment Design & Installation. Engineering Consultant to U.S.A.F. for Martin Marietta Corporation, Denver, Colorado; Mountain Home, Idaho; Little Rock, Arkansas; Moses Lake, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona. Engineering_ Manager with own Engineering Staff of up to 45 personnel - Responsible for Design and Installa- tion of Saturn IV B - Appollo Launch, Tower Support Systems, Ground Support Equipment, Waste Retention Ponds, etc. , for Chrysler Corporation, Cape Kennedy, Florida , - 2 - 4. 9 Years - Construction Manager, Project Engineer, and Engineering Consultant - Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greeley, Colorado. Principle projects assigned as total or engineering responsibility include : Eastman Kodak ($50 M), Windsor, Colorado * Stapleton International Airport ($20 M), Denver, Colorado, Stapleton Plaza Hotel 8 Office Building ($12 M), Denver , V. A. Hospital ($6 M), Boise, Idaho. O. C. Penney, Aurora Mall ($7 M), Aurora, Colorado , Greeley, Colorado' s New Water Treatment Plant ($1.5 M) near Ft Collins, Colorado , 5. Present - Currently Full-Time Farmer, continuing to provide Engineering Consultant work for major Construc- tion and Fabrication Companies in the metro Denver Area upon request. r Is • 13633 Weld County Road #15 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 , January 12, 1987 L., `;'.t �„LICL r UN 13 1987 0 : o Weld)C6unty Commissioners son P e ley 758 t/�e.Q Greeley, Colorado 80632 Honorable Commissioners: This letter is to advise you that the Imposed Special Use Permit concerning the Aurora Capital Corporation located at Weld County Road 38 and Weld County Road #15 just a few hundred feet south of our 2 acre estate is not in the best interest of the community and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. Many things bring me to write this letter as I'm concerned about the value of our home, the added traffic, the smell, the danger of small children and the ponds and the chemicals. A dairy like this does not belong in an area where there is small residential acres as well as farms but out in an open area. In my opinion the present dairy that they have west of Plattville, Colorado is a terrible mess for that area. Tkue democracy was seen on the day of the Weld County Planning Commissions voted unanimously against this special use permit, the people rule, it made me feel good. I ask you to please vote against this proposed special use permit. erned citizen, naals4;2-7- Jos Elms `l n : 5 riVa 13683 W'el i County Ro #15 • Johnstown, .Colorado 80534 January 12, 1987 JAN 13 1987 Weldccbunty Commissioners : o P 0 Box 758 arearat coLo. Greeley, .Colorado 80632 /tad_ Honorable Commissioners: This letter is to advise you that the Proposed Special Use Permit concerning 1 the Aurora Capital Corporation located at Weld County Road 38 and Weld County Road #15 just a few hundred feet south of our 2 acre estate is not in the best interest of the community and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. Many things bring me to write this letter as I'm concerned about the -.clue of our home, the added traffic, the smell, the danger of small children and the ponds and the chemicals. A dairy like this does not belong in an arca where there is small residential acres as well as farms but out in an open area. In my opinion the present dairy that they have west of Plattvslle, Colorado is a terrible mess for that • area. True democracy was seen on the day of the Weld County Planning Commissions voted unanimously against this special use permit, the people rule, it made me feel good. I ask you to please vote against this proposed special use permit. A- Concerned citizen_ • - i P�o X! ( ILIT- CC) mEmoRAnDuM JAN 1 31987 Keith Schuett Fa.=y. COLO. Esc To Planning Department Date Jp4war` I2, 1987 COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer � sun;ar Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation L'SR-770:86:51 The Engineering Department reviewed the referral material in December and indicated we found no conflicts. It is my understanding concerns were voiced at the Planning Commission hearing regarding traffic impacts on Weld County Road 15. I have met with Mr. Ray Volle of Aurora Capital Corporation regarding traffic. He indicated the dairy would generate approximately 3 truck trips per day. The latest traffic count in our records indicated 58 vehicles per day on Road 15 and 188 vehicles per day on Road 38. The additional truck traffic does not warrant the requirement for a maintenance or paving agreement. Although dust may be a concern, 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 entrance and Weld County Road 38. Also, a haul route designation between the dairy entrance and Weld County Road 38 could be considered. DLS/bf xcr Planning Referrals: Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation ) �+ t AN 131987 EX! tf B!% Q.C : P Weld D. ?laming Commissi : wat CliiiT CAM r.r, .. 1}— ' 1' /7363 /3 JAN 131987 1D $GbLl ca / 9l7 c.E�Er. c.�� - f - -_IL. at-c-cgrriLaiLi Ate. q6 7 8c632, 4 • L. „LA,z /07:0: ci I c�� — —. I 4111- ec , , . �� - p "; / �J C C hi•- - •---ex h st i CC. • a Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. 7 Albert Jeffers 2125 Glenfair Rd. Greeley, Co. 80631 Re: Aurora Capital Corporation Use by Special Review - Livestock Confinement Operation (2400 head dairy) Dear Commissioners: At the January 10, 1987 annual meeting of stockholde-s, the following resolution was passed: Due to possible liability and insurance difficulties the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company would ask the Board of Weld County Commissioners, conditional upon approval of Use by Special Review Docket # 86-82, to require Aurora Capital Corporation to erect and maintain a chain-link compound type fence along all exposure to Erkenbeck Lateral, with gates and access as now provided. We would appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sinperely✓J � _ awes Stroh ?resident Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co- rn cum cammaris JAN 13 igg Gartca Eby. CO l_, v �X H 6/T- 6 i CO \\ -) t___,_________________A..,., 5076 Brittlebush Court Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Janurary 8, 1987 Weld County Commissioners: As property owners in the Weld County area, my husband and I are opposed to having a 2400 head dairy, prosposed by Aurora Capital Corporation, which would be located only 1 1/2 miles from our home. We believe that a dairy of this size would cause enormous odor and with the way the wind blows in this area there is certainly no guarantee we would not have to contend with a foul odor. We feel that a dairy of this size would lower our property values in this ara, also the truck traffic on the county roads would be increased which is dangerous and cause much wear and tear on the county roads, which Weld county now claims they only have enough money needed to repair only part o£ the roads and bridges in the county, so we are asking the commission not to grant a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation. Sincerely, Adrian M. Ciancio Louis A. Ciancio 5076 Brittlebush Court Johnstown, Colorado 80534 {Northmoor Acres} ." f 1 ��.c _ ',tr EX H 1 617-5 • • � ow u Cp srwiERS rife— rli4P JAN 131987 - '. $anuaay 6, 1987 Weld Counfu. CommiaaLoneaa i'.0. fax -738 Gaeeley, CO 80632 Deer. Commiaaionea Laces, Z am waiting to oppoae the pao owed daiay /On the i4unoaa Capital Coapoaation, acheduledproa 3oni.nv on ganuaay /4, 1987. We centainJj do NOT need new dat,Lea to add to the auaoLua or milk, as uou will ace in the Letten I amauotinp, (gem AgaLcultuae Jecaetaait 2tchaad C. Lyn<., given at the National • IkkLk laoduceaa Federation convention Laaf Fall. Quote: "411 dc<iay rar.mera ahould be cautioua about expanaion foa whatevea neaaon. We aae fettino oua aupp1y-demand pic₹use into better. balance, "Lung aid "If a laacea imbalance occuna, aup poat pai.ce levels- will go down. "When daiaymen cite conaideaino expandina theta production, then ahouLd look ahead and aealiae that the pneaenf Law cal . Con auppont paice aeductiona if production La more than five billion pounder above demand, "he /laid. The deciaion ahould be to change veal little r.ifht now. 1 think the daint induataj would be veag •wiae to leave mason dair.y ublic policiea ea they cute, "Lync /laid in hia adadd/teae End o/ cute,Quote: We do not only NOT NEED M02E aILK, but I centainly would not want a datr.y cf that aa3e goinc in nean my home, would uou. If you haven 't alaeadu done ac 1 au4neat uou take a aide cut to 1/Lahway #66 and toad #l7, South c(iohnatown, drive • afaaiahf down to the Si. Vaain fiven and ace how clone thoae I holding panda prom The Colorado Datny cite to the .Lver.. 1 am onlu /loans that that daiaoc waa afaafed beroae people • /ceade3ed-whet waa faALne place. I don 't think anyone would want to have -LALA bu/lineaa neaa theta homea, eapectally, when it is NOT NEEDED! I Sincertelu, � 1 J��} �r v� r /�'�jLll2%� '' 7 /73 /7 -14-,-6/ U G ' r it''-?• � "L. ..17 .` - �� Maxi 31987 8 2./..C- /4 __ - , / A'e Lax r �; a 11-142.,&C.-la/I__ t42G2�2� G2 '2�GC-Gfr fib Z�& A�G2 - 47 r�P gam ,,u 1072) , 1' - ., °�S V� , .C- Cray deli fric-b4zcete --c"ie LPL !G lip L� lea /l�Lli�_-�!J�l�?�`CQ . i;Lumulrcte-1O- n , a go y.peal • -7/4/41 wt a if / ye C 4 A r 2-2Z f,- Yt )) _.1.7telf.dai,;co/ a ' ' ei--:-z,ar r it---->ii a re ej 717 _.-1//1,-,--€4-' f>t -" E-X/41 err Q ! • 1-10-87 • To Weld County Commissioner Gordon Lacy: Please do net allow the large daisy to come into our community. We live approximately 6 miles cross country from their other dairy on Hwy. 66. We can get that smell all the way to our house on one of their many bad days. It is not our desire to have that smell and confusion just a 1/2 mile from our home. We went to the Board of Planning Commissioners meeting concerning the dairy. The dairy said several untruths about water, local employees, and such. It was also pointed out to us, from someone on._ our side, that should It go through, and they can't control their smell and pest problems, we in the community are stuck with it. That is not fair to all of us who have worked very hard for what we own. • Please do not run us out! • Docket #86-32 Applicant: Aurora Capital Corp. 2930 Center Green Court Boulder 80301 livestock Confinement Oper. (2400 Head) N.B. Corner of the intersection WCR 15 & :JCR 38 Y(RB CUNTY t0 SS 9:ER5 ci)lipiciFqxv7R1-1 - is JAN 13T GREELE4. COLO. CC : P—Pite Er.c Exk ' Bmm P 12/9/86 WF.13 n7,V'Y C"., ..,,,.:..nS 7.7.1trir-RJP.,171-27,,,7-71,r,-.57 . JAN 1 3 `1 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION F III AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOU /01/@ PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PAR GRFF1E( CALO OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD. COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS I . rt/r4,.„rt2 113 fC.ny five. S I-f 1C, 212-r? 5 2. 4Ai h 1 QW44. /79702 104. /Z. !S: -TA.% caw.,.., Co. gc.r c( (�3. ?{Dll.�- IGb S"f ld. .le #13 Win Sc Ie 0.o ?oes-/ 4. Vagn—ri -eat al 9Y/ G//et >¢ /3 pa,„:4-4-K & 5. iL,F 0658- (-OCR / Sr 1011,.4'-}11..,,,, Co 6. 14 / SSW cd/ C fwe /9 `.c.� &'"''1 �. /a s-4r7 LE/ C ie /9 �a c, 10 . e2/ AZ l6 123 CJ CiC 13 c,1 J ror f'/7 Men-cj 11 . (R8 b.A,2 -,.., t Zv o toot in 4 eur rr J iJL . c::-- 8>C 12. �J rts-?1_ 2-660 co c_< 472- ,, 13. (�/ WO 14!C. R. 4-02. c ( /e +-nl,-14. . l Jtta_4(15. 1/121444/ C.21444/ 9' 40. e_ i ,7(o% 0'c"�. -f-e—e `C 16. etc-4 `L / 7666 weK / 7/ Co 17. 41# .c.- ,e,.. c s---co 3 7./C:, 3 E. , /�c .._, ".S..�,C 18. S n e-o./ terms✓ 7 3 76 /Pi/ y I //�y \�.,- 19. a *aacJ 9370 ,Cr 4/64 2i_ _ 20. /N2..3 4x/err o.¢4_.. gxl. ` t het) wcz ,r -.�; c., z. , /frie ,A %d/!- fa- -x.c, /7 c-1,6_, ' - , y M. C\f,t-1131 T O IP 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OP :)SED TO THE Al _ LICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CC_ PORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW I OF SECTION 32 T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M: WELD COUNTY COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . *e.. NAME ADDRESS fJ 4°4c, 2. triciisr 3. ao/yS c(!c 2 /S' 'V 4S fawn 4. y.c ,opn — �t��ys 7iG�l /3 r "� ter,�''/ 5• � �• �ee, Dy9s_ a%cam/3 ,,,aA;A-. 6. ;,1,2, 44 /f•e7/ 7,7? of s� 7• a<---- ,� _0 = /9 /Y 1.t:c.C 1` /3 “7,...1„.... i`�` — " 3. O l A/%u --- /65c6o cvc4.a`/3 v�l i_r , 9. 1e".. Rau /99Q0 we 1 13 o_h ° 10. c �, u, 1/a l+vC/Z 13 1 ,�, ,,l 1•-frEtivilie 11. �, /� �� 1,,Z1Q wcSk 13 P . o 12. ajcy"°� 13. C2/7/0-/t2LL/' sip GUc,? 3y / 1 ,y/_< • GSiq coe "23y -1.-f < 14. 27C -M.-t_ z7glr wc►C / , et 15. C, -p7 313/4- 4-CC 54• .E� Q,fos f 17. Vie _ //V7 'l oo D r i&> ,6i� Of w.c_ it 11 t? > & 8° 6s iuink 18.'� e /70 31?- i t rte/fy/� 12. �% /703e AJ c� ii �� a Rio bs f 2O 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . A-t(, NAME'-/&,),c /7c. ADDRESS n /!s/ s.6 1 . &Av. 1:4(Qtnizz.), atp� / -577 . ,7 i r4 A944/0? ,..-si' /7 :1;7.6.,,, �sf -86 3. �� eXo•�p-e/ 5 7-ay/3 -?aO / &vc,e/s _ioAns>4e,ti 4. ltr l j; r G^ r /i3/k s`7?? Ssi •zrvp t4is w .G4.tt3 1'3/oz, 6. �..� �., `sasta . sz1-LS 9 $ 9.13`} W Ge /5/ , att•A To w *Ls- 7. i �w� 35%. yS / 13ts.- k-`•c-t x 10 . ti� x1, cf. /!` ' .7 .,? ,44 Z�7� ? 3 Vic-J:4 ? 7;c1< Jk 13. Cr iL It ( 1 LC.)1-L.:• �J_^ < �:-.� i J S�� ZL . tz 14.�,L- z� '1r�•4G�, s �.F ,r- )4, siE7%.,vk C rb -l5-5t 15. a `4 eiiert '/356 • e4( LPIittr-n /J 532-2`757 • 2 ..6--5/4•1 6. .z .21., G -7 3 9 7≥._l a/-.Q A/41 r 3 8j vS 17. 18. 19. 20 . "`-y7..,,-.w r. ii 12/9/36 • WE THE (JNDERSSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO !WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 62 1 . ad- et")z. 04-4i) -133 (�>cie f7 4O7,,• a w033 ccic- /Z /7 7Gsi we /z s Y i / ____ is' F- /7#' Avehaa p Ca (�� s 9`190 l� e i.3 40� 7b 7 . 7' all_Qta ‘ 1Wr- 191S l w .C, 2 :ToLg. 0 ` on, \. s.,a ui. S/o? O4°°d Cr, h.Q,'(' /(0/674 . , �lt7r;emu,/1� 10izikeAt� pgazipa 1 � 2 A 10 . �� AMA ig�fa. U,��a ��'. :��, I : Johrvtfouyi 11 .• .9- -^3^:o \3 5 o sr L-" 04 Sc (r-n-c_�,:�s-t-) Co /� • 933 �',> �c.it '_. &li:<d r,�:.� ce 13. ,.cam co(._ -13-3.z 14. J --d r l��hF ; AVE } �� s7 '7/Mg -/3-fes 15. 360$9 /Voienmeeca .Px amerfays, sz97-2.5'0/ 13- c4 16. 19 N 4�t� 4 o v , pi s....ft,ron-.-- Li-tidft.c.n...2.4„6-2�7-2;of /a-43 S'( 17. IQ u f'7RNPM/J ,�07/ IYucc�9 CE Jahn ti :=87 -z7i� •,13 .2-54 1 s J4jg,.g %2/&+L/ ,707( �/uet* C7c �io1I/1,1*w7 S'�7-:776 6 19. � �a So 3 a Qo 2-/3 �� 8 /� 2-&--SZ 20 . /t -1,""' 4r-e '- j o 7 a ` e `r'``te CI-At 5 a'9.- 79D 87en,'a • • ,2/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/21 . i / /ut-/4-f6 2. dila[o7�' //(kr�c�- O7ilt% 4.QG'iE' /7.f 4nJ/awn, Go Ssec l:2;ecr ,),,,,,,,,,,,,a , 5_,,:),a77 6 3 tliai Wh - 1(.7Cfil'7 / In r� - l' - ,58l- 3a7 /1-1ie25. ` -7h ( 1 -11 X°1'7 , 7 ja hi -Pi-C'� 6.✓tart, f 1 ?CCU /2 ciC i r 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . 2/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 , dames C Sbefia /767/ GvcA /5 Johns{aw ro 2. jeLtZP/is °/ 6 7 / CtJ c P /5)L42 - 4nU'n Co 3. ///��, r,�l /o /S (D 4. oZ/S /J Pt 3oitaST«-a^rr eo ` 5. a a 7/ 8 111/ /€77,121-4S-4- Goo 7. 8 � 'Mgt) � c 9. c%KG��pp ,�c'�,�, K Al ; SoG,hs mac,.,/,,. CO . Q y 774D wcZ h'2 .Tohn57own, C'� 10 . Iei �(.rJ 7S�ff 11140401-- J ah/15 u(n 11 . a_ U -- 4 a_r 7� n. - y .. 7P-v-- 12. f CnA kGoO(L r°�- d c3oo LUCl2 �7� �'A.$d'7 13: J1 13.�, �� p3e c �c G/E' I J �Ct> S� 7 %S�r i2-/3 la-,g-n, 14. t.Z4 7z 11��2 l�°�4 cs .7g.7/ Aka( 3 9-ehnotevn /4 5C7-275-1- / �-iv'y6 t+7 Ci /�/, yJ`.�Y� 7J7/ ul c/ 3.i3 �s...a.Crcc.+.s co , .Yc:�'3�/`� 31-Z 7J.,2 15. /ilaa J`f-K 16. r/o2 ' � lK/� <` (5'S-6°° w_C gc{ *�3d' Pi-cacti-4 /a /04.57 /? /�L PG 17,AorV)ZO "e[! `e 1JlC K� � • �a e�n�ue eLa�j `O �O 0 19. 20 . ?/9/g6 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38> . NAME ADDRESS fro n'e Da-74-a 1 Road -s pi dl/cv//e, �i.74' ��U v�a,�rC�u b et 13 G w eta eouie /6 L < a'. ,eee,s 4z2 x4�, saes'/ Cap % / OW- .,. _ etc, �dg rs-s 4. /R— � o� a pis- 1 Gn J 6 �e, , esl-es 870 5-3L/ �1 J � L-C CO- gcs3Y S�im�L!/tLN L'197 CC /24'1 6. �I rial4 loc 41 13 0 ri (A. t govg' „' 7. SassC•F. -S-4,AHoc ...,, ee.a 8oS3Y - ss7 -] �15 s. 0 E. <t-+t .72-2.1/ 1.4.4e1£• /9'x 4., c� ✓"2/-<2/c 9. cr' s":7 a se c - L z L // CL/e rC eY/ cs-3y 7--),/G: � � 12. �. %2-/S --50 13.�L1 �j � . , _ wog wc,e,1 „Jo 14. IS. 16.. 17. 18. 19. 20 . 4 ,2/9/B6 r • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ASIC-2Th..t ADDRESS 1 * irSG t 3 , �"/` / 9 390 �c/c _/1 �( /1F }-- ,./.>7...-'4 /m ntsa/.Z U�° t3a /9-4.Z0 lie, j/ d• 4z /?;S6 V-% • cer7 t-- c 6. C _..x._ Li icc( Lvr .r� 3y PILE �c /�Q C 2� r-c'<`�r 7. ,,,., (470c• 8. La2.1_Qrifiti , ti7OO �d Ca ilZei 32 ielicatza tic`( 5. 9. /47- /8i ii•&tcLatt e0 ::h.4/c3 ' _ ,S,-,, „y.:5-:.:, 10 , s th-drorc.. if/c •afiet ec C141-- ,� �2 1 1 . , wce..l1 1, YO c x2/&3/ i tet✓- r C�-v 12. 6 tad._ 653‘ a G. Ri 3i/ 15-F,2-awcs 20b.5. ! 13. (_June„) /7a / 4 6 OC 4 /3 la S06C1 S4Lrr P 14. �lcy., r2 15. Ag ' (fa 6G el/.cft /c31 vel o: 0 16. C2-7!-TA.-‘-e /i -i- 6r1/4":" 1 ei i ter 2- w C_ P. 13 „,- i / 17. p0-v- kLW Pa I P/ 9S/ 3 La C a. A-a 18. �.(�;kk ' !mac Y' .7 19.(gc �L,rr t' 4/226- u,r /ct Co r -- 20 . /7(0m /jai> `/raaS " f 4 & , 3 yAprzOt_< I s r,•,.->.-7,; WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COMITY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . • ItYd 533b -C2 30 P1/4,2&2 '' ll '' (i it cc 2. (1�'6YV,r P1/4,2 &'-Crv�% (c tip' di • n ) �! 3• / ! / - iY ar�w L-u:- - J.L�-�n.is_ �✓(./L-'l/✓i�C/�i'__, �_ / 4. /� 1 5. ---g_.,&-X: JJJity- •s- R.,/ Z.d7 ��c // s 1/ 7. �1.t_ G>��-„�_ .5=' � � cam: . C . ,2,y- � 3 r .)).1.---t-r---, e_< - 8.l 7l v s� 905 a: .�° ? d� CO. (7 2,., )`j '? t1i`c li;Civ 9...1-4� „gin. swINu.�'•�g;i\ IL<C> «@. 10 .27 11 -7476 .-1d - /7303 c.Jc�. 13 feia .map. , 12. .. 9819 w t R �rG m;(/;kes, Co, 13.N 14. c .,i rr,4to, - - i G LA �-G '/1n_� RD i,1 n6 15. iV _c--47--(4 ig�-ti8 1 7v 9%21( flA-JD ce S�%�kI3 16. / ,��X�2�Lei IPkW C/ 0-02 J/1,&e,;(e ns/,Ciolc, 17. vQ� /y 7f? 71: p 1e, 2.,t -4.4E/7'l r/ . . 4 s a'-'o &3L�/1. jfto rofres2 Si 1,.;//;ke ea 19. .fd.1?I:z- �1�atc-. 95/6/'e"/ y47X? c`u iL., e0 20 . n' _<91.1.6,,,' ,./._ 4;7YD ✓ PI `r8 ',- iOffkls (i)i '.v. C • 1,/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME � � ADDRESS(is 0%O JAye/ //3 2. Srle a. C eleS, tri 543 it-o, _)4A-, -* go{ 3 4. Q -��`lh fm -"AIs.,a„d `Co FC-434 p A22 N. Si,e/d din 6r CO COSa2/ 5. P,+, �. Z)r''`b Ut 1\l• 1 J-r ezeAL-Lr1Qj SOSz1 6. \e ni )114- J J37 Waza norL&v idete4E-22- CO 806 q3 7. &Mg . ,L¢,cr 1104 S. Pa #9142- , ,12;'4ocaw.,, CPS ' Ce,s3elt 8. Sz42 Si* /4 s zettAe ar�f 6 - 52:5s3cf • 9. - exc. dv�7 .(. . So %a %%,,�� 7ss w /2d , co fig. 10 . du a.f�µ.. `9&i4 s. SuSaw T. Parts Kos Tedwloh Dr. PC Cai,ts ea kz, .�iq ciai 8os�S 11 . l ,(�' ��pp 3/� i�t� � �clo-'.n�Q- Ca b'o6 � 3 12. £/J4 L` e eCe S/� d "1 c-GYt4� _v Co PPS4(3 13. ` oJute,- U-o_n , 4 V E- 4coy&e , Bertll:p l . 0-0. 205 +3 8-0Q-3Y 15. \1 a3.cl5W.C. P. ifi , . 16. _ i r F66-3 b /plc G' LP �/!u!� dpi J 18. �7CCC333� � 7 / W�� ` 19. /hJY`ti� .'`� /o.2.0. bk Lv /J l� O t'f/- en'6J l 20 .�� • 12/9/86 a. WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W QF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . 1---tn, ej��se - /74.za L-ys P.4ilfei///c ` z. 77, ‘240,„ /7fo �-as (.eau2`rsla- (O l4--I3-S6 3. /j ) �-�.-,4 e' / �j e, 5-47� v,J �'�� 3 pQ 6, to /2- -Qit 4• ' / 2/4 4.-di Lf,ei-7 J Se, D to We,3 G, �'� L////c, V �i n 7- ' 3••5t, 7. S,_,,.arc` \__\:c.0SGv_. 53 c .: :•r g. 31. etcc$ c'iSCL° i /a.- r3-8(- g. — 'z Ot S 4oc Cam. 27d Zn - Q/aXeynI1r " c ti 10 . 1 r eArlla 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . 12/2/86 di WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . Q \" c g5z,c1 ..JCR*\3C, -2 L$ ".LC:< 2. � zt� �2� �.r ` <s• 2`( v-'• CQ - -_�G a lv.t� 4. S � GI, c-&_, II L1 ,y39 4...2C es �3c/ ' . /...74,--:f(� 5. eQecea / - Sk * $6E0 iii C2 3 y - riccikvij 6. t��t�- . e� b._¢y g 66O ccJ CGf' 5# 3�/ G W//< -) rtrittre. 5-66 5 WCp 9. r 1 (J3. . (Zd 34 ,,..;.„.„. O..„.. 10 5D-0 n 5sor we tz� Rd 3 `7 P-Lo� env 11 .h2,,,/j di kt" sB77 G//'C .fr✓ 0//iiff':�/y C 12. <yGLc.4 / , ,-_z Lt/c C /3 "fir y , -/ /u% 13 ekm/ 15i5'a WC Q. Li i J C-c . 14. 15. ' it-, 44. -d & off• 7? tck 2, 16. r7.3 a.14 e, eA-0•,.-.--- ≤, /8 71 e..C,81. Z' 2 cjd�• . 18. e��ea2F, /7_2/.0.1 5 „Pda-,ed. E., a. (,Lzf,,_ 20 . 4 %C 4.:---(,:...&-, 7 -Li(' -it r /77, 1`s7 5 `-` `' l<` -} -,__I t f3,-- :.t-. • 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO HE APPLICATION FROM . AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . Gc.6-e.. /.. kz.Yl' / 7 ` 7 5- t cf Rd 3 .� , `^.,L' 2. A;' .-n-z‘-. u; St/S c R at:z . inc_, ! i&-19914. 1 sy'it >ti-eZetet. Cozie. nn . /la 21 l W c lc 13, i' o#t v4ZLJ?_,Q 1 a 6. S7- oM /, .2/ S L./ C 13 )alO22-97645 evco >c cs-c - gG 7' /,_--)47_476. 8. /1/(dr I� s / fli cc t/g 9. '/) ' / �a .,--://L-O-6 10. o Al S b a '6.3-/ 11 . :w • M. /934 Efa3-egj r E'c6rJ 1 fl cc I Z 7 Ac S S ) Cam) \41)-- ;, "y 13. E / 2,2k� GJ C R. I3 p1,1`1r_ii: ' 6/(} �Sbcl 14. $t(tCQ f S.2 (w.C, g,/3, W� T r, 5/ 2 /V- 16 16. /90.. ) Je, "7 X73P0 bd. C'. 4 43 "Pazir - Go d'ocr , I g'4° 17. 7ifteao G , / 73ko w.c,R, 13 grea de , b66sr l2 l�� G� '" � ' y�� 3 6 �l�is G� -' � .�l¢ 20 . Qs,a/hat $4 1, / /769; :ZS 4 € , 4Q _ /11444"1"( �e �� 12/9/6A WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS �nA � 0270 tAJc,2. .Zg L S m /'` ' OM -no I . a.../ Gn,- . f 2. d, 3. ,p er e — pa 91 wccL 4. Cam,,, C , ��g \-53t-g. 5. ' -.1j r 77279 tde/d Co- Rc - 0008Q Cl _ I rdo5 WC),a co. uoi z 6 Lo40n'aitCC/C. / c; / G'. et 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . i • "/9/g= WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M_ , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 28) . of afz NAME ADDRESS 7g/z.e t2-413k4, 1 . 4LAJ S 4 8311 WC L ! C8 �,�-zo�j �S str,„, `63ss LsnCe- 414 1 Ublytgiou'vOP n 9-You :t4-1- 4�n Q i ✓+ �y/C2t � KTk : twer.. 5.#),„: 96.4,4_4 �7 1/64, 2/AL„aii. va_tioy_ _a, gnu 1 7. G Q 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. • 17. 18. 19. 20 . WE THE UNDE GNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE A�_ICATI0N FROM AURORA CAPITAL CO RATION COLORADO DAIRY FA S THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS �� A � 53f0 W. C. ?, 3b �� co. 80 57 443/8(0 1 . ,Cc ks`ya, 2. .�� -,k / oe /27/O:6 3* 4--11-441774”-1"‘"rd /7/4 V frrezr ige,,ki a rsaa s�1Zd t' oC- S etro �C,R3 6 -�m z 4s�'o goy s l /S r{0 6. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 0 1 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS P J2//3f BG 1. ///AGO- 173 .l o*, :fzt S i/3 Sad a 4 .�ahns ,7�- /Od if f 6. » _ 4bdor a�i 11 II y/7//,‘ 7. "�'"�`"`�. ' "�ci...- a-o7_.7`f a fyv ;.. 'ai is P4 9- Sf53fi A.?�,3/�� 10. 7- �' D�-�.,.- son 8,.:,t< et..72171.457A2' // 7-27c�, /��`�� 11. (��l��,d�'-^4 .20.5-43 � p � G g rr(J a7 as.2c Vis,/YG 12. i.uy�da„..,.�a, `� So 3 r /�-+* i Q.u�(.,4),, w1 ,,, ,-71_271.s*-- /2/J3/,G sac E` • frP-0•.jji 6077 £� a, �/, s87-Z-s"Y 2/J3/st 14. < �7• Too. 4,4-se-w 50 76 .��7�z.i.e�c r"f frairwA- S r.270 (/�7 6-0 16 eie,T is aenAi c renn,'F'.-ti<inn—. gF 1s. ` ez.44"'c--° �/ / 1 2 f � 3 vc 16. 1' ` -- , J 1 tJ:a��XR �L `„ 444..„...a.,-,,ct-G• i / 3 , 17 3 r (. � 14/8/6 y 18. r j 79x7 #o7G /.ne !( 94. yield, A tern /� 1 G '5/ 19. ady�7 ,c6 new , f -j eilia ((3/r7'G 20. ., a oss 7 1 We .ar /a • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COMITY ROAD _ 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . • •-� t` tqa c.)dk c-j p.� ►5 old. o�:,. 2, Ppt.r kg. x v5 5,27 6& /i Sc'hctIaa,W 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. • 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20 . i • 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . ate- NAME ADDRESS P,Soa � _-1 A 1 p n' , 13-`5Co i. ( it ¢sue. ; 2�Co0 is ultaL( } / ...).4a SSs 11- z5� to-A3 X6(0 'OULU. C . �rcu} �u i aokIK.q clndic, c 45� , si- i��. . mil.�z�fv.�n << 4. .5-a27- 4/76 a'7- <17G c J. 6. 7. S. 9, 10. 11 . 12. 13. i4. 15. • 16. 17. 18. 19. 20_ 4 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM . AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME - ADDRESS/PHONE / DATE �p 1 . E j e ul at. .li IS:).A �-L ao zs 'i �mh,7�ivri-.M'-, er it:; 2. _4\ P. ) AA 2aD ? 721 `gyp Ate . a - 5 7.9 p7 3. `ni. YLO .,1--' c. . o / /o 7 7^��-G '`,,,,,�,dln- - 7, / 76,17 4. InaudvD- fiensalle a.ocst yrinzeinnet,41 q,, - ?_ fig ? s. Qy, ,a, z 01015-6 h�. -- 4i,c, p '7 lit ? AZ 6. ( .,✓_ ��u�tb 4o/G 7 ', ' ,+`e ah'' ,- �,°`"'1 %7.S�C 7. 0`,T � / z oS 7 ' ,0 e` 9m-`." 7, 17 b''-7 :Akao.inA.61O 2_01 11 ftritkincroe% SN, wcw,„ -I VI 71 9. aoS7& \.143... A- , `1 1 `F$7 10 . np, oZo<S06 kivitTR et-re? --, I/1/81 1, 4 atAl 4ra-L— ?c & ffle nowc12. A9 Y/ . p c2D jS _ i,/7. -(-/ 13. �u�yLc 2 L 1" � % G /vlh A G� 7 /7/27 14.--0.--..„-- �� /BPS �i �7_.415. ee, _Th :di 554/o21� , „ 16.#4-7......,.._ �L if 0,07//7CDi� / 7-87 17. 10,01.411( R...l -De)% AiGnin tint(ri- 1- 7 .37 18. (/ 020/8._ 2-4t2m 1 l��- / - 7_ I7 19 l J�52rCelb 9` 2717gAPt_ I— 7-' zo . <58-7-z I- T c, bed-film <iolrns owl 707 ago fa7 7?o4- J /-- 7-27 �a. y 7U NN STOW Ge YOS f/ 0eia7 y.,7e nuv4i - • WE THE lANDERStiED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APP CATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD • PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38> . . ` ' NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE '9 1 -vat. j49 i or ill S15 1-2s-ad' 1-1-a yo 2. /C, f p aca�, 5'479/sagczt. 58?-0)3a / --7-nz 3. E• SAon--) 577,57 .. S. .J Cfr!/aZ.Z.sS /- i—,4 4. .54151 . 5e7- g575-S f-7- � ''� 19/ S<I6� e r .S--g7- 73a /'7^57 s. �a'z�G 1 -731 boa&7 ��G�-iict.:Z �`�7 6.k 7.,50 LfncR C. ei."- w"-f 8 4244 ir1C:. -«/ 2O87 /Voe41;y7oat Le ` 7 Z � -1-8-a 9- 4.7* Q tj�.,o,.. a0917 do/d..m.- 7)... at asl5 l -d-fl 10 --.5 '" ao699 Stt,ce_ Ct- S37--z7tp '/Qi' i1 . to(d{a1 646+'''' Ca`-// S`3 4' a2,4 i1°'/b9, d 12. � ee i"`'/7;9 51/49- 'orr, 589-z,/.5J /-7--s y 13. zO(og7r S�-i#t -_ co _ zzo2 t-. 47-a`t 14. 7:5:4:: ` ..,4_7a,.: .51-#,C.� �;t- S7 ?- S'OSJ. (- y- 15. //Ju!4,41.4_ .4✓,a al 8 z D S r.Sh o tiro c% S-81) Flo s Z I 5 d7 ::: 18.ECc) C_2 % c1 -1-. Or- -�"7 aG 36 / -� 1 � aSS 7 19. : .570-2.Z.ZG F? `?7 , C•77-7 yo C�/lXou/� !7� 20 . WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATI ON COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 1 .re/7- /5":, 45 <R15 5/ /- 5- 3 7 2.3. •4 ra 7h, 6 it o , o,6'(o(v rj -8-7 4. e:20,- *et tth% opf/D/died /- n / J J 6. / �y d? �ir�n�� ( 4-t) 0 . 1 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . . • • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . Ja±e__ NAME ADDRESS rt-€ 1, J DC-C-gl . D)_21_4Cenr_r _o_---) JO-50)1 k/G h /y 77 D__,6 7 g j try 3. 74 , StL-">ks, to itv[,Sfocsi't eve 6'63Y 4. J •S t' !-J)1 ,�).51/ .5-8-7 -02 % A. 5. 5• 1.7 s,� 7 r‘/ /) Sg7-Z 247,5c 47 6 v g� 7. Z1 DJ W e 1 l Ss�7 - o ao �7*an-L„`„ 0 gore 8' ( 4C W -t S ao • •baternatcy. )a rit...5--Wej45 lo . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . • • • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE StEL ;: '2t �a z3- G 3. hen.O � l/ /yu�,ri,,e /99iA3 Gd'c-- 4zco 1 WC 32- r�Cnxu•CktQ. 1 — 12 -27 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14.:. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . p.m; -;,'1 C) • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE /—Iv - 89 1 . J./ticll AAma-eA 'GSc w'ca H4- 532-1119 2. 6 dA a /k45 S 4>C12 {Z 5 5pST-7-3-55174-3-5 1' 3. � �� N`413,¢_1-4.-f t teteltS c,'cZ-'"( S�Z a1614 f —(z rt 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. • 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . N WA :le le U N .W (.. W a A A A v D C• Q1 b O N A p1•• n I V '� 1 c ( SHEET 3 ) O4Nt II L A R I M E R � C O .0 N De NI 2 1 . a r O« -o Y r.. r_r,.r,�` - r:'r, r r ► `Y: r '�.r, r, r-r. ►r r, r r: r�r; r r: r: i r:'�jlr r• r 'r -> 1r . ■ ar %1 ;j • • • ■l u ■� ■ ` t ce.Z• ,i c c■�■■ ~ e^•t r. 11'7.•-• r 1 / ■ n 1 v I II ry 1 t, r y ■ •• _r r- r—_.r. f'1 ■. L1 ••1 • - w• •i .lC L• ft ` __rr r_'tar.. 1r-r.'-►."1,." -,• 6 1 w+,�-r-�r.�rr r !- -.-.• r- r r r r r- ►33 • t •ti , ti t '1 �. 1. w 1 / •% i1 . "IT n r •r•Y r r r r r ,- • L • u (• 7,\), •,--.Ip-I .- 1'I �.) r. ,- r, r'�.•t r l L • f':1‘. Iw • j1j Sc • S r.: • • • � r1 1 t h•h.r,.Y: r r r: r. ► Z r n._r- Y IQ �t T [1.. I'S.) u P� w: , � .rc ORE • • - l 1. r '11 IV )• w r I • ♦ ci ..� ,='sJtc T,. �. ` ,` r. �.. U - y• -:y. ! /4.C • �i • m _' •r I:c ^) •YI , "+ \' C0 •,i• ' - - • • T.-- •' � '° a - I 1 .. ® h• r, 4 l ` c1 to _T-• r.. ►r k.•4 C Vw a ylir> • 1- i •• .1r' •• 9:'t c 2 . 1.e , , • • .Ili: . r(/.�)L r r rt r r r . r. - r `r r ;`r r r r _clew• r. r r- - _ -•" .-- a ill' - • ; i• '' ... '♦' •_ . 1 .-1..• ,_ 3 r, 4. • as _ -. x • 1 L „ s r ii 1►'^fit'' Is li. ;tt 1 , !r t -, : *-. v.1 'w `: ,� it t 2.`a{! • - > • r r r '� r ' • yy4 �'11rItt - •1 / lrr \ • �, , ) . • 1• c\ 1• L. r Iv •F'�J I 11` • . 'r-- _. 1. u• _ • �� 1. s EI •C?f r = w T•l• • •c. 1 r�r 's 1*.X\:\\*;;;;S‘,..N ,,,*%, : .•,:.:,:•.' ., , • IT an as r r r r _ 'C ,1w a.. tt I •1 - �Jp5 • 1 7.--- - t. -- Ls. - ' r r _ • ,I ,;• . y • • • • • 1 rI • r , ! ins.' tP9gff •,. w • •••......777... r r ► r r r r r r 1• s__t •______I ,. _ 1 _ ,' �_• - .Ial r . LI '• . I r "EQ C - Ii //'` T,• a •• �;�� Y .1Y•r r ►. !� . sN: �'r .^ r.21•r. \�' - uO■ / k -• i I a• 1 ♦ •t. • ;I � A r^ -._- "tr.:). .� ■. • • • v • •l• w •t. • r c •o Hy � - �- a rl t.--1 r r r-- r. r. r-- 4 .-►' —•` — ", • x•141 1' 1.1 . \ rl:fr. r:. r r . r, . - Uc iYc _•�'f •_ Y0*se h r - r .(FA: !1• ' 'II,, lr -11-�'i-4 ill.1 i 11- f. i . •..• I—� . , .y,--RF`--- ti ~ .w .--. `C _ . .'t �_. 117 !Y 1•' - ` to T :1 , . ' •t: � • .- fn r m • 4 ;1 ry .fi r • , t c • r. ,, - t■ _. - • ... - �r r rr jar-►r Yr-a.-r ' 1 ..3:.el Yt s r,:� 1 m . .1. • ` l or:: tw • • , 1 - wit.-- ■ w\u( N• •tt a w" • !y �. .0 • 1�r •1 • • Y, : r: r r r r. :f- r •4. A 1i .. •.. .8 I: a .. • S ELI Co ury CaliVISSIPfRS January 9, 1967 0 CEtht'TE • JAN t 2'myr Dear Commissioner. 3 R GREELEY. COLO. I am writing to ask that you reject the request of the Aurora Capital Corporation for a permit to created a 2400 head dairy on Weld County roads 15 and 38_ I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue property, and will lower the quality of life in our area. We live about two miles from the site; we are afraid that the smell and the flies from the dairy will make life outdoors unpleasant in spring and summer. My family lives outside in warm weather. Last summer we ate every meal on our patio. Many of the eighty families in Northmoor Acres do the same. This is one of the blessings of living in the country. A spokesmen for the proposed dairy hes assured us that odor and flies will be controlled by modern methods, meaning blue-green alge in the "lagoons" and insecticides. The amount of insecticides needed to control flies will be enormous. We are concerned about pollution of land and water in the area, from fecal matter, and from insecticides. Because ours is an agricultural area, we already have insecticide use on crops. We no not want another unnecessary source of pollution. • The dairymen say that they will be "good neighbors" and will handle any problems that arise, but this is easy to say before the problems arise. I am enclosing several letters to you from my neighbors. I appreciate your consideration of this matter i hope that you will give the needs of the citizens in the area priority over the needs of a huge corporation from outside, a corporation that is not developing the land for agriculture, and has the potential of serious harm to the area. Sincerely, udith 6r ce--) Northmoor Acres y -71 ek ,Exm8J7 /V LONGMONT%AMAHA 638 Lon Main Street Lon 805011114N1 N1 Longmont, CO 80501 � 651-700O • To Weld County Commissioners: I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors in the summer and spring unpleasant and will make it very difficult to sell our property when we might need to. Sincerely, Ago �• Jnstin D Johnson 5131 Yucca Cc Johnstown, CO? 80534 LONGMONIAMAHA . • 638 Main Street Longmont, CO 80501 1 „ 651-7000 To Weld County Commissioners: — I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors in the summer and spring unpleasant and will make it very difficult to sell our property when we might need to. • Sinerely, (17/4);72,11/P7/07(.:: Charles R Johnson 5131 Yucca£ . Johnstown, Co. 80534 LONGNMONT AMAHA 638 Main Street • Longmont, CO80501iit „A 651-7000 . To Weld County Commissioners: I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors in the summer and spring unpleasant and will make it very difficult to sell our property when we might need to. Sincerely, Colleen R Jo nson 5131 Yucca Ct. Johnstown, Co. 80534 t. :y—r 1 ✓? zit. 0 z� / ��.i'� h c-d�/�. F Z7_.C-� ✓_yam-Y.��-J_.c_!,..r- - . i 7 LJ � � �/ • `a)t J 4-14 `C-'C, i 4,,.----• (7-"" 2 • • Dec. 31 , lees 20404 Cactus Drive (Northmoor Acres ) Johnstown, CO 80534 Tb.;Weid Co-.mtyComiminsinners, • Regarding the proposed Aurora Capital Corp. 's dairy farm at Weld Co. Roads 15 n 38, southeast of Northmoor Acres; We are definitely opposed to such an operation so near to our - - - residential- neighborhood. We decided not to -live in Ft. -Collins . . or in Greeley because of the infamous smells. We chose Northmoor Acres for its quietness and for its clean, fresh air. We vculd be very upset to have the reasons for chosing our home destroyed due to a large cattle operation nearby. We do not subscribe to the arguments that the operation-will not emit an unplesant ordor - we are the ones to lose if and when the arguments prove false.. The risk is just too high. - As votors and residents of Weld county, we desire you, our representatives, to vote against the proposed Aurora Capital Corp. 's dairy farm at Weld Co.. Roads 1S & 38 (and request a no vote at any other location where the ordor problem would also be o factor for us. ) Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Regards, ! ' 7V.O'i ...<•' / ii:ian A. Senoras, Jr. Ronnie L. Sandres Registered votor Registered votor PS; Because of out of town business, we will be unable to attend the special meeting to discuss this matter on Jan. 14th. However, this letter expresses our opinions. • • 1 .7 T a1c e. Lc,-ty L Lfl,≤3,b Je cs • / A /96A/,/s r /7 Cf.. rn A/6 o P /9 / �c�c/h /r. rare . GAGS G!sefrr v4 n-r fl .✓Fie 0?- G<JF c 1 y P fick /6- 4-71,b 3r , L .d /N `/t=r/ E5 779-x3 C t S /j-F�S A/E/Grft3 P ) wit) as Sr7-a,JG / 4- l"ECrEf. 7746 rRes-f /411 4 StueP.:sa.-,cft /,Je ma �P Cd r--- A-r-r12fr-cr-E) /via re, e - ,eE, /r— A . .. . " . . 2c/00 'kA-riey -cclAS --elf-1S c Lose. r LJo-r c C 1 /f-4-tt 6 t /,"5 l e rats) .../6-te n'i-sco0 F FP-0 S i b f.zeA-1-7 O/0, firs 164'it '-r e fe- u1 F1/2A-r I o1= til4Srz r&E,'?r'McA-Ar •flzy-r-": sPs Cv54r E. iszr a a CL5-6- ',OA ; /t.)O&7-sn-1-0Ok, A/2R f5 /�f 2. -Llf7!-C�C�4�jj�-rcz cam- %] / 7.Lie_e:c., . ..4..n..12_,f- (4.-..-..(.64.2.1,<__ s .:7-e.„." 0 , - 6.4...tc.. , / L.8., it._ ‘,.. „L. at c C' �.ce .._;2 7LIa-Cre�°� A. cep - S' `. t 2 c/c D ._ zr e Att.-C. ti'�Y t, „Cc' ££ a 67. Yt-C-z--1u'i:.Z . 7,C,- ' .-('!�Zt ``/J/,��/'(iy c4-c�. ./ 1 . t•4-e- '-- - Z1- ( --K-C .."rC:_C-Cc e �C t) ,7: -,_:,'_„;_e_ A-2Y--t- -if-n L�.'. �- i / IL A rt i C" l- -c--oe. ,_ft, a4.-'`v , /i4-1.--u--- f.-u7uc t_ / z4 :'; v// L- -�- •• )- l- .-' ,1� z..el.-¢e - a,r_c�' 7 re...‹.. :if _--f--r-ti I f j7 , C (/ 2c 5-1-- 4 ncie z4_1c-) a.Z lv Weki C-Jeci-nt{ COrnmr35 ro,oel&c 1� &9cin5 f tk2 ' otuLLA., ltfa.Qo-nA . 44O Coa 5 wr l( • !and . .Loc:Ap Lry E.k.Q aAci , doni 1,O? ;may hop-02. Q .k3A. . 033 7 y e Lt/,ma&> /fn . y fL1 i1 , ��, y0S ' ' -,�. ,y,z • • O ttlid eoLt_titq d?'tLU (O , 32 CLrn Luta-9)24oppd ILL, b &o olayio t Q , U . tits, C 20, af2d. .JALP aa e4/rc, 12.6..4. Cadd.. CGS d'nL 1 A-A.C; C6133 . 5 roc ayvyk t}d C o veAti FOACI , w-f u ika CL-c( nc • 'uJ O2 9 AktligLoccut ace€ r q own iecedzack . oos3q t r b-&01 (panty CvrnmISs,one5 .1:r,-, oi J Le y.. g i(zomn lac-c-a,c4auc. Ace 42 .4_01 detialia pitc_c.c flute/ Axsat cLrrd pinopcJity. 6.&, O)..A1 Q . ..We cc -t o --Roack o1 . f hem„, k n1 EG�n eater tAnucc_ tl1.Q dc<Zy ozaci b...4 an c eeda( laws -ic. Ain Ze5-37 fv, ,ir�/90S JAI/ l/ ea 'rot.;3V • • Walter F. Burhans 20406 Northmoor Drive Johnstown, Co 80534 115187 To Weld County Commissioners: I am strongly opposed to granting a special permit to ..Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 .and 38. I believe that a dairy of .this .size and. . _, intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 11 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors unpleasant in addition to making it very difficult to sell our property. Sincerely, Walter F. Burhans • Yvonne M. Burhans • 20406 Northmoor Drive Johnstown, Co 80534 5 January 1987 Ms. Judy Green 20627 Catclaw Court Johnstown, Co 80534 -To Weld County-Commissioners: ' - I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1' miles from the proposed dairy site and, the smell from the .dairy will make .life outdoors unpleasant in addition to making it very difficult to sell our property. Sincerely, /r / I -Yvonne M. Burhans • • i January 4. 1987 • To Weld County Comissioners: RE Aurora Capital •Corporation, .. • Proposed -D 5 r-y We ar•e opposed to your granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast carrier of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. • • .. ....:.We:.aq_ree .with.•other-s .opposed -to -this dairy because .- of the negative impact it will have on the quality of our outdoor living environment . Due to the prevailing southerly winds during the spri11- ;n.-i s+im^`er months t}me insect and stench problems associated with a dairy will make this a very unpleasant area to reside. We would appreciate your thought=ul consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Sanford L. Reutter `2� 1 M. Marlene F.•eut er Mar-tf ,goo:. Acres 20'•64? Staghor•r Court Johnstown. CO ^00534 • • - MMUS January 6, 1987 D Y AN 12' I Weld County Commissioners Gordon Lacy F.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Gordon; This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. We purchased a small acreage a year ago directly across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site. The acreage was intended for a building site. We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition, we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one-half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate. We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concerns. They are as follows: 1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a major concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution. The odor this operation emits is twice as bad for one's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above. 3 . MILK OVERSURPLUS Why is a large investment corporation allowed to operate 2,400 head when small local dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the average independent dairyman? _ ExH/8/7 r� •• 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows,`•-especially when..a cow .:requires•.gat .Least 36 ..gallons of water a day? Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn 't the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? ' 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads hauling milk products, feed , manure, etc. Noise from the truck traffic , cows, machinery and human traffic would be constant day and night. Lighting would need to be on continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at night. 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large, heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses within the area profit -that much from this corporation or do they do their business outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products, water availability, waste, control , no community or county advantage and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property. . to S 1 • i • Please, vote n.o -on this and not allow this large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th F. M. Weld County, Colorado. We have lived in the Johnstown area for 16 years and lived in Colorado all of our life. We have been active voters and are continually working to make our community a better place to live. We want to continue to make this our home. Please don 't force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state. Sincerely, • Duane Frye 113 King Avenue Johnstown , Colorado S0534 • • ,) e9 • $anuan,y 6, 1987 Weld Countu CommcaaLanena C g P. O. Box 7t8 n C m -_•=':._� �neele� CO 806 2 • ;"r '/''`' Deaa CommLAAjonen .L ecety, `� 1 `a ;qi . 114 I am wnLftng to oppoae the pno oaed watery Con The fruaoa`¢'-=-_•r_ cat Capital ConpoaafLcn, acheduled /OA zonLn4 on ganuaa°u 14, `�/ '87. We centaLn1u do NOT need new daLatea to add to the auaplua AnaLculfuae Yecaetaaoaftchaad!E. 1Lyng.� oLven°I am aattthe /atLoaaI Talk %aoa'uceaa Fedeaaatton convent Lon l¢at Fall. Quote: 'ALL deLay faameaa ahould be caufLoua about expann_Lon Con whafevea teaaon. We one oettLna oua aupp lg-demand pcctune Late batten balance, "Lyng aatd. "IL a Lanea unbalance OCCUaa, auppportf place leveler will go down. "When daLnumen erne- conaLaeacno expandLnn theta paoductLon, they ahould look ahead and`�nealL,e t7at the paeaenf Law calla Con auppoat place aeductLona L ' pnoductLon .La mane than five 6L1lLOn pounda - above demand, "he aatd. The decLaLon ahould be to chance venu lLttle nLsht now. I think the daLt„ Lnduafnu wou2d be vent' wLae to leave ma/on a'aLny public polccLea as they cite, "Lyng acid Ln ALA addneaa. End oc Quofe: We do not only. NOT NEED TIORE MILK, but I ceafaLnly would not want a d¢�au o that aLie going Ln neon my home, would !Lou? li ;tau haven 't alaead,, done ao l a&Qyeat you fake a aide outataatahtto cdown� #66 tothenSt. Viz 7 t h datve holdLne panda Caen The Colonado DaLau cite to the aLvea. I am only; acaa,, that that daLay wan_ ataated begone people acalLfed'-what wait takLnng place. I don 't fhLnh anyone would want to have thLa 6uaLneaa neon theta homea, eapectallq when Lt La NOT NEEDED! • SLnceaely, 20718 WUeDJ Cou,:«,• J. 17 // JoMsto,;h a(crxs. i ExH ben? .L January 8, 1987 y Gordon Lacy -. ` clr5 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758J1 'J112iJj Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioner Lacy: a This letter is concerning the Aurora Capital Corporations application for expanding their dairy production at the location of Weld County Roads 15 and 38. As a resident who lives a little more than half a mile from this location I am asking you to turn down this application. There are many reasons for not wanting a dairy in this neighborhood and many reasons for not needing any more dairies at all. These as a public official I am certain you are already familiar and advised about. There are a number of other reasons besides the emotional ones which are a concern of us residents. (1 ) This proposed dairy is not in keeping with the county's comprehensive land use. It will be taking prime production ground out of use and destroying it for good. Furthermore the dairy will not be prone to use what- ever land is left for adequate farming since their main business is milk and not grain. Their size will make it too inefficient for them to consider raising any of their own feed and thus the total land site will be removed from agriculture . (2) The proposal of this size of dairy is obviously not compatable with the other agricultural operations in the existing area. This district is and has been for many years small family farms and dairies. There are no other conglomerates of this proportion operating. So this application is unfounded based on the guide lines for our county and district. (3) There is no way this business can control the roads and the amount of traffic going to and from their operation. Many of us are concerned for the safety of our children who must venture onto these roads to attend school etc. The excessive speed of trucks and their inability to stop make this business a future hazard. Of equal concern is the health of all of us living within the vicinity. Human life needs adequate breatheable air and water. An operation of this size will greatly reduce our water supply as it is already difficult to keep up pressure in the summer months now. And along with the above mentioned arguments I don't. think we want to lose sight of the real issue. The real issue is the fact that we live in a Democratic society. And you are an elected official of the Democratic system and process. If we are a true Democracy then the will -of the people determines the direction a particular situation should go. We , the residents of this area, are not saying that Aurora Capital Corporation has no right to enter into the dairy business. They have every right to engage in such an endeavor in a free enterprise egyintfir Page 2 • • system. What we are saying is that we don't want it located in this area.- And our voice and vote is a resounding NO! Aurora Capital is not a citizen, nor are they made up of citizens or residents of this area or county. The Weld County Commissioners were elected to advance the Democratic process of Government and to protect it from any and all who would attempt to gain any per- sonal value at the expense of its citizens. No matter what Aurora Capital promises it can.-do or_add to the area;..no matter how much dollar value they claim to bring into the county, no matter how many people they may hire , no matter how "expert" they are in eliminating odor, no matter whatever claims they may make about being "potential good neighbors", they are still by definition not a citizen. Even were we to bend the rules and change the definition • of citizen they would only get one vote. And -that would not be sufficient to cause you to okay their request and turn against the process which is the foundation of this country. It is a sad day when we have to waste tax dollars and valuable time to listen to issues which have nothing to do with the problem at hand. Wisdom can cut right through all the human intellectual and emotional reasons and responses by sticking to the principles which were written and approved by all of us living in the Democracy. None of you Commissioners needs tc take sides in this issue. All you need do is defend the process for 'which you were elected and cordially invite Aurora Capital to seek location for their dairy in another county where the citizens vote for them and the land use is in agreement with their application. Please don't cloud the issues of our day more than they need be. The process of Democracy is being challenged on all sides and its ability to work is being held in suspicion more and more. None of us is capable of separating the emotional feelings on either side and none is capable of knowing what the future will be or who will be proven right or wrong. But I suspect the Founding Fathers of this country knew all about human emotions and how they confuse and cloud issues. Maybe that is why they selected the Democratic process so the common man would have a say and not be manipulated by those in power. Your vote of NO to this application secures the Democratic process and frees you from having to take sides either for or against a business. Your vote is cast neither for the opposition nor the proponent. It is a vote for the Democratic System which states in writing and blood that the will of the majority is the course to be taken. Please accept my personal thanks for listening to all of us`on both .sides 'and for helping us (me) ,;realize again what are the real issues .at hand. cerely, _ atj,„ John S. MoCahan! JSM/jm • UM 1 2 igKr -_ Qa. 7:67 24-2aiZt .4154 terrw-f-tote-Ar-r-e-7.-aci at- pir L2,xt G,� p-G�%�..t-,z,.��v d f 4.1ee_r r LORRR/Nir //q/PSTON e1,4 7t //On', ote /Peters 2oScJ L#eras i7eivcr -tTN.✓s Toi ls/ e $' Sy$ • • • January 6, 1987 • V b J Y aIi ' fwJ t ,.r JAM Vet Weld County Commissioners ��[ f4 Gordon Lacy P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Gordon- This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. We purchased a small acreage a year ago directly across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site. The acreage was intended for a building site. We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition , we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one-half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate. We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concern=_. They are as _allows: 1. ODOR PROBLEMS This is a major concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution. The odor this operation emits is twice as bad for one's health than the others mentioned. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above. 3. MILK OVERSURPLUS Why is a large investment corporation allowed to operate 2,400 head when small local dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying- products that tend to lower the price and wipe cut the ,., .,,_,,,,•��., average independent dairyman? , /fi. w. F.XNi.Bil 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows;' especially when a cow =requires- at least 35 .gal-lens of water a day? Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. - 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn 't the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads hauling milk products, feed, manure, etc. Noise from the truck traffic , cows, machinery and human traffic would be constant day and night. Lighting would need to be on continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at night. 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large, heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or do they i bring e in their that�Umuchork ffrom^this coo rporatioa ns or do within the area p they do their business 'outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products, water availability, waste, control , no community or county advantage and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property . • • Please vote no on this and not allow this large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 O4 Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. We :have .lived .in the .Johnstown::ar.ea +or 16 .years and lived in Colorado all of our life. We have been active voters and are continually working to make our community a better place to live. We want to continue to, make this our home. Please don 't force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state. Sincerely, Nyl Frye A V 113 King Avenue Johnstown, Colorado 80534 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 Use by Special Review 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 in 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. APPLICANT DOCKET NO. 86-82 Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court Boulder, Colorado 80301 DATE: January 14, 1987 TIME: 2:00 P.M. REQUEST: Use by Special Review - Livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW*, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO TEE BOARD BY: Mary Reiff, Deputy DATED: December 29, 1986 PUBLISHED: January 1, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze 0 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE TttarrOva. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss '^l� COUNTY OF WELD > I,Clyde Briggs,do solemnly swear that I am publisher of The Johnstown Breeze: - ri, x that the same is a weekly newspaper • printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, $14., and has a general circulation therein; that H� -3,, said newspaper has been published :CI r continuously and uninterruptedly in said • ,x „t ' County of Weld for a period of more than `. `•;• u+ fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the i;y first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any ='r amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and 3r advertisements within the meaning of thG laws of the State of Colorado. k That the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment was published in the regular and .S entire issue of every number of said weekly :., newspaper for the period of .1... consecu- ' 2 r 1.;a:?' tive insertions- and that the first ' ,. publication of said notice in the issue of said newspaper dated #2-43.1( Al)A1)- t --, ,Gr and that the last publication of said notice %- was in the issue of said newspaper dated tikiel} '' ,,tv t z i, A.D. 19 In witness whereof I have her unto set r my han is ...a/ day of ...4ec.- A.D. 194 ,dry p...t, ' S p'Yr,l. P2I•tc Publisher �iti4' C jw, Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the_County of . ,i t emiP, We, ,State of Color�dp, this, day of �L��A-D- 5• a C.,`mot ...,-...a, z �M My mm0�g �R .% co ^r pct xp✓lfitilt2w14;-1987-- 2.South Parish Avenue ..... fo4cs!ewn..CO 80534 AFF VIT OF PUBLICON State of Colorado County of Boulder 1, J. R. Hofmann ,do solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY TIMES CALL is a �=matins* cool daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in naa r r aaaa e. Sawa axualbele°aaan rtof wad Comfy.. the City of Longmont, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and 'cow..m Cw�- which hasgeneral circulation therein and in wmsv.alJ taar rIlaryy xs parts of Boulder and e n d lit if*Wa.ps iSit .asy,n.4 Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously and4r .. uninterruptedly published fox a period of more than six months shesgThretsagittgrony ^kw °°a��l ani next prior to the firstpublication of the annexed legal sots notice of ayue.wora,,,�„a,a sos a advertisement, that said newspaper has been admitted to the noa�cam ` tr .aa United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions a altbe alraM.d Soots(An - eartwadiSaid; oa":ica ootsthon a7aks. nvraaysinriO,n.Mar couw.wrow-.: o_the Act of March 3, 1879,or any amendments thereof,and that inir`oowrryla.ra.eable ls.!sty said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for "°R ALSo Kxoivwmrrma ,a rnRulalay m wawac;yply publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning SInr-teddantbentrtgallarIptark The nlie in of the laws of the State of Colorado;that a copy of each number of m waq cwm cw$entrnya c.mr Its wrl, Ste t. �sp.Rlaer.4cwlw faluad0. ; said newspaper, in which said notice of advertisement was oocKat.l)o µq published, was transmitted by mail ox carrier to each of the A aa.a iuxwwr` subscribers of said newspaper, according to the accustomed DATE Lawri'•LM.tMa 1ryl�ar, ';- mode of business in this office. nME,rya a AL aeewesr-oarav�e.cnl =luvanaca- • raawa a�:':Qa�.Mad That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published LEGAL in the regular and entire edition of said daily newspaper otscle»rmxr` eg once; and that one publication of said notice was in the issue of said LocOott p' t newspaper dated January 6 , 19 87 :" �loM t rytlMiu c.aneasAsh IRefir .r 4 'AWL.ESYuar. �� t+LlMaa{6M 1M OWIy, Fail;Fail;Laniline.,colo:JM.a,aati. ,-� Gen ral � Iffali Manager Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of Ja uary ,19 87 / otary Public IpTA41. kly Commission Expires October 6, 1989 • 717 Avenue FEES 27.00 e Longmont Gaut Colorado 83501 Y. f 41 zz gz O co 3 a DIPO e m a > O ITI o r `G MI a .C C O co 3 r_ y n O O al a ll lima i= c b a • DATE: December 29, 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 14th day of January, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. Docket No. 86-82 - USR, Livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) - Aurora Capital Corporation OFFICE OF THE CL TO THE BOARD BY: iir� �D� 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 n r /B/7 G • t"icE CP.T .:- it 14 igge r � -� GREELEY. COCO. December 23, 1986 Gentelmen; ? am writing this letter concernin^ to the Dairy that the Colorado Dairy wants to build, I farm right next to the North side of The Colorado Dairy, I fart 227 acres and all in corn. And also want to say that all of this corn crop the Dairy buys from me. want to say that as thin=s are now in thdsse times a farmer has a hard time selling_ his crop. the Dairy has been to me a good business partner, with this a mean in being able to sell my crop. I feel that the Dairy should be granted the right to build. We need to expand and to grow and not to let our agriculture cease. Section 20 Very truly � yours, Range 67 zejeir '—' `�'4✓ a_,e Salazar Township 3 rif5-i7 TY 2 A1986 Weld Co. Planning Commiscio), Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 9 Lee Morrison reported that since we are still under the old Comprehensive Plan this request must be evaluated by the Planning Commission under that plan. However, since were are between the old plan and adoption of the new plan, if this request is denied, the applicant may come back and ask that it be considered under the new Comprehensive Plan after its approval. Only requests made during this brief time between the two plans have this privilege. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Lydia Dunbar - yes; Ivan Gosnell - yes; Louis Rademacher - yes; Paulette Weaver - No, based upon the intent of the existing Comprehensive Plan which states that urban-type uses should be located adjacent to existing municipalities and this is not an existing municipality. Also, by locating something with this type of traffic adjacent to an interstate highway will create problems with the traffic on the interstate highway. Ann Garrison - yes; Jack Holman - yes. Motion carried with five voting for the motion and one voting against the motion. The Chairman called a recess at 4:40 p.m. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:50 p.n. / CASE NtMIER: IISR-770:86:51 �J APPLICANT: Aurora Capital Corporation REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW} of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: At the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and 38 APPEARANCE: Ken Dell, Planner, Rocky Mountain Consultants, represented the applicants. This will be a commercial dairy on 161 acres. Aurora Capital wants this dairy to exceed all standards and State and County guidelines. This property is the old Anderson Feedlot. The house will remain on the property, but other structures and feedlot pens will be removed. The dairy is planned to be constructed in two phases. Each phase will have three mobile homes. Sanitation systems will be handled according to accepted design. Each phase of the dairy will have a cistern witch will be filled on off peak hours with water from the Little Thompson Water District. Each phase will have one thousand two hundred cows. He explained how the sedimentation and retention ponds will be constructed and operated. Water from the third or last pond will be used to: irrigate the property. All ponds will have clay liners to prevent , water from seeping into the . underground water table. There are four residences close to the dairy operation, but none is closer than six hundred and fifty feet from the dairy operation or the ponds. Impacts of the dairy are designed to be confined to the property. ,EAR9B/T Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 10 Tape 262 — Side 2 Robert James, Project Engineer, Rocky Mountain Consultants_ The sanitation system was designed to take into consideration surface and subsurface conditions, prevailing winds, runoff, etc. Each retention pond has been designed to hold one hundred and thirty percent of the estimated twenty-five year flood plain run off. Steve Rivas, S. P. Rivas Company, stated he had been contracted to subdue the odor problem at both dairy sites. They use blue-green algae-, two feet on the top of each pond, to eliminate the odors. Jerry Gray, Anchor Animal Health, reported his company handles insect control at Colorado Dairy and will also handle it at this site. Colorado Dairy does an excellent job of removing the debris, etc., from the site to cutdown on the inspect population. Mark Pepperzack, President, Aurora Capital, stated they would not be doing this if they did not have a market for their product_ He considered this dairy a family operation. They did want to acquire property across from the existing dairy, but this was not possible. This land is dryland and he feels they are creating a land-use product. Phase one will be completed in 1987 and phase two will be completed in 1988. Barney Little, General Manager, Colorado Diary Farms, stated they have fifty-three full time employees, fifty-one of which are local. The new dairy will employee thirty-five people. The bulk of their products are bought locally. They rent six houses close to the dairy for their employees. They have spent three and one-half million dollars locally so far this year. Approximately nine hundred replacement cows are purchased per year. He also reviewed the estimated truck traffic that -would be needed to serve the dairy. Tape 263 - Side 1 The Chairman asked the applicant if they objected to having the opposition speak first and then those who are in favor of this request speaking last. The applicants did not object to this proposal. The Chairman asked that each speaker limit their time to three to five minutes and asked that those speaking try not to be repetitive and limit their testimony to new material. Lee Morrison reviewed the criteria that must be used in making a decision by the Planning Commission. He reviewed Section 24.3 of the Weld..County Zoning Ordinance, This is a laud-use 'decision •and land-uses should be the bulk of the criteria taken into consideration on which a decision is based. Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 11 Thomas Hellerich, Attorney, Dinner, Hellerich, and Lazar, represented a group of fifty to fifty-two individuals who are in opposition to this request. Use by Special Review standards require that the health, safety and well being of the residents in the area are protected from traffic, dust, odor, noise, water, etc. They do not feel these safeguards have been met. This is a business and 'not a farm and it does affect the economy adversely. He asked that he be able to introduce each of those he represents who wish to speak. Following all testimony he would like to be able to conduct a summation. Nanette Adler represented a concerned citizens group. She distributed a map showing residents in favor, no opinion, and for this proposal. A copy was retained by the staff for evidence. Faye Elms, property owner north of the proposed diary, was opposed to this request because of the increased traffic, dust, and odor. Ann Sorenson lives on land adjacent to the proposed dairy. She is against this proposal because of odors, traffic, and possible declining land values. Robert Willson lives 3.5 miles from the property. He is opposed to this request because of the increased traffic, dust, odors. Re also doubted Little Thompson Water District could supply ample water for this operation, and he questioned the effectiveness of clay pond liners. Tape 263 Side 1 Nila Fry, property owner within five hundred feet, is opposed to this request because of the increased traffic and odor. They bought this land for a building site and if the dairy goes in they will probably never build on it or be able to sell it. Mel Leinweber spoke against this request because of increased traffic and the danger_this may impart to school children and the school busses. Greg -Brown spoke against this request. He questioned the need for more milk \--and—more—local markets for feed. Jack McAnn area resident, stated this is a corporation. It is not a citizen. They are outside investors and not private citizens. It is private citizens who are against this proposal. Also, corporations don't vote; • ..>: tom'- • • Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 12 Ed Reichert, area resident, is opposed to this request because of the smell, shortage of water under the Little Thompson, and devaluating land prices. He also spoke as a realtor on the real estate aspect of the land surrounding the dairy. Joe Elms, area resident spoke against this proposal because of the odor and increased traffic. Judith Green, Northmoor Acres, stated there are eighty fannies living in Northmoor Acres and they are concerned about the odor. Charles Stieff is against this proposal for all the reasons previously given. Duane Fry, surrounding property owner, is opposed to this request for the many good reasons already given. This is a twenty-four hour a day operation and it disturbs a farming community. Bob Schellenberger, Northmoor Acres, stated eighty families live one and one-fourth miles north of the proposal. The waste from two thousand four hundred dairy cows is the equivalent to the waste of a town of thirty eight thousand people, therefore he does not see how the retention ponds can be odorless. Charles Gray is opposed to this request because of decreasing property values. He cannot sell his land until he sees if this dairy is going to go onto this site. The Chairman called a break at 6:15 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m. Jerry Sidwell, Gill, does custom farm work. He is for the dairy. He buys hay from approximately twenty farmers in the area and sells it to the dairy. Justin Sidwell, Gill, does custom farm work with his brother. He is for the dairy. Whether or not a lot of feed is hauled in and stored on the property or whether it is brought in daily does not make a lot of difference in the average amount of truck traffic. Curtis Strong, area resident, is here is support of this request. The applicant's operation is exemplary. They employ people whom they pay good wages and provide good housing. It is a good outlet for farm products and we should welcome anything that utilizes farm products. The odor problem is being constantly addressed. People should expect farming odors in farming • communities as the norm, and this is a farming community. Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 13 Bill Claus, custom hay business, is for the dairy. Colorado Dairy buys a lot of hay from him. Shaun Martin, veterinary supply business, stated this is one of the top dairies he sees. It is clean, insect free, and the odor problem cannot be blamed entirely on the dairy. There is a twelve thousand head feedlot just around the corner. Charles Sorenson, livestock herder, spoke in support of this request. Dick Foulknan stated may farmers have incorporated and they are still good neighbors and good citizens. He does a lot of repairs on the dairy and is impressed with the clean, neat operation. John Ewing, Veterinarian, feels Colorado Dairy has done a good job of handling odors, wastes, and control of insects. Joseph Gabel, area farmer, stated farmers farm to make money and Aurora Capital has let him do this. Phil McCoy, area resident is for this proposal. Ken Dell reported they had received a letter from Little Thompson Water District stating they can: supply ample water for this project. The Chairman asked Keith Schuett to read the recommendations, conditions, and development standards as outlined' by the Department of Staff into the record. Tape 264 — Side 2 MOTION: Ann Garrison moved Case Number USR-770:86:51 for Aurora Capital. Corporation for a Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation, a 2,400 head dairy, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. While the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also, the uses of the land (as a dairy) would not be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land-uses as the surrounding land-uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future, land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and, therefore, the property would be not compatible with future development of the area. Motion seconded by Paulette Weaver. C~'-., yep • • Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 14 The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. The Chairman reminded the Planning Commission members that since the recommendation is for denial, and the staff's recommendation is for approval, reasons should be given for their decision. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Lydia Dunbar - Yes, her reasons are very similar to the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. Also, this type of an operation should be taken into an area where there is less population and it would blend in better with other agricultural uses. Ivan Gosnell - Yes, for the same reasons. He also feels there could be some potential traffic prcblems that have not been studied. Louis Rademacher - Yes. Because the landowners in the area are against having an operation such as this, and for the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. Paulette Weaver - Yes. She agrees with the comments made by Ann Garrison. This may be a well designed facility, but well designed facilities must be located in appropriate locations because as Lydia Dunbar stated, there are probably many areas in the County that would welcome this type of development, but this area, southwest Weld County, whether we like it or not is growing residentially and this type of use is not compatible with this current and future growth. Ann Garrison - Yes. Jack Holman - Abstain because of a possible conflict of interest because he too is a dairyman. Motion for denial carried with- five voting for. the motion and one abstaining. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bobbie Good Secretary 11 AA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.24 South Main,P.O.Box Longmont, Colorado 80501 _,- Telephone 778-8031 n�• C:•�.Tf �'?":•�_ ;.9. Metro 444-2989 December 17, 1986 R? DEC 1 9gas To: We'ld'County Punning 'Commissioners GRCELEY. CGS RE: Colorado Dairy Farms Propsed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15 - Yesterday, December 16, 1986, I attended the hearing regarding special use permit for Aurora Capital Corporation, Colorado Dairy. I could not believe what I heard. I could see that it would be a waste of time to try and speck at that time, so I de- cided to put it on paper. What I witnessed yesterday was a form of freedom which I didn't believe existed. Taxes were a large issue. I pay taxes (State, Federal and others to numerous to men- tioned - yes, Weld County also). At no time do I think I could tell my neighbor he or she could not live North of me, if his job is to the South due to traffic reasons. I did not know roads were maintained for joggers. I hope anyone having proper license plates on their trucks or any other vehicle may drive on any road which is not restric- ted in the U.S.A. The point is, there were some speakers that made sense, and some made no sense. When the criteria is met, zoning is appropriate and when the problems encountered are trying to be over come, no man or group of men have the right to control the destiny of others. That is the democracy, the freedom and the right to excel. There have been many men who died to secure this freedom of behalf of all. The cost of freedom is high. I per- sonally spent two years of my life for it as a Korean Vet. Yet I never heard one home owner concerned about democracy or freedom, only his vanity. There is no perfect place to live. If there was we would all be there. When you go to the country, there are problems you must consider. When you move to the City, there are problems you must consider also. So, you weigh the negative and the positives and make you decision. Please don't force your decision upon others. There is only one who can control your destiny, that is "The Almighty God". - If this zoning request is turned down, I would feel it would be a great injustice to democracy and freedom. It would be the decision of "The vanity of few, control the destiny of others". Sincerely, ` :7,24- uoV`9a Melvin H. Rahm, President AAA Electric Company, Inc. en Exn181T L- BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Ann Garrison 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: `" c .,__Talk mire:CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 NAME: Aurora Capital Cor poration rporation ''' DEC 1. 91986 ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301` /aQ —. REQUEST: A Use by Special Review for =ELY^ coo. Q p permit a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW}, Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38 be recommended unfavorable to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. While the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also, the uses of the land (as a dairy) would not be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land-uses as the surrounding land-uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future, land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and, therefore, the property would be not compatible with future development of the area. Motion seconded by Paulette Weaver. VOTE: For Passage Abstain Against Passage Lydia Dunbar Jack Holman Ivan Gosnell Louis Rademacher Paulette Weaver Ann Garrison ,xinsii Z ! 0 DSR-770:86:51 Aurora Captial Corporation Page 2 The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be 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 December 16, 1986, and recorded in Book No. X of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the 17th day of December, 1986. �O1,.1,. —,._ C,\ (Thd Bobbie Good Secretary • • INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Case Number USR-770:86:51 Prior to Hearing At Hearing 1. Application 33 pages X 2. 2 Application plat(s) 3 page(s) X 3. DPS Referral Summary Sheet X 4. DPS Recommendation X 5. DPS Surroounding Property Owner Mailing List X 6. DPS Mineral Owner's Mailing List X 7. 3 DPS Maps prepared by Planning Technician X 8. DPS Notice of Hearing X 9. DPS Case Summary Sheet X 10. DPS Field Check X 11. Letter dated 11/26/86 from George A. Smith X 12. Field Check dated 12/1/86 by Louis Rademacher X 13. Referral response dated 12/10/86 from Gene Inloes X 14. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Lonnie Dunn X 15. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Glenn Spaur X 16. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Ann Brewbaker Sorensen X 17. Letter dated 12/5/86 from James T. Flynn X 18. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Orval Hedger X 19. Letter dated 12/5/86 from John R. Ewing, DVM X 20. Letter dated 12/2/86 from James H. Martin X 21. Letter dated 12/1/86 from Melvin and Barbara Leinweber X 22. Letter dated 11/2/86 from Jean Brewbaker, et al X 23. Letter dated 11/28/86 from Gary Hodgson and Willard Hartnagle X 24. Letter dated 11/26/86 from Melvin Rehm X 25. Letter dated 11/25/86 from Stephen P. Rivas X 26. 2 letters dated 11/22/86 from James and Lilia Brewbaker X 27. Letter dated 11/22/86 from Paul and Janice Hopp X 28. Referral response from Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. X 29. Referral response dated 12/10/86 from Hal Simpson X 30. Referral response dated 12/5/86 from Wes Potter X 31. Referral response dated 12/4/86 from John Lebsack X 32. Letter dated 12/6/86 from Bruce Haflich X ,Exit/B,7 Inventory of items submitted for consideration OSR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Page 2 Prior to Hearing At Hearing 33. Letter dated 12/6/86 from Joe Elms S 34. Letter dated 12/8/86 from John S. McCahan % 35. Letter dated 11/28/86 from Barbara Kowalik X 36. Telephone message dated 12/12/86 from Melvin Carlson X 37. Letter dated 12/10/86 from Vern H. Vinson X 38. Letter dated 12/12/86 from Robert M. Jehorek % 39. Letter dated 12/10/86 from Bennet and Marilyn Spaur S 40. Letter dated 12/10/86 from R. B. Willson x 41. Letter dated 12/9/86 from D. I. Spaur, et al X 42. Letter dated 12/5/86 from Alvin Seele, et al X 43. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Roger B. Olsen S 44. Letter dated 12/9/86 from J. Harvey Yoakum X 45. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Byron Spaur S 46. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Gary and Nanette Adler S 47. Letter from Linda and Greg Smith % 48. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Duane Frye S 49. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Nyla Frye X 50. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Greg and Anna Spaur S 51. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Stieff X 52. Letter from Bill Claus X 53. Letter dated 12/11/86 from Faye Elms % 54. Letter dated 12/13/86 from Roy Rutt S 55. Letter dated 12/14/86 from Betty Hicks X 56. Exhibit A - Applicant's hearing presentation outline. S 57. Exhibit B - ASCS Commodity Fact Sheet with attachments. X 58. 19 page petition and attached map. S r_.r "7,19, Inventory of items submitted for consideration USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Page 3 I hereby certify that the 58 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on December 19, 1986. tntreQ7-• etsa}a04C. Chuck Cunliffe, Director Departmentof Planning Se races p 1 g s STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD SUBSCRIBED4ND_ SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS (°l DAY OF n, y-r� , 19%4. SEAT_ NOO Y PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES My Co^msion Expires Feb. t3 :9C9 ' • December 17, 1986 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Board members: I hereby affirm that I wish to have a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners concerning my request for a Use by Special Review, which was recommended unfavorably by the Planning Commission. I further agree to pay for the legal advertising expenses. GeorgeSmith for Aurora Capitol Corporation deXiflB/7 /7 • • December 16, 1986 CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301 • REQUEST: A Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SWI, Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38 THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: - The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of agribusiness and agriculturally oriented industry provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the local economy or environment; - The proposed use is an agricultural activity and is, therefore, consistent with the intent of the agricultural district; - The uses permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and with future development of the • surrounding areas as permitted by the agricultural zone district; - The Town of Milliken does not oppose this proposal; -- No overlay districts affect the site; and - Use by Special Review Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and County. • • USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Corporation Page 2 This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request and the responses of the referral entities which have reviewed this request, and letters from surrounding property owners and other interested persons. The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Use by Special Review permit be adopted and placed on the Use by Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. 2. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department of Planning Services' office and the plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Within thirty (30) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant/operator shall submit to the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, an engineering report, prepared by a registered professional engineer, demonstrating compliance with its Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities. The applicant/operator shall submit evidence of approval by the Colorado Department Health, Water Quality Control Division, to the Department of Planning Services within ninety (90) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Pt"`; " • • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 1. The Use by Special Review permit is for a 2,400 head dairy livestock confinement operation as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. The maximum number of cows shall not exceed 2,400 head. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining the runoff retention and containment facilities in accordance with the engineered report, as approved by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. All runoff retention and containment facilities shall meet and be maintained in accordance with the State Health Department's Guidelines of Feedlot Runoff Containment facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for any additional requirements issued by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. 3. All Construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 4. All stormwater and dairy operation runoff shall be controlled and confined within the boundaries of the subject property as identified in the submitted application materials. 5. No permanent buildings or structures shall be built within Panhandle Eastern's gasline easement or the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company's easement. 6. The addition of residential dwellings, including mobile hones or manufactured homes, on the property not shown hereon shall require an amendment to the Use by Special Review permit. 7. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 8. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 9. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department of Health, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to insure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County and State Regulations. s • i Development Standards Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 Page 2 10. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shot..n hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans and/or Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. II. The property owner and/or operator of this operation shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. • • • ADDITIONAL C0NNENIS USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Corporation The Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company submitted a letter of opposition to the proposed dairy operation. • The Department of Planning Services has received several letters of opposition and support to the proposed dairy operation. A petition in opposition of the proposed dairy operation was also submitted. The Big Thompson Soil Conservation District in its letter of December 3, 1986, has suggested considering planting three—row tree screens and windbreaks around the property tc mitigate possible problems. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed design and management of the dairy facility and the proposed development standards will provide adequate protection from potential problems identified in the Soil Conservation District's letter. pity-tr./1g, iTitinoRAnDurg IIID€�� ln ♦T�1/ To Casa_ 411 US&-%70.8&51 Date Decetabar 15, '_086 COLORADO From Cbucv Cunt i ffa Subject: Milliken Referral Rosltnnto Peggy Wakeman, Milliken Town Clerk, indicated in our telephone conservation that the Town reviewed the referral on the proposed dairy and that the Town did not oppose the proposal. A written statetent from the Town would be forthcoming. EXHlBlT 41, PLANNING COMMISION MEETING 1. Ken Dell — {ctiJ� ,2/Ls4( f lrl/ liC� A. Introduce Permit 'EGG f/vt1w,,. Z -4 1. Explain function of design ti )=c5 / 2. Zoning111!!s- 3. Homes ect... 4. Lagoon locations and why 2. Bob James - , c k7 Atoukr -a'aJ C'oa5ctrA.ur 3360 Mt resELC LN ,2t27S A. Lagoon functions too(de,e Co $oSo f -441-o407 B. Percolation, water table ect... 3. Steve Rivas - S.P. Rivas Company A. Lagoon odor 1. Inherited problem vs. new facility 4. Jerry Gray - Anchor Representative A. Insect Control 3a..CA czS, L„,__ C`.)0." Cc i o. a c,Sic 5. Marc Peperzak - President Aurora Capital Corporation A. Milk Market 2920 S' , y / B. Land values444-240/ I C. Taxes e- +4-j Lam-. SD7n 4'72-/0/e, 6. Barney Little - General Manager Colorado Dairy Farms A. Employment and Payroll 73 88 cs7vl i e i -i y 6r' B. Local expenditures L, /0 'style() le() C. Truck Traffic 7. Invite comments from people in attendance who favor proposed Dairy operation. S 233&` S. Hearth Evergreen, Colo. 80439 december 14, 1986 Weld County Dept. of Planning 915 Tenth St. Room 342 Greeley, Colo. 80631 Re: Glen Anderson Farm Sale Weld County Rds. 15 and 38` Johnstown, Colo. 80534 Dear Sirs: Having been notified last week of the possible upcoming sale of Glen Anderson's farm for Cattle Business, Ism writing to protest this action. The proximity of the many neighboring rarmers who would endure the water and air pollution, could certainly devaluate many hundred acres of land— I am writing this letter at the request of the owners : Janet, Robert, and David Hicks. Sincerely , „hot, (Betty S. Hicks) Mother Hicks Farm 7790 Weld CO. . Rd?'& 17 Johnstown DEC 17 198o wed Ca, W3adIrS atraaot gar Dec. II'. 298E Weld County Piannina Commietonere ?1 1otn. Street - Sre=iv. Colorado 506:2 . County Planninc Cammi==ioner_: Th_- letter to :n2Crm v=u ':.7,at - CD =_ _t to - - pr --==C new o.a: - bc:nc -cucnt - ' o = - n=' :-.: wo.-E: - --- - - - - no. t r_ t iay_ = - --r °:- _� -ter are num:..er pre2ent en ; rtnmen - ! ne t- a Gain - Oe-.7.0 t"ooCeec w: ll cmenoQ wnet we e well az toe amo.Jnt C There no Way My _ s cr `: o an - -ro_ _:c = c tne _ -eoui-emer = of t.P.n. . Ine Dreg=ent cual: -e nst I c! ,,,.....1v 1v en;cv can not sync e:np m.. - =a:ry. ;n2 roses a_r-' snow tne lack 0t maintenance woo to- p Da_r_ _- _ Only increaa_ toe browlcm. It :z narc +'__r me to - - `- -' m. now _ e o'- roCut- c 'Oa DroouC-- Can De neloeo oy Su-r, - ce:rv. We have an DOI :Oat- =LSO ensure that tne ore:ent email oalry +armer nnn onntinue to operat= There tlaS already oeen =ncucn orobieme create:: for tne small farmer. I co that t i = orcoosal `e Gerileo. 07 SaaL._ro Ct. JDnnstown. CD. 8057.4 D r � - DEC 1C 198& ~"- thld co- wacain& Cammisiit SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS - USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - Application Fee - Recording Plat Fee - Later - Plot Plan and Vicinity Map 20 copies - Lagoon system design details - Completed Application - Written materials - 20 copies a. Description of proposed operation and existing uses. b. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and existing uses. c. Lagoon System Design - Appendix 1 - Proof of water supply. Can serve letter from Little Thompson Water District. - Letter from Public Service Company - Letter from Johnstown Volunteer Fire Department - Copy of deed showing ownership - Certified lists of names and addresses of owners of property within 500 feet. - A certified list of names and addresses of mineral owners and lessees. P—.117 ,74 • • USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 Phone — 356-4000 — Ext. 4400 Case Number Date Received Application Checked by Mylar plat submitted Application Fee Receipt Number Recording Fee _ Receipt Number ===== m=aaaa====n3maasaaaaa=sananama====ansmicCmgIIrrmmaII=maavanc TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (please print or type, except for necessary signature) I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission and Weld County Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed Use by Special Review Permit on the following described unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: SW 1/4 Section 32 T 4 N, R 67 w LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Review Permit is proposed: SW 1/4 Section 32 T 4 N, R 67 W Property Address (if available) 18426 Weld County Road 15 PRESENT ZONE A Agriculture OVERLAY ZONES TOTAL ACREAGE 161 acres PROPOSED LAND USE Dairy Farm EXISTING LAND USE Farm Crop Production SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - PERMIT: - � — �' — - Name: Aurora Capital Corporation Address: 2930 Center Green Court City Boulder Zip _ 80301 Home Telephone 8 Business Telephone # - Name: Address: City Zip Home Telephone 0 Business Telephone # APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above) : Name: Barney Little, Vice President Address: 18426 Weld County Road 15 City Longmont Zip 80501 Home Telephone 0 Business Telephone U 535-4626 List the owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject properties of record. Name: See Attached Address: City Zip Name: Address: City Zip I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF WELD ) STATE OF COLORADO ) a ct.v Awe. • Signature: Owter or Authorized Agent • VICE-PRECJDENT AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION Subscribed and sworn to before me this 0-"-day of J11n 6/ent 1j.pr 19 8 r1. Z%,M.tVfc );c.n2.*flt..�_ NOTARY PL' C E`f Ctr wi.n riplitlie.177.19913. My commission expires • • AURORA DAIRY FARMS • Mineral Rights Owners Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court Boulder, CO 80301 Marilyn Anderson 4959 West 9th Street Drive Greeley, CO 80634 Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson 621 23rd Street, Apartment No. 2 Greeley, CO 80631 • . • • AURORA DAIRY FARMS - USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW This is a request for approval of a commercial dairy operation on the southwest one-quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. This property is approximately 161 acres bounded on the south by County Road 38 and on the west by County Road 15. The property is zoned A (Agricultural ) District and is the site of former Anderson feedlot and barn. The property address is 18426 Weld County Road 15. DAIRY OPERATION AND TIME TABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION The proposed dairy operation will be built in two phases. The first phase is planned to be under construction April 1, 1987 with completion September 1, 1987. Phase 2 is planned to be under construction April 1, 1988 with completion September 1, 1988. The first phase includes a barn housing the milking equip- ment, 5 feeding corrals with half shelters, 2 holding corrals for dry cows, a maternity-hospital area with a half shelter and a pen for loading and unloading cows. This operation will handle approximately 1,200 head. The second phase of the dairy will be identical to the first phase also handling approximately 1,200 head. There is an existing house and shop on the property. The house will be used for the manager's house and office and the shop continued for maintenance for the dairy. The house is on an existing septic system and Little Thompson Water District provides potable water. In addition to the office and shop, two mobile homes will be added for living quarters in the first phase and one mobile home will be added in the second phase. Septic systems will be installed for the mobile homes and it is planned to tap onto the Little Thompson Water System. -1- cam....,-• --,-y<. EMPLOYEES, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, ACCESS ROUTE AND STORAGE The total dairy operation, when both phases are complete will have approximately 35 employees. The dairy must operate around the clock so the employees will be on 3 shifts. At full operation, the dairy will generate 3 truck trips per day. These trucks will have a maximum weight of 80,000 pounds. One of these trips is hay and commodities delivery and the other two are milk shipments. Feed will be stored in a silage pit (approximate dimension 200' x 60' ) and a commodities building (20' x96' ). Small farm trucks, 35,000 pounds gross, will be used to fill the pit silo with corn. This occurs in September with approximately 40 trips per day for 2 weeks. During full operation, approximately 800 to 1,000 tons of hay will be on site. Manure is removed from the site once a month. The hauling is done with a standard dump truck at 60,000 pounds gross weight. The site is bordered on the west and south by County Roads 15 and 38 respectively. Access to the dairy facility will be from County Road 15 at the present driveway location. SANITARY SEWER AND STORM WATER DETENTION Sanitation facilities for employees and on-site housing will be septic systems properly sized and designed to meet these demands. Sheds are cleaned daily and corrals are cleaned each month. The milking facilities are continually cleaned to meet Health Department Standards. Runoff from the dairy facility will be kept separate and treated independently. This waste will be treated through a series of lagoons. The first and smallest of the ponds will retain most solids. These solids are removed from the pond on a regular basis and sold for fer- tilizer. The quality of the water is improved as it progresses through the lagoon system. Water from the last pond in the system will be used to irrigate crops on the remainder of the property. Using this water for irrigation during -2- • the growing season reduces the pond level leaving capacity in the lagoon system to handle all runoff during the non-irrigating season (November 1 through March 1). This allows for a closed system of treatment and use on site. The lagoon system is sized to handle storm water runoff in addition to runoff from the dairy operation. Each dairy is 1,460 feet long and 400 feet wide. The dairies are separated by a 30 foot wide service road and are surrounded by a 20 foot wide access road. The total area including the roads is 30 acres. Runoff will be controlled by a system of ditches and dikes. Runoff from the area north of the dairies up to the Erkenbeck Ditch Lateral will be prevented from entering the dairies by a dike and ditch along the north side. The access road along the north side will be raised (dike) and divert runoff west in a ditch away from the dairies. Runoff from the dairies will be contained by (dikes) raised access roads on the east and west sides and directed to a collection ditch along the south side of the dairies. The collection ditch will carry all runoff to the lagoon system. The proposed ponds are immediately south of the dairies. They include two 200' x 50' solids sedimentation ponds in parallel and a series of three storage '• ponds. The first two storage ponds are 200 feet square with a water depth of 10 feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The third storage pond is 285 feet square and also has a water depth of 10 feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The sedi- mentation ponds are designed with a capacity adequate for both dairies and will be installed in the first phase. The first two storage ponds will also be installed with the first phase. The third storage pond will be installed with the second phase. The design of the lagoon system is based on "Guidelines, Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities", Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission, May 1978. These design standards are based on -3- • • a 25 year runoff event and require one foot freeboard in pond design. This lagoon system is designed with a five foot freeboard on the ponds. Please see Appendix 1 for a detailed description and design calculations. WATER SOURCE Little Ti:,:mpson Water District is the planned water source for the dairy opera- . tion. A separate one-inch water service is planned to serve the dairy opera- tion. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The surrounding properties are farming operations producing alfalfa, corn and beans. In addition, there are 3 residential uses near this site.. The house near the southeast corner of this site is 1,650 feet from the nearest point of the dairy and 1,650 feet from the nearest pond. The residence southwest of this site is 1,450 feet from the closest point of the proposed dairy and 1,100 feet from the closest pond_ The house northwest of this site is 650 feet from the closest point of the dairy and 1,650 feet from the nearest pond. The mobile homes to be placed on site will be 100 feet from the dairy and 1,100 feet from the nearest pond. EROSION CONTROL The area around the dairy operation will be planted for crop production which will control any potential erosion. FIRE PROTECTION Fire protection will be provided by the Johnstown Rural Fire Department. Fire extinguishers will be located in the electric rooms of both barns and in the maintenance shop. All fire extinguishers will be 10 pound halon. -4- ._"-4".-.m RECLAMATION PROCEDURE If the dairy operation is terminated, the improvements will be removed and the land returned to farm crop production use. WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Weld County Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding the protection and expansion of agriculture uses in the County. These policies were developed to guide the growth and development of agri-business and agriculture oriented industry. Two of these policies are directly applicable to this request. Policy No. 2 which states, "The expansion and development of agri-business and agriculturally oriented industry will he encouraged -ded these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy o environment." The proposed dairy operation is a highly efficient and products agr business which will enhance the local economy. Approximately 35 new jobs will be created when the dairy is in full operation. The dairy operation will generate approximately $2,000,000 in annual feed purchases. In addition, initial equipment purchases, ongoing maintenance costs and higher tax revenues to Weld County will all have a favorable impact on the local economy. Policy No. 5 states, "Because water, air and surface pollution are of vital con- cern to all residents of the county, the state and the nation, it will be the policy to encourage only those developments that show that they will not contri- bute adversely to pollution; or if they do contribute to the pollution problem of the area, that they are prepared to either build appropriate control devices at their own expense or will pay sufficient revenues to the existing pollution controlling districts or agencies to insure proper treatment without increasing the cost to existing uses of the system." -5- • • The dairy and associated office and living units will not contribute adversely to pollution in this area. The septic systems will be properly designed to avoid pollution of soils and groundwater. Runoff from the dairy will be treated in a lagoon system and used for irrigation of on-site crop production. The lagoon system will have an impervious lining to avoid land and groundwater pollution. The dairy operation including corrals and pens will be cleaned at frequent intervals to eliminate the potential for air and surface pollution. ZONE DISTRICT This property is zoned A (Agricultural ) District. That part of the A District intent statement that applies to this request states, "....The A District is established to maintain and promote agriculture as art essential feature of Weld County. The A District is intended to provide areas for the conduct of agri- cultural activities and activities related to agriculture and agriculture pro- duction without the interference of other, incompatible land uses. The A District is also intended to provide areas for the conduct of Uses by Special Review which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than Uses Allowed by Right. The A District regulations are established to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of Weld County." It is clear that the intent is to allow not only agriculture use by also more intense uses such as the propsed dairy. The Use by Special Review process is intended to promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the present and future residents of Weld County. -6- • • CONSERVATION OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND The dairy and lagoon system are designed in a compact manner to be located in the center of the site. This arrangement will allow for approximately 100 acres to be used for growing crops. SURROUNDING LAND USES This property is surrounded by farms and three residences are near the property. There is a home on a relatively small acreage northwest of this property, a residence on a small acreage southeast of this property and a residence south of County Road 38. Design for the dairy has considered the locations of these residences. The dairy facilities and the lagoon system are located in the center of the property. The dairy is 300 feet from the nearest property line. The lagoon system is 700 feet from the nearest property line. The area around the dairy and lagoon system to the property line will be used for crop produc- tion. The intent is to provide a distance buffer between the proposed facil'- ties and the surrounding land uses. The dairy is an agricultural land use replacing a former feedlot at this location. The dairy will be purchasing feed from surrounding farms. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE This property is part of a large area zoned for agricultural uses. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan projects continued agricultural land uses in this area. The proposed dairy is designed to be compatible with agricultural uses and residences on adjacent sites. FLOODPLAIN, GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT This property is not within a floodplain, area of geologic hazard nor an airport overlay zone. -7- i • WATER SUPPLY Water is available from the Little Thompson Water District. A letter from the District is attached. The health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and county residents will not be adversely affected by this use. The impacts of the dairy use are minimal . Traffic generated by this use will not create congestion nor overload any County roadways. Design and operation of the dairy have adequate measures to eliminate ground, air and water pollution. The dairy will not place an undue burden on utility system and will be a positive contribution to the local economy. SOILS INFORMATION 4 - Aquolls and Aquipts, flooded 38 - Nelson Fine Sandy Loam, 3 to 9% slopes 42 - Nunn Clay Loam, 1 to 3% slopes 93 - Atera Sandy Loam, 5 to 9% slopes 65 - Thedalund Loam, 3 to 9% slopes 82 - Wiley-Colby Complex, 1 to 3% slopes 83 - Wiley-Colby Complex, 3 to 5% slopes Soils classification information per the soil survey of Weld County, Colorado. Prepared by U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. -8- • • AURORA DAIRIES WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN Prepared for: AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION 2930 Center Green Court Boulder, Colorado 80301 Prepared by: ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. 500 Coffman Street, Suite 107 Longmont, Colorado 80501 November 1986 • • AURORA DAIRIES WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN I. GENERAL The proposed dairy site encompasses the SW1/4 of Section 32, T4N R67W, 6th PM in Weld County, Colorado. The site slopes gently (approximately 2-'c) to the south. Currently the site is almost completely cultivated. Its west and south borders are County Road 15 and County Road 38, respectively. The site is surrounded by other farms on all sides. Other evident land uses nearby include petroleum extraction and a gas transmission pipeline crosses the site. II. SITE INVESTIGATION Our site investigation included drilling 4 exploration holes, located as specified on Plate 1. The southeast drill hole was completed as an open well piezometer, screened between 16 feet and 40 feet below the surface. The holes were drilled on October 9 and 10, 1986 and an additional water level observation was performed on October 28, 1986. III. SITE CONDITIONS A. Location and Direction of Residences The surrounding properties are farming operations producing alfalfa, corn and beans. In addition, there are three residential uses near this site. The house nearest the SE 1 • • corner of this site is 16, 050 feet from the nearest point of the dairy and 16,050 feet from the nearest pond. The residence SW of this site is 14, 050 feet from the closest point of the proposed dairy and 1100 feet from the closest pond. The house NW of this site is 650 feet from the closest point of the dairy and 1650 feet from the nearest pond. The mobile homes to be placed on this site will be 100 feet from the dairy and 1100 feet from the nearest pond. B. Soil Profile - Groundwater The site surface consists of 6 to 9 feet of loose to medium dense clayey brown sand. In one test hole and a test pit a 2 to 3 foot layer of white dry caliche was observed. Below the surface soils lies moderately well cemented to well cemented tan sandstone bedrock. Within the bedrock a medium stiff to stiff sandy claystone member about 10 feet thick was observed, its top about 16 to 19 feet below the surface. During drilling, water was observed 4 to 8 feet below the surface. After the holes stabilized the water surface dropped about 4 feet. We believe that this water is perched water induced by irrigation. Ground water observed during construction of storage ponds will be controlled by providing french drains to insure the ponds retain above the ambient groundwater elevation. : C� _ 2 C. Prevailing Winds The dominant wind direction is from the south on the Front Range. Wind events over 10 knots are likely from the north or from the south. Wind events over 16 knots are generally from the northwest, see Figures 1 through 4. Stapleton Airport data was used because it is the nearest station with reliable records. Because it lies in the same major drainage as the site and no significant obstacles separate the site from Stapleton, the wind data is considered suitable for this investigation. D. Proposed Dairy Facility The proposed dairy facility includes two identical units. The general location and configuration is shown on Plate 1. The first unit is planned for immediate construction and the second may be constructed immediately or in the near future. Each dairy is 1460 feet long and 400 feet wide; 13.4 acres. They are separated by a 30 foot service road and are surrounded - by a 20 foot access road. The total area including the roads is 30 acres. Proposed waste disposal facilities are immediately south of the proposed dairies. They include two 200 foot by 50 foot solids sedimentation ponds, in parallel and a series of three storage ponds located south of the solids sedimentation ponds. The first two are 200 foot square, have water depth of 10 feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The third pond is 285 feet square and also has a water depth of 10 feet and total depth of 15 feet. The sedimentation ponds are designed with a capacity adequate for both dairies. The two smaller storage 3 • • • N NNE °tc, 414/4- 12 __•2$ Ip yF 8 3 , 2 I I 1 / 1 / / / • 04, • 5� Ssiy <_ sSE S WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION DENVER STAPLETON ( 1975-1980) ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. 5(003 770 2 5282 (M85O)ST.. SUITE 1665-6283 gni: 07 LONCMONT, CO. 80501 h JOB NO,: 8-5613 NOV. '9% FIG. I f OF I i N r)O4 125_ • ��. 1..2D \` cc` 2D yLS ` • a F 05 LI In "' I I ) N 04, Ssw SSE 1 S WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION FOR WIND> 10 KTS AT DENVER STAPLETON (1975-1980) ROCKY0CMOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS,17INC. Rnic 500 MOUNTAIN IN SU 707 LONGMONT, CO. 80501 (303) 772-5282 (METRO) 665-6283 JOB NO„:8-5613 %eV. 1986 FIG. 2 I OF 1 ! i i N 014 _ NNE tiF 03 3� ti i CO iSb egrd f Ste, SSA`' S WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION FOR WIND > 16 KTS AT DENVER STAPLETON (1975-1980) ROCKY MOUNTFFMAN ST CONSULTANTS.o7INC. 500 COFF?AM! SY., SUITE 107 LONGMONT, CO. 80501 (303) 772-5282 (M..RO) 685-6283 .:03 NO._8.5613 NOV. i996 1G. 3 I OF I NNE ro NNR 020 ass 0n J , co i. / iZt#(WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION FOR WIND> 21 KTS AT LDENVER ER STAPLETON 0975-1980) ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. 500 O COFFMMONT. N CO. SUITE 107 C ONGMOtvT, . SOSOt (303) 772-5282 (METRO) 665-6283 JOB NO;8-5613 NOV. ;966 =i G. 4 I OF I • ponds are designed with a capacity adequate for one dairy and the larger storage pond is designed with a capacity adequate for the second dairy. It is proposed that both sedimentation ponds and the two 200 foot square storage ponds be built when the first dairy is constructed and the larger (285 foot square) storage pond be built when the second dairy is constructed. Runoff will be controlled by a system of ditches and dikes. Runoff will be prevented from entering the dairies by a dike-ditch constructed along the north face of the dairy. The dike will actually be the access road raised to divert the 25 year storm event. West of the proposed access road the diverted runoff will be conducted away from the site in a ditch with a slope of at least 1/2l. Runoff from the dairies will be contained by dikes, again raised access roads on the east and west sides and a collection ditch on the south. All dikes and ditches are designed to convey the 25 year runoff event with at least one foot of freeboard. E. Design Events • The design events were selected in accordance with "Guidelines, Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities"; Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission, May 1978. The design event for the solids retention pond is the 10 year runoff event (volume = 20% of the 10 year runoff) and the design event for all containment and storage facilities was the 25 year runoff event. Process water flows were estimated by the owner as 25,380 gpd based upon their actual experience in other similar facilities. The storage ponds were sized to accommodate the design storm runoff at the critical time (April 1st) when the maximum accumulated process waste was contained in the pond and the average precipitation between November 1 through March 31 is completely stored. A summary of these values is shown on Table 1. Design details are in accordance with state criteria. The solids sedimentation ponds are 3 feet deep and liquid will be pumped between units to permit cleaning about every three months. The storage ponds have a maximum total depth of 15 feet and a pool operation depth of 10 feet. Ground water will be controlled by french drain 5 feet below the pond inverts. Pond bottoms shall be sloped at 1/2% to the irrigation pump locations. All side slopes are 2 : 1 and crest widths between and around units shall be 15 feet. All storage ponds will have 5 feet of freeboard. The ponds shall be provided with perimeter fences and all embankment slopes shall be planted with turf type grass to minimize possible erosion. The grade of spillway surfaces between units in series shall be protected by concrete knee walls at the upstream edge of each receiving unit. The nom- .yam 5 • • rDesign Parameter Table 1 , Aurora Dairy D� i 3t^.e'tc._ Summary EVENT r RO AREA VOLUME ZONE (Recur Int) ( In) ( in) (SqFt) (CuFt) Both Daries 25 3. 8 3.22 1 , 305,000 350 , 175 0 Solids Fonds 7 6 J • . LJ ,VOO , 333 Storage Ponds 25 2 161 ,225 51,055 • Total Runoff 25 407, 563 Total Process rater. 499, 045 Storage (1 Nov - 31 Mar) Total Avg Precip 323 , 254 Storage ( 1Nov - 31 Mar) _ . 229 . 662 Total Storage Rea ' d Total Available Storage 1 , 512, 250 Total Avail_ Stair Factor of Safety = 131 . 09% Total Req' d Star • • • • entire operation shall be under constant surveillance and appropriate maintenance shall be accomplished as problems are observed. Land application of liquid shall be accomplished by two or more pumps with capacities of at least 150 gpm. Disposal of liquid at 150 gpm will result in decanting the 25 year runoff event in 14 days with an application rate of 0.17 inches per day to the irrigated area. 0 • • LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DIRECTORS Telephone 532-2096 any J.Smomonaon. 307 welch Avenue v edeem Drawer G owes Allen Berthoud.CaaaCo 80513 Leo Batt Pm Dortey 01v40 MCC** E.T omee record Dean Alderson MANAGER Join M.Gruner August 15, 1986 Mr. George Smith Aurora Dairy Farms 7388 State Highway 66 Lonamont, CO 80501 Dear Mr. Smith; This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of August 11 , 1986. Your request that the District commit to serve a proposed dairy operation to be located in the SEa of Section 31 , Township 4N, Range 67 West of the 6th PM, has been approved under the following conditions. 1) The District will commit to serve domestic water via a 1" water tap. The current tap fee for a 1 " water tap is $8000 .00 and is subject to change without notice. The current usage fee is as follows. The minimum quarterly fee is $112.50 for 105 ,000 gallons, any usage above the minimum is figured at 45C per 1000 gallons. These rates are subject to change without notice. 2) The committment for this tap is limited to having the tap installed west of Weld County Road 15 along Weld County Road 38, on our existing 4" main. 3) This committment will expire one year from the date of this letter if a tap has not been purchased and installed by that date. If you have any questions, please contact our office_ Sincerely, Barry Dykes Operations Supervisor BD/ek c.!"J: ,..fit • 0 Public Service Public Service Company of Colorado 422 Main Street Windsor, Colorado 80550 August 22, 1986 Aurora Dairy Farms Attn: George Smith 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Sir: Public Service Company of Colorado has electric lines adjacent to the SW } of section 32 of 4N 67W and would be able to serve the propsed Aurora Dairy operations. The necessary extension, would be in accordance with our extension policy that is on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado. Sincerely, Glenn E. Anderson Windsor District Manager GEA:sf s • Johnstown Volunteer Fire Dept. P.O.BoxF /ohrstown. Colo. 80534 To whom it may concern; 8-29-86 • I,Jim Anderson,Fire Chief of the Johnstown Fire protection District,have been asked by the Aurora Dairy Farms for my recommendations and go ahead to put a dairy with building expansion at 18426 WCR 15. After giving consideration and talking this over with the Johnstown Fire protection District board about the fire and safety aspects of this request ,l find no significant problems with the Aurora Dairy Farms recuest as long as these 3 requirments are followed : i ) All electrical and buildings are up to code according to the NFPA National Electric and Building code books and will be inspected by Weld County inspectors. 2) All Alfalfa and Straw stacks will be kept safely apart 1 as to not cause one another a fire hazards. 3) Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus according to 82 uniform fire code book pg.40 sec.10,207 arts. a-f. Also fire extinguishers will be placed in locations throughout the dairy according to the relative severity of probable fire, including the rapidity with which it may spread. Such extinguishers shall be of a type suiable for the probable class of fire associated with such . buildings or premises and shall have approval of the chief. //�n9 ad ) Jim Anderson re chief r'"'(, :-/.76 MauIl4b'titi • B 1123 3 1[64649 08/11/86 16:, $3.00 1/001 F 1324 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RECO ER WELD CO, CO WARRANTY DEED i 41 .i 1i Glen R. Anderson i !I Grantor(,) I I ii I • C! iitvhose'address is , ;1 II 'County of Weld , State of I ;! Colorado for the consideration of I Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100--- ! i dollars, in hand paid,hereby sell(s) i j and COnVey(s) to THE AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION:-. an Idaho corporation whose legal address is post Office Box 2469 . Twin Palls? Idaho 83301 County of Twin Falls ,and State of Idaho the following real property in the County of Weld ,and State of ! ii Colorado,to wit • 1 1 he Southwest Quarter of Section 32 , Township 4 North, Range 67 West 1 f the 6th P.M. State Documentary Fee Date . --{ V-- 1 Iil II I also known by street and number as 18426 Weld County Road No. 15 , .7ohst own, Colorado j' with all its appurtenances, and warrant(s) the title to the same, subject to taxes and assessments for I 1986 and subsequent years . and easements and restrictions of record. eserving to the Grantor 75% of the mineral rights in and to the subi ct roperty, but conveying to the Grantee 25% of said mineral rights. t, 1! i Signed this 7th day of August , l9 86 • 1 II �--� G R. ANDERSON j ii • 1. i STATE OF COLORADO, j ss. I County of Boulder i �I ii The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in the County of Weld , i; IState of Colorado, this 7th day of August ,-I986 , by Glen R. Anderson. . IIMy C% s i,.j9// , /41 / 4/„.7 . Witness my hand and official seal. I I. et‘rt ,:,,,t 4 ;Pr:: • --J.S9,4-s-A,,z ,, , - ,..„. O . ii 35ZW1.11nzr!zzl Dr. ! •341),.-.±-1s ~; :o Btr. CO 80301 L� •tr a tfay�.t� ��r+c+e� �. 11 �\t -eropAy¢rsJ `V^ Sc.M.Rev.34-t. Wkft7tANTY DEED(Short Form) Bradford PAb;ish:ng.S425 w,6th Arc_t.eieacod.GO Son4—(3p3)213-e 14$ ARZ ii464B Ft 112 .2064648 08/11/86 1' l 0- $3.00 1/001 F 132.) A ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK ti RDER WELD CO, CO II i; 'i II I I KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS. ThatV II I II H. W. A. & CO. , a partnership I. of the County of Weld ,and State of Colorado,for the consideration of --Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration Ij in hand paid,hereby sell and convey to Glen R. Anderson L! I.i whose legal address is II of the County of '7e ld ,and the State of Colorado, I! i the following real property,situate in the County of Weld and State of j Colorado,to wit I; I The SW1 of Section 32 , Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th lj P.M. 1 I II i I ' C0RP..ECTI0M DEED- No Documentary Fee required--This Deed is giver!' to correct those Deeds recorded October 24, 1979 in Book 885 as Reception No. 1807204 and recorded January 18 , 1980 in Book 893 as Reception No. 1814684 in- which the names of the partners were incorrectly acknowledged. i il I I I it with all its appurtenances. - also known as street and number 18426 Weld County Road No. 15, Johnstown. Colorado Signed and delivered this 28th ' day of July ,1g 86 . 1 1 In the presence of I H. W. A. „�jfO. , a PPaartnershi[ EAL] jl Sr -B Q2€44-052,....- jSEAL] LI Harold w. Anderson, General Partner J gv: .141. ea,� ISEAL] II Marie H. Anderson, General Partber STATE OF COLORADO, i; ss. II County of Weld II It The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 28th day of July I; 1986 ,by Harold W. Anderson and by Marie H. Anderson as General partners o£ I! H. W. A. & Co. , a Partnership. I' j expires ,19 .Witness my 0,0) ,G thand and official seal.y'° My commission it ,, 051 q if I' -0a0kWYPu ERe{ II I My Corrmis�ioaa*FI With 2I, ley, latVIt�h �-', Addresr 1115 Ergots Avenue • 1,1,-. :./..*I , I � j! C X CO 80631 - . - - t u� / rev „.• •�'% r NA_9OI. &A RCAZNeDSALE DEED.antutory Term-5rn!ore rub;:, in¢Co..5e:5 W.la h Avr..:.:i'y-hnW.C U xo_:a—in t).)y. .5"s' if,t 1.01. 6V00. may/ p.+,. -,-71-2,, / r AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property SW 1/4, SeC. 32, T461, R67W, of 6th P.M. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of property (the surface estate) within five hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the application. This list was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date. pp The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this /cirri-- day o f1,ed,-uaiv,,ci,-2✓L_ , 195'G. WITNESS ay hand and official seal. My Commission expires: xis-/F9 Notary Public !� • • • NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print or type NAME ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION # Gary Thelma 8381 WCR 44, Johnstown, CO 80534 105932000 018 Phillip E. Camenisch 10504 WCR 7, Longmont, CO 80501 105932000 025 Phillip E. Camenisch 10504 WCR 7, Longmont, CO 80501 105932000 023 James V. and Mary C. McFaffic 7571 WCR 38, Johnstown, CO 80534 105932000 024 Dwayne and Ly1a Frye 113 King Ave. , Johnstown, CO 80534 105911000 029 Henry A. and Lila M. Seele k Douglas K. and Diane L. Seele 1 21941 W_CR 17, Johnstown. C0_80534 105931000 028 Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. P.O. Box 2599, Broomfield CO 80020 105931000 014 Lois E. Booth Ott. 1 . Box 386. Ault. CO 80610 120905000 026 James L. Brewbaker Ann Aorenson 7688 N. 41 St., lnngmont. CO 80501 120905000 012 Albert H. and Pearl F. Jeffers 2125 Glenfain Rd. , Greeley,C080631 120905000 011 • • • • • p,y,- -,.ti., AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE Application No. Subject Property SW 1/4, Sec. 32, T4N, R67W, of 6th P.M. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lesses of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land which is the subject of the application as their names appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office, or from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney. ‘5,1707L- 2-- The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this /4;1' '_4.— day of-2 .y4,¢.—..,._,C...¢.. , 192". WITNESS my hand and official seal. My •Commission expires: 3 /�� (--Notary Public / ' • • MACY-PRESCOTT 500 COFFMAN I LONCMONT CO/50501 /776-2334 October 13, 1986 Mr. George Smith Colorado Dairy Systems 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Dear Mr. Smith: Enclosed is a Ratification and Rental Division Order and a copy of the Oil and Gas Lease and Rider. Aurora Capital Corporation has taken ownership of Glen Anderson's one-fourth interest in the minerals. Glen Anderson's ex-wife, Marilyn Anderson, owns one-fourth and H.W.A. & Company, consisting of Harold and Marie Anderson — Glen's parents, own one-half. Sincerely, Frank Prescott • FP/sb • Enc. /0- 1S-84, St- • 02-a8-67 AURORA DAIRY FARMS Mineral Rights Owners Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court Boulder, CO 80301 Marilyn Anderson 4959 West 9th Street Drive Greeley, CO 80634 Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson 621 23rd Street, Apartment No. 2 Greeley, CO 80631 S 12/9/86 III • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 - /i3K.n9 hi,,.. . S4,,si,, 4. ?or, 5t.„ 2. l yj. at, 4 /7971 W.C. R. 15 ..Tckn s`lo-....., Co. Egon y 3. 90 a I(.10 n jU.C.le tLt 3 p.,Pa,LL�e. & FoGz-I 4. J +_2('-t'- !9.171/ Gil/e t /3 G-gv.1- k. oc, s. ) at 63d- wc.a i 5' Soh,-,l-hw h, Ca . 6. *70-444- / gs--r-/ ci-/ e_ .9_,,c /_3. MJ ' Borst 7. � Q�,1 /8.5_4,7 �, c� l3 �l\ �i. 8. K-cKLct[`�au � �' ' ? W.c . �. 38 �' . .Q oCI&y lack t 7 4v4 ot-“in Co . 9. ,11/41110 . 14 ,,��,� - 4 fir W Cc 13 .8,.� !//7 mor,mi, ii . (Rd W 4',-- 't2oo Wcn !F'38 FLn . Vtt is CZ-00‘67 12. s-1, 6o cUc- Mfg � a 13. -"1 pe ccier 766o w( R- 144 (C - ,pr(//_ 14. A AM��"'t7'✓ ¶ 70 0 w . C. e. J/o% ?tt2 �� 15. We:1 a 2 d1a 74 40- c- 1e. slo% C-.C.Pll/i-- 16. £% . -L d- er ' / 7G4,G Lvt',C / 7/ n Co �./(J_/ ( f-(j f ?,'c if 3 E• , /2 - -e- 18. n e ,✓,� .uv✓ 7 3 76 ,& '5//G t /, .<-�- a 19. r-<-6' au.✓ <7370 , ' S� G.1 //7k r ' 0_ 20 . pq /914.-3 (cX/er.S- ,,,-c L 7-/_ C ` r6!� ``�� it f°^,,,.J CU fi1. frf, 17& %4 fa- '-XL. /7 1-e-6- c Ilk 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART a OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS Y ' j c. c 1Q .. `i 3. CI't_7-c-.=c //u 4�1 4. S t ltl y wtR P3�/ ?thc`.((L Shy '3a0 5. c-dec,,e,Q Ai - S�; -41vk $6- 60 1,l C I2 3 L/ - Pictik-vi i le- 6. W_� 5 6&a w CG -3e/ oCi �� (Alrte C L y (.4' C/7 /i 3 Q IPTIC l LL E co, -, � �t� v� � 9 �yCp � ) ICJ . + � ) Loa Q . 2d 34 cl,n-xz ul.t.c Cam.. 910 � 5s0 / we Rd IyPLOU( �b 11 .,7,,,hii/r/P77- -6007 mac° ,9/ 4//)sa1 JL c 12. c3czch c ?' �ze / c i S� J.ti G t / 3 �v�a o c—i 13c3 a. ` q15-a ttLC Q. L1 bas LQ . 14. Ata 6 tiy (ad 04,4 1311' }�11� 15 „ 1 a 97 cock ��5j• Z 16. r4..-. `' lo°: �^ '^-- E�i I - ,e,ec d 2 e J• - 17. ^./{Lrl/LL/irl-ti 0,1 o / did' A:15-2 / 1-s 18. ' c tine /7596,.i 5PC/c, IV. et /3c4c(z4FGLi4_ 19. !-._ ? / ,C 20 . A.1.}(:�"G- 2/ is i.z.,'_�L t 7 `i7 5r �. kc( 3 Y1`f;<�� 1 a • ",e..,`..��, • 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M_ , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 338) . NAME ADDRESS ujel-age-y 5-17- ,a '3/YG 1. a0. e • ��//�yl�� 7,/ ytica et; 47173 /Aft Ifi6 , ,f42.--- ,, / .S03:,- S4�wgic e GT,t�-- 1�.f.__cs/nw I;RAS _57/3 -araezta GS I k 1t 1 / ��6 6. �T _ er, J gb �. oy C cifrio2)n/ ia• •>�. l /37 `8,` 8- y�^..c f �ia..c4aa/ -2oYoy eac-C a.J ,0 PG 9. e"'__ - .�1-453/0 O r 27 e� -� 2 /?/%3�� 10. �- SozG /.�,.:tf.�L�� Ss7 air, fn[//0r6 11. (�/� '^ - / .?lJS D3 Co...fi�a G��Ytwuor�s Saps /.�Ih/yb 12. 4s.c .Cdo...�.�a,,�J -Co .37 /�-r..[((� d �.tiel jeL, St1-air /)./n/n. 13. h-9GS- / v`a aJ S079 .s�ti iiC.Gr ..a G1-. �,Q,....t.,— st'i-.�n- 'Z/ 3�8G 14. Q �/ti►..r�u� / l0 76 A s-7..w '*�+, can*? z7oq / o (o GSc?.7raG Q/�rFi Gr /1�rs,o.vN J"Y7J7Pt 3/ n ' t 31“. Ia. �G L Si 3.7 48'-4132.12-11‘441-4 U 46k,„si rrsrn. ,fl. 17�JX1c//1/�. ,. r 13.w /yam �/ � l l3 8 18. �'�l - ,Ani6'Z O 947/ fia27on673�i N. 0101 9 a, tali � �s/s 19. 47O947 ,�s -7 ,s�v ol,Z) . , c .�; /�/ { `c � 20 (!�" 4,2 7 ' ' opt 9.0 di�t, Ill 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE 94 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO =WELD -COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . Sp NAME` ij / ADDRESS 'ZJ J G L �..ta-----) eA tictet X033ie 17 x11033 /<-2 /7 /04 • /r"h inchal 69e9C ai ' • 9190 it/E7 /3 doe&ihn _ 7. , WY-1_C, Cu1tiv� r I 91 t w .c 2 (CI ooir• \. 8. fin. w. Si.? 174iJ'b Cr, P/A:r cadz. 9. ht K ,n a)/ CiuxXthtu Idea r 1a . i Jhel 1 '1 2 .vg1.1 ()C. . '�. r� iohnd-ozy2 1 1 . 31-4"1--.0 13 5 0 St°4AL-too sC; c'- c 4ascS-s-) Co 12.latV te,a 933 Van-t e-e-ee e4ii.g. CC, 13. '0�.c coves Pr13-B(se 14. )1., ✓+t4, - /o1`Ee AVE- SO>,aS "' s7-y71� fl. ;J.f4 15.,�� .a coon Mere. veoa Px Q► ?E.M Si-2S2V d-/1- 84 16. e 40 a '9 YJ,H..06-r.o..,_..t�.it;z,....0..e....„.js-8,-xi01 a s6 17. Cht-e &o5o7/ YUCc c9 Cf 7%norj .n z7id / j </Uec+ C� ✓ootin,Jfatj7 g8'7-c 776. 18--744is, /9.41"�! .�07/ /a /3 „o, mat // M- 619. `/ice; �Ict�n� '�- SQ 3 /Z�3 8 179D 12-(3--£rt 20 . , /4.--�e2�"y`42-cr j a il e -�'4`�_ C"` �'r ?� n7-J_—•1 • • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME 1 ADDRESS � lQ NO/ //v�hr� ituti 1 . Coo go. II 2- 91O11ateL. (kOAJ-esZ S'9 (t+" .,4k r xo( s ec/a-L`fiy1 S tti 17 Co 5.0 g• 4. aidtv rel pp nn A22 /U. s Gl'Cco/lin5, CQ &OS-4 5. b .r ^)cwtAL ZZz N. ta& , ra ce2£.c..L,t.) 3O5z! 6. `�o Ofri ✓ /37 Zflcatr riyc v, d 10ra t lOb a3 7- ilia? 1104 S. Pads eve /�on ' 'os3* 8- �Cl t2 .3 ee /* /9 z .x.c �-s�sw�c�C D . 57.,sgq •�•'tit> 7as8 LU.c. /2s/ So Za ratter-ot Qj dos zg 10. ,_,R..f,., @nivkt- Susoa T parks 405 TEdw.pin Dr. K (:edits �/ $osn,l 1 1 . r aJ 3/5 i2�c d �lcu-i. d • yo e 3 12. -,4 te;fl ./; r//r(42 f/*JM.L b Co BoSi 3 13. *a_xtiv. U_tin ,> +i lSi F. kkva+i 40 , Get`aima , fin. 805 i ex) 44,O6-la 8-O("34/1 � r, - 44,O6- /t51C Pi' ` � )),�, � 8053 9 15. TCS;Z, ivN.; .Cacl5 6. ( 00 � — t�o(D So • tarn<u, `JLepv'eIntd, 93 4743S-3 -1 17. (AI-46 - OZY la/�W!r 18. eat o 19. • 4{scv2/ /O,2 O.2 e p -- 20 !i 20 ..�ii .�s 12/9/86 III WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . cif, _• J 1� 5 3 3 , (,uC(2 3 2. V-1!/�1y' LULL try--; 4. Jer‘fi ,` 5. 5,4). t'7 C I, 6Crte y � � �2rw'7S rte' . " "tt � c i" to . G . fa/ 44a / e., _ 8./.yyc 7�to7N ,S w Q©l .911e,7_ -J",AV.A.7.4c.j ea. ;csA fl u,«a p .1 0 53 to -41 racr.• ..nt$c� 4-�. \.w h 1 1 . ? _ f� cC , /7503 We-t 13 �1C�77:�. ti. , 9219 w t R Ct. 13.( 13,k(Al4AL adell 37 ai2AX/ &D- 0 ( 1: 14. f1CLA-c j o f G 1/44-1-1M/M o 1)! 6 a1y8Y w` a'u( y e�-�.. gOj 3 15. .,( [ � 16. kct.-4- 4,c.- G' `7PGW C 4 fl c>"4 17. �G`•/✓ /5cy .,•/ /7J& �j K � 21L14+ 1n!.Lvlr-c.4, 6d 18 rl~/�fin Ore s L 1S ` si'_�f//i A tom.-//ea 19. -c der,�t.- 4�ttt"+✓ 954,yea/ 7Z VG�rsn� /h_� 20 . ,-w, ,E)Ow.,,•- 4)410 b' r'1i 4/9 4- J0Nus7GwJA; C0 0 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 • /SA��tsx fS -c/74/cid 2. , ;r�,c� a.44.4._ 1939d 44/c' 6./ 7,i P _ _ i wvz/ 4. 0d��i. p 19'6,,20 1✓�en e, 67. �Q�.bS'3� �j 5. t HA r�e�''�/ �1 p7• i °',a i9sS�p4 OL, c.t('. �JT y �_ J; J� 6. /�'t2,1-,� c � � �}7<>�! cvC_1: 3y Pis ��P� �C7��s.t 7. l ` q 700 c� 2 d CA FLCI 3�J ��?L( D 8. £.A11-vyintso. OO7 Q,Qt q ?cLtQd Cc �Q7c# 3$ �_�v �06� r.,c., 11 . V Ci7Gc,r2/•E3f 3nto�'iv a 12. G`��„"�` 4 !0536 b. C. Rd 31 P z, gdb`I 13. ure.J /7a / ‘, ter_ ‘e. /3 Pa 8o6S/ 5'41-r'+ P 14. 15. .-get l c 66 &Lc% /34),,vei (../4: 16. /i„Lw L% J G ins:" /lj 7,19- w c 72 13 > ,c, a,4 17. JSav- ketA) tai h / 3Si 3 w C k 3 � Lor�srtn,r e_ 18. Q.,_✓, -g-a‘---‘1 '--\ S1 3 n 3 a .1 a Op .»os[/ p� 14." c'I��/I�c'!/l y 2 2 tC,r/�y� ��'611 I-1_. '.2 / /� 20 . A �i `Maas- J G. 32_,A 0 CA, • ii,• 12/9/86 1 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PgRMIT- A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS , I . Cc ti 1"C1 /1 / I •,? , 5 L (.' re -1>) c -Ai; .c,_L' 2• 1s.,c,, )1. :„.1,1,,,:__, 6/ cam, C,, / 31/u- f aiLl6 � L /a- la_19s-A• ,9 � a /os - 'ctt tLt Oct ely_;,zei L , `_ _(! !' L .,.74 /Lo2JI 1.4) Q, J3 , -Rutzvd1J'.,, ,o) o /a �'� B� 6- �— .,, 4 , c/C tom' /2—%va,c c?..)‘-‘• g(' C -V4 7 `'. - ✓� ACT r� / /,:i-/-146-- 8- A" - ' ' ts--�� G J �J cia ` N ��G5/ sJ/:OJ 10 • )C,i / G,t,i-l'/✓1/ 4 I fz- 0 /�0. 3 ��4C_L'.urge[ - ,e-s/ J/ / /,(- /3 bi 11 . .- �1f! M. C`L wt i) 3ccfr25 J1J t c6s` / 12 ~' �.` .S l-- cc S 25 CeSS )2c1 Fc\ 1\r,)-Ws3 `\e I.,2- -)Li - G 13. S_„,-.;) yi IL _at / ?, is-,-2, co c n. /3. j-3/41.rcU://e,( /� G t c}S-( 14. 9 Q W. I2XY/ - -, , / /7.2-cg; al. C. /(-'' .1, Q , , 06.57 15. ✓ 46,,,"L"7% 17 / {v_"bJ ¢>/�y�"�``c i u ) r tlW f /2 _ /41 - t6 16. . �/P v /C. .o L� /7390 Ld. F. E. , A.4.z .-cGie do yv6S- / j fy-0' 17. 7,�2L �'- i736o wc. R / Arya, c 1/ C?u. Sb(oSr 61" < _ $�h 3-- 27 1/77 it---ii--- P6' 19.9• L/1- '^/ //L'er� .fiS�, - ,9 '4 ao. PMs.cr� R • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . �l canes C S�ie f7r /967/ U/cA (5 :Si�nsiawn Co 2 .Y424/1/k __,,,&" / 9 A 7 i cei C e /, ,�fi� wn Ca ..) 3. , 1� ;id * j � Co /orS 4- �a'h^- 02/5 N * 3/O,EaST ,/, eO s. )7 o?07/ 8 Ave 0€77 ( ao . 6.241,6. .):.-te‘ S )7,-/-(czc _,_>(--2--6- 7/g" >,-/-771,17/5 e0-0. 71 e.,_ -7-z-7.)i- gz o 74 a t-ci e- R---{ /7 to--4.----a,-_,73.. 8. / �7(!O 1n:C/Z 1-13- � si�,�h G�h - co- • 9. c% ¢4 -- _ .7719-0 �✓P.e -y2 3'ohrsiewn1Co / 10 . 007? �/?` 6- f tfl' ,y- _7-2,has4ctoACo i 1 . Lo„,b,Q\. v'W\ 13M-'-; P . 410- jil4 ^-- r- 12. fsEYvk kix-oet�2- a 0300 CvCR 17v2,i 'Z •.Co-S87- Yfl'►a-1 tb Q� aG.jDd 4JG,C 12 �/ `-�Ce 581- %8 - /2-13 1 3.�� c"t--W" 4.. 12-OI-rH 14. / r ien �✓2YIn%i/ -�c/- ,,77/ 1J6e is/ lmotc�,Jn � 5(7-2751-. 13-,y i615 C „` r- 4,14,- % 7/ u1 ca ai� 90,4, .2.--c,�. co • �" 35/ obi a752 r1 - /Y-'' 16. l�o `' kwMc. Lo_C . Q 't3r +P-E- 16 --4 iC 6s/ �� c� Bs c u1c e� r, ri4z , 4- f°6--c718. 19. 20. 0 12/9/86 0 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OP JSEI TO (2?-2, A_ _ rdICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL C.:- PORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARM THAT WOULD PERMIT- A 2400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW * OF SECTION 32 T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.T : WELD COUNTY COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . Zeci-e- NAME ADDRESS 1.fi � - ,o1a.t t9Ce - 5-0 3� 2. p , 3. .a ,2 O y .JcK /3 -.c ..ti{a+..s.1 — ao/ys co( ers- fAs }-aw, co Pon 6. 1/5. -1/4...,,,,c4244.-c..0-• ,,,2,e-ictive-4e, Af4/e./9 ice.. (7e A743 c..,...)6.4„,a 7• `,7N ._<!-._.V .. ., .- is-ty.z u.,.: cam- (3 t- Ie.l.-,-,_.c_ .�-e 8. /$5c6o weit/3 , 9. 4t,..,:. ppR 4,A,„ /99000 tvc E is (a6 1cs ,,i 10. '�w... . D. ?chin- (L 1I W C t< 13 Pl.-Et,v,'//e . 11. ` . s."'"`-`\\, \ a_lQ weR 13 V)-k„� 12. C�j�, ` // �/ .o 1 ,, Pi�� U✓Gi[/ 7/ min-/� 'lii� e 3. 20.A...2.Z.Li �, ` &..S7? cv2 IC 3y _f�.e c 14. 9/s u �o-�' .� ea -75---4:_r-e.,--t_. z c�1 c.►2 1 ,� 15, l ry — �3/t 4.'E 1C �, p.'-os3, 1z. (�u,.•c /¢u-� /N7 8A9lt tit.-- Cute;pcq re `� id R L? ? , a. io65t Lt/l nn 18. ti''�o.Qredt--. /1O3r /76 ge 60 cig 20. • it : h r'9r • 12/9/86 • • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . �A{ NAME• nhe 4C /7a. ADDRESS /.g- J3--g 2. 2.44, S • 77 -,z/66 /0954) z<le-g ,-7l,zs/mur • i�-/3-gG 3. 464 z� s87 ay/3 -2aoyy cvc eis --JoItyvs 4,,in 4. - - , „ - at//3/g4 s1-n /L .. S11 L hp t1 / Sv. w .C.item q` cvr 1/i3/B( 6. 3a 93&9 SS1-LX 7 g t ett3yk W e.� t3 4 cladTQ w tJ fi a 7.//„. �5'rw, 35'G . YS"cif /.3/57 '0'C.41 1 S yy11 .OTrc�� )� y-d k8/ ' e - 6 L-, a ~ CU ‘t- Ata,33; fie — aay3 j2 I� �G 10 . l�ccL ,, z1. i2 - �G3� l� �` d3Y t sY7 a �a 11 7,-- / 3 - - Gyn. CiA:5,- .LQ e,?Ti _3/ .— �.m ;,a ! e fr 13. 7c1-c,}�y:4-o•^2 W 4,C/ 9 !7 ..2.Ji ` '- A- ; 1-� 14./fi�� o• )r -7/(-X-' ., S-ate '7 �( . km c� fir- /� :t:_?-�I'D 4-1 12—in 15. e d-�C1 L �35 "IOW ` 2LF--o',`sie-1' 632.2967 /2 -i 6-8416. 1/ .,�i J.0- -7 5 9 y a.a'-add fit-/ "e'. f�`v.� �7-V 17. 18. 19. • 20 . neon/..-+.•`7^ .� • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM; AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD _ PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE 94 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD." ;a. COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUTTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS Lome �0. Q �z7oG fl* cienar, 2. 3. ✓ c aa99 4. Q.- .C35 �atig Welk ass 5, ad-�w.t..,a ,,sit lucid Co. Rd S/.l 6. Q)°08Q'4'1) (X -en_ I gnc oockd en, FLd z 6 moo' �n+aitCc% 7. j-i �cz � � / 73e ( t 'C /3 f«-.�'�-& -tc , 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. • • 12/9/s6 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME a ADDRESS 12-t3-` 1. RLCL%&A\a/z 'A ,¢Lt '7-47 /�'% Chad A 1 AvP -sc.,: 1 ia-t3-cotp// 2• . - Pbrcunu .C aocQcg c � c 45 /�-�CI-� L `>• �E.'' Ci l/J /IS /c-", A0-e. _ jc,k„.S a+3-'l CD, 4. S-d'7-4/7G S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.. 16. 17. 18. 19. • 20. • IID 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . ; V& NAME ADDRESS TIZnK� V413kS<0 1 . 4hk k(litt 8381 hw CO l s g2-201 ry �Tv� s v11a-any 1:2-A►2,l� 2.l_l1 'y. . ►COL s es,s, �..,�,e 41�, s '-0' ol- 4,4f-ea fra-s2ry p7//y � , 4-kits_ C -�` �2,- E 6 �g 1 !t 6 P-/� rC �j/-� /o J_ 7 /3/44,m, / /. 5. <�/ 7'�� i • .CJ/1/�t AQ,(.GLuU 77 - 0(4/ -3/to htpy/To 7. 8. 9. 10 . • 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18_ • 19. 20. 12/9/86 WE THE UVDERSIONED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS O ',Ac ze/ �- fe .71)/(11-nt 4&M ]6 L3 W et A cow 1-y Ruth- 1 S fJ4 b (8 ath. p 78(6 2) 4a a)4o2dt // w,a ied s,4, I Bats s/ 4..6? a go S3 4/ S nsarao 6 yr/ a' f/,,y Co. ytr3y 6. Poi t 1Uc C '3 6 Ce-�• L B'o513) Sb'`I_.7/L 7. a,Q� ` -sus at ALhJH4o $a,, ,„ 8oS3y - s.r7 8. 9keed _ OtC 0e/ ia-L 222// Lv £. hafa 47LO>- - 53' :/t;/ �A .X 2 at 7/ eve 'gel/ 7 esis .?87-02/4! 10. VjL /<-4,1%6W _ r, i 9522 &U ; 12)0/J r`1'-•.,2 ,3 � -ifzee7L 11 . � ��.y7_.!.c i 3✓5 ) - ,-5y- • `\ lgt/G.5 ao E ,w,,,, „ _ 1.2-/S-Se 13 N &q 7 c O�! gQS� 14. • 15. 16. 17. 18. F 19. 20. 5flP :7.t • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 • E en. /79,2.0 ..r.Z ?/vtfev%!c � 2. 1J , :. / '' 7 /78)0 Z-as' (Z-62 -41-‘- ea t;--6-5 3. N / 2 i 76 v✓ e n' 3 G /1-2=424-2,7-6/6 ("1.0 12 -/ (,,_Ri,4. Q`. � , aemit, S3 oU I,UCe/13 G, ‘,24247X-4//A'z a :::, :: : zt 53i°° ,c/c Ac 5-G- /�. "' -`. v-,-- -6e. / /:i- , -Z-c 7. o-‘-,-- <1/4, U.:c O 5 Gtr 5 3 R O .�J<.R. '3 t, ,red i '-"`'�- -° t -� ir-)- i3-8t s. IL�"-c cC t La.---� p f2-/`1 F. ^..% s � 7 J �.5� �c,r�d. ��i�! vcz /11 u / � 10 . eti t /7G 6,I ✓- ,.., s- a c.c, i2 `0 /�� 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ' 0 19. 1 20. a 7, d • WE THE UNSIGNED ARE )PPOSED TO THELICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL PORATION COLORADO DAIRY S THAT WOULD • PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY', COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAt1E ADDRESS x`2/3/ (0 1 , e /'/ ^4 „cat,. { (/, 2. ��' ti�or� ` V��E�S 3. l� �� / � //776 V �S- d. Siii2t-14cda- i,VA,2 "%/�c�G- 4. _ G[.L.G'—' "7"✓ / .S m- . L✓,c.l(;•S v%-C z s 606 57 / ./ ��//((/��J)�,,,, �f��s�f' JJJJ�� j�/74. )� lfc({ .l�tif�zuE1C L'['.y/� g' �'�`I 5 11 v Lt{P L{.CyJ S(06---s I4,/is/816 6. �� h 5�roa 7.vc�3 G� s. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . • S 12/9/86 S WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS _ / 5O5 a we, iif..) �l7/ JO A n ialZt ` '1 1 . �G /.2-J4-16 2. AIMS �Ikr.. �a X2021-0 GUGk r- se 7 R2•Z a?0 ' wcir/7 , 5ahnstuzdh.Co. Sri -a1 CA-7 /a a. Z ! a wJ u*1Pt cx 12$7s j3cx'i 7, )r iv a , ! —/ as-H-0%177 73 1 i 1� C o ,ss i- 3� tit-/142, 5. y 4 a• 7�a i✓v,� /23'7Sk1/X'/'7 � �y-�(., 6.Ci/LU.`-Yl%J C , /Y4 '. e� f',.cl�.� 1� /�',colic �<-' ..)=) I " t--..�•��1�` 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. . 18. 19. 20 . • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA -CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS• v �_ 1YR'�!3 L)t�� C-j V t5 Ci\i Sf 2. piaG (LErt.A15 5121 6e- 0 SahH57aaiN 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. t r w t 44• �o A 4O �� a -� N w in 1O' t L A R ! M E R f SCE 0 U) N • I Z I , N y]I „ * /Z'rLr_ra- - r..Tr-1--"�: r-"T riv— ►•�_ nr._fr.._rat'r. Pi r:.r. �...� 'r - "t r I ig( .• ■ ■T V� "f_r a • r r f�'r=r. r,- ► 'r L+-=r_._.-r-rrxNI.�U.i�) 6 u wj ■ (` c■■7■ c; ■r■r■/ • ■.I ■ "�3 p NNki \ I 10 ■J m m 11 '� .� • \\- H y ( _/r ' • i F■ ial:: S (•‘.. \ �1 o r' E t t • mo . • y �: r r_._ _ I, - - • -Jr, 77r-_Y7.- _t, P7.--Pr., T r ■ II i • C l■ • - T r j� ' N A o • a , � L. •■ ■\ N T .�.•, r' -r, Yr'r-r P.',.. T. r-..r•. al/ �C ',l 1 \ ■l\� ttt' ■ 'D •L • r ■.1 ■ • • i 1 - .A F� ,PM PTT k-=."r•t:. -.`.nr..#'"^ fz_rr_r.. ,.r r, r--r_ , r_r- r.J CC__ `�1.�n p__� //�� m 1Llc //c ' / ® ,, u *' • c •, J - rlr • . - jFL. "t • cx.• • • ° ;• r xz' " w /! m • • = -■..• m •1�•i `X• a i • Cr• k , " _r..-s 1..":-P`'.- �-r_=r=r r })r._Y,,.t^-_.f: r •--r7 r, r r, r- r .-D r_. ! ftm rte. ` ■s- ,��?' ■Ta A ,1- t ;a • w c 1 >� _ ■ -71 "CUCR - i r ■ �, 1> 44.:',.-,' m: 1, w, V -Q(�� w ro t�! 1 •v .r.,', ,n 1 l._. • le 3.0 . • • C . N -: 7O •� • - r : . .� "m ,� 1• • r 't C • 0I 1 Sow ' _, ..- ."• i,ti t , . . r T • - •lam 4 rr r, V •. • • � .� ■ i Nit L . r \ • •lL sr • • •1 1. k-ir • A L. ,... .- . -. ." ''" a rah_ a a iil '\ \G,� ��11 ,ati� * r r r, r C• ..010, • jj s E, . a 4- ■ W -• t ;� O • • J ;1 --II C., t • 1` a " l el ...- w-, w•-. r: r� .r r r Y- r"r- r r r .- " .. I� `' - l ,r- �: ea.��-• /. 'iii .- a . • C ( v� \� $ ` asy ,' t ,,I .5iF �.[< ri .r°` ,rocrym O. - � a � a /.� ", 1 _ • f f.f'L' r i:[r r:-✓rl • T=rt T.�1 ►. .M LO}i• • :Oi Jl �a• r_ • r ■ c _■ `. •c■ i r ' : a ■_ r. rltn"Y�': r rr rICYC nr.;. aA- i )vc• clot " L/>•-�-■ ! 'I ■ ■ 7■v • Iry ■a .• ,� \� _ la l `t`� f fi _"-r r -rr r)'� r. P.7 • r r O �_Y' ■ N c y -tfl ,N ii ti r- Lf _. 0IL�FacjF--I ' 11F- 4 r-°�"-I r E.--! r-i,f--44-, '-, 1••-. ,--0 .-^r .— -- r- /--+O.L`-,.��`�'� J. rl /r _ rn • �•T. Di j1 h r'•�■ � R` C (;:` �\ \ (\ C,: 11 / / ' 1 N • as �la �ev J o' • ',tn.) a1� � �nal.� o y1 A l• Ui /art ■ ■C 1 A .CO III, N f -,'G U \Y a ,,n [ • • •�c \\\ , - a ■� • a', 1 vao . L .� • T ■, '. to • I i• __ _ ".r_rn�n--rr. -5a.-.t 1 at-rIr_t,<. __. a )itilti � "� 7 ' I� • ■ L. ; fir. ■i•\ 4 a ■ .c �,\ "S■ \F •C� 4 7. co / �r' c a,0 a ` r oot.., `. • .per ;-e . • �"�.' •• `" l pi •, ��\\ �r --�_-.� c• :. I FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 DATE OF INSPECTION: December 9, 1986 NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation REQUEST: Use by Special Review for livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW} of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and 38 LAND USE: N Agricultural E Agricultural S Agricultural W Agricultural ZONING: N Agricultural E Agricultural S Agricultural W Agricultural • COMMENTS: The property has been in irrigated crop production. Accesses are existing to Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38. Weld County Road 38 is a paved surface and Weld County Road 15 is a graveled surface. One residence is located on the west side of Weld County Road 15, directly across from the proposed dairy property. Two residences are located at the southeastern edge of the property. A fourth residence is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and 38. The Use by Special Review plat has been submitted and correctly identifies the existing improvements and ditches located on the property. The property slopes to the south and southeast. BY:_c a C Chuck Cunliffe, Director ' Department of Planning Se ices. ERICENBECK LATERAL DITCH CO. 2125 GLENFAIR RD. GREELEY, COLO. ! 631 The Weld County Planning Comminssion Greeley, Colo. 80631 In regards to case number TJSR 770;86=51 from Barney Little Aurora Capitol Corparation. The board of directors are vey ;such opposed to thi change of zoning. First it will take a lot of water out of the system. Second it will run the cost of operation up. Third it will be taking a very good farm out of production. Signed EBKENBECK LATERAL DITCH CO. ALBERT H. JEFFERS SECRETARY y/(/ i i l��izoti/ `441 n t Vt�gin?�T`.} _7 I IL iss d i, Wald Co. Platmn Cnnmissiar • oe co��Q�\p\ • AV-- -"s 9 RICHARD D. LAMM !`� JERIS A.DANIELSON Governor `v'( �,. \" ^C)) State Engineer */876/ OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver. Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 December 10, 1986 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Barney Little/Aurora Capital Corporation SWl/4, Sec. 32, T4N, 267W Dear Mr. Cunliffe: This is to acknowledge receipt of material for the above referenced livestock confinement operation. The Little Thompson Water District has been designated as the source of water and a letter of commitment for service has been submitted. Information available in our files indicates that the District has sufficient water resources to serve this development and we recommend approval . Sincerely, Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Deputy State Engineer HDS/JRH:ma/8977H cc: Alan Berryman, Div. Eng. i Jy'T.:ci . 199 6 1 wed En. Planning CRmmiainn til �9�i9�� r It:eid County Planning December 5, 19S6 Y_ To Date • Health Protection Services (jj COLORADO From 1I�a ptik, Case Number: USR-770:86:51 Name: Barney Little/Aurora Subject: Capital Corp-: Health Protection Services has reviewed this proposal and recommends for approval, subject to the following condition: 1. Applicant shall comply with all State Health Department requirements for construction and operation of a dairy. Run-off retention and containment facilities shall be designed by a registered professional engineer and constructed in compliance with state statutes. By Direction of Ralph R. Wooley, M.D. BIG THOMPSON SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2625 Redwing Road, Suite 250 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Phone (303) 223-0960 , December 4, 1986 Mr. Chuck Cuncliffe ' Director Weld County , Colorado Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley , Colorado 80631 Dear Mr . Cuncliffe: As requested , we have reviewed the proposal by Aurora Capital Corporation to build a 2 , 400 animal dairy in the southwest quarter of Section 32 , T. 4 N . , R. 67 W. in Weld County . The current land use is agriculture. If the waste storage ponds are built to meet the county standards and . if there is adequate stormwater control , we do not see a conflict with our interests from this type of land use. Without adequate stormwater and sanitary control , a large dairy such as this will create odor , visual , and runoff problems for adjacent landowners. A suggestion would be to consider planting 3-row tree screens and windbreaks around the property to mitigate Possible problems . i cerely n Lebsack District President • cI _ 5 19Ra f.l� puomng vammis i 18683 Weld County Road #15 Johnsown, Colorado 80534 303-587-2773 December 6, 1986 Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 - 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Weld County Commissioners P 0 Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Commissioners: I 'm writing this letter as myself and family are concerned about the possibility of a large dairy farm operation being able to operate on the former Glen Anderson Farm on the Corner of Weld County Road #15 and Weld County Road #38. The Colorado Dairy Farm has an operation South about five miles on Colorado Highway 66, West of Plattvelle, Colorado, and it has be be one of the smelliest operations that I 've ever seen. Your could be blind-folded and you can smell this place two miles away. The thought of having to live within a couple thousand feet is sickening. The smell would be so bad that it would get into the drapes and carpet and you'd never get it out. You'd be sick to your stomach and you just could'nt live this close to a mess like that. Besides from the smell the value of our home would depreciate greatly, then the moving in of house trailers is going to down grade the entire area tremulously; and what about the traffic, rates, insects, stagnant ponds, noise, etc. etc. We now live in a beautiful home and love to see prosperity in the area but this stinken deal belongs out by the Monfort Feed Lot where there is no residential living. We want you to stop this operation - it just don't make sense. Yours jr.4-1y, .every concerned cerned citizen, Joe Elms' 7 tit!i...ii. Dv7Fsi . cii _ 9 1986 1 .L'i _LJ wzio Co- ?lAnnine anmisson • • MIN-AD, INC. • 1630 25th Avenue • Greeley.Colorado 80631 (303)352-5232 December 5, 1986 u 673 DEC 1.01986 zi Jackie Johnson, Chairman . WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioner Johnson: • I am writing you on behalf of Colorado Dairy Farms' request for a new addition to their dairy operation which will be considered at the commission meeting December 16, 1986. Our company is a specialty mineral and livestock buffer producer based in Greeley, Colorado. This dairy operation has been a very good and important customer of MIN-AD, INC. for sometime now. I have known Barney Little, the General Manager at Colorado Dairy Farms, since 1967. I have found him to be a man of honesty and integrity. He showed me the proposed dairy plan December 2, 1986. They have taken every precaution from the aesthetic as well as the practical and functional requirements of a dairy operation. This new addition will provide more employment and increased income in Weld County. From our point of view this not only benefits MIN-AD, but the entire Greeley and Weld County area. Reg Whitson, who is President of MIN-AD, INC. , joins with me in urging that you support Colorado Dairy Fames in this expansion. With best regards, , n • 'Bruce Hafhch I r'^�, Sales Manager BEH:kf ee. >6' December 8, 1996 W td Cu. °(ar�ll!>K rt Louis J. Rademacher y' tl1StGS 13184 Weld County Road 13 Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Commissioner Rademacher: I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and the other neighbors and residents in the Johnstown area. We all live in the vicinity of the proposed expansion of Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporations project located at Weld County Road #338 and Weld County Road #15. As you might realize should such a business be Irvin ., to locate in your "backy=ard" I/we have many reservations and fears. As our pci i _ica.1 representative we nee° your assistance and support in helping to protect our individual and personal interests against Corporate inconsiderateness. I am asking you to exercise your promise as a Political official and vote -For us, the people you truly represent , by denying permission for this corporation to expand its operation in this location located North of its present operation. I believe if you will consider the following reasons you will better understand the concerns o= all 0+ us living in this area. ( I ) A corporation oceratin as a single landowner is a masquerade. You know, as we all do, that the purpose of setting up a corporation is to remove personal liability. responsibility and accountability from all persons carrying out the business operations. This doss not fit in at all with the constituents you represent. We are all personally involved and thus responsible for our actions and what effect they have not only upon ourselves but our neighbors as well . Corporations take no thought for- the preservationof the lifestyle and environment of the people around them. They may indicate otherwise but their track record across__ this country proves differently. Their sole purpose is turning a dollar for their investors. This is not wrong. We, too, are trying to make a buck. But we are the investor and thus have more than just an interest in a prc=it. We live in and on this land. We live with our investment. The investors who are supporting the Aurora Capital Corporation do not live here and tray not even be residents of Colorado. So how could and why should they take any interests in us or our neichbood? As investors they will be more -interested in an adequate return on their money no matter what. And because of this subtle and not so subtle pressure this proposed operation will be much more inclined • to yield to outside power than to "inside" considerations no matter what they indicate to the contrary. (2) !-mother consideration meet be the removal of some of the best productive farm land in Colorado from its prime service. There are other counties and cities where ground is not of premium quality and thus might be more appropriate for this kind of business purpose. But certainly not ground in this area of Weld County_ Some of you in positions of authority and power must put a stop to the big city politicians and big corporations from looking only at Today. You must not allow them to push you and us around in the name of immediacy and of the illusionary monetary gain. Remember there is always tomorrow. And the feturc is now ! C`) Y4--t another reason for venting NJ to this business _ro;7o-al is the horrible, noxious stench whicr it produces. The odor from a family operation is tolerable but one twenty times in size i= unbearable, Not one of you commissioners lives in or near the existing Colorado Dairy Farm located at 7 88 HWY 1T66. Platteville, Colorado, and thus you can not realize how detestable the smell coming from this operation is. We all know that no corporation can control which direction the smell will. travel and no one can give wet manure a plesant aroma. Such an unpleasant atmosphere is one I am certain you would not desire to engulf your own personal residence. am equally certain that you realize such an oder not only impacts anyone living "down wind" for miles and thus tends to devalue our land proportionately. We all need you to help us hold on to the . things for which we have been working and striving. And many of us have been here for several generations. So please consider the nature of the constituents which you have promised to represent rather than the seductive promises of the impersonal corporation which will say anything to gain its way. (4) This particular area has three big corporations already making havoc upon its citizens. The one I have just alluded to and the smell and other problems which go hand in hand with big business should be sufficient to refuse its expansion. But there are other corporate mistakes which heighten our fears_ Fort Saint 'Drain for instance. Obviously the Commissioners who approed this operation were not wise to representing the will of the people. Here is a standing testimony to corporate impracticability. This fiasco is not three miles from the proposed dairy. While it no longer functions as promised all of the terrific -.dvantges for building in our area have vanished into extinction. And the Commissioners who voted for this r 1 S "wonderful opportunity" can they remove this hideous structure? Do they even care? And the third corporate problem is the Coors plant in Johnstown. Whatever else they contribute to our community again it is the terrible stink which the rest of us must endure. Na matter what the corporate big shots promise to add to the community. your don 't see them living and smelling the residue their jobs create. We residents do live with our work. But it is ours we choose to live with. Must we again be pushed into paying for the_ mistakes of previous commissioners whose judgment was as unwise as their promise to represent their neighbors was roreetten once they attained office? So pleee don 't follow the steps of your predecessors. The promises mad by corporate heads has little reliability as they must answ:=:'- to those who back them financially not those of es who ,'r:err;'ly live around thee. They have no stake in our community so they have no true concern either. As to the amount of dollars they may spend to carry on their operation they sure aren 't buyinc, from the local farmer. The nature of their business demands that they buy from another big time operator who too has financial backing_ Thus they can under cut the little man. i trust you will root be won over by mere paper arcuments. Facts always look better and believable in print. But the actual living experience proves otherwise_ We as a nation have too often, and mostly too late, realized the true nature of the corporate machine. How sad that whenever our environment is excessively polluted and maligned the culpable party is the corporation. F; corporation that successfully argued its way into the planning commission agenda and emphatically stated that the local residents "had them all wrong. Three times the residents in this erection of Weld County have been betrayed by their representatives zn political office. Three times political of#a:c_als have been deceive:: by the corporate promise that their business would not result in any degrading effects upon the local community. And all three times the corporation has lied and won. Are you going to join this defeat? Will your vote permit your constituents to come back to you in several years and show you what you refused to accept? I 'm aware that the existing dairy has claimed that they have removed the smell . Well just yesterday I drove by it and they have lied again. It still stinks. We residents believe in this area and we believe in you. We are not trying to buy you off with great prophetic promises of community contributions if . . . We fear because of the • • track record of failed corporations of verifiable consequence. The Aurora Capital Corporation does not have an c_xemplary record. I urge you to vote against the proposed dairy and save the land from one more demeaning, unreliable acquisition. " My sincere thanks for taking time to read this letter and to consider the view of . the people who will be victims rather than the beneficiaries if such a proposal is passed. Si ]cerely, i / ` 9 v / J hn S. McCaha JSM/jm • rovemte2 28, 1986 19650 toad 15 1ahneltown, Co.La. 80534 Th.r-a Letter i7 to exptea- mg. oppo4 Aeon to the new drLtg ptopaaed to Ire Located on Ue4d County RRocdo 1.5 and 38, hu CoLotado Da&tg Taema Rutoaa CoattaL Cotpototion. Living anLy 13( miUe4 feom the ptopo4ed -cite, out p'eoent Liv2ng cond.tians would be changed fat the wve4t: ex.--.me .t, no.i oe, atc2ea, ed •/l J and mo4cu i-to papuetat.ion and/ot exce-o pea-tic-We uoe, and 2acitea4ed ttaffic. Oe. don't want out atea changed in th24 wog. Rno-thee good tea4on foe opro4itZon iA the ,Lack. o, need lot ano,th.ea doiAg. The goveznment tan .opent aLnt of ranee Lcteig cutting the hetda of daiegmen becau4e of a iut of do-t,c paoducto, p.Luo dai.21; 4u1/-2d-Lea that have gone on rot yea.a. L7hu ahoy-d the eua-itg o;° ru! L2,fe change J.ot pout buoine- a nerctice to make a cotnotc.tion pto 'i.ta. 14 : undetntard it, pte4ent tegud.ationo don't aLLow thin a4e daiztt in out °ten. 9t m_akea no -en4e to grout 0 vntiance to an unneeded bu42n.e44 'that wilt cou.ae dLotuptian to -the pt.e4en.t communi.tu. Rnothet conce-a of nine i4 the ptox.mLtu o' da-Lx-Lea to r nucLea4 .fac i.l iAg. J adictton -in eeodi,Lu, abaotbed Gg miik., then. nb4oebed by out Gone4 with. of tepAaclna ceiciwi. The track tecoed o-P Tatt St. L7tain apeak4 foe 2taei?, and having only dai4y. 40 store aeetr4 6en4eLe-4. 9 tegtet that 3 cannot attend the T.Lann2ng Co.'t-t-orton meeting on Dec. 76, 40 2 utce t;.ou to p.Lerae -vote ogatnrt apptovaL of thLo datt;t. Thank you. Since,e-u, I • 41, ASR-770 To S +-IC..- Date 1e--It Time Z.: IS WCILE YOU WERE OUT m_mtAr YYLsi 1.1L.n C cCA-1't�ElAA v� of %V O Phone :i.W1/4h-O, ecs.2.k,.lo.� Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED PLEASE GILL CALLEDTD SEE YOU YOU.CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT R . I RETURNED YOUR CALL I Qly.+.s.n p�,1o.\ - Message A-21,.... $s4O - MA&-‘1\ t . \d,e . oa ` NIV1 Inn ` C `-Q jai. Rne�N la ` %tss 11'eti\t \a Rs 1 y J } ac��m\k3ws�1 no o-Litz- CSUWQS YUL X � solha .�, v• a Opantor a r, .6..r..-oa v. - aAMPAD 23-000 50 Slit PAD EFFICIENCY@ 23.001 250 SHf.DISPENSER BOX S • A-i MECHANICAL INC. — w ; xrs P.C.Box 207 • Niwot, Colorado 80544. ` 1E'd,t: tit Weld County Commissioners 12-10-86 iasimmu ry P.C.Box 758 Greeley, Colorado. 80632- ' I am ',flitting to you in support of Colorado Dairy Farms for the development of the Anderson farm. Colorado Dairy are a real asset to the county of Weld. They have a very clean operation now existing on Highway 66. They spend a large amount of money in the local area for feed grains - hay - inaulage. motor vechiclea and in the payroll of their company. They are a very good company to so work for. I have done the plumbing for three barns. They are pleasant to work for and they pay their bills prompty. The Anderson farm would be an asset to Weld County for the taxes it would pay and the grains and feed ti would buy from Weld County farms. I hope in your serving on the planning commission that you can support this Dairy • operation on the Anderson farm. Thank You for your time and consideration. • • Vern H. Vinson A-1 Mechanical Inc. • Niwot, Colorado 652-2794 or 573-1087 • fre.- -1em PLATTEVILLE ELEVATOR, INC. 400 PLATTE STREET PHONES: 785-2241 • 785-2242 December 12, 1986 Weld County Planning Commissioners 715 10th Street Greeley , Colorado 80631 Dear Weld County, s Pr --=;-!c.nt o Platteville Elevator Incorporated , _ am writing regarding _Lle proposed expansion of the Colorado Dairy Farm near Platteville, Colorado. Platteville Elevator Inc . is a locally owned company that provides feed ccmmodities to farmers, feeders, dairymen and similar business and individuals within Weld county. In addition , to se_ linc to local business' , we guy a significant quantity of locally grown crops from the area farmers and fellow feed dealers, in accomplishing the buying and selling volume we employ approximately twenty local citizens. Colorado Dairy Perm is one of our major customers that 4e conduct business with on a daily basis- It has been our experience and observation that Colorado Dairy Farms is a quality well managed business that has hat a definitee positive impact in our community , as with our company, and other local business' . I would like to point out that the economic effects made by the Colorado Dairy Farms is mad? clearly obvious by looking at the number of individuals and business' that deal directly with them. The "trickle down" e affect of those dealings is even more far reaching into the health of the local community. I urge that further careful consideration be given to the proposed expansion of Colorado Dairy Farms. Should you have any questions or comments please feel free to call . Sincerely, 414/ .02L52 ' Robert M. Jehorek r — President �.�'1 �i7� 1'/�Platteville Elevator Incorporated J DEC 15 1980 Lij RJ;ep cc . Colorado Dairy Farms Wed C0- Q{aMi%Lastiu Weld County Planning Commission Members Weld County Commissioners • s s _ DEC � ;Johnstown, Co. Di98B Dec. 10 , 1986 Dear — This is to confirm my opposition to the Aurora Capital Corporations proposed 2,400 head dairy at Weld County road 33 and 15, or legal discription S.W. w of Sec. 32-R67 W. '1e own the N.L. IT Sec. 5-3N-67 W. which borders the S.E. side of the proposed dairy. Our reasons for opposition are numerous first being the seepage from five holding ponds or .lagoons, on the site. Tr. Pepperzak of Aurora Capital Corp, admitted at the Sekich Co. meeting Fednesday, Dec. 3 that there would be some seep. Shale in this area is from five to fifteen feet below ground level, and this being on a south slope would destroy two farms on the south and ours on the east border. Second fir. Pepperzak stated that three thousand dollars in County taxes are being paid now on the farm and would increase to thirty thousand when new facilities are completed. This is not true. It is implied that rutriaying odors that come from the Colorado Dairy on Hwy 66 are the fault of previous owner Al Kurtz and: Renolds Feed lot to the west. This also is not true. Plain and simile you do not have a fairy without flies and solid manure holding ponds without rotten and offensive oders. Just 1600 feet from proposed ponds live two little girls, age 10 months and 4 years- one has a imature larnyx any: one takes medication for Asthma. I don' t think it' s fair to expect them to breath this. Third, we have been told that this facility would decrease the value of surrounding farms. In view of the economic crisis farmersface, we cannot deal with this negative impact. Fourth, it was statedthat :we are approaching a shortage of milk in Colorado. This also is not true, according to i=-ountain Empire Dairy Assoc. , and other dairy owners in Weld County. I would also state I am not opposed to a dairy on this farm limited to four head per acre as stated in the Weld County statutes. In conclusion I would apneal to you to consider how you would feel if the proposed facility were built adjacent to your homes or farm. Thanking you for your judgement in this matter. Sincerer, dam- . O'• t -fl1 i/t2)Vfic�S• wL Bennett and par lyn Spaur 18547 /cid County road 13 Johnstown, Colo. 80534 4200 Weld County Road 38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 December 10, 1986 Weld County Commissioners P. 0. Box 758 �-- ''C.77: --� Greeley, Colorado 80632 n RE: Case Number USR-770 :86 :51 ; t? DEC 121288 t ATTN: GORDON LACY ? Jas ::2- =Y COLO. Dear Commissioner, We farm along Weld County Road #38 just east of I-25 and have done so for the past 12 years. Since both of our farms and our hems uses Road #38 solely for access , we have very grave concerns about your possible approval of the "Use by Special Review" Permit requested by Aurora Capital Corporation , Case # U5R-770 :86 :51 . This area is zoned Agriculture ; and historically, as well as today , consists of mostly 160-acre farmsteads, with a sprinkle of single-family residences. To change this to a Commercial high volume confinement operation of 2400 milking cattle , plus dry cows, plus calves, there must be some benefits to the people of Weld County, particularly the folks directly affected within a two or three mile radius_ What could these benefits possibly be? 1 . Taxes? - Current assessments of the former Anderson Farm "as is" is in the $3000.00 range. The Assessor' s Office indicates only a possible increase to the $6000.00 range, which will do nothing . to repair the vastly increased road damage on Road #15 and #38. 2. Employment? - Aurora Capital Corporation indicates most employees will commute - primarily from Brighton and Longmont - so again , no help to Weld County. Even if they came from Greeley or Johnstown, what overall benefit is 10 to 15 jobs? 3. Expenditure in Weld County? - The businesses that currently supply Colorado Dairy Farms on Highway 66 have publically stated their support for this permit - but why mot? It will double the volume_ Interestingly enough , none of these high-volume suppliers are in Weld County. 4. Cash Flow into Weld County? Outside of taxes , there is no cash flow of significance in Weld County by this out-of-state corporation. Employment checks, water payments , dairy and veterinarian supplies , and most significantly , cattle feed, are all currently scent either out-of-county or out-of-state, according to data given by Aurora Capital Corporation or their suppliers. 5. Local Banking? Very doubtful they will change their current banking operation to include a Greeley, Johnstown, or Windsor Bank_ -2- G. Enhancement of the Farming Community adjacent to the proposed dairy? I think the following paragraphs cover most of the problems this proposal will create. It would be interesting to see what possible benefit would result from this proposed operation except for financial gain to the Aurora Capital Corporation. Since the proposal appears to offer no benefits to the people of Weld County, what detriments would be created by granting the requested permit? 1 . High-Volume, High-Weight-Feed-Truck traffic on Weld County Road #15 and, most specifically Road #38, which is gravel from I-25 to Road #13, and the route hay trucks from Wyoming and Nebraska would take. This road always drifts badly in the winter and is routinely closed for three or four days at a time during heavy or blowing snow. Will Weld County keep snow plows and graders on standby to keep Road 38 accessible for this dairy - all for the small amount of increased taxes that will be paid? Who pays for the road damage? 2. Open Sewage Lagoons - What good can be said about lagoons? The existing Colorado Dairy Farm Lagoons (formerly Kurtz Cattle Company Effluent Ponds ) are a dismal failure and continue to be a steady source of high-insect population, vermin and rodents , terrifically bad odors spread by the winds , and a general health hazard. We have no way of knowing if the pollution is seeping into the adjacent St. Vrain River, contaminating shallow wells, or other adverse effects. The insecticides used on and around the cattle and buildings are effective but prove useless in the open air near or on the lagoons. Even the dairy operation of Colorado State University, with all their resources , has the same problems with insects, odors, and pollution. They are currently being sued by residents of Fort Collins for these very problems. The Hayden Dairy, which is located on Weld County Road #38, just two miles west of this proposed dairy, was granted a USR Permit about three years ago for a 250-cow dairy. The lagoons required were designed by Longmont Soil Conservation Service, inspected by all required parties, approved and placed into operations, still on warm days, the smell alone will drive you to your knees. Our home is one mile from this lagoon and with a north eastern wind, the smell is rank ! Thank Heavens, the Haydens participated in the Federal Governments' Dairy Buyout and are no longer in business - BUT, the lagoons remain and still breed insects , rats and vermins, and, above all else, still emit horrible odors even after no use since August 1955. Please ask yourself - If 250 cattle, with their specified lagoon size, cause a stench one mile away , will a 2400 cattle stench cover ten miles? 3. . Discharge Effluent - The proposal indicates that the balance of farm land not occupied by dairy and lagoons will still be farmed but may be irrigated, in part, by pumping liquid from the lagoons thru sprinklers or possible flood irrigation. In the case of the sprinklers, this can only make the odor problem more intense, witness the spreading of treated sewage on farmland adjacent to Long- mont by spray trucks. A center-pivot sprinkler system will be several magnitudes ❑rester in odor creation. -3- If rowcrap flood irrigation is performed with lagoon effluent, it will be impossible t❑ prevent escape of waste water from the end of the fields which will flow directly into irrigation ditches of adjacent farms, polluting their systems, fields, and crops. 4. Milk Surplus - It is the U. 5. Government ' s expressed policy to reduce the surplus production of milk and milk products in this country through the use of programs designed to reduce dairy herd volume. Toward this end, many Colorad❑ Dairies were bought out in 1986 by the Government. This proved to be a slight boost to the remaining Colorado dairies , including Colorado Dairy Farms on Highway 65. Now comes Aurora Capital Corporation with a proposal to bring in a new dairy of a size that will negate a significant portion of the millions of dollars spent by the Government in Colorado alone to reduce the milking population and combat the high-milk surplus. Why would Weld County want to go against this concept and permit another huge dairy to begin? 5. Potable Water - Apparently Little Thompson Valley Water District has indicated they will be able to supply treated potable water to the proposed dairy in requested quantities. For this size of operation, it is estimated that 200,00❑ gallons per day could be the minimum. The water district has yet to indicate if their plant capacity must be enlarged to meet this need. The lest expansion to accomodate the town of Mead and other high-volume users caused a drastic rate increase for all users of the system. Put another way, the proposed dairy' s daily water consumption would supply eight farmsteads or residents far three months - yet the Metro Denver Water Districts are continually crying "wolf" for lack of water. We only have to look at the Ault area to see what unlimited money can do to devastate a farming area in terms of water. As a minimum, with this volume of water use by the proposed dairy , all downstream taps would suffer drastically reduced pressure and water volume - yet our water tap contracts specify a minimum of 45 psi delivered to the water tap. Do all neighbors then have to suffer insufficient water delivery and more probably increased water rates for another expansion? • In conclusion, the following summarizes the major significant problems the proposed dairy would create : 1 . Health and environment hazards to the farming and resi- dential community within a 3 or 4 mile radius. 2. Huge quantities of liquid sewage stored long term over a shale strata close to the ground surface. Leaching , as a result of lagoon membrane rupture or separation would not be detected until well/river contamination occurs. 3. This out-of-state corporation, Aurora Capital Corporation, has demonstrated its policy of out-of-county, out-of-state purchase ❑f goods and services with no significant business dealings with Weld County Banks, suppliers, or more particularly, local farmers for cattle feed requirements. f?. s. • -4- • 4. No tax base to cortpens3te Weld County for vastly increased costs due to gravel and paved county road degradation from heavy feed and milk trucks and increased demand for snow removal. 5. The disruption and permanent damage to a small , well-designed local farming area. 6. Creation of a greater influx of milk to the ever increasing glut of milk in this country - to the detriment of small, local dairies whose only livelihood is their dairy. Since the stated goal of Weld County in its Comprehensive Use Plan issued in 1973 and currently being updated for 1586, is to "support and preserve the agricultural industry and farming as a way of life" , I implore you to very carefully weigh the many disadvantages which would be caused by this primarily commercial operation and ask yourself if there are any benefits to be attained by the people of Weld County - and specifically the neighborhood farms and residences surrounding the proposed site. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. All of this information has been brought out by the many friends and neighbors of "Citizens Opposing Dairy" through several meetings held since cur original November 2, 1986 letter to you expressing our deep concerns. Very truly yours ; CAloizsur-) 4 '� Ifs _ , , - - 0 { I December 9,1986 ieid DJ- wmtas;sb Dear Mr./Ms.Commissioner, We are writing this letter to express our collective opinion concerning the proposed dairy farm to be located on Weld County Roads 15 and 38,by the dairy organization of Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation. While you may know of the specifications of the dairy farm(2,000 to 4,000 dairy cattle confined in corrals in a limited amount of space),we would like to make you aware of the detrimental effects that such a large operation would have in this area. We believe such a large herd would cause problems for neighboring residents—problems in the form of increased insects,noxious air and water pollution,and the devaluation of property surrounding the area. In addition,as pointed out by many analysts,the development of a dairy farm of this size seems contrary to the economics of the nations dairy situation—1.e_,the dairy products surplus that has spawned the federal government's dairy buyout. Pleaga give serious consideration to the objections of area farmers and residents who are opposing this corporate development. Remember,our concerns are those of family farmers who have lived and worked in this area for generations—as opposed to the interests of a large outside corporation. Sincerely, i ,/b,( ,irt ei ,cm Mrs.D_I.Spaur Mr.and Mrs.Delbert L.Spaur Mr.and Mrs.Frank Botello L9 • • December 5, 1986 °"•- _ _ • GREELc 1, CoCpl Dear Jackie Johnson, This letter is in regard to the request by the Aurora Capitol Corporation for a special use permit for the property -they have acquired adjoining our property. We would hope you see fit to turn down the request. Our property corners the farm they own and we are sure their-installation would do nothing but deflate the value of our land. We sold off a choice building site last year and the people who bought it will be getting rid of it if the dairy permit is approved because of odor and insects. People from the surrounding area of the proposed dairy are being invited to their present dairy to inspect their facilities. I am sure things will be in excellent order and there will be no odors with the cool temperatuees. we experience in December, but how about a 90° day in July or August. We have passed their dairy many times in the summer and can tell you the smell is awful. In an: editorial in the Johnstown Breeze, M.B. Peparzak, President of Aurora Capital Corporation wrote of the economic impact the dairy will have : - on the area_ The sixty jobs it would generate, we concede would be ameconomic ttbenefit, but we are sure if you checked you would find that very little of the four million dollars spent for feed was purchased in Weld County. We feel that if our feed crops are not good enough for them to buy, we should not be subjected to the odor, insects, traffic problems, and all the inconveniences the dairy would cause in the area. Let them build their dairies where they are buying their feed. • • • .i „«;� • • COLORADO CATTLE SERVICES,INC. 607 MAIN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 610 PLATTEVILLE. COLORADO 80651 303-785-2212 December 9, 1986 • Mr. Jack Holman 28236 W.C .R . 583- Greeley, Co . 80631 Ladies and Gentlemen, Recently Colorado Dairy Farm has announced plans to develop an- other dairy operation on the Glen Anderson farm at Rds. 38 & 15. There have been articles in the local papers and there have ap- parently been some neighborhood meetings to discuss the proposed dairy operation, although I have been unable to find out when and or where the meetings have taken place . I have done business as Colorado Cattle Services, Inc. in Colo- rado for the last 15i years. I cover the entire state and visit • a large percentage of the dairies in our state . I must say un- equivocally that Colorado Dairy Farms is the cleanest and poss- ibly the best managed dairy in our state. I service Colorado Dairy Farm on a weekly basis and am continually amazed that they are able to keep their corrals and cattle so clean. In August and September I am plagued by flies on most dairies but not at Colorado Dairy Farm. Not only do they keep the outside of the Dairies clean but they also keep the parlors and milkrooms spot- less. The new dairies as proposed will provide jobs for approximately 45 people. This is truly:-one of the" Very few alternatives for people who want to work in agriculture in our area. The new dairies will increase the tax base in Weld County. As past president of the Weld RE-1 School District Board I am a- cutely aware of the diminishing tax base in our county. Colorado Dairy Farm was a welcome addition to our school district. Colorado Dairy Farm provides the farmers of the immediate area, and in fact state wide, a viable market place for their hay and Grain. Colorado Dairy Farm provides an alternative for direct sales from the local farms . Colorado Dairy Farm spends several million dollars per year in Colorado for Feed stuffs and services. • }0,;g0 I jab \,!31d Ca- ?lar,.uuk Lams • Page 2 December 8 , 1986 • Weld County Commissioners Additionally Colorado Dairy Farms will be a definite advantage to our county and our state. Would you kindly support their proposed expansion. Sincerely, cerely, Roger B. Olsen, President Colorado Cattle Services, Ira RB0/co --� D s , , t1 y 11 11d0 1 i Weld C6. Ptaa it ,:atanttwu. rat- PARGRE IRVI REPAIR SERVICE TIRES ies TCEES GAS AND OILS • ACCESSORI• ES en lel CI if n YOAKUM TIRE & OIL CO.' 45 SOUTH MAIN STREET PHONE 776-2600 rg b LONGMONT,COLORADO /• / P.O,BOX 1197 ' "e04.0 9 December 1986 Jackie Johnson Weld County Commissioner P. 0. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Jackie: We would like to express our views on the matter of Colorado Dairy Farms . They are a very productive operation that Colorado can be very proud of . Colorado Dairy Farms ' engineers assures us the en- vironmental issues of this production organization are well above the standards set by the County and State. This is an Agricultural area, and with the economic factor right now facing us , this can only help the economy situation grow. Yoakum Tire & Oil Company is a very reputable tire and oil dealership in Longmont, Colorado. We do a very high volume of business with Colorado Dairy Farms. We are very proud to be acquainted with this organization and would like you to know we support their endeavorship in every way. Sincerely, J. Harvey President, Yoakum Tire & Oil Co. 411{� _ r,al . yam , , '.G ',Vern Co. Pbfi.i g i nIflssiGP • December 9, 1986 Weld eotulty_Gommissioners c7Y' _ � P.O. Box 758 t';: Greeley, Colorado 80632 MCAT GRREELEY.COLO. Dear County Commissioners: We are writing you to protest the plans for a large dairy farm to be located on County Rd, 38 and County Rd. 15, by the Colorado Dairy Farm Aurora Capital Corporation. We are part-owners of a family farm located adjacent to the proposed dairy. Along with our neighbors we have many concerns and questions regarding this issue. Our family farm has been owned and inhabited by the family since 1936. During this period of time many seasonal rains have caused flooding from the site of the proposed dairy onto our property. As the proposed plan shot: sewage ponds across the road this flooding is a big concern to us. Other concerns include the following: . Appearance of the area with numerous mobile homes lined up to house the labor force of the dairy, and the increase in population this causes. Along with the problems of various types of people living this close together. . Increased truck traffic on our usually quiet country roads. . The problems of odors and flies from the sewage ponds and the chemicals used to control them. . revaluation of our property due to all the above concerns. This beautiful country area is not the proper place for this 'type operation. • Based on the information the Citizens Opposing Dairy group obtained about the existing dairy operated by the Colorado Dairy Aurora Capital Corporation located at 7388 Hwy 66, Platteville, Co; they have been in violation of environmental laws. Although they claim these problems have been corrected, we seriously doubt that a two to four thousand dairy can ever control the flies and oddr3 to the satisfaction of those who live across the road from the operation. So far the only persons in favor of this operation are the few who sell fees_or other products to the dairy. These persons do not live in the edite area and we wonder how they would feel if the dairy wore to be located acimrossatiaha cad ! from them. We beg you not to approve this special use permit of the Aurora Capita]. Cc i. Your vote against this is very important to us and our neighbors. LYa N Thanking you for your consideration in this matter. o • ~`• • L5� CO sincerely, = c ' \d,3e !J i2�/rfyjy 4111 December 9, 1986 Dear 1..jziLL t.c.n We are the operators of the farm on the Southeast corner of Weld County Rcac.s 15 and 38. Our residence sets on the corner of Roads 15 and 38. We are strongly opnosed to the application from the Aurora Capital Corporation, ( case no. UISR — 77t86:51 ), to build a 2,400 head dairy located on the Southwest ' of Section 52, T4 :, '6?',: of the 6th n...., 'r:e:d County, Colorado. •:•:e farm 18^ acres directly So•ith of the proposed new site for the dairy. We as well as cur landlords, James Rrewbaker and Ann Sorensson, are totally against this type of Corrrrate operation 'oe;ng _'_aced on prime agricultural land, and are deeply concerned about what effects an operation of this magnitude •..-" have on our _' ifectyle as we h_-'e known it for the east 14 years. This dairy operation has very few, if any, advantages to our com- munity! It will not improve in any way our market for farm products. The existing Colorado Dairy has made this very evident. The devaluation of land and deterioration of our environment is of major importance! It is your responsibility as elected officials to protect our individual rights and investments. The air pollution at the existing site is unbearable! enthough we have been informed that this will not be a problem in our area it has existed at the present site and is nqt improving. The wait and see attitude about this disgusting odor is not acceptable in any way! The proposed catch ponds are a very hie* concern of ours. Not only the stagnate water causing problems with odors but the year round water in these ponds seeninr into the soil casting wel. i,reas and seepy spots on the farms south of the proposed site. Steps have been taken in the past on these farms to eliminate there :ro_blems such as cement ditches and pipelines. The problem with underground water is very evident in our own basement where a rump pump in required to pump water out. It is our belief that any further increase in underground water will damage these farm-it production and value. Under the current dairy buyout program there is no justification for an operation of this size to be implemented. This program was not designed to buyout family dairies and open the doors for large corporate dairies. If a Government program the size of the Whole Herd Buyout is not supported by the County and State Governments, the tax dollars of all the United States citizens have been wasted. At the meeting with the Colorado Dairy the majority of their sup- porters were businessmen who have no investment in the land or homes near the proposed site. In cur opinion they showed no concern for the many people who have invested their time, money and '. 'rd "work into the Weld County farms and homes surrounding the new site. ':!e do hope in making your decision you will c^^sider the objections of the people who c' n and operate the land nearby. We urge you to vote NO on this proposal ! Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincergcze Gary and Nanette. Adler )7✓,3[W O `T1 1983 pal; Ceti. �13i:s1's�: „e'EtL'=1T-Uo • • Co.. .vo ...r1'J:. is ) / -'.,i` :-c_. .. 2V 1;0. 3dL.-^ : av 5 c.o-- r.._.: i.Liticir _ 30a,_,;&..-act d on __:. a._• a.: ;. < J .2 to Co -..✓.-L. LVr: .V .< J_. JJ• f- i1 v _.✓ .i - o {. � .. .. .7.. : -,-...i. . 3 . .r J t ciitela.,4",,CL;16' ' • ? kt-1:72.7.141[X--, ' �F g5Q Wai3 to- inagaibt i.oatmitinD • • December 9, 1986 15 198b Weld Cc. hi naaat2 L° Peron Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 10th . Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Members of the Weld County Planning Commission ; This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. Case Number : USR - 770 :36:51 . we purchased a s P a year aoo dirert_1y_ across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site . The acreage was intended for a buitdin❑ site . We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition , we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one—half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate . We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concerns. They are as follows: 1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a major concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution . The odor this operation emits is twice as bad for one's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above . 3. MILK OVERSURPLUS Why is a laroe investment corporation allowed to operate 2,400 head when small local dairies are cuttino herds - choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the average independent dairyman? • • 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows, especially when a cow requires at least 35 gallons of water a day? Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn' t the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads hauling milk products, feed, manure , etc . Noise from the truck traffic , cows, machinery and human traffic would be constant day and nioht . Lighting would need to be on continually to provide liohts for the workers to operate at nioht . 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large , heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses within the area profit that much from this corporation or do they do their business outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime a.oricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products, water availability, waste , control , no community or county advantage and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property . Pte'^' ^ Please vote no on this and not allow this large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. We have lived in the Johnstown area for 16 years and lived in Colorado all of our life . We have been active voters and are continually working to make our community a better place to live . We want to continue to make this our home . Please don' t force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state . Sincerely, d/.CGQiJIIZ 4�/1�1�� Duane Frye 113 Kind Avenue Johnstown , Colorado 80534 • December 9, 1986 Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 10th . Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Members of the Weld County Planning Commission ; This letter is to Protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. Case Number : USR - 770 :86:51 . We purchased a small acreage a year ago directly across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site . The acreage was intended for a building site . We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition , we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one -half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate . We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concerns. They are as follows: 1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a major concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution . The odor this operation emits is twice as bad for one's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above . 3. MILK OUERSURPLUS Why is a large investment corporation allowed to operate 2,400 head when small local dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the average independent dairyman? l 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows, especially when a cow requires at least 35 gallons of water a day? Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn' t the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic or, the roads hauling milk products, feed, manure , etc . Noise from the truck traffic , cows. machinery and human traffic would be constant day and night . Lighting would need to be on continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at night . 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large , heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses within the area profit that much from this corporation or do they do their business outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products, water availability, waste , control , no community or county advantage and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property . • • Please vote no on this and not allow this laroe corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. We have lived in the Johnstown area for 16 years and lived in Colorado all of our life . We have been active voters and are continually working to make our community a. better place to live . We want to continue to make this our home . Please don' t -force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state . Sincerely,, ilief Nyla Frye 113 King Avenue Johnstown , Colorado 8Cj534 I. • Di ( .1__• . 21�$b r —rt---, 7 r"y:;;'Held Co- ?lauuiu4 u: rss:or. December 9, 1986 - , r • II •c„ 4 I `� W.1:j CO. PL393rQQ esInnussi:t. Dear-M-'1.-QC- /-,)/.1 trill c)) This letter" is in regard to the Aurora Capital Corporation to obtain a special use permit for a livestock confinement operation for 2,400 head of dairy cow at the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and 38. We are located on the South-East corner where the dairy is proposed to be built on Weld County Road 33. We are very concerned over this type of operation being situated in a place that - in the opinion of nearly all people in that area - would have a definite negative impact on this area. It was our understanding that the intention of the Federal Government Dairy Buyout program was to decrease the oversupply of milk product in the country:- So this not only affects us but also the small family dairy operation. What is to happen to them? Is it fair to the people that are in this area or to the small family dairy farm to subsidize another dairy herd when we really don't need it? There are other factors which must be addressed with this size of operation are smell- The proof of this can be found on the large dairy operation of the same proprietors of this proposed dairy West of Platteville on Hwy :66.- Increased volume of heavy truck traffic to haul feed, milk and manure; which would contribute to further deterioration to road conditions in the surrounding area. Also, drainage and seepage problems from the corrals and catch ponds Could pollute irrigation water and shallow wells, and the flys. In conclusion, the negative -aspects (as mentioned above) could result from this type of operation. We are not opposed to a dairy operation in the ordinances of Weld County, but we don't want an operation of this size to be built in the proposed area. I would also like to ask you to consider how you would . feel if proposed dairy were built adjacent to your homes? Sincerely; Citizens 0p osp ing Dairy Greg�and�•Anna Spaur F--, —:ay r • • December 9, 1986 WELD COUNTY PLANNING & COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 SUBJECT: Aurora Capital Corporation's Special Use Permit We are writing to ask you to deny the special use permit that has been applied for at the location of WCR 15 amd WCR 38 for a livestock confinement operation for 2,400 head of dairy cows. We are well aware of what such an operation can do to the quality of life in the area one is located. The same type of operation on Highway 66 causes such a stench it permeates the air for miles around it, and makes living near such an area unendurable for the average person. We moved to our home on Weld County Road 17 ten years ago for the quality of life it afforded us and our five children. And if our quality of life is ruined by a neighbor such as the one that is planning to move near us, our home which we love will go up for sale and we will move out of Weld County. We know of no reason why you would approve this operation as the tax gains are minimal , they do not hire local labor, their trucks would cause more frequent road repairs, land around the area would be devaluated, they do not purchase their hay or feed locally but ship it in from Nebraska, and it would be extremely detrimental to the small dairy farmers' income in the area. AND most important is the fact that the pollution from drainage from their corrals and ponds would pollute irrigation water, shallow wells and eventually river water. The poisonous sprays required for insect control would pollute the air we breath. 0 E .5 tV E DEC 1 1986 left Co.RISK Calmlissital • • -2- We have been told by Weld County residents that you as a group approve everything that comes your way with no regard to the environment - I truly hope this is not the case and you will NOT approve this special use permit. Sincerely, 7 /27. CL>).Z,- ( 57 Mr. & Mrs. Chuck Stieff 17666 Weld County Road 17 Platteville, CO 80651 587-2500 cc: Jackie Johnson Gordon Lacy Bill Kirby Gene Brantner Frank Yamaguchi Lydia Dunbar Doug Graff Lynn Brown Paulette Weaver Louis Rademacher LeAnn Reid Jack Holman Ivan Gosnell Ann Garrison C"` .> "� • • • Bill Claus 17896 W.C.R. 7 Platteville, Co. 80651 •Weld County Planning Commission ; " rJt liH 915 10th. St .Greeley , Co. 80631 If _ _, L - J,,0 To Whom It May Concern : 1' In regards to the pending Colo. Dairy Farms application for a new dairy on the corner of W.C.R . 38 and 15 , I for one am in favor of its passage. T am in the custom hay business and I have done business with Colorado Dairy Farms ever since they opened their dairy on Highway 66 . They have proven to be tough negotiators, but always fair and they have always paid their bills on time. I buy and sell them several tons of locally grown alfalfa, oat hay , and straw annually . While it is true they do not buy everything locally, it is partially because of the lack of the big one ton bales that are put up in this area . Colorado Dairy Farms has encouraged me to purchase a ton baler, which I have done, so they can use more of the local feed available to them. In the course of hauling hay into their dairy , I have found the corrals to always be clean and freshly bedded . I think they do as much as possible and more than a lot of other local daicys to keep their place at or above state and local regulations. While I can understand the neighboring landlords and tenants objections, I believe that in a tough agricultural climate we need to seek every possible means to improve the market place for locally grown feeds. I feel that if Colo. Dairy Farms has done their research and their plans meet state and county requirements, then they should be allowed co go ahead with a project that will benefit our community . Sincerely, • Bill Claus A-1 MECHANICAL INC. P.0.Box 207 Niwot, Colorado 80544 Weld County Planning Commissoness 12-10-86 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 I am writting to you in support of Colorado Dairy Farms for the development of the Anderson farm. Colorado Dairy are a real asset to the county of Weld. They have a very clean operation now existing on Highway 66. They spend a large amount of money in the local area for feed grains - hay - insulage, motor vechicles and in the payroll of their company. They are a very good company to so work for. I have done the plumbing for three barns. They are pleasant to work for and they pay their bills prompty. The Anderson farm would be an asset to Weld County for the taxes it would pay and the grains and feed ti would buy from Weld County farms. I hope in your serving on the planning commission that you can support this Dairy operation on the Anderson farm. Thank You for your time and consideration. Vern H. Vinson A-1 Mechanical Inc. Niwot, Colorado 652-2794 or 573-1087 a� )0\1 1 I la �—, 15 1; {{^�l ; v ... LA.; ; t :ttki Ca. ?i2thaa, • 1S683 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 303-587-2773 December 11, 1986 Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 - 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Weld County Commissioners P 0 Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 'Dear Commissioners: I'm very concerned about the possibility of a large dairy farm operating on the former Glen Anderson farm, on the corner of Weld county Road #15 and Weld County Road #38. The Colorado Dairy Pam Aurora Capital Corporation has an operation on Colorado Highway 66, west of Plattville, Colorado. This operation has to be the smellest I'v ever seen. Having the operation only a few thousand feet from my home sicken me. My family moved here from a large city for.the peace and quiet of the area. I'm concerned about the smell, the value of my home, noise, traffic, insects, ponds, etc.,etc.. I want you to put a stop to this operation,it just makes no sense. Yours truly, A concerned cit.' Fay Elms Please make copies of this letter for each;commissioner.fri CV Et'Micri. r r 1986 Weld Co. Pfamaag GWIcas ♦ • LAND-USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: December 9, 1986 CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301 REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SWI of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38. SIZE OF PARCEL: 160 acres ± POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS: The criteria for Planning Commission review are listed in Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the Standards and Conditions of Section 24.5, 24.6, and 24.3.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance are met. Our office has received several letters in opposition and support to the proposed request. To date, referral agencies that have responded to the referral have no objections to the proposed request. • 54-... �-``,a.. . a-%.•%;\ o' I52 - .. . .. � • lI `./.. (s / •`. — '7.N._r_ e F 50 • .o n ��riiE. • c" roar......, r � p. _ First c 48 a— M. .-------....c„--:. •�_ii,--: . =x - - Z % G Al.r G •'Sr_�.r • w q' a ar . ar. - - r. a • . \ Q ..'-.n • _ -• C. i •• V1 ..C I 13 • U II-, •M.�r '• .• 5\ r. is n • � 1 + C-. 5 —• •� a.+ 44 roxr.S r f .-^~• ....•. a �,. •C:• j • _ _ 5-rdcr• •• - f�I TAN. {, r^ _ .lit a a as / 4E s . �• 1 ter- "2-• .i'. ,, {J`- { E eP e. as : . .• p • c c . 34 Yom~ �tiC�+r. :: �r •r? ••• � : mss^ _ �— ': Y, ,a• ,'��w '' -�a 1 \ ,• .•T3N. c I1. - • - .• c0.. ' t\ PF. c •30 ...CP a !" •` .. .•., 47 _ L 1 r C. z.28 �'— _ •�- •• .. r-- �, j z , c- ,f . • —1_ q.t. t ter - .� ._ L'r^"j e.✓. ,- crw....rL•- • •26 - i 1 P'Eo- / „ .r�a I '— r -= • ' : y. ^'' t:ar, '-1 t: '•:•z -▪ - .G rn rK. • C • ?. • 24 . -. ''''-1"11, 1... S •. • P J • • • .- N[r ua..•r •' _ plIr. • ^[�•tl1Y7[�M• • i / • • i•/� 22 o _,."":"‘"--- - ...-2.1.-_,..." . — s----:, i., ;•tr , ' case ,. 'c., • -' - de'yr. - I. - C. ' J y 18 a - - . .e - " c C - Vo�srO / • l • •/•—�- - • / _ _ .. L 1_ro r _ / - 'n: .l 16 - r -- .i%a s • c ''',.!,91%c zr- . '-_• p• • - :c 0.?:___' ....., =i • e' _ '-• ''• Z v:x.-i4 -' .Y, y15° .'5 /i c `a a. ' -.1: ,i 4.,...r.\I /i I II `N/0 N2 / l I I III r� )19'12. 0 g �; � , l /� 1 L .r" • v Y V r\ , � II . ' 4YTu ' 1f 4931 4435/// ' 1 i U �.y95 'C tl • OTd AWa5 t,� 4960 4.43 1 `otir /�J a9/1 l - - ":SPri+y / 4896 Sunyan 1, �1 / IL % ' : i� 1 9� l i I� at .� $ li v --`__ fit` - i ` I,.— -,ex._ 99oM �s y 4934 1' ;-'7:::----, ,o�{i( 1 503/ I:I! 3495 ��-�� (�(, P,I l / ` *} 900 , \I _ �•\ i -� \ ,_.\ `J . 4W6 ..�<a.� _ r B1/11--.N--- _ 4844 7- - •\`I`� 6� ..._ 4863 ''‘. .-- :,-N. ___/ .‘PC ;[ 4200 �r ` ms / . `�, \ _ � lC3t 1' I —-__ r_._ \ �,�'�� ' v/p ie]. �., 11p49$/ \ " - 1 � `cm, St VT l' \ ' N JC�� - - - ' 0 .- �' _ 'may -, �;. I. N \ -% - ' 4yss �,9so\ �°0 cf • ' - - :i - ` $ r u Vt . -W� I"' y1 l 7. c. -4 t- f r _ a t s, : "A';,l• ,'I Nipikti .: . N. 4 0!5 • 4. }�p4G�Wy Grp. 4'(:, 1' ' yo- i m � t}. 1fT :I i F. Ill✓ '1. :.� - l Q,PY 'J- .J fd a �'^ � !!.q*A G `C -a '-4.41-1.:(:;-'c' i) " ,s + s'Nf xi b nay .. pbls st 't 1 t r IKYR\ WWy, 'Y rte°{ .t, C ,11.::;1 .a • v .+4„;3 t • YS d2 Ss-,-.0.":-% t5 { v+< - 'r - .. /: G ...T f \ -..' • 6 ..6 y_• S'Y .. Colorado 7c • Dairy Farms AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION 7388 State Highway 66 • Longmont, Colorado 80501 (303)535-4626 November 26, 1986 WELD COUNTY • Department of Planning Services • 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe This letter is to confirm our conversation in your office on November 26, 1986. As I pointed out a mistake was inadvertently made on the map and property owners list turned into your office on the Aurora Dairy Farms project. The property directly West of our farm is actually owned by Anderson Farms and not Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation. Anderson Farms address is: Anderson Farms C/O Mrs. Harold Anderson • 621 23rd Street #2 Greeley, CO 80631 I am sorry about this mix up. If you have any questions please contact me. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter. Sincerely, .dam-a,.eeYr • George A. Smith • s rf sa C = Ili/ 2 • t (r` �f °^ •-" r �w� !DI REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Aurora Capitol Corporation CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 SENT REFERRALS OUT: REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: December 8, 1986 NO SR NR NO SR NR X Weld County Health Department • X Engineering Department ,✓ X County Extension Agent X State Engineer Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 X Town of Milliken Margaret Wakeman Milliken, CO 80543 X Louis Rademacher 13184 Weld County Road 13 Longmont, CO 80501 X Fort Collins Soil Conservation District Suite 25 2625 Redwing Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 % Johnstown Fire District John Shultz 21475 Weld County Road 19 Milliken, CO 80543 X Ekerkenbeck Lateral Albert H. Jeffers 17475 Weld County Road 17 Platteville, CO 80651 NO-No Objection SR-Specific Recommendations NRallo Response FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: TSR-770-86:52 DATE OF INSPECTION: / —/.—S6' NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation, Barney Little REQUEST: use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION:part of the swh of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County LAND USE: N TTP ZONING: N LOCATION: ApRroximately 2 miles southwest of E `1 rI Milliken; east of Weld County Road 15 and south S of Weld County Road 40 W COMMENTS: QY�t- Gr--c.ccf /1/2;44'..e -e—c 11 AGENDA .. .,TE December 16, 1986 NAME Aurora Capital Corporation ADDRESS 7388 State Highway 66, Longmont L Barney Little L OCATION Approximately 2 miles southwest of Milliken; east o£ Weld County Road 15 and south of Weld County Road 40 LEGAL DESCR IPTION Part of the SW1 of Section 32, T4N, R67w of the 6th P.M. T Y P E OPERATION Livestock Confinement Operation (2,400 head dairy) • COMMENTS:: _ii7A € Z fit2c/ • 4(21,7- 7986 weld co. Flamm¢ cammissiuc iELD COUNTY TXTENS O cCR7_TC° r -, - ! AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE STATE OF COLORADO I iss COUNTY OF WELD ) I,Clyde Briggs,do solemnly swear that I am publisher of The Johnstown Breeze: _ that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Weld, State of Colorado. and has a general circulation therein; that ' said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said • County of Weld for a period of more than NOTICB OF PUBLIC HIBBING fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the are weld county `Rtenntrp first publication of the annexed legal notice Commission will conduct a pubaa bearing on or advertisement; that said newspaper tae et lcao D.M. tto reviewar quest been admitted to the United States mails as for approval of a livestocre con I finement opemtipn 2aoo need second-class matter under the provision;or dairy) from Aurora Capital cot_ the Act of March a, 1879, or any potation ,ns p-paeta .Ian ,a ) amendments thereof, and that said afunbe32.sTdN.oR87Wso/ the sm P-M.wail corny,orto. newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly no^tai^loo 161 a«ea. more or qualified for publishing legal notices and leas TAB pBrry approximately miles soyt�teweadt advertisements within the meaning of the of Milliken, at the northeut laws of the State of Colorado. comer d the intersection of Weld count Road 15 and weld That the annexed legal notice or advertise- County Road 39• ment was published in the regular and . The motto nearing to be held by entire issue of every number of said weekly • the ionld r the hey nsnnlog tom• newspaper for the period of ..l... consecu thea mission for Consideration d Me aco`ducreferenced request wm tive insertions; and that the first be ty C.omed in the weld -Room. First First Flo r. wen. Nearing publication of said entire was to the issue of Centennial Center.weld Caenty said newspaper dated Ns✓ Z�AJ). lb��, Street SreeCenter, 915 Tenth et'. Cdondo con and that the last publication of said notice teats or objections honed to was in the issue of said newspaper dated submitted above request should Wbmdtetl in writnp-of the Wad • Ca,my Department t PlSt ng A.D. 14 services. acs eel; Streak - In witness whereof I have hereunto set Room sae, Weetey, CAN fed° .4 my hand tins ....2 G day of .aAt✓Preen before the above date or J) ' Presented December gj8.p19B&� A.D.^0 ' 199k `n� Copies of the ePPlkatbn are nc eve De tot punk impaction M - /� (/ IDs De Roomtment d Planning `'///� Smites Room ceoi we Publisher Count' rCentennial Colo; 816 Tenth Street Greet, C Extension- 44O1 .- ' PhD:44O1 358.4 Extaneuon A 4400. - Jack Haman, Chairman Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Weld County Planning 1 Notary Public in and for the Cp. day of unty of Commission W Id,State of Colorado, this To 212. .`be published in the Johns, town Some NO{ Ai), 119.51....co . To bepublished one(11 time by November 27, geag � )U aSitX. ,Hu ;-So fiertIh4i-t Notary bite. `J-th1/fou-n C.\ My commission expires t'1 - i 1.(. i r ^""f • p; . c 'I.'. " PRODUCERS LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSSOCATON December 3, 1986 Dear Member of Weld County Planning Commission, This letter is to inform you of our support for Colorado Dairy Farms in Longmont, Colorado, in their efforts to develope a dairy operation on the Corner of Rd. 38 and Rd. 15. Colorado Dairy Farms has sold as well as bought thousands of dollars worth of dairy livestock through Greeley Producers each year. Their business is consistent each week and is a valuable asset to our employees as well as to our Company and this community. Greeley Producers business is dependent on the farmers, ranchers and dairy- men of Weld County and local areas. When our business improves as well as when other agricultural business' grow, then all in Weld County benefit. We hope this information will be of some help to you in your decision, Respectfully yours, Lonnie Dunn Greeley Producers Dairy Sales 4r-cr r1: 1'tL^ ' 1986 j H'GHWAY 85 NORTH OF GREELEY PO BOX P GREELEY,COLORADO 8063^. TEL(303)3 !a12 Weld to. Planninz L'amaustian • • Li C iEELEY.cottt Decexuer 3, 1986 Weld County .tommissidners Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed "Colo h£ii n`; Farms :aurora Capitol Corp" . r!y name is Glenn H. Spaur and ., own on quarter inter- est in the farm directly ly _.. . e South East o i+' proposed ;airy. First , it is my interest in the near future to build a house on a portion cf my ground and retire there. I don 't think it 6-Jo .t1d be very relaxing to live there with ail of the -tench , road noise. etc , tha.t tt i u: iry would bring. Also, I am con•cerneo what _`�iv mould do or proper y v flues. It is my belief that an operation of this slza could be planned :or an area far out from a populated one. I strongly urge you to vote . .o On thi.- issue. Thank you f'or your time, Glenn H. S.,aur P.S. Would You Please See That Copies Are Made And Given To Each Commissioner. 4 c°�MB rccmk y CUMCUM -0a_ " Dec . 3, 1986 91 G, " r mci 4326 Oxford Road ( I Longmont; CO . 80501 Dear -J ie a4 - �'+ DEC 81986 . Gc e o �So�j CJf� - My brother, (Dr. James L. Brewbaker,cilF =o c}l '3 aii, Dept. of Horticulture) and I co-own 320 acres of land which lies immediately south of the proposed Colorado Dairy Farms operation. This is the previous Glen Ander- son farm, located at the juncture of Weld County Roads #15 and #38. Our father purchased this land many years ago and diligently worked to bring it into top agricultural status. Since his death we have worked in the same tradition and are most proud of the splendid quality of this acerage. These past 12 years we have had an outstanding farm-oriented young couple - to tenant the land and they, we know, wish to continue and perhaps see the land eventually fall into the caring hands of their sons. We have, therefore, a deep personal interest in all lands which lie in this vininity. We have very serious concerns and valid objections to the above take-over by a huge dairy cow operation and urge that you become as well informed as possible before hearings take place before your boards. This transaction would create a high density dairy cow operation of from 2 to 4 thousand head and placed on prime agricultural farm land. If established, we can easily foresee many ugly conditions arising that could definetly affect the life'les of the many persons who have chosen to live and work there. Neither of us had received any information at all from the CO . Dairy Farms save a brief letter, which arrived the day before Thanksgiving, inviting us to an informational workshop which happened today . As we are both employed neither of us could attend. However, since we both wished to be as fully informed as possible and since Jim was here briefly for the holiday, we visited the mother company, which is located on Highway 66. We visited for almost 2 hrs. with the assistant general Manager, Mr. George Smith. We approached the facility from the east on this chilly Nov. afternoon--pausing briefly to survey the facility. The odor was, in a word, horrendous. I ask that you do as we did, before you consider making any judgement. Stop by the facility on highway 66 and then ask yourself, would you willingly have a beautiful home immediately across the highway from that? The home of our tenants lies exactly that close. I asked Mr. Smith if it were his home, would he have any concerns? He answered very honestly that he would have the same concerns as do we. There are other, .tjor concerns above and beyond the odor problem: 1) Increased volume of traffic to daily haul feed, milk and manure. 2) Increased traffic by those employed., We are told 30 + will be needed to work the operation. If they shall be housed as those are on the mother facility, then I pity these people. 3) Stagnating water in the necessary catch ponds create odor plus an inviting environment for insects. Think, too, of the poisonous sprays which must be used to control such a population and what about underground water seepage which could, in time, very much affect those people who live nearby? • lC •• • Page 2 4) As I am sure you are aware the Federal Government recently inaguzated a massive Dairy Buyout Program in order to de- crease the oversupply of milk products in this country. I • thought this action was also taken to protect the r..-al? and _ independent dairyman from takeovers by large corporations, which is exactly what this would be. 5) There are many other concerns but I shall mention only, in closing, that should this operation be allowed there is { absolutely no question but that land values shall drop and rapidly so . And that is an enormous pity for the many fine folk who have loved this prime agricultural region; worked its soil and harvested its bounty with gladness . Surely the dedicated farmers and ranchers in America today are beset by enough problems. Anything that any one of us can do to make their way of living just a little bit easier should, in my judgement, be doing just that . I 'm sure you will agree with me that Weld County claims some of the richest, most productive agricultural land in all of Colorado . I sincerely hope it shall remain that way. Sincerely yours, �r rte. Ann Brewrja'er Sor meson • • gam"- •y ��,,VI)VII, Di 1) , iv /c fl December 5, 1983 1 -DEC. $_ it; tiid Weld County Commissioners '‘- 3.Hffi C 1ZO. F.O. Box 758 , Greeley, Colorado 80632 - - • - • Dear Jackie Johnson, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Jim Flynn. I live west of Longmont and own a small acreage and a welding shop. Currently I have no employees. I have been doing business with Colorado Dairy for the past two years. During this time I have done some welding and fabrication work for them. I also buy calves from them on a regular basis Barney Little, the general manager of Colorado Dairy and his employees have been very honest and straight with me in all the dealing that we have had over the past two years. Colorado Dairy is a very big supporter cf the 4-H clubs and individuals in the area that are interested in agriculture. They purchased several Weld County 4-Hers livestock this year at the annual 4-H livestock sale. I see no reason that the new dairy they are proposing should not be allowed._-_.This would be an asset to the local farming community and would add tremendously to an already depressed agricultural market. frZ74nanks for y ur time, s T. Flynn • C� � • December 3, 1986 `, E X1.+ 0, ; ^ tt' DEC 81986 . To: Weld County Commissioners & Planning Commissioner c,- -RE: 'tolorado Diary Farms 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Proposed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15 Itis my understanding that a group of people are opposing the building of another dairy farm by Colorado Diary_ It seems they are concerned with the stench the farm may cause, that they employ out of state persons and that they do not buy the products locally that are necessary to maintain their operation. I have been an electrician for a firm in Longmont for the past 15 years and our company has serviced serveral dairy, cattle, chicken and turkey farms in the surrounding area. As the main serviceman for our company assigned to Colorado Dairy when called for-service, I feel that I am quite qualified to express my opinions to you in this matter as follows based on personal ex- perience and from information I have gathered through inquiries. 1 . Colorado Dairy is one of the cleanest run dairy farms in the State 2. There are less flys there than any farm I have been on due to the spraying by approved methods for dairy farms 3. They buy all of their feed locally except for cotton seed which is not available in this State 4. Their present operation employees 50-55 people of which only 2 came from out of state. The new operation is expected to employee 30-35 more 5. They spend thousands of dollars .on chemicals for their cesspool to control ordor 6. Their company has spent between 7 - 8 million dollars locally & in the state annually. 7. After construction is completed, approximately 4 trucks a day will be additional traffic to the road surrounding the proposed site Please consider these points very carefully in your decision for Colorado Dairy. If the opposition continues to press this issue, perhaps they wish to buy the land for themselves. Then they could pay for Colorado Dairy to find another location satifactory to both parties since Colorado Diary has already made one purchase. - SincereIL y, '� y � Orval Hedger -,�•� 206 Mumford Ave. Longmont, Colorado 80501 r'Gordon D.Brown,DVM Fort Lupton (303)857-6671 Robert O.Dull,DVM - Greeley Greeley-Platteville Area (303)785-2104 John R.Ewing,DVM _ Glenn S.Cook,DVM ANIMAL CLINIC 232 First Street i i•$ IyoO 4Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 GREELEY. COLA December 5, 1986 Dear Bill: I am writing you as regards the proposed dairy to be built by Aurora Capital Corporation at county roads 38 and 15. I have had the opportunity over the last four years to work with Colorado Dairy Farms providing veterinary services for them. I have been impressed with their abilities not only in • managing their dairy operations, but also the great effort •they--have--p -forth to be good neighbors and to handle the difficult problems such as waste disposal and odor control. As far as economic impact, they provide jobs directly and indirectly in a part of the county which can only benefit from such employment. Colorado Dairy Farms have utilized local services-and suppliers a great deal; this includes feed, medication, equipment, etc. These advantages aside, it is good to see positive investment in agriculture at a time when the tide seems to be running the other way. In conclusion, I would like to say that the record established lncatly by Aurora Capital Corporation at Colorado Dairy Farms should lay to rest any concerns that people in the area have. I recommend that they be given the • opportunity to proceed with their proposed development plans for the new dairy. Sincerely, ,,-2 John R. Ewing, DVM JRE/cbh • Cep Colorado Animal Health, Inc. 1351 Sherman Drive Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 772-2636 December 2, 1986 Mitt= -rirrf Jackie Johnson — r^ ^'�� c �� P.O. Box 7,,s � . ,�_, Greeley, CO 80632 1:1 ' DEC $ 5 Dear Commissioner Johnson, tbi\ EEL Sy. Coto. The purpose of this letter is to give the Weld County. Commissioners and the Weld County Planning Commissioners some - information about the Colorado Dairy Farm located on Hwy 66 west of Platteville, Colorado. Hopefully it will aid in clarifying some concerns and/or statements about the operation. To qualify the statements, let me briefly inform you about Colorado Animal Health, Inc. of Longmont, Colorado. It is a business which is involved in servicing and selling of biologicals, pharmaceuticals, and equipment for the beef , dairy, swine, equine and small animal pet industries. It is owned and operated by James Martin who resides in Weld County. Colorado Animal Health employs eight people. The area serviced by Colorado Animal Health includes the State of Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska_ The large number of dairies and feedlots which we service on a weekly basis give some merit to the evaluation made. A. Patronizing Local Businesses. Colorado Dairy Farms started doing business locally with Colorado Animal Health, Inc. in 1981. As their operation increased in size, so did their purchases-They spent - t218,808.00 in 1985 and have thus. far in 1986 spent $259,430.00. This indicates a very strong commitment to do business locally. In addition to their purchases, they buy much of their feed from the local area. Many of their cows are purchased locally. Vehicles, equipment, fuel and machinery purchases are all made from the area businesses. B. Corral Management. The corrals are scraped on a daily-basis and much effort is put forth in maintaining a clean environment for the cows. Several indicators of a good job being done in this area are low incidence of mastitis, excellent herd health, production of milk and fly control in summer months. C. Fly Control . The farm spends X12,600.00 annually on products for fly control . It is a high priority as it directly affects how well the cows produce. As a result of their efforts, the fly - control has been excellent at Colorado Dairy Farm. The product they use is cleared for use in dairies. It does not Kaye an odor. - • S • D. Odors. They had experienced some difficulty in this area initially because it was an existing system on the property when it was purchased. They are spending the time, effort and money to correct the situation. Their commitment to the problem is evident with the progress that has been made. E. Community ;Support. Colorado Dairy Farm employs fifty-eight people. All but three were hired from the local job market. They also have an office in Boulder, Colorado which employs fifteen people. • Colorado Dairy Farm has shown their support to the youth in the area by purchasing animals at the 4-H livestock sale. Last August they purchased six animals at this sale. In summation, Colorado Dairy Farm spends millions of dollars annually on feed, cattle and services locally. An additional 2500 cow dairy would provide more local employment, demand for agricultural products and a need for more local services. Above all it would put about ten million dollars annually into the local cash flow. The excellent management of the existing Colorado Dairy Farm should be the best indicator that their new operation would meet or exceed all of the standards set forth by the County and the State. Some concerns are normal , but a visit to the existing facility should put these concerns at rest. Five years of observation and business association with the farm have convinced Colorado Animal Health 's entire staff that their intent is to be a first class operation. Colorado Dairy Farm wants to do an outstanding job producing milk and maintain the best environment possible for their cows and employees. Colorado Animal Health, Inc. was awarded a trip to Maui by a manufacturer which is December 10th through December 17th. I personally would like to attend the December 16th Planning Commission meeting in Greeley, but due to the trip I will be out of town. A company representative will be there on my • behalf. If there are any questions and you feel that I can be of any assistance, please feel free to call me at 772-26 .6 or at home which is 772-0692. • Respectfully, James H. Martin, President ,Colorado Animal Health, Inc. • ti •. • • • 17(• December 1, 1.986 e - 31986 Dear ;,12. i.?i22a, • This latter is in regard to the lcr^.e dairy o:era-ion being considered for the former Glen Anderson farm .Lich is located on 'Ae1d County road ,h5 and road 43a- '' ; y-husband and myself; :c- well as many of the surrounding neighbors, '-have cuestions. and concerns regarding an operation . of this size to eerie to our area. ,e feel that land value will go down, yet further. • Nearby established dairies, as large or larger than this operation, donot and havenot sought out to purchase feed pro_ duced in -this immediate area. Local people are not hired on, they bring people in from . else::here, still :limiting jobs for the area. • The schools : re already crowded, as well as -the trans- portation to and from school. The roads in the area are already under : rviced and we feel heavy truck' traffic will further deterioate them. The taxes raid by this orsrat'_on will be mini::al compared to the overall effects an operation of this size '_l? afford :field County, The catch roads on dairy oeerat_cns create stagnated water and very undesirable odors, cc.uaing growth in i ,_ccz not to mention the added air :ollution. Clutter to the area, when multi-faaily homes are moved onto the land to house the labor force, thus using additional water taps where we are already at .a minimum. The surrounding country is peaceful and quiet. with an addi- tion of this magnitude to our area it will be like zovind to to::.n. My husband and myself also agree that because this is crime agricultural farm land, that an om•eration of this size should consider moving out to eastern Colorado where there is :...re room for this tyre of business. • We also question the need for such an operation. Our co.:cern is • the effect on established small dairies in future yeare. e ask that you consider and think about our concerns -:nd - that you NOT acorove the _ �1 icztien from the Colarado Dairy Perms Aurora Caeital Corporation. Thank you for your can_i:_erati en in this _Sher of -t _:oc-ta nce to us . Cie ..ill = p,-eciate a vote ag=inat th Sincerely, Melvin and 3a-bara Lein::ewer 1693.5 U. C. Road 15 Platteville, CO. 30551 535-,373 .,, .� November 2, 1986 2 - DEC 41986 • JEAN BREWHAKER 7688 N 41ST ST LONGMONT CO 80501 This letter is to inform you of the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation buying and expanding their operation to the location of Weld County Road #38 and Weld County Road #15, the Glen Anderson Farm. We have many concerns and questions regarding this transaction. According to information that we have obtained, this transaction would create a high density dairy cow operation of from two thousand to four thousand head of dairy cattle placed on prime agricultural farm land. Once this operation is established, we foresee it creating many undesirable conditions that would affect everyone ' s lifestyle within a very large surrounding area. Major concerns include the following: ▪ further devaluation of surrounding land once a dairy as described above is operating ▪ minimal local and county tax gains as compared with the adverse conditions it would create for all • stagnating water in catch ponds thereby causing very undesirable odors and creating an environment for large insect populations . poisonous sprays that are required for insect control • increased volume of heavy truck traffic to haul feed, milk and manure ▪ deteriorating road conditions, due to heavy truck P---) traffic, in the immediate and surrounding areas C7 g l • drainage problems from the corrals and ponds that could pollute irrigation water, shallow wells and eventually river water 4 cr> - alteration of the farm atmosphere when many multi- cc family homes are moved onto the land to house the �> ;z labor force • • . destruction of the general peacefulness of the area with continual heavy traffic and constant pollution of the air which create contrary conditions to the interests and welfare of the seven families whose homes are within 500 feet of the site We also question the need for such an operation. It appears, based on the Federal Government's dairy buyout program, that an operation such as this would be discouraged. We also question the legality of a large investment corporation increasing the _ number of dairy herds, while small independent dairymen in the surrounding area are choosing to sell dairy cows and discontinue production of milk products . There is concern as to the magnitude of a large commercial dairy operation and its effect on small dairies in future years . Based on information we have obtained about the existing Colorado Dairy Farm located at 7388 HWY #66, Platteville, Colorado, they have been in violation of environmental laws and have shown limited patronage of local businesses, farm products and local labor. We seriously question the construction of another operation. We are asking for your support to not approve the application from the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation because the lifestyle of the families in the area will be greatly altered. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this matter o£ great importance to us. Your vote against this is vital. Sincerely, ,'1,'}SaCt.,,/,1 &,Q,ezi-tedca 4 7-oz'b4Lc 1 `- cn. ��t 4 535X373Cizens Opposing Dairy /{ ,tip ✓'—' V- .,t'f �Z 4 / 3) ., '- _ \ SS?- fiv_j --ran-t-A-C`", `1/ C,1\. , '<\f"..-.71 re 7 _t Vfb`2 U/ , ,. :- ii-k7,-, /%�<e, . ,',t.4'Yt?.J Lk. LZY-1S-F\. r %`�' Lt r aar( m cchccvt 2, / ,' i: %- ✓-- l 53'7-2271 C _ 7. c'e3 - / / i/ l'! 4r� / . -).74::' a • 17-?‘"61- jG" l�'� `24k 5- (fir I/ / SEA 9 }2 L CT J a• Lkw ttory Exthimule, Inc. P.O.Box 218 Telephone 842.5115 BRUSH, COLORADO 80723 November 28, 1986 Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 10th. St. Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen: I am aware of Colorado Dairy's plans for a new facility in your county. I am writing with the utmost enthusiastic support for this project. It .hardly needs to be mentioned that agriculture dependent areas have taken an economic beating the past few years. Counties such as our own Morgan County have spent thousands of dollars pur- suing businesses to locate in our area hoping to stimulate the economy. My congratulations to you for being an area desirable enough to attract such an outstanding addition to the economic scene. We are envious of you. In our dealings with the Colorado Dairy organization we have found them to be very professional and ethical. These people would be a fine addition to the business community. The effect of the dollars generated by agri- cultural commodities consumption, labor force usage and taxes will be enormous. If I can be of any further assistance as a reference for Barney Little and his organization, feel free to con- • tact me. Sincerely, Gutga124642i Gary Yfodgson Willard Eartnagle GH/kv . -- - , . 3 !1 , ; A • ' AAELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. • 24 South Main,P.O.Box 145 '`."ii rrc..,;,r,� Longmont,Colorado 80501 Telephone 776-6031 ,�,j Metro 444-2989 .'r {�11/ DEC t November 26, 1986 Gat. COto. To: Weld County Commissioners RE: Colorado Dairy Farms 7388 State Highway 66 -- Longmont, Colorado 80501 Proposed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15 I would like to purpose the following reasons and considerations I feel you should examine seriously as to why Colorado Dairy should be permitted to con- tinue their upcoming project as per plans and specifications which they have submitted. They are as follows: 1 . Local business expenditures 2. They are an asset to the community - not a liability 3. Employment for the area 4. Tax revenues 5. Payroll of which a major portion is circulated in the surrounding area 6. A market for area farm products (grain, silage, etc.) 7. They bought property in the appropriate area for opeations 8. The zoning conforms with the proposed operation 9. Once the criteria is met, why should anyone deny one' s project on one' s own property 10. The owner has met the criteria at the present proposed location, they should not be required to incure the same expense a 2nd time 11 . If Colorado Dairy is not allowed to proceed as submitted, I see only one option to follow - Let the opposition buy the property and relocate the owner to the satisfaction of both parties at the oppositions expense. In summary, I feel you, as a commissioner, should consider all the positive aspects of this project and vote for the approval of Colorado Dairy's request - to proceed. as per plans and specifications. • Sincerely, /y . McIvin H. Rahm, Presid • AAA Electric Company, Tz 17 E;i i\V/ 5)1l P 1 fd ti t —C Lit 7772 y9st9 £a. Planas,>• iaatmissicu V V • fJ tZ. C-x tray r( 1 trt'Ins , cin November 25, 1986 tf Weld County Commissioners • �� P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to you in regard to the proposed expansion • project of the Colorado Dairy Farm, and would appreciate your - careful consideration in this matter. As a business man in the community I have enjoyed having the opportunity of working with the Dairy. As you are aware often times odor is associated with an operation such as theirs, however Barney Little, general manager, and I got together in June of this year and I told him that my company marketed products that will dramatically reduce offensive odors from their system. Being concerned , he was willing to try ! After investing over $3000 .00 worth of product into the system I ' m happy to say that the odor is substantially less than before we started, just ask the neighbors ! Currently we are on a maintenance program to keep control of the odor causing affluents in the system. Also we designed a system to inject the product at the new dairy at road 38, and wi1l use the product from inception to insure manageable cor levels. Other concerns of mine, as the Mayor of Platteville, are the economic development of the surrounding community. Many people do not really realize the amount of money a dairy organization of their size contributes to the area. The Dairy currently employs 9 people from the Platteville area alone. Not mentioning , of course, the amount of money spent by those individuals in the community. The proposed dairy by the end of phase 2 will no doubt employ an equal number just in my community. In the softening farm economy an organization such as this becomes a major concern , it' s ability to consume in the millions of dollars in products produced by the local farmer, giving them the opportunity to market those products, which in these times is a BIG plus ! Many times change is difficult to accept, and there will always be the nay sayers, often the ones who are the least informed . I urge you to take the responsibility to thoroughly research the facts in this issue before you cast your vote. Since ely, x <✓!rT Stephen P. Rivas u :d,.t :; fir- ,I( ' � SR/ms ;d` � '- t cc . Colorado Dairy ."--.'-:,is nC412- 2.; CI Nov. 22, 1986 tNOV25z,; x / 606 Ululani St. GREEL1; GOLD Kailua, HI 96734 Memo to: Weld County Planning Commissioners, 915 10th St. , Greeley Weld County Commissioners, P. 0. 756, Greeley RE: Dairy proposed for property on Glen Anderson Farm We wish to register our objections to the proposed dairy of the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation (CDFACC) , on the Glen Anderson Farm, corner of Weld CountyRds. #15 and #38. We write as University Professor in Horticulture and Biological Statistician, resp. , over the past 30 years, and as landowners of property neighboring the Anderson Farm_ Our objections parallel those stated to you by the group "Citizens Opposing Dairy" , with emphasis on following: Use of prime agricultural land for such operations is unwise, notably in a county that has vast areas of marginal agricultural land that are well suited to such use. Prime farmland remains Weld County's most priceless posession , and most fragile . National and local dairy economy, with strong federal opposition developing to buyout and support programs, should urge extreme caution in permitting such developments without careful review of economic credentials and venture capital encouraging this holding corporation to expand its operations in Weld County . CDFACC has already established a bad reputation in the Platteville region for environmental pollution and apparent violation of local statutes . The CDFACC proposal must be carefully studied for its plans • regarding labor housing; these requirements have been understated in the past, and would unquestionably result in increasing needs for homes on the land . The Glen Anderson farm is located in a pastoral farm area that would be impacted severely by the heavy traffic, high density housing, and environmentally polluted catchment ponds of a huge commercial dairy. Sincerely, L7 -_� -- ,.;;;6,41-" James and Lilia Brewbaker : J'! .'' ;9Rb nom, ," tam Co. P13D ':g mrnI ;oo • NOV 1`g 1986 November 17, 1986 G: scLsY. COLO. Dear � ) RE: Colorado Dairy Farms proposed expansion to the Glen Anderson farm at WEld County Roads 38 & 15 : Our concerns to allow this expansion are the adverse effect to the surrounding area, ie: (1) Air pollution from the catch ponds (2) Increased traffic to the area (3) Deterioration to our roads (4) Large density cow herd on prime agricultural land (5) Drainage problems from corrals and catch ponds polluting the water and ground in the surrounding areas (6) They have not helped the agricultural business of the area, as they purchase only a very minimal amount of feed from area farmers Allowing expansion of this size to take place when locally the dairies are selling off herds in the govern- ment buy out program does not seem needed. We do not feel the proposed tax money generated will be enough to offset the deteration of the life style to the existing area. We therefore urge you not to allow the proposed ex- pansion to take place. Sincerely, Paul & Janice Hopp 16212 W.C.R. 13 Platteville, CO 80651 1,11 Di] 11V/?g_ u�� 086 P_�.�:,..y,-,, Weld Co. Flamm oamnis arc Nov. 22, 1986 606 Ululani St. Kailua, HI 96734 Memo to: Weld County Planning Commissioners, 915 10th St. , Greeley Weld County Commissioners, P. 0. 756, Greeley RE: Dairy proposed for property on Glen Anderson Farm We wish to register our objections to the proposed dairy of the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation (CDFACC) , on the j Glen Anderson Farm„ corner of Weld 'County Rds. #15 and *38. We write as University Professor in Horticulture and Biological Statistician, resp. , over the past 30 years, and as landowners of property neighboring the Anderson Farm. Our objections parallel those stated to you by the group "Citizens Opposing Dairy" , with emphasis on following: . Use of prime agricultural land for such operations is unwise, notably in a county that has vast areas of marginal agricultural land that are well suited to such use. Prime farmland remains Weld County 's most priceless posession, and most fragile . National and local dairy economy, with strong federal opposition developing to buyout and support programs, should urge extreme caution in permitting such developments without careful review of economic credentials and venture capital encouraging this holding corporation to expand its operations in Weld County . CDFACC has already established a bad reputation in the Platteville region for environmental pollution and apparent violation of local statutes . The CDFACC proposal must be carefully studied for its plans ; regarding labor housing; these requirements have been understated in the past , and would unquestionably result in increasing needs for homes on the land . The Glen Anderson farm is located in a pastoral farm area that would be impacted severely by the heavy traffic, high density housing, and environmentally polluted catchment ponds of a huge commercial dairy. • Sincerely, / James and Lilia Brewbaker j: ti°:d to. P1 rr,:riY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS #USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Corporation Gary Thelma 8381 Weld County Road 44 Johnstown, CO 80534 Phillip E. Camenisch 10504 Weld County Road 7 Longmont, CO 80501 James V. and Mary C. McFaffic 7571 Weld County Road 38 Johnstown, CO 80534 Dwayne and Lyle Frye 113 King Avenue Johnstown, CO 80534 Douglas K. and Diane L. Steele Unity A. and Lila M. Steele 21941 Weld County Road 17 Johnstown, CO 80534 Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, CO 80020 Lois E. Booth Route 1, Box 386 Ault, CO 60610 • James L. Brewbaker and Ann Aorenson 7688 North 41st Street Longmont, CO 80501 Albert H. and Pearl F: Jeffers 2125 Glenfair Road Greeley, CO 80631 Anderson Farms c/o Mrs. Harold Anderson 621 23rd Street, #2 Greeley, Co 80631 (Mailed December 1, 1986) n. I 2,.1,., • 0 SURROUNDING MINERAL OWNERS 9USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Corporation Macy-Prescott 500 Coffman Longmont, CO 80501 Marilyn Anderson 4959 West 9th Street Drive Greeley, CO 80534 Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson 621 23rd Street, Apartment #2 Greeley, CO 80631 s o ASCS 1985-86 DAIRY PRICE "Dmental n Agnculture Commodity SUPPORT PROGRAM AFru yai Fad Sheet Cvaon and J Conservation SersuP April 1986 With a Summary of Activities for the 1985-86 Marketing Year * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTICE : Due to space limitations , the expenditure data * * on Table 8 begins with FY 1971 . For data * between FY 1961 and 1970 , the December 1984 * Fact Sheet should be maintained. * * * * * * * * * * * * Basic The basic provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949 Legislative ( 1949 Act) required that the price of milk to Authority: producers be supported at such level between 75 and 90 percent of parity as would assure an adequate • supply of milk, reflect changes in the cost of production, and assure a level of farm income to maintain productive capacity sufficient to meet future needs. However, since October 21, 1981 , the support price has been established by Congress at specific price levels , rather than parity levels. Background : High support levels with guaranteed semiannual price increases required by law from 1977 through 1980 and declining feed prices in 1981 and 1982 encouraged dairy farmers to produce more milk than the commercial market could absorb. In 1983 , the support price remained at $13. 10 per hundredweight (cwt. ) with reductions in the price received by producers for their milk marketings of 50 cents per cwt . effective April 16 , 1983 , and $1.00 per cwt. effective September 1 , 1983. These reductions were established in accordance with legislation enacted in 1982 and were superseded by the -reductions which were authorized in 1983 legislation (see below) . However, milk production and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) purchases continued to increase to record levels. The Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983 amended the 1949 Act to establish the support price for milk at $12.60 per cwt. effective December 1 , 1983. Under the provisions of the 1983 Act , the Secretary of Agriculture reduced the support price to $12.10 per cwt . on April 1 , 1985 , based on the projection that CCC' s net purchases of milk and milk products would exceed 6 billion pounds milk equivalent in the • —2— succeeding 12 months. The Secretary reduced the support price a second 50 cents to $11 .60 per cwt. on July 1 , 1985 , based on the projection that CCC's net purchases of milk and milk products would exceed 5 billion pounds milk equivalent in the succeeding 12 months . Other provisions of the 1983 Act included a 50—cent per cwt . reduction in the price received by producers for milk marketed for commercial use within the 48 contiguous States for the period December 1 , 1983 , through March 30 , 1985. The 1983 Act also provided , for the 15 months beginning January 1 , 1984 , for a voluntary diversion program in which payments of $10 per cwt. would be made to producers who contracted to reduce their milk marketings between 5 percent and 30 percent below base period levels. The reductions in the price received by producers for milk marketed for commercial use during the period December 1 , 1983 through March 31 , 1985, as authorized by the 1983 Act , totalled $875 million. Approximately one—fifth of the commercial producers participated in the milk diversion program and about S955 million were paid as milk diversion payments to producers. Recent Price Although the 1983 Act expired on September 30 , 1985 , Support the $11.60 support price was continued through 1985 by Legislation: special legislation: P.L. 99-114 through November 15, P.L. 99-157 through December 13 , and P.L. 99-182 through December 31. The Food Security Act of 1985 amended the 1949 Act to continue the support price at $11.60 per cwt. in calendar year (CY) 1986 , and established the support price at $11.35 per cwt. during the period January 1 through September 30, 1987 , and $11.10 per cwt. during the period October 1 , 1987 , through December 31 , 1990. However, on January 1 of 1988 , 1989 and 1990 , the Secretary would be required to reduce the support price 50 cents per cwt. if the CY price support purchases are projected to exceed 5.0 billion pounds milk equivalent or increase the support price 50 cents per cwt . if purchases are projected at not more than 2.5 billion pounds milk equivalent. The reductions in the price support levels permitted on January 1 , 1988, 1989 and 1990 are -3- conditional upon the milk termination program (see below) achieving a reduction of production by participants in the program of 12 billion pounds or a certification by the Secretary that reasonable offers to achieve that reduction were made by the Secretary, but not agreed to by producers. Other provisions of the 1985 Act include a 40-cent per cwt. reduction in the price received by producers for all milk produced and marketed for commercial use during the period April 1 through December 31 , 1986 , and a 25-cent per cwt. reduction in the price received by producers for all milk marketed for commercial use during the period January 1 through September 30 , 1987. Also , the Secretary is prohibited from considering the market value of whey in calculating the CCC purchase prices for dairy products . The Secretary is further required to offer at least 1 million pounds of nonfat dry milk annually on a bid basis for manufacture into casein, to establish a program to encourage additional exports of dairy products and to establish an 18—month, milk production termination program beginning April 1 , 1986. Under the milk production termination program, producers may enter into contracts with CCC by submitting bids to dispose of their entire dairy herds and terminate any interest they have in the production of milk for a period of 3 , 4 , or 5 years. The implementing regulations specify that the nonproduction period will be 5 years . The Secretary also has the option to establish a milk diversion or milk production termination program in CY 1988 , 1989 , or 1990, as necessary, to avoid burdensome supplies. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 ( the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) and President Reagan' s February 1 sequester order issued pursuant to that Act would have required a 4.3 percent reduction , effective March 1 , 1986 , in fiscal year (FY) 1986 Department of Agriculture (USDA) outlays under the milk price support purchase program. This was scheduled to be accomplished through 4.3 percent discounts in the announced purchase prices effective on all offers of dairy products received on or after March 1 , 1986 through September 30, 1986. However , the Food Security Improvements Act of 1986 further amended the 1949 Act , to provide that in lieu of the 4. 3 percent discounts, producer reductions are to be increased during the period April 1, 1986 through September 30, 1986 , by up to 12 cents per cwt. CCC announced that the increase in producer reductions during that period would be 12 cents per cwt . • -4- Support Support prices for milk since 1949 , and other Prices: pertinent information, including support prices for milk with a milkfat content of 3. 5 percent , may be found in Table 1. Method of In carrying out the program, CCC offers to buy carlots Supports of butter , cheese and nonfat dry milk in bulk containers at announced prices , thus providing a floor for milk and dairy product prices . Recent Prices received by • farmers for manufacturing milk for Situation: marketing year (MY) 1984-85 which began October 1 , 1984 , averaged S12.08 per cwt. for milk containing 3.67 percent milkfat. This was 14 cents below the average support price of $12.22 , and compares with $12 .38 a year earlier when the average support price was $12.72. Mild roduction for MY 1984-85 totaled 139.9 billion poun s , 112 3. 1 billion pounds from a year earlier. The increase yin milk production is attributed partly to the end of the paid diversion program and partly to improved milk-feed price relationships which more than offset the lower support levels. The increase in milk production exceeded the inc-tease in the consumption of milk and dairy products resulting in an increase in Government purchases of dairy.jrodnrts. During MY 1984-85 CCC' s removals under the dairy price support ptagram increased 1 . 1 billion pounds milk equivalent to 11 . 5 bil1i ° nonndc of milk---the th consecutive ear that CCC remova 0 billion pounds o milk. _Removals exceeded 10 billion pounds only twice during the firat ._SL y_eass of the price suppor program.. CCC'$ t cost_for thedairy price support program in MY 1984-85 totalled $ 2 . 1__billion. Milk Production CCC accepted bids from 13 ,988 dairy farmers who - Termination marketed 12.3 billion pounds of milk in CY 1985. Progra r;DN The accepted bids ran ed fro , a40 _tn S22:50'per `y,� . and averaged $14.88. C_CC _issxpses&to pay out $1.8 billion durin the 5 ears of the program. e vlfJ 3-ad` b‘k 46 a. 9. ‘L-\‘' ' /5„hric „y\S „\„\.szynok wr -—Yri: • • s Table 9--CCC gross outlays for dairy products uoder the price support prestos, PY 1971 co dace (in thousands) PT FY : FY FY : FY FY PT - FY FY PI PT Product 1971 1972 1173 1974 1975 - 1976 1977 1978 : 1979 1980 : 1981 gutter 6 - - • - Cuteer Peee tae ts: Purchases :5200,001 :5189.534 :5 96.764 :5 13,917 :5 64.486 :5 2,224 :5240,067 :5154,205 :3 74,479:8 326.067 :$ 527,550 Storage 4 Handling : 3.257 : 3,343 : 2.438 : 379 : 526 : 121 : 2,274 : 5.902 : 4,984: 6,499 : 15.017 Transportation 3,148 ; 3,035 : 4,027 : 1.657 : 1.182 : 519 : 3,557 : 2.287 : 2,665: 6,550 : 11.531 Processing : 6 Packaging - 3,708 : 2,276 : 3.708 : 2,426 : 1,262 : 391 : 623 : 2.361 r 1.784: 4,295 : 4,921 Other caps nags : or outlays 5 : 1 : 21 : 119 : 18 : 16 : 15 : 28 : 60: 21 : 40 Total Outlays : 210.119 : 198.189 : 106.958 : 18,448 1 777.771c-:: 3,471 : 246.536 : 164,783 : 83.972: 343,312, 559,059 CM : _• Purchases 34.202 : 43,820 : 8,229 : 78 : 90,664 : 16.041 : 167.632 : 51,156 : 16.8011 442,916 : 767.922 Storage 6 Handling . 46 : 56 : 3 : --- 28 : 123 : 671 : 1,351 : 343: 1.994 : 12,482 Transportation 1.022 : 1,194 : 270 ; 11 : 2.138 : 668 : 3,003 : 2.469 : 1,918: 7,125 c 17,991 Processing . : : : : . - - L Packaging : 248 --- --- --- : 2 . --- : 307 : 7,886 : 1,281: 2,496 : 14,616 Other expanses : : : ; : : t : : or outlays 1[ --- --- --- � � - 14 : 18 t 27: 78 : 167 Total outlays X29 . 4 $.5D: I 89 : 92.832 : 3-57115I c 171,E 2.880 : 20.370: 45 3 : 833,E - - NOM Purchases : 149.181 : 151,760 : 53.163 : 12.694 : 320,635 : 158.612 : 313,086 : 239,614 : 155.193: 493,403 : 695.185 Storage 4 Mandllog 481 : 513 : 244 : 37 : 2.418 : 5.765 : 4,743 : 6,419 : 5.030: 5,338 : 8.595 Trans portactoo 7 5,074 : 4,155 : 2.444 : 244 : 4.768 : 2,077 : 6,227 : 6.806 : 8.244: 13,100 : 20,357 Processing - 4 Packaging : ""- : --- 170 : --- ' --- : 954 : 4,714 : 3.117 : 16.804: 15,434 : 4.389 Other expenses : or outlays 29 : 1 : 4 : 865 . 47 : 2 : 30 : 49 : 57: 6 : S Total Outlays : 154,763 : 156,429 : 56,025 : 13,840 : 327.868 : 167,410 : 328,800 : 256.025 : 181,528: 527.281 : 728,511 Grand Total : 400,413 : 199.688 : 171.485 : 32.377 : 488,174 a 187.713 : 746.963 = 483,688 : 289.870: 13Y5‘‘‘ 325,222 : /2.40.9\68 tr Product 1982 1981 : 1984 1985 •'.3b,\ a`/-�1 yl\ C Sorter 4 O Cutter Products: Purchasaa :$ 564,979 :5 614.440 :$ 359,978 :5 405.782 . Storage 4 Handling - 18.752 7 20,975 : 19.390 11,244 . Transportation : 12,369 : 14,352 : 15.249 : 11.528 - Processing : 4 Packaging 4,254 7 19,378 : 24,850 25.034 . Other expenses or outlays 16 - 30,834 : 60,036 118 435 Total Outlays 600.370 699,979 : 479,503 592,023 : Purchases 874.423 : 1.173,172 : 892.169 : 748,911 - Storage 4 Handling . 25,835 : 38.358 : 41.422 33,850 : - Tranaporation 21,322 31,777 : 34,719 28.843 Processing - L Packaging 20.093 : 45,795 : 75.048 65.979 : *en • avpan s or outlays z 181 279 : 401 193 Total Outlay* m 941,851. L281.381: 1,043,759 877,776 NOM .• Purchases : 843.044 928,413 : 711,012 : 665,059 . Storage 4 Handlceg t 13.467 19,876 : 18.490 : 16.669 - Transportation 20.994 : 23,973 : 27,116 : 27.049 - Processiog - - 4 Packaging 5.974 9,391 : 14,201 13.718 - Ocher expenses . or outlays 7 893 -186 . 63 - . Total Outlays 883,486 826 : 790,635 1 722.518 . Other 1 Refunds : --- : --- : 15,866 --- Other expenses • and outlay ___ ___ - ___ _ -75 - Diversion Payaent• --- --- 335,552 630,662 Total Outlays --- --- - 35'-1 630.587 - Grand Total : 2,425,710 : 2.971,906 : 2.665r�.315 : 2,8222,944 - Note: 'total years (PT) 1 co 1976 ar or July thrugh Jena. -r= 1976 incl''4es Transition Quarter (2417-Saptuhat 1976)- . thertatrs?..FY ch sad to October hrough Septa bar- ! G 2_\-t \ 2.Sii. 6l � .1/4, bht2sW,iii scJ • held by the Governmenere up almost a fifth robably It be near the 10 billion pounds, from a year earlier. equtv ea4baught, Purchases in 1987 may total 4-7 billion pounds. Recent net removals by CCC have been quite small. The total net purchases for 1986 Table 1._0.5. dairy situation 40 a glance Unit Quarterly data It.. cur base period Is{ 2nd 3rd 4tb lets 2nd 1962 1985 1985 1985 (986 1986 Production end cow numbers, Total milk Mil. lb 33,745 37,499 36,8)3 35,59D 36,232 38,517 Milk per cow Lb 3,118 3,410 Muster of milk cos Thou 43,519 . 10,824 10,997 11,108 11,171 11 1,1 10945 Prices resolved by farmers: All milk, sold to plants, 100 pounds poi 15.63 12.53 12.17 12.60 12.37 11.97 Percent's,'of parity 2/ Pct 57 55 52 52 52 33 Manufacturing geode silk, IOD pounds Doi 12.60 11.60 11.17 11.73 11.43 11.07 Parity equivalent Qol 21.53 21.56 21.34 21.31 21.64 21.28 Fat Content Pct 3.78 3.59 3.56 5.86 3.77 5.61 Minnesota-Wisconsin (3.53 fat), 100 pounds pot 12.19 11.43 11.10 11.19 11.06 10.99 Milk eligible for fluid market, 100 pounds pot 13.83 12.67 12.33 12.70 12.50 (2.07 Price ratio and dairy ration v.lu.; Milk-feed price ratio Lb 1.81 1.68 1.68 1.76 1.73 1.71 Value of concentrate ration fed, milk oow. 001 7.54 7.48 7.43 7.10 7.23 7.03 Farm cash receipts from dairy products Mil. dot 4,560 4.673 4,457 4,455 4,444 4,575 Production of factory products; Butter Mil. lb 327.3 319.9 276.9 324.1 375.4 329.7 American cheese, whole milk Mil. lb 652.0 792.7 722.2 687.6 730.0 809.0 Cheese otter then Aearicen Canned milk, unski,.eed Mil. lb 45.2 535.8 538.7 589.7 536.8 591.6 Ory Male milk Mil. lb 11 145.2 128.5 163.5 149.1 15 .4 1 127.5 Frozen products 2/ M11. ID 66.3 57.{ 71.2 55.1 711.4 27.5 pe Nil. gbl 276.5 357.8 6.1 255.4 274.8 367.4 Tottaall((miiljkfat basis) 3/ Mil. lb 176.5, 1 1,3.4 186.4 1.744 17346 181.3 , Nonfat dry milk, human use Mil. lb 19,271 22,375 2i,119 1920.8 2366.5 24178 %toln e!' orlon! Mil. ID 281.5 408.5 379.2 320.8 366.5 417.8 Bu+tar, Grade A, dlcago, pound Ct Cheese, American (40-pond blocks), f.o.b. b1.3 141.9 111,1 140.1 138.3 138.9 Wisconsin assfabling points. pound Ot Evaporated milk, case 12.37 128.2 124.4 124.0 123.8 4 Nonfat dry milk, Dol 22.37 22.36 22.24 22.24 22.24 22.22.21 pound, f.o.b. Central States, high heat Dairy products (BLS) 196tt 90.4 84.2 82.0 46.5 81.0 46.7 7=loo 254.2 250.5 247.0 246.1 246.0 246.7 Retail Arlon (81S); Consular prig Index 4/ 1967.100 317.4 321.2 323.6 326.5 327_3 326.5 All food 4/ 1967.100 308.8 309.3 309.7 311.3 315.4 316.7 All dairy products 4/ 1967.100 259.0 258.2 257.7 257.0 257.1 257.0 Fluid milk end crams Whole milk 1967..100 140.6 139.9 139.1 226.2 125.7 138.1 Otter138 I% 22 7.100 229.7 228.8 227.6 226.2 7 225.7 225.7 Manufactured dal12/77.100 141.2 140.3 159.3 138.7 138.5 138.7 Butter ry products 12/77.100 154.6 154.4 155.0 155.1 155.6 155.4 (Teter 1967.100 265.1 261.7 262.7 262.3 261.6 260.5 Froze desserts 12/77.100 150.5 150.2 151.3 151.0 150.8 150.6 Otter 12/77.100 162.1 162.4 162.3 162.9 161.4 163.7 12/77.100 152.9 154.6 154.8 155.6 157.6 158.7 Margarine 1967.100 297.5 299.0 306.1 100.5 301,2 297.1 Stocks, beginning of quarter: Creams y y b er NI!. lb 296.5 291,7 236.8 247.0 205.5 783.3 Canned milk, wuk0mmd Mil. It, 1,061.9 975.3 1,032.4 1,032.6 944.3 934.4 Dry milk Mil. lb 42.0 50.7 98.3 118.9 63.3 73.8 Totes whole milk bills) 6/ Nil. lb 5.4 7.8 6.5 6.9 6.5 7.0 Nonfat dry fat Mil. lb 16,704 15,768 16 069 1534437 13,695 IS 401 Mil. lb 1,247.6 1,112.4 1,066.0 1,oh.2 1.011.! sie.0 Anmercial disappearence: COmen, American rowned bMIl. lb 200.0 203.9 241.5 272.9 193.7 224.4 Cheese otter Than Nlarlcn Nil. lb 511.5 569.2 587.2 610.5 565.2 592.9 4411. lb 563.0 593.5 616.0 688_1 622.4 634.7 Canned milk, unskimlad Nit, lb 132.9 125.6 140.5 199.1 123.5 124.0 Milk In all products Nil. lb 29,5(7 32,717 34,775 34,141 30,881 33,964 Nonfat dry milk Mil. lb 101.4 88.9 129.6 115.1 119.{ 93.4 USDA net removals: Utter Mil. lb 128.7 . 107.9 45.4 52.2 171.2 110.5 Cheddar cheese Monf.t dry milk Mil. lb 245.8 201.9 168.4 113.0 152.4 196.5 Evaporated milk Mil. lb 177.6 297.0 263.4 205.1 251.0 31 336.2 Total (milkf.t basis) Mil. lb 7.1 7.0 613 5.4 5.0 2r3 4411. ID 4,113 4,237 2,617 2,206 5,052 4,233 11 Seasonel ly adjusted Prices es percent pp.e of parity price. - Ice creme, ice milk, and'kerbs+. 3/ Includes manufactured re products for which current beta a available. 77 le. 4/ Foe all urban consumes starting Jenuery 1978. 5/Natural plus prmssed Avericen cheats held by C . 6/ Excludes Cr...and bulk condensed milk. 4 . C EN,A 4i ‘•k•Si. ':/\,- +:-) '+: Y..• Ili' in\f-- p \A-NI-A- C` / i (r, AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK REPORTS COLORADO DAIRY PRODUCTION AND OUTLOOK will have to deduct 40 cents per hundredweight to fund the buyout herds. The deductions lower to 25 cents BY per hundredweight after September 1. Concern exists whether the remaining producers will expand their pro- ROBERT LEWIS duction to offset the deductions which amount to between $50 and $60 per cow per year_ If expansion is made to cover these costs, the expansion could elimi- The whole herd buyout participation announced by nate the milk supply reduction achieved under the the United States Department of Agriculture indicates program. • bids of 13,988 producers were accepted. Accepted bids . ranged from $3.50 to $22.50 per hundredweight. The Although tht. buyout herds produced 11 percent of goal of the program was to reduce milk production 12 1985 Colorado production, remaining herds are produc- billion pounds by taking units out of production for ing 15 percent more milk on an annual basis in 1986. five years through the slaughter or export of cows and This is due to higher milk production per cow and replacement heifers. Participation in the program existing herds expanding cow numbers. Producers must exceeded the target amount as the herds with accepted consider production efficiency per cow along with total bids represented 12.28 billion pounds of milk and an pounds produced to determine profitability. Forty cows overall reduction in milk production of 8.7 percent. milking 16,000 pounds will generate the same income as 70 cows milking 12,000 pounds. Increasing herd effi- The buyout will result in slaughter or export of ciency is more profitable than adding more cows to the 1,549,773 head of dairy cattle. Originally, two-thirds operation. of the animals were to be sold under the first period from April 1 to August 31, 1986. Due to objections by The national dairy promotion fund in effect for beef producers, the first period accepted herds were three years has increased per capita consumption 10 allowed an extension into the second period to lessen percent nationally. This reverses a long-term decline the effects of increased cattle on the beef market. in per capita consumption. Public awareness to nutri- Dairy animals provide 20 percent of the beef consumed tion and importance of calcium in the diet has in- in the U.S. creased interest in dairy products. Producers remaining in production will have 40 Removal of buyout herds combined with the drought cents per hundredweight deducted from milk checks to of the Southeast resulted in the first production finance 38 percent of the buyout program costs. For decrease from previous years production since the producers desiring retirement or highly leveraged pro- diversion program ended in 1985. As a result, farm ducers wanting to lower debts, the buyout provided a milk prices had the first increase in two years in ' unique opportunity to remove production capability from July 1986. the industry for five years. Accepted herds are to be slaughtered or exported by August 1987. Buyers in foreign countries have a unique oppor- tunity to take advantage of the genetics of U.S. cattle at very reasonable prices. However, present economies in the lesser developed countries may limit the capa- bility for them to import cattle despite a unique COLORADO TURKEY SITUATION situation created by the buyout program. Due to dif- ficulties involved in transporting lactating cows, dry BY cows and heifers are the most likely to be exported. As of early September, 45 percent of the accepted buy- BYRON F. MILLER out herds were taken out of production. There were 69 Colorado dairy herds accepted on Historically, a 10 percent increase in turkey the Whole Herd Buyout program. The average bid price production has been financial suicide for the turkey for the state was $14.88. This represents 8,382 cows, industry. In 1986, the turkey industry increased pro- 3,313 heifers, and 2,138 calves. The production re- duction by 10 percent; yet, the market price is better presented by the 69 herds is 11 percent of total than ever. The holiday season i3 going to increase Colorado production. Producers remaining in business demand so turkey prices are expected to continue strong through the holiday season. Feed prices have been held low with good yields throughout most of the nation. Consumer demand for turkey and turkey products has exceeded all expectations. , �1• . After January 1 it is difficult to predict turkey prices. Traditionally this is a slow period for tur- key as consumers change to chickens and other meats + after the holidays. High prices and abundant feed lFlr supplies will encourage the placement of more poults. The Size of the breeder flock may be a limiting factor in any plans turkey producers may have for expansion of production. Turkey poults became scarce in the summer of 1986 because the hot weather slowed egg (� ,__ - 9 _ production significantly. This limitation may be a ` i w' C)L ill .- 18 �-?rti.t.•�y., aa �f N�I�LtrS ��^1 \Nj .v^.l C..-C"- — ) q et • • • . Y # Y, �4 J -, `r M}.�' .iti }fir y d,r 1 t _i ' a t ' " izt wr -gt$°Y rots *t. ..1 • • r++, r, st ,. ® / f e a NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION Vol. 10, Number 13 December 5, 1986 Check-Off Moves Ahead Off Into the Red Meat Yonder Committees responsible for national check-off operation and As previously reported in the BBB,the Air Force will soon for expanded promotion programs met this week in Chicago. label certain foods in its commissaries with "Healthy Heart" The executive committee of the Beef Promotion and Research stickers. In the case of beef, the Air Force is refusing to use Board received reports that collections of the$1 check-off con- the new nutrient composition data released by USDA last Jan- tinue to go well.Two thirds of the states had reported October uary. If the Air Force persists in using the old data(based on collections, and the amount they sent to the Beef Board for fatter animals and beef), fewer beef cuts will qualify for the strictly national programs was more than $2-1/2 million. (An "Healthy Heart"sticker_As a result of the previous BBB news equal amount was retained in the states for use at state discre- on the problem, NCA member Duty Rowe of Oklahoma con- tion for state and national Beef Industry Council programs.) tacted Rep. Dave McCurdy(D.-Okla.),a member of the House The committee was notified that a veal producing firm which armed services committee, who took up the industry cause. had filed suit challenging the check-off was dropping the suit McCurdy has been told, "Sufficient resources are unavailable and was complying with the check-off. In order to reduce cer- for the Air Force to adequately use the nutrient data available • tain paperwork, the committee decided to implement an in- from the USDA." Meat Board nutritionists estimate that it voice stamp as an addition al way to certify non-producer status- would take less than 2 hours to extract the necessary informa- This will be an alternat;;c to use of a special printed form. tion on beef from the new Handbook 8,and the Meat Board The Beef Promotion Operating Committee reviewed 34 offered to do the work for the Air Force. With$12 billion bud- proposals for funding of promotion programs.Approvals went geted for payroll alone, you'd think that the Air Force could to several BIC merchandising, food service and national adver- squeeze 2 hours out of somebody's schedule in order to ensure tiling programs, including $12.7 million for production and that its nutrition/health program was sound(and that beef got purchase of national TV ads through the 2nd quarter of 1987. a fair shake). Among other programs will be participation in the American Meat Institute's National Meat Month in February, 1988,and Farm Policy: Here We Go Again in a cheeseburger promotion in cooperation with the American The farm policy debate is heating up. Those in favor of Dairy Assn. changing the farm bill want to do so partly because exports have not increased, despite low prices and the most expensive Excel to Negotiate for Plants farm subsidies in history. Supports under the 1985 farm bill Excel Corp., Wichita, Kan., a subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., will cost$26 billion this year-15 percent of the budget deficit. will move to acquire three former Spencer Beef plants—at Others, including NCA,say it is premature to judge the results Spencer and Oakland, Ia., and Schuyler, Neb. The planned of the current five-year bill;it has been in effect only one year. move by Excel follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which Meanwhile, dairy industtrrvr resentativ s jave indicated a overturned a Monfort of Colorado antitrust suit that had desire to seek new dairy legtslauon—Soule dairy co-ops arec'al?- blocked Cargill's previously planned acquisition of the plants ing for an extension of the Dairy Termination Program;others from Land O'Lakes, Inc. Cargill never did take possession of -propose a two-tiered support system; others want a national the plants,and in 1985, following a lower court ruling against quota system.A problem is that any of the supp y-control pro- the Cargill acquisition,E.A. Miller, Inc.,Hyrum, Utah,bought grams can mean slaughtering more cows. the plants, and Miller is now operating the Schuyler plant. A Fed Market Down for the Holidays Miller spokesman said the company planned to continue run- y ping the plant. The fed cattle market fell $2-3 in the past week because of However, a Cargill spokesman said, there is a stipulation a weakening of demand for wholesale beef,said Mark Ander- in the Miller agreement with Land O'Lakes that, if the antitrust son of Cattle-Fax. While cattle supplies have remained tight case were resolved within a certain time in Cargill's favor, and manageable, he said, there has been little retail interest Cargill could negotiate with Miller to acquire the plants. Excel in buying meat against the late December holiday period. Fed will go ahead and negotiate to buy the plants. The Supreme cattle supplies are expected to increase in late December, Jan- Court said that antitrust laws are intended for"the protection uary and February, and, Anderson said, it is not unusual for of competition,not competitors"and that a"threatened cost- the market to deteriorate 2-3 weeks before an increase occurs price squeeze" was not grounds to halt a merger. A Monfort in fed cattle supplies.The holiday lull in the market is also not spokesperson said the company was disappointed and still was unusual, he said. This year's situation is somewhat similar to concerned about further packing industry concentration. what happened last year at the same time. J • •Cal= university Department of Animal Sciences Cooperative Extension (3 03)3) 491-6392 Colorado State University Fort Collins,Colorado 80523 December 8, 1986 Mr. Greg Brown 20700 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Dear Greg: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I 'm sending you several pieces of information which may be of value to you in preparing for the Planning Committee hearings. First, is a copy of the data for the 1986 Colorado DHIA Annual Report which is about ready to go to press, indicating what has happened over the years to the number of herds, number of cows and average herd size in Colorado. I 'm sure you can see from this report that we are increasing herd size in Colorado but we're currently at approximately 150 milking cows. Should this trend continue I would suspect that in the next 10 to 15 years, the average herd size will probably double to approxi- mately 300 to 350 cows per herd. I do not, however, feel that there will be an explosion in large herds in Colorado which would drastically change that herd size above the 350 cow level. Currently, herd size seems to maximize out at between 800 and 1200 cows per unit with some dairymen owning more than one milking unit. Second item is current dairy production outlook which was just published in the Colorado Ag Business Roundup - Winter 1986 . It indicates that there is some concern whether or not producers will expand in Colorado to offset deductions to cover the costs of the herd buyout program. This has been happening and it appears that because of that, Colorado still has con- siderable surplus milk that must be trucked out of the state to cheese processing plants in Kansas, Nebraska and Utah. Currently, we do have more milk than the market demands call for in Colorado, and we do not foresee a milk shortage situation developing in the near future. It is true that the National Colorado State University. US.Department of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating. Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. • Mr. Greg Brown Page two /' Advertising Board is helping to sell consumers more product and that consumption has picked up; however, consumption has not picked up as fast as a dairyman' s ability to increase milk production per cow. There are several other items on the horizon that may cause the ability of dairymen to increase milk production per cow very rapidly and, therefore, it may not (._ be necessary to increase cow numbers in order to produce milk in quantities equal to consumption. You must also remember that the population explosion that we saw in the late ' 70s and the early ' 80s has slowed down in Colorado and predictions are that Colorado will begin to see people leaving the state faster than entering the state because of the lack of job opportunities here at the current time. The last item enclosed for your use is the October 1986 Dairy Situation and Outlook Report. I 'm sure you will find information in this of interest to you as you prepare to discuss the request for a new dairy being developed. You should be able to get data from Mountain Empire Dairy- men' s Association at Thornton, Colorado, on the amount of milk that is being trucked out of Colorado on a daily basis during the last two or three months. Please keep in mind that it is usually at this period of the year (October, November, December and January) when we approach a period of time throughout the year when the supply of milk for the market is the closest to the demands of milk in this market. So, the figures you' ll be looking at if you look at October and November truck-outs will be the period when the market and the demand is the closest together. Let me know if there is other material or information that I can provide to you. Sincerely, Dawson C. Jordan Professor \ Extension Dairy Specialist �/ DCJ:dn do Enclosures ` 1P il 0 sseeD8R:CompNp items 1 and 2 when additionalaervica a»Selma,end eoomist•its*t:3 ands... Put youradd»ts.in,the"RETURN TO" - cud from being retramed.to nu. space on the memo side.Falhve to do tbhwtll ptevan¢.y ,. . �daeofV arv, r zo warwtr mrta+ain • Boz7W tar raiditlontd utrrart)teq�wl7d: it W1ow to weom OoIMrW daea • Q'- -4 F 1, Ll. aMaOdtasrasaddreea,,.. 2,:;Q m ox o= --- 4 ---_Asir MMus n ' a a AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION a74 o z O 2930 CENTER GREEN COURT r a a CO BOULDER, CO 80301 laws. . in .F+ cc o .Forst 5t55 COP alwaylobtain demur.of Addressee or n. - c z z b_.SiDneN». Addressee x c; cr: X 8.Addressee's (' NLYif 1-equated and fee paid) B.S1Drp yra—Apart. BOARD OF CI e t 7. re of pafhrary. P. :"--I'S form 3811,Feb-1986• GREELEY_ .Pfau 1, . a0ea-,71C P-5Q7 110 394 p} :. 1 ♦• /., t .ice. m = - *,sQi1�-5'Eta BARNEY LI r LE k n E(- G 426 'WE l COUNTY ROAD 15 a > Ai + HOST, CO 80501 la`, rr.1c1OR- e, as Ln o ry H cp ,`1 lets itare:3 and a: additional am are desired,and camp i yta{tams',and 2 roma ¢wi11 prava^ l tl �- .SENDER=Conr9 ,FtEYURN TO Wawa on tMrwera side.FaDu»to do to C..3, Put Your'Kithira trai 14 mutt from lwiuY-rWmed to;Y°u. o< . card �t�[L arvlatsYraWa"'r >> at ustrn G. "xlwl for addltlonM 2. El Ravfcnd OrtN*tY- . tp*Marafrard data,arMsddrawr'iaddr+a- .Atttda, dsar .�RILYN ANDER,1tEET DRIVE m n —_ 495 ELEY,9 CO 80634 -tra of eddrMaaar o GRL Awgysable4 5y r REr p 5 C aDea .-q (A F CC -- Y7 If i :a 8.A•• 4 Get _ - rcpucrted i N G = p 6:SiD Addr*ssN E _ i - Ln H DeiYa�'/, �j/ rn 7.Data 5( d 4t \; r DPNIESTIC RET:41113:^11147 pS Form 3871,Feb 1986 `Q.!/� �A�7Vi/--__- aMpdonal m elon an desinq,uwi - complap i- Put Your add raa in Mt"RETURN TO"spec* th*rears:U de.Failure to do nile will present this card from being retuned to WM-de4inPmtzrr Btbriar„n1aaiaaddwcic Mx ail',tr.'...ow -- — i. E"ShoarioarbamdSlvnd,dap and addieue addnes. 3 . p.+r.d • • DNMrp•. 3A �1P?t_ '. :40— 1 Z rte ..p C N ° ' HAROLD & MARIE ANDERSON CI - a re. -- 621 23RD ST. , At'T, 2 "ft A ¢ ¢ o GREELEY, CO 8C631 j ? `C� C rte, -`o • : . '� pans Obtdn f4Drature of oddment ar 5 F o --- — aDahturdTE t>841YEF ¢. v: `-� - ~8 Mikan**Addr�w(/ONLY,f [� Druturn-Address** -.: wasteland fee paid) C ,,. 4 . a- C w S &:.4 a c T:Dap of Oal�sy 'rstnnn,l.li b 1986( - .DOMIITtCRtrultsasgltin • • .SENDER:Complete items I end 2 when additional taroksan dotted,end complete Items 9 end 4. Put your address In the"RETURN TO"spect on the eon skis,!An to do thin wile OniNnt thts. card fn rn inki ttanid tenitatiraielalliiitiftelinifigliteittiott pwvnasts�ora+aetanc'erasE�aoaur)foraddiNonN:wrvals)mono& �� 1 :QYSitosirtonndloradNhiered f and WM w M 'raddrer. 2'OIlnne*�tiYT- P M �a--a' �ul'innktvy ��w . r.�..r_ 4. n 5 in GARY THELMA S m H CO / 8381 WELD z JOANSTOWiv,CCO TY ROAD 44 �j � Q ❑tuntMt a o 80534 11M1. a a Always obain signamn.pf addressee or c, 0 3 _1"--____ Sent D TBir1ltLIV N xWO T �-.. a Id S.Signature—Address - - S' ddressee'sAdds./VNEYif X . . '""" .DEC BI -St Famt3SIs Feb.1911E Bo eepe.- .�-airata - osau'rtcttvuRlr WELD COUNTY COLORADO "' ` 'r --`'E •' - Y .'IY. , P. 0. BOX 758 CERTIFIED PM "'T ELEX, COLORADO 80632 - vo,-C 4 — P P-507 110 398 ' 59'f rn _^. x p ATM Check r '' `�)g$1 K No. ? V) • C , n r o . Z, zFc 2Lf1 m ❑Mold -. an ci w a ` hr.lu�iEU PHILLI• A IEN?SCR w H ;,v" 10504 ,. e COUNTY ROAD 7 a zo r2- „ '1"4/..,-'� P _r>t r y - , LO GXe. T, CO 80501 "14' -.T 1ST orlcl r 4 HO i Q• - {nr ,t i• J x O O \el w 22 No 'co Oj _ Return - - .SENDER:Complete items I and 2 when additional snlcp an desired,and complete itanq 3 and 4. Put your address in the"RETURN ITTrig Ce�on.the r�wvee7r�segssldee_.Failure-to vPia do this will prevent this card.from6atngp rammed m pocaddhieo Tees me lelkwing eenidaten ayeltr RConwlt `r-„, -- - Poetrer for.iaard s)for additional snv7aefsl mussed. Ill.. rn :ti aBhoentuwlronir delivered;dw,and-addressees addrao. T:.fl.Awtrkted ONlnsy. y ` •*heti6lRAddlMled'E�„ �_�.vs,,.��:....,.a,; t 4.�rlkle tft . r.- rn o ecr n '1.01 ' a < a o JAPTES & *fARY+ iCrAFFIC Typaa.. - a G7 e> °o 7571 WELD COUNTY ROAD 38 p Z o r- a JOHNSTOWN, CO 80534 ` C7G r 8 O < Ahearn ohteln°slgrteture of addressor T tf7 7_ = ---4 --__ "- Randand DATE DELIVERED. .z O 6_Sigruturo-Addrssee a &Addrwsse's Address(ONLY if- n �n X`m�� , x1/7 revugttdmaiferP�d/.. 4 -- O 8:.Signature Agent - - . •SENDER:Complete Items 1 and 2 when additional'ahem an desired,and complete.items 3 and 4. Put your address In the"RETURN TO"secs oonptheeamane ee anegskpdyei.Failure to de this will prevent this ten dalpos from-being returned to you.Th►og1W9W llaee il-ledi ifrp��'g• .uh �eoqf{ Por of aaliatNc�a)for additional earyWlal.reaseeW: t. Qlhory t0-irhon►S4Mnidete and adthensel address. ` :-2. 0Raele sad Delivery. w o m DWAYNE & L LA FRYE o ` x 113 KING AJENUE � Q u w JOHVSTOWC, CO 80534 U lMypteeMaL 1 COD; a < z o Rhein of addressor Y ¢ ` - -- ------`—" avenged systE9ELtVERED. rs- .ts U z 5. ro' r B.Addnew'sAtlmas�a.(ONLY{f.. p z- m . X• if�tf�C rcW6Rr#ald fee I `n z x CO 6.:Signntura—Asian P.Pons 7/11}Fab.1�6 ... ,t9I � � DOMESTIC7iffiDRN RECEIPT.: t.��.,. ..., .Jere �CY`—�l • • •SENDER:Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired,and complete Items 3 and 4. Put Your address in the"RETURN TO"ace on the ravens slide..Fallur►to dash's will Prevent this card ttom; anunekttooYYou. -Ipaili tl'el�111�ire o a.Hnt aeau vault powr�iodeFeolc!»Z(nl'torsdditluoKrrv(catei requested. ,.-a - O • 1. } IroW[e;vilatodMNered date,'and addressers ew. 2.<� Rwtrbted DHMry. 0 O ' 3 ARbN Addns cr:to 14'k / 0 ,'.i m r o T HENRY & LILA SEELE DOUGLAS & DIANE SEELE tl 1nlrftad ' N v: c o 0 • 21941 WELD COUNTY ROAD 17 coo o - n o JOHNSTOWN, CO 80534 Map - zrz Aaays obtainfigruWre of addressee or : In I • "' -- _ _—____ —_ ..�.__ _ .__ egemarrd ATED£hiYEREO. a C OF 8.Addresese's Addrs(ONLY+f _ 5.Signature—A paid a ca.', scr, z 00rnsaa !Y rrgttdtedartd fee ) w o o B,8lpuwre=Ar - #8fafre9E'It dab . 1 /7n., ; .DDIIFi flT.URNRECE fl cr, •SENDER:Complete Items 1 and 2 when additional services ere decked,and complete items 3 and 4. ro : Put your'address In the he he""RRtEdT�URRNN TO"space on the reverseee side.Failure to do this will pnwent this 04 card frarmtesIng returned to You-Tin return igglibiri o delivered Pelivrre towdaee deptiptnd d l c yet fe sthe .erauasad s Of V." m cC w o 1. 'O Showsto rhom deltwaed des'and addreaws s address. 2. O ftersted DNMry. ru o _---- x '!¢fr :_deer.': ;, f.Asrile IOM►;:.;. _ a a 7 o c_tip R _ 1I r ¢ co , ? UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES 0 o CORPORATION a - _ o o ,r-,. PO BOX 2500 ,; .:; . ,e., a ' iw+ H o o BROOMFIELD, CO 80020 r- ¢ to `. co N w i..-} O �--� Always d�iq Lure of addressee a' ~ p. Z w `-- ----_— _--- wentand DATE DELIVERED_ Z x o i Adams `c it o o x o 5.Signature—Addressee —___ $.Addressee's (/ONLYt if z O x x r in equested fee pd i d) P., n '41) OOfdail&REYURR REDSIPT •SENDER:Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired,and complete tt ms 3 and 4. Put your address in the-RETURN TO"apace on the reverse side.Failure to dothiswill preventthtx 2-7,card framt°beiira rreturnlgetd ttfo'yyo alle�reetu' foyer's" trou this of '' "tae till 4..dd,lock.iinn,. tot•�fee.t tfnlieewThgservkaeaarree l e. t' - +'_wq, q •a sew addltlonal wvla�dweauertet . ..-,... . F penidillel;r' .0 daddresne'aaddrae; 2.'O.flaml .. oethWY. r-''t Ardole '-±iliddeeseat11 :.- ' .V, M.Atilt mo o LOIS E. BOOTH i s = d" ROUTE 1, BOX 386 0 .. o m AULT, CO 80610 Q IryowA C3 COD. rl 2:1 _ Errors Mall N o Ahrgye obtain signature of addressee M: N _______. -- agent endpaaQ . - co a 5. ,e sot Add S.Addressers Address(ONLY if i O O 0 2 _. X '�,� ' lt+y 7' raquatedatd fat pald) o- S.SIgMbrn--.AOeM x ----- RE Parmief i.:Patr-1986 ..(4„.. ry DON TIC RETURN RSCEIfl • • •SENDER:Complete items 1 end 2 when additional sorvlces are desired,end complete items Sand 4. Put your address in the"RETURN TO"specs on the reverse side.F.Hurrto do this will prevent this card tram being reWumeeddtoo�y�ou. t pas [ egif lg k 5610)for**MOONS serrlaela waited. t 1-';0lhaan sltameilvered.ew,an-wearesed'dreee.. .2. 0RowletuMan s.AnlS,7tdiirrd.eat i Nti11N a z 0 a m :� JAMES L BREwBAKER , AIN., AORENSON ! p Inreits r ._ n zz m oC 7688 N. 41ST ST. •' ©COD LSI 0 n z — LONGMONT, CO 80501 Always obSa signature of address,at ,.; x • 7 --- _. _� again andD,ATE DELIVERED. a O z O - �_ 5.Signature—Addressee 8.Addressee's co z Adder/ONLY If 41 z x:. idryestedandfeeyeidj 6 S O Q __ 8_Siprsspr AgaM , .; 7 Dseeox ,. , 4t2m�rr ,, „ . - , s • ,, fi lass •SENDER:Complete items 1 end 2 when additional services are desired,and complete Items 3:and 4, Put your addr e dss in tdhee"RETURN:T�O�"a:tspaceon the rraeverse side.Pallor,to the do this will prevent thiscard trent brilOS returned o deiveedtosood3Mddg:ell�.Poc�lrees �ierv(asenaswine a�-Conwlt LP rn m I.: ammo so wiiarrdelivered,date,and adiriseaetiedeess. 3..E7•Reeariemd Daisy., m i0 BAedpyrl garreaYor� 4 a ti o c x co ALBERT & PEARL JEFFERS y ' n - Q . 2125 GLENFAIR ROAD � - {� at a z o GREELEY, CO 80631 ExorseeMeil w I .s W a F -1 w Mews obtain denature of addressor z T apsnt and DATE.DEUVERED CO N v - 6,8q _� _ 8.Addressee's Atldrees ONLYff X '(.,ire. G Ice/�/,/�`� re7?taflPdJlldfeC) J eyes ��,•. ,/� `i�J!1! Daeroi bsllvecv Alt RETAKES for month of FEBRUE,RY , 1987 The following documents are being re-filmed: DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DAY FILE RESO - DUST BLOWING COMPLAINT, ROBERT THOMAS 2/9/87 CERTIFICATIONS - USR, AURORA CAPITAL CORP 2/9/87 RESO - DENY COZ, BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEV 2/9/87 COMMUNICATIONS - MINUTES OF WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2/23/87 RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE FINDINGS AND ORDER CONCERNING DUST BLOWING COMPLAINT - ROBERT W. THOMAS 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, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, has been informed, in accordance with Section 35-72-103 (1) , C.R.S. , that dust is blowing from the following described parcels of land: SEk 6-8-60; Sh 9-8-60; SW'k 17-8-60; SEh 18-8-60; NEB 19-8-60; WhSWk 12-8-61; Sh 13-8-61; and NWT 24-8-61, and WHEREAS, the Board has caused an inspection of the above-described parcels of land, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the information and the inspection referred to above, a hearing before the Board was held on February 4, 1987, at which time the Board made findings of fact pursuant to Section 35-72-103 (1) , and WHEREAS, upon said findings of fact, the Board ordered the owner of said parcels, Robert W. Thomas, and the occupiers of said parcels, James R. Wood and Joe Guillaume, to treat said properties as described in the attached Findings and Order and within the time limits as stated therein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Chairman of said Board is authorized to sign said Findings and Order and that Mx. Robert W. Thomas, Mr. James R. Wood, and Mr_ Joe Guillaume are ordered to perform the treatment upon the above-described parcels as stated in the attached Findings and Order of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado. )( QC) i, . ,f A •_ 870097 A PAGE 2 RE: DUST BLOWING COMPLAINT - ROBERT W. THOMAS The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 4th day of February, A.D. , 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST:Diditattet4eattatoelfWELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk-and .Recorder EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING and Clerk to the. and Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman 61. �i� eputy County__ lerk S �,r�. "K�i/r y, Pr -Tem AP VED AS TO FO vsce't ��i Gene R. Brantner - 4, County Attorney EXCUSED Jacqu ine Jonnson 17444 Fran c 870097 FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, has been informed, in accordance with Section 35-72-103(1), C.R.S., that 'dust is blowing from the following described parcels of land: SRI 6-8-60; SW1 17-8-60; SE1 18-8-60; NEI 19-8-60; WSW 12-8-61; S} 13-8-61; and NW} 24-8-61. WHEREAS, the Board has caused an inspection of the above-described parcels of land, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the information and the inspection referred to above, a hearing before the Board was held on February 4, 1986. The following persona were present at said hearing: Gerald and Portia Rummer, 44376 Weld County Road 95, Briggsdale, Colorado 80611; Edith Phillips, Ault, Colorado 80610; Robert W. Thomas, owner of the above-described parcels, 1010 Carol Street, Fort Morgan, Colorado 80701; Ron Miller, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services, 4302 West 9th Street Road, Greeley, Colorado 80634; Nancy Riech, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pawnee National Grassland, 2017 Ninth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631; Orlando Hill, Pawnee Grazing District; and Dave Becker, Assistant Director of the Weld County Road and Bridge Department. At said hearing, the Board made the following findings, pursuant to Section 35-72-103(1): 1. That soil is blowing from the above-described parcels of land and appears to be causing property damage therefrom. 2. That an emergency condition exists as a result of such blowing soil. 3. That sufficient measures can be taken to prevent or materially lessen the dust from blowing from said parcel. 4. That said complaint does not fall under the provisions of Sections 35-3.5-101, et seq., C.R.S., entitled "Nuisance Liability of Agricultural Operations," because although the operation has been in existence for more then one year, the operation has been a nuisance since it began and the operation is negligent. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Section 35-72-103(1), C.R.S., that Mr. Robert W. Thomas, the property owner of the above-described parcels of land, and Mr. James R. Wood and Mr. Joe Geilliam, the occupiers of the above-described parcels, must perform the following measures to prevent further dust from blowing from said properties: 1. ' Two hundred foot wide strips to the windward side of all of the above-deecribeds.properties shall be deep chiseled eight to ten inches on two-foot centime with a twisted achank chisel to produce a cloddy, rough surface to act as a barrier to trap surface moving material. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by said Board: 2. That the Board reserves the right to require further remedial actions by the above-named individuals in accordance with the specifications as identified in the Emergency Tillage (CODE 265) for MEG 3, a copy of which is attached hereto, after further inspection of said parcels by Mr. Miller. 3. That the measures ordered herein must be completed within three days of the service of the within Findings and Order, and shall in no event be made later than Monday, February 9, 1987. If you, Robert W. Thomas, the owner of the above-described parcels of land and James R. Wood and Joe Geilliam, the occupiers of said parcels, do llgot use the above-outlined treatment methods as ordered by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, the Board will then cause the treatment to be done in accordance with this Order, pursuant to Section 35-72-103(2) , C.R.S., and assess the owner of the parcels in accordance -with Section 35-72-105(1) , C.R.S., for such treatment. th DATED this __ day of Je-fri/dlilt ut , 1987. 444 t,. • BOLDD OF COUNTY CG COM&5ADOSSZO1SERS ATTEST. 'p' t/�,�, WELD COUNTY, CGLO3AD0 Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board By: nce G ey, Cha n Deputy County C rk wry �'"".,n,1 A •RGENCY TILLAGE Code 365 I Greeley Field Office .Specifications: Tillage specifications will be based upon the following soil groupings by . Wind Erodibility Grouping (WEG). WEG 1 & 2; Very fine, fine and medium sands to loamy very fine and fine sands - Implements: Chiseling for emergency tillage is not recommended: . • J.pLISTERS should be used exclusively -for•this soil grouping. 8"=l4P tster•bo'ttoms should be used Optimum spacing will be 24"-48" respectively, to depths of at =.-. least 6" of greater. Depth will depend on subsurface moisture and should be worked to a depth adequate to produce clods and a 6" effective ridge height after tillage. Tillage shall be performed at right angles to prevailing winds when possible. In most cases, prevailing erosion winds are from the northwest traveling to southeast. • All tillage operations should be performed at speeds of 2 to 4 miles per hour. Speeds above this range will induce soil pulverization_ WEG 3: Fine, 'medium and course sandy loams, Implements: LISTERS - 8-14" lister bottoms with 24-48" spacing 6-8" tillage depth or at depth which will produce a 6" effective ridge tillage speed: 2-4 m.p.h. CHISEL PLOW:.. plow with 2-4" twisted points with 24-30" spacing - 8-10" .tillage depth or,deep enough to produce clods tillage speed: 2-4 m.p.h. WIDESPACE CULTIVATOR or HEAVY DUTY CULTIVATOR - 6-8" V-shaped sweeps with 24-42" spacing 4-6" tillage depth or to depth needed to produce clods tillage speed: 2-4 m.p.h. Tillage shall be performed at right angles to prevailing winds when possible. In most cases, prevailing erosion winds are from northwest to southeast: 2 — I (Emergency Tillage, Code 365, CONTINUED) WEG 4, 6 & 7: Clays, silty clays, silt barns, clay loams, silty clay lawns, silts Implements: CHISELS: 2-4" standard point 'chisel ploy with 24-48" spacing ' 4-8" tillage depth or depth necessary to produce clods tillage speed: 2-4 m.p.h. y ,.; I — . _;- Twisted 4olrtt"chisel•, still also be satisfactory. HEAVY DUTY CULTIVATOR: ; • Field Cultivators with widths of 4-8" may be used with spacing of 16-36" 4-8" tillage depth or depth sufficient to produce clods SUBSOILER: Subsoilers will probably be adequate to provide a roughened surface to prevent blowing. However, field investigations should be made to determine if standard spacing and cloddy surface produced will be adequate to prevent further soil movement. Tillage speed should be maintained at 2-4 m.p.h.. Tillage should be performed at right angles to prevailing, damaging winds. In most cases, damaging winds are northwest to southeast. (MI . • WEG 5: Loams, sandy clay loam, sandy clays - Implements: CHISELS: 2-3" twisted point chisels are preferred at a spacing of 24-48" 6-8" tillage depth or a depth necessary to produce clods WIDE SPACE OR HEAVY DUTY_ CULTIVATOR: • 2-6"field cultivator should be adequate with 24-48" ;.:spacing 4-8" tillage depth or sufficient depth to produce clods Tillage speed should be maintained at 2-4 m.p.h. Tillage should be'-performed at right angles to damaging winds. GENERAL: A sufficient or an adequate clod size will be in the 3-6" range. MOISTURE REQUIREMENTS: Usually in WEG 3, 30-35% plus moisture of field capacity will be required to produce clods. For WEG 4 thru 7, 257. plus moisture of field capacity will be necessary to produce clods If climatic and wind conditions persist, procedures may have to be repeated to pre- vent further erosion damage. Inspections should be made prior to second operation to determine moisture 7.. \\-..,,, k" ky c pt ... • R BOX 1948_GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 ,- P.O.BOX 1948-GREELEY.COLORADO Mr .1 ek c6460% ‘11( 1 ott#is 8k) re Tir 7.,:tloi o m -n 0 117 -- r, ITIO S D a a 37 } ---7-- lc O ; -� O al j ill, I vi-0 T 1 i in mm • 1 '-'-'1..."-- " A r r� l y i OC. C c A m z w m o LLf ruri �. D 4 t. cy' '" .. re z < � oC la 0 D o VI L+d x o m I ``P rTh z co z " rn 1 AO _ t - n i7 ,t = 1 I ,r .. _ � < ≤ �� T. i _. i CD • `err C. m �� L..._- • { r n • n o. •O ` ;_.rw 1_t c^, 0 c <a" 2 " -.,, ,''r7- 1 f at,.,:ti fap \.„___ -. Qty - • r, , •� jt< A ( v 2. �• N V n is • Li s 00 yo , r RESOLUTION RE: DENY USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION, 1,200 HEAD DAIRY - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Howe Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 4th day of February, 1987, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of considering the application of Aurora Capital Corporation, 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, Colorado 80301, for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation, 1,200 head dairy, on the following described real estate, to-wit: The SW%, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Kenneth Lind, Attorney, and the Attorney representing the opposition was Thomas Hellerich, and WHEREAS, Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Use by Special Review, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, at hearings conducted January 14, 1987, and January 19, 1987 , heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County staff and al_. of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, Commissioner Johnson moved that this request be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brantner and carried with Commissioners Johnson, Brantner and Yamaguchi voting aye, and Commissioners Lacy and Kirby voting nay, and WHEREAS, it was determined that this request shall be denied for the following reasons: 1. It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land` would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. rJ 7-)L 0o /7e 4 - > - 870073 Page 2 RE: DENY USR - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION b. The use of the land as a dairy would not be complimentary to nor compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, as the surrounding land uses are not used in such an intense manner, c. The uses of the land which would be permitted will not be compatible with the future development of the area, because the surrounding land will probably not be developed aaric-.ilturally in such an intense manner and because of proposed future development of rural residences in the immediate vicinity of the site. d. The proposed Development Standards do not give adequate protection for the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the County, especially in the area of odor control. While the Corporation has made proposals which are intended to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, the odor problems inherent in the proposed design are not adequately mitigated by after-the-fact odor abatement programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation, 1,200 head dairy, on the hereinabove described 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 4th day, of February, A.D. , 1987. ATTEST:\Mats 4¢� Lr✓ WELBOLDDD OF CONTY COMM COUNTY, OLORADISSIONERS Weld County Clerk and Recorder EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING (NAY) and Clerk to the Board Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman r c _fm c, (NAY) Y: C. xar y, Pr Tom eputy ounty erk Ale �� APPR D AS TO FORM: en �ref flaPile ne (AYE) ' ln.q , . AYE) Ja quo ne Job s 1 . ounty Attorney (AYE) Fra41411"741 Yam guc i 870073 ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: FEBRUARY 4, 1987 - USR,LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC if (as listed above) or the applicants name o£ the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING I OkfalCiAr vex( bet;fl& rr o a i - r al--gar v Y; /797 .C. , rr 9 L-1242.44.1.777i.,, / / I < ' , IL e dl.�v ,Jn /Nerd/3e Ne /3r/4e h 1 G L `` a Woe, 3S- Q � y IA �( t5ta�, QnrsY. 400 �Q t� a lsS�$/Q� 8 �r 273 T& fiv� thy .6b GUu9n+c'l �� , V v�� 3,j/sex,lyc N/- eg7 ye�YL r / :. /2-e 7a00s7 .1 j 6 G Acn./G,dyicnr '. ' ' -- 72 z ec-a it- �'f� -÷Er-ic- /90-4 goy mn i"'/� W11e 11 (1/ P060x llci terfrb '' Clar e f err. ' ifs K;n jc ihs • Ta��sforrn r< ` .. � ��.s / P4233 Gk11 it t-Lin �•+ �/ �/ -7-^ �- i, ' I G in tari.r;C'.e/r-Sll .r-a,/�-rv�r • au / (s-o fiat /5n- LTA , • C n 1' N li /i n ii d' 4 ¢ /g`/L/. ite4. y�� rra /7. air r Y n..r ,A6o w e R. 48.,c2---- </ c f i .� M.,VI U r 38 f , t rittlimil 7711W 4 ' c,cj3 3 if Aer_2i; Pp aka PP at qd weft 34 2 Plarr�rll� II It , j,oa t _ S794 !a> c236 cP4- .-,,„LO i • A/CI` S-` 1/360119,1) , yy, 7 871,7,743, ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: PLEASE write or print legibly your-.name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. - NAME ADDRESS / HEARING ATTENDING /3A( .4',C 7 .41,...,e j Co ,r, ✓ ,✓ j lr.4,7r. a .� ' -ha .3-n4- AuciZ pisA,AS _ 7i, i� _ rn v', Tic e 3 6 7�. leo, C� ,,"7�� -2/33{' CO f / get .6�4 ei lioi4 r ' 1f A it Atli 19827 urrRis 3 oAnc4 ,,,>,r, Co ciT 7:'73 7 rfik- RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST OF AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION FOR A DAIRY 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, the Board of County Commissioners held z public hearing on the 19th day of January, 1987, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of continuing testimony regarding the application of Aurora Capital Corporation, 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, Colorado 8O301, for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation for a dairy, on the following described real estate, to-wit: The SW1, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Kenneth Lind, Attorney, and the Attorney representing the opposition was Tom Hellerich, and WHEREAS, Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Use by Special Review, and WHEREAS, the Board, having heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, and having studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter, deems it advisable to continue said hearing to Wednesday. February 4, 1987, at 10:00 .a.m. , for deliberation only: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the hearing to consider the application of Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation for a dairy, on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is, continued to February 4, 1987, at 10:0O a.m. for deliberation • only, with no further public testimony to be heard. • C.4") `71(' {:r. _ 870047 f Page 2 RE: CONTINUE BEARING - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote' on the 19th day of January, A.D. , 1987. _ BOARD OF COUNTY CONMISSIONERS ATTEST: _ r WELD: C01:7X C,OLp30 Weld County 'Clerk and Recorder 77l 4 ; . and Clerk to the Board Got . Lacy'( an n yam/ `BY:_� :»C, - t 1:a.t��t-k.' C.W. Kirby, APPROAeputy County Clerk p[4/ it VED AS TO FORM: - e'R. anther ac ue e Joh son County Attorney at i we Frank iagu 870047 ,/:,...,:y.� r: HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 86-82 RE: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION FOR A DAIRY - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION A public hearing was conducted on January 19, 1987, at 10:00 A.M., with the following present; Commissioner Gordon--E. Lacy, Chairman Commissioner C.W..Kirby, Pro—Tem Commissioner Gene-Brantaer Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi Also present: Acting Clerk_to :the_Board, Mary Reiff Assistant County Attorney, Jan Rundus Director of Planning _Services, Chuck Cunliffe _ _ Certified Court. Reporter, Barbara Billings The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 29, 1986, and duly published January 1, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation, reduced to a 1,200 head dairy. Jan Rendus, Assistant County Attorney, made this matter of record and stated that this hearing was • continued from January 14. Robert B. Willson came forward to complete his testimony. He introduced Exhibits YY and ZZ, and AAA (Tape Change #87-7) through KKK. Thomas E. Hellerich, attorney for Citizens Opposed to the Dairy, came forward to make further comments and introduced Exhibit LLL, an excerpt from the Johnstown Breeze. Edward S. Reichert spoke in opposition to this request and presented Exhibits MMM and NNN, both dealing with water. Mr. Reichert, a realtor, said that people are not interested in purchasing property near a feedlot. At this time, the hearing was recessed for lunch until 1:30 P.M. After this recess, the following people spoke in opposition to this request: Roberta Reichert; Dutne Frye; Nyla Frye; Charles Stieff; Barbara Kowalik; Chip Kraynyk; (Tape Change #87-8) Greg Brown; Joe Elms; Faye Elms; John McCahan; Janette McCahan; and Charles Gray. Mr. Hellerich then • summarized the contentions of those opposing the Use by Special Review. Speaking in favor of the proposal were: Dick Folkman; Jake Salazar; and Jim Martin. After a short recess, Mr. Lind came forward in rebuttal, assisted by Ken Dell and Robert James, of Rocky Mountain • Consultants; Barney Little, general manager of Colorado Dairy Farms; (Tape Change #87-9) Ray Voile, of Aurora Capital Corporation; and Brad Anderson. During this rebuttal, Exhibits PPP through YYY were submitted. At the close of public testimony, Commissioner Johnson commented that the vast amount of technical data which has been submitted must be evaluated, and she moved to continue this 'hearing to February 4, at 10:00 a.m, for the purpose of deliberation only, with no further public testimony to be received. She said that the data • presented will be referred to County staff members for evaluation, and she felt it necessary to identify the concerns to be addressed'. Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion and outlined the concerns to include: impacts on roads; ground water; pond lining; domestic water supply; 100-year flood plan; and odor standards. Commissioner Brantner expressed his thanks to the audience for their cooperation during this lengthy hearing and included the following as concerns to be considered: flies; fire protection, noxious weeds; odor; water pollution; neighborhood impact; storage and removal of manure; removal of liquid wastes; and the 100-Year runoff. Commissioner Johnson added treatment of solid and liquid wastes- 4i an item of concern. The motion to continue this hearing carried unanimously. • 870044 Page 2 CERTIFICATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION This Certification was approved on the 21st day of January, 1987. APPROVED: • 1 �7 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATtEST: & w. CUVI.04 r.. WELD COUNTY, C. ORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board cy, ha De sty County C e C.W. ,Kirby, Proem Gene 1₹.Brantne6 63.,(0,40t- Gene ue a JohIJ n Frank amagutchi TAPE #87-6. .#8777, #87-8, and #87-9 DOCKET $86-82 .. PL0097 870044 ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 19, 19878 (10:00 A.M.) DOCKET #86-82 - USA, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION- AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING Pa u J--u f CARP el PR_ -Jr,77f t-cr4 R -13 G,40 - -e-C Ce 6 - 531 k .S„.„1,,, tea_ A,t_04en.4./t i ?J C) 131 .}n,�. _gt.<. e • 910-e ft LAa.,-L ,24,/$ cQA1 a . , 6ne.S.re , fir - - _. y3 , l l Cy-Lo sit leo- (34Y By ; Uc/c(-, , _7„ - 04 ,- 4 -4-4 ert,/cry I -w,eRIS4 ,moKIt t e .8O57 Sr-X -53'2` 7Tsrarl 1f. .. ..4-., f 003 7009 3G P-.e c 9QcSI ¶ G - 77" �.�.a-nvca i Ac nt , -5• 64 o- it .56 WhigliviL Co gM's/ g'. - gz 1° O S G' Co 1,53 y g - 0 411-&11 j-4,_ t nua_4-_.,,(9,. .., iv ita.e.,4, y-g-y---.?„, d .a & L 6aol-- siEt fI-uiZ 9vuA ictocisit JOfl1\ towAJ sass- SSA 1 Sv -5PQU4. 9a/a a 44A 47/44././et5c/ 7-21sy3 6-6-g fir v ei 370 ff1 46X '.2njilltidie leS#3 U- it 0 al Cie Cid1 , n s4 kill 2053 V r6 ---72��.(.t1J Rue t i c R. 8 q , , go 5-3 C. 84_82 i' 'Tic 7 ie. C�', 13 4 ?oS 9 &b -8Z. tio 9 a ? Lc, J R'. / re s-3 1(-P °, / 9 21 t tv e_ 4Z /7 .was .__, sr'oS3X 1 ‘ - J Joi E--rn s /pt &3 bet is `' -fr goS3� 7 tL A-Aer- A/ms /.Yf �/,ie.e /S-ZO'cTi-z,c_ �� ati:* Aunt- w h tp PF fig(' Vt R ?6 'i Pk Iffy dI.L Pars/ 1L- & 2-- J ET uo we 2 3G 1'/gilt✓,G1ti g04s1 g --' SI- ,iD4a- t.i. R- adiA, t30(C 40 (1,R (34 vi emif&, 4'&662 fi6 -fa 3c5}kn , '}�;k A). s` , I6 i`/,�'�_ r. , 34 T?# 7..4viU.,k= S'°(�st `fig -11,_, ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAYTS HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 19, 19878 (10:00 .A.M.) DOCKET #86-82 - USR, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING A: "s ra:-7 p R t We.!Z * t(tf ik N Ca . 86 -82 1-14/pi 4O- ,2e3 edged Sg* 211\0e-11 1'4 S itacAti4J-/ /fl7s 4xA, /7 w. rro1) 4k, 16- RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST OF AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION FOR A DAIRY 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, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 14th day of January, 1987, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. In the_ Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Aurora Capital Corporation, 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, Colorado 80301, for a- Use• by, Special Review for a livestock confinement operation for a dairy, on the following described real estate, to-wit: The SW4, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Kenneth Lind, Attorney, and • WHEREAS, due to the length of the presentations and the amount of testimony still to be presented, the Board deems it advisable to continue said hearing to Monday, January 19, 1987, at 10:00 a.m. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the hearing to _ consider the application of Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation for a dairy, on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is, continued to January 19, 1987, at ' 10:00 a.m. pLoo9-7 Win. . rl� Auront -P 870037 Page 2 RE: CONTINUE HEARING - AURORA CAPITAL C=IRPORATION The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 14th day of January, A.D. , 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 4- WELD CO OLORADO Weld County/ �a� 6=k and Recorder and Clerk to, the Board GO o irman 1.-) '� rJ BY: ) C ,X rc c, ( C.vc% C. it , Pro-- em Deputy County Jerk if t�� APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gene R.Brantner`-v"'� • ye Ja•gue e nson ounty Attorney Frank- Mama uchi • 870037 ft HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 86-82 RE: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION, 2,400 HEAD DAIRY - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION A public hearing was conducted on January 14, 1987, at 2:00 P.M., with the following present: Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman Commissioner C.W. Kirby, .Pro-Tem Commissioner Gene'Brantner Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Mary Reiff Assistant County Attorney. Bruce T. Barker Director of Planning Services, Chuck Cunliffe Certified Court Reporter, Barbara Billings The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 29, 1986, and duly published January 1, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze, a public hearing was conducted to consider the application of Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation, 2,400 head dairy. Bruce Barker, Assistant County Attorney, made this matter of record. Chuck Cunliffe, Director of Planning Services, read the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial pf this application into the record. Mr. Barker read into the record the Use by Special Review standards which the Commissioners are to consider when making their decision and asked that public testimony be limited to these areas. Ken Lind, attorney representing the applicant, said that their presentation will show that the request is consistent With the Comprehensive Plan and will meet the standards for a Use by Special Review. He said the application for a 2,400 head dairy was divided into two phasen, each serving 1,200 head. The applicant would like to drop Phase 2, and consider only Phase 1 for 1,200 head at this time, with the understanding that at a later date they may request an amendment of the Use by Special Review. Mr. Barker advised the Board that it must decide whether this matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on only Phase 1 or continue this hearing today. Mr. Lind stated that the applicant is willing to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial as a recommendation of denial of Phase 1. Commissioner Jo'_nson stated that she felt that a second hearing by the Planning Commission for a reduced number of cows is unnecessary and moved to continue with this hearing today. Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Before proceeding further, Commissioner Johnson asked how many cattle could be on the property as a use by right. Mr. Cunliffe advised the Board that this parcel of ground could contain 644 head of cattle as a use by right and explained the process which must be followed to amend a Use by Special Review. Mr. Lind said that this parcel has been used as a family farm and feeding operation, which in the wintertime often contained 900 to 950 head of cattle. He pointed out that the application was submitted under the old Weld County Comprehensive Plan, rather than the recently-adopted Comprehensive Plan, so will be considered under the old plan, but he feels it complies with both plans. Mr. Lind presented Exhibit GG, a 870034 PLUoq-] CCp. a Page 2 CERTIFICATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION USR Comprehensive Plan map, and Exhibit HR. Pat McNear, realtor with Scott Realty, testified concerning the effect this operation would have on land values. ten Dell, planner with Rocky Mountain Consultants, explained the design of the dairy. After a short recess, Mr. Lind presented petitions said to contain 196 signatures in support of the dairy (Exhibit II) and a letter from Mountain Empire Dairyman's Association (Exhibit JJ). Robert James, engineer with Rocky Mountain Consultants, explained the differences between the existing Colorado Dairy Farms operation located on Highway 66 and the proposed facility. Steve Rivas, employee of Colorado Dairy Farms, discussed the odor problems at the Highway 66 location and the improvements which were made when Colorado Dairy Farms took over this operation. (Tape Change #87-4) He also explained the lagoon design for the proposed operation. John Ewing, veterinarian serving Colorado Dairy Farms, testified that • the dairy has a program which stresses preventive medicine and fly control. Jim Martin, owner of Colorado Animal Health, spoke regarding the insecticide which is used by Colorado Dairy Farms. Barney Little, general manager of Colorado Dairy Farms, spoke about the economics of the proposed operation and explained how the operation would be managed. Mr. Lind spoke briefly about the traffic impacts of the project and stated that the applicant would be willing to enter into a road agreement when necessary. Ray Voile explained the proposed road traffic patterns and said there would be a total of approximately 21 trucks per week delivering feed and picking up milk. Mr. James i informed the Board that engineering design reports have been submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and approval is pending. He submitted Exhibit MM, showing the design of the ponds. Mr. Rivas explained the microbial activity of the lagoon and stated that the proposed system is over-sized for this facility. Mr. James explained how the waste water which has gone through the system, will be used for irrigation. He submitted Exhibit NN, typical data for nitrate levels in irrigated farms in Latimer and Weld Counties. (Tape Change #87-5) Mr. Rivas and Mr. James made further comments and Mr. Dell explained the proposed water supply. Mr. Dell submitted Exhibit 00, a letter from John Ewing, and Exhibit PP, a schematic drawing of service connections for the Little Thompson Water District. Mr. Lind asked that the applicant be allowed to rebut after the opposition has presented information. After a short recess, Thomas E. Hellerich, attorney representing a group named Citizens Opposing the Dairy, outlined ways in which he feels this application does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and submitted Exhibit QQ, a letter from the Little Thompson Water District. Judith Green, speaking for the residents of Northmoor Acres, presented their concerns regarding quality of life and land values. Nanette Adler presented Exhibit RR, a map showing the location of those 330 persons who signed the petition submitted January 13, opposing this request. Jim Stroh, who operates a feedlot in the area, came forward to explain the significant differences between a feedlot operation and a dairy operation. Following a recess, Robert Willson, engineer, came forward to make a presentation. As part of his presentation, he submitted Exhibits SS, TT, UU, VV, (Tape Change #87-6) and WW. A short recess was called at this time. After this recess, Chairman Lacy explained that, because of the time and the length of the presentations still to be made, it would seem advisable to continue this hearing to 10:00 a.m. Monday, January 19, with the understanding that testimony will be taken from 10:00 a.m. until noon, with a one and a half hour lunch break, with testimony will be heard until the conclusion. Commissioner Johnson movee to continue this hearing to 10:00 a.m., January 19. Commissioner Yamaguchi seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. gy0O.4 OP Page 3 CERTIFICATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION USR This Certification was approved on the 19th day of January, 1987. APPROVED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: flt ZA WELD C UNEOLiORe Weld County C ark and Recorder and Clerk to the Boar r n (771LiJZ.i...P� tL•i L" ��i/2��%�:fisl utt' County Cler C. Kirby, pro-Teg(AtedrGene R. `rantner" `j .cgs • ac• 1 t John 1 Fra. Y guchi TAPE #87-3, #87-4, #87-5, & #87-6 POCKET #86-82 7L0097 870034 ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS. ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 14, 1987 DOCKET #86-81 - USR, CHANGE IN NON-CONFORMING USE (CULTURED MARBLE FABRICATION BUSINESS1 ROBERT SEE DOCKET #86-82 - USR, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION (2,400 HEAD DAIRY) AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your-name, address and the DOC # • (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you ara attending. NAME ADDRESSar�- HEARING ATTENDING do wry \VC. -2,O)13n t,_le� t4 OO7,01- S4a- 4; • (u c_/ aoq q Wee, /7 jjtatILOVU '-8co_8a 17?74Arc.2. i $ ralersr. r M Q Ai /7 f 7a. 4J•C R.l5' 4LZ_L. _ . te 76„ - 5; t L Azle /(oz 2 %/.(/,G%e /.3Ee3 ,/�th 14-fa r ///i'ea e a;'Joan fz7G Vic+9 E LA / ('o'. ,1d -P2 -Gll z�((fj1 i , r lt'�- to X13/ (�iccrQ G �- - ` s /gcaeWdllo, /ld' 1 /Law' o `ua fe, g'6- liZ r 41 z a InnAlai en, CJ 17, Atex4,r O: „ i ��a/ D /7305 20c2 / 3 P/_ATT 11≥1, W Sko g Z a A . QAa4z&wu5Vf/47O RAF Ysb , % - • _4e, a , 6-- Fa. ni�1 &fca". 4. t#'/i- ,. &r1 gs rX2&4 21 K�- a( e�s� ¢Lt1.zz—d(firx.4.1 /73op E Z- / L-7-7-7 el"; /1e <L '� ft - erg- f �1 4,n_ no 3 rvC.FLJ G fra ff 6 — sit. tit4r ,2efarte,,,-ea /' !/��._4 .‘7 ite.Ler Gg/ /6- 7 `7' gyp, ` A t, , A _ l's Fr`1 leaf j? a R R seurcrw+-` ` Q'" ZS — Vs. ."` a. Q,(� Th5t9--Q k7.C.P. t3`� 9thos4nuanido.n( 8(i- 8a eri iffer�j /76RS' 6tir.P Co 1; Pl4 lrt 0; gt _ `7nm �i'Ff.1._ Y /9/ol tiles, / 9 -ze sfz/.., eie.2 -16,2, e � — es--46 G.; c x. 3/Y i.� lA yr. C -I 2- x.- --� 1 a S d .c9 �r A? d! 7,--\ i� �' oJe ` k cr_' 7t104._ 4/ 4/ 737/ # c,- i —L,.� , r /,s .9r--- am' la- z7/1� 4,,en-74/1,,/ 7& / 7 aisCr& n-n_, *,. • ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 14, 1987 DOCKET #86-81 - USR, CHANGE IN NON-CONFORMING USE (CULTURED MARBLE FABRICATION BUSINESS), ROBERT SEE DOCKET #86-82 - USR, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION (2,400 HEAD DAIRY) AURORA CA2ITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed ab----c7iTT or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending_ NAME ADDRESS HEAF:ING ATTENDING Alette lic . /fr' - -- - €IL-9--6-,e1+41 &di (A ./ n /73 6o1 € -x/ rr6 -g47... U , f4n2,tfreo 19y1,3 toe P.,1 flrp„),/, � g - e /� /d mmg ` 4 `f$ Il , ,{vk aa' & , 84 - i � l � p ��yy o� �' }�nau s• SOS Gronc.� P1/4>e c S\c ct );\\e c X "ltd G,« UuHot 74'C L ,,/1'6 K j 0 4cintOnd St- s't - c7-- 7 1-m 7YP'q 4' �e.,,,, ci/off y,;b r�- 3(-kg plth��` % 9oiQl k3CR / 21t Gil �J 24- t T�4zt%'T S &xii 2-5-6 (5- (tic k. 67 '/Z Grky SG-3? o1O\'‘IN Mast- lac 2 3 Li R43 4ckdscm Colo 86.-8 o .le. `Q stn_l. Miih4 19' .1/G//�t/c-f 17 Tl/�`/ a1Al ('/off gG-(8"1 it /C27(J IIRR l7 sr30 "kit 626, y rnonT CO S,_`12, t�S i CaaY 3pcot �\.�Prw.aJ& Pi= c'All�n� Co 8�o-8oZ a _p d� - 7Z2 aril,- Xt .'" a . %q �,e� p.4, jc/a t'h P, '/e/67 r � l `Q.g,� /!u 72,,z ST f 66 ko,vGinarrT, co. , 1 A. e P erc�2 7n-reLeokco„,fr Pd l frua-17 6( lb fl_ ` , 3300 Afirelq&Lv F oc,Utor '1 t, s-k- '. Rtes ≤ 03 Of ve Lvt• f44-it to • ATTENDANCE R E C C .:_D TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 14, 1987 DOCKET #86-81 - USE, CHANGE IN NOW-CONFORMING USE (CULTURED MARBLE FABRICATION BUSINESS), ROBERT SEE DOCKET #86-82 - USR, LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION (2,400 BEAD DAIRY) AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed abo ev )ev ) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME HEARING ATTENDING ADDRESS / /^[ � f/J.L-sG✓ .- - ' 41 I.i roi- Q S 4-s /l ke+m"- 2S�/b—S>. a.a�. ` a:A... 9719 tac.R +Il. a (1 ;11;kc,, -S'z S`C DoE' . �{ �t 9oa• RP_ I&. JOilk slow Ez 4,r "S(76O ` -- ,t71„, S ew SG sr-1 O tdC-fe Li 2-- S)Lnsi3w-ii Ka tai a ti - I9(o s o >eD 1s 1.1 S-To w of g-8- C o A, rr (� o w 7ovwca )S � hr� d 8 to—r e alto . \ :•%4f "n. L T , • a < I EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case USA, Aurora Capital Corporation Exhibit Submitted Bp Exhibit Description A. 12/17186 George Smith Request to proceed B. 12/19/86 Planning staff Inventory of items C. 12/19/86 Planning Commission Resolution of recommendation D. _12/19/86 Melvin Rahm Letter E. Planning Commission Summary of hearing F. 12/24/86 Jake Salazar Letter G. 12/29/86 Clerk to the Board Hearing,date approval H. 12/29/86 Clerk to the Board Notice of hearing I. 1/9187 Nyla Frye Letter J. 1/12/87 Lorraine & Clyde Hairston Letter K. 1/12/87 John S. McCahan Letter L. 1/12/87 Christine Marostica/Jobe & Mary Marostica Letter M. 1/12/87 Duane Frye Letter N. 1/12/87 Judith Green, et al. Letters (15) 0. 1/13/87 Surrounding landowners Petition in opposition P. 1/13/87 Maxine & Stave Koester Le*ter of opposition Q. 1/13/87 Milo & Margaret Ballinger Letter of opposition R. 1/13/87 Ehmann, et al. Letter of opposition S. 1/13/87 Adrian & Louis Ciancio Letter of opposition T. 1/13/87 Erkanback Lateral Ditch Co. Latter re: Request for condition if application is approved D. 1/13/87 Steve & isryl tee Seewald Letter of opposition V. 1/13/87 Drew Scheitinga, Engineer Memo re: Haul routes & dust control W. 1/13/87 Faye L. Elms Letter of opposition E. 1/13/87 Joseph Elms Letter of opposition Y. 1/13/87 Robert B. Willson Engineering analysis & possible violation of Zoning Ordinance Z. 1/13/87 Gary& Nanette Adler Letter of opposition AA. 1/13/87 Greg & Anna Spaur Letter of opposition BB. 1/13/87 Bennett & Marilyn Spaur Lotter`of opposition CC. 1/14/87 Roberta Reichert Letter DD. 1/14/87 Jo Ann J. Gettlein Latter EE. 1/14/87 Clerk to the Board Summary of telephone call FF. 1/14/87 Clerk to the Board Summary of telephone call • • Page 2 RE: EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL - USR, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description ''GG. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Cop map HH. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Plot plan map of Phase I e II. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Petition /.1.1. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Letter KK. 1/14/87 Barney Little (Applicant) Blueprint of facility LL. 1/14/87 Applicant Map entitled "Antra Dairy Farms" "MM. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Diagrams 7 NN. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Graphic /00. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Letter 'APP. 1/14/87 Ken Dell (Applicant) Graphic QQ. 1/14/87 Tom Hollerith Opposition) Letter -/RR. 1/14/87 Nanette Adler (Opposition) Map ' SS. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter ITT. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Maps / VU. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter / VV. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter ✓ wit. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter Xi, feetr7 ailJACe-234/17.44.0-XJ CeS Yy. �!4/ - fbieitili a :apt.) anal-- sit Roistlit c.7fl fm. zz. i/ns tl / soJ Qltl- 14! ft - 2et.5• 1% �1 M. t II/81- ` Alit -StOrago cJI q ,l tt J /y� �1 BBB. fS'Suva)— to She. su�iewo/i {* CCC. +l 1 ,, tkSR Arta biJ 4J ' 1/(r f - CCC �l�l�'� DDD. 4 t M • t + EKE. q (��i�' A. QC [(I Ic ( t, �7t se. FFF. HRH. 1, '' t S,...et, r4 ord. , .L.\.9 ...,) , III. Sto ! r 011 . 9 .11_x.4 JSJ. 9 SUtaMo y rt 00.QM.H Q 1 KKK_ SLUNAthmi t GICkSIOIRS in. 4 \ow lelMA iiiwt re , Echkwe tree2? Grit MMM. R td,4>Q PIA it Map ro 00-154 0 k n NNN. 6V-Vi J — Sl4Qyrp$ wt10fl r� ) 000. Rot �kNk 1\1tol1 I L etc- - Page 3 RE: EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL - USR, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description PPP. / �� llMlUlf 1r t 40/l y3 I Aka I* Usy if � t T �� QQQ• Let- 17foirri\ W&if If fr1'f sss. b tC11.111S it TTT. t it ii 4' m MD. Agitl l.i-ifit 1-tfter — ! (a Vim. 4 " l4kr - WTI Lei WWW. r. I1 de er CAI ,Jf XXI. Bak i-045 N 111 r;U - s ab `3 t t �P J05 YYY. 't 11 C s &dim CST J05 24.467 AAAA BBB/y jegZGe: 03At .Ei cccc. ADDD. EEEE,' TRIP. • GGGG. RHEA. IIII. JJJJ. KKKK. LLLL. 144Q4. MINN. 0000. PPPP. QQQQ• BRRR_ SSSS. TTTT. UUUU. Wi7WW. XXXX. YYYY. YYY. ,y,a S AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION USR-770:$6:51 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Use by Special Review permit be adopted and placed on the Use by Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. 2. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department of Planning Services' office and the plat is ready to-be recorded in the office of the Weld County. Clerk and Recorder. 3. Within thirty (30) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant/operator shall submit to the Colorado • Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, an engineering report, prepared by a registered professional engineer, demonstrating compliance with its Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities. The applicant/operator shall submit evidence of approval by the Colorado Department Health, Water Quality Control Division, to the Department of Planning Services within ninety (90) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the applicant has entered into a road maintenance and improvements agreement with Weld County. The agreement shall include provisions for dust abatement on Weld County -Road 15, designated haul routes for vehicular traffic, and the maintenance of the designated haul routes_ 5. The Use by Special Review plat shall be amended to: a. Show only those facilities designed for the 1,20O head dairy Livestock Confinement Operation. Any references to facilities designed for phase two shall be deleted from the Use by Special Review plat. b. Show the ditch day lighting immediately to the west of the confinement area and not to Weld County Road 15. c. Show the proposed cistern for water storage on the plat. d. Show a 40 foot turning radius at the entrance to the property from Wald County-Road 15. ex/1m/7 C'eee DEFELOPNENT STANDARDS Aurora Capital.Corporation USR-770:86:51 1. The Use by Special Review permit is for a 1,200 head dairy livestock confinement operation as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. The maximum number of cows shall not exceed 1,200 head. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining the runoff retention and containment facilities in accordance with the engineered report, as approved by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. All runoff retention and containment facilities shall meet and be maintained in accordance with the State Health Department's Guidelines of Feedlot Runoff Containment facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for any additional requirements issued by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. 3. All Construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the 'Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 4. All stormwater and dairy operation runoff shall be controlled and confined within the boundaries of the subject property as identified in the submitted application materials. 5. No permanent buildings or structures shall be built within Panhandle Eastern's gasline easement or the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company's easement. 6. The addition of residential dwellings, including mobile homes or manufactured homes, on the property not shown hereon shall require an amendment to the Use by Special Review permit. 7. The applicant shall design and construct a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will divert any and all floodwater runoff around the confinement area. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the confinement area at any point. 8. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of asphalt that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical cleaning and removal of settled material. 9. The applicant shall submit design for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes the perched water table and lowers the groundwater table at least two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. Development Standards Aurora Capital Corporation . USR-770:86:51 Page 2 • b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading on the groundwater table at the point of discharge, And demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. The design shall be approved by the Weld County Health Department. A copy of the approved design shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. 10.H Odor levels detected off-site which have been diluted with more than fifteen volumes of air shall be considered an odor problem and the applicant/operator shall be required to submit an odor abatement plan to the Weld County Health Department. The plan shall be submitted within five (5) working days of detection• and shall be reviewed and approved by the Weld County Health Department. The odor abatement plan shall be implemented within ten (10) working days from the date of detection. If an odor abatement plan is required, an approved copy shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. 11. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors. flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage site shall have a water—tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into the ground. 12. All alfalfa or straw stacks located on the property shall be kept safely apart to mitigate potential fire hazards. The minimum separation distance between the stacks shall be approved by the Johnstown Fire Protection District. 13. Any buildings or structures constructed after the approval date of this Use by Special Review permit shall be accessible to fire department apparatus in accordance with Section 10.207, Articles (a) through (f), of the IIniforn Fire Code, 1982 Edition. 14. The required number, type, and location of fire extinguishers on the property shall be approved by the Johnstt m lire Protection District. 15. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the-- Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance: Development Standards Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770.86:51 Page 3 • 16. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County • Zoning Ordinance. 17. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department of Health, Johnstown Fire Portection District, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to insure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County and State Regulations. 18. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans and/or Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plaits and/or Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 19. The property owner and/or operator of this operation shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. ° E E MEfORAf DUM ` ' JAN 281987 [1 Chuck Cunliffe Ifidgbliatsiat wise To Planning Department u,c. Ja u• COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer +� Subject: Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation USR - 770:86:51 At the Board of Weld County Commissioners hearing further questions regarding•storm drainage and road impact have been raised. My comments and recommendations are as follows: The 100-year storm drainage criteria as contained in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance under Section 24.5.1.5.1. has been confused with Health Department criteria for the .protection of livestock holding pens. The criteria in the Zoning Ordinance deals with detention ponds that collect non-contaminated overland flows when there is substantial increase in storm water runoff due to commercial or residental development. The dairy proposal will not change the runoff and therefore a detention pond for the overall site is not necessary. I will not address the retention pond required by Health Department regulations, except to say, I have reviewed the calculations and found that capacity to protect the livestock containment area exceeds the 25-year requirement. There is a proposed diversion dike and ditch along the north edge of the confinement area. It's purpose is to divert runoff away from the confinement area. The plot plan indicates a ditch would be run to the west and day lighted at CR 15. I recommend the plan be revised to show the ditch day lighting immediately to the west of the confined area and not to the road. Runoff could then flow south between WCR 15 and the confinement area. The proposed runoff collection dike on the west side of the containment area would protect the containment area. The plot plan shows the existing entrance is to be improved and widened to 30' . This is acceptable. However, I recommend the requirement of a 40' turning radius. The roadway width varies from 22' to 24' between the proposed entrance and WCR 38. According to criteria contained in the publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1984, as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the width of the traveled way for local rural roads with an average daily traffic count of less than 250 is acceptable between 22' and 24' . Therefore, I do not recommend the widening of CR 15. ,ter � Page 2 . Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation USR - 770:86:51 The amount of traffic that will be generated from a 1,200 head dairy has been disputed. I am sure the accurate number is probably somewhere between the high and low claims. However, the increase, even on the high side, would not change the classification of the road in terms or requiring paving, widening, or the addition of turn lanes. The geometry of CR 15 as it connects to CR 38, is somewhat irregular which is typical of gravel roadways. However, the road is 24' wide with roundings that give an access of 70' of gravel frontage against CR 38. A semi-tractor trailer can negotiate a low speed turn thru this intersection without creating an unusual hazard. As I indicated in my January 12, 1987, memo, a dust control program seems reasonable, although the average daily traffic will remain below the 200 vehicle per day category outlined in the fugitive dust regulation. In order to mitigate traffic impacts, the establishment of a haul route maybe beneficial . • Two factors will affect road maintenance problems. ' If all solid waste must be hauled from the site the affect on roadway '.wear and tear will certainly increase. Also, if there are preiods of heavy hauling during inclement weather, the impact on the road can be dramatically increased. I recommend a road maintenance agreement be entered into between the applicant and Weld County. • • DLS/bf • xc: Planning Referral File: Barry tittle/Aurora Capital Corporation mEmORAnDUm ifille • To Chuck Cunllffe, Planning _00. January� 26, 1987 COLORADO From' Wes' Potter, 'Health Protection Services 27.4 t. Proposed Development Standards for USE 770:86:51 Subjet 1. The applicant shill design and construct a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will divert any and all floodwater runoff around the site. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the site at any point. 2. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of a permanent, impermeable, durable material (such as asphalt) that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical • cleaning and removal of settled material. 3. The applicant shall submit a design for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes the perched water table and lowers the groundwater table ' least two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. - b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading onn groundwater table at the point of discharge, and demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. 4. The odor standard can stay the same except for editing the time frame as suggested by the Board. A detailed explanation of the reasoning behind these Development Standards will be available later this week.Ly. • o E CEIV�E JAN 261281 Vdit N t 411,,tt mEmORAnDUm To Department o£ Planning pm January 30, 1 7 COLORADO From Health Protection Services - Wes Potter Swsct Aurora Dairy Manure Handling The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nusiance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage site shall have a water-tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into • the ground. WP/dja • • • • • • • JAN 3Q 1987 weld Ca. %maim camtssiao- MEMORAilDU fi1�1 Fan 4196 / MetTo County Attorney/Planning ons r COLORADO cu es Potter, Director Health Protection Services 1,414Ofi "1p' ysark Session with the Board rewarding USR 770:86:51 The Board called the work session to discuss the various concerns that had been pointed out during the hearings. The questions that were addressed by the Health Protection staff were limited to the groundwater table at the site, potential sources of GW pollution, the capacity of the runoff containment ponds, biological treatment of wastes, pond liner integrity and potential problems, odor sources, and environmental impact of manure handling, stock-piling, and removal. A technical summary prepared by the staff provide pertinent data for the Board. The concerns or potential problems that were discussed by the Health Department centered on five points: 1. The problem of floodwater flowing onto the site and off from the site. The Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities states in section 8.3.4(2): (2)" All possible means to minimize quantities of contaminated runoff should be implemented. Uncontaminated storm runoff from areas external to the feedlot should be diverted by means of interceptor ditches, earth embankments, etc., from flowing over the drainage area." Therefore, it was suggested that a development standard be proposed to divert the floodwater around the site as much as possible. 2. The system for biological treatment of wastes is delicately balanced and depends upon regular cleaning of the settling pond which pre-treats the effluent by removing solids. Clay liners _ in this type of pond are very exposed to mechanical damage during the cleaning process. The possibility of inadvertent damage to the liner during cleaning would increase the potential for percolation of pollutants into the groundwater table through the comprised liner. It was suggested that a more permanent, permeable, durable material (such as asphalt) be used in the construction. This material would also be resistant to chemical deterioration as well as resistant to mechanical damage. 3. It was pointed out that there is in fact a perched water table at the site. In order for the ponds to be constructed in compliance with the guidelines and to , operate properly, the french drain was required. While it is possible to construct the french drain in a manner which would lower the water table, no data or specifications have been submitted which detail the point or configuration of the drain discharge and what impact txssir 81388 Page 2 County Attorney/Planning that discharge will have on the water table at the point of discharge. This data needs to be submitted and evaluated to ascertain the impact at the point of discharge. 4. Odor problems, potential sources and impact were also a concern. The staff has previously suggested an odor standard and the Board indicated that a time frame be considered for compliance and abatement of odor problems. 5. Nuisance conditions that could be potentially associated with the manure removal, handling and storage facilities were also a concern. It was suggested that standards be established regarding this potential problem. The major problems could be odor, flies, other insect pests, runoff. and groundwater pollution. t-.C7,yee f AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Geology and Groundwater of the Site The site is a surface expression of a shale/sandstone unit which is overlain by approximately 48 inches of silty loam soil. There is a variegated layer of caliche and sandstone below the soil which causes a perched water table to occur during the summer when irrigation water is influencing the site. Below this layer is a fairly continuous medium dense sandstone unit which extends to a depth of 12 to 30 feet. Shale bedrock exists below the sandstone. Pertinent Observations - - The groundwater table is perched upon the caliche and sandstone layer at 48 to 80 inches- - The groundwater table is seasonal and influenced by irrigation on the site and up slope. — A french drain, constructed around the site as proposed, will lower the groundwater table and remove any problems from the perched water table. — More data is needed from the applicant regarding the direction of flow from the french drain and how it will influence the groundwater table at the point of discharge into the water table- - Potential for percolation and infiltration from livestock pens into the groundwater table is minimal due to compaction and small partical sealing. Phase I Run—off Containment Pond Evaluation 1. Total area of Phase I Runoff r 700,000 sq. feet 2. Total Holding capacity of ponds as proposed = 800,000 cu. feet 3. 25 year storm run-off (3.8" peilding 2_65" runoff) = 154,583 cu. feet 4. 10 year storm run-off (2.9 at 20S of 2.35" run-off)= 27,417 cu. feet 5. Total storage required by State Statute = 182,000 cu, feet 6. Total annual-waste flow from dairy = 274.475 cu. feet 7. Total storage required,for proposal = 456,475 cu. feet 8. Total site runoff expected for a 100 year storm = 233,100 cu. feet 9. Total annual waste flow from dairy = 274,475 cu. feet Total pond storage required at 100 year storm = 507,575 cu. feet 10. Total pond storage available with 2 foot free board= 1,120,000 cu. feet 507,575 cu. feet 11. Storage available for USR run-off retention _ 612,425 cu. feet 12. Total evaporation at site = 240,000 cu. feet annually AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Biological Treatment Evaluation Annual waste flow = 274,475 cubic feet per year. Annual net evaporation at site = 240,000 cubic feet per year. Potential annual waste gain 34,475 cubic feet. Proposed method of waste treatment 1. Solids sedimentation (Pre-Treatment) 2. Breakdown of organics A. Enzymatic digestion B. Chelating agents to facilitate breakdown - C. Aerobic aquatic algae flora Comments - Depends upon a delicate oxygen balance in the ponds. - Removal of solids strongly influences balance. Cleaning sedimentation ponds will potentially disrupt balance. - Any significant run-off event will disrupt the balance. - Pumping could disrupt the balance. - No significant documentation has been provided by the applicant regarding the performance of the proposed treatment- - Opinion of staff - Proposal viii probably work. Standards can be established to monitor performance. _ Pond Liner Comments - Clay liners are commonly used successfully. - Organic sealing of run-off ponds reduces the potential for leaking. - Groundwater will not be a 'problem if french drain is installed to remove perched water table. Odor Sources and Potential Impact 1. Livestock confinment pens — ammonia base odor — highest when pens are wet - Iow impact. 2. Manure storage area — odor impact less than pens and highest during handling. 3. Sedimentation pond — will probably be anerobic most of the time. Hydrogen sulfide organics odor impact will be high. 4. Holding ponds could be a significant source of odor If anerobic conditions develop. Odor standards can be established and, with proper evaluation and treatment, corrective actions are possible to abate the odors. • ME1ORAnDUm Whi ro Chuck Cunliffe, Planning Din January 26, 1987 COLORADO From Wes Potter, Health Protection Services 1,140, bLM.cr Proposed Development Standards for IISR 770:86:51 1. The applicant shall design and construct a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will divert any and all floodwater runoff around the site. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the site at any point_ 2. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of a permanent, impermeable, durable material (such as asphalt) that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical cleaning and removal of settled material. 3. The applicant shall submit a design for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes the perched water table and lowers the groundwater table to least two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading on groundwater table t;t the point of discharge, and demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. 4. The odor standard can stay the same except for editing the time frame as suggested by the Board. A detailed explanation of the reasoning- behind these Development Standards will be available later this week. mEmoRAnDum WilliTo Department of P7»nnins _Date January 30, 19$7 COLORADO From Health Protection Services - Wes Potter UA) y, t_ Aurora Dairy Manure Handling The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nusiance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage,site shall have a water-tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into the ground. WP/djs AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Geology and Groundwater of the Site The site is a surface expression of a shale/sandstone unit which is overlain by approximately 48 inches of silty loam soil. There is a variegated layer of caliche and sandstone below the soil which causes a perched water table to occur during the summer when irrigation water is influencing the site. Below this layer is a fairly continuous medium dense sandstone unit which extends to a depth of 12 to 30 feet. Shale bedrock exists below the sandstone. Pertinent Observations — The groundwater table is perched upon the caliche and sandstone layer at 48 to 80 inches. — The groundwater table is seasonal and influenced by- irrigation on the site and up slope. — A french drain, constructed around the site as proposed, will lower the groundwater table and remove any problems from the perched water table. — More data is needed from the applicant regarding the direction of flow from the french drain and bow it will influence the groundwater table at the point of discharge into the water table. — Potential for percolation and infiltration from livestock pens into the groundwater table is minimal due to compaction and small partical sealing. Phase I Run-off Containment Pond Evaluation 1. Total area of Phase I Runoff = 700,000 sq. feet 2. Total Holding capacity of ponds as proposed — 800,000 cu. feet 3. 25 year storm run—off (3.8" yeilding 2.65"runoff) = 154,583 cu. feet 4. 10 year storm run—off (2.9 at 202 of 2.35" run—off)= 27,417 cu. feet 5. Total storage required by State Statute - 182,000 cu. feet 6. Total annual waste flow from dairy = 274.475 cu. feet 7. Total storage required for proposal = 456,475 cu. feet 8. Total site runoff expected for a 100 year storm = 233,100 cu. feet 9. Total annual waste flow from dairy = 274,475 cu. feet Total pond storage required at 100 year storm = 507,575 cu. feet 10. Total pond storage available with 2 foot freeboard 1,120,000 cu. feet 507,575 cu. feet 1I. Storage available for USR run-off retention _ - 612,425 cu. feet 12. Total evaporation at site = 240,000 cu. feet annually 4A4 AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Biological Treatment Evaluation Annual waste flow - 274,475 cubic -feet per year. Annual net evaporation at site a 240,000 cubic feet per year. Potential annual waste gain 34,475 cubic feet. Proposed method of waste treatment 1. Solids sedimentation (Pre-Treatment) 2. Breakdown of organics A. Enzymatic digestion B. Chelating agents to facilitate breakdown C. Aerobic aquatic algae flora Comments - Depends upon a delicate oxygen balance in the ponds. - Removal of solids strongly influences balance. - Cleaning sedimentation ponds will potentially disrupt balance. - Any significant run-off event will disrupt the balance. - Pumping could disrupt the balance. - No significant documentation has been provided by the applicant regarding the performance of the proposed treatment. - Opinion of staff - Proposal will probably work. Standards can be established to monitor performance. Pond Liner Comments - Clay liners are commonly used successfully. - Organic sealing of run-off ponds reduces the potential for leaking. - Groundwater will not be a problem if french drain is installed to remove perched water table. Odor Sources and Potential Impact 1. Livestock confinment pens - ammonia base odor —highest when pens are vet - low impact. 2. Manure storage area - odor impact less than pens and highest during handling. 3. Sedimentation pond - will probably be anerobic most of the time. Hydrogen sulfide organics odor impact will be high. 4. Holding ponds could be a significant source of odor if anerobic conditions develop. Odor standards can be established and, with proper evaluation and treatment, corrective actions are possible to abets the odors. K Pfl_T Cr_≥ y ,a � January 14, 1987 .rttr�i ,,,th 1 , 606 Uluiani St. {11 � + '� `a 01987Kai l ua, Hawaii 96734 (800)2b1-3750 9;24, :eh J co - ze. Ton Gordon lacy, Chairman, Bra of Commissioners, Weld Cty. , P.O. 758 Greeley, Colorado (with cc. for members) Re: Colorado Dairy Farms petition for Dairy proposed for Glen Anderson Farm, Weld County We have registered our objections to the dairy proposed by CDFACC for the Glen Anderson Farm, corner of Weld Country Rds. *15 and *38 in a letter on Nov_ 22, 1986. Subsequently we had an opportunity to visit the large dairy (3500 head) on Rte. 66 in Weld County in early December , and meet with representatives of the Dairy. The present dairy has one of the most serious odor-pollution problems we have ever enc0untered. I have served agriculture as a Professor in Horticulture and Genetics for the past 35 years, and as President of a 1100-member international tree association since 1980. As landowner of property bordering the Glen Anderson farm, I seriously doubt the ability of CDFACC to meet pollution standards of Colorado or any other State. The presence of such a dairy in the midst of Colorado's prime land would constitute a serious error of the Board. Some facts apparent to us in Hawaii; o CDFACC is built on people new to the region who have no clear sense of the true value of this extraordinary strip of irrigated farm land in crop production, like a Texan moving into Hawaii o Weld County abounds in "junk" land; the Glen Anderson farm can produce 200 bushel corn or 38 ton beets or 120 bushel barley; the farm can, and should be zoned for that purpose o Glen Anderson was eager to sell and CDFACC simply got a steal for excellent farmland o There is abundant poor land for sale near the present dairy on Rte. 66, and it is the only logical place for expansion for traffic management, pollution management, personnel movement, and economy of their own operation o Despite beliefs to contrary, such dairies impact negatively, not positively, on surrounding farmland when it is of exceptional Grog-prgduction value, as is this land o A dairy needs only a fraction of a 160 acre farm for a 2400- head dairy, let alone the 1200-head dairy now conjured up to appease complainants o The CDFACC greatly underestimate problems with polluted • lateral water movement on a slope such as Anderson farm has o Finally, and most important, expansion in dairying today-- coming as it does at a time of major federal buyout programs to reduce overstocked and overproduced dairy products--must: be viewed with great caution, especially by Holding Corporations largely funded outside the region. 1 LxM,s,7 Zz Aurora Capital Corp. was proposing a need for only 24 acres for its original 2400 animal herd, as I recall; reduction to 1200 animals should bring this need down nicely to rit on their present dairy property along Ate. 66. Until they can show ability to reduce the gross pollution of their present catchments_ and also an ability to stop periodic storm runoffs--a major hazard for which they seem wholly n<rtve--it would be a serious error of the Commission to consider this development. We respect the tough decisions facing your Board in land use. After watching some of Hawaii 's best farmland godown under asphalt and flag-waving tourists, we urge you to zone industrialized and pollution-belching agriculture as carefully as you would a pesticide factory or parking lot. The extent of community opposition to this proposal hardly needs mention. These people are largely long-term Coloradoans who know the value of this crop land, and seek a County of which they can continue to be proud members.Please support them in this search. Sincerely, g‘IP:(amen L. Brewbaker rof. Horticulture and Genetics, Univ. of Hawaii President, Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association 2 W o O 0 0 0 t. . n ¢; • i y Ii •1 Im Y" 1 1 v+ N 1 t S 1 • .15 (A /At.' .-- fl • rt o 1 0 , ilitIN rn �r. 0? E c S . _ ,,__„.. . ... , _ .. ....7 . , a• _N. i,, --, , ..< \ \. \ .� _ r. 1 03 \\41' QF i el3+ • • \\ 1 \ \\NN........ I % \ --. ••••4. -‘1" • 1 ...-.! y \ f ' fir- • �.. • II I I • jI / /. ..1 / a ; 1 / / . / / / 01 ! / • . i i cams ( /tIst •• • ; / .a:o N I i .. , `` . 1 • - ,i, . . .....,„,,,,„„„„„ihail-cammi ,„. _ .....__ il / 1 - • 1 i cx= , , . .,, , ......... ,:‘,. .,.... ) µ.. .=..rte-• d ,vF 1`' [ I.t -' v I4 kii ... 9 ' �lO I ~• 4. • k . �. I \ ki \%,_ - '` F • .. % r O ` A\N\ • I ....., .0'. (.......1......\\,.. u< • ..r (ss\ • _ ` y ` • ' y, i "' Hour 785.2283 timptc CURTIS STRONG Omar 785-2255 z. ,�., t7 P. 0- BOX 1O 917 CHERRY AVENUE 4:4145 PLATTEVILLE. COLORADO 80651 January 10, 1987 Mr. Barney Little Colorado Dairy Farms 7388 Hwy. 66 Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Mr. Little, If there is some doubt about the disposition of manure from the proposed dairy on the former Glen Anderson farm. You may be assured that we can handle all surplus. We had to cut the 1000 acres of our farms short last year in order to take care of some of our old customers. Any surplus could be added to our existing contract. Si erely Curtis Strong Strong Farms Inc. CS/pm c� O xitit Jan. 8, 1987 Dear Barney, In reguards to your new dairy site on Rd 38 and Rd 15 I would be anxious in talking to you about the manure contract for the dairy. I own 320 acres and Lease another 500 acres in the area. Your dairy would be a convient haul for me. Please keep me in mind and contact me when you know more. Sincerely e 9Ga�hle General Manager Douthit Farms f PREDICTED Low vs 'INC :s r z t • 60 • So 5O - ,13. . 3orf/ 7-4 - 70 (34 0 3 eM) 4 0 r-- 1.1 TAP °A127 � so 30 .¢ t_vi--..ao3"aaS.EJ�as✓+�".t, .w -.... ,_.�.�.R"ad # '.. . w�_.a.a .... ..�... a ,.._v.. .�......v.�. .-s4..c_1'.S- v 2 .: 3 DEPAW (2 }. 4 312 '6 ) 3112°0 gib) — 20 to — /0 4 2 41- ` _ ,.� P,Pc DiAMg-rg (iivci.'F 2 • 7 - • --0 ON yp C 7 ) II n m r;, N ,..� ` - N r r -41-- •rTrI) . ...._ .k . .. ... t , . _ _ .. . . , % I. , , . ) .__I., fi . ....., -k 11j*T; ..;., .: 1.,:lti.). - , ,,.. :;t g,'. -44,-,- ' r..:.i +L r.""It fOY At.` ,t--3. 4 "1-, '- r�w"1- .rf 1-c!.$ -•_ + .. .._..::a war. . . . • •- T' �....�.�� Wx "_k O V fr 9 iexko „1/4 rLo 1 "agy Y i✓�yyy i�u�'n ,♦5 1� Jra ;:LL Ja • .A 5, tr\ -� �a N • t111-t111- . n N R v\ 1\ � _ d 7Ej _'> • and a -ri � � -� n © r: -j N PI ryZ-u _A y To " (A 2 - m �p - M: c z oo o i �C '- D $ (4 : NIa TD T• o y -C) I"- ic e ti O N P- Z, O ,;1. Z.,. 3 •C to to !" b Z. IA N y' to 4 C C, in t 2 y , {q, weft: u r,' " s - ea & y 1 . q u IV"l ij as a. DREXEL, BARRELL & CO. ■dis. ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS 740 WOOTEN ROAD P108 OFFICES: COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80915 BOULDER (303)591-$151 - COLORADO SPRINGS January 13, 1987 Y ' e s a 1 Mr. John Gruner 532 - 37,33 # Little Thompson Water District ( t 307 Welch Avenue Berthoud, Colorado 80513 RE: HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS, WELD COUNTY ROAD NO. 38 Dear Mr. Gruner: We were asked by Mr. Zen Rollins with Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. to review a hydraulic analysis which they had performed regarding a potential tap on the 3-inch line along Weld County Road No. 38. We have reviewed the information provided by RMC and concur with their recommendation that you allow no more than 70 gpm to be taken from the 3-inch line. They also recommended that the tap be placed as close to the 4-inch line to the west or tapped directly into the 4-inch line if possible. We concur with this recommendation also. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Best Regards, Drexel, Barrell & Company U R/fit/1 ph D. Dwyer, III, P.E. Manager, Colorado Springs Office RDD/ms (GRUNER.LET) LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DIRECTORS January 15, 1987 T,Aeghone53Y209& Carer J.ado"arm. - 307 welch Ava,ue President Drawer G Croke Men Berthoud.COWrado 80513 Lee BNd Kelm Croaquid DevM McGee E.Tierra ROtad ter t . Dean Anwson ' r r6 �^ ( v. • MANAGER yy { 4 wt1 k } Aurora Dairy Farms 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado, 80501 Re: District Policy on 5/8" Water Taps Gentlemen: In accordance with a verbal request from Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. of Longmont, the following information is provided relative to the District' s policies on water taps. The District does not have any restrictions or specific rules which state how our domestic water service may be used. Specifically, domestic water service via a 5/8" tap, or any other size of tap, may be used for commercial or residential use. Although the District does keep a record of the primary use of the tap, there is no restriction on the use and in fact the use may change from residential to commercial. Additionally, as a matter of information, the rate structure on the 5/8" tap remains the same, regardless of the primary use. I trust this will provide you with the information requested by your representative from Rocky Mountain Consultants and if I may be of further assistance, please advise. Sincerely yours, (\ 7 GRUNER, Manager Cper nr 3 DAILY WATER USAGE tej: BARN FLUSH 4 FLUSHES @ 800 GAL @ 3 SHIFTS .• 9600 GAL PIPELINE WASH 350 GAL X 3 SHIFTS a 1050 GAL TANK WASH 150 GAL X 1 SHIFT a 150 GAL BARN CLEANUP 100 GAL X 3 SHIFTS s 300 GAL SPRINKLERS 600 GAL R 3 SHIFTS - 1800 GAL HAND LINES 100 GAL X 3 SHIFTS ' a 300 GAL COWS DRINKING 15 GAL X 1200 COWS 18,000 GAL PHASE I TO LAGOON 13,200 GAL PHASE I ANIMAL DRINKING 18,000 GAL TOTAL WATER USED 31,200 GAL DAIRY HOUSES 170 GAL X 4 HOUSES a 680 GAL 31,200 GAL DAIRY 680 GAL HOUSES TOTAL WATER USED - 31,880 v3 _' ' , • l r WATER STORAGE 31,200 GAL BY 1440 MIN a 21.6 GAL PER MIN PHASE I 21.6 GALS PER MIN WATER STORAGE - 36 x 8 x 10 a 2880 CU. FT. 2880 CU. FT. 17.4 GAL a 21,312 GAL STORAGE a 16.4 HRS. STORAGE WATER LINE ONE INCH a 50 GALLONS PER MINUTE a 72,000 GAL PER DAY WATER LINE 5/8 INCH - 12 GALLONS PER MINUTE a 17,280 GAL PER DAY TOTAL:WATER AVAILABLE TO PROJECT 89,280 GAL PER DAY TOTAL WATER USED AT PROJECT 31,880 GAL PER DAY TOTAL SURPLUS WATER 57,400 GAL PER DAY A ry LIND & OTTENHOFF .F,_.... ' .. . - KITORNEYSAILKW THE LAW BOLDING 1011 ELEVENTH AVDTTJE P.0.BOX 326 GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 GEORGE H.OTTENHOFF =PHONE KENNETH F.ntO 003)3517323 January 19, 1987 Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR-770:86: 51 (Aurora Capital) Dear Chairman Lacy: Pursuant to the testimony given in the above referenced application on Wednesday, January 14, 1987 ( and , presumably , additional testimony to be given on Monday, January 19, 1987) by Mr . Robert Willson , this office had an opportunity to review certain State Statutes concerning the registration, licensing and the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado . Our investigation determined that the right to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado is a privilege granted by the State of Colorado through the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors requiring (among other things) examination, admission and the issuance of a Certificate of Registration , being a license to practice engineering in the State of Colorado (See C.R.S. 1973 12-25-101 ) . A Certificate of Registration and license means the formal legal permission to practice engineering as granted by the State Board. The practice of engineering is the performance for others of any professional engineering service or work including (among others ) consultation investigation, evaluation and planning. (See C.R.S. 1973 12-25-102 (8) and ( 10) ). Additionally, C.R.S. 1973 12-15-105 states that unless an individual is licensed in Colorado it is unlawful for any person to use the word "engineer, " ^engineered, " or "engineering" in an offer to the public to perform the practice of engineering. Copies of the applicable Statutes are attached to this letter for your reference. Based upon the testimony given by Mr. Willson, this office caused a transcript of that testimony to be transcribed and a copy of the first five pages of that transcript are attached for your reference and appropriately highlighted concerning statements by Mr. Willson. 1 Board of County Commissioners January 19, 1987 Page 2 Specifically, at Page two, lines one and two, Mr. Willson was introduced as "Our engineer" . Immediately thereafter, at Page two , lines twelve through seventeen, Mr. Willson stated that certain neighbors (the public) asked Mr. Willson as a "consulting engineer" to review the proposal . In other words, certain members of the public asked Mr. Willson to review, investigate and evaluate the application from an engineering standpoint. Furthermore , at Page three, lines six and seven , Mr. Willson specifically stated that his testimony was to perform a "engineering review" . Mr. Willson further indicates that he performed an "engineering analysis" at Page three, line thirteen of the transcript . Shortly thereafter , Mr . Willson again referred to himself as a project engineer and engineering consultant at Page four , lines fifteen through eighteen . Finally , Mr . Willson specifically stated that he intended to address the "technical scope" and the "engineering" of the applicant ' s proposal at Page five , lines twenty through twenty-three. Quite clearly, Mr. Willson is representing himself as a qualified engineer in giving public testimony and by investigating and evaluating the application he is specifically engaging in the "practice of engineering" as defined by the State of Colorado. Based upon the transcript and applicable State laws, the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors was contacted on Friday, January 16, 1987. It was determined that as of 3:00 p.m. on January 16 , 1987 , Mr . Willson is not currently registered in Colorado as an engineer and has never been registered in Colorado as an engineer. Furthermore, Mr. Willson stated that he wEs a "certified consultant" at Page three, lines sixteen and seventeen of the transcript . This office then had occasion to contact the Commission for Certification of Consulting Engineers of Colorado. As of 4: 00 p.m. on Friday, January 16, 1987, it was determined that Mr. Willson was not listed as a certified consultant. Based upon this information, the applicant must therefore object to Mr . Willson 's investigation and evaluation of this application as an expert engineer. Obviously, you can consider his comments as a citizen but you cannot consider them from a -let Board of County Commissioners January 19, 1987 Page 3 technical or engineering viewpoint as Mr. Willson is not entitled to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado as defined by Colorado State Statutes. Very truly yours, LIND TTENHOFF Ken eth F. KFL/cg Enclosure HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY A public hearing was held , pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning ordinance, commencing at 2 :00 p .m. on Wednesday, January 14, 1987 , in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County , Colorado , Weld County Centennial Center , 915 10th Street , First Floor , Greeley , 4 Colorado, concerning the Matter of the Application of Aurora Capital Corporation , Docket No. 86-82. This is a transcript of the presentation of Robert Willson given on this date , which is to be continued on January 19, 1987. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: f Gordon Lacy, Chairman Jackie Johnson Gene Brantner Frank Yamaguchi Bill Kirby f APPEARANCES: For the Board: Bruce Barker • For the Applicant : Kenneth Lind For the Opposition : Thomas Hellerich Barbara Billings , CSR 800 8th Avenue, Suite 315 Greeley , CO 80631 356-3306 Page 2 MR. BELLERICH: I would like to calf: ouz' 12 eng'i'neer, Mr . Robert Wiilsen;, and .his, testimony .will take 1 3 more time than the other speakers. 4 MR. BARKER: Will you have any exhibits? : 5 MR_ WILLSON: Yes , I will , and I will request 16 exhibit numbering at this time . Mr . Chairman, 7 Commissioners , Mn Barker , and friends and relatives , or f- 8 neighbors , that are still with us here , my name is 19 Robert Willson , two L ' s , 4200 Weld County Road 38, 10 approximate distance three miles west of :she proposed 11 facility . 12 Shortly before the planning commission ' s 13 hearing , my neighbors .cam.e- to 'sme and asked that I sort of 14 get involved. I really wasn ' t too aware of this, and as. - 45 we: g.ot invoived , they ultimately asked " m€.—as a 16 consulting engineer, t4 simply- review the applicant 's 7 r;oposal with respect to the applicable Weld County tB documents , and of course , it has been mentioned there are 9 two principal documents , the Weld County Zoning to Ordinance , latest issue , July 1 , 1985, and of course , the 1 1973 Comprehensive Use Plan,, which is the overriding 22 document rather than the 1986 plan. 23 This has all been previous -testimony . I had 24 documents hand—carried to each of you as commissioners , s 2 including Mr . Barker , the attorney , with copies of my r , v .:mow • Page 3 1 transmittal letter . It' s dated January 10. This 2 document is in your - packet , but for purposes oaf the 3 exhibit , I would like to re-enter it , even though you 4 have copies of it . 5 The letter refers very briefly to the 6 opposition . Fly r-eques-tfor approximately a half an hour 7 to 45 minutes of testimony as :-an engineering review, it 8 includes the summary of those areas of it -- I can ' t read ; 9 my own notes here -- the summary of the zoning ordinances 10 and those specific sections that the proposal as 11 submitted in the case folder are in violation_ 12 It also lists the data source list of all the 13 information -'that I utilized in Si - 14 and it covers two pages . I ask that be entered as part 15 of the written testimony. 16. And finally , my credentials as a certified 7 consultant , just apparently since everyone does, I will 8 give you a very brief background , even though this data 9- is available to you . 0 I have 20 years of experience in agricultural 1 rowcrop production and livestock production , and current 2 operation has been anywhere from two to three hundred 3 acres . I have had six years as a research and design • engineer with General Electric Nuclear Facility at Hanford , Washington , in which I specialized in wast .>y.y 6 . • r Page 4 1 treatment facilities, lagoons , soil contamination, and 2 nuclear production systems maintenance. 3 I have nine years of combined experience with 4 two corporations, Martin Marietta Corporation based in 5 Denver , Colorado, as missile launch systems installation, 6 ground support system. I have additional experience with 7 Chrysler Corporation at Cape Canaveral in which I was the 8 engineering manager for Chrysler at their launch vehicle 9 complexes, and my staff generally , for a few years, went 110 up to 45 accredited engineering personnel . As a result , 11 I was responsible for the design and installation of 12 Saturn IV B, Appollo launch , tower support systems, 13 ground support equipment , waste retention ponds , and all 14 other related systems. 15 I have nine years ' experience with Hensel 16 Phelps Construction Company here in Greeley , Colorado , as 17 my base, as a construction manager, pvroject ,eagzneer; and 18 engineerin , consultant. In the aggregate, the principal 19 projects that I was totally responsible for included 50 20 million dollars of work at Eastman Kodak in Windsor , 20 621 million dollars ' worth of construction at Stapleton International Airport , 12 million dollars for a hotel and j office building across from the airport, 6 million 4 dollars ' worth of a Veteran Hospital in Boise , Idaho , and at the Aurora Mall , 7 million dollars ' worth of EPIC--_:"."R • Page 5 1 compressed construction schedule designed with J. C. 2 Penney 's, and finally , treatment, water treatment plant 3 for -the City of Greeley, that ' s located near Fort 4 Collins , and the aggregate value of that is 5 one-and-a-half million dollars. 6 I am currently a full-time farmer , but Iv - 7 continue to provide engineering consultant work for the 8 major construction companies in the area upon request, as t9 well as steel fabrication. 10 I think that probably covers qualifications , 11 and I ask that an exhibit number be assigned to that , 12 Mr. Barker , if you would, please. 3 MR. BARKER: It already has. It's noted as 4 E"xhibit Y. .5 MR . WILLSON: Thank you, sir . I prepared , 6 hopefully , a very brief summary on the proposal , because 7 we have been here a lot of number of hours and we have ti heard expert testimony and other testimony , and I would 9 like to just kind of get started . I will address simply the technical scope of 1 the applicant 's proposal , the substance of the applicant's special use request proposal, and his engineering, and of course, the data that was given to us today which we will have to adjust my figures somewhat in dropping it from a 2400 to 1200 head facility . f �� e) m O A, 0 y ` O } .� N NNNN N N N N NN N N N N NNNN = Cna . — fC O '` .sG rj .tiN N NN NN N N it. N f..,:.,P. U N N N ;4,4.44, �9C O , 1.4 I.p_ L{ m ` m �J 1�. �. . . U U U I. . p U Olt pp . . . O^gyp^13 6 7 (y Q N ` . a V1 Y> O0 V r":- a W r O$ 00 OV P - :g-,-”:-- r g 6Vi4 in O.III m.W = 3fa.'u, ..i 9 • 5172E-- A In A m >b c C N C o TY0 rn 3 0 ^V^, C e:ne g --a oti 'e3 �� `i!it: wamot.o — E m � _ ^ L� Z« _ 70 rJy �n , , m ≤ c ^. I n .Sx 1co m3 33n .�-aa' IA o W OAJHtr-.J'a vl fany'ry JF ^ q »� O 'V < �_• 3 ay-'W 'a � m w i ngts '�'+ U A7 .. O ," e$ �+ a - 0.a. .7 = 7 6"3.3 .004 Ma b Y,�3i �� p sr3l 0._ VJ c.: CI IF) yy A w "' wa ^ a ^ 3Fy H f� fa CD N 0. • o m ��, °< rei 3 n Y d a ? E. 3 a I N 8 n m n n n O s o9 A., Ca yPCIr N F.a`_ G � r fi ( j. m r N NNN N N N N NN N N N N ...Jeri-rt.. •� J O ` n y� 4 A4 '+ u NNN N N N NN N LA N N I.suNN RO =.SEy yti W!�9C A 'O U Utn N, an U NN U U U U NU 9YA n mil/) m a !N VJ N N NNN N N N N NCN Np N N N La•,) o- C N (n 'J ...., .• Y' i E..� S 00 O O C 0000 i s -- m YD coOo VP U a tJ N ••• O _V P U _VN b f1 to = w < 00 a,m y C x, O of 0 -r la Oi `v = •;0. 'C 'e T f" m /J to >0 Co -a W C 'Om O rn r m w 'nom. n a 3 0 a••.-.'c__._.c _ e _c o om = O a n a $`n o� N H C e _ �o � cmNw � a�6Q� �ol^v,Wv � f. �Eb O9 - .i -�= F .iu -C°� • n 0 .n ^ a :^ I x ny _ � �a v�;ria� aN� n�F..i`3^a ^�L < D nna �• O >' Y • uE o 6 e L 30 z6 o SL ': �n - U 2 f�[� 'ty A; 0 = ma I n ,O^'3a. <.o=� O ? I ^9 O_' !^ o O N pw c t ro� A (D n•oH ( .� y O .C `C ^"' .f. 3.J va Ca R90N N A 30 P. y C tl:3g a„S .- 3' +0 o O.a ea .9 $.R 1 � 6,:,.0 es =t nV e y ^n3 • ' O a 4 Lm - RQ 'P. c n p = 0 I ^ ^.J U U M, ye a Y ^ O i 1 J m (j n N n VI 2 a A y 7 ,'G ^ r v t h V:p ^m O 3 . 17 3 n se g a'.M5i}Mi.t,n.r yt%�: SA.Olh:y}lrbf� w.•T'.." -✓h Y..hN�../••.. �•.•:-6_. - - _c.''j� 01. L �=w L _Y J f _ n a• i• F > > a Z A n r T. eg c O:-J sin ^ ^ r.� c C ^ ti L 1,-,..E-, y L - - ' L. a -F i L C S i_ h i r w Z • ,r - L n s n = = _. Oa CSR G�� 8 Q .... .. v C H c. -. r� �as L. - 0 t = O = n blD ^ aR 3O S- -7,14, So TJO Za- a »...3 , i^ 3 : carnet_ o-°° •n, .-3-' w = :n - c n �„ s o ., 5 Cn Cn ' G= c "am -_ _ 73Rg _ mss w M = m -3 0 g-'o a fl. _ n. bl n 0 < y 9 't.= 0 S 00 = S d = oa 0 n P.' 0. .7 o=_a 3 O n = -ni G O v N n E v z t N O ?. Y "_, y o?• w < a• O.u-G tG N 7 ^ O n 'O a oa. co. 0 oo .� 3 m c.0 o-a t c = c VP, .:m 0.n in _a .ni. aOc -. Q=.tnrpo'0=o C 7J a p von n (n. X co3 ;a -'ry O' c n n- '3 Y n -1 `..6° ^ - On Cl",. . :? yti 'i'.03 'ovmaa iE 3 0 co mc o-to 0 _-3 <° u'� = m ,., d a2y n - ^ O ..., '��:O n J-= A =,m ^nt N .•. n�C n ='`< R 7 0=O = 3 f="i ^ ~7= O = y A.o a -o n i O r . n .� n -.n n _W y —cm 7 •00 -= a ... m m Q.P a n °: , '.: _-o' 2 n7= n 30.=.1.... CM w n :n'a n33 mma = aa3 z 0 3 = Gmv n =0300 _ -{ Oa3 on .�=, 003 ° 0° 03 = o` c= =,n-n r" g = n 0 i:.�i:,'...v tn = _,w n n O N _. v. y+ �'tg =•c = n R on N _� J m m 9' y y G= 6 6 w c,CD .c to 3 to "l Oa c CO = n 0 -n re 5-m to = 4."4.., •10. .dam = = �0an 9n a . = O RN "�OC_n = mty = n aL. _' 0k ND= 3 N Y4; \ NCa ✓ ?� C .� �.n-. t n to = n Gh a, 4 y n a W 2� O m 4 vF ^ O -e OC ?W O.= O = - — ma G cy y v0 cC •�'. r = S < ' • 0 � cnnm G�? rmi. m�'N na ,A � sn yn < � rn mE 9 ' N4 F Q•. < o z .. —m ac N =3� o Fc �m' N- c ", F '3O to-3 CD-ncn c RP-m2 ? ,yn 5 o m a H n '+.R < G^ n L].a = N... ' _ '.S - 0 0 Cr 5 P c e N •T.N£ ,G N <y 37 n c...m --=.0-J ,o -+n n G O c _n m 'O"t G m m • `.C 0- 3:61 m '.. = . G a '. 3 n O O =.:.-- a 3,9'„ .C. w 0 a r`n G ? G m -, , -"Da 3 r7, 0 0 0 C_ n n O G 3 G-.' O = m 0 H A m= -v rot! c L - = n •' N n t = n -1 CJ O = n = .. P G n.3 in c ^i `_3• O=.O = G ,-=- Vl O.G « : U tt O ^ d 9 v ti O" ti m G n n Kg 3 = n om-= W v `G 4 G ... c_=n.e n N v 3 < o r . _ = �nf° —a 3 ^n. m mom' w3"� v = a.n aim �,�' - �N� 3e L..'-5 �^ ,n< < 0 v.:: N E a ='a o-. 0 n =of =:.n O ^.a -n ;�. y O = n 6 e r u-0 v _3. c0 A', S ._.C. 3'n"cc ._n v. C. _. n S H O = '•n O 1• m = ,. _,- qkt __y " c m 00 • 3 ", i CG = On a " c a C. 7.� E° T3.00 = On O n b�z' r, >•7S�`c3 4cr - -1 %s N 3 v r!a v..F.,, 0 n C`cc cr. O ter, ..t m A a.< oa on on n S n v = n '_'.' < O -n H 6a a n e• t LL. >_•� � Yn �.< .< _1'O v `OO < A u n-G 2 3� -..c 0=3 = c,C O n u-492,7 <c,=_ w O = L O m E 1. n _. L n tc A ^z•ca _ " = -0 n ._Tag K S Lam, D7� - nh � � = SE r. 9 0F: R s07 yn no 0 a tea= an nee S4cr ..,�� m = _ - n =m l O -, n v Oi _< s �' . n < n !".e �: X �.: a �c.e p_ n � v. OGetnR LniymC .O n ='t7 3 G� Goa rt Gn x •...-7C C... apm -it.^ Lt '_`°� p 2 E '`c O.., n v s = c °_a.c �- = n c a n = s�,4^i 3 ='`n c ._ r_ C -' _ a•9 tt < u a. _ < = a ¢ a _. f n a- a 5 , _o nj N. s. pz C S � •1 1-, n • .G an n r•co eon ., n a GO� =,,,,a� C Cam' N O' _, Dr.= G._ J c ^ OL < < V u. _-es G -ni v , nTL. 7 coo a `< o ?cY` s n L S - ^ S C n n ' _ S = O' = A n• o o-' ‘7.- . • c GY Ee _ 1n 0 � GG`G � f. 0t `C 7J u. � m = ti`! .Nikc03 .,c,7- N so < m n na nyco 3y I'd < * ;'0 y =' c 2 o o -, S — Cn n 0 O .-.TS OCIA __ O n ..O n c O a n:O 00 o"-..C J .-. --�,-. � = -.' ; S... n N 0 � �in-rAy WON n04 O N•O =Oaa 73'le $ Q•Cn �v IGD C- 1-1�,^ A Qv ^J= vCG •cN nu' Cr U n o CCP E v o m •"" O g o a oa a O f °o - -o• ' o v ... v °—' m •v n -, a .y -•O CD :OO X y 3 r3 S — J `] ^'3 `�, c..-3 o al, S-.3 o O w O O .'V W ,b 'a ,fln d + O '-'� n o.a gm d o k O 0. w W y m O C = O O G O ya00 _00 N < y y n n n O ^�a y C w n •O a ,en I W m m m C a 0 J y 0 C y 0 O iy 0 N on 7. R. O _.m 9 y c' g' N C D a n .d.�•�y n ti n G CD ce, ace cat O n- < n z •-• `< 0 d n n J G n 9y.d N O n (�17 y G O ran -. -1 =•'''ecn d ': O - n n a n ?I. O .0 F m -, O COO N 3"„ n w a -7�•cn = n y G O G 7 m w N Cr R 3 .. = 0 ca = n ^ »'9 ca ^ <' O:Oy G� O" � f-c a ° 00 k n a = t (ni' ^' ,a„ m W M a r a Hn n = : m a ch ^ y 7 . nob-o. ^tre _ 3 n, ^, n ...t 3o'< 9 - rc no £ ��... W 0 ; 3040 3 n y » p n 0 g .< y w 7 ? a O..2''w n 3 m a " .< C re. O O O .. IA CO .- a '^ M1<,•a dy O3 D3 Mcre —1. tStc Jmm '6O �m Om .e0 �_ * a' j £ 000 0n nCC -,c.. 0ay �0 b "0 O •"t 0 a = O -, .n.. O O'-n.� 0 -O p.�,O *j .T 3 H = n• -t p y n -t 0 p .p n y a * 7•y m n O -, 0W C a r •C C-O ? f�A' ', -.�� O a = 0 m 0 ti N -- v O 3 m w O• Do ^f ^f n _111 » .O -i _ n m < 2. a -t a 7 -t a - 7 a n O < y n Q n 3 0 n n In rei 7. •y n . a n ?�.4 < 'D O d n m < n O n n O � t-' y t C O 0 tm 3n � -` H3 3Q"m " A�o .n, oo � a .E .30._ n -. SI asa <.n -sc. y 3 O n n w a J = m fr 4 n 0 a O C y _ -a ---two-pi,_ O N -S` 0-02'G� O'"-nn.+ p d3�5 • 0 0 CmO n n - t 3 n- ^ a m n 0 _^ n 0 m a; m y a7 = O CJ ..I y O O"..OO JJCC t a n n = -• ...- C a .n C O = a G�^j w y O m a y •< .n 3 A C p I 2 y ✓, O n O Or.-O,O O b :C- 'Oi. O "^' G .n-. C (D J m J fZ a n n a m n n '� w3 ., O •a "?p n 3 _ m Gpp O n Dc-.Dan O n ,p y �, .< a y a n -. = y o O m c V a "' O •-, _ -0 on X O k _ -v' OOO O �a y d J �, �'.0 0'i �' n n m 0 a `C 1.C» t9 .c d n C »'n -i n a a = O o- .a. 0 a a•.fp V O 6 on C 0 O•. 3 n ='- n O `< n d s00 OP C• 03 02, 00'0 y n'0nn S 3. 33 0 nY. ; O Sc 0 '.7 J n n 0 a� .... = 0 A y c Oy = :=,,,, a..�w . , -mt n-. C.0G.+ 0 °—n 7 on• CM � -, -- n 0 a O 3• n no G v' n O n n "'O N •t a '2 [)• •¶ ° —0 a a n r O a O 0a 3aRn R � < NO -. O m d ace O -to �(� h n a y .� n G G p n p:.�.. .•�'n ,� n O C n ✓. ..� ,O,y Fr, L v. HIll mC IUllHøIt y C 0 K.--0 ,4 ,mi' n fc _ tD n CA— n c = 0 'n n •O » a s n O? a 3 ro ,,.y F z _� O 3 a ^ o ne w g =J nto -nR y an0 q ?�. nm nd7A G • K0 7 G r a. a j.Z cn nC — c • O O 3 n IC v: n ✓ (0 CO"I R 7 OO .7.- - a •p G3 O 3 �/ O J - .7 •-• op . 7 A �3 • —S.A 0 Sn � n.c ? G J —� ✓ O C G� e 4". n F C S 3 ≥, O O' O a ent ≤ n M 3 n �7 n O ✓ —,E. a n ..7.".3 _ n "3 C 3 c u_ YJ G .i_ = n _ .� -.. 40 ac 7 V X X n wJ g. y i. J F.-: G Y g w a Alai E F s g� a • y . ss L.= j r.= n • o n c 3 .. - •• ' - .J AGO a.� �� . n » ~ N “ E. S.'.Jff`J •Lw z •r. ,^7,.. _ w O = 1 4 CA n O n ^.m ? O -- n H ."C n C O.--a 9,4 N Qy a.•.... aR =-a•n074.y J <, m--.Jn c .Z Sr 6 In i A O° AYR Ed Sy y "O,O T • 3sv C-0 3_.O r n OJO O O Q n Pj cr st y 0 »•O — -0 h • =. 0e10 -• , a -n T' n.., „ „ a0, Re, 0-�th H AD 3f l M.w lK m o y ' Z9 • a R no 5 so 4 `ny' 4!W•07 0•o CI U 2 c n2 . 74 ° = » O a R. O`d< � am j9 av Da 5.O Yti oSn 70 Goa 0 »'vy �• yptt 020'J JNO RO m ^m ..: .O m N 7 •OSr a'm an cZncJ— o-=.,• = 00n —°° ypoc Na `� _ O 'tn OoQo3 w pp � 0 = ^ -a arc n m c_'_. �=..= -1i.O O O � � r R Z.�= a N 3:. D • O. .0 .• n OD 7-n ce _ O 1.In = = n '^ ?:Ofa 4Co n �O paCc70 -- ' 1-•a• „ ' to O m p y. X3. 0 3 = n•* 2 n =a ., ;D n a , n a 0 :> ae '� o .c o•3 u, s 3 a E 7 5 E "' n 0 0.n r n O ro n anon i.. - 7 O m L 3 n a O d o f n •p O . 7 n h •,RI o .a .1 m 3 n 3 •..a rn -Dna la yCaa a_ 0 "a an"yt. pn amnny O Oa [0 cn 60 3 '-G r ayOOnO ~ c w a J O m -m o 9CO no =,i. R V M Srw 00.4.3- . •O-n g !.•' a =.p 3 c 00.0 �d0?.CP =5"e fag a a n R p��^ �QQ�0 .-C 2W n p � " m O c oc m c A _ 3 h � 'm v a O _ O w n- —COON 00 y O =1.-� O O m- n y an n O'•< n 2y y r i,;O <.'.-•m = 3.m n '''n 0 '•S ; 'g (Ja 44, OO G G �•o"' n �'s� 3. y,., = v a n n S CO d ° CO. �n a m... C y n 0�Jd Safi mC+ n tom m•-• JPPN'iY '< 3 L� ym ID G 4(�`� G G.-O,37 V,< =.a.,O,•C_0ti ara R ' n O✓p' �-f! _y ad tp G + On3 � ?'3 c a �° 0 l'e a o.'V 0•d7 ✓, G . 3 .�_3 n.c-. ti 'e ai-.m m y Et1 7 Sy 3.7:yny OG9 ..,o.y Cy O.p. mot' Nwry - U -O � ''� <ny u" F.g. = a'.Q �. W tII w*0095 j R xC J y_ 0 (x9'6 0 fi O J _ tin 'O c n.J -ft= a.. a.—P y el J -r J= 0..0 -' -. a• 0 j y 0 ...0 ^ a' O. .y -+ 3 •O -, R= O d C a 07 a_J n m J' O O -- ' 3 m c n appyn3:R < z 0 0o-0 a ≥ �2. ^ aN o s H 3= g r ,r C't�t `n'n J° C o-j-.�• •<ca.,I.......O• — = x�. CO.t -, n �0 �..� - whE.y J G n00 a n.•O .»• n.n y = y Q.y n • ry N .• n.... = O 3 a O y .NQT .. n c rr a a fy - y n = -n m a y 0•- -.. N a A.y c nto -o R aCp o 0 ) � 4GLc.=ce. J a r a -0 pp: J 7r Cj _.0. G = i _G G— XG3 — 1 nLe, n O .- r ? =n -- < 3 GC a O C. 3 9 O yet N '.N G J 0op -„7 n .. an -,a, n 9 a O C .c 0- n O it = - s A —, _ a c _ 7 y < Q ^.a' m •-• 07• 'Ow -a' O'^ n - J - 70,2 O ^+ * 7 0 r —. 5 O 7 7 M 7 w 7 `CS. n N G eG - 3 •� O Q t.7 GO . y r ono.> y wn -. n onnJ �<< o__y, .sac-- A"O Roy- Oo 0 La=—A -- IND N N 'b O CD C • H x-•17 " °"J'p R R yv. p ii R C N =v Co CD M. D o p J. NU to 7 W w .... ..000 , 00 R J St p • ^O � -"_.o • �}y�N� R a � 0 ..--7 a a >#'.< 0 ,-.1 .. -, _, C n la N CD R O•� WW .a n O. 7 O a n S-.^ n p N • cot c.0i.:s tag. . R. ,mRc0a ecta . o•va3 at 0 o < = 0Ctm, 4," 03 = 0 v,,'7,° = c . ri y _ ro ° 3"cg3 RR ; o J —ncm° myn7 s Eo aw = � w re _ ° nn - g nog ° aa, g"L' ,a �2 maa f° a-ownnyn' 3f, t ' W w 'a �•n rN °°> C• 5 "'ov `. a o a * c —cry S * ^ n ,=,. � Non `< c < J w ,F>3 N =.g. . o W re 9 J �, n a O ? n fp N c J cs = a ^e G C a.— . .n to --1w C. .a O� 1w R " _•n -,n CRpy n n n-�° w ^ns as= O_ o Jq C° o �.. F y ca o c.-• o S� y y 7 w S 7 N o '1 K W ' 6 Is " 0-co n O a0 p= _< J G y_ J a J S 0,2 w a w .R- .—. t cae`C ? " Iv, n w m ;7,a R9 .O, w"6 C. • rn 3 m .O.O u� �' n o-C J•y 7 = ,--.-co --- a o p n.-= y 0 = 'a V�NR •°-.. NP [" A �n .0 p0 ncwS• aO wR 7KR `t '1NN ,,,ii, x .. _a.< � y O ai, R_. $ ° -.,.. --.a c nogg" Sa " : O�s 73 rRo'O y'13to ,7,H 0 7 m c — O�f J O N N �• 0 = - y�x flan n 0 y � � �.7 -....on (9 go 1..7 N O'a= 7 p y •J 7 7 f9 n a „ C O C y 7 J J w Q? 3 _� oa _ N n- n 7 G rn •3 m < -.,a n n-W <.n ° O ° O ^ N 2a -c. 2 , a °.a _` G n 7 . n2 n �S ^•^J O° yOCF -1yJQJ -dl o 73Z ',R o + N N O7 - w -nJ 70d^CN0N a'—Z -0000wy O C ,.pc = a C.-j— 9t, y n na?_ N 3O - .7 .". m ^ Na N R o J D�. ate. d 'U =w - y O 5 o p J n>O 0 T p o n o us y J -a _^ :'a ^ nyan Ow S3 .fJ77 wanL .yS .- , �y 0 = y AD ^'y a...w as g$ S �, ca re, w N Ts h'q' flijfl '-c se Z .= . oa- aO ,. °N.°... G?A ^d�.E' 3 3Gw My 3 ^.. J _ 0_ = iri no . �s^S°y y �' wNw 'w- OO w800S7 =c..-° O 'er.CD 0 n0.aG.:� C. m�� (-, ln! Ca a _. m 0in _ _ J O an * y' y G 0- w r p w et n y 'f/ n ° J . J �y _ w0.411 J N i �, .-. J n n -Z y t 7 • R X O CD " x-- H n w a y O O O a "p w n, - N y U. v A n a 3 - s= -1 r J J—^w 0 °^ nS ut n R H _ =i nica ofQa d^ n d n23J.� ; RLfa C ¢ y A yy Jpc O� C L' _:7� J. r•q O = 'n t '� J 7.Jr r T O O 1 - -. c S R. • El ^J 3_ F t n N Le..' Y C � y a`J .-S. R < n y O- y R .r.J ^ J n �� U.Y ^_ i^` ✓ j v !' R 3 n p G.� ^ S V O, r R z :T J _ tRr. a G J�.J n _ o w � >3 • > � [r,cc T^s � n . D oo 'mn A0 --- ,, R >4c03 < 0ia '�3= NRCA �-iJnf° � ^ y <-d^ N CRO n y 7^. S' t0 � `� an. 'Oy = n-n76nn L• = awn N �-na "0oon•a-07. .>: S cH `n, ` mz� ovwo 3o $"� �—"• t om� rnvmo3 �mo � oro� _ ^O 7 ,O S^ S i l c n R° a w w n 7.G v to'o p R tin A%fl.n m y^^'�m N y N y y p ioey w ° H -s-,30 •7 7w pnw yNn -T o< o 49 ",a≤ a c c'f � o e m o n� c a c$•'°2� m " o a 46' m 4"0. = 0 •1. °c CD , B = < h � a � �- n ay w y J -�. °--- 7 of 07 -c -y aw H 3 7 J 7a1, m O .n u, m i > r N n a. � ^w-. goo <o ° R C'n^1 _, .19 y N n<° -7 O R N a a?R F =L w C r o Jr "p'� � o „� ; �3 00 � 3wo s7np� 73GRDoNin7a7 ¢} .an �oona-? A m "O N a 3 n t. - ry =n 7 --S w < a+,w _I _, 0 ‘.0‘c pN e, R = •S w :9 fL .-I O.'-1 o a O -, •- w N 5~Qno Oo N a 'O.G o. '• ^7 ._. !w!-nn� n-'< w C O v, y�wj n O. B a Q4 m J _ N .< vi C C� O y h;7 o-.0. �� n j ate' =-12 io.- N C. wC wn S '1HR KEl7 (pep- nHN 0 a 0'= 00 - 0 = - = 0, 0 -. .j =" tra �' p W B. ? _ ..'.N �. �-w to O' w^ R �- 0. A a 'O O ~ O La R = Pa O v, a as o c 1-11 N (.)O n w CR-. • - �s� 3 a°+ l o w O'4•p R ss n 0.S O A n °+�-. a ' N °•:0J y n dR .yA = -' '''.g9- o3.c" -1 pv�'1S — _ oa cy £ t 3c 7--. 0 .-..•�no - _ C R an X7 „ off-• o3 a R 7• -X74.5 , - ra*gOwo a = a3,• nc$ ••••= m �n l R n aan 0-:8 m3 o'r=-ninon 3vri3 aoc?: C� < y o •-•c-0 y -1 `" oa _ w R .., -3p•. 9 wRmns 5 ^`< m :-gn Gn n ° 2- a02- r...5.n' = 0 ,.." w,f-, R Q?N6�yR d% y pa 30W0s ^ °•* Nma+ N na= � 1 R n .T n < _= c �. c 7 G a S y O 0 w C`1 a 3 y 7-0 so is O 70o T1 2 J ."'il v. N7p ny — N.. d �=.••n. .� — y n � J'n ..-y� � wy 'w ryO.wp �. .N A 3 a'th5 f w -.O C w 7 aG-O 7≤, .< w om p O N 70 —d= "4v n 7 ID ‘9„ ^ y c-.11 n R 0 a—r' .� 6S ;.y w O G 13 (Sr J 3' an a 3 ^ Jy nO as, 0K O^ aF'O ~ � 7. r-.in < On --_» y TC'.r -fS, w ^ n `�v-.- A � G-w y -y o - _ awry >• '$ 3 --=0 " m cs p, 0ro 7 nQv� �c^ s3 'n R a .; yq co g -v C '.O ZLC F. . Vj E J n G� G-- 0 0< -y y S `<.n N G y n y^ aj '.' C = a .< E. G 7<i. R S O y O_ O — µ n R ;� `- (, O- L n r r.C v', u, 0.10--; ,._J SCra?- ✓ O _.aN. 3 CO C == r= .O 15, 7 ° 0 ^ E-n 3 v. � J .. v ? O O O • 7' n G G C -a< .< = in N y tD S '- S •° 7 R l 7 3 . ? ; x0 _R = = S n IU J n y -a f, ? t b")y n — a H r.ata c 2 u 0 O v. iy _^ . a :r. C 3 es o Z= ?a n c—^f- ? t - =G ^ .- .i < 7 c _ �< G a (s R» 3 n a -v. J u •.^-R Sn = 2 7"1 l% =9 -g - — J ry a G w 7 • —. 0 ' n"- S J 3 y 0 7 7 r r =.- «r a-7 c u a - .;i T0- '.9c- t'Oz m Net"4• uosncs6o`ya .N I•kr. CI Vitt CC , 'Ai (0,! TO. h • Ch E� ? Chi? 4. "' • p ' Nk-t4 Q O o!�rt� oz.�1t1 O N 1 V 2 Co ��. �`� � __ F _ 36-677 �� t 7 W (_� N • o � #- • v Q l' ul( • � + 0,., tit on N El y 2 1 rn C9 t J O • •, ily •1 C`.J m 9Ss# /SE •-• F f7 eb"i/9 —.• n•rt ors- !J �: -' _nods 1,11 t, =\ = , ENl • � op - r, (n b 3 Az' 4.+i„ _ - t v. cim Oaf h c 3 met % m, oL (4411 v V c., c lie '' h O Ch n, F1/4 ,` , 6 - 'D6-Ell c *F In t4 �C u W ew- $a. '� h c�' cc °i (`` 1• ' ' :J'3 t V . t o u to ti) �a ' 4 S, ia 2 --. 99, E Of'� PLO-, ?OC r-- cibtu///l n i NI C.'Os�B4OC/V" bi q J ' •,' t ,'� q¶t,,. Tt ob - h , L- Oct i3Z : Cs_ _1 ._ q '_0S : _ J __-\tea .__ _ . _3_ _\: 3?.c _ N_ . c 82en:. \933 _.x_ _ N c9 1 _9 __,5e_cn. G pr- _yea . - - 4, �.__seM __9 -3.. _3em_. ac-rat 184 .D_.B cycm 3_53 _ 3ecn. Ac.4-\....._ ._W\ ? ? _._.__ 4.e__..50 o 5. .:aecn_- ,Q. 1_5 __ �cac is se -- - - -_ -4 1 - 9 2•_:tee-- -__.______ _______ _J__S_Ce._ _- .sZcd- l9 -------_\.�_ _ __ __ O. 5 E c, - ------ -- - -a±c) _._u .___ a_c___-- ___, acoknsi-_dx_ \ -._1-mac-- d - t? - 4k - \-•_5» ;c} c. }__.._.. - •. ,. \ � :1711 rt . *r / _ • /ON7. J •c ,1 . �. % 1.2 O I.1.cI ` % ', I£ a / 2 ti. N . Y it wi lz__'?•F.: . t.:rte_ .:r.3:{?• - ,yis{?:•,$:tir .v.•n.ti..vty •.}lx....??r?3:;:.x.l;.�,5•�i'��i:�:��liii.s.H1•4•:•:4.,•:,,•:,,>:•:•:••.- ---, . 41 la � '1, �� Y ! /• `/ ? • / 0.0.0. n 1 u . r o ® 8 f _lam (ado a , \ Y • tif' • z / 1 j At / _ ' . • � •x I18 • INL • � ROt � 15. _. . . . ..1.. _ 2" $ _, ; i - .* I .� b ?ii .a • I 411 . m • al" i V tit m o1 N /1 1 .. — N • x �� i' l 14 i /- 4 / Y.... ,• .g./, ,/ 1 t 1 `' C,. ' I\ • ; 1i a N _ \ ems, \, . - • 'f k• �. _ ` A i , / - 'c 2YN-� S t (.- l li '1` kl• $ _ot m\:-.-----C a - ,r • ' :• -..- \ :LI .:!-- -."-- ‘ ' ) . • k 'as, '... • 2 h.- .9a• r ?Y t5 ck - - _ *t# 1 tat �ruTMf ldi``L• ',.;;....:A > o ;) r nrctsnror'lo'' 17 -7 tt{ ` December-11 43 $ _ Dermba 72 43. U d Dtmtmbar 13 _ ':38-.10 Deomtbr x4 4{' 11 December 15 44- 18 December 16 49 20 OFFICIAL LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR WELD COUNTY 25C 1 I �I j ��b�' � ; r' Johnstown 'THURSDAY ( WSW C., CO aRClgbu ley Intl 1305„ Serving the Johnstown-Milliken Area Since 1904 Vol, a Ida.47 : ' c- Paving work continua despite winter t •-, . A Although the paving is over for this ➢end a budget and i. winter steam;.then u still Iota of Li maddr• mirk bait• lane in rated. Y$1.54 •caWrietiam for 1987 which includes million street paving protect,1p tarts a tdeddral$175 fwd of t2ti;950;wart fund a ? baremu,utilities and sewer and coon d 8175,827; capital improvmsm' Y toothy have berm oSweettad on the fond of 81,085,205;conservation rant i I. y ; • Kann aide of Broad&roc,according fund of 812,121; and the policeman's • Pep, ^ 4, • . to a report to the board Dec. 10 by piton band of 87A,441 Acmding to .tar,. town maaage Gayle PaclardSm • mime=J�Couch Work on silly - i7: ; new multiple mailbox units and burger, the budget'represents a very /.r-.. a : : finishing work ec now being done tight budget"We have basically cur to �•�+� f `,s �_r ova the cold months. Grading and the bone to avoid teeing propane �++ k Y A�.f ' anIoasi has been accomplished en the taxes." The board chose to keep the , Y t,t e. 'r south side and all the water will go 1986 levy of 31.250 mills, s • e' where its supposed to go," said Also approved was the transfer of y , Couch In the spring unpaved urtts police 9 from the general fund to the f 1.. will be regraded and work will be indepartment for salaries. That ♦, money is the last of the town's Thefinish winter n months will also give revenue sharing funds eb and to board time to go ova The 1986 budget was oleo amended • —(,m,just what else needs to be done and to reneel unanuopated expense , how much it will cost to do it befnrc within the police department 8160,822 ` l .x work commas=in the spring."The for water line and equipment repair way it looks now is that we're pretty and 81,075,091 for costs in the 81,52 \ • • much on track(with=prse)." said million street improvement distnn. 1`1 Couch- "We don't expect too many Mona for the transfers have been surprises on the north side with obtained by the street project bonds. . • AMU r don will ilion in s We VMS," Special the ems sharing e funds transferred om • non t District begin on Three. i to the police department and from a Improvement Na Three, in revised protection of revenues for the conjunction with the Stale Highway water fund. 4 ' Department,to rework Hwy,60/Broad 0 108 acres of:and by Hwy, 257 St. and give the downtown sector a and Weld County Road 54,belonging - new look to Edith Hankins,could be subdivided, • - Board members, at their meeting, but should be annexed into the town ; give approval to a $171,652.35 of Milliken so that prepesed develop- payment to Best-Way Paving mesa of the ProPe•ty could be - Company 6r work done on the paving monitored by the town. Th h the f �t — . project to date, and paid Couch the recommendati aton that the board will ( - - - • full rat of bis total amotmt due on the make to the Weld County Planning e a t, project, $11.435. The council also Commission moaning a request by s appoved 820,39023 wonh of eon- agent Ramon Moore in behalf of Mrs struaion age by BaoWay. H1Oicin Teo request 1e°Uki be m Jennifer Grable, 6, visits with Santa. The jolly O A petition will be prepared for subdivide la property for dollop malaise white mile get the.ball mem and Moat said there would be old man in red made his appearance Saturday at mane tweed • vote deemlomg no WOW= with annexation if the the Chamber of Commerce Christmas promotion_ : .whether = not Milldam will have town waxed it liquor "k' fur allowing�ate' =len the 0 ane.:reel wet Om with the Weldon a 1987 C my batmen* in twee A petition Sued Human Society tar =agency coo- Charlotte bridge finished,paperwork CoiaunueS t15 pavant of the town's= - tree of animals, if needed. matter of meowing a pay ht the m could repeal the 0 The tows bard MU bs the Johneown micas ma in special MSc- anted in town sae the 19%.. app&oat rgmey f= the MiOkan a®an Friday atlun°on to work on Trust= pgeem at the =King The band is seebrg repeal of the Sanitation District's appliances for the miner of pying foe the new (Oebbk Araat sad Ian vale winery( ordinance which bona figs= ma WA Vat Lands and Gayle ham"-d- 840,000 Chalons Street bodge The in sam baw)wad by ordinance to =gut in mastntahihhmta SctbuRer Kan Fran anrh=ay to IP twin hired Western Communion, maim 840,000 from the wet had brava of the potable sensation of the gnat .pplr*•im The unhatut Inc.of Greeley,to Ladd the inmate twiny anatan to the real el sd so ' the Boling And loggia Raramntr drQfC1 bee sinned for fording m brit bridge and it Ina fasbbd two that the boll from Wean em be paid which k=reedy*nude town limit blind a watt wvt trtaonmt faalay weeks Web but&mmdng has not yet before the end of the ysr.The bond 0 The ones red KO NM a, a Jana'the twin' ews s torment been compinad will then oasts ea Paden,der is a. Ion m at.Waal-cane Pining opbflttin and to meet ease rep"• The baidge magructim was deemed okayed at the special haring. by . Carle= m tat. tba popery doe. an °acy Deanne d seemin an advanced g a bank b to rally the =1115 snp�de a.deny a Wild.COMM/ ' O Dan CMS"CMS"Ce of 310 Hansel elerai'a astru of the ctond a the wart balance, fond winds account ltd u mos 35 k Is moan wasp akd the bond how area ant win board ••••• to how Ow rebtSdmg mods now mds at wool Ths A.m-owa ink,a-ant's. sepal' be done on his home, whim frca done while the water level in the ditch :v.*d the loan wilt scent theengh ,,it 7M Mud m• alt ems:- Green Si-(which will not be paved) -Kam Low. Now Ibt mmm5aa is battled terra fund manias and of "dst,t k glhm.ono at' ' ban with • side area aeldrea &tithed,boater,the board abiding through ray rsKsmmn tome people , eestaN7 P Re 1M 2,hp (ion* Imes ad arml°Dun amain*kern eanaot be ,meted until Adam for'ha homing hos we bum • ...Goa, Pa henlitide mats aka and k bast that ha beanape&awing on the at .y:r' dab awl lab- lased ex the side men prior - iti air to the M®sm Widmt while (Wan St will not be nand 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS 1�. . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Applicant has provided no written or documented proof (only testi- mony and his submitted plans) that he can substantially meet any requirements of Zoning Ordinance covered by Sections 24.4.2, 24.5, and 24.6. 2. Applicant has the burden of proof to show complete compliance of all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. Lack of proof of compliance for any one Ordinance Section must be the basis of disapproval by the Ord. 3. Applicant has reduced his scope from the 2400-cow dairy as proposed to the Planning Commission, to a 1200-cow capacity as a direct result of denial by the Planning Commission and opposition testimony at the Planning Hearing - possibly with the hope of getting a toe- hold in the neighborhood to help lever his position back to 2400 cows at a later date. 4. Will the Applicant again reduce his herd size to a theoretical 644-cow dairy (conforming land use) in his rebuttal period as a result ❑f the expert witness and documented exhibits presented by the opposition? Incidentally, the actual land use area of this farm is 140 acres - not 161 - as the Road 15 and. Road 38 right-of- ways w/borrow pits, have to be deducted as well as the bui:lding•s, shops, etc. , and the Ekerkenbeck Ditch area or an actual conform- ing lend use herd size of 560. 5. The ability of the Aurora Capital Corporation to operate a large, milk-producing facility has never been questioned. In fact, as far as milk production is concerned, they are one of the best in the state. The serious question ❑f their waste management system, selection ❑f location for their proposed dairy, and compliance of ell elements of each specific requirement of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Use Plan, are the only considerations addressed here_ 6. I ask you - Has the Applicant satisfactorily proven complete compli- ance with all Weld County Requirements? 7. Attached is a written confirmation of the availability of non- productive farmland just east of Platteville. 8. Also attached are comments made by Planning Commissioners during their voting for denial of the Applicant' s Special Use Review Request. 9. Finally, I again urge you to contact CSU and tour their dairy and Waste Management Facilities before reaching any decision on this proposal,. I promise you, it will be very enlightening and. will • - 2 _ help dramatically in drawing together all of the testimony; and, in particular, all of the submitted documents. Thank you for your attention and patience on this lengthy (and sometimes technical) review and analysis of the Applicant' s proposal. 0C) 0;114- R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E., for "Citizens Opposing Dairy" • DATE: January 17, 1987 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS AVAILABILITY OF NON-PRODUCTION LAND EAST OF PLATTEVILLE, COLORADO Extensive verbal discussions via telephone with Mr_ Ivan Gilbaugh, Real Estate Broker and Owner of Gillbaugh Realty located in Greeley, Colorado, revealed the following : 1. Several reasonably level, non-productive grazing land properties are available for sale east of Highway 85, adjacent to Platteville, Colorado. 2. One 80-acre and one 160-acre parcels have been listed for several years for sale. They are located on a graveled Weld County Road, very close to an existing large-production turkey facility, ar excellent location in terms of no neighbors, available power, etc. 3. Central Weld County Water District has a very large water main feeder loop in this area; and, after discussion with the CWCWD Office Manager, it was determined that the Applicant only had to apply to obtain adequate (150,000 GPD +) water commitment after the CWCWD Board of Directors ..approved the request. Line extensions might have to be run at the Applicant' s expense at an estimated cost of $35,000.00 per mile for a 6" diameter line. 4. Land sales in this generally non-productive farmland area have been well below $500.00/acre. 5. Ample land is available for purchase to sprinkler irrigate for grass pasture production with no consequence -of soil sterilization due to insufficient land. 6. To Mr. Gillbaugh' s knowledge, NO inquiries have been made about purchase of land in this area for many months. INTERVIEWED AND PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON, B.S.M.E. Engineering Consultant; DATE: January 15, 1987 - H of the We Count P n Commission Heating ecember 1 , 986 Page,14 ' :2m•?JChai'rmnn ovaided ₹orsrdistvssion :from. :the::<n s. ,.of_.;the• +Pfiazming Commission. Discussion followed. • The Chairman reminded the Planning Commission members that since the recommendation is for AUgUal, and the staff's recommendation is for approval, reasons should. ho given for their decision. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision: Lydia tnj ihj.— Yes, 'herreasons are very similar to the reasons outlined by • Ann Garrison. Also,:;his type of an operation should be taken into an area • o elation and . i o _ agricultural uses. Tan Gos50V. — Yes; for the same reasons. He also feels there could be some potential traffic problems that have not been studied. puis Rademacher — Yes. Because the landowners in the area are against having an operation such as this, and for the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. . aulette�a� — Yes. .She agrees with the comments made by Ann Garrison. This ma be a well desi ed facility, but well designed facilities must be located in appropriate locations ecauso as Lydia Dunbar stated, a LO t e Cou t e of development, but s area southwest Weld County., d whetherwelc w lik it or not s owing residentially and tbis tvpe of us_i Co we like crtth this current an �s not comuatibck Holman — i uture rawth. �� n —_ Yea. Holman - 4j,gp a 'because of a possible conflict of interestbecause he T oo ryman. tion for denial carried h fto.. vo in for the motion and one. abstaining. The meeting vas adjourned at 7:15 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, s a Bobbie Good Secretary u , : - SUMMARY SM- a ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2. 1 - "Proposal Must Be Consistent With Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1. Comprehensive Use Plan, Article 1 , states in part : "Agriculture must be protected. Any uses of prime irrigated farmland othen than agriculture will be critically reviewed. " 2. Applicant will take prime irrigated farmland out of production and will adversly affect the interests and use of the local affected part of the County (Reference Summarys presented on Zoning Ordinance Sections 24.4.2.2 and 24. 4.2.3) (Article 2. violation). 3. Agri-Business will be encouraged IF it does not affect economy or environment (Article 2 violation). a. Drastic environmental impact to polution, traffic density, drinking water availability and other factors presented by all submitted analysis shows this proposed use will adversely impact the neighborhood' s environment. b. Adverse economic concerns if proposed use is permitted include : (1 ) Cost to Weld County for providing widened roadways at Road 13 and Road 15. (2) Cost to Weld County to asphalt Road 15 for 1/2 mile. (3 ) Cost to Weld County to provide increased Public Health inspections. (4) Cost to Weld County to periodically inspect proposed dairy herd for maximum permitted size (2400 head of cattle total) and to establish appropriate fines. (5) Cost to Weld County to establish appropriate special tax structures to assess Applicant for as yet undefined damages to Weld County Roads and Bridges on Roads 15, 38, and 13, caused by Applicant's proposed high-intensity traffic. (6 ) Added burden of snow removal in this location. 4. By reducing neighborhood drinking water supplies to a minimum, creating_ water, air, surface, visual, and noise pollution and not locating proposed facility in a non-productive "A" district with minimal or no residences, Applicant is in violation of Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Weld County Comprehensive Use PPlaan. � PREPARED' 8Y: ' R. B. WILLSON (U3(`�-� _ _' Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 s s^ WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE USE PLAN - 1973 Edition Pages 48, 49, and 50. owner to be able to expand his agricultural activity and productivity and, at the same time, be able to take maximum advantage of the inflated land and water values. Further, these policies should provide and maintain a quality living environment for the agricultural citizens throughout the county. The following is a statement of these policies and objectives. 1. Agriculture is considered a valuable resource in Weld County which must be protected from_adverse impacts result ing from uncontrolled and undirected business, industrial and residential growth, In Qrder to maintain and pro- mote this im2ortant segment of the county's economy, the cultural and human values associated with farm life and the overall benefits of an agri- cultural environment, any_ uses of: _ prime irriqated farmland for uses other than agricultural will be cri- tically reviewed to insure the pro- posed development will not adversely impact the agricultural interests of the county and that the development will positively contribute to the over-- all economy, environment and tax base of the county. 2. The expansion and development of agri- business and agriculturally oriented Industry will be encouraged, provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy or enyiron- ment. 3. In order to minimize conflicting-_land uses and minimize the cost of new facilities and services to the tax- payer, industrial, commercial, business and residential development will be encouraged to locate adjacent to the existing 27 incorporated towns and in accordance with the comprehensive plans - 48 - and stated wishes cf each community. Where new developments desire to locate in t.,.,_≥ r'rel areas away from the existing ca:,-_icir.:;lit;.<_a , they will be required to ivst:I.fy their development with a detailed plan (Planned Uri*, "eveLcprnett) accom- panied by an. eer.nonio _ part state- ment and an anvirenmentai impact t statement prepared by recognized experts, showing all details of how the proposed de•:-eiopraent would affect the local and county's eco- nomic bass, the tax revenues and cost of public services such as schools, utilities, roads and health services, and .he immediate and longterm impact on the existing environment.. 4. Pecause adequate water _._plies are essential for acicuit::,: al production, each nonagricu to al development will be encouraged to obtain its necessary water from souncss which are consid- ere• d nonessential tc the maintenance j of agricultural product ion in the par- ticular area. in support of this con- cept, highest priorities will be given to those devel.o^menits that have low rates of water consumption. In pun- sut o . these objectives, it will be the policy to obtain comments from those ditch coispani es, w t r_d,is tricts and other victor resource agen cies which ,a a :_a: n > acor•3s and con- trol the transfer of water properties in a particular area , 5. Because water, air ann s--urfacepol- lution are of vital concern to all residents cf the county, the state and the nation, it will be the Policy to encourage only those Cevelopments that can show that they will not con- tribute adversely to_poll_uti.on; or if they do contribute to the pollu- tion problem of the area, that they are prepared to either build appro priate control devices at their own' . expense or will pay sufficient - 19 - revenues to the existing pollution controlling districts or agencies to insure proper "treatment without increasing the cost to the existing users of the system. 6. In order to promote the agricultural economy and to enhance and maintain e—quality of life and environment in weld County, developments that utilize nonproductive rural land and water surpluses will be encouraged, particularly where _produativerri- gated farmland can be preserved as agricultural greenbelts and open space. Construction in flood plains, seep • areas, geological fault areas and • other dangerous or undesirable build- • ing environments will be discouraged. However, development of these same areas as parks, recreation areas, water and land reclamation areas, sand and gravel sources, commercial . feed lots, and areas for hunting, fishing and other activities which contribute to the economy or improve the environment will be encouraged. • • • • • • < at SUMMARY s. . ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2.7 - "APPLICANT MUST PROTECT HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF INHABITANTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1. From .the. .Traffic. Study Analysis previously reviewed, show no provisions y Applicant far high intensity, high volume, maxi- mum axle loading traffic caused solely by his proposed dairy (SAFETY). 2. From the Available Water Analysis previously submitted, Applicant' s 1 " water tap committed by Little Thompson Water District can, during peak periods, reduce neighboring existing water tap pres- sure to a minimum (WELFARE). 3. Applicant has not provided minimum required water storage ponds for proposed dairy' s effluent (HEALTH). 4. Applicant hes not considered the 100-year storm runoff require- ment of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore severely jeopardizes property and life south of proposed facility (PROPERTY LOSS - PERSONAL & WELD COUNTY). 5. By placing proposed facility in center of the proposed location, the facility will disrupt historic starm runoff wasteways and divert runoff into a non-historic wasteway (Road 15 borrow pit) WELFARE - VIOLATION OF STATE CODES ON WATER WASTEWAYS). These major points indicate that Applicant has no significant provisions to meet the requirements of Zoning Ordinance 24.4.2.7. ag of PREPARED BY: R. 8. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 973973 Y -- _. 2400/1200-CUW DAIRY ANALYSIS NOXIOUS WEEDS MIGRATION - CSU/WELD COUNTY EXTENSION. SERVICE: In telephone conversation with Dr. Zimdaul., Colorado State University Weed 8 Pest Research Department , and Mr. Ron Brads, Weld County Extension Service, Pest and Weed Specialist, the following data was ❑btained: 1. Both Prosso Millet and Musk Thistle are being added to the Noxious Weed List for Weed Control Districts in Weld County. 2. Prosso Millet, in particular, is slowly invading Weld County, starting in the north end, as a result of inter-state seed migration, from northern states such as Wyoming and Nebraska. 3. Both Prosso Millet and Musk Thistle seed are found, sometimes in abundance, in cattle forage foods such as : baled hay (alfalfa or grass ), straw, silage, haylage, etc. 4. Weed seed will pass through eli livestock, without harm to germination ability, and be retained in the animal wastes. 5. Spreading of animal wastes (with week seed inclusion) on • irrigated prime farm land is the most common and prevalent source of noxious week introduction to Weld County. 6. Prosaic Millet is an annual weed that spreads by producing a tremendous quanity of seed which spreads by shatter - i.e. , impact by harvesting equipment with seed distribution into equipment that moves from farm to farm and particularly by . lodging in the crop being harvested. 7. Musk Thistle is a perennial weed that spreads its seed by wind to neighboring farms, 8. Neither weed can be controlled at all - except in corn fields • or roads and ditches. No control is possible in forage crops such as alfalfa, grass, or haylage without destroying the crop. 9. Cost of partial control in corn, subject to corn height of 2yz - 3 feet , is a minimum of 325.00/acre and requires at least three spraying trips through The field. Aerial spraying, for • herbicide purposes, is not possible after a corn canopy is formed. CONCLUSION Migration into Weld County of Prosso Millet, Musk Thistle., Canadian Thistle, and other noxious weed seed is a verx serious and economical threat .to Weld County agriculture - particularly row-crop production. - 2 Importation of large quantities of baled hay, straw, and other dry forages from nearby or adjacent states into Weld County is particularly detrimental. If the cycle of weed seed impart - cattle feed- waste to row-crop . fields - silage or forage - back to cattle feed is once started, prapa- ' gation of the noxious weeds to all areas cf Weld County is very probable. At the present time, no Prosso Millet has moved into this part of Weld County. Some Musk Thistle hes been found, particularly on irriga- tion ditches, and roads and highways right-of-ways. If the cattle waste is disposed. o_f. on. non-irrigated land - or .non - productive land, the dangers are minimized. Weeds, like crops, require sufficient water to thrive. The Applicant has not even demonstrated knowledge of this problem; and, in fact, is purchasing large quantities of out-of-state alfalfa and straw that have no source inspection of weed seed contamination. No documentation or proof of preventing this problem has been sub- mitted by the Applicant to supoort the welfare of . Weld County. • SUBMITTED BY: R. B. WILLS0N Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 17 , 1987 • • • t "yal° rites SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2.2 - "USE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH _ uTENT DF DISTRICT" APPLICATION IS IN VIOLATION 1. Intent of use of the "A" District is agriculture - spc :ifically, crop production and livestock production. 2. All of Weld County is Zoned "A" District, except for dose areas such as Municipal Districts, P.U.D. ' s, overlay use suci as air- ports, flood planes, etc. , and other Approved "Special Use Review" permit areas. 3. The Weld County Zoning Ordinance of July 1 , 1985, pro' ldes ample recourse for any applicant t❑ define his proposed neeca, select the best geographical location for his purpose (consiEeent with the Zoning requirements) end submit a request for "Spc :ial Use Review" in accordance with all Zoning Ordinances and tie Planning Commission requirements. 4. The Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan of 1973 is verb specific in this regard, requiring location of agri-business (bit not crop production) facilities be located in areas of Weld County that do not adversly affect the economy or environment. 5. The 1973 Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan also requires agri- business facilities be located on non-productive Tura_ land in order to promote, enhance, and maintain the quality of life and environment in Weld County. 6. This proposed facility is therefore in violation of Section 24.4.2.2 if located in its proposed "prime" farmland location. It is recom- mended that a dilligent search for non-productive claesed land be made - such as, east of Platteville. PREPARED BY R. 3. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E_ DATE: January 10, 1987 • • 2400/1240-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION OF SECTION 24.4.2.2 - "INTENT OF DISTRICT" • Since the Applicant wants t❑ locate his facility in Weld County, his proposal must address all the issues, including that ofconferming to the intent of the district in which he wants to install his facility - in this case, agriculture district - prime irrigated farmland. Since ell ❑f Weld County is zoned agriculture (with noted exceptions) the actual use of the ground for agriculture must be examined t❑ deter- mine the intent ❑f the "A" District. 1. For prime irrigated farmland, numbering in the thousands of acres, 99% + ❑f all Weld County prime farmland, is and has been in continuous row-crop production. 2. For prime dryland farmland, numbering in the thousands of acres, 99% + of all Weld County prime dryland is and has been in con- tinuous dryland crop production. 3. For virtually all ❑f the non-productive "other" classified Weld County land, livestock production by grazing of natural grasses (sometimes 25 acres/cow) is and has been the practice. 4. A very low percentage of Weld County land (many times less than 1%) has been or is now used for large confinement areas for livestock and feeding operations or dairies -- Usually on non- productive land and forming a part of row-crop or livestock ' production activities. 5. Since its concept inception, the Special Use Permit Review process used by Weld County requires all Applicants to situate their desired facility in an appropriate land' use location. 6. Highly intense agri-business facilities such as the Applicant' s are required to geographically locate in Weld County in such a manner as to not violate the Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan. In summary, the Intent of the Weld County Agriculture District is to promote crop production - both dryland and prima irrigated farmland, and livestock production on grazing, of pasture-ty.pe; non-productive land. The Intent of the Agriculture District is ta .also_ channel Agri-Business to land and locations .in the county more suitable to their impact on adjacent properties and prevent the removal of crop production or live- stock production from the "A" District. • The burden of proof that the Intent of the Agriculture District is anything other than the above is on the Applicant. &t3 ci -. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.N DATE: January 17, 1967 - • x r � 1.1:1:1° 'H y SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2.3 - "USE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1 . Surrounding land use is single-family crop-production acreage, scattering of residences, high-density housing development within three miles of proposed facilities - virtually no traffic on Roads except commuter traffic to and from St. Drain Power Plant. 2. Proposed use will generate constant, daily, high-intensity traffic on Roads 15 and 38. 3. Proposed use will develop odors and polution on a daily, year-round basis, that do not occur on surrounding land. 4. Proposed use increases intensity of people, livestock, vehicular, noise, and nighttime activity (24 hours, 365 days/year operation) many times over - none of which is produced by surrounding, adjacent land. 5. This proposed use is totally INCOMPATIBLE with surrounding land. 6. Weld County Planning Commission denied Applicant' s Request for Special Use because of violation of Section 24.4.2.3 (reference Planning Commissioner' s Recommendation to the Board of Commissioners dated December 17, 1986). at3O ;69, PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 i • • 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION OF SECTION 24.4.2.3 - "COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND". The use of land surrounding the proposed dairy site is specifically agriculture row-crop production. The Intent of the District in which this lad is located is also _row-crop production. All of the adjacent, touching land is prime irrigated farmland production high-yield agricul- ture raw crops. • 'Many. acres .-of the lend nearby (to the northwest) is prime dryland prop production farmland. As far as the eye can see in any direction, there are no high intensity agri-business locations. In fact, the closest small dairy (worked in concert with row-crap production) is several miles away. A very few small livestock containment feed operations are located miles to the north or south; but, again, they,' too, form an integral part of row-crop production. One large livestock feed operator is located several miles .to the north; however, it is isolated from neighboring residences, located on totally non-productive land, and, again, this facility forms a pert of a large acreage row-crop production farm. This operation, with SCS designed 100-year capacity runoff lagoon, is a virtually dry operation and compares in no way with the Applicant' s proposed facility. It produces minimal traffic and odor due to its location and on-farm grown feed. The prior use of the Applicant' s prime irrigated farmland - which he proposes to use as a dairy site - was, again, a livestock feeding opera- tion, worked in conjunction with row-crop production on- the farm, as well es row-crop production on the .next farm adjacent to the west of Road 15. The sales weight of feeders grown on this farm was on the order of 750 lbs. Total water requirements at peek conditions for stock drinking, residence, and farmstead use was 7.8 GPM. Again, a dry operation with minimal odor and 'on-farm grown feed that required little county road traffic. It was an all daylight-hours operation, all waste disposal an-site, with no employment requirements except for father/son work, and a possible . hired hand for peek row-crop production requirements. In conclusion, the proposed high intensity dairy, 24-hour operation, with its inherent high-density traffic, heavy and oversize load volume feed deliveries, odor polution., groundwater polution; light polution, ' end large number of employees, visitors, milk trucks, and general overall activity of business, to say nothing of the very poor visual image of this very high (21 ' ) earth work berms to: contain liquid waste —cannot be considered to be in any way computable with surrounding land uses. The very act of continuous sprinkling of liquid waste on former high- production row-crop land negates any compatability. The Applicant certainly bears the burden of proof to a high degree to even begin to show any compatability. SUBMITTED BY: R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 16, 1987 a 8 O ,.t ','- `1.1* tom • SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.5.1.8 - Provisions for Added Traffic. APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1. Applicant does not address serious traffic that his proposed facility generates; only states entrance and exit roads to his facility and assures only 2 milk trucks and one commodity truck per day. 2. Analysis shows minimum of 160 trips per day, 51 of which are maxi- mum axle loading, 37 are medium to high-axle loading, and the balance light passenger or pickup truck vehicles. 3. The volume and weight of traffic generated by Applicant' s proposed facility will require, as a minimum : a. Widening and asphalt paving of Weld County Road 15. b. Addition of acceleration lanes and declaration lanes at the Road 38 area of Road 15. c. Traffic signs, markings, stripping, and warnings. d. Widened entrance/exit to facility e. Establishment, by Applicant, of a Weld County Reserve Tax Fund to pay for Weld County Road and bridge damage generated by Applicant' s additional traffic. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engireering Consultant, B.S.M. E. DATE : January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE LOADING REVIEW The Applicant has not addressed the problem of protection cf the public safety due to hazards he will create from the proposed facilities demand for daily increased traffic on Weld County Road 38 and especially Road #15. This use will generate high traffic volumes, large number of large, slow accelerating and decelerating vehicles, and maximum volume delivery semi-trucks hauling massive loads of hay into the facility. A summary of the analysis of traffic intensity shows the following DAILY traffic compositions of the estimated 160 minimum trips into or exiting the site : 1 . Axle loading above 16,000 lbs. 28 trips 2. Axle loading @ 9,000 to 16,000 lbs 3 trips 3. Axle loading @ 2, 500 to 9000 Lbs 37 trips 4_ Axle loading below 2500 lbs 92 trips Daily total minimum estimated trips 160 trips The Applicant does not provide any means of solving his proposed facility generated traffic problems and in particular, none of the following : 1 . Widening of Weld County Road 15 from dairy entrance south to Weld County Road 38. 2. Asphalt paving of Road 15 from entrance of dairy to Road 38. 3. Acceleration lanes east bound on Road 38. 4. Deceleration lanes/exit lane west bound on Road 38. 5. Acceleration lanes west bound on Road 38. 6. Deceleration lanes east bound on Road 38. 7. Traffic signs, warnings, etc. 8. Lane markings. 9, Widened entrance/exit to dairy with culverts, etc. , to accommodate wide-turning- trucks. 10. Establishment by Applicant of a Weld County Reserve Tax Fund to pay for damage to Weld County roads and bridges by facility-generated traffic damage. n ; / r , PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS MISCELLANEOUS DATA 1. Discussion with Harry Wiediman, January 7, 1987. Typical Dairy Cow (milking ) Daily Ration Hay 13 lbs Corn 23 lbs (ear or shell - ground - high moisture) Silage 25 lbs Protien 3 lbs Cottonseed 4 lbs Miscellaneous 1 lb 69 lbs/cow/day Rolling herd daily milk production average - 60 lbs/cow Estimated bedding per caw/day (Guess only ) - 5-10 lbs/day 2. Discussion with Francis Gregerson, January 9, 1987. a. Has Public Health Certified Stock Well - ample for all needs. b. Fills 10 ,000 gallon net capacity storage tank 3 times per day for vacuum-pump cooling, bulk tank compressor cooling, milking equipment, and line flushing and dump surge flush of facility floors. Use for 800 milkers is 28,000 GPD net. c. Scrape corrals and stock piles, produces about 50 ton/day from 800 milkers - spreads solids over 300 acres on adjacent farms. d. Pumps all liquid wastes into lagoon - dilutes w/irrigation water and flood irrigates on 100 acres with reused pool- catching runoff. e. Uses 1800 bales (4' X 4' X 8' ) at 1100 lbs/bale of bedding straw per year - 7 lbs/cow/day for milkers only. 3. Discussion with Ed Wiedimen, January 9, 1987. a. Water requirements - All water used is metered by City of Greeley - data of 83 GPD for 400 cows is very accurate. b. Bedding use is 480 ton/year or about 7 lbs/day/cow. c. Liquid waste is ponded, diluted with irrigation water and flood irrigates sandy soil - no acreage given - area appears to be at least 160 acres. 663 co . PREPARED BY: R. H. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B_S.M.E. DATE. January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC INTENSITY INCREASE Currently, Weld County Road 38 has two significant peak periods of vehicular traffic — primarily light passenger and small pickup trucks traveling to and from employment at the Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant — from 6 :30 a.m. to 8 :00 a.m. and from 4s00 - 6 .00 p.m. Density is estimated at 30 - 50 units per hour during those peak periods. Off-peak hours intensity drops to less than 19 light vehicles per hour. During summer and fall harvest, heavier traffic of average 20,000 lbs gross farm trucks use Road 38 and Road 13 for hauling to market. Road 15 is a typical gravel-surfaced, narrow Weld County Road that normally is graded every two weeks in dry weather. Residences are light to the north from Road 38, but school buses travel morning and evening during school months. Vehicular traffic is very light and often, during daylight hours, there is no traffic at all. Night traffic is seldom. The following represents conservative estimates of the massive increase in traffic intensity on both Road 38 and particularly Road 15. Accurate estimates of vehicular weights are given to assist in the assessment of Significant increase in road/bridge repair costs caused' solely by this proposed dairy - particularly to Road 15. 1. Milk Hauling based on three times per day milking, full-head production and mature cows - (70 lb/day) (2400 head)=168,000 lbs/day assuming 80,000-lb truck gross load limit, about 60, 000 lbs (6900 gallons) of milk will be hauled per truck round trip (20,000 lbs empty weight ). This will require daily three (3) 80,000 lbs exit trips and 3 20,000 lbs entrance trips - not the estimated 2 trips daily. 2. Bulk Feed Handling - Haled Alfalfa - Hay requirements, on a daily basis, for 2400 head of heavy producing dairy cattle approach 15-18 lbs/head/day - or an upper limit of 43, 200 lbs (22 ton) while corn and hey prices are depressed. Because- of volume, only 18-ton can be hauled on standard semi-truck flat beds (big 4v x 4' x 8v bales average 1800 lbs/bale). With 20 bales per truck, the daily trips for hay will be two entrances @ 56,000 lbs and two exits @ 20,000 lbs for • alfalfa. 3. Dry, Ground Corn (or High-Moisture Corn) - In the dairy ration will range from 20-25 lbs per cow or a total of 60,000 lbs/day for 2400 cows. If the corn is ground or flaked on- site, one 80,000 gross-weight truck entrance and one 20,000-lb empty exit will be required each day. 4. Silage (or Haylege) Requirements will probably average 25 lbs per day for each cow or a total daily need of 60,000 lbs/day. All silage must be hauled in a 30-day period during harvest in the fall, so a total :y.ear'13 reed of (365 )(60,000) or 21 ,900,000 Ibis about 11,000 ton per year. Most silage - 2 trucks in the area will haul about 10 ton or silage or a total of 1100 exit loads of 15,000 lbs and 1100 entrance loads of 35.,➢0D. lbs.. This is the dell* equivalent of 3 loads of 35,000 lbs and 3 loads of 15,000 lbs daily. 5. Other Daily Nutrients required in the ration, such as protien supplement, cottonseed, and other nutrients, will weigh about B lbs/day/cow or 19,200 lbs/day. It is assumed that the equivalent deliveries will be one (1 ) truck per day @ 30,000 lbs gross in and 10,000 lbs take weight out. 6. Semi-Solid Waste Product Removal - From the daily animal waste analysis, there will be a total of 97 tons semi-solid waste per day scraped and stcckpiled for removal. This is the equivalent of 6 manure trucks per day out at 50,000 lbs gross weight and 6 trucks in at 14,000 lbs empty. 7. Excess Liquid Waste Removal - Liquid waste removal on an equivalent daily basis will be 12,300,000 gallons/year, assuming no 25-year or 100-year event (see Waste Management Analysis )_ This is 33,700 GPO or 5 7000 gallon tankers out @ 80 ,000 lbs and 5 tankers in @ 20,000 lbs empty. 8. Stock Bedding Transport to Confinement Area - Estimates given by SOS tables and data supplied by local dairies indicate average bedding requirements per cow/day is about 7 lbs - or a total annual need of 6, 132, 000 lbs (3066 ton). This requires a daily equivalent of 8.4 ton per day or one trip entrance at 27,000 lbs and one exit of 10,000 lbs. 9. From the Water Source Analysis, 60,000 GPD must be hauled into the site. This is an average daily trip into site of 9 80,000 lbs trucks and exit of 9 20,000 lbs trucks. SUMMARY The following summarizes average daily inbound and outbound trips, including weighed loads and axle loadings for all increased high inten- sity traffic to the proposed dairy site via Roads 38 and 15. Routes of trucks have not been established; but, it would appear logical for hay trucks from Southern Colorado , Nebraska, and Wyoming (which is the current purchase practice of the Applicant for their 3500-cow facility on Highway 66 ), t❑ come North or South Interstate-25, Exit Mead Exit 245 or Berthoud Exit 250, continue on the Frontage Road to Weld County Road 38 and due east to Road 15. If ear corn is also purchased out of state, because of price considerations, these trucks would also follow the same route. Road 38 is, of course, gravel unimproved for tw❑ miles, very susceptible to drifting ❑f.'snow in the winter for most of the two miles of gravel, with snow depths exceeding, 5' at times. Normal County snow plows and -grading efforts will leave Road 38 impassable for 2-3 days in severe conditions. • - 3 _ . TABLE DAILY IN/OUT TRIPS TO DAIRY ACTIVITY # WEIGHT WEIGHT TRIPS TRIPS AXLES IN IN - OUT OUT MILK HAULING 3 20,000 lbs 3 80,000 lbs 5 HAY DELIVERY 2 56,000 lbs 2 20,000 lbs 5 CORN DELIVERY 1 80, 000 lbs 1 20,000 lbs 5 . SILAGE HAULING 3 35,000 lbs 3 15,000 lbs 2 MISCELLANEOUS (FEED) DELIVERY 1 30,000 lbs 1 10, 000 lbs 2 MANURE HAUL 6 14,000 lbs 6 50,000 lbs 3 LIQUID WASTE HAUL 5 20, 000 lbs 5 80,000 lbs 5 BEDDING HAUL 1 27 ,000 lbs 1 10,000 lbs 3 EMPLOYEES 35 4,000 lbs avg 35 4,000 lbs 2 SALES/VISITS 10 4,000 lbs avg 10 4,000 lbs 2 MAINTENANCE 3 7,000 lbs 3 7,000 lbs 2 INSPECTION 1 4,000 lbs 1 4,000 lbs 2 POTABLE WATER HAUL 9 80,000 lbs 9 20,000 lbs 5 DAILY TOTAL TRIPS 80 80 NOTE: The above reflects the readily identified traffic to and from the proposed dairy. Additional heavy traffic will be cattle delivery trucks (putts) gross loaded in and out with up to and/or 80,000 lbs gross weight for the removal of spent animals and replacement with fresh milkers. This will occur every year replacing up to 30% of the herd or 600 head/year. With 40 head per load this is about 1_Z5 trips/tonth for a total of 15/year. It is quite obvious from the above that this intense traffic situa- tion is vastly different than the existing "A" District zoned useage. In addition, a significant amount of tax dollars will have to be allocated for repair of new chuckholes on existing paved roads and additional road base for gravel roads as a result of massive rutting caused by 80,000 lbs gross weight vehicles, which these roads were not designed to handle. The danger to ancillary traffic, farm vehicles and implements, commuter traffic, school buses, and other existing traffic is enormous, particu- larly with. the huge trucks and gross weights involved_g t3 /)�Qq, PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON u" " Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 f ; t 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS SUMMARY DAIRY SURVEYS AND UNIVERSITY DATA 1. Typical Daily Milk Cow Feed Ration Hay 18 lbs Corn 25 lbs (all types) Silage 25 lbs (or Haylage) Protien 3 lbs Cottonseed 4 lbs Miscellaneous 1 lb Total 69 lbs/cow (This is low - highest is 79 lbs/cow/day 2. Bedding Requirements Average 7 lbs/day/cow. 3. Semi-Solid Manure Hauling - Average between .04 and .06 ton/day/cow including soiled bedding. 4. Milk Production/cow/day will average between 55 to 70 lbs. High output dairies are in the upper SO' s. Rolling Herd averages of 70 lbs/cow maximum is available with slight use of chemicals and steroids. 5. Average Daily Water Consumption Drinking water per day/cow 40 gallons (low to average) Barn use/day/cow 12 gallons Note : Wash, flush, equipment rinse, and all daily barn use varies from 30,000 BPD for 800 head (38 GPD/cow) to as low as 3 or 4 gallons per cow for the smaller dairies without deluge flush. The University data appears the most reasonable at an average of 12 gallons per day. 6. Residence and Employee Daily Water Use Residence in area = 170 gallons/day. Medium employee levels 20. .-. .50. . _.Employees plus daily visitors traffic will average 30 gallons/day per employee. mp\loyene.. e PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, - B.S_M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 allIlW • INDE?E?!DENT SURVEY Name of Dairy -- W ' 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? Age e -- 2.) Number of milkings per day? 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? yig re- /A - 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? Information laprte pr� approved. .by: t Date: 7 / 717 INDEX,,. ' 'V' SURVEY Name of Dairy E4 W.f eO r e0 DAtl ui c /t (D 1.) Approximate number of adc't milking cows? • itteAloi 2.) Number of milkings per d-' '> • 3 htiL. 3.) Average quantity of pate*'e water consumed per cow, per day? 83 C P 0A-0— iv ctwoes A.) Estimated gallons of watt -V used per cow for washing per da Information approved by: Po0eitai b R l G.)e.t. ) P TYPICAL DAILY RATION Date: t Lien 6! '�- oi:ebI1kav Hay ($ a Ear Corn • Silage • Cattenseed Protien Misc. salts, etc j-� a-nr.,y h Total / $ (it. �e;ry s per cow/day f • INDEt s•YA7VT SURVEY - • • ! Name of Dairy '— �`� 2ec7 4 to 50u Qr ► ( pity i.) Approximate number of adt_t•milking cows? 86D tLICIU4,• CO 695) 2.) Number of rankings per dz.7? 3rS . 3.) Average quantity of potab'.e water consumed per cow, per day? -far )u gIkS wrt - (As S fo h, CJ c-C b . 4.)' Estimated gallons of watr used per cow for washing per day? D. (it It USL`• 5 . '3 % 000 h +t't-, .Alcy cz-Diu P?4465 .L 0-CoilyIL>Wse irt„/opryG,-ho Information approved by: Clektf thiek it kA Fe) Ili Y , CJ/Lb saw pert. TYPICAL DAILY RATION b 'm 59p Lboo Q�P /1"-1205. Dates Ear Corn1.1k4'..9D.4'l Q. 20# Cotteneeed At Protie.n. .... .. * Misc. salts, etc.. ... ]7j� Total 1134 per cow/day nwVr.: y,� INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy — GD r z ( 4 i 1 [) y tr 6 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? ,_c00 2.) Number of milkings per day? 3 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? S 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? J Information approved by: Date: I- g - $ 7 87(3972, INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy — • —\okts l "C-CD 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? t OO 2.) Number of milkinga per day? • 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per days 4ccGals 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? fJ C44--c- Information approved by: k Date • • - y f INDEPENDENT SURVEY • Name of Dairy t / M 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? a2 l' 2.) Number of milkings per day? • 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? ,4 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? / V • Tnformat'on app ed b Date: 1- 2-57 INDE_PEDTDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy -_ 7e.- 144.4 ML'% s 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 7u° . 2.) Number of milkings per day? X 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? /1 c,,ils 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? r - /0"gds . Information approved by: /41 tilt Date: • INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- Oi W2tfZfj • 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? v 2.) Number of milkings per day? • 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? p /5 (/ 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? /0 7 " Information- approved byc - r r Hate: ..1/81;/..* INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- ✓O„a vc� 91,Q-12'-rjr,— 1.) Approximate number of adult milking caws? 5619 2.) Number of milkings per day?, 44#61741-- - 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per dat `7, d tF` — " - • 4.) Estimated gallons of water, used per cow for washing per day? sr, 01:0„64-5:;._ Information approved by: a— Date; 1 92 • 8T G ' INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy — 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? • 2.) Number of milkings per day? • j.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 4.) Estimated gallons of water, used per ccw for washing per day? Information appproved bbyy: a n L j Date: 87 INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy 7/,, cZ4/ OSCc.- -27 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? "I 6 2.) Number of milkings per day? a 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? /o 4.) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? /U Information approved 'by: s- /-3G2-12 z d c"-- Date: 1 - / - S 7 INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- 20718 111.11 Cary 1. 17 siokaskats, Gidr sia 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? a 2.) Number of milkings per day? 3.) Average quantity of potable water ccnsumed per cow, per day? �par.10../ 4.). Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? aigrGt.4. formation approved by: Date /0 .1 q:7 Cooperative Extension Service • Montana State University, Bozeman, MT • r` • • 4 TABLES Table u Farm and Horne Wes..Reqfrewae,K. Tablet,.Water Caaaur paten toll Daly Carne Farm Water Regtdr ewrits GalJOay AM or Gals Class of Cate testate* ter pep cal Beef steer or cow 1-1/2/100 IDs wt. Sneed ?sheep Mashwa rah."' 1 owe J to to 1.401 la 10.151bt,se 940:111M can 2 so. t S to 2 a Sows . 44-nog MoaaM canes 3 ro 2.1 to 2 S krarkrit hero - Z r,=g -treenn calves - 4-to 30 to 3 'hag C;eln.nq 1/h L'O v.0 F eeo•ng 1-2'h CQ >+O't<M ne.Nra S and 31 t0 a t l'gwd Manure. I'4-t/hog ..otlt..n hMen 13•t/m0 39 to 7.1 Milk cow (drinking) 35 [Ow **cotton,I,..fers 1►.34 mo :3 1(1t• Dry cow 12 Cow J.rteq Cove 30 IS Pia R/day tO 1 ton a Cow watner IWcow :.wrn MOs.n fl - ur cows 30 ro w.+aosay 12 7 to 17,4 . g ooh 15/103 SO tt Ayrshire brown Sens lore wvt/eor 13110 la t L aq:..3 Manure 3 cow .na...on/r ton SO rt. Malt day2sate377 - Cleaning milk equipment 2'cow Orr con Prpnent a-S as *to 13 to/41704k waterers S'gat/ran _ Cn.caens tdnna.ng) 5.100.birds ;., A..te"O..atw.range SO-10 art �.-- Tt rkeya tdr.n►nag) iniloo birds C .an.ng cages and pens --.. ...... . 2.610C tads Os"y Reference Manual. Cortege o►.Agriculture Horn. Water Re�ultenrent9 Trte Pennsytvanla 341.Untvets,ty V m.ersfty.Perk.Pent Each person for ell purpose - SO gal Automata. Washer -... 30•',0 ,ore Dishwasher S-1 S load Shower or tub - 2O-5Wn. Hose and no72la . .. . .. .. . 200-300 gpn Lawn Spunkier . 120 gOn 1/ 2C-2 & infrl p ?IF, , k. 0/ ,ray C47 ...-17/ ti 1 j � d - , e2flL' ntf/✓ or 914 fri ‘j 1 fic)fit :,,e, r 2200.I4 • COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY In conversation with Mr. Bill Wailes, Dairy Manager for C.S.U. Dairy, the following information was provided to Mr. Melvin Brown, 6859 Weld County Road 56, Loveland, Colorado 80557 : Milk Cow (milking) Drinking Water 33-40 GPD Dry Cow Drinking Water 13 GPD Milk Cow Udder 8 Body Wash/Cow 10 GPD Barn Floor Wash/Cow 3 GPD Equipment Wash & Flush 2 GPO Total Daily 55 GPD In addition, Mr. Wailes stated that the Larimer County Public Health Department requires no liquid waste be stored in the storage lagoons of the CSU Sophisticated Waste Treatment System. All wastes must be hauled away from the site, due to Public Health hazards and terrible odors. Mr. Brown stated his company hauls 200,000 gallons per week of liquid waste from the CSU dairy facility, keeping its lagoons in a virtual dry state - odor free. Mr. Brown disposes of this liquid in many areas of dryland farmland far removed from ��Fort Collins, Colorado. W Avse ISSUED AND REPORTED BY : R. 8. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 .fir-1,-,,— n .< . 'v _ 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS ANDERSON 5/8"TAP FROM LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT Peak measured ❑utput of the Glen Anderson 5/8 by 3/4" residential tap , located in Section 32 on Road 15, approximately 1/2 mile north of Road,38, is 7.8 gallons per minute. This data is suppli-ed by Mn Barry Dykes, Operations Supervisor for Little Thompson Water District, ❑n Thursday, January 15, 1987. • REPORTED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. • DATE: January 15, 1987 i• yi ter = Li h- - 'Jate tti_-SLT.iY�ir'9TL-4•µ -~ \h V' • 1... Pules and Lestulations I f i LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT • RULES AND REGULATIONS INDEX • Section Page No- 1 . INTRODUCTION 1-1 100. General 1-1 101., Board of Directors 1-1 102. Manager of the Distict 1-1 103. Tapholders of the District 1-1 104. Future Changes to these Regulations 1-1 105. Approval and Date of Adoption 1-1 2 LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2-1 - 200. General 2-1 201. Organization and Powers of the Board 202. Duties- and Responsibilities of the Manager 2-5 203. Financial Operations of the District 2-8 204. Insurance and Bonding Requirements for the District 2-9 205. Public Right to Information • 2-11 206. Legal Notices 2-11 207. Fee and Rate Schedules - Procedures for Increases 2-12 208. Regular Scheduled Meetings for the District 2-12 209. Special Meetings for the District 2-13 210. Normal Working Hours for the District 2-13 211. Place of Business 2-13 3 INDIVIDUAL WATER TAPS 3-1 300. General 3-1 . 301. Application for Service 3-1 302. Installation and Location of Water Meters 3-3 ' 303. Relocation of Water Meters 3-4 304. Requirements and Restrictions on Water Service 3-4 m, .40.305. Additional Residences on Same Property 3-7 306. Individual Tap .Fees 3-8 - 4 ADMINISTRATION OF CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNTS 4-1 400.' Normal Billing Cycles and Meter Reading 4-1 401. Discontinuance of Service for Non-Payment 4-3 402. Delivery of Official Notices 4-6 403 . Returned Checks 4-6 404. Customer 's Payments 4-6 405. Change of Property Owners 4-6 406. Water Service for Rental Properties (Single Family) 4-7 407. Perpetual Property Lien for Non-payment 4-9 408. Special Rate for a Residential Tap . 4-9 Page 1 of Index 304.9 High Pressures and Damages to Customer's Property. The District operates main transmission lines at pressures up to 150 PSI. Individual meters have a regulator to ensure that the customer' s delivery pressure remains at 45 PSI . In the event this regulator fails, and over a period of time they frequently do fail , the customer will experience high pressure throughout his residence. For this reason, the customer's service line (all material and equipment from the discharge side of the meter yoke) must be designed and installed with the capability of withstanding pressures up to 150 PSI. The District will not guarantee that the regulator or any other equipment will not fail and the District is not responsible -for any damage to a customer ' s property caused by high pressures . Additionally, any metered water lost because of a water leak due to high pressures remains the responsibility of the customer. 304.10 Pressure Settings on Regulators. All water taps • installed by the District have a pressure regulator which is pre-set at 45 PSI . Customers are not permitted to adjust the regulator or accomplish any modifications within the meter pit. A customer experiencing high or low pressure should contact the District offices so District personnel can correct the situation. 304.11 Financial Adjustments to Water Bills. The District will not make any financial adjustments to a customer ' s bill because of high usage due to a water leak on the customer ' s service line or within the residence/business. As an exception to this policy, if special circumstances prevail and the customer feels that an adjustment is warranted, then the special circumstances should be documented in writing and the matter will ' be considered by the Board of Directors at the next regular scheduled meeting. 305. ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES ON SAME PROPERTY. Customers have teen permitted to provide water service to a second and additional residence on the same parcel of property from . one water tap. Although the District, in the past , did not encourage this type of arrangement, the previous rules and regulations did not positively restrict customers from adding on a second residence to an existing water service. Upon adoption of these rules and regulations , one water tap may serve a second or additional residence providing that there is only one owner involved and one specific parcel of property, subject to the following restrictions: 305.1 As of tune 5, 1986 no additional residences may 3 -. 7 ,nrYw.r, nLNar�ro.4: M1 • be connected to any existing- Water tap without the 'specific written approval -of- the District, unless the size, of the meter serving the property is 1" or larger. Customers desiring' approval for this type of service should request same in writing to the District. 305. 2 Water service which involves two or more residences on the same` water' tap' .generally; means 'that both " pressures and flows a�, inadequate during periods of _peak usage:. The' District s responsibility ends . at the customer ' s side' of .-the meter yoke in the .. meter..-pit: and poor pressures or f 1'�ow5 attributed to second residences are the responsibility of the customer. 305.3 Effective ,June 5, 1986, or,upon adoption of these rules and regulations , whichever occurs later , customers having. second and•°'additional-residences '" will be subjectstructure ' to a revised- rate which will reflect the:,additional `.service being;'provided_ The revised' rate structure` will only apply to water taps smaller than 1" . '.;r.The. rate`;:structure will be'? established "aS if there: were two''"or; more ". taps/residences"involved and Will be in -accordance • with Section'15, (Rate and Fee Schedule) to these regulations. 305.4 Once a customer's water service. has been designated as having an, additional residence involved, the service will remain in this rate structure indef- initely, regardless of whether- the additional residence's are occupied or not. In' the event that the additional residence has been removed from the property, or ' the Water service line has been permanently disconnected to the additional residence, the`'customer may request that their rate schedule C be modified • This' request will be in writing to the District. 305.5 • In the event that the parcel of `property involving additional residences is sold, so' that the "one owner - one property"` rule is violated, a second water tap will have to be purchased to serve the additional residence. 306. INDIVIDUAL TAP FEES. All tap fees will be as prescribed in Section 15 (Rate and Fee Schedule) to these regulations. * * * .* * END OF SECTION 3 3 - 8 P"'�,^ten �..: : s 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS P.t.. SUMMARY APPLICANT' S SIZING OF STORM RUNOFF AND LIQUID STORAGE PONDS - 100-YEAR STORM 1. To be in compliance, Applicant' s water storage panda must be about 420, 000 SF - NOT 161 ,225 SF as shown - an underdesi9 n of 2.6 times. 2. Diversion of upstream (north) rain runoff by Applicant' s dikes and roads remove that water from historic waterways and put flow into non - historic waterways (Road 15 borrow pit ). 3. _Worst case runoff - Diverted Runoff Flow (100-year storm) is about 30 cubic feet Per second. By dumping into Road 15 borrow pit, will wash out Road 38/15 junction and cause major structure/crop loss to adjacent farmers. 4. Diversion of even average (2" ) runoff into Road 15 borrow pit will inundate adjacent downstream agricultural irrigation systems and cause crop damage/loss. REVIEW OF APPLICANT' S WASTE RETENTION POND' S SIZE From, the requirements of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the standards required by -the Weld County Planning Commissioner' s staff for the Applicant's proposal, the following design criteria must be met : - 1. Facility must retain all storm water runoff on-site from a 100- year storm (relative only to the area of Applicant's facility); Reference : Zoning Ordinance Section 24.5. 1.5. 1. July 1 , 1985- 2. Comply with all Colorado Department cf Health — Water Quality Control Commission Guidelines, current edition. 3. Referenced Guidelines definitize, in general, all aspects of designing large livestock containment facilities. In additon, the USDA Soil Conservation Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual - current issue - should be used as recommended by the Guidelines. The SOS Design Guide states that : 1. A 10' operating depth of pond liquid is very necessary to minimize pond odor , and maintain anaerobic action. 2. Prior to the startup of the facility, all ponds must be filled to their operating depth. Ed'y43`1 7? - 2 - 3. Lagoons should be aerobic in nature to remove milk fats and protiens and reduce odor. IIff odor is of no concern, and milk fats and pro tiens can be satisfactorly removed from the liquid storage-ponds, then an anaerobic system may be used. Also , from SCS Design Guide, a 25-year event is estimated to b.a 3.8" in a 24-hour period and 4.6" per 24 hours for a 100-year event. From the above, and using data from the waste management disposal analysis, the following depicts actual needed requirements : 5f FREEBOARD OPERATING DEPTH Waste Disposal Storage Pond 1. Required capture storage capacity during 6 winter months : a. Barn Effluent 1 , 130,940 CF b. Rain capture (3"/6mos) 381 , 150 CF c. *100-Year Event (4.6" ) 583,704 CF Total 2,095,794 CF * Worst case - saturated soil profile and occurs in non=irrigating season. 2. This alone will require a storage pond surface area of 139,720 SF or about 140,000 SF to contain the 100-year event, normal rain capture off-irrigation season, and average dairy barn and cantain- ment area effluent, assuming ponds were dry to start. In addition, to insure that the waste storage ponds will act in an anaerobic manner, the final storage ponds must contain a full 10r depth of liquid to function properly (at the beginning of the cold season to obtain maximum storage need). • It must be assumed that the sedimentation ponds must remain full and do not contribute to storage of liquids. Hence, the actual area required to meet all conditions is : Pond Required Area = That area above 10, of liquid required for anaerobic process 3 - (5' depth ) Area = 2,095,794 CF Area = 419, 159 SF or about 420,00❑ SF for the three proposed storage- ponds This is 2. 6 times more than Applicant proposes. Finally , the provision of runoff from 100-year event rainfall from upstream (adjacent ) sources has only been covered in the Applicant' s proposal by mention of dikes and roadways transferring runoff to the Weld County Road 15 barrow pit, a non-ajudicated wasteway. No provi= sion has been made by the Applicant to stare, capture, or divert the water runoff from the Road 15/Road 38 junction to the Road 38 historic wasteway running east on the Road 38 borrow pit. This means overflow over Road 38 literal inundation of the residence and property south - of Road 38, with- possible contaminated runoff and overflow into the yard, basement, and amenities and fields of the residence and neighbors. A sample calculation of the worst case runoff of the 100-year storm, assuming full soil profile and occurance during irrigation months (Ekerkenbeck Ditch Lateral at normal full capacity) is as follows : 1 . Total drainage basin above proposed dairy (owned by Gray and Camenish ) is approximately 200 acres draining generally west- ward and southerly towards the proposed dairy, north property lane, runoff total = 4.6" X (200) (43,560) = 3, 339, 571 CF 12 OR 24, 979,983 gallons - about 25,000,000 gallons in a 24-hour period. This is equal to 39 '_C.E.S,. (cubic feet per second). Assuming 66% will now be directed as runoff overflow sweeping over the Ekerkenbeck Lateral Ditch onto the Applicant ' s' diversion dike/roadway -and will now travel westward, instead of historically south, emptying into the_ Road 15 borrow pit. This means a 100-year event diversion of (.66)(39) 26: C_F..S dumped into a non-historic wasteway. Since no provisions are made by the Applicant for retention ❑r diversion at Road 38 or any other means or control, the results will be catastrophic to landowners and residents in particular downstream or south to Road 38 at the Road 15 junction. More to the point, any runoff will now be diverted to the junction of Roads 38 and 15. R. 6 Oflia-b-- PREPARED BY: R. E. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 A � 7 y SUMMARY APPLICANT' S WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1. Applicant' s facility will discharge about 47,000 GPD - not 25,000 GPD as stated in proposal. 2. Applicant should have provided a minimum liquid waste storage capacity of 1 ,900,000 cubic feet not considering 10' operational depth recommended by ASCS of. Ray_ abnormal storms. 3. Applicant only provides approximately 1 ,600,000 cubic feet in his proposal. 4. Applicant did not consider sterilization limit on 100 acres in disposing of liquid waste. 5. Applicant did not consider the need to haul liquid waste off site. 6. Applicant does not propose containment of possible waste runoff at south end of property due to storm runnoff, pond overflow, or french drain effluent. 7. Applicant has chosen the least expensive technique of waste treatment - anaerobic treatment - if ponds are not maintained full to 10 ' operating level, severe odor problems will result in addition to the odors from functioning anaerobic systems. 8. Applicant has not provided means to seal the surface of the contain- ment area for livestock (30 acres). This unsealed area will con- taminate ground water and soil as well as being a source for air- borne contamination. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 trry- , 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF APPLICANT' S WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Review of the Applicant' s design perameters for the proposal show the following assumption : 1. 25-Year Event Rainfall @ 3.8" depth over the area of 1 ,305,000 s.f. (30 acres). 2. Actual Runoff Water in the amount of 3.22" depth was assumed over the 30 acres.. 3. Storage and solid ponds also will receive the same 3.8" depth - no runoff. (4. 16 acres ) 4. Total average precipitation during the months ❑f November, December, January, February, and March - or 5 months = 323,254 CF or total rainfall of 2.61 " for the 5-month period. 5. Total dairy facility effluent to ponds will be 499,045. CF for N, D, J, F, M (5 months ) or a per day discharge of approximately 25,000 GPD as stated in proposal. 6. Total designed proposal storage of 1,612,25❑ CF included a 31% overdesign with the above data for a 5-month, man-irrigating, season. Briefly , the design analysis of this study assumes the following : 1. Total actual waste area of facility that will be captured in the proposed ponds (total 181 ;225 SF) is 35 acres or 1 , 524, 600 S.F. including berms that slope to ponds. 2. Dairy liquid waste product effluent delivered to ponds is 78, 330 gallons/day (See Animal Waste Analysis). 3. Total Annual precipitation in this area is 12"/year. 4. Lake and pond evaporation rate (best condition) is 40" of depth/year. 5. The limit far application of liquid wastes (from dairy lagoons) without soil sterilization on a consistent yearly basis is 6" depth/acre/year (S.C.S.Tables based on average salt and nutrient content of 4009 diluted animal waste). 6. No waste crust will be allowed to form on crop production areas irrigated by the waste. The waste must be mixed into the soil and subsoil continuously by cultivator or other soil mixing practice. 873077 - 2 - 7. Weld. County Zoning Ordinance Section 24.5. 1.5. 1 requires a 100-year Water Runoff Criteria. The Applicant only chose to use a 25-year event, for whatever reason. This analysis will thus- use .Ap.plicant' s 25-year data including runoff, but it is noted to be incorrect. • 8. Since ground and climate conditions can easily be frozen or snow covered as early as October 15 and as late .as April 15, a more reasonable 6-month period for non-irrigation sprinkling is assumed rather than 5 months. 9. Only 100 acres of crop production land remains after complete dairy is built. The following analysis is made based on the above assumptions, not those provisions by the Applicant ' s Proposal for Special Use Review. 1. Limit of pond waste storage use for sprinkler irrigation. Limit = (6" waste/year )(100 acres) = (.51 )(43,560)(100 ) = 2,178,000 CF/Year or 16,291 , 440 gallons/year limit. 2. Total liquid run into ponds, annually • Dairy effluent - 78,330 gal/day = 28,590,450 GPY This includes average annual rainfall, barn wash effluent, and net liquid waste from cows not trucked out as semi-solid waste. NOTE: This excludes the 25 year event ❑f 3.8" rainfall w/3.22" runoff. 3. Exclusive of the 25-year event or the required 100-year event, the liquid surplus to be hauled offsite to prevent soil sterili- zation due to excessive salts applied by over-irrigation of liquid wastes is : Yearly diluted liquid run into ponds - 28, 590, 450 GPY Less maximum applied to 100 acres/year- (16,291 ,440 GPY) Yearly net to be hauled offsite - 12, 299, 010 GPY This is the daily equivalent of 7000 gallon tankers 5 times @ 80,000 lbs out and 5 times @ 20,000 lbs in. If the 25-year event is considered, the storage pond design capacity must be at least as follows : (assuming 6 months storage, not able to • sprinkle irrigate) _ 3 - 1. Total 25-Year Event on 35 acres as captured runoff, Total = (35 ) (43 ,560 )(3.22" ) = 409, 178 CF 12 (Neglects the .58" cliff. in rainfall of ponds that will result from 3.8"rainfall or about 8800 CF) 2. Total Process Mater w/o Rainfall Dairy total daily effluent = 47, 130 GPD For 6 months = (47, 130)(180) = 8,483,400 = 1 , 134, 144 CF 3. Average precipitation on 35 acres far 6 months Assume winter distribution of 3" total precipitation. Rainfall equivalent = 3 (35) (43,560) = 381 , 150 CF 12 4. Must assume minimal evaporation cue to scum and floating sludge, plus low or no-heat days during the 6-month period. 5. If the perfect evaporation over the entire ponds area : (40" depth annually) Annual evaporation removal = ((40" 1)181 ,225 SF) = 603,479 CF possibly, 20% efficiency due t:3216w-heat days and 10% of that due to scum can be assigned. This is only a guesstimate = 12,000 CF. 6. Total liquid to consider for retention during 6-month period : a. 25-year event 409.178 CF b. Process effluent 1, 134; 144 CF c. Precipitation on 35 A. 381 , 150 CF d. Less possible evap. (12,000 CF) Net Required Storage 1 , 912, 472 CF OR an under-design capacity of 300,222 CF 7. The total surplus to be hauled offsite yearly due just to 25-year event is : , 409, 178 CF = 3,060,651' GPY. The number of 7200 gallon truckloads required at 7200 gallons/truck is 425 80,000 lb loads. • - 4 - SUMMARY The total waste removal management system proposed is grossly under designed, necessitating physical hauloff of liquid waste by truck.. _ .In .addit.i.on, no mention is made in the proposal of utilizing the 100-year rainfall criteria as required by the Weld County Ordinance Section 24.5. 1.5. 1. This would increase the under design by at least 2-300%. No mention is made in the Applicant' s proposal of how they plan to retain runoff at the south end of the proposed side, running west to east on Weld County Road #38. Significant concerns about area pollution, ground water contamina- tion, and odor have not been addressed. Specifically, there is no mention as to how the Applicant proposes to solve the following : 1. Ground water contamination due to seepage in the containment corrals. 2. Runoff of surface water caused by the proposed French Drains (to be located downstream, but adjacent to the ponds to prevent pond bottom rupture in the summer), discharging for approximately six months. 3. Capture of crop land surface runoff of wastes caused by heavy summer rains, which are quite common. The clay soils on this farm, and all in this area, seal up and discharge runoff during a 1yr" - 2" rainfall. 4. The application of pure lagoon wastes on cropland in the summer without burial, the resultant 100-acre site (encrus- ted with deposits from the maximum 6" waste application), will be highly polutting in the following areas : a. If crop production is grass or hay , no agitation is possible. The odor from 100 acres will be unbearable. b. Ground water contamination is very probable due to soil penetration of the wastes at this high rate of appli- cation. c. Physical penetration of this long-term pollution (as carried by ground water) into exposed building basements such as the Adler Home next to Road 38 south of the pro- posed facility. They consistently pump seep water from the proposed site each summer during irrigation season as it passed below Road 33 in the existing shale formation. 5. The system as designed, is anaerobic in nature and, in our climate, is not considered a true waste treatment facility. PP-7C ,_ '' - 5 6. The anaerobic system generally stops functioning in cold winter months. High surface odor is common in these lagoons. Mechanical surface agitation helps the odor problem somewhat, but Applicant does not propose to do this. 7. Eats and protiens in the mii.k that finds its way to the storage ponds is a major disposal problem. They will not decompose in anaerobic system and cannot be removed in settling ponds. The Applicant has not addressed this problem. 8. The area of the ponds falls within the very low side of design perimeters (50 to 125 SF)/cow. This dairy is 67 SF per cow and should be toward the upper end due t❑ tempera- ture and elevation conditions of the site year round. 9. Prevailing winds in the area of the proposed facility are generally from the west and northwest in the summer time. At timas, strong east winds occur. The upslope conditions of the mountains tend to deflect southerly winds since this area is close to the foothills. Thus Stapleton wind rose is not accurate for this area. Summer winds will distribute severe odors over residents at Northmoor Acres (a very large family residential area) as well as all farm residents within several miles distance. 10. Odor problems at the CSU Dairy Waste Disposal System have forced the closing of a very sophisticated lagoon system, and now requires removal of all wastes by truck. All of the foregoing shows that the Applicant's proposal is in direct violation of the Comprehensive Use Plan as well as several special Sections ❑f the Weld County Zoning Ordinance - current edition. PREPARED BY: R. C. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 •S # t .4 f • -�;� Aj �,{ �. A _ / . 4 ��"� a i i At lk • 715441Witii..711131""144:241116111)11.-- ..(4444, % Wed 4$$ISlarillt6: l 1.� OP r . ::. rie--...„.,-. I p. at ii.4::.4 i....:;1... .,..itillgrele. 1 inaroortmoise, . _.. .__,,, ,,,_, far/ 4 , malrosta - 1 1 1 i a 13) III , Ira k. VI •-•?4* O. ;• 1 . - .. ,filto ikrarei_ cligrw . ii . .tionali 4,„„ pi, il r ji, it, fr.,,,, 4,4 91, s e -."--lt , , !, 1 . t;v. 1%4 A *mon - • Dit-v1/4. , L7%.........1,..,:‘ . ea ,. lir' ,,,,,......4,_ ;... . .... g •,..,... ..., „ , ta,,,,,,,, , , . ..„ ii„, • -tt .. .. , , �. 1srp,0 'fib �.�- > ..trissir Ott?, ill., a . bk..-, 1 Th..-it-''.' Ira lir • ‘ 411fiestafidilSaffit0111 k(I's- .e"Or. •allieladeti: cs..., sLe.le t ....eis Mt ;. „.. ,,,,b., „,...,. .....,.:.,..„ . . .„.40, 4 ,yan tae - P,� :• i(, j ry} j Yrafr/ r s w 1� f Iii \i iJ:r • kis rati3JLEktj _Nut WititiOa A :- r.,-- ti-: t.... • : . . \ 1''WiYcat L:RKcr �s--.tPe i 4 St .a " , \ s r'i i' -- e11j: i 1. � o e�e � ��yr�J.� 14 i bit a N. • ° i 1 `p� .4 rill, k►.'r .?7it.,, ',. .7,; C'..;Pr.t..4r-'.. ,. r .• , r . -.. .... r,.... • tillgarst‘‘. yY1 • • • COLORADO'DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH . WATER C(1ALITY CONTROL CCM"1ISSION • GUIDELINES • • DESIGN OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF • CONTAINMENT FACILITIES ?W( 1978 ag6wiist;ar - f ' S '_COLORADO. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH • '‘Water Quality, Control Commission 4210;E". `11th"Avenue. Denver ; Colorado': 80220 Adopted: >' May 3, 1978. Effective: May 3, '1978 r - 8 , GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTAINMENT FACILITIES 8.3. 1 AUTHORITY C.R.S. 1573, 25-8=202(I) (i) and (2) and, 25-a-205(1)(b) and (c) , as amended. 8. 3.2 PURPOSE The purposes of this publication are to provide guidance for the design and construction of runoff containment facilities to comply riTt state and federal regulations and to provide technical informa- tion °ETTA ich to base the review of plans and specifications. -Al- ternate criteria will be accepted if it can be justified. ' 8.3:'3 DEFINITIONS (I) "COMMISSION" means the Colorado Water Quality Control Cctn- •. • • - mission. . (2) "DIVISION" means the Water Quality Control Division, _Colo rado Department- of Health. : . (3) "FEEDLOT" means a concentrated animal feeding operation for meat, milk, or egg production, or stabling in pens or houses - wherein the animals or poultry are fed at the place of con- finement and crop or forage growth or production is not sustained in the area of confinement. (4) "10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM" means that storm of a 24-hour dura- tion which yields total precipitation of a magnitude that has the probability of recurring only once every 10 years. Such values are provided in Figure 1 _ (5) "25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM" means that storm of a 24-hour dura tion which yields total precipitation of a magnitude that has the probability of recurring only once very 25 years. Such values are provided inFigure 2. i Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff .Containment Facilities • Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3, 1978 • • (6) "WATERS OF THE STATE" means any.and all surface and sub surface waters which arc contained in or flow in or through this state, except waters in sewage systems, waters in treatment works of disposal systems, waters in potable water distribution systems, and all water wjthdrawn .for use until use and' treatment have been completed. (7) "DRAINAGE AREA" means feedlot containment areas, alley- ways, manure holdings and storage areas, and other ap- purtenantareas solid be manure excrement. , 8.3.4 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS (1 ) Provision is required for adequate drainage to prevent the col- lection of contaminated waters within feedlot or stockyard en- closures, areas where manure is stockpiled. or other appurte- • nant areas. Ali livestock'confinement areas, alleyways, etc. , should be graded to prevent arcumuiat.ions of surface waters and to drain all contaminated water to adequate -retention facili- ties. Drainage-ditchesshall be provided as necessary. (2) All possible mean; to minimize quantities of contaminated run- off should be implemented: Uncontaminated storm runoff from areas external to the feedlot should be diverted by means of interceptor ditches, earth embankments, etc. , from flowing over the drainage area. (3) All runoff containment facilities should be designed with the means for proper and efficient maintenance in mind. - . tire,. (4) An engineering report should be prepared and submitted to this Division 60 days prior to construction For review for any type of control or treatment. facility. The report should be prepared under the seal of a professional engineer licensed to practice engineering in the State of Colorado or .x+r��r the Soil Conservation Service ma a r i n j m n • facilities at a feedlot. Such plans prepared by the So-il Conservation Service do ct+mpl t with the professional engineer requirement. The report should contain all pertinent in- formation that will affect the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed facility and shall include -but not be limited_- • to the following; . • • (2) • . Gutdalines ror Design or heculot Runoff Containment Facilities t Adopted: May 3, 1978 1 , Effective: May 3, 1978 (a) The location and direction of,all residences, commercial developments and domestic water supplies or sources within I/2 mile of the • proposed tactiity. (b) Results of scil studies to determine surface and subsurface soil characteristics of the area proposed For location of the facility. . - (c). Direction of prevailing winds. (d) Acreage of pen, and appurtenant areas. (e) Dimensions (feet) and capacities (acre-feet) of-containment structures. . • • (f) Design storm in inches per 24-hour period. (g) Acreage available for disposal of liquid and • solid waste and location of •the acreage. • (h) A map of the drainage area arid containment _ facilities drawn to a legibtctscale. • (i) Projected seasonal high groundwater through- outsh of the retention facilities. This will generally en occur in the spring of • the year. {tO(A t1 u I rt,Yty (5) One of the main considerations in the guidelines is proper • operation and maintenance of the pens and containment facili-, ties. The above includes but is not limited to maintenance of grades for drainage, proper disposal of runoff with the allotted time, cleaning of pens on .the average of once a year and cleaning of runoff containment ponds as necessary but at least once every four years. Facilities as exist at • a dairy may require more frequent cleaning due to the daily volumes. es 4— 6 J,3_(6) Runoff containment facilities must be capable of containing . runoff from a IO-year 24-hour or 25-year 24-hour desi3n storm. /o , 7 pz. For facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 1LC%&+l?, System (NPOES) permits, the design storm must correspond with that stated in the permit; The design engineer should refer co the appropriate state and federal regulations and laws relative to feedlots for determination of the proper design . storm. csnry yr..�,., -3- Guidelines for Design of Feedlot • Runoff Containment FacsIitie • Adopted: 'May. 3, 1978 Effective: May 3. 1978 • (7) From a review of documents and data, it has been determined that the volume of containment facilities should he based on runoff, as opposed tb actual precipitation. For feedlots that have an earthen base, runoff may be obtained by using the Soil Conservation runoff curve 91 shown in .Figure 3. For feedlots that are primarily paved, the Soil Conservation Service runoff curve 95 shown in Figureeuld be used: If conditions at a facility would result in more•than-average runoff (excessive slope) , partial pavement, etc.) a more conservative runoff curve than required above should be utilized. More conservative curves • can be .found in the National -Engineering Handbook , Section 4, Hydrology. • (8) Containment of runoff'need not always be controlled by actual .ponds. If containment can be guaranteed by location or by diking or terracing an area, this will be acceptable. In- the case of-containment by location, an onsite inspection by per- . sonnel of this Division will be necessary. Diking or terracing to provide containment will require an engineering report as discussed in Section 8. 3.4(4) , Water originating-upgradient of the dra.inage 'area will need to be diverted around the feed . lot and any manmade structures designed and constructed for - containment of feedlot runoff. 8.3,5 SEALED STRUCTURES All runoff containment structures that will hold liquid must be sealed. Removal of porous top soil and proper compaction of suitable sub-soil improves the water holding characteristics of the bottom. - Removal of porous -material such as gravel or sandy pockets and replacement with • suitable. material may be required. Suitable`materials,for sealing may include a clay blanket, 'asphalt coating or manure. 8.3.6 RUNOFF CONTROL FACILITIES (l) Sedimentation Structures: Sedimentation ponds `or •sedimenta- tion ditches should be provided ahead of all evaporation and • retention bonds. (2) Sedimentation Ponds (a) Capacity - The capacity of the pond should be on the ' order of 20% of the runoff volume from the .10-year `' 24-hour design storm_ for Design of Feedlot . •; Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: Hay 3, 1978 • Effective: Hay 3, 1978 • • (b) Inlet and Outlet Structures - Inlet and outlet strut- • tures of the pond should be situated ' so as to avoid short circuiting of flows through the pond. In addi- • tion, the outlet structure should facilitate dewater- • ing of the solids. An example is the use of a flash- • board overflow weir. (c) Depth: The pond depth should be minimal , less than 3- feet (0.91 meters), and facilitate easy maintenance ' by`mobile equipment. (3) Sedimentation Ditch (a) Location - I.t should be located outside the pen area for easier cleaning and maintenance. • (b) Gradient - Where site conditions permit,' the gradient should allow a Velocity of flow; under design storm conditions, of not more than l ft/sec. (30.48 cm/sec.) . ' (c) Side Slopes - The side slopes should be at least 8 to 1 . • 8. 3.7 . RETENTION PONDS WITH LAND APPLICATION • All retention pond systems shall be sealed and have a means for • proper disposal of the retained wastes within 15 days after each Storm. • (1) Capacity - The pond' should be capable of Containing__ al_l_zuoo Lfr n th&fe jlot and appurtenant areas that' results from the design storm. Precipitation resulting from a 10-year 24-hour and 25-year 24-hour storm event mall' /Der_ are shown by ' Isopluvial lines in Figures 1 and 2. If a muss sedimentation pond cannot be provided ahead of the re- tention pond, the capacity should be increased by 20% wane CTly of the runoff volume from the 10-year 24-hour. storm.• .-.�. (2) Shape - The shape of the pond should facilitate ease of cleaning and maintenance with the- tguipment to be used. • / (3) Depth - A maximum depth of 15 feet (4.57 meters) is recom- mended. , In addition, a minimum of 2 feet (0.$1 meters) should exist between the pon _ invert and the projected seasonal high water table. . (5) C. mss,• s Quiedelines for Design of Feedlot • Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: tfay 3, 1978 • Effect,ive: Hay 3,_ t978 • (4) Surface Arca - Exact criteria do not exist on ject. However, retention this sub- . ponds of several surface acres�. should be avoided due to otential odor roblems. It is recommended .that onds 1?_;___,pproaching several aes_Should _ be separated into at least 2 ponds. The first • series should provide 20 to 25 pond in sign capacity with the second percent ngo he[aI a , econd pond providing the remaidnder. In this way. the smaller volumes of runoff normally en- • countered. can he collected in the first pond. . • • (5) Bottom - A slope, not to exceed 0.5"x, should be provided toward the pump. This will aid in dewaterine and help to minimize odors.. • (6) 'Embankments and Dikes - Embankment; and dikes should be con- strcted of relative! im impervious materials and sufficicntl to form y p ng -fitted Y a stable structure in keeping i�ith standard dam construction practices.. All v he removed rrom the area upon which ucturti is should the stru placed- cture s ':o be (7) Side _ Sl=opes - Side and end slopes, both inside and out, should be no steeper than 2 feet (0•bi meters) horizontal to 1. foot (0:3.0 meters) vertical . However, the equipment for cieani;ng and maintaining the facility and soil charac teristics should actually dictate the stone- in the event it should be flatter. . • (8) Width - The top width of _the dike should 8 feet 2.11.E meters) be a minimum of - ( to permit access of maintenance • vehicles. (9) S.9.ILLDiTLI - . Spillways should he provided on all retention• ponds to prevent a washout of the pond during a precipita- tion event exceeding the design storm. The volume of pond . to the invert of the spillway shouid: beat least thx[. - Section 8.3. 7(1 ) , (10) Freeboard - Freeboard of at least 1 foot (0.30 meters) should existaround the pond and should he measured above the invert of the spillway. Greeter` freebor-,rd should be provided where ' - `wind action dictates such. ` - .•(It) Erosion Protection Provision should be made• to protect the ' 6. r •.:. .,... y.. w. . Vic....,. - - Runbff Containment Facilities • ' Adopted. . May 3, 1978 • Effective:' , nay' 3, 1978 • embankment from erosion. Normally, seeding with suitable grass above the high water line is acceptable. However, greater protection such as riprap may be necessary de- pending on soil conditions and pond size. (12) Fencing - The pond should-be enclosed with a stock type _ fence. A vehicle access gate of sufficient width to accommodate maintenance equipment and trucks should be provided. • (13) Land Disposal Systems - A retention pond is designed to contain runoff from one major storm only. Distri-bution of the waste may be achieved by tank- trucks, irrigation systems or other methods. It ' is mandatory that the land distribution system provided be capable of removing the . volume of :waste at -designed 'retention capacity within 15 days after the storm. In addition, the disp_osed waste cannot return to waters of the state. "'�" R./A.-t o 2 L:4a oyi 8.3.8 TOTAL EVAPORATION SYSTEMS a Jab. " litltabe; Lv3 /-54 Systems. of this type ,are not suitable for use in many areas of the state due to odor Problem and land requirements. An additional problem for a system of this type lies, in designing a suitable system that guarantees compliance with state 'and federal regulations but yet is not drastically over-designed. The Soil Conservation Ser- • vice has a procedure based on the annual :ainfill expected I yeQr in 25, and the annual evaporation expected 9 years in 10. If.a total evaporation system must be utilized, the design should be based on ' • this SCS'procedure. Information relative' to the procedure can :be found in Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual , August 1975, pages 12-70. • 8.3.9 BIOLOGICAL- TREATMENT • Biological treatment systems for runoff from feedlots would be diffi- cult and eApensive to operate. In some operations, such as totally enclosed facilities, a biological treatment system may be desirable. • However, land disposal of the waste may still be required due to stringent effluent limitations. Completed plans and specifications for any biological treatment system shall be submitted tothis Divi • sion for review before construction is initiated. • 8.3..10 ENCLOSED LIVESTOCK, CONFINEMENT FACILITIES Enclosed facilities such as dairy or some swine operations produce a -7 •• '. tuidclines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3, 1978 rather continuous waste stream. General practice is to collect this waste in liquid manure holding tanks for extended periods followed by land disposal . This system has proven successful . Twin-cell settling basins, two in parallel , have also proven successful. While one is used, the other is dried and cleaned. The sizing of the ponds need not be excessive as flow to them is usually limited. 8. 3. 11 NOTIFICATION Upon completion of a containment or treatment facility immediate notification, in writing, should be made to the Division. In- cluded with this notification should be "as built" dimensions of the respective ponds: • • -8. 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS REVIEW OF PROPOSED WASTE POND DESIGN From Drawing Sheet 1 of 2 of the Applicant' s proposal, the Profile of the proposed ponds is as shown on Sheet 2. The next exhibit, entitled "Waste Pond Profiles" expands for your clarity the proposed pond design of the proposal, shows the Colorado Health Department Guideline Require- ments for Sedimentation Pond depth and proximity to_projected ground water, and, finally , a pictorial representation of what those guidelines require for the proposed waste treatment facility. Looking at Profile D (or Section A_A for: 120❑ cows) on sheet 1 , the proms osal shows the pond bottom (invert) at 4934' and existing ground elevation of 4949' at the north end of the pond. This is 15' of excava- tion to finished bottom; but proposal also cells for 2' of compacted clay, or 17' depth of penetration from the surface. The finished pond bottom_ of compacted clay would then be 11 feet below the top of ground water (4' below grade) found by the Consultant during test borings. Final excavation depth would be 13' below the top of ground water eleva- tion.' the 4' below grade depth to top of ground water was during October - well past the irrigation season. A reasonable projection for ground water at peak irrigation and soil water profile saturation is June, July, and August. At this time, from the irrigated basin above (north) of the proposed facility, water movement to the south would be anticipated, due to the shale shelf throughout this area. First indication of water levels in this area, just by putting in fence pasts, is 2 - 23i' during this time. Guidelines cell for pond invert to be no lower than 2' above prcjec_ ted ground water profile. The ponds will therefore be required to be composed of berms of earth hauled in, compacted and standing some 15' in height at the north end of each pond and approximately 21 ' at the south end. This is a huge .quantity of dirt end must all be removed from elsewhere on the site to be even realistically economical. - Again, the Applicant did not consider all the rules. French Drains, by the way, would never solve the ground water problem in the Applicant' s proposal. If, for some reason., .the Colorado Health Department accepted the proposed design, some form of ground water drainage would be required, and it would have to be pumped into the waste storage minds due to contamination by waste permitatio.n..Y.rnm the cow confinement area, which at present, shows no sealing systems to prevent ground water contamination. In nonc.lu.s.i.on, the applicant has. not. addressed the. design parameter requirements required ta the Colorado Health Department. SUBMITTED BY: R. B. WILLSON ✓ "" ' "� Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. • DATE: January 16, 1987 • 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS TECHNICALSUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITY• 1 . Applicant fails to provide documented proof of compliance to all re- quirements of waste "treatment. 2. Applicant admits that Consultant has never developed a dairy proposal:- 3. Applicant could have used Soil Conservation Service (S.C.S. ) - a free service - as the planner, whose Base Criteria and Field Design Manual form the basis of Colorado Health Department guidelines. 4. Applicant fails to consider the 100-year requirement. 5. Applicant chose the most odorous but cheapest waste storage system. 6. Even by reducing herd size to 1200,. :Applicant does not consider sterilizing soil- (SCS recommends not every year application only alternate years. This means that the same waste volume size must be hauled off as for a 2400-cow herd:) In fact, Applicant has testified they will use onit 50 acres to sprinkle, not the 100 acres as the 2400-cow system proposed. 7. Applicant fails to consider those steps that can be taken to minimize odor, i.e. , keeping ponds full (10' depth) to maximize anaerobic action 'lower odor), aereation of surface to cause aerobic action during summer months, design review by users of these types of . Waste Treatment Facilities. in the area. (Example: CSU' s Mr. Bill Wailes, Manager of CSU Dairy and Facilities. ) 8_ Applicant provides only testimony as to the injection or sprinkling on the ponds of a "blue-green" algae substance that would be provided by a. local product sales company, whose salesman testified only that they had "great confidence" in using their product - none of which is currently or has been used in Colorado for reducing odor far !21 large confinement operations waste storage lagoons - no written documentation or proof of chemical composition, S.C.S. acceptance, Colorado Water Quality Health Commission acceptance, o: even useage of the material, has been submitted - only oral discussion. 9. Applicant provides no monitoring of the proposed French Drain for ground water polution; and, when questioned by the Board of Commissioners proposes to discharge effluent from the French Drains' opening into the field below. .th.e ponds. In fact, however, the -Colorado Guidelines require .thabottom of the ponds (invert) to be a minimum of 2 ft from the projected seasonal high-water table (4' below surface as tested by Applicant on October 16, 1986 - well past the maximum irrigation season). No design intent has been shown as to technique of removal from the facility of French Drain effluent, its composition,❑r the quantity of water involved. As a minimum, written documentation as to the proposed solutions ❑f - the problems 'should have been presented_ • 10. Applicant has failed-'aver and over again to document his solutions to problems he apparently is unaware of. Submittal of sufficient data for review is mandatory to enable the Board to reach denial (or approval ) decision. r 2 _ . • 11. Oral testimony, with statements such as "We will comply with requla.tto.ns" , or. ".We want to be good neighbors" , is certainly insufficient proof of the Applicant's fulfillment of Weld County Ordinance Requirements - and certainly not commensurate with sound engineering and planning operations. 12. As a professional Engineer and Consultant, with over 28 years of formal education and experience all over the United States - dealing with governmental requirements, waste and facility water system design and planning of large and small facilitiea for, a great number of clients (both private and government), I am saddened to see such a low level of effort put forth by the Applicant in addressing this proposal to the Board of Weld County Commissioners - and, for some reason, not even commenting on many basic requirements. This shallow review of the proposed waste treatment facility is just one example of non-compliance with the regulations. 13. In conclusion,. I urge the Weld County Board of Commissioners to actually visit The Colorado State University' s Research Dairy Facility. Mr. Bill Wailes, _General Manager for the Facility, con- ducts daily tours for a variety of visitors. He will personally conduct you throughout the entire facility and discuss any aspect of dairying you wish to know. They are - recognized as one of the leading authorities in the United States on design, research, operations and management, of simple or complex dairy systems. At the same time, please, before reachinc any conclusions on Applicant' s proposal, please ask Mr. Mel Brown to give you a guided tour of the CSU Dairy Facility' s Waste Treatment Facility. Mr. Brown has been operating this system for several years and is extremely knowledgeable of the pitfalls and problems associated with large confinement livestock facilities waste treatment. • Tours may be arranged with only day' s notice. It would be most expedient to arrange with Mr. Brown to accompany you and start the Waste Treatment Tour immediately after the Dairy Tour. You may contact:. 1. Mr. Bill Wailes (or Mr. Willy McConnell or Mr. Ken • Schallenberger) at 491-1239 or 491-1279, Fort Collins. 2. Mr. Mel Brown - 587-2249 (evenings - Mr. Brown has several field locations and cannot normally be reached in the day. ) • 6056 .:(114hara SUBMITTED 8Y: MR. R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 16, 1987 ' y- C S U - 400 COW • i _ ' o . a - A• cr WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY f r- L<3 o FLOW DIAGRAM w cn - E } F•, O. U3 O • 1m m, m a w d J U7 - Y . q - 2 O C7 - - O2 K • ‘ cn o_ a W U] HI- „- - - O C3 O 1- w - cc U W. m H w a m ¢ O z q OOJ , •••-• 0 0 2 O - C - O J [3. 4a. 2 wwu_ z . O W Cl) O Q I- • W - - OJW O .. D ,•y. d C7 a I- d EL • }44 O H• r Q: a .-m °- O ¢ cn. J 0 a .a ww o d o cc C 4- a 0- W C7 _ . ..a O U LAW . C`.C CC O - U3 W W w O U3 .w O - - O z M CO 2 ' O F- O S, w W Ls_ O O U3 • -N d O • J J w O o a - .. to " 3 v O f• ¢ W w O3 F d d- J ✓..-. i . U3 O •d Cl) N M d. . r • O _ O 7 • 0. . F-. O. 1•"1 2 J w J J d �Li r Li o w - F '` • EXERCISE z "" z CONFINEMENT o z .. � + o z . O LOAFING .__4 w , --•= ' ( 0 CO W ,c? C ' O . CO q a O St1ED/ w O ca W o ¢ . CD a I- CL q ,e ...• �� Cr O o w CONFINEMENT a a o ` w r cc a C [17 d O At��,,,m C'_ 9 .� O d W _O 1- C )-4 )-- �.J O cn C d O . v O O 3 ma MILKING a z M BARN a O O m CD'''': 57•7:1•1-3 tils ID i 6y PREPARED BY: R. 8. WILLSON , Engineering Consultant, 8.S.M.E. 1-18-87 • MI Parr c a - vl � il1 1 N 1 9 , 4 J anuary 14, 1987 Dear Weld County Commissioner ,'-, dDn aCS4: 11 I was saddened not to have the chancetto addreslayou today: therefore I hasten with some comments which I sincerely hope you will take the time to read. Please excuse typing errors. It has been a long day for me as well. I thought as I sat that how ironic it was that exactly 36 years ago today my-Father-purchased -our "320" acresttl lie.:tdiret°tly auth-a ;avrozs -the road from the proposed dairy farm. Dad was Dr. Harvey Brewbaker, Ph.D. in Agronomy from the U. of Minn. and for many years director of research at the _ Experiment Station, G.W. Sugar Co. of Longmont. Dad.knew then he had purchased prime agricultural land and it has proven itself all of these 36 years. In retirement Dad traveled with with International Executive Service s to many lands. He was internationally known as an agricultural wizard. ers Upon his death my only sibling, Jim, and I became the co-owners of 'the Brewbaker-Sorensson Weld Co. Farm. Jim is Dr. James L Brewbaker, a graduate of Cornell University in Agronomy. For almost 30 years Jim has headed up the Horticulture Department, University of Hawaii. John was my husband of almost 32 years. His background was ranching, farming and industrial .management. He managed the farms until his sudden death in a car accident in 1984. At that time . I was suddenly left with all the problem a relatively young widow faces with 3 children, but almast also the managemen- of 320 prime acres in Weld Co. I have been forever grateful, then, for the help, concern, and clever manage- ment of our tenant farmer Gary Adler. Gary was hired by Dad 14 years ago and moved onto the farmer with a darling wife and 2 year old son. I point out the above only so that you will know that all these important men in my life have known agriculture so thoroughly and so very well. They recognized this acerage was prime and should be respected, managed that well. Thanksgiving, '86, Jim and family spent 3 short days with us. We all recog- nized at that time that we needed more information about Co. Diary Farms. Nov. 29th, at 4 PM we approached the mother facility on Hwy.66 heading west. We parted by the side, tested the 'winds on this very chilly afternoon and to be very polite, were extremely offended by the odor. We could estimate that where we were parked was about where the home of our teant, Gary Adler, would be located should the dairy farm go into existanott. Stated more correc4 his home would be located about that close to the lagoons proposed. We then visited with Asst. Gen. Manager, Mr. George Smith. Our visit lasted slightly over two hours for we discussed the proposed farm and its implication from all angles, pro and con. We saw and discussed the blueprints and asked all manner of questions. When we left we were unsatisfied and remain so today Is the proposal consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plants? We think now, that Pi is not. Unanswered are such concerns as: 1) What about the environmental m made on otherwise peaceful prime agricultural land. Traffic, air and water pollution? The very real danger of underground pollutants seeping onto our property? 2)Could this not drastically alter the life-styles of those who have chosen to live on, the, land, love' and protect the- -land. Survive from what the land will give them. Given the number of people I know who wish to sell now, won't land values plummet? They all believe so. These people are sufferin€ They are being faced with changed life-styles that directly affect themselvc and their families. ExHIs'T XX s rage 2 - \ 3) We asked ourselves how dan such a facility be allowed or even thought of in view of the 1985 Federal Government bbuy-ouy wprogre am to ares ductoday> e the quantities of dairy products being p this is not supposed to be a major concern of yours but I can asking assure you the taxpayers who can be directly affected are certainly that question of us, who are involved. We can find no logical reason for approval= y -because"M that question to begin with. 4) We asked Mr. Smith, wasn't land in the immediate area of the mother facility for sale and he answered that yes, there was, but it was considered far too expensive. We wondered aloud why the company not willing to pay for land more expensive. initially, which lay immediately adjacent to the mother facility and therebi central ize ethe entire operation? Surely by doing so the company regain initial expense rather quickly and over years of wouldoperation would rea- lize a dividend on that money. Mr. Smith' s answer a s was ve n this ry Vague at most--he referred to higher level management. l recall that very question was raised today. I can not take tineffrom my job to attend more meetings. but I earnestly hope you some kind of answer to this in the rebuttal. 5) We asked about the incestides that would be used to control pests and Jim, who works with pesticides daily on his experimental farm in Hawaii, was not convinced with the answers. , So, as stated before, we left this discussions leaving d answers and remain so today. However, Mr. Smith he if he would answer one remaining question as honestly as possible. said yes. I asked if it were his home or the home of persons especially dear to *Wines the Adlers are to us,- and oifshi the dairy--would f someorheirs s located as close as it will be: to the catching b concerns? He thought a moment before answering that yes, he would share the no urging on.our part andve 3 ttorwhicheweEs to believesheesponse which he made answer d honestly. with no 'urging Finally, I refer to the following from the Codes 2+.5.1 .11 Uses by Special Review in the A-District shall best cated ons the least productive soils on the property in question the applicant can demonstrate why such a,, location would be impractical or infeasible. I-strongly believe the applicants have not addressed themselves to this issue in anyway at all. The application has been reduced, as of today, from 2,400 head to 1,200. Which reminds me of a question asked of Mr. Smith on-Nov. 29th. Jim asked how large the acerage was on Hwy. 6, the answer 150 Acres. And how many cattle, answer 3 700 It would em" to be out of reason, therefore, to i look at these 161 acres and in the future, somewhere, envision a population of that size or larger. • . In conclusion. I sincerely hope you will deny this application as being 1' unnecessary for the enhancement• of the persons of Weld Co. *Very truly yours. Ann Brewbaker Sorensson 1 i 0 SUMMARY I. Zoning Ordinance Section 25.5. 1.5. 1 - 100 Year Runoff Applicant is in violation A. Does Not address requirement (used 25-year runoff). 8. System is grossly under designed for waste storage ponds, including 100-year runoff. C. Applicant does not consider waste runoff impoundment at south end of property nor disposal methods of same. II. Applicant' s dairy waste management systems are in error or do not address the solution to the following : A. The method and means of daily removal from site of 97 tons solid waste (6 truck loads/day), and 36,000 gallons of surplus liquid waste daily by trucks of 7200 gallons capacity weighing 80,000 pounds (5 trucks daily). B. Applicant does not demonstrate how he will : 1. Prevent ground water pollution at the confinement area_ 2. Prevent odor pollution of neighborhood due to overloading 100-acre crop production area with crusted liquid wastes becoming air borne. 3. Prevent polluted ground water from entering residences' basements. 4. Provide French Drain Effluent capture. 5. Techniques of removal of fats and protiens in settlement ponds and particularily in the storage ponds. GuStrva PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 Bu, yIJ4�Y.1`4 M'* t 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DAILY ANIMAL WASTE • • From SCS Charts and review by local dairys, the following criteria is used : 1. Maximum daily feces and urine production for peak milk production is 90 lbs/1000 lb live weight cow or for 1400 lb adult milkers - 126 lbs/day. Volume of waste is 1.37 CF/1000 lbs liveweight or 1.92 CFjay for 1400 lb dairy cows. 2. Lagoon solid sedimentation is about 40,000 MG/liter, assuming 400% dilution of influent waste remaining after most solid removal or .333 lbs/gallon of retained, diluted dairy facility effluent. 3. Of the daily waste production of 126 lbs/day, approximately 37 lbs is compacted solids and 89 lbs is liquid waste or urine. It is estimated that of this total, only 63 lbs, or 50%, can be removed off site by manure spreaders as semi-solid waste. The makeup of this will be 30 lbs dry solids and 33 lbs of liquid. 4. Added to the removal of the semi-solid waste by truck is the bedding used. Study of local dairies shows use of 7 - 10 lbs/day/animal. Total daily solid waste removal then is as follows : a. Direct waste 63 lbs b. Bedding 7 lbs Total Waste 70 lbs/day/cow Dairy semi-solid waste removal per day = (70 )(2400 ) = 168,000 5. Sedimentation pond waste cleaning must be done periodically (Applicant states possibly every 3 months). This waste must be dried to haul off, so while one sediment pond is operating, the other can be pumped dry into other pond and scraped clean. Expec- ted sediment sewage is as follows: a. Influent to Ponds (Daily) (1 ). Direct cattle waste - (63 lbs)(2400) 18, 130 GPD 8.34 (2 ). Dairy barn and equipment wash/flush - 29,000 GPD (3). Average rainfall (12"/yr avg ) daily equivalent over 35 acres = 31,200 GPD • (4). Total retained daily - 78, 330 GPD. Assume no evapora- tion due to surface scum. - 2 - b. Daily equivalent pond waste removal : (.333 lbs/gal) (78,330 gal) =26,083 lbs/day 6. Total Equivalent Daily Waste Removal a. Dairy semi-solids 168,000 lbs h. Sediment solids 26,083 lbs Total waste 194,083 lbs or 97 ton/day (.04 ton/cow/day) This compares with local dairys that average .06 to .07 ton per cow per day without waste lagoons. 7. It must be assumed that the cattle confinement areas are sealed to prevent liquid percolation into the soil, thereby producing ground water contamination. 8. Haulout will be 97 ton/day —average manure truck capacity is 18 tons - or 6 trips out @ 50,000 lbs gross and 6 trips in @ 14,000 lbs empty. PREPARED 8Y: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 • • SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.5. 1. 1 -- ADEQUATE WATER SERVICE APPLICANT IN VIOLATION 1 . Applicant requires a minimum of 132,000 gallons per day, requested Little Thompson Water District to supply 144,400 gallons per day. 2. Little Thompson Water District will only commit to deliver 72,000 Lallons per day. 3. Dairy daily need short fall is 60,000 gallons per day. 4_ N❑ ajudicated wells OR drilling permits available in four-mile radius of site for any quality or quanity of water. 5. Water must be hauled in - minimum of 9 daily truck trips @ 7200 gallons/trip. 6. NO documentation has been provided as to Applicants alternate source of potable drinking water, in quantities needed. PREPARED BY: R. 8. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WATER REQUIREMENTS - DAILY 1. Assume 2400 head ALL milking 3 times a day as MAX. 2. Average daily drinking water per 1400-1b. cow = 4❑ gallons per day (GPD) - normal days - minimum 3. Four (4) Residences 4. Equipment and Udder Washing - 12 gallons per cow/day (Assume vacuum pumps and bulk tank compressor cooling are part of this) 5. Employees' (35 ) Toilet and Sanitary (includes general public consump- tion) 30 GPD/man 6. Sprinkler Systems Flushing - daily - 1/2 hour run time - 2 pumps - 150 GPM each 7. Contingency - Hat Dry Spells, Equipment Breakdown, etc. - assume 1.5% 8. Na Reserves Assumed CALCULATIONS (Peak Demand) 1. Drinking - 2400 x 40 96,000 GPD 2. Equipment, Lines & Udder Wash - 12 x 2400 29,000 GPD 3. Sprinkler Flushing (30) (300) 9000 GPO 4. Employee Sanitary (35) (30) (Septic) 1000 GPD 5. Residences - 4 x 170 GPD (Septic) 700 GPD Average Daily Input Needed 135,700 GPO 6. Assume Barn Flushing is REUSE of Line & Equipment Cleaning (5700 GPO) Daily Net Input Need 130,000 GPD 7. PLUS - Reasonable Contingency for 3 months Hot Weather & other miscellaneous needs - 1.5% 2000 GPD DAILY TOTAL NET INPUT NEED 132,000 GPD PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. January 10, 1987 • • 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT POTABLE WATER SUPPLIER Meeting with John Gruner, Manager, and Sarney Dykes, Operations Super- visor, on January 6, 1987, regarding request by Applicant. 1 . Little Thompson Water District (LTWD) will commit only to a 1" water tap w/meter at the 4" diameter trunk line an Weld County Road 38 - junction with Weld County Road 15 - with a 50 psi, 50 GPM restriction at the meter. The Applicant must install his own trans- port line from the meter to his point of use, at his expense. 2. Maximum water delivery available at the meter will be 72,000 GPD. 3. In the hot weather (approximately 5-6 months), the peak residential tap demand along this main feeder line is about 2.5 GPM continuous duty. The Computer Study of this section of the LTWD distribution net (from the 8" main feeding the Road 38 trunk to the end of service) shows the pressure drop to be about 50 psi at the area of the proposed new 1" tap. This would diminish the normal line pressure from 110 psi to 60 psi, which Mr. Dykes feels is an abso- lute minimum pressure to preclude minimal service to existing residential and farm water taps. 4. Actual output of the proposed 1 " tap at minimum 60 psi upstream pressure conditions in the main tank is indeterminable; but the 72, 000 GPD full-flow condition at 11C psi trunk pressure will de- minish, possibly 5-10% or a possible lowered output during peak demand periods of 65-68,000 GPD. 5. The possibility was discussed of system expansion by installing larger trunk lines, bigger pumps, etc. , by the District - for the benefit of the Applicant who had requested a 100 GPM tap (144,000 GPD). Mr. Gruner stated that LTWO' a commitment of 72,000 GPD maximum is all that can be provided by the existing system. He further stated that LTWD had authorized a computer study of the existing residential taps with a 50 psi , 72,000 GPD 1" tap. The study showed this is the maximum load increase without deleterious effects to existing taps. 6. A discussion was held to determine if the alternate-day watering full tap conditions would apply (voluntary) to the Applicant as well as all other system users. Mr. Gruner stated that it would not apply since the 1 " tap is deemed commercial. 7. Mr. Gruner stated that LTWD' s position is one of service. The system is approaching maximum capacity in some areas, and the possibility of mandatory water use restriction in the future is quite foreseeable - particularly in light of the new zoning for the Race Track on Road 9, 5 miles south of Road 38; the possible sewage district in the Del Camino area, and other high-family density units planned or zoned in the immediate area. As the exis- ting reserve for the Road 38 feeder line is used up, the possibility of any additional flow to this requested area will disappear. reS • • 2 - 8. The CWCWD (Central Weld County Water District) has an 18" main line running north to south on Road 15 from their 20" main running west to east on Road 42. Both lines are main feeders to their water districts. CWCWD' must coordinate all water usage with LIMO, since they share common treatment and feeder facilities. IF LTWD turns the Applicant down for any water service, then applications to CWCWD would require hydraulic analysis, review of current requests, such as the 12" main tap from CWCWD' s 18" main at Road 15 and Road 24. just to feed the proposed St Vrain Sanitation District at Del Camino, and majority approval by the Board, inclu- ding meeting all conditions set on the Applicant by the Weld County Board of Commissioners as condition for approval by Special Use Review. SUMMARY Based upon Mr. Dykes' letter to the Applicant, letter from Mr_ Gruner (attached) , and the above data, the following facts are presented : 1. Applicant will receive a maximum flow of 72,000 GPO potable • water at the junction of Roads 38 and 15. 2. High-peak demands in the summer months may reduce this to 65,00❑ GPD 3. Expansion of the existing system will not he made by LTWD for the benefit of the Applicant. 4. When the system reserves are diminished, mandatory full-flow restrictions will reduce Applicant' s water by 50% - or 36,000 GPD. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 '. rrin • • 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS SUPPLEMENTAL POTABLE WATER SOURCES 1 . REQUIREMENTS Without consideration of peak demand days of water consumption by the Applicant due to long periods of high-heat days in the summer, hot blowing winds, or drought conditions (all estimated to raise cow drinking consumption another 10 gallons per day maximum or a total dairy needs of an additional 24,000 GPD), and no mandatory water restrictions of up to 50%, the short fall of water provided by Little Thompson Water District (LTWD) is: Total Daily Average Consumption 132,000GPD Maximum LTWD Commitment 72,000GPD Average Daily Short Fall 60,000GPD OR 42 GPM delivered to the Dairy Watering System This short fall is consistent with the Dairy's original request to LTWD of 100 GPM when added to the 50 GPM commited by LTWD. 2. Provision of Daily Short Fall of 60,000 Gallons The availability of potable water in this area is restricted to two other sources. a. Adjudicated and Public Health Tested Wells. b. Hauling from a certified source, such as Platteville, Greeley, Johnstown, etc. - IF AVAILABLE. 3. Since the Applicant stated that the entire source of water will be LTWD, no indication or information is available as to the source for the additional 60,000 GPD. Applicant was notified by LTWD of the maxi- mum amount to be supplied (72,000 GPD) long before the Planners from the Planning Commission completed their report. 4. .A .survey conducted by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources (Mr. Les Dolby in Allen Berryman' s office, Greeley, Colorado), failed to uncover any ajudicated stock well Public Health Tested or not - within a 4-mile radius of the Applicant's site. In addition, very few domestic wells are in use due to the very high nitrate content of well water in this area. All ajudicated domestic wells, of course, are limited to a maximum flow of 15 GPM. Since the Applicant must make up the short fall for this proposed dairy, the following data must be supplied by Applicant to the Board of Commissioners for their review to determine if the Application meets USR standards and the Evaluation Guidelines: • ` • - 2 1. Letter of Commitment of supplemental water to supply up to 60,000 GPD 2. If well supply, what ajudication number? 3. If well or wells ajudicated for stock use, state code. 4. If well or wells, is water certified by Public Health Department? 5. What is water decree t❑ use water for dairy? 6. If water is to be hauled, who is transport company? What is their certification? List Public Health Hauling Permit Number. 7. What is cost impact on roads, highways, and bridges, of the added intensity of 9 dairy trips (7200 gallons or 80,000 lbs/trip gross weight) delivery and 9 trips empty of 20,000 lbs, every day, 365 days per year - or 3285 round trips per year? From where? 0 6, PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, 8.5.M.E. January 10, 1987 Iik NI LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT December 18, 1986 contrails: Caay 4.Babmoraen. Tel wel la 532 2086 PnYaant 361 ec 6 Avuare Owies OMAN Leo 6wt Beflhoud.Gilead,80513 KP01 C,ocn$t oand McGee -E.Thames Rkarp Doan Abaraon MANAGER Mrs. Nanette Adler 17972 Weld' County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 • Re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy in Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 67 West Dear Mrs. Adler: This letter is in response to your telephone request of December 17, 1986 relative to precisely what commitment the Water District has made for the proposed dairy. The commitments of the Water District are public information and as a District tapholder who may have experienced low water pres- sure during the summer months your concern on this matter is understood. _ Based on a telephone request in early August of this ,year, the District reviewed the possibility of providing water service to the proposed dairy. This review included an engineer's hydraulic analysis of our water mains in the area of Section 31 (please see enclosed sketch map) and this analysis concluded that the District could permit one new tap at the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and 38 if we allowed no more than 70 gallons per minute for that new tap. Based on this engineering analysis the District did commit to serve a single 1" water tap, subject to a 50 gallon per-minute restriction and subject to that tap being placed on the District's 4" water main located on Road 38 west of the intersection of Roads 15 and 38. The letter of commitment specifically stated that we would not commit to 'the full 70 gallons per minute figure identified by the engineering report as we did not want service to our existing tapholders placed in a "marginal" category. At this point and time, the limit of the District's commitment is for the single 1" tap with 50 gallons per. minute, which equates to 3,000 gallons per hour or 72, 000 gallons per day. The District could provide additional water for the dairy, up to 100 gallons per minute; however, to do this the. one mile of 4" water main on the south section line (Section 31). would have to be replaced with. 6" water main. The proposed dairy would be responsible for the costs associated with this one. mile of new line and this in fact could be • Page 2 December 18, 1986 Ltr to Mrs. Adler re: Water Cormnitment for proposed dairy accomplished providing the dairy agrees to fund the new water line. I trust that this will provide you with the information you have requested and if you need additional information, please advise. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Mrs . Reichert as she was also inquiring about this matter. Best wishes for a happy holiday season. S'ncerely yours, JO M. GRUNER, Manager Encl: Sketch Map of Area Copy to: Mrs.. Edward S. Reichert 19279 Weld County Road 17 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 s r; 7 L ,r \ \�\ f,' } ro tV / I )„ D 14Wa . Z n : CI - �` CAI. i 7 s; a e fff s n W ti z r_O ag 'p. a .• Y' nYl 411.•yl} f •.•1Y.i.••.'IJJJ: '�`" :(•:::••:•/ • VI A O7. ea 00.C960 Y • . til' i i l 1 I18 i' . ..... f LI " Q . 4 ) ROAD .15 Itc . 1.1 ° h 2" ,c i, `g ski1. • {\-, I v�._'� >Pr try N I , r• 1 { • fiat, EE i s . . . ;: . { 2 wa 4.42..9) 2 1 y j (• '1 Q I • • ' sn , � ,I tit 14 liF ' di I b • • . ' .. t 5 :1. ite i I I(/ s. t 1.. l M • . - ), 1 \ %,. \ - N fi •2 �. .4, S t / 1 z o m �� r' �'" — ..f r • LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DiRECTef6: January 9, 1987 Telephone 532-2096 Carey J.Slotnoraon, 307 Welttt Avenue PieidM Drawer 6 Chan Men - Berthoud.Cobrado 80513 Leo 8eke1 Kean GOOnauiel Davie McGee E.Thomas Wcona Dean Anderson MANAGER. JOM M,DmnM Mrs. Nanette Adler 17972 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 Re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy in Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 67 West • Dear Mrs. Adler: The purpose of this letter is to confirm some of the information that we discussed in our meeting of January 6, 1987 regarding the water commitment for the proposed dairy. The Water District has made a commitment for water service and that is identified below. Additionally, it appears that there is an existing residential-sized water service which presumably could be utilized by the proposed dairy and that is also shown below: Flow in gallons Flow in gallons Tap Size-Commitment per minute per day _ One inch Tap(Commitment) 50 GPM 72, 000 gallons 5/8"x3/4" Tap(Existing) 10 GPM 14, 400 gallons _ Totals 60 GPM 86,400 Gallons It is to be emphasized that the Water District has only committed_ to fifty .gallons per minute, via the one inch tap, to the proposed dairy and the relationship of the existing 5/8" tap to the proposed dairy is not known. This Water District has not made any verbal 'or written commitment to Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. of Longmont relative to any amount of water being available to the proposed dairy. Each summer the Water District has encouraged all tapholders to participate in a voluntary program involving Odd/Even watering days for outside irrigation. It is anticipated that this will continue. The District does not have a mandatory program for residential tap- holders or for commercial tapholders. In the event you desire any additional information regarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely yours, J RN M. GRJNER, Manager S SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24.4.2.6 - "DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORT TO CONSERVE PRIME LAND AND LOCATE IN NON-PRODUCTIVE AREAS" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1. Applicant chose proposed facility in heart of Weld County Prime agriculture crop production area (Sea USGS/SCS Aerial Overlays). 2. Applicant has demonstrated no effort to choose nun-productive land for facility. 3. Applicant is apparently unaware that non-productive land that meets the Zoning. requirements is available just east of Platteville, Colorado - et a much lower cost per acre - $400- $500/acre and not the $2200/acre he paid for the proposed facility (without irriga- tion water). C< C CLola,. PREPARED SY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, S.S_M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DILIGENT EFFORT TO CONSERVE PRIME AGRICULTURE LAND The Applicant does not discuss what efforts were made to locate his facility in a Weld County land area not detrimental to prime agriculture land. The Warranty Deed enclosed in the Applicant's proposal is dated August 7 , 1986. No water rights were passed on to the Applicant from the seller - Mr. Glen R. Anderson. The purchase price of $350,000.00- for approximately 160 acres (140 farmable acres) is about $2200/acre, or approximately 2 3/4 times the selling price of good dryland acreage in this area. Since there is no valid reason to purchase prime farmland in the heartland of Weld County' s prime agriculture land, for a non-crop production facility, it must be assumed that proximity to Applicant's existing facility and some sense of urgency to start the new dairy were the only considerations. HOWEVER, "A" District property just east of Platteville, Colorado , is available, and just a few miles from Applicant's existing dairy on Highway 66. All lend classification east of Platteville is "OTHER" or non-productive in nature as classified by USGS/SCS, an abbreviated copy of which is enclosed. This land of non-productive classification is located east of Platteville, Colorado, adjacent to Highway 85 (a four-lane major artery State Highway ) , the Central Weld County Water District' s main . feeder domestic water lines, subsurface water potential of stockwate- ring quality due to gravel strata of the South Platte River and ample electrical power that could be extended to a site in the area selected by Applicant. The Applicant has not submitted any information showing pursuit of property in this area. As a minimum, letters from Real Estate Agents, copies of newspaper "For Sale"columns, or any other data showing at least an intent to locate in a lesser than "PRIME" classi- fication have not been provided. It is obvious that Applicant has not even considered Zoning Ordinance .Section 24_4.2.6 for any locational decision in an attempt to conserve productive agricultural land. �. ` \ PREPARED SY: R. S. WILLSON. Engineering .Consultant, S.S.M.E. DATE_ January 10, 1987 87007? IMPORTANT FARMLANDS OF WELD COUNTY COLORADO FARMLANDS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE al PRIME (IRRIGATED) FARMLANDS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE - IRRIGATED LAND (NOT PRIME) r - HIGH POTENTIAL DRY CROPLAND - PRIME IF THEY BECOME IRRIGATED OTHER CATEGORIES PRIME IF THEY BECOME IRRIGATED PIN ' a7 URBAN AND URBAN BUILD-UP LAND.MI WATER OTHER LAND 'u9 z e-)-709-77,7, • I44y sr... Se• ,•rf 'L'dr,I'r r:* 1• / r ../ C91 ),...- • J �y t�f r t , 1 �6M'�anyJ .rte, _01.;',A ^ I..YI ou Pnng F� 1 A` r/tr t4 J^. r. ,F i',)1-A `' r r c4`s1t, .7.7. .1tr. �j/ :I .. :c tw- ,- x@ r` •i /i , r r` j`. C �ti- ...c t1 ".A. w79 4 t1 �r Lr , / I xt � :.ti Le.. ..wel. w 5 ..0 C�•'yw "k` ,..,,t�r,r'J ioe i- x^' F 1�.>. i x� 'J v te'` - 7 ?/ 1n �. S��r.:: If^r -lot •LJ"5 x S ::,•e r'',?;.-, i / r:. tX x;3hy, t -.4...,e.)...,..,,9,,? te r"' - J'--..11i�F.. i� 'i r r M�f:7: Y C�q '1 StS .' /� ,;,�5.,cu1(49'111.4..4.44. I . „_, Y C` v � Ar+C'Wr` r � ...x a"tij•.5 if/• �(! P'I' '�C,.�"a ISCryi3.•/ ,,,{r�i J^'�c,�`* r`�e'tc r �i4 t� •Xa•♦ // _ ,7..t G0 r -r. Y ut.1 '-'• r" jtLY J ` '.SP /- 1 �r f7 J� , 4-,vyr.e- / F Tr r .\` ,,,� r ' .b d. r e.g....0y% :x �{ r vy' ^^rww Y P eF 3t�3tra rw vJ�r + 'JJ� e ry} ,Yyy / � tr •T.7 r .^ T c Y•C^.'!-'L 4a�t7 ,� t4 a'fe� ill , ' IK t� / ` f r �s l.•? 3� �•�b.Ys�tJl.4(..S.'. rP'1•+ Ot ,i,�? / ' fi 'C''0 /'-` • R F^�tr e•c? S�`y�� :.j PrT ^.q^'t^y.r ,'1%?t,x "^ G. �'j3 G ad #3$ n "�`aN,• ;:ti `« 1 Lk ,'t Y 1 �' n H$'�. m„, r r 1 r Pr�`."PT tro!'^_�J/.° .yS�"a �r• 11:1,`Vu•tL� U'1;+4••- ,.t r el. / 1.44�')r.4Y4:tc3y fta, ;1„'' ° on 't.r'f > ,.'7%":"•:t./5.7:4-k:4;4:`, ^:;:,;:•,f ! -r- � . �,�t 1iq\�r 4';;1 Irl}r /°/ �` ,', /_ S• -• Lf .7:,,r. rt 1`J▪ ,•Y v i7I �fG"�i `tf:7•, '"" Yc.rr..NraSA{. iii i s Ste, ��*,� c (del :fig', J •Y /C G .--,774:$0.}.,, eq efNsd w:. {s`4u t l , t / j 3 �:. / '. cal,P7 M• r�S 'sr',/ ' 77-- J �M1 ... .b. '' . .-q4; ....-4..:, ▪rfr'ry{ J..,,� : t i s"yCr � ,�Y� SyX/ .__�\e � l rx r' 1!� Y,-.,�•r�r� »,r��,....i�- �y'fyf,+;.' aCv:,,1≥'a,{J �, r •;.,c �,, I% #"JE t ei'�-.aN/S./. 1444C °/'/ ' _>f*L ?,Y t, d C / 1 vnrypc. _Y¢q,�(lI Ki." IQ. `-' q:,R.lEc/ 4M r hi I {! r /61. 'q•/. i,}."V iel ` , Ntr f.-c tc? ycpQ a it :47:ter > a v .. ti' V..CYr'i, } r {r a .>4' • r• r1 r^. y( 9Fs`'S. cryrrle i /nF"Jo rt' . , .,..• .`I''- v4 4e , CO - 66 a v tKN i 1 � ; � til r f .p• ' j ir' `1`- _ J e;l y • �.e 7� vr`,r.�',$`+�y� .. t4r�� t(t n-le`'cG �r�T i' \,1 �I t • t L��T��7 +Vheee tV Ft W - $L.....-s r F- �K `a` , h „,,ry.) Lokca o «A� EE"+SGW .„, . 1 1:..41,7. / s i CC n'"'<r..r ...k , �j�5x' ,'; $ir R` gm tea �{ t�. o .?.,r):..:;4•44::;1... y-�''�x≤r -�ti -•'`L>� ax#4,�,�rA l�te�ps�'/p•�A' 3.34 a --O ,, '.441; x r 4S dlT� It.`raY .4,..t.,4,,, `+ � . _ ipas rn � ql._i Ce n Ili r g'1- Y3t,,r1ae"N • �1'" �'44.: o�. , - 7' SY ,,tre r .,.;_r ,..„,7 .,...v„,. O k.'6e3'L~i11 a�''F.f �� ., .6 fOtitoigif �ti n _fie ' .:.Y r !� y pge' g, •1 t L! ii.ig“ ,e1'i�«tl F� S: tit f +y �+•s.�fr �, a,. -..,..4.4r,?-7":- -. ,47%,N C�t 'M ST 'wl �tl ` `t ,'j "y ... .: Jg eY 'F7- +"Y ^ 'rfl riLk� 1• lot, r 1 ^' JLi �-' e:�H3 ®d)44 .., �"°;3eh l _ �v'./ C:' �® tt ��t txr /r} e s is �, , abill ant.�i � �- : let 4,\ 1 rF '�I Wl'+ v•r ' 1 J y C L,:.vo Ee y j1.--t ty .. MI Y ti.N ei 11 flrfir 1.- ;',""?: .t ,,45'.a ,• " a a f — 411-‘. ��, �> ` rc.w7`—, r ,lifTreat ffr� ; '1;�r qi ills t T r ...3c. 1 t i r 1 ,...3•.(.,..• 1® �) r.�i . ��r•, o. fk•,.r . $Ar1$` "� _� , le ▪ t rr r' rfJ AM:b. frf.�'' i1r _ t Igtt 1 7 r , rt u, o l 'ire;:'-:f r ..#, 'Y0 "IlKF� yv`�' >< C yCKMy� _ • eat t;h�Kre� „Sr�5/r��tN, ��yrr/fOr r rrc ti Or o _ r F p Jt ▪ ç �l C J f F1 ^T• A \ se tie" NP '7 , 11• y?, ` 1 • r•rtil }4r yY4 of / {r1' \J.: � £t•�� • •`� t 1 rlt t�ri ar �(exly ,rIzy \ 'e s c - R3tliop ,r t.',• r 9h.c® pl e. _ ( rr F 1 fir: S 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS - SECTION 24_4.2 1. Consider the Weld County Planning Commission' s recommendation - which is, as follows, dated December 16, 1986: "This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. While the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also , the uses of the land (as a dairy) would nut be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land-uses as the surrounding land-uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future, land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and, therefore, the property would be not compatible with future development of the area. " 2. Information in the Planning Services Case File, including Applicant ' s proposal shall be considered. 3. APPROVAL MUST BE DENIED IF APPLICANT =AILS TO MEET ONE OR MORE OF THE STANDARDS OR CONDITIONS OF WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 24.4.2, 24.5 and 24.6. 4. The Applicant has the BURDEN OF PROOF to show that the standards and conditions of Sections 24.4.2, 24.5, and 24.6 are met. REVIEWED FOR EMPHASIS FOR THE WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE - current edition al130.5164'— R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant, B.S.M.E. DATE: January 10, 1987 �d1111- • rteslcen5 x2 . _ _ - - farmer S cr' I99 99.. „.d0Wne1`5 lD5n�Od 0 ! }6 t1... �■- saf N t1 . 4.0 1 s iliefm b0 { as p� FAS JOhD510WA TO JCT.U.S:281 *'s •■aw ■�11 ; Res. 1 I �° 1� 4 ig r }- X11 f60 1.-.�� wll \ 1.. ...��: ■ i ♦ - no �� 1. 1 w. �• FAS 1 am !� ..........O1 coo Itn pp n kr A RY. ' ;NESTS �_ �., -,- ,48 9 9 9 9 . . 7 1 ■ a f 1, GREAT .. Z \ 7 f f 8 {4�X_% t 1 GA}4LER -_` 25 \. __ r I .13 HUM mel Re 1IWEL'TY 1a Y. a a w�- W II{. Newell 1 \ ,. C-4 �.v / �'� t6 18aNJ { 17 �. v FAS via �. n I *iin u 6 s FAS �f a 1 a ° 56' Al 44 70 act. U.5.287 icon wn \ a 4.0 w 1 1 "-Y n 1 \J� T4N- 1p 20 1fl z, {■ n 1 a Lt■ \alts:1P5.4 i. totes a o • 1 -- �-:--- i1 42 • - - -- ' 2 la A 1a { 1..!^ss.I 28 4O • 9999 . Q i 33 r la 1 ; J ► $$ ..1 {� c TWri { . ■ f f 38 - 1■ /AN.' � 1 �� Y H4GRLAND -O 1�! 6.,` 7i 1 nn LAKE`. ,. 0 1 i f .. ,..�3 la 4 w r T V.. °l5� ---it" w .. 36 40 c \ ;ter B �� p .�•o .�.• ll j'3GR ." ' 7 1 , ■la •.................. 1 1 34 999 , 9 . Iii I-1 is s 16 { / +T w s $T; • � i to 1 ■ 1 1 • r ter 1■ la 2 . . - - - �( \ \ • 3 1 1 s 20 JBER Y 4 �- -�. 9 ■ at C-3 1 p 66 f 1 n FAs a f .i . +t ♦ l.". o s TO JCT. U.S 287 { > 19.11... •1■ 4.0 3{■N \ CH 6v:, • r,• s;:1; z' 1 of ' \-- ■\ 0 �..... I 29 •y l l r0 ;.,.5..t#4?... ,� ■ 11 >w�_�'' !�._:_ •.. r , f• I u-ice ' . I, mi. • T.,. -Th“....\. 19 1 KOENIG p v1 I- 22 n 23 24 a: • 19 I 0 d�g; 4 --.Q I � � tea. , ■ r ■ was ! A T 1 M ..e i• ( a . Ir r•) U i 11 IN W 1 •s 30 l 1 ■I 27- , 26 and 25 30 1 I W • I - Greeley 1 MAROMAN \.A ��a ■ i ..-' - - aC 1■ I Q ■1� Ia 1 i �o 1 I 31 C pl a..; • gc34 a °! 1 � � iaa 31 II 1 • 1 n ��c� 1 i I Ip , . o ,� • L _ First 'Correction isa �Q • i • ' •I a •• � � ♦ I town DHNST'-I" W� - ■ �■ r .� Res. -- I • j,1 c� - _ p-A•,. fir. "" .,6 ❑ r_7aa L�L■S ,� _-... tisII,�c.�,+ a tyk,Kfur - �.,_ y • a l wt 2'^ �■ :1■ 7 ;19i.1s"y �'s� , � -w �... Ii • PY I s CL,:', KS KS 1 1 .,� ° Ir , l ,<� { 3 • 1 ■ • 4 5 := w Z7 T_ ...e.. — N. -••• —� .w a., 'CPU • j a p • u ),,- \' a ,r--- ,z, 1 Y 1 I yJ i, I� ,,h., r 1� uv t' � 224/, 19 a . . I �" i- �. • ; . • ,w'. w - o I ' 1 /..n-Pam•4--./—- . 1•/A_, j �`- - ru —___ .- _ ._`�'�-��_-_r._�_�- f ..- 1 i � s1 reer 1 a Ca - .� ■t„ IIII 1 ^'�1 ID 34135 36 3r�i` 1 ` \,\ , , ,,. R C a f�1 L60 I F- Li fr / If \l' ..11"74,74; CI* i C4 A i S , ,, i 1 o� ° � 1✓ ,_3 !I ++ ` '1 vase off 4 at Z1 1 , a1 . - k _ >> p — — -- / s \_ 0^I In •. 9 T •� I s 2 wa ■Q f , Q 24 .0 • I !I a 22 ----I � 23 6 PLATT s u --Ai / fp. r • k j N. - ' . I Q °i 1• y.• . , ■ _ ,QFAS ■ 1■ 42 i r\. l l! • !i ■a TO■ r i(� O ■ ■ ■ !o! ■ Q T !,• -T F 3 1 0' G0IYANDA •. titl.H. f$tn i ° I r. YI _ �-- I tl 6 I 1 2 30 ' 29 u lie/ 28r; 27/---4-1 k 26 a 25i I .I �Q. I 1 _ ■ l�j 1i : r ■ LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DmECTOPS: January 9, 1987 Telephone.532=2096 Grey J.Salommron. - 307 Welch Avenue cin— - 0rnwer e Charles an Berthoud.Colorado 80513 Wallace! Kat Croonqual David McGee E.Thus aoord -Dean Anderson MANAGER yp.• x p@�v. Mrs. Nanette Adler a / ^ 17972 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 Re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy in Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 67 West Dear. Mrs. Adler: The purpose of this letter is to confirm some of the information that we discussed in our" meeting of January 6, 1987 regarding the water commitment for the proposed dairy. The Water District has 'made a commitment for water service and that is identified below. Additionally, it appears that there is an existing residential-sized water service which presumably could be utilized by the proposed dairy and that is also shown below: Flow in gallons Flow in gallons Tap Size-Commitment per minute per day One inch Tap(Commitment) 50 GPM 72,000 gallons 5./8"x3/4" Tap(Existing) 10 GPM 14,400 gallons Totals 60 GPM 86,400 Gallons It is to be emphasized that the Water District has only committed to fifty .gallons per minute, via the one inch tap, to the proposed dairy and the relationship of the existing 5/8" tap to the proposed dairy is not known. This Water District has not made any verbal or written commitment to Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. of Longmont relative to any amount of water. being available to the proposed dairy. Each summer the Water District has encouraged all tapholders to participate in a voluntary program involving Odd/Even watering days for outside irrigation. It is anticipated that this will continue. . The District does not have a mandatory program for residential tap- holders or for commercial tapholders. In the event you desire any additional information regarding this . .. matter, please advise. Sincerely yours, f _.*� J HN M. GRUNER, Manager Or 'fit ' Z C" ----tIr ;:,.., .•e,_4 _ •. 9.4 ...13 . , , , , . . ,. 1 .;.,: • . • •••• . lb, - s x i r,_..x 'pi ' • , . - .i' r kii fn ' . _ - . .:-',.• re ' •.<: :, i Cr 44 1 -sm X )X t_" � � ...lain ` Q IP (..) ii �, ._ • . . • N �, ,•-,•• • , ( v . .,, ..., „, ,.,,•:- --i 2,•::--• • , --..- < • r r \ :r'`', r le 1;,. - . • III WX . N o ,..-;‘): p .-1 'Is ... _.Y. - -• • NZ r t -t g ft z N - . , :. . • , • © � _ v ,:i . . ,.' W N 3 I b S Z -fig It �t{1, '0 f i i y ( 7.quirements and Waste Volumes 105 1,600 1,400 G 01 1;200 _ 90° day without rain 1,000 A 6 • �' 600 ' Q I N 1 i ' C = 600 , _ s c I � --t: :1"1" r ,. �> 0i 90° _.,day with rain ; I rI i , .. a r r 1.. ,, ,',-- - ' I f jj "s C 427.1-- fl ter. 0 12 4 8. . 12 4 8 12 a.m. . p.m. • Time of Day Fla. 4-5. . `Daily water-use patterns in R-6 'area—max- imum day and minimum day.. (Courtesy of the Resi- dential Water-Use Research Project . of - The Johns . Ex. _Ili - - Hopkins University and the Office of Technical Studies of the Architectural Standards .Division of the Federal �- Housing Administration.) s '� Gordon D.Brown,DVM • Fort Lupton(303)857-6671 Robert O.Dull,DVM Greeley-Platteville Area(303) 785-2104 e.John R. Ewing,DVM. Glenn S.Cook,DVM ANIMAL CLINIC 232 First Street Fort Lupton,Colorado 8062: January 11 , 1987 To whom it may concern: This letter addresses the daily water consumption of dairy cattle. As a general rule cattle consume 10% of their body weight in water daily. For example a 1200 lbs. cow would consume 120 lbs. or 15 gals. of water daily. There are many factors which can affect this intake including temperature, milk production and feed intake. In general daily water intake will run between 15 and 20 gallons. This is the total water intake; in cattle fed silage, high moisture corn, green chop or haylage as much as 3 gallons of water may be in the feed. This would reduce the fluid water intakee to 12 to 17 gallons daily. Reference: Rigestive Physiology and :+Tutrition of Ruminants, Vol. 2. D.C. Xecr) John R. Ewing, DVIM @eye w • 2 1 6 10 12 14 • • 16 L 18: 20 - 22 24 26 28 30 5 10 15 . 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 NITRATE-N (PPM1 tt � � FIG.5.2-C AVERAGE NITRATE-N DISTRIBUTION WITH SOIL PROFILE L% DEPTH UNDER IRRIGATED FIELDS I a 1 LARIMER & WELD COUNTIES (al based on Stewart et al., 1967 " 52 r ,rt T • as �yf p sra o+oo sra ' .r+ I ..1 - " - kp l p " 8 Q, f s g r :• / I • m - y J r - - - ..r , :� - - _.. rY +� at O A 4t ° - - - •'iq • * 'rt e ,. xx er i 1 ttpr, t �1 - , a v $ - at 14-3j'1 2 - - - �'h n • x.ofeir- E •1 i - • . — .r g I ti 0 , . J. n � '' e try • 1:z CO -r_I t",.. ---t 01 i 'c 1 - XC , I mb' m ' z A • art- v nj -4'74Yl t 0 r y __ :. - - . r • JJ[OUNTAIN MPIRE AIRYMEN'S SSN. • 12450 N. Washington Thornton, Colorado 80241 Phone (303) 451-O422 January 13, 1987 Colorado Dairy Associates c/o Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court, Suite 201 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Dear Mr. M.B. Peperzak: In regard to your inquiry as to MEDA marketing the milk that you produce, please refer to the membership agreement that you have entered into with Mountain Empire Dairymen's Association. Article 2. During the life of this agreement, the Producer shall deliver all milk and dairy products produced by ?im for market to such person or persons and at such place or places as shall be designated by the Association. Article 3 The producer hereby constitutes the Association his sole and exclusive agent for the purpose of marketing such milk and dairy products delivered by other members signing similar agreements. Article 4 The Association accepts the appointment and hereby agrees to market the milk and dairy products of producer in such away as it shall deem best for the advantage of producer and of other members collectively. It is my understanding from this agreement that Mountain Empire Dairymen Association will market your milk as long as you produce milk for this Association. Sincerfe�ly, _etjac . Richard C. Bender Membership Relations Mgr. RCB:nh 19 7' .Y s 't. e /90 y�. � TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLOR . D •• g / We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) • and recommend your approval of said Application. 3z • N.HE e P. eaRm i-k7ED S Side- / G6 -„,-.,-- €0,(444_, %3'y /7 _ .s.. ?Le r U t,C C.t2_- + Cii 131f-/ - )/ii: ail_ eiF 14/C A), 3 o l ,. . 5-.....--74:9,..., ! !/G�iiii 1 , /�W hi,. !!O 1rlG. - e. 70 as / G 4 4-,fcn„ —_ __;i7,71,„ 77 , rr ..-z-%se-. CC LC%.S crtr. 9 f )aed • a?Pisw0, /•22- �e - c3 .n7.e/ • _ '(�' Q � ). 'Y / /*may 6. 6 w l nab Po S Crci. P /4ue ;.t t ( � ' ( t 11i 1,�4jr S!'71 /ic /' -c L oor44 Cr" ! 1 if/ r I? 6F0 IA/cfli7 -../0G-546 `Gib, i • /`Y A: Sinks /3 v 3c/ w'cx r7 P/a7 //4-A-1-42 . "eel g-aG-L 7ocoo 1_7_,-- /6" �oH„7Y�(f/ .yh 2 yy J{J�/ p , Lr�rlir�1 Zi , AAA a ,fret"1 (.4 roe s/ J97,f2.4r� / �`f�T2' 7 /�/� //MAY l�c 5L hm 1 la� �tYL . / @/741 /27- c'o eThe c7 ;" TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We., the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. 'y NAME ADDRESS Alme-h- 7`1-1 -4-4 I?+ :.2 Lh 97 /„Aer..,. Ste; ies..e.4.c.nR44,0 s/Ant etet ,Gaen le, . -:-- . 's"S9 IY a:l d 1,17 O .� l 14-) ,I. i die t1 WOAD L - . ? i569SI Lucie/7 -v Ca/o _ r' )3619 C _rr ri_ �, , t 4Mo0 4Jc(L Cc1, vt s'l 0 `z56�S wct2 6, ≥ Y2 Gr4 k $ /1.1� z 1'ae D Il �'erJrC PT1 >/7Y � Ly ,�, L F�/� 1/,rs @ so -. ��. c2vUi_ avA,m,i � . , , 7/ 9".? s"al fe A/WyI4- LOf i., sa a a _ '�l� _ q yy f I Go o �l.A-1/4,1, `[a, LCA..)r � / /3 (j r :iii "d, 0x 2 y C.Y'wu,QD) zwGNwyg6 Z0ngmon4 IA j B7 ' -; / ` TO: BOARD OF 'COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. OF •WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. We, the undersigned, ,support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) ' Cand rboommend, your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS Ci_a. 4-06,-- l4 ; if Z a Gro( 3 o 1-'r4 Cie 4907.7-3 .7-3 V e/37,t/ IE 2/ .��`.77'l,» '/D7o 1� ,//f4mnt 'r a co7c7/.. ., �, 3oiSa I0.O d . ao?z3. " &Re/ 9,S-- Co rai z s.�c�r.� en' a?07'J'p • . • /n l,/ / , , a/.., .7/. /4„,,,,,„,„, ,/ c„,. aox> aso7g c"...0. ie. COI" PY3-o7.2s _ - O / a.-steer ,.gyp c) Fre)72...3_ s 7 e _ oa--N,:zr-iS0.l. . pi2cM '(n Re A ern. ,,A 1'A ?02 - • ..4, /3 C....CC,/ ..e_ec Rd.,- / ed idia..-4------: v re,._, Jbt4 LC22b7a3e /7362 J/ 1. 7/ ��k�-1� S�o7e23 m�+ `6 �1�rn/k4 „�7 �0 S�a7t fC - • " 7St . -refi 8 /4- 4? /427 - Cc)t 7. 7./z} , ,2Ssr, AS A �4 07oy7S' /Vo 41,---."-- L • S 49 y,_/ ' tar (5,...., ) Fd/t., - .- I/ J :7 _dz.:kits:3A, • Ev.ej T0: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) " and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS f• : �• 6' • gL 4 (4iCR �l6% /l? �cei7 c4, q9--3&. uie sz6/U -, • '� `v Y.2/a t' av et' 1 u1 a ta �/ � rte . eel • TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO '?find tat E'0,9 We, the undersigned, sppport the Use by Special Review '' Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No.. 770:86:51) <°? and recommend your approval of said Application. > NAME ADDRESS g 7yeil /Voir = cgs /t . 2c -Gr �5/ 7d 3/ it/to GG ,Co,�, .sr{.y—f G "• t /a 9 5-5 2C( g l-//c o6 , ` /NitatO �att 2 , q 7c) IA a So Al LAck. pp g ct 1419 Li, CO gn 6 D 1'4w-. 7. 2 r 1 'i\nP rit04d 0 //IG a,ttfYi •t) " uwrc �3 'C wyX? 3 lffe „ ' eJ v ✓Lc �1.�.� " • jr. fc -1."-e-7-‘1.7- 4b: • x. /1 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, sppport the Use by Special Review • Application o7 Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51) and recommend your approval of said Application. N ADDRESS 144?-3 ZL,AA.plem_ \— jP j 13388cc/ h1 �� :�A /�; I )7 A aL a i9• • ,Ys • • _ ! a . `f ♦ , �� TO: BOARD OP COUNTY CONfI33lOfl t3. OY WELD :COUNTY, COLORADO a• -. 6H Ne., the undersigned, sppport the Use by Special Review ,t-s-47.4,.. Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No.. 770t86;513 '''' and recommend your approval of said Application. "`y*• 2 w `.r�.:e 1 y 'M NAPS •DDAMS . j f� 1 9 7 2 il /J S t i 1 AMY A�J//JJD�,�////// „ -:• s �. -:1 / c / - 1 f _ „ _ ,f tIrO ��E , o ... - _ +� • _Me !!LA C. LQ• r�7F 1. /t_ 1�f'��/ •,�'�.. il. II'. .ror, �aib� .£va A_�Tnn Cs1 '.�k'3gNS - • ij JC. • r `.v . .. i V TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO .-- We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) ' and recommend your approval of said Application. l/, Z- /47Z � f ��-ac/� u/! Cll..? 2 r2..., p - r N / f3e7'cS arc 9 _4/1-g,p,i-c-- C: c6/7-. c z7 S. 027 `n.tA•en wi.{ do, d X0/r00 y / Y/04 /, u.,l %di G /xci cf7 4S - .'C G 1 0 3a '\_ T6i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said'.Applioation. N U�u�. 7At,�� 2 ADDRESS/1/4✓v 66e /O/98A/if Gam. . A244.4/ _ - moo# 50 C4:7...57,7 (o,ifacZco `"�T *"72 -ffa57 1 ST. /0J- c6 lctam4!/ ,bee ,.£, Pc_� T1 Y-L1k\- \"E'/Sp'�� IJ-1 14 1'P 3-e r,Jt.?S n. )14-,,,1647.1c f Crete- ,. . ,.. I - 7711 1/1a.t Aox x,,f' ( ! 12- � rd77n g <loc/in d , /? 4--.-",-7J in ilr {'ic-r 4Yvilr Cddo, i ' e r g'19O t3mc. C` t (fir 1 . f3-3 /i:< l-en-ate,-:,,- .f C' = t54 z. J QQ� 2 /Uhf �' 1 ,ir1 (�rt2 Jf/r%L. e 5--?-3- L if AN-9 Af t- t"QELc, ' fill I &?OG ". �4frAeLP /-- & 'I, L/C, UJo5f rYt/7ic got Q�. 111 yfr -7�/ y 4,7-4o1 rTy/n of /r to �iib4", go j �i 71, I?!tf cr (earn Lm/ FRCZ L rr /q f1 / YYGcoi 72- �l .1/l CL 01� yo a7' l! a '�_ o-r�P /a it S' H y J J.�,n 3.�.. ,t .c G, ,,.:!-lam- 9807 . s it ..a. p-,tJ- ,. o s s 4W ' frifi`it A. / or Yc b / Lehs nom.\ Attn.. "„ „lisp '7'2° 5r ' X4/a, 212 Cv L'A,',4 ik 41'4' '' .....,,,;,,,;,,, k., .... . .CA t� :23\ �C A- 'rte . . . ... ....,.., .. 4 µ - "" " , TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO .k.:1/45 •+ We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) '� and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS Cider J2,.€(2.z.-/— -57.5r-s—d,/..s6L-4 r267'2QP-'d , _ - __ (" l `.", c-'1 .'--) /-J� _ -_ .. • _ I..LI� lR,.� I U -' --41 ii- YL Ti�� . l t. - \\, . �1 l i „ tv 1L/',;r, Y7. 'C) �`, AbF ^ 9 ' i LAS • _. .,..,afa-�.. - • W 31L�s ri -./- 'J rude+ ..r - ___.._.--wvri:.:o�i'.�i� '� �7r'4� .ir / -------7,=N-2,--- _ r / ,1' - ra tea. c /� ..• . n }ti rim Y. • S i • January 14, 1987 1:15 P.M. To: Board From: Mary Susan Maass, whose residence is located at 17500 I-25 Access Road East, called to tell the Board that she and her husband will be unable to attend this afternoon's hearing concerning the request of Aurora Capital Corporation, but they oppose this request. • She stated that their property abuts the property under consideration. 0 January 14, 1987 10:55 A.M. To: Board From: Tommie Audrey Anderson of 17164 I-25 Access Road East, called to tell the Board that she is opposed to the request of Aurora Capital, Inc. She said her fence line is approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed facility. 0 b71�'J?t�c 21 1F xH/F.3/T 1-1 :tA�t VVV 1'41987 g-cv nz2 - r G ` e,a-ni e„.."-7 ft e attec- (Pt-e-i2 % cam _ C, --601-t- ),014-7-24.4:L GGJf�l� tY cu�`�Gh� . moo t t-a >-frt-ett is f-Ate — • u" &e-el-et-c1C, Scs. cc.„-r---tQ .e a rr e_._ t 2 ` °z , -- te-44- -fie `77C ,.o tfi titit „intaeon Boa • P 3 .„71:2 ozz,resot G a- -• Q^c / 6 O G '✓�`.e- a `" a"� -2049 ak F1 January 12, 19 JAS[Z q Weld County Commissioners; tatam, o In regards to the Colorado Dairy Hearing for January 14. We live 3/4 of a mile from the proposed site. I am concerned about the affects that something of this magnitude could have on this prime agricultural area. It just doesn't fit in this particular spot. There is one word in this whole thing that I think is going to affect a lot of existing residences. That is WATER. This operation needs about 130,000 gallons of water every 24 hours, for the dairy and their households. We use about 30,000 gallons of water a month for our household and lawn. The dairy would be using equivalent to what 130 residences would use. Can you visualize 130 residences added to the water lines, and in the same small area of land that the dairy would be built on. This is a drastic change of water flow to the water lines. This will effect a lot of peoples water pressure, which is already a problem in the summer months. Don't forget the dairy would be using water 24 hours a day. Cows need water, so do HUMAN BEINGS. Please give this strong consideration before making a decision on this. Thank You A Concerned �Citizen 19279 W.C. Rd. 17 Johnstown, CO 80534 ,Ex#rn'7 YI41T CuBt�l'F Ttl^'^' L i� ��` - r "fie JAN 13 1,987 IJ Johnstown, Co. m 10_ _ Juanuary 9,1987 GREELEY. COLO. Dears 0 As a landowner of the N.E.* of Sec. 5-3N-67 ,w. I feel that the special use: permit. should ,be,denied for•:;$rnrora:-Capital Corp. proposed dairy. Our farm borders the S.W. w of Sec. 32-R67 W. . Shale depths in this area ranges from 5 to 15 feet below the surface of the ground and is on a South Southeasterly slope, drainage or seep from the three proposed holding ponds will ruin two farms to the South and ours to the South East. It is also a fact that land is being devalued in the area pending the outcome of the special use request. I do not believe farmers should be expected to endure this, in view of the current economic crisis. It is my belief that this use by special review is not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Thanking you for your judgement in this matter. Sincerly, Lc Bennett and Marilyn Spaur 18547 Weld County Road 13 Johnstown, Colo. 80534 rric - 5(µ1H )7- b ycai cam Cs i's4Pt! S - January 9, 1987 StN 13 i96I ;. I :5 cge- Dear Ab.c' 1"`- v • This letter is in regard to the Aurora Capital Corporation to obtain.=a-speci••al -use- -perirsst for -a livestock-confinement operation for 2,400 head of dairy cow at the intersection of Weld County Road 1$ and 38. First, I would like to point out that we are located on the South-East corner where the dairy is proposed to be built on Weld County Road 38. The nearest lagoon or catch pond will be just 1,600 feet from our home. We are very concerned over this type of operation being situated in a place that - in the opinion of nearly all people in that area - would have a definite negative impact on this area. There are other factors which must be addressed with this size of operation are smell- The proof of this can be found on the large dairy operationof the same proprietors of this proposed dairy West of Platteville on Hwy 66.- Increased volume of heavy truck traffic to haul feed, milk and manure; which would contribute to further deterioration to road conditions in the surrounding area. Also, drainage and seepage problems from the corrals and catch ponds. Which could pollute irrigation water ' and shallow wells, and the flys. What is going to happen to our neighborhood? We have two small children, a four year old- who takes medication for Asthma. and a one year old- who was born premature with a breathing problem; an immature larnyx. Their health is a very big concern to us. It is hard enough for them to breath at times and than have . to breath that smell always accompany with a dairy, (and if it will be anything like their dairy already existing on Hwy 66 West of Platteville) , I think that is very cruel and unfair: What about all the other children in the surrounding area (and thereare a lot of small chilren in that area)? I don't care what the proposed dairy says, their safety will always be injepordy with all the heavy truck traffic hauling feed, milk and manure. In conclusion, the negative aspects (as mentioned above) could result from this type of operation. We are not opposed to a dairy operation in the ordinances of Weld County, but we don't want an operation of this size to be built in the proposed area. I would also like to ask you to consider how you would feel if proposed dairy were built adjacent to your homes? Thank you for your judgement in this matter. Sincerely, . ,n r v1.0.. , +.Z Citizens Opposing Dairy v , , ?/e _ P Greg and Anna Spaur E304/ -r A firte. • P Gary and Nanette Adler .lA1313 ti987� 17972 Weld Co. Rd, ?5 crEE C. co o. 1ohnstown, Colorado 80534 4 . J4<Ack January A, X987 Dear C orclon. has- K> This is an appeal to you, as cur elected official, to consider the disastrous effects that the proposed Aurora Capital Dairy exten- sion could have on the new site at Weld County Roads 15 and ?8. We live and are the operators of the farm directly south from this new proposed site. We cannot trr::c to you °roust the ro eouen- tea and dlmar-en this dairy would have on us personally as well as for the land and surrounding areas. The surrounding' farms as well as the proposed dairy site are the highest productive agricultural land in Weld County. As you can see on the SCS Soils Classification Mac, Analysis of 1078, we are totally PRIME, PRODUCTIVE, AGRICULTURAL LAND! The President of Aurora Capital Corporation has stated, Quote, "This is the most T have ever spent for land." The reason for this high cost is the quality and production potential of this land, zoned PRIME AGRICULTURAL! With such a large commercial, high density dairy not only will this land -be taken out of production, a commercial operation of this ' size develops problems which are not compatible with the surrounding area. There will be underground water pollution, seepage, air pollu— tion, noise tol'ution, enormous amounts of heavy tr.1c't traffic, labor traffic, service vehicles, disposal cf by products, and this will be 24 FOURS A DAY! Underground water is a problem'in this area. The fact that a sump pump is required in our basement and pumps water out almost year— round makes it very obvious_ We do not want this polluted water in our home'. We feel it will he a hazard to our health and to cur 2 sons, since the basement is used solely for food storage. c.a. ! C'^'9 : 5 iromrn• Lich/ ! U iT • • • We urge you to protect and keep prime agricultural land in pro- • duction as farm land and consider applications of this type be placed on non productive rural land, which would utilize both types of land to their highest potential. As a farmer.located directly across the road froth-this proposed site, our concerns for the remaining land not in the dairy operation are great. We do not believe that the care and maintenance of this land will be a major concern to the Corporation. The main usage in their design is to dispose of the dairy waste on this productive land. Mr. Peperzak's statement tows at our meeting with him on Dec. 3, 1980, stating that if the dairy is turned down, they can legally stockpile their manure on this PRIME ground makes clear their attitude toward the land and surrounding residents. We as 3rd generation family farmers in Weld County feel it is VITAL to preserve the small amount of PRIME land in Weld County. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. We STRONGLY urge you to VOTE NO on this proposed dairy! Sincerely, actimi Gary Adler f Nanette Adler • C :+}+r71f) • 4200_ Weld County Road 38 Platteville, Colorado 80551 January 10, 1987 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 RE: Use by Special Review: Livestock Confinement 2400 Cow Dairy Dear Commissioner : ATTN: Weld County Commissioners Attorney This letter is written as opposition to the Aurora Capital Corporation' s Request by Special Review, the Hearing for which you have scheduled on Wednesday, January 14, 1987, at 2:00 p.m. I am a full-time farmer in the immediate area of the proposed site and object to the proposal of this facility being located in this particular area. Friends and neighbors have requested, since I am also an accredited design and consulting engineer, that I perform an engineering analysis and review on the proposal to determine if all Weld County ordinances have been met. I look forward to the opportunity to address the Board and pro- vide each of you with detailed written analysis of eight (8) specific Zoning Ordinance Section violations as well as verbal review of each for the benefit of those attending the Hearing. My part of the Hearing will require et least 30 minutes. Enclosed are copies of the Summary of Section violations, the Engineering end Data Source List for the analysis and my credentials for this review. Request this letter and all enclosures become a part of the written case file of the Weld County Commissioners for this Request by Special Review. Very truly yours, Q. 2� B . ROBERT 8. WILLSON, B.S.M.E. RBW:lhw Enclosures : Summary vas CAM CONSIMPIERS Data List Resume D { JAN 13198 i . �) GREELEY. COW. L L � . �jCHraI • • • SUMMARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF 2400-COW S.U.R. COMPLIANCE - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION This analysis was made strictly on the specific requirements of the Weld County Colorado Zoning Ordinances (current edition), The Policies of the 1973 Weld County Colorado Comprehensive Use Plan, and the needs of the "Use by Special Review" as required by the Weld County Planning Commission. Data for this analysis was derived from all sources listed on the enclosed Source Reference List_ An engineering analysis of those specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance Violations, with no adequate corrections shown by the applicant in his submitted proposal,, has been prepared and will be submitted to the Weld County Board of Commissioners and discussed in detail during the Hearing to be held on January 14, 1987, at 2:00 p.m. Zoning Ordinance Violations Section 24.4.2. 1 - Proposal is not consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan. Section 24.4.2_.2 - Proposal is not consistent with the intent of the "A" District. Section 24.4.2.3 - Uses proposed are not compatible with adjacent land uses. Section 24.4.2.6 - Since Proposal is for location in the • "A District, rn effort at all has been shown to conserve productive agricultural land in the Applicant' s Locational Decision. Section 24.4.2.7 - Adequate provision has not been made by Applicant to protect neighbor' s health, safety, and welfare. Section 24.5. 1. 1 - Adequate water services are not available to the proposed site. Section. 24.5. 1.5 - For some reason, Applicant' s Consulting Firm designed storm-water retention facilities for a 25- year storm - NOT the specified 100-year storm required by this section of the Weld County Zoning Ordinances. Section 24.5.1.8 - NO solution to the high-volume,heavy, large, or slow-moving traffic generated by this application is shown in the proposal - particularly Weld County Road #15 and Weld County Road #38. • 2 _ The Applicant' s proposal violates major elements of the above- listed Zoning Ordinance Sections. Detailed analysis will be provided at the Hearing. G 043 PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON, Engineering Consultant January 10, 1987 1 ANALYSIS OF 2400-COW DAIRY PROPOSAL ENGINEERING DATA SOURCE LIST 1. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services, Longmont, Colorado, District. Source Library on Dairy Systems Design, Waste Management Design, and Water Body Evaporation Tables - all Design Specifications and. Tecinical Guides : a. Animal Waste Management Field Guide - 1978 b. Waste Management Systems - Code 312 c. Waste Storage Pond - Code 425 d. Waste Treatment Lagoon - Code 359 e. Waste Utilization —Code 633 2. Colorado State University - Dairy Cattle Water Consumption Daily Requirements - Mr. Bill Wailes 3. Colorado Division of Water Resources, Greeley, Colorado office - Mr. Les Dolby 4. Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan - 1973 5. Weld County Zoning Ordinances - Current Edition 6. Informal Surveys of local dairys - water and feed consumption, milk production, waste-systems management, and bedding require- ments. 7. Little Thompson Water District Management - and letter 12-18-86 8. Central Weld County Water District - Applicant for Water Service Requirements 9. Colorado Department of Health - Water Quality Control Commission - Guidelines for Design of Feed Lot Runoff Containment Facilities. 10. Aurora Capital Corporation's Proposal for Special Use Review, prepared by Rocky Mountain Consultants. 11. Weld County Planning Cnmmission' s Planning Services Case File - this Applicant. 12. Montana State University Ca-op Extension Service Table - Water Consumption of Dairy Cattle, Farm, and Home Per Day. 13. Soil Conservation Service Charts of Annual Lake or Pond Evaporation - inches of depth per year for Rocky Mountain Region. ,�-,.-r yam, J �J• 1 •• - 2 - • 14. Colorado State University Dairy Waste Problems - at University' s Dairy- - Mr. Bill Wailes. 15. United States Geological Survey/SCS Weld County Colorado Topo- graphical Soil Classification Map - 1978 ISSUED BY: R. B. WILLSON, B.S.M.E. Engineering Consultant DATE: January 10, 1987 411I r R E S U M E - ROBERT B. WILLS0N 4200 Weld County Road 38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 Age - 52 years 9 months Birthdate - April 20, 1934 - Weld County Hospital, Greeley, Colorado Education: 1. Greeley High School - Graduate 2. Colorado State University - Graduate (Colorado A & M) B.S.M.E. Minor. in Mathematics, Irrigation Engineering. 3. Post-Graduate Work (na additional degrees) a. University of Washington - Nuclear Engineering. b. University of Florida - Fluid & Waste Controls Aeronautical Engineering Work Experience : 1. 20 Years - Agriculture Rowcrcp Production, Livestock Production, Current operatior. - 300 Acres 2. 6 Years - Research & Design Engineer - General Electric Nuclear Facility, Hanford,. Washington, specializing in Waste Treatment Facilities, Lagoons, Soil Contamination, and Nuclear Production Systams Maintenance, Design & Repair ,, 3. 9 Years - Missile Launch Systems Installation, Ground Support Equipment Design & .Installation. Engineering Consultant to U.S.A.F. for Martin Marietta Corporation, Denver, Colorado; Mountain Home, Idaho; Little Rock, Arkansas; Moses Lake, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona. Engineering Manager with own Engineering Staff of up to 45 personnel - Responsible for Design and Installa- tion of Saturn IV 8 - Appallo Launch, Tower Support Systems, Ground Support Equipment, Waste Retention Ponds, etc. , for Chrysler Corporation, Cape Kennedy, Florida . - 2 - G. 9 Years - Construction Manager, Project Engineer, and Engineering Consultant - Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greeley, Colorado. Principle projects assigned as total or engineering responsibility include : Eastman Modak ($50 M), Windsor, Colorado . Stapleton International Airport ($20 M), Denver, Colorado, Stapleton Plaza Hotel & Office Building ($12 M), Denver, V. A. Hospital ($6 M), Boise, Idaho. J. C. Penney, Aurora Mall ($7 M), Aurora, Colorado , Greeley, Colorado' s New Water Treatment Plant ($1.5 M) near Ft Collins, Colorado , 5. Present - Currently Full-Time Farmer, continuing to provide Engineering Consultant work for major Construc- tion and Fabrication Companies in the metro Denver Area upon request. F; le S 13683 Weld County Road #15 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 • January 12, 1987 _ictiltis_Lith<+� JAN 13 1981. Weld)Cbunty Commissioners mama P O Box 701 r G Co lorado Colorado 80632 Honorable Commissioners: This letter is to advise you that the Ftoposed Special Use Permit concerning the Aurora Capital Corporation located at Weld County Road 38 and Weld County Road #15 just a few hundred feet south of our 2 acre estate is not in the best interest of the community and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. Many things bring me to write this letter as I'm concerned about the value of our home, the added traffic, the smell, the danger of small children and the ponds and the chemicals. A dairy like this does not belong in an area where there is small residential acres as well as farms but out in an open area. In my opinion the present dairy that they have west of Plattville, Colorado is a terrible mess for that area. True democracy was seen on the day of the Weld County Planning Commissions voted umanimouysly against this special use permit, the people rule, it made me feel good. I ask you to please vote against this proposed special use permit. erred citizen, ( Jos r Elms rP/e_ Ilk 13683 Weld County Ro #1S • Johnstown,. Colorado 80534 r • January 12, 1957 • JAN 13 Weld'Cbunty Commissioners : o fL u ree y 758 N . .,.f�r�o],cX._.Colorado 80632 Honorable Commissioners: This letter is to advise you that the [reposed Special Use Permit concerning the Aurora Capital Corporation located at Weld County Road 38 and Weld County Road #15 just a few hundred feet south of our 2 acre estate is not in the best interest of the community and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. Many things bring me to write this letter as I'm concerned about the value of our home, the added traffic, the smell; the danger of small children and the ponds and the chemicals. A dairy like this does not belong in an area where there is small residential acres as well as farms but out in an open area. In my opin_on the present dairy that they have west of Plattvslle, Colorado is a terrible mess for that area. True democracy was seen on the day of the Weld County Planning Commissions voted unanimously against this special use permit, the people rule, iv: made me feel good. I ask you to please vote against this proposed special use permit. A' Concerned citizen. • ^c : P- EX I-1 1 L- IT- LV� i • r, tee mEmoRAnDun JAN 13X87 Keith gSchuett Department BEY. cn�o. To Planning Date Jza.ryt 7 COLORADO From Drew L. Schel ti nga, County Engineer Subject: Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 The Engineering Department reviewed the referral material in December and indicated we found no conflicts. It is my understanding concerns were voiced at the Planning Commission hearing regarding traffic impacts on Weld County Road 15. I have met with Mr. Ray Volle of Aurora Capital Corporation regarding traffic. He indicated the dairy would generate approximately 3 truck trips per day. The latest traffic count in our records indicated 58 vehicles per day on Road 15 and 188 vehicles per day on Road 38. The. additional truck traffic does not warrant the requirement for a maintenance or paving agreement. Although dust may be a concern, 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 entrance and Weld County Road 38. Also, a haul route designation between the dairy entrance and Weld County Road 38 could be considered. • DLS/bf xc.. Planning Referrals:.Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation ° EC . l. E JAN 131987 Eyfri/O /r V CC : 1 Wald C0" M3®ICR gpagginigt ft. ak r /7363 /3 JAN ; )..� -- -�...._c1- �°z06si :o-GREE1-at- IL .4 Ic / 9�7 el ciao, rf` Z`. go63 R l r.--_` -e-----z— tom- - r - _--NIL... y,..,...._ b Via_ ___ _• _ do ... .. /�--'- " / -- -° --- Uy� l.y 1 yam/ 0 Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. 7. Albert Jeffers 2125 Glenfair Rd. " Greeley, Co. 80631 Re: Aurora Capital Corporation Use by Special Review - Livestock Confinement Operation (2400 head dairy) Dear Commissioners: At the January 10, 1987 annual meeting of stockholders, the following resolution was passed: Due to possible liability and insurance difficulties. the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company would ask the Board of Weld County Commissioners, conditional upon approval of Use by Special Review Docket 4 86-82, to require Aurora Capital Corporation to erect and maintain a chain-link compound type fence along all exposure to Erkenbeck Lateral, with gates and access as now provided. We would appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sin erelyK ft ames Stroh President Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. an Casa Q E C�E�I�tV� IJAN 13 ter tf /D.7d `tj oRE Et. CO . 3pN13 te 5076 Brittlebush Court • Johnstown, Colorado 80531E Janurary 8, 1987 • Weld County Commissioners: As property owners in the Weld County area, my husband and I are opposed to having a 21E00 head dairy, prosposed by Aurora Capital Corporation, which would be located only 1 1/2 miles from our home. We believe that a dairy of this size would cause enormous odor and with the way the wind blows in this area there is certainly no guarantee we would not have to contend with a foul odor. We feel that a dairy of this size would lower our property values in this area, also the truck traffic on the county roads would be increased which is dangerous and cause much wear and tear on the county roads, which Weld county now claims they only -have enough money needed to repair only part of the roads and bridges in the county, so we ,are asking the commission not to grant- a special. permit - to Aurora Capital Corporation. Sincerely, Adrian -M.-Ciancio Louis A. Ciancio 5076 Brittlebush Court Johnstown, Colorado 80534 (Northmoor Acres) /hiy) EXHt1' ITS • -1 cauxn '- signs 57, ,,-J7 $anaaAg 6, 1g87 Weld County Cocvnt14ioneAil • ,. Sax 738 Gneeley, CO 80632 Dean CommLssionen Lacey, I am waitLno to oppose the pao owed data, fon The Auroaa e Capital Coapoaatton, scheduled (on pining on ffanuaay /4, /987. We certainly do NOT need new .daiaiea to add to the suaplu. oaf milk, as ou will see Ln the letter I am guotLng !nom AgaicuLtuae 3ecnetaay 2Lchand E. Lyng, given at the National a ilk /'aoducea, Fedeaatjon convention last Fall. Quote: "All dcciny laameas should be cautious about expansion eon whatever reason. We are eefttno, own supply-demand picture info better balance, "Lang said: "If a lances imbalance occurs, support plLce levels will go down. when daLaymen cute con4LdenLna expandtno. theL, paaductLen, they should look ahead ancl` aealt3e tat the paeaent law calls (on support place ne.dactiona Li paoductLon Ls move than iLve billion pounds above demand, "he said. The decision should be to change vent' little night now. I think the daLrg Lndustag would be veng -wise to leave ma)oa daisy ublic poldcies as they cae, "Lyng said in his addn`eus. End or Quote: We do Act only NOT NEED /1O2E /9ILK but I ceataLnly would not want a daiag of that at e going C. Wean mg home, would u_ou? 7/ qou haven 't alaeadoc done so I .u000eaf you fake a Aide cut` to Highway #66 and toad #/7 South o gohnstown, drive • atnatght down to the St. VaaLn %?Lvea an_ - see how close those holdi2o ponds faori The Colorado Daing ere to the iivea. I am Alt, sonny that that dcLny was atanted be/oae people nealigedcwhat was takino. place. I don 't think anyone would want to have this. buaLn`esa neap thei2 'homes especially when ti to NOT NEEDED! Sncenelg, . a, E e- 0714/1/1 vek cam% /7 7 /78 7 W 'R ft" , r� v tU_: TI� -, '-'2 ;add _th2 13 Cv ' co 1a y z J.,8. xa ice- .g r: - ce-2--Ai:;- , 1 2.2pc-- 2ge, rt.- Q., -4-ehia-t - •a- e,eG V- il ,, T Le-nizz-__-. 71-ipt._ S .... --- - r J -- --� i��c a _0 n a. a.2 IT-02,‘LIE-1/frairdir - -. \- --- O C.. 9O1nin P-1-3 -:-,n, EX N i 6i7- Q rrle- • • 1-10-87 To Weld County Commissioner Gordon lacy: Please do nct allow the large dairy to come into our community. We live approximately 6 miles cross country from their other dairy on Hwy. 66. We can get that smell all the way to our house on one of their many bad days. It is not our desire to have that smell and confusion just a 1/2 mile from our one. We went to the Board of Planning Commissioners meeting concerning the dairy. The dairy said several untruths about water, local employees, and such. It was also pointed out to us, from someone on.: our side, that should it go through, and they can't control their smell and pest problems, we in the community are stuck with it. That is not fair to all of us who have worked very hard for what we own- Please do not run us out: Docket #86-82 Applicant: Aurora Capital Corp. 2930 Center Green Court Boulder 80301 Livestock Confinement Oper. (2400 Head) N.E. Corner of the intersection WCR 15 .& NCR 38 t ai COM;ITI CC?Wtf4slrffRS CEh E i t JAN 13 198T GREELE'1. COLO. • Ca f ;lam �xrr � e�T P 12/9/86 WR2 ! t'Tt N e , --n WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION F ' JAN 131987 1 AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOU ' 10-,L* PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PA a OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N,. R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD. A�a_�„ _coL . _ o COUNre, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD i�+v'"' 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . acme_14,, ll3 it;nj hive. 3p/mi'*o T) (i,, 4°-r 5Z- 2. Xotiusi"1- II Q r7`I7a. Id-C. k. 1S scknCfc,c....., C,. src 3y a. 90 0 i G6 Y`f 6d•e--e#'3 lb� q 41 aThLi 0 e to 2O6 4. V alaz-yll 4c.L a i 9`f/ R/et s /3 t a-al -x. !? s. iL L al 615- w(.R / S~ u okr,54owh,. CO . x,1 42 C A' /9 )ih4.6 u Co, 8. flQgacowv � Cfl.0 L.J. C . 'e" 5.8. y c)t-acn/ C12)- 9. (200(0? C k 17 cje a -i.•,, r Co 10 . P g /6 far e./ac Al r'... V/7 /hs u2 11 . aze, U" 'Zoo Look. 13R e lit 1ti5Ut&z Go-IOC 12. 593-,L gio 6 0 WC<13. 410 14?-C. R- z;aztott 14. W�� g ` 0 0 W . C. e. J 24 0'24, 15. LUl�,cctmiv Jla� q 4)- e- i `I°oo -4 C 16. G 4.-d.(kee-- ' / 704,6 rv1,C / .7/ f /' co I7. 10 -iesto c.c_�',.1� coo ) 7Jc"./P 3 6 , ?/.6:-� Ca'r.�Cp. la. u n a�,1 t.4+�/ 93 70 - 56 k ii_l Q...._ 19... ac 937o ,G� 4/6% �1c,�C.c, Gam_, cG.r,/ 2O. 7x_Jt ` /J6 is" . �. /7 . cc P e�' ? CykN1 31 7 O 0 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OP 'CSED TO TEL? A.'_ LIGATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CC° PORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW + OF SECTION 32 T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M: WELD COUNTY COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . i le.t NAME ADDRESS 1,5- nn l•frtik frier 018!x1 a n Cl 2. Ail 3. Z ,`t.oao y .d • aolyS WC '? mss' ,1 �,,} owe CO P .r, 4. - ao7'9 w—c P /3 ��y 5• p /% a gOyfc'6, w ee '&949 W C n 3 7. (1 . /S'/Y.� u:4<'4L <3 �< .- ' 8. b"'e" 'n /eycbo °v t/3 9. �<Itch:, Ratt ,, w..- /13Y4,0 cock i 3 sy {yrrt 10. u D. 7V ^- /6 2/2 WGR Ii /mil•+Etivile 11. < �, �/�� 1V�1Q weR t3 �-k,a�� 12. �i17j�j ,..reJaj 62s-7, Cv e i2 3 y� (2-1-1..-J .,-1/4 14. ".<77 /(/‘, , .5, „24,64fr,/„ 13. 2 ~ � Zug/s c,Jc,e2 is , Cz 15. n .ix-E� lit ttiCQ 54. 6f's3y 17. ((;& /A8 Bnart" a( .)/ ' (/ Co: o tal.Cit lel L? 0 no 3g ctic, 0 > & go 6S r /y i98b 18.\� eJ' "AX j? 3Y 2Pa • 8700 7 • i2/9/8F • . WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART - OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . ';-1-c, NAME4-PAo4C {7a. ADDRESS 131ST 1 . - , J c i //2 2., i ..... s77 -2itd IP$C2 44-, /2 . d ts/a405-, -/S-86 3. 4,41( ..tecteti_ S87-o2y/3 r2..oq' cvc,eis ,,(o6/piS id,coin 4. y/ c ' - 13/& G 5h7'1 .-e. �/�11• c ,gi7.7.h-p titbit to .C.4.Pii qoQa, a 03/24 6. S a•- -t,� 9-34t58'1"u i t 1 `tt3`k u+cr2 Wi3, , 614.tfi`c w n1 •/ ,-/.9c. 7. y:6 et. „ 3s-z. -Ps-9/ /31f' 40'e•A . 1 3 v.-► f - ly- 148. - 6 ‘ ,3I-lei r. ifia.�9 - �l..,o- y- 2—yam - 1 - 9. ,8-72A---a.-6t 7,2. � G y - lv.�. g„ „-i31_ - .mil 7� a)zy s. � -y/ 12 e/r(7l �-Y,,�Iu`."'\. �'V 3 ,/t, /�.G/ �-! 0 jcL ±w- (1 'Sk 13- id, L(1& C' Z 1 - 'yd. . -Is-fl 14...42 -.r.-11 •11-x.-,_, .Cc s$ -,iIx` mil. 1'! 7•r.Yn It i l-,9y _15,E 15. d `-t`Ie)414o24, ' t 4/356 W$9 Ni . 632-29s7 b -/r-51,6. . 1-.7..,:e. .0.4:10-.4...-7 373 9 y z._u!eae #L1 ��sy i 17. S27 yS 18. 19. 20 . 87 0z7 S 12/9/86 S WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY- COLORADO <WELD -COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38> NAME ADDRESS 1 . ad Witt •c� c� 033 Lock 1-7 z. a� 7C 57 we /e C Y y /12I( E. /7' av e s Q (� �� 91w ige ,?3 jzoft . 7. / , L i auwu Q,r- I ct 51 to ,c, 2 L o ` vo n \. s,i.if'Eccw. 5/, 04w/bCr. PEA=.tv./ft 9. htM 4 301 Ojai?. Xatu Pictita QQ n /' 10 . Ai .1449 Mae.0 d J I?, . ohMf02L;(1 11 . W T rR -- }"0 13 5 o 5Tc cA1-'CaN1 ST: <rnl_c_v i.S'r) CO 12.SLAI-o<cct4.. 933 Van t c.G�et Gc � / 13. x2c� Coo `lot Co.`..z..y C.C....-Oa a-•.......-k-_..----_ i ec 13-34 14. )1-&e..-41(141-C-1 -1. KUNER Avc 7fq ::c1,,itsc"S.gg7- q IA �3-�'G ' ."Ca; -� V� a 61.6-9 lyo $,s��oc r(�pie akAw�4�,.0�., S8J s-sm g416. . 41 ! cloys-7 ri^ �'�"'eo.. 'Au-, 67„25--oz /a-i3 8%, 17. Ol*Wu ewe 507( Yuccl9 CE John C2'7 8� z7il� $,.13 _fi 4, is..-74.440 4 ,707/ Vt.cc¢ Cc ✓0iinnt-,�7 $'t?-2776 �-1 fi aL 50 30 per, An, /i fr' �- z l3-P 19. / ` � 2-�7 9jJ z—(3- ffL 20 . , /6 4-04" 3 a 9 e i f.-t.�- � � e • s • • 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS _ `/ 1,77/1�/l/ OR 037 sue, / 17y Jo� 5Tiw /d-/V-E) 2. 1-221k,. .\ .20 lea Gwct /7,a,hn 1/o wn, cc -/y-gL J/3cw. ✓ aaryou weir/id $n6insJ�or✓nCo. Sr9 -,27 .�9 /a r a. ad� 9 /y.3� WG�i , o-�in�Sfsv , d Sf�-o�17 Q-11-22 s• -VAu �„� / - 2377≤ �L'/ 2 , `) ' Iti u4 6.cl#-^w1 f aY e yj ,c� r'/c#c, .//� Co Y asp 7. 8. 9. 10 i1. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . re 8`-00173 • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS L. �a,.,es C s 1'?" /767/ Wit (5 f` ns oh7 c6n CO 2• / 9 l0 7 / C t7 C /5 -7-An 74"/n Co 3. W i, a , �o/o �SI4. o2/s N ft o a .✓ e 5. /n € �J ago ?/ 2 Iva/2/7 '� . 7 ao7ao 1[./ e_ /7 G 8. Cor 7790 Li.;c 9. ✓` 7790 we .`/2 .loh.,gyp wn` C•o 10 " 0 117,&_ 7s- e u'tV iol- . J h ISOW A CD • 11 . a t ti\N\.'Ar 75—vi? 121 go- 7n ^k-r- 12. �'e A 2ows-,�e. a taco were 17 prone"Pz ,ea-5117 Yfl I r -,a-rG 14. £uli °&*tc 75-1/ Ake 38 9t*natevn tC 5r7.27P- -,g"JOE 15.77 aC.,/i714' 7°7/ f.</ c% as, , cc 4> • �YG'�3S/ ',i-??1-77.>.,Z /,`." /1_iC 16. R04-1-<-1- u �stea to_c Id #`34- Qi.at e4 , GI lC gn /z //L-AG 17../oovrio�� n-“(-4 d-44-4- itseo 2.v C Cc� r `� �al[xm is A- "04 18. 19. 20L • • e o 7a • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS acint e el, fe e b'a 6 1 . E � .we I6 613 G w eta cause ty goaA- 1 s addith e 4• / �, C.,&-s A4z2_eezk&, �0 ayes/ �7G�w�e._9� j? cri Pcat,-yy-,aec.L� .. g ' C7 4-.6? /`5ic a� Z D is- w C.fl / 7 J Z.-.zren�-�-'r "o 8 5gana r�ajre £197 Co I49, Lc Dhas � �}CO. S-cssy 6. pO,1 Wed F. /3 E-�' °" C`e-a. L B•Of,3 r,> - 7. Pc...,_ 51F5 at .., k 1H do irhauT , GL oo53Y - SA 7-2-L3.5 8. 9friet t / 21.2..// L-r/,d a. F&'x/ + •ate 3 7 f //y' O�.cct 21 /7 /4,e 60/ ✓ cS5y Tref -73r-ere le 917 12. -a s7 1/3•01 Pit/0 110 thy letp, t7:+vihz 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. f="704777.7:21 • • • 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART - OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . ./ diChS�_ts c 2 �i /��/7Lvr/Jc�12 t�. �d�N tiri 3 o �.� duic- I 9390 hlC 8.17 y.i4x,,_.ceto_fra„.., ..- dF,sa.4 nifi 4. Q it4Zo wt; e,,iy G�a,N�tir. u,,s la, c96,5-'3y‘ 5. 9t $ 2 c.BG(I p/. 'cu_. /9SS6p Pt'C.�'. 17 ,.u*-•H_ ,f- 6• c-ri'Lzl5_,,,_ ' 7 l—__ 47c-a'r cc,c_42 3a Pl;;e 0,.„eF` C ¢c<.R 00 e. auicmJo 4700 d Cie.) d 3 1a„c,_ -( ,, `b0cs i, '- ti7oo ' ..d 3 2 ',�cll cto E. 9. / t ////,5— .2&h2�. de L %J -1/24ze—ta---,,ac?z 10 ' �S f/4 e21 i z c •am/ °L:3f 11 . `SSG curie f f Jn je,y^. . c e 12. GQ 'Stt 46,34 L;i G. Q,ac 3;l P,16-1;&74- FC6Sl 13. 0we.J /7.2 / 4 toc /s D_�� tt e 866\s" SQb r P 14. • `' �15. tip' lTa Eli V.cR, 13G� ",u coel- 7 16. 0,,y4,..Z` Avis., i S--/-/.7 2 W C_ )3 17. �cL4- J,2u) Pat h ` ySi 3 LO R Z.4._. ,/, � (g 1g. ,, � ecct � 95/ J We; N 32 .C anes ne / 19. JL> — -!(C" l Y2ZS 1-Ori` CO ri 37 20 . Apar/ £LL ,4 .7-s- , 'P.,.,e 3 2-A C' • f3,107.777-7 ._ 7.7T7_- • 129/96 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 71/6 it t 2. &Lk W.c. �c ri: � 3. J 1 L1"-a C ✓j Ci i�, iN w yu) 4. c � " �f # 5 �`o/7/ 424:7,c�� . .i 71— A k l 6 ,1,L.1,r c-/ ,�h,,,�.1� a f w 9 5 w . P>c. 11 n ' -' i ��s _ 7. �;,�. c' .�, e . ' , - 8.1Cn 7ct3°" 9O.1 �J71 / e`° Co, ..._. 1 l7 \C. Zn 1�( ?[.r1T1V_ :Leo 9` �-. ,tick . �.�>n��iQ'•Jcr'i� �.�'IG;:.C� 10 . 11 . - g- -t ry ' g 1 -� � \S ��1,nr\.w t� •*t ;,,o !d - /7303 tdt,e, 1,3 leis /, .;�$�✓ 12. �/cc ,21`l tso t. R W,-4;n n;//ikt?, Co 13. L 37 �2iL r� � 1� ( t 14zcl-- jo fG. ./l*4 /?A ' 16. r---1OC-1-I��?i ‘felt?IC CW ct a-- creek.- +-ry cif/D, 17. C /71& 2JnG.E 4N ikiZ.,. C24- 18. 63,"63_, 1 , fZo Forest s2S t-://;�e ea 19' •cO.C9: 4.2e. 05/Dl"ea/ /7,7 cr.%-tfr t/it.� f • 20. ,,t;rw -4/Paw- ejYG � Pi- '18/ J6NDaS7tw ,v. z`C • 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 13 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . / Gi to J U �/3 7�i�, I 80s L1 Ce- 2. "Jute. 504�� * Sol .s�k. :tt8 . eOp7 a22 N. .sk ele (l;h s� CO 00621 5. cafreA i flrAg 227 N• tads , i- 4 0.004.2-1C°,, Sa5zI 6. '-Qa 0.4 137 W ang, ,, ) t Co S0b a3 7. &m. . lad—r — 1104 S. CaJ 9✓2 , ToJ,ns{oton, cO 'o$35` 8. �'e1, �/w�j � �� /9 s i do. c1 eq 9. i IX4-, .Z&. 7a.r8 £2) C. /2/. So ya 4bla s666c to . ,,,, @s.&, i- Susan. I Parks 4os TectrAcm Dr. K Codi.s 8os2.l it . 2J AA g / 12. .j,4 6-#7-640- 3/; r S 7 7 .. e ``° Co ycsV3 13. 1(0..M.Art tk.p j 41S1 E. 'Av:N(06 , et ooh , Qo. 805 t 3 1a n: 44°C 14S4 S4 ' ' �. $pCr3y 9o53-j 15. . Atiiv,, a ao i s w.c. R. i 7 , p Jot0 So . CQ!,erhla, `it, yeIa ft.de <' 1-3 -1 � Jar "-Ai -fit" 3 d 64-G - 8 / t7. IC& • 12/9/86 ii WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T414, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD • 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 ' Z. ��7�/�1d7�. / ga., 1-s ,/J'a ife-i,,7/c L �/ 25- 2' ii/7,m,�, t/ F.-4-0 /r8 0 1.-.25- ✓.-44 .wLuv eo l4-13-5 3. / !"/~ 1.4 c / y .5-,,, 76 w 03 b p 1-a e-0 102-/a_g6,4. ' V/t,929 ,fit s-3oza .zoen -69/*v//i4 ( /2• 5 'flat t. /5/ 06 l�l/ e/I ; ‘ fl////e g///e, �G,/D i/4_, /,- , 3-•a2 7. UJ-O s�- S s_D n e c � C� /a- ,3 E- e. -z`_"J n`^. �r�a � c�zG. Z-- 3?. Ptayy o_�l�lns C ifi 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19, 20 . ' 12/0/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATI ON LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD - 38) . NAME ADDRESS s Ze\ - •,.dAV:i.V 2. YE, s `6S3 .'=, . Jy // ec, •1C 4. S k. L 3 : i I 41 8.3q LaC g -471 3 ?Lb,:11� 3. 41 / - Sk-6 S6 40 l c R_t 3 y P/Sky II le 6' abth-.�;�°m-uh d,,,_ s 960 cI CA' 3`7 4971-n a(A :� ,�`L C C (A' CR, 1.1 4 p1;7j7,O'!!L y ms4-t1 5l W. e . Zed 34 CCU 10. v�l 0>z_i? /' Ss. o i w c R d/ 3 `7 P- �-�- 1 1 .A2/9„�J dilo/e� .'S87`/ GAL' gel 3 t/f�«f //%!G i� 12. �1 4.4.1c. z /3 "'or '.U1•c f �t7 13:jettetil r co 14 � ii/ tWt± M4QC a Z 16. rh- ta, . ..- /87 e/,e.8 a 2 17. .4-4/6772.. x/87 de,t rz a • r / 19. d. y _ /! Z< J 20 i t ti. L✓ LAC`~�'l ( l 3 7 �� (<t( � L� c 0 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM . AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TIN, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . . NAME ADDRESS 1 . �ti-vu . i. / 7 7 S Cc• v k'd 3 .0 54 es,,I2 I la- /a_ 19s 3. .1, y' a,/a-s" attatic 4Q t a.-/ -49t9l4• �owi_cce-.cam Q-/Va14',-"`-`-i, 7 /7--IQ s• 91- M'aD —.-5 if iCvXe isg-6 itakeet6-4.6l'.Q c,t, /[a21q we. c 13, 'tl v.ti-,QoJa ,a_/a_ IQ 6• CA; /4 .2, s P8. ve- -c co tocrc Via.-/2 _ gt 7. - ! /1‘ a-C7, C ue--/I -, 4 S / -,_,-,_46, S. 1///,(//��J �� a ,1 .7I 1'4 X167 -ilg 9• elf Imo'"'^�b .3-7/.3fAG 10. 190-cAfre.i.c_i 4.9 0-0 'i f 6 &.- .k2Qe_. X6.3- / . ded) T-f4 /i3cc Cf25-velar 8'cG5` / /42_ /3 - sj/ 11 . =:-cam - t �( 1 1rIS�c i ZS � ) �‘crS`es3 e„, .2--1q( - f 6 13. / / 2. if as c 0. 13; p��ii,..�:1��.�e% acC)n 14. $itoce W. , / 1/47S.2- VII .C, /Q,(3 Qt ' Lr Fee-57 /`/- 8'G 16. /0 J /i /7380 U/. e..e. 13 /l1« ,-�L'Z c°o FaGs- J /&- -if 4" 17. 7724020 a o:/-c 173go w.c,8, 13 E' x -�. C°v • Saes f � �_ We 12" aaga Q °ire.To 4S: ._ 1/41-2- 2/3 qV ,7a277 2.46- 4444.9. a ,e4_ c �„�- • • 12/°/S6 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1q 02'10 afore. .29, LOnlGmo rT 1 �'fa� c t L9. 4626a-,"2c�L'Q- , ✓ 2. 1 (21/21, d 7 o G Ld e 1Z f 8 ci -�--n. 3. �irn--.� C aa49 vccL �8 �CSd�T 4. C a�g� WCtZ 3� 1< , `c 5- n .20 Otter_ _ //299 ztJem Co. Rd 6• �.1' ctak I rviOS weld Co. u_ct Z/6 Goo@naitCc% 7" J '.:. .. j 2 -( c-IL-E cl / 7.11 '- C _d .lam I: //k..--1-e±. cci�/ Cc'' J a• 9. 10, 11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . • »/9/S4 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . dale- NAME ADDRESS A0 K E. A.A94A_ 83e! Wcrs `igA-O/7145Yetwe co se?-257, ll3 lecto 2.l'IMC�� • Lek 1CS `' % U7GQ. t 4L{1, ' kc�ou,.o l0 S c 1/ r yL ,lJa-, ii tier'. T 7 f �i 5•J //7/-fig- 4,1/(57-7‘;: �• .08 tt* p (v 44 L(.es144a)j cN C ��+w�: ova ascx - ut p 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . C?.ti( n, iz/Y/tso WE THE UNDE GNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE ALICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CO RATION COLORADO DAIRY FA S THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1./4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS �J/ c4zA 5380 w. C.,2, 36 �.P s e co. 806x/ 4/13/94, 1 . s�� on ESQ /2//1/4' 4 ei t7 ctil-' 5�/za o`' , /5894 w.C.1Z.r � �'-t .2(057 7,0d-A73 6 / i% 94 7. 9: 10: 11 , 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) _ NAME ADDRESS Gym �8.-j_ ,,,,,m , 7224 zai ,9:.7/t uti.PQ x'73 zhab :izf Wi go4. 11 ) I Asa/7/3/$4 5. W 1 a�u,Ga. o'Z0A05' �aeC.,.ca• Asa.fiertat-S81:>3 40 \771-et'etAL'a-ter--- 1 b A 0 y Ca-Get,en, cbjqg,t,atocnn. / sou: /?l%3/PG lo. 9n' .ts, cou /,.,-1,4,L,.i7, el,. .T.G,.,n�. 5S7--,77, d� /� n x77.274,y //86 11. 217 "0:'"�" .20503 p oa let -e� ;S87.cs z,. zpils,4 12. swry�a,,.sv�,.t.� So 37 ,g- 4e44. C,C�, .2_. a.Z. ni 2?/s 1/04 13. (�,4,--44£. ..i Sofl �6, t. a fl7 s z�j3�8G i a. m• Tp„ea.+�co 50 76 ,et �' cl- �ivz7.«, s v <70 5 0 7G 6 'eil lCGa�cH cr'/rxn.sra,"t7;7� /�/r' 1� Q'`a" `-� SI 3 ) t ,fste'f'�d� i"aQh, +.x, 6�. r A t ' 31 16. 5 "MCA.. t 46 6131 6.ux (14 \141/111,(;AYA.Ca'',3: 17 x.91 1• an.c,..0 1,18 g e 1a. Piti ,4-A ten 101017 fieelnaait P4. 041 2. tab ,s.� , 19. a-7 n41 m iZ)t, c . •✓ e(17-0. 7( f 1,(e 20. ,• aogs 7 % daz 9L ; • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 2• pisG� A jAlitaiws 5/27 5t- bitito 74:111‘45)7141/1 3: 4. 5. 6. s. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. c.-..,,. • • 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS - 4c, e t' — t(o 1. ( a'1/'�^'�l .D�/V..( �cP Cp0$. OlvaS_ SFs'Z- 2-Sc. /srt I a,--t3-5K,22. �/ - ' '��mtL 1i aoc0c) � c Qic4� C.O/2'/C( G 'a. J� E.7 � (/�' . Jct.. 7dwYt fit' 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16_ 17. 18. 1S. 20. WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38)'. NAME { - ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 1 . E-42-'e 1@ ,2L Zanp� ems' .o LS 1 *7-,r4...-,..,„, g•^\ 1 -- / ' ..--- cv: - 7 -/-f p 7 3. 62.1,_(,4, Yj). „..„...a. z a- o / /O 7 � '„( ,,, c,4,,_ �J / 7697 4. In GVrwXI D. flo. '�� ,o ( S L 7 inv .aoiih9t '7_ l i g' 7 5. St-a, I lea gLj A0 I .5-4a iC efrvt na-0.v tati . 1 (9 ? 7 6. 4 on_ "7 % -►1e-sh r. - gerand5. 79jy 7.` )Q ., z oss 7 ` <- €"1 - 7, f 9 s-i 8- M24.4/ kAciu-vvmslo 2-0111 linntovron eh,9. )r ,,�, az.S7 eh1, QA.. '� ,III \Cka7 10 .1 C_�sK{h' nnQQ 020 46 C� ALc76Yloarear- 111111 11 /, i c r� a044.4 !l' � -at,. rJ 1....VCA--±n--- it . :,,r/ artc) ace. 14.---.0., ._S3.O Amps- ,o, C72 A/e 77 16. 4 i ifaerY e, / 7-97 174 Is,Scc $11,1 18. ezoirr6i26- ,, g: / - 7- 17 19 -- , l i s2%'`�",pTtin 47 t aPi_. 1— -7-6 zo . c587-z T q2 C~are 6Ji&Pe W/ (1D 0/AC 1-- `7�7 ,t� D w�p/a77 ylo2P r►...4e-tom /- 7-827 7o 4°71 i1' -74'e / la r,AvsTa4u� c. PO 4-33y Al aDia'7 y r�u�.t/ / n 9-410 if o do • Pose-4i - l �7/ WE THE UNDERPNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD • PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME I ADDRESS/PHONE DATE y4 1 . ikt, 149( orr stksti Ste; a i *r7-ZS S I-1-3 2. � n, ,FPq�� ¢ ow.„„) 5h/9/sage.,&. S8)-J730. I -7-?% 3. E. /4 - 6-7/Si s S. .y87 aass /- 7- el 4. �h 5y51 Ct" Off"?-02Q55 1 5'C/ -5740e. a r X87-- 73z 6. 7.l_ atta 9.fra-j 4C/of C• aACIL6-f a wid. .�,✓ .2OO87 /Voeda'oae he aB7-fi 5 -I-S-8a 9. 4$ Q tw+.` AO in 4,..66,...- D/. aP9- 3.5rr / -r'eg 10 . LS( /Z i Z0Lf Sts o, cr S$7-a% j/i/sli 11 . zc S `// eg z ≥4 '/0)/4 12. 1 e iL0/7/% 54rAornal 5S7- 24.37 /-7-5 / Zo670 Sfric �.-- C% Ss'7 - zt02 I- 9 13. �zlJ 14. -;pp 424..: _C7 a y J'. U- s T-r'VoS a /- 9- 1s. �/IGt.�/R�r.yJ'✓/✓ .22D)2a Srn Aon...) CT S-81> - t/OSZ l - 5-fl 16. 6 f v‘.1icArSk A 6 kb°1 \L"..w•Altea S t 7 DC 1 1-t .7 17. /oar 184._ a c)53-7c�.d.� c r- ---Ch a636 1 - -1_0-7 010777 /ti O.eterarOd/9 i?,47 20. sec y, • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 1 .747,_7/7- 5,1Ca' 02g VC/el, i( 2. 7Yanr-t 125y Gv.CQd 34/ J _ 7 - �,7 3. m. 6.96 / ,4' b6 /- 4 -s5 4. aat--t ,,hice-le lvr42/4/ale /- 9-87 6. titO-Ca ja1)14-A4- .11"-^17- . S 7. �B r E �4 g tiati ";/71,44.4 as /-/a - g7 e. o-J e r nd1-{/o odli CG l- /O"-- Sl i O cz`�'-�l/ed off /2 , - /r/a-ri 10 • li . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. • e WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART • OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . •ate NAME ADDRESS h.owe_ _5bcc.gti . 1osol'/ wLh_7 77a_d797 ' /�7 / Fa�TisC.24 / 7 _ s-d7 - tea G: �2 3. �1 �L tok ill-fawneo, 8aS3y a. NCI Cd/i4 t Pire -ru. y-re- 5T7-VIcl„to77 6. ;L / ✓ 17 r‘/ zdc,e /j sg2-� a y l97c1 IV 04€ 17 � C2 - `" _ ft 8l 7. �2 � ! `11-C. �t1 e i�d t >� - -.09-0 � � 8. �` W c &k.(3 -.S--1C1-c(2-4.,0 -C7 9*E141 18 1 10 . II . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1 17. 18. 19. 20. • • • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATI ON COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO CWELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE :: t2tz ;t° tt72t �z-Z3 8z 3. G'hthe, ir /99543 W. IZ. <Colehnemz. /z-z-7-% 4CM • 1\rit Roo--,-, 42co YVCk 32- Pl2a 16, ! - -g7 5: - 6. 7. s. 10 . li . 12. 13. 14..: • 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 1t� �0 .hA� n ' q 0 y6$( ul. 32 /4 - !o " 1 • 2• illy t. /2555 4..74-12- Z Ste_ 9y 1- 1>-8-17 • P1/441/4).2 tec 3• Kl� 'h'1nnoF.4, tecSS Wc-2,11 Ssn a-&1744 • 5. 6. 7. 8. ' 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. • 17. • 18. 19. ` 20 . Cb ' v • • • IC%IN 7-1(Al U Fp R M F R ( SHE 3 ) ,; 2 IL C O .0 N - „1.Irk r:r r..r. '. Y; p¢r. r,:r r r,-r r r .-:•►- 1 1 II P it �ti Y ^. • or !: n'. ri n r- r� •rt •\• ; :..r: I rr�ri r:L w■w•■. wT•;•r'-r• .T.-) {t'€ij hInii 1,3 . ! i 1L1. Ca it .• L ,� • , e� +F�-tilt..rp:i. • •b - m i r), \.. l a.. . .1 f I. i f.^ • I 'r: t !ii}(t}' ip-ij. �/ - ( � L n w. i '° l 1 • a•J-? ` v 1� Sijuji3i ■ • - � 1 c Y �_.� I� J •■ , ■' ri I .. \'( i t ' a ` c a .1 1 ■ ■ •1� j tom. }. -Pr r r_r. rH ,i^r r" . T r.7r tr.•f4_t.•rn—.�'f� u• -•' • C r r..r• P' Y•� rr��,, rlr- ►- .rY"r r Y. ► rrr 1 ■ =. - h •,, J r .1. CI ,� )u.■ p •. +1 d siltAl; L ■ V ■c■ •■ (L vt t `, � s . 9 -..„ ..., ... r' *- r- r'''•u • • r •-; a - • • r Fr! rrr n.r. CPC pi r r r: Fr re-: S 'r-r.r- lp •1 m 7L • s) u ra! - r} n 1 i• l c• 17 = t iG- Vm m • r •' v ■ r`.y 1 . W :„ 1 K ` n` - ;It .<Y. — •ilw T , 1 + ` C rn _ r -- r. r r r r r cn 1 . Lr• � � - • • 4 _ • •cl .f-' r rr. rrrrr Pr pr r.T . - ..— to .,�w + u r . • cam lCL4 ' ■- -Y - fir J 7_; n, ' Al • y • c • .l 1 a; �' �; ' • ‘II30St ...0 _ 70 p i 1• � � r } - TOJ • a . -.. .y: r • „- ,..---6---1, ' , IIIII . IL I, ip 1) • 1 • 7` " L ,-• a 1 `• L ff . 1. IN \'may • L •,•• : 1 • c• L . IL �\ NI • . 11 , . . • . . , „.. . ,, . • , .. III c • - 1 i \ • • r-: 1 �D__..__.. - r • . . r. r r ..._..r. • ,• • •• I I raw• i- r _5 •r • c •v_ w `• i -• n 111111. _\'•� ,'-0 • , I q , , -+• • ./> f J .- r . : tl Ir.-r='i!1.• tr. r:.l r_ -�au II• - rEl S71,] GJ nv fii (( ■ •riL, ale " k v • 1 , .` 1 or O.1'-\� " /y ■ 1■,.• w •1. • a. •u '� \,\ - •- : c •• ! ,} 14 r . r r u Gr lh•'r R •'• r}Y0 ri rt rt ii 4�. uLis; L "' •..� t ar n (},` tom . ', \\ _ • . ■ - yJ� •,-/ %�1t 1S SSJ•� 'r r ► r:--HC rt r r .- r! r, r ■ . `. \ • t iV. 4 r - r OIL (hA• ,\t-4 1 mlt'-i 1--11-L4l-i r..11- tr r •--, t_-. • . .y,__� —' - ,� _ ; el: t, rl -.:-ti' t + A ;1 N(N `� LNL•l• 1'�1 \ + f; L. 0 rAc \ .'�• • � _ :O ti,[ 1 i" r.. .'• K, / 'II •TL■.'us I • - k .. ,+ It\ • !, i Y Tr rn \` � ;1 1 a pp (41, l •ot. ,• p� •II rj - Cl N.'� - 'iGC ' . C il J �• u • , i 1/4L w \ h9_ •p • \y� i d t1 t•I- t\. �.` --4' n%' T' rr l-r1 Ifni . 71 .,i7,-;' ,#,,, n-r •_a a � Pr r Y r. w L M •f. ) .*S N _ .C. ;.:71 .Cy 0 MEti 6Alntil',CC0Mmissip!f9S January 9, 1987 JAN 121987' Dear Commissioner 3''4 - d/c. GREELEY. COLD. I am writing to ask that you reject the request of the Aurora Capital Corporation for a permit to created a 2400 head dairy on Weld County reeds 15-and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue property, and will lower the quality of life in our area. We live about two miles from the site; we are afraid that the smell and the flies from the dairy will make life outdoors unpleasant in spring and summer My family lives outside in warm weather. Last summer we ate every meal on our patio_ Many of the eighty families in Northmoor Acres do the same. This is one of the blessings of living in the country. A spokesman for the proposed dairy has assured us that odor and flies will be controlled by modern methods, meaning blue-green alge in the 'lagoons' and insecticides. The amount of insecticides needed to control flies will be enormous. We are concerned about pollution of land and water in the area, from fecal matter, and from insecticides. Because ours is an agricultural area, we already have insecticide use on crops. We do not want another unnecessary source of;pollution. • The dairymen say that they will be"good neighbors" and will handle any problems that arise, but this is easy to say before the problems arise. I am enclosing several letters to you from my neighbors. I appreciate your.consideration of this matter I hope that you will give the needs of the citizens in the area priority over the needs of a huge corporation from outside, a corporation that is not developing the land for agriculture, end has the potential of serious harm to the area. Sincerely, udtth G Northmoor Acres FxR/8/7 /V • LONGMONT%AMAHA 638 Main Street Longmont, CO 8050111 ` "l „I 6514000 To Weld County Commissioners: -I am opposed to granting a special permit -to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors in the summer and spring unpleasant and will make it fiery difficult to sell our property when we might need to. Sincerely, J/( f `Justin DJohnson 3131 Yucca .s. Johnstown,` Co:i -80534' N LQNGMONTWAMAHA • 638 Main Street Lo 805011a i Longmont, CO 80501 / fI - 651-7000 • To Weld County Commissioners: I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of- this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles` from the proposed dairy site and' the smell -from the dairy will make life outdoors in the summer and spring unpleasant -and will make it very - difficult to sell our property when we might need to. • Sinerely, / . - Charles R Johnson 5131 Yucca Ct. Johnstown, Co. 80534 LONGMONT AMAHA _ • Lo Main Street Longmont, 805011E gmont, CO 80501 > _ • 651-7000 • To Weld County Commissioners: I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles from the .proposed dairy -site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors.in the summer and spring unpleasant and will make it very • difficult to sell our property when we might need to. • Sincerely, • Colleen K Jo son 5131 Yucca Ct. Johnstown, Co. 80534 €s _ e r3 n '. C C • 7 `z �, 72 •ccu• ;•e Z-fir �-�- ,1, c7/ LJ ' r J" —3 y (r r��, •f f 1 (BILE � 711 0L-71 jax: ~ 7Le/i nkern' L CL`s'-:: • • P nrcci • • z r- r C�•�7r.�'.._.�.�� i+,:-lam vf.r �� _4—L.0_, • • ✓J� ii•L- & J. I`[ •?‘- •4•'"t' � a +.C%�„ { i wI / _ ILL • • • Dec_ 31, 1685 '' 20404 Cactus Drive (Northmoor Acres) -• Johnstown, CO 80534 • TaiWeld Lotnty. Comm sst ners: • Regarding the proposed Aurora :Capital-Corp. 's dairy farm at Weld Co. Roads 15 & 38, southeast of Northmoor Acres: We are definitely g000td to such an operation 5O near to our • • • - -residenti'al-no-ighborhood. Wedecided -.not to-live In' Ft. -Collins or in Greeley because of the infamous smells. We chose Northmoor Acres for its.quietness,and -for its ,cl-an, fresh air. We vcald be very upset to have the reasons for chosing our home destroyed due to a large„cattle operation nearby. We do not subscribe to the arguments that the operation.will not emit an unplesant ordor - we are the ones to lose if and when the arguments-prove false.- The-'risk is just too high. As votors and residents of Weld county, we desire you, our representatives, to voj e against the proposed Aurora Capital - - Corp-..'s dairy farm. at Weld Co._. Roads 15 & -36 (and request a no - vote at any other location where the ordor problem would also be Thank you for your understanding in this matter. • Regards. • L;i lliam A. Senoras, Jr Ronnie L. Sandras Registered voter - Registered votor PS; Because of out of town business, : we will be unable to attend the special meeting to discuss this matter on Jan. 14th. However, this letter expresses our opinions. • -3i-8� • T £�C4 Lev;Aar/ r(S3/G.JFPCS /&f E&Q,,v's r' 7—,� ele-44yc/Yr id C, op- /9 I FPm /T. i'ofz- L/4.2GE .1g Ry ofrYAnt x-1 Fro wFtk ' ' / L i v e /A/ .tai E 5 3 C r s /fl) nd E/cr{ nc"nb 1 /frp G3/4Ouq) F E Srlccic j. 4-f EcrC), rr FRCSEf /97/° ¢ Stue-tec-i-zi1) j,)& flifih :fi-Pa WY- . ,ate-r/ererr) B'c n4tc /F . .: a (too � .�r�y,�wA-s -rs &Lose. /11il Fi-o , &-A,.s,n v es.t--r o.,0 //o /L14A o != C/,tsrs r-n,F.v1-- z -'c( sEs IN See a 'Nt A-2) 7z rre2/.. } •27c5S7 tbL,bi L,-u,c r ' a • .73, c- 2 • • • iz - --PC, `2 QC�{Q_ e4 Ce tzzr (L•v p..-c4r�-'-u . i ..ng---1/C6--;L-2, ) a / ,,,,r,,,,...4d , i „Li- t 6:-(..,44-itc sf--4-7ed O n z L'----- /4GLe-. c,„z 2 7,(1,, e?, l'( 7 4/O o ect % Add. "Z.t+ze-t_r— Vic' £c utX c iL1-44-e- ."-le-C-12:--,0 . 7-A 71 1,'i- t el ' C.;---,...-u-e- --- i72-c_.- it:- CT-t-z-t` '-2( Cyr .L_ c- ,c--1. _.- i ,� �� . d��-2-- .,cam `�� .c�i!.�� .1- 1,i_c_.,c,/ fi cp`1.-c; -e-ez -i../ L. - , r-_ '" ,V' ec2� . c '— -4--el `, U a 7�- 1t`4� X647 ze sS 4 n Weld east.n-f_4 �mmi,3sroneZ.5: 1 In a s f t! d j J -u VV .5A-n ue � 1tht . Ek court E 7/pc) Ccita titai {tc Lwc. i id m4 h ' dowAl. _ 4 osn n3 7 y ir1vxlz.. j cIina/otv21, Et. $vs- / Jo (J?Jc . eGQ ? f (tin -: .:a - tedi.J-Lar) o-p,666-c_d t.� c y irLity clu'dt.L-, . c and „I' AS ILeixc Hefei .ditt.9viatz . c tesiink- --- .. .1 ep Aj &A z: Caus .�3Z.QQ:i a Jos C-Lnacu-d kstAQ c 0 CLY2ASCI . bz - _ .4.11CA �cr�� 9 ' k ffU53q • • 72: Weed Ginty (0r ,m5S/O )ems' alct cn;,t a-hc dcLaty,; bf4L11 bra Cf . en.C. and a -464( Art-14o : c'u..x iracrn fay . c7 . l�c,c4 �C AC( . rJil�_ CP2io Vu such Lan 44-P `rid o UIt. he c , :It Eh_Q cxtn a. titzeice, e„ t1 ..dct:y tAikod an u_n eedd faus fps . ' �i� . a 3 • • • Walter F. Burhans 20406 Northmoor Drive Johnstown, Co 80534 - 115787 To Weld County Commissioners: 2 am strongly opposed to granting a special permit to • . ...Aurora Capital Corporation for a .2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads . 15 ,and 38. I believe that_ a dairy of .this size and. : intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1h miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the, dairy will make life outdoors unpleasant in addition to making it very difficult to sell our property_ > Sincerely, vg Walter F. Burhans fl ^.,"n J e • Yvonne M. Burhans 20406 Northmoor Drive Johnstown, Co 80534 5 January 1987 Ms. Judy Green 20627 Catclaw Court Johnstown, Co 80534 —To Weld County-Commissioners: _... _. _ I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area, . We live only 135 miles from the proposed dairy site . and the smell from the •dairy will make life outdoors unpleasant in addition to making it very difficult to sell our property. Sincerely, ''Yvonne M. Burhans t V C _ M! r-r • • • January 4, 1987 To Weld County Comissioner-s: - • • RE: Aurora Capital Corporation, Proposed We are opposed to your granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the inter•sectior. of Weld County roads 15 and 39. . - --. .We-...agree with-others -opposed.ao -this dairy because of the negative impact it wi11 have on the quality of our outdoor- living environment. Due to the prevailing southerly winds during the spr+ ng and summer rorths the insect and stench problems associated with a dairy will rcike this a very unpleasant area to reside. We would appreciate your thougitiul consideration in this matter. - - Sincerelyf _ —fir%/w �-• Sanford L. Reutter M. Marlene Peut er• Marthnloon Acres L. 20649 Staghor•n Court - .Johnstown. CD 80534 • • 11th aril tt raiiriri January 6, 1967 i C 1ihiE ;JAIL 3 S1I - ,gv an. Weld County Commissioners Gordon Lacy P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado -606.72 Dear Gordon, This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. We purchased a small acreage a year ago directly across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site. The acreage was intended for a building site. We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition, we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one-half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate. We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concerns. They are as follows: 1. ODOR PROBLEMS This is a major concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution. The odor this operation emits is twice: as bad for one's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL , Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products -from a population of cows as described above. Z. MILK OVERSURPLUS Why is a large investment corporation allowed to operate 2,400 head when small local dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the average independent N dairyman? : i' ce ,ExH/877 / 1 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows 'especially • . ,when :a caw--r equi.res _at :1 east 35 gallons of water a day? Will there-be-enough water to supply growing commercial 'and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn 't the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads hauling milk products, feed, manure, etc. Noise from the truck traffic , cows,- machinery and human. traffic-would be constant day and- night. Lighting would need to be on- continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at night. 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE. Do dairy cow operations' such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the, roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large, heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or do they bring, in their own work force? Do area businesses . within the area profit-•that 'muth from this corporation or do they do their business outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products, water availability, waste, - control , no community or county' advantage _and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed-of ,a chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land - we purchased before the dairy:'-purchased their property' . ...a .: a .- > . • a :4.. . Please vote no this and not allow thi large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of — . . Section 32, T4W, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. We have lived in the Johnstown area for 16 years and lived in Colorado all of our life. We have been active • voters and are continually working to make our community a better p/ace to live. We want to continue to make this our home. Please don 't force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state. Sincerely, 0 • Duane Frye 143 King Avenue Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Lin.. Cis % r.1 L $anuaac� 6, 1987 Weld County Commianionena u C'"'' C Y-� P. O. Box 758 �7 :-, A-:„._, �teele�, CO 80632 ��r�'' 1--' 211 Js� n Dean. Camnziaaiv JAN 1.2 „V N LYrcer�, U 1 am wnLtLnog to oppose the p'opo.ied datnu 1OA The Aunon i.z: coLQ f CapLtal ConpoxatLon, achzeduled rfoa ;ontn9 on Sanaaau /4, 87. We centaLnL" do 1/0T need new daiaLea to add to the nicapLua o ee tin Acr milk, ail you foal zatculfute Secaefaag. ?ichandh1.e LLyng, o�Lven�at₹the National /ALLA Paoa'uceta FedexatLoa conven₹Lon laat Fait. 'Quote: ALL daLan (armena ahould be caatioua about expan'_Lon for whatevea reaaon. We axe oe₹tLna our auppl2-demand ptctune Lnto beften balance, "Lynn, aaLd. "Ir a lamer imbalance occuxa, auppont price levet,. wt.LI go down. "Then daLnumen axe." conaLdeacna expandtna theLt production, thus ghoul_° look ahead and` tealLje f&ct the paeaen-t Law calla ('ox auppoat pnice xeducfiona Li paoduction ,ta mane than (Lve btLLLon pounda . above demand, "he aaLd. The dectaLon ahould be to chanfe vead little nt.ht now. 1 thank the datxu Lnduafniy would be vencg wine to Leave ma?oa daLny, ublic polccLea as they ate, "Lvno aaad Ln ALA addneaa. End `cc Quote; Ue do not oaf" 1/07 fiver_ D A0i2E MILK, but I ceataLnL5/ would not want a data" of that .at e aotn Ln near mu home, would your ' tc € ou haven 't alneadu done AO 1 auo,geaf 'ea take a nixie out fo Jltahwau #66 anus c2' oad #/7� South of 5ohnatown, datve atnataht 'down to the St. Vao.Ln liven and` gee how cLoae thoae holdtna ponda (nom The Colorado DaLou ant to the ntvea. I am only aoray that that daLnm wag Atatted be/one people aea1L3ec what wag faking place. / don't thLnk ancone would want to have thLa baacneaa near. theLz homea, eapecLaLlo when Lt La NOT /YEEDED! Sincenel', �//�� Masks Halifax nthy - 2O718 lflep Cote, Ra 77 ///� A Joknstown, C., .110.- -m-- .% ;' 1 ' q 1 kxn.ne/r L f • January 8, 1987 Gordon Lacy Weld County Comm'.ssioners Uff BoX 758 - QNi'2 �96?1 Greeley, CO :,0632 _ - • gap,FFE TV..Can Dear Commissioner Lacy: This letter is concerning the Aurora Capital Corporations application for expanding their dairy production at the location of Weld County Roads 15 and 38. As a resident who lives a little more than half a mile from this location I am asking you to turn down this application. There are many reasons for not wanting a dairy in this neighborhood and_many reasons for not needing any more dairies at all. "These -as a - public official I am certain you are already familiar and advised about. There are a number of other reasons besides the emotional ones which are a concern of us residents. (1 ) This proposed dairy is not in keeping with the county's comprehensive land use. It will be taking prime production ground out of use and destroying it for good. Furthermore the dairy will not be prone to use what- ever land is left for adequate farming since their main business is milk and not grain. Their size will make it too inefficient for them to consider raising any of their own feed and thus the total land site will be removed from agriculture. (2) The proposal of this size of dairy is obviously not compatable with the other agricultural operations in the existing area. This district is and has been for many years small family farms and dairies. There are no other conglomerates of this proportion operating. So this application is unfounded based 'on the guide lines for our county and -district. (3) There is no way this-business can control the roads and the amount of -traffic going to and from their operation. Many of. us are concerned for the safety of our children who must venture onto these roads to attend school etc. The excessive speed of trucks and their inability to-stc-p make this business a future hazard. Of equal concern -is the health of all of us living within the vicinity. . Human life -needs adequate breatheable air -and water. An operation of this size will_.greatly reduce our water supply as it is already difficult to keep up pressure- in the summer months now. And along with the above mentioned arguments I don't think we _want to lose sight of the real - issue. The real issue-' is the fact that we live in a Democratic society; And' you are 'an elected official of the Democratic system and process. If-we are -a -true Democracy then the will .of the people determines the direction a particular situation should go. We, the residents of this area, are not saying that Aurora Capital Corporation has no right to enter into the dairy business; ' They 'have every right to engage in such an endeavor in a free enterprise AxM/eir /t page 2 • • system. What we are saying is that we don't want it located in this area; And our voice and vote is a resounding NOt Aurora Capital is not a citizen, nor are they made up of citizens or residents of this area or county. The Weld County Commissioners were elected to advance the Democratic process of Government and to protect it from any and all who would attempt to gain any per- sonal value at the expense of its citizens. No matter what Aurora Capital promises it can do or.._add to the :area,'.,•no matter how much dollar value they claim to bring into the county, no matter how many people they may hire, no matter how "expert" they are in eliminating odor, no matter whatever claims they may make about being "potential good neighbors", they are still by definition not a citizen. Even were we to bend the rules and change the definition of citizen they would only get one vote. And that would not be sufficient to cause you to okay their request and turn against the process which is the foundation of this country. It is a sad day when we have to waste tax dollars and valuable time to listen to issues which have nothing to do with the problem at hand. Wisdom can cut right through all the human intellectual and emotional reasons and responses by sticking to the principles which were written and approvedby all of us living in the Democracy. None of you Commissioners needs to take sides in this issue. All you need do is defend the process for which you were elected and cordially invite Aurora Capital to seek location for their dairy - in another county where the citizens vote for them and the land use is in agreement with their application. Please don't cloud the issues of our day more than they need be . The process of Democracy is being challenged on all sides and its ability to work is being held in suspicion more and more. None of us is capable of separating the emotional feelings on either side and none is capable of knowing what the future will be or who will be proven right or wrong. But I suspect the Founding Fathers of this country knew all about human emotions and how they confuse and cloud issues. Maybe that is why they selected the Democratic process so the common man would have a say and not be manipulated by those in power. Your vote of NO to this application secures the Democratic process and frees you from having to take sides either for or against a business. Your vote is cast neither for the opposition nor the proponent. It is a vote for the Democratic:System which states in writing and blood that the will of the majority is the course to be taken. Please .accept my personal thanks for listening to all of us on both:,sides._and for helping us (me) realize again what are the real issues; at.hand< John S. :Mceahan • JSM/3m v1! termz"m • Mkttrain • ,.s— nt P A9r..r lc.G Co.u� //4_ . -l�e..� i,�• r�-fi _ • - yam �1Lt 2 x� LoKRA/NE nR/47SY s' )77 Al. /41Lrsraa No..erH.,00lr /ri«r s �-oSo £9erus Delve vo//.✓6 YoaL✓ eO PO--C:7# e xi,len N/ • • January 6, 1987 C•.gr JAM 9 9 Weld County Commissioners Gordon Lacy :Men EI' cOCO. P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Gordon; This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. We purchased a small acreage a year ago directly across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site. The acreage was intended for a building site. We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition, we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one-half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate. We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concerns. They are as follows: 1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a major concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution. The odor this operation emits is twice as bad for one 's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above. 3. MILK OVERSURPLUS Why is a large investment corporation allowed to operate 2,400 head when small local dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying` products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the average independent dairyman? Ex.wsn • • 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows;' especially • when-a cow -requires-at =lust :35 47al.lons .of .water a day? Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn 't the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads hauling milk products, feed, manure, etc. Noise from the truck traffic , cows, machinery and human traffic would be constant day and night. Lighting would need to be on continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at night. 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large, heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses within the area profit that much from this corporation or do they do their business 'outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products, water availability, waste, control , no community or county advantage and the adverse conditions it would create for all . .We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property . WKr. .177 • • Please vote no on this and not allow this large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. We: have..)ivied _in ..the the...lohnstown. .area for ib ;years and lived in Colorado all of our life. We have been active voters and are continually working to make our community a better place to live. We want to continue to make this our home. Please don 't force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state. Sincerely, Nyl Frye 113 King Avenue Johnstown, Colorado 905y.4 Cr"_ ^„y(1 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 Use by Special Review 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 in 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. APPLICANT DOCKET NO. 86-82 Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court Boulder, Colorado 80301 DATE: January 14, 1987 TIME: 2:00 P.M. REQUEST: Use by Special Review - Livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW}, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN.FEUERSTTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY. Mary Reiff, Deputy DATED: December 29, 1986 PUBLISHED: January 1, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze Exwea/T • AFFIDAVITOF PUBLICATION THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNED ) I,ClydeTY OF BriggWs,Ldo solemnly swear that I am publisher of The Johnstown Breeze; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Weld for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the • first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly. newspaper for the period of .1... consecu- tive insertions; and that the first publication of said notiema§in the issue of • said newspaper dated 124.31 A.U. Is IF_(?, ,1 :. . and that the last publication of said notice (r., was in the issue of said newspaper dated , A.D. 19 In witness whereof I have herrtutto set my ha �liis .--3J day of... A.D. 199 • C -Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Publi.: in and for the my of W State of Colorldp,this day of nG �t.Cr�2 D. 19 -- 4 4 'v .htorary pdbtfc My con se, xpvrc'it r-14;'t987- lohnitpwr.. CC 80534. • .AFFVIT OF PUBLIC/070N State of Colorado County of Boulder 1, J. R. Hofmann ,do solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY TIMES CALL is a s> " daily newspaper printed, in whole oz in part, and published in the City of Longmont, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and which has general circulation therein and in parts of Boulder and Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously and m „�roR •-;;� uninterruptedly published for a period of more than six months 4 + cam+ { next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice of • advertisement, that said newspaper has been admitted to the v ^i SLa United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions : iihnibtadlenint n8,%^• i of the Act of March 3, 1879,or any amendments thereof,and that �°wnoei�r said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for - 'KWOWW:IIM publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado;that a copy of each number of said newspaper, in which said notice of advertisement was Afz` published, was transmitted by mail or carrier to each of the ' rl subscribers of said newspaper, according to the accustomed ; mode of business in this office. AitN Ns,a�. l'"VE That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire edition of said daily newspaper once; and that one publication of said notice was in the issue of said ?oaf newspaper dated January 6 19 87. it nN - c.c a.. y ' A! Gen rai ' p&Manager Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of Ja uary1 119 87 otary Public .0TARs- • My Colviitioa E 19>� FEE g 27.00 igmont 717 - 4th Avenue fisuo Colorado 83501 ,I rt— •,fir. DATE: December 29, 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 14th day of January, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. Docket No.. 86-82 - USR, Livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) - Aurora Capital Corporation OFFICE OF THE CL TO THE BOARD BY: iit� `� - Deputy The above mentioned hearing date and bearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO r � J � C f- r$/B/7 6 6' l�R3 �CCa--hilt Z .:-x M.≥'' RC.? DEC'2 41985 1; ti GREELEY. COLD. December 23, 1986 Gentelmen; I am writing this letter concerning to the Dairy that the Colorado Daisy wants to build, I `farm right next to the North side of The Colorado Dairy, I farm 227 acres and all in corn. And I also ;rant to say that all of this corn crop the Dairy buys from me. I want to say that as things are now in those times a farmer has a hard time selling his crop, the Dairy has been to me a good business partner, with this I mean in being able to sell my crop. I feel that the Dairy should be granted the right to build. We need to expand and to grow and not to let our agriculture cease. Section 20 Very truly yours, Range 67 a�%�'� A adotA-� ake Salazar Toumship 3 DEC 241986 EKm/B/7 ///F Weld Co. Mamma icmmist1an Summaty of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 9 • Lee Morrison reported that since we are still under the old Comprehensive Plan this request must be evaluated by the Planning Commission under that plan. However, since were are between the old plan and adoption of the new plan, if this request is denied, the applicant may come back and ask that it be considered under the new Comprehensive Plan after its approval. Only requests made during this brief time between the two plans have this privilege. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Lydia Dunbar - yes; Ivan Cosnell - yes; Louis Rademacher - yes; Paulette Weaver - No,: based -upon the intent of the existing Comprehensive Plan which states that urban-type uses should be located adjacent to existing municipalities and this is not an existing municipality. Also, by locating something with this type of traffic adjacent to an interstate highway will create problems with the traffic on the interstate highway. : : Ann -Garrison - yes; Jack Holman - yes. ..Motion carried-:with five voting for the motion and one voting against the motion. The Chairman called a recess at 4:40 p.m. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:50 vCASE NUMBER. . USR 770:86:51 APPLICANT: Aurora Capital Corporation REQUEST: Use by Special Review, permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL-DESCRIPTION:- SW} of .Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th_ P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: At the northeast corner ,of the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and 38 APPEARANCE: Ken Dell, Planner, Rocky Mountain Consultants, represented the applicants. This will be a commercial dairy on 161 acres. Aurora Capital wants this dairy to exceed all standards and State and County guidelines. This property is the old Anderson Feedlot. The hcuse will remain on the property, but other structures and_ feedlot pens will be removed. The dairy is planned to be constructed in two phases. Each phase will have three mobile homes. Sanitation -systems will be handled according to accepted design. Each phase of the dairy-will have a cistern witch will be filled on off peak hours with water _ from the .Little Thompson Water, District. Each phase will have one thousand two hundred cows. He explained how the sedimentation- and retention ponds. will be constructed and operated. Water from' the third or last pond will be used to , irrigate the .property. All ponds > will - have, : clay liners to prevent water from seeping into the _underground water., table—: . -.There...are =four residences - close. to the dairy operation, but none is closer than six hundred and fifty feet from the dairy operation or the ponds. Impacts of the dairy are designed to be confined to the property. f XHIB/T 7 Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 10 Tape 262 - Side 2 - Robert James, Project Engineer,:Rocky-Mountain Consultants.. ::The sanitation system was designed to take .into ?consideration surface' and, ,subsurface conditions, prevailing winds, runoff, etc. Each retention -pond- has been designed to hold one hundred and thirty percent of the estimated twenty-five :year flood plain run off. Steve Rivas, S. P. Rivas -Company,- stated he had been contracted. to subdue the odor problem at both dairy- sites. They use blue-green algae, two feet on the top of each pond, to eliminate-the- odors. Jerry Gray, : Anchor Animal Health, reported -his company handles insect - control at Colorado Dairy and will:also handle it at this site. Colorado Dairy does an excellent job of- removing the debris-. etc., from the site to cutdown on the inspect population. Mark Pepperzack, President, Aurora Capital, stated they would not be doing this if they did not have a-market for their product. He considered this dairy a family operation. They did want to acquire property across from the existing dairy, but this was not possible. - This - land is dryland and he feels they are creating a land-use product. Phase .one will be completed in 1987-and phase two will be completed in 1988. Barney Little, General Manager, Colorado Diary: Farms, stated they have fifty-three full time employees, -fifty-one of 'which are local. The new dairy will employee thirty-five people. The bulk of their products are . bought locally. They rent six houses close to the dairy for their employees. They have spent three and one-half million dollars locally so far this year. Approximately nine hundred replacement cows::are purchased per year. He also reviewed the estimated truck traffic that would be needed to serve the -dairy. Tape 263 - Side 1 - The Chairman asked the applicant if 'they objected to having the' opposition speak -first-and then those who are in favor of this: request speaking last. The applicants did not- object- to this proposal. - The Chairman asked that each speaker limit their time to three to five minutes and asked that those speaking try not to be repetitive and limit their testimony to new material. Lee- Morrison'reviewed the-criteria- that- must be used in making a decision by the'Planning -Commissions ' He reviewed: Section 24.3 of the Weld. County Zoning Ordinance.' This is a land-use -decis'iot and land-uses should be .the bulk of the criteria"taken-into consideration'oa:which.a:decision is based. S Summary of the Weld County'Planning-Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 11 Thomas Rellerich, Attorney, Dinner, Rellerich, and Lazar, represented a group of fifty to fifty-two individuals who are in opposition to this request. Use by Special Review standards require that the health, safety and well being of the residents in the area are protected from traffic, dust, odor, noise, water, etc. They do not feel these safeguards have been met. This is a business and not- a farm and it-does affect the -economy adversely. Re asked that he be able to introduce each of: those he represents who wish to speak. Following all testimony he would like to be able to conduct- a summation. Nanette Adler represented a concerned citizens group. She distributed a map showing -residents in favor, no opinion, and for this proposal. A copy was retained by the staff for evidence. Faye Elms, property owner north of the proposed diary, was opposed to this request because of the increased traffic, dust, and odor: Ann Sorenson lives on land adjacent to the proposed dairy. She is against this proposal because of odors; traffic, and possible declining land values. Robert Willson lives 3.5 miles - from• the property. Re is -opposed to this "request `because of -the' increased=traffic,- dust- odors. : He. also- -doubted Little Thompson Water District could supply ample water for this operation, and he questioned the effectiveness of clay pond liners. • Tape 263 - Side 1 Nila Fry, property owner within five hundred feet, is opposed to this request because of the increased traffic and odor. They bought this land for a building site and if the dairy goes in they will probably never build onit or be able to sell it. Mel Leinweber spoke against-this request because of increased traffic and the danger__this may impart to schoolchildren and the school busses. / Greg Brownspoke against- this-request-:-- He questioned the need for more milk IItore'Xocal markets for •feed. Jack McAnn area resident, stated this is a corporation. It is not a citizen. They are outside investors and not private citizens. It is private citizens who are against this proposal. - -Also, - corporations don't vote'. • Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 12 Ed Reichert, area resident, is opposed, to this request because of the smell, shortage o€;water under the Little Thompson, and devaluating . land prices. He also spoke as a realtor on the.real,estate aspect of the land surrounding .the dairy. • Joe Elms, area resident spoke against__this proposal because, of the odor and increased traffic. Judith Green, Northmoor Acres, stated there are- eighty- families living in Northmoor Acres and they are concerned about the odor. Charles. Stieff is against - this proposal for all the reasons previously given. Duane Fry, surrounding property owner, is opposed to this request for the many good reasons already given. This is a twenty-four hour a day operation and it disturbs a farming community. Bob Schellenberger, Northmoor Acres,: stated eighty families live one and one-fourth miles north of the proposal. The waste from two thousand four hundred dairy cows is the. equivalent:_to the waste .of a town of thirty eight thousand people, therefore he does ,not see-how the retention ponds- can be odorless. Charles Gray is opposed to this, request because of decreasing property - values. He cannot sell his land until he sees if this dairy is: going to go onto this site. The Chairman called a break at 6:15p,m. The meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m. Jerry Sidwell, Gill, does. custom farm work. He is for the dairy. He buys hay from approximately twenty farmers in the area and sells it to the dairy. Justin Sidwell, Gill, does custom farm work with his, brother. Re is for the dairy. Whether or not a lot of feed is hauled- in and stored on the .property or whether it is brought in daily does not make a lot of difference in the average amount of truck, traffic. Curtis Strong, area resident, is: here is support of this request. The applicant's operation is exemplary. They employ people whom they pay good wages and provide good housing. It is a good outlet for farm products and we should welcome anything that utilizes farm products. The odor problem is ,_being constantly addressed. People should expect farming odors in farming communities as the norm, and this is a farming community_ • Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 13 Bill Claus, custom hay business, is for the dairy. Colorado Dairy buys a lot of hay from him. Shaun Martin, veterinary supply business, stated this is one of- .the top dairies he sees. It is clean, insect free, and the odor problem cannot be blamed entirely on the dairy. -- There is a twelve- thousand-head feedlot just around the corner. - Charles Sorenson, livestock herder, spoke in support of this request. Dick Poulkman stated may farmers have incorporated and they are still good neighbors and good citizens. He does a lot of repairs on the dairy and is impressed with the clean, seat operation: John Ewing, Veterinarian, feels -Colorado Dairy has done-- a good- job of handling odors, wastes, and control of -insects. Joseph Gabel, area farmer, stated farmers farm- to make money and. Aurora ,Capital has let him do this: Phil McCoy, area resident is for thisproposal. Ken Dell reported they had received a letter from Little Thompson Water District stating they can supply ample water for this project. The Chairman asked Keith Schuettsto Mead the recommendations, conditions, and development standards as outlined by the Department of Staff into the 'record. - Tape 254 - Side 2 MOTION: Ann Garrison moved Case Number USR-770:86:51 for Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation, a 2,400 head dairy, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. This proposal is not consistent with the -intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. Chile the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also, the uses of the land (as a dairy) would not be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land-uses as the surrounding land-uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future, land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and, therefore, the property would be not compatible with future development of, the area. Motion seconded by Paulette Weaver. • s Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 14 The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. Discussion:followed. The Chairman reminded the Planning Commission members that since the recommendation is for denial, and the staff`s recommendation is for ' • • approval, reasons should be given for their decision. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. - Lydia Dunbar - Yes, her reasons are very similar to the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. Also, this type of an operation should be taken into an area where there is less population and it would blend in better with other agricultural uses. Ivan Gosnell Yes, for the same reasons. He also feels there could be some potential traffic problems that have not been studied. Louis Rademacher - Yes. Because the ,landowners in the area are against having an operation such as this, and for the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. Paulette Weaver - Yes. She agrees with the comments made by Ann Garrison. This may be a well designed facility, but well designed facilities must be located in appropriate locations because as Lydia Dunbar stated, there are probably many areas in the County that would welcome this type of development, but this area, southwest Weld County, whether we like it or not is growing residentially and this type of use is not compatible with this current . and - future _ growth. Ann Garrison. - Yes. Jack Holman - Abstain because- of a possible- conflict of interest because he too is a dairyman. Motion for denial carried with- five voting for. the. motion and one abstaining. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bobbie.:Good_ Secretary • AELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 24 South Main,P.O.Box 345 Longmont,Colorado 80501 TNaphono 778-8031 C �'�f fir.�;•-a..,.� • Metro 444-2989:. �.-.� "S December 17, 1986 .EC A�1� ` ` E19 To: Meld Coffnty 'Piermmg-Gowmrsnoners cr<acl..cY, co,o. RE: Colorado Dairy Farms Propsed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15 - Yesterday, December 16, 1986, I attended the hearing regarding special use permit for Aurora Capital Corporation, Colorado Dairy. I could not believe what I heard. I could see that it would be a waste of time to try and speck at that time, so I de- cided to put it on paper. What I witnessed yesterday was a form of freedom which I didn't believe existed. Taxes were a large issue. I pay taxes (State, Federal and others to numerous to men- tioned - yes, Weld County also). At no time do I think I could tell my neighbor he or she could not live North of me, if his job is to the South due to traffic reasons. I did not know roads were maintained for joggers. I hope anyone having proper license plates on their trucks or any other vehicle may drive on any road which is not restric- ted in the U.S.A. The point is, there were some speakers that made sense, and some made no sense. When the criteria is met, zoning is appropriate and when the problems encountered are trying to be over come, no man or group of men have the right to control the destiny of others. That is the democracy, the freedom and the right to excel. There have been many men who died to secure this freedom of behalf of all. The cost of freedom is high. I per- sonally spent.two years of my life for it as a Korean Vet. Yet I never heard one home owner concerned about democracy or freedom, only his vanity. There is no perfect place to live. If there was we would all be there. When you go to the country, there are problems you must consider. When you move to the City, there are problems you must consider also. So, you weigh the negative and the positives and make you decision. Please don't force your decision upon others. There Is only one who can control your destiny, that is "The Almighty God". If this zoning request is turned down, I would feel it would be a great injustice to democracy and freedom. It would be the decision of "The vanity of few, control the destiny ofothers". Sincerely, , 7‘c9V7429let. Melvin H. Rahm, President AAA Electric Company, Inc. ,t xniti7 7)_ • BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Ann Garrison 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: 1111) tt1'.1nt CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation DEC 1 91988 th ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301 elS/awn m - •.. -) GREG.Cow. REQUEST: A Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW}, Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38 be recommended unfavorable to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. While the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also, the uses of the land (as a dairy) would not be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land-uses as the surrounding land-uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future, land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and, therefore, the property would be not compatible with future development of the area. Motion seconded by Paulette Weaver. VOTE: For Passage Abstain Against Passage Lydia Dunbar Jack Holman Ivan Costal' Louis Rademacher Paulette Weaver Ann Garrison • USR-770:86:51 Aurora Captial Corporation Page 2 The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be 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 December 16, 1986, and recorded in Book No. X of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the 17th day of December, 1986. Bobbie Good Secretary • INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Case Number USR-770:86:51 Prior to Hearing At Hearing 1. Application 33 pages X 2. 2 Application plats) 3 page(s) X 3. DPS Referral Summary Sheet X 4. DPS Recommendation % 5. DPS Surroounding Property Owner Mailing List X 6. DPS Mineral Owner's Mailing List % 1. 3 DPS Maps prepared by Planning Technician % 8. DPS Notice of Bearing % 9. DPS Case Summary Sheet % 10. DPS Field Check % 11. Letter dated 11/26/86 from George A. Smith % 12. Field Check dated 12/1/86 by Louis Rademacher % 13. Referral response dated 12/16/86 from Gene Inloes % 14. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Lonnie Dunn X 15. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Glenn Spaur % 16. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Ann Brewbaker Sorensen % 17. Letter dated 12/5/86 from James T. Flynn % 18. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Orval Hedger X 19. Letter dated 12/5/86 from John R. Ewing, DVM % 20. Letter dated 12/2/86 from James H. Martin % 21. Letter dated 12/1/86 from Melvin and Barbara Leinweber % 22. Letter dated 11/2/86 from Jean Brewbaker, et al X 23. Letter dated 11/28/86 from Gary Hodgson and Willard Bartnagle % 24. Letter dated 11/26/86 from Melvin Rehm X 25. Letter dated 11/25/86 from Stephen P. Rivas % 26. 2 letters dated 11/22/86 from James and Lilia Brewbaker % 27. Letter dated 11/22/86 from Paul and Janice Hopp % 28. Referral response from Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. % 29. Referral response dated 12/10/86 from Hal Simpson % 30. Referral response dated 12/5/86 from Wes Potter 31. Referral response dated 12/4/86 from John Lebsack % 32. Letter dated 12/6/86 from Bruce Haflich % /- S O Inventory of items submitted for consideration USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Page 2 Prior to Hearing At Hearing 33. Letter dated 12/6/86 from Joe Elms % 34. Letter dated 12/8/86 from John S. McCahan X 35. Letter dated 11/28/86 from Barbara Royalik X 36. Telephone message dated 12/12/86 from Melvin Carlson X 37. Letter dated 12/10/86 from Vern H. Vinson X 38. Letter dated 12/12/86 from Robert M. Jehorek % 39. Letter dated 12/10/86 from Bennet and Marilyn Spaur X 40. Letter dated 12/10/86 from R. B. Willson X 41. Letter dated 12/9/86 from D. I. Spaur, et al X 42. Letter dated 12/5/86 from Alvin Seale, et al X 43. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Roger B. Olsen % 44. Letter dated 12/9/86 from J. Harvey Yoakum X 45. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Byron Spaur % 46. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Gary and Nanette Adler X 47. Letter from Linda and Greg Smith X 48. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Duane Frye X 49. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Nyla Frye % 50. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Greg and Anna Spaur X 51. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Stieff x 52. Letter from Bill Claus % 53. Letter dated 12/11/86 from Faye Elms X 54. Letter dated 12/13/86 from Roy Butt % 55. Letter dated 12/14/86 from Betty Hicks X 56. Exhibit A - Applicant's hearing presentation outline. X 57. Exhibit B - ASCS Commodity Fact Sheet with attachments. 58. 19 page petition and attached map. % Inventory of items submitted for consideration USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Page 3 I hereby certify that the 58 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on December 19, 1986. • d Chuck unliffe, Director Department of Planning S ces STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD SUBSCRIBED SAND_ SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS (tl DAY OF cQ ,o_e_jusv‘ku, 192 BEAL_ (sol i, c onc� N Y PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES My Commission Expires Feb. 13, 1989 9 0 December 17, 1986 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Board members: I hereby affirm that I wish to have a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners concerning my request for a Use by Special Review, which was recommended unfavorably by the Planning Commission. I further agree to pay for the legal advertising expenses. George Smith for Aurora Capitol Corporation ,5x tW8/7 A December 16, 1986 CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301 • REQUEST: A Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW}, Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38 THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordnance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: - The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of agribusiness and agriculturally oriented industry provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the local economy or environment; - The proposed use is an agricultural activity and is, therefore, consistent with the intent of the agricultural district; - The uses permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and with future development of the • surrounding areas as permitted by the agricultural zone district; - The Town of Milliken does not oppose this proposal; - No overlay districts affect the site; and - Use by Special Review Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and County. USR-770 86:51 Aurora Capital Corporation Page 2 This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request and the responses of the referral entities which have reviewed this request, and letters from surrounding property owners and other interested persons. The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Use by Special Review permit be adopted and placed on the Use by Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. 2. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department of Planning Services' office and the plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Within thirty (30) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant/operator shall submit to the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, an engineering report, prepared by a registered professional engineer, demonstrating compliance with its Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities. The applicant/operator shall submit evidence of approval by the Colorado Department Health, Water Quality Control Division, to the Department of Planning Services within ninety (90) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. • • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 1. The Use by Special Review permit is for a 2,400 head dairy livestock confinement operation as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. The maximum number of cows shall not exceed 2,400 head. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining the runoff retention and containment facilities in accordance with the engineered report, as approved by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. All runoff retention and containment facilities shall meet and be maintained in accordance with the State Health Department's Guidelines of Feedlot Runoff Containment facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for any additional requirements issued by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. 3. All Construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 4. All stormwater and dairy operation runoff shall be controlled and confined within the boundaries of the subject property as identified in the submitted application materials. 5. No permanent buildings or structures shall be built within Panhandle Eastern's gasline easement or the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company's easement. 6. The addition of residential dwellings, including mobile homes or manufactured homes, on the property not shown hereon shall require an amendment to the Use by Special Review permit. 7. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 8. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 9. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department of Health, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to insure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County and State Regulations. "'s e • • Development Standards Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 Page 2 10. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans and/or Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or • Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 11. The property owner and/or operator of this operation shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. '7;u -.t • ADDITIONAL COMMENTS USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Corporation The Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company submitted a letter of opposition to the proposed dairy operation. The Department of Planning Services has received several letters of opposition and support to the proposed dairy operation. A petition in opposition of the proposed dairy operation was also submitted. The Big Thompson Soil Conservation District in its letter of December 3, 1986, has suggested considering planting three-row tree screens and windbreaks around the property to mitigate possible problems. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed design and management of the dairy facility and the proposed development standards will provide adequate protection from potential problems identified in the Soil Conservation District's letter. Ce7;9,7,x' IIIVtTo Cabo Vile USR 77D•8Ac51 Date Pis-arts= IS, 1'186 COLORADO From -t+,,crr Cvaliffe SObject: Millil'ep Baferra1 Recpo*tre Peggy Wakeman, Milliken Town Clerk, indicated in our telephone conservation that the Town reviewed the referral on,the proposed dairy and that the Town did not oppose the proposal_ A written statement from the Town would be forthcoming. • •' ;;.:EXHIBIT PLANNING COMMISION MEETING 1.. Ken Dell - ,Zcft, /i_7ticG�G ��f �s-II uGCI�ILGc A. Introduce permit ' �GG 1. Explain function of design y 2. Zoning 3. Homes ect... 4. Lagoon locations and why 2. Bob James — ck /H.oV„TWWO) C0.0.5 33.0 Mrrcnetc c,V 4t274— A. Lagoon functions goo(det co' 8o30 ( 41f`i-oaf 0-7 B. Perculation, water table ect... 3. Steve Rivas - S.P. Rivas Company • A. Lagoon odor • 1. Inherited problem vs_ new facility 80r- cto Pkgeolk, co 4. Jerry Gray - Anchor Representative A. Insect Control 3Q._c_A S l ,,t.- J ��w aaj_04U - Cif\t•v�c� Colo. £cc c 5. Marc Peperzak - President Aurora Capital Corporation A. Milk Market 2 9 go an4 �S .u.�er b�c- B. Land values l'k` 21).< �/ C. Taxes 0--0444 /G-. ?fl y • 4112-.d b 6. Barney Little - General Manager Colorado Dairy Farms A. Employment and Payroll 7,3 00 6 y 6G .5<3.S-'/g-'Z B. Local expenditures &c) " ?yyvd ,J 1 C. Truck Traffic 7. Invite comments from people in attendance who favor proposed Dairy operation. In-1' ^7R • 233& S. Hearth Evergreen, Colo. 80439 December 14, 1986 weld County Dept. of Planning 915 Tenth St. Room 342 • Greeley, Colo. 80631 Re: Glen Anderson Farm Sale Weld County Rds. 15 and 38` Johnstown, Colo. 80534 Dear Sirs: Having been notified last week of the possible upcoming sale of Glen Anderson's farm for Cattle Business, Tam writing to protest this action. The proximity of the many neighboring farmers who would endure the water and air pollution, could certainly devaluate many hundred -acres of land.. I am writing this letter at the request of the-owners : Janet, Robert, and David Hicks. Sincerely, c.,7447-12.o. (Petty S. Hicks) Mother Hicks Farm 7790 Weld CO. Rd-24& 17 s. Johnstown EC 171988 Weld CD. Nawre ilear of • • Dec. !s. 1986 Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 'Oth. Street Greely. Colorado 80632 . County Planning Commissioners: This letter ' n-orm V7U. that I betebt to the oreobseg new Pair: me:no scJpnt by aol crap Dairy Fars Aurora _ap-t '.al _ores ..o the ncr 't b_rc= 7t e e __� ^�� o _ - ti,t _ r._.mac There Ara -, lineser ot~ E r D - e0 o;dr hom=s In the =ant, .ten the preeent en•Ironment inc ace: ..n ot a ca:• . the mIre Dc: 0 pr000scP 4:_ll CnanP2 Wnat We smell as Wc_1 -= the amount Q7 - There . - '=. no wa • ' n m" oL :.on tna= th" ' eHn _v�,._••pa :co ,no meet ? reou:remen�_s o4 t. F'. A. . Ins Present oual:t' te' -t I or_se_tly en_oy -sn not svCac ❑e:no :moa:te .by th' - ta:' : . roacm a: =aat • -now the lath o+ maintenance amp tn:3 aa:ry will, only :ncr cc.oe�..ne problem. - It is Hare for me to cancerztano now the over orodubt on 0+ Galt•: oreaucts ban be neloeP ov sucn a ca:r':. We hale an op:los_:on toto a:so ensure that . tnc ['resent=mall Pairy farmer ban -ont:nue to ocerate. There has already Deer. enough Problems Createy for the small farmer. I co that t 1s OrcPOsa1 be daniab. R• ' utt • • 5 rti2 Saguaro Ct. • Jonnstown. Co.= B' t4 • • • • • DEC 161986 ^� Wed Cs. Pisan a Camino ast • SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS - USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - Application Fee - Recording Plat Fee Later - Plot Plan and Vicinity Map 20 copies ▪ Lagoon system design details - Completed Application - Written materials- 20 copies a. Description of proposed operation and existing uses. b_ Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and existing uses. c. Lagoon System Design - Appendix 1 • Proof of water supply. Can serve letter from Little Thompson Water District. - Letter from Public Service Company - Letter from Johnstown Volunteer Fire Department - Copy of deed showing ownership - Certified lists of names and addresses of owners of property within 500 feet. - A certified list of names and addresses of mineral owners and lessees. • rt `;, !. • USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 Phone - 356-4000 - Ext. 4400 Case Number Date Received Application Checked by Mylar plat submitted Application Fee Receipt Number Recording Fee _ Receipt Number =aavwaa-------a—ors.caaaa--------------=ca•esstan TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (please print or type, except for necessary • signature) . ,I (we) , the undersigned, hereby . request. a hearing before the Weld County Planning -Commission and Weld County-Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed Use by Special Review Permit on the folloraing described • unincorporated-area of Weld County, Colorado: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: SW 1/4 Section 32 T 4 N, R 67 w LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Review Permit is proposed: SW 1/4 Section 32 T 4 N, R 67 w Property Address (if available) 18426 Weld County Road 15 PRESENT ZONE A Agriculture OVERLAY ZONES TOTAL ACREAGE 161 acres PROPOSED LAND USE Dairy Farm EXISTING LAND USE Farm Crop Production SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA:PROPOSED FOR THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT: Name: Aurora Capital Corporation Address: 2930 Center Green Court City Boulder Zip 80301 Home Telephone U Business Telephone U Name: Address: City _ Zip Home Telephone U Business Telephone # APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above): Name: Barney Little, Vice President Address: 18426 Weld County Road 15 City Longmont Zip 80501 Home Telephone U Business Telephone U 535-4626 List the owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject properties of record. Name: See Attached Address: City Zip • Name: Address: City Zip I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF WELD ) STATE OF COLORADO ) 0 a Signature: er or Authorized Agent ICf Rg$JDENT AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION Subscribed and sworn to before me this /a'2tday of Ainveni j qA>. 198'4 • NOTARY P C lb Crrcl2i:n Ergriflealf, I99S My commission expires e�•-yr-s r„�,� ... • • AURORA DAIRY FARMS Mineral Rights Owners Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court j Boulder, CO 80301 Marilyn Anderson 4959 West 9th Street Drive Greeley, CO 80634 Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson 621 23rd Street, Apartment No. 2 Greeley, CO 80631 • r • • i AURORA DAIRY FARMS - USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW This is a request for approval of a commercial dairy operation on the southwest one-quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. This property is approximately 161 acres bounded on the south by County Road 38 and on the west by County Road 15. The property is zoned A (Agricultural ) District and is the site of former Anderson feedlot and barn. The property address is 18426 Weld County Road 15. DAIRY OPERATION AND TIME TABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION The proposed dairy operation will be built in two phases. The first phase is planned to be under construction April 1, 1987 with completion September 1, 1987. Phase 2 is planned to be under construction April 1, 1988 with completion September 1, 1988. The first phase includes a barn housing the milking equip- ment, 5 feeding corrals with half shelters, 2 holding corrals for dry cows, a maternity-hospital area with a half shelter and a pen for loading and unloading cows. This operation will handle approximately 1,200 head. The second phase of the dairy will be identical to the first phase also handling approximately 1,200 F ` head. There is an existing house and shop on the property. The house will be used for the manager's house and office and the shop continued for maintenance for the dairy. The house is on an existing septic system and Little Thompson Water District provides potable water. In addition to the office and shop, two mobile homes will be added for living quarters in the first phase and one mobile home will be added in the second phase. Septic systems will be installed for the mobile homes and it is planned to tap onto the Little Thompson Water System. -1_ EMPLOYEES, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, ACCESS ROUTE AND STORAGE The total dairy operation, when both phases are complete will have approximately 35 employees. The dairy must operate around the clock so the employees will be on 3 shifts. At full operation, the dairy will generate 3 truck trips per day. These trucks will have a maximum weight of 80,000 pounds. One of these trips is hay and commodities delivery and the other two are milk shipments. Feed will be stored in a silage pit (approximate dimension 200' x 60' ) and a commodities building (20' x96' ). Small farm trucks, 35,000 pounds gross, will be used to fill the pit silo with corn. This occurs in September with approximately 40 trips per day for 2 weeks. During full operation, approximately 800 to 1,000 tons of hay will be on site. Manure is removed from the site once a month. The hauling is done with a standard dump truck at 60,000 pounds gross weight. The site is bordered on the west and south by County Roads 15 and 38 respectively. Access to the dairy facility will be from County Road 15 at the present driveway location. • SANITARY SEWER AND STORM WATER DETENTION ' ! Sanitation facilities for employees and on-site housing will be septic systems - properly sized and designed to meet these demands. Sheds are cleaned daily and corrals are cleaned each month. The milking facilities are continually cleaned to meet Health Department Standards. Runoff from the dairy facility will be kept separate and treated independently. This waste will be treated through a series of lagoons. The first and smallest of the ponds will retain most solids. These solids are removed from the pond on a regular basis and sold for fer- tilizer. The quality of the water is improved as it progresses through the • • lagoon system. Water from the last pond in the system will be used to irrigate crops on the remainder of the property. Using this water for irrigation during -2- • the growing season reduces the pond level leaving capacity in the lagoon system to handle all runoff during the non-irrigating season (November 1 through March 1). This allows for a closed system of treatment and use on site. The lagoon system is sized to handle storm water runoff in addition to runoff from the dairy operation. Each dairy is 1,460 feet long and 400 feet wide. The dairies are separated by a 30 foot wide service road and are surrounded by a 20 foot wide access road. The total area including the roads is 30 acres. Runoff will be controlled by a system of ditches and dikes. Runoff from the area north of the dairies up to the Erkenbeck Ditch Lateral will be prevented from entering the dairies by a dike and ditch along the north side. The access road along the north side will be raised (dike) and divert runoff west in a ditch away from the dairies. Runoff from the dairies will be contained by (dikes) raised access roads on the east and west sides and directed to a collection ditch along the south side of the dairies. The collection ditch will carry all runoff to the lagoon system. The proposed ponds are immediately south of the dairies. They include two 200' x 50' solids sedimentation ponds in parallel and a series of three storage ponds. The first two storage ponds are 200 feet square with a water depth of 10 feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The third storage pond is 285 feet square and also has a water depth of 10 feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The sedi- mentation ponds are designed with a capacity adequate for both dairies and will be installed in the first phase. The first two storage ponds will also be installed with the first phase. The third storage pond will be installed with the second phase. The design of the lagoon system is based on "Guidelines, Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities", Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission, May 1978. These design standards are based on -3- • • a 25 year runoff event and require one foot freeboard in pond design. This lagoon system is designed with a five foot freeboard on the ponds. Please see Appendix 1 for a detailed description and design calculations. WATER SOURCE Little Thompson Water District is the planned water source for the dairy opera- tion. A separate one-inch water service is planned to serve the dairy opera- tion. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The surrounding properties are farming operations producing alfalfa, corn and beans. In addition, there are 3 residential uses near this site. The house near the southeast corner of this site is 1,650 feet from the nearest point of the dairy and 1,650 feet from the nearest pond. The residence southwest of this site is 1,450 feet from the closest point of the proposed dairy and 1,100 feet from the closest pond. The house northwest of this site is 650 feet from the closest point of the dairy and 1,650 feet from the nearest pond. The mobile homes to be placed on site will be 100 feet from the dairy and 1,100 feet from the nearest pond. EROSION CONTROL The area around the dairy operation will be planted for crop production which will control any potential erosion. FIRE PROTECTION Fire protection will be provided by the Johnstown Rural Fire Department. Fire extinguishers will be located in the electric rooms of both barns and in the . maintenance shop. All fire extinguishers will be 10 pound halon. -4- F't t'ti' RECLAMATION PROCEDURE If the dairy operation is terminated, the improvements will be removed and the land returned to farm crop production use. WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Weld County Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding the protection and expansion of agriculture uses in the County. These policies were developed to guide the growth and development of agri-business and agriculture oriented industry. Two of these policies are directly applicable to this request. Policy No. 2 which states, "The expansion and development of agri-business and agriculturally oriented industry will he encouraged 'ded these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy o environment." The proposed dairy operation is a highly efficient and producti a r' business which will enhance the local economy. Approximately 35 new jobs will be created when the dairy is in full operation. The dairy operation will generate approximately $2,000,000 in annual feed purchases. In addition, initial equipment purchases, ongoing maintenance costs and higher tax revenues to Weld County will all have a favorable impact on the local economy. Policy No. 5 states, "Because water, air and surface pollution are of vital con- cern to all residents of the county, the state and the nation, ;t will be the policy to encourage only those developments that show that they will not contri- bute* adversely to pollution; or if they do contribute to the pollution problem of the area, that they are prepared to either build appropriate control devices at their own expense or will pay sufficient revenues to the existing pollution controlling districts or agencies to insure proper treatment without increasing the cost to existing uses of the system." -5- 'r-; •• The dairy and associated office and living units will not contribute adversely to pollution in this area. The septic systems will be properly designed to avoid pollution of soils and groundwater. Runoff from the dairy will be treated in a lagoon system and used for irrigation of on-site crop production. The lagoon system will have an impervious lining to avoid land and groundwater pollution. The dairy operation including corrals and pens will be cleaned at frequent intervals to eliminate the potential for air and surface pollution. ZONE DISTRICT This property is zoned A (Agricultural ) District. That part of the A District intent statement that applies to this request states, "....The A District is established to maintain and promote agriculture as an essential feature of Weld County. The A District is intended to provide areas for the conduct of agri- cultural activities and activities related to agriculture and agriculture pro- duction without the interference of other, incompatible land uses. The A District is also intended to provide areas for the conduct of Uses by Special Review which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than Uses Allowed by Right. The A District regulations are established to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of Weld County." It is clear that the intent is to allow not only agriculture use by also more intense uses such as the propsed dairy. The Use by Special,Review process is intended to promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the present and future residents of Weld County. -6- f-,"'"cam^,""y? • • CONSERVATION OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND The dairy and lagoon system are designed in a compact manner to be located in the center of the site. This arrangement will allow for approximately 100 acres to be used for growing crops. SURROUNDING LAND USES This property is surrounded by farms and three residences are near the property. There is a home on a relatively small acreage northwest of this property, a residence on a small acreage southeast of this property and a residence south of County Road 38. Design for the dairy has considered the locations of these residences. The dairy facilities and the lagoon system are located in the center of the property. The dairy is 300 feet from the nearest property line. The lagoon system is 700 feet from the nearest property line. The area around the dairy and lagoon system to the property line will be used for crop produc- tion. The intent is to provide a distance buffer between the proposed facili— ties and the surrounding land uses. The dairy is an agricultural land use replacing a former feedlot at this location. The dairy will be purchasing feed from surrounding farms. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE This property is part of a large area zoned for agricultural uses. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan projects continued agricultural land uses in this area. The proposed dairy is designed to be compatible with agricultural uses and residences on adjacent sites. FLOODPLAIN, GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT This property is not within a floodplain, area of geologic hazard nor an airport overlay zone. • ♦ WATER SUPPLY Water is available from the Little Thompson Water District. A letter from the District is attached. The health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and county residents will not be adversely affected by this use. The impacts of the dairy use are minimal. Traffic generated by this use will not create congestion nor overload any County roadways. Design and operation of the dairy have adequate measures to eliminate ground, air and water pollution. The dairy will not place an undue burden on utility system and will be a positive contribution to the local economy. SOILS INFORMATION 4 - Aquolls and Aquipts, flooded 38 - Nelson Fine Sandy Loam, 3 to 9% slopes 42 - Nunn Clay Loam, 1 to 3% slopes 93 - Atera Sandy Loam, 5 to 9% slopes 65 - Thedalund Loam, 3 to 9% slopes 82 - Wiley-Colby Complex, 1 to 3% slopes 83 - Wiley-Colby Complex, 3 to 5%slopes Soils classification information per the soil survey of Weld County, Colorado. • Prepared by U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. -8 S • • AURORA DAIRIES WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN • Prepared for: AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION 2930 Center Green Court Boulder, Colorado 80301 • Prepared by: ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. 500 Coffman Street, Suite 107 Longmont, Colorado 80501 November 1986 ^Fypgn,Li 2 f E2 • • AURORA DAIRIES WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN I. GENERAL The proposed dairy site encompasses the SW1/4 of Section 32, T4N R67W, 6th PM in Weld County, Colorado. The site slopes gently (approximately 2%) to the south. Currently the site is almost completely cultivated. Its west and south borders are County Road 15 and County Road 38, respectively. The site is surrounded by other farms on all sides. Other evident land uses nearby include petroleum extraction and a gas transmission pipeline crosses the site. II. SITE INVESTIGATION Our site investigation included drilling 4 exploration holes, located as specified on Plate 1. The southeast drill hole was completed as an open well piezometer, screened between 16 feet and 40 feet below the surface. The holes were drilled on October 9 and 10, 1986 and an additional water level observation was performed on October 28, 1986. • • III. SITE CONDITIONS A. Location and Direction of Residences • The surrounding properties are farming-operations producing alfalfa, corn and beans. In addition, there are three residential uses near this site. The house nearest the SE 1• .d J•. • • • corner of this site is 16, 050 feet from the nearest point of the dairy and 16,050 feet from the nearest pond. The residence SW of this site is 14,050 feet from the closest point of the proposed dairy and 1100 feet from the closest pond. The house NW of this site is 650 feet from the closest point of the dairy and 1650 feet from the nearest pond. The mobile homes to be placed on this site will be 100 feet from the dairy and 1100 feet from the nearest pond. B. Soil Profile - Groundwater The site surface consists of 6 to 9 feet of loose to medium dense clayey brown sand. In one test hole and a test pit a 2 to 3 foot layer of white dry caliche was observed. Below the surface soils lies moderately well cemented to well cemented tan sandstone bedrock. Within the bedrock a medium stiff to stiff sandy claystone member about 10 feet thick was observed, its top about 16 to 19 feet below the surface. During drilling, wate? was observed 4 to 8 feet below the surface. After the holes stabilized the water surface dropped about 4 feet. We believe that this water is perched water induced by irrigation. Ground water observed during construction of storage ponds will be controlled by providing french drains to insure the ponds remain above the ambient ground water elevation. 2 • • C. Prevailing Winds The dominant wind direction is from the south on the Front Range. Wind events over 10 knots are likely from the north or from the south. Wind events over 16 knots are generally from the northwest, see Figures 1 through 4. Stapleton Airport data was used because it is the nearest station with reliable records. Because it lies in the same major drainage as the site and no significant obstacles separate the site from Stapleton, the wind data is considered suitable for this investigation. D. Proposed Dairy Facility The proposed dairy facility includes two identical units. The general location and configuration is shown on Plate 1. The first unit is planned for immediate construction and the second may be constructed immediately or in the near future. Each dairy is 1460 feet long and 400 feet wide; 13.4 acres. They are separated by a 30 foot service road and are surrounded - by a 20 foot access road. The total area including the roads is 30 acres. Proposed waste disposal facilities are immediately south of the proposed dairies. They include two 200 foot by 50 foot solids sedimentation ponds, in parallel and a series of three storage ponds located south of the solids sedimentation ponds. The first two are 200 foot square, have water depth of 10 feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The third pond is 285 feet square and also has a water depth of 10 feet and total depth of 15 feet. The sedimentation ponds are designed with a capacity adequate for both dairies. The two smaller storage 3 S• N NNE • +^r 1v4fF ,2 a • 2 rn 4, sip 5� S:SLI; SSt S {WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION DENVER STAPLETON (1975-1980) I' ROCKY 0C FFXLAN MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS. INC- C 500 COFF'AUN 5'i., SUITE 107 LONGMONT, CO. 80501 (303) 772-5282 (METRO) 665-6283 JOB NO.: 8-5@3 NOv. i9S6 FIG. I I OF I ew u"^'..may7 • • N N � Imo^�o NF 11125 • ire LO to r1 rn eniq spy SSW sst • I S WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION FOR WIND> 10 KTS AT DENVER STAPLETON(1975-1980) ROCKY00C MOUNTAIN ST CONSULTANTS, INC. � 500 COFF'MAN ST., SUITE 107 LONGMONT, CO. 80501 (303) 772-5282 (METRO) 665-6283 JOB N0-.:6.5613 WON 1996 FIG. 2 1 OF 1 0 • • N o NN`K kyF tiF 3 03 1 7 / 02 'Ca tt• 7 i / ram ( ( ( i -i/ \ N. sV , CS° • SSA S WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION FOR WIND> 16 KTS AT DENVER STAPLETON (1975-19803 • ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS. INC. 500 COFFMAN ST„ SUfTE 107 LONGMONT, CO. 80501 (303) 772-5282 (METRO) 665-6283 JOB NO. 8-5613 N0V, 1986 FIG. 3 I OF I $ • • • • N° 414/E. 0.20 • o.'5 as t2 ofy$ F y / ( ( 1 m h WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION FOR WIND) 21 KTS AT DENVER STAPLETON (1975 -1990) ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. L00ON COFFMONT. N CO. S8 5 107 �� LONGMONi. . 80501 (303) 772-5282 (METRO) 665-6283 JOB NO. NOV 7986 FIG. 4 1 OF I • • • ponds are designed with a capacity adequate for one dairy and the larger storage pond is designed with a capacity adequate for the second dairy. It is proposed that both sedimentation ponds and the two 200 foot square storage ponds be built when the first dairy is constructed and the larger (285 foot square) storage pond be built when the second dairy is constructed. Runoff will be controlled by a system of ditches and dikes. Runoff will be prevented from entering the dairies by a dike-ditch constructed along the north face of the dairy. The dike will actually be the access road raised to divert the 25 year storm event. West of the proposed access road the diverted runoff will be conducted away from the site in a ditch with a slope of at least 1/2%. Runoff from the dairies will be contained by dikes, again raised access roads on the east and west sides and a collection • ditch on the south. All dikes and ditches are designed to convey the 25 year runoff event with at least one foot of freeboard. E. Design Events The design events were selected in accordance with "Guidelines, Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities"; Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission, May 1978. The design event for the solids retention pond is the 4 • 10 year runoff event (volume = 20% of the 10 year runoff) and the design event for all containment and storage facilities was the 25 year runoff event. Process water flows were estimated by the owner as 25,380 gpd based upon their actual experience in other similar facilities. The storage ponds were sized to accommodate the design storm runoff at the critical time (April 1st) when the maximum accumulated process waste was contained in the pond and the average precipitation between November 1 through March 31 is completely stored. A summary of these values is shown on Table 1. Design details are in accordance with state criteria. The solids sedimentation ponds are 3 feet deep and liquid will be pumped between units to permit cleaning about every three months. The storage ponds have a maximum total depth of 15 feet and a pool operation depth of 10 feet. Ground water will be controlled by french drain 5 feet below the pond inverts. Pond bottoms shall be sloped at 1/2% to the irrigation pump locations. All side slopes are 2:1 and crest widths between and around units shall be 15 feet. All storage ponds will have 5 feet of freeboard. The ponds shall be provided with perimeter • fences and all embankment slopes shall be planted with turf type grass to minimize possible erosion. The grade of spillway surfaces between units in series shall be protected by concrete knee walls at the upstream edge of each. receiving unit. The 5 • • Table 1 , Aurora Dairy Design Parameter Summary EVENT ' R.0 AREA VOLUME ZONE (Recur Int) ( I=) (In) (SgFt) (CuFt) Both Daries 25 3 . 8 3. 22 1, 305,000 350, 175 • Solids Ponds 25 3 . 3 - 20 ,000 6,333 Storage 'Ponds - 25 3 . 3 - 161,225 51 ,055 Total Runoff 25 407, 563 Total Process Water 499,045 Storage (1 Nov - 31 Mar) Total Avg P%•eci? 323, 254 • Storage ( 1 Nov 31 :`Tar) , 229.8862 Total Storage Req' d Total Available Storage 1,6:.2,250 Total Avail Stor Factor of Safety = 13-_ 09% Total Req' d Stor • • • entire operation shall be under constant surveillance and appropriate maintenance shall be accomplished as problems are observed. Land application of liquid shall be accomplished by two or more pumps with capacities of at least 150 gpm. Disposal of liquid at 150 gpm will result in decanting the 25 year runoff event in 14 days with an application rate of 0.17 inches per day to the irrigated area. P • ,7R 6 • LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT • DIRECTORS Telephone 532-2096 Cash A 8akntoesOn. -307 WWI,Avenue FhsaAsnf Drawer Q ands Abn BernX4 CObrado 80513 Uo BpW Pr Donn David Won E.Thomas%end DeriMmrsom -MANAGER John John M./Ana - - August 15, 1986 Mr. George Smith Aurora Dairy,.Farms 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Mr. Smith; This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of August 11, 1986. Your request that the District commit to serve a proposed dairy operation to be located in the SE; of Section 31 , Township 4N, Range 67 West of the 6th PM, has been approved under the following conditions. 1) The District will commit to serve domestic water via a 1" water tap. The current tap fee for a 1" water tap is $8000 .00 and is subject to change without notice. The current usage fee is as follows. The minimum quarterly fee is $112.50 for 105,000 gallons, any usage above the minimum is figured at 45 per 1000 gallons. These rates are subject to change without notice. 2) The committment for this tap is limited to having the tap installed west of Weld County Road 15 along Weld County Road 38, on our existing 4" main. 3) This committment will expire one year from the date of this letter if a tap has not been purchased and installed by that date. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, , \ Barry Des Operations Supervisor BD/ek • • • Public Service PubGeSenrice CompanyofColorado 422 Main Street Windsor, Colorado 80550 • August 22, 1986 Aurora Dairy Farms. Attn: George Smith 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Sir: Public Service Company of Colorado has electric lines adjacent to the SW } of section 32 of 4N 67W and would be able to serve the propsed Aurora Dairy operations. The necessary extension would be in accordance with our extension policy that is on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado. Sincerely, Glenn E. Anderson Windsor District Manager GEA:sf Ps"; • • Johnstown Volunteer Fire Dept. P.O. Box F Johnstown, Colo. 80534 To whom it may concern: 8-29-86 I,Jim Anderson,Fire Chief of the Johnstown Fire protection j District,have been asked by the Aurora Dairy Farms for my recommendations and go ahead to put a dairy with building expansion at 18426 WCR 15. After giving consideration and talking this over with the Johnstown Fire protection District board about the fire and safety aspects of this request ,I find no significant problems with the Aurora Dairy Farms request as long as these 3 requirments are followed : 1 ) All electrical and buildings are up to code according to the NFPA National Electric and Building code books and will be inspected by Weld County inspectors, 2) All Alfalfa and Straw stacks will be kept safely apart as to not cause one another a fire hazards. 3) Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus according to 82 uniform fire code book pg.k0 sec,14207 arts. a-f. Also fire extinguishers will be placed in locations throughout the dairy according to the relative severity of probable fire, including the rapidity with which it may spread. Such extinguishers shall be of a type suiable for the probable class of fire associated with such buildings or premises and shall have approval of the chief. 72227e /) __(772l��Z� Jim Anderson Fire chief P.-,,J.....,c, &K2pb4124n _ B 1123 21164649 08/11/86 16:' 53.00 1/001 ._.,..uaa__ F 1324 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RECO ER WELD CO, CO, , WARRANTY DEED i il Glen R. Anderson I enmaito II Il *hose address is I *County of Weld ,State of Colorado , for the consideration of it —Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100-- dollars,in hand paid, hereby sell(s) i and convey(s).to 'DEE AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION'. an Idaho corporation whose legal address is post Office Box 2469 . Twin Falls. Idaho 83301 I. County of Twin Fails ,and State of Idaho the following real property in the County of Weld ,and State of Colorado,to wit ' he Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West f the 6th P.M. State Doeumentaty Fee Date t1114%` iQ' also known by street and number as 18426 Weld County Road No. 15, Johstown, Color Ido I with all its appurtenances, and warrants) the title to the same,subject to taxes and assessments for 986 and subsequent years. and easements and restrictions of record, eserving to the Grantor 75% of the mineral rights in and to the subi 'ct 1 roperty. but conveying to the Grantee 25% of said mineral rights. I Signed this 7th day of August , 1986 99 8 8/66 - �G R. ANDERSON • STATE OF COLORADO, l I County of Boulder 1 ss. I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in the County of Weld State of Colorado this 7th day of August ;1986 ,by Glen R. Anderson. IIl l My co? .. . �� / i Mg7Witness my hand and official seal 4,0 . ,chf 1 gi 3525'G1brrzrlaai -Dr. ``cc `If it tll�� .a; I a�` µ miry' ^l N51177.Rd,:S41, WARLANTY EEZD(Stuart Form) Bradford RAlitng.5875 W.60 Ave..li.c c,d.CO 80214—(301)233-650) AR2O#tibyn S 112 2064648 08/11/86 1• 1O S3.00 1/001 P 132a ANN PEUERSTEIN CLERK a RDER WELD. CO, CO i KNOW ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, ThatA}C I I H. W. A. & CO. , a partnership I of the County of Weld ,and State of Colorado,for the consideration of j --Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration l ,i aif; in hand paid,hereby sell and convey to Glen R. Anderson whose legal address is k of the County of Weld ,and the State of Colorado, ,I the following real property,situate in the County of Weld and State of i Colorado,to wit The SWis of Section 32 , Township 4 North, Ranae 67 West of the 6th , P.M. i CORRECTION DEED- No Documentary Fee required—This Deed is given to correct those Deeds recorded October 24, 1979 in Book 885 as Reception No. 1807204 and recorded January 18, 1980 in Book 893 as Reception No. 1814684 in which the names of the partners were incorrectly , acknowledged. • • with all its appurtenances. also known as street and number 18426 Weld County Road No. 15, Johnstown C orado • Signed and delivered this 28th day of July ,19 86 , In the presence of H. W. A. Sp. , Aa r Pa_rtnersh- Harold W. Anderson, Genera i er BY see - _41. i1 l. `_et [SEAL] Marie H. Anderson, General Par er STATE OF COLORADO, sit. 1, Countyof Weld I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 28th day of July 1986 ,by Harold W. Anderson and by Marie H. Anderson as General Partners of H. W. A. & Co. , a Partnership. I l i My commission expires ,19 .Witness my hand and official seal,.••• t09 , _ io L it ``� ,__ 4, 1j 1 i _ •- a p,-Oa4,rnrit_ i 1 MY C tnisi pal phis rich 21, lent'. ?�ti19h .� 1 Addrorr 1115 Eleventh AYeaus .--• 1., -„ -.s;_ ' I a�� ry, CO 80631 '' t uJ•,. c c No.set BARGAIN A-\D SALE DEED._su,uwq Penn.—Brainard ryLIbll,hin¢C0.!r]sWnreA.,--.I.akc.o.,l.c'O x0214-O01)211.W* 5-83 a • AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property SW 1/4, Sec. 32, T4N, R67W, of 6th P.M. • STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD• ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of property (the surface estate) within five hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the application. This list was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date_ " a. .2 ,4- The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of it ac�c e,t, , 19 5'!o. WITNESS my hand and official seal.. My Commission expires: 3 /5'/19 N tb ary Public • NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET • Please print or type NAME ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION 11 Gary Thelma 8381 WCR 44, Johnstown, CO 80534 105932000 018 Phillip E. Camenisch 10504 WCR 7, Longmont, CO 80501 105932000' 025 Phillip E. Camenisch 10504 WCR 7, Longmont, CO 80501 105932000 023 James V. and Mary C. McFaffic 7571 WCR 38, Johnstown, CO 80534 105932000 074 Dwayne and Lyla Frye 113 King Ave. , Johnstown, CO 80534 105931000 029 Henry A. and Lila M. Seele � Douglas K. and Diane L. Seele is 21941 WCR 17. Johnstown, ,C0_ 80534 105931000 028 Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. P.O. Box 7.5,00. BroomfiAld, CO 80020 1059/1000 014 Lois E. Booth Rt. 1 . Box 386. Ault. CO 80610 120906000 026 James L. Brewbaker Ann Aorenson 7688 N. 41 St. . Longmont. CO 80501 120905000 012 Albert H. and Pearl F. Jeffers 2125 Glenfain Rd. , Greeley,C080631 120905000 011 • • • es • • AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE • Application No. Subject Property SW 1/4, SeC. 32, T4N, R67W, of 6th P.M. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lesses of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land which is the subject of the application as their names appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office, or from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney. • The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this / L r'l da3' of�' e- . , WITNESS my hand and official seal. My-Commission expires: 3/s'9/ "N tary Public v • • • • MACY-PRESCOTT 500 COFFMAN / LONCMONT.CO/80501 /776-2334 October 13, 1986 Mr_ George Smith • Colorado Dairy Systems 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Dear Mr. Smith: Enclosed is a Ratification and Rental Division Order and a copy of the Oil and Gas Lease and Rider. Aurora Capital Corporation has taken ownership of Glen Anderson's one-fourth interest in the minerals. Glen Anderson's ex-wife, Marilyn Anderson, owns one-fourth and H.W.A. & Company, consisting of Harold and Marie Anderson -- Glen's parents, own one-half. Sincerely, Frank Prescott • FP/sb Enc. 10- 13-etaPrientell 02-25-57 ! r AURORA DAIRY FARMS Mineral Rights Owners Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court Boulder, CO 80301 Marilyn Anderson 4959 West 9th Street Drive Greeley, CO 80634 Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson 621 23rd Street, Apartment No. 2 Greeley, CO 80631 • N 0 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . P- y . -- ll3 K;h9 IL , T In,ci , C. 4�.? 51- 2. Ma Y ilk QQ . i 797 W.C'_. R. 1S, _T�k4 s+o:....., Co. gon1 3. 90(t. i(a& n (cl.c.1e¢13 Mail...AL ‘0,0 FUro.,t/ 4. im /q4// G//e? s /3 o-4 a 5. 3Ldu al 131 el- WCR 1 S- Johr,S4ow),, Co . • 6. 4 i gsr7 t ' & c ,, C R l3 aturtgdzam (b. 8. 4.-14112t4a23-4-LI\ 10 . Pa `/J��,,/��-- 4 ,5 21 Al C4 13 El.r 477 M,"oit} nn tvr "O/� J� .- 11 . �U 1 saktar, 41. 2,00 La Ot 3if. fL,7, 1mv4Lv& ,0-0,p 5-7 12. attic lfl �o wc� �fp8 A 13. �'VTh o wC. R- 404 t ( r 14. ZVarrn--rite S yo o w - e. g. 910% Q24f/al 4/ 16. ttsfz : a/e.C i 7/ CO 17. £-c, e.-.,cc. C soo 3 7✓c, y 6• , /---&I-r71 t � _ (-0 IS. 2,1, s-..J .r�r.,./ 53 70 & yI /J•1- ` - /Q-19. taco✓ a3/o /4 o 4 ��'*�.v Cam20. /.jjp3 4.x/ eta v-/. -( OL. i flit.? wc,e ,r fa-ou Co. 2x. / /"l -SE %t'l- FC .x-t-- i7 G c414. 8713/-;72, • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT 4 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS `, -.--> L{S z`t w CQt -3 �, - 7La zu A C 2. . e°('' . t&5 iv.(-71 .7 97 = / aileo.I/ 3. ( IA-de_J i /��c%Lia `� ' ` c� 4. S k.cl" 3a i ' Ling 4it(� �3r� - ?/-4--AIL 5 ed - 3k 5660 w c g 3 y - Play'ile 6. S 660 Wcar 7 3'/ ®. 7S7. a�&� % ,sLc t,�.> L1^ I13gc1[LE ea. v 5-665WCp 9. 1M5 S5p 1 W. C. - 2A34 I�t Co � Ss ° I Wc. Rd 3y P-� ' 1 o . oV on I? / Sg7l U/e Ile/ 3`befga'`/LAC 1 1 .Iiimvh v' ilk ; c`5-Z c 4 /3 der s t/avr 12. a d. �� y'' 13ci adinkdi I 5' &, lisc a�, l3 Qua. t,c ,c 14. �� >aq q �.{/tlGl( 84 n ►J� a 1YYtP�f 15. . a 97 14612 Z testa<G 16. rh-a,t G°, .441-0-v------- 625-71 7 1�keird. �' 2 er 17. J / S ! die,'`�"3Z WA- 18. {it a6?f� Ilea°...r—s—P&6, &(. ECc leiet, -u7 l 20 . /�,.4%t 15 :tie Alt, / 7S'7 5- LA (<tt` 3 pc)11;z1Xt: - - 1 II IP 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 39) . NAME ADDRESS G 'N" L .�-d�7_ z6A/; i/ oiil [' vP.CQ c-- ' i X7/73 �z�/3�9G 1. n7.40, - cJ 1A/i7/,"6 :iztt so32 S4deunga Cr. T.ikiliwl y l 11 11 YZZ5 7:3 -u • COI-S-D o� O 54 G"aG �c r!/�1. S Z5� �3/�6 6.01_0 e d� d O C�LG'�Gs r j3 �/ /� �` 7 4G"�vif-1.44,.4-C� a-07-2'�G //?4 L 8. . o . I J p„. .2 oro y .C X24,. al C 7—• stz.., t , 0r- ..-2 snr4 Sti:f# Ar 557-42 /.7 3��i �f T.i w�l.. , 707/8 11. hl /�'�^' `' �5 03 Co-C� a. L a7? /,t�/14/Y. 12. 2112f(Z)c..4:-...L..4_,./ So $7£..rt R., /1..c ,,g... .c- S'tr—a7� ii J13 `it i V- //ny�,, , E. fro—, �So?? £�� a-. C / -,....�-.ski-2sP4- /! , 14- („C ///• �..tQ.r�- - 50 76 .�.�7iLLGu"kt.*�n..Ci 1 /K�'�1 ZV-27og /2�j31�6 C3,�a�c..o 6-0 -74 G3pa #7fl c�o. Ir.: c i w. r ..�oYt»!r is�i� l�� i5_ � (�� 57 3 ? zMa4,d'7 -JQnhnx Est ` 21i3`Y6t3-1 8:asz �, C:E 4eVi mia, o- 17131 r L. W,C,•.U_4 ,4,3f- $ 18. - 4 “461 t P 927 4 0,460ir 94. del", A, tag a� 1 ffst y 19. 0196-7 ,c.}sxQaJ�► 4)L , X *j & la is l 3/34, 20. ,. agora 7 WfltaA ag -c , - el 12/9/86 0 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ;WELD .COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . - NAME ADDRESS 1 =8 j'z'� / 11( °')u v' -1 33 Luce. 17 . \ot EN,033 cve 7,5_, we ie S `t -3-o .5 r- - lla k 40E. /7i' arevez.`°F' 69tic tilifrzynu 9t90 WClk,?30, . 7. ,Ct;c,n C O1111 c N1 t w .c, 2 tct �a 8.,,r'P,�n. w. S/2 P4r/'b A::C7=, P� w/lt 9. htd KIM? 301cJ €efamPiaC r� 10. . i,t Piliki lady= will &. (1? . 1'7 JOM1-0utvi 11 ./ V .9/,4,.},�.0 13 5 o SSb ZALToa SC' tT-1i..CcR St-y CO 12. Th 61 00 %33 na tc .filet C{J,t; Ce 13. ,ck eooL_ qot C.D......<..yo..... Oct. •,,.--h-< / et pa-►3-31 14. ,E1.- KUNEn Ave y tknsf 27-Y7b g-►a-r4 1s. � �te,O.C`.� /Y0.%7�YW01, SVC riy4�s.,y4, .a7-ssxt 2 -13- g4 16.43 �La�r..�M c of 0 0 7q ri aw.L7�-.--.r.-10.2., -: -. 87-75-01 17, XML& f4A+^O $07( Yucen C& John GO''7 S7 &77e /?-J3 `�fo c - g Cf' v ✓01InJ*-c,,, g8'7-Z.. 776 ra-e -86 ,%.1e. , .'•1c'xt so?r ti r '� /z /3 ge19 dr A > - s ,, 5 0 9 .e -1,;1,-,,,x, C ',� 9-�99D 1 0 12/9/86 II • • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME t�2� ADDRESS 1 . ' JQ /�U !/3��ter �'O.S3i{ 2. S,yr [+'` , "F Soi CA)tt . A2 z N. SA,e/ _ 1 e;14-Collins CO ro-zi 5. Caen4 t. ZrAl(ta Zzz N. SLse4- , A cse ..=-,t°-, SaSz$ 6. ` '84;.) OP71/n rL) 137 1 ia,1 ' pu, ) 'azat'CO BObd'> 7. Aka? . ),.A1 II 06 S. ca.K eve , .fi,., uJ,,, CO $x5354 8. ,z, 2� 14 . �-�.2zt,�,U 6gos.3�jr ' - 9. DXt- ) 72,373 w.c. /a/ So 7awt, 46b afor zt U fO 10 . dw�tiw gNt 4. S ts.o T. Parks 4Os TeJwwn 7)r. VC Cellists ti 11 . . it -' SAC /a4( 4( _`,Lcf / de. gob a 3 Eos 12. 12/74 C`.Z� 3/5- .1g e—" 00 7OS '3 13. A.Ks,.,. etp,yot?) 4 W1 E. 4kve y l,0 , Ger1t.te.a. , Co• 805 i 3 ), p zt &, 20539 15. 1 1 A aaCiif CU L' . R. Ifi 0 ' yogi 16. t�i/-s". c"'t 1 J`0(o So .�cd t.ir'h,u, `/L a vie k et d e (.- 0 Fos, 17. a .- - . � �l a r L Yu Le 18. r _sof" , j�... - d-e 19. il l ptr4- ec,A go GJ7 • • P.77.1,73-",7;e:.,3 Y y, I • 12/9/86 III WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TIN, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . ; �v6 fl 53 % £u 3g 2. (10-11, i.//tk.L Fr r'Irs •- 4. 9 5• 1 ,..„.67.-4 ctoe x/ 6007 c- 6• y6. .t4../ d arts . c _ - /�i . Y�1 �eGl�" � re — .. 7. 5 z-.z ,� �� a cc; - i? . ,21 41.- / ' ", v�.,�> e0 - g, irt 1/ 40.E it �e ../". ea. ,e/L.00 (2 71-Anzt Lts \ `a- /-J.*'^ri� 2��•aq ., .1.Nc t \ \S � ,n '}'Ow h 1o. 11 ., /1... ,eld /15o3 LJC,�. 13 tel,ni:..: 4. 9811 La tC R At&n'1 nlI/l i kei. Co 13. i 37 `� vl✓ W l � ) 14. r yc! u,(r / o LA ft. /l/G&- /?p 416 1. 9,x{ L. c•-Q So f3 16. ±cc+iC lLGc.?/ W 9rrn w tg^ �, LLi�GJHi !/D/o, 4 17. a� -,n�% /71� . 2 &, 2Jttz ,r4& C'� 18. -4-493." 614-2" 1,17vi- i- esi 1s.://;ke ,_ G°o 19. .dasea ' 9J417 mod! /At:7 t/a/rs. xm._, 20. �t, .411a,,v... 6/YD8 J& 9/,- it cu;„ CO 0 12/9/86 41 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . � dtf3` a "I Fs-y7 41/41.7/ 2. )..2 ,,,L,01 ,4 c9 a.4.4.,_ / 9 39 D Pic iii. i 7,rikciateet-inn-a--- 4. 14G,Zo u!e.le/71 7,,� 41 �p p �', , 6,s-3ht. 5• "A $ `!i%a- Le.e-glavlp/. ""- /?SS 6 w. C.e.¢I T „...4-‘,..- of�q-- 6. e-77-1j.:1"__ '= � 1-±#)c-'et Lc1C.i2 3s 3/014 o_ `mJE� Co 6St• 7• ✓ja'V 'e -� L170O -c4, -C.o -riC.Ci 5J e. `�Prc/nJO. 4 ZdzQd CA 2 ✓�� 46064 up.104 9' ZA/z ./1//s•.2tCM c' 4:1%3 P 10. �/ /g/45- eut t � �° / L0�3fa 11. '6-36 Ca M3% /14-8-6,...a. a 12. ''�"^'. 4534 ti.. G. 'Q 34 Q..la. Ct,. ?0bsl 13. 12 ttenay, J /"la / . .JC •e /S ?��aa So6S/ 54.h.? P 14. - 15. .4ge tfabG @ i?, 134ficed . 16. /ice,.-w 2.747 :4414.9." ..c j6-:,,r9,- W C}Z 13 ' f 17. 'Say- bey) (dot h/ i/Si 3 :J C /C 3� k in�. /_ C.JCY+I8. /✓+ 9SI 7c n 3 .t 0 ti MO/C0/ 19.` fG�a it' yza c L M i/ Ct0 rd(-_ ?L_ 20 . Baas I,? 14rd Ch • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT•A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R6741 OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS // y 2• i (M kliHi ti},u;,_. SG/ L`U. C-,I fl•3V/ (-) ' �,�1 ' ix- /a_173-A. el-414)(f-f6 • •/ 913- . t fni` it e ,,a � i &--�-1, 14. 7 .zecte- -% :..� --� - s�/1.>`,-!-A/Ci fi :z � eQQ_, , ,U —°; y/� c r2 b`g_4 (."_E citd /ca 1`i w t P 13 , }�' a .t tl.:ll e-,Q41 a efilyee /0-/2 -F(e 6. 17 -,. 0 I // r O / J C / Crt i a ,*4t/72 /.[ / ` ,c. i 4 b6 p ,/02-/ ) - l.- 7. !� : /r .� G 2-- 913 C}� /3 C?ae- or4. 7 /Fl .3-if filla 10 . a�t 4-W-e L'"J 4 y a-0 Ad 3� a e '42)6-5 / i /� . �/ 11 . AC/ M. CJ i. l? 3cc eia,- d1:L4.- ` -d cis+ / 12. \s-$_ ,,._-,$ S 1`i;GG l ZS- �te5_..S 2A (`C�J .YV4'\- (3 e_ /al -)y - 136 13. ,S.,„.:, ✓7 fat. _it1 / ?0 3 coal;. /3. t-��1lca:lle gA ()CS 14• . > ¢ft to (,d• e.e 24-, / 1..l` GU.C. 11,, ;'3, Ci .� ,Q4 ga657 ft;4,#,,,...„4,4i ed , to,-- i /2 - /`/- r 16. 4/a-t,-a- /C W.. .,e /7380 441. e„e. /a /-2.7,_2"4-4.1e C% Yucs_i G R: l� % ' L' / 73$0 wa c/2L CO€ Soes( ) F _ - 1qq - 8618. " . 4"/ wek -gig �� c°6s E ` s / _/tj_ , 20 , edit- k',.t�,t" ,/ i77V7 1.•Z6 4604€,,I..-- -� G. 1`,�`l�c �' C7 X47" r i 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 381 . NAME .ADDRESS 1 . _`amen G' 51ieff /717/ Gjc,e /5 ,4 s/o n Co 2. JeliZtAnk: / 9G � icta)ce /5 3� 74w�, Ca 3. �/ /O /S�f O )oLt5Co 4• !N aatJ N /d oxa )aw.✓ et,J s } , 5. :� oZ07/ 2 we.2/7 pyx eztr.4- , Qo . 76 tr 7-. `� Z;'ftC%<ç '4a . 8. • Th90 L.;cf� -to. S.N// 9. (4/ Uhl Ci G,./Gl- co. �i• ' 7<..).--&-y-4___7<..).--&-y-4___ 7790 .�/P� -�/ J"ohnyown, e(5, 10 . 6#12 ' ' 76- 9 sect�fa2J-24054,0•42. � 60 i 11 . 0,6,1„0,, fl'A4-y— 7 3-2-s?. P, go- 1,,,i,,,,,1-01,---- d-ek-- 12. 44',6koductek a o300 cock 17 f4Int26 v�C ,Co.s8- ytp51 V-Deb aojed 'uciC "'�w 2 CQ 5-8 - 5'883- /2-13_ 13 �' 1? ab G ,s-14-4. 14. 2‘1.42.ifn2l)114h4 c. '75'7/ £JCt 3b' e%notew'n a fl 5f7-27 - t 7 37.5,3 O.-IY-K 16. g ` vim ics,,, W_c .R4, 43 and Loi . 4 ,Ce A ds1 a-/1-y6 17.A9,,,,,„_,,,„_, /F `� L� 2s6a GU +jla zo.. l�-) �o- �41.s/ 18, l } 19. 20 • 12/9/86 0 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPh'JS. ;L TO TES A_ : LICATION FROI4 AURORA CAPITAL CC_tPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT' A 2400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW I OF SECTION 32 T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M: WELD COUNTY COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . :32,1.e. NAME �q� ADDRESS n�I �I `� ,�- /740,4i � 1.frtbk Aker"--€ 0101-1 age,ftv - ,e 2. An aay/7 -tic 2 /S' 7.9_114S co 4. ee,17 .7 4021......._ _ _ _....6. Clid2---n-74-1--a- edi-e-f-terd / 4r/z/..2 Zi./ C, ,,C 16 3 7. t.._._.". ,� tl. .. - .- �`t ->y-4 I"'c.c !,3 , 1.,G-.-.,c. - 8. Pee" ,C 4.4 --- /g</60 we it/3 .,.,., 9. Iv...2a R ,9v ,o coc4 r3 jeaYn n 10. (.?ew C •D. wurr 16 212 iiictZ /3 et-ttti vile - 11. �� , 1140.1a LvcR 13 c)-St, „ 12. aw„,..�j M13. aka /577 Cl1G2( .�y 'G'/'4,,,..{ �/ GS ig we ,23y � LCA-tt .4 14. -TtC�,., a. 279/rzJ c-►2 /.r , ea i5. S3/f' LuC iC `l `' 4 Q1" Y 17. /ems l ��ji�8b !7„3g- t�.C'_ R_ l'7 t? , C _ 8o6Sl is c �-��, des, no g cc c' l"] �� k�Ci ba-f 20. Fes-?-- Thf>,-q? • 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) itA f e, NAMEV•/040)7e /l6. ADDRESS (I IR ., C i v �cri / .S5 7' 241-2 / 4 r d �v rr3 r t 3./ ,20/Sb 1 - , /,2 2-3-1‘ • 2, '� 477 -2/14 .49•462 w'c ° i7 ..%l4s/xa0,-, 4.2-/3-86 3, 47i,4�C 1.bczei. 58 -.1,2 v3 -?.16479 tvcre/5 10 fins 4,cu • ter 4. l 14/3/8 4 5h nI • '/l.. S$1 °1Z/ 44 t f1 tof Wt./I& L 2tt '\ la/O/2 6.. i„ 91a, 587-u7S tst3yk WCZW/3 a0L►%die)wiJ f.,,/ ./<. ;L JJ 5,-9/ /3/r7 40•C•A / 3 ylc�rc L41- la -ly�gw9. A' 7n. 6.27 .3,F- . _ sS'7 -92-f3 12* fl\ J 3� (� ( 2 -i) -5 k 13. 7� -> bc/ 9 :L 7 Gill, <Jl ` �- '/ - Y'o-2z/ n—/-1"-6-1 p TG_ 3'c Ns < r,.,1-,• sh2,1-1 447 12-15-% 15. C 'i ,epyL, 93 6 -bowK y `C " `� '2 17_ 180 19. 20 - _ 12/9/86' WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM M. AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD .. PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TAN, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELDS w4, COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS ,2, 'joCo Lvcje. ZS Laa/S 1 • a-r-c cam. C 9• L �a,✓ 4 7 0C t i c R 2-1 2. aej e a a 4 9 4. Cam- } .C3 aa�g wtR. 3rr 5. ,... OdJ r- //2 9`l Ldc/d Co. Rd S efi„tcr... 10-4. 6. 0 eti 1€5C:6- we.lc& Co. Qd z 6 Lo4gnicri- „ ` U 7. / / c ,y.�..•-� ,. . '��ll,�'�' 73O.7 l.:.Y,1� /� 8. 9. 10. . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 1b. d 17. 18. 20. r o 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS o 1n (2—tg—sc(o 1- Rt�C A.tQ' `clAt""1 ' ��CooTS ham( (.a} , ,tarvoto,) ' a•-t3�SA> `. V u - vL - +31-0-1117( L Qo&[ds cituuck lY(: L et /2-/t1-5-L l�e•7 Jam( //3 /c. Rc-e, 1 o a ��viS'f�a-1v� CO S-87-4_ S-87- 4/76 6. 7. S. 9. 10.• • 11, 12. 13. 14. 15_ 16. 27. ' 18. 19,• ao. u'"")CZ 7 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS TWIT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . �eLfe. NAME ADDRESS 7zlzast� tL1 ►31 1 • 4A81L 57 831! wcc'S se?-2(371 �TUl,ksf r CO v ssria.d�q; n) p, � 2.Cit; j )al. - jots `63` . wce. 414tz u&"'G /021/4//i4 3 cam. ,3 �rx .a.�� .3014 o �r� y �A �1`1 Ty e. • 9. 10 . li . 12. . 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 12/9/86 III WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R6714OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME I�`` ADDRESS 1%OAC- l'i.e- 1 . AL Skull/y(01 /6g3C4 wet4.couuby Road► 1S ,pill/wit/1e 2)Zi // . ZI),C.£e-'s,4&, eoddeS/ wR4 rAkd d'nt-- .ce EL as^r� 4..6i „.. 7a,__-__ g7Qo /s t.4. -I / 7 J -- gos34/ 5 cm1/4 t rJ 6 97 to Hey 6o TDh/u�e r-,,0;4. 4. 8.4) ,J) 6. �`""""_! 1 , iva g 13 Jul a Co �o. So��i 1) 55,- ,a i i 7. 1 •vist:n, k, Sass at aka, 60 (9.11...t--- empo80s 3Y 5,7 22i? zezteil 9. y �'' X-1 01- 7/ G/c' / 7 06,_",/ -17-7-n.4 10. IJi(.& /-(4464, l 9 r 22 &t& ,f/� ri" _� • /�IJJI� , A4 - fix. . 11 .12. Ji TA-V � e 69' 6'197 l�d �sy i , . Jgy6-x '2O a Rein •a-/$e@ 13 a..V�,a N ( rt -- ge9(pq .f 7 4 ti.._ ,Ast '0} `�°ppca c, 14. �r`t 15. 16. 17. 4, 18. ! °: 19. 4 20. • 12/9/86 ill WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 • a'sn. era 4974.. o -172-r k/le k E2. 7 „zeil d • �� - 72,0 7 as �' �G /4-'3_g6 3. yC:6Ceen_._c views-A-2 t5 4 7‘ V✓ e P 3 L exA✓aI6 C-o if-i3- 2&4. `-- Ati n'c-c)'(`(/4( S3 O% iz't (. ,f3 177--, ////4, V /� f /2.,?.7; 5 tis-ay.:x.2 �. ,I/Ga� -:„.-3- 06, l/� C7/r 7 6 /9j41//�-'d///c'f 4,7 - (P - 13- 4- 6.��ti.c,4..41.12 _� 53,0 e d C,c 7 ...,,-4-�-Ce. 12_ ,3-a1. 7. t Ui9So�- 3 5Cla .�.) 3t P 'CS . ..11. .- ,2_ ,3-v, cc) - s,.., c r s-.o G 6,-c___ -- 36 - Finite-oil—. G q 7G6P '! ups- ' cuc' 4 A� —� 11 . 12. 13. 14. . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 1.2/9/8n WE THE UNSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE�PLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL PORATION COLORADO DAIRY S THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY`, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS e 3 E: i?t'C.t_uL(Q Co• 80651 2. /a`/�/yb 3 44€470/2 f7'C V :rte . c�Cd-x %4�z .c 1 R4> lr-^ ✓ lc e-- 444. fa; vc 1eavett hoc 51 jitSun. 2: goo( 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . S 12/9/86 • WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS _ zy"itk.�6 1 /-; iy 1l 't je `tea.42-N-16 till ' 2244, �cta. 20?.nz 4'G/' /7,a hn.3/"A'^, co s8?-4 2-2i /a-fy-f/ �.au' 'a voice/ .'weir/7 � so6.ls*awr. °- Sr7 -ala9 ` —� 4. w0 tC 4 •ua /73J� /JCR/9trrL,✓ytu� x ,Lo. 58�~0�74 lac ' ac) - SB�I- 3� 3/ k�-/��, 5. `� 7 h mss _ /'?ems , GA "V/WS-Aef 17 ' ?c/fc.;ll/c Cc a r 0.-IN-.(s 6.�4rJ"te� f uE� r 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. . 18. 19. 20 . 870(.7•7R. • 12/9/26 . WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS i • s j,r '117#1 (.4)-en, CA >, I r Johns korn . . ilati5 5/21 56- 3-ChH57ar,fa' 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. $. • 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. e37-21,r-14 • LA.LA LaZI :it'y • l. . \,1 ` . • • Ds � a ■ ,• •• V'. a I'-/I • o r• )��t�t• • -c . --- - - • - S,_ r '. .. . p 4• • Nn\ • �TPf' M ■a • `Q.; ‘•• J. '.. V / o • N N T l ZS Y\)\1 I- M II x U r7- e • \ M � -- �' / r , . �* ■ f ■n anal. ••\ •`1 O 11 15• v 1- ••. v - �•- - Sv.4 a-.' 9 z` o Haan 1 r L. d. "-r 110 /ice ,' . lit ' � '\ �i '4+ q V �- . (.. : r _ d/ t-i I--i hi, --1 I--f �, t-yl, 110 „r ' �1.ki $ L1R 2 if(Thu.V aA \ /�y • L1-t1L L., L ...AC LS .f1 •,,,(1,1.-e:aI. u' �-OF rD 0 " \ ii . • ID.• ■t5 ! 11fl :1TT; Idl• rz : 1.• ■ • w .\. O `. 1 •,'.� N I , ' ■ ■ N ni I. r` ,��t�www� 1 1V. "�1._ • A. O i %/r4-'.' ("'$ ; - •`. hi, .. '-1\- 4!nlC, _ _•..>. • l A •Tl•:�. I r - _ ;te •] �_1.ri ' - .0 ta ' .1 air70 N It L 1 •ki 1 k • al, •- • n44.. . 7� E • l. ,.,..e.-___(1..,-: . • ir � IfS.+-i�:�� a la?f A, f l `. i \ .I?- I • G O:yrT ll •n -- naa . 1a 1.s._ ..--,-..r...-vr .. • 0• U rr J"t t� • l.J • _ , idaCI 71 • 1 L' r • :',: f ID /' OlSy : tth : • f.- lc l {/�///' •z '1111 d n J '•1• . cu . -YY k /: Cr `. + . w• •� \ L'- -.A -elan)! n n a 1•�•�1 • D� �.n n""',.� '�1• 1 $ 1 ‘,....V a tDt 4;. .I.n3 •• -‘0k...a IS Q' •%�. a'1 _ r� 1 • N I of .�.�. CVJ in is • , • r i. �tIL S, a l ' ■ + ■P■D .l• di I ._y � •�:J..r IA n \s.% 4 � O -- . -••••t:.• br • �Qb ■ Js u / ■ •n ■ a • � -T `�rD • n • J-1:tl; Jt.:t Z.R .q{�J•J a b v. N • "• fit✓ n ‘)---(,,,,,J•%‘..-E m • ^_ •�` O O,i, w Y. ...::,;‘. 7: , ..i., . ,.7e-��{-.J-��:.a- -u LA �'u_u1 - 13 1'a*' %I . rte • L.: r.8. Qom rr: t J._r.a L-soon n ■ ■■b ■ ■ - o ■- ■ •i / r ≥i t _ -� _1CLa'Tt T�TL"YTL]L LA7 _. •1■. I• w ut rvnoo ( £ 133NS ) �: r r O Vj4 CM 0 COfp 7 P tt In M M. M _0 .3 rn • 411 FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 DATE OP INSPECTION: December 9, 1986 NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation REQUEST: Use by Special Review for livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW} of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County,Roads 15 and 38 LAND USE: N Agricultural E Agricultural S Agricultural W Agricultural' ZONING: N Agricultural, E Agricultural S Agricultural W Agricultural COMMENTS: The property has been in irrigated crop production. Accesses are existing to Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38. Weld County Road 38 is a paved surface and Weld County Road 15 is a graveled surface. One residence is located on the west side of Weld County Road 15, directly across from the proposed dairy property. Two residences are located at the southeastern edge of the property. A fourth residence is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road `15 and 38. The Use by Special Review plat has been submitted and correctly identifies the existing improvements and ditches located on the property. The property slopes to the south and southeast. By: chVAS. O Chuck 'Cunliffe, Director Department of Planning Se ces. g-07‘ ,7 '< •. 4111 :p ERKRNB CK: LATERAL DITCH CO 2125 GLENFAIR RD. GREELBY, COLO. '4631 The Weld County Planning Comminssion' ' Greeley, Colo. 80631 In regards to case number USR 770;86;51 from Barney Little Aurora Capitol Corparation. The board of directors are vey much opposed to thi change of zoning. ^first it will take a lot of water out cf the system. Second it will run the cost of operaticn up. Third it will be taking a very good farm out of production. Signed ERI2NBECK LATERAL DITCH CO. ALBERT H. JErr1S4S SECRETARY , I, _ '_a-. 'y' 1Ystd Co. �annme u�vm ss�m ' . /04•COQ 9�RICHARD D. LAMM fie/ atiS JERIS A.DANIELSON Governor ', „ - State Engineer X6 X876 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver,Colorado 80203 (303)866-3581 December 10, '1986 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley, CO:; 80631 Re: Barney Little/Aurora Capital Corporation SW1/4, Sec. 32, T4N, R67W Dear Mr. Cunliffe: This is to acknowledge receipt of material for the above referenced livestock confinement operation. The Little Thompson Water District has been designated as the source of water,and a letter of commitment for service has been submitted. Information available in our files indicates that the District has sufficient water resources to serve this development and we recommend approval . Sincerely, Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Deputy State Engineer HDS/JRH:ma/8977H cc: Alan Berryman, Div. Eng. • D `i LA� �K��y?E 15 1986 tied C,. Planning Commarian • S { f1E ORAADU 44 ,, wi r� Weld County Planning December 5, 1986 W To Date COLORADO Health Protection Services K l).,� VRAD�-' From - \ii�� Case Number: USR-770:86:51 Name: Barney Little/Aurora Subject Capital-Corp. — Health Protection Services has reviewed this proposal and recommends for approval, subject to the following condition: 1. Applicant shall comply with all State Health Department requirements for construction and operation of a dairy. Run-off retention and containment facilities shall be designed by a registered professional engineer and constructed in compliance with state statutes. By Direction of Ralph R. Wooley, M.D. ' 1.7”,--1-- ,. . \ v,• JT I� fS BIG THOMPSON SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2625 Redwing Road. Suite 250 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Phone (303) 223-0960 December 4, 1986 Mr . Chuck Cuncliffe Director Weld County , Colorado Department of Planning Services • 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr . Cuncliffe: As requested, we have reviewed the proposal by Aurora Capital Corporation to build a 2,400 animal dairy in the southwest quarter of Section 32, T. 4 N. , R. 67 W. in Weld County . The current land use is agriculture. If the waste storage ponds are built to meet the county standards and if there is adequate stormwater control , we do not see a conflict with our interests from this type of land use. Without adequate stormwater and sanitary control , a large dairy such as this will create odor , visual , and runoff problems for adjacent landowners. A suggestion would be to consider planting 3-row tree screens and windbreaks around the property to mitigate possible problems. cerely n Lebsack District President �:] t 19886 \Yeid co.p(t°°i°I inm®1ma 4111 ill 18683 Weld County Road #15 Johnsown, Colorado 80534 303-587-2773 December 6, 1986 Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 — 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Weld County Commissioners P 0 Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Commissioners: I'm writing this letter as myself and family are concerned about the possibility of a large dairy farm operation being able to operate on the former Glen Anderson Farm on the Corner of Weld County Road #15 and Weld County Road #38. The Colorado Dairy Farm has an operation South about five miles on Colorado Highway 66, West of Plattvelle, Colorado, and it has be be one of the smelliest operations that I 've ever seen. Your could be blind-folded and you can smell this place two miles away. The thought of having to live within a couple thousand feet is sickening. The smell would be so bad that it would get into the drapes and carpet and you'd never get it out. You'd be sick to your stomach and you just could'nt live this close to a mess like that. Besides from the smell the value of our home would depreciate greatly, then the moving in of house trailers is going to down grade the entire area tremulously; and what about the traffic, rates, insects, stagnant ponds, noise, etc. etc. We now live in,a beautiful home and love to see prosperity in the area but this stinken deal belongs out by the Monfort Feed Lot where there is no residential living. We want you to stop this operation - it just don't make sense. • Yours tr , �'Jhve concerned citizen, Joe Elms' rd;1D Ic1:1- n� .. tJ '. 198b•r y �,- 1k1216 Co. ?honing Commission MI -AD, INC. • 1630 25th Avenue • - Greeley.Colorado 80631 (303)352-5232 i7E!D f rry tt.•. to,-trzt December 5, 1986 D !Eq S• v' DEC 1.01986 !L 3 . Jackie Johnson, Chairman Y. WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONEP5 P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Co 80632 Dear Commissioner Johnson: I am writing you on behalf of Colorado Dairy Farms' request for a new addition to their dairy operation which will be considered at the commission meeting December 16, 1986. Our company is a specialty mineral and livestock buffer producer based in Greeley, Colorado. This dairy operation has been a very good and important customer of MIN-AD, INC. for sometime now. I have known Barney Little, the General Manager at Colorado Dairy Farms, since 1967. I have found him to be a man of honesty and integrity. He showed me the proposed dairy plan December 2, 1986. They have taken every precaution from the aesthetic as well as the practical and functional requirements of a dairy operation. This new addition will provide more employment and increased income in Weld County. From our point of view this not only benefits MIN-AD, but the entire Greeley and Weld County area. peg Whitson, who is President of MIN-AD, INC., joins with me in urging that you support Colorado Dairy Fangs in this expansion. With best regards, ruce. Haflich Sales. Manager BEHikf _• • _ _. C. 7 nNeed tb. Ptau:naz .oWIcissiOL December 8, 1986 r _• i96,3 Weld Co Y! Louis J. Rademacher a oal MII , 13184 Weld County Road 13 Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Commissioner Rademacher: I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and the other neighbors and residents in the Johnstown area. We all live in the vicinity of the proposed expans on of Colorado Dairy, . Farms Aurora Capital Corporations project located at Weld County Road #v8 and Weld County-Road #_5. As you might realize should such a business be trying to locate in your "backyard" I/we have many reservations and fears. As our political representative we Weep your assistance and support in helping to protect our individual and.-personai.. interests against Corporate inconsiderateness. I amasicin❑ you to exercise your promise as :a political ':official and . vote for us, the peoole you truly represent-, by denying permission: for this corporation;'to expand its operation in this location located North of its present operation. I believe if you will consider the following reasons you will better understand the concerns of all of us living_ in this area. ( 1) A corporation operating as a sincle landowner is a masquerade. You know, as we all do, that the purpose of setting up a corporation is to remove personal liability, responsibility andaccounta_iiity from all. persons carrying out the business •operations. This does not fit in at all with the -constituents you represent. We are all.'personally, involved and thus -responsible for our actions and what effect they have not only upon ourselves but our neighbors as well . Corporations take no thought for- the preservation of the lifestyle and environment of the people around them. They may .tndicate otherwise but their track record across this country, proves differently_ Their sole purpose is turning a dollar for their investors. This is not wrong. We, too, are trying to make a buck. But we are the investor and thus have more than iust .an interest in:a profit. We live in and en this land. We live with our investment. • The investors who are supporting the Aurora Capital - Corporation do not live here and may not even be residents of Colorado.' ' So how could and, why should they take any interests in us or our neighbood^ As investors they will be more interested in : an adequate return on their money no matter what_ . And because of this subtle ands not' so subtle pressure this proposed operation will be much more inclined • • • • to yield to outside power than' to. ".inside." considerations no matter what they indicate to the contrary. (2) Another consideration must be .the removal of some of the best productive farm .land_,in : Colorado from it:s prime • • -service. . There are other .counties. and cities where ground isrnot of premium quality and. thus might bemore appropriate • for this .: :ind of. business purpose. But certainly not: ground in this area of 'Weld County. Some of you in positions of authority and power must put a • .stop to the-big .city politicians and big corporations from looking Only at Today You must: not allow them to push you and: -us around . in .the. name: o+ immediacy and of the illusionary monetary gain. Remember there i.s always tomorrow_ And the future: is now' : • (3)_ et another reason for voting NO to this business • proposal is the horrible, noxious stench which it produces. The odor from a family operation. is .tolerable but one twenty times in size is unbearable, Not one of you commissioners lives in or near the existing Colorado Dairy Farm located at 7:88 HWY #66, Platteville:, Colorado, and thus you can not • . realize how detestable the smell coming. from :.this operation • is. We all know that no corporation ..can control- which . direction the smell will:-travel 'and; no one can: give wet manure . a• plesantaroma. Such an unpleasant. atmosphere is one I am certain -you. would ..not desire .to' engulf your own . personal residence. • • I am eouallycertain that :you realize such an odor not only • • impacts anyone. :living "down wind" for miles and thus tends to devalue our land proportionately... We all need you to help .us hold on to the:things. for.; which we have been working and striving. And many of us: have•been here for several generations. So please consider the nature of the' constituents which' you have promised to represent rather than the .seductive ,promises• of :the impersonal corporation which will say;: anything to gain ,its_:way. • • (4) This particular area has three big corporations. already : Making havoc upon its citizens. The one I have just alluded to and the ..smelland other problems which go hand in hand . with big bus.iness..should be sufficient to refuse its • ' • expansion. . • But there are other corporate 'mistakeswhich • heighten our fears. Fort Saint Vrain for instance- - Obviously th.e Commissioners who approed this operation were not wise to representing the will of the people_ Here- is. a standing :testimony to corporate impracticability. This - fiasco i.s -not:..thr.ee miles from :the proposed _dairy... While it' . • no longer..functi:ons as promised• ..,all :of th• e 'terrific.. advantges, for bui ld.ing` -in. our. area :h . ave vanished :inter. .. extinction And the Commissioners who :voted :for s thi : 1 ipp "wonderful opportunity" can they- remove this hideous structure? Do they even care? And the third corporate problem is the Coors plant in Johnstown. Whatever else they contribute to our community again it is the terrible stink which the rest of us must endure. No matter what the corporate big shots promise to add to the community, you don 't see them living and smelling the residue their jobs create. We residents do live with cur work. But it is ours we choose to live with. Must we again be pushed into paying for - the mistakes of previous commissioners whose judgment was as unwise as their promise ` to represent their neighbors was forgetten once they attained office? So plese don'tfollow the steps `of your predecessors. The promises made by corporate heads has little reliability as they must answer to those who back them financially not those of us who merely live around them. They have no stake in our community so they have no true concern either. As to the amount of dollars they may -spend to carry on their operation they sure aren`t, buying :from the local farmer.' The nature of their business demands that they buy from another big time operator who .too hass-financial backing. Thus they can. Under- cut the little man. I trust you will not be won over by mere paper arguments. Facts always look better and believable in print. But the actual living experience proves otherwise. We as a nation have too often, and mostly too late, realized the true nature of the corporate machine. How -sad that whenever our environment is excessively polluted'-and maligned the culpable party is the corporation. A corporation that successfully argued its way into the planning commission agenda and emphatically stated that the local residents "had them all wrong. Three times the residents in this section of Weld County have been betrayed by their representatives in political office. Three times political officials have been deceived by the corporate promise that their business would not result in any degrading effects upon the local. community. And all three times the corporation has lied and' won. Are you going, to join this defeat? Will your vote permit your constituents. to`come back to you in several years and show you what you refused to accept? I 'm aware that the existing dairy has claimed that they have removed the smell Well just yesterday I drove by it and ' they have lied again. It still stinks. we residents believe in this area and we believe in you. We are -not trying to buy you:.off with great prophetic promises of- community contributions if -We fear because of the -. • tract record of failed corporations of verifiable consequence. The Aurora Capital Corporation does not have an exemplary record. I Arne you to vote against the proposed dairy and save the, land -From one more demeaning, unreliable acquisition. My sincere thanks -For taking time to read this letter and to consider the view,of . the people who will be victims rather than the beneficiaries if such a proposal is passed. Si cerely, J hn S. McCaha JSM/jm Pouem.6etc 28, 1986 79650 2aad 15 7ohnotown, Co-Lo. 80534 KeLCo, Th1.4 Lettea i, to expne.*a my, oppose ton to the new daily pitopooed to be Located on G1eLd Countu Roado 15 and 38, by CoLohado Doi/up Ta4mr liu4a4a. Copitat Coitpozaticm. Liuinry only 755 nite4 Piam the pztopooed "site, oust p4eaent Liu.inq. condition waaLd be chonged 1..oit the wo-tot_ ex.- �neeLL, noLoe, tncuteaoed'.qtAt and moogu i..to papwtatttan Find/on exceoo pent.icide u-ie, and -inuteooed titanic. L1e don't want au.t a-tea changed -in .th vo army. Rnothet good 2eaoon /04 oprooitton ;i,o tha .Lack of need fat anothe t da.vty. The goue,tnnent ha4 .*pent aLnt o money. Late% cutt.uro the hetdo o� d.,i2ymen becauoe o./ a glut of dailut p Ito du'cto, p.tuO dattu ouboidieo that haue gone on foe y.erita. f,h.0 ohou.d the caatity at rat Life change ?ax post buoineoo ritactice to make a conroaatian pao,fi:to. T4 5 undeotand 2t, ptreoent 2e (Latian.* don't at-Low thib 443e datau -in out aten. St make.* na 4enoe to g/ant a uaitiance to an unneeded buo;raeoo that w•i L . eau-de dLotutption to the p-teoelvt cantaun i tu. Raothe3 conce-tm of nine in the p4ax•i.m.:ttu o/ do-Zit-Leo to r nucteo2t ,tac i i i t�j. Radiation io neadi(y aboonbed by m.i.1k, then nboo2bed by. au* bone.* with. ou .teplactng caLc-cw'. The tack iteco'td of Tattt St. U,zain .*peak.* ,toa i_toeL,f, and havusc any, dmi.uy 'JO ctooe oeemo oenne-Le4a. D tteg-tet that S cannot attend the T.Cann ing Co.^.mi44ian meet+nry on Dec. 76, -OP 3 wipe you -to p-Leroe-vote agaitot appvtovai. o? thi.6 da i�iy. Thank you- Since/Le-Lit, .� —' Igo 1 "rlant!5@ li.^.TaA15;5'C • • USR-7 70 To 1, Oaas 1t-1Z Time Z: 1c4 j Wes!\E YOU WERE OUT M ..r.1\ Y)1 t.» Octoa b t v. I of `b O ^ Phone �A — -9. 4'pI,.\0.\ Ana Code Number \ Extension TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CALLEDTOSEEYOU VNLLCdLLAGAIN WANSSTD SEE YOU. URGENT Ciik I RETURNE6YOURCALL Message t,D s..4.> .- Nina .y 1Rws_w. mac_ ci. .A.. d ycQwa� 1.,AntaX aa. Qs \o -�Ci.a_ lyta.1J C ICY.w..%_a . ?.t tr1goC\:tbh51 v,..a SCKs*t s a o ca�.st Irttf..1 perator 1.,r l.:v,sJ..A w.WX�A,. aAMPAD - `. 23-000.50 SHT.PAD EFFICIENCY. 23.00) 250 Silt DISPENSER BOX C7Wi 3 o A-1 MECHANICAL INC. P.O.Box 207 '- Nivot, Colorado 80544 • _ • ' .,•; i L�;r.ii5. Weld County Commissioners 12-10-86 Y.O.Box 758 i Greeley, Colorado 80632 • • I am vritting to you ;in support of Colorado Dairy Farms for the development of the Anderson-farm. Colorado Dairy are a real asset to the county of Weld. They have a vary clean operation now existing on Highway 66. They spend a large amount of money in the local area for feed grains - hay - insulage, motor vechicles and in the payroll 'of their company. They are a very good company to so work for. I have done the plumbing for three barns. They are pleasant to work for and they pay their bills prompty. The Anderson farm mould be an asset to Weld County for the taxes it would pay and the grains and feed ti would buy from Weld.County farms. I :hope in your serving on the planning commission that you can support this Dairy operation on the Anderson farm. ' I. Thank You for your time and consideration. Varn S. Vinson Al. Mechanical Inc. Nipot, Colorado 652-2794 or 573-1087 • 87.32-17,73' PLATTEVILLE ELEVATOR, INC. 400 PLATTE STREET PHONES: 785-2241 • 785-2242 December 12, 1986 Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley , Colorado 80631' Dear Weld County, • as President of Flattevilie Elevator Incorporated, I am writing regarding the proposed expansion of the Colorado Dairy Farm near Platteville, Colorado_ Platteville Elevator Inc . is a locally owned company that provides feed commodities to farmers, feeders, dairymen and similar business' and individuals within Weld county. In addition , to selling to local business. , we buy a significant quantity of locally grown crops from the area farmers and fellow feed dealers, in accomplishing the buying and selling. volume we employ approximately twenty local citizens. Colorado Dairy Farm is one of our major customers that we conduct business with on a daily basis. It has been our experience and observation that Colorado Dairy Farms is a quality well managed business that has had a definite positive impact in our community, as with our company, and other local business' . I would like to point out that the economic effects made by the Colorado Dairy Farms is made clearly obvious by looking at the number of individuals and business' that deal directly with them. The "trickle down" affect of: those dealings is even more far reaching into the health of the local .community. I urge that further careful consideration be given to the proposed expansion of Colorado Dairy Farms. Should you have any questions or comments please feel free to call . Sincerely, � �y Robert M. Jehorek IR President U- �L .J � ,�� Platteville Elevator' Incorporated =C 15 .1986 RJ/ep cc . Colorado Dairy Farms t8 pa w Weld County Planning Commission Members Weld County Commissioners fr ,-r,..,yn r_ Aft • Johnstown, Co. DADS-0198E teDec. 10, 1986 Dear 7r U1 , r �- -.�.c.� ci�:.r ccLo. `J This is :to confirm my opposition to the Aurora Capital Corporations proposed 2,400 head dairy at Weld County road 33 and 15, or legal discription S.4. of Sec. 32-R67 W. We own the N.E. $ of Sec. 5-3N-67 W. which borders the S.E. side of the proposed dairy. Our reasons for opposition are numerousi first being the seepage from five holding ponds or -lagoons, on the site. P+ir. Pepperzak of Aurora Capital Corp. admitted at the Sekich Co. meeting Wednesday, Dec. 3 that there would be some seep. Shale in this area is from five to fifteen feet below ground level, and this being on a south slope would destroy two farms on the south and ours on the east border. Second ICr. Pepperzak stated that three thousand dollars in County taxes are being paid now on the farm and would increase to thirty thousand when new facilities are completed. This is not true. It is implied that putrifying odors that come from the Colorado Dairy on Hwy 66 are the fault of previous owner Al Kurtz and Renolds Feed lot to the west. This also is not true. Plain and -simple you do not have a fairy without flies and solid manure holding ponds without rotten and offensive oders. Just 1600 feet from proposed Ponds live two little girls, age 10 months`-and 4-years- one has a imature larny:_ and one takes medication for Asthma. I don't think it's fair to expect them to breath this. Third, we have been told that this facility would decrease the value of surrounding farms. In view of the economic crisis farmexsface, we cannot deal with this negative impact. Fourth, it was stated that :we are approaching a shortage of milk in Colorado. This also is not true, according to Mountain Empire Dairy Assoc. , and other dairy owners in -Weld County. I would also state I am not opposed to a dairy on this farm limited to four -head -per'acre- as as stated in the Weld County statutes. In conclusion I would appeal to you to consider how you would feel if the proposed facility were built ,adjacent to your- homes-.or farm. Thanking you for your judgement in this matter. Sincerly, 3�LdtlexL,C. cj•c �_ Bennett and -Mar lyn Spaur 18547 .IeJc1 County :gad- 13 Johnstown, Colo. 30534 • 4200 Weld County Road 38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 December 10, 1986 Weld County Commissioners f.,r Y:. „ er .n Greeley, Colorado 80632 `: RE: Case Number USR-770 •86 :51 { nEe 1 219ti i ATTN: GORDON "LACY 0..==_LEY.COLO. Dear Commissioner, We farm along Weld County Road #38 just east of I-25 and have done so for the past 12 years. Since both of our farms and our home uses Road #38 solely for access, we have very grave concerns about your possible approval of the "Use by Special Review" Permit requested by Aurora Capital Corporation, Case # USR-770 :86 :51. This area is zoned Agriculture; and historically, as well as today , consists of mostly 160-acre farmsteads, with a sprinkle of single-family residences. To change this to a Commercial high volume confinement operation of 2400 milking cattle, plus dry cows, plus calves, there must be SOME benefits to the people of Weld County, particularly the folks directly affected within a two or three mile radius_ What could these benefits possibly be? 1. Taxes? - Current assessments of the former Anderson Farm "as is" is in the $3000.00 range. The Assessor' s Office indicates only a possible increase to the $6000.00 range, which will do nothing /to repair the vastly increased road damage on Road #15 and #38. 2. Employment? -- Aurora Capital Corporation indicates most employees will commute - primarily from Brighton and Longmont - so again, no help to Weld County. Even if they came from Greeley or Johnstown, what overall benefit is 10 to ^.5 jobs? 3. Expenditure in Weld County? - Tne businesses that currently supply Colorado Dairy Farms on Highway 66 have publically stated their support for this permit - but why not? It will double the volume. Interestingly enough, none of these high-volume suppliers are in Weld County. 4. Cash Flow into Weld County? Outside of taxes, there is no cash flow of significance. in Weld County by this out-of-state corporation. Employment checks, water payments, dairy and veterinarian supplies, and most significantly, cattle feed, are all currently spent either out-of-county or out-of-state, according to data given by Aurora Capital Corporation or their suppliers. 5. Local Banking? Very doubtful they will change their current banking operation to include a Greeley, Johnstown, or Windsor Bank. • -2- G. Enhancement of the Farming Community adjacent to the proposed dairy? . I think the following paragraphs- cover most of the problems this proposal will create. It would be interesting to _see what possible -benefit would result from this proposed 'operation except for financial gain to the Aurora Capital Corporation. Since the proposal appears to offer no benefits to the people of Weld County, what detriments would be created by granting the requested permit? 1. High-Volume, High-Weight-Feed-Truck traffic on Weld County Road #15 and, mast specifically Road 138, which is gravel from I-25 to Road #13, and the route hay trucks from Wyoming and Nebraska would take. This road always drifts badly in the winter' and is routinely closed for three or four days at a time during! heavy or blowing snow. Will Weld County keep- snow plows and graders on standby to keep Road 38 accessible for this dairy - all for the small amount of increased taxes that will be paid? Who pays for the road damage? 2. Oven Sewage Lagoons - What good can be said about lagoons? The existing Colorado Dairy Farm Lagoons (formerly Kurtz Cattle Company Effluent Ponds) are a dismal failure and continue to be a steady source of high-insect population, vermin and rodents, terrifically bad odors spread by the winds, and a general health hazard. We have no way of knowing if the pollution is seeping into the adjacent St. Vrain River, contaminating shallow wells, or .other adverse effects. The insecticides ' used on and around the cattle and buildings are effective but prove useless in the open air -near or on the lagoons. Even the dairy operation of Colorado State University, with all their resources, -has the same problems with insects, odors, and pollution. They are currently being sued by residents of Fort Collins for these very problems. The Hayden Dairy, which is located on Weld County Road #38, just two miles west of this proposed dairy, was granted a USR Permit about three years ago for a 250-cow dairy. The lagoons required were designed by Longmont Soil Conservation Service, inspected by all required parties, 'approved and placed into operations, still on warm days, the smell alone will drive you to your knees_' Our home is one mile from this lagoon and with a north eastern wind, the smell is rank ! Thank Heavens, the Haydens participated in the Federal Governments' Dairy Buyout and are no longer in business - BUT, the lagoons remain and still breed insects, rats and vermins, and, above all else, still emit horrible odors even after no use since August 1986. Please ask yourself If 250 cattle, with their specified lagoon size, cause a. stench one . mile will a 240❑cattle stench cover ten miles? 3. . Discharge Effluent. - The proposal indicates that the balance of farm land not occupied by dairy and lagoons will still be farmed but may be irrigated, in part, by pumping liquid from the lagoons thru sprinklers or possible flood -irrigation. In the case of the sprinklers, this can only make the odor problem more intense, witness the spreading of treated sewage on farmland adjacent to Lang mont ,'by spray trucks_ A . center-pivot sprinkler -system will be several magnitudes oreater in odor creation. _3_ • If rowcrop flood irrigation is performed with lagoon effluent, it will be impossible to prevent escape of waste water from the end of the fields which will flow directly into irrigation ditches of adjacent farms, polluting their systems, fields, and crops. - 4. Milk Surplus - It is the U. S. Government' s expressed policy to reduce the surplus production of milk and milk products in this country through the use of programs designed to reduce dairy herd volume. Toward this end , many Colorado Dairies were bought out in 1986 by the Government. This proved to be a slight boast to the remaining Colorado dairies, including Colorado Dairy Farms on Highway 66. Now comes Aurora Capital Corporation with a proposal to bring in a new dairy of a size that will negate a significant portion of the millions of dollars-spent by the Government in Colorado alone to reduce the milking population and combat the high-milk surplus. Why would Weld County want to go against this concept and permit another huge dairy to begin? 5. Potable Water Apparently Little Thompson Valley Water District has indicated they will be able to supply treated potable water to the proposed dairy in requested quantities. For this size of operation, it is estimated that 200,000 gallons per day could be the minimum. The water district has yet to indicate if their plant capacity must be enlarged to meet this need. The last expansion to accomodate the town of Mead and other high-volume users caused a drastic rate increase for all users of the system. Put another way, the proposed dairy' s daily water consumption would supply eight farmsteads- or residents for three months - yet the Metro Denver .Water Districts are continually crying "wolf" for lack of water. We only have to look at the Ault area to see what unlimited money can do to devastate a farming area in terms of water. As a minimum, with this volume of water use by the proposed dairy, all downstream taps would suffer drastically reduced pressure and water volume- yet our water tap contracts specify a minimum . of 45 psi delivered to the water tap. Do all neighbors then have to suffer insufficient water delivery and more probably increased water rates for another expansion? In conclusion, the following summarizes the major significant problems the proposed dairy would create : 1. Health and environment hazards to the farming and. resi dential community within a 3 or 4 mile radius. 2. Huge quantities of liquid sewage stored long term over a shale strata close- to the ground surface.- _ Leaching, as a result of lagoon membrane rupture or separation would- not be detected until well/river contamination occurs. 3. This out-of-state corporation, Aurora Capital Corporation, has demonstrated its policy of out-of-county, out-of-state purchase of goods and services with no significant business dealings with Weld County Banks, suppliers, =or more particularly, local farmers for cattle feed -requirements. n • -4 • 4. No tax base to corrpensate Weld County for vastly increased costs due to gravel and paved county road degradation from heavy, feed and milk trucks and increased demand for snow removal. 5_ The disruption and permanent damage to a small, well-designed local farming area. 6. Creation of a greater influx of milk to the ever increasing glut of milk in this country - t❑ the detriment of' small, local dairies whose only livelihood is their dairy. Since the stated goal of Weld County in its Comprehensive Use Plan issued in 1973 and currently being updated for 1986, is to "support and preserve the agricultural industry and farming as a way ❑f life" , I implore you to very carefully weigh the many disadvantages which would be caused by this primarily commercial operation and ask yourself if there are any benefits to be attained by the people of Weld County - and specifically the neighborhood farms and residences surrounding the proposed site. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. All of this information has been brought out by the many friends and neighbors of "Citizens Opposing Dairy" through several meetings held since our original November 2, 1986 letter to you expressing ❑ur deep .concerns_ Very truly yours; • • J i December 9,1986 lietd tb. Plartaid&, tammIsstml Dear Mr./Ms.Commissioner, We are writing this letter to express our collective opinion concerning the proposed dairy farm to be located on Weld County Roads 15 and 38,by the dairy organization of Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation. While you may know of the specifications of the dairy farm(2,000 to 4,000 dairy cattle confined in corrals in a limited amount of space),we would like to make you aware of the detrimental effects that such a large operation would have in this area. We believe such a large herd would cause problems for neighboring residents—problems in the form of increased insects,noxious air and water pollution,and the devaluation of property surrounding the area. In addition,as pointed out by many analysts,the development of a dairy farm of this size seems contrary to the economics of the nation's dairy situation—i.e.,the dairy products surplus that has spawned the federal government's dairy buyout. Fleas+give serious consideration to the objections of area farmers and residents who are opposing this corporate development Remember,our concerns are those of family farmers who have lived and worked in this area for generations as opposed to the interests of a large outside corporation. Sincerely, / gra � � - Mrs.D.l_Spaur Mr and Mrs.Delbert L.Spaur Mr.and Mrs.Frank Botello geoc."9771 • • • • December 5, 1986 W,._ • Lr• ��' �°/ stn .r; cOterar Dear Jackie Johnson, cREEL``Y This letter is in regard to the request by the Aurora Capitol Corporation for a special use permit for the property-they have acquired adjoining our property. We would hope you see fit to turn down the request. Our property corners the farm they own and we are sure their-installation would do nothing but deflate the value of our land. We sold off a choice building site last year and the people who bought it will be getting rid of it if the dairy permit is approved because of odor and insects. People from the surrounding area of the proposed dairy are being invited to their present dairy to inspect their facilities. I am sure things will be in excellent order and there will be no odors with the cool temperatuees.we experience in December, but how about a 900 day in July or August. We have passed their dairy many times in the summer and can tell you the smell is awful. • In an: editorial in the Johnstown Breeze, M.B. Peparzak, President of Aurora Capital Corporation wrote of the•economic impact the dairy will have - ron the area. The sixty jobs it would generate, we concede would be an economic ..benefit, but we are sure if you checked,you would find that very little of the four million dollars spent for feed was purchased in Weld County. We feel that if our feed crops are not good enough for them to buy, we should not be subjected to the odor, insects, traffic problems, and all the inconveniences the dairy would cause in the area. Let them build their dairies where they are buying their feed. MNI 14' a�.ctic._ �;`9 ie:? CD. ?t e.,, ^z, ua • COLORADO CATTLE SERVICES,INC. 607 MAIN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 610 PLATTEVILLE. COLORADO 80651 303-785-2212 December- 9, 1986 Mr. Jack :Holman 28236 W.C.R.: 58 ; Greeley, CO .- 80631 Ladies and Gentlemen, Recently Colorado Dairy Farm has announced plans to develop an- other dairy operation on the Glen Anderson farm at Rds . 38 & 15. There have been articles in the local papers and there have ap- parently been some neighborhood meetings to discuss the proposed dairy operation; although I have been unable to find out when and or where the meetings have taken place. I have done business as Colorado Cattle Services, Inc . in Colo- rado for the last 15z years. I cover the entire state and visit • a large percentage of the dairies in our state. I must say un- equivocally that Colorado Dairy Farms is the cleanest and poss- ibly the best managed dairy in our state. I service Colorado Dairy Farm on a weekly basis and am continually amazed that they are able to keep-their corrals and cattle so clean. In August and September I am plagued by flies on most dairies but not at Colorado Dairy Farm. Not only do they keep the outside of the Dairies clean but they also- keep the parlors and milkrooms spot- less. The new dairies as proposed will provide jobs for approximately k5 people. This is truly-one- of the- very few alternatives for people who want to work in agriculture in our area. The new dairies will increase the tax base in Weld County. As past president of the Weld RE-1 School District Board I am a- cutely aware of the diminishing tax base in our county. Colorado Dairy Farm was a welcome addition to our school district. Colorado Dairy Farm provides the farmers of the immediate area, and in fact state wide, a viable market place for their hay and Grain. Colorado Dairy Farm provides an alternative for direct m. sales from the local farms. Colorado Dairy Farm spends several . million dollars per year in Colorado for Feed stuffs and services. M gr T,-t fr, a.(7 1 " 1980 NBio to- 7lamiut ;ngafgtia • Page 2 December 8, 1986 Weld County Commissioners Additionally Colorado Dairy. Farms will be a definite advantage to our county and our state. Would you kindly support their proposed expansion. Sincerely, `-62 Roger B. Olsen, President Colorado Cattle Services, Ira RB0/co ` L Weld Co.`&wee Z.ifiditesno GRE•.SING • TIRES REPAIR SERVICE TUT GAS AND OILS �� \ BATTERIES -`~ Q ACCESSORIES !R-IUdI YOAKUM TIRE & OIL CO.-- OFC 1 9g 8 �y 45 SOUTH MAIN STREET PHONE 776-2600 �. LONGMONT,:COLORADO - 4' -.'P.O BOXt197 4/J • 9 December 1986 Jackie Johnson -Weld County Commissioner P. 0. Box 758- Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Jackie: We would like to express our views on the matter of Colorado Dairy Farms. They are a very productive operation that Colorado can be very proud of. Colorado Dairy Farms' engineers assures us the en- vironmental issues of this production organization are -well above the standards set. by the County and State: This is an-Agricultural. area, and with the economic factor right now facing us, this can only help the economy situation grow. Yoakum Tire & Oil Company is a very reputable tire and oil dealership in Longmont, Colorado. We do a very high volume of. business with Colorado Dairy _Farms. We are very proud to be acquainted with this organization and would like you to know we support their endeavorship in every way: Sincerely, �,,t_7dtP�f.� CL/IG4Gn� J. Harvey 4f lcum President, Yoakum Tire & Oil Co_ - _ x -1960 Cy; .L WeIG Ca. 9laaaitlg tIamissia6 December 9,- 1986 r ., r ,;� Weld Bounty Commissioners , LS • P.O. Box 758 -Greeley, Colorado 80632 '_ �FCf.� GREELEY•COW- Dear County Commissioners: We are writing you to protest the plans for -a large dairy farm to be located on County Rd, 38 and County Rd. 15, by the Colorado Corporation, Dairy Farm Aurora Capital We are part—owners of a family farm located adjacent to the proposed dairy. Along with our neighbors we have many concerns and questions regarding this issue. Our familyfarm has been owned and inhabited by the family since 1936. During this period of time many seasonal rains have .caused flooding from the site of the proposed dairy onto our property. As the proposed plan shot sewage ponds across the road this flooding is a big concern to us. Other concerns include the following: Appearance of the area with numerous mobile homes lined up to house the labor force of-.the dairy, and the increase in population this'causes. . Along with. the.,problems of various types of people- living this close together.. • Increased truck traffic on_our usually quiet country roads. • The problems of odors and flies from the sewage ponds and the chemicals used to control them. • Devaluation of our property due to all the above concerns. This beautiful country area is not the proper place for this-type operation. Based on the information the Citizens Opposing Dairy group obtained about the eexxisting stindairy operated by the Colorado Dairy Aurora Capital Corporation located Hwy 66, Platteville, Co; they have been in violation of enivironmental laws. Although they claim these problems have been corrected, we seriously doubt that a two to four thousand dairy can ever control the flies and oar to the satisfaction of those who live across the road from the operation. - So far the only persons in favor of this operation are the few who sell fee4 or other products to the dairy. ;These persons do not live in the immediate area and we wonder how they would feel if the dairy were to be located across -thbtrued ! from them. We beg you not to approve this special use permit of the Aurora Capital Cc4. Your vote against this is very important to us and our neighbors, N Thanking you for your consideration in this matter. +D3 co Sincerely, rn 19,94/ 457,1) y , 4nv�n�n Decemher .9, 1986 Dear tV.4.I(.a- (:6n 1".- -nL•"„ait.Q] We are the operators cf the farm on the Southeast corner of 'Weld County Roads 15 and 38. Our residence sets on the corner of Roads 15 and 38. Ye are stronely onposed-to the application from the Aurora Capital Corporation, ( case no. USR - 770 36:51 ,), to build a 2,400 head dairy located on the Southwest 11. of Section 32, .'4^;, R6"77:I of the 6th ➢.M., 'geld County, Colorado. '::e farm A80 acres directly South of the proposed new site for the dairy. We 2s well :is our landlords, James Rrewbaker and Ann eoreneson, are totally against this -type of. Corporate operatione rp placed on p=rime agricultural land, 'and are deeply concerned about what effects an operation of this magni`ude Li!'. have r' - .r __fe-tyle as we lyre known it for the cast 14 years. This dairy operation has very few, if any, advantages to our com- munity! 'It will not improve in any way our market for farm _roducts. The existing Colorado Dairy has made this very evident. The' devaluation of land and deterioration of our environment is of major importance! It is your- responsibility as elected officials to protect our individual rights and investments. The air pollution at the existing site is unbearable! =venthough we have been informed that this will not be a problem in our area it has existed at the present site and is not improving. The wait and see attitude about this disgusting odor is not-acceptable in any way! The proposed catch ponds are a very big concern of ours. Not only the stagnate water causing problems :with odors but the year round water in these ponds seeping .into the ncil causing wet v..ri _ and. ,ee; r spots on the farms south of the proposed site, Steps have been taken in the past on these farms to eliminate these problems such as cement ditches and pipelines. The problem'with underground water' is very evident in • our"own basement where a Rump nump is renuired to pump water out. It is our belief that any furtrer fncrease in underground water will damage these farm=s' production and value. _ d.J'_. ... Under the current dairy buyout program there in no ,justification for an operation of this size to be'-implemented. This program was not designed to buyout family dairies and oven the doors for large corporate dairies. If a Government program the size of the Whole Herd Buyout is not supported by the County and State Governments, the tax dollars of all the United States citizens have been wasted, At the meeting with the Colorado Dairy the majority of their sup— porters were businessmen who have no investment in the land or homes near the proposed site. In our opinion they showed no concern for the many people who have invested their time, coney and l:-'rd w-7.rk into the Weld County fares and homes surrounding the new site_ We do hope in making your decision you :.gill -consider the objections ' of the people who own and operate the land nearby. 'de urge you.to. vote NO on this proposal! Thank you for your time and consideration. SincerQQl+y�, / VaaEJ t COX t�V� • Gary and Nanette Adler 1 „L.., J. 'igas Wag C . �hi�i+;� ft2UiL4l0b • 2'_115 is in 2efei:e-Ice to .don ...a �� Ja1 -C' e 'n .,_o. ...+_i 7(r .'3G:3 f . do- - > Ja _ i i o GSdki - CG.. r�.j__.?� i.:•.�-j� IVY _� 1,J__J.b:.te�uect ()_1 - J` ♦_\irl ___.> _ J;0-:3.. 1_i:7. _. Zg .. _ ...> ..J-. _ - r - .. 0 - A ::e -aU O-' .n�o� -voi aV'_o -.^.`ur_ -.C ... ��a• .`o Oc 'O1r Lc �ru.cl.�o�.'" "1.1c ci;ic t u .' . 'Ji_- _0::: t,17 .a3 01 ' __ v .. 1:10 'r,-•• 1986 Weld ti.fleue+�l uUW • .5 December 9, 1986 151386 Me(1 pinklii Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 10th . Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Members of the Weld County Planning Commission , This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. Case Number : USR - 770 :86:51 . We purchased a small arreape a year ago direr y_ across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site . The acreage was intended for a building site . We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition, we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one-half it the dairy builds and is permitted to operate . We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concerns. They are as follows: 1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a mojor concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution . The odor this operation emits is twice as bad for one's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above. 3. MILK OVERSURPLUS Why is a large investment corporation allowed to operate 2,400, head when small local dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out >programs and decreasing overall Production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying. products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the average independent dairyman? C. V 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows, especially when a cow requires at least 35 gallons of water a .day? WiI1 there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn't the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway *66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads haul ino milk products, feed, manure , etc . Noise from the truck traffic , cows, machinery and human traffic would be constant day and night . Lighting would need to be on continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at night . 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Wi11 the county be able to maintain the roads in the area. which will be continually traveled by large , heavy trucks? JWill people in the area be hired as labor or do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses within the area profit that much from this corporation or do they do their business outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk_ products, water availability, waste , control , no community or county -advantage.. and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our' investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property . Please vote no on this and not allow this large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of <'> Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. We have lived in the Johnstown area for 16 years and lived in Colorado all of our life . - We have been active voters and are continually-.working to make our community a better place to live. We want to continue to make this our home . Please don' t force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state. Sincerely, Duane Frye 113 King Avenue Johnstown , Colorado 80534 !?x'79^`^.;'`1 ca Co v J f., December 9,` 1986 • Weld County Planning Commissioners 915 10th . Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Members of the Weld County Planning Commission : This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is oetri considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. Case Number: USR - 770:86:51 . We purchased a small acreage a year ago directly across from .(within 500 feet) this proposed site . The acreage was intended for a building site . We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of_ this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition , we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one-hall if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate . We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concerns. They are as follows: 1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a mojor concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, • eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution . The odor this operation emits is twice as bad for one's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above . 3. MILK OVERSURPLUS Why is a large investment corporation allowed to operate 2.400 -head when small vocal dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying products that tend to, lower the price-and wipe out the average independent dairyman? 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows, especially when a cow requires at least 35 gallons of water a day? Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. .f 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn' t the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads hauling milk products, feed, manure , etc . Noise from the truck traffic , cows, machinery and human traffic would be constant day and night . Lighting would need to be on continually to provide lights_ for the workers to operate at night . 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be ableto maintain the roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large , heavy trucks? Will people in the -area: be hired as labor or do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses within the area profit that much from this corporation or do th'ty do their business outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation - of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products, water availability, waste, control , no community or county advantage and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our- investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property • ce-enniein f Please vote no on this and not allow this large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of Section 32. T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. We have lived in the Johnstown area. for 16 years and 1' ived in Colorado alI of our life . We have been active voters and are continually working to make our community a better place to 1ive . We want to continue to make this our home . Please don' t force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state. Sincerely, rt � NYla Frye 113 King Avenue Johnstown , Colorado .80534 121986 of-'; :: 73Weld Co. 91aw.-u, uwcross:ox S December 9, 1986 ;=`l , tVJ;17- 11 r� Yetd Ca. kinarnQ iAMEISsiy Dear 1)14. 40..e.' 14. 4G..e. herein-win) This letter' is .in regard to the Aurora Capital Corporation to obtain a special use permit for a livestock confinement operation for 2,400 head of dairy cow. at the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and 38. We are located on the South-East corner where the dairy is proposed to be built on Weld County Road 38. We are very concerned over this type of operation- being situated in a place that-- in the opinion of nearly all people in that area would have a definite negative impact on this area. It was our understanding that the intention of the Federal Government Dairy Buyout program was to decrease the oversupply of milk product in the country:- So this not only affects us but - also the small family -dairy operation. What is to happen to them? Is it fair to the people. that are in this area or to the small family dairy farm to subsidize another dairy herd when we really don't need it? There are other factors which must be addressed with this size of operation are smell- The proof of this can be found on the large dairy operation of the same proprietors of this proposed dairy -West of Platteville on. Hwy:66.- Increased volume of heavy truck traffic to haul feed, milk and manure; which would contribute to further deterioration to road conditions in the surrounding area.: Also, drainage and seepage problems- . from the corrals and catch ponds -Could pollute irrigation water and shallow wells, and the flys. In conclusion, the negative -aspects (as mentioned above) could result from this type of operation. We are not opposed to ,a dairy operation in the - ordinances of Weld County, but we don't wantan operation- of this size to be built in the proposed area. • I would also like to ask you to - consider how'. you would feel if ,proposed dairy were built adjacent to your homes? Sincerely; Citizens 0p osing Dairy : Greg n re eg an Spaur • December 9, 1986 WELD COUNTY PLANNING & COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 915 10th Street Greeley, CO , 80631 SUBJECT: Aurora Capital Corporation's Special Use Permit We are writing to ask you to deny the special use permit that has been applied for at the location of WCR 15 amd WCR 38 for a livestock confinement operation for 2,400 head: of dairy cows. We are well aware of what such an operation can do to the quality of life in the area one is located. The same type of operation on Highway 66 causes such a stench it permeates the air for miles around it, and makes living near such an area unendurable for the average person. We moved to our home on Weld County Road 17 ten years ago for the quality of life it afforded us and cur five children. And if our quality of life is ruined by a neighbor such as the one that is planning to move near us, our home which we love will go up for sate and we will move out of Weld County. We know of no reason why you would approve this operation as the tax gains are minimal, they do not hire local labor, their trucks would cause more frequent road repairs, land around the area would be devaluated, they do not purchase their hay or feed locally but ship it in from Nebraska, and it would be extremely detrimental to the small dairy farmers' income in the area. AND most important is the fact that the pollution from drainage from their corrals and ponds would pollute irrigation water, shallow wells and eventually river water. The poisonous sprays required for insect control would pollute the air we breath. of 51 { GLC 1 1986 MI to.pia*Cow • J^ " •. ' • • -2 • • • • We have been told by Weld County residents that you as a group approve everything that comes your way with no regard to the • environment I truly hope this is not the case and you will NOT approve. this special use permit Sincerely, Mr, & Mrs_ Chuck Stieff 17666 Weld. County Road 17 Platteville; CO 80651 • 587-2500 cc: Jackie Johnson Gordon .Lacy. Bill Kirby G• ene Brantner Frank Yamaguchi Lydia Dunbar• Doug Graff Lynn Brown Paulette. Weaver Louis Rademacher LeAnn Reid Jack Holman` • • Ivan Gosnel'1 Ann: Garrison • 5 Bill Claus 17896 W.C.R. 7 Platteville, Co. 80651 - T Weld County Planning Commission rte ' 915 1Oth. St_ • Greeley, Co. 80631 I - -- ± l9E8 Laid To Whom It May Concern : We'd Ca. 74armfue 4.4mmMairg, in regards to the pending-Colo. Dairy Farms application for a new dairy on the- corner of W.C.R. 38 and 15, I for one am in favor of its passage. I am in the :custom hay business and I have done business with Colorado Dairy Farms ever since they opened their dairy on Highway 66. They have proven to be tough negotiators, but always fair and they have always paid ,their bills on time. I buy and sell them several tons of locally grown alfalfa, oat hay , and straw annually . While it is true they do not buy everything locally , it is partially because of the lack of the big one ton bales that are put up in this area. Colorado Dairy Farms has encouraged me to purchase a ton baler, which I have done, so they can use more of-- the local feed available to them. In the course of hauling hay into their dairy , I have found the corrals to always be clean and freshly bedded. I think they do as much as possible and more than a lot of other local dairys to keep their place at or above state and local regulations. While I can understand the neighboring landlords and tenants objections, I believe that in a` tough agricultural climate we need to seek every possible means to improve the market . place for locally grown feeds. I feel that if Colo_ Dairy Farms- has done their research and their plans meet state and county requirements,then-they should be `alloweu to go ahead with a project that will benefit our ' community. Sincere' , �\ Claus P.\.i x £49 • • • A-1 MECHANICAL INC. P.O.Box 207 Niwot, Colorado 80544 Weld County Planning Commissoness 12-10-86 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 I am writting to you in support of Colorado Dairy Farms for the development of the Anderson farm. Colorado Dairy are a real asset to the county of Weld. They have a very clean operation now existing on Highway 66. They spend a large amount of money in the local area for feed grains - hay - insulage, motor vechicles and in the payroll of their company." They are a very good company to so work for. I have done the plumbing for three barns. They are pleasant to work for and they pay their bills prompty. The Anderson farm would be an asset to Weld County for the taxes it would pay and the grains and feed ti would buy from Weld County farms. I hope in your serving on the planning commission that you can support this Dairy operation on the Anderson farm. Thank You for your time and consideration_ Vern a. Vinson A-1 Mechanical Inc. Niwot Colorado 652-2794 or 573-1087 D E° 15 11986 -71 Weld Cn. ?lawns: .;andissioe w ► 18683 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 303-587.2773 December 11, '1986 Weld County Planning Camrissioners 915 - 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Weld County Commissioners P 0 Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 [Tear Commissioners: I'm very concerned about the possibility of a large dairy farm operating on the former Glen Anderson farm, on the corner of Weld county Road #15 and Weld County Road #38. The Colorado Dairy Farm Aurora Capital Corporation has an operation on Colorado Highway 66, west of Plattville, Colorado. This operation has to be the smellest I'v ever seen. Having the operation only a few thousand feet from my home sicken me. My family moved here from a large city for•the peace and quiet of the area. I'm concerned about the smell, the value of my home, noise, traffic, insects, ponds, etc.,etc.. I ant you to,put a stop to this operation,it just makes no sense. Yours truly, A co erned d Fay Elms Please make copies of this letter for each,commissioner. • r1uF'II1V/ I, 7986 fled Co. fhowag Qattara; • LAND—USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: December 9, 1986 CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301 REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit, for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the '.SW* of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38. SIZE OF PARCEL: 160 acres ± POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS: The criteria for Planning Commission review are listed in Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the Standards and Conditions of Section 24.5, 24.6, and 24.3.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance are met. Our office has received several letters in opposition and support to the proposed request. To date, referral agencies that have responded to the referral have no objections to the proposed request. ` ' 54. -• =a o . 'ora. of f•• t ;A/ _ '- 1,:, y _ / •" l•-:-.4- . >� 1 \' o E 50 • mantas!- _ I . • • First C wL' Y LA,11/2 a ''``• i '.` C .C 2 0 u ri• Z -/ �. •Gu[ir j.; r" LA, ,.✓:- ...,r -w-+y--�......,.-.._.. • R:n; 'at•. t • _ .f.L.�_- N. . T•'.•- ••.: 46 O J � - •� 3' • • I. ;� �� . . •. fi ... '4 • M. R. ,. _ a r T.4N. {° �- �•l 4Pf.• -- LC 7� �1.--' .. [ _xs :ESip.`i" n t tl M ; I IOW• v : sY OK it a v 25 (a 1 a � C ;• • a I ' r / !Taal CC sb • J • �, .. `•uc i. r . as\• . ,.f ; a• v •.1. �.: 4/S p[i star!' \ :: - 6ILi11. •.x • { • • .e'. •t i - f•F• L 'F. 34 c mot, •; 1 A �; 1 J '' .• 1 •• sf 32 •- _if. _ L : c N'p .. . T3N. ,. .• [� , :r 30 pXI w .a .LifeCS . . 1 .ly.t i..- 2~-.eT t l. •T• ••—•��.�•» i Saame 4:41.1° s I✓r;_Lr f :.::o.+L-' ' ar ` t f` •• a{ ` 5— rj.c - G ��.. . -.... •— st •1--• •• • - . 11 X1 - i i J-a • - ••. ' •• . .c.:' 24 ?OaMaw ' • J •. - . . r : 7.,...) 1 4- ,_ ....7 . y {7 1 . . Li •• „ •\ • . to 18 � .an L . a Jsc 4'• • Y �� Y- L r _ 0,..—^ • r- 4rc.,s f ■ — • I. „ rr a n 1 • .G/ y c"o .c r. M -Ae L ,., s F S 01/41, • N 14 . •I l L .. l 4. . .J :, _ - .l Ke O•CO 8 ; .mow••'1 Y �:K ...c• tG G 1 ,..\-8,12M1p / I I ,/♦440-2 • �� . •oo. II .r- N./�� Asa ,. �9" {. ) }1. 1(f �y.a , • „ X � V. • ) /1 • • ' I j• S %.,-,...y; +.nii: 1...\‘ i ; l's r K.,l f V / -.- . ie.\ -^� aFOM--�III� � wN•q 3 .,. . - / —_ -..9Q9 2. 1918 17,-2,7.„1:„. . ✓ ,5°°° U I \ \ o r,, , _ ;1v - ,-1.------, ..-----" V �� or I 3i /�/ rj/ ��-.2 r '----------C-----_�aszz / e1 ` C h \ ��v di` .";-,---.--t‘ ..� � i Wildest ( Ir-_,` 1r."— ,�, \ Thy, ,�-� _ 2) 030001. 111 l. --':,-) -N-sc.\\N'i , -------N\ $2 \ 4 •\\ \N—`�N'� / /"-M.1-- ---.. � ill m \ 1 ��/��cyTo✓ �aaso-�.J jra° � r� _._ s _ L.: Ni, _ : .. k ti• =3..• "77�� - • , x .. 5 • Y,I M 029 .1 .E.u$ Ss r tic . � rt • ( a! j _c -- : .•�> -€.;;1i //.9:>1';,:-.r N `VL - t - R . a `. > • tL~fit •h '�... _ ,�_ i a` .„-ix,;;;.,-.n 'rti \\•f• pt y C 1 1 br5 • • i :_� -ter ? '^' ,'..4'-'7---, • ;:gip ,. ,x ',:"•• .0 .itK I POS ‘14iI . ' .177 ".. ... , _ ••.,, ,.., • ,_ , „..:,..„,, ,,, , . ,, . . , ..,,, , , , . . , . .,., ,, re.% 'L.; • ' \ \ \.'": IL'<gr• 1. lit C t v c ...: '&$uhf a st.': 1(/ ,: ?` 4. a r ,. x rt •'.' 1 t u t ,.. ... • >\c Colorado • Dairy Farms AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION 7388 State Highway 66 • Longmont, Colorado 80501 (303)535.4628 November 26,'1986 I WELD COUNTY Department of Planning Services a 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe This letter is to confirm our conversation in your office on November 26, 1986. As I pointed.out a mistake was inadvertently made on the map and, property. owners list turned into your office on the Aurora Dairy Farms project. The property directly West of our farm is actually owned by Anderson Farms and not Union Pacific _:Land Resources Corporation. Anderson: Farms address is: 'Anderson Farms C/O Mrs. Harold Anderson 621 23rd Street X12 Greeley, CO 80631 I am sorry about this mix up. If you have any questions please contact me. Thank you for your co-operation in this' matter. Sincerely,y p .{/1" L-LZ• dims George A. Smith :. s Cam•-- - 4 --, 11 Tyco 7R 'eid Co. 2Iaaaih2 tAmmu u, REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Aurora Capitol Corporation CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 SENT REFERRALS OUT: REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: December 8,1986 NO SR NR NO SR NR S. Weld County Health Department r Engineering Department .1/ S County Extension Agent R State Engineer Division of Water Resources I313 Sherman St. Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 S Town of Milliken Margaret Wakeman Milliken, CO 80543 % Louis Rademacher 13184 Weld County Road 13 Longmont, CO 80501 % Fort Collins Soil Conservation District Suite 25 2625 Redwing Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 i S Johnstown Fire District John Shultz 21475 Weld County Road 19 Milliken, CO 80543 % rEkerkenbetk Lateral Albert H. Jeffers 17475. Weld County Road 17 Platteville, CO 80651 NOvNo Objection . SR"Specific Recommendations NR-No Response .i if7 FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: rSR-77Q-16:51 DATE OF INSPECTION: lc2-1—S :7 NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation, Barney Little REQUEST. use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION:part of the SW} of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M Weld County LAND USE: N _2/4_41 ZONING: N a 1 L t ,r LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles southwest of E $illikenp east of Weld County Road 15 and south S f• of Weld County Road 40 W COMMENTS: • AG Ell DA kTE December 16, 1986 NAME Aurora Capital Corporation ADDRESS 7388 State Highway 66, Longmont Barney Little LOCATION Approximately 2 miles southwest of Milliken; east of Weld County Road 15 and south of Weld County Road 40 LEGAL D E S CR IPTION part of the Sw} of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Y P E OPERATION Livestock Confinement Operation (2,400 head dairy) COMMENTS: -c- .JLi /hLJ .r/ �i� t � Iff iDEi1-11 wr ( >r 198b Weld Co. Mang masvzai _dELD COUNTY EXTENCT_0;! SERVICE �� AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE STATE OF COLORADO I I SS COUNTY OF WELD I I,Clyde Briggs,do solemnly swear that I am publisher of The Johnstown Breeze: ' that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part,and published in the County of Weld, State of Colorado. and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published • continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Weld for period of more than IlOUCt oP► imic ttaman fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the Tee weld' County `Flee ii first publication of the annexed legal notice Commiselon w6 conduct a pubeacc or advertisement; that said newspaper has hearing on December 16, 1966. been admitted to the United States mails as at I:3300 on.to rarbw.a request for approval of a livestock car second-class matter under the provisions tit' fl�t roper operation 2400 head the Act of March 3, 1875. or any ahsf nenA .d the SWI «L amendments thereof, and that said on 2. 74N, n6Tw f-the newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly • 6th neat.weed61 .«et can coionda t m«e « qualified for publishing legal notices and lea The ooamaeNr°2'°mi l'Southwest advertisements within the meaning of the ntuiigne et the nort seuelt laws of the State of Colorado. .. comer of the intersection of weld Coals* Road 16 and weld. - That the annexed legal notice or advertise county Road I ment was published in the regular and • Th a b. the WM Countye had by • entire issue of every number of said weekly nation for the , of newspaper for the period of'..1. conset u- theaboveMereneedrequestwiu Live insertions; and that the first be conducted in rdy C n.rt Muwnno _ publ[cation of said notice was rilhe issue_of G mrm C alret enter.Weld said newspaper datedMir 26A\ h1 tai - Street'ar«Nr. Colorado Coe` and that the last publication of said notice malts or objections masted to n» abovestoe wad was in the issue of said newspaper dated ythe Weld A-D. 19 submitted Team P 8vvient In witness whereof I have hereunto set 806m the coeaj w my hand this 2 b day of :a":'r 6oa31,Delore-tea abae date« 6 on December 16, 98p.aurirq. A.D. 199. Coon of ens aapeiptlon an -available for public i the Plenninoin senriat Department 342,woe canny Centennial Center. 916 y Publisher Phone C3"°c' uo'� Eaf senWn Sr* Subscribed Chairman Subscribed and sworn to before me,_a core,iip Planning Notary Public in and for the,CRttnty of Wel 1 State of Colorado, this Sll�a day-of town published in the,Jahn► N� 19.11... sees - sees ( A.U. • To be cached `by Chilled OM tt)Um;NwanMry. A. - - , 7-So peer. ikI4 Notaryf Wit.,JAhhih.a.. C My commission expires• l t t! i e'- : P`y • PRODUCERS PRODUCERS LNESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCATION December 3, 1986 • Dear Member of Weld County Planning Commission, This letter is to inform you of our support for Colorado Dairy Farms in Longmont, Colorado, in their efforts to develope a dairy operation on the Corner of Rd. 38 and Rd. 15. Colorado Dairy Farms has sold as well as bought thousands of dollars worth of dairy livestock through Greeley Producers each year. Their business is consistent each week and is a valuable asset to our employees as well as to our Company and this community. Greeley Producers business is dependent on the farmers, ranchers and dairy- men of Weld County and local areas. When our business improves as well as when other agricultural business' grow, then all in Weld County benefit. We hope this information will be of some help to you -in your decision, Respectfully yours, Lonnie Dunn Greeley Producers Dairy Sales LI)LAT t,lj� : S 1986 HIGHWAY 85 NORTH OF GREELEY PO BOX P GREELEv,COLORADO 80634 TEL(303)353 t!eM Co. Ptannai Comnnssrno 172,7�.c..7r. Ilk T. _ Li; DEC 8 4.:'7 GREELEr.Coat December 3, 1986 Weld County.Commissidners Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed "Colo Dairy Farms Aurora Capitol Corp". My name is Glenn H. Spaur and I own one quarter inter- est in the farm directly to the South East of the proposed dairy. First , it is my interest in the near future to build a house on a portion of my ground and retire there. I don 't think it would be very relaxing to live there with all of the stench , road noise, etc. , that this dairy would bring. Also, I am concerned what this would do 4cr property values. It is my belief that an operation of this size could be planned -for an area far out from a populated one. I strongly urge you to vote no on this issue. Thank you for your time. Glenn H. S our P.S. Would You Please ;See That Copies Are Made And Given To' Each Commissioner. '` HELH fails t rt"C1�," " Dec . 3. 1986 Q 1'11 r x+326 Oxford Road ( I Longmont; CO. 80501 t .� • GEC 81985 J- Dear Gc c e nSonJ • My brother, (Dr. James L. Brewbaker.Glf Lo?CHa'waii, Dept. of Horticulture) and I co-own 320 acres of land which lies immediately south of the proposed Colorado Dairy Farms operation. This is the previous Glen Ander- • son farm, located at the juncture of Weld County Roads #15 and #38. Our .-father purchased this land many ,years ago and diligently worked :,tn. bring it into top agricultural status. Since his death we have worked in the same tradition and are most proud of the splendid quality of this acerage. These past 12 years we have had an outstanding farm-oriented young couple - to tenant the land and they, we know, wish to continue and perhaps see the land eventually fall into the caring hands of, their sons, 3 We have, therefore, a deep personal interest in-all lands which lie in this vicinity. We have very serious concerns and valid objections to the above take-over by a huge dairy cow operation and urge -that you become as well informed as possible before hearings take place before your boards. This transaction would create a high density dairy cow operation of from 2 to 4 thousand head and -placed on prime agricultural farm land. If established, we can easily foresee many ugly conditions arising that could definetly affect the lifesles of the many persons who have chosen to live and work there- Neither of us had received any information at all from the CO. Dairy Farms save a brief letter, which arrived the day before Thanksgiving, inviting us to an informational workshop which happened today. As we are both employed. ` neither of us could attend. However, since we both wished to be as fully informed as possible and since Jim was here briefly for the holiday, we visited the mother company, which is located on Highway 66. We visited for almost 2 hrs. with the assistant general Manager, -Mr. George Smith. - We approached the facility from the east on this chilly Nov. afternoon--pausing briefly to survey the facility. The odor- was, in a word, horrendous. I ask that you do as we did, before you consider making any judgement. ' Stop by the facility on highway 66 and then ask yourself, would you willingly have a beautiful home immediately across the highway from that? The home of our tenants lies exactly that close. I asked'.Mr. Smith if it were his home, would he have any concerns? He answered very honestly that he would have the same concerns as do we. -There are other, ywajor concerns above and beyond the odor problem: 1) Increased volume of traffic to daily haul feed, milk and manure. 2) Increased traffic by those employed.. We are told 30 + will -be needed to work the operation. If they shall be housed as those are on the mother facility, then I pity these- people- 3) Stagnating water in the necessary catch .ponds create odor plus an inviting environment for - insects. - Think, too, of the poisonous sprays which must be used to control such; a;;population and what about underground water seepage"which could, in time„_very much affect those people ,who live,:nearby? Page 2 4) As I am sure you are aware the Federal Government recently inaguzated a massive Dairy Buyout Program in order to de- crease the oversupply of milk products in this country. I thought this action was also taken to protect the stall and independent dairyman from takeovers by large corporations, which is exactly what this would be. 5) There are many other concerns but I shall mention only, in closing, that should this operation be allowed there is absolutely no question but that land values shall drop and rapidly so. And that is an enormous pity for the many fine folk who have loved this prime agricultural region, worked its soil and harvested its bounty with gladness . Surely the dedicated farmers and ranchers in America today are beset by enougn problems. Anything that any one of us can do to make their way of liv ng just a little bit easier should, in my judgement, be doing just that. I'm sure you will agree with me that :Meld County claims some of the richest, most productive agricultural lana in all of Colorado . I sincerely hope it s^all remain that way. Sincerely yours, Ann Erewbaker Sore'sson • �� e-73 IIt vet Celt ttt • December '5, 1'98 ; .DEC -819 } Weld County Commissioners ,Qolb. . P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Jackie Johnson, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Jim Flynn. I live west of Longmont and own a small acreage and a welding shop._ ' Currently -I have no employees. I- have .been doing business with Colorado Dairy for -the, past two years. During this time I °have done some welding and fabrication work for them. I also buy calves from them on a regular basis Barney Little, the general manager of Colorado Dairy and his employees have been very honest and straight with me in all the dealing that we have had over the past two years. Colorado Dairy -is. a very big supporter of the 4-H clubs and individuals -in the area that are interested in agriculture. They purchased several Weld County 4-Hers livestock this year at the annual 4-H livestock sale. I see no reason that the new dairy they are proposing should not be allowed._ ._This would be an asset to the local farming community and would add tremendously to an already depressed agricultural market. Thanks for y ur time, d James T. Flynn Ask IMF tom /December 3, 1986 7,u 41 tt° DEC 81986 To: Weld County Commissioners & Planning Commissioner # c> .'RE: tolorado"Diary'Farms 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Proposed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15 1 Itis my understanding that a group of people are opposing the building of another dairy farm by Colorado Diary. It seems they are concerned with the stench :the farm may cause, that they employ . out of state persons and that they do not buy the products locally that are necessary to maintain their operation. I have been an electrician for a firm in Longmont for the past 15 years and our company has serviced serveral dairy, cattle, chicken and turkey farms in • the surrounding area. As the main serviceman for our company assigned to Colorado Dairy when called for-service, I feel that I am quite qualified to • express my opinions to you in this matter as follows based on personal ex- perience and from information I have gathered through inquiries. 1. Colorado Dairy is one of the cleanest run dairy farms in the State 2. There are less flys there than any farm I have been on due to the spraying by approved methods for dairy farms 3. They buy all of their feed locally except for cotton seed which• is not available in this State 4. Their present operation employees 50-55 people of which only 2 came from out of state. The new operation is expected to employee 30-35 more 5. They spend thousands of dollars .on chemicals for their cesspool to control ordorA . 6. Their company has spent between 7 - 8 million dollars locally & in the state annually. 7. After construction is completed, approximately 4 trucks a day will be • additional traffic to the road surrounding the proposed site Please consider these points very carefully in your decision for Colorado Dairy. If the opposition continues. to press this_ issue, perhaps they wish to buy the land for themselves. Then they could pay for Colorado Dairy to find another location- satifactory to both parties since Colorado Diary has already made oneepurchase. Sincerely,11.7 0rval Hedger E*ro 7\;, r� 206 Mumford Ave. • Longmont, Colorado 80501 ll` Gordon D.Brown,DVM lit Robert O.Dull,DVM Fort Lupton 303)75/-6671 :DVM - Greeley- evllle Area((303)775-2104 John R.Ewing Glenn S.Cook;DVM 1 ki� C' :rf ANtMALCUNIC Ii ��\'j --'� 232 First Street j:_ PEG a jo 1 Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 ! j OREELEY. COLA December 5, 1986 Dear Bill: I am writing you as regards the proposed dairy to be built by Aurora Capital Corporation at county roads 38 and 15. I have had the opportunity over the last four years to work with Colorado Dairy Farms providing veterinary services for them. I have been impressed with their abilities not only in managing their dairy operations, but also the great effort they-hais-put-fo.th to be good neighbors and to handle the difficult problems such as waste disposal and odor control. As far as economic impact, they provide jobs directly and indirectly in a part of the county which can only benefit from such employment_ Colorado Dairy Farms have utilized local services'and suppliers a great deal, this includes feed, medication, equipment, etc. These advantages aside, it is good to see positive investment in agriculture at a time when the tide seems to be running the other way. In conclusion, I would like to say that the record established lncally by Aurora Capital Corporation at Colorado Dairy Farms should lay to rest any concerns that people in the area have. I recommend that they be given the opportunity to proceed with their proposed development plans for the new dairy•. Since ly, John R. String, DVM JRE/cbh 1f Colorado Animal Health, Inc. 1351 Sherman Drive Longmont, CO 80501 '(.303)-. 77-22636 December 2, 1986 Jackie .,Inhnson - T- P.O. ' Box 758 JLi72,4) Greeley, CO 80632 DEC 8 t.:t5. Dear Commissioner Johnson, 1.2h E ` rf. COW. The purpose of this letter is to give the Weld U"aunfy Commissioners and the Weld County Planning Commissioners some . information about the Colorado Dairy Farm Located on Hwy 66 west of Platteville, Colorado. Hopefully it will aid in clarifying some concerns and/or statements about the operation. To qualify the statements, let me briefly inform you about Colorado Animal Health, Inc. of Longmont, Colorado. It is a business which is involved in servicing and selling of biologicals, pharmaceuticals, and equipment for the beef , dairy, swine, equine and small animal pet industries. It is owned and operated by James Martin who resides in Weld County. Colorado Animal Health employs eight people_ The area serviced by Colorado Animal Health includes the State of Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. The large number of dairies and feedlots which we service on a weekly basis give some merit to the evaluation made. A. Patronizing Local Businesses. Colorado Dairy Farms started doing business locally with Colorado Animal Healthy Inc. in 1981. As their operation increased in size, so did their purchases.They spent $218,808.00 in 1985 and have thus''-far in 1986 spent $259,430.00. This indicates a very strong commitment to do business locally. • In addition to their purchases, they buy` much of their feed from the local area. Many of their : cows are purchased locally. Vehicles, equipment, fuel and machinery purchases are -all' made from the area -businesses. B. Corral Management. The corrals are scraped,on a -daily basis and much effort is put. forth in -maintaining a clean .environment for the cows. Several 'indicators of -a good Job being done- in this area .are low incidence of mastitis, excellent herd health, production of milk and fly control ' in summer months. C. Fly Control _ The farm spends $12,600.00 annually on products for fly control . It is a high priority as it directly affects how well the cows produce. As a result of their efforts, the fly - control has been excellent at Colorado Dairy Farm. The product they use is cleared for use in dairies. It does not __have an odor. 4 D. Odors. They had experienced some difficulty in this area initially because it was an existing system on the property when it was purchased. They are spending the time, effort and money to correct the situation. Their commitment to the problem is evident with the progress that has been made. E. Community Support. Colorado Dairy Farm employs fifty-eight people. All but three were hired from the local job market. They also have an office in Boulder, Colorado which employs fifteen people. Colorado Dairy Farm has shown their support to the youth in the area by purchasing animals at the 4-H livestock sale. Last August they purchased six animals at this sale. In summation, Colorado Dairy Farm spends millions of dollars annually on feed,. cattle and services locally. An additional 2500 cow dairy would provide more local employment, demand for agricultural products .and - a need for more local services. Above all it would put about ten million dollars annually into the local cash flow. The excellent management of the existing Colorado Dairy Farm should be the best indicator that their new operation would meet or exceed all of the standards set forth by the County and the State. Some concerns are normal , but a visit to the existing facility should put these concerns at rest. Five years of- observation and business association with the farm have convinced Colorado Animal Health 's entire staff that their intent is to -be a first:--class .operation. Colorado Dairy Farm wants to do an outstanding job producing milk and maintain the best environment possible for their cows and employees. Colorado Animal Health, Inc. was awarded a trip to Maui by a manufacturer which is December-10th .through December 17th. I- personally would like to attend the December 16th Planning Commission meeting in Greeley, but due to the trip I will be out 'of town. A company representative. will be there on my - - behalf. If there are any questions and-you feel that I can be of any assistance, -please feel `-free to call. me at 772-2636-or at home which is 772-0692. Respectfully, • • James, H. Martin, President Colorado Animal Health, Inc. Ase • . ,441 P"T o t•• , � December 1, 1.988; 3 el; y0/ . Dear in. iCT_EL, czq_ This latter is in regard to the lerce dairy o_eretion being considered for the former Glen Anderson farm r:hich is located on Weld County road .415 and road -t35- J:nf-ausbsnd:and -myself; :as 'ell as many of.the;surrounding neighbors,-have cuestlons':and- concerns r: arding an operation of this size to come to our area. :;e feel that land value will go down, yet further. i Nearby established dairies, ;as-large or. largar than this .00erction, donot and havenot sought out to purchase fend pro- duced in this irimediate area. s Local people are not hired on,- they bring people in from else':here, .still limiting jobs for tiro area. The schools are already crowded, as well 'as-the trans- portatian 'to and from school. 3 • tl The roads in the area are already under serviced and we feel heavy truck traffic` will further detericate theca. The taxes raid by this operation sill be .^inizal cossared to the overall effects an operation of this size ..ill (ford Weld County. The catch roads on dairy ooerat'_cns c,_ate :tacnated rater and vary undesirable odors, causing .:ti- in _aLect n:,aulctions, not to mention the added air._ollution. Clutter to the area, when multi .a-:ily hones are,moved onto the land to hcue the labor force, thus using acditional ;mater taps :•here. ..e`are already at..a minimum. The surrounding country is peaceful and quiet. With an addi- tion of this ''agnitude to our area it ..Ails be like ' ving 'co teas. .'y husband and nyseif also agree that because this is prime agricultural farm land, that an operation of tnis 'size should consider moving out to eastern Colorado wrmere tae._ is .: ._e rocs for 'chic t✓oe of business. de also. question the need tar such an oparation. -O::r cc 'cern is the affect on established small dairies in future years. de ask that you consider and think about our c:-cerns Ind that -you HOT approve the a. rlicaticn from the Coin-ado Dairy ?arms Aurora Ca,ital Corsoraticn. Thank you for your cen_e__rcti__n in tai titter of :wt imacrtance to us ;7e -dill appreciate a vote a;_=not ;.his. di nca_ay, _ /.12i114Qi .Melvin and'3e bara'Le±n.:eber ' 16933 ;i. C. Road 15 Platteville, CO. 30651 535-4373 y,Th.y,: ,..,x1 •.. • VIM c-r i ,--"rp-II - 1 t, -ii. till i'-1 if -November t, 41988 2, 1986 DEC fi�gg • JEAN BREWHAKER 7688 -N 41ST ST LONGMONT CO 80SOi • This letter is to inform you- of the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation buying and expanding their operation to the location of Weld County Road #38 and Weld County Road #15, the Glen Anderson Farm. We have many concerns and questions regarding this transaction. According to information that we have obtained, this transaction would create a high density dairy cow operation of from two thousand to four thousand head of dairy cattle placed on prime agricultural farm land. Once this operation is established, we foresee it creating many undesirable conditions that would affect everyone 's lifestyle within a very large surrounding area.• Major concerns include -the following: . further devaluation of surrounding land once a dairy as described above is operating . minimal local and county tax gains as compared with the adverse conditions it would create for all . stagnating water in catch ponds thereby causing very undesirable odors and creating an environment for .large insect populations • • poisonous sprays that are required for insect control • . increased volume of heavy- truck traffic to haul feed, milk and manure • deteriorating road conditions, due to heavy truck traffic, in the immediate and surrounding areas s -'� drainage problems from the corrals and-ponds that g could pollute' irrigation water, shallow wells and i 1 eventually river water j • alteration of 'the farm atmosphere when many multi- <n �i family homes are moved onto the land to house the lo co ., labor force t'�' �V-_ 4 Wa._ _, ___ 411 . destruction of the general peacefulness of the area with continual heavy traffic and constant pollution of the air which create contrary conditions to the interests and welfare of the seven families whose homes are within 500 feet of the site We also question the need for such an operation. It appears, based on the Federal Government's dairy buyout program, that an operation such as this would be discouraged. We also question the legality of a large investment corporation increasing the number of dairy herds, while small independent dairymen in the surrounding area are choosing to sell dairy cows and discontinue production of milk products, There is concern as to the magnitude of a large commercial dairy operation and its effect on small dairies in future years. Based on information we have obtained about the existing Colorado Dairy Farm located at 7388 HWY #66, Platteville, Colorado, they have been ,in violation of environmental laws and have shown limited patronage of local businesses, farm products and local labor. We seriously question the construction of another operation. We are asking for your support to not approve the application from the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation because the lifestyle of the families in the area will be greatly altered. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this matter of great importance to us. Your vote against this is vital. Sincerely,711 ciez Ci zti e 0PPoin J�3S-?{37`j Opposing Dairy / yy J \ J QCS-'Z O1Q W -L'( -c�. { y thia S 1- 7�0c / et-r7 _ � V b� try/. A .*7. Ia.77/Lc' 7 et, tt&GeV 4Zc‘ah[t✓t 1-1 i .511-2.27g 42'4/ J4 / r/ �Y Spit 20 9 rt. J I f \A "•-• j:t;r R MQ:Ya • Lieut.& E e, hwz. P.O.Box 218 Telephone 842-5115 BRUSH, COLORADO 80723 November 28, 1986 Weld County Planning! Commissioners 915 1Oth. St. Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen: I am aware of Colorado Dairy's plans for a new • facility in your county. I am writing with the utmost enthusiastic support for this project_ It hardly needs to be mentioned that agriculture dependent areas have taken an economic beating the past few years. Counties such as our own Morgan County have spent thousands of dollars pur- suing businesses to locate in our area hoping to stimulate the economy. My congratulations to you for being an area desirable enough to attract such an outstanding addition to the economic scene. We are envious of you_ In our dealings with the Colorado Dairy organization we have found them to be very professional and ethical. These people would be a fine addition to the business community. The effect of the dollars generated by agri- cultural commodities consumption, labor force usage and taxes will be enormous. If I can be of any further assistance as a reference for Barney Little and his organization, feel free to con- tact me. Sincerely, Gary .Y4odgson Willard Hartnagie ; GH/kv 5 Y317 ;o. %Iznrsat: S:^�ma::ar• • AAA EL ^CTRIC .COMPANY ANC. 24 South Main,P.Q.Box 345 g 7tr1.17 rrt q, Longmont,Cdfi orado 80501- ,�..� .i, . Telephone 7764031 -` Metro 444-2989 �� ,..>�a Cn�. Y • Bgn Hoverter 26, 1986 To: Meld -County Commissioners RE: Colorado Dairy Farms -- 7388 State Highway. 66 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Proposed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15 I would like to purpose the following reasons and considerations I feel you should examine seriously as to why Colorado Dairy should be permitted to con- tinue their upcoming project as per plans and specifications which they have submitted. They are as follows: 1. Local business expenditures 2. They are an asset to the community- not a liability 3. Employment for the area 4. Tax revenues 5. Payroll of which a major portion is circulated in the surrounding area 6. A market for area farm products (grain, silage, etc.) 7. They bought property in the appropriate area for opeations 8. The zoning conforms with the proposed operation 9. Once the criteria is met, why should anyone deny one's project on one's own property 10. The owner has met the criteria at the present proposed location, they should not be required to incure the same expense a 2nd time 11. If Colorado Dairy is not allowed to proceed as submitted, I see only one option to follow - Let the opposition buy the property and relocate the owner to the satisfaction of both parties at the oppositions expense_ Insummary, I feel you, as a commissioner, should consider all the positive aspects of this-project and vote for the approval le. Colorado Dairy's request to proceed.as, per plans and `specifications. Sincerely, Me vin H_ Rahm, Presid .� AAA Electric-Company, ] 1f�`1 �' ` 1986 I 'I• - `di4_i !. Co. Plume taraissa fie CFf C 5171 ,,57`5757P, � November 25, 1986I Weld County Commissioners - `'4 I F.O. Box 758 i- Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Commissioners, ' I am writing to you in regard to the proposed expansion project of the Colorado Dairy -Farm, and would appreciate your -. careful consideration in this matter. j As a business man in the community I have enjoyed having the . opportunity of working with the Dairy. As you are aware often times odor is associated with an operation such as their' s, however Barney Little, general manager, and I got together in June of this year and I told him that my company marketed products that will dramatically reduce offensive odors from their system. Being concerned, he was willing to try! After investing over $3000.00 worth of product into the system I 'm happy to say that the odor is substantially less than before we started, just ask the neighbors ! Currently we are on a maintenance program to keep ,control of the odor causing affluents. .in the system. Also we designed a system to inject- the product at the new dairy at road -38, and will -use the product from inception to insure manageable. odor levels. Other concerns of mine, as the Mayor of Platteville, are the economic development of the surrounding community. Many people do not really realize the amount of money a dairy. organization of their- size contributes to the area. The Dairy currently employs 9 people from the Platteville area alone. Not mentioning, of course, the . amount of money spent by those individuals in the community. The proposed dairy by the end of phase 2 will no doubt employ an equal number just in my community. In the softening farm economy an organization such as this becomes a major concern , it' s ability to consume in the millions of dollars, in products produced by the local farmer, giving them the opportunity to market those products, which in these times is a BIG plus! Many times change is `difficult to accept, and there will . . always' te .the nay sayers, often the ones who are the least informed . I• urge you to take—the—responsibility to thoroughly research the facts 'in. this issue before you cast your vote. Since Iy, M Stephen P. Rivas ! �r� — SR/ms Iil , Sir` i cc . Colorado Dairy _ T r -. 'axi1t r?,-v •tk.:J Cu. 1{.i illt L 1eIs;.:V l, °'13 L rwc i,t"ri“,.,5,c6:::77...c.:7,-ffira.44L P$ Nov. 22, 1986 N0V251988 111 606 Ululani St. GREELEY.COLA, Kailua, HI 96734 Memo to: Weld County Planning Commissioners, 915 10th St. , Greeley Weld County Commissioners, P. 0. 756, Greeley RE: Dairy proposed for property on Glen Anderson Farm We wish to register our objections to the proposed dairy of the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation (CDFACC) , on the Glen Anderson Farm, corner of Weld -County Rds. #15 and #38. We write as University Professor in Horticulture and Biological - Statistician,, resp. , over the-past 30 years, and as landowners of property neighboring the Anderson Farm. Our .Objections parallel ' those stated to you by-'the group "Citizens Opposing Dairy" , with emphasis on following: Use of prime agricultural land for such operations is unwise, notably in a county that has vast areas of marginal agricultural land that are well suited to such use. Prime farmland remains Weld County's -most priceless posession, and most fragile National and local dairy economy, with strong federal opposition developing to buyout and support programs, should urge extreme caution in permitting such developments without careful review of economic credentials and venture capital encouraging this holding corporation-to expand its operations in Weld County CDFACC has already established a bad reputation in the Platteville region for environmental pollution and apparent violation of local statutes . The CDFACC proposal must be carefully studied for its plans regarding labor housing;-these requirements have been understated in the past, and would unquestionably result in increasing needs for homes on the land . .The Glen -Anderson farm, is located in a pastoral farm area that would-. be impacted severely by the heavy traffic, high density housing,- and' environmentally polluted catchment. ponds of a huge commercial.dairy, Sincerely,. Jamesland Lilia 'Hrewbaker • Cr i Tglgh"`7f ) 1986 Weld to. Plamtiq i:nmmticiBI .... ._. Val C'Ny C. 3y'IC`m.Et • Nov 139 1986 November 17, 1986 G:kc,LsY. cgto. • RE: Colorado Dairy Farms proposed expansion to the Glen Anderson farm at WEld County Roads 38 & 15 : Our concerns to allow this expansion are the adverse effect to the surrounding area, ie: (1) Air pollution from the catch ponds (2) Increased traffic to the area (3) Deterioration to our roads (4) Large density cow herd on prime agricultural land (5) Drainage problems from corrals and catch ponds polluting the water and ground in the surrounding areas (6) They have not helped the, agricultural business of the area, as they purchase only a very minimal amount of feed from area farmers Allowing expansion of this size to take place when locally the dairies are selling'• off herds in -the govern- ment buy out program does not seem needed. • We do not feel the proposed tax money generated will be enough: to offset the- deteration of the life style to the existing area. We therefore urge you not to allow the proposed ex- pansion to'take place. sincerely, Paul :& Janice Hopp 16212 -W.C.R. 13 'Platteville, CO -80651 pl7:til i7 1E - . J ? 1980 t'orry 2. Weld Co. Planaiaq Camden t C-. • IID Nov., 22, 1986 ' 606 Ululani St. Kailua, HI 96734 • Memo to: Weld County Planning Commissioners, 915 10th St. , Greeley Weld County Commissioners, P. O. 756, Greeley RE: Dairy proposed for property on Glen Anderson Farm We wish to register our objections to the proposed dairy of the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation (CDFACC) , on the Glen Anderson Farm,? corner of Weld County Rds. *15 and *38. • We write as University Professor in Horticulture and Biological Statistician, resp. , over the past v0 years, and as landowners of property neighboring the Anderson Farm. Our objections parallel those stated to you by the group "Citizens Opposing Dairy" , with emphasis on following: Use of prime agricultural land for such operations is unwise, notably in a county that has vast areas of marginal agricultural land that are well suited to such use. Prime farmland remains Weld County 's most priceless posession, and most fragile . National and local dairy economy, with strong federal opposition developing to buyout and support programs, should urge extreme caution in permitting such developments without careful review of economic credentials and venture capital encouraging this holding corporation to expand its operations ,in Weld County . CDFACC has already established a bad reputation in the Platteville region for environmental pollution and apparent violation of local statutes . The CDFACC proposal must be carefully studied for its plans regarding labor housing; these requirements have been understated i in the past, and would unquestionably result in increasing needs for homes on the land . The Glen'Anderson farm is located in a pastoral farm area • that would be impacted severely by the heavy traffic, high density housing, and environmentally polluted catchment ponds of a huge commercial dairy. • Sincerely, f~ die6.6C, James and Lilia..Brewbaker J ti T�Ci� r IF•i� , , ? •_ -9-.- t: +l I; /4±,j e":1,49,(;71474 r ' 1 WSId Cn. Mario nn Zunnrior.b SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS #USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Corporation Gary Thelma 8381 Weld County Road 44 Johnstown, CO . 80534 Phillip E. Camanisch 10504 Wald County Road. ? Longmont, CO 80501 James V. and Mary C. McFaffie' 7571 Weld County Road 38 Johnstown, CO 80534 Dwayne and Lyla Frye 113 King Avenue . Johnstown, CO 80534 Douglas K. and Diane L. Steele . Henry A. and Lila M. 'Steale 21941-Veld County Road 17 Johnstown; CO '80534 Union. Pacific Land Resources Colt. P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, CO 80020 Lois E. Booth Route 1, Box 386 Ault, CO 80610 James L. Brewbaker and Ann Aorsnsoa 7688 North 41st Street Longmont, CO 80501 Albert H. and Pearl F. Jeffers - 2125 Glanfair Road Greeley, CO : 80631 Anderson Farms c/o Mrs Harold Anderson 621 23rd Street, #2 Greeley, CO 80631 (Mailed December 1, 1986) - - - _ 9r". fle,r rl 4 •. 1 ill. SURROUNDING MINERAL. OWNERS #USR-770:86.51 Aurora Capital Corporation Macy-Prescott 500 Coffman Longmont, CO 80501 Marilyn Anderson . 4959 West 9th Street Drive ' Greeley, CO 80534 Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson 621 23rd Street, Apartment #2 Greeley, CO ' 80631 • • ASCS 1985-86 DAIRY PRICE unitedstites Commodity SUPPORT PROGRAM `°" Agnadtural Fact Sheet Stabilization and :onSCrvd(xln Service • Apr9:111111, C With a Summary of Activities for the 1985-86 Marketing Year E * * * * * * * * * * * r ' * NOTICE: Due to space limitations , the expenditure data * * on Table 8 : begins with FY 1971. For data * * between FY 1961 and 1970, the December 1984 * % * Fact Sheet should be maintained. * * *_ * * • • • • Basic The basic provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949 Legislative (1949 Act) required that the price of milk to Authority: producers be supported at such level between 75 and 90 percent o£ parity as would assure an adequate • supply of milk, reflect changes in the cost of production, and assure a level of farm income to maintain productive capacity sufficient to meet future needs. However, since October 21 , 1981, the support price has been established by Congress at specific price levels, rather than parity levels. Background: High, support levels with guaranteed semiannual price increases required by law from 1977 through 1980 and declining feed prices in 1981 and 1982 encouraged dairy farmers to produce more milk than the commercial market could absorb. In 1983, the support price remained at $13.10 per hundredweight (cwt. ) with reductions in the price received by producers for their milk marketings of 50 cents per cwt. effective April 16 , 1983, and $1.00 per cwt. effective September 1 , 1983. These reductions were established in accordance with legislation enacted in 1982 and were superseded by the -reductions which were, authorized in 1983 legislation (see below) . However , milk production and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) purchases continued to increase to record levels. The Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983 amended the 1949 Act to establish the support price for milk at $12.60 per cwt. effective December 1, 1983. Under the provisions of the 1983 Act, the Secretary of Agriculture reduced the support price to $12.10 per cwt. on April 1, 1985, based on the projection that CCC` s net purchases of milk and milk products would exceed 6 billion pounds milk equivalent in the - - C7CarCIR • -2- succeeding- 12 months. The Secretary reduced the support price a_ second 50 cents to $11 .60 per cwt. on July 1, 1985, based on the projection that CCC' s net purchases of milk and milk products would exceed 5 'billion pounds milk equivalent in the succeeding 12 months. Other provisions of the 1983 Act included a 50—cent per cwt. reduction in the price received by producers for milk marketed for commercial use within the 48 contiguous States for the period December 1 , 1983, through March 30 , 1985. The 1983 Act also provided , for the 15 months beginning January 1 , 1984, for a voluntary diversion program in which payments of $10 per cwt. would be made to producers who contracted to reduce -their milk marketings between 5 percent and 30 percent below base period levels. The reductions in the price received by producers for milk marketed for commercial use during the period December 1, 1983 through March 31 , 1985 , as authorized by the 1983 Act , totalled $875 million. Approximately one-fifth of the commercial producers participated in the milk diversion program and about $955 million were paid as milk diversion payments to producers. Recent Price Although the 1983 Act expired on September 30, 1985 , Support the $11.60 support price was continued through 1985 by Legislation: special legislation: P.L. 99-114 through November 15, P.L. . 99-157 through December 13, and P.L. 99-182 through December 31. The Food Security Act of 1985 amended the 1949 Act to continue the support price at 311.60 per cwt. In calendar year (CY) 1986, and established the support price at $11.35 per cwt. during the period January 1 through September 30, 1987 , and $11.10 per cwt. during the period October 1 , 1987 , through December 31, 1990. However, on January 1 of 1988 , 1989 and 1990 , the Secretary would be required to reduce the support price 50 cents per cwt. if the CY price support purchases are projected to exceed 5.0 billion pounds milk equivalelt or increase the support price 50 cents per cwt. if purchases are „ projected -at not more _than`2.5 billion pounds milk equivalent. The reductions in the price 'support levels permitted 'on January 1, 1988, 1989 and 1990 are • • -3- conditional upon the milk termination program (see below) achieving a reduction of production by participants in the program of 12 billion pounds or a certification by the Secretary that reasonable offers to achieve that reduction were made by the Secretary, but not agreed to by producers. Other provisions of the 1985 Act include a 40-cent per cwt. reduction in the price received by producers for all milk produced and marketed for commercial use during the period April 1 through December 31, 1986, and a 25-cent per cwt. reduction in the price received by producers for all milk marketed for commercial use during the period January 1 through September 30, 1987. Also , the Secretary is prohibited from considering the market value of whey in calculating the, CCC purchase prices for dairy products. The Secretary is further required to offer at least 1 million pounds of nonfat dry milk annually on a bid basis for manufacture into casein, to establish a program to encourage additional exports of dairy products and to establish an 18—month, milk production termination program beginning April 1, 1986. Under the milk production termination program, producers may enter into contracts with CCC by submitting bids to dispose of their entire dairy herds and terminate any interest they have in the production of milk for a period of 3 , 4 , or 5 years. The implementing regulations specify that the nonproduction period will be 5 years. The Secretary also has the option to establish a milk diversion or milk production termination program in CY 1988, 1989 , or 1990, as necessary, to avoid burdensome supplies. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (the Gramm-Rudman—Hollings Act) and President Reagan' s February 1 sequester order issued pursuant to that Act would have required a 4.3 percent reduction, effective March 1, 1986 , in fiscal year (FY) 1986 Department of Agriculture (USDA) outlays under the milk price support purchase program. This was scheduled to be accomplished through 4.3 percent discounts in the announced purchase prices effective on all offers of dairy products received on or after March 1, 1986 through September 30, 1986. However, the Food Security Isprovesents Act of 1986 further amended the 1949 Act , to provide that in lieu of the 4.3 percent discounts, producer reductions are to be increased during the period April 1, 1986 through September 30, 1986, by up to 12 cents per cwt. CCC announced that the increase in producer reductions ' during that period would be 12 :cents per cwt. . • me Support Support prices for milk since 1949, and other Prices: pertinent information, including support prices for milk with a milkfat content of 3.5 percent . may be found in Table 1. Method of In carrying out the program, CCC offers to buy carlots Support: of butter, cheese and nonfat dry milk in bulk containers at announced prices , thus providing a floor for milk and dairy product prices. Recent Prices received by-farmers for manufacturing milk for Situation: marketing year (MY) 1984-85 which began October 1 , 1984, averaged $12.08 per cwt. for milk containing 3.67 percent milkfat. This was 14 cents below the average support price of $12.22 , and compares with $12.38 a year earlier when the average support price was $12.72. M 11 roduction for MY 1984-85 totaled 139.9 billion poun s , up 3. 1 billion pounds fram_ a year earlier. The increase in milk production is attributed partly to the end of the paid diversion program and partly to improved milk-feed price relationships which more than offset the lower support levels. The increase in milk production exceeded the increase in the consumption of milk and dairy products resulting in an increase in . • Government purchases of d, jr..QL4.aCSs. During MY 1984-85 , CCC' s removals under the dairy price support program increased 1 . 1 billion pounds milk equivalent to 11 .5 billion wands of_ milk--the fifth consecutive ear that CCC removals exceeded 19 billion pounds of milk. Reacvals exceeded 10 billion pounds only twice during the firs years of the price suppor program. CCC' cos_t__fosthe dairy price si p� program in MY 1984-85 totalled $ 2. 1 billion. Milk Production CCC acre ted bids from 13 988 da mers who - Termination mark'e 2. lion pounds of milk in CY 1 85. Prograj ?t" e accepted b de ran ed fro _40 rs: 322:50-per . an averaged $14.88. CCC is icpe.cted to pay out 11.8 billion during the 5 years of the program. C., 1 }ads a „lam YA A � �R f 5 eY : �� hst AJ • Table 9--cccgroat outlay., for dairy products order the price support.program. FY 1971 to date (to tboutaoda) 1 yY t pit I FY- 1 PY z FY 7 :.FI : IT r FY : FY 2 41 t PT Product 1971 t 1972 : 1973 '1474' 1975 1974 t 1977 t 197$ 1979 - 1910 1181 x : r r IIIIIIII I Sutter 4 t- I I I. Sutter.Product.l I +. I I 1 : Purchase :1200,001 ,1119.534 :3:96.764 14 13.917 18 64,486 IS 2,224 3240.067 :2154.205 :3 74.479:1 326.067 :3 527.550 Storage 4 Handling 1 3.257. 3,343 :. 2.438 1 329 : 526 1 )21 : 2,274 r 5;902 : 4,984: 6.499 1 25,017 Transportation 1 3.146 3.035 t 4,027 z 1,637 : 1.182 t 519 : 3.557 t : 2,287 : 2,665: 6.550 : 11.531 : en Protaing - - : x - t I. a Packaging 3.708. 2,276 t 3,708 : 2.426 :. 1:262 - 391. : 623 2,361.. 1,784: ♦,195 : 4.921' Other expense or outlays - - 5 l s 21 t 119 t Ii • 16 IS 28 - 60z 21 z 40 total Outlays ' )10.119. 194,1 9—: 206.956 : 18,44*:. 67.474 - r:zrr 2246: 6 164.76) z 8)•9721 225,532 1 539.059 I t I Chaco 1 1 Purchase* z 2 34,20 1 43.820 : 8.229 0 78 1 90,664 I 16.041 167,632 51.156 16.8011 442.914 I 747.422 Storage 4 xandlln* t 46 z - 56 : 3 : --- t 2$ 1 121 z 671 1.351 : 343, 1.994 I:- 12.472'. Transportation 1 1.022.I 1.194 . 270 1 11 -I. 2.13$ * 668 + 3.001 2.469 1.918: 7,125 I 17.991 Proceeding I I 1: 1 4 Yscke5ing I 248 r --- 1 --- : ---. s 2 : --- : 307 : ...7.886 : 1.281: 2.496 1' 14.616 Other exp 1 r r z 1 , I or outlay I : --if 75 ± 367 :Total outlays 33:'616 45.0/0 1 17STI 3 : 9T33f 1 16 $32 . 117.627t 32;666 : ₹0.376: 432,40$ ; *13-5. 7f 11DN is Patellas*, z 149,161. 1 151,760 1 53,163 1 - 12.694 1 320.635 1158.612 )13,086 : 239.614 : 155.393 493.403 1 643.123 Storaga 6 Handling 481 I 51) z 244 I 37 : 2.418. : 5.765 z 4.741 : 6.419: 5,030: 5.338:s 8.595 Traaaportatioo - 5.074 : 4.155 : 2,444 : 244 I 4.768 : 2.077 : 6.227 : .6.806 : 6.244:. 13.100 : 20.337 troceasSog : + z z. : i a ParkagiaE --' + ': 170. r ` --- I --- t 956 t ..714 I 3.317 : lb,l04 r ]5:4)4 t a,JA, 0 I 1 I [ I. : II z � l or outlays 29 t 1- I. 4 I 865 47 : 2 1 30 s 49 : 571 6 : 5 Total Ostia)" 154 73. : 156 429 f $ .015 1 Ii.840 1 327 866 : 16 ,S 410 t 326.600 : tS 1 145.328:. 327,281 I 126.511. 2 2 Grand Total 400.42) 1399.68$ +: 171.415 t 32.377 1488,174 t 187.713 : 749.963 1 483.688 : 249.670t 1.325.222.r 2.1j0.44$ r I I Z7 /(t `1` 98 48.5 : IS s 92 I r '.J1P\` 14-y..b 1. Product - 1982 1181 : 1984 t -6985 + I S rchse• Trodaetas 1 gutter 4 z : purchases 18 564.979 :3 914.440 s3 359.976 18:'4031282. 5reraf9,4 t 12.752 I 20.975 1 .190 .11.242 Zran g zertatton12.369- : 14.352 z 15.249. .11.92: Procauiog t t 1 I 4 Packaging 1 4,254 29.378 r .24.650 1 23.014 Other expense t - : I I or outlays I 16 r 111,2214_ I 60 036 1 1181635 Total Outlays : TEIF177 i 499979 t ♦79:S05 : 342,021 Chess: : : : Sind:• 874.623 x'1.171.172 z :892.169 t 748.921 - Storage 4 Handling .25,835 • 38.358'1 41,422 1)•650 T n.p : - - tngeration 21.322 '31.777 t .34.719 1 28,84) Teotesalaf l:Packaging. 20.093 I 45.795 I :731048 t 65.929 0th-1..spas•, I I 1 or outlayys tat 2 279 : 401 : 191 Total Outlays 441.*54 z l;lfl:7IT 7,0.1.759 1 .871,116 Purthasaa I 843.04. 2 926.413 731.012 I 665,059 Storage a uedlieg s- 13,467 19.876 14.490 1 16.66$ 1 J 20,994 : 23.973 27.116 z' 27.049 troess•iag I 2I .. 4 Parksites I 5.974 9.391 14,203 r 13.718 ocbar expenses : I or outlays I 7 893 : -286 1 63 . Total Outlays : 883.486 962,544 . ifoTt : 322.336 other : 'rings - 15.866 I Ot hod expanses and outlays Diversion sayeents 1 --- 3 663Q 62462 Total Outlays- _ - )511 35 552 I)51;418 I 650,587 1 t Grand Total + 2.425,710 : .2.971,906 t 2.665.315 + 2.822.944 a Nee: fiscal era (FT) 1 re 1976 r Jul at h Joe. 1976 nde ludo iutatt*0a Quarter (July-3Ntesbr.91].)- re.re[eer. K <h d to October h ougs Sept. et. C -ub:1 2.5li-t a-lh 2$b' s J 9y.lr- CI. t.-�• r • • Ilk held by the Governmentere up almost a fifth probably ob be near the 10 billion pounds. from a year earlier. equivalent, alreav bought. Hrhases in 1987 may total 4-7 billion pounds. Recent net removals by CCC have been quite small. The total net purchases for 1986 • Table I.-U.S. dairy slw.vin at.glance • Unit Quarterly data Itw or boa,parted 1st 2nd. 3rd 4th 1st 2 d 1965 1985 1985 1915 1966.. 1996 Production and cot numbers, - Total milk - NH- ID.. 55,743 37,499 38,433 75,790 36,212 71,547 Ntik per ..or. - - lb 3,tI 5410 3,316 Mtsdr•of sl Ik a4. . 3,166 3,251 1,519 That. 10,824 10,9➢7 11,108 11,171 11,144 10,945 Prices racol.4d by farmer.. - All silk. sold to plants, I00 pounds hl. _t3763 12_53 12.17 12.60 12.37 11.97 Percentage of parity 1/ - 55 52- 52 52 53 Manufacturing grade milk, 100 pounds - 001 12.60 II-60 11.17 12/73 11.43 11_07 Parity aad.eLnt 0o1 21.53 21.56 21_34. 21.51 21.64. 21.28 Fat cedaet Pot 3.78 3.59 3.36 3.66 3.77 3.61 Nlntrset.-lUaaain(3.35 fat), 100 pounds ds Col 12.19 11.41 1610 11.19 11.06 40.99 1411k eligible for fluid market, 100 pounds- OW 15.13 12.67. 12.11 12.70 12.30 12.07 Price ratio and dairy ration values 11114-toed price rats. lb 1.81 1.64 1.66 1.76 1.73 1.71 Value of concentrde ration fad, bilk cars On' 734 7.48 7.4) 7.10 7.23 7.0) Fars cash reoeipts from dairy products Nita dal 4,560 4.673 4.457 4.455.. 4,444 4.575 Production of factory products: Butter Mil. lb 327.3 319.9 276.9 324.1 375.4 129_7 Americenctrese, dos.silk NIl. lb 632.0 792.7 722.2 681.6 730.0 109.0 Ores.other Than*erican 4411. lb : 506.3 555.8 Creed silk vnaklwa d Mit..lb. 145.2. 177.5 3 .5 149. 136.3 591.6 Ory*oleallk Mil. lb..- 163.5 149.1 136.4 156.2 Frozen products 7/ . . 66.) 57.4 44.2 55.1 31.4 . .27.4 ape Mil. gal 176.5 138.4 386.1 164.4 174.6 767.4 Tat I tml de basis)l •3/ 4411. lb . . 172.5 375 1,119 167.4. 17346. 1.67 Nonfat dry silk,human usa- Nil. lb 1213 220475 217112 .132044 236665 24.178 laolesat. icesr - Mil. lb : ffiI_S 409.3 379.2 - 320_8 366.5 .417-0 Butter. 4rade A• Chicago. pound et 141.3 141.9 141.1 140.1. 138.3 ..138.9 Diane American (40-pound blocks), f.o.b. • Wisconsin essambl lag points. pound ct Evaporated milk, case. 134_3 1236 124.4 124.0 123.8 125.4 Doi 21.37 22..046 22..24 12.24 22.24 $.N Nonfat dry milk, pounds f.o.b. Control States, high boat Dairy products (81S) 7. 94.4 84.2 41.0 46.5 46.0. 96.8 1967.100 254.2 270_3 757.0 246.1 246.0 246.7 Mated Prices (BLS), Consumer prior Indus 4/ 1967.100 - 117.4 321.2 323.6 326.$ 327.3 326.5 All food 4/ 1967.100 308.8 109.3 All dairy products 4/ 1967.100 259.0 258.2 297.7 257.0 115.4 316.7 Fluid silk and crow. 154. 138.1 Mote milk 12/77.100 *40.6 '139.8 159.1 176.4 119.7 IA.i Other 12/77 10 .241.2 40.3 227.6 138.2 138.5 133.7 suuta�red dal12/77.100 .154.6 140.3 119.0 155.1 1 .6 155.4 •y products 12/77.100' 165.6 154.4 62.7 155.1 155.6 1 . 155.4 12/77.40 150. 150.2 252.3 151.0 15 .6 ..150.6 F�dessrts 12/77.100 150.5-. 6 150.2 16 .3 16 .9 -164.4 .'160.7 Other. 12/77.100 152.9 162.4 164.3 162.9 164.4 15304 N.rgrine 19671 00. 152.9- 154.6 . 0.1 155.6' 157.6 177.7 1967..100 297.5 296.0 306.1 700.! 301.2 297.1 Slobs, beginning of quarter: .) e4. Mil. lb 296.5 291.7 286.8 247.0 205.5 243.3 Cen=sminotblimed silk M.ikisaM III. lb 1,061.9 975.3 1,032.4 1.032.6 944.1 934.4 ?ICwV.dw4 ki lk N11. Ib 42.0 50.7 68.5 114.9 63.1 713 I (mllkbt Maid 6/ Mil. lb 16.701 768 6.) 6.9 6.5 S 7.0 Nonfat dry milk Nll..lb 1,257.6. 4,112 4 -. 1.086.0 1 012.2 1.011.1 9&0 CCwarcl.t dis.ppear.na:Crematory t 1411. lb 200.0 2019 241.5 m.9 193.7 224.4 Cheese, derma an an butt Arrlean Mil. lb 511.5 569.2 507.2 610.5 365.2 592.9 Cheese a ilk laea - Mil. Ib X3.0 593.5 616.0 608.1 622.4. 634.7 Milk In it ilk, NIl. lb 132.9 125.6 140.5 199.1 123.5 124.0 Mil. lb 29,517 32 717 ,e, 3)964 Nonfat dry milk 4416 lb74775 311 1 X19.4.. 43.4 101.4 .519_9 1�.5 115.1 1 USDA not rands, Sutter Mil. lb 426.7 .107.9 45.4 52.2 171.2 110.) Cheddar dee 1411. lb 145.8 201_9 168.4 113.0 152.4 196.5 Er Nonfat etaddry y milk. NIL lb .177.6 290.6 263.4 20➢.1 231.6 314.0 me G4.11k boils) MI1. I► 7.1 7.0 7.3 5.4 5.0 6.2 Nil. lb - 4,113 4,237 2,617 2,206 3,032 4,2)3 i/.Seasnally edJ*atsd prices as.percentage oa parity price 2/la.crows, Ice walk, a..rrrbst_ 3/ laelcas.wwfactur08 products for dutch currant data Ar.available. urban-Fir all urban consmars staf)p January 1176. 5/M.tvral - .dins.held by CDC. 6/Excludesass and bulk condensed mark.:: ►tw'Rsm.d Arrlrr 4 e74.7,: `A- t ' t ` AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK REPORTS COLORADO DAIRY PRODUCTION AND OUTLOOK will have to deduct 40 cents per hundredweight to fund the buyout herds. The deductions lower to 25 cents BY per hundredweight after September 1. Concern exists whether the remaining producers will expand their pro- ROBERT LEWIS duction to offset the deductions which amount to between $50 and $60 per cow per year. If expansion is made to cover these costs, the expansion could elimi The whole herd buyout participation announced by nate the milk supply reduction achieved under the the United States Department of Agriculture indicates _program. bids of 13.988 producers were accepted. Accepted bids ranged from $3.50 to $22.50 per hundredweight. The Although the buyout herds produced 11 percent of goal of the program was to reduce milk production 12 1985 Colorado production, remaining herds are produc- billion pounds by taking units out of production for - ing 15 percent more milk on an annual basis in 1986. five years through the slaughter or export of cows and his is due to higher milk production per cow and replacement heifers. Participation in the program existing herds expanding cow numbers. Producers must exceeded the target amount as the herds with accepted consider production efficiency per cow along with total bids represented 12.28 billion pounds of milk and an pounds produced to determine profitability. Forty cows overall reduction in milk production of 8.7 percent. milking 16,000 pounds will generate the same income as 70 cows milking 12,000 pounds. Increasing herd effi- The buyout will result in slaughter or export of ciency is more profitable than adding more cows to the 1.549,773 head of dairy cattle_ Originally, two-thirds operation. of the animals were to be Sold under the first period from April 1 to August 31, 1986. Due to objections by The national dairy promotion fund in effect for beef producers, the first period accepted herds were three years has increased per capita consumption 10 allowed an extension into the second period to lessen percent nationally. This reverses a long-term decline the effects of increased cattle on the beef market. in per capita consumption. Public awareness to nutri- Dairy animals provide 20 percent of the beef consumed tion and importance of calcium in the diet has in- in the U.S. creased interest in dairy products. Producers remaining in production will have 40 Removal of buyout herds combined with the drought cents per hundredweight deducted from milk checks to of the.Southeast resulted in the first production finance 38 percent of the buyout program costs. For decrease from previous years production since the . producers desiring retirement or highly leveraged pro- -"diversion program.ended 1985. As a result, farm duceri wanting to lower debts, the buyout provided a milk prices had the:first increase in two years in unique opportunity to remove production,capability from July,1986. the industry_for five years::Accepted herds are to be slaughtered or exported byAugust 1987. - - Buyers in foreign countries have a unique oppor- -tunity to take advantage of the genetics of U.S..cattle at veryreasonable prices.. However, present econooties - - inthe lesser developed countries may limit the capa- bility for them-toimportcattledespite a unique COLORADO TURKEY SITUATION situation created by thebuyout-program. Due to:dif-ficulties involved in transporting lactating cows, dry BY cows and heifers are the most likely to be exported. As of early September, 45 percent of the accepted bey- BYRON F. MILLER out herds were taken out of production. There were 69 Colorado dairy herds accepted on Historically, a 10 percent increase in turkey the Whole Herd Buyout program. The average bid price production has been financial suicide for the turkey for the state was $14.88. This represents 8,382 cows, industry. In 1986, the turkey industry increased pro- 3,313 heifers,and 2,138 calves. The production re- duction by 10 percent; yet. the market price is better presented by the 69 herds is 11 percent of total than ever. The holiday season is going to increase Colorado production. Producers remaining in business demand so turkey prices are expected to continue strong through the holiday season. Feed prices have been held low with good yields throughout most of the nation. Consumer demand for turkey and turkey products has exceeded all expectations. . After January 1 it is difficult to predict turkey prices. Traditionally this is a slow period far.tur- key as consumers change to chickens and other meats after the holidays. High prices and-abundant feed supplies will encourage the placement of more poults. The size of the breeder flock may be a limiting factor in any Plans turkey producers may have for expansion of production. Turkey:poults became scarce in the simmer'of 1986 because the hot weather slowed egg . • (��1,�_ - ^y • production significantly,. :This limitation,may..bea W �`a+a`-J 4 `g V IA 111 Ntt<3 tO.wM 18 � a�; '� -.. NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION Vol. 10, Number 13 December 5, 1986 Check-Off Moves Ahead Off Into the Red Meat Yonder Committees responsible for national check-off operation and As previously reported in the BBB,the Air Force will soon for expanded promotion programs met this week in Chicago. label certain foods in its commissaries with"Healthy Heart" The executive committee of the Beef Promotion and Research stickers. In the case of beef, the Air Force is refusing to use Board received reports that collections of the$1 check-off con- the new nutrient composition data released by USDA last Jan- tinue to go well.Two thirds of the states had reported October uary. If the Air Force persists in using the old data(based on collections, and the amount they sent to the Beef Board for fatter animals and beef), fewer beef cuts will qualify for the strictly national programs was more than$2-1/2 million- (An "Healthy Heart"sticker.As a result of the previous BBB news equal amount was retained in the states for use at state discre- on the problem,NCA raember Duty Rowe of Oklahoma con- tion for state and national Beef Industry Council programs.) tacted Re?. Dave McCurdy(D.-Okla.),a member of the House The committee was notified that a veal producing firm which armed services committee, who took up the industry cause. had filed suit challenging the check-off was dropping the suit McCurdy has been told, "Sufficient resources are unavailable and was complying with the check-off.In order to reduce cer- for the Air Force to adequately use the nutrient data available • tain paperwork, the committee decided to implement an in- from the USDA." Meat Board nutritionists estimate that it voice stamp as an additional way to certify non-producer status. would take less than 2 hours to extract the necessary informa- This will be an alternative to use of a special printed form. Lion on beef from the new Handbook 8,and the Meat Board The Beef Promotion Operating Committee reviewed 34 offered to do the work for the Air Force.With$12 billion bud- proposals for funding of promotion programs. Approvals went geted for payroll alone, you'd think that the Air Force could to several BIC merchandising, food service and national adver- squeeze 2 hours out of somebody's schedule in order to ensure tising programs, including $12.7 million for production and that its nutrition/health program was sound(and that beef got purchase of national TV ads through the 2nd quarter of 1987. a fair shake). Among other programs will be participation in the American Meat Institute's National Meat Month in February, 1988,and Farm Policy: Here We Go Again in a cheeseburger promotion in cooperation with the American The farm policy debate is heating up. Those in favor of Dairy Assn. changing the farm bill want to do so partly because exports have not increased,despite low prices and the most expensive Excel to Negotiate for Plants farm subsidies in history. Supports under the 1985 farm bill Excel Corp., Wichita, Kan., a subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., will cost$26 billion this year-15 percent of the budget deficit_ willmove to acquire three former Spencer Beef plants—at Others,including NCA;say it is premature to judge the results Spencer and Oakland, la., and Schuyler, Neb. The planned of the current five-year bill;it has been in effect only one year move by Excel follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which Meanwhile,dairy industry representativ_es_have indicated a overturned a Monfort of Colorado antitrust suit that had wire to seek new dairy leruslation7Soome dairy co-ops are call- blocked Cargill's previously planned acquisition of the plants trig for an extension of the Dairy Termination Program;others from Land O'Lakes, Inc.Cargill never did take possession of .Propose a Iwo-tiered support sy≤rem; others want a national the plants,and in 1985,following a lower court ruling against elkolasystem. A'problem is that any of the supply-control pro- the Cargill acquisition,E.A.Miller,Inc.,Hyrum,Utah,bought grams can mean slaughtering more cows. the plants,and Miller is now operating the Schuyler plant. A Miller spokesman said the company planned to continue run- Fed Market Down for the Holidays ning the plant_ The fed cattle market fell $2-3 in the past week because of However, a Cargill spokesman said, there is a stipulation a weakening of demand for wholesale beef,said Mark Ander- in the Miller agreement with Land O'Lakes that,if the antitrust son of Cattle-Fax. While cattle supplies have remained tight case were resolved within a certain time in Cargill's favor, and manageable, he said, there has been little retail interest Cargill could negotiate with Miller to acquire the plants.Excel in buying meat against the late December holiday period. Fed will go ahead and negotiate to buy the plants. The Supreme cattle supplies are expected to increase in late December,Jan Court said that antitrust laws are intended for"the protection uary and February, and, Anderson said, it is not unusual for of competition,not competitors"and that a"threatened cost- the market to deteriorate 2-3 weeks before an increase occurs price squeeze" was not grounds to halt a merger. A Monfort in fed cattle supplies.The holiday lull in the market is also not spokesperson said the company was disappointed and still was unusual, he said. This year's situation is somewhat similar to concerned about further packing industry concentration. what happened last year at the same time. 87`3.-. _•, ® o e � Ucv- Department of Animal• Sciences Cooperative Extension ($Q3) '491-6392 Colorado StatrUniversity Fort Collins.Colorado 80523 December 8, 1986 Mr.. Greg Brown • 20700 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Dear Greg: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I'm sending you several pieces of information which may be of value to you in preparing for the Planning Committee hearings. First, is a copy of the data for the 1986 Colorado DHIA Annual Report which is about ready to go to press, indicating what has happened over the years to the number of herds, number of cows and average herd size in Colorado. I'm sure you can see from this report that we are increasing herd size in Colorado but we're currently at approximately 150 milking cows. Should this trend continue I would suspect that in the. next 10 to 15 years, the average herd size will probably double to approxi- mately 300 to 350 cows per herd. I do not, however, feel that there will be an explosion in large herds in Colorado which would drastically change that herd size above the 350 cow level. Currently, herd size ` seems • to maximize out at between 800 and 1200 cows per unit with some dairymen owning more than one milking unit. Second item is current dairy production outlook which was just published in the Colorado Ag Business Roundup - Winter 1986. It indicates that there is some concern whether or not producers will expand in Colorado to offset deductions to cover the costs of the herd buyout program. This has been happening - andit appears that because of that, Colorado still has con- siderable surplus milk that must be trucked out of the state to cheese processing plants in Kansas, Nebraska and Utah. Currently, , we: do "have more milk than the market demands call for in Colorado, and' we do' not foresee a milk shortage situation, developing in the. near future. It is true . that the National' 870(373 Colorado State University.US.Dcgertmcnt of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating. Cooperative Extension programs arc available to all without discrimination. • • Mr. Greg Brown Page two Advertising Board is helping to sell consumers more product and that consumption has picked up; however, consumption has not picked up as fast as a dairyman' s ability to increase milk production per cow. There are several other items, on the horizon that may cause the ability of dairymen to increase milk production per cow very rapidly and, therefore, it may not be necessary to increase cow numbers in order to produce milk in quantities equal to consumption. You must also remember that the population explosion that we saw in the late ' 70s and the early ' 80s has slowed down in Colorado and predictions are that Colorado will begin to see people leaving the state faster than entering the state because of the lack of job opportunities here at the current time. The last item enclosed for your use is the October 1986 Dairy Situation and Outlook Report. I'm sure you will find information in this of interest to you as you prepare to discuss the request for a new dairy being developed. You should be able to get data from Mountain Empire Dairy- men's Association at Thornton, Colorado, on the amount of milk - that is being trucked out of Colorado on a daily basis during the last two or three months. Please keep in mind that it is usually at this period of the year (October, November, December and January) when we approach a period of time throughout the year when the supply of milk for the market is the closest to the demands of milk in this market. So, the figures you' ll be looking at if you look at October and November truck-outs will be the period when the market and the demand is the closest together. Let me know if there is other material or information that I can provide to you. Sincerely, Dawson C. Jordan Professor Extension Dairy Spe~/cialist DCJ:dn Enclosures f1"17. 1'2,171 41 //a,_ bcz <-'=/6',�- s• {{�y�J�ys.�M IyVi{A 1VZ�i ��p___ rn� � � ._ ,.. .n"�jl�^•.�+�S__ riei' r__S_ IM1i. R . . 1' , viceeltiaV� wQaw4y .� t•.usi c ieRp ar r h 4t 411 r t,<,q, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION 4. 1 ., c " w o r5 2930 CENTER GREEN COURT Y'-: �' M1 a ap BOULDER,, CO 80301 x-t #.�+ya�W P. a ) r O• 6 '3 a " Nh'A° '� ,n - y H a O !LIZ C4 BOARD oP cg , X •! o.4 . A... ` r { WELD ,,,44e1/1.«... , -_ . Y�P . y� rs , ` rt :i s --.4„..4„."9:',. ., • , 'is �,� 0 1 [ J.4Lite �. ' i 'T cue r CREEL£ .$ v.�'.°,: "t tc i,'.`.a ' - ijI „r5 ;Crit e , Jlit - P-5B7 11O 394 , • MAIL ' a 0Iii SRN RECEl?Y. m ' � � nQu¢5TE) BARNEYBARNELIe E kr r a +� 426 WE •t COUNTY ROAD 15 t"� All • "r 0NT CO 805 1 (tj.,c sty cJ. '� � t 0 r- 4. 1513 6- -rte' a r�. ta n r 7 : ., �� cy �y� ° Y,r ", N 21987 oo'%,h o,, ' `�7Ct ' •SENDER:CanlDMplt�nw t.e d2v+Mned6Siiai aar,rfos radnin!d andean isn.Itrua 3aad4" Put Yourlee..''Ren,n t/TO"wPe a Ni di.nnradth.XWYrato dotdhwit 41.4}bis: MM w «k.IN wa ' 4 L Y .4 .. f 1��y Y4640Y ... 4 fp �r d'^RRP-v:. ➢li#Y'�w�"�, 1 w W `tF p4Y .1-1f@y 1 • Ib• x La 72 H I � J MARILYN ANDERSON 'r y p a 6 , 4959 W. 9TH STREET DRIVE e� , 'ir ✓adx 1 �,.'y 1. 4 .1 s' I ' tO en •-a oz s o41:: r F ` GREELEY, CO 80634 p yg A _ _ VI F. T_' r J k �?•#t my '' a �y. h C a., r y�} .,,,;. ' rJ.J r aa ,•r°9t ')ve z Cl t r• '-i P — it � 1 • in 4.1 -1 m C .`1ENou*.CoiDialdw t anus ion+ediSnst andosaga deigned,andarapMt.,,!Vens3 end 4. ,, ft r.J* .,Li,tIle s inuaff.iA'.ceont ereve N kFMWf/todoits* ca "00 _ w T tY'rf� ' " 1 S yirp]H� 1 vx4�$2i P INQ k'1 < z a N HAROLD & MARIE ANDERSON Tr a w -� 621 23RD ST. • AFT. 2 ,{� ¢ a o i GREELEY, CO 80631 > {,• ' ,' airy« , ...r, ^" ,.K rico a �... z °.r <r gNa+r .,, rr,,'vucpl^Y re N b [y �4 ��f`' a .fit m � ,' S'.1FeTf tr J �6+ay�dor.ex.A'. .4%.6k Ue � 1 u .7 C'7 1 . ...s.,,•,-,pl.:.,,,,d e, �' t t� �' xi'" n ! 112 S •M. Cl. G O W u_. w r. W 1<t yr Jz9� r s « J �1 y ° ' 'r✓Plf iS- i :r. g ,0 U ' ' t 405.05:' b c• : , r r r,• ee ..�✓,� r .t. ,._ _ h .Jif.,�t.vv. . ..:. .aYvaur•tfL )�. r. .aa,i 3m�'s,.�:. :;,. C Yktd'1 (15 ,. :. • • `wtlDtRcCaipletslq s I m a 2 Or Poan(WM+eMNrmiawttw,asainrieitellnaS& Mt a4 • i t Tr a, sn IS OS PlI iMN110IMA k OPM0t11h '6,�.A 4- qq fwx+Mlt cu.l, r W c. N IL = _ x u-, GARY TEA r 8381 z JOHNSTOLD COUNTY ROAD 44 0 0 r ,' wN, CO 80534 �' , f : W A •....'.......;77-7,77.7,-,--.77..------”-,.. d` .. ;x h 7�t•,`w!•. CIi r',•,,s Mi My.x. x410 1+`n y z JG artataad I a r-, o '' .iris EO ,,,,,„,v.,.-9tA .,,> 3 . I , x, # azit. 4 meat".,:- mitt or In awe ro+wa avWsa- • _ WELD COUNTY COLORADO • �� " P. 0. BOX 758 CERTIFIED _ Pa ^"FE c of moppPr _ ONfl— P-5127 1113 316 ,, a z a 5 41� iL a ❑Hots M1 4`_C V m Fx �FCcI � o c w a RQUes-cEO i \ �t \y PHILLI• AMENISCH w N x , + 10504 k r f COUNTY ROAD 7 a a a o 07- i M'____"-s..-si+� • " LONGMa_T, CO 80501 s a v ST emu \ r-i"` :. p G. ,--, ,4 2N No c• I c i Hit •SINOCR 'Caepii+ufpeas l aut2l hertaddhlan't anion ant dmi d.„sdecoplo Mw1 Put your lam. I Oft'O"+lo. sisaide.Pa*Wrt/o di SolliaMdt dhh ,. k. 9aY1 asePr4," ,. , r e(� , lam. , n x•, '•i. . 044X1.4:11.- itj. 31Wlia. � cr . v max. • m c.. ocn — p - ¢ o JAMES & MARY MCFAFFIC �:s4 'a F CO ; 7571 WELD COUNTY ROAD 38 a „' t Z o " xi; JOHNSTOWN, CO 80534 i, t r0 'ice-- "a �� `�? fw O v �.•• A 74 Z�3 Ft(�}N€ - - ■v.�TM�F �f IRWY pX rer f I� y a a �2 `* /arygtad`sfat9ir • iSINPRRtcaapNlsfle r.ad2 sh""IditinlaaMw.«.dwind;olandmpIoa Hama and 4. . t • In;ii .. tO s a.aa. 'aida.wiwaeoafq. prawn!* +<. , e . 4 _.. � - MF," i ''M1�p"Ipwr,rlr^ ' x° 40Ir t i. is J r s DWAYNE & LYLA FRYE ° o r a O 1 113 KING AVENUE z co a �l JOHNSTOWN, CO 80534 -n z o � sip k ra Iwo ! 3 . �• 44110,ss xx , M1 acsa U' 3 ^ ��eiJ. 6 �r x x , - Z OG Vi x sip' ^ , +t 4 rk O s r i ti Q f1 *{ 1 l 4 i a ---.44 ,p tY e _ 1-wb !,+ kf . i x -i .$ , Im'• iwnil P.Ikiram'•.'MkwIN_p 4l O� • p ": z , a ai r o HENRY & LILA SEELE . .-34 rr~ m w z DOUGLAS & DIANE SEELE • + o- a c O o yto $:. 21941 WELD COUNTY ROAD 17 � o : ,3C a e JOHNSTOWN, CO 80534 .. :: -4-:`..," Alp- it+ Mt.0.148444eF - 1. Q Y t K y5 .Yd'4I L " Til r YS c • ,itN11lIL-CarmNb"ifwr l.. when A -. „_ cn " and w P.t" . • • F' '"71i [t/(II,kTQ'san y ,"" PaiNufatodirikiCidel i1.fahi ix • W O C u,„• , • UNION PACIFIC o a O CORPORATION LAND RESOURCES a ,' N 0 PO BOX 2500 • W H a _ ▪ .••i H a al , BROOMPIELD r` u, w a CO 80020 Ic CC o wON !A '' P w 7C !s. Y a ba0 ° nN• - Z7. O e n - 3 1f t< sj � • O O w o 4- r«snp i a 0.1 c I ,,k,-"I‘,"..-"'," ....Y,/ df.a :, .. ,. ;, o .�-., ..ter .-•__ IPSiNnal:C trWNltlrninn"1,Md2whurt alpine leMnt Ill.lit.edawMpNpt11e;0Int ; Yc'°' .,. a.•,34.A, 11). al " 401.4.th a odatk � ' ry/, f"' 4MC4vva+,rvhIWv•rA 3 P . n ,_ mo 4 ' O :. LOIS E. BOOTH s E is m en : ROUTE 1, BOX.386 - - o ,a c o o oS k�; ;. . AULT, CO 80610 t a ODo w A : Li . r0 9}J y r_ W W O v] F F ' M aC ? - r t 4 "",,..".t.'-.0,/e, '�CL , }s 0 7- SINDIRIPlaalPie-hinrend2Mbentdditicinal liwykosist duttsA,snd.i )M.a,3s, __ ' 1r9srlit , " t 7.s. ; ,Sae NS..PS(11ntodo { *1F``. c .dv f I�-, '4 F7 Y :✓i 1 a :� cy�: n i.7 3" C o r1 E. JAMES L. BREWBARER .--1v m ANN AORENSON N s z F. O -` � 7688 N. 41ST ST. d ocn0 o v' _' LONGMONT, a' • '.',n� - �'�; r Pt ,rr m z s - ` CO 80501 �,ti tiwr,• W E-. " x+[r a;G3 m a ax • z s tm o z O co C '£ W�".x ✓ If ewwvrr 'Y✓' � i 1,..o-. ° r 4 Y ,� ua� ,',..;,„„#2,,,..,„'',,,,- �� 7 d r a � ;,"* , 5 rn ri cfitiePliti t `, t $2, r. .S`Y.: S ,.•7 k i , I O --- , 0 SINDanz CompinnsInsImni2whertsdd$Bawl'netts arodwlrSandcampvwils,aand 'elny ' --'4- tWhISA"7Wn'6N the nn - We•Failutsio.de VswBtPASMiti11N' :'''3":- .Or .60 ':,, •A.� ,,, ..„,,"Ah 1 u Y '- Q . • vw t y crycn "�'-�,; ., �. hmr, aL.x CI W 6 �„'r 1 �r. rl - ; b 0 .D `q a w I ALBERT & PEARL JEFFERS - ' . 2125 GLENFAIR ROAD ' m eo o in — a w v GREELEY, CO 80631 `A 2 ", t;+ e c a E—, O 0f bs ktt#1ve4.4 w yy �1. di 7 SI`. „. µ M1e• 1°'"V Lr' i : t mew r ty$ r ,• . r ��6 il C r'K d D'1�� 'i�� t j .:a ot;rTi a f nt- 1 y>-,t.: yin-it i ^. ' •rf,; �1' , i.a pit*. "A.... A I"‘ t! , ii,,i. .t Ynel„ r . Q ' ... `4y m.... n .> ,114 e X. r1i" .L ''t, 4 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: Nh, 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. f LOOS � "% ' O /��'�� ,'_' iJ -su 870123 S 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: WELD CO s0 Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board r acy n B pP�_ C.W. K r , Pro em puty County C rk EXCUSED APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gene R. Brantner CVJa• que e J son onnty .Attorney: l Frank Tama chi 870123 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 UFIT DEVELOPMENT • PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the D.00 n (as Listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending- �aNAM1E ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING pArboia m. 3.2.1_41/40.,. 7700 SES0 -a/osuth/800 Inver Shores r C .� , Q C 6A1 f( �q t( (t1� # Low(4iu 4W r �I Goy $Lot P ri ofn w /( ,Q 1TTZ /gin rounFa 7)/ EgrPP471 ,S...*y S;.e- .c S r qa WSk oc7r , iip d . 6.1.. JP.,-to-,:u :::: ‘,..?„a�� /7/.r9V4vc,tJ Si , �� S✓s 1] it a-of.W . A¢ ,.asp rite seta 47 g.?.y,na,-�' jay cstsre-; JAL- 9/0—w c , , / .,14 ,0,--,,,,,,td ezo, AStigtialt M , 466e-4 5,-Acina _ y7ae - 'O'er- ��g4 91 — qLj S It 1.6u,r, j o f/w,on-L CO 2cgo j '_ t. / -- -ti. 7.F�L"�c.y 7 / Z LSarth �r.v /un3..,on d0--- . 4ore ,,. .� . a/u12a RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING . TO CONSIDER REQUEST OF BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A CHANGE- OF ZONE v . 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, -the - Board - of County Commisssioners held a public hearing on the 28th-day of January, 1987, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Chambers ' of the .Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak :end 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 . (Duple:c Residential) , and oil . and gas. production facilities, -on the following described real estate, to wit: N1/2, Section 5 , Township 2 North, Range -68 -West of the 6th P.M., 'Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by John McCarty, president of McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. , and Harvey Curtis, Attorney, and WHEREAS, the Board, having heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, and having studied the recuest of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission, deems it advisable to continue said hearing to Wednesday, February 18, 1987, at 2:00 p.m. to allow further study and review of the materials presented, especially with respect to the proposed roads and road improvement agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board , of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the hearing to • consider the request of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development for a Change of Zone be, and hereby is, continued to February 18, 1987, at 2:00 p.m. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that limited additional testimony, especially with respect to proposed roads and a road improvement agreement, will be heard at that ' time. A _ 870066 870123 a • • • Page 2 RE: CONTINUE HEARING — BAY SHORES • The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly wade and seconded, adopted by the : following vote on the 28th day of January, AD ,' 1987. '] BOARD OP COUNTY COh0SISSIOP:EFS ATTEST:•` mil^°�� • 7 WELD COUN• Y O Weld County Clerk and Recorder. and Clerk to the Board rman L t BY 77,..:4 nrx/ .i Traci C.. ' _ K •r ; ,_Pro- em • epucy Countyclerk APPROVED AS TO PORN: . ' Gene.. F. _Erantner: . �� County Attorney? .•.. - : . . . .:. " • . • Frank Yawaguc•i • • 870123 870066 HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 86-78 RE: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A {AGRICULTURAL) TO P.U.D. (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) - BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT A public hearing vas conducted on January 28, 1987, at 2:00 P.M., with the following presents Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman Commissioner C.V. Kirby, Pro-Tem Commissioner Gene Brantner , 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 Certified court reporter, John D. Boverie The following business vas 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 Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments) for a Change of Zone from A (Asricultural) 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 stated that it was continued from January 7 at the applicant's request. Keith Schuett, Pinning Department representative, read the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial into the record. John McCarty, president of McCarty Engineering Consultants, represented the applicant. He stated that they have been able to resolve some of the issues which were factors in the Planning Commission's recommendation that this request be denied. (Tape Change E87-12) He identified the problem areas as: railroad problems; oil and gas interests; the Oligarchy Ditch Company and JCR Farms; road improvements; and Union Reservoir, and reviewed the steps which have been taken to mitigate the concerns in these areas. Harvey Curtis, attorney representing C.R.S. Investments, also reviewed the progress in resolving these various problems. Those who spoke in opposition to the request were: Barbara Japha, Attorney, and John P. Asher, both representing Great Western Railroad; Neil Piller, Attorney for both Oligarchy Ditch Company and JCK Farms; Bill Schell, ditch superintendent of Oligarchy Ditch Company; . Richard Koester, representing Lois Jones, a neighboring property owner; Jim Vatting, president of Union Reservoir Company; Betty Ann Newby; and Gerald Bacon. After a short recess, further testimony was offered by: Scott McKinley, representing Macey and Mershon Oil; Ken Neff, right-of-way representative for Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company; and Don Johnson, of the St. Vrain Sanitation District. Mr. Curtis and Mr. McCarty came forward to speak in response to those who presented objections to this proposal. (Tape Change t87- 13) At the conclusion of this testimony, Chairman Lacy stated that the Board would like additional time to study the packet of information and Road Improvement Agreement which was - submitted earlier today. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue this hearing to Wednesday, February 18, 1987, at 2:00 p.m., to allow further study, with limited testimony to be heard at that time. Commissioner Brantner seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. • 71_ 0 0 a -✓wc'' 870070 870123 Page 2 CERTIFICATION - BAY SHORES PUD This Certification vas approved on the 2nd day of February, 1987. APPROVED: • . /} ' • ( BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: (j .{Zwvi. � re� WELD COU ]�'1Y, OLORADO . /U1 % i �r� i Weld County' Clark and, Recorder and Clerk to the Boa Gotd c , Ch putt' County Cle C.W.: Kf.rby,-Pro-Te - Gene R. Brant r Ja Que 7 .. .. . .-Frank Ianaguchi " TAPE #87-11, #87-12, & #87-13 PL0095 . . . 870070 870123 __. • ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: January 28, 1987 DOCKET #86-78 - COZ (A to PUD) BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLEASE write or print legibly your-.name, address and the D0C # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING iceitnG�'iii> Z& _ BYoo2 Sa *& Ave., s foolSq fa. d Co. Shawn a�ntsg. ‘L �1 -, , s�37 _ a Vag n� Y.+�` x7A^^ .'+ l.3250 YV•l j'c —1 — �-- to re,1-34 A : O Lo nAc4 . 13 799 UNc1 . f ftx1tnt - -toil %Kahf s Znn,n'Q 61 vU K � /2- 6u w C� .C M 'T f/ r r if O Shier! -13acan /19gf I.Jaki C.,.ntr J°� 7 ! Al ,� ea 'i .2 �'I In ��0.+ �j. - :Bacot) n flt (c..o(Ili ; , tac t* I I I I 1 c-fin Jae. L0,0GMetiT leca ,it-4-0/Lei C �I ,�y .01,E c U Po � �A Lif A c9 a ro .emit'e% d 1 p .h--14'L f� l e,,0..1,A 11(98 ( G1<«C'o, Chop „if f3e e-0 2„ ;m N C492 Wee. osrs -11- z -licoms, /it ea sold i r ` 'if. kni s 'Qe fcrflL f�'n%✓P,Aonsiadm7`, 6. — Bay f%c''e $D3 �h4.-wcad ) . 1,, ino�-{,6v8OS'o/ A_is 040, ta ezi.„4,_ a -� ' i � ice;. E.. z/7© . ` ACt. tV to amCt \,QC .[y 2u /41f44 "war aft ��.,4 li /i9, Lov�tiro^t a goad i4 : ,�� , $vuc1(.( ecte i-i /3So-044.0.4-4(s) Auto., oscgb - S'. teat c , S /�i33t ) /7.O 3c% )>ticie.CWf, kv25Y' oat :—Cha.ce_.z /� I j I t U/ay 5 - S Sa.o r S. VII X ten'i1 11,00 fi Iutu, 'KZSso Aewucr& 002624 res Q ,. .C � 6 3 s..1-', 7 'L-. . c. 264. / P -Q� i t?1N 7'`1.x- ii 41. j0«7 pG g.1/f. -67-4— d2t a to e D63/ R 870123 RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST OF BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 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 hearing was scheduled on January 7, 1987, to consider the request of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak andC.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, and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a request that this hearing be continued to January 28, 1987, to allow - additional time to resolve certain issues, and WHEREAS, after consideration, the Board deems it appropriate to grant the request of the applicant and continue this hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the hearing to consider the request of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) be, and hereby is continued to January 28, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made H . and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 7th day of January,, A.D. ,/�1987. .{ ATTEST: /�/�(1 Q.etn.v.t4L RAS•/ WELDLD COF COIINTYLCOMISO$5IONERS Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board Go a , irman PX C.W. K�y, Pr -Tem �� eputy County C e EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING - AYE APPROVED A TO FORM: Gene R. Brantner EXCUSED , Jacqueline Johnson ounty. Attorney ! Fra guch ' r, ; = �� ✓� . . 870026 - _ 8'70123 • see HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 86-78 RE: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) TO P.U.D. (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) BAY SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT A public hearing was conducted on January 7, 1987, at 2:00 P.M., with the following prasent: Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman Commissioner C.W. Yirby, 'Pro-Tem Commissioner Gone Brantner Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson - Excused Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi • Also present: ' Acting Clerk to the Board, Mary Reiff Assistant County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker 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 vas conducted to consider the request of Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert end Susan J. Pietrzak ant C.R.S. Investments) for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) and P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Duplex Residential) , and oil and gas production facilities. Bruce Barker, - Assistant County Attorney, made this matter of record.- Keith Schuett, - _ Planning Department representative, informed the Board that the applicant has requested a continuance of this hearing to January 28, and a letter has been received from Macey & Mershon Oil agreeing to this request for a continuance. Chairman Lacy stated that no public testimony would be taken at this time unless the speaker would be unable to return on January 28. No comments being offered, Commissioner Kirby moved to continue this hearing to January 28, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. Commissioner Yamaguchi seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. This Certification was approved on the 12th day of January, 1987. APPROVED: Qn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST 6Gi�1 WELD CO Weld County Clerk and Recorder and C1srk to the Boar Gor o y, putt County Cle C.W. .Kirby, Pro-T EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL Gene R. Brantner EXCUSED Jacquelin* j J • Frank Yamaguchi TAPE'#87-2 DOCKET 086-78! PLOO95 870025 8'70123. IP ATTENDANCE. RECORD TODAY' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 7, 1987 DOCKET #86-78 - ROBERT &SUSAN J PIETRZAK & C.R.S. INVESTMENTS, COZ, A to P.U.D. DOCKET # DOCKET # PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC N (as listed ' above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAPNE ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING 4 /oi - o-sk-- .✓/7 a)43,lo (in ReSo( , cip hrtt A1/402_ ��. ' co SOLD flS �� 4000-0 . Co OO6 2 i 8G-7Y /7Ar a. sz- °�,,jr-c-.`,L go I • • 870123 ,L-,rr s/7 /7 '. McCARTY ENQINEERINC'a CONSULTANTS, INC. t lL c February 9. 1987 F7 Gordan. Lacey, Chairman Weld-County Board of County Commissioners 91'5:',,10th ;Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Lacey: Rai Bey Shores P.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 of 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' s 35,936 s 359,381 St. Vrain -School :RELY 61.890 113,196 1,132,029 Water 1.000 1.829 18,291 Water District 0.500 914 9,145 Longmont Fire 6.083, 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 S193,175 *1,931,750 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 3t. . 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. 703 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT,CO. 80609 772-77a5/448-4373 7,.% /1, rya 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,(Weld 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 shares 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 g 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 Shore& to the County Commissioners in the packet with a cover letter dated Janaury 27, 1987. In the exhibits attached tc that letter, C.R.S. Investments. Inc. made commitments to the, County Commissioners regarding The Great Western Railway (Exhibit 7), the Lower Oligarchy Ditch Company (Exhibit 9), and commitments regarding the Union R it 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.S. Investments, Inc. agrees to protect the Lower Oligarchy Ditch through four specific items. C.R.Z. Investments, Inc. is agreeable to, placing this list of items on the P.U.D. Rezoning Map. In Exhibit 13, C.R.S. Investments, Inca has' committed. through 6 items„ to minimize the impact on" the " Union Reservoir 'Company. G..R.3. Investments, Inc. is agreeable to placing thwse ,6 items on the P.U.D. Rezoning leap. 870123 A Gordon Lacey Page .3 February 9, 1987 The fourth item concerns statements that have been made regarding trains using The Great 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 Bay 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 Ditch and Union Reservoir. The Weld County storm drainage requirements are specific with respect to controlling runoff and Bay Shores will comply. C.R.S. Investments. Inc. is agreeable to placing language on the P.U.D. Rezoning Map which will limit runoff from Bay Shores onto any ad3oining 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 came up at that time. Sincerely yours, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. s-hn A. McCarty, JAM/am- cc: File 111687 • C.R.S. Investments, Inc.: Harvey Curtis Lee.;Morrison • Keith 3ohuett Neal >.Pillar William Southard Pete„Ascher Betty Ann flewby • 870123 , I I FF, . // .spit i li►•, -.,, '..r If 4 l is +a:.:..:,.. ; .`__ Zy �� tom ..^ 1 °i '�', qe•� h' -r •K _ y• r Y ,♦. 1" r•�'nAttilisb, j r -• u iii F •^ •t. f: _ aJ r7M_ / l{ i • ece, w� a. ;kit:7 -8.7 V hE:.J rrAS OF Lowe. el-iCro•TCCH; i,-0-8'7 11.0,0Lri'icii:G w T FRct-t CRc,SSl/JC�- un15ER LJE� Co.Rt. 3`6... LJELD Co, Zt. '6._. Lowe?. CL-GAR- IN 3S' x56 AT\c- cc1:Rt& J HC AL C-tt- DcTCtt. 3'_. ' vii-DE "o rzic—c^,,F-! T-,1 --E Z/2, W,bE p.-n- " OF DE TN q ,fie 1 t.. "Ii • .,,,,;> , i r ti r ri,,,th. ._ • • I '-yti _4 f # 4 _ f o ,,, „ k- at . • . <,t Y i , 1_, if^` i-•i �Q , „... / f ..... „..i.:-. , • • ... .._,..... _ • ..•_.• , . . _ , ...,...., _ . .. .,.. .., _ .. . ! •....„- ..„...., . •:. „„„,. , 4. arcl-•b"7 `7i ,vPZstcni S-rz_crruR6 Hoc' Erk,c-r- a-4-87 'licw NW cw Guc-rkRcrtt, Ec—tr,;_ C• wC-- 3'/j.. ON L.owcx CuGgsRC-t \ Li-rczt. vc'1..R�. :s 3s"DEE 1f3D '7' sick) CRcsSJ F UNi-c-c ),- , _' '�, A��_. tn. �n;G•ntin;,. mac;�cr•c v,),-D-,--H ,c. W'bE. 1.0/176R, MARK Pc r % 'wRr'R NA t e70123 • • THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AVENUE SHO S • LOVELAND, COLORADO 8O539se r Joi-u4r...asCfriecn err no ac oPcacrsvc anrER - February 9, 1987 - 'PAST Mr. Gordon Lacy - Chairman, Weld County Commissioners )j�'Q�� Mr. Gene R. Brantner - Weld County Commissioner I J Ms. Jacklyn Johnson - Weld County Commissioner cf.; Mr. Frank Yamaguchi -. Weld County Commissioner J{ ran ,t r( Mr. Bill Kirby - Weld County Commissioner I 1 1 If! _ /..1/29 RE: Bayshores Planned United Development Rezoning. ' co Herewith is The Great Western Railway's package for your reference and consideration ' as follows: 1. Red Book. 2. Mr. Boblak's letter and cost impact analysis of January 6, to applicants. 3. Greeley Tribune pagel "Bleak Picture" article and GWR's favorable input to Weld County' s economy. 4. Greeley Tribune...December 14, 1986...25th Anniversary article 20 children killed in school bus at railroad crossing.._if the Weld County Commission for some reason approves the Bayshores rezoning, we think it would be unconscionable not to require 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 Commission'. 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. Jack Baler - Transportation Engineer, State of Colorado Mr. Lee D. Morrison - Attorney, 'WeL5 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 4;7crn817 TELEPHONE (303) 667-6883 • THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AVENUE SHOPS 0� ■ , P. O. SOX 1537- LOVELAND. .COLOt2P:DO.8O539 a, .1� - ". 1R February 6, - 1987 '� ... T 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 satisfaction 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 approved. The financial analysis only takes into consideration the cost to Great Western Railway of this project. It does not take. . . into consideration the loss 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 currentpublic 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, ANC) CALIFORNIA 870123 E7 INDUSTRIAL SITES AVAILABLE IN OUR (PANDING MARKET AREAS TELEPHONE (303) 667-6883 S • 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.CRSis. - 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 situation 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 5,0OO 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 Co'call. Very trulyyours, ;. teye Boblak Enclosures 0701230 • 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 - Weld County Commissioner Ms_ Jacklyn Johnson - Weld County Commissioner Mr. Frank. Yamaguchi Weld County Commissioner Mr. .Sill'-:Kirby.- Weld County Commissioner 870123 • • 06-Peh-87 Great Western Railway Cost Ispact Analysis - 8ayshores 8rowth Factors Per Year: Net Incore (11 5.88 Maintenance 5.0$'1. Accident Costs 5.BBX Accidents per Year 4 Insurance 5.08 1987 1988 19E9 1998 1991 Revenue Net Incase Loss $45,000 $47,250 $49,613 $52,093 $54,698 Maintenance Expense: Gate Crossing $508 $525 $551 $579 $608 flashers/Signals (21 $2,000 $2,1•.6 $2,205 $2,315 $2,431 Accident Expense: Investigation/Supervision $18,600 $18,300 $I11825 $11,576 $12,155 Train Delays $2,000 12,100 $2,215 $2,315 32,431 Equipsent Repair $10,000 $10,500 115,025 311,576 112,155 insurance Expense: Preeiuu Increase $28,000 $21,000 $22,858 $23,153 124,318 Total Costs - 8ayshores $89,580 $43,775 $98,674 $123,607 $188,788 * PP of Total Costs Over 5 Yrs @ 131 $278,142 e * Offer Proposed by Bayshnrns ($12,500) NPV - 5 Year Cost to UNR Today $265,642* 11) Based on gross revenues of $230,800 with an estiaatei 187, net incase i■pact. (2) If gates were to he instilled, the yearly,taintenartce wouic he $B4O20 per year. • Please note that Weld County unemployment (excluding the City of Greeley) is 2853. The Great Western Railway (a county operation) ty virtue of its strategic location, competitive pricing and customet-orterted service, has in the past three year's attracted industries to Weld Courty that have added 270 quality-type jobs. If CWR 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. : , P1oYment .88 ' 0.7 9-9 9. •0 Greeley 9.2 9.5 0. .. • • , 8.4 8 8.7 •• •' •""; Weld 7.8 8a 8.1. .4 6 41' ." sett Sala •rib 6 Unadjusted figures provided by Colorado Dept of Labor and Unemployment r _,f • t„�-.,�y - •r mays-;7:IUn,..Tr:;•'r;;coso 2.4sc v`'�p.oc:, Sa- a:i ki"Sv7' ✓f d'Me' • 1 • Bleak picture • here for jobs Friday, February 6. 1987 GREELEY(Colo.)TRIBUNE Stephen a Frayser,1 director o[the Greeley/Weld Economic 58,597 found jobs wbile5,896were Development Action Partnership, out of work,according to state fig- By MARK STUTZ said he is not as surprised with the _ rrtune Steewnm•r Nationally, high rate- Although Greeley-area Colorado's =employment rate The Greeley and Weld County companies annwmced plate £or also continued upward in y ty 1,500 plus jobs last year, 1,000 of Jan�ua rate . as adjusted unemployment rates climbed :q rytheatre-main inbefilled,hesaid- rate of 8.1 percent compared with e highest levels of the year c "4 felt all along that it would con- 6.3 percent for the same period in December to end what many of- �S 6ercent 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—andtbat'swhathappened," not yet available for Greeley,. According to the Colorado economy created 3m,000 to Frayser said. "I still think that although Weld's adjusted rate was Department of Labor and 450,000 jobs list month to hold we're going to see a decline by the 8.5 percent. Employment, Greeley'$ the civilian unemployment end of the current year." December's total unemployed of unemployment rate climbed to 10.7 rate at 8.7 percent,the lowest For December, $5,329 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- See t cent in November.Weld posted a government said today. emPloYed in Greeley;cotmtysvide, 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-work Colorado residents, signals the end of 1188, although first time since mid-1981. saricassing the previous high set in some are surprised that The job gains almost mir- September 1982 by 260. In 1962, unemployment went up during a rotted a growth in the.labor . however,the labor force was much strong yearforcoostruction —fotce,of,450,000.In.December smaller, resulting in a high 8.6 "It's disturbing'tacos(the City •' -tbefaborforte had droppedby - . _. - -Jo Page: the renal Council) that:.we have,these fig- 90,000 and the jobless rate lell-, ores: although.!-dolt completely 0:2 percentage point from The December figure was 1,200- agree with, hem, Mayor Bob November's89percent: • .. more than November, and 29,500' Markley said."I really°have to The LaborDepartramtsaid question tlfe validity Of tie report. the normal seasonal decline m above the number recorded a year for the last month because we've employment after the ago- - had such a good;winterInd fall in Christmas:buying season did The high rates for Greeley and commerclalcmshvction.,":.=,' ' • nor develop this year,as some Weld reversed a downward Mend- Markley said the.one possible economists had expected. For Greeley,simemploymentwashigh reason for they-unemployment in- . instance,:employment in retail early 3n 19B6 but reached a low oC.- crease might be that Greeley is at- stores and restaurants grew by trading more people looking for 185,000 in January after 0a percent in September-The Weld ,. - work.It would bean ironic twist in seasonal adjustments., rate dropped to 6.9 percent dam' light of the city and county efforts Without the seasonal .ad- - the same month. to increase employment and LM- ' justment process, however, However,that trend reversed in prove the economy,be said the bureau reported an actual October and December's figures "I'm discouraged-but I'm not drop of 650,000 in retail trade really discouaged,"M dicky said. Jobs- now represent three straight mon- 9 really don't'expect this (high Construction employment the of increases. September's.fig- unemployment) to Lott for a long : also declined less than in a nits also marked the last time dal time.'• normal January— by 225,000. Greeley and Wes rate dropped Councilman Jack Cochran also is After seasonal adjustments, while the state and nation increas suspicious of the figures because thatjobtotalraseby140,000. edinunrmpkiymeattotals. other Indicators such as retail Manufacturers, meanwhile, sales and construction activity — added'3,000 Jobs, seasonally Adjusted unemploymeat..rates in ' show the Weld area isdoing adjusted,much fewer than the other areas Include Denver, 73 He said he;idoan't think that 41,000 December job gain,but percent, Boulder-Longmont, 6 many morep '' still the fourth straight mon- percent; :Colorado Springs, Si Greeley looking thly increase. percent;Fort Collin-Loveland,7.0 apartment vacancy rates remain After retail trade, the percent;and Pueblo,122 percent. . relatively high. largest job gain was posted by Q�t+,�23 The highest unemployment in the "It's really surprising — I'm business and medical services, t7 V state was Costuio County with 25.3 kind of at a loss to explain the high 115,000. - percent, and the lowest was 3.0 numbers,"Cochran said. percent in Pltkin County. Memorylbf bus-crash Nbr or • ByMIKEPETERB still .fresh T,WVSYMWMH It was cold that.morning of Dec.14, net —.25 I years ago today-with the chilly ground mist that ‘4 It was very quiet andcalm childrenforms on and e.on ODuanehaHarm — a Stillness you can'texplain- It school bus liketheyalwaysdld was like the angels were gather- Harms stopped the bus along the route east of - Greeley and Eva,picas up the children.some ing up the children. ». : sleepy-eyed.some loud and boisterous,some amt- tau to get to their schools—Greeley High,Meeker Loretta Ford I J unior High-Delta Elementary School • It was about 5:30 in the morning,and people said behind the school bus.We came around the corner later it was possible Harms didn't hear the tab and saw the bits torn In half and the train sitting because the Sidren were: singing Christmas there.We ran to the bus and kids were everywhere. carols. We saw Glen sap out of the bus and his face was It was near the lntetsectlau of Weld County Roads bleeding.We found Jimmy's body there.too. 52 and A.east of Evans,when the bus started to "'The man who was Meeks(one thee left to call cross a set.of-railroad tracks. The southbound, an ambulance and we were alone with the bighepeed train hit the bps in the dear section, bus for a few minutes."Loretta Ford said tearing it to pieces.Twenty children died; 17 were "You'd think there'd be all the noise of the Injured It was the single worst school bus accident children. and.scream thus far a U.S.history,and it plunged an entire crying ws screaming. but there — town into mounting. wasn't !t was Can'tt a pa n-sees calla — e Some good thugs emerged from that tragedy and atiitoesws egatou eexplain.ththe It was Ike the the despair of losing on ddldaett:a toy store eisner artgeh and atteri Katherine up ninerBdrma.. In Greeley sent each of the vietlm'sfamilies a box of - distanceJo ce from a son of h accident.aat. toys for.their remaining children; a Canadian When from the sup ande the em:t a neighbor crossing. ran up told found two woman who had n lost a childlet a plant to each, rushed to the eroeafng._Tesler;they found two family;thousands of cards and letters from around - the world came to comfort the survivors and school children in Greeley were suddenly brought together,tramformed into aclose-knitfamily. i20 Children Killed as Passenger ' some memories of thefts-are hazy.—lost in the -Train Hits School Bus East of Evans defense system d the mind that tries to block out - tragedy.Some memories still hurt (k `a`a'Penes,.,,bn..da,6eelCmt lk. : ui^'^d GwM+e5eMd Pu 9.., - 'I remember getting on the ewer that morning, — — and I sat in the second seat from the front"said r , ,..w......,o.,. w„- Glen Ford."My brother Bruce was in the middle of T..bin.+sal the bus,and Jimmy—my oldest brother—aton .c. . the back seat where he always did.".Because of '-- where they sat,Glee and Bruce lived-through the �-.. accident:Jimmydied instantly. •-......-- . After the accident Glen and Bruce Ford, now. :-.±Foy, . residents of,rural Kersey, said they couldn't - as f��'..`i: •-- .: i. . T • remember theaccident—only the aftermath. p « Bruce,a world champion rodeo cowboy-said he _ can't recall the day at all. "I doubt if you'll find et1 -Sr_ • - anyone who was nu that bun who-can remember - - w Glen, older,can'ttememtber the accident & - - but recalls momentary consciousnessat the scene € antra collision"Tbenext thinglremembar,".he ' cawn Sea'w. _ _ said, "was my dadearr.,.+.s,...+. --..+. .__—' kith crying-I�heard Joe Branton' to me and fhe i .. . teBiogswe'd be ��a Iwokeutpathaemergencyromo[ttiahospital. •+ oe -.• Two days halo a kid tailed to talk to me.He was - y~ 1 theffistperson to tall me Jimmy had beenkilled. i - l .La-eta Ford,mother Brace and Glen,vividly �- • retmernbas ttie.morning; althole thememory .. .. . -" - ._ remains paafnl."My husband was taking me to work that morning and we were a short distance Page 1,Greeley Tribune.Deer.14.1961. BUS TRAGEDY of their children—Kathy,9,and Mark,s— 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 ben std,was when a second-grade boy who lost Joe.Immediately started putting the in. driver had to look back over his shoulder to 'an older sister on the bus and was Injured jured children into the back of his station see detrain was coming.The road has been hdnaeit,testifledon the stand. wagon.He sped elf to Weld County General changed since then seftnow beta 90-degree 'The big question was whether Harms Hospital before ambulances bad arrived angle with the backs and it's easier to look stepped the bin before crossing the railroad The grannies now live in Greeley poly on both ways for a.hab. There also was no . tricks,"S6dtonaid."That question wash t some weekends and spend most oftheir time-signal at the interaction at the time of the answered coil that little boy said be looked at a mountain home in.the Red teacher.accident, and it remains without signal ouP_the bin window through a small space in Lakes area_Last week,*bile bluejays and highs today.. . - W:frost and saw the ground stop moving. magpies scrambled for bread scraps under: Although the community initially was Heknew rhesus had stopped, the mountain pines outside their window,the :angry with thaw•yoftls survivors wcat into deliberati af on attll mat night ur Brantnersat at the dining room table and.'DuswHerms— recalled the day-They hied to hold them forgiving-"I wrote him a Christmas letter, db+ctaed the case tmm g a-,m•the next day- back, but the tears from 25 Years ago and I.think it helped.both et per," said ' Tteyfamdfarmsimocent returned- ,Katherine Ratner."I think it made both of 'Ins not sure what happened to him (Harms)after that, Shelton said."He rust "It was the wont thing youcan imagine,". I la feel better.-' left town. Katherine said, worst thing that can - John Roberts. who was one of Harms' raters said alarms moved his ask and happen to you...this time of the year b still lwases,pod the man's{1,000 bail OM of ids "by to Callfornis.He and Harms seas ne- hard for our. - - ova pocket "He was a goad bop, !know end Christmas cards for about three_.ears. "I remember two Catholic 'tLa eeeethe acne-retired ....lb said"Ineverthat, they just stopped coming." out to the accident and Messed priests e children :toed anybody e'I l+dore,but before Its trial "After p ales gave them the cast rites," e child en ;mese Dees told me feel my goat te jail mu make Roberts said. "I don't know what happen- aid."I remember it was agood communi raid ?., batter.Non teat's what to -I'lldo.'•• ho s a result now the d each riding n before, but the accident brought to even school ben evw has a second adult limit in closer together." � - I But Harmstteverhad agotojatL Charged rhesus-At every railroad crossing,the rider Joe said several factors contributed to the! with avotmary manslaughter, a misde- laves the bus and walls across the tracks accident The bus windows were mated r meaner that could have malted in a prism were the bus eta met over,leaving ontyaa.inch spice at the top d'" terra, Harms went before a Oman- 3- Da aid D School near the site of the .. the windows for the driver to look.through;woan m lia7 a Weld District Cates IDS a«id a m tom down shortly afterward. i court-appointed attocnay.wssJamsTelton In nq Last Memorial Elementary of Gntey School " was built The word "Manorian in the "I learned soma*, in that trial." school's name isfrthaarof the children who Sheik*said."What Milt-quay people we die-.A p aq*in tbe main hallway lists their have bare—peop,who wombat,who lost name. children, yet they believed in the pace Rut spring,when the snow melts and the - *Tatum" grooud b no longer frozen,the children a Although san.psaplebMed$arms Sr the East Memorial will plant a tree in the school accident, many men-were-forgiv14 or yard understood how danWting the accident The tree will become a living memorial to wake tbeyamgbsdrtss,Sbeitonsaid: those children wbodied2Syears 4o. r 870123 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-iincrease to,well over 2 5✓j • • • • f The GWRy respectfully requests that the County Commission, not_ remove.,from:, inventory the prime industrial property proposed by CRS tayshores' for. a, residential project of questionable value and--"safety. ' • THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. COMPANY - TAYLOR AVENUE SHOPS - Wire LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539. JOHN P ARCHER pRnceJT u.� or O{6WTNC OAR. • : ,, 870123- Memory bf s-crash brror y BY M1KE•PETEAg still fresh !cat-no Stan was. It was cold that morning of Dee. 14, 1%1 —zs I years ago today-with the chilly grog mist that CC It was very quiet and calm forms hil talked.and laughed hezy. frosty day o Duane Harms'December. The ; -a Stillness you can't explain. It school bus like they always did. was like the angels were gather- i Harms Mopped the bus along the route east of Greeter and icki Evaaa,png up the children.some ing up the children. " 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 8:98 in the morning,and people said behind the school bus.We came around the w.a,., 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 thell st one there left to call cross a set of railroad tracks. The southbamd. an ambulance and we were alo-e with the high-speed train hit the bum in the rear section, bus for a few minutes." Loretta Ford said. tearing it to pima Twenty children died; 17 were "You'd think there'd to all the noise of the injured It was the single worst school bus accident wasn't a —there thus far in U.S.history.and it plunged an entire wn trying and screaming. but town into morning. wasn't It was very quiet calm a e Some good things emerged tragedy and stillness you-can't explain. It children." like the the despair of toeing ID children:a toy store owner angels ndreatheaie Br thee-lived ' in Greeley sent each of the vlctlm'sfamilesa box of Joealofromrthe scene e hort toys for their When distance the s a of told de accident neout a cis elides a a Canadian When a neighborccrossing up and o two woman who had last a wild sent a plant a ound rushed totiecroasiog_There,they found two (amity;thoasanbo[cards and letters from around the world tame to comfort the survivors: and school children In Greeley were suddenly brought together,transformed into aclmeamitfamily. I20 Ch?ldren Killed as Passenger ! Some memories of the day are hazy—lost in the I:Train Hits School Bus East of Evans defense system of the mind that tries to block out - - tragedy.Some memories still hurt_ tltS i/y c�� Ate.teoe.,�""intona«e.,ao..... 'I remember getting on the bus that morning, _- ��-- a.. and I sat in the second seat from the front"said ( ,.. .-...�.-. --a, Glen Ford.'My brother Bruce was in the middle of Tllsyisa.—•....s,..in-a the bus,a Jimmy—my oldest brother—sat on the back seat where he always did." Because of . where they sat,Gen and Bruce lived through the '."cwt, accident;Jimmy died instantly. .;,;;J _ t After the accident, Glen and Bruce Ford, now - residents of rural :Re'sey, said they couldn't �r :"= .-- :.. r remember theaccdent—only the aftermath. . I.,,.v,,, -? a:___ . Bruce.a world champion rodeo cowboy,said he s: _ ___- can't recall the day.At all. '4.doubt if you'll find: - —at- -. .anyone:who.was-wtbat.Me wmcan remember. - - whathappened.• r - -- _ _ • Glen,who is older,can't remember'the accident . but retails momentary consciousness at'the scene s .r., - after the d»Bbfont"The nett thing I.remember;'he ....W. said "wasmy dad �.rw.r.r.�+. _ - >... .......mot kids hearing iscard Joe Brantner in o and the '' tellinguswe'd be _ - "I woke up in the emergency room of the hoepiel, — Two days later,*kid Coned to talk tome He was - ` r= the f t-stperson to tell meJimmy had been kIlled," Loretta Ford,mother of Bruce and Gies,vividly t—_ 's. ,- . remembers the morning, althoughd memory remain painful' h sban was p ug me .. : . work that morning and we were a short distance Page 1,Greeley Tribune,Dec.14.1%1, BUS TRAGEDY of their children—Kathy,9,and Mark,8— 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 older sister on the bus and was injured jured children into the back.or his station see detrain was coming.The road has been himself,testified on the stand. wagon.He sped elf to weld County General changed since then so it now is ate sodegree "The big question was whether Harms .. Hospital before ambulances had arrived angle with the tracks and ft's easier to look stopped the bus before crossing the railroad The Brantners now Live in Greeley only on both ways for a.train. Thee also was no . tracks,"Shelton said"'That question wasn't some weekends and spend most of their time -signal at the intellection at the time of the answered until that little boy said he looked at a mountain home fa the Red Feather accident end it remelts without signal out the bus window through a small space in Ickes area..Last week,while blueiaye and lights today. . , the frost and saw the ground stop moving. magpies scrambled for bread scraps under' Although the community initially was Ha:ewthebs hadstopped•• the mountain pines outside their window,the :angry with the bus driver — 2d-yearold After three days of testimony. the jury. Brantners sat at the dining room table and 'Duane Harms--many of the same= what into deliberation at 11:30 at night and recalled the day.They tried to hold them forgiving"I wrote him a CbrLhmas lettes dlramed the case knits aim.the next day. beat but the tears from 25 years ago and I.think it helped.both of us," said - hey fomdllartmivnseent retrned. 'Katherine Brann r."I think it made both of "Im not sue what happened to him "It was the worst thing you cen imagine;' I le feel better-. Mums)after that"Shelton said."He pat Katherine said "tile worst thing that esn John Reba who was one of Hume . gObeft e." happen to you...this time of the year is still ,paid the man's tee bell out of his • Roberts said Harms moved his ode and hard form. .own.pocket.-He wee a good boy. I know ed baoy to(SB[anis.He and Harms exchang- . i that," now-retired Roberts sadd"I never Caristmu cards for about three years. "I remember two Catholic priests came .told anybody this before.but before his trial 'After teat .they jug stopped mining... out to the accident and blessed the children 'Duane told me'B my going to jail will make Roberts said "I don't]mow what happen- and gave them the last vita," Katherine 'those famines feel better.then that's what el'. e sald."I remember it was a good community .It cit.„ • As a result of the accident.each Greeley before, but the accident brought us even ' school(xis now has a second adult riding in • closer together:' . I But Hama neverhad to go to jail.Charged the ben.At every railroad crossing.the rider Joe said several factors contributed to the• with havolunta y mam4kghter. a anode- leaves the bus walks across the tracks accident The bus windows'were :metheirthea that could have resulted In a prison and before the bus con cross. over,leeringoidy a 2anebsnpace at the top of term, Banta wait betas a 1Finan, S- llse old Delta School near the site of the the windows for the driver to look through i woman Jury fa Weld DUDICt Coat I5a accident was tam down shortly afterward. -cart attaneywasJamusbdfm in nen,Sot Memorial l]emetary School of • was built The word "Memoirist' in the "I learned a®dbiq. In that trial" school's name isia emir of the children who Shelton said."What high-gatlity people we died.A plaque in the main hallway lists their have here—people she were hurt,who lout names. children, yet they believed inure Justice gtNNemxdt spring,when the mow milts and the Although some people hatedHarms far t eErtil emalalwUt is op longer frozen.treetbe In children accident, many mae'were forgiving or. yard - plantatreemtie school understood the bow devastating the accident The tree will become a living memorial to was for yams lies driver,Shdtat said.: those children who died 25 years ago.870123 Uthe Iele lnbznr 2 5 435 wnvr.r rmee mean '11M=WYY! a Thursday,Monads 13,1Mr rl:tr: The Great Western Railway CO Proudly Welcomes � e A6aIaivthedsdgar . co to Windsor FAST FREIGHT GWRr: - Attracts Industries That Create Jobs New industries taking advantage of competith a pricing and on-demand service offers by the Great Western Railway and GW Trucking: WINDSOR Co. LOVELAND Co. JOHNSTOWN Co- LAKEVIEW,OREGON Universal Forest Products Colorado.Pacific.. .. Coors 810 Tech Louisiana Pacific UNim Boa Co. Frontier Industries - Fremont Sawmill American Coal Co. Amalgamated Sugar Co- Lakeview Lumber Co. Amalgamated Sugar Co. LONGIYIONT Co. Goose lake Co.Western Sugar Co. - 870 SHIP BY GWRY. (303)667-2384 (503)947-2444 V SHIP VIA GW Trucking (303) 659-7444 S Loss of GWRy and its unique capability:to attract industries would represent a potential 10.3% base increase in Weld County's unew,p oyment. Demographic studies indicate that dependefte service, retail: and'other, unemployment could::drive.this-.:unfavorable••increase to-we±k--oveY757,'r' • The--CWRy'tespe.ct uHy requests'that the'•County''Commission not remove from inventory the prime industrial property proposed by CRS Bayshores for a :residential project of.:.quest.i�onable value;,,antb.safety. • • THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY P .O.90X 537 O 1 LOVELAND. COLORADO 80839 4 • 1i • 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 Itoproposedresidential 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 sacric£icing 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 II 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 31/2. Such vehicle volume would therefore justify a grade crossing 11 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 ii li 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.Il 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, • I . John P. Ascher ^_ President and Chief Executive Officer The.Great Western Railway I. 870123 II HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ' 'I 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- I 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. IThe Great Western also operates the former southern Pacific branch from Alturas, California, to Lakeview, Oreaon, 54.4 miles. I 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 I 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 I 11 tank cars 2 flat cars • � The. following pages depict the location of the colorado lines of the Greats 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, , I I .I I I 11 870123 I Dill ~~ «M to 03 Ca WU WU es as ell gad i es 1 O m ca e4 l c. II ca a Si CO R M I * `'1•13 t It o U p. 1 cc us 4417 x0 d:nilte 4 i esx la Ci y I; p idol 2 Q E�:g � � z w QQ I w w 3 wZ o d Y o W Nz I.Z. O el It U < Z S XILt....‘;‘,0:k2 u~iUCO d• N icc Z CC � ZO Q O n : x t- • J a • Y 3 a N. ~ 00 N d WZ = 0 Ycr •d N� .<J 0 .3 u; o: a- m O `° � >O v .� Y � <4 oiI • z U 3 .c. < . a 00 c vo U � U I a �r EMI 870123 IC ti 7!^r'' 70 e : 68 67 1 66 65 64 .. .D1a... • �'• c k• 9 Ct .,LV.91, ? S ••• �T 1110 1 vo 3 I W \ _ ha at .t.- J.-..mss• .. �.• TO,; 1_S.Is cso Loral 1 is, LAND ~ ' �' I S Iry,on iteitt tastmc Emmet la 4 r • i °" '. . f I -rte..✓ It S vtw.li • • -4 - . Mira• ti • 7. � � R i \r) Imere" •u - _ f MyyNr,. - Lv,a4. 'r . Ian. Ill `i I Alai,.. , w Z ;.1 , N,...4• P ! R. 12:2 I P " _ i• • Fr.Lv>•rni I ' L e u �' • .'w • 1e i o e y' �. O • .Dam I. .' 16....E t hRtetL7• T. `�.. Lanw,li.• 4 Dr• . I OA i the burr H.tb S i sse• LOVELAND. COLORADO 90539 I el - • - JTHE GREAT WESTERN •A w..n, w, 4is ."A..... .c. I RAILWAY CO. g •1� I . ¢,j Ras.'S 1I/ LE CEMOSlYn • 1 41 A wl..+,.At.rutAv.,A.Lt#4 0110.tx.A..o.10••••••••-•Arm. ll. 7J•ar l;.c.f.. 1 Katnoc 13031 4207••••3 • I I 870123 II II DEDICATION TO SAFETY 11 The Great Western Railway is dedicated to the safest rail operations possible. In addition to public information campaigns on safety and harmony between motor vehicles and trains, the Great Western continues to fight attempts II to lessen the importance of adequate warning sys hems at crossings and in residential areas. I 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 II 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_ I III ll II a - 870123 ter 111'1 ,ter ; 1n i: ; 1 Jot.nstnwn r ,‘ Lti "'- O... A..., 1 ��• �.I l t•n.r;•nnr I NHd ce., co Serving the Johns(own-Milliken Area 5ln(n 1 PO4 :r_ro'i_, -, eosan I Safety at the cr. ossilii SAFETY LAWS . . . In order to be licensed to drive in Colorado, motorists arc expected to comply with the Colorado Driven ManuaL Page 18 is reproduced as follows 4•••\04; es sib' -- t r, . ono. r t3 .47 c4T 1,1 t4" z,� cs£ I iillcitJ - \� /� • 1 �` +' '•� cr) a °L'r """ RR MiniA r';> rs' Dena.* ti-iM r4C nMy I. 1. -H[Nt4 Cm.t.O NY < •.c "c 'e�`.1 rh` rift .Tir'.! W rr IV 1,w~ p,,,.;,. .•,nm•re„u....rr•.-,v,.gw•-n .",W.,,,,.,rr a..-•p I m.—qinn ,..- .e..,I Try.r.rvr e MI w.-,s-rot a On n.cm. the employees and manatrment of The them '''rstern sv respr•eltnllc- ntge-.than their nrnmrist friends respect aoccing sirs,I locomotive \thistles and bells, and ground flaginen_ 7The life you sate will be your own. I I • ill 870123 I I . 1 _.e _.azitt.,:.,.-. .�-...n-- ...asessasamsitsavaisaaaset Safety at the Crossing I "Safety et the Crossing" is presented in thb interest of saving lives and avoiding property damage at railroad crossings. These articles are partially reproduced by penni,sion of Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger I Corporation, and will include comments of local concern by Mr.John P. A<cher, Vice President and General Manager of the Great Western Railway. in recent years. approximately 48,000 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. Passenger car drivers are involved in 73 percent of these accidents, I motor trucks in about 20 percent, and other types of -vehicles, the remainder- . Continued failure of the driving public to accept individual-responsibility S for safety at highway-railroad grade crossings is the primary cause for these accidents_ The railroads and highway officials of the nation urge you to make this a basic driving rule: I Watch for the round advance railroad warning sien wherever you drive. When you <cc it <low down and be prepared to stop. Tt ha<been our experience locally that often noton<tc, when stopped at cres<ings,become impatient with What they believe are siow-reoving trains I They start ahead, and if not hit by locomotives. they often strife the sides of engines and ears. Ttccate& of their relative sire. train< often actually move at rates of speed greater than what onconnng motorists are inclined to brlicvc. I - Remember, 3 minute <pent at the crossing can save you houvr at the body shop, dace at the hospital, or even eternity. Respect the railroad craving sign< and other darning dewier. IMPrIVIREIMIn. 1 I • 870123 IS Safety at the Crossing Safety at the Crossing • i _ _. �. . kr- _ r . _ TO KELP • *"7 - t / Dana ,i' / ; FAMILIARITY .- r BREEDS �.. �,�/ - "•� ttr_r tr' IYou Io back ad gem.rase the nose track daisy,prhp If it should haws that yoe' finei at a crowds od the several tiers a day.You have lived hat all your lift and]toot Rasher stet ttr sae urn dna.dart beau,keep that Ira ally rea a night or at a particular lose every day. �F k will rah take maids b dear de raid,The 7Pe as Rbat about the special or antra tam? You and your badly the other tide will not block Yee.h is impossible to be trapped I by . M71 be just as dead rhea hit by ea=chained urn. Death 6 pan U Yon:mop and try m hack-up„sou male till Your Ye waiting let aromas stop. - - Aka, a'an added accommodation,Gnat *nacre Railway peaomd I Most grade croons anchors eapmmced et the Greet Wotan RailwayDeer wolnnutily add Bag protatrm a crossings heed ikewen though they are tot saran to fan'1110 this required to m so.Some taacihe rdux to the wse®oe_..Have cerrgory..Uteough some law adhere to•schedule, second and fie=as the auk,red some eve tme ant to the railway talon smite ro i:1 its customers'need..-sot always caeca . striking down the tlaptm. a tram at nary creaming at any time. So, 3 in doubt, stop drat of aoninp . . . make certain of safe > ' candidom before pocediaa. I I,N- . at the Crossing• . a • _St Safety at the_ Crossing 'H '� �"J:. BOXED N ' \ �• • .. CAN GE FATAL ` '/.. Its 'cY � t �i =. 0 _ 11111 �\ _ . 1 • N...—t�4-%e � 'sibs Ceder Sits art Rahn::th_Sys caries down �\ Z f •� You a did t g tram if yNi bit-}: .- �;'- .Use. �`` /`� b Natalia hdn Ore or a Nines:, ;A... '(•'. ....'.:.'j lyre. • . ca arm?Sad sorely lose. Om .ue r.[i::_.. r. . ....t cox .thirty pr act of the gr:A' .:••tiny -. - :,at ! ploy.thin onto a riled track well yaw m amain Yoe a grade co silo protected by flatter gad cr ,,,..tc . :.. - ® deice .t] the w4 asps. Re an safe mat ahead ci you rdatarao who stole raw will usually area w be Sat that the I iris not amp ad boa you is on a racer_Wait for the vac so I Zahn or rd char.It loge wen properly displayed Meet of Gnat Watad'a Yoe do tyke the mistake erg galas tapped. flats trust ere that is CFI and its crossings tee°caroid far anselany then wood,aftime to.why assume the lead Beet is an areaioo to.- I=she ions A then wait.ee the Rear nay take Such lees here'_ r • long nay at the ad or the.ametay. _ ai • tI i 870123 • wares I. Mew:May it reMen 2- .. LOVELAND DAILY REPORTER-HERALD ^/'� FRIDAY,JUNE 6,1986 3 � \J e I Weld County, railway team up �'2 c, - ' to study safety of rail crossing • `� Sy CAROL Writer 7 that signs awery any definitive were ben eg to feel the beat," O' Staff Writer meaning to the motorist a the deo Ascher said. • air The railroad crossing three get al that 1Atensctlm" Bruns Barker,"cream Weld :'r , , ' O , miks north Wald County�,' n Rocs the tiro act dmh.oat ia sltanay,said the meeting \J • scare of two recent aceldems,one as been the October and one a November d vas WWI m tar., how m mate _ .'•V• . -./ a fatality.Hat Mow.tough the ef- 1et Year,Aaebe said he has bens the arppblg aafe.. _ 'V 4 - Iatad tat Gren Westau Railway fifes[with the monry to Make "We Meowed ahan.tives and ~��- .d Mad Weld CamtY, that theta seta. -- n< what We could tb Mad now we will '--- and become safer. "I sent letters to every level of soma tq wi h a dtaitive Plop, _ I Ender this week.GW Railway govmtment,local to state,"Ape Hats aid. superintendem Pete e Utilities Commis- take som er said.e actiogn to thins W arm."to The answer now appears to be - . YIELD sans sad State Patrol rePreemu- Amber said be was redonng speed lieu by gone- . Lave met at the eroaing tothis ken' mats and puBut is atop mdgns, - iumottodunaaMwtM danger, traces when name a his kites Hater wd But era ,n .ngi. I ow amesetton Could M made were answered and decided that nearing study will haw to be done safer. GW Rahway would have to take to determine what will be best at -it yea good to finally get toget - chatters Into its own hands the cite.Work will most likely be- gin100L c to wort out a solution to this "We did what any property own- +mmamatab,Harks said Anna n=problem."Ascher said arced do,mod ear property Marge pi:tate proWanxthe :�a r • But the meetdmg is eddy the tint and praeet those sin IL"Ascher tatarsae nn .me that lobo case K slap m making tat Mang sate. said "I felt obliged to do what I avasnsatly, Barker said. bat IreWMaing mtllaa coned to be could to protect the etas Mel nse it , _ male.papp�4now to he wrIDm Ito;• motoring note' oblivious to beans I • 4 _1 sp.utlbully.all must meet with tracks because mtmarytrains use . the approval of the Weld County Hat the Signs had act hem ap- that Commissioner. But the meeting pawed and the railway was told to • ` '�you aver the first and important sup. teke the*thin down. &nee theft- "Weals dealing with people who - w �`•may .. __. "When w ma at the crossing.I though_Weld Comer has gone to have ham over the tracts coo mmy - �'•w•- _ _ GW Railway to arrange eats weeks time MY don't aeon think about d'• r lamuddldlhattMavengemafar- [L Harts said."So whaurerw _ �s=�; at wad he salad by the mar- meting as making the mwin tin m at tettr by the — r f . ... i gashed d signs am down the orosal°g safer- law to We Peade to•Camhaasieo- the dannaasmd�cha attunes ta^ to say •� ~_ wheel'Amber mid. naked "The Weld Sign removed - ciao teen.semen as t el aw-rnrd be So West Mem^ Rie nos a axe Sem to yield oleo a raenaea al lion sewer eMarwia.Mao ro Moe.Smart. I . . Page 6 - Rocky Mountain News Monday.October 13.1986 I Local - Site of fatal auto train wreck criticized By KAREN aIOWERa .'SWt.who wa brews Seam the vehicle'on impact.was dark at night and that a dip m the Swan. road partially earn a satar uwnt.n Maws Stan*nisi When was taste to Heaaa Yewaisis View Hospital, wire of the'tracks. Anthony's Paste Nom when be e sale weatad let es ad braes and eemyreleased- Joe W,mpr,who works at h vehicle was S Dap admt Kevin f Sweeney were from taw crossing.said be once came very close to having an Two mm were killed Satorday sight when tee FaM West Adam Cooney Fire Depmmn e and fettighten were occident ace.'At Eight its bard to award'if serer ea the illBroom O Stich they wen riding was hit ey a train at a oiled m to extricate eel two passengers.Ike two ma were wren on .t's nib to Mar;be`� ttaeAsimn railroad crossing that some resides s:y is dead at the iche t airsSweaty Wad. Shoran Carlson.*nose be nrsits about,hurter of a mile -danaco,e. No one a the train was injured.. -. from the troaing,said she has sees other car-tram ace The driver rid treated at a local►oepul and released. The railroad comas H award rib at kWh tarot at emu there.'It's a dangerous mresectiee,"she said"Urne Se tweee pendhgleen ing ciceomplaint Ofthers w gaup.been filed against Cd•uamo smd.alawgb [tare an rat Pies m DW ante u ye bale train ebbe tr thew ouble very they woad tappet waq aamy.Semi a emir Killed were Joseph teat WAIL M,of 1841C via w toss sign N w e placed win a yieldsins rib w each entree raikee(erect awl Mel a peg Plate.Northelesh,and a mm whose name hia moald Let d local miens p lk gouda reamerr1e an U[aerie.' P aboutaye+r titer mnonn tnea that tb.rr Jane ,. a.or des S. 1T Sir_Rine.dkd bey lanes IOW tot relatives call be Wife&tali Sc Has wen Wo Taw from am to warrant(aroma Mahal ttpR Camas of the.Nseegka Police Deparwant • sad lay Mxulkule.Co ran a Malin err ere 7atardry anuniag d k e Colorado rfaisd la a mew Mao lie Bronco.elves by-Keith cecag. Asaliay waC iatsWebnd ]tact Patrolse tea. Aspen St.Fen Lamy Scott 37,d'Me- swam Stet t t 1;sea .y Last-Piahlast rasa ate - I Leetoe.say seaward,bat was s Aver•. Aneere l tw choral said the a an load as the neanxo Street x ctpo and hi way-Nos or ra cif the Warr oar Yoh Sweetxabwt 104:i ha whenrt strwek ettimw era blew User flank,*betaree .il the gg.. (era coed hero leaey coed esa me aloud Hes PaNm War tram,poise said. Others fay the MUMS a datgcoas became it h eam�mely vast tars..the wad ia.scan kanday. Ss 870123 I Pepe,.Ttrrad.y May s.IIKWl dtr Saran • 1 Crossing danger examined gr ' y '=" • .: b BTva Malaria advisan speed limit I - "l • Cwmy wtAamn, It rppewn, the frill set narks ant then tsars ti Cantu. comity ty eh r and Drew I sue M�lyeedng ro tale pestiive lot proMnene warning N the moat w alltnga. acammmey enpaen for �: fps lllmbytr a dangerous danestws Intenee"Ilona Silt feet +i..walfk situation that dalmed the further an..ihe Intersection when Avap sign is probably mod the ..ga- life of a WATdsor mw. moreproblem. of aer.e'Ihme T x h toot about_months. the two Asehena took si the said Barter- J�bi , .1 On s took misty morning last Pete Ascher. general manager the idea.,Drn.mall.:'he said.t ��1�, j s October.Jere Hotta`was travel- for Great Western.leek the matter A stop sign In flashing dctien with a m were en W into his owe hands about sit weeks e a goods flashing loan° might j x - - ++ iolt Weld Count),Reed ago. Using Great Western funds, - . J 54 nanhwnt of Johnstown. be a Rd'C inn.the money top, The acidity d•Greet western of te hat t mtenect top signs on both sides Weld County has hedpled to put , Ra heacisin.0 obscured. ion• u a permanent - ` —��.� T"� Sevetal weeks a i Dram+ stop sign at the 1 t I or ti msponenreot s. raMles Tien came doom, get the aisry Uniform Yraft ticuC t u.Manval on .- 1 .vi His family sad friends hate a,"Thee weren't pit there legally Indicates stop signs should ae�ut d •at 4 suffered grief ever since. ainattp,•' said Jim Sanderson. only m an interim basis-while - - - - . Tend gnt'e dart liter. another Flulenant for the Colorado State miler measures are being ,avrstl. trol. gated.said Ratter. ntorvon.tried ans man.Robam Jimeneetbn wheal Great tithe stole enrol mooed men et. said.but the mace mace much sense.' Winds*residents Sherd Morgan Peryl.her nether Mariana*Mt net the nmr remove h ,Justin Mee Mad*efforts Wmen MN.as going thethighereat final can't go wt and hams a stop by The apse Ie fmlow•thr r ly is ascot.ched wermibraoi a one Went Cgmfy wr save Lev retypes la y ga ap anal Weineen ��" He w lucky, though. He ail l on a peek' Sendeeren said. Just having a stop slan them sew RrMyanes nrdnrart et Jennnrewn.main erect* >wetted away from the He "here's a resat say to do k and ten people to stop,Iot end lawn. her hat RMIe Man M'b eM1A7 r veiled that had mused IOept way ro do It." the the attorney saki.adding that he by McKenY' drndmen of then fathead ears lieutctumvid,"From oar point of will pp to Amber nest creek. •Comm),nnthoeflles at that point �s^ it's condonable." be utup legaly-t stop sometmrmpere,ise that we get Fpm-ily sad angry toot action.They Pat N signs that violators nn bye ticketed.he nb.o 1 ng dime,"he said. I indicatedThe timitcnant said he thought•"Lind Railroad Cross- , b Mg" and posted advisory speed step ydesirable at that Si gin remote she stop signs from the ' gases of kd mph ep sign be desires ."What sticks b mind is if ingerSeaten she vat—They hate These was, interaectioo:but an crossings that beforate_ lad dams hemmer. one Pro- &re open and visible he Couldn't sec before. something the wthoriev rodttkie RtbMe yap . a^1 to stop my famil -wouldn't have sign nn be ptattd there.sad d WC" s pscpante acts tracks "That ore particularl danger-' t�- Marl to ne Mph ens.. Silty n the that morally..." in>need said. amgry organ is sad and Mogan MC say she*es t a nafd Uniongear tatPael that to the:Vial Sandmen also ladicated that The See h the became her husband that die Wind problem. be ee he of laswn((the as and a wet Weld County Commissioners'win diedrecognize" die something are she downatm e the west.fenhee !nee neat week to consider putting accident Na:wtirnlhF ago :n an feels there is the mace rte • warm the esl The stop sighs.W at nriws railroad: 't5er As be dole_ county driver teethe are blind--• ntuinV in the county. semmeunviemp story.) She said.the t appreciates Pere faenl� them aeths wd eit eaa'f see a stain Rota mewing by the commis efhthe is tktd era use pagerous Asclwr d bee Aboard efforts,and both the and starers to discus the mater is not e+IBe situation Pots°mostly sire should agree Not the Sngn 3333rd. rl M • lehednted. and a. nn to the tenaeedtd put up yfekiwstop signs at d Na late hen g•ins&wife GoroTrTiasleiiers'office revealed that Morgan has worked for the warningbst that intersection with beonnntoes that to the there Is no t*tech discussion on the seven months towarning[Oshe*s. Mrgan..and Anraot trashed into agenda for nest nk improvenaesatNr gain his Any Wester Lou to be: be Gnat Western trains. -.. However. County Ananit rim *there her.husband had his mid dcret general mansaid Sr for As the siwdon map piesmav, Bruce Barker said he plans TM fatal waffle:evident. Great N•e.ae This man be -.a dater s diary's warning Improvements ten She evern Gott dCrcdfru. he said:Sport 1a ,aces the ug west m WCR the WCR SJ caveat Wvvern bat she wry wt it he°^?'own.inn um lee 'be tad av MGhn sr�d mg sign and.the Mteramimn with.the Du Wised to ec Put it ins a lvnouT.m GVrwas m.aea rFs:J. Fla t'nt✓ Bold ldbfeee trap the middle d tot terthhor•and we mein tke in tee I toad—hardly a neapieueos warn- fix-puhlw wcroeg^evrid'Dirks et ing - - protect 1 e1 .1 At the midpoint of the Memorial \Ve din* ^hes were coentn- Dad eaten moist,with eves she prawn...who they sad se had .sand. Meru Ile we timed he ca to t.,t p in use deur,thr earns, The mate a,Nu._ t Amin?%a ti he.-weldF a war when pin the weal h - foe rash av r plea rye myna baiter wind she step sign;.t the pmenectin n, eamnnv.eon en the natter 1.she appreciated it t The the t when the rots'pot up rang unman!Wet snerlatsie a fmarm• I spied toot signs ie and I'm vet interested-.m rre•nng late Movembre_ •I war nave dW with them to en—human knee, p nttd'Tn" rye sand. "fm net Ina be •' she fathey twat the stop signs down." segatne.(TMrye b n d. Tbeir reasons serer t Iw,eS... just Mode to use goad cocoon-.. I do:'twant anther accident in Actk�sepfeen,mg tgen soft. Rdening- to the declaim to a '-1 870123 I `‘ra0S O ' " I I ,. LOVELAUD DAILY RETORTE it-14E R OLP Yir EX EnD.MAY roll,10M I C ro sin:, r:. uF �t i on . Rail crossing stop 1 ,...,..inc''t ,• 1, 1 t.Ln �I'k+e fj.(J :i u h ' r I {sign removal stirs 1 Rdt FA t ,(>,,a� 1 1 it �C l ,a :.t i s • debate over safety:: ti 1 ) 9 q, 11Y Y. i ..� ♦ �1t 4 CAh1M.I/ORainrr 1 • YE IJl } a.. } 1 t gtsO wtlar - 1- r - sys4e, iydmS k' --# i .s rh The railroad adaMad its trwc+, bay" " a•ir w»1,l � e.� eiwari Eedam.,.ty.,,� • • ,im ' n that G u• retwntld�that media detidtlon,',. „L„..,... .,• drrluA tar.. 1 .. bit captures the lraaglnatloa:&d , . 1. r ,, 'Twht41 M 1 :J le -I ' r rlhereight00d co thee tracks that Yoh be l ni.5,,,,. ....JI a (Wt{ N(X, f .. -waateed a•qbyrmol home, aemyaree t i- -' . _ t TMDlattletloMto uale sham three , n) 7 t „elk. _ [bl miles nth Or Jahmtown Were V..1 0 Alen[ Cam14" , t t'o. . 1 u r;, 7 Bead l/ Ia eiln Rettig iglif1915, ,was here thattruck tl .a ! v(_: t Gerald MorgN lesilW life,his pickup truck i,:, it L...)- a f .,a. 1 I no match for an oncoming train.ThtrtSte -• j . those that say had the crossing been ,adequately marked.Morgan would h alive d Z. •f .v t And there art those who say there are just •t -t 5• • J .�•.- •'a , going to be accidents,no matter low matly • y .tiro you put noup N ,MY �a • .+_ (J _ There was another accident,!worm* a } • Cain and another pickup truck at the same • h� Rt It , intersection.abort a month after Morgan was L 1 a•. ,� ' killed.This time the driver.Robert Jamison,. s- if ti " was luckier.He walked away from the • .1), '�`,[ , I accident with only cuts.But that second ,' •-s (A wv,;Ys +e'' e a s 11 �,. accident was enough to prompt action. .,t eV~ '�a'�1Y \ e w�y TM ti Asa result of the erWr,additnnalaimw .. w „y .•�[ u were put up at the crossing.TM origbul at s�ptiT`w•e(1ew•r•e•.tea �` e1 � 'ty. sign, the circular railroad crossl and "��js� r.yJ � aosabuck railroad crossing signs,were •`a''raZ '`V t�' s'Ga'Tt M JoinedbY a 30 mph speedlbnit Pp and• ♦ �• ��J, Al 1 M): • Blind Railroad(lensing"sign. .a •y ti� t,�'h.,,'��.r3 s .. .t ` I ' • I Rot enough. But come felt that additional slgnage was "►t A / '' i.. ' About[our weeks ego et the hte(ul t tit : �t4• •}{ ',demotion,Great Western Hallway - a�ti1 '' k .. 6 ,�� - workmen pm up stop signs in hopes et keeping - .341 0/n { another accident from happening.On ?t- f.t� ..' _ A ) Ig 7(a '7 laws that gnatstame down,YlctirrlM t .f•2. . `I •�' y _ local laws that keep the railroad from putting w . f `1 l r I rap atop signs. This particular L a flange on along Weld Inc - ( St,.(r l r County Road 5t U a dangerova one.Railroad ,z, r wli j _.4` �'• 'i •r officials and county of[i<lata agree on that ' • ,fact But what can be done to make It safer is T �r' {tlzk fJ�'� .a,-,14. a matter of contention. "11••- tJ r _ , • I« r a 5 ti4 ''Whether they should be allowed a put the ;{( ik� p a }T e 4 ,i!•yys.}3jS �+% ' signs up or not to mels not really the 'y,a'd' ;'S' y•� rr1 1 �. WL, 3 'rb argument,•'acid Jack Baler,trasportatldn "s•y t. •L ;,t, s • - L p:' V f. ' engineer with the Public Utilities `r h ' 4; • C ♦+ .t.• - in` e a i Commission."Whether atop signs work or net if G 4 J N ! a the argument.l7xrt ere two theories on "p'~ • sr ` '� I Ods.The first one Ls that stop signs take away ��+++�� [ ); s: sit v. • � � -k llahllitY The second one Is that by putting up 1 s f s 'a stop sign,you encourage people to disregard t sfJ; r• .1;.• l e . f , - y L • the sign. h 1 .. _ 4-.` I[you ge to a erosstng that doesn't have a .Yrt1' s,_ ; . I ..•{t • �r It - • _ �• ' lot oftraffic on lt,llke this one.moat.[the ,,v� �� ; • _111 .` y •t • time YOn slob et the stop sign and there Is no Z rf .. i1• - a a.i• ► train.For the first month or so.people would y� probably look troth ways and then go across .., J^'•;*4 .'L f - the tracks.But then,people would start to get 1 !> a a4- usesedtonOCams and would probably stop,but • �x 1- ..•,,,,let...,!-e� net look both ways.Then you conk!get 12114 * w"`^rM 7% uk >� {tL .�, some secident,,' I n,G' ry+1yl.4 `y�� i1• etw i Y •?td4.�a .Li i ester said that ideally,stop signs wevld be !0ktpDea� t st n+7.r.' a. 'A t •• r put up and people would stop end look both ., i 'ways all the Hme- - - •i apynr.Haias pee o'Dr a lOOPER "it would he hard to argue that then they .Tom Wihegarden,Oraal Western Railway equipment specialist,takes down a slop sign•I waeldkl see a trafa,•'Barer said."But we that the railway put up a month ego at Weld County Road ga.OW Railway manager Pete knox Rdotat't work that way." Ascher said that the eider to take doer the• m,which OW had pal u for salel For Pete Ascher,general mange?'" - reasons,was.glean by the state highway 4 s Y , Bag W Y,Hero w goad rcespn Ipr wanttnd Oanid Morgan was killed In October 1fa5 tlapartmsM. h was et this tmenectbn that . those slim up, i "It scares me Le death every time f go o w; Wet noosing on one d the trains."111 to . Conage dcenen an,with that irony - giro thought we neededMere Mans.We've got wld.'•You It never know w1...ving to pop .tinge department.Stop signs for railroad the blind rail,Old anding,thrspest limit out bdo Hat intehave a going 75 miles per erceapprovedsings slang county toads have to be • sign and ti•r of her.and I rest''dnn't know hoar.We reel we haves mernl obligation to do ,*Yarned by theeommnent -n and proposed what n'.e..e•td M.Ifs a had rr.in Ten, what we can a keep accidents from .by the sig"lie•nwlmenL, • thars fw s•eu.•t'Inn't kin if germ rutty Mpprn!ng." . "When those signs went up,we got a lot of . evermr` •,•rrlMrr arenormrt ereidnns" 8e7012g3 Sp. Ascher,a bit of comfort came by tpmpinina tram people who didn't think they Grecian list Rn•idnR light,were V w putting up those stop!Igor-The Only problem should be there,'said George Goodell,Weld diva•.M.bit the roc(of s^-I:a mm-e would woe th..t he did not have the authority to d0 so. County rood and bridge director."Before the be p'01.i hi II;e In the , y.!tut Actin fr-Is . Tlmt authority lies with the Weld County signs went up,we got teniplrilntr from people something more nee&to tie done. ll COMMITMENT TO REZONING FROM CONGESTED AREAS llwith safety and efficient service its top objective, the Great Western Railway continues to seek ways to oppose rezoning that places rail operations in IIheavily 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 Iresidential zoning proposal of Bayshores. public and rail safety are extremely important to Great Western, Because -I the railroad lines bisect the proposed residential development and nearly 5000 vehicles will cross the tracks daily, we urge the rammission'to deny the pro- posed rezoning in the interests of public and rail safety. II 1 I I 870123 I Windsor is o $ of rail proposal Greeley route still possible Roy cited two reasons why �Y usAWADg reloeatlmwunotfassible: ❑BN is not expected to maintain FORT COLLINS—A amaittee Its trail In northern .Colorado Wtdyiog'ahenete routs for the much 1 - - BN's Den- city's bevy Brlmatan Northern yes/Cheyenne rata rues-tlroupt re hoed traffic no longer will put- Fat Collins and also Ms a comer- . Ins plea to divert such traffic tang spa running from Fort Collins I duwdtltmaathandWindsa to Greeley 'twing on Northern aim.truflc .Grislier. has indicated to:-me the. however,weld Scream if BN of- Cheyenne/Denver is for ale.-Hoy ficiala opt to move their main line said. traffic on the Union Pacific tract ❑Even if BN continues its route from Cheyenne toDmvr-Another from Cheyenne,through Fort col- alternative a for BN to switch its tins,and south to Dever,it would main line traffic from Cheyenne to be costly to repair the track along ' - •Staling,then south toDenver_ the Fort Comps/Greeley spur. EN officials did not attend Fort "And it wouldn't be the railroad 0'= t Collins. Railroad Relocation who would repair that track, it - Committee meeting today; the would bethecity,"bes,id. �..ru I final decision on relocation rats Fort Cotiim officials. he said. P----. _ �� "fit r with EN. could solve the problem of heavy !' E,. �. Lr During today's meeting. the tram traffic rumbling through its :L - i BatlroadReloanonCommittee: downtown if it found a short-line i [' Y 'a - C _ ,• al Abandoned the Timnath- operator to take over BN's nor- - Q .L.—.• e.w.�, fen•- _ m�A ' r� IWindsor route that would have sent (born route through Fort Collins. � _ •' .y' a. _ 'IL trains south through Greeley to He emphasized, however, that it • `�'�'.aw .t- . Ire. - r.. Denver. word be in the city's bat interest ,�. r r'- O Directed consultant Richard to buy BN's rights of way through Hoy to Caned BN and Union Pa- the city to itegddLvesomeaaym I • cific railroad officials to see if when,and bow many,trains would ° . they're interested in selling par` run throughtown. • : �,N. ` , ti tlos of their tracks in We Fort Col- If the city owned the right of lAin area toa short-Use operator. way,'Roy added, it also could D Direct Roy to let EN officials decide bow the tracks would be I Cow the city is interested in buy- used in the future."One of the op- sag its right of way In town.If the thus weidd be to operates trolley city owns the lights of way,it an along the track through the dry," Control bow many trains run Said through net Collins, and when The short-lien operator's role, Ithey run. gryet6cial,say they Roy acid, weld m m yrve • want etraistoraonlyatnight. customers along BN's'rade- Ar-. The committee's aettes come in raugament would be made b►. the wake:of months •of debate tweet the operator and city of Iragerdtq die proposed railroad fled, regarding Mtn, and:bow reloads. Opponents of the plan many trains, would go through that would divert the traffic PrtCoWs, through Windsor, Tlmnath and Peter Ascher, president of the Greeley have said the aaitiomal Great Western Railway, said his Mains—elm daily aid same that company is interested in taking are loo an long—would reduce over RN's ask as the'short Sine property values and hinder operator. He also said he has no 1H be affected if train traffic on resolved.„But at Feast everyone emergency services in the cot- problems with the city's plan to PP's Chegmne/Denvr line in- is muftis. allow such traficonly ateight. Sees. more logical toward a solution in a I Opponents of Fort Collis'plan, "All this means is thata approach. I'm real who have accused the city of dim- ofthey're maa encouraged by that." going to go through "Asa ping the problem in their. edWindsor,'Kitudesaid"Asa Cancans of oche complains boatyards,initially applauded the decay councilman, I'm pissed y affected by the is committee'sdxaton. .aeua u oar e it eases o concerns wed train traffic will be ,d- I Bt about Maoist qty Councilmen Maoist traffic in north dressed daring a meeting at 7 p.m. C John Kinkade.'chairmen of the Greeley. But es chairman of Monday is Wunder PP/ Haft. ommittee Against Proposed CAPRR, I've got a lot of other Lartmet-Wald County Council of Railroad Relocation, warned the communities to worry about." Government officials have invited problem isn't over: Greeley and Weld Canty Commissioner BEI CAPPR and Fon Collis officials communities north and south of it Kirby agreed the roblem isn't totbrmesuog, 870123 • Rail officials 1seek to al •A i2 GREELEY(Colo.)TRIBUNE Tuesday, DI..‹.em r IS. 1986 y - .RAIL HEARING - -._ countyfears -He added Fat CoNns is wilting planning and surveys are being I - W give a fioeacfal incentive to Sell= a Fort Collins' view- :10 reroute the trains,but added the point. taY PAM SHOUP - .money is not sitting in a hank ac- I don't mink any of us are so Ti°""'°°"`w°"°en t naive as to believe decisions aren't 1 WINDSOR—Railroad officials Monday sought :"We would have to go to the, made in other high plans," to allay concerns d Weld eemmmitietthat Burl- —Wars for a sales or property tax," KivYade said CAPER wants te ington Northern might reroute heavy nil traffic : Clarke said_"Those kinds of things wme Fort P-headded f our FortCoWra W araesmtioduding Greasy. .can't happen quietly, not without Fort Collins problem should .. , CraignetBN Greene,Union Pacific Wananalyst,and Terry lengthy publicdbcssions.' be addressed as a rt'gianel issue• dtatrictsake aaoagr,said Kinkade acid CAPER b rnueeting Burlington Namernle not negotiatlegmtwUako netts rea ize F hula r outing n about the iembermemberpacific nib. Bather, they maid,BN and UP are rerouting world have on m merely having preliminary disunion at the re- . legfeed to re te goal They do Lave the commence has he said,and a press quest d the Fart Collins Reamed-Macedon , --u�m relMate some d the train confaena.'e been called for 10 n- I Committee. • ttaltu through their city- The am Monday m pap on that ia- The two spoke at a two-hour toted-tah{a d4eua• if position b m assist Fort formation. dooat Pat#Bodldlog on away ufght Tom pa- ollins in relocation, does not Terry Greene said UP is con- , a arc` o decor d the Larimni:dar Couo- , levolve an offer to relocate those versed about affecting the cum- - I cil d Goverment,.coordinated the Scandals,m : :trans maoroommrmiaes." momtin itsrails inn though Any ownrailroad repasaetetiva and mean of : r He and be was concerned that decisions UP might make would be the Fat Collins Railroad Relocation Committee •responded to question n from COG and the Cawmik_ tee Against Proposed,Railroad Relocation (CAPER). chaired by Greeley 040 Camellman business decisions with basic said he could Joholfinkade-The audition,which also directed questions to. i�ividnally make benefitS to UP.He noted osissolida- thatcommitment and would feel an the soap, jndadGradeyQtycondimembers 1dont and ma'dtn in the railroad obligation to mine to CAPER if a and city aloft. Windsor Mown Board members, •business are the current trend as tentative agreement is ousts be- Weld county officials and rural Fort Collins red- railroads °♦4 re'�ia cum• tweet UPandEN. dents who may beaffectedby railroad relocation. P:rive wins other farms of Fort Collins hes been stodging various roots to """"'' tatbm. said felt Maya W er about the as Miller divert heavy rail traffic from 1k downtowt Pro- Therailroadomcialswreasked situation. "The Burlington Nos- , polledto 60 would d from Nle through what level r is haven been honest and o people . W Greeley and other Weld and Adams comfy cam- all Ieve a of proposal, at RN sold beare Ltw ght at happen open.tomorrow. mantles to Denver or frommanagement but nBN are heard it been t reels Cheyenne through aware of -butroamdy We've misinformed so Strllogaad8dghtonteDrmver, bbeiogcondaacted • mom.. 1 Eari Wilkinson and John (Litt representing Greene saidhewandbeimolved Ad dressing an ddr Carke and Witlon- their studies are preliminary and said relocation m any seen to relocate rail son, rural Fort Collis resident may atrvrmama They an snot with atsas traffic on UP hoes nColoradoor Robert a Hall said, "You guys firm,Richuds and Amodats•m study four mato .Wyoming. agattornmeautinmeaewapaper suggested in an earlier shady- Last weak the Curren asked for a commitment and say you don't have a route go- committee reed the firm toners paelfmlaery from UPte inform COG rCAPER fug in any direction.You owe that negotiants with a abort-line operator to serve of an change in stets. Greene mtheeomm®ity.•• - customers along Harlington Nardern routes from • ... --'--. -_. ... 1 Fort Coitus to Driver or Cheyenne tDenver.The committee also decided to abandon a propene - He said the people who live in route throughllmnathandWfnder. . areas Nang eoaddered for railroad Kinkade asked Moir whether RN was avridr- relocation are having trouble sell- - big maul%train traffic before the Fat Coins fag their boss became of all the I Y' .publicity. They appnsehed us;we bad no Plans."Moor I think we said that," Clarke replied."We get proposals all the time and we're nos. always open to listen to someone who may have a Asked by Greeley officials m better idea.We hadn't primed to relocate and we I still den'thave any plans_ establish a time frame for reloca- "It's n remelyerlyIntiagame,"hdatddfbe t1on. Wilkinson replied, "There's disansiom."If any decisions ante ba made,they ea wag we an Webbi a time _ are way downMaroad." - frame.MCbeatlm tabmoamc He noted that the main line swath tun Cheraw beforeffireartanyindkations we - still will serve Fr Collins because it hams-ns- migfdhaveatbneftame.•• manient to serve the new Anb ser-Bisrh Brew- He added that the firm stdYfng WY. • the proposal t come buck hi "We here acres=te reroute our track and no threemommaNedanytgaho ineRN beentive to do so•.be said. "We It the bet in °Benin fstends-u se the BN ll thebooart," track_ H that happen, be said, Fart Collins'Clarke mid."Wire jest talking to. "we,saoommitres.aadsd" Burlington Northern,We don't have any deals with 8'70123 1 them.Modd the work boars todo.• .11 BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY COMMITMENT IIThe 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. IIThe 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 I 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 II 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. • IOur record and strength stand for themselves. So does our reputation. Also included in this section are a number of newspaper articles depicting II the business and community participation the Great Western plays in -Northern Colorado. ' In the interests of public and rail safety and because of the importance of the land in question to the future industrial and economic development of the county, Ave urge the Commission: to accept the findings of the Planning Commission and deny the request for rezoning. I 1 I 1 870123 1 li 1 WHEN CONSIDERING SELECTION OF-A RAILWAY OPERATOR, EXPERIENCE SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING •'BOTTOM LINE" COMPARISONS CWRy CANDIDATE CANDIDATES II P.0_ Box 537 2 3 Love1a❑d, CO 80539 ' _I OPERATOR'S STABILITY YEARS CONTINUOUSLY IN BUSINESS 85 ilYEARS.-OF CONTINUOUS NET INCOME 85 ADEQUATE WORKING CAPITAL - YES `I INSURABLE YES YEARS OF HANDS. ON MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE - • . 11 PRESIDENT 42 GENERAL MANAGER 20 ROADMASTER - - 34 SUPERINTENDENT-EQUIPMENT - ' - 22 .1 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT NEW SHORT LINE RAIL CUSTOMERS SINCE 1983 II OVER 100 EMPLOYEES 3 25 to .1U0 EMPLOYEES - 1 UNDER 25 EMPLOYEES 3 - MAJOR' PLANT UNDER CONSTRUCTION . 1 (NO EMPLOYEES YET) LOGISTICAL SUPPORT II LOCOMOTIVE SHOP YES CAR SHOP YES MACHINE SHOP - YES INVENTORY • 1 LOCOMOTIVE YES CAR YES .TRACK YES. BRIDGE YES .. , IMMEDIATE CONSULTATION - Y£5 bACK-UP LOCOMOTIVES - YES II LEGAL UP LEGAL 14 days INSURANCE 10 days - L000MOTIVES IN PLACE. -9 days - - 1 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. QENERATED FUNDS YES RECOMMENDED CUT IN FREIGHT RATES YES ' CONSISTENTLY OPERATES UNDER BUDGET YES DUN AND BRADSTREET TREND RATING "Up" II 870123 RESUME OF JOHN P. ASCHER PRESENT POSITION: President and C. E. O. The Great Western Railway Co. Loveland, Colorado. Operating rail lines in Colorado, Oregon, and Caliiornia; plus GWR Trucking in forty-eight ' states. 1944_1952 Maine Central and 'Boston & Maine System. Station and Train Service. - Passenger and freight. , 1953-1961 Pennsylvania R.R. Conductor, Car Agent, Trainmaster, Night Superintendent, Industrial Engineer. Developed and implemented the first railroad facsimile communications ' operation, resulting in substantial cost reductions and improved customer relations. II 1962-1964 Chicago Indianapolis and Louisville-New York Susquehanna and Western. Superintendent. Functioned as chief operating officer. Developed daily operating controls enabling - flexible adjustments of expenditures to meet inherently changing demands for service. Reversed net losses to net bottom line profits. 1964-1971 Reading Co. - Central RR 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. I1971-1978 Emerson, Fain, & Johnson. Law Offices. Business Manager. 1978-1983 Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R.R. - Terminal II Superintendent-Administrator Liquidation, Operations. In depth analysis of top offer at $47,000,000 for major line segment between Minneapolis and Kansas City, plus II grain gathering lines, established benefits of over $200,000,000 to buyer as confirmed by their consultant; closed at 3257. over offer. II 1983-Present Great western Railway. During 1984-5, eliminated debt of about one-half million dollars and accumulated nearly $700,000 cash from about $8,000, concurrent with a 65'% 1 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 grandchildren. EDUCATION: B.S. University of Tennessee 1953, transportation curriculum featuring accounting and law. LECTURER-TRANSPORTATION: Several universities, regularly scheduled at University of Wisconsin. II 870123 i • �!j��j>: �_I Tn�BII IOVDUKDDAILYRlPORrrR-NSRALO *EDwtSDAY.KDVIMaaR5.MI S McKim?, S0.uo I VNwu a,Main Mt$2 .k van aat•rao - • ►bent:taF.«a + Tno aaay.Ootsas.A.Loa ,Y- -. Ettriiin - :•Sugar firm _ • - storage deal • - - = keeps railroad 1 �� = in Loveland _ - 1p CAROL1pRCHZIaF -. ' maw Miler Amalgamated Sam Ce..bad- s`! ' a� approv In Ogden, tItab. al `; • f Tuesday is Paeyu 6i'dal Wert- .- \ i aeaStigar waahesaaWafba . �'• .,. . r,bAtruidatoakqdSaaae.LID use the • t{r�...bdOr, 1. '. . ttanhoaa,iotMtdatthSGWfae as '• _ ;:toy. fur stabs nest sitar.'. At I dte the pm a palms s 1%.- m►uFstaltlarllt JoDsbrWtLon- + _, . \ ' Welters Ranawill��}-`` Cagy ti Owls''\\ \r, stay In Loveland �tr.a\ • - a arterial' the rsilway.,said ; that with the Magmata&SW .. • - •- DOW In Loveland,ltuskkaotmdm- - ham.for tbe railway to keep Its per , freadonarters Me. GUT Railway - ' • wNbeprorkng freight tramara- .. ' lion for Amalgamated SDpr from 1 r Kelim to Loveland. .-..:., "In order to get Amak�bdin . . .. �ti l`;f.! a r - here.we have beendovu�monttu _ ' of negouauonmg.freight w.igMs i ` ; and have had to come up witheme b. 4 0 "c innovative pricing." Ascher St fw....a j•But we worked hard for SC" t. ,o _ — . �`n}.,.y Ascher geld GW Railway had - --sr..- .t z rY en Z 'Sr, Mi been comldtrkrg moat its sided- r . 1:6:.,442,461.4.e. r l E t 5. g; i ^ a �i•{{4� •quartets elsewhere became of u,e ::'-= .r .. t . t Via ? low vol+vne d Mines M does in ••. y - --. r - -• .• ^r- ...rt.e. Loveland. The railway's traffic ' e w..l•w• rye .;.T Yy{ 4.--•.t� +r t' and bblWwayc ldJve a to of +.. • - r •'w Z;,, '=� and GW Railway eouldaxabtd r,jyc `��T., ..•'�'J. rr—'t; money by operating oat of that v-• � ,� sr-- -- r T,?c.; ..� .,y_ •afro.Aorta said- .. Z� .•t`.., T•M' t' "We hod only sixterloadr a year .!� _ � b Loveland and Loveland tax's rraf"ie" ' ' - w �- �� :Y4 J.n hoe in x County."s' alone am2Otimes Avon rear er DrM Waste*.elites «a.,arw,r«,war.,t.wb Castes end strew r.Mn..wb..w said. -Bat now. with Amiga- rated.aw ma Mei Insulted tentMe un[nras►eat ene,wt..The...task ate a arts wee.Photo tiled.we wigbeebbbkeep sir y Kota Johnsen. b Lakeland and US i GW lays new track tndsuaor toe to In Lena. ard and arrow]axwmaa w,e..>md in y Kalb y p many family r enet. will Pd• AC Great expansion -Ira a RRNtread. . ma inteAscher rested in he Wff� ' railroads a« tearing up dilaters-Al Forest Products good things that an the site became of tremendous storage :.mks bemuse of larking at east Marla and Cote.Zy7 happening in Windsor:• '..enparity-The>da lark Qt.Sdd financial,neeui e.apneaamylase should be amylasMawe by A said the additional • bateb,and SC wareame bol a Narely t00 .feet d mw Frieder.weatMr Perennial trial.b wla.be wlfkkm'u r J limit lama tract k betas laid in It sprats very mare hold a d dar t a dozen re laugd • 1 winder, winter smnsmie saws and we ea t undtoe ush b er. t masticate spdr'd Thew"wad.ambaeled .me :- sob.M Alan d;.sots UnIntat.ES the approximate nit gild Ming_ :: )Itae.mafh pro- ' Qbttla pried.bat Solana for bb t er-sale-and pod market I 1870123 I I 1 Loveland Daily. f= , ,___�P. ' Ti1uRsoAY Reporter - Herald. . . •VU..W.,cbL.RAu V: ._ . ..+• •.:nl,o„rr tF^.n• 0. L :✓�':L vw +a�•,�-✓. .. 8. -: :2.6' a- ; _....... ._ I _ . . 1 ... 1 aa f "' i 'V}}. c i#. Y'e'r�kt• •V . j `, y I' - t t. 7. - tr� C I tttr r ' i 2f "t^ �1y w .o•, .•• .ir • v.v.:-`,. w _ ,.. s1 . .1$ A# r 'N �� i' y r •? A r I A� P A . - Pnolo 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 Iarea's sugar industry for more than 00 year& were expanded in 1905, concurrent with the For the Reporter-Herald They brought a ray of hope and nostalgia to building of process{ngpiants in Longmont and A train ride Into Longmont Wednesday was " the area's reviving sugar beet Industry. Johnstown. short and sweet. INoet c the aueta c Great Western Svgar, The last of Great Western's sir sugar pro- Three railway Cara of the Great Western ' Including the silos,were bought by Tate and coding plants,&seed is Loveland,dosed in Railway rolled into town carrying a little bit However,a hem Great Britain,,witch 3915. Preened sag- former processing locng lnAwn 1.wgmont, ove dent new depen- d ysetnday—in the form ofpig plants in Longmont,Love- loot m that be p➢s ' ar.The sugar will be...stored the Aloe the land, Eaton. Windsor and Johnstown, was industries Itch as agriculture that produce now4fimd Great Western by Loveland's John P.Asher and consumer goods in bulk quantities.But agrr las,which can hold 500,000100cound begs of as The Great Western Railway sugar,have been empty for atleasst two years by Asher and hispartoer,Pat Brae,aDenver Os.ns ad,So longer the railway's primary � 1> company.feneedng the eellePee et the�r eon developer and fhander_ helps connect a variety of industries in th said,the e The railway was started in 1901 toconned commtmities it arras with the major railway But today's incoming sugar can,each eon- Loveland, where Great Western's marls lines—caning an option to other carries. taking VOL tons,from nearby Johnstown at Boettcher built the first Colorado sugar pro- sachet's firm also teat tcuel;ingservicesroe rind ea the Same tracks That served the coming pl nkwithothera➢ways_Thetracks local l y_ 870123 L%KECOUXTY EC.%MINEN.Iaherl.w.or gem Taanday.Ner.12.tnnl—Paces . f , ..., "` . f. . ......., •,......, 4 n ... a T • .. II ; ,.._ • \- . . . . . .. ... 1 ir ..r 4 _. ' F < i l 1 ;' i%eyl, .. J ) ;j;ti Taxes paid . • • With commission/ elect Jim Ogle looking community says Ascher. because the on, Pete Ascher of Great Western Railway railroad is contributing hot and other dolls (left) hands a check for $1.233.67 to Lake to the County where theta was praa ousJy County Assessor Oary Partin. The check none. To deft, Ma railroad had pumped represents one installment of railroad's $300,000 kdo the local economy.(Examiner property taxes. This is significant for the photo byDavidSneed)I •o.curooan.1106in a..nw.o . ..o.a ..I! ' :M I .:: 2".'•.• I;.:I - lik4 'tkv.l I '� 4 . c..., 1 l i yl 'lain \\I.,ill +3. \ ! p; ? . di 4,..+-11• tea. P�" • a ,yam{+ ` L • • ,. ... . . tr' 1 . -` v it L aA •p•• All aboard! . I . ' 4.sunaOrin Lewe.t Fechwl bitter"i iirpheil std,. San~OM a..YenaawS medal see is*anndea.w w daN a*gnat w.e n,town,wows.as.,.awn• .dl.nal 6µu y tY ride re■Foes~rang.td>at•'a..,de assets din 1870123 I • LOVELANDDAILY RE RORT ER HERALD WEEKEND,DECEMBER 7.1.163 Loveland homes are open for holiday tour Isy PHYLLIS WALHYE —Mr. Pod Mrs.John Heckel., • N i. � ...,.. 7 4 e4�ae Loveland Welcome Wagon New- 2116 Flora Coon The charming I. \ _ '�, •qt Y("1�&j R home of the Haskews reflects theiri ♦ " � A• o . comers Club will hold Its Annual interest m collection: John col j,'....„>':,.s . . { 4 7 ' i` Christmas House Tow from noon IMsoM tin toys While tubes more ' @es r J'e+�>z V- n ,R tt vese.d .ow": 5 p m tOmOrroa iSmdaY)• than 2m dolls and bears.Both ail :Z..1:7'. '+Tty�.r.,� r _•!4 l ti C , •‘,..„.••",,,r- until An Old•Fashioned Bake Sale is an predate antique furniture In the ,4aG ^@`^'* r ra4 e' added attraction. dining room.large Getman bisque - •A:P.O. ate•' " e •< � doLLs,dna1966.will be seen sere- �i""�.1".Yti` av _w 1' .at,.,Ti';R •— -, �ntxak.0 .., ' There are lour Loveland homes nit ?' and a surprise attraction on the inn cake. In the Glvlg room an- •• r"s' s4�. '4••••••••• y � r �' � '(�}," tique bisque dour decorate the tour,each chosen because design .. ' 0 R"7' ��_Y-,,.. turn➢leveed andsonsWee,more a t -abl aspect are)tut right for special r SYJ •1 k• Il kinds of Christmas decorating. many Jon=sinew and urn Derlm have - st { < �•O T(' t pry Proceeds from the tour benefit the constructed through Ne years. ' t� 'y'- 1_ k'-' "Z r T'7 "• h`41X1 a Newcomers Club scholarship fund.I > J s, Zs —Dr.and Mrs.Jaho Curtis,7857 7 's:''. / ' -r"A Tickets for the tow are g5 and Sally Am Drive:The Curtis home �yf'�' '1 - 9J, r 'la�L*' pill"-�r• are available at Trends,Plants.re Ls decorated in colonial style read 764. 1 t u 1 J `��' •'. Things,Gallery East or by calling niwTnt of 19th cm •Wanda Morton at 565448, The Pictures and wuec�tabless Americo. or d I ' I '«t•`s f y,. - st n }�: \ � i4_? { fa ticket fit has a map showing the throughput the house recall men- Q:•t 4 -a',,-:,‘„,k a , i 1 f. >F-c--- i4,,(�,,. r4,_ .Z I way to the homes)also entitles the cries of antes spent such special' _ ,�p.,+''�j1 r•• 3- I f. ,.1'.. holder to refreshments at Bark place as New England. Colonial + • 1 Y . {L 4 'j': •Western.29th SL and Highway m7. Williamsburg and rural Virginia. e'> 2 The Old-Fashioned Bake Sale will .41.- ,'• `•, 1 '� r.! . Debbie Curtis'the aunt did the oil 'AA,/ 1-i I Zl ' be held at Bank Western. imitating of the Connecticut whatt,r -�t 1 i .'.•J'^a tng vessel "Charles W Mpr 'Y �' \' r I ♦< The following descriptions of that graces U)e living room The r - \ L• ' y Mmes fend a specie]railway ear) nautical inertia[clad N the]amt) has v J.. - `� on the tow are rOvidcd➢ time- 1 : `r ✓ • land Newcomer Club. y room a family expresses the tl(m . ° r \ r A t " • _ Lon the family feels for the coastal -� - • • �J'! .tom.,• r i-!'. i•1. —Great Western Railway Car, won of"stem ATherlea. -••-c .- ♦1�� C 1.,7 130 Monroe: The Great Western • - .•^' • 4 7 S I" , ( ''J ''3 Railway's of facial business corms — Mr. and Mn.Greg Damao r. -�, ^4 . -:o- .'. 'Q'` ��sfY solid'mahogany 'doors, stained 1s57Carol Drive:This home is der I or�3 . f glass windows and enroll-shed mated in"New World Country,"a •1 e J t wood and red velvet interior.When blend of antiques and new fundah- !. '- It war purchased-In 1954 at the toga The pricer and dining roomI - - Denver Railroad Yards by Pete here lace panel window coverings 11asonerawram olnos'DAN LDDtER Amber, unwind, Ks skew foss- and replicas of antique light ID-tared cm maWmas,wine bottles tam,There Is Cradle built by Ann* Shannon and Debbie Curtis enjoy the fireplace a theircOhOntaFetyla home 7157 tally and Sterna urn.Jane Ascher re- Jane Demko's brother and an old Istored the interior herself end fur- pie-leg table that June painted maintenance retirement lame.It r•n t 4 fished It with reupholstered and stenciled A bendqulited,ail was dedgned and bat by me Ne, ,a ys��'si • railroad seats and attic Wean. Wlqued wall}harafggiUnIgg Is the feral meths and decorated primarily m Re • crt , N �$ The r wa halt in 1997 a s corn- prim of the eesealfamiyronln blue to reflect the(:daado ekes 6 •(`G S\v j J.f� Nnatim geachtaBway Pad vlDce. the klthtrm these to a collection d and nearby Rid Remo take_ J _ e • aY Reatrd,Indlptes that In 1910 It works by Da isb thief Kurt Ord and nearby decorat Re aeeem this '' �r y,, For •k al I may have been e target of the cool, theme.The fkrtthfu Tr i last„tended robbery of a railway —Mr.and Mrs.John Nemeth, tree V covered with tiara sad id- tt � �r"e?fs post office an The perpetrator 2944 Tartrate Driver The 2-year-old tits.WNte reindeer stand by the was infamous Black Jack Ket- borne of the Nemeth%is a fine es- wood stove,and came*and white il A.+rRYe'-••. •••:s} y .. churn ample of an energy-efficient,low- lights abound. 11 a`+ i I t).1g � •l3s sr iJ w ` '. ` `7 'tYL INe'i_. .r `�: 1 s:fin -, 1 iri.- ._•••':.'.4;••• :_re c, �i�jm •ipt �• �� d '!, v T �• ttliti boa k ,,f;. 7- kII airy •;j �, x. r g yy 44.3' 'i.. 6',ir t „,..r • % ,.�`a�l: R A- M N ' ~ 1.;. t r $t )�! T FT • - -vi. /tt-�r,J r�� ?rY .t \a • A;' t ' , • 4..... O 7.1.;- " •, '�� s ' • �� ;:,. J..."12.1. ��t .1t b ' Jar• t - .0 , ,,•..,t 'et JaM Ascher,right,restored the Inter or d this historic railroad w.Key O'Kaete and Sharon Myga Lu Wakew displays Bona of her antique dolls,•toddy bear (In been horn Me,e hs njoy the agw copses- and 1912 child's pedal car by the tumbleweed Christmas tree. 870123 OirMOCARTV ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. • ° EE + E January 27. 1987 p JAN 28 1987 fa et ftamintsisda Keith Schuett, Planner Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. , Weld County Case No. Z-430:86:5 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 concerns raised 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 anattempt to demonstrate the noncompatability issue. Exhibit N1 is a copy of a letter prepared by Jack Beier, railroad engineer for the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The applicant has met with Mr. Baier and Drew Sheltinga, County Engineer, at the site. In his letter, Mr. Beier indicates his belief that the crossing should be controlled by flashing signals and 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 6 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• LONGNIOIVT.CO. 00101 77$-77ss/4449-44S7a 870123 fxnisir a 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 hen revised the allowable uses within the P.U.D. District to provide for production of gas and oil. Further, negotiations have been held between the applicant and Macey and Mershon Oil, Inc. , the oil and gas mineral leaseholder. These discussions have resulted in an agreement for continued use of the mineral lease in a compatible nature with the residential development of 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. Piller. On December 16, 1986, CRS agreed to enter into a written agreement along lines discussed by Mr. Piller and as written by Mr. Curtis, CRS' attorney, in a separate letter. , On San. 25, 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, CRS 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 staff, the County Attorney, and the County Engineer. These have resulted in en Offsite Improvements Agreement, attached as Exhibit 10. This agreement has been reviewed by Drew Sheltinge 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, dated November 4, 1986, 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, 1987, to Mr. Southard, the attorney for Union Reservoir Company. Except for a brief telephone call between 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 13 is a letter from CRS Investments, Inc., summarizing their continuing commitment to resolving the concerns of :the ,Reservoir Company. . 1 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 has been finally 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 finally 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 PUC and haa 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 in the Del Camino I-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 have any questions regarding this request, we will be available to make a presentation and answer questions at your. Board of County Commissionaire meeting on January 28, 1987. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely,,yours, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. John A. McCarty, P.E. JAK/am cc: File, #1687.1 . Kim : Collins., 870123 • 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 Weld 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 ST1t1 E CO EXHIBIT 'f J L• OF l�Jl''�1VO R7ehaed D ta.wn,Convenor amnion's*oar RaTda*aT Atesri„ W'Mrva'.C.Web.3aeaA1„Own.. 's;Qs ^ COMAOS•I I..L Y. THE PUBLIC UTIUTIES COMMISSION : Ronald 1 Lehr-Chairman AdwYir*m+sn hOn Mstis1M • 'r-1 '.+)' Md,a S.Miller TranNMatkin 001)1164-4211 Antra aura, find Wines(703)-Ie4- l$ Om CE ttV(t 2 F+ea -SK*Maol' Cawing(303)ML3/M »•O WOW MrryA C�Osan,F D'NWt COWOMDO.10703 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 28, 986 I with Pete Ascher attther grade�crossing tof W yCR3u1/2r ew eacross the nGreat ga aWestern 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, Qn1-4> Jack Beier Transportation Engineer (303) 866-4286 15338:JBB:nj • 870123 ‘R S INVESTMENTS C. • 1333 WEST 120714 AVENUE EXHIBIT 2; SurtE 308 DENVER,COLORADO 80234 (303)452.9955 Noverber 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 Dear Pete: I tried to contact you today by phone and was informed that you were out until Wednesday, so I clnridad 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 G R a fee of $10,000.00 for your support, aycmirltl and the granting of the following items and easements: 1. Support of flashing signal with improved at grade crossing atRd..31 w/F.U.C.- and Weld Governing Agencies: 2. Granting-au the-necesxy Pants for the . proposed development adjoining Grafft right of way, including but not limited.to, gas, telephone, water, sewer, storm water, cable, fur optic, surface crossing necessary to • develop the said property into residential dwelling sites. a. run compensation for any possible loss of revenue by GnR for residential zoning. 4. Full compensation for any future maintenance of grade crossing (signal or surface). 5. Full tion for any additional insurance liability that Gi R nay incur. 870123 ?t. 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 arid requirements. All improvements to the 3/ RD. surface crossing and all utility crossings will be at the expense of CRS. CRS believes this is a fair and equitable offer to Gr7R. It is my understanding that the P.U.C. has jurisdiction over road and surface crossing require ents. Per the P.U.C., 99% of all road crossings in Colorado are the railroad's responsibility before and after the developer has uziproved the crossing to the P.U.C. requirecrents. I know of no regulation, State, County, City, which mandates a developer to ccnoensate a railroad for possible loss revenue in a land zone change. CRS will nay the above $10,000.00 to GTR with $1,000 cash down- Payment due on mztual execution of a definitive agreecent 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 oamments to the above offer at your earliest convenience. Please feel free to contact me at 457-3775. Sincerely, CRS INVWTh NlIS Kim Collins IaC/ke7 cc: Mr. John Mccarty Haney Curtis, Eeq- Mr. Roger Seaton Mr. Keith Sdniett, Weld County 870123 EXHIBIT 3 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR Avta.t*40►5 not w Sox r.Q. ox nv LOVELAND. COLORADO 80539 - -JOHN r. ASO4Ut a� �R..a Sc eaolnrye v.lea -- November 17, 1986ej ,�..*. • Mr. Kim 'Collins; CRS Investments,:Inc. A333-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 JPAzes cc: Mr. John McCarty, Longmont Mr. Keith Schuett, Weld Count Planner 870123 SERVING COLORADO. OREGON. AND CALIFORMA INDUSTRIAL SITES AVAIL Arr r IN OUR EXPANDING MARKET AREAS C. S INVESTMENTS I*. EXHIBIT 4 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 305 DENVER,COLORADO 00234 (303):4524056 Decaner 22, 1986 • Mr. Pets Ascher 'The Great Western Railway CD, Taylor Avame Stlops P. 0. Dm: 537 • Loveland, Colorado 80539 Dear Pete: We have asked The Public Utilities Oalmission to confirm their preliminary inprova eats re000znendatioil on the grade crossing at WC1t 31 and Great Western Railroad. (attached). CRS believes air written offer contained in the letter of Noveaber 10, 1986 (attached) is fair and equitable and requests that G win reconsider its position in this matter. If you would like to nett and discuss the above, please feel free to call 457-3775 and we will make ourselves available. Sincerely, CRS II IS•7a C. Kim frllin>f lof./loel At h:reuts co: Haney Curtis, Seq. Drew L. ScheltiDga . Joint 1.1tCarty,/ h�sith "Schlott Lee D4orrieon • 8'70123 • EXHIBIT S' THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TAYLOR AvWUC SlO►a I JD Pc.O. SOX S37 i.OVELAND. COLORADO BOeay .*g_ww oo atwnwt arnLaR - January 9, 1987 �- r 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 CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL SITES AVAMSLE IN OUR EXPANDING MARKET AREAS rfl.tWMONC boa) 667-SY.. C IPS INVESTMENTS Ile. 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE EXHIBIT B. SUITE 308 DENVER,COLORADO 80234 - . r03)452-9YRS January 20, 1987 Mr. John P. Ascher The Groat Western Railway Co. Taylor Avenus Shops P. O. Bra 537 loveland, Colorado 80539 Dear Pete: I wanted to foLlow up a tnlaphone conversation that I had today with Steve Boblak of Pat Brae's office. CRS is unable at this tine to accept your offer of $20,000 cash and $10,000 to be reinbursed to CRS if CRS is unable to rezone the Bay Shores P.U.D. We feel that 1tle Great Western Railway Co. has absolutely no eicizosure unless the land is rezoned and there is not any justification for a $10,000 fee. CRS does ccsntiia:e at this writing to offer to G➢ER, $12,500 based on items and easements described in our letter of Nov®ber 10, 1986 payable $5,000 cash downpayment within ninety (90) days of rezone approval, the balance due within ten (2) years, or cant of Bay Shores, Phase I.00nstructirn. We hope that GM and Mr. Bros will reamsider the above -offer.._ If you haw any ques+ims, please Call me @'457-3775. Very truly yours. CRS INVIS1241iNP8 Ht. Rim Collins cc; Mr. Pat Brae Mr. Steve Boblak Mr. Les Morrison Mr. Keith Schuett Mr. Drew Scheltinga W. Harvey.Ctirtis Mr. John McCarty boas Mr. R3ger Seaton 870123 C fPs INVESTMENTS INP 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE EXHIBIT 7 SUITE 306 - • DENVER COLORADO 80234 Ao3)`4524955 January 26, 1987 Weld County Qamnissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Rantoul Grade Crossings - h Mile North Hwy. #119 WCR 311 Dear Qnnissicmers: CRS Investments Inc. (CRS) has tried in good faith to succesnfnlly negotiate a reasonable agreement with the Great Western Railway (GWR). CRS has agreed to aid 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. Mininun lot depth of 150 feet adjoining the R.R. easement w om hen cbined wit's the R.R. . easrmn would leave an average distance of 125 feet fran trackage to the bade of the home. 3. Iodating 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 betweenR.R. easement and residential lots. 6. lb maximize line of sight at R.R. crcesing by restricting fencing, landscapingr and increasing set backs where appl%tare applicable. GWR. has responded to the above offers with a danaad of $20,000 cash prior to a change,of a and with a $10,000 refund to CRS if the . 2 870123 • • Weld County Commissioners Page 2. January 26, 1987 change of zone is denied. CR$' offer is reasonable and generous ands Believe that the above oomnitanent should satisfy the concerns of tie County daimissioners. RespeotfullY, CPS` II L SflS INC. Kim Y.C/kel 870123 • EXHIBIT 8 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 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 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 app•:oval 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 Tice ("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 teens 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, canpleting or producing (herein collectively referred to as "operations") the mineral estate. MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. 870123 Suut 2150 • 1600 B•OADwwr • Dcwvcw.CoLo•woo 80202.4970 • (303) 861-9183 111 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. 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 "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. S. 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) fran 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 fran 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 fran 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 movemeet 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 became 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, benning or otherwise to enlarge the financial obligation of Operator's operations, subject to the surface use requirement of Paragraph 7 and 8 of the Mardh 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 F.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, prorate 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 Lnqa 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, tQCEY & MERSHON OIL INC. Mb- James A.-Brown Agen & Attorney-in-Fact for W. B. Macey, Mershon, Inc. and Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. ACCEPTED AND AGRE.EZ TO THIS 2 — day of A.s fi 1987. CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. Kim Ceiflince President 870123 O, EXHIBIT 9 sARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L,WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING.SUITE 450 OK GOUN RI 1350 SEVENTEENTNSTREET... HAYES L PNILUPS.P.C.. DENVER.COLORADO 80202 OF coma .... January 27, 1987 BAND DELIVERY Board of County Commissioners Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. - Oligarchy Ditch Company Dear Commissioners; I am writing this letter as the attorney for 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. Filler'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 exp?nse 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 Page Three ditch in place, unlined, with insurance protection against future liability. Sincerely, Har ey W. Curtis HWC/bm enclosures cc: Neil E. Filler, Esq. - U.S. Mail Lee D. Morrison, Esq. Hand Delivered Keith Schuett - Hand Delivered L,Tehn McCarty -• Hand Delivered Kim Collins - Hand Delivered" • • 870123 • RARVEX W. CURTIS • ATTORNEY A7 LAW L.WARINQ MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 460 STAR 1360 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF COUNSEL.WARI HAYES&PHILLIPS,P.O., DENVER.,COI.ORA0p40202. OF Coussa pan X254631 January 27, 1987 BAND DELIVERY Board of County Commissioners Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P.B.A. JCR 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.B.D. on JCR Farms, Ltd. JCR 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 JCR, Farms wish that to be shown on the plat. Sincerely, aC---e - Ha ey W. Curtis HWC/bm enclosure cc: Neil Piller, Esq. - U.S. Mail Lee D. Morrison, Esq. Hand Delivered Keith Schuett - Hand Delivered L,J6hn McCarty - Hand Delivered 8'70123 Rim 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". W I T N E S S E T 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 defined in 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 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 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. S. 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. 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 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 A • 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 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 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 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. C. 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 of the road, pro rata as the 3 870123 FM1. .. • 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 each such plat. gm 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 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, 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, COLCRADO 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 •••• .. • STATE HIGHWAY 119 IMPROVEMENTS - ACCEL/DECEL LANES Deceleration Lanes = 570' Length • 600' Taper x 12' Width Acceleration Lanes • 1,170' Length 4- 600' Taper x 12' Width Clear and Grub S.Y. 6.200 51.00 36.200.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 6,200 31.00 36.200.00 Base Course - 14" CL 6 S.Y. 6,200 *6.00 537,200.00 • Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 6,200 *5.00 *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' left turn lane at SH 119 intersection. Asphalt overlay on existing gravel roadbaae with compaction. Clear and Grub S.Y. 1 ,000 31.00 51.000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 7.300 81.00 37,300.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 1,000 55.00 55,000.00 • - Asphalt - 3°' Grade E S.Y. 7,300 55.00 336',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 30.50 54,500.00 Grading Excav and Fill C.Y. 3,500 s2.00 47,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. . 7.200 81.00 • 57,200.00 Base Course 10" CL 6 S.Y. 7.200 *3.00 321,600.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 7.200 35.00 336,000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 2,700 *8.00 *21.600.00 SUBTOTAL *97,900.00 - RA/LROAD CROSSING L.S. 1' 880,000.00 380,000.00 SUBTOTAL 380,000'.00 EXHIBIT NO. 1 TO ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (OFF-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 •RR1, 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 36.400.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 6.400 53.00 *19,200.00 Asphalt 3" Grade E S.Y. 6.400 *5.00 532.000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 2.400 *8.00 819.200.00 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 50.50 s3,350.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 2,350 52.00 54,700.00 Subgrada Preparation S.Y. 5,350 81.00 55,350.00 Base Course - 10.. CL 6 S.Y. 5,350 s3.00 816.050.00 • Asphalt - 37 Grade E S.Y. 5,350 55.00 826,750.00 Curb end Gutter • L.F. 2.000 88.00 *16.000.00 SUBTOTAL *72.200.00 { 870123 • • • Page 2 of 5 • • • SAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO • PHASE III • • UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION •*•• • 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 57.400.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 5,150 $2.00 $10,300.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 11,750 81.00 511,750.00 Base Course - 10•• CL 6 S.Y. 11,750 83.00 535.250.00 Aaphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. - 11,750 55.00 558,750.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 4.400 58.00 *35.200.00 SUBTOTAL"Z 5158,650.00 • • 870123 • Page 3 of 5 _ i • • BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-67 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE IV • UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION ►wr•. ••ww•w•s•.••w• - • 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 10.50 S9,000.00 Grading - -Excav and Fill C.Y. 6,500 02.00 013,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. . 14.,400 01.00 014,400.00. Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 14,400 03.00 043,200.00 Asphalt 3" Grade E S.Y. 14,400 05.00 572,000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 5,400 55.00 043.200.00 SUBTOTAL , 5194,800.00 • • • • • 870123 • Page 4 of 5 • • BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-a7 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE V IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED DEPENDENT UPON DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC .' UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION 1.O• *Jr f•••••••.••w t• • 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 80.50 $5,000.00 • Grading Excav and Fill C.Y. 7,000 82.00 314,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 14,000 *1.00 *14,000.00 Base Course - 10^ CL 6 S.Y. 14,000 "S3.00 342.000.00 Asphalt .- .3" Grade E S.Y. 14,000 55.00 *70,000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 5.100 *8.00 840,800.00 SUBTOTAL 5185,800.00 • • • • • 870123 Page 5 of 5 Tht OH I• `fit.11 111111111• 1 ""E"I E"Ig`I i'; i• '0 ')1_ t _ Eli t€ -j; i -* 1 r 14' "flt a1 II i s rtliI1I s*eru-v \ _ El tiElitEIE EE= it t = f "» -- -- _ �1t t \� �` -� w Ei •;sE =tt?ttt' tgt sr tllli \ t • � if 2+ F 4. ijtifl lii r isiiEtsillt; 4.E t d tot it it ,A*. ti �� i — = ill, ii�E ' 111"11111111 11111 \ • t; i 1DI P `Ii f WIDII8!iI Ii * • 1 1111 i i ' \ , > s t• e e Hi -tl4iiPiiutfliti!i ' F>1111i E � i t, i c tE J. i I [iii c �, I= t t li i t iE lE I f!=tt S cl, m kThtMI it ill F It Et st E It tilt P �a \ \\ isa ..».»••.•••NY• • X - -- t(; ... ....• �. {{ 1,1, ins y \ � : � _ a a �� i /• M•. M••wI• (JMNNN - \ Ill \ I". 'awn"' ea - i I : ' ,- V Sp Yp Yarw ruY.w' • ••• `. t.L':;,.cr,',,...::',,,,.. , L ! II � M VSM�In'N Y•r• ■Sr ! !6 - •raVN \ . i--t-4:: . . r.. '.I'w �e - o o o as»e R • \ iss: , :11..141;:11.1 g r v N ae >j r, Y t iisQ j" 'I'''. 'III - 11?sts . _ .-S F$ \ r . 1 — ,� is I 1 f{ t � • zt 1 •• Hr . = tel ® t 1 l it Nr4,rt �-- • 1 7y ttr t■ 5.q Sii: • i e rer. t : -.E I. f • • EXHIBIT 11 s WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AT LAW R-0--SOX BAR toe Nan NATIONAL 6WNR 9o(gRN0 OREELEY.- COW. 60633 OREELEY. COLORADO - - (3031 3E3-1393 November 3, 1986 • - Mr. Keith A. Schuett r- 1986 Current Planner Department of Planning Services L 915 - 10th St. field CR 1422614 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 :plansand 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 eimninent 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 tine have to remove the houses and re-locate the road, because the lake level is raised. Yoursvery truly, f r f William H. Southard WHS:d1` 870123 i EXHIBIT 12 1\71 McCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. January 9, 1986 William H. Southard Attorney-at-Law P.O. Box 449 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear 14r. Southard: ` Re: COZ Case Number Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. It has bean 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 leases protection for the reservoir company against accidents involving property owners and the reservoir, relocation of Wald 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• LONGMONT,GO, 80501 870123 772-775$/448-4373 • William H. Southard Attorney-at-Lew Page 2 January 9, 1987 C.R.5. 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. n f John A. McCarty, P E. JAM/sa �` J cc File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments. Inc, Harvey Curtis Keith Schuett • 870123 Ct S INVESTMENTS INS. EXHIBIT 13 • 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE308 DENVER COLORADo80234 (303)4524955 January 26,. 1987 Weld County:Commissioners 916 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 rear Commissioners: As the Board is aware, the City of Icngnoatt has purchased a controlling interest in the Union Reservoir Company. CRS Investments Inc. (CRS) has net with city representatives and an attorney representing the City of Tcaignont. CRS has made written proposals to the City so that it could satisfy any ppaaih1e conflicts. Although CRS has received no written response from either. the City or the Reservoir Company, we feel it 1:rpm-tart that the Board is informed of the follawing: .1. Both before and after construction of Bay Shores, CRS will take whatever neasaures necessary to insure that silt and storm water run-off do not pollute the reservoir. 2. CRS will create covenants that provide the Reservoir Campmlywith sufficient rights of . way to maintain its shoreline; and provide for measures necessary to control soil erosion, seepage. Tne 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 Company has no additional liability for injury to person or property damage for nom-permitted use of Reservoir Property or facilities, or for surface or grocmd water damage caused by fhicth -inn in the water level of the Reservoir. - 4. There will be no open space within the P.U.D. adjacent to the Reservoir shore ine. • 870123 Weld Cotmty Casnissioners Page 2. January 26, 1987 5. As previously requested, we will work with the Reservoir Conpany so that the realigrnaent of W 2 26 will not tanpt trespassing. 6. Work in cooperation with the owners of the recreation rights (surface rights) _ On January 26, 1987, CRS was infonaed through a third party that the City of loncgnont filed "A Plan of Chang " for Jwulder, Weld and Morgan Counties along with a Ooridt etional Storage Rights" in Weld County, for the enlargement of Union Reservoir. The above;proposal will not infringe at the rights of Union Reservoir or the City of Iceng ont. Sincerely, CRS mv-mTrietalsINC. ICim t3a fins Ic/kel • 870123 • HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SURE 450 OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES 8.PHILLIPS,P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF000NSEL - - -- _ (ol azs,ecn V~ January 27, 1987 ljJAN2s'987 HAND DELIVERY' Lj Board of County Commissioners Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P.D.D. - Oligarchy Ditch Company Dear Commissioners: I am writing this letter as the attorney for 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 whetthe Ditch -Company now has asked fret to-leave the 870123 Board of County Commissioners January 27, 1987 Page Three ditch in place, unlined, with insurance protection against future liability. Sincerely, dttr War 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 . E170123 HARVEY W. CTJRTIS . ATTORNEY AT LAW • MARKET CENTER BUILDING.SUITE 450 STAR L WARING.HAYES&PHILLIPS.P.C.. 1350"SEVENTEENTH STREET OF COUNSEL DENVER.COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-3631 December 17, 1986 Neil E. 'Piller, Esq. Schey & Schey P._0. 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.K. Farms and Mr . Hamm will withdraw their objections to the Bay Shores P.U.D. proposal. 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 we- 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 • Neil E. Pinery-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 been 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, `H ary W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Rod Allison Lee D. 'Morrison, Esq. Kim Collins, Vice President, CR5 Investments, Inc. • 970123 ciA HARVEY w.CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW • MARKET CENTER BUILDING.SUITE 450 STAR . - 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET :. OF COUNSEL DENVER,COLORADO 80262.. . HAYES BPHILl.IP3.P.C.. OF COLINSEL . December 31, 1986 Neil E. Piller , Esq- Schey & schey„ P.C. P.O. Box 267 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Re: Bayshores 2.13.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 agreementstwhich h we discussed at our meeting of December 4, I await which my letter of December 17, 198E requested. Again, 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, arve W. Curtis swC bm cc: Rod Allison Lee D. Morrison, Esq. Kim Collins, Vice President, CRS Investments, Inc. 870123 fie SCHEY &WHEY, P.C. . ATrOAPeys AT LAW -mamma saar T,o 7o0D0K Mflip.sa 1wnCCAAvvoauc DONALD IL ALSPAUGH '.rimra� rN41A6�YONG - A0.10X]a JAwuu.?t ON January. 5 ,, I9$7 `n"ranr.coaADa—w JACOBS-W ITam-ean - meiwu,aopecan. .. Mr. Harvey Curtis Attorney at Law 1350 17th -Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Bay Shores - Oligarchy Dear Harvey: r+ CO Thank you for your patience in ..awaiting information from me. Your letter of December 17 . 1986, was-not received by me until. December 22 , and by that time , I was involved in a crush t� Qg of year end real estate transactions which - were conflicting with 6 scheduled vacation time. Also, I was waiting to hear' from the ct .. Oligarchy engineer with respect to his anticipated fees which I now have.El ''c'7'E O The information on the fees and costs is as follows: W �4 A. The insurance premiums currently. run $960-00 per R 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.'3 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 share 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; provi-sion 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 & 'SCHEY, P.C. By_ t Neil E. Piller NEP-lm 870123 2 illi AP I:. MASTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF LONGMONT AND THE OLIGARCHY IRRIGATION AND DITCH CO. t THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day ll of , 1984 , between the City of Longmont i ("CityK),, and The Oligarchy Irrigation and Ditch Co., ('The C Oligarchy" ) ; I i wiTNESSETH: That, I 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 pitch 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 within the informal agreement that each has acknowledged; and, t . WHEREAS, the increasing Conversion of farm lands into r 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; i NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following r mutual covenants, promises, and conditions, the parties agree as follows: 1 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 i is found within the boundaries of the City as those boundaries k are now defined or may hereafter be modified by future annexations. i 2. Maintenance - Repairs - Capital Improvements. The } City agrees to maintain The Oligarchy Ditch within the City I boundaries performing such work as may reasonably be necessary to f maintain an unimpeded flow of water and to preserve the Ditch in a proper operating condition. To that end, the City shall be t responsible for inspecting and cleaning the Ditch within the City I boundaries and performing routine repairs not involving capital 3,- improvements or capital repairs, except as provided below, at i 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 bitch 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. I I The City obligation to•xepair and maintain The Ditch a within the City boundaries shell in+rlude the obligation to v perform capital improvements and repairs, on The Ditch if the need ' ps for such capital improvements and repairs is created by the flow IN., `, of excess storm water from adjacent property into the ditch. Any m capital improvements or repairs that are not related to the flow i 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 CA 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. • 3. Future Developments of Land Within the City. The re\ parties expressly understand and agree that future land 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 eme the center of the Ditch for access to maintain the Ditch. Any k. future developments must be desigged to preserve this access on both sides of the Ditch. f . B. Flow Capacity w 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.,':runless a lesser flow would provide such accommodation and is mutually agreed to by . the v 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 des 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 prey.ent the dispharge_ of any water into The _ Ditch. Said control gates may be ;ggulated 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. - a- 870123 wwiL.vr'lr.�trw'u ..w... I•IMWMIY K w-ti.�- +[ifv�OawriTam1Y:+tza.V-ram-� .. _. I,. ♦ • • 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 (days. In planning for future land developments, thieCity is considering approval of the construction of bike paths and green ways adjacent to The Oligarchy Ditch. The 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 { ' r 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 additicnal 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, save 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 tLe 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 j` Governmental Immunity Act now existing or as may be hereafter amended. D. Limitation on Indemnification. The parties expressly understand and agree ;Fiat the ofigation 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 injurie or 'damages which _are attributable 'to any acts or omissions --*f employees , -agents or authorized representatives of The Oligarchy with respect to their continuing obligations under thiaAgreement. c . E. Liability Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, the Oligarchy shall purchase and maintain at its own is coat and expense, a liability insuq�ance policy with policy limits of $1 ,000,000.00, with ' a $2,500.00 per loss deductible provision. 870123 (Ile N 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 o't$1 ,000,000.00 sn I- up to a maximum of $5,000,000.00 policy limits. 5. Attorney's Fees. The parties to this Agreement agree to share equally and to pay their respective share of fees to Schey a Schey, P.C. charged for the actual drafting of this Agreement and any revisions to it. r ti 6. Modification. This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of the parties. 7. Effect. Upon execution of this Agreement, this Agreement shall become binding upon the heirs and successors of the parties. Executed on the day and date written above. THE OLIGARCHY IRRIGATION THE CITY OF LONGMONT, a DITCH CO., INC. Municipal Corporation By: By: r Director Mayor Attest: Director • Director Director of Finance 870123 -a- a iARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW • MARKET CENTER BWLDIN4.SUITE 460 STAR L UNSEl-4 - : 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF P1IIWP - DENVER COLORADO 80202 .i1AYES.S.PHILLp$..P.C.. . OR:COUNSEI ': (303)8258631 January 16, 1987!; Neil Pi"ller . Bs 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 Di letter.Company along propose lines - outlined by your January 5, 19 87accomplishing this by a letter agreement and sthen rcoming tIo ahe final written agreement after the reo ningtia apweproved. not hthe rezoning for some reason is not app 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 fin your January 5 , 1987 letter at the present premium price $960 .00 per year for the $500,000 basic coverage and a $1,000,000 umbrella. ts , Inc. will Ditch any CRS Inv Them homeowners association to be e formed for the y this policy. the Bayent Shores P.U.D. would successor as well as a enptesonitiey. However ,t that if note on the first page of the final plat will provide to for some reason the homeowners associathat tion centaswedlt bexist or liability b to of thehe prow pro rata basis as proposed by yoret r. the h lot strictis on a give the Oligarchy Ditch the if your letter. This restriction will right to enforce the liens against the lots for any unpaid premiums. 2. CRS Investments, Inc. agrees to reimburse the Ditch cRS Investments, Inc. for a relocated Oligarchy Ditch. Company's cost for the engineering review of drawings hereafter1987 prepared by your January 5t. The maximum amount of $1000, ,as stated in ; ' letter, would be thecap -on- - CRS' "Investments,, Inc. 's payment of those fees. ' 870123 2111, pip. 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 nt oin relation • -- rto this matter which eS2 SOentlycin th the am untuof $3,1300 . There -would he ,a cap .of 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 tin ntwidth hg n0 each achtside wof tthe centerline of the relocated ditch, Your letter of January 5, 1987 indicated that ath you had e Di h Company would probably not agree to a reverter, but that not discussed this with it. My suggestion that the ditch ogmainfain, rmowegrass,based and provide weed control for someone thatwill strip to grounain, 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 relocationnd ng thelaffected area. Sch accomplished at the relocaation development protection for the ditch so that water construction on willl leave Bay will include a 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 suits bmit the plans to the Oligarchy Ditch royal ofmpany for the specificata review by ions engineer of the ,plans and for apP prior to construction. The expense cf 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. .D D. rezoning proposal. 870123 a 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 condition f th rezoning and will be :completed upon approval ng. Please return both originals to me for execution by CBS. I will thereafter return one of the originals to you. Sincerely, tr e 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 w,.f • �. 4 SCHEY& SCHEY, P.C. . AZSORNEYS AT LAW --fit Mr MEOW=D.SCiCY.]M. : TIC Maga nn[DR,C Nat.L MUIR : SAtno!uDAAmax DONA/A'M.MAAUGiI. JAMES u.MUM - _ ,.OMca on aowaDO fuu.ea January 21 , 1987 Tnmannoa7*u ,aTKaam.Q.., ucssxMCYcw�,Kn Mr. Harvey W. Curtis Attorney at Law 1350 17th Street, Suite 450 Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Bay Shores - oligarchy and JCK Aareemeats Dear Harvey: ti I have reviewed the letters you sent to me dated January . m �' 16 , 1987 , concerning proposed agreements with Tice Oligarchy- Ditch • c: and JCK Farms. I have torwarded these documents to my clients for cv j4review. The Ditch Company Board of Directors will have to meet before any action can be taken on the proposal , but the Chairman ¢ o< has been alerted to this. wo ? From my review ot your letter agreement, I do tind some • E9 areas of deficiency in the language which you have proposed_ LJ c Paragraph one does not clearly reflect a continuing liability for ✓ the insurance premiums. I think language should also be included cc 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 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 tram time to time, and it they reasonably determine the coverage to be inadequate, they can notify the Homeowners ot 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 tor enforcing the covenant against any who do not pay.• 870123 • r . Paragraph tive is- tne otner 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 ot 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 surfer 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 or zone and residential development ot 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 By: a- Nell E. Filler NEP:lm cc: George Adam Richard Hamm • Leroy Rider Keith' Schuette Weld County Planning 870123 2 ' • AARVEX W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING.SUITE 450 STAR L-WARING. - 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF COUNSEL DENVER.COLORADO 80202 HAYE$S.PHILl1PS.P.C.,OF COUNSEL (303)825-6831 January 23, 1987 Neil Piller , Esq. Schey & 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 `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. 870123 Neil Piller, Esq, January 23, 1987 Page Two Your January 21, 1987 letter did not state whether you had heard back from JCK 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 S SCHEY& SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYSAT LAW at Mrr 1M[000K o.8C7wv a. - Tit T OMMIIE MOWING. . NE¢I.MIX! - '1M SI.OIIIOA AYWV[ DONALD N.AIAAVGN < - SUITE Pa ?MUM A WONG LO.SOS:fn JAMaHMUSON January 26 , 1987 -. UmAtONLCDWRAUO MMLm1 yIturpHa.naanStnr:. 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 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: 2D Neil E. Piller NEp:im, cc: The Oligarchy Board of Directors 87012,3 SATE ' EXHIBIT I OF COLORADO Amherst O.Lamm,Go•nnnr Department W Reit*tore ARendt, Weemeton E.Webb,Executive Director COMMISSIONERS: THE PUBLIC lJT1UTIES COMMISSION ! Ronald L Lehr,Chairman Administration 1303)!43116 - Vap' Edythe s Miller TramoOo+tlan:hoA 644126t - Andra Schmidt fixed ut4NM'(101)* M 64-3111 DWI U [1 ry' 2: Camel 1]03)546.3166 -.. 11501OCAN SIRED limy A Callow.)V.. DENVER,COLORADO 60303 December 17, 1986 Kr. Kim Collins CRS Investments, Inc. 1333 W. 120th Ave. Suite 308 Denver, CO 80234 Dear Nr. Collins: Re: On site meeting I 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, Jack Baler Transportation Engineer (303) 866-4286 1533B:JHB:rd 870123' -- C S INVESTMENTS IA. 1333 WEST 120Th AVENUL EXHIBIT 7 SUITE sob: DEAR,COLORADO Soars (da{)4524955 January 26., 1987 Weld County ctnnissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Railroad Grade Crossings - 1 Mile North Hwy. #119 S 31 Dear Camdesioners: CRS Investments Inc. (CRS) has tried in good faith to successfully negotiate a reasonable agreement with the Great Western Railway (GM). CRS has agreed to and will continue its efforts to minimize any negative effect on adjoining lard uses. 1. CRS will }wild 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 cadbined with the it.R. easement Arid leave an average distance of 125 feet from trackage to the back of the hate. 3. Locating Parks and Open Space when possible, adjacent to R.R. easement. 4. Making a limp sum payment ($12,500) to GU 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, banning and other landscaping techniques as additional buffer between R.R. easement and residential lots. 6. 'lb maximize line of sight at R.R. crossing by restricting fencing, landscaping and increasing set backs where applicthlP,. GRR has responded to the above offers with a demand of $20,000 cash prior to a change of zone and with a $10,000 reftni to CRS if the _ 2 870123 • Weld County Conmissioners ' Page 2. January 26, 1987 change of zone is denied. L1tS' offer is reasonable and generous and1 e believe that the above comnitrnnt should satisfy the concerns of the County Oaanissioners. Respectfully, CRS INVESMINTS INC. Kim Collins • KC/kel • 870123 EXHIBIT 9 January 26, 1987 CRS Investments, Inc. 1333 West 120th Avenue, Suite 308 Denver, Colorado 80234 Attention: - Mr. Kim Collins, vice:President Re: • Bay Shores Y.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 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 the Change of Zone ("COZ") Slmtmittal for Bay Shores Planned Unit Development ("P.U.D.") (Case Number Z-430:86:5) by the weld County Ca(miesioners ("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 tends 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, .canpleting or producing (herein collectively referred to as "operations") the mineral estate. MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. 570123 Su"c 2150 • 1800 BROADWAY • Dram.COLORADO 80202.4970 • (303) 861-9183 • ratter, Agssnnt 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 com uu 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 "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 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'Agreanent January 26, 1987 Page 3 8. CRS will pay to the Operator and Working Interest Owners the sun 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 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 became 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, bearing or otherwise to enlarge the financial obligation of Operator's operations, subject to the surface use requirement of Paragraph 7 and 8 of the Mardi 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 fran cvnlucting 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, prorate 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 Mardi 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 thmsei contained in this Letter Agreement, the provisions of this Letter Agreement .rill control. 870123 , • • Letter Agreement January 26, 1987 Page 4 14. This Letter Agreenent 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 & telttSHON OIL INC. • James A. Brown • Agee a Attorney-in-Pact for W. B. Muaey,.Mershon, Inc. and Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. • ACCEPTED AND AC,REm TO THIS 7 47- day of c`r,-&tc.. &.,s y , 1987. CRS INVESYt*2lrs, INC. Rim , Voa es t3701,23 RXflISIt 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" . W I T N E S S E T 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 o e • 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 in 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 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 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 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. 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 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 Coanty • 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 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.D.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 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 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 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. C. 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 ,Saw, agrees to seek 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.O.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 of f-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 each such plat. 4 870123 •, • 11. The addresses of the parties are as follows: Weld County Board of County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street F.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, 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 Byz 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 • 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 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 6,200 01.00 06.200.00 Base Course - 14" CL 6 S.Y. 6,200 66.00 637,200_00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.X. 6,200 $5.00 631.000.00 SUBTOTAL 680.600.00 + WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - ST HWY 119 NORTH TO SOUTH P.L. Tvo 12' lanes plus 250' x 12' lest turn lane at SH 119 intersection. Asphalt overlay on existing gravel roadbaae with compaction. Clear and Grub 5.Y. 1.000 51.00 01.000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 7,300 61.00 67,300.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 1,000 55.00 05,000.00 Asphalt - 2" Grade E S.Y. 7,300 65.00 036.500.00 ' SUBTOTAL . 049,800.00 • 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. 9,00O 50.50 04,500.00 Grading Excav and Fill C.Y. 3,500 02.00 07,000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 7,200 01.00' 57,200.00 Ease 'course "- 10" CL 6 S.Y. 7.200 03.00 021.600.00 Asphalt - 3" I Grads E S.Y. 7,200 ' , 65.00 036.000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 2.700 08.00 021,600.00 SUBTOTAL 097,900.00 • RAILROAD CROSSING L.S. 1 080.000.00 080,000.00 SUBTOTAL 680,000.00 • EXHIBIT NO.. 1 TO ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (OFF-SITE) Page 1 of 5 -. .__..- • 870123 p • • BAY SHORES P.U..D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO . PHASE II UNIT ITER ' UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION • • WELD COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 RAILROAD NORTH TO WCR 26 Four 12' lanes with concrete curb and gutter. Drainage ditches to ba eliminated. Clear and Grub S.Y. 8,000 00.50 64.000.00 Grading Excav and Fill C.Y. 3.000 82.00 *6.000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 6,400 *1.00 66.400.00 Baas Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 6.400 83.00 619,200.00 Asphalt - 3m Grads E 3.Y. 6.400 55.00 832.000.00 Curb and Gutter • - L.P. 2,400 58.00 819.200.00 SUBTOTAL- 686,800.00 • 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- 63,350_00 Grading Excav and Fill C.Y. 2,350 32.00 64.700'.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 5,350' 51.00 65.350.00 • Base Course :- 10" CL 6 S.Y. 5,350 53.00 616,050.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. '- 5.350 05.00 026.750.00 Curb 'and Gutter L.F. 2,000 *8.00 *16.000.00 SUBTOTAL 672,200.00 Page 2 of 5 870123 BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE III • UNIT ITEH UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION • • 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 *0.50 *7,400.00 Grading Excav and Fill C.Y. 5.150 92.00 *10,300.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 11,750 91.00 *11,750.00 Beat Course 10" CL 6 S.Y. 11,750 *3_O0 *35,250.00 Asphalt 3" Grade E S.Y. 11,750 *5.00 858,750.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 4.400 *8.00 935,200.00 SUBTOTAL Z 9158,650.00 • Page 3 of 5 870123 S HAY SHORES P.U.D. " 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PHASE IV UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION -••••, •A • 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 $0.50 69.000.00 Grading .Excav' and Fill C.Y. 6.500 32.00 613,000.00 Subgrada Preparation S.Y. 14,400 61.00 014,400.00 Base Course 10" CL 6 S.Y. 14.400 93.00 643.200.00 Asphalt - 3" Grade E S.Y. 14,400 65.00 672,000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 5.400 68.00 043.200.00 SUBTOTAL- 5194,800.00 • • Page 4 of 5 870123 - - BAY SHORES P.U.D. 09-Jan-87 WELD COUNTY. COLORADO PHASE V IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED DEPENDENT UPON DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC UNIT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE EXTENSION I. COUNTY ROAD 3 1/2 - ST HWY 119 NORTH - WIDEN TO FOUR LANES Pour 12' lanes plus 250' x 12' left turn lane at SH 319 intersection. Remove overlay, eliminate ditches, add concrete curb and gutter. Clear and.Grub S.Y. 10,000 *0.50 *5,000.00 Grading - Excav and Fill C.Y. 7,000 *2.00 *14.000.00 Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 14,000 *1.00 *14,000.00 Base Course - 10" CL 6 S.Y. 14,000 '*3.00 ' *42,000.00 Asphalt .- 3" Grade E S.Y. 14,000 *5.00 *70,000.00 Curb and Gutter L.F. 5,100 sa.bo *40,800.00 SUBTOTAL *185,800.00 • • • • c� r • Page 5 of 5 87©12,3 =r„ .. - - 2 } T41 rill 111111111 i Jbd ' }I11U11; Iitst •II i• '#t1$ 4t li ii it I. i 'AA 1r z_ if r r rt j s rte-v it tFfPsaflt 4Fr rf 6Il ,r t ° a• rtr � \. • -£ xo1w- ----=.p { • i13 iiiFiaitz itF t t = I c t \ • _{ • E! jig cftlttlt t ti 1.I t t'iill �t! . \ \\ r ' t =I i ,, ' It1F1 • I11 sr 1FcFrFfa {r \ \ -. •z \ - x ;' II IIE F F fr \ \ 'i \ i MEN = F liI II: F III \t tr : a sit, t � t iii till II ,{t ' iqijr:iipFp1 fvh Sit 1. ii !ill=Ef1yls s} fc \ P + lilt Ettr -ifs fIj;faith !'Jt I'.dI I1 . . _ ' si It ' ll 1 F.. JI-41 t tt1[a $,c aF t � t t ; fat as o \ _ p it 2 I . I tl j E 1 11 Its a =j � �� a �w,,.-• in 1 is a tti t ;t ;t Fcc �`\ in 2 ti tit !i I cF F : FF / as \ `; ' \ \,*Ir.-- ,. I• a :Map �� -- lr ,: \\ s i2 ±;l � C � ,\ F_ ! ! ! ! \ ' _I O 6 6 6 6. r 6 2.• n if 11 . 1 M p w4 rw ::::,..-.4 53:4-4v 1 \ .. •wwP[ - ru I:; i e[ Es a E[6g :grit: * - as n 0. aaa•a+- .I w • s s s �u rP rP raga -�wu•ue m K s \. \! I 4 "\ . ^E» m L \ \ 9 i L SM N v y le. p Mf: Z " to ti i 704« @ v if Inc 15; M E' \ t S o s z a o P M y j I I . .41 � Z k Sails::�..! \ r III�I g , e F" j ® im if rnrn-c i ; I' m is? s;i 4 ro EXM1II1T 19 WILLIAM H. SOUTHARI3 At7ORNty AT LAW PA: SOX 441 SW/IMt NATIONAL.SANK WILDRIO - ORCCLC.Y. COLO. 10{32 OR[IL[Yr COLORADO (1021 3112-12S2 November 3, 1986 p �1a'v ;,f tr j Mr. Keith A. Schuett iA_ 1986 Current Planner Department of Planning Services 915 - 10th St; 41>tYorof Greeley, CO 80631 Italk' 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 150O 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. 870 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, 7 i,1; �.� % l William H. Southard WHS:dl 870123 • C S INVESTMENTS 14. EXHIBIT 13 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE _ SURE 308 DENVER,COLORADO 80234 130'3)4624856' January 26, 1987 Weld Cotinty Camnniss3:cner8 916 10th StL.x Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Onaissioners: As the Board is aware, the City of Langmmnt has purchased a contro11ing interest in the thion Reservoir CCmpany. CRS Investments Inc. (CRS) has met with city representatives and an attorney representing the City of Icrigniont. CRS has made written proposals to the City so that it could satisfy any possible conflicts. Although CRS has received no written maspiatise frail either the City or the Reservoir Oattaany, 1 feel it important that the Board is informed of the following: 1. Both before and after construction of Bay Shores, CRS will take sgtatever 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 puny with sufficient rights of way to maintain its t rel inn; and pruv'ide for reastires necessary to control soil erosien, seepage. The covenants will also provide that lot otalers adjoining the Reservoir will fence between their homes to help control pnscible trespassing. 3. CRS will create covenants that the Reservoir Canpany has no additional liability for injury to person or property damage for sort-permitted use of Reservoir property or far`il ities, or for surface or grotind water damage caused by fluctuation in the inter level of the Reservoir. 4. There will be no open space within the P.U.D. adjacent to the Reservoir shoreline. - . 870123 • • Weld Qotanty Oatmissioners Page 2. January 26, 1987 5. As previously requested, we will work with the Reservoir Company so that the realignment of SCR 26 will not t-stg:t trespassing. 6. Work in cooperation with the owners of the recreation rights (surface rights) . On January 26, 1987, CFS was informed through a third party that the City of Longmont filed "A Plan of Exchange" for pralldPr, Weld and :Zorgan Ca nties along with a "Conditional Storage Rights" in Weld County, for the enlAm nt of Union Reservoir. The above proposal will not infringe on the rights of Union Reservoir or the City of Longmont. Sincerely, CMS INVc"TNIE TTS 3s1C. $im Collins: IC/kel 870123 • HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L WAKING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF COUN$El 1360 SEVENTEENTN.STREET NAPES&PHIWPB.P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 60202 0/OOQNSLL 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, a987 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 CRS Investments, Inc. and Macey & Mershon Oil, Inc. , then Macey & Mershon Oil, 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 6th P.M. However, no such drilling or operation shall commence in the center of any quarter 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 d: Mershon,_ Inc. or their successors to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, County of Weld, 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, Har ey !W. Curtis HWC/bn cc: Scott McKinley Hand Delivered CRS Investments, Inc. 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 45O STAR L.WAKING, 1360 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF COUNSEL DENVER.COLORADO 80202 �. . ;�a f r ;.- - � HAYES Q PHIWPS.P.C., _., 'ITC OF COUNSEL (303)826-0831 g , ° ,y T' January 27, 1987 JM2 8}gg] bt; rs. HAND DELIVERY Board of County Commissioners • Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shorts 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 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 John McCarty - Hand Delivered 870123 Kim Collins - Hand Delivered Exi,osr 7 O • i / . HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING SUITE 450 STAR L.:WARINQ 7 -. 1380 SEVENTEEtiTN STREET OF COUNSEL - DENVER.ca ORADO 80202 HAYESd�PNIWPS.P.C.. - OF COUNSEL (303)0254831 January 16, 1987 Neil Filler, Esq. Schey &- Schey, - P.C. P.O. Box 267 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Re: Bay Shores - 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.K. 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 C.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 v and Mr. Hamm agree` that they will withdraw their objections to' the Bay Shores P.U.D. rezoning proposal. 1 . 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. llama'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, Har y W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Rim Collins, CRS Investments, Inc_ Lee D. Morrison, Esq. , Weld County Attorney Keith Schuett, Weld County Planning Department J.C.R. FARMS, LTD. Byc Richard Hamm CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. Sy: Kim Collins, Vice President 870123 Mir 11El4 gn^'?fT, ,,rte EEEV 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 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 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, Scott S. McKinley Larx3ma1 870123 /MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. - ,C:x,1,e/7 /� Suitt 2150 • 1600 Bnww+sr • Dvn[a. COLORADO 80202.4970 • (303) 861-9183 SCHEY&SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW THEODORE D.BCJIkti:JR THE► o WILING. NtlL G nu,G1 11►nomA AVENUE DONALD H.ALSPAVGH - 7i7R[/JM RIW►&NONf. - ,. : ►A.ROY ItL. ann LE Nfl$CN LONGMONT COLORADO asst January 26 , ]:987 TEuaNONLamT><.L5n : JACOR S.SCHEY(ILO-$3) SWIM OW*Oal 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 the relocation and lining. Therefore, they asked me to notify you of 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 or Directors • • JAN 27'1987 8'70123 Weld Co. Waaoiag cosissieB !-.9r' 7 A HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L WARIN6, . . MARKET CENTER BUILDING.SUITE 450 OF COUNSEL .1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES&PHILLIPS,P G., - DENVER.COLORADO 80202 -, .OF COUNSEL (3031825 Ee31 January 23, 1987 Neil Filler , Esq. schey6 Schey, P.C. P.O. Box. 267 Longmont, Colorado 80502-0267 Re; Bay Shores .P.U.A'. - 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 28 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., `1That would be a condition to rezoning' JAN 27 1987 870123 *Id Co.Nlan %Cauesia 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 H c/bm cc x Kim Collins Lee D. Morrison, Esq. Keith Schuett 870123 t �77 (2) • 4 SCHEY&•SCHEY, P.C. - ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7NEODODL D-SOtni1L - THE'BMW=WELDING NM L POLO 70 namiDA atom DONALD N.ALSPAUGN Sim?SW IHIWP S.WONG ►O,BOX ST JAWS N.MIAOW - _ LONGNONZ COLORADO fMao January 21 , 1987 TT}t7MOrat Ofu11NW MET1Oo-Op,Ap4/p Mr. Harvey W. Curtis Attorney at Law 1350 - 17th Street, Suite 450 Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Rai Shores - Oligarchy and JCK Agreement:; • Dear Harvey: '- I have reviewed the letters you sent to me dated January ca 16 , 1987 , concerning proposed agreements with The Oligarchy Ditch O4 and JCK Farms. I . have torwarded -these documents to my clients for ev ¢ review. The Ditch Company Board of Directors will have to meet it before any action can be taken on the proposal , but the Chairman Q Lit a has been alerted to this. O C3 �L From my review of your letter agreement, I do tind some • c=2 areas of deficiency in the language which you have proposed. Lil Paragraph one does not clearly reflect a continuing liability for U the insurance premiums. I think language should also be included - LU C indicating that the obligation to pay these insurance premiums is a covenant running with each lot since deed restrictions may 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 of 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 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 fees for enforcing the • covenant :lagainst any who do not pay. aE • 'tE • JAN 27`1987 870123 Wel®to. ?law**CO sill Paragraph Live is the other area ot 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 ot 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 ot 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 Co not want to have to surfer 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 tor the reasons stated in my letters of June 26, 1986, and September 8 , 1986 . Very truly yours , SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C-. BX:' a, 1 Neil E. Piller NEP:1w cc: George Adam Richard Hamm Leroy Rider Keith Schuett, Weld County Planning 2 870123 • Ps)' January 26, 1987 • !^ Weld County Colorado Department IA 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 within the surface lands which are the subject of this hearing. Therefore, by execution of a Letter Agreement between the parties, the 4 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. • q 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 Coianissioners meeting that all objections to the Change of Zone Submittal for Bay Shores P.U.D. are withdrawn. 1 Please advise if you have any questions regarding the above. I Very truly yours, & runRs OI IN . • Scott.S. McKinley tandman JAN 271987 MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. �� - Sucrc 2150 • 1600 BROAOWr • OrwvcR.COLORADO 80202-4970 i ))eigmippuasiniab C R S INVESTMENTS INC. 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE stint 308 DENVER.COLORADO 80234 (303}452-9955 January 20, 1987 Mr. John P. Ascher? The Great Western Railway Co. Taylor Avenue Strips P. O. Box 537 Loveland, Colorado 80539 Dear Pete: I wanted to follow up a telephone conversation that I had trrlay with Steve Boblak of Pat Broe's office. CPS is unable at this time to ac-rapt your offer of $20,000 cash and $10,000 to be reimbursed to CRS if CRS is unable to rezone the Bay Shorts 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. CtIS does continue at this writing to offer to C 7R, $12,500 based on ii-ems and:easemerits dearribed in air letter of November 10, 1986'payable` $5,000`cash downpaynent within ninety (90) days of rezone approval, the balance due within two (2) years, or went of Bay Shores, Phase I construction. We hope that GAM and Mr. Broe will reconsider the above offer., If you have any questions, please call me @ '457-3775_ Very truly yours, CRS INVE,SITCM'S INC_ Rim Collins • cc; Mr. Pat Broe lir..Steve Boblak Mr. lee Morrison Mr. Keith Schuett Mr. Drew Scheltinga ; Mr. Harvey Curtis Mr. John McCarty JAN 22'1987 870123 Weld Co. Plaouf E Cazoitraoo • .7.,,.... flittir mEmoRAnDum 1 Keith e T, Planning D Depapa rtment Dee Jan 2, 1987 COLORADO From Drew L. Schel tinge, County Engineer wbi 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 A u Longmont, CO 80501 a fq ) v/ Planning Referral File: Bay Shores PUD 1 JAN 2 31987 870123 L' ' waif; Co. waet"w i.umetivao Cilyi/lCr ri/ly Del zn'neirt DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES fir ( �LiThst . - PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4100 91510th STREET I GREELEY,COLORADO80631 �' rg 1: 9 CASE NUMBER USE-777:87:1 COLORADO January 12, 1987 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Jack Dials for a Use by Special Review for an 800 head dairy operation. The parcel of,land is described as part of the SEI of Section 16, T611,- R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld. County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which "this application has been submitted is north of State Highway 392 and vest 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 matter. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. I. 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 ve 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 reccarnendation is under .consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: it ` /144 4 J Agency: Date: !-a a7 ' �L-7trTzL�aa��r i JAW 22z 1 i 4406 C'. �}-"'" 1'ryr1114 810123 4 it 64 Cif E ORRn® �, ,.., 1 .II Keith Schuett To Planning Department ti3ie ' January 21,1987 a COLORADO Porn Donald R. Carroll , Administrative Manager - Engineering Dept. Subject; Jack Dinis - 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 StateHiahway 392. I Si , IAJAN �,1981 DLC/bf la iSl. 870123 SCHEY & SC)iLEY, Y.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW manna P-scent fA THE,flitnE WILPWC NER E r11J.G l�f W1®A AVENGE DONALD H.AISPAUGIi - SVRE R7M PHILUPxWONG CafO%'141 5AM6'.M.NfSCN - wnmMTCOW&4PO IYaf t7 January 21 . 1987 wsnW4Leermam JAOOPS aaar(Math eazrq:(With l* Mr. Harvey W. Curtis Attorney : at Law 1350 17th Street, Suite 450 Denver, Colorado 80202 ,Res .Bay Shores Oligarchy and JCK Agreements Dear Harvey: I have reviewed the letters you sent to me dated Janu-ry 16, 1987, concerning proposed agreements -with The Oligarchy Ditch and JCK Farms. I have forwarded these documents to my clients fog review. The Ditch Company Board of Directors will have to meet betore any action can be taken on the proposal , but the Chairman ' has been alerted to this.• From my review ot your letter agreement, I do Lind some areas of deficiency in the language which you have proposed. Paragraph one does not clearly reflect a continuing liability for 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 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 tram time to time, and it they reasonably determine the coverage to be inadequate, they can notify the Homeowne:.s ot 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 rig,ht , to :recover costs and.- attorney's fee's for enforcing the covenant against any who do not pay: JAIL 22.1987 • • 870123 Weld se. Plaeaiog Cmissiee • Paragraph Live is the other area ot 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 feet on either side ot 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 ot 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 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 change ot zone and residential development' ot 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. By: l �c�' . P Neil E. Piller NEP:lm cc: George Adam Richard Hamm eroy Rider Keith Schuett , Weld County Planning. , 870123 2 �`rJ rg-87 L HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L WARING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES S.PHILUPS.P.c.. DENVER,COLORADO 60202 OF COUNSEL (.03)826.8631 January_ 16, -1987 Neil Piller,_Esg. Schey 5 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 if 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 capon CRS Investments-, Inc. 's pa those fees. JAN 221987 870123 Weld Co. Planning CBs 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 $3,000. 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 is 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 j 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, Gf a 7Harv7 W. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Kim Collins, CRS Investments, Inc. Lee D. Morrison, Esq. , Weld County Attorney Yxeith ,Schuette Weld County Planning Department OLIGARCHY Ditch Company By: CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. By: Kim Collins, Vice President 870123 • NC McCARTY ENGINEERING v CONSULTANTS, I . 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 is 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 bt 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• LONGMONT.CO. 80501 9 3 87012 772-7755/44 -4373 CC77// //441177 • r€& ecd I-la—fl • • 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. f " f McCarty,- P.R..Jphn A. Tl Y P.E . JAM/am cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments. Inc. Harvey Curtis Keith Schuett 870123 q •i 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. i 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 In:: agrees with Mr. Collins that the requested continuance is to the interest of both parties. Please advise the undersigned if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. { Very truly yours, : MAC & MER EON 0 L INC. iti Scott S. McKinley Landman ? cc: Mr. Kim Collins MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. Received Surly 2150 • 1600 Bnowuwwr • Dewrcrt. CoLo•wno 80202.4970 • (303) 86t-9183 870123 HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAWNAM .. MARKET CENTER BUILDINGIT'SUE 450 STAR L .. 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF.COUNSEL. HAYES&PHILLIPS,P.C.. - DENVER,COLORADO.80202 OF COUNSEL \_ (303)825-8831 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, arve W. Curtis HWC bm cc: emcee D. orr r __ ^D kle0b` Lee D. Morrison, Esq. `(mil''—�'(J u �)._/ Kim Collins, Mice President, . CRS Investments, Inc. B1 870123 • P' HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW MARKET CENTER BUILDING.SUITE 450 STAR L-WAKING. 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET OF COUNSEL - HAYES&PHILLIPS.P.C.. . DENVER.COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL (303)825-8831 c y r i r s Id�s - �• • ....:__December 31, 1986 .-y JAN 512£% c - M,r1 RNE\ r _ _ 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, a ItgP EE arve w. Curti JJANs BwC/bm di lb.Plaumlai G is 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 • g 870123 OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY PHONE(303)3564000 EXT,4391 I P.O.BOXY948 GREELEY,COLORADO 60632 O 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 o€ 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, 77 C 7/7 r771'611-1.-^- 2$ D rison istant County Attorney LDM•rm xc: Chuck Cunliffe, Director Planning 'Departirent e ..198b r ts.ttgrOlt 870123 C R S INVESTMENTS INC. .1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER.COLORADO 80234 (303)452.9055 Deceaber' 22, 1986 Mr, Pete Ascher The Great Western Railway (b. Taylor Avenue Shops P. 0. Bat 537 loveland, Colorado 80539 Dealt' Pete: We have asked The Public Utilities Commission to oonfi n their preliminary iitprovellents recannendation on the grade crossing at flit 31 and Great Western Railroad. (attached) . C2S believes air 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 disc-usq the above, please feel free to call 457-3775 and we will make ourselves available. Sincerely, cis nimslmEnrs n]C. Rim co1l1ns cc: Harvey Curtis, Egg. Drew L.' Scheltinga John McCarty Keith Schoch/ Lee Mbrrint 2 ; 1986 L 870123 Weld Co. Vlamung uamaissiou . • STATE OF COLORADO Richard D.Lamm,Governor Department of Regulatory Agencies ;1 Wellington E.Webb,Executive Director COMMISSIONERS- - THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION - Ronald L Lehr,Chairman EdYthAdministration 003)3643756 iller Ands S. Transportation 003:466.4283 Ands Schmidt Fixed Utilities 003)E66.3131 OFFICEfiVEL 2 Executive Secretary Counsel(303) MI 366-3733 1580.LOGSTREE7 HanyA.Gilligan.Jr. DENVER.COLORADO 3020] 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, • Jack Baler Transportation Engineer (303) 866-4286 15338:JHB:nj 870123 ts l .i i 1 _ • Li s 2IS N. IE 11a i ) Is�l' I11/4 ; 1 1 � 1 I e\ • 1 \ :. • 1 61 _ try N 3a' \ wV .'_ 2 it_ \ I1 11 t ( ia‘1 1 \- ' ' -I ! _ ..ii0 . t I I. 1• '• II� ig a .1;1,14 i, i j, I Ili !I;; \ \ 1 1111;111jlinii tji . i. t ! 1; 1 ! 'l1 .�1 \ \l 1! k li,,1j,;1 i"i rill ft ill tilt ` �1 \y 1 _ ] 1 i!y)1•s�1' 1j1 1 ti ��,1 .t 1 i'1;� � I1i1'i'i Ills; iii1f �1)..,, V \ it iiiiiiii;iit 1 Ii131 '. '1 a' I ;i \ '1t=1. 1i = 1 'II i . I_ • ti1 1t E:�� i i�rlilT. i , 1 j}r11tt .1 '1 a1 - _ ii � iii i li 1 ;i i ' i 11�1 51 != t1_ � is \\ cif Pill s_'0 n= i. iiiiiit;111 i; 4___—___ 1 t . l ai 1 = I. ;ti. unit,) i111e Lu� — _ .` w.w.0 4 iii; .1 J' 1 4.1;11=1 .' �u,+�'1 1=• �I ' yr} t it 1 'Ntttil '11 t 1i _�,tilt `3i;it1. :•1h,t1111111i III .} i'__�-___! ti ; i iii i . . , , Frill J111JIL 111i 1� 1 13) 870123 . • C It S INVESTMENTS 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. Booc 537 Itsveland, Colorado 80539 Re: Bay Shores - 280 Acres, Weld County Dear Pete: I tried to contact you today by phone and was infoiJhd 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 air 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.,31/2 w7P.U.C. and Weld Governing Agencies. 2. Granting all the necessary easeTnents for the proposed development adjoining GPR right of way, including but not limited to, gas, telephone, water, sewer, stone water, cable, fiber optic, surface crossing necessary to develop the said property into residential dwelling sites_ 3. 11111 crrpensation for any possible loss of revenue by GR for residential zoning. 4. Full =pen-cation for any future maintenance of grade crossing (signal or surface) . 5. 1\211 ocnpensation for any additional insurance liability that cat 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 inlorovemeents to the 3/ PD. 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 iroved the crossing to the P.U.C. requirements. I know of no regulation, State, County, City, which mandates a developer to crupensate a railroad for possible loss revenue in a land zone change. CRS will gay the above $10,000.00 to GRR with $1,000 rash down- payment due on mutual execution of a definitive agreesrent 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 ccurer+ts to the above offer at your earliest convenience. Plpasn feel free to contact me at 457-3775. Sincerely, CRS INVESTMENTS 14C. Kim Collins hCJke1 cc: Mr_ John McCarty Harvey Curtis, Es .' Mr. Roger Seaton Mr. Keith Schuett, Weld County 870123 C It S INVESTMENTS INC. 1333 WEST 12OTH AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER,COLORADO 80;234 • (303)452-9956. December 10, 1986 Lee D. Morrison, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 915 Tenth Street P. O 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 October 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 ire at 457-3775_ Sincerely, CRS j INVESTMENTS INC. Kim Collins • IC/kel IIzclosures cc: Mr. John Mccarty Mr. RCeith Schuett Harvey, Curtis, Esq. 870123 fY, - r .—__.Rectaded at a clack Reception Na. Recorder- • -TINS DEED,%ladethis 29th dayof October l9 8.6 tctw<cn SUSAN RINGSBY PIETRZAK, a/k/a H Susan Jane Ringsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrz k, of the Countyof Pitkin andstatcof Y .t-. 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 WITNESSETH.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 propertytogether with improvements.ifany,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. • ma xxomsxxxxxmxi enbx TOCETHER 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,inracst.claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor.either in law or equity,of.in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditarnenu 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 himselL 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,sum-perfect-absolute and indefeasible estate ofinheritance.in law,infetsimple,and has good right.full power and lawful authority to grant.bargain.sell and convey thesame in manner and form as aforesaid,and that the same am free and clear from all former and other grants.bargains,sales,liens,tares.assessmgents, encumbrances and restrictions ofwftate.t kind or name soeveratcept 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 possessionof the grantee, his heirs and assigns,against all andensypersonorpersons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereat The singular nunnbershall include the phial, the plural the singular.and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the grantor has esecwed this deed on the date set forth above. ! / eta244-- • Ringsby Pie zak, aSk/a ' Susan Jane Ringsby:and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrzak • STATE OF COLORADO -City & county or Denver }" • The foregoing inswntent was acknowledged before me in the City and County of Denver St+4 of • Cobrado, bis 29thdayor October f9 86,by Susan Ringsby Pietrzak, a/k/a I Susan Jane Ringsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrzak. My commission expires - ,19 " -Witness my hand and official seal. Adder. `If in Denser,insert"City and - No-932A.Rot-7-84. wARRAM > i P DEED Retort Bradford Pubsni 64h (20 s.SlZ$W, h A•s.-tak*wood-CO a02ir- 31'23)4100 * 164 870123 I ' kF .• _• 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 870123 X • 1. 1986 taxes not yet due or payable until 1987. 2. Reservation, if any, of a right-of-way for railroad in width and ma7rner 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 } 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 I of the NW I of said land_ 5. A right-of-way over that portion of said land lying within County Roads 3} 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 in 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 Wald County Centennial Canter, 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, Color«o 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: Si, Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado BOARD OF COUNT! COMMISSIONERS WELT) COUNTY, COLORADO B": " MARY ANN exam's:XIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO TIE BOARD BY: Nary Reiff, Deputy DATED: December 1, 1986 PUBLISHED: December 4, 1986, in the Johnstown Breeze 870123 ,EXHIB:r /r I y2_ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE ', STATE OF COLORADO ) '° r COUNTY OF WELD ) fb, 4..i.,',4„_ I,Clyde Briggs,do solemnly swear that I ' = am publisher of The Johnstown Breeze: • ' ,,.1.04-..s.., that the same is a weekly newspaper • ,o,, b printed, in whole or in part, and published "'w' in the County of Weld, State of Colorado. 4'`:.z and has a general circulation therein; that 'r , said newspaper has been published '.- continuously and uninterruptedly in said 5,•- County of Weld for a period of more than s ;' fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the Is-4:...- first publication of the annexed legal notice P t or advertisement; that said newspaper has ` been admitted to the United States mails as 1., , ',H,� second-class matter under the provisions of { the Act of March 3, I879, or any iR'IP amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly ", c1/4)1*4% 11,14 s;l ' qualified for publishing legal notices and '. • "'t't' " 7 . advertisements within the meaning of the i ,, ' { 4 laws of the State of Colorado. Cuy, , f Nta That the annexed legal notice or advertise— y .3 'S' ,• yv=14:11i: - went was;-published'in the regular and Z ` _ entire issue of every number of said weekly >� r ; , c- ,_, newspaper for the period of 1 consecu- t ri. r ` f tive insertions: and that the first ' publication of said notice was Jn the issuc,sf x 't ` ' said newspaper I- tedgZ c.`;. A D..iba.. w '$'u'n , ,a n f ,:: and that the last publication of said notice z••.' t' '•, ? was in the issue of said newspaper dated ,-A.D. 19 v .o'`. In witness whereof I have hereunto set , • fix- my han4,th is...�.(a... day of -Pes ,,. ar •-� : �, ;# A.D. 1 G At , 3 �„ Subscribed and sworn to before me4. a - Notary Public in and for::the! y oC ' 1-14.11 W ,State of Coloradq,this 4 yrof,r 19rd Lt eee .f • MY fission Expires ' t:• �w,Dl1Tp9� } .n, 2 South:Pans6/Avenw ' ' i ,e', 1,,' ; r •, ien` , Mye Yo�lOex 870123 4. AFFJ1 S VIT OF PUBLIC 'ION atitilibitailt„ State of Colorado County of Boulder 1, J. R. Hofmann ,do solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY TIMES CALL is a daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the City of Longmont, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and which has general circulation therein and in parts of Boulder and Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously and uninterruptedly published for a period of more than six-mnnthe next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice of ��'��• advertisement, that said newspaper has been admitted to their United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions M of the Act of March 3, 1879,or any amendments thereof,and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado;that a copy of each number o£ i said newspaper, in which said notice of advertisement was P.,•:"...,:', to- r.1-:-.4; ., published, was transmitted by mail or carrier to each of the of subscribers of said newspaper, according to the accustomed mode of business in this office: .._ #\ , hf That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published x in the iegutir and entire edition o£ said daily newspaper once; ;. and that one publication of said notice was in the issue of said 13"-'1. i,,.. 1' newspaper dated December 22 19 86 . f4 011 'n • 4 \ �+ 5 A� era B d6i Tanager , -' w 'f r:frM:q' Subscribed and sworn tobefore me this 22nd day of Dece sex .� i ,19 86 • / ' 0 ^otary Public 00441. ,C , 717 4th AveiiUJ g 29. 50 �Ii�tc� ' Wt�nont- a.�.l�T, kblo4A0 8�60I 870123 D G; ,.\\ ' r fr� `V/L/.. ,.• JAN 21987 • ! 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. f • '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, MA fi 01( 0 I, INC. Scott S. McKinley ; Landman cc: Mr. Kim Collins MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. /-4-g7 SORE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER.COLORADO 80202-4970 • (303) 861-9163 • 870123 0 • HARVEY W. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT LAW STAR L WAKING, MARKET CENTER BUILDING,SUITE 450 OF COUNSEL 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET HAYES&PHIWPS.P.C., DENVER,COLORADO 80202 OF COUNSEL � L �` (303)8254831 1' tr q n 1 - -December 31.,_1986 JAN 51967 n cc: "--Y Art. RNE r C :.,-E 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, • arve w. Curtis HWC/bm cc: Kim 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 e e.. -� (�/ 870123 f Ar's/7 ' 1 C S INVESTMENTS IN*. 1333 WEST 120714 AVENUE SUITE 308 DENVER.COLORADO 80234 '- (303)4524965. Deceatber 10, 1986 Lee D. Morrison, Esq_ Assistant County Attorney 915 Tenth Street P. 0. Pox 1948 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Lee: Enclosed is a copy of the Warranty Deed from Susan Pietrzak to CRS Investments-Inc. CRS, as of October 29, 1986, is the fee simple owner of the Bay Stores P.U.D. property. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 457-3775. Sincerely, cRsy INVESSI�eiis INC. Kim Collins KC/kel Enclosures cc: Mr John McCarty; Mr. Keith Schuett Harvey. -Curtis, Esq. 870123 ,CXni$'T c �_� laaded a� o'clock* A.. • Reception No _ . Recorder. WARRANTY DEED TIIIS DEED,Made thi. 29th dry of October 19 86 between SUSAN RINGSBY PIETRZAR, a/k/a Susan Jane Ringsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrz k, of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado.grantor,and CRS INVESTMENTS, INC. , a Colorado corporation, whoselegaladdressis 1333 West 120th Avenue Denver, Colorado 8O234 of the - County of and State of Colorado,grantor. WITNESSETH.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 gnat,bargain,sell, convey and confirm,unto the grantee.Ins ban and assigns forever,all the real property together with improvemems.if any,situate,lying andbeing 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. JmtnoxtldHHICaTaddcmHaedtlR TOGETHER with all and singular the herditaments 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,tick,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor.either in law cc equity.oL in and to the above bargained premises,with the bereditamenu and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described.with the appurtenances.unto the grantee,his hies and assigns former And the grantor.for himself.his heirs,and personal npresencativn,does covenant,grant.bargain.and*gee to and with the pewee.his hei Iris sad assigns.that act=time of dxensealing and delivery of these presents.he is well seized of the premises above conveyed,has good.sum.perfect,absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law.in feestmpk.and has good right,full power and lawful authority to grant.bargain.sell ad convey the same in manic and In as aforesaid,and that the same are free and clear from all foams and other gams.bargains.Saks,liens.sues.assessments, enermbrancesandi atrictionsofwhatevaladornatmcson cacept 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 WARRANTANDIDREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peambleposseuimofthe grantee. his heirs and assigns.against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any parttercot The singular number shall include the phut!, the plural the singular,and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all&endes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. ^. • Susan Ringsby ie rzak, /a Susan Jane Ringsby 'and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrzak STATE OF COLORADO City 3 County of Denver }n The foregoing untmment war acknowledged before me in the City and count"( Denver Sage of Col oradn,adz 29thdyof October .19 86,by Susan Ringsby Pietrzak, a/k/a_ ). Susan'Jane Ringsby and a/k/a Susan Jane Pietrzak. My commission expires ,t9 .Witness my hand and official se g. - Nma resat pry _. •H in Daher.insert`City and Asaie. 8 0123 No.932A.Rea.744. WARRANTY DEED Warns rgac Pawed) Bradford r.her:ng.*25W.NB Are..Lakewood,Comfu—ews)asasso pas . -• �_ • The North 1/2 of Section 5, 'Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the.. 6th P.N. , 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 _de 870123 V • •• .A . 1. 1986 taxes not yet due or payable until 1987. 2. 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 + 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 Jr of the NW } of said land. 5. A right-of-way over that portion of said land lying within County Roads 3f 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. 310123 EXHIBIT B Lim nasals DEC 91986 ( ' L /02. 5- - 36 111 re .. p a. d Z' , &t a of 42 ::. - lt -Z/uoNea� rd a rd Zo .P Z 0—f (\_itesid/e/Zee s f reel-e9. / thba , • , '1,0v ,,, , r y a : 1e1.. q l e j/ :111 ele A edizaa6 .„,, 4x - ,� . . ,O de a.?' O4 - z* • . 4 07 - wed . l^ a.._ oka/ de._ . C'C' X�,�7 � � 1 '70123 ak • DATES 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.tJ.D. (Planned unit Development) for lt--1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential), and oil and gas production facilities OFFICE OF THE CL✓/�RR TO THE BOARD BY: i��Y Fi/, 1 Q 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 rr ,�xH/8/7 870123 dr../ a- � -•� STATE OF COLORADO OR1/4_141 GAS CONSERVATION COMMA DON .DEPARIMEtf Or NATURAL:RESOURCES _ SUITE 380 LOGAN loWER BUILDING 1580 LOGAN STREET • DENVER,COLORADO 80203 WILLIAM R.SMITH RICHARD D,LAMM Director ' (303)'86&3531 FRANK-.PIRG Governor • Deputy Director PRESS .RELEASE August 25, 1986 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 1977 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 surface agreement. In response to this concern Souse Bill 1491 was passed and specifically provides that . the the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission require the furnishing of reasonable ,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 Commission-on August 21, 1986, that rule was amended to provide for a bond of $5,000 for an operation on irrigated land. •A Blanket bond of-$25,000 to coverall 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. • ,Erman 8'70123 • • An agreement between the operator and the surface owner is to the best interest of the surface 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 of - burden this may impose. For example, if a piece of land 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 mining the minerals. A person buying this - surface, where the minerals are retained by the seller, should take this fact into account because the surface may not havemuch 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 of business practices the better off everyone is. We agree. Respectfully „Submitted by William R. Smith, P.E. Director 1 T ` 870123 : . ... - • 1,t4 lit { yl[�i ; rod ; � m �G dti f� ' S' m . i r^+�+iry�y �5�t iY :� �� nz�c�c8g yaz< $i � �'. . a .4 fl '�i�{1 c ?{) �: 0 ' g � m tF �� -1 ) 1Pir.aj i s l'i ruti lB aS g �. mI � ,f t 1'La Em �, m c + 1Y f�i'1 i4 ,. 9i fi t �+'`.st 3 IhY 11111 -10;,, ��(' E t� kw 461 46 4 2.s; H a g s ti iy'lbt •b� ,e .--.{ t .- g E. � N C,E.,r � aQ1'—' ' rim 1 µ,r., , s , &§ Y CO se a T , e Y� ,— n 1 , o !• .7 .t a c 'e G1 '= v§ggrg—bH SSa t •t44• 10. E 2 1, Y E R yoI-I 1; ant V M 8 .. _ R ,�` Z f as qs • 46 }! '� 6;4414;441 421'k• TS�Eiaa n= p_a IR, ;j Tial S141 a f 1-ttjx. a3+441,4ltlfwittift,1i. i S� Ce_��o$s W ® ' 1�w 1. pi v,,,,,(1,4,,. t 1. �i+I,1 • 1 f C,o c �e „�.. Gt Z.�tt S Yp� �. CE co�//J■ • yc $ V^ ryq "`iii""" 4. _ _ c i;..�Ry w y ttv -1.2.44a aF i .j �` i iltrtf A.2141 T Rgf Ev=Ep aS�W- V t t tl 'cic 4 ;;' G € a' G t : •'may 4.� S tykl ? a B ��a, ss� 5' Itir VIM d 1. •rt. +44� fi ' r. 11 " IUHIUI1IIIH ang Gq ' ' ' ii"� .=3+'ct TYg Xi6N'iEao.. w,,fft�,, U.lil¢ .-E o ga3 v SAS vCrQ en., �B a.n* G' =4I *-- �•n rls eY r.Fon� �D �!n'7■ y 111 G5t iC?2nww a 1 oa.-vY F CD nel+ a1) Z- mg„'y' :u wg ij;` S,g6".^ rKn k�1 56 ��Ar o down o�' s' . lk 47W-E-.7. - r. ^ Ems .G -". Pe ? £ 3 a� 34 _ I me p [ 7 ��}� ,"$ cYQ�Q°$^ �,"moo i ,1.o3! tnEC 5G^ 13 m T"A■ 'TS' �] Rao g.a do5y a3g,',. ' ? N ASH p {Tl ,".'..•{, ^=g' oo3� aC� °3 �� ® 9 �. o ? 811 ■(1' WS" n 0,7;3. �' G. m lit!,, S.IF- a pa ) e , O a X ?S 2 rFa ti...- r a : wit o- , sga 1.2 7�8i ti _ ('8 a . Fey$!. 3.9 m co � � W. E.. j Ye " ..7= C >R 870123 ---1, • 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 Dear 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. a 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 lease 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, less 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 been conveyed by, through or under you. 3 In the event that you are: able to establish 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 suite 1950 • 1500 BAO*0w*v • DCNv[R,COLORADO 30202 • (3.03) Bfii-9)83 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 pi drilling of the prospect during the primary term 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, 7O6.25) , such payment to be made with notice of exercise of option. The terms of paragraph 2 above shall be applicable to this 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 • 3 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 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 • 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) , of 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 4 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 gasflow. 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 bn Mar e7 i , 1981. Lessee agrees to apply for an c. the leased premises within 20 Robert Pietrzak days of the date hereo' cr O S San Pi rza1 8701. 3 ) rw , r - S d � f�zt�.y111' �� j. �' o�dNov 2 41988 `., 4 OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS jiiii 2 f'� _�1-. ' -PHONE(303)358-4000.FM a200 GR=!4l EY. COLO. P.O.BOX 758B . GREEL£Y.COLORADO 80832. • e COLORADO November 12, 1986 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development cio CR.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 N}, 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 data, the matter will be considered closed:` Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD !COUNTY, COLORADO IRMAN I wish to have'a hearing on this matter brought before the Board of County Commissioners. I agree to pay for the legal advertising expense. xc: Robert Si 'Susan J. Pietrzak 8'"14123 We respectively request a Dec. 4th advertising date so that a hearing may be scheduled the first week of January. Thank you. 1P. � ,Exinen,e. • _ . .. <--' y'v .cu er vC\ • it �' OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PHONE 356.4000 Da(903) 4200.. P.O 9OX 756 GREELEY.COLORADO 80632 COLORADO November 12, 1986 • Bay Shores Planned Unit Development c/o C.R.S Investments '; 1333 West 120th Avenue Denver, Colorado 8O234 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 Rearing 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 re are not in receipt of your request by that date, the matter .will: be considered closed. Sincerely, BOARD OF` COUNTY COP24ISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,-COLORADO , IRMAN I wish 'to have.:a .hearing on this matter brought before, tbe.Board of County • Commissioners. _ I agree to pay for the legal advertising expense. • xc: Robert & Susan J. Pietrzak : ,z' _-`' "t' 870123_ Jxn is/r CZTOLS n-- • F Y fJ R';';$4.9r-',;- P 4 �t'� +�paf L(Y F3�Cd, r "�"iM.. b{ S •, x r !g�.ceh lx . r [C toVaC5 pi t� <1 y • e's' F1 k , wti s •i;. C W o -4 A i 4 �t -f; r 0 r9 ,O $ ,i% r" « r• rt• N N I'da 1• • Fa z z r H ;'-,•,',C 7e- r . ••, -er r( • • • • PS Form 3800,Feb_1982 : u.S.fi:. _32 gN v C .- eyes \ • � 8 t lR $ m n .yo O ;2 -n v no Soks‘ at .b o� o» S 0 '3 � � 9 m r . ID 977 = OP o g• Q T • r :.� ?in, A r 4�4 'r $ 0 0 0~ a io sa S* �_ _ N "' a am m =,?, 71ru p-c o 0 v lam'- • • 4 ! S Summary of the geld 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 - Tea, for the reasons given by Paulette Weaver. Lynn Brown - Yes, for the reasons given by Paulette Weaver. teat Reid - Yes; Ivan Gcsnell - Yes; Louis Rademacher - No; Paulette Weaver - Yes; Ann Garrison - Yes; Jack Holman - No, since the mobile home park is already then 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 needs 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. The Chairman called a recess ate-3:15'p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 3:25 p.n. CASE NUMBER: Z-430:86:5 al APPLICANT: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak ana 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"miles 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. He reviewed the history of this request and explained the difference between their firstapplication 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. : :Ha 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--a 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 rents r C 870123 o y Summary of the Weld County Plunning`Commission November 4, 1986 Page 10 have received a letter from Rick Dill, Undersheriff, and the developer intends to form a law authority.district. The Union. .Resenoir-has a fifty foot right-of-way and this would allow them ample space to raise their banks five feet. Hr. McCarty asked that the Planning Commission not take into consideration any plans to enlarge the reservoir. They have the:means to do this by eminsnt 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. Hs read a later from Mr. Sweeney, City Manager,:.into the record. Williem 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 aa' to whether or not liability insurance could be obtained. The city of Longmont has taken an option, until November 16, 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 tkas time, they are not sure they can be mat_' Richard Ha=, Director, Oligarchy :Ditch:Company and managing partner JRC Farms, supported Mr. Filler'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 r 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 are 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 ;1-Ms area when drilling: for, gas or oil. They have no agreement with the applicant at this time. Hia presentcd;a letter:between .Pietrzakend Macy-Mershon dated 1981. ,He -stated traffic can be as high as two. hundred ._._ 870123 , ... • • Summary of the Weld County'Planning .Commissioa 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. :Ee lashed that '-the Planning Commission recommend denial'of:this'request. -- Tom Check,`'Manager. Left Hand Water Supply,: reported- behad=been working- with- the applicants end,- Left Hand -Water would --supply water: to_ this subdivision.. The Chairman asked Keith Schuett to summarize the-:recommenaation of the Department of Planning Services staff, which is for denial, and that the recommenaations 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 ;weeting and"anyone"-who ' is interested. may :request a copy. POTION: 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 have looked at potential problems' with traffic control and the impact on county' roada, we have clearly indicated that this 'project`does not appear to be compatible with the -City of Longmonc'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'erant''approval :to' a`=Planned Unit-Developmenti'has 'been satisfied. Therefore,-her -recommendation is for denial. Motion seconded by-LeAna Reid. The motion ' as tabled to=alloft the app leant to give' hie 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 alloy the;applicants -;to._get to-this point sa the issues can be ,resolved. - Be 'states significant opposition to the staff's recommendation for denial in Roman numeral #2. They have done exactly what needs to be done and be cannot understand why there isthis - 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 Brawn,- Yes; LeAnn Reid --Yes; Ivan Cosnell - Yes; Louis Rademacher - Yes; Paulette Weaver -:Yea, she strongly echos- everything that L3 Brown said She also fuels this property has sone inherent problems including the railroad track, ditch, and reservoir that make it very inappropriate for residential development. Ann Garrison - Yes; Jack Neiman - Yes, he agrees with Lynn's comments.. .Motion ccrried unanimously. CASE NUMBER USR-763:86:44 APPLICANT: Veld 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 SWI SW} of ,Section 26, T9N, R66W of the bth P.M., Weld County, Colorado . . LOCATION: Approximately one mile eest of the Town of Nunn; north of Weld County Road 100 and east of Weld County Road 33 Chuck Cunliffc recommended because of the tine, 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, 19864_,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 lity (370 foot high radio transmission tower site) -be continued to the ;next .regularly scheduled ' .meeting. of, the Weld, County Planning:,Commission, to be held,,on Tuesday, • November 18, -19$6,,;at 1:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Lynn Brawn The Chairman. called for discussion from the n.enbers ,of the Audience. There v'as no further discussion. 870123 1��n �c...n n-tr•.�.�y�i'J NOV 1 01286 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSI Y,30P�,�,,: • RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY CONMISSI _at c°-o• Moved by Lynn Brown that the following, resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Coesission. B. it Resolved by the Wald County, Planning Commission that the application'for: :CASE NUMBER: Z-430:86:5 NAME: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development (Robert and Susan 3. Pietrtak'- • and C.R.S. Investments) ADDRESS: Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak, 1796 East Sopris Creak Road, Carbondale, CO 81623 C.R.S. Investments, 1333 West 120th Avenue, Denver, CO 80234 REQUEST: 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 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ni of Section 5, T2N, R6817 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado • LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles east of Longmont; north of State Highway; 119 and east'.of Wald 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 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 8ball' 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 Exit/.5,7 3 Ray 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 use* 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 demonstrated how a Planned Unit Development, with a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre for R-1 uses and 6 dwelling units per 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 plane' 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 walla 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 bean submitted which :' demonstrate compatibility between these uses _ within the proposed.Planted Unit Development district. 870123 tr ' 4' Z�430:86;5, ._ ' Bay Shores Planned Unit Development. 1 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 landuses 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 cote 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 Piker, 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. 870123 fi •: S Z-430:86:5 : Bay Shores.Planned Unit'Development Page 4 While the application materials indicate plans to realign the ditch and to incorporate the ditch into the Planned Unit Development concept, the representatives of 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 requirements' 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 would include an agreement between the ditch y 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 consents is the letter dated October 30, 1986, from Neil Piller, representarive `of the ditch company. This letter substantiates the compatibility issues which need to be resolved prior to granting a change of U. Section 28.3.1.1.3 of -the Weld County Zoning .;Or inance 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 nadeby the appropriate unit of governpat or the applicant may :express- a willingness to upgrade the STREIT; or higvay facilities at his own expanse in 870123 a Z-430:86:5 Bay, Shores Pinned Unit.Development. Page 's 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: improvements 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 road network. A copy of this' .latter is attached to staff comments to substantiate the off-sits road improvement concerns. Once it has been 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 theroad 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 will be made, but that the cost of the required improvements rill be negotiated'and formalized by a Subdivision Improvements Agreement with the; County. '; The application materials also indicated in paragraph 3, on page 9, that road improvements • and expenses would be shared with adjoining property owners. 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 in order to secure rezoning. The, applicants should complete' a separate improvements agreement for off-sits road improvements if it. is the applicants' desire to obtain rezoning and share the cost 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 :applccant must' demonetrate.:..That the' uses which would be permitted shall; 1 compatible;with. the existing development ' of the surrounding area 'as permitted by the existing zoning." 8'70123 ' Bay- Shores Planned.Unit Development Page 6 The Submitted Planned Unit Development. District application materials plan for the realignment of Weld County Road 26 and the development of residential lots next to the shore -lice of Union Reservoir ' with a IDtnt,n,nn rear yard setback. Residential lots on the northwest side of Weld County Road 26 are not compatible 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 of 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 liability 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 run-off and silt. To data, no agreement has been executed or development plans submitted which address -these compatibility problems and the ones raised in a latter, dated October 16, 1986, 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 is Saint Vrain Valley Planning Area and is designated for agricultural uses. V. The proposed Planned Unit Development district is not compatible with the Wald 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 revisions to the.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 Cawprahansive!Plan` update is compute. � ' Notion seconded by 'Leann Raid. 8'?'0i2.3 Z-430:66:5 Bay-_Shores•Phoned Unit Dayslopasnt Fag. 6 ; VOTEi For Passage Against' Yassage Lydia :Dunbar Lynn Brow LeAmm Raid Ivan Gosdsll Louis Rademacher'` ,'Paulette Weaver Ann Garrison Jack Holman The Chairman declared • the resolution. passed add ordered that a certified copy be forwarded 'With• the';file of• this case to the Board of County' Commissioaers'for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Bobbie Good, Recording Secretary of the Weid County Planning Commission,,• do hereby certify'' that .the. above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of< the Resolution .of the Planning Cossiiesioa of ;Weld County, oceeddo, adopted" on Nogeabar 4,° 1986;,'.add recorded in Book".No. % of ;the proceedings- of the said Planning-Comaission.. ' Dated the 5th day of November,. 1986. Bobbie Good Secretary ' 870123 • Additional CoMmanta • Bay Shores.Planned. Unit Development : • Z-430:86:5 1. Mr. Neil Pillar indicated on November 3, 1986, in a phone conversation . with the Dapartasnt of Planning Services staff. that. the Oligarchy Ditch Company-would prefer to data an' agraeaant with the applicants prior; to the granting of a changa of zone: 870123 ei[!ar tV.• JJ•. t S.}te:, 5:. I sipY w4 aa�.�.'� I .SY„ �Cr3'n '1:.ve':24,.�0 l•- ♦ ai r._ 7'~ sor , �• t`L-=^ • " r2'Sr'► ^]Ff +� ms`s '1ri2„Si +ir43..-r-fC _"; � zT,•+Y'1'�S.` a .. .. �• -t ,-7. ,si $..p_ryzIr ,',��`,'{f/,`r .+c. "�•a+.. U i v. -s+1• 1- .. Tj'Y'. 1,.-1�`�• ..., �YV '� ,~ T:.Ti'�)'.N' a4"' a j ,1�s `�� rr� L a,. SN. •7bt�a• J�i�` . .�y•• yrv7,•.t yl- rtirt. 5 ury i ''•fg. a ? ., a!I•.'-Y+ 4 i1 r i�r�'^ ,` `1 s A.C.> Pt • Pfi.� alt p • -n.e; X143•/ �',Y • Nn C• a- Ks+1.eti. r: • ...i. IA:.[12..� ';- • Y S • T,1 rr4..C9't. fi • sy r, l'-•••- 13 > cM'LRa c }</'l i ..-ierIC. s \a f. '-? :>r. re 1517: r ) raw ?. :t -"Sf .,,. ,..••••,t- . . . '.[P _ APa t.. Cr- • r?..:-•t al e .r •1. 4r4e•its. 4:: t•> , :sees t�. ✓ wv'1�R?ft tit -rt -: : irt"Yr •'� i J',r :•::: -_ 1fee. •s j: ,. .t. ...3` ' 5 -+ rt, \ Y .,..KI Y :t-, v , �. -. , N .i Z`t „i _ t �`� .r t ill ._-2\ 1 - a fi. • 1 Ay . t r. t - . 4 . ^l Y/ t $•' tt ns >r =-.- •,- r,7s,,,r. .''+ +,e .-7 ,(r .> •[' e.i--.earl' r f� '• - -I •r.'a`•a'-'` : �4 —" y2.-. e ea: ..� ti ''7 ..,, h.4 a . t • i ss • I's♦ f. Y. Pt —7.» _k ....<1.•,.• r.t .< .L . Fwli'ws5 V. .y,,~ •,, R 7 _t`(1 1 F • �t SJ.t , K , L.::,-,-;:,,.....07,., •#• _ - ., t i+A�,a}cN . .••,11'tr E✓ ) -..v t•A 9 ..i.„..,...?-4.- . - ) y yw t. t t w ; ,. r -i ..6 ft • - u�T.14. .t•JG I �.>' i�ef l,..c Z. . 1 j.i._ "1 V C.A. e.eW- r': a V Itrwe.• t- ,1 -a 4 • Wit H `.�r /rJe•.. �='�. 'A.:•'r:.�• _: ..�tT..�.r .✓i r..._: l .n�•.a_. . . . .�.T..� a\• ._ . a 4• I . 1 ; I ' •fC�00 .aa.vi)mntwaa .a a...W.....--.-,O--a_.. a.. _ ,'I let v ' Er?is Loeb LedaiA4. ..ner1:w11...---_Je,.r.ao,r �v _--� t ,WARRANTY DEED. r now _.- .., V m..par-f w 1..d la liana Moo ha drat ad Ion (.14♦1-) best �.+' .>,� — —._ .....,.rrauc: ..rr.:er.:..A..aLtar.-. .. +.a,..! • G d . - y tA.t.....ey ef...—......_._.5Y1d--. - ._ ..e Srr..�e b..rtr..J+a.It t F...e.•.d - . ...._._.__._..g&.Qtn...nu. tact i _Lmc rra/-_lam_ '�_..—....� dl.d r.' c. 1•^ : 3 I."'--'.T-= - (.`4•_ .r +1., c Watt.---------....—...d Stale sr cat-..u. to te-ti s.ri. ' Mat Or COLORADO-I non or vaa' S . 2 i 117Tl SSEnt SA.t eta dot _ W fee..d t.1_ddradlrn eh,a port...-:�,t y /at w47 y of, • rur inflowe Deal ...r pot far r . , 1 - ' rvtf.t./ '�..._..1i.ate._(Lx -� ---_.eLter...t3.wt.da�.b `le.aTa.es�'-�-=_�• -. _--=--_=__.-DVln+4� • _ .cLc.Lai _- _ I.the wtt.t pen-. the Ifni Real p..14 Sy A.ail tan_-_ _ef LAe Aa met, rec 1pt• , _lima._t. "at y. y �v,eyy ..h..rtlrAe,dse&./...a.w[.rxww+.dPei.A._.,F_�e..ie47+eY.I..i,iota..d ae+vye{,..d.y, ` I' • t ,y.i , _----- Ike..panda d._e 11 Hal.is yala.al4 any sad e.ytnr.toil.DA..td ton -31.--of w avail i . I. p.vt_.aL..�..tra.a.nde....._....-Sal.ad.dyaa fear,.a A.f.a.,t-y hailed Lt_d..a.,as p ra..d(wad,dewy 4(a_ad Leaf t.a.Coady T,k a-t ads d Glad.,Weil: i ti all.oil..wba+t ft-a•t+•,l. .&'$))4 OtAtia:n4 ti.u.LF rill_01 1;a-0 C -naLp lkhet ) 'j.tL..f .. y ...,1L tffl usat•ra..L:,. a.wA.....cu.wc a...t.4lLCLJacAaa,.alu KcoKntJL. (aY.Y4) 4't `oggica • .1t I • t}wlt74A1(dit S274in� Oor a4.ty.us£un,L .' /L...U.)aiALZJ.s. r44 -sill.(hr)War, ..1ib 4,y .l.A.oaf_ i,XLt aw T....v.o(a ake,it' ripe,al wizen alas-fe-r -sill. .t at...;://7sta+0.jat''''72,....,:oala y,..aAltti �, ' (p%OCtir)et '.�...c.L5)t,...taR:p�..Lt).)LAf{,�..�.;.L.4X d.au Dr) oY.dt allays Lot t.t' .fly..: , 3' co,.........t;...�.Hell y..;.e t 442w e....(();,wt o to opts.oa.:.l.�nt aL G"..wv.(t{..awvt4-Lit j t.(.. . F` • jJ _ UPS ntiac ebnanfoo at-a..:t Az.et.d.0 .j.:et col t miner. 17• tArw- r,.,wMILd,, kS a,..,L um)iL9CuW •y 1 • . to4 00".:n-to,.La1..uXA1)e 44tpj Low in)dot$A.A.W.l_atOWn,w.....taa&AA tla.0 s.....datt 4..t, /•itL:'S tt..A+co dihtU.Pitt?t3.au.t(y sj a+�w.v.t...tASe,.;:,.t`.�U.�r)n•.i....,Su,ja..L1..t.....t,.....datd,,w.;...te•(,aCT.I.fe�'3. tlw.ca-t1istt4.1 % /rn..ke11d7n.vtu.t,ntp j..et,(Yr)n.,:.....7taltialt.stOtdt.. leameOa...l Carol Pet; t tcha.- .•.(rl-:Wit hu4.WAT yet,L* !)s..:..�t . &..t. -.Art htG.)-tr..t:0+Yansl�a IL* I t ! (rib)SSfSdt.il.:.J.'(..o1aw...lat.t3Jut. teaseta.t.i- Prot Wa.)t.R.t.te tie s.ct4,0 flab.: l7.w..ed.ova fe ,1 i (taa-1Lotitc.Luv.tA L.Lwc.:IA4...-cy):t7..w.t . .a.,.z4 t.EL<.ytc'..t_)''7_--'uw.y. �. •..Z..�_ tt.:n1t.....a.... • (1.1...12a.(!4 tVra)tatlude.all.tL..ab..t.dc'Lu.:l.t4.�a. '" ",t, O tx.,dtatil--m $ .: y � ♦>�� p� � , eat.itk0.alasZNeta[neeast,r✓,.d ILL al,M..(tJ.ra.•{.ILL..Ln.ad! L. Liz..W.MN.t...Vi11.•,11:a s..;i Ca.,Si. ut 3a.4. 6..Ety,cJ-.) VIA_ -..dt win...,,A,c l err a,.vL 7tita ...•a.-L.alo:d.+.u,.,r...XtM .l.:.c•, i t , Or..7..:....:..y.at o.'44.3 t$JO tot t>n.11J.(t alle 3 aka/: t1.6 ta..aetta cn...W et J ..a zt tw•.r . .L_.,,•(na-t-}:} Le l3S z)wait.et.fo.•.J..,e.oa.]..•.d..7.•..7.d.aww( la,as-a .�..ns ,.�'AA/1k_S..•_sta. LJudah'...:w! 1 na-?ani A 4.. 4: 1 M,w..�.rtr')•_had/ e.•�r..:ea.(f a. +.Gil 4.-a l...Ay.LeJ.ucaaevrae Ll e. a.4f.L i tr+ it 1 i.M.4.415 l am leay•a. a as a �y.l. ilhat � # r< i i ., ........o.A...d.. w.. -..E.{.._.kraJ n; � y*. 10il LIN ERsrnna rots all wail ayatwr the hea th is..0 es,r.+.t ee Aef..y H a.ay..y ♦• ! 1' .sadrr.mba4rij_ .Lre.dt...wlsdea rape e-.sail p•(a ash a ad ail.. i.e.,ri .tt7.Jcl.t+uR ..d ..ad d re. z'. o of Masuss+t_q-.fell Ant petf..user I.he rpdtine:fa sad4 d«.l..ernatt reach with •a A.r.d:.e..eats ado4 stso.a.I j c SD 1LivE eKD 70 HOLD Ow odd nod*.slow icrykied sabot Amiedell de appeases.zeestl.ad pool.-.---:L. t.e._..d.n( Hoerr -lad Out rl sort_...t•...a/As eat 1 i __.. . .__. �,lw ail- ---tf—tt - - . ..._...____-__••___...._._..--------...p.w---,,f.-y.,A., g tall.r-_xrMawrl:.�.,a—Aar; f I t t savagn eel etalaMa4 de,W.eame.t.fast Serlwiw at sins to at..7A tA1 sad pant-.ny-.-_.t So attend pan •„'-•• 1 i I ant oafs.that d at the th af an.,r.rwy sad de)4vs.f Qum treratee-a. i.._._..___vrell anal 7Ge eaten s ...-..w ,ea. - -1 dl••t,a,nf..r,..h.i.w aaot r.aa.:x.Molar;a tiaaw.Lols.. tat..ia$4 sad As_4c.re.d silo faasa...and Lwf4SsAaty, Le yell&Mryda•.agad. say As e Le amebae t few eiraa14 Had MAal A.also a..f,.o at oar fns sit Paw asst Skirl l fa•t48ala+a4.a(a Honlaw,asra..w w(aa lwealo.fd 8duaYLd._✓r--ootav n-xi.,j t,.....• of'it• 4 a e'• 1 i.• IsailMe.l.a e+•{^ad +w vtw>. .y .-'s-[� L(c t ar. a-g- tt...ts the e.san v ...tWe 4. s.,d al aria mit••ad ray atal..I.,r r 4-iw gad A. .r ay .4r.{, ..-aLt pat'La.( gaffs am Asa ad rig Wang ad Taw DeadXX I .l.a walla.rZLT n .txxo,.n..ad taL.tt_of Dia kit H. ai.a.e_AuN.�..4=-.adwir_tis day ad Ar4.ist_ .atm wrap,arst.rerntra amuse" } �• t i - ) 7 • i STATE OF COLORADO, �� . . 1g86a : 1 i 1.—tit.00-n..a7 h.t . • 1 _ i I 1 - , I e.oil, sit 'e Cesar,S.a.a noes y.a4L.e ors.sag).wa_.t _ ) ll • ___.-.... _ .__ .ia).a.&i._r+....ite Loa io w._7._�& the -.ao w lA.I • / p • • -.1.7'4q..'. e---lA`a •r+....d'& .w> day to pan lwi .. a•ap . a4 frw ..� .r Ara. .L.d+L.tW 4i at: ... i 14 C' Oa sadr my hood ad da'ayial - pr. f♦ -- - I. r ::. r`.+q�. Xs sot..--r--. — JLla.aa•I. it-Ives _ • ec•-el t� t�.i� 870123 oK�°7Q"`Ir` t..._r�rMr �S��t`�ti.•y{� t ,AKaI. • -G\ 1x- Ot•. J A.�,ll'S�t�t e,+ S•*^ {«•'tt" ,;.•• '. ✓�"> , • + ✓�'4! . • ,, i r p r.• xH yn...et . a e • e.a ,+Nor. • • solo ,TS•,•f 6k •a.y.�•N.J:a' ti i K 1 I. • � > Y .�+� i �i(X1..f+J••,•i-•' ` t.- :',� .nri\<�'.9.f,..r..�t ,h tit t .�'." ! f \ < '. i, 1 #2.7;,... . .s, • t .,a �Ye:`T"t"••, a• '�"t' �e?"`3 �K��ti`l a•j'v a `a.� ...� w> F't•>Yt~'C• t r••.• , t • a ,vtf.. r`ti tit ..+a1w;' y. S � t e *4' 'CI %;l; � �7"a.%••.:•••0X4:";;;•‘:•?: l3 a tt r,Y t rate 1: . ?f.• eL:•' 'yt• `Yam' - I. • . 't•- .l .nl?.m• . Wit• l•.•4.•�/� '�...Y.) �� r �•:Kf/A..`-� . -) . (•‘'••••- �.�• %- 911 i 1833434 V-/ - 5-.Y_• c' Colorado, Weld Comm, Clerk a Recorder IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WELD AND STATE OF COLORADO • Civil .Action No. 8O-CV-403 a THE UNION, RESERVOIR COMPANY, ) • a Colorado, corporation, . ) Plaintiff, ) a' vs. ) DECREE -4 JACOB HETZEL, MARTHA M. ATWOOD, ) o JOHN COMSTOCK, BENJAMINE'W. ) o ..CALKINS, CARLTON C. CALKINS, LEVI V. NICHOLS, JOHN W. REDD, ) ,3 EMMA JOHNSON, JOHN D. BLACKWELL, ) 6., SAMUEL ARMSTRONG, PELHAM K. ): _ PATTERSON, JENNIE' COMSTOCK, g JOHN COMSTOCK, JR. , NETTIE' L. " - ) .4` KNAPP, 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 been ordered to report for induction into, the military service as defined by the Soldiers t and Sailorst 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 r County, Colorado, to-wit: � i • 91986 870123 Yield Co.Mon Crookston 1d33434 411 TRACT I 53.3 acres of land in the St.' of Section 30. Township 3 North, Range 6B West, mare particularly described as follows, that is to say: Commencing at the south one-quarter corner of said Section 30, thence by true bearings, variation 14 deg. 10' Cast as follows: West 510 ft; thence N. 65 deg. 20' West 407 ft; thence North 45 deg. SO West 282 feet; thence N. 48 deg. 50' West 284 feet; thence N. 69 deg. 20' West 220 feet; thence N. 67 deg. 50' West 194 feet; thence N. 3 deg. 50' West 260 feet; thence N. 20 deg. 20' East 330 feet; thence N. 15 deg. 0' East 356 feet; thence N. 72 deg. 15' East 352 feet; thence N. 12 deg.- 10' East 331 feet; thence S. 21 deg. 45' East 253 feet; thence S. 45 deg.. 35' East 251 feet; thence S. 40 deg S. East 402 feet; thence S. 86 deg. 50' East 543 feet, to the half section line; thence South to the section line, at one-quarter corner. . to the place of beginning, comprising 48.1 acres; also a strip of .ground 50 . feet wide around and above said water line, containing 5.2 • acres, containing -in all 53.3 acres; and also, TRACT II The W's of the SE;'of Section "30, Township 3_ North, Range 68 Vest, containing 80 acres. except 47.9 acres in said 80 acres deeded by . said company to John Comstock by instrument recorded in Rook 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 68 West of the 6th P.M. , and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the center of said Sec. 30-3-68; thence S. 1325 feet; thence S_ 66 deg. 15' E. 591 feet; .thence S. 68 deg. 15' E. 315 feet; thence S. -65 deg. E. • 279. feet; thence..N. 68 deg. E." 261 feet to the North and South center • line of the SU. Of said Sec. 30-3-68; thence N. on said line 1678' to the East and Vest center line of taid. Sec. 30-3-68; thence W. 1329 feet to . the place of beginning; also, TRACT III 22.4. acres in the SE:- of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 68 Vest of the 6th P.M. . more particularly ,described as follows: Commencing 'at a point 962 -feet North'of the quarter corner, on the south side of .said Sr; of Sec. 30-3-68•,• thence by true bearings, variation 14 deg. 45' E. . North 80 deg. 5' fast 292 feet; thence S_ 67 deg. 25' E. 373 feet; thence S. 18 deg. 25' E. 137. feet; thence 5. 37 deg. 45' E. 230 feet; thence S. 65 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 W% of the Ws of the HE: of Section 31 in Township 3 North, Range Vest. containing 40 acres; also a part of the NW4 of Section 31 in Township 3 North, Range .68 Rest. 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. 63 deg. 40' East 293 feet; South 29 deg. •15' Nest 395 feet; S. 19 deg. 35' East 595• feet; S. 19 deg. 30' West 696 .feet; S. 2 deg_ 45' Vest 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. ?640 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.$ acres; also. 'RACT V The E'* of the fl and the E's of the Ins of the i1E% of Sec. 31-3a-68W ' containing 120 acres; also, all that portion of the .r4 of Section 32-3':-63tt, described as follows: Cor..:encing at the Northwest corner of said Section 32 thence by true bearings, variation 14 deg. 10' East. Cast 370 feet; thence South 40 feet; East 943 feet; South 67 deg. E. 416 feet; South 78 deg: 5' East 704 feet; South 48 deg. 25' E. 235 feet; South 24 deg. 20' Cast 230 feet; South 20 deg. 45' East 567 feet; South S deg. SO' East 300 feet; ' South 11 deg. 10' West 453 feet; South 18 deg. 40' Vest 400 feet; South 33 . • deg. 10' test 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 Korth • 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 teservoir 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- 870123 - • c;-'- 911 • • TRACT VI r All that portion of the SI: of the SW'a of Section 31-3N-6SW, described as follows: Commencing at the South quarter corner of said section, thence by ttue bearing, variation 14 deg. 10' East, West 127 feet; thence N. 57 deg. 50' West 120 feet; North 31 deg. 35' West 407 feet; North 57 deg. 40' East 127 feet; North 18 deg. 2' West 126 feet; South 82 deg. 25' West 106 feet; North 13 deg. 20' East 145 feet; North 43 deg. 45' West 272 feet; North 38 deg. 40' West 506 feet, to the 80 acre line:thence East 945'to the half section line; thence South 1320 feet to the point of beginning, containing 15.1 acres. As a part of the Union Reservoir site, and the above described line being the high water line thereof; also a strip of land 50 feet wide, above, around and adjacent to said high water line. containing 2.1 - acres, and containing in all 17.2 acres: also. TRACT VII All that portion of the Ma of the SW: of Section 31 . 3N-68R, • described as follows: Commencing at the center of-said Section 31 ,. variation 14 deg. 10' East, true bearings. Vest . 150` feet; thence S. 26 deg. 25' Vest 532 feet; thence S. 39 deg. 55' Vest 158 feet; thence South 79 deg. 15' W. 336 feet; thence S. 33 deg. 25' East 230 feet; thence 5. 47 deg. 15' Vest 255 feet; thence S. 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, TC6CT VI The SE; of Section 31-3X-68W,-containing 160 acres; also the WI of the NE: of. Section 6-2R-68W; containing 76.83 acres; also, that portion of the NW: of Section 5, 2H-6814, described as follows: Commencing at a- point 51 feet. North of the Southwest corner of the A'1/4 of the NW; of said Section 5, thence by true bearings. variation 14 deg. 10' East; North 52 deg. 40' East 340 feet; thence N. 43 deg. 25' East 290 feet; thence X. 51 deg. 25' East 306 feet; North 5 deg. 35' East 260 feet; North 36 deg. 30' East 350 feet, to the section line; thence Vest 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 waterline, containing 1.3 acres. the tracts containing 252 acres of land; also, - TRACT IX A tract of land in the Sly: of Section32-3X-68W,described as follows: Commencing at a point 173 feet Vest of the center of Section 32, thence by true bearings, variation 14 deg. 10' East, South 46 deg. 50' West 815 feet; thence S. 17 'deg.. 40' West 322 feet; thence S. 68 deg. 10' West 595 feet; South 22 deg. 45' Vest 294 feet; S. 6 deg. 10' West 930 feet; South 16 deg. 20' East 281 feet; South 49 deg. 50' West Z20 feet. to the section line; thence West to the NW corner of Section 5-2R-4 W; thence North one-half.mile to the quarter corner; thence East 2467 feet to the place of beginning, containing 86 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 90 acres of land; also. _ TRACT X A strip of land in the N't of the NFT4 of Section 6-2X-68W, described as follows: Commencing at the north quarter corner of said Section 6. • • 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 • Ov' ✓t �ooJ'3.3Q • ! i yy et 'RAFT XI- All the land within the following boundries: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 6-2K-68g. thence along the North line of said see- • tion East 2551'; thence South 70 feet; thence West '1260 feet; thence Korth 20 feet; thence West 1251 feet; thence North 50 feet, to the point of beginning; comprising 3.46 acres. more or less.all being in the NW; of Section 6-2K-68W; also. 'RACT XII 3.05 acres. more or less. in the Na. of Section 6. 222-6511. more particularly described and bounded as follows: Corrnencing at a point on the South side of a County Road 1290 feet North of the fast quarter corner of said Section 6. and running thence (true bearing) along the South side of said County Road. South 87 deg. 45' Vest 1373 feet; thence South 73 deg. 15' fast 348 feet; thence South 81 deg 15' Tast 36S 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 -Plaintiff1 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 a'ny claim, right, title, or interest in or to the said real property' or any part thereof. • Signed August 19 , 1980. BY THE COURT: "f•-44.. .trl-c1/10-0.- . DISTRICT JUDGE APPROVED AS TO FORM. FEE RECEIVED. �-tci l 'ill. = ar �j °°�'"�Y fie Robert M. Gilbert - Reg No. 4375 - Military 'Attorney t �e_ _4- 870123 , 0 II SAINT VRAIN Dr.F. Keith Blue VALLEY\rilSuperintendent of Schools PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT l'40.RE J - - 906 5 PRATT PARKWAY LONOMONf,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 cLPAcrrr ENROLLMENT + PROJECTED - IMPACT CAPACITY EIferreRY: 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, James Allen, at 449-4978, I 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. Sincerely, I. itiOtt , , f\--", 7 Dorothy Director �' Jgo Z � Planning,, Eva Eva u 7 luation and: Communication (((j t-1- I _t_ DH/as 11. 1986 , 870123 Weill Co. PIanflak Ianmmission .n 1 SAINT VRAIN Dr. F. Keith Blue VALLEY Superintendent of Schools PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT ea RE/J 396 3 PRATT PARKWAY IANOMO n.COLORADO 80501 October 15, 1986 Mr. Keith Schuett Weld County Department of Planning Services 1 915 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 EL ENTARY Mead 384 423 + 342.38 765 Yes , JUNIOR HIGH Mead 218 193 + 165.15 a 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, James Allen, at 449-4978, 1 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 stie, due to the increased impact. If you need any further information regarding this p 'Inning referral please call me at 449-4978, extension 209. Sincerely, Dorothy Hores, Directorri- (a], ; Planning, Evaluation and Communication , _ DH/ss t 1!: 1986 t 870123 Wed Co. Naming i:tlu miSSise a f . , DEPARTIIIT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT 4400 915 A 80631S 3T leg.. � • GREEL£Y,COLORADO• ID it O 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. Pietrzsk and C.R.S. Investments, for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.A. (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 N} 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. �// Please refs to the enclosed letter. St. Vrain Valley Signed: Agency: School District Date_ 10/15/86 KZ¼iQ � Current Planner ft 11, 1986 870123 Weld Co. plaonin G mmisw • • RECEIVED OCT 1 0 1'o., IVIcCARTY VA CONSULTANTS,IN ENGINEERING NC. 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, 1986. 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 Weld 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, 1986, 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 telementary school site. It would not be 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 P.U.D. Plan in that more information might be available to help decide whether or not land dedications (in addition to the elementary 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 of 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 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT.CO. 80501 772-7755/449-4373 870123 0123 r Ms. Dorothy Hares Page 2 October 8, 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. J••hn A. McCarty, P.£. JAM/st cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. ii • 1L 1986 I i _______ 870123. Weld Co. Plalmo * Gaol aiau III DEPART10fENT OF PLANNING SERVICES i - PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 i E 1 COLORADO CASE NUMBER z-43oa6a Bay Shores F.H.B. October 3, 1986 1 t TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I J 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 i described as part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld i County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately' three miles east of I Longmont; one-half mile north of State Righway 119 and south of Union 1 Reservoir. i s This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would i be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of 1 the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. S 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. Oct - . , _ ., r ._ . .. .. . . rl�anc =Q117 b7 .,`caz .17,-•_985.. 80''that-'vS ---J e.-TL� .7 ..T,:u...,��..�r?,a,t0 your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. I 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 P refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: � sQ, .6 Agency_Longmont Fire Date: 16 October 1986 Wm. R. Emerson Protection District Fire. Marshal ei'AO- c%-Cd r / Keith A. Schuett Current Planner r c r It 1986 870123 Weld Co- Planning tamsission i\ . DEPAR1*NTOF PLANNING SERVICES • Mil- PMONE(303)3584000 EXT.4400 91510th STREET GREELEY COLORADO 80631' Y1I'D e.. COLORADO CASE NUMBER z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.O.D. September 9, 1986 1 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed.-additional information--from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, fora change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.O.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 referto the enclosed letter. Signed: oC`J'4n J✓1.t nzeip Agency: LONGMONT SOIL Date: OCT. 16, 1986 , GAri CONSERVATION: DISTRICT th • ner 12, Current Plenaex -•-0 -1-� C0T 1? 1986 870123 Weld to. Planam4 i;aaroEon Longmont Soil Conservation District 9595 Nelson.Road,Box-4 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 My 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 Q of this site for foundationsand basements. Righ water tables exist near the reservoir. It is the recommendation of the Longmont Soil Conservation District to not approve this request for rezoning. Sincerely, `Tf I, r Luther uis Stromqt r t LS:rah 1986 CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT SELF GOVERNMENT 8,7Qi123FYe:5 Co. ?lawn cnmanssiol Ili DEPARIS.NT OF PLANNING SERVICES tit' 141 ,FicN PHONE(303)358-1000 OCT_aco tit to 91510th STREET 1 imp GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ■ • O • COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. - October 3, 1986 i i TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: t ! Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzsk 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 r County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this It application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union i Reservoir. r t. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. i.l Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would I be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of 1 the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. IIf a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to 1 mean approval by your office. I Check the appropriate boxes below and. return to our address listed above. I 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. t 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. -Please refer to the enclosed letter. { St. Vrain Sanitation C---- signed: N t cj ye s`gency District Date: 10/14/86 aT ace 07W‘11-7JJC\\Pi a Keith A. 5chustt - Current Planner f, - n_ , : nn- L"' ':.t 1 870123 Weld Co. 9latill ae Wrmmtsroa ap 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 inconformity 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 im deter mining 'whether. the tract shall be included or serviced by.contract. ' L 19 8 6 • 870123 Weld Co. Plank{ i:ummissinn S 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. ! q Adopted: � �.- /9 , 1986. 870123 3 oF.Q S CRICHARD D LAMM t.. $ JERIS A.DANIELSON Governor w n State Engineer 1876 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, Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Deputy State Engineer HDS/JRH:ma/8620H 0C1 20198E Weld Co.Pthuirng Commiaien 870123 PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY P. 0. SOX tz, BRIGHTON, COLORADO 80601 October 17,-1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Current Planner 6 (� � Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street _ Greeley, CO. + 80631 ' `� 7 2 07986 RE: Case Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. Weldta. Pbeigattardli Dear Mr. Schuett: This letter is written as response to your 10/3/86 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 several 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 be adjacent to, but not within, the County right-of-way. 2. We will not allow our pipeline to be located within a utility corrodor because of safety requirements. The closest we will allow utilities to our pipeline is 15 feet, but perferrably 25 feet. 3. If our line is placed 10 feet from a flow line of a concrete curb, it must be understood that during 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 perferrable 'that• these future routes be worked out at this time and made a part of the change in zoning. 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, RJC1air/1131R/gw. xc: Mr. John A. McCarty Mr. Scott McKinley - Macey-Mershon 870123 File • DEPAR•NT OF PLANNING SERVICES re-----"-3/4-N\\\Itif3es__ _‘' PHQNE(303)3'566 io Ea-400 n STREET C,REELEY,COLORADO 80831 A • 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 I 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 i County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this 1 application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union I Reservoir. 1 This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would i be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of c the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to t meal approval by your office. i r Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. iPlease reply by October 17,1986, so that we may give full consideration to I your.recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1 1 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:Q: ,-7A`" Agency:(..._. .. 4t t,. . . ate: /./,'/ ri. li&io ç T orgr Keith. A. Sehuett n- Curreut Planner �i l 2 Q �98�J Weld Co. Manning commission 870123 • • STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O.Sox 850 - i - Greeley,Colorado 80832-0850 - ;. n� (303)353-1232 - #%�i.,, F! D E 1 Vi? October 14, 1986 Weld Co., Off-Sys. 0 CT 2 91986 Bay Shores P.U.D. li Mi.. N. of S.H. 119 and 111 Mi. E. of Mr. Keith A. Schuett Weld Co. Phonic*:toalzs)Oo • Bidr./Weld.Co. Line Department'of Planning Services DOH File 45100 Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: We have reviewed the Pietrzak/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 the State Highway 119/ County Road 31 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 for offsetting those impacts. As indicated in these sections and Rvhibits "A" and "B" for Offsite Roadway Improvements, the applicant intends to construct the right- and left-turn acceleration and deceleration lanes at the S.H. 119/C.R. 31 intersection with the first phase of development. In view of this commitment, the Condition No. 26.6.2.4 on Page 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 thetconstruction 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 C) 0TVACS DISTRICT ENGI l .e/ eerrrr ,7 ohn Crier� l strict Planning/Environmental Manager JKC:mbc(WJ) cc: A. Yost 870123 Area Foreman File: Crier-Jacobson via Chotvacs DEPARSNT OF PLANNING SERVICES iPHONE C303)3564000 EXT.4400 91510th STREET. �`�� GREFUnc COLORADO80831 \ D rT. igI OCT 2 01986 e tie tb.P allit " COLORADO CASE N0MBER 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 N} of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this 7 application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union f 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. 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. 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: A. - Signed: Macey E. Mershon Oil Inc. lli?Vner C✓� ate:October 17, 1986 Scott S. McKinley R3. l- efl/ 7/I Current eith: A chuegt Current Planner 870123 October 17, 1986 2V ,985 Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services weld Co. 7laonig ciao 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 . Attention: Mr. Keith A. Schuett, Current Planner Be: 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 Suhnittal for Bay Shores P.U.D. dated October 1986, Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. has reviewed the sane 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, 1986, 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. 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.I Jonathan Zimeennan .(dated October 3,.1986) is incanplete. MACEY fMERSHON OIL INC. 8w-e 21.80 • 1600 BROADWAY • DtNVER.COLORADO 80202-4970 • (303)861 9183 870123 or i 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 begat the November 4, 1986 hearing and available to speak to' the Planning C®ittee. Very truly'yours, & OI INC. • {A Li • Scott S. McKinley Landman cc: . Robert J. Clair Zenith Drilling Corporation John McCarty Ted E. Icasbaugh 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 i ©EPAR1SNT OF PLANNING SERVICES h` s l PHONE(303)3564000 EXT 4400 s 91510th STREET �. GREELEY,COLORADO80531 9 O , COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 I Bay Shores P.U.D. ..,. i 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 i submitted prior to 3. di Please refer to the enclosed! letter. Signed: ,..., F. Agencys i`v: .,CI,J,\OV•{e Date: ICJ ( . Klti - Current Planner C'r' - 2 01986 Weld Co. Nanning Commission 870123 9, STATE OF COLORADO • Richard D. Lamm, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES r ! &ARM DIVISION OF WILDLIFE a ' James B. Ruch,.Director 6060 Broadway No Denver,Colorado 60216 Telephone:(303)297-1192 • tuber.7.1, 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:d.M. in Longmont, and is familiar with the recreational and wildlife uses in the area around Union Reservoir. Ron expressed several concerns abut the proposed zoning change from Agricultural to P.U.D.And 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 forbearers, 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 limiters 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 Inman 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: Run'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 H.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 i 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 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.U.D. have not looked at the wildlife needs in this area, nor have 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 • • • ��198S 870123 Weed Co. Manning Commission 7 • r /it , MEMORAnDUM IIIVt To Weld County Planning _em Oc er 14. 19$6 COLORADO From Health Protection Services Subject: Case Number: 2-430:86:5 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., uE131� E 00'1201986 870123 A 2 di/ � L O 1, CITY OF LONGMONT I - a —6 Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 * * ti (303) 776-6050, Extension 330 r / November 3, 1986 Or; -- i Mr. Keith A. Schuett 1 Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 7 Dear Mr. Schuett: r The City of Longmont is concerned about the proposed Bay Shores PUD for - several reasons. In addition to the planning impacts previously addressed, 0 Longmont has interests from another perspective - that of the potential owner of stock in Union Reservoir Company. • i 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 truly}Yours, 3 vin E. .Sw ey, City Manager i 8'70123 gg4 vati ST VRAIN C LEFT HAND WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT November 3, 1986 PRESIDENT Vernon E.Peppier Mr. Keith A. Schuett DirectoratLarge 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 Director at Large an expansion of Union Reservoir. The St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District supports any potential Leslie Williams increase in water storage within the District's boundaries. District 4 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 District 2 well benefit the farmer by making more rental water available. Bruce Kesler 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 dam_ Bart Paquette 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. RobertC-Brand WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Leslie J. Williams,Jr. Executive Director 870123 500 Coffman Street,Suite 106 Longmont.Colorado 80501 (303)772-4060 • • FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: Z-430:86:5 DATE OF INSPECTION: /'C NAME: g,y 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 E � ✓ SW ZONING: N ( LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles east of E (r Longmont. north of State Highway 119 and s " / east of Weld County Road 3 w (- COMMENTS: • 870123 �` (IlkDEPART tilt OF PLANNING SERVICES to i...1 itri RHONE(3032 35€.4000 EXT.4400 415.10th STREET I GREELEY.COLORADO 80631 lag r v l'i, wn 3O 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 3. 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 Y.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of fLongmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union I Reservoir. t 1 This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would o be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of 1 the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. E If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to ` mean approval by your office. iCheck the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. i 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 1. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our t interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Sigma^ ?`�"/ tit 1 tir 1 j_ Agsncy et�vyu ,c4.G Date:�P1—�1= J 1t& Current Planner C S INVESTMENTS 1113. 1333 WEST 120TH AVENUE 4 SUITE 308 DENVER:COLORADO 80234 (303)452-9955 October_29, 1986 .> 1986 - - LI - Mr. Scott S. McKinley Macey & Mershon Oil, Inc. VJ8!d Co. Wamtin Cone 1600 Broadway, Suite 2150 Denver, Colorado 80202-4970 Re: Bay Shores PUD, Cage No. Z-430:86:5 Tear Mr. McKinley: I am writing on behalf of CRS Inveslurnts 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. She pboyusal by CBS to allow a permanent future drilling site for Macey & Mershon plus open space locations is in our opinion more than adequate since your canpany has not shown any interest in developing this resource under your current oil and gas leace. 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 caipranise, 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 with to meet with us on what we think is a reasonable pzsal, please let us know. We are not going to give up any more of cur-surface rights or any cash consideration for a resource you never seri,nlsly plan to develop. We await your response and look forward to a productive meeting. As you:are aware, the new proposed regulations of the Oil and Gas Calmission support our position in protecting_ our surface rights, and will require your agreement with the surface owner before commencing a drilling operation or as an alternative 8'70123 • Mr. Scott S. ttR:inley Page 2- October 29, 1986 will require a bond in amount which nay be necessary to restore the surface. Our proposal accordingly, is quite reasonable. Sincerely, CPS - Roger ton President CRS/kel` cc: Harvey Curtis, Esq. John McC'.arty Keith'A. Schuett • • • 870123 - nn J`- �, i.. T•c' ... U _ .i DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Civic Center Complex J Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 776-6050, Extension 330 2 O R A9O 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 Weld County. Since ely, Brian J. Mill-AICP Planner III BJM/kmh File: #3050-12 • �.�� a �98S weld Co. Pianaini Camn,issjnp 870123 D 1-6.O4ff CHEY & SCHEY, P.C. C•ev' q 1 1986 ;n-ORIEYS AT LAW > - ms n ace nD.wxen,7. nartnIfi1RSumouic • mar... n it BPdi to.fieseiswitolulission 71111.0PJDA AVENUE. DONALD N.AIJRAO(A7 - WiltYJM- lfm.LW,WONG - - ra lox>rt WIESILNUSON October-30 , 1986 uNQmm(r•°i'am n e a, • JACOBS.SORY(3Yl-Ie63)- - - METRO,OW-AC4111 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 for 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 di-scuss the concerns about the development -which the 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 ofpersonal 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 be' 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. Linina 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 toincorporate 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 service 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. e it E. Pi ler NEP:lm cc: Mr . John McCarty The Oligarchy Ditch Board 870123 3 0 V - _ A/lutaI Ga. __ _ __,-.1lWsd -1D 30_186 .. . ___ _ ____ 6 .._K; -_,chug - = ' — - of /anger 21tpwtiIt ± TII1IIIT ----- o_____9/5 _, Gae/eyc� .__.a.____8063(;- ' ii286 _ , dr_ "tr--Sc4uef: ------- ----wsCB. Wang cossissioc_ _____________ ---2--_Rc7_S!jores _q)—_U.17. �'ase_1Ynshr. 30-L86 .S. —_ Ter_year. -reetaed_ A—_Aft concerns_ T e eal Mcicrx __Tai /7in evritindor ,c411:2115. as_tog; . -- ,- . /, alai/radii...ere __netersary ._ 12.___arcomrnfotIe --4ie. -4eed f aisir_ iiro- y__Y in - ---fiaf_jercraf __Jolt __ann( -ka/f6 Ar c sate/ _1rxl 'esy,semces, - __Rat __Amy._ ._€—_sow tat o —4- 2 14res-_/ae cfaf ss_ s,%aece 7i5 coca(_jta, i/9—a„d kde_ac :rnr t ._— _____poYl/l E_71e-Greatarx.241 atat 1_41; irre_` . : , al. Ge et 4an __/ndustriaLaloafd lejow Vie_.-1/4-1h . _ , __thAerenL._Vt/uefer_economrc jrO4114` 2_ __Tait Ph edge - ;s sEirhfilnnq olue ia�nirsfil X jActedyS-a le( - - J U . _J J c _ --- inroAG 's 3 A__:/1(o{r_ tamer_ oi> of GK_ofcen p!_. 4G.4lresenf�Q ue� ._ .prices• Once f't L _price] __Slain at ..--4(emandI_LA._ray Lhra,u nefaboss _-_ will i>)credlr ni 1(e sur..rir/,r /ratite, .._ _ . _. . 3. . . of/roan& . provic(e /ow cost lu//c . 7rampitahon setricer___14a1_ _ / 870123- --- C dP)101 4i ec(i mi(ocedc( oar /'e 41hwa s ; /i€ 4/feyna("ve is u/a ter fro7nrporfa kceif —_ _ Giorgio Zs_-oJ(e -of f /_.rffes_- __ w•//iosff __na rleJ/e -Idatterwa r •___igemfare s4 e nrutf re/ 07j. �ra//rod�I -_rl� O em Io j!de` ��`04?fiC .%Io(gsr e, �fare ren. atT/erel'Osint of 414 ,21' e4, /Went_ _''t/tf� --`-'( f�rr suP�odr_ lie— czyatrir _ e �/rrmcnf.._ vL_ /j-__..:elJ_✓tromof_esl4�.-.�acontel 2 — _ - - -- u/'/1 -tiEe_ 77r rest hlereill zdg( ✓auc-;: fel anzatif_ _well_5.1'4; _r <l- iw.� _ _ rope, _felt /��os_ —��'chfol�;_�teccrsar _ �� reVe�j� erf�er:_. sproporl�onure Jp st. ¢5_ an__o �ronoml� 1aen1 / - - - - — - - _ 871)42,3 r — -t°°alaI,enc _f--..sy ze _.fisr- /4 card _Aersar;S _� — - __ - _ _. .__._.G✓ _ unify:4(3_4 Li.__/cit. ejf % 7L {iLiJiiI1 P7/4/rlcrn} , slits .:._sp_iyiemilin _grocoih¢ .147.17C41�s . - {Ven.(eS--- elk ..0L-Z“c- lq._ 7r�rlu_iti t-- _._ -..___ �- _re7Th1:ZIisrn_._... _./n_._A_ ar/i __1 1._ roydh7Q __._ra s_el_''—_—__ Aass»,g /nay _ , , cZlsP __L/fe o _ ftetuivs- f er _enc(a44i.erin 'hrtin— _ews._ _ - b._ Toai_._3.%�_ a/�edrs�.%__It.. 4e_-�4. _47rf� l nx0.et._- ‘filr kiectin 81_11O6_ ______i_k _6-4./..R___2-5 cancer,44 - — _ ..26ou ._Jic -_ 1/uns Jam- Rd ii e4 __ TO f 4e f_Yes___ili --#;,- Si,ores__t__rescif w- GonfAaande - - c' _of—_low _e_rfifeentent__di rater tgng c-r8rsf Js -- - C • _ e firegl_.are Pxoec[al- j_.:_:fur/%c- acr<%rsp/Y_� _ ?mc1 - Y le reu/u!aic is- S nQ ezJ _ _1llsr(rate P 2-11s cL 0ccesfixts. arL.r.e. Co2Zcern 8 Cali?, �jra;1; 61 a/1/45/ 5 easenkthis _-anfk- _..C✓mrra/.r-A 17 O/r 14e_ AO C____/ ._ _ /. . . / 870423----_ f7j / of way ez, ic+rr�� Id f!-7-rnsP /pr1:7;sc A;. n i • �. ---__.a. __Ruiners __advise__ .AY _ . .ve6Ele..� c(QSs Js re _._�y_ 4rdJ actor_ ores- -Gtr/?- irct i -efecfeo -__Soom . �e__resi reo faig /0e,_ c4/—t_12licid&k it_/ e tta. e__ fiLe /'/71 — -G filer teraganec alG as,c ra f a�_ :,s: �l e_- Eel_ j ruck .. - Ya/l Aasseler _-_ Service___.rn /AL_ Rret el 2f _.5,2 -Clo . i tlrls /71,' -GAP -dar :�P5Docelaii jpv C• __:Ga& Y%rJs a . -.40res_ _111X way e ele t€4171717 —<S_iettir�1:�(._a_ 5rrIe C ossv� sef _eynee i to s�—�Zn . z_dcr�asl� deals.—/easf—coJf ' _See araf._a _%s rel:-elicit (.7.2 t s__ Yesource ra -ft'eon Jd: Olt_/c� a�_2vczt�i�dt --- Cfo5sI j Sar ce_y_ .��11 ter, � ✓ / Sina&- arw{-Sa7S___. (ircie3- w_ Cirectms f ecC )_Galt C0R•' accep_i s_ yekcles- Z� __ 5 2(6 wrhou r s/o� SJ�nS_ _ _/Il-o c71 )6QI _rnf.._ro?tiW7 aY4 I4.rt•� 1. alllyjI77& . Till ITT I 7Yt lll[ (11(�T.I In /� ri?I.Fe 4/l4 PsS /S - rJ7..rcfrl(.!red foe laavi es 111 "J ffffff Pray Yan.sl hJrre I`e ecf f r FasSeYrj?1' Service ar.-s Es - 870123 1111 _ Gc/!� v euls� __�eT crosrirc __ of--`t��°( 3/ 1 - _ --- --c2S (ri✓7/e_-._ yeUr__J./7d -4 _c 42 f.f /YZ . - - _..W_` _ 1. _..�_ / J�� v __• {' lsea_u-aJ$. �Tr_rn2plIA.e si a Lsq orY _-` . . ____ _______-_al-- ra �.-_CYV)ssizt _Se ro2�i" l _act-.3J-.si�rnii �h&. 1i.. . - ... - — - -UaS _0,4. oz.ei __proposal_ _MR ter a!'ke._.. g'__Orar» �� k_ ffieA�nq s�, / .f ----&W• rW -- 1_rdtk__SLn clutQ-_-1 uif aaag...___Of:-.Consi(erec{.__---_ rmm ^ ( �r �� / / U� Jf10Yei_.__ �1/JJ _ Ueveln -me�n1 /_YaYY�Sr:re v C jnQ ,alei -- -.e.1, . 3 , :- ,�ecovi A _. ve gyre 1 ri• f / 'Z /7 / a dYle d� YOr7�7L(dr. . r/f. SGf��pYf _ -- lied. y?1 -_ .c� _ 8de_(t oxsz S2 Are/1;54(• __- . l . O _ 870123 Sum.mecrx . -- lJwIR re1 ?in-Ir YeeA4r)-keS _i_ EA. - -4- -- - -._.-.-_ __ _50-od, , oa _OLIO.- Cavpen e— iy{ _ed;c(e4 n _.0EJ1ytt-o '1 _ .... /0 _74-___rxxi.it { ii_—c1._ 7,577e ,. i L ra,lovc�.C ___is _ _ r( de —.such ezerP f.was----TO . ie___cfeY eY -awl- ar_-•-p kii W_ri_ f ._r We d9/_ai./ Q . _ _i t7 se_ �_ Calk. .J-Ces ,to a /j ...� eyuesls /Je— �"�F�c_ pun. 11 II_ _ -- _--� 11 J_ 1/.._ /.._..... __ / �j �_ --- __ f,�l- -_--- _ -_--� Cw'inJ/Scin 7(Q.-_ Ufe� S___' "-ita/S.. _I L/ e O?der_l 7dC tt):. -- _�—J..—.__. one--_z. _:�,.. . OTC pry ore. ..._prof-^. -1-i_r5 ZAta.7 #(II . 6d_ _ - ---_.1Cesien-77 1-- - —__ ______3_.a. e.n r_d�/w f'a'k--0rR 8�_._4_-_- ?q r,"ccri>rra�_dZ�_7`j s__7_141e_..—_ Z.4.—LA1LC-_^ r0 �r -�_4eLnr1 /1 _:J19 Fit,—,-- -v V /2- 7r tai% ( an _p - noz _o� �c/ n-eep--.4g -talfrsxi--75e -fie :pres.zrl� J • _Y_com er k\"�rL6 c ifim�_ezf as _SVegi tike.__- � t4AvxQesf t t _vigil:�{S111 S/iT_2S __ aI? _dIP rJYPp.�s-�. . 7,46_5_7„:, ____ .Cooprafe J`" /` -_ a'J___.1k.__ allkrrrf�_%o_ __arceve-_�vs--- -- _ —_- 1�IeS..-- /✓1/ .11�{' _. CLtu1 _o�_'ftd_0.0(.hhri_fra___i4dccS L-eJ___ — ci . RS —Cylpossi_." _.lp__ 1,757 __ __AriW.2 -!»dcfdil 1 la r72-S:4-711 f _ ---- — 'PSIcif/ife ( 'aeye(oymerrl� — _ - ._ . _ _ __ _ _ 43 ---.: f[,yj veryr _( r �Q,�cl�__ r iPor 7r -17: :nil Es Yi1 �alI / � -7,-.„. .cam-, /- -/--.,.1 rt • • WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 449 YOS FIRST NATIONAL RANI(BUILDING GREELEY- COLO. 80632 OREELEY. COLORADO . (3031 3934292 November 3, 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett iA. 1985 Current Planner Department of Planning Services 915 - 10th St. Greeley, CO 80631 Weld Co.Pima X40 Re: Case Number Z-430:86: 5 Bay Shores PUB 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:d1 870123 ' . ill UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,INC. 1 1 P.O. BOX 929 (303)659-0551 Brighton. Colorado 80601 ENTERPRISE 222 November 4, 1986 4.' 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett, Current Planner 1Mt tt.Awe*CaallaSsiei 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 ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. y:C7Gc�G / Bill Meier Right-of-Way Engineer BM1slt cc: McCarty Engineering 870123 "A Consumer-Owned Utility Serving Five Front Range Colorado Counties" .OOK ga.Wutd at '•� Gwendolyn E. Breatherill s'or+r, ieCord� Ray. No RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT j— I The undersigned Grantor for the consideration of S Five(S5-OOliars, 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 Ouarter of the Northwest Qaavter of Section 5. Township 2 North. Range 68 West. This easement is to be on the south side of the county road situated c-. an -the nnrth nrtgP -.n-F qn ri pared Dpz-,!^, it - rjtj�� • SITUATE 1n the County of Weld . State of Cobra I together With tno rights: (a) of ingress and egress over and across the lands of the undersigned to and from the above- o'- ache purpose of exercising the rights herein granted: (b)to place location markers on or beyond said stµRp,c`,(p�) tqq,,,clear and keep cleared all trees,roots,brush.and other obstructions from the:said strip, without Grantee being oblititkf.tUltiltiliteSt(ellmfillermit 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 oI 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. Signed and sealed this rd ` day of /f t -i to j. A.D., 78 74 .1 IN WITNESS. WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement at as of the day and year first above written, cIRANTOR(S) f� UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. President Title Title if Officer* *If other than president, vice president, partner or owner, a power of attorney must accompany contract STATE OF COLORADO re J The.foregoing instrument-was aekaowjdt3 �BtoieT� MI; ) as: 30th day Jr nubs COUNTY OF_lELD. ) - 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her)'uAr't1tllii 5 tfg?'11- official seal. _. f 1,‘ �L.1I z -w 6-8`` if Notary Publ:c'y •\ My commission expires January 16, ,197 CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF' COLORADO ) The foregoing instrument wus acknowledged before me this ) ss s 20th da February 1970 COUNTY OF_ AdaniS ) by Joseph Green Pres:?eat ,IN WITNESS•WIEF,REOF,- I have hereunto set my hand and N .g.iticial seal 6 4t ..C f Ci z }— - •o r Notary Public . ')ty'Eommissir4±.g nines Jarman- 16. 1972 . w7-es 870123 y' _,� U ) jjL 7 P / KNOW ALL LIN��SY T C5 PR .';EgTS, That the undersigned �._. thy itiLr� !�_ _. f7_ a good and - valuable cc•n.1ddration, the r ceipt who ^'.f az, thereby acknowledged does :hereby grant unto Uib1ON B.Urta?., 7.1 C � IC _xSSCCI_,TION, INC., a corporation, .rnose poatof ice adc_•est is Brighton, Colorado, and to its successors end assigns, the- right to enter� upon the lands of the uncle.signed, situated in the Goanig of �/Y�P,0 $ State of Colorado and more particularly described_as foiiops;. ' • G and to place, construct, operate, repeir, maintain, relocate and replace thereon and in or upon all street, roads or highways abutting . said lends an ele r*e 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 .tht are tall enough to strike the wires in falling. The undersigned covenants that he 1a the orner of the above .escribed lends and that the. s ld' ianda are free and clear of e'lcumbrance and liens of whatsoever chars.eterexcept those held by the 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 sh ll be construed to read in the feminine. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the- under::tj ned has set his hand and seal thisao�-, day of - 19_,Al2_, �� P STATE OF .COLORADO .. ) _,tea,. a r7f 274 3SS _ h,T COUNTY or T e oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o day o 9a 199p by J. . Witness my hand and official seal. 1.:y commission expiresjC C LcEVrC NbwyV� ..-. ei i My Rtlsmg ,y,Color: r public. on aPka F , ,/1441 870123 C :� , ;, U :i O- • • CASE SUMMARY Z-430:86:5 Bay Shore Planned Unit Development • 6-5-86 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, vas mailed to the applicant from the department 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. 8-19-86 The staff determined that the application and related materials were incomplete for a Change of Zone application. 8-25-86 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 - 0,..•a• .0 • ... 1. aa k— t ` 4. �a• • •' °° as In n. •• _ - 56*+`I'-wlj: ` ,._ _ i _`. _ a • ��- �1 ` � `.. �4 1 • • n 1 •» I f • K5•T• • • 9a. • IT, 1 I f / • +/ - k; - — '- •11 ;°`� •' A00.CREST•t'eg • /• ( . v n H IIteg • • as rici�M • r • ....fa* • si• • • •• » • N,: u 1 ''9 g• I n: • .. :et. C • as•E _ .. , \ • . i" _ ` ~»t� �~pw`` •Lev ' T-- • A . .i . qp t\ 1\ t OKAT. t it • 4 • 1 • - •� =•3 •• k '1▪ •p �!/L' . • cI �',. • t C \• 0 '.t'� I. ••• C rtz I •• • C fal. :o.a: XM Y . V" •t .Cy C �'p .. . Ca +i a• \� ra • • i1. /• ax » n ;,~•!�•uTRva�E as r " • Y� ,at t•.•r•• C- •aaa•a i ? o N• \• ••••1•C.. •a ♦1 f. { c •° i ,.... • •t~ " i a' •• •.z GSA° °• ' i � • .w/ ' '1 t 1 i •C .ant? i' \ • C a• •C,,e 43;r, Cvttao i . a. i,• _ • p l r 5 e.fr av v.• C a u •I ` , » a l t I Es. . . _ . . .. ., . . • ., _ . _. • . .... . _: • J.. ,,. . • . , n• . .• .. . •.• •C to • • - •s ••• • • t__... . •(; t_f______ , ' • / a •' • a •.a 4 + MILLi I e `1 •• f t• - , ,, _\ �- h • • 1 \ %1/4-,--- �i tw^x,� a OAF p/i '_' • "� ..aaw. / •_ I;3 s i•°f iw ASA 16 0 - 1 - a di g 1 =�• 1,. •• • . c •„ C ,• \I: C Si t 0 N ' I " o ..r' C • NE 1�NE . • J:--"'- - 71% . 'y•— .•._. j--, � ti e y' ' R . • C • c.,,:7-, 1E sa $ �'� C , aI �� •i,, rt //° • >. • •▪ \ / 6`• 1�. F•E°.p _ _ _. __ _ _ 1 ` � (/•ape r CI � t r •c . .•°! �• '•C�ilF l a tz4 NA rsx . . r°.� ! • /8• C :, • )7 .i.. • L r o.eon �1[y r /. tr-a wC \- nil; +' :.w rrm. £ 3 l i n • n l Y _if n \ _ tl ri F pprr • / I • • . p / s c, r :.,� t ` �C•J , ii i tr "(. a /1 . - a• qC" t °�i/ I ya'F.� • tt 1(4, 4 f. \ t• •a1 C t ° '` • Y '`1 • p E>\• t , - te 0:,---127----77T-. :C •Ygi i. 1 \:,) C rat -( K C / 1 1 I T• .-._ C r ' (• • i'c�zt._z l . •.�,Y'_jI's I',�..• r j 4EVTP.t 2 0 w� e• il1 I r y v ro 1/Cx•,,"j/' • '.i_ / E 'ill ii n C dC C•/. _ / a r• `vr l• -I 4o; '� ('�� I a'. I r a i I I C Y• r.. . . j't .-"1:-.4.."•-s•_.-_. •t .n9•r'.�. ` ..• a a[ . V 1 , I i. ti `•. :••age;t,, / 0•p is 'J t' `-1 .yC k�1 L '.:I 1 � 4yQM,.� i•' .. a : �i• C w too i n C it li a. • N t : . aI a \ J L I n _ ' s' : • .a • iw..arnt•-R!f t li I 1i £ . at i •.a.-+ - I • 5i c c.g�% .�5 c u (( , �17 � J y .... { >x 4.1 • » G •• t a j 1 • \ C as G.S H ii a• )i 1 l• �ca % i: • r ir•'• E H I C t 1 - — • 870123 - I: x; - - / , � ! _, <gg, I t 2 / I \ Ill i E. \ g j - tv ° v _ \1/4 S¢ab wv, ' 1 ga I /. �v / Kirkland i t �' ; 1, i 4 c t 1 r t y CALKINS LAKE q 1 <g➢0 ' ' N. -- Si' (UNION RE ERVOIR) 32 { — • -j - -3 - 1 - I / I , •, W - • �<vss Ji \ air • $ 11, �" �;•; "OREA WESTERN - o'y , , • zei e i . , ki.... .:. . . ...95, _sv, ,.____ , 2 . N''. # . � 938. ( —" 11p11! — sI ls — �•' 41 ��. :11 mil— •••••• ��r '— � 1 :TT Q \' • ,' \ � • \ ..Gr Rt \ S \ K�l �i �39 ` ,p�,y y a '-a a. 4.1 - • ;W v �. ^ L.Aw. -s • eie„` 'ti.+I Y r • v ` .r"� vet S^ j°:'itTi rsi@A stilry.}iw.:.y, r ."�. ut +r 1 , - .—, .. , it.-..-.13 .. , ..u. ,.. ,,,,,. i ......„ . .., , . . :1 -4 •��.r. 4� •. S+• ♦ • I, - '- pct.i . e yr. s ..r.',' AF o• f • f•�... i .,n . a Z. Z o'wt ryad 1 s \xv V f +Y,U r I- W roe 1 4 - ✓: w�ef °` Y\,y ,x.' 7 i{{ r� 11 ,� �kYis1 `t�•�alL-.'�•Ei._�. c-th`f �a'.1' f 14 t ."eM. Cap_ .. r y `12�C§ , � 1•17 . r�_,.,J, A'r \ , sy i v 1 1 ' 6 „ :}' -• C 4.c.i 40/I :.:, ., - `" a `r Sr -4i. - •�+r +' 1,},,, ` „:4.S"<$.5. -...'rT. 1 ♦ 11.4 � � 1 w r ' r y isti 6 • • t, ry '�ery I• CY ,1 C11 f •/ S ,r. 1 DEPARTINT OF PLANNING SERVICES _ 1 g 10 PHONE(303)3565 EST 4400 915 10th STREET - GREELEY,COLORAD080631 ■ COLORADO NOTICE OF PUBLIC FEARING 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 I Great We to ilroa X Oligarchy Ditch Company c/o Ascher 1,4$ 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 I State Engineer X Weld County Sheriff's Division of Water Resources Department 1313 Sherman St., Room 818 c/o Rich Dill Denver, CO 80203 X 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 Plaurdng Water Quality Control Division Department 4210 East 11th Avenue 2040 14th Street Denver, CO 80220 Boulder, Co 80302 X Longmont Planning Department X St. Vraia 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 Wield County Road 26 X Louis Rademacher Longmont, CO 80501 P7nnning Commission Member 13184 Wald County Road 13 Longmont, CO 80501 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. Dvorak 445 Main Street Longmont, Colorado 80501 Donald H. and Genevie Hornor, 8055 West 88th Street Arvada, CO 80002 Trustees and Beira of Paul W. and Nellie G. Newby c/o Raimon K. Newby 12260,Wald County Road 5 Longmont, CO 80301 Donald M. Lecher Trustee for Wilson Family Trust 3201 East 2nd Avenue Suits 300 Denver, CO 80206 JCR. Farm, Ltd'. 1239=,Third Avenue Longmont, CO ;:80634 L. Barbara J. Johnson 6170 West 24th Street Gra:iey, CO 80634 2fayeda Farms George I. and!-SumiyeMayeda John Y. and Betty K. Maysda 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 HiII, Secretary P.O.'-Box 276 La Salle, CO 80645 870123 MINERAL OWNERS Bay Shorts P7*rnad Unit Development Z-430:86:5 Macy-toitrahon Oil Co 1600 Brosdvay Suits 2150 Denver, CO 80202 I 87{3323 DEPAR$NT OF PLANNING SERVICES (ThIr _Ill - PHONE(303)3584000 fxr.4400 OL RA 570631 f GREELEY,COLORADO 80837 lip 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 N} 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 theirreview 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; 5. 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 ,77,2, /N y/g84 Y • 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, it 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 pan 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 Piam.Pd Unit Development District. The 280 acre parcel is surrounded by rural land-uses on all aides, the majority in crop production. The Great Western Railroad bisects the proposed development. - Approximately three-fourths of a mile of the Oligarchy Ditch is contained within the 870123 • • ce • CRS:Investments, Inc.` ' July"25, 1986 Page. 3 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 Wald 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 Zona 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 guaranteessr- 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 . 0111 ear (al 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, G o V. Dunn Current Planner GVD:rig pc • `Paula Fitzgerald McCarty-,Engineering Consultants, Inc.. 703 Third Avenue' Longmont; Colorado 80501 Enclosures 870123 �. rje DEPART1NT OF PLANNING SERVICES w PHONE(303)356-4000 E)T.4400 915 10th STREET i \l GREELEY,COLORADO 80631;Vit 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 (Agrictltural) to P.D.D. (Planned Unit Development) R-1 (Low Density Residential) and recreational uses located in the N} 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. ` • Auguat'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 pin 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 • • .' McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc August 29. 1986 Page 3 - Information which addresses the issues raised by representatives of the Oligarchy Ditch Company and Richard Hamm, an adjoining property owner, in both letters dated June 26. • • - Information which clearly shows how the concerns of the Weld County Sheriff's Department, in its June 23, 1986, memorandum on the funding to cover the costs of law .enforcement services is going to ba provided. - - Information will need to be provided from the St, Vrain Valley School District that covers its concerns with the Bay • Shores Planned 'Unit Development project_ The information • should include an explanation about how the ._oncerns will be addressed. - Additional information on a storm water management drainage plan. This plan shall address any potential water pollution to the Union Reservoir and Oligarchy Ditch. due to increased - storm water run-off from the removal of Heldt Silty Clay loam soils and build-out of the proposed development. - Information on the traffic study, including the source of information that was used to determine the amount of daily • traffic and the percentage break-out of vehicles on Weld County Road 3-1/2 and Weld County Road 26. - The vicinity and land-use map of the area does not meet the requirements of Section 28.5.2.2 of the Weld County,Zoning Ordinance. • - The vicinity map is not -drawn to a suitable scale and does not clearly show the following: 1. The map shall be drawn at .a .scale not to exceed 1" to • 2. Thec outline of the perimeter of the parcel proposed for the Change of Zone. 3. The ditches on or within- two hundred (200) feet of the property. ' 870123 .. • • McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. August 29 1986 page- 4 ' 4. Location of rivers and other drainage systems on or within . the two hundred (200) feet of the property. 5. Location of easements, rights-of-way, and other similar interests of record on the parcel and within fifty (50) feet of the parcel. 6. Location of all existing utilities (electricity, gas, water. and sewer) on the parcel as well as within fifty (50) feet of the parcel. 7. The identity of land-uses of the adjoining properties. ' This identification should include type of crops in production on these properties. The rezoning plat map does-not comply- with the requirements of Section 28.5.2.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The map shall be labeled- correctly and meet the listed requirements. 1. The closure error may not exceed 1:5,000. - Additional information -on how the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. - Additional information which demonstrates how the uses allowed by the proposed rezoning will be compatible with the surrounding land-uses. This shall include a description of existing land-uses of the project property and all properties adjacent to the subject property. When-these items are submitted, the application will be considered complete. If you have any additional questi.ons,. Please call or write. Sincerely, ith, A. Suhuett r Current Planner KASsrjg 870123 ak { DEPARTI'ST OF PLANNING SERVICES • 3F t PHONE(303)3564000 EX1.4400.. 'F 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 11111 e COLORADO CASE NWBER :Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. August 29. 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an 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) 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 10, 1986, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. XXX 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. nPlease refer to the enclosed letter. Signed:1n0•h: c Agency: Longmont Fire Date:09-05-86 Mm. R. Emerson Protection District Fire MarJr/shal ' � eK ithted- �. 5chue=t 0 EIEt+ i \' Current Planner �� S� NGUrINTRRE E_•= S 1986 na z"/ otsTRia toeaGuoKrca' ',� Weld Co. Nanning Cammtssio¢ 870123 ,,, ,, , • • lit IISID6....% mEmORAn®Um WIlDSKeith Schuett To Planning Department Date Septe er 5, 1986 COLORADO From_ Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer &b ,: Bay Shores Change of Zone We have reviewed Bay Shores Planned Unit Development sketch -plan and noted our concerns in a memo dated July 8, 1986. The same sketch plan is attached to the Change of Zone application. The sketch plan does not show any revisions for the Change of Zone application. A copy of the July 8, 1986, memo is attached. In the application materials, in the "Bay Shores P.U.D. Development Plan Narrative", is a section titled "Traffic Impact Analysis". I disagree with the assumptions made in the 6th paragraph regarding traffic flow. I feel the statement that 90% of the traffic will use road 311 to access the develop- ment is not correct. State Highway 119 serves the southern part of Longmont and is located one mile 'south of WCR 26. State Highway 66 serves the northern part of Longmont and is located two miles north of CR 26 but has not been considered. In the same paragraph justifications are given for offsetting the alignment of WCR 26 within the development. Because the development of the entire region is imminent, we must consider more than Bay Shores alone. Weld County Road 26, as well as any other potential artery, must be maintained as a though road. Further traffic analysis should be performed including trip generation studies in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Information Report, "Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982". Using that information, the cost to upgrade the existing road system, due to Bay Shores impact, should be estimated. It is interesting to note, using the assessed value reported in the economic impact section of the :Development Plan Narrative, with the current 3.143 road and bridge mill levy, Bay Shores Development will generate approximately $2,920.00 into the road and bridge fund per year. Obviously, that amount of revenue will fall far short of the cost to maintain the.. roads required to support the proposed development. 0LS/bf Enc. - 0 „l-r 1 �t _ 13 1986 870123 Weld Co.Warning Commission F.rtioki v.,.. x DEPARTN~T OF PLANNING SERVICES 1,4 i sfItiCo PHONE(303)3564000 EXT.4400. 915 10th STREET. 11114 • GCREELEY•COLORADO 80631 COIV COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5; Bay Shores.P.U.D. August 29, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an 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) and recreational uses. The parcel of land is described as part of the N} 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 10. 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 subm prior to 3. efer to the enclosed letter. Signed: • J Agency: C,;citelcec-, p Date:l1 1Rl Adoi c//fe ett Current Planner 870123 .' Y • • Gloria V. Dunn ti To Planning Department p,t, July 8, 1986 COLORADO From Donald R. Carroll , Administrative Manager Subj.ot: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development - Sketch Plan S-263:868 __ We have reviewed the Bay Shores Planned Unit Development for the Sketch Plan stage and have the following comments: 1. Weld County roads 26 and 3'1 should be left as through arterial roads. No lots should access directly onto 25 or 3i. 2. A 100' right-of-way should be dedicated for roads 26 and 331 in accordance with Section -8-2A (5) '(c) of the subdivision regulations. 3. All relocation costs for county roads shall be at the developers -expense. 4. County road 26 will have to cross the proposed canal to the Union Reservoir. In order for boats to pass under this structure- it will be of major construction and must meet the AASHTO design requirements. 5. A storm water detention plan will have to be developed for the entire subdivision. Storm water detention on each individual lot will not be allowed. 6. Before final approval a detailed analysis considering the affects of increased runoff to the Union Reservoir and its outlet facilities will be required. 7. No facilities for the St. Vrain Sanitation District.have been constructed. Is there an anticipated time table and what affect will this have on the proposed development? 8. Clarification of the proposed read cross: sections will be necessary; DRC/bf 870123 C f ., 4 /Eh DEPAR•NT OF PLANNING SERVICES II PHONE(303)3564000 ExT.4400 r ` \\) 975 70th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 S � ' S COLORADO CASE NUMBER 2-43O:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. August 29, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a change of zone from k (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, TZN, 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 10, 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. Ple a er 'to the enclosed letter. Signed: Agency: d L0. 5hi Date:< ?-O3' hde4 sl en, Origc aci /ti tr t Q 7 rK ith A. Sclmatt EC current.Planner t':' �f9 Weld Co. Planaint Commission 870123 o CE. OF THE SHERIFF MEMORANDUM TO Gloria V. Dunn, Current Planner • FROM undereheriff Rick Dill DATE June 23, 1986 Bay Shore PUb, Case #S-263:86:8 RE • Estimated service population at buildout has been derived from the 1980 census mean household figure of 2.78 persons for a total of 1,179 persons. Costs to supply service :for this population is derived...from analysis of our current costs to obtain slower limit of $39,330 .annually to an upper limit of $94,638 annually. This development is ^located remote to central Weld County near a large population concentration' in Boulder County. Historically, this is a very active area for service-:demand;=These-factors tend to move the anticipated costs toward the uppertilieits of the'-xange. The HD toncept tends to move the costs into the %mid-range. Our -best estimate is 460,000 to $65,000 annually or about $141' to $153 per unit � ^" rim•.= ,stomventivnal-mill Levy property texesidOL not appear sufficient to-aadequately `rcovar',tbe.- coats'of this,-project `:While we are not opposed to the=project, ` :to .eaver ^the costs of our L,.sarvicas_�yaill,„"be eome�alt�sraht�.ve�_ fimdiag r necwasmy,for?our concnrrecta. ry ~x - mD/kaya. // • t , 7140 ANd/Ndo d Apet.9 46e45C •£'Qli . GY:' pit GC. � pots - v4i-ti? • • �IG G'r /9 Ce 1. o 4:772 • AU Rik; 14..) sect((.r/al G� ' � . Gum J refG�f�_ tin Pac rrr f-r — = oo ti e:2 vii O . - " _. • o9 of= 3 ,�% Weld C4. PlhWNwt WM.-: “, 870123 111, SAINT VRAIN Dr.F.Keith Blue PALL Superintendent of Schools PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL OiSfRICr NO.itEW -395 a PRATT PARKWAY LONGMONf,COLORADO 80501 September 8, 1986 Weld County Colorado 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 on the 424 units in the August 15, 1986 rezoning request. SUB-DIVISION IMPACT ON SCHOOLS: # STUDENTS STUDENT OVER CAPACITY EMOLLIENT + PROJECTED IMPACT CAPACITY ELEMENTARY: Mead 384 423 + 144.16 567.16 X JUNIOR HIGH: Mead _ 218 193 + 69.54 262.54 X HIGH SCHOOL: Skyline 1119 976 + 63.6 1039.6 Because of the long term need to provide educational space for students generated by subdivision developments, the district has a policy requesting developers to contribute their fair share to the future acquisition of school sites. According to the district formula for this purpose, the developers of Bay Shores should donate to the district a total of 5.9614 acres. In discncsions with the planning consultant for Bay Shores, I have expressed the district's need to locate. a 10 acre elementary site within this subdivision. As you can see by the . :impact above, Mead Elementary is currently over capacity and we have no school sites in Weld County. The district policy is to locate -an elementary school site close to or in the neighborhood which it wilt serve. ( �) ? 9 1986 Wa&A Co. PlanaR Roaissial 870123 �J • Therefore, we plan to identify sites as subdivisions are platted. There is no school site identified on the Bay Shores P.U.D. Sketch Plan. I am willing to meet with you, the developer or the planning consultant as soon as possible to identify a site. I have enclosed a copy of our Board of Education policy regarding selection of sites for your information. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ,ALL Dorothy Sores, Director Planning, Evaluation and Communication DS/ss • • • • 870123 e File: FEE SITE ACQUISITION PROCEDURE The'St. Vrain Valley Board of Education recognizes that the district is affected by each residential development within its boundaries. During the last years of the 1970' s and the first years of the 1980's, the district has experienced very fast growth at times, changing pupil yield ratios, and rising land costs. Criteria for the location of sites are that school sites shall be centrally located within the service area for a school, shall be centrally located within neighborhood areas and shall be located, whenever appropriate, within the corporate limits of a municipality. When procedures for public dedication of school sites do not exist, options for school sites shall be obtained at the time real property is annexed to a municipality or at the initial approval stage in the planning process for land development in the county. Such options shall set forth the terms and conditions of the agreement, ownership rights, property use and purchase price for the real property. The costs of school sites shall be borne by any residential development.Such costs shall be fairly distributed among all developers in the service area for a school. The obligation for the school site cost by development shall be met at the district's election by a contribution from every developer in the service area of land, cash or combination thereof. The contribution shall be based upon all relevant factors including but not limited to established school site size, school building size, pupil yield ratio and land costs. The district and administration shall monitor pupil yield ratios (number of children per dwelling structure) and the costs of land and shall continually review site and facility sizes. The district shall maintain standards in Board of Education procedures for the purpose of establishing the cash or land contribution by developers. The St Vrain Valley Board of Education believes the location of school sites adjacent to public parks with consideration for joint use and efficient use of public land is desirable. The Board of Education desires to and intends to cooperate with all involved governmental units to preplan school sites and to fulfill this policy and the supporting procedures. When a governmental unit has developed procedures for the public dedication of school sites, the Board desires to achieve a binding agreement with the governmental unit for the purpose of obtaining title to school sites. 1 of 2 870123 • • • File: FEE-R SITE ACQUISITION PROCEDURES • For the purpose of implementing the site acquisition policy of the Board of Education and for the purpose of reviewing, maintaining and updating the necessary information for the policy, the administration shall undertake the following: 1. The administration will maintain pupil yield ratio information and will calculate the pupil yield ratios for elementary, junior high and senior high levels in existing neighborhoods and will update these ratios at least every six months. The administration also will evaluate demographic trends within the district, the state of Colorado and the United States. 2. The administration will maintain school site size standards. These standards are as follows: Site Standards Elementary School 10 acres Junior High School 20 acres Junior/Senior High School 25 acres Senior High School 30 acres Minimum standards if site is contiguous to a park of sufficient size to meet School and Park, Requirements. Elementary School 8 acres Junior High School 12 acres Junior/Senior High School 18 acres Senior High School 22.5 acres 3. The administration will maintain facility size standards, calculated as a program capacity which is 85% of a maximum capacity figure based on instructional program requirements. 4. School site size standards and facility size standards will be adjusted, if necessary, during the preplanning phase of residential development to accommodate more current pupil yields, density of the attendance area and topography of the site. 5. The administration will maintain information about the sales of county land to developers who are planning residential development. The calculation of price in an,option will be based upon the first sale of any land to a developer in any legal form (as an individual, as a partnership, as a joint venture or as a corporation). 1. of 2 870123 • • File: FEE-R 6. The administration will maintain information about the school site locations. Without limiting the factors to be considered, the decision concerning the location of the school site shall take into account topography, ground water, soil and drainage concerns, costs of utility extension to a school site, ' transportation, safety of the site, consideration of natural and man-made hazards, participation upon the land proposed as the school site, proximity of the school site to other attendance areas and adjacent land use. Application of all of the above information to establish the share of cash or land to be donated by residential developers for elementary and secondary sites is calculated as follows: The administration will determine the pupil yield ratio (pyr) for a given service area based upon the pupil yield in an existing comparable neighborhood. The resulting pupil yield ratio will be multiplied by the number of residential units to be built by a developer which will then be divided by the facility site standard and multiplied by the required acreage. This will determine the developer's prorated share for cash or land donation. For example: Assuming that the elementary pupil yield ratio in an existing comparable neighborhood is 0.31, times 265 units planned by the developer in the service area, divided by the elementary school facility standard of 450 students, times the required acreage for an elementary site of 10 acres, the developer's share for cash or land contribution would be 1.83 acres which equals 18.314 of 10 acres of the proposed school acreage. 0.3I (pyr) x 265 units ; 450 (facility standard) x 10 acres (site size standard) = 1.83 acres. Approved October 17, 1974 Revised: February 23, 1983 Revised to conform with practice: May 23, 1984 St. -Vrain Valley School District RE-IJ, Longmont, Colorado 2 of 2 870123 • • SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LDr.nn THEODORE RICNLT.JR 7Ni�JmtwnsINO Ise ma mans DONALDH.AUTAVCH : an PRIMP&MOM - - ►a COI LT JAMISH.NUJON' - LONGMONT.COLORADO usalaa NONL Oa)JAcoasson<rpmn�D �ni September 8 , 1986 w� aLa>4aML Mr. Keith Schuett Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. Case No. Z-430:86:5 Dear Mr. Schuett: Pursuant to your letter of August 29 , 1986, I am responding on behalf of my client, The Oligarchy Ditch Company, to the application of Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments concerning the Bay Shores P.U.D. In June,. your offices requested comments concerning the sketch plan submitted by the Applicant. We responded at -that time indicating several areas of opposition. First, the Applicant proposes reallignment of the Oligarchy Ditch apparently to maximize the lots in the P.U.D. Notwithstanding the statement appearing in the Applicant's Change of Zone Submittal , the Ditch Company continues to state that it will not consent to reallignment of their ditch. Second, the Ditch Company opposes any plan which restricts their historic right of access to the ditch for maintenance purposes. From the plat plan, the proposal by the Applicant does not provide the Ditch Company with its historic maintenance access rights to their ditch. Third, any change in land use from agricultural to residential will cause less water to be absorbed into the ground and more to run oft into The Oligarchy Ditch. The Ditch Company has no legal obligation to accept this additional water and does not intend to do so. While the submittal speaks of engineering to preserve historic runoffs, the Ditch Company has no knowledge of such engineering plans and therefore no way of evaluating this assurance. Fourth, the Applicant proposes to build a bike and pedestrian path adjacent to the ditch and professes to include the ditch as an area of "common open space". The Ditch Company is unalterably opposed to having its ditch either represented as being or in fact being included in the Applicant's open space 870123 • recreational plan. The Ditch Company has been justifiably concerned for years about potential liability to persons who are injured in their ditches. For the Applicant to plan a bike path adjacent to the Ditch and to list the ditch as an area of common open space is an invitation tor disaster which the Ditch Company will not tolerate.. Our review of the Change of Zone Submittal reveals no changes in the proposal to allay our client's concerns which were created by the original sketch plan. While the Applicant professes to see no insurmountable conflicts with the Ditch Company, the Ditch Company does see such insurmountable conflicts under the existing proposal. Very truly yours, SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. By. Neil E. Piller NEP:lm cc: Richard Hamm LeRoy Rider Dan Grant -George Adam, Jr. • £? 9 1986 2 Weld Co. Plaoniag Cammissioa 870123 • • 1 SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW far.nn Tld'ODOtLD.JCI¢Y.lit - naP . " Mmntic NULL PILL= ... - I*SWUM MIN= DONALDILAUDAUGtl - SUM Pa PHIL O&WONG I. JOJ IO ' September 8 , 1986 numwmtmsTmu JACOBLJCBLY(1O14%$) - MQTJOI poem: Mr. Keith Schuett Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley , Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. Case No. Z-430 :86:5 Dear Mr. Schuett: On behalf of JCK Farm, Ltd., we would like to voice our client's opposition to the Change of Zone Submittal presented on behalf of Bay Shores Subdivision. JCK Farm would like to incorporate by reference, its response to the Sketch Plan of this Subdivision presented in a June26th letters None of the reasons for opposition in that letter have been addressed by the Change of Zone Submittal . As previously stated , JCK has three lateral ditches running from The Oligarchy Ditch to the JCK Farm in the SE-1/4 of Section 5 , and the SW-1/4 of Section 4 , Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. The Change of Zone Submittal continues to fail to recognize JCK Farm's property rights in these laterals and to make any provision for them on its plan. The . second concern originally voiced by JCK remains unresolved also. A drainage -pattern on the property on which the development is proposed has been established and includes farm drains in the NE-1/4 of Section 5. Any interruption of this drainage pattern would result. in damages to the JCK property. For these reasons, --which are more fully addressed in our June 26th letter, JCK Farm continues to be opposed to the Bay Shores P.U.'D. Very truly yours, SCHEY' 5 SCHEY, P.C. By. ) J[AVi) Neil E. Piller 'L.` V.--1986 NEP:lm -� cc : Richard Hamm 870123 Weld Co. Plate CawmimoD .r` - ... June 10, 1986 McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. 703 Third Avenue Longmont, Colorado - 80501 Attention: Jonathan Zimmentan • RE: Pietrazk Gas Unit N/2 Section 5-T2N-R68W Weld County, Colorado • Gentlemen: In response to your telephone conversation on May 9, 1986, requesting • information on current and future oil and gas activity on the above described acreage, please refer to the enclosed map and the following in response to your inquiry. It is Macey& Mershon`s understanding that this information will be used to develop ccmpatable surface uses between oil and gas activity and rural residential housing. -)\ The Oil and Gas Conservation Commission of the State of Colorado ("Commission") currently allows on this acreage a "J" sand gas well in each quarter section of a 320 acre spacing unit. The Pietrazk #1 well is located 990 feet from the north line and 1250 feet from the east line while ▪ the undrilled second well will be within the perimeter of the 660 feet square shown in the NW/4 on the map. Also allowed is a oil well on each 40 acres of a 80 acre spacing unit which must be confined within a quarter 1 section. Macey & Mershon holds various oil and gas leasehold rights for all formations within the N/2 of Section 5. A current review of the logs from the Pietrazk #1 well show potential in the oil formations noted on the map and additional information indicates the presence of the "3" sand in the NW/4. The data indicates the need to reserve surface locations, as shown, within the N/2 for potential future drilling and production activity. The locations for Oil development are designated by the Commission to be j located in the center of a 40 acre tract within the 80 acre unit, with a tolerance of .200 .feet in any direction and gas well locations are required to be no closer than 990 feet to the boundaries of the quarter section. The drillsite will require the use of 3 acres for drilling activity and thereafter revert to 1 acre for production equipment and lease road turnaround. The production equipment for the Pietrazk #1 well is located I directly south of the wellhead and occupies an area of 0.4 acres. An all- ' weather lease road will be required from the perimeter of the property to each drillsite and must be able to carry any traffic required for drilling, cuLvletion and production operations. The set-back and safety requirements MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. Sun, 2150 • 1600 B•o.ow.v • Dc"vcrt. COLORADO 80202.4970 • (303) 861-9183 • • 870123 a• • McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. June 10, 1986 / Page 2 will be determined at the time any operations commence and Macey & Mershon will abide by the then current rules and regulations as established by the Commission and Weld County. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company will be the purchaser of all natural gas produced from the acreage and they should be contacted regarding any future natural gas pipelines. Macey & Mershon would welcome the opportunity to further discuss the above information as there are areas of mutual interests and use. Please forward any preliminary development plans as they become available. Very truly yours, MACEY MEES ON OI INC. Scott S. McKinley Landman SSM/bin Enclosure (1) cc: R. J. Claire Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Cerny Brighton, Colorado 870123 t . PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY BOX t27 BRIGHTON, COLORADO 80601 May 9, 1986 Mr. John Zimmerman McCarty Engineering 703 3rd Ave. Longmont, CO. 80501 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Please find enclosed a copy of our as-built nap which shows our pipeline 16-10-075-472-4" in the hi-lited area in the North Half of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West, Weld County, Colorado. We maintain a 50-foot wide right-of-way and will not allow any building within that easement area. The owner or developer shall have the right to construct and maintain utility lines, streets, sidewalks, and driveways which nay be installed at e7proximate ricat angles to the pipeline herein authorized, provided, however, that all utilities maintain 12 inches clearance from our pipeline. No paved or traveled portion of any street, sidewalk, driveway, road, narking area, alley or curbing will be placed substantially parallel to and within ten feet (10' )%of the pipeline. in the event of a proposed crossing with a road or utility, notification of 48 hours is to be given to Panhandle so the line may be properly located to eliminate accidents that can occur from fore;gn forces 4e will be more than happy to work with you on this project. If for any reason our line must be moved, it will be at the expense of the developer or the person or persons asking for this movement. Sincerely, PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY Sharon J. Prater Right-of-Way Representative SJP/0434/gw enclosures 870123 I , r� OC J • • _ yeyr r C Y v_RSit.ou 11 1. _ 14.yh, . t..,e •.1 I i it _ 1 �)• l Q( r v p. �0C /� its L1 ✓;-4 I -1(c- \� Scc• 5 J 13 C J X17-,•I , T.ZL: �.v M -,?C i K__� c^ CO LO /�_ 0 1 i L Ip-/O-C7S 73'a ' PRO? K2-IC-C-75- ' 0*C° 90` 0 C rr7 CL r✓ra. Jc/rci :coe T e (✓E1 0.'; 7 L CZ, 3& C? ) S 5.-o /6574-39 on /c-/O'073 5 75 0'14 CL % •v'J Dircr, (3 ,/ 3 )x :: . OfZ9*. 8 \ r,'i 'ex. i4 52c. .n . •C X/ re. Q^S0. 7 43'27 Jv'•P "/ T t 520 50°L i 6 O r r. to ri^use 7/15 5 icp c cry 7r4/ CL a,rcn (IO.Wxcc) 1 7'59 r CL • a .-k 7r�o ✓ LEO S< Pc' 20'0A" E. 0.5 r Prop / rr- _ 5 'OZ ' �.i 5� //. 0 p. rr' r/'5//Old it y'_ ' , r7d. /-,0 /6/-^ astir. .d. .:V✓� .i � r/..t..( I+ s / � ✓ a. / f/Jo Eq:J/'p 5Qr I • ' ''n v� //....�'!�! . , --/� (.2,--/-7,--4-<,-x- , • / I' /' `;-; 6-7r- //• J.. / c7 ,=.S5 D E.s It-ri ?FEES. AN S7 ;Oo oK . C2i/ P'a5usr coMpAny CXD. :6 4./ -:'ENG tbATE :_.-1:..77:j`,ei.O. - 1 Rrii. ;BY b-n. 1SCA1E - COO JDY/G.NO. 870123 i ..1 r o cv or+i- r- N W < Q - - • O1. ;Tz ` doh f ^� 7C I • a. ' n - .: • - Q1 1'b CanU O U e d { f J L x n tt I • y o i o \,, y - t C‘ s. a a... ! .I Jy : i - Yi+s I - nt j_ !; IY - J •� — -.. - I... { '4 ti _ �1 t it • me Ir p (.I d • • . il ULL ,• • Yat• Q A • Z� _i :{ 1 \ 870123 , ,/ { MINERAL OWNERS Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Z-430x86:5 Macy-Mershon 011 Co. 1600 Broadway Suite 2150 Denver, CO 80202 870123 o 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: October 17, 1986 NO SR NR NO SR NR 1 County Attorney I 1/ Lmngmoat, Soil 's / Conservation District Y X ' Weld County Health Dept.2. 9595 Nelson Road BoxD XEngineering Departments Longmont, CO 80501 I Great Western Railroad* Ar Z Oligarchy Ditch CoopanyeY c/o Peter Ascher c/o: Dan Grant 950 Monroe P.O. Box 1826 Loveland, CO 80501 Longmont, CO 80501 X�Union Reservoir Company;- � xx/ t5 . Vrain School's- do Donna L. Coble District RE-1J P.O. Box 449 395 S. Pratt "Parkway Greeley, CO 80632 Longmont, ' CO> 80501 - J X: State Fnginaerb . geld County Sheriff s g Division of Water Resources Department 1313 Sherman St., Room 818 c/o Rich Dill Denver, CO 80203 V S to Highway Department) V Xt'C%flont Fire Protection 1420 2nd Street District 17 Greeley, Co 80631 . 9119 County Lino i Road Longmont, CO 80501 : ./ it Colorado Department of Health V X Boulder County Planning {' . Water Quality Control Division ' Department it 4210 East 11th Avenue 2040 14th Street • Deaver, CO 80220 Boulder, CO 80302 ec f X Longmont Planning Department' Y St. Train Sanitation c/o Brian Miller District n Civic Center Complex c/o Richard Lyons Longmont, CO 80501 515 R'imbark" ' Longmont, CO; 80501 Y it Water Sports Wester _ ,. 0461 Weld County Road 26 r it Louie Rademacher Ju Longmont, CO 80501 " Planning Commission Member' r 13184 Weld County Road 13 / _ X Left wend Water Supply Company) Longmont, C0 80501 k'_ ' , P.0 Box D _ 1 . ^ ,_ - NI t, CO-: 80544 re X Colorado Geological p,,,,-1.,---1,... -,--„i„:'• a • Survey ._ t. ` ttiE Macy d Mershon 'Oil Inc fi Attar-, Louis Lodwick Attn: Scott McGinley. 1313 Sharman Street ''�"- 1600 Broadway, Suite 2150 Roots 715 Denver, CO_ 80202 Denver, CO;: 80203 870123 Referral Lisa Bay Shores P.II.D Z-430:86:5 Page 2 %��"Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co.s.' Attention: Ken J. Neff P.O. Box 127 Brighton, CO. 80601 ,j_t Union R.E. 22 P.O. Box 929 Brighton, CO 80601 X Lrags Peak Water Associations, 9875 Vermillion Road Longmont, CO 80501 j • 870123 r fit �� m. :moRAn®um VII'it To WCPC Date Orrnhpr 10 1986 COLORADO From -Keith A Sehnert Current Planner Subject: Change of Zone CRAP #430.86.5 Change of Zone Case#430:86:5 for Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S., Investments on a parcel of land described as part of the Ni of Section 5, TZN, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. .Enclosed are additional copies of responses that have been received from the following referral entities and concerned citizens in regard to the Change of Zone request: - JCR Farms, Richard Ham - Colorado geological Survey - Saint Vrain Valley Public Schools - Aeon Energy Corporation, Barry L. Snyder - Aeon Energy Corporation, Stephen B. Evans - Murray J. Herring, 'Limited Referral responses have not been received from: - Great Western Railroad Colorado Department of Health, -, Water Quality Control Division .' - Longmont Planning Department - Water Sports West • - Left Band-Water Supply Company - Oligarchey:Ditch Company t - Boulder :County Planning Department - Louis,Rademacher Union REP. - Longs-Peak Water Association 870123 1441 Elmhurst Lane, Longmont, Co 80501, Oct. 28, 1986 Meld County Planning Commission, Greeley, Co. 80634 re: Zr430:5 - Bay Shores P.U.D. NiS5, T3N, R68W, Weld Co. Dear Commission Members, In conjunction with the United States Dept. of Agriculture letter of Oct. 16, 1986 addressed to the Longmont Soil Conserva- tion District and forwarded to you by Kr. Stromcuist, I would like to call your attention to additional information: In this neighborhood the majority of the acreage in Sec. 4, 5, 6, 33, 32, 31 (except reservoir) is prime agricultural land. 240 acres grow vegetables and are truck gardened. Immediately south of Bay Shores proposal, JCK Perm regularly produces acre yields of 28i to 30 tone of sugar beets 4i to 5i tons of baled hay, 130 to 150 bushel of corn. Sugar Co. experimental fields are adjacent. Other neighborhood farms are very productive. Our JCK Farm soils are Weld County clay loam. With capable farmers and their progressive agricultural practises, the productivity of the fields during the years,jromed ;;;. AB in USDA letter of Oct. 16 1986 drainage of high water tables were problems for our farm in the past. For that problem and to care for normal storm run off from the adjacent Piterzak fields,our JCK SF} S5 has been protected with facilities we built. To i I• vIi farming of these soils we installed underground drains. WJX2 •5 pit Co9n serpat engineeringthe largest capacity drain was installed in 1ee?. That dre:n teas serviced our land well and to date specifically has protected JCK fields. from unde round water flow from the Pietrzak property. By 1970 Philip Hiller (then owner of the NE* £5) asked to attach a small drain from field south of the Oligarchy Ditch to this 1967 drain. re grante d his request to the benefit of farming both side of the fence. However, the proposal to cover much of the sorith field of NFL S5 with roofs and streets will increase the flow of storm run—off onto JCK Farm. Existing farm drains do not have the capacity to carry that extra volume of water. Evident damage to JCL' s fields of SE'± will occur. Ve ask that Weld Co.Planning to require the Bay Shores project to provide for consideration: 1. A storm water retention system of adequate capacity. The U.S. Corps of Army Engineers records 3 2Dth century storms of 6 or 5 inches in 24 hours. This imelies safeguards against erosion. 2. A system of tile or ditches for controlled release of such retained water to highway barrow pits. If cited the adjacent Johnson residential P.U.D. is a dif- ferent situation on potential eater damage to neighbors. Its drains and storm off flow directly into the bareow piti:without crossing another owner's private property. 870123 Res ectfully subeitted JOIE Farm cc _:cc r«,. .ir, ^- O1 _t..4:.-me4,wi..:canag;nv partner • United States Sod 9595 Nelson Road, Box D Department of Conservation Longmont, CO 80501 " Agriculture Service October 16, 1986 Mr. Luther Stromquist, President Longmont Soil Conservation District 9595 Nelson Road, Box D • Longmont, CO 80501 Re: Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P. U. D. Dear Luke: We have reviewed the application of Robert and Susan S. 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. Praia 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. is As stated in earlier letters to the Department of Planning Services, the • soils have a high shrink-swell potential which restricts the suitability 7 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, Dawn W Genes District Conservationist 870123 i - ,� 'rte of-cow >>() r:Tor WE-87-0003 RICHARD D.LAMM t^ W.JOHN ROLD GOVERNOR •� , �* Oi6FCTGR /876 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER.COLORADO 80203 PHONE(303)866-2617 • September 25; 1986 Mr. Keith A. -Schwett ' ' Dept. Of Planning Services H. 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear fir_ Schwett: RE: 'BAY SHORES PUB, Z - 430:86:5 This site was inspected on September 25,-1986, and based on geology and } geologic conditions is suitable .for the proposed use. A geologic report, per SB 35, will be required before the next stage is reached. Both soils and general geology should be included. • There-appears to be oil and gas producing facility located in the east half of the site_ Accommodations for this will need to be made. Also, a determination of other oil and gas rights and possible drilling need to be determined. The present configuration of Union Reservoir should nave no effect on this project. Ground water levels near the reservoir may change with changes of the reservoir, but as a public sewer system is proposed, it would have no effect on waste water disposal_ • Possible expansive- soils`may be present, but normal building techniques for the front range should afford solutions to this problem. It is important to note that there is-an increasing awareness among the public that radon, a-radioactive "gas, occurs in Colorado at:levels .above the national average and-that this! gas is hazardous to their health. • o EC _ E �i 2 .C1986' GEOLOGY Weld Ca %aaaidi DrIUSSa STORY OF TnE?A$- Kay T.-=_- ? 870123 i • Mr. Keith A. Schwett September 25, 1986 Page 2 The sediments that overlie the bedrock, as well as the bedrock at this site, have not actually been tested to determine their radon content, if any. We would advise that this potential, problem be addressed. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, L. R. Ladwig, Chief Minerals Fuels Section bcr:LRL-87-039 3215/11 870123 g\ir1SAINT VRAIN Dr. F.Keith Blue VALLEY Superintendent of Schools PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5CNOOCDt5INICT NO:RE-1.1 - 398 a PRATT PARKWAY LONGMONT,COLORADO 50501 October 22, 1986 Mr. Keith Schuett Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Bay Shores P.A.D. Subdivision Dear Mr. Schuett: I want to provide further clarification of our response to the Bay Shores P.A.D. letter dated October 15, 1986. Based on our calculations of pupil yield from the proposed 1,007 units, we will need to provide for secondary students in addition to the elementary impact. As you can see, our secondary schools will be significantly over capacity, particularly at junior high school level. Therefore, we will need to identify a secondary school site if this proposal is approved. I. would like to work with you in identifying this site, after which we will be able to determine whether we will request land or cash in lieu in response to the Bay Shores development. Sincerely,:; Dorothy Bores, Director Planning, Evaluation and Communication DR/as D E -� DC 27 1986 Wald Co. Piano[Commissia 870123 0 SILVER HILL05 Urban Street Suite 302 ONE CORP. Lakewood,Colorado 90229 I;- (303) 999-1410 October 22, 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Weld County Colorado Department of; Planning Services \ 915 19th Street' Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. Case Number Z-430:86:5 Gentlemen: I recently received a copy of letter dated October 17, 1986 from Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. directed to your office. As a working interest owner with Macey & Mershon of the property located in the N/2 of Section 5, T2N R68W, Weld County, Colorado, I am in full support of Macey & Mershon's position concerning this issue. I would appreciate receiving further information regarding the proposed Bay Shores development. Thank you for noting my support and: interest in this matter. Sincerely, AEON ON ENERGY CO jj D ' Bar y L. Sn er /vlw cc: E. Q. Steffes, Jr.; Alarado Resources, Limited Emmet Hail; Zenith Drilling Corporation Joe Barrett; Barrett Energy Company Scott S McKinley; Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. Ted E. Amsbaugh t 0CT 241986 t Barry L. Snyder • Stephen B. Evans • Ted E. Amsbaugh Weld Co. Manning i nmmusim 870123 •- SILVER HILL 41,o5 Urban Street Salta 302 Lakewood. Colorado 80228. - ..... _ - C303) 989-1470 . October 22, 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Bay Shores :P..U.D. Case Number Z-430:86:5 Gentlemen: I have received a copy of the letter dated October 17, 1986 from Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. directed to your office. As a working interest partner with Macey & Mershon under the property as located, N/2 Section 5, T2N R68W, Weld County, Colorado, I strongly support Macey & Mershon's position in this matter. I would further like to request additional information regarding the proposed Bay Shores development. Thank you for noting my support and interest. Sincerely, AEON ENERGY CO. Stephen B. Evans /vlw cc: E. Q. Steffes, Jr. ; Alarado Resources, Limited Emmet Hall; Zenith Drilling Corporation Joe Barrett; Barrett Energy Company Scott S. McKinley; Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. Ted E. Amsbaugh ICif 24t198s Barry L. Snyder • Stephen B. Evans • Ted E. Am + �'� plan 400G 870123 ID • October 21, 1986 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 8063E Attention: Mr. Keith A. Schuett, Current Planner Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. N/2 Section 5-T2N-R68W Weld County, CO Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter response from an oil and gas working. interest owner in the Pietrzak N/2 spacing unit. Very truly yours, MACEY & MERSHON OI INC. LA � del Scot �. McKinley Y Landman Enclosure I COT 22!ggs Weld C..Plain dead .a • MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. SUITE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER.COLORADO 80202-4970 • (3031861-9183 870123 7 a MURRAY .I. HERRING (, Ltd.) Oa and Gas Properties 410 Seventeenth Street Sine 1215 Demror.Cdo,ado80202 0303)893.9'.306 October 20, 1986 Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. 1600 Broadway Suite 2150 Denver, Colorado 80202 RE: Pietrzak N/2 Unit/Bay Shores P.U.D. N/2 Sec. 5 T2N R68W Held County, CO Mr. McKinley; Thank you for your letter of October 17. 1986 regarding the captioned. My interest in the spacing unit is small (lease under the Union Reservoir) but I am against "developers" dictating the drill sites and number of sites on existing Oil and Gas Leases, mine or someone else's. It is my understanding that this power is with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. If I can be of any help in this matter please let me know. I do ap- preciate your keeping me informed and hope that you will continue to do so in the future. Best regards, Mur y J. H r ing. Murray J. H rring Ltd. • 1986 0 DIY-E4TE\--q r tt. OCT 221986 . Iha ta. Nude Ems t 870123 central colorado water conservancy district 3400 West 16th Street• Building 5 •$uite X Greeley, Colorado 80624 (303) 351-0523/351-0524• Denver (303) 825-0474 October 22, 1986 Weld County Planning Commission 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Commissioners: The Central Colorado Water Conservancy District owns over twenty shares of Union Reservoir stock, and therefore, is quite concerned regarding the Bayshore Development proposed near Union Reservoir. It appears that approval of the Bayshore Development could prohibit enlargement of Union Reservoir at some point in the future. The Union Reservoir Company currently owns a 50 foot strip of property around the lake in order to provide an adequate border for reservoir enlargement. We would be opposed to the Bayshore Development prohibiting enlargement of Union Reservoir. Water storage along the Front Range is too critical to allow a residential development to prevent expansion of an existing reservoir. Additionally, the recreation rights on Union Reservoir are currently leased, and other recreational uses of the reservoir are not allowed. Residents may be tempted to trespass onto the reservoir for recreational. purposes, and that would pose serious liability consequences for the reservoir company. The company is unable to acquire liability insurance, and the addition of many homes in close proximity to the lake will aggravate the serious problem that now exists. Finally, our Board has concerns regarding potential water quality problems due to residential development near 'the lake. This issue may be worth further investigation to determine effects of the development on water quality. I hope that you will please carefully consider these concerns, and those of the Union Reservoir Company, before any change in zoning is considered. sincerely, ► ern caTit Tom Cech D Executive Director 251986" TVC/sam cc: Mr. Jim Vetting, President biesole Union Reservoir Company dp. 870123 ftC(1.`ir‘ almil mtrnoRAnDurr VIle To Weld County Planning Commissions:, October 21, 1986 COLORADO Rem Keith A. Schnatt. Current Planner fathom, Change of Zone Caes #430;86:5 iii- Change of Zone Case #430:86:5 for Robert and Susan J. Pietrak and C.B.S. Investments on a parcel of land described as part of the Ni of Section 5, T2H, R68W of the 6th p.m.., Weld County, Colorado. i. Enclosed are copies of responses that have been received from the following 1: referral entities in regard to the Change of Zone request: - : t: - Weld County Engineering Department - Wald County Sheriff`. Department - Union-Reservoir Company - Saint Vrain Valley Public Schools - Longmont Fire Protection District . _ - Longmont Soil Conservation District - Saint Frain Sanitation District State Engineer Division of -Water Resources - Panhandle Eastern-Pipe Line Company . 7. - State Division of -Highways ; . - Macey and liershon Oil Incorporated i1 - Division of Wildlife -. - - Wald County Health Department Referral responses have not been received form the following: - Great Western Railroad - Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division Longmont Planning Department - Water Sports West - H Left-Band Water Supply Company - Oligarchy Ditch Company - Boulder County Planning Department - Louis Rademacher ;. Colorado Geological Survey Dnion REA _: ii . - Longs Peak Water Association ₹, Based on the referral responses received to date, the Department of,Planning Services staff would like to bring to your attention concerns. regarding compliance with the performance standards- for a plsaned 'unit development 870123 0 Weld 'County Planning Commission COZ-430:86:5 Page 2 Attached, is a copy of the performance standards for the Planned Unit Development es setforth in Section 35.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance_ Please review these standards when giving attention to the referral responses from Macey-Mershon Oil, Inc.,.Parhp*g4te Eastern.Pipe Line Company, Longmont Soil - Conservation District, Division of Wildlife, and Union Reservoir Company. HAS:rjg Y w r. _ 8'70123 35.3 Ter_forcance Standards. A:: - -- _=FS and land USES in the PFD District ecaa: St ces`gned, used, and occupied in accordance with tht standards enumerated below. 35.3.1 Density. The density of land USES within a PUD - District shall be designed to be compatible with other USES within the PUD District. Compatibility of USES shall be determined by their harmony, scarrying capacity, character, and buffering or :� SCREENING. £, s _ x 35.3.2 COMMON OPEN SPACE. COMMON OPEN SPACE shall be 4, j provided in a PUD District. The amount and type of 1 `'33ti COMMON OPEN SPACE shall be proportioned according _ _ g to the type of USES, BUILDINGS or STRUCTURES to be t:,= 1 rY= ,-',. /1 contained in the PUD District. COMMON OPEN SPACP shall be designed to be useful to the occupants and residents of the PUB District for recreational and = scenic purposes. The COMMON OPEN SPACE in a PUD • District shall be owned and maintained in • i perpetuity by an organization established solely -c ,, for such ownership and maintenance purposes. � `} �o 35.3.3 Water and Sewer Provisions. A PUD District shall z } - -` be serviced by an adequate eater and sewer system. 35.3.4, Circulation. Development within a PUD District shall be designed and constructed to include c).4,-Y-,0;4 adequate; safe and convenient arrangements for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off-street parking and loading space. Pedestrian and . , . vehicular circulation shall relate to the ? y circulation system external to a PUD District. All r - `rr STREETS within the PUD District, whether private or PUBLIC, shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Official Weld County Construction Standards and the Official Weld County Subdivision Regulations. ,�` } 35.3.5 Bufferinj and Screening. USES, BUIILDINGS or T ' rtZg` -. STRUCTURES within a PUB District that would not be i compatible vitb other USES, BUILDINGS, or STRUCTURES within and ADJACENT to a PUD District - ' shall be adequately buffered and SCREENED to make their appearance and operation harmonious to the surrounding USES. 35.3.6 - The normal Bulk Requirements for minimum SETBA c minimum OFFSET, minimum LOT size, minimum LOT area per STRUCTURE, maximum height of BUILDINGS, and LOT } coverage may be varied as specified in a PUB : , District Final Plan. All other performance standards applicable to a PUD District may be required to be as strict as the performance standards contained in the zoning district in which the USE would usually be allowed. 870123 35.3.0 jak The normal Bulk Reeu:reeen for r _ -.:0:., Ilir minimum OFFSET, minimum L .e . s ,.3T area per STRCC L'RE, maxirut, heigrt cf £L'i1N=:t.S , and LOT coverage may be varied as specified in a PUB District Final Plan. All other performance ' standards applicable to a PUD District may be required to be as strict as the performance standards contained in the zoning district in which the USE would usually be allowed. 35.3.7 A PUD District and any part thereof which has been { approved as a PUB Plan shall be considered as being 4 in compliance with the Official Weld County Subdivision Regulations and 30-28-101, et. seq., • CRS 1973, as amended. The Design Standards and Improvement Agreements of the Subdivision Regulations shall be utilized when applicable to i the PUD Plan review and DEVELOPMENT. Certain PUB • Plan requirements may differ from those specifi- i cally listed in the official 'Veld County Subdivision R�gulatiors. ¢ - - _� 35.3.8 To further the mutual interest of the residents. r rF. occupants, and owners of a PUD and of the public in _ the preservation of the integrity of the PUB, the provisions of the PUB District and Plan relating to s' the USE of land and the location of COthON OPEN F ;-` . SPACE shall run in favor of Meld County and shall % '=`" be enforceable at law or in equity by the toad of , • County Commissioners without limitation on any power or regulation otherwise granted by aay. ;,, c :3. . >r_ 4 f — fi. '. , . , "'i •1 'Is 870123 ` 8 • • ;Ap..' • hiRe Keith Schuett ro Planningg Department gyre Oc b 7 8, 1986 !COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer subject, -Bay Shores Change of Zone The Engineering Department has reviewed the Bay Shores Sketch Plan and previous Change of Zone submittal and responded in memos dated July 8 and September 5, 1986, respectively. Copies of those memos are attached. We have same concerns as noted in the previous memos with the exception of the following items. In the "Change of Zone submittal for Bay Shores P.U.D.", dated October, 1986, there is a section entitled "Stormwater Management Drainage Plan". This narrative satisfactorily addresses item no. 5 of the July 8, 1986, memo. A detailed analysis of a stormwater plan will be required at the P.U.D. stage. In the section entitled "Traffic Study" there is some additional narrative regarding traffic. This section indicates additional information would be provided at the P.U.D. stage. I have no objection to performing further analysis at that time. However, it must be recognized by the reviewing boards that this development will generate traffic that will create demands far beyond the capabilities of the existing road network. Further, the development will not generate the revenue required to- support the increase - traffic volumes. 11,1 2•113i7,7.2.1.16 logg DLS/bf xc: Planning Referral File: Bay Shores 870122 • DEPARiNT OF PLANNING SERVICES y3,� • t� s - PHONE(303)356.4000 EXT 4400 �•-•i �� 975 70th STREET t t: j GREELEY,COLORADO 80637 1 e COLORADO` CASE NUMBER 1-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. - October 3, 1986 1 TO WHOM IT NAY 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 wiles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union i 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. Ple e er to the enclosed latter. Signed: �.\1 \ ", \ _ - Ti Agency:�'��Z� r;7c'r•^;;ZQ _Pates iG��Ifc-6 a J Keith A. 5chueit Current Planner 870123 • 4141 �� memORAnDUm Keith Schuett ' To Planning Department Dos Septe er 6, 1986 l. 110� Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer� COLORADO From Subject. Bay Shores - Change of Zone We have reviewed Bay Shores Planned Unit Development sketch plan and noted our concerns in a memo dated July 8, 1986. The same sketch plan is attached to the Change of Zone application. The sketch plan does not show any revisions ' for the Change of Zone application. A copy of the July 8, 1986, memo is attached. In the application materials, in the "Bay Shores P.U.D. Development Plan Narrative", is a section titled "Traffic Impact Analysts I disagree with the assumptions made in the 6th paragraph regarding traffic flow. I feel the statement that 90% of the traffic will use road 31 to access the develop- ment is not correct. State Highway 119 serves the southern part of Longmont and is located one mile south of WCR 26. State Highway 66 serves the northern part of Longmont and is located two miles north of CR 26 but has not been considered. In the same paragraph Justifications are given for offsetting the alignment of WCR 26 within the development. Because the development of the entire region is imminent, we must consider more than Bay Shores alone. Weld County Road 26, as well as any other potential artery, must be maintained as a though road. Further traffic analysis should be performed including trip generation studies in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Information Report, "Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982". Using that information, the cost to upgrade the existing road system, due to Bay Shores impact, should be estimated. It is interesting to note, using the assessed value reported in the economic impact section of the Development Plan Narrative, with the current 3.143 road and bridge mill levy, Bay Shores Development will generate approximately $2,920.00 into the road and bridge fund per year. Obviously, that amount of revenue will fall far short of the cost to maintain the roads required to support the proposed development. DLS/bf Enc. 870123 • (IRE I .OPPIIDU vI '� Gloria V. Dunn To Planning Department o„� July 8, 1986 TviuND � �,�,/� From Donald R. Carroll , Administrative Manager COLORADO From l s„b , Bay Shores Planned Unit Development - Sketch Plan 5-263:86:8 We have reviewed the Bay Shores Planned Unit Development for the Sketch Plan stage and have the following comments: 1. Weld County roads 26 and 3' should be left as through arterial roads. No lots should access directly onto 26 or 31/4. 2. A 100' right-of-way should be dedicated for roads 26 and 31/2 in accordance with Section 8-2A (5) Cc) of the subdivision regulations. 3. All relocation costs for county roads shall be at the developers expense. 4. County road 26 will have to cross the proposed canal to the Union Reservoir. In order for boats to pass under this structure it will be of major construction and must meet the AASHT0 design,requirements. .- 5. A storm water detention plan will have to be developed for the entire subdivision. Storm water detention on each individual lot will not be allowed. 6. Before final approval a detailed analysis considering the affects of increased runoff to the Union Reservoir and its outlet facilities will be required. 7. No facilities for the St. Vrain Sanitation District have been constructed. Is there an anticipated time table and what affect will this have do the proposed development? 8. Clarification of the proposed road cross sections will be necessary. • DRC/bf 870123 i„ OFFQOE. OF THE 1HERIFF' MEMORANDUM TO Keith A. Schuette Current Planner FROM Rick Dill, Undersheriff DATE October 13, 1986 RE Z-430:86:5 - Bay Shared P.U.D. Our recommendation is that a law enforcement authority be used to fund law enforcement service to the Bay Shares development. This recommendation is consistent with our earlier communication regarding this project. Please contact me if you have any questions. RD:ich • p tuisC,: Leld to-Ptae�i 870123 • DEPAR7INT OF PLANNING SERVICES 3 'fS {, . 141 3 PHONE(303)356-4000 EXi 4400 915 10th STREET �. • 7 1 GREELEY.COLORADO 60631 Te M..1) •M„0,• _ .. yr COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-43O:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 t TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: t 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 i 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 N} of Section 5, TZN, 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 1 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. f If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to mesa approval by your office. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. f 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 i interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to . 3. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed. Agency s _ -- - ' Date: z Keith A. Schuect Current Planner 870123 • 41) WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AT LAY/ P.O. BOX at9 20h FIRST NATIONAL SANK.SUILDINO GREELEY. COLO. 80632 GREELEY. COLORADO (303) 333-1292 October 16, 13 , Ii'1 'L_.. 1G 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Wdd1? Current Planner Department of Planning Services 915• - `10th Street - Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Case Number Z-430:86 : 5 . Bay Shores PUD Dear Mr. Schuett: Union Reservoir Company has reviewed the re-submitted application on Bay Shores PUD, and submits the following comments: • The application requests a relocation of County Road 3-1/2 ; such is opposed by Union Reservoir Company. With an increase in population in the area, which undoubtedly will include small children, the county road, if left along the edge of the reservoir, would serve as a better suffer between the development and the reservoir than would be the case if houses were allowed to be constructed along the reservoir. The county road also serves to decelerate the water run-off from the lands to the east of the reservoir, which would be accelerated by the con- struction of the streets. The road would also help to partially alleviate the siltation problem in the reservoir by slowing the water down so the silt would drop out .before reaching the reservoir. This would be especially helpful during construction periods when new soil would be exposed by excavation. The Company is concerned about the open space area which was shown in previous maps to lie next to the reservoir on the west edge of the map. The current map lists 8 .5 acres of open space for Parcel A, 8 acres of which is Shown as a .potential drill site area, and it is assumed that the other .5 acres may be the open space next to the reservoir. The Reservoir Company cannot allow access onto the reservoir and the Company understands that any open space contiguous to the shore might give the users the impression there is free access onto the reservoir. The Reservoir Company has the recreation rights to the reservoir already leased and any other recreational uses of the reservoir cannot be permitted. The open space, if next to the reservoir, would also invite people to fish or otherwise use the reservoir, which, as stated above, cannot be permitted. The location of houses along the shore would also tend to be inviting use of the reservoir, another reason the county road would help serve as a buffer between the sub- division and the- reservoir. In addition to creating problems with the present recreational use lessee,:; the Reservoir Company sees: a- problem created with increased liability. The Company-cannot now obtain liability insurance and this development would only appear to lessen the Company' s chances of obtaining insurance. The new insurance laws 870123 Mr. Schuett -2- October 16 , 1486 have- not made insurance more obtainable. The Company fears a lawsuit from a trespasser onto the reservoir and at present is at a loss to try to Insure itself against such claims. It would seem unfair that the -County would impose this additional burden upon the Company, a condition which the Company cannot change or co anything about. - With a school proposed for the neighborhood, even though some distance from the reservoir, the reservoir would be an especcially attractive nuisance - for the children. The present map calls for a fence to be constructed on the west boundary line of the subdivision. Although this would appear to resolve some of the problems of keeping the house occupants off of the reservoir, the fences may not remain standing too long. The fences would reduce the scenic view of the reservoir from the lake-shore houses, which view the subdividers are greatly promoting, and residents would be very tempted to remove the fences. The very name of the development, Bay Shores, would indicate that possibly the residents would be getting something they aren't entitled to. Next to the county road on west of the proposed development , the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State Engineer required a dike be constructed in the mid 1970's. Although this lies outside of the, proposed development, the county road in that area should not be moved - so as to line up with the relocation requested by the developers. The Company reiterates its other objections to the relocation of the road- way as stated above. In a letter to Union Reservoir Company from McCarty Engineering, a wall or some type of barrier was proposed along the reservoir property line. No such wall is shown on the'map provided with the packet. Union Reservoir Company had not previously discussed this matter or knew anything of such a proposal. .Tn fact, it would appear from the resubmitted material that Union Reservoir Company was the only entity with which a meeting in person had not been scheduled or held. It would seem that such face to face meetings are more beneficial and can resolve more problems than merely using correspondence and phone calls. With regard to the fifty-foot easement , subsequent research, of the Company's records indicates that the fifty-foot strip was deeded to the Company and subsequently title to the property was quieted in Union Reservoir Company's name. With this additional property, the Company may desire at some time to enlarge the reservoir, using this property. This would also raise the water table in the area, and should be considered in the construction of houses, and' especially basements , in this area. This -change in property boundary should not cause any problems since the Company was advised the houses proposed for the shoreline area, ;which the Company has opposed above, were to beset -back' 75 feet from the shoreline, but would concern the Company if basements were used under the houses and when the water level, raises it could have a tendency to put water in the cellars. Union 870123 ` M Mr. Schuett -3- October 16, 1986 Reservoir Company does not want to be held responsible for damages caused by the raised water, table. These matters need to be resolved before any change in zoning is granted. Yours very truly, William H. Southard WHS/C • • 870123 1P :, - fa, r60 mtmoRAnD wioc, To Referral Agencies On October 6, 1986 . COLORADO From Keith Schuett, Current Planner (3[1,1 4; ' subj,ec Z-430 - Bay Shores Planned Unit Development • . On September 2, 1986, the Wald County Planning Commission continued change of zone. case #Z-430 for Bay Shores P.D.D. (Planned Unit Development), until November 4, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. i i The applicant, on October 3, 1986, submitted a different planned unit i development application. The new planned unit development application is for 1,007 residential units with R-1 (low density residential), R-2 (duplex 1 residential) and oil and gas production facilities. This application is I enclosed. Please review these materials in lieu of the application materials sent to you previously. ¢¢ KAS:rjg } „s 370123 - I AIL milk . EXHIBIT "A" OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1. Traffic counts from field observation. 2. Soil boring to determine current Structural Number (SN). 3. AASHTO Total Pavement Thickness Design. 4. Plans and specifications. I a. minimum 8" gravel and 2" asphalt or as needed to meet "3" above. i b. 24' pavement width from south property line of Bay Shores to 4 Colorado Highway 119. c. CDOH transition to 36' pavement width to provide south bound right hand turn lane, south bound left hand turn lane, and north bound,lane at Highway 119. . d. right hand'end left hand turn acceleration and deceleration lanes on Highway 119 according to CDOH. . • e. No Parking-signs every 500' on both sides of WCR 3'd The applicant requests reimbursement from adjoining property owners on the east and:west sides of WC& 31 when they,develop their properties. Interest would accrue at a rate of 8 per cent per year. I EXHIBIT "B" OFFSITE ROADWAY SMPROVEMENTS { CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The applicant requests that the Offsite Roadway'Improvements be constructed -in one phase concurrent with:development of the first phase of development within .Bay Sheres .P.0 D. L9 870123 Date: November 4, 1986 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 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 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 THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED 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 co 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 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 870123 1 0 Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page 2 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 demonstrated how a Planned Unit Development with a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre for R-1 uses and 6 dwelling units per 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. 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 870123 2 AIL Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores Planned'-Unit Development Page 3 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. While the application materials indicate plans to realign the ditch -and- to incorporate the ditch into the Planned Unit Development concept, the representatives of the:'ditch company' indicate that 870123 3 Z-430:86:5 Ray Shores Planned Unit Development Page 4 L`c` an agreement addressing its concerns about Vla compatibility with the type of urban area planned -�� ►iC A‘ naoJ 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 requirements 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 would 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 latter 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. II. 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 order to expedite approval of the requested change of zone. In the letter, event, it will be necessary for the applicant to either construct the necessary improvements before the building 870123 4 Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page 5 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 road network. A copy of this letter is attached to staff comments to substantiate the off-site road improvement concerns. Once it has been 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 will 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, on page 9, that road improvements and expenses would be shared with adjoining property owners. 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 expanse in order to secure rezoning. The applicants should complete a separate improvements agreement for off-site road improvements if it is the applicants' desire to obtain rezoni.tig and share the cost 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." The Submitted Planned Unit Development District application materials plan for the 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 compatible with the existing development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning. 870123 5 Aft IMP /1 Z-430.86:5 Bay- Shores-Planned-Unit Development Page 6 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 of 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 liability 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 run-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, 1986, from 8r. 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 Vrain 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 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 revisions to the 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. 8'70123 6 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. ,j • • 870123 7 an It • JOHN H. HUSTON ATTORNEY AT LAW Suite 710 . a.-- 3033 East First Avenue n.t s�all(\rjf - Denver. Colorado 80208 (303)3884333 i,r ii _,' w, 198b September 26 r 1986 Well C6. Ptaa,uti ,:,r„ws:u Mr. Keith A. Schuett Department of Planning Services - Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Bay Shores P.U.A. (Proposed) Case No. Z-430:86:5 Dear Mr. Schuett: I represent the Great Western Railway Co. ("GWR") . Mr. John P. Ascher has asked that I provide you with an outline of GWR's position concerning the proposed Bay Shores P.U.D. 1. Inappropriate Land Use. The proposed project includes many residential lots adjacent the railroad all along the course of the railroad. The plan is therefore obviously and grossly inap- propriate. If the use and zoning of these lands are to be changed, an industrial use is indicated. Considerations of health, safety and welfare alone should be sufficient to defeat the proposal. Economically, the GWR andthe community benefit greatly if the subject lands are reserved for industrial develop- ment. 2. Existing Access. The maps of the submittal which were furnished to the GWR show a "County Road 3-1/2" presently exist- ing at the location of the proposed greatly expanded crossing of the GWR. Our title documentation shows no such County Road crossing; we assume a limited physical crossing exists at that location. 3. Proposed Crossing. In any event, a large new crossing of the GWR which would involve a large traffic volume is unacceptable to the GWR on grounds of public safety. Sam takes tha. Position that ADZ construction, expansion QL improvement PL Such A rail crossing gust involve construction gt A grade sepa- ration. 4. Deficiencies in the "Change of Zone Submittal for Bay - ShQres P.U.D." We have scoured the submittal and found only one reference to the-'GWR, that appearing on the first page of the "Bay Shores P.U.D. Development Plan Narrative" . Allow us to reproduce for you, with emphasis added, that paragraph: 870123 API • Page 2 September 25, 1986 Individual lot sizes vary from 1/4 of an acre to a full acre. The site is bisected into two equal parts by County Road 3-1/2, which runs north to south. In addition, thg Great Western Railway ling cuts diagonally through the. prop- eety from southwegt SQ northeast. Thus, parcels A., B, C, and D are defined, containing 160, 50 149, and 65 sites, respectively, for a total of 424 lots. Thereafter, the authors of the submittal ignore the existence of the GWR. Specifically, the railroad is not considered in discus- sion of the following: A. Open Space. A good portion of the open space abuts the railroad. Is this safe, appropriate, advisable or compatable with railroad operations? We think not. B. Site Design tq Enhance Amenities. The submittal indicates that the plan is to incorporate and enhance recreational opportunities along Union_ Reservoir and the Canal. The only approach the authors seem to have taken. concerning the GWR tracks -and right of way is to butt residential lots up tight against the right of way. C. Sculcttl Landforms. The submittal suggests that the canal will be excavated and aesthetic landforms will be sculpted in the process. But we see no suggestion that sculpted landforms be associated with the GWR which bisects the property. It is hard to take seriously that consideration has been given to one aesthetic while a more obvious issue has gone unnoticed. D. Surrounding Land Uses. Even the casual observer would have thought that the authors of the submittal would have given at least an honorable mention of the GWR in the section describing surrounding land uses. The GWR is not listed as a landowner with 500 feet of the subject property, an omission which is difficult to understand. The authors describe a "knoll overlooking the Union Reservoir°, punctua- tion of "recreational facilities" , "camper area at the waterfront" , "ideal amenity" and "further recreational opportunities The. GWR is, basic, heavy industry. It is not recreational, not for players, campers, or backyard sports activists and. is definitely not a "further recreational :opportunity. 870123 Page 3 September 25, 1986 E. Imuovementt.to County Roads. The submittal contains ver- bage on road improvements, especially concerning the inter- section of Highway 119 and County Road 3 1/2. There is no indication that any consideration has been given to safety, design or expenses of a crossing of the GWR. - We could go on, we suppose, in our criticism, but our statement can be shortened: The submittal is defective in its omissions concerning the GWR. More technically: The zoning criteria of section 21.6.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance are not met by this submittal. More specifically: Zoning of the subject property does not warrant a change to the proposed P.U.D. The Del Camino is one thing, but the problem is that Ilia subjek property IA bisected and lies along tkg mainline sa A railroads properly. is 1g tint And cannot kg resi- dential. We are advised that this matter will be heard next by the Zoning Commission on November 4, 1986. We expect to attend, but please bring these matters to the fore on our behalf earlier on. We are available to discuss the costs, fees, design and construction of an adequate crossing with you or the developer in the unlikely event the County should decide that it is approp- riate to provide for construction of homes abutting the GWR. Thank , you. Very ®uly yours, John H. Huston JHH:tg. cc: John P. Ascher 870123 17 _ _ — - _ _ _ - r- 7 sd; --/0 so -E6 ��:- en! anrlcr --- -- -- - - — -� - - it rcn of fianniire.`Serriccr---- - --- 0 CTil D _____Greet -,_ Co 8063! -- --J436 -- ar_ /lr. _Schruet: . wad_co. Plague uasiat___ ----- Re: �2 Sorts R U17 Lase Aum r. __Z,-93D g6_'S. • r year reraesi_r —encer s—af_._T e eaf�lierit. _Tai/i✓ ____ .._-__in rvri/1n .,_.de ai/s__ar-_ oiiws -- ---- — /. :-44/roads_-are__necessar -. _arcvmaradaf___Ie--4t_eedr.. 6e:rc,;./0l'ry .- - 1/d-__gercr _lids _an9( alfh—_Ar `safe% _. uA,'s terraces,.— ,, _ant_iourlrt Z e�SO 4-4 o __-4__B r-f/jvref.�Jq csti !s_ siiafect—47inq dual- i9tulay /!9 d tt�eletat 4 -_ n r/41 6—_Te,Gram ,es�r&St .—_2ot dies-,ar yet j __al_ of7er an- na(dria . _rvvuli_Je. nco t t1 lval /h --- —ttAcrof (alas �conorn�c jxo14 - Li'____M lete_—;'s__. s6risif_a__due rs afe i1l"�Sc✓Afs—a oL in reAci� --- 6y:-J�jo4 rei;Y1 er.oareffont _daft,_.: e pfsto �q ue1 -- :.Pticts. ..° ce..Ju'e1.lOrIcts_—sladl re ,--L(er)Itmdl__ --raiLla,upoilla/._a+s ' _.. _.-:w,// 'Acred5e .._o 7i‘e SccrWY port aje.-� 3. : ' ailroad' provide ._ /ow cos/_Au//c - .{ransrorfatcvri --servicer- : .that' cdnno( / e attic/1111(04,77U cot Jye hi"hWat's • fie dlfarnz -ve is . - _ _ r _- f-1o"?rirp aria Loot.- _efardde lme_.-of fui_IldfU - - ___444014( ._na r1J/e_ Md7 Prays _,•� ._lie r are Ye�_ �!1 fgi/r�a�s: _./tt __�rdar .__ '° d7r'acf��"_aye _alas{.ei_ --- _-.—nfcesr jorafeht i'iler__ CJ 6n of Ely _em nieaf fur_suppdr_ --f rt_ ( Mmc t -- aJXores nt-lhesal 1; roLmtl _eath:mexx9zf�r-- r'c...�,."`.��e w./ ��rr Or r'2s cir ere4/ intfur__!_irT1—Yd/KC-r-- — - - -- e/ analLe _iile/_TitfuaAd_Gil- i k,_pope_rg--frnz-: %/1.4s_ �sxcrssar 7�9�preve:.a.1-/ar&r spropotA/mtaa Esf —_ E roil av ecti1om111-I-- a-4tll,Z 870123 LC. .5,__ " .f��rpl- apa arf- , _te _defifhes{ ik cr papa 4lr'y _-f __S yme - -fur- /47:Ca:?rt AersorlS . Y_ d. lr� .0 Darer!ivfe( __.4xf L eifIrcente ( /�d /7L'n,-murn_ .., . /ha _more 7;ckg i'rsu1/47g lYcPIIGi a/3 ,iwe7 ies_ -__a"(- .4,1 Ieleeal/S. otiLC- e"Cs.—TI'dCkC. Gto( Yeilts 4 a ae/ a1 et ra ' 77aQIl1S'_ - _-_— Vii1ai_"s_g___ _in._A ini _ebilirNth_77 :_---r 61 AG?SSlz7 42/1..1_ , , •__ 60 __l(1P _.J f&t faller enift.ri nrigliaia_ c rek)s T Toad__3.7„._appears i de - ._zfif__ .-�L4 nm _.-Lsec�ncl 8 kxa, __Cali ;s cancel- t a46out Saci cif ykpar�s__/0_.ddepile _ -pre'- e Lies_f `3,C Slates —resgie2tZ _cofk,acc'ndP I ._r_s- -0— Jail _�igrenLe t .. ram to �r r e_—nr sszng. -- Ce .pare- ovr Tareeete(. i .farfer_c? ✓ersPly __al/fret fle Y rli s/ WcApli gentarire 05a 7i-6,n. ...r_ __-- ____ d,___Que5 i a.Ycs-t__CO4CPYp!19t R5T-3ranis—J Ilill ca &-f __eas.err\v:fs. .._ana( __C(Y7vr p/!-L-li o_ .__4,_-/0.0 ,7 _ -_87_M 23 r //` cif way col Jarrotirr d 1131-ros7 /n'Gs ce? "no-0. _ _ _cz. —a,),arrs___adv;se____/z7 -_/ ooa-- - ___ coa ::_v de __ -- cIassi js ----fey it _ /PI ---oc C- over_- Ca/R. 1� s--__ -_6..__:_.6)aii Seevice _ s.:-_&p.edeece _sooln.- e._as/.pd_A_ ____ _ _`irr /aims er d . .f we A -i1ie rsrra -e---- - J -hr Yap .. ' /. /f 4.. Ln I.Lr�l see,c.�GU� GeeL reraut 0 10 6l -.- vu en__71acb'_ier CYsi4r4 irk _is ._ [sue- 6eirg_ j,_Ye __lo—_rvL oarfcx jer CI_Service—in—JAE. _Rap?. rr '____zs_ .a .e_r_sl atic-f ._dal_darns—,/llit1------are-d, I? p !'_c. Go i JR, ____vinis_ A_____„Si_-14rei --c1741 -1(4-‘-frh tg4-rld-ob. re¢alry2__A yreWe__Ciaft - -s 1_„..- _rx�,r-c.eea'iQuest_- Rn- _aferfras pear _east_crii -- of---,7 separafi. %S refer/470 _,___raw s e s ources nct . /fin eed ._..i, Ittia _irfici Ifict,istrz-4: crux/via-Are , ____ 513)3JJ , - 49'136{.x(42 5_--_.;,dfic64'_ 49___ nctozs!aeccirCRIt 5(ae_ ,.._ w,iismf__--sff _st7 s _ t ciocci Acj it idcsil- -ad Vo Cup _�a6,% __� -_ ____ _�, ;7 le - inlertrn . i - rei'felq/7 kit'ResS !s-- i0' -nu-r/,/Y _3 /Xe.- ikees_.__ ray YOn,5h he ?re fee need'/or Aase:7rr 5er ice 2r/sFs 0123 . 6. ni f • - e Grc//2 .. t%�ctls �e_ crossing __a/ :,‘?0( 34 - - - s Pr,_✓�/e— c o e 07/7(11 _7 c ,"er. .:.bt -- pmfe_ve__ciey ref a -_CO urjatt - • frict 01 ---a srolde—_CXOSSl.rla_s yterp — -- Jrezenarr�e_ _2((//fs— �— . ¢xes: -p vi) "D.evelop meont/_Ycx.rf'.dkYe .F 7 int CR ec _+ oad 3 1 �ecoz^1p.�_a�—" ,�4�r Yolef?e�Rr/eridl� M ro r: : /ar& ' _.._ _ Scico/s_..._� a /Ieec( - a _r d rdc{e_('aoBiiJ Si' ar,�/,:a4c_ 1 J 8'70123------- _Si. ami j_oo4:.,_21.9.1_,E 19. 4or ar v� �oapeY.�17e — e17de ars_4eneic t f__ �� Ca1;cr.,.Zcit ,7 .�nt�e.,. _� e—ra��N/ C-- gas ` _ 11Ale exfre_r_coh[S �v. .. ,le et/( a ; __an 51._(71 - -- W.t/e c?✓A�1 a rPsrue A - G �--fLes/0er �fy: �ie¢aPs � e_� �c� curl-fl --done- ._:z .��/oraa jlro ece. rat r f_._.-IracCusa r «say( _0?p•pLcaf_ik ar (-_fief, Jrec.cL%n/_af 7% %e ?3...—Lae—trap(lleye 1'elcv er1 » ��19 a??rt GWIYY lX� lam_ a2a .-�Irobey' ( —./2(1r G7 • Br--ly i�& ar e fe1�r / cans�i Pr k\e/9/LjJn fei .ds v tram_ iaZev.�l rer fige• _1Odrts.s ___ foVL--_ as 5_ 51A5 07;4 �pr�f1�YP� to . __o-o tie✓" Ifpare na -- _Jar:laracut'rL -__-1ndcfS_'1 e 4 Ad i n7a( L...._..develo�me -- /outs ye-7 rl ` 4 _ ._. / Q`�S'1PN !r' /Par;it l�ajWd' '•7n 2.. T-7 /.. • October 17, 1986 D C `•�i"1 ;7 t� 2J1986 weld County:Colorado Department �� of Planning Services agaigl 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, 1986, indicated a willingness to work with Macey & 'Mershon to solve the issue of protecting the mineral estate. The premised communication from the applicant to address s tUfic issues did not materialize until the formal application was received with your letter. 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 ofsInterest Owners-Mineral and/or Subsurface signed by Mr.;Jonathan Zammerman. (dated October 3, 1.986) .is incomplete. ; • MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. 870123 Sur-e 2150 • (600 B4OAGw%V • DENVER.COLORADO 80202,4970 • (303,86;-9183 • e 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, & OI INC. r Scott S. McKinley Landman cc: Robert J. Clair Zenith Drilling Corporation John McCarty Ted E. Pmsbaugh 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 y GREY &SCHEIG P.C. T ? 11986 AnOR Ers AT LAW Emvn - ar a. nos'mobs BUILDANG Tampon-SMILE LYVAIM Alf.Swaim Louie* 7w flOwnn AVQ1Oc DONALDI !SOW= - - minx tJM: niawL WOMO. 7.Q IDIYT a. WNU3N October 30 , 1986 i°"cMOHT,cmn'A°°Pw'o" Ya.RIBOl&amips m1 JACOt{.m,MY.unman - motor 4a4In Mr. Keith A. Sehuett 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 for Bay Shores P.U.D. The submittal addresses the Oligarchy Ditch on pages four and ten, specifically. The Applicant statesat page four, a meeting was held on September 30, 1986, between the Oligarchy Board of Directors, Mr. Kim -Collins, and Mn John McCarty to di-scuss the concerns about the development -which the 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: The fore most concern of the Oligarchy is . therefore obtaining some form of protection for the increased liability to which it will be • 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 service 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. 870123 2 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. NEP:lm cc: Mr. John McCarty The Oligarchy Ditch Board • 8 '0123 3 • 3 • WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AY LAW PO. BOX 4.19: 209(1NST NATIONAL BANK 6VIIDING GREELEY. COLO..50632 GREELEY,.COLORADO (303) 353-1292 16557 October 16, 1 -£ 111986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett • went - Current Planner Department-Of. Services 915 10th Street 'Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Case Number Z-430: 86 : 5 Bay Shores PUD Dear Mr. .Schuett: Union Reservoir Company has reviewed the re-submitted application on Bay Shores PUD, and submits the following comments: The application requests a relocation of County Road 3-1/2 ; such is opposed by Union Reservoir Company. With an increase in population in the area, which undoubtedly will include small children, the county road, if left along the edge of the reservoir, would serve as a better buffer between the development and the reservoir than would be the case if houses were allowed to be constructed along the reservoir. The county road also serves to decelerate the water run-off from the lands to the east of the reservoir, which would be accelerated by the con struction of the streets. The road would also help to partially alleviate the siltation problem in the reservoir by slowing the water down so the silt would drop out before reaching the reservoir. This would be especially helpful during construction periods when new soil would be exposed by excavation. The Company is concerned about the open space area which was shown in previous maps to lie next to the reservoir on the west edge of the map. The current map lists 8 .5 acres of open space for Parcel A, 8 acres of which is shown as a potential drill site area, and it is assumed that the other . 5 acres may be the open space next to the reservoir. The Reservoir Company cannot allow access onto the reservoir and the Company understands that any 'open space contiguous to the shore might give the users the impression there is free access onto the reservoir. The Reservoir Company has`the recreation rights to the reservoir already leased and any other recreational -uses of the reservoir cannot -be permitted. The open space, if next to the reservoir, would also invite people to fish or otherwise use the reservoir, which, as stated above, cannot be permitted. The location of houses along the shore would also tend to be inviting use of the reservoir, another reason the county road would help- serve as a buffer between the Sub- division and 'the reservoir. In addition to creating problems - with the present recreational-use lessee,- -the aeservoir Company sees a problem created with increased liability. ` The Company cannot now obtain liability insurance and this development would only appear to lessen the Company's chances of obtaining insurance. The new insurance laws 870123 • Mr. Schuett 2- October 16, 1986 have not made insurance more obtainable. The Company fears a lawsuit from a trespasser onto the reservoir and at present is at a loss to try to insure itself against such claims. It would seem unfair that the County would impose this additional burden upon the Company, a condition which the Company cannot change or do anything about. With a school proposed for the neighborhood, even though some distance from the reservoir, the reservoir would be an especially attractive nuisance for the children. The present map calls for a fence to be constructed on the west boundary line of the subdivision. Although this would appear to resolve some of the problems of keeping the house occupants off of the reservoir, the fences may not remain standing too long. The fences would reduce the scenic view of the reservoir from the lake—shore houses, which view- the subdividers are greatly promoting, and residents would be very tempted to remove the fences. The very name of the development, Bay Shores, would indicate that possibly the residents would be getting something they aren't entitled to. Next to the county road on westleof the proposed development, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State Engineer required a dike be constructed in the mid 1970 's. Although this lies outside of the proposed development, the county road in that area should not be moved so as to line up with the relocation requested by the developers. The Company reiterates its other objections to the relocation of the road way as stated above. In a letter to Union Reservoir Company from McCarty Engineering, a wall or some type of barrier was proposed a_.ong the reservoir property line. No such wall is shown on the map provided with the packet. Union Reservoir Company had not previously discussed this matter or knew anything of such a proposal. In fact, it would appear from the resubmitted material that -Union Reservoir Company was the only entity with which a meeting in person had not been scheduled or held. It would seem that such face. 'to face meetings are more beneficial and can resolve more problems. than merely using correspondence and phone calls. H . With regard .to fifty-foot easement, subsequent research of the Company's recdrds indicates that the fifty-foot strip was deeded to the Company and subsequently- title to the property was quieted in Union Reservoir Company's name. With this additional property,' the Company may desire at. some time to enlarge the reservoir, using this property. This would also raise the water table in the area, and should be considered in the construction of houses,-and especially basements, in this area. This .change . in property boundary should not cause any problems since the Company was advised the houses proposed for the shoreline area, which -the Company has opposed above, were to be set back' 75 feet from the shoreline, but would concern the Company if basements' were used under the houses and when the water level raises it could have a tendency to put water in the cellars. Union 870123 • Mr. Schuett -3 October 16, 1986 Reservoir Company does not want to ,be responsible for damages caused by the raised water table. These matters need to be resolved before any change in zoning is granted. Yours very truly, - �� , / 1 William H. Southard WHS/C 870123 Acm Willie Keith Schuett To Planning Department Oc b r 8, 1986 —W - COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer ` - Subject: Bay Shores Change of Zone The Engineering Department has reviewed the Bay Shores Sketch Plan - " and previous Change of Zone submittal and responded in memos dated July 8 and September 5, 1986, respectively. Copies of those memos are attached. We have same concerns as noted in the previous memos with the exception of the following items. In the "Change of Zone submittal for Bay Shores P.U.D-", dated October, 1986, there is a section entitled "Storrwater Management Drainage Plan". This narrative satisfactorily addresses item no. - 5 of the July 8, 1986, memo. A detailed analysis of a stormwater plan will be required at the P.U.D. stage. In the section entitled "Traffic Study" there is some additional narrative regarding traffic. This section indicates additional information would be provided at the P.U.D. stage. I have no objection to performing further analysis at that time. However, it must be recognized by the reviewing boards that this development - will generate traffic that will create demands far beyond the capabilities of the-existing road network. Further, the development will not generate the revenue required to support the increase traffic volumes_ 10198& - 7tdi Ott' _ DLS/bf xc: Planning Referral File: Bay Shores I , 870123 ! lb CASE SUMMARY Z-430:86:5 Bay Shore Planned Unit Development 6-6-86 Application and related materials were submitted for a sketch plan for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) 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 department 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. 8-19-86 The staff determined that the application and related materials were incomplete for a Change of Zone application. 8-25-86 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 latter dated August 29, 1986, stating items that are incomplete for the application of a Planned Unit Development Change of Zona 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. McCatry delivered additional materials for the Change of Zone application. This information was mailed out to the referral agencies. 9-2-86 The Wald County Planning Commission continued the Change of Zone Case 4Z-430.for Bay Shores Planned Unit Development until November 4, 1986. 10-3-86 The applicant submitted a, different Change of Zone application. This application is . for 1,007. units math _R-1 (Low Density Residential) R-2 (Duplex Residential) andLoil: ard 'gas production facilities. 870123 • J . .N Z_IL 1• Y• i. to r I M.-tTI �• • 1a 1 a. � - I. '» 1/4I, y 1.• ji y _ •�• ro n 25 Y i •. ytE+'Yr'• e• ` ., I • ; T to _ • a.�I N p 1 4 lei."-r: "� wi. ctc•Csr•i . F • • _.. - •I. Y )) Y "a._-k • Y Fn oz'.• ' a+/ I » ' y •• • 9A Y sit • •7' `..P L..4,44/4 ip�p'Gc:-.7,,,,.•• a v . r :./, • : •vfr . r ' .uec> if I • I ,Fri;y Li:• •• .. •• fr 0,a L F\ vim!' '. •c1 r ;• /• p • .••.,.. • I • L Q k OEAT� ♦. • • • $3 • h • . • i • I!6 I �• L ,•• *® - G It�., I _ ?... .. C•• •,' .l I 1 + ' .�.. I�"..arcz •M w I . Y l•_ -----.▪cAt p'C •• .'M 1 /. ' r'LI"�c .. 3 ta . r •�. Y •- i • fy� K�wI . • • .��•, J.$ R>�� •.\ I '� .X . » •fL r t. • V _ ( •q x�:•` 'I: • c! \• rr ` .) as �.<9I t .TYMi.♦[ C. » L. . L us . .L., . L .u.s P.•c. S"` LTV__.__. . ', Y • \: ...s. . •' .• I . . . L» Sd .orn C xa a .:rs • I z/» s� w , L ♦Y I• » I, I t� » 24\ C ). i I. • ` C • R•int > rYCv , > .;• t7't ..C r ..•• I • ,I, I.. \\\` . • » . • Oa 5 V°• ECr• J�tr'�,� ti•Y ` _,. 9',,, r'• /. 1 y 1 YT i�. 1 -_...s' 11 t. _ l.-. a•n g pp 11011.1117,I • yx . •• •,• / . x i!. KILLS a l 5. - - I H d L o� a =1r-. ' - i I 7 r Y • ..w<. '•• \ O a •• •x 1\G • � Hi t.,•/' . • s. . �\ • �. • ••r ; • \ r L `70 7 •• '.J?j T.�4S ir.y . ~ j 2.«f kate . �1 GCLA�SpAA� i _. l. N...•.� .. y y ' . a '°'o C 1.. 47.r • \ • P/ • CJ q o 4. n r9EDrc�wtG C - •.--r :r -; / •-• • { 1 ..•v- F as C/ a.„41 a v %. a \ ..e. C i » • s. / T •F v • • s'I� a • •-•• �f• C l(/ I J. •.1ait) Y/,. r C��.: l .a s/ L • r w,] (if j i♦C�'Jf�]• n Ir�g p I.• F L k • •1 /I n t» el f • [J (•, ;/T \ L ,rt L y > L • • o A ../ • o I I • .r (1 E• • I n i - Cr'j—;...-...7.f�I �I 1 G � ' C ^' .. F ' • _ ( _ jT._ ou • ..L.N.. - . \ r :'tt s▪ ♦ x.e. /lri t • Y .,. C. A ,�! A tt1kiJ tT $?1 •5�• i .• . (fir �: I. L L I/IIIf 'sr C J :C r 1 •L C.•e'• .• ri i .•.. .' �• I » k 0 )r4": w C e ro -.: ••vY•°�e s� )e A\"/ Ik ' ±c u+.2.(j..1 ; _ / rr •'•r .1 �ea /CJ C L / _ -C • r 4 nl. 7441 .Q I .r..T • C.,..• bt-- C Y .- -i.✓�/ LS.. L C.7-� ..L. • '-rt.>- vna. , k SI.L•• •C'et{. 0 4n Ci Gv �r• L.Cy 544! F » ' y r> L a• • i .. it I•C CL/ "' r A II•C -I,—' c c/ C cy" I as / • 5 a• 1 SOT s as 1 a as C •. y s• \ L is a C S. -S / . C C t C C 1 C -�/ f x,i .. / r,2--O;.:, -' k . f • '� Lf1A- - .-L l •C C • C .....• . t • I! • C L • i !� )' • a9 • { ; ;6969. ko,.. / # \ Kirkland I t. tt f` f • / > 1 i { 1• CALKINS LAKE a ! `4930' i I' 1- - - ,311 (UNION RE'ERVOIR) 32 - 3 --- \ , i_ �: 4955 `' �. `i -yb - — • 1-906 .. cw';w— yeq 141<Y65 \ "E�I _ L� ll/ . .. i FI [[kbkb �a \ ~I GREA j _WESTERN 4 ..1 t. \ k ^�� 1 —L i � - r _ 9 E •Z \ �. a Fit ST K�� ✓/ 9 ti -.� ,- 3 fro 1 ( ...� ti 611 / i 4668+/ ' @s \.. O4, C%/: •r . 1.,a. r a - - t.,5- " a Fri +r-r...a, . e ^� 1 "'• .,.r.. - ~ _._ •� -... II :'�'�S•y,3S�rR•wZa• ?eve'.=Y v'Se x t < ,yi fi +o. r. .. C st, 's ' ' ` - s .fry..µ a_ � '� * 'frt • a R Lc r , f 4^ Y -Y .( l\ .1.6,...r.^...,04,;„ `.9 Rr F ` i Ikk t, rf N 14 Sal' • ..i44.' ZA-„ ' r.—• �• r; / wT. 44, ' cY f l ^ l `( 1 .„44,,./.-.-_-,„:::„.‘.....4-:-.- br•} t ^E > b4',1.tir`y 1 .. X11 •��M1.„.-- `�'l.4- ia__� lw" `r1 a. ,��xi'ff''� ,5 � Y..T".mil✓ r i5 :�Iisit y < < { ti q;�� 4"' . . • YS? y.� $ . ter .4 - 7 rC '_�. '.f ` y, ..` 4 _�_ _ L. ; 47.1r- - cay� 'b ' .- p t"` ^ iv L Y . T ,41 f i(R 33 \ .- . ' 4 µv 1'.1. 'ivy h i o - t;t:r iJ ya s 4. - y% 5t2 \3sJ! . < a•f� ,:_ ttiff ..N': /� .-2:•c•-.-2:•c•- � 1 „ - �3•..yr J'�•• •�. , �aT- ,.r j �. 'Jt r r L, r /f - ti r � Fv yin � I � a`4 r f,r l/Ak F •Tr a a r > >$, ...::!1. ..,3:77r-:) q ,\ r'.n.-41;e:.* a `14 �i.Yalr-Z sV '�' 'w �� ++. r tiL.,:"°•:%]•:.' r 4 • ��Qj �T `" . . •.. t I d--- .\`.'f T .1 .•.* * S' y1/4,14.., � +/a�� \ vC/'ho- (' {�?�yy�,' -�i.- , . ,..e.,...„,,-.37.7.--„,. .,,.::„. r •' �r .. .'hT,.t TFF y. I O '�� 4+(� '!M-9 G. _ ,fir 0.........---Th DEPAR'ONT OF PLANNING SERVICES • lte _ PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 91510th STREET tiol 1 14 f GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 �s 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. Piatrzak 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 Ni 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 Wald County Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Room 342, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented,at the public bearing 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 f MAILING LIST Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Z-430:8625 Edmund. C. Dvorak 445 Main Street Longmont, Colorado 80501 Donald H. and Genevie Hornor 8055 West 88th Street Arvada, CO 80002 Trustees and Heirs o£ Paul W. and Nellie G. Newby, c/o Raison K. Newby 12260 Weld County, Road 5 I.ottgatont, CO' 80501 Donald M. Lesher Trusts* for Wilson Family Trust 3201 East 2nd Avenue Suits 300 Denver, CO 80206 JCR Farm, Ltd. 1239 Third Avenue Longmont, CO 80634 Barbara J._Johnson 6170 West 24th Street Greeley, CO 80634 Mayeda Farms Georg* I. and: Sumiye Mayeda John Y. and Betty K. Hayed* 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 do Mrs. Francis Hill, Secretary P.O.`Box 276 La Salle, CO 80645 870 I5VE''TORY OF TTFHS SUBMITTED FOR CO:ISIDEPATION • Case Number 2 yso,.96 , 5 • Submitted or Prepared • Prior • . to Hearing ' • 'At Rearing .1Js'r/dp 1. Application 64" Pages 2. Application plat(s) 3 page(s) • 3. DPS. Referral:.Summary Sheet 2/4y£S /y� .4. DPS Recommendation 7 yeS • 5.• DPS Surrounding Propery Owner Hailing List 6. DPS Mineral Owners Mailing List 7. ' a DPS Haps Prepared by Planning Technician 8. DPS lotice of Hearing 9. DPS Case Summary Sheet 10. DPS Field Check • 11. /°4v,sniy eoinmLcsra,✓ eese/ahbn/ 12. t % Co, 2M `4/MnSJ tehs:,ri //Amin 1� 13. A996- /tsg'afae ge0/09/i../ / 14. 44-1-/!fi.�/bAisgqc �7ivf fa,"4/ /%S&o/5 ' 15. 4c/4 C,.t1 gee., fA4,.y ge B.crr/L:$Ayder,Li/ealae 16. i, /B, leU.'VSLlrkv le OD 61 yet 17.he.4 &n pliers +il o'i:us &id set 20 18.lr11A1 4.4..,! �'o�d.�4/s/o- i5,v.0 t io f &41 o1 al_ '� 19.ii.Ar./"QMAt9 Lord tea4vA//ii /eet9 20-etreert /tifrAeSe rto pi fat eie nJ,� S$1ar $/& rC ifs t. O// Da MI oc/ /3 /9 I hereby certify that the 92. items identified herein were ' submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these itemsswere- forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on /YLYA/ihz /O 1 . • rrent Planner STATE OF COLORADO ') COUNTY OF WELD ) SUBSCRIBED AND St2ORN TO BEFORE HE THIS I DAY OF 1 aa► gitr 19 els • Rt1►L z • • NOTARY PUBLIC { 1 My Commission Expires May 27, 1987 S 70123 �CxHibii MY COMMISSION EYPIB!S v.'. - U 4, i flrhr 4f 8 r, (rl ?I%Crra /IBS>4ae Ain C/X/ie.e*.e1'I/nir !/ /a3. L4rel icvecuso,/. ..ic l4 ;Len �cwyoe�t Ffc /ro{rr/ n.,/JI �:Tfuf M/ Bi�ent//t a .s, e 4 Zelaciix-. atat--n stG+'c2s/f" v: , / ZG 'i if41 ./t5,4��77 cz' o/ %5�,,��4om sifc F/„9 weer, f.46 :44„:„,f' ��.- /ffrariesty _ Sitizaz_etze.2-' '€ A,n,gnYy a8 4,,4'eceet.itS4p a<ZaZos,i �r».,' 2474e Ilif�-`1 at" It? v Yilr et, 1diershade_S I.3O A/e /4104,0, 467 f.,4 ny w v V 0,/, 1/ /J ___ __ale/ oak.6e /y /706 a4/,,'// yew 3 / , 1'33 a •Ne._ i�1 stl1rorteyy 4.a sQccy DD,.xt if 4 SSIZ:C/Idetenat4&- it 3 I tifir f L e/C At pa� -Ltd v/� e (ak a it 7 36 Leifer_ 87012323 A,e.A fry oAnt __ /1/N41/41,_/Jo,4 S • • y„ • it 15/or 7b 116,- ,/ ,,// << • i4,-,* /far✓i, #eur4 f • r �t/i dv� J_G9ac/ z • N/e/v ill/rn! 2 4 L airetareAt 9� Li11r, ��1 k/MiteC /6�9fr/ ffel JIM , i am/ . sd ttf p=4 a 4,ss Ler se cLAa/4.11--f cvge/, & s aAirt 9&< ec itce.--4/LCko4/ aA/Vhj/..rS✓_:D_1 4.i iC , II _ t t - H rI 4' EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Casa eo�?s �J ^r Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit DescriEtion %/B. y'�.(i2l n do Zti77,,,zsente / J:Atar en, ,i6t2 „,3.46. C• /7 � •rr� 8�?tt/19tCcQco r� ,-I, 7 - gD. aft! 40y AflAdsa E. 4_,/,..„..te to&a., . rte F. &J Lam. Lx„aa 7U/[!do/ /�S Q CidoL /G• i �� 4�tP/ / �T z - 44%, 42/ H. eZ141) e§v4e/41 text& O1-aZteic AR7 y� .{ _.,tom I. W d4 �f�Cpji J. eisdiutast44. 2' R• zeifty Liz nyeadvez, sr /7 L. �.o^L(/l/(CX ,/ :1242444,} O j rriti �i 97 M. &IA yam- 9144afr der4ditee, ZFL Pa 870123 EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Can: BAY SHORES PHD a Exhibit Submitted Hy Exhibit Description Q. ///a(.Q� E /�ry4B(r � � I-f R. 44-7 £Lnt- L>/z Wr 4fifir:7-4/ .(-+rf} / -i.2eSfieyyui T. V. W. X. Z. AA. BB. CC. DD. EE. FF. CG. . . HH. II. JJ. 870123 I ICHANGE OF ZONE SUBMITTAL FOR BAY SHORES P.U.D. OCTOBER, 1986 • 1 BY: McCARTY ENGINEERING. CONSULTANTS, INC. 703 W. THIRD AVENUE I LONGMONT, CO 80501 1 n ECEIV ' OCT; 3 1986 Weld Ee. flaming co aa(ssioe 870123 II I NZ1 McCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. ' October 2. 1986 ' Mr. Keith A. Schuett, Current Planner Department of Planning Services I 913 10th Street Greeley, CO. 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: IRe: Bay Shores P.U.D. , Case Number 2-430:86:5 I The enclosed P.U.D. narratives and maps are submitted in response to the continuance requested by the Weld County planning staff and approved by the Planning Commissioners at the hearing of September I16. 1986. This submittal is in response to requests for additional information. referrals from reviewing agencies not responding in time for the September 16th hearing, and modifications in the Sketch Plan proposal which reflect the I outcome of negotiations and discussions which have transpired since September 16th. ' The enclosed Sketch Plan reflects the land uses planned for each of the four parcels designated as A through D, with the densities and zoning classifications for each parcel. A major change in this submittal is a density limitation of 1,007 units. The P.U.D. I planning process is one which has been devised to provide the maximum flexibility in land planning whereby densities can be clustered with corresponding trade-offs in open space planning. I This plan has been presented with open space allocations within parcels, without the specific layout of individual lots, Clocks. and interior street configurations, as has been discussed I previously with you, Mr. Cunliffe, and Ms. deBesche at our meeting of October 1, 1986. The enclosed submittal is complete and is in response to previous I requests for clarification* or additional information. We look forward to continuing our work with you and your colleagues of the Weld County Planning Staff. , Sincerely, • McCarty Engineering onsultants. Inc. t ►.► a, hn A. McCarty, a ident I JAM/sm Encl. cc: Kim Collins I 7O3 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT,CO.easel ' 772-7755/449-4373 870123 F .-tittli. , rya . ' . •y4 �y i1 •iii 4... r .; a�.""!ri5":-•"1M 4 j . CAL$IN*27..'t t{,.2�LAK'E '�� g .;) / .»0-� 31 (UNIONSE • •'c,;P:P .�:. 7.c..•:.C1: . ' WEIII COUNTY a_ ii / a ` A acts: ZONE ' . . COUNTY ROAD 25 \ , ; GOU ° k U • (N6 }- W u WELD AUNTY _ - • \'Tail ' c 3 Q AGRIC 'ONhr'' w 44 li TO .u.% _ 40 L. _ J 7.-- . .- - . TO DEL LON6MONT a: . . ,.+^. I - . : /,. • CAthm° L r i l� �� `lit s i i '• `. i 0 ti I .: R . . :SLw Vg�,, . i 9 t • 1/2 ltE ` • 1 ' • APPROX. SCALE: r .•2000' ' VICINITY MAP I _____I %%CARTY ENGINEERING BAY SHORES E8' 7O 3 i CONSSULTANT8s INC. RO AVaNLa MONOMONT. OOLORA04 77a•774s main 44aa.4main PSUJO■ . an No 1667-1 °Atli 6-1-66 *Han. 1 a- 1 670123 1 1 1 1 1 APPLICATION ' 870123 Pm (1LNNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) REZONING APPLICATION II Case 9s Dept. of Planning Services App. C6'd By: Date Baca: 9I5 10th Street App. FeetReceipt I: Greeley. Colorado 80631 Record. Foe:_ Receipt I: Phone: 356-4000, Ext. 4400 II TO SE COMPLETED hY APPLICANT. Please print or type, except for nacossary signature. I (we). the undersigned. hereby request hearings before the Weld County Planning II Commission and the Weld County Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed rezoning of the following described unincorporated area of Meld County, LEGAL - DESCRIPTION: li See attachment A - II (If additional space is required, attach an additional sheet) ' Property Address (if-available): PRESENT ZONE Agricultural PROP68ED ZONE PUD TOTAL ACRECE Approx OVERLAY ZONES ry aO • 300 acres ' SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY HNERS) OF AREA PROMO FOP.Pt0MINCt'VA zr . ..Name: r gam Telephone. I: 927-446: Address: 1796 E. SODris Creek Rd. Bus. Telephone 4: Carbondale. CO 81621 Naomi II ' Boma Telephone f: Address: - _ - Bus. Telephone f: '".. News Roma Telephone f: • Address: • - Bus. Telephone f: ' Applicant or Authorised Agent (if different than above): • Names McCarty Engineering-Consultants. Inc. moms Telephone it . Address: ]]D•S_N. Third Ay Bus. Telephony f: 772/775S/ Lengmont, CO 80591 449-4373 Owner(s) .and/or 1 of mineral rights on or under the subject properties of record • in the Veld County Assessor's Offices ' liana: Macy-Mershon On CO, Address: 1600 Broadway. §u ,2150 Denver. CO 80201~ • Name: IIAddress: Name: Address: -.' I hereby depose. and state under the panalitiss of perjury that ell statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with contained-within this application are true and correct to the best of.my knowledge. I - COUNTY OF WELD )STATE OF OF COLORADO ) 4. IIstaturer or tired Agent Subscribed and sworn to before me this ✓9 day of .+,� . 19E1.SEAL /1`.��J ,/ TL\J II NOTARY PUg My Ccmission expires: ?AV" 7 II ' F 7 SKETCH PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT • Department of.Planning Services. ?IS Tench Street, Room 142, Cre. icy, Colorado 10511 Phone: 156- 000. Ext. .400 II FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USP• ONLY: llCASE NO: ..APPLICATION FEE: ZONING DISTRICT RECEIPT NO: .I BATE: APPLIC. CUECKED BY: , TO BE COMPLETED at APPLICANT: (PRINT or TYPE ONLY except for required signatures): III (we). the undersigned hereby request the Department. of Planning Services to review a sketch plan for a proposed Planned Unit Development of the following described unincorporated area of Weld County. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ` I SEE ATTACHMENT A • • 1 1 I (If additional epees is required, attach an additional sheet). NAME OF PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT gsy Shores P ii D. EXISTING ZONING J+oriculturnl PROPOSED ZONING Pub II EXISTING AREA (ACRES) _apD rnr tOAjtrree N0. OF PROPOSED LOTS 424 Lot SIZE: AVERAGE 55 Acres MINIMUM .2S Acres I UTILITIES: WATER: NAME: Left Hand Hater Supply Company SEVER: NAME: t. rain ant a S0 GAS: NAME: Public Service Lodpany of Colorado PHONE: NAME: Mountain Bell I DISTRICTS: SCHOOL: NAME: St. Yradn School District RE-1.1 FIRE: NAME: Lonoinont$urnl Fire Protection District INAME OP APPLICANT CRS Investments Inc., Kim Collins,. Vice Pres. . ADDRESS 1333W, 120th Ave. , Suite -308 - pgppt 457-3775 I Denver, Co 80234 NAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS PHONE ilNAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS _ PHONE Cn' S ej I Signature: l cant or Authorized Agent 870123 ef I ATTACHMENT A IThe 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 conveytd to The Northern Construction Company for railroad purposes, in Deeds recorded June 12, 1906, in Book 241, Page 393; and Book 242, Page 392. I I II 1 I 870123 I Planned Unit Development Plan IAFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE IApplication No. S-263:86 :8 Subject Property Bay Shores P.U.D. 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) as. COUNTY OF WELD ) TAE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names rand addresses of all mineral owners and leases of mineral owners on or under • the parcel of land which is the subject of the application as their names I _ appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office, or from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney. li • . Macy-Mershon Oil Co. 1600 Broadway, Suite 2150 , Denver, CO. 80202 kc2_...l40ni 4ll&r IThe foregoing instrument vas subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of October $ 191,. WITNESS my hand and official seal. IIMy Commission expires: g'{Ca agalonEvhs JWa_ I C blte 33 J.. . atirni s . ,ca,iciSt1 I 5'70123 I Planned Unit Development Change of Zone AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE l , Application No. S-263: • 86 :t Subject Property Ray Shnres P.U.D. STATE OF COLORADO ) • ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his ' or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, ' addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessox of the owners of property (the.surface estate) within ifive hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the application.. This list Iwas compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership • update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date. The foregoing instrument-was seabed and awo before ' g ; to or me this 14th day August , 19J by. IIWITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: t� �� II ccler ct Notary Puh is X53 w1 oync �,G'B�iS .� . 870123 I T I Planned Unit Development Change of Zone ISAFES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITEIN 500 FEET - Please print or type NANE ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION i I Edimad r Dwnrak 444 Main S' 62 120732000041 ILongmont , CO ' 80501 . Donald H. and 8055 W. 88th 62 120732000031 IGenevie Hornor Arvada , CO 80002 1 Paul W. and c/o Raimon K. Newby 62 120733000003 INellie C Newby 12260 Weld Cntv. R&. 5 Trnsteec . Heirs. of Longmont . CO 80501 ' • Donald P4, Lesher 3201 E. 2nd Ave. 62131304000004 1 Trustee for Wilson Suite 300 family trust Denver. CO 80206 IlCK Farm Ltd, 1239 Third Ave . 62131304000034 Longmont , CO 80501 Barbara J. Johnson 6170 W 24th St• 62131305000048 Greelev. GO 80634 I Mayeda Farms 10702 Weld Cnty. Rd. 1 62131305000047 , ' GPoreep 1 and Survive Mayeda ilJohn Y. and Betty K. Mayeda I 870123 aA 1 • Planned Unit Development Change of Zone ' NAMEs OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print or type .. NAME ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION I Ramona E. Helton 0545 State Hwy. 119 62131306000017 _ Longmont , CO 80501 Lois S. Jones (or) .18442 Weld Cnty. Rd. 17 62131306000024 Lois Steverwald Johnstown, CO 80534 s ' Union Reservoir P.O. Box 276 62131306000026 c/o i4js. Francis IaSalle. CO 80645 • II Hill (S,Scty) • r : 870123 r 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 r r P.IJ.D. DRVELOPMRNT PLAN r 870123 4 . I IDAY SHORES P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT PLAN NARRATIVE I II The Bay Shores project has been conceived as a residential Planned I Unit Development, providing a maximum of 1,007 units in four parcels, encompassing approximately 280 acres. As a P.U.D. project, the proposed housing density is projected at a maximum of 3 dwelling units per acre in the areas designated as R-1. and a maximum of 6 units per acre in areas designated as R-2. This is a considerably lower density than that which would be allowable with standard RI zoning. Individual lot sizes vary from a minimum of 8,800 square feet to a minimum of 3,500 square feet per unit. The site is bisected into I two parts by County Road 3-1/2, which runs north to south. In addition, the Great Western Railroad line cuts diagonally through the property from southwest to northeast. I There are a minimum of 32.8422 acres planned for open space use. representing more than 1OX of the total project land area, after the deduction of Rights-of-Way for County Roads 3-1/2 and 26, and I the Great Western Railroad. These open apace areas are set aside for landscaping, a school, and recreational use. Recreational uses of the open spaces will be augmented by providing a system of ' pedestrian/bicycle/jogging paths and trails throughout the project. The landscaped open spaces have been planned as a series of three primary areas. An 8-acre space, which also serves to accommodate Ia potential drill site area, has been allocated in Parcel A. Parcel C includes 14.8422 acres of open space, containing the existing well head. Parcel D contains a 10-acre area reserved at ' I the southeast corner of the intersection of Roads 3-1/2 and 26 for a potential school site. Union Reservoir - Union Reservoir is a natural panoramic feature Iwhich enhances the visual drama of this development. Extending from the high waterline, a 50-foot easement has been shown on Sketch Plan Amendment A. IThe use of County Road 26 as part of a spillway has been researched. County Road 26 on the subject parcel is not part of I the Emergency Spillway, which was designed to pass a Principal Maximum Precipitation storm passing through Union Reservoir. This is according to plans prepared by Bruns. Inc. , consulting engineers; acknowledged by Union Reservoir Company President. John ISitzman; and approved in 1976 by the State Engineer for the State of Colorado Department of Water Resources. (See Exhibit A) 870_'.23 ll ll IWater Service - Water services will be provided by Left Hand Water Supply Company. Although Left Hand has agreed to serve, details Iconcerning tap fees and costs of line improvements and extensions are yet to be negotiated. On September 2, 1986, this office contacted Jim Dickey, Manager of Left Hand Water Supply Company, concerning the Division of Water Resources' letter of July 3. 1 1986. Mr. Dickey indicated that he would be responding directly to a referral inquiry from Weld County. (See Exhibit B) Sewer Service - The •St. Vrain Sanitation District has indicated a willingness to serve this subdivision which lies within the District's service area. Formal applications and agreements have yet to be negotiated. On September 2. 1986, Wallace Grant, President of the Saint Vrain Sanitation District, confirmed that the District had received an Annexation Petition from the Bay Shores applicant. Although it was stated that the District had no conflicts with serving the Bay Shores project, the Sanitation I District has not as yet decided how such applicants will be served. Service will be provided -either by annexation or by • contract. (See Exhibit C) ll Electricity Electric power will be supplied by Union R.E.A. , which is currently in the process of evaluating projected growth ' in the, area. Preliminary inquiries with the R.E.A. - have indicated their willingness to serve. (See Exhibit D) II Fire Protection - Fire protection will be provided by the Longmont Fire Protection District. The L.F.P.D. has reviewed the sketch plan submittals for this project and has found no conflicts with approval, (See Exhibit E) Police Protectkon The Weld County Sheriff's Department has completed a preliminary review and finds that this project lies in an active service area. As such, costs of providing- police protection will be somewhat higher than - in other parts of the county. Nevertheless, the department is not opposed to this I project. This tacit approval comes with the understanding that the developer will be required to enter into negotiations as to the manner in which these costs are to be defrayed. ii On September 2, 1986, Jon Zimmerman of McCarty Engineering Consultants had a discussion with Undersheriff Rick Dill of the Weld County Sheriff's Department concerning police protection. I Undersheriff Dill recommended that the same procedure which was adopted for use in the Beebe Draw project near Platteville might be appropriate for the Bay Shores project. This procedure entails the formation of a Law Enforcement Authority, which is similar to Ithe formation of a Special Taxation District. A Law Enforcement Authority is empowered under the Colorado Revised Statute*, "County Powers and Functions". Chapter 30-11-401, under the Law Enforcement Act of 1961. . 1 870123 - 2 - 1 The proposed authority would be enabled to set the standards of law enforcement services desired to meet the needs of the ' homeowners, and to set a mill levy to pay for these services. Police protection services could range from a minimum of compensation, based upon a per call basis, or continuous patrolling of the development. The needs and desires of the I homeowners would be determined and reflected in the levy imposed by the authority. (See Exhibit F) I Schools - Dorothy Mores, Director of Planning, Evaluation, and Communication of the St. Vrain School District, discussed this submittal in a telephone conversation on October 3. 1986. The maximum potential density of 1.007 would probably require a land I dedication exceeding that needed for an elementary school site. Since actual density, as defined during the P.U.D. Plan submittal, may be less than the maximum, the final land use dedication, or I cash-in-lieu, should be deferred to the P.U.D. Plan phase. The applicant does commit to providing a 10-acre elementary school site at the southeast corner of Weld County Roads 3-1/2 and 26, as I depicted on the submittal maps. Exact slope will be determined at the P.U.D. Plan Phase. (See Exhibit G) Oil and Gas - Mineral rights for this property are held by Macy & I Mershon Oil, Inc. of Denver. They feed natural gas to the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company. The location of the well head and the existing pipeline are shown on the map submitted with this I application. The applicant has discussed the subsurface rights and the pipeline easements with both Macy & Mershon and Panhandle Eastern. It is the intention of the applicant to provide a reserved area within the open space dedication on Parcel A for a I future well site. The applicant requests that the county consider requiring horning, landscaping, and low-profile facilities if a well is ever drilled in this location to minimize visual impact. I The applicant has also indicated a desire to relocate the existing pipeline. It is understood that if the pipeline is relocated, it will be at the cost of the applicant. The applicant will also I provide an easement which allows the pipeline to be located a minimum of 10 feet behind the flowline of the street, and a minimum of 25 feet from any residential structure. Additionally. a similar reservation will be made in Parcel A, along a future • street, to provide an easement for a possible well head in an open space parcel. (See Exhibits H and I) I Great Western Railroad - On October 1, 1986, I held a telephone conversation with John H. Houston. attorney for the Great Western Railroad. Mr. Houston indicated several of his company's concerns. These included upgrading of the crossing; that a Ihomeowier's association provide funds for maintainence of the crossing; that there be compensation for removing the industrial base through the rezoning to residential; that some benefit be ' demonstrated to the Great Western Railroad that would indicate help in generating additional revenues, potentially through the running of steam excursion trains: ` and that the rail line be preserved because of 'the potential use by commuter rails or the IBurlington Northern` line relocating out of several front range cities. • �y I _ 3 _ 870123 1 IThe applicant is willing to commit to participate in the upgrading of the crossing to the level required by the Public Utilities I Commission or other regulatory agencies governing this crossing. Additionally. the submittal indicates large open space areas adjacent to the railroad which help separate and reduce the number of homes adjacent to the tracks. We also believe that the open spaces will be more attractive to the railroad if. rather than other uses, excursion trains are run along this track. The applicant is non-committal on the resolution of the remaining I concerns expressed by Mr. Houston. He is, however, explicit in his desire to met with Mr. Houston and discuss how these other issues might be resolved. To that extent, a meeting has been set up between C.R.S. Investments, Inc. and the Great Western IRailroad, to be held on October 15, 1986. Oligarchy Ditch Company - On Tuesday, September 30, 1986, the ' applicant met with the` Oligarchy Ditch Company Board of Directors and their attorney Neil Piller. Discussions were held concerning all of the previous responses to submittals and how the applicant might minimize impacts perceived by the ditch company. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Piller on Thursday, October 2, the results of the discussion following our Tuesday meeting were communicated. Mr. Piller is preparing a letter discussing the I position of the ditch company, which he conveyed to me as follows: 1. They have serious concerns which they believe can be Iresolved. 2. They will not oppose the rezoning. I 3. They will consider relocation of the irrigation ditch if a deed conveying the ditch easement is presented to the ditch company, and if an appoximately 50-foot-wide Ieasement is provided. with concrete lining in the ditch. 4. They are concerned about resolving the liability exposure I to the ditch company. Solutions might be to either fence the ditch, or an entity, such as a metropolitan district. assuming the liability 5. They are concerned about downstream problems with increased velocities of water through a concrete lined ditch. This type of problem may be resolved by proper design of the ditch, with some drop structures to reduce the velocity, or by other appropriate energy dissipation devices. IThe applicant is sensitive to these issues and has committed to lining the ditch previous to this application. He believes that. if rezoning is approved, the balance of 'the issues can be , Inegotiated and resolved with the ditch company prior to the submittal of a P.U.D. plan. • 870123 I - 4 - J.C.K. Farms Irrtsation Ditch j�aterals - At a meeting held between Mr. Richard Hamm, of J.C.K. Farms, and his attorney, Neil Piller, on September 30, -1986, concerns were expressed regarding the ' preservation of irrigation laterals from the Oligarchy Ditch to J.C.K. Farms. The applicant is sensitive to the concerns expressed by Mr. Hamm and is committed to preserving the I irrigation laterals in the present location if necessary. The applicant would like some flexibility in the alignment, but does not feel that retaining the current alignment would cause undue difficulty in laying out a final P.U.D. Plan. A letter regarding ' the J.C.K. laterals is expected from Mr. Pillar's office. Other Concerns - Although preliminary findings as to the feasibility of the project are favorable, the followin4 issues need to be addressed: 1. Compliance with the Current Comprehensive Plan - The existing Comprehensive Plan is opposed to development of agricultural land within Weld County. Historically, in areas of changing conditions, agricultural lands have ' been rezoned during the past several years. These types of conditions refer to the location of agricultural lands -along major transportation routes and where development has already occurred, or where market pressures for development are being felt. When the existing Comprehensive Plan was written, urban services were not available. Over the course of the last ten years, this situation has changed. The formation of the St. Vrain Sanitation District was the final element to fall into place, providing all necessary services and allowing growth to occur. ' The proposed Bay Shores project lies within an area which is targeted for future development by Weld County within the context of the proposed revised Comprehensive Plan. The local landowners have expressed their interest in the development of this area, as have the members of the Southwest Weld Development , Council of the Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce. IThe moat cogent aspect of events in this area involves formal approval of the St. Vrain Sanitation District by the both the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The Bay Shores project lies within the present boundaries of the Sanitation District's potential service area. Annexation procedures ,, are underway, with formal petition submittal made on September 1, 1986. : ' I p.� 870123 - S - I I IThe advent of this new sanitation district is highly significant in that it is a clear indication that non-agricultural growth is not only expected in this I area, but encouraged by the county. With this in mind, it would appear that strict adherence to the tenets of the existing outmoded Comprehensive Plan would contradict ' current policy and the development trends, as outlined in draft form of the new Comprehensive Plan. 2. Surroundii]a Lend Uses - As a non-agricultural development, the Bay Shores project is uniquely suitable for residential development, as opposed to an industrial or commercial P.U.D. Residential development would be I compatible with existing and future land uses. Industrial and commercial development would be more appropriately located along Highway 119, which is a major I transportation route. Low density residential development is suitable for placement in areas removed from adjacent high traffic flows and the problems of noise and aesthetics associated with a four-lane limited Iaccess highway. The Bay Shores project sits atop a knoll overlooking the I Union Reservoir to the northwest, and a striking panorama of the Front Range from north to south. Situated on a predominantly south-facing slope, solar exposures are I ideal for utilizing passive design strategies. while capitalizing on the breathtaking views. Contiguous to the Bay Shores property lies an 80-acre I parcel extending to Highway 119, along the west side of County Road 3-1/2. This parcel encompasses the proposed "Five Villages" adult housing project, which is already I included in the existing St. Vrain_Sanitation District boundary. The immediate Bay Shores environs consist of existing agricultural lands, punctuated by recreational facilities and a flood plain area. The recreational facilities are owned and operated by Water Sports West, which provides camping facilities and a camper area at the waterfront. less than one-quarter of a mile from Bay Shores. I Further recreational opportuni"ces can be found in the floodplain area of St. Vrain Creek, located southeast of the project. Parks, fishing ponds. wildlife sanctuaries. and even golf course facilities could be provided within the floodplain area to enhance this undevelopable area and to, provide additional amenities for both local and regional use. 1 8'70!23 I - 6 - II3. Improvements to County Roads 8-1/2. 26, and Highway 119 - . Improvements, including acceleration and deceleration lanes. will be made to conform to . both Weld County Engineering and State Department of Highways regulations. The cost of required improvements will be negotiated with the developer and formalized via I subdivision improvements and collateral agreements with the county. The basis for such improvements will be determined - by analyzing traffic impacts coordinated with Ithe appropriate engineering agencies. In a telephone conversation with Drew Sheltinga, Weld County Engineer, on September 30, 1986, some of the above I items were further discussed. Mr. Sheltinga indicated that he is not concerned about the proposed realignment of Weld County Road 26 through the project property as I long as County Road 26 is maintained as a through street in a east-west direction. The through street designation implies controlled access at intersections with few, if any, driveway accesses directly onto Road 26. He indicated some willingness to consider a reduction of the right-of-way from 100 feet if the applicant could demonstrate the county's ability to further expand the Iroadway in the future. The applicant is proposing an 80-foot right-of-way for I both Weld County Road 3-1/2 and Road 26. An additional 10-foot dedication would be made each side of the existing right-of-way adjacent to property owned by the applicant. A four-lane roadway with 12-foot lanes would I require 20 feet of roadway width from flowline to flowline. This high-volume arterial roadway would certainly be accomodated within an 80-foot right-of-way II width. Additionally, it would allow the construction of excel-decel lanes, or a left turn lane. Mr. Sheltinga indicated that a full traffic study is probably I appropriate after rezoning approval. The applicant concurs with this recommendation. (see Exhibits 3 and K) 4. Economic Impacts of ttp Proposed Bay $horea Development - As requested by staff, the following economic information is supplied. The figures are based upon market values. using 1986 dollars and assessed value at 21k of market I value. We have estimated, from the Density Table, that there could be as many. as 100 units in Parcel A, with an average market value of 0125,000. In Parcels A. B, C. ' and D. there could be as many as 561 units, with an average market value of 090.000. There could be as many as 120 larger R-2 units in Parcel A, with an average market value of 080,000 and - no more than 226 units in Parcels B, C, and D would have an average market value of I 060,000. The market' value in 1986 dollars. at buildout of the project', ,is estimated to be 087,100,000. Applying 870 123 - 7 I I the d value at 21m of market value results in *18,290,000. Current mill levies for the Bay Shore project, .including the revenues generated on the above Id value on the current mill levy, are as follows: Weld County 19.648 0 35,936 I St. Vrain .School RE1J 61.890 113,196 Water 1.000 1,829 Water District 0.500 914 Longmont Fire 6.081 11,122 I Protection District Library 1.500 2,743 St. Vrain Sanitation 15.000 27,435 IDistrict TOTAL: 105.619 5193,175 IThis information has been generated through the assistance of Stan Jantz, a residential appraiser in the Weld County Assessors office. It should be noted that I the capital spending limitation inherent in Weld County could cause mill levies to be adjusted downwards when all residences are reevaluated to the 1985 level on January 1, 1987, therefore, the revenues may be overstated. 5. Traffic Impact Analysis - The proposed development consists of 1,007 units, comprising a total of ' approximately 280 acres. Lot size range is from a minimum of 3,500 sq. ft. of lot per attached unit to a minimum of 8,500 sq. ft. for estate lots. All access to I the single-family residential PUD will be by way of two main roads: County Road 3-i/2 and County Road 26. From these main access roads, traffic will disperse in the PUD I by other local streets. The traffic accessing from County Road 3-1/2 will be originating from State Highway 119. This development is located north of Highway 119. a approximately. 2-1/2 miles west of Interstate 25. and approximately 1-1/2 miles east of the Boulder/Weld County line. II The existing County Road 26 is aligned along the southeast shoreline of Union Reservoir. The intention of this development is to relocate the existing alignment of II County Road 26 away from the shoreline. This realignment II is desirable from the standpoint of increasing marketability of lakefront properties, as well as minimizing public impact on the more sensitive wetland 1 ecology found along the Union Reservoir shoreline. The traffic concerns have been reviewed by the State I Department of Highways during the sketch plan submittal. Recommendation has been to improve the intersection at County Road 3-1/2 and State, Highway 119 with right and left turn acceleration/deceleration lanes, based on an IIestimated traffic volume of 10 trips per day generated from the PUD. gem {s� 8 - • 8 a 0123 I IThe developers of Bay Shores PUD will concur with the State Highway Department recommendation for roadway • improvements to the intersection at County Road 3-1/2 and I State Highway 119. Nonetheless, we argue that the estimated traffic volume based on 10 trips per day is excessive due to two factors: Ia. The majority of households having both adults working outside of the home and Ib. the rural location of this PUD. These factors should be evaluated. I Our assessment of traffic flow from the Bay Shores PUD gives County Road 26 west, 5% of the traffic; County Road 26 east, 5% of the traffic; and County Road 3-1/2, 90% of I the traffic generated from this development. We feel the 5% figures on County Road 26 are justified in terms of the road terminating in both directions onto other north/south roads. As the access is not through. but • I limited in nature, anticipated traffic will follow the more direct route along County Road 3-1/2 in the majority of teas. IAlthough the developers concur with the recommendations of the State Highway Department to improve the I intersection at County Road 3-1/2 and State Highway 119, they do anticipate participation in the costs of these improvements by adjoining landowners as those properties develop. This would of course be expected as a Ireimbursement over a number of years. As County Road 3-1/2 and Highway 119 are improved to I accomodate traffic generated from this development, a successful handling of traffic will occur. 6_ Suitability of Soils for Develppment of Residential Structures As pointed out in the synopsis of Soil Conservation Service data, compiled and presented to the County in the first phase of sketch plan review, and I contained in this report, the soils are acceptable for development. This acceptability falls within a range of soil types which include organic and expansive clayey I soils. When these clays become wet, they expand, often causing ground upheaval which distorts footings and foundations. Soil test borings throughout the proposed subdivision will determine the presence of such soils and I provide recommended foundation design procedures. Grade beam design is one of the most common methods of avoiding construction problems caused by expansive soils. These ' soils are native throughout many parts of Colorado and the methods of dealing with them are a common element of professional . engineering and architectural practice in ' Colorado. • • 870123 I - 9 - Organic soils will not support building loads and must be removed from the foundation excavation so that footings, if appropriate, may rest on undisturbed or suitably I compacted inorganic soils. Organic topsoils are scraped and gathered into protected piles for use in final grading, planting and landscaping. The soil conditions I present at the Bay Shores site are not unique and present no uncommon construction problems„ If rezoning approval is received, the applicant will perform tests to determine if radon gas exists at the site. (See Exhibit L) I 7. Relocation of the Oligarchy Ditch —Ditch realignment, relocation, and/or relining is a common practice in the I development of large tracts of land. Concrete or other acceptable lining material; slope selection of the ditch walls for volume and safety; provision of ledges, I. handholds, and fencing; crossings; culverts; and undergrounding; as well as water rights; easements: accessibility; and liabilities, are the standard types of issues which need to be addressed. In most cases, the I developer and ditch company communicate their needs and negotiate a mutually acceptable solution to reach a formalized agreement.I The developer has agreed to provide a lined ditch which will substantially improve the maintainability of the ditch and reduce water seepage losses through the I existing unlined ditch. Access to headgates and required maintenance easements will be provided. We do not foresee any insurmountable conflicts with the Oligarchy I Ditch Company and expect that discussions and negotiations will lead to a mutually agreeable conclusion. I In conclusion, we believe that the rezoning of this property conforms to the rezoning criteria as set forth in Section 21.6.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, and that the Board of County Commissioners should approve the request for change of zone unless I it finds that the applicant has not met one of the following seven conditions: I Condition 26.6.2.1: The zoning of this property warrants a change of zone due to changing conditions in the area. Development of the Del Camino area, with new business' and services not previously made available to the public at the I tine the existing comprehensive plan was written, represents a substantial change in local conditions. The advent of the St. Vrain Sanitation District represents an acknowledgement of ' these changing conditions, and indeed an encouragement on the part of the County for non-agricultural development in this sector of Southwest Weld County. 870123 I - 10 - ' Condition 21.6.2.2: The compatibility with surrounding land uses is a matter of residential development surrounded by agricultural land, the Union Reservoir, and, an elderly housing I project. The proximity of agricultural land poses no conflict between housing and farming. The relocation and relining of the irrigation ditch through the Bay Shores property will I improve the irrigation system serving adjacent farms. Farming, per so, adds a picturesque element to the overall panorama surrounding the residential development. Care will need to be excercised during seasonal periods of crop spraying. Monitoring wind and weather conditions, an integral part of any pesticide operation, will have to be accomplished with regard to avoiding overspray of the Bay Shores project I area. The developer will have to control construction activities and debris. The methodology for doing this will be part of the PUD plan submittal. ISurface water runoff will be engineered to coordinate with the needs of the ditch company and the need to preserve historic runoff rates. Open spaces and detention ponding will be I designed with final drainage plans formulated in the PUD Plan phase of the process. I Condition 21.6.2: The presence of water and sewer facilities in this area are a prime requisite for project approval. Preliminary agreements have been reached with both the Left ' Hand Water Supply Company and the St. Vrain Sanitation District. The developer will pay his share of the various public improvements required for the project. I Condition 21.6,2.4: The developer will conform to the engineering requirements of both the Weld County and State Highway Departments. Traffic impact analysis will determine the necessity for providing accel/decel lanes at the intersection of County Road 31/2 and Highway 119. The various conditions for conformance to the Weld County Zoning Regulations have been met. We believe that this residental project offers features which will make this a unique development an asset, and an example of a quality project in the area. 879323 . ' - 11 - " Storm Water $anagemrnt Drai=nage Plan - The storm water management plan for Bay Shores Subdivision will consist of a Ill system of detention ponds sized in accordanice with Weld County requirements to detain runoff flows in excess of the historic rate allowed by the County. The Bay Shores property is currently divided by a ridge line running from the north I central portion of the property in a southwesterly direction. Flows north of this ridgeline trove: towards Union Reservoir. Runoff from the area south and easterly of this ridge line I flow predominately south and southeasterly. The southerly drainage basin is interrupted by the railroad tracks and the lower Oligarchy Ditch. Current irrigation practices take I wastewater from the areas north of the railroad tracks through culverts and under the railroad tracks, allowing the flows to continue south along County Road 3-1/2 and south to the Richard Hamm property through an irrigation lateral ' approximately 1500 feet east of County Road 3-1/2. The area south of the railroad tracks and west of County Road 3-1/2 drains southerly towards Colorado 119. The area south of the I railroad tracks and east of County Road 3-1/2 drains to the southeast corner of the Bay Shores property. With the southerly drainage basin divided by County Road 3-1/2, the railroad tracks, and the lower Oligarchy Ditch, it is possible to define six distinct drainage areas. Within these areas, it will be easy to size I detention ponds and release structures so that the increased runoff is detained and releases are continued at the historic rate approved by the County. Where I possible, the detention ponds will be integrated into open space, however. it is possible that the detention pond might be part of an easement over several lots. We do not anticipate the need, nor is there a desire, to ' provide detention on an individual lot basis. The northerly flows have drained historically to County Road 26. Some have been diverted by the County road in a westerly direction, while others way have entered the Union Reservoir. While it is true that the Union Reservoir Company should be concerned about water I pollution, in actuality. a developed residential subdivision will be less likely, at buildout, to provide pollution than is present in the historic condition. I With the slope on the irrigated fields, the row crops, when irrigated, transport silts that are later deposited in areas where the water velocity is reduced. Some of I these silts are transported into the Union Reservoir during periods of intense irrigation or heavy storms. At buildout, the residential subdivision will have lawns, g , and paved streets over the maiority of the area, ' thus reducing the erosion potential of the soils. In the 870123 I - 12 - Isame manner, salt and fertilizer pollution will also be reduced. If, in fact.. any storm releases are allowed directly into Union Reservoir, they will also the routed through detention ponds and release facilities to insure releases at the historic rate. I Another alternative which can be explored with the Union Reservoir Company is the direct release of some attars flows, which can be demonstrated to be pollutant £rt--t, and the I detention and historic release of other flows in a westerly direction along the south aide of County Road 26. Further negotiations with the Union Reservoir Company will clarify which of these alternatives will be used for the F.U.D. Plan ISubmittal phase. Traffic Study - The submittal for rezoning contains a segment on Traffic Impact Analysis. Within this section, the trips generated by single-family detached residential units are estimated to be 10 trips per day. Ten trips per day is a figure which comes from the "Trip Seneration Manual", I published in 1983 by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for single-family detached residential units. We have suggested that the 10-trip-per-day volume is excessive due to Itwo factors: A. The ma3ority of households having both adults I working outside the home and B. the rural location_of this P_U.D. I Whether or not the total trip count is 10 trips per day, equal to 4,240, or 8 trips per day. at 3,392, the volume exceeds the allowable classifications by Weld County for local and Icollector streets. The percentage of break-out of vehicles on Weld County Roads 3-1/2 and 26 are generated by field observation of existing I traffic, including passenger vehicles and farm vehicles. This information is looked at from the standpoint of trip generators and destinations. These destinations would include I shopping areas, employment centers, and schools. If an elementary school is located within the subdivision, the trips are internal and do not impact the offsite road conditions. I Both junior high and senior high schools are most readily accessible by travelling westward along Highway 119 and north in Longmont,'along Alpine Street to Northeast Junior High and Skyline High schools. Other routes are possible, but they I involve many stops and several miles of dirt roads. Additionally, the significant employment and shopping centers within the City of Longmont are located along Hain Street, in II accessed best from Highway 119, and to the south and southwest of Longmont. also accessed along Highway 119. The other source of employment is the north Denver area. This residential development is within commuting distance and it is I anticipated that many homeowera will be - commuter, to employment centers in north Denver. They will also travel south along County Road 3-1/2 and westery along Highway 119. ri III - 13 - 870123 I IWe feel confident that the numbers projected in our original submittal, as calculated by the "Trip Generation Manual", will be supported by a more intensive traffic study that would be Idone in conjunction with the P.U.D. Plan. Adjitional Information Regarding Polic;es of. Weld County - I The existing Weld County Comprehensive Plan is currently being rewritten to reflect the changing conditions which have occurred over the past 13 years. A great deal has been said I about development which naturally occurs along major transportation routes in general, and the development which has occurred in the Del Camino area. The single most important fact which relates to rezoning of agricultural land Il for development of the Bay Shores residential project is the establishment of the St. Vrain Sanitation District. I The formation of the Sanitation District was approved by both the Weld County Planning Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners. This approval did not reflect the tenets of a 13-year-old Comprehensive Plan, it mirrored the events and ' community desires present in today's Southwest Weld County community. With a new Comprehensive Plan in the process of being written to reflect changing conditions and community I desires, and on the basis of the need for conformance to an outmoded plan, we feel that to react negatively to proposed development in an area already earmarked for development is a I response counter to present day realities. The Sanitation District was not approved to preserve agricultural land in the area. The St. Vrain Sanitation I District was approved to encourage non-agricultural development. Development within the projected service area of the District should be expected to be either of an industrial, I commercial, or residential nature. Industrial and commercial development are appropriate on or near major transportation thoroughfares where utility services are available. A I residential development is more properly located away from, but accessible to, major transportation corridors where not only water, sower, electric, and other municipal type services are available. but where aesthetic features are present which may enhance domestic life. The Bay Shores project meets these criteria and should be concidered favorably for rezoning as a residential Planned Unit Development. i AEI 870123 I L I 1 SOILS ANALYSIS 870123 ' SOILS ANALYSIS ' ILocated in Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, the Bay Shores PUD consists primarily I of Heldt silty clay soil type. According to the -soil survey of Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part", published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, the general soils types are of alluvial sediment derived from shale. Following are the four soil types, • ' listed with their approximate percentages: 75X Heldt Silty Clay, 1-3X slopes I 20% Heldt Silty Clay, 3-5% slopes 4k Nunn Clay Loam, 1-3x slopes lk Renohill Clay Loam, 0-3% slopes IThe Heldt silty clay soils are gently sloping, deep, and moderately well drained, with slow permeability. The surface ,' runoff typically found in this soil classification is medium with- , a moderate erosion hazard. The soil is generally not suited for windbreaks and environmental plantings. Bedrock is found at depths greater than 60". Shrink/swell. potential is generally high with ,this soil. MINERAL DEPOSITS I The preliminary , review of soils naps and descriptions and county maps does not indicate the presence: of underlying mineral depositsI in the subject area. - ., I . - , ' I �'� :A � 'a <�S_+Y 16 Pi 59 r z� n A.; �y a I I 27 a 1.d+ a'. �.:' aE.. . 16 t l't. 41..' V 4, I • X82 t 'c' �. A 1 1 -nw,.. -,, y 4y�.r.' ,. ' I I t LLL . A 3 292-,4, , •rs • . akjE : aortty ':::W-/-leYgfir 82 jilt -, • � ?�_ 82t - :S YOIRf' 64 `, 1. ,• Y xisI - 4 .j: N 8 r. ' r-. a;7 el - v� ` h t -a4.� +'H•82 'A ' C I F. .... t ilk\ _ .n �•- 82 • l •'�' aL•, •01 �..1_• .'ice '� ry . 1j ' , �e �. • >f. t Y i'• r4.. ai e : RZZ i woe GMAT S.. I . _ c, ..' x t .., . . - •►_ •_ 1 .;7M* J4 � A .. 6 0 z: I t47 t2 - 1�.,It - -2-::•;7(-,Ter' . I. • , `yam J ' 1F, 61 .:w� �,. _ z10 X 4. 1 ;;'z � `/fir,=, F r - -:J -a -t 1 ,yjam -87 S ''�'- ♦ ,.y 1 _ �• 1 1 . - I. 27—Heldt silty clay. I to 3 percent slopes. This is a deep, moderately well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,950. to 5,050 feet. It formed in alluvial sediment derived from shale. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that have a clay loam or silt loam subsoil and sub- stratum. Typically the surface layer is light brownish gray and light yellowish brown silty clay about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is light brownish gray silty clay about 27 inches thick The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is silty clay. ' Permeability is slow. Available water capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Surface runoff is medium,and the erosion hazard is moderate. In irrigated areas this soil is suited to crops commonly grown in the area such as corn, sugar beets, beans, alfal- fa, and small grain. The high clay content generally restricts some crops. Most methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- rigation is the most common. Proper irrigation water management is essential. Barnyard manure and commer- cial fertilizer are needed for top yields. ' In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 25 bushels ' per acre. The soil is summer fallowed in alternate years to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. Stubble mulch farming, striperopping,and minimum til- lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. The potential native vegetation is dominated by western wheatgrass and blue grama. Buffalogress is also present. Potential production ranges from 1,000 pounds in ' favorable years to 600 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition deteriorates, a blue grama-buffalograss sod forms. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade the site as range condition becomes poorer. ' Management of vegetation on this soil should be based on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- tion. Range pitting can help in reducing runoff.Seeding is ' desirable if the range is in poor condition_ Western wheatgrass, blue grams,sideoata grams, buffalograss, pu- bescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected should meet the seasonal ' requirements of livestock It can be seeded into a dean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring hca proven moat successful ' Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to determine if plantings are feasible.Successful windbreaks ' require supplemental water. Openland wildlife, such as pheasant, mourning dove, and cottontail, are best suited to this soil Supplemental water is needed in wildlife habitat development, including ' the tree and shrub plantings that serve as nesting areas. This soil has poor potential for urban and recreational development. Slow permeability and high shrink swell create problems in dwelling and road construction. Caps- ' bi ity subclass dIs irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Clayey Plains range site. 1 870123 1 28—Heldt silty clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a deep, moderately well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,950 to 5,050 feet It formed in allur.:al sediment derived from shale. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that have a clay loam or silt loam subsoil and sub- stratum. Typically the surface layer is light brownish gray and light yellowish brown silty clay about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is light brownish gray silty clay about 21 inches thick.The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is silty clay. Permeability is slow. Available water capacity is high. ' The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Surface runoff is medium,and the erosion hazard is moderate. In irrigated areas this soil is suited to crops commonly grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or close grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of the time. Contour ditches and corrugations can be used in ir- rigating close grown crops and pasture. Furrows, contour ' furrows, and cross slope furrows are suitable for row crops. Keeping tillage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue help to control erosion. Maintaining fertility is im- portant. Crops respond to applications of phosphorus and nitrogen. In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to winter wheat The predicted average yield is 20 bushels per acre. The soil is summer (allowed in alternate years to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. Stubble mulch fanning, striperopping, and minimum tillage are needed to control soil blowing and water ero- sion. Ten-acing also may be needed to control water ero- sion. The potential native vegetation is dominated by western wheatgrass and blue grams. Buffalograss is also present Potential production ranges from 1,000 pounds per acre in favorable years to 600 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition deteriorates, a blue grama-buf- falograss sod forms Undesirable weeds and annuals in- vade the site as range condition becomes poorer. Management of vegetation on this soil should be based on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- tion. Range pitting can help in reducing runoff. Seeding is. desirable if the range is in poor condition. Western ' wheatgrass, blue grams, sideoats grams, buffalcgrass, pu- bescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into a clean. ' firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has proven most successfuL Windbreaks and environmental plantings generally are ' not suited to this soil. Onaite investigation is needed to determine if plantings are feasible.Successful windbreaks require supplemental water. ' Openland wildlife, such as pheasant, mourning dove, and cottontail, are best suited to this soil. Supplemental water is needed for wildlife habitat development, includ- ing tree and shrub plantings that serve as nesting areas. ' This soil has poor potential for urban and recreational development Slow permeabiity and high shrink swell create problems in dwelling and road construction. Capa- bility subclass IIIe irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Clayey 8'70123 ' Plains range site. I • 1 I 42—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a Management of vegetation of this soil should be based deep, well drained soil on terraces and smooth plains at on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- elevations of 4,550 to 5,150 feet It formed in mixed allu- tion_ Range pitting can help in reducing runoff.Seeding is I vium and eolian deposits. Included in mapping are small, desirable if the range is in poor condition. Western long and narrow areas of sand and gravel deposits and wheatgrass, blue grams, sideoats grams, buffalograss,pu- small areas of soils that are subject to occasional flooding. bescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable Some leveled areas are also included. for seeding. The grass selected should meet the seasonal ITypically the surface layer of this Nunn soil is grayish requirements of livestock.It can be seeded into a clean brown clay loam aobut 9 inches thick. The subsoil is light firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a firm brownish gray clay loam about 14 inches thick. The upper prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has proven part of the substratum is light brownish gray clay loam moat successful The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is brown sandy Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally loam, well suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing Permeability is moderately slow. Available water vegetation should be continued for as many years as 1 capacity Is high. The effecth e rooting depth is 60 inches possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and or more. Surface runoff it medium, and the erosion have good survival are Rocky Mountain.juniper, eastern hazard is low. redcedar, ponderosa pine,Siberian elm, Russian olive, and In irrigated areas this soil is suited to all crops corn- hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, 1 monly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, lilac,Siberian peashrub,and American plum beans,alfalfa, small grain, potrtoes, and onions. An exam- Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The ple of a suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked 1 followed by corn,corn for silage, sugar beets,small grain pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can or beans. Generally such characteristics as the high clay be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape content or the rapidly permeable substratum slightly cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- restrict some crops. tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- 1 All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- men} especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range rigation is the most common. Proper irrigation water land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be management is essential. Barnyard manure and commer- cial attracted by developing livestock watering facilities fertilizer are needed for top yields. managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. 1 In nonirrigated areas most of the acreage is in small This soil has fair to poor potential for urban develop- grain and it is summer (allowed in alternate years, ment It has moderate to high shrink swell, low strength, Winter wheat is the principal crop.The predicted avenge and moderately slow permeability. These features create 1 yield is 33. bushels per acre. If the crop is winter-killed, problems in dwelling and road construction. Those areas spring wheat can be seeded.Generally precipitation is too that have loam or sandy loam in the lower part of the low for beneficial use of fertilizer. substratum are suitable for septic tank absorption fields Stubble mulch farming, atriperopping, and minimum til- and foundations. Some areas of this soil are adjacent to 1 lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion_ streams and are subject to occasional flooding.The poten- The potential native vegetation is dominated by tial m fair for such recreational development as camp and western wheatgrass and blue grams. Buffalognas is also picnic areas and playgrounds. Capability subclass Ile ir- present Potential production ranges from 1,000 pounds rigated,IIIe nonirrigated;Clayey Plains range site 1 per acre in favorable years to 600 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition deteriorates, a blue grama-buf falograss sod forms. Undesirable weeds and annuals in- vade the site as range condition becomes poorer. 1870123 I e _ I I56—Renohill clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. This is years. As range condition deteriorates, a blue grams-buf- a moderately deep, well drained soil on plains at eleva- falograss sod forms. Undesirable weeds and annuals in- tions of 4,850 to 5,200 feet It formed in residuum from vade the site as range condition becomes poorer. I shale. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that Management of vegetation on this soil should be based have shale deeper than 40 inches on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- Typically the surface layer is grayish brown clay loam tion. Range pitting can reduce runoff.Seeding is desirable Iabout 9 inches thick. The subsoil is grayish brown and if the range is in poor condition. Western wheatsgreec. pale brown clay loam about 14 inches thick. The sub blue grams sideoata grams buffalograsa pubescent stratum is pale brown clay loam. Shale 3s at a depth of wheatgrass.and crested wheatgrass are suitable for seed- about 32 inches. ing. The grass selected should meet the seasonal require- I Permeability is slow. Available water capacity is ments of livestock. It can be seeded into a clean, firm moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a firm prepared Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is seedbed.Seeding early in spring has proven most success- moderate. fui. I This soil is suited to most of the irrigated crops com- Windbreak and environmental plantings are generally monly grown in the area, but the high clay content and not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to moderate depth of the soil slightly restrict some crops. A determine if plantings are feasible. Supplemental water is suitable cropping system is corn,corn for silage, barley,3 needed for successful plantings. I to 4 yen of alfalfa, and wheat This soil is also well Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil.The suited to irrigated pasture• cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked Furrows can be used in irrigating row crops. Flooding pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can I from contour ditches is suitable for close grown crops and be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape pasture. Production can be maintained by applying bar- cover. For pheasant, undisturbed nesting is essential and nyard manure and commercial fertilizer. Keeping tillage should be included in plans for habitat development,espe- to a minimum and utilizing crop residue are important daily in areas of intensive agriculture. Rangeland wildlife, I In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be attracted by barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to developing livestock watering facilities, managing winter wheat The predicted average yield is 25 bushels livestock grazing,and reseeding where needed. ' per acre. The soil is summer (allowed in alternate years This soil has poor potential for urban uses and only to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is moderate potential for recreational. development The too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. chief limiting features are the underlying shale, the low Stubble mulch fanning,striperopping, and minimum til- strength, and the moderate to high shrink swell. These loge c °!g± 2 needed to control soil blr erosion. features present severe problems in dwelling and road Thpotential native vegetanated by construction and in use of septic tank absorption fields west wheatgrass and blue s "als0 pounds and sewage lagoons Capability subclass IIIs irrigated ' per acre in favorable years to 600 pounds in unfavorable IVe nonirrigated;Clayey Plains range eke' I 870123 I 1 • . 1 • 1 ' • • 1 ; 1 1 : 1 1 HAZARD AREAS 1 670123- HAZARD AREA3 ' There are no apparent hazards or restrictions that would conflict with this sketch plan application. The site is well above the St. Vrain Creek floodplain hazard area. There are no geological hazards evident on saps provided by Weld County. The airport overlay district does not affect this site. Additional information will be collected and reviewed prior to finalization I of these plans. The subsequent research will reveal any , hazards not evident at this time. ' f 1 ' 870123 1 ' BXMIESITS 1 ' 870123 I A I -VMcCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 October 1, 1986 Mr. Jim Vetting, President i Union Reservoir Company P.O.; Rom 449 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Mr. Vetting: ' • Re: Weld County Rezoning Z-430:86:5, Say Shores P.U.D.I We are in receipt of letters dated September 10, 1986 and September 12, 1986, responding to Weld County referrals on the above referenced project. As you are aware, since you were at the meeting on September 16, 1986, the applicant was instructed to resubmit his proposal. I The sketch plan is being substantially revised to take into account some of the concerns expressed by your company. For example, the canal, and any reference to recreation or surface I access by Hay Shores P.U.D. to Union Reservoir, has been deleted. The 50-foot easement which was granted to the Union Reservoir Company by Emma W. Johnson, a previous owner, has been retained. 1 The applicant does not feel any obligation, however, to maintain the roadway within the 50-foot easement discussed above. The easement will be maintained in the form of a 75-foot minimum I setback between the reservoir property line and any residences which might be built adjacent to the reservoir. A request will be pursued to realign County Road 26 away from the edge of the reservoir. 1 I have obtained copies of the 1903 and - 1909 maps of the Union Reservoir that are on file at the ' State Engineer's office. I Although the 1909 map was approved by the State Engineer's office, the improvements have not been constructed. It is interesting to note that within the body of the description on this map is the statement "The Union Reservoir, at present, has no made dam". It Iappears that, by admission of the reservoir company itself, prior to the proposed enlargement of 1909, the Union Reservoir had no dam. I I 703 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT,CO. 00501 870123 772-7755/449-4373 I Mr. Jim Vetting, Pres. Page 2 IOctober 1, 1986 ' In the fall of 1976, the State Engineer's office approved plans prepared by Bruns. Inc. , Consulting Engineers, entitled "Plans for I Construction of Improvements to Union Reservoir Dam". Although this title indicates that there is a dam, the drawings themselves only refer to some dike construction that was to occur in the I southwesterly quadrant of the reservoir which allowed the reservoir to receive and discharge the flows from a P.M.P. storm. These plane also define an emergency spillway composed of a concrete barrier and requiring reshaping of Weld County Road 26 I adjacent to this barrier. According to the plan set the barrier and, therefore, the spillway, begin at Station 0+50. Surveyors from my office have physically located the end of this barrier at 1 Station 0450 and have determined that it lies more than 40 feet westerly of our west property line. In summary, from my investigations and discussions with the Union I Reservoir Company secretary, the State Engineer's office, and Jackie Malcolm of Bruns, Inc. , the Union Reservoir Company does not appear to have a spillway or a dam within the property owned ' by Robert and Susan Pietrzak and under contract by C.H.S. Investments, Inc. I C.R.S. Investments, Inc. is indicating a willingness to construct some type of wall or barrier along the reservoir property line adjacent to this development. This wall might be constructed of sheet piling, concrete, timber, or other suitable material. The I construction of this type of barrier would substantially reduce the need for the reservoir company to make frequent repairs to the shoreline in this location. The construction of this type of I wall, in addition to the existing 50-foot easement, and a minimum 75-foot setback for any structure, as proposed in our resubmitted, should eliminate the major concerns expressed in your two letters. If, however, we have overlooked some information that Icontradicts the observations regarding the spillway and dam discussed above, we would appreciate your bringing that information to our attention, since we do not claim to be infallible. • 870123 EMINIIIMINIMMIIINIMMINOINT I Mr. Jim Vetting. Pres. Page 3 IOctober 1. 1986 IIAdditionally, we are including a copy of the letter from the Colorado Geological Survey which states "the present configuration of Union Reservoir should have no affect on this proyect." I You will be receiving a referral from the County regarding our new submittal sometime date next week. We ask that you send our Ioffice a copy of the response which you submit to the County- Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. ISincerely yours, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. I �. a. ' J-hn A. McCarty, P. . JAM/em Encl. ' _. cc: File 01687.1 C.R.5. Investment, Inc. Harvey Curtis. Atty. 1 I 870123 I S . I 1 B I KZMCCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. October 3, 1986 ' Mr. -Jim Dickey, Manager ILeft Hand Water Supply Co. P.O. Box 210 Niwot, CO 80544 IDear Jim: IRe: Weld County Zoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. Due to changing circumstances and conditions, the Bay Shores P.U.D. rezoning case has been continued to November 4, 1986. You Iwill receive a copy of a revised submittal package from Weld County late next week. We request that you disregard the previous submittal packages since they no longer reflect the intentions of 1 the applicant. The most significant change is that we are requesting land use ' I designations which fix maximum densities. Whether or not the maximum density will ever be obtained, the maximum number controls. From our land use chart, you will notice that the maximum allowable density is 1,007 units. The applicant I understands his obligation to extend services and to pay tap fees. as required by the policies of the district, and as defined through a future agreement to be negotiated with the district if I rezoning is approved. We know that this request differs substantially from the previous reviews and ask that you contact our office if there are any significant changes which will be made Ito your response to the county. Additionally, we request that you provide a copy of the response which you mail to the county to this office. IThank you for your cooperation on this application. Sincerely yours, ' McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. o lam - ^ 1 ' hn A. McCarty, P JAM/am ca: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. 870123 703 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT,CO. 00601 1 772-7755/049-4373 I C I MMcCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. I October 3, 1986 ', I Dick Lyons, Atty. c/o Grunt, Bernard & Lyons St. Vrain Sanitation District I515 Kisberk Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Dick: IRe: Weld County Zoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores F.U.D. I Due to changing circumstances and conditions, the Bay Shores P.U.D. rezoning case has been continued to November 4, 1986. You will releive a copy of a revised submittal package from Weld I County late next week. We request that you disregard the previous submittal packages since they no longer reflect the intentions of the applicant. I The most significant change is that we are requesting land use designations which fix maximum densities. Whether or not the maximum density will ever be obtained, the maximum number I controls. From our land use chart, you will notice that the maximum allowable density is 1,007 units. The applicant understands his obligation to extend services and to pay tap fees, I as required by the policies of the district, and as defined through a future agreement to be negotiated with the district if rezoning is approved. We know that this request differs substantially from the previous reviews and ask that- you contact our office if there are any significant changes which will be made to your response to the county. Additionally, we request that you provide a copy of the response which you mail to the county to ' this office. Thank you for your cooperation on this application. ' Sincerely yours, NcCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. , Jahn A. McCarty, P.E. JAM/se cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. 870123 7O3 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT.Ca 80601II • 772-7753/449-437'3 D I AMCCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. ' October 3. 1986 Bill Meier Union REA ' P.Q. Box 924 Brighton, CO 80601 IDear Bill: Re: Weld County Zoning, Case No. 2-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. ' Due to changing circumstances and conditions, the Bay Shores P.U.D. rezoning case has been continued to November 4, 1986. You will receive a copy of a revised submittal package from Weld ICounty late next week. We request that you disregard the previous submittal packages since they no longer reflect the intentions of the applicant. The most significant change is that we are requesting land use designations which fix maximum densities. Whether or not the IImaximum density will ever be obtained, the maximum number controls. From our land use chart, you will notice that the maximum allowable density is 1,007 units. We know that this request differs substantially from the previous reviews and ask I that you contact our office if there are any significant changes which will be made to -your response. to the county. Additionally, we request that you provide a copy 'o£.,the response which you mail to the county to this office. Thank you- for your cooperation on this application Sincerely yours, Mc rty Engineering onaultants, Inc. t a ��1 3 hn A. McCarty, JAM/am cc: ;File *1687.1 IC.R.Z. Investments, Inc. I 67012a 703 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT.CO. 80501 I772-7755/449-4373 ' i I I E I I\\2MCCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. I October 3. 1986 Captain Emerson ILongmont Fire Protection District 9119 County Line Road Longmont, Co 80501 ' Dear Captain Emerson: Re: Weld County Zoning, Caae No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. Due to changing circumstances and conditions, the Bay Shores P.U.D. rezoning case has been continued to November 4, 1986. You I will receive a copy of a revised aubmitta . package from Weld County late next week. We request that you disregard the previous submittal packages since they no longer reflect the intentions of the applicant. The most significant change is that we are requesting land use I designations which fix maximum densities. Whether or not the I maximum density will ever be obtained, the maximum number controls. From our land use chart, you will notice that the maximum allowable density is 1.007 units. We know that this ll request differs substantially from the previous reviews and ask that you contact our office if there are any significant changes il which will be made to your response to the county. Additionally. we request that you provide a copy of the response which you mail to the county to this office. I Thank you for your cooperation on this application. ISincerely yours, ' McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. r,r . J•hn A. McCarty, P ; . ll _ JAM%sm cc: File #1687.1 C.R.5. Investments. Inc. 870123 I 703 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT.CO, 80801 772-7755/449-4373 1 F I McCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. I ' October 3. 1986 Undersheri£f Rick Dill-' Weld County Sheriff`s Department P.O. Box 759 Greeley. C0 80631 Dear Undersheriff Dill: I Re: Weld County Zoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. 1 Due to changing circumstances and conditions, the Bay Shores P.U.D. rezoning case has been continued to November 4, .1986. You will receive a copy of a revised submittal package from Weld H. County late next week. We request that ,you disregard the previous I submittal packages since they no longer reflect the intentions of the applicant. IThe most significant change is that we are requesting land use designations which fix maximum densities. Whether or not the I maximum density will ever be obtained. the maximum number controls. From our land use chart, you will notice that the maximum allowable density is 1,007 units. We know that this request differs substantially from the previous reviews and ask ' that you contact our office if there are any significant changes . which will be made to your response to-.the county.' Additionally, we request that you Providea copy of the response which you mail to the county to -this -office. I Thank you for your cooperation on this application. ' Sincerely yours, NcC- ty Engineering Consultants, Inc. 1 ' 3•hn A McCarty. P.EJ • • . tJAM/sm cc: File #1687.1, C.R.S. Investments, Inc. ' ` pry ry ' 703 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT.CO. E10501 8 10501 0123 772-7755/A40-4373 G SZ1McCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. October 3, 1986 ' Ms. Dorothy gores, Director of Planning. Evaluation, and Communication St. Vrain Valley School District 395 S. Pratt Parkway ILongmont, 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, 1986. The applicant was also requested to revise and resubmit his application. Therefore, you will be I 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 r that land use designations for densities are being requested. If. in fact, these densities were built to the maximum potential, a I total of 1,007 dwelling units could be built on this property. Therefore, according to the requirements of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. we have recalculated the land dedication requirement for the schools. We have determined the land dedication to be 10 acres. ' You will also notice that we have shifted the location of the school parcel to the southeast corner of the intersection of County Road 3-1/2 and County 26. We believe that this location more realistically anticipates future residential developments I being located east, west, and north of the Bay Shores development, as opposed to closer to State Highway 119 whore we anticipate more commercial and industrial development might occur. 703 THIRD AVENUE• LONOMONT,CO. BOEtd1 /®y23 772-7753/409-4373 8 C7! I Ms. Dorothy Mores Page 2 October 3, 1986 IIf you have any concerns regarding our calculation of the size of the school site dedication, or the d location, please feel free to contact this office. Otherwise, we ask that you send a Icopy of your response to Weld County to this office. Thank you for your consideration on this referral. ' Sincerely yours, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. diattd ara_i. hn A. McCarty, P E ISAM/sue cc: File *1687.1 il C.R.J. Investments, Inc. I I I I 870123 I o H I . McCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. ll October 3, 1986 ' 1 Scott McKinley Macy & Mershon 031, Inc. 1600 Broadway Suite 2150 IDenver, CO 80202-4070 Dear Scott: IRe: Weld County 'Rezoning, Case No. 2-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. I As you are aware from having attended the September 16 Planning Commission meeting, C.R.S. Investments. Inc. is resubmitting their rezoning proposal to be heard by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1986. The resubmittal information is to be delivered to Weld County on Friday, October 3. Your office should be receiving a copy of the revised submittal some time late next week. 1 Following our meeting in your office, we modified our submittal to address your con=erns in a manner that we hope you will find acceptable. First, the Land Use chart on the Sketch Plan and P.U.D. Rezoning Plan reflects that oil and gas activities are a I Use By Right in Parcels A and C of the subject property. Second. we have indicated that the existing well head in Parcel C will be located within an open space parcel containing a minimum of 14.8 I acres. Third, we have located an open space parcel, containing a minimum of 8 acres, in Parcel A and labeled that area as the potential location for a well site. Fourth, we have conferred I with Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company regarding the requirements for relocating their pipeline. A copy of the letter which we have sent to the, is enclosed for your information. IN 1 1 8'703.23 i. 1 703 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT.C0. 130501 772-7785/449-4373 mss, I Scott McKinley Page 2 IOctober 3, 1986 ' If a well should be drilled sometime in the future, we are requesting that the county require berming, landscaping, and low ' profile equipment to minimize the visual impact. We ask that your referral response to the County be copied to our office. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact ' me. We thank you for your cooperation on this matter. - Sincerely yours, ' M ty Engineering Cnsultants, Inc. Iohn A. McCarty, P.E. JAM/as cc: File #1687.1 C.R.3. Investments, Inc. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company I I =1 870123 I IS21 McCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. October 1, 1986 Robert S. Claire Right-of-Way Supervisor Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. I P.O. Box 127 Brighton, CO 80601 - ' Dear Mr. Claire RE: Weld County Rezoning Case Z-430,86:5, Bay Shores Planned Unit IDevelopment We are in receipt of your letter dated ,September 10, 1986. I Following our telephone conference, which included Ken Neff of your office, on September 29, 1986, I am writing this letter to present the method by which the applicant on this rezoning issue will resolve your concerns. IIt is the intent of the applicant to eventually reroute the existing gas pipeline from the well head to Weld County Road I 3-1/2. We understand that the relocation will be done at the expense of the developer. We also understand that we will be required to dedicate an easement that allows the placement of the I gas line a minimum of 10 feet behind the flow line of the concrete curb proposed for the streets, and a minimuL: of 25 feet away from any structure. ' If a future drilling site is provided for the quarter section lying west of County Road 3-1/2, the applicant will provide a similar easement b'L+tween that drill site and County Road 3-1/2. llIn both instances, it is anticipated that the future easement will follow the street pattern which will be developed for this P. U. D. , I r 1 1 870123 1 703 THIRD AVENUE• LONGMONT,CO. UDSOI 772-7755/449-4373 I . Robert J. Claire Page 2 ' October 1, 1986 1 You will be receiving a new referral from Weld County regarding this project in the next week to 10 days. Please copy any I response or correspondence to this office, as well as County Planning. If you have any questions regarding the commitments proposed by this letter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, I Mc ARTY ENGINEERING , ONSULTANTS, INC. ' • hn A. McCarty, P. 3AM/im. . ' ce' File CRS Investments Weld>County Planning Keith Sehuett : 1 1 . 870123 1 J McCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC. ' October 3. 1986 1 Mr. Ed Dworak I A. V. Dworak Insurance 445 Main 3t. Longmont, CO 80501 IDear Ed: Re: Weld County Rezoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. IFollowing our meeting, we have decided to pursue the relocation of Weld County Road 26 between your farm and the Pietrzak farm. It ' is our understanding that you , do not find this relocation objectionable as long as there is no cost to you. If you have any concerns regarding our intent, please feel free to Icontact me. Sincerely yours, McCarty Engineering- Consultants, Inc. J hn A. McCarty, P.E. II JAM/am cc: File 81687.1? C.R.S. Investments, Inc. 1 - 703 THIRD AVENUE• I.ONGMONT,CO. 80601 870123 0123 772-7755/449-4373 II K , IMPROVDIENTS ACUMEN! ACCORDING IIPOLICY REGARDING COLLATERAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ' .11 by and between the County of Weld, State of Colorado. acting through its board of County Comaiaatoners, hereinafter celled "County", and • ICRS Investments. Inc. ,. hereinafter called "Applicant". 1 , - I�, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Applicant is the owner of or has a controlling interest in the ' - i following described property in the County of Weld, Colorado, The.North 1/2 of Section 5, Township 2 North; Range 68 West of the 6th P.N., I County of Weld, State of Colorado; XCEP22 lands included in Union.Reservoir, as described in Deed recorded I December 22, 1902, in Book 200, Page 454; . - iALSO EXCEPT, 2 percale of land-conveyed to the.Northern Construction Company I for railroad purposes, in Deeds recorded.June 12, 1906,in-Book 241, Page 393; . and Book-241, Page 192. 1 i ' WHEREAS, a final subdivision plat of said property, to be known as I yBay pores P.D.D. 4 has been submitted to the County for approval; and I NnREAS. Section 11-1 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations provides that no final plat shall be approved by the County until the Applicant has 1 ' submitted a Subdivision Improvement Agreement guaranteeing the construction of . the public improvements shown on plans, plats and supporting documents of the Illsubdivision, which improvements, along with a ties schedule for completion, are listed inExhibits "A" and "B" of.this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE. IN CONSIDERATION OF the foregoing and of the. acceptance and approval of said final plat, the.parties hereto prosLu, covenant and .agree as,followe: ll . 1.0 Engineering Services: Applicant shall fvvnish. at its own expense, all engineering services in connection with the-design and construction of the subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A" which is attached . 1 hereto and.made Apart hereof by•this reference. 870123 ll1.1 the required engineering _aarmices shall be performed by a -' Professional Engineer sad Land Surveyor registered in the State of Colorado. and shall conform co the standards and criteria established by the County for public improvements.I 1.2 the required engineering services shall consist of, but not be limited to, surveys-. designs, plans and profiles. estimates. ' I construction supervision, and the submission of necessary documents to the County. e1.3 Applicant shall furnish drawings and cost estimates for roads within the subdivision to the County for approval prior to the letting of any construction contract. Before acceptance of the roads within i - the subdivision by the County,: Applicant shall furnish one sat of reproducible "as-built" drawings and a final statement of I ! construction cost to the County, i 2.0 Rights-of-Vey and Easementsx Before commencing the construction of any llimprovements heroin agreed upon. Applicant shall acquire, at its own expense, good and.sufficient rights-of-way and easements on all lends and. ,1 facilities traversed by the proposed improvements. All such . 1 rights-of-way and easements used for the construction of roads to be - II ' j accepted by the County shall be conveyed to the County and the documents of conveyance shall be furnished to the County for recording. Ill 3.0 Constructions Applicant shall furnish and install, at its own expense.. - the subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A" which is attached IIhereto- and made a part hereof by this reference, according to the construction schedule set out in Inhibit "B" also attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. _ 3.1 Said construction shall be in strict conformance to the plans and drawings approved by the County and the specifications adopted by the County for *nth public .improvements. Whenever a subdivision is • proposed within three miles of an incorporated community located in • ' Veld County or located in any adjacent county, the Applicant shall ba required to install improvements in accordance with the . ., requirements and standards that would exist if the plat were developed within the corporate limits'of that community. If the . incorporated community has. not adopted such requirements and standards at the time the subdivision is proposed, the requirements - and standard* of the County shall be adhered to. If both the 1 -_ 870123 1 incorporated cosnmity and the County have requirements and ,. standards, those requirements and standards that an more restrictive shall apply. 3.2 'Applicant shall employ, at its own expense, a qualified testing 1 company previously approved by the County to perform all tearing of materials or construction that is required by the County; and shall. Ifurnish copies o£ tense results to the County. 3.3 At all times during said constriction, the County shell :lave the _ -- ' right to test no inspect or to require testing and inspection of material and work at Applicant's expanse. Any material or work not e- conforming to the approved plena and specifications shall be removed - and replaced to the satisfaction of the County at Applicant's 1 (/ expense. 1 3.4 The Applicant shall furnish proof that proper arrangements have been I . ` roads for the installation of sanitary sewer or septic systems, eater, gas, electric and telephone services. 3.5 Said subdivision improvements shall be completed, according to the ' t terms of this Agreement, within the construction schedule appearing in Exhibit "B". The Board of.County Cosesisaionera, at its option. imay grant an extension of the time of completion shown on Exhibit "3" upon application by the Applicant subject to the terms of Il Section 6 herein. 4.0 Release of liability: Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the County from any and all liability loss and damage county may suffer as a il result of all suits, actions or claims of every nature and description ' caused by, arising from, or on account of said design and construction of improvements, and pay any and all judgments rendered against the County on account of any such suit, action or claim, together with all llreasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred by County in defending such snit, action or claim whether the liability, loss or damage is IIanted by, or arises out of the negligence of county or its officers, agents, employees or otherwise except for the liability, loss, or damage arising from the intentional torts or the :gross negligence of the county or its employees while acting within the scope o£ their employment. All contractors and other employees engaged in construction of .the . . improvements shall maintain adequate workman's compensation insurance and 870123 public liability insurance coverage, and shall operate in strict accordance with the laws and regulations of the State of Colorado t - governing occupational safety and health. 5.0 Acceptance of Streets for Maintenance by the County: Upon compliance -: ,. with the following procedures by the Applicant, streets within a subdivision may be accepted by the County as a part of the County roan_ system and till be maintained and repaired by the County. 5.1 If desired by the County, portions of street improvements may be -.I placed in service when completed according to .the schedule show on Exhibit "B", but such use and operation shall not constitute an .acceptance of said portions. 5.2 County may, at its option, issue building permits for construction IIon lots for which street improvements detailed herein have been started but not completed as shown on-Exhibit "En, and may continue to issue building permits so long it the progress of work on the subdivision improvements in that phase of the development is satisfactory to the County; and all terms of this Agreement have ilbeen faithfully kept by Applicant. 5.3 Upon completion of the construction of streets within a subdivision Iand the filing of a Statement of Substantial Compliance, the applicant(s) may request in writing that the County Engineer inspect ' its streets and recommend that the Board of County Commissioners accept them for partial maintenance by the County. Partial. maintenance consists of all maintenance except for actual repair of II streets, curbs and gutters, end related street improvements. Not sooner than-nine months after acceptance for partial maintenance of streets. the County Engineer shall, upon request by the applicant, inspect the subject streets, and notify the applicants) IIof any deficiencies. The County Engineer shall re—inspect the streets after notification from the applicant(*) that any ' deficiencies have been corrected. If the County Engineer finds that -..I the streets era constructed according to County standards, he shall -. � recommend acceptance of streets for full maintenance. Upon a - '� receipt of a positive unqualified recommendation fromthe County Engineer for acceptance of streets within the development, the Board of County Coumissioners shall accept said streets as public facilities and County property, and shall be responsible for the III full maintenance of said streets including repair. 870123 • -4- - 6.0 General Requirements for Collateral; III6.1 The vales of all collateral value submitted to Veld County must be .equivalent to 100% of. the lue of the improvements as shown in this Agreement. Prior to. Final Plat approval, the applicant shall _' indicate which of the five types of collateral be prefers to be utilised to secure the improvements subject to final approval by the. ' Doatd of County Comissionets and the execution of this Agreement. Acceptable collateral shall be submitted and the plat recorded ' within six months of the Final Plat approval. If acceptable collateral has not been submitted within six months then the Final 1 . Plat approval and all preliminary approvals shall automatically expire. An applicant may request that the County extend the Final Plat approval provided the cost estimates are updated and the development plans are revised co comply with all current County standards, policies and regulations. The improvements shall be il - completed within one year after the Final Plat approval (not one year after acceptable collateral is submitted) unless the • Ilapplicants) requests that this Agreement be renewed at lease thirty (30) days prior to its expiration end further provides than cost liestimates for the remaining improvements ere updated and collateral _is provided in the amount of 1002 of the value of the improvements II Iremaining to be completed. If,improvements are not completed and the agreement not renewed within these time frames, the Canary. at II its discretion, may saki demand on all or a portion of the collateral and take steps to see that the improvements are made. II 'means The applicant may choose to provide for a phased development by means of designating portions of a Planned Unit Development, Subdivision. or Change of Zone. that the applicant wishes to develop. The applicant would need only to provide collateral for the iaprovementa in each portion of said Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, or Change of Zone as he proposes to develop them; the County wilt place restrictions on those portions of the Planned Unit ' - Development, Subdivision, or Change of Zone, which are not covered by collateral which wilt prohibit the conveyance of the property or i the issuance of building permits on said portions until collateral is. provided for those portions or until improvements ate in place 1 and approved pursuant to the requirements for a Request for Release of Collateral. GG727._70123 -5- 6.3 Applicant intends to develop in 1 - phase(s) in accordance with exhibits "A" and -B" 7.0 Improvements Guarantee: The five types of collateral listed below are acceptable to Weld: County subject to final approval by the Board of ' County Commissioners. 7.1 An irrevocable Latter of Credit from a Federal or State licensed. ' financial institution on a form approved by Weld County. The letter of credit shall state at least the following: _. . I — The Lotter of Credit shall be in an amo.•u equivalent of 1001 of the total vales of the improvements as sat forth in ' Section 6.0 and exhibits -g-A- and -. — The Letter of Credit shall provide for payment upon demand to I Weld County if the developer has not performed the obligations specified in. the Improvements Agreement and the issuer has been notified of such default. ' — The applicant may draw from the Letter of Credit in accordance with the provisions of this policy. ' — The issuer of the Letter of Credit shall guarantee that at all times the unreleased portion of .the.Latter of Credit shall be equal to a minimum of 1002 of the estimated costs of completing the uncompleted portions of the required improvements, based on inspections of the development by. the issuer. In no case shall disbursement for a general improvement items exceed the cost IIestimate in the Improvements Agreement (i.e., streets, sewers. water mains and landscaping, etc.). The issuer of the Letter of Credit will sign the Improvements Agreement acknowledging the agreement and its cost estimates. — The.Letter of Credit shall specify that 152 of the total Letter ,, of Credit amount cannot be drawn upon and rill remain available to Weld County until released by-Weld County. ,.. — The Utter of Credit shall specify that the date of proposed expiration of the Letter .2 Credit shall be either the date of release by Weld County of the final 151, or one year from the date of Final Plat ..approval,'.whichever Ocean' first. Said letter shall stipulate that..in may'.event, the latter-of Credit shall.remainin full force and effect until after the.Board has received' -6- sixty (60) 870123 • IIdays written notice from the issuer of the Letter of Credit of Ill mail pending expiration. Said notice shall be sent by certified ■ail to the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. 7.2 'bust Deed upon all or soma of the proposed development or other ' property acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners provided that the following are submitted: ' — In the event property vithin the proposed development is used as collateral, an appraisal is required of the property in the ' - proposed development by a disinterested H.A.I. member of the , American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers indicating that IIthe value of the property encumbered in its current degree of - development is sufficient to cover 1002 of the cost of the II improvements as set forth in the Improvements Agreement plus all costs of sale of the.property. II - In the event property other than the property to be developed has been accepted as collateral by Weld County, then an appraisal is required of the property by a H.A.I. member of the Institute of Real Estate Appraisers indicating that the value of the property encumbered inits-current.state of development IIis,sufficient-to. cover 1002 of the cost of the improvements as user forth in the IsproversnteAgreement.plus.all costs of sale IIof the property.- A title insurance policy.insuring that the Trust Dead creates a II valid aocumbrance which is senior to all other liens and encumbrances. , II - A building permit hold shall be placed on the encumbered property. 7.3 Escrow Assassins that provides at least the following: - The cashin escrow is at least equal to 100Z of the amount specified in the Improvements Agreement. - The escrow agent guarantees that the escrowed funds will be 'used for improvements as specified in the agreement and for no , other purpose end will not release any portion of such funds without prior approval of the.Board. ,-; _ - The escrow agent will be-a Federal or. State licensed_hank or-. .financial institution. II II _,_ $701,23 .II - If the County of Wald County determines there is a default of • the Improvements Agreement,. the escrow agent, upon request by ' - the County, shall release any remaining escrowed funds to the County. • ' 7.4 A surety bond given by a corporate surety authorized to do `messiness in the State of Colorado in an amount equivalent to 1001 of the. - ,.I value of the improvements as specified in the Improvements . Agreement. ' 7.5 A cash deposit gads with the County-equivalent to 1002 of the value of the improvements. -- ' 8.0 Request for Release of Collateral:' Prior to releases of collateral for - the entire project or for a portion of the project by WeldCounty, the ' Applicant must present a Statement of Substantial Compliance from an Engineer registered in Colorado that the project or • portion of the ' project bee been completed in substantial compliance with approved plans ll and specifications documenting the following: 8.1 The Engineer or his representative has made regular onnite IIinspections during the course of construction and the construction plans utilized are the sass as those approved by Wald County. ll8.2 Test results must be submitted for all phases of this project as per . Colorado Department of Highway Schedule for minimum materials , sampling, testing and inspections found in CDOH Materials Manual. 8.3 "As built" plans shall be submitted at the time the letter requesting release of collateral is submitted. The Engineer shall certify that the project "se built" is in substantial compliance ' with the plane and specifications as approved or that any material • deviations have received prior approval from the County Engineer. 8.4 the Statements of Substantial Compliance asset ha accompanied, if ' appropriate, by a letter of acceptance of :aintenance and responsibility by the appropriate utility company,.special district. . . - or town for any.utilities. , 8.5 A letter must be submitted from the appropriate Fire Authority . indicating the fire hydrants ere in place in accordance with the. approved .plane. The letter shall indicate if the fire hydrants are I operational and state too results of fire flow tests. . - 8.6 The requirements in 8.0 thru 8.5 shall be noted on the final - ' construction plans. -8- 870123 1 • • ll8.7 Following the submittal of the Statesent of Substantial Compliance and' recommendation of acceptance of the streets for partial llmaintenance by the County, the applicent(s) may request release of the collateral for the project or portion of the project by the ' Board. This action will be taken at a regularly scheduled public meetingofthe Board. ' 8.8 The request for release of collateral shall beaccompanied by "Warranty Collateral" in the amount of 105 of the value of the - improvements as show'in this Agreement excluding improvements fully accepted for maintenance by the responsible governmental entity, llspecial district or utility company. - 8.9 The warranty collateral shall be released to the applicant upon • ' final acceptance by' the Board of County Commissioners for full maintenance under Section 3.3 herein. 9.0 Public Sites and Open Spaces: When the Board of County Comissioners, ' pursuant to a rezoning, subdivision or planned unit development, requires the dedication. development and/or reservation of eress or sites other ithan subdivision streets and utility easements of a character, extort and location suitable for public use for parks, greenbelts or schools, said Iactions shall be secured in accordance with one of the following alternatives, or as specified in the PUP plan, if any: ' 9.1 The required acreage es may be determined according to Section 8-13-8 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations shall be dedicated. ' to the County or the appropriate school district, for one of the above purposes. Any area so dedicated shall be approved by the . , County or school district, and-shall be maintained by the County or school district. 9.2 The required acreage as determined according to Section 8-13-8 of ' the Weld County Subdivision Regulations may be reserved through deed restrictions as open area, the maintenance of which shall be a ' - specific obligation in the deed of each-lot within the subdivision. • 9.3 In lieu of land, the County may requirea payment to the County in an amount equal to the market value at the time of final plat ll submission.. of tbo_` required * aereege as determined according to • Section 8-13-1. Such value shall be determined by a competent laud' --. -9- ' 570123 ' appraiser Chosen jointly by the Board and the Applicant. The cash II parks shall be deposited in an. escrow account to be'expended for parks at a later date. 10.0 Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, . executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the Applicant, and upon recording by the County, shall be deemed a covenant. IIrunning with :the land herein described,' and shall be binding upon the successors in ownership of said land. ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be • executed on the day and year first above written. II _ .BOARD OF COUNTS co easSIONBRS GELD COUNTS, COLORADO WSId Camty.Clerk and Recorder 1 and Clerk to the Board BT: Deputy County Clerk IIAPPROVED AS TO FORM: - _ County Attorney APPLICANT: CRS Investments, Inc. ' BP: Subscred and sworn to before'se this �.day of(ticL} ib s.19� , NJ commission.expires: liNotary Public I -10- 1 870123 g0123 I �;r-014 OOf .._1) yi '�� `�oF co��. Z-11)t) 1 arg ' _,E3,, ,0 WE-87-0003 RICHARD D. R +w " * JOHN V!.ROLD OOvlIINOII • ��.t> * DIRECTOR I 1876a COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING—1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO So=PHONE 1303)866-2811 September 25, 1986 D ,ti c\7/ ' IIMr. Keith A. Schwett ZP 291986 Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th StreetII Greeley, CO 80631 8d9 CIL Plsmun Camm ssior ' Dear Mr. Schwett: RE: BAY SHORES PUD, Z - 430:86:5 ' This site was inspected on September 25, 1986, and based on geology and geologic conditions is suitable for the proposed use. IIA geologic report, per SB 35, will be required before the next stage is reached. Both soils and general geology should be included. II of appears to be an oil and gas producing facility located in the east half of the site. Accommodations for this will need to be made. Also, a determination of other oil and gas rights and possible drilling need to be determined. -_ IIThe present configuration of Union Reservoir should save no effect on this project. Ground water levels near the reservoir my change with changes of I the reservoir, but as a public sewer system is proposed, it would have no effect on waste water disposal. Possible expansive soils may be present, but normal building techniques for 1 the front range should afford solutions to this problem. It is important to note that there is an increasing awareness among the public ' that radon, a radioactive gas, occurs iii Colorado at levels above the national . average and that this gas is hazardous to their health. ' di0123 I GEOLOGY STORYOFTHE PAST...KEY T0 THE FUTURE I I I Mr. Keith A. Schwett September 25, 1986 Page 2 I ' The sediments that overlie the,bedrock, as well as the bedrock at this site, have not actually been tested to determine their radon content, if any. We ' would advise that this potential problem: be addressed. If you have any questions, please call. ' Sincerely, ' L. R. Ladwig, Chief Minerals Fuels Section I bcr:LRL-87-039 3215/11 t 1 1 870123 1 a • ,..,.....„44 Js,." ;is4 k�io C;°F � s, �i' iJk ..,:‘,„.k.,:::,:„..:„,,,,,..„.„4... r' 3 � 5a}gyS�, 1. �'. f i w �+ i J qtr "' wf r 1 Q vF _ � .e s rr Jy S "4 o F6.t a W } .,,.'''),},,.•:.f •J � )( �'• ..{ lin a U FOf W SN qtr , cc,..-3,2: : O W £ F O 4 i r 7 O ,d a o co Z F OU "3;4: 4 , 9 O ,.4:,:e. '., H W 4 .'L F CJ y J' . .I ♦1 YI f f i♦ tU2 N V] {iii+++ i1 1 /0. J + }' • 3C r. t43yL,-i s J ' 4 cc en z • M W n ei 7t ,lam ___. _ {{,,��.yyn,�� ♦• T - riaSsr .. ,, - 'ia'p 4 [7� Y - r., 'it; :Li Q' G 1 1.F.nft t s�� • S 1% ' O it;!' ! slit :. W� 4 4a ' N 4�7M { � s N W M 2 W U .�-s P _i21<s+ ��dr^' ♦' \l." hi CO rn a> a w N It r t A u c. N pc Lca '. zi¢ a J c:' ' 0s :52,-5,` zzao � � t!'',:-‘...;11:',.' y v7 G. U i'l it:C - a r J r te C 6 q e r�f4y �l 14s a �`- rp' dy ca 4C Wz1 .ia { FWZ t _ V! I . rpw _ t C O k �� = E. � � . L4 w K7 7 S C r .J K1 Ov p: r 4. t• c O I M' U -.(pp k { a 04 .•—•.1 U� "�> W eia p 1 .n i .•44'Y �y e ) \ 4t , I L" g %1 ' •V sp a .0 1 s .�. E I S s- VI ,� ,rG♦ N, T L fl r Hr s Z 4 3�`§ o .rs$e I � aqy m p o C 0 .. '1 a Z�y � • ',',.,1) R ,a r+ z in xy • is @ w > oo o. a e w >. ao dR,' .1 p r_- _ c H A O i N q O Tw"'Prls. p Y{ } If, O C9 W- a t , '' W U C CJ ,� 1 ha"�• ;;. e G/1 Z M ' Z M y+ q x d Jdff G J+ W ,Z ,�x fY itmH -4,-.,.....",s: F (s) O E. dT p, sid F r_ 5'II� �` -1 f i ' d .` CQjMZ '�• w • , avacipa wa J.7 n r1 n ..f .,♦!... a `www,+J R A'�{1 ♦!� �Cw`..r\ .�'i.,��aq cc D .. Q -..;.4..e.. .-:.-„'"-:', ra� rYrtAXc i , �, h e... . "�S"1 y'ly' F�1 s 1 JT l 9 )1 ..,,,41,:, Ir rx� I ✓ O 0. ; a 1 S S v N �t N M O O W ‘4,4 3' Ov H �"4 �i'x YYf fal x - H W O • cq C.) y O O Z J•+ CD v` 1 N C G ?' aD , • = . i 0 O - N x 3 in A - O O nr P4 t 0. LL _.- V U it 1•*.,rs ic^ POW0 CL i ",Y" } t7 T{qi 4s! t. r N W W 0 " 4 � 4Z7 i f 3 Rt U S Lp 111 ti 7C -� Ci i U . .., u" {, r,n. •? ?CYO .rj,T:r... d�Y �ESb +`x?rt 5!� s w. 1'rp" ..o�c�a vaVyn f a w _ w^ Jy 1 l'Y'..1%.1 M (x.�+', ... '1x.'3 s Sw 4.�S� a Wit,..,.L..R•' ,��, G s';..:^r"F ?%'.7 A '4 "s 8 ?0➢123 411 A.. ,,*^)""i.,. ctv'":"`' sw17S,'" ''3' • ♦"n: •. 't;'. M •' 6 i y �v z *f * ( W�ti •t t •Y i• L Q it G • I I.- ,J a .i I ` >t.... i - ,-. � • _ O A U C ON y Fm Pr. O 3 c4 O ,, .t d fr �r i N ' m c_) r O 4. O r - - m iL q NA,. 7.5 • al L N _ , fi° ' 0 �z-1 Z F '' j j' r AS r ,,. . H ,y Y yff ��fi}y�,,,p G O t„,,,,, $ ' y 5 • } { r c p; a I,11 • a t Tt 7 x'J At*14 t, 1` J CC 'Lr 5 n;� �y c "j"4 T •• L -4"3•••,• •� F cz. m .;::P ) O lv� , 4 )� e{ f'} • • • -',' a i 41 O a ✓ ar f la lkxr- Jyr�V • 3„I t M „7 I-4 p r•a J P O ' O [1 G - c ZG { `� . , f.{ D3 th nil qq =�� v16 � Y � r"G W6 '` , nm c '.I C S'; '4n t •p�7° 'itrr;.5 a v a ../S^. I� 1 ^ ; y.,.p' r (,,,,I , r y" r nrtg jc r u �n r Q ( ° 'k . 7 1 tt1 r Rs - i d k, 4 I , n ^ d 11, !r a , e. ^eE R N lti C. Ya >+ c4 .r (t 7� a 14 'a . C 9 z C4 co of Yr7 W Ems+ Ya .. 7 h• r _G cc C7 4 O t" k ra z z _ kr ¢ 1ti. ;b'-3 }" 3s ."r � [S WzQ P Y' WU .�4U • t t •d� 1 ,. t't ,�JP ?... Sr`7 1J7 H O .] a r' 4 F fC7 ! I - Co ,4 � W F 0. r k W z it . Jr "1h II/. r,t tr7 .7 H 3 z z. :7 v v € F+ f t P nI i -al al .04 ] Jg co •-c U c' 1� y e¢ g r G W .aON ZO _ . .5., rI. tom- • Z 1 ! r ° 4,, ;nz w H • �N < d r y • 33" §,. t t A. � U -+ (( 1 '' r t ri * '',ify1` I''' '''. O F . O ' ,` C t Itir ..i W W W r.'f,sb CA W H { W F +Y ? f r. ':x < N a n �g r O FF E+ F7W " . i m W m y no o aaz o •- y 6: qzo WFWN ;' 4. � o F N ' O �+C oo - -. Wa IA O CI O;ed.!: a "Ci {�. . a > z O ' .,- Zz O " • M1 _ WN U a .N O i...Al oL l', a I, y ry r "d r CS t %) e 7 a } ,,f?.,,, r `'� wtr } 4L�r , + • r 177 J F1 W Ix, CM ; Q W W 5 �,. d r41.,,'1 `t "f:?,'?:,j 7 .-I _ i^ t - t = z .4O .� ��-"+ OHoN W a*v " t:.‘1,,' a y n,'i G 8 c4 A o`5= _ 1 = d A 30'7 A C s r d f ' EK /4— a • as . .JaS,Yb''''''e.:. - tity Y(p en e y ^. 7_f.-- ,% • --„,-e._..0 s,._<. sk.I.,..1 N#f _ 1._ 87(3123 • 0 ,,ra y a;¢1 �- f, r� is •.X 3M G '''CFCrpp•�,�rJ'YAgk`dA1 ',tit'Gr�pv 1, f •. Y i .'�s�•� ; 1 0 s .r 6'N'Y ' , . 19. t' u m �t ��.' i/- Sr � 0 0 4 p S a o o € co _ ' r W 2 r? 1, < 1` d • O • sib Go-J q(� p , r t S) aLn � �� ad cn d d ' • . < � �° ziff,,Lit2. �`: S A. Q F lr ,-,y G2f1 ,. B' =."0 iry ' H ' .'t"T , +°F4"( A , Il 4J bl p o-„ fat '₹tii 1 11 ul M O e s r ¢s i p j 3'1. :� 'fYg ?,' r�i f w w , rt # A x s Rdr • :al >r A y ii' 01 U 9 d UN > • P , V N p '� r ` ) 1 r in .a C- I t a $ ; f y C tt' t it A �G; .'.�.2ax ��¢ 5r.1e 1 1,uw r . , L.°„��" �` �` )`�534J`.{rSX3 r.h7. v3 ,ynpA {r ar.:r r fr r.j r e, rje grq¢` Y•r,[^-;9y d`< 1 r qu.ntl,N^+k r 31,17.1.51,4?. '�Y5�. r spa ti; v i c -. "r al > M 1 ' F. r r9 C F) a 12 3 G' - W zwv .. 1 . U x u7 ao ° 't O W , s. ,., ys1 N 0 S jF O 4, ) O ti O 1 O CO CO r q ' G ti 1. N YS[54 7 2 - c4 3 W - a u r"r f• C r p] a w k �F;,., r : 411 e!s ', G r GGamr .7 '2i t.r {, p W ,p 1r CO �oU ,� y G 3 �/ y Y °k J to .2, U �t r t j § S• • - , i 2b, . lP G 6 1. yg�[Ny.,i. ky q ` '61 t, T i ^ n S y t A' 4 nA, :. .o.. A ... j S .•°'tt;11a •L'.' t' °14' •,.r;i, - r ;'n k i. i : : kr G �"?lt- O r1,'n1' i��"'Yi',t'.b,twr�' ' +er'•° r 7 'e '° c _--" . ..— , c i8ae`Ti 6 � N f • • Y 'k'. (} *--a•'4:08 y {.1 rat t 1 .v'lei' fr 4a: �� '.1'1,11”n•.'..-0.5 b`rY X, 1 , 1 fU C 2S� A 1 t L, '-1 J -. c i' W - - �'! N F O ,v'' m Yr U O : AL ' Ata s a0 a• ' ' t ,r 4 a I` 'r.i _y x � o " i�.y m - y, oU0 " A ; )t6 s , I p.1, Or W ..] ., r 3' E Sif �. , ld ti N - : a) m w E _ �1 Qy V] E A r 5a z y ,. Y.' n" ¢ was � o mwmwNs * , • Y O • I. MI 1 `a Q ,4 `; O 4. i' 1 D.[FV4 <r 00• O * :-...,..:,,-.4 r! X20 y 9, i j'y ) W.�.a r ,.p_ O , 0 r s Y r ,pj G• r i ,Y4 ,}49 ' .y 1 Y `fr 1y41 4i 87017 4 �)1 " 'L t ,h $ '': rrr 1t , ,e 4r '',i rR ✓w' 'kyy ,a i i ! b J i l�4j ! • tTl n eyn t, V a,' ! . r. 3 r, ,4 1•+tis .l ₹ .A ..:y� a Z O ,�v rb- a o J LT,s C O ao ,1 , :rr 0 0 ` �3xoo ; U3 � S w o ?'• �'`+ F P-4 srk,�di I 6 H , a dC , c rn.� y.. e. E Z - o a fi r. e x�ix . w ¢ v10 xH rte- . n � .i O +dr ' ! r� 1 Z o1 o i e rlt� 1 t •Y I i O a f I t� I O h - @! I - i+ r t on Z I ate' n r ' , IA'II v1 o r tl : , t z t , N O a r 1+r .t‘t ' r - a`'Lfi.f': �zs aa4�v� t.i. ` r9� '17` � !;-ej' jp y,p• y .^'roccmaa s o v 4 '**4;c5.1,1, ,,,, - t r.,t .ter .4 J 1 M T O �T ✓ si de ,:{ • 9 Sa ,4f �1t.� 'a r' ti r5 � vrt,$.�'Y ,ai qtr' tg ' d ' • 'f p c O .t n " r „,,,, s-4,,,-, ff P W C O O LOZ O f.If .,,I, fly, S ,1 owa � a C oo i T's, up � 4 , + %% s fi ww r owo t �? . fl " O fr _ y. ! ^' ? a Z 4,4 v I) , ,"r .:S ; ' ad { . N 0 v 1 W tr3 3 p≥4 it .T :its 7` • h �� I n + " • F 3 EC I). M , ooco o ! 3 a tt• N ,..i T x ', :' ,A i O Oco O n 1 a.00. S ( BOARD_Gr COUNTY C0 eIISSZONERS 'Fold at line aviv top of envelope to the right WELD-'COUNTY: COLORADO of the return address. P. O. BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632-7fir, I CERTIFIED c-"`R ' a. .,�r:9 �� I: lit 507 110 355 a � •cnll� '� (I AEF p a 4 'm _ MAIL. . td- DEC 1.8 .•- / '°w"Q 7"4 ,nom m a • 1 M°za °� w I' co 4 7scieh�r ' z UNION RESERVOIR o v ¢` H o C wl u` C/ MILS. FRANCIS HILL '44 � �� RETtJRN RECEIPZ f re��a l saw`` PO OX _ � o l- Y g GOq r• REQuesmo CO O S2in LLI P6my Fortran: ' 1 ttiititliilitliii . .y. 23 M 1;�_ - tt M'C A. ...r. �. -mss.. • } , •�. cam' a/ #exi `A'( E( f•% a' far • {�7 • y. et : Le i e • pm: at b ., . . • • L ; : * r7unIc t € j,• ellaSie (.,:i.::2.. I I I I 3 , , J MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF'ADJUSTMENT MEETING February 12, - .. 1987 A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Thursday, February 12, 1987, at 1:35 p.m. in the County Commissioners' Rearing Room, 915 Tenth Street, Room X01, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Paul Allen. Tape= 46 -Side 2 ROLL -CAW James:Adams Present Rhonda Giles Present Greg grown Present, Jerry Kiefer Present Dennis:'Gesterling Absent Bob'Sorenson : "Present Donald Mason Absent - Called in- Shirley Rein Present. . Paul Allen. Present ASSOCIATE MEMBERS Bud Ralidorsoa Absent - Called in Judy Nelson " Present Ed Dolan Present Also present: Chuck Cunliffe, Director, Department . of Planning, Services, Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, and Bobbie Good, Secretary. A quorum vas present. The minutes of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment held on January 22, 1987, were approved as distributed. CASE NUMBER: BOA-917:87:1 (Rescheduled from the January 22, 1987.,' meeting): . APPLICANT: Frank Tenorio and Karen Lohman REQUEST: Variance to waive the,public :water and sewer requirements in the R-2 (Duplex Residential) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: : Part of-the NE};.NEI of Section;7, TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: 700 South Park Avenue, Fort Lupton, Colorado The .Chairman-asked:Chuck .Cunliffe_ to read .the reeaeac o.t the applicant into the record. T�/ o `2_`L3-`d'7 1 • Minutes of the.Weld:County'Board of Adjustment February 12, 1987 Page 2 APPEARANCE: Frank Tenorio, applicant, stated public water and sewer are not available for this property, and they want to build a single family residence. After the Board of Adjustment has approved this request, they will apply for a recorded exemption. The total acreage on this property is about one acre. His parents, who own the lot, are deeding them about one-third acre. The chairman called for discussion from the audience. Marlene Stieber, surrounding property owner, stated that-if this- variance is granted there are seven .or,eights lots in this subdivision that have not been built on -and- they would probably like to have septic. permits too. - It was her understanding that;a moratorium existed against-;any: further septic tank permits being issued-in this area. Also, this area -is very:sandy and the wells are shallow. She was concerned the addition of more septic tanks may contaminate the wells. Lee Morrison reported. there'was septic ruling in this area, but, there was a change in County policy.. The public water and sewer requirements for subdivisions are now in effect. Since this was already zoned-at:.that time, it preempts the current zoning and wells and private septic tanks are allowed is this area: • Chuck Cunliffe asked the record to show that the size of this lot would be eighty by one hundred feet. The Chairman asked Chuck Cunliffe to read the recommendation of the Department of Planning Services into the-xecord, - MOTION: Jerry Kiefer moved Case Number BOA-917:87:1 for Frank Tenorio and Karen Lohman for a variance to waive the public: water and sewer requirements in the :R-2 (Duplex -Residential) -zone -district be-approved- by the.- Board of Adjustment based upon the recommendations:and_ conditions as outlined by the Department of .Plannirg'Services staff-end-the testimony heard: by the,_members of the Board of Adjustment Motion:seconded by Judy Nelson. The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Board of Adjustment.- Discussion: followe& concerning soilrconditionsyin.:;this ;area. • V Minutes of the Weld County-Board.of Adjustment February 12, -1987 Page 3 The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Rhonda Giles - yes; Bob Sorenson - yes; James Adams no; Gregory Brown - yes; Jerry Kiefer - yes; Judy Nelson - yes; Ed Dolan - yes; Shirley Rein yea; Paul'.Allen - yes. Motion carried with eight voting for the motion and one voting against the motion. The Chairman announced the variance passed. CASE NUMBER: BOA-918:87:2 APPLICANT: Christ's Christian Church REQUEST: Variance to waive the public sewer requirement in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) '.zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 7, SE} SW} of Section 9, T5N,_R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Balsam Avenue and. East 20th Street. Chuck Cunliffe reported the legal notice and the letter to the applicant went out with the proper time (1:30 p.m.), but the letter to the surrounding property owners had the time of the meeting at 3:30 p.m. Lee Morrison explained this can be handled in one of two ways. The staff and the Chairman can appear at 3:30 p.m. and if anyone should appear the meeting would automatically be continued to the regular Board of Adjustment meeting scheduled for February 26, 1987. The Board of. Adjustment can review the evidence, but cannot go out and look at thesite or discuss this request among themselves. If nobody shows up at 3:30 p.m. a phone call can then be made to each member so they could cast their vote, or if the Board wishes, they may just continue the meeting -until February 26. The Board of Adjustment members decided to hear this request. The Chairman asked Chuck Cunliffe to read the request of the applicant into the record. APPEARANCE: : Howard Dillon, Elder, Christ's Christian Church, represented the applicant. They are asking for< petmfssion.to install a septic tank on this property. The Church will not.. have a kitchen, so actually very little water will be used except for the restrooms. Minutes of the Weld County Board of s:Adjustment . February 12, 1987 Page 4 Lee Morrison explained that if there is a city sewer line within two hundred feet they are required, to hook up to the public system. Ordinarily, however, -if a sewer is working adequately they would not need to hook up if • there were not a' health ;problem. The staff is recommending -that, if the sewer runs into this area, the applicant will have to hook up to it even if their septic system is working adequately. Tape 148 - Side 1 The Chairman called for discussion from the>:members- of the audience. Mr. and Mrs. Louis Ross, surronndiug :property owners, stated they have no objections to this request. Mr. ,Dillion stated they have no problems with the conditions as outlined. The Chairman asked Chuck Cunliffe to read the recommendations and conditions of the Department of Planning .Services' staff into the record. MOTION: Judy Nelson moved Case Number BOA-918:86:2 for Christ's Christian Church for a variance to waive the public sewer requirement in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) zone district be approved based upon ;the: recommendations and conditions as outlined by the Department of Planning Services' ;staff and the testimony heard by the members. of the Board of Adjustment. Motion seconded by Rhonda Giles. The Chairman called for. :discussion from the members, of the Board of Adjustment. Discussion followed concerning the City of Greeley's • development plans for this area. . MOTION: . Jerry Kiefer moved this request be continued until further evidence is obtained or until we are sure there is no further evidence to be heard. Motion seconded by Jim Adams. Lee Morrison stated there' are two motions on the floor. Therefore the motion: to continue takes precedence over the original motion. : The ':Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Board of Adjustment. Discussion followed. Minutes of the Weld County Board of. Adjustment February 12, 1987 Page 5 The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Rhonda Giles - yes; Bob Sorenson - yes; James Adams -' yes; Gregory Brown - yes; Jerry Kiefer - yes; Judy Nelson - yes; Ed Dolan - yes; Shirley Rein - yes; Paul Allen - yes. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bobbie Good Secretary O BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MOTION TO GRANT OR DENY APPEAL Case No. BOA-917:87:1 February 12, 1987 APPEAL OF Frank Tenorio and Karen Lohmann Address: 321 McKinley, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Moved by S that the following resolution b i• roduced f assage by he ,Weld County Board of Adjustment: Be it resolved by the Weld County Board of Adjustment that the appeal of Frank Tenorio and Karen Lohman for a variance to waive the public water and sewer requirements in the R-2 (Duplex Residential): zone district on the following described property: Part NE} .NE} of Section 7. T1N,..R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. be granted nil) for the following reasons: Based upon the submitted application materials and other relevant information regarding this request, the Weld County Board of Adjustment approves this request. It is the Board of Adjustment's opinion that this requested relief is not detrimental to the public good or contrary to the purpose and intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the R-2 (Duplex Residential) zone district_ This determination is based, in part, upon the following: - The variance requested is the minimum variance possible for making reasonable use of the property; - The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; - The surrounding properties in the R-2 (Duplex Residential) zone district are presently served by individual septic systems and.wells; 5ic Motion seconded by �E . Vote: For Grant F enial of Appeal & BOA-917:87:} Frank!Tenorio and Karen Lohman Page 2 The Weld County Health Department has no objections to this variance request; The lack of public water and ,sewer to the property did not result soley from ;the-.actions of the appellant. The City of Port Lupton's Director of Public Works has indicated in a letter dated December 29, 1986, that city water and sewer service is currently not available to the area; and — The Department of Planning' Services staff has received several inquiries 'about this request, but no objections ` to the variance request. • ♦. : . :. Hello