The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About871714.tiff 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 be 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 concerns 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 400' . 2. The 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. 8 71 71 4 ag, �\Sn 2 O( 3 Nj�.0c95 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 questions, please call or write. Sincerely, fls/a. cd,ael A. Schuett Current Planner KAS:rjg 870123 { DEPARTh _NT OF PLANNING SERVICES s$ PHONE(303)3564000 EXT.4400 915 10th STREET e / 1111_�e GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. August 29, 1986 TO WHOM IT HAY 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 laud 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. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed:tn. Agency: Longmont Fire Date: 09-05-86 Wm. R. Emerson Protection District Fire Marshal 19 CAI(e/ eith A. Schuett D cw SEP 1986 Current Planner b �� LONGMONTFIRE 1986 PROTECTION DISTRICT - LONGMONT CO. Weld Co. Planning Commission 870123 ill E ®RAf1D WII'D€ Keith ghDep ro Planning Depart ment Date Septe er 56 COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer i 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 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 3% 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 _r-- Enc. C�` zll it iJEN11? \—� r 1986 il r___, 870123 Weld Co. Planning Commission v- V. t' �-.._, - - F DEPART _NTDFLANNING SERVICES (--- ` 14: 1) k'� K s` 49HONE (303)356-4000 EXT.4400 915 101h STREET �f i GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 1 1 J . COLORADO CASE NUIER 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 laud 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, le I efer to the enclosed letter. Signed: \ku / ,� \„ - _ Agency: L��;b7CeCi' c Date:el(n(F6 Ted/O Cie- eith A. Schuett Current Planner 870123 j ine n oR nm D Gloria V. Dunn riGhD . To -Planning Department Date_ July 8, 1986 COLORADO Prom Donald R. Carroll , Administrative Manager Subject. Bay Shores Planned Unit Development - Sketch Plan S=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 31/2 should be left as through arterial roads . No lots should access directly onto 26 or 31/2. 2. A 100' right-of-way should be dedicated for roads 26 and 32 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. J1. 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 bf 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 road cross sections will be necessary. DRC/bf 870123 DEPAR- ENT OF PlANNING SE-RVICES r ` s 1, PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4400 -. V 915 10th STREET r1.a 1 GREELEY,COLORADO-80631 404 .6 it , • 4LORADO 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 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, 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 _submitted prior to 3. N/ Plea e er to the -enclosed letter. Signed: /, 4Y Agency: /J �. .J�Ga�/y s Date: E'�-/-6S"• 5)i � siiemW Agency: wed/O C rd D ?,, 5:16 ,q Keith A. Schuett Current -Planner ` '_ 19813 [i -Weld Co.plannieg Commission 870123 ®FFiCE OF THE 3 HER IFF MEMORANDUM TO Gloria V. -Dunn, Current Planner FROM Undereheriff Rick Dill DATE June 13, 1986 Bay Shore PUD, Case OS-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 a lower limit of $39,330 annually to an upper limit of 494,638 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 upper limits of the range. The PUD concept tends to move the costs into the 'mid-range. Our best estimate is $60,000 to $65,000 -annually or about $141 to $153 per unit. ==conventional-mill levy property taxes do not appear sufficient to -adequately cover"the costs of this project. ` While we are not opposed to the project, -some :alternative funding to - cover the costs of our services _,will ,=be necessary for -our concurrence. RD/kaw GL4,o kzLt W .Uxs,6°flt ea lw co P"Uua fit et. s. Lite . U�✓tvL � e e<rvrt4cie r z ?c r �z>C a' n, / GJ L3� �Ler�itvt 1 :121 fty w cer"i,1 SC1 -to /'e l v (et G�� C>Gv, us .11N1 \A2 61° 76 3 • ; ; woo 11u. Nhalliliq bu.E... . II 1370123 k\rAll SAINT VRAIN Dr. F. Keith Blue VALLEY Superintendent of Schools PUBLICSCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.RE-1J 395 S.PRATT PARKWAY LONGMONT,COLORADO 80501 September S, 1986 Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, LO 80631 RE: Bay Shores (Y.U.D.) Subdivision Dear Mr. Schuett: We have reviewed the proposed Bay Shores (-P.U.J1.) 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 ENROLLMENT + 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 -+ 83.6 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 discussions 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 will serve. - ;' 9 1986 Weld Co. Planning Commission 870123 Therefore, Jae plan to identify sites as subdivisions are platted. There —is no school -site identified on the Bay Shores P.II.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, zd /16 Dorothy Hores, Director Planning, -Evaluation and Communication DH/ss 8'x0123 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 areafora 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 obLained 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 Lorne by any residential devel-opment.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 sh-all 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 lased ased upon -all relevant factors including but not limited to -established school site size, school building sine, pupil yield ratio and 1-and costs. The di strict and administration shall -monitor pupil yield ratios (number of children per dwelling structure) and the costs of land and sh-all 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 sit-es adjacent to public parks with consideration for joint nse 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 sch-ool sites and to Tulfill 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 nei-ghtiorhoods 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 siae 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 sire standards will be adjusted, if necessary, during the preplanning Thine 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 (a-s -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, parti-cipation upon the land proposed as the schuul site, proximity of the school site to other attendance areas and adj-acent land use. Application of all of the above information to establish the share of cash or land to oe _donated by residential devel-opers -for elementary and secondary sites is calculated as follows: The admi-nistration 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 multi-plied 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 ty the elementary school facility standard of 450 students, times the required acre-age for an elementary site of 10 acres, the developer' s share for cash or land contribution -would be 1.83 acres which equ-als 18.3% of 10 acres of the proposed school acreage. 0.31 (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, 1-984 St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J, Longmont, _Colorado 2 of 2 870123 SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAT.1907 THEODORE D.SCHEY,JR. NEIL E.PILLER THE 70 PREMIERE BUILDING DONALD H.ALSPAUGH 700 FLORIDAAVENUE PHILLIPS.WONG SURE P400 JAMES H.NELSON P.O.BOX 167 LONGMONT.COLORADO 90501-0167 JACOB S.SCNEYHMI.1961) September 8 , 19$6 TELEPHONE:O01)7164911 METRO:MI 41.0501 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 Shares 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 appare-ntly 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 Ditc-h. 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 ditc-h 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 for 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 . C-11 Ezpe_Th Neil E. Piller NEP: lm cc : Richard Hamm LeRoy Rider Dan Grant George Adam, Jr. 20-E W ET" 9 1986 2 �� Weld Co. Planning Commission SCHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST.1907 THEODORE D.SCHEY,JR. NEIL E.PILLER THE PREMIERE BUILDING DONALD H.ALSPAUGH 700 FLORIDA AVENUE PHILLIPS.WONG SURE P400 JAMES H.NELSON P.O.BOX 107 LONGMONT,COLORADO 10!024367 JACOB S.SCHEY 11891.1963) September 8 , 1986 TELEPHONE:(303)7764511 METRO:(303)4424011 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 June 26th letter. 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 Olig-archy 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 & SCHEY, P.C . r"I By )/62j Neil E . Piller L, ' ) i9to NEP: lm U \ ,J cc : Richard Hamm 870123 Weld Co. Planning Commission i E i : IV IJune 10, 1986 McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. { 703 Third Avenue { Longmont, Colorado 80501 Attention: Jonathan Ziumerman RE: Pietrazk Gas Unit N/2 Section 5-T2N-R68W I 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 compatable 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 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 "J" 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 #or oil development are designated by the Commission to be located in the center of a 40 acre tract -within the 80 acre unit, with a tolerance of 202 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 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, completion and production operations. The set-back and safety requirements I MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. I SUITE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER. COLORADO 8DZo2-4970 a (303) 861-9183 87-0123 I. L McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. June 10, 1986 J 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 & MERSg0N 01C INC. �� .�� • Scott S. McKinley Landman SSM/blm Enclosure (1) ) cc: R. J. Claire Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company Brighton, Colorado 870123 PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY B. O. BOX 127 BRIGHTON, COLORADO B0501 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 map which shows our pipeline 415-10-075-472-4" 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 may be installed at approximate right 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, parking area, alley or curbing will be placed substantially parallel to and within ten feet (10' ) vof 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 foreign forces. We 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 C - -FT- . ) _FE-N on- a\iv L' ' / , , , _f, _ . ,,, 2.n m4C_Y ~„rs �u I o _ _ j ,,, I.�CE / / `�� ' / f 1. I ;g I^ G;5 9l0 _.. I II ��C_ I _ ) VI,--L eC^'!C ��; ` • ter-"r_ - -- . - p I I i ' , i ''J L/ i ;o -/G -075 ' - 9 PROP IL--10-C - . . I O=GC ,C -CO.r-) CL F,c,7. :Yc7'.. _.. 5::-_-.7.,ETee i/%_1 O :<-- -5L C? 3:�L :2 I Si O%Z7 N cx 44 3cc. Ln . - >,: Fe, R 0=50. 7 4.5 =2 ?= 1 6 =/0 i/c _O' 51 =1.!.4 lc, l-c J=o 7 r2-c. "'.-4/ ,---, e/c,/ /?G'. 7*5:0 v✓ Z. em:.-7.5 - ,Pc s �CT 5./ C! r,-o,o =ter :^? r; _ k; D "7 /C• -V. /✓'.: .S/O ./J,72.1 y.." ✓ a// r.c-c-,/ / C /O/ /✓c /p Jc r i , 1 ✓v , 1 , 1 i '�']°......,dir., V PROP. I, :C-C'c. c 7- i cr_..717A�'.ril 'it FR OP 'A. r ' CO C.`^ 1 21 PIPE USE J.IPANY I CXD. 6-,4.i.. IENG. [DATE ; _ ,, Iwo. _ I REV. 4BY 5 A ISCAL IDWG. NO. • 870123 1 • \'-'j -:.--_ . • 7 I In • O^ _ .. G I U N.• Y - . a - ` ' • b yam - V 1 . . f _ U U -C _ I iT \ I / o � I C ! u` .Q.�..• _ II I IIIII N I I _ ! ti v r� „I C\IN ill - I �y u ,I �1 r..�!I \ �< i C O I I / u III , .-N \CI - Hit • _ \ H . , . r m _ si ` - o ' . ..- ^ w Ii . o I 1 O _ I _'_r% I I II I -' - - .-` - - I `r I III ` - 870223. III _ - /� - 1 MINERAL OWNERS Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Z-430:86:5 Macy-Mershon Oil Co. 1600 Broadway Suite 2150 Denver, CO 80202 870123 J REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Bay Shores B.U.D. CASE NUMBER: -B-430:86:3 SENT REFERRALS OUT: August 29, 1986 REFERRALS l'0 BE RECEIVED BY: October 17, 1986 NO SR NR NO SR NR X County Attorney ; Longmont, Soil '? Vt Conservation District X✓Weld County Health lept.z 9595 Nelson Road Box D Vl X Yngineering Departments ' Longmont, CO 50501 V' IC Great Western Railroads V -B Oligarchy -Bitch Companyw c/o Peter Ascher + c/o Dan -Grant 950 Monroe P.O. Box 1826 Loveland, CO 80501 -Longmont, CO 80501 X Union Reservoir Companyr / X Wit• Vrain School's- c/o Donna L. Coble District RE 1J P.O. Box 449 395 S. Pratt -Parkway Greeley, CO 80632 Longmont, CO 80501 J X State Engineer/, / X.Cireld County Sheriff's /' Division of Water -Resources Department 1313 Sherman St. , -Room 818 m/o Rich Dill Denver, CO 80203 V filLste Highway Department/ V X ULongmont Fire Protection 1420 2nd Street Districti7 Greeley, CO 80631 9119 County line -Road Longmont, CO S0501 V X Colorado Department of Health S ✓ X Boulder County Planning Water -Quality Control Division Department iy 4210 East 11th Avenue 2040 14th Street Denver, -CO 80220 -Boulder, CO 80302 X Longmont Planning De artment P ' ✓ xSt. Vrain Sanitation c/o Brian Miller -Bistrict f Civic Center Complex c/o Richard Lyons Longmont, CO 80501 - 515 Kimbark Longmont, CO 80501 I X Water Sports Westin 1)461 Weld County Road 26 A/ X Louis -Rademacher 2O r'p Longmont, CO 80501 Planning Commission Member ! 13184 Weld County Road 13 / I- Left Hand Water Supply Company/ Longmont, CO 80501 *;„. P.O. Box D NiWot, CO 80544 X Colorado Geological Jo/, Survey ✓ X Macy & Mershon Oil Inc. o- Attn: Louis Lodwick Attn: Scott McKinley 1313 Sherman Street 1600 Broadway, Suite 2150 Room 715 Denver, CO 80202 Denver, CO 80203 870123 Referral List Bay Shores P.U.D Z-4-30:86:5 Page 2 X Panhandle Eastern_Pipeline Co.as Attention: Ken ,T. Neff P.O. Box 127 Brighton, CO $0601 VX Union -R.E.A 23 P.O. -Box 929 Brighton, CO 80601 / X longs Peak Water Association a,/ 9875 Vermilion Road Longmont, _CO 80501 ipivhs, -OCly;lr/<-e 8743123 MEMO ,/ D To WCPC _ Date October 30 11426 COLORADO From Keith A. Srhnatt, Currant Planner Subject: Changes of Zone Cage 0430:86.5 Change of _Zone Case 1430:86:5 for -Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and E.R.S. Investments on a parcel of lam described -as part of the Ni of -Section 3, T2N, 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 xo the Change of _Zone request: - JCR Farms, Richard Hamm - 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 zesponses have not been received from: - Great Western Railroad - Colorado Department oT Health, Water Quality Control Division - Longmont Planning Department - Water Sports West - Left Nand Water Supply Company - Oligarchey Ditch Company - -Boulder County Planning Department - Louis Rademacher - Union REA - Longs Peak Water Association 870123 1441 Elmhurst Lane, Longmont, Co 80501, Oct . 28, 1988 Weld County Planning Commission, Greeley, Co. 80634 re: 2.430: 5 -. Bay Shores P.U.D. NiS5, T3N, R68W, Weld Co . Dear Commission ( embers, 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 fir. Stro-mcuist, 1 would like to call your attention to additional information: In this neighborhood the majority of the -acreage in Sac. 4, 5, d, 33, 32, 31 (except reservoir) is prime agricultural land. 240 acres grow vegetables and are truck gardened. Immediately south of Bay -Shores proposal, JCK Farm regularly produce-s -acre yields of 28i to B0 tons of sugar beets, 4i to 5z tons of baled hay, 130 to 150 bushel of corn. Sugar Co. experimental fields are ad.,Lacent. Other neighborhood farms axe very productive. Our JCK Farm soils are Weld County clay loam. With capable farmers and their progressive agri-cultural practises, the productivity of the fields during the years {imtroscd .: As in USDA letter -of Oct. 16, 1986idrainag-e of high -water tables were problems for our farm in the past. F-or that problem -and to care for normal storm tun -off From the adjacent Piterzak f old-s,our JICIC SF4 35 has been protected with facilities we built. To ipprov pp wing of these soils we installed _underground drains. win' L .S u it Conservation engineering the largest capacity drain -wa.s insta.._le in 1967. TThat drain has serviced our land -well and to date specifically has -protected JCK fields from underground water flow from the Pietrzak property. By 1970 Philip i:iller ( then owner of the NEt 25) asked to attach a small drain from field south of the Oligarchy Ditch to this 1967 drain. We grants d his request to the benefit of farming both side of the fence. However, the pronosol to cover much of the eonrth field of NEB; S5 with roofs and streets will increase the flow of storm runoff onto JOE Farm. Existing farm drains de net have the capacity to carry that extra volume _of -water. Evident -damage to JCK' s fields of BEQ will -occur. We ask that Weld to .Planning to require thr3 Bay Shores project to provide for consideration: 1, A storm water retention system of adequate capacity. The U.S. Corps of Army Ingineers records 3 20th century storms of 6 or 5 inches in 24 hours. 'his ir^Plies bafeguards against erosi-on. 2. _, system of tilt 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 pottntial raster damage to neithbors. lts drains and storm off flow directly into the barrow pitr.without crossing another owner ' s private property. 8'7®i.23 Res ectfully subpitted JCK - Farm; " ; rt,r _ 4�Cre r'y _� Ai.. . a.l FF'{'ii..d ai.ZGn_n p='r tl-:Er r:�- Lnited3tates Soil 9595 Nelson Road, Box D S Department of Conservation Longmont, CO 80501 l Agriculture Service October 16, 1986 Mr. Luther Stromquist, President Longmont Soil Conservation !District 9595 Nelson Road, Box D . Longmont, tO 80501 Re: 2-430:-86:5 - Bay Shores P. U. D. Dear Luke: We have reviewed the application of Robert and Susan U. 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 1-and. The land use surrounding this property is agricultural and allowing 4,000 people to move into this property will -have substantial impacts on neighboring farms. The urban/rural interface typically -results in nuisances in the form of litter, motorcycles, vandalism to farm-machinery and equipment, and interference with irrigation systems. Specific reference was made to the approval of the St. Vrain Sanitation District as a reason why the approval of Bay Shores should be granted. Although the sanitation district has -been approved, it is the opinion of the Soil -Conservation District that growth should -occur in a contiguous pattern. 1t 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, quantifi-cations, 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 I be practiced from the time of over-lot grading to the sodding of lawns. As stated in earlier letters to the -Department of Planning Services, the soils have a high shrink-swell potential which restricts the suitability -of this site for foundations and basements. High water tables exist near the reservoir. It 3s the recommendation of the Longmont Soil Conservation District to not approve this request for rezoning. ! Sincerely, 4 Tawas W. Lanes District Conservationist - 870123 is.cFc itcLl. �ciO\ RICHARD D. LAMM WE-87-0003 JOHN W. ROLD GOVERNOR Dw:CTOR 876 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ?15 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER.COLORADO 80203 PHONE(303)866-2611 September 25, 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schwett Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Schwett: RE: BAY SHORES PUD, Z - 430:86:5 This site was inspected an 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 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 drilli-ng need to be determined. The present configuration of Union Reservoir should nave no affect 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. f. :T 2 - 1986 G c 0 STORY OF THE-PAS- K�.- _� --_ Weldon. Planning Camrcussiml J 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 problam be addressed. If you have any questions, _please call . Sincerely, L. R. Ladwig, Chief Minerals Fuels Section bcr:LRL 87-039 3215/11 870123 SAINT VRAIN Dr. F. Keith Blue VALLEY Superintendent of Schools PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.RE-1J 395 S.PRATT PARKWAY LONGMONT.COLORADO 80501 October 22, 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: I want to provide further clarification of our response to the Bay Shores P.U.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 Hores, Director Planning, Evaluation and Communication DH/ss C -1 2? 1986 Weld Co. Planning Commission 870123 SILVER HILL a 405 Urban Street Suite 302 EON NERGY CORP. Lakewood, Colorado 80228 ..... ,.,. . ... (303) 989-1470 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 ENERGY + Bar y L. Sn er /vlw cc: E. Q. Steff-es, Jr. ; Alarado Resources, Limited Emmet Hall; Zenith Drilling Corporation Joe Barrett; Barrett Energy Company Scott S. McKinley; Macey & Mershon Oil Inc. Ted E. Amsbaugh u I 2 `= 1986 Ei 1 Barry L. Snyder • Stephen B. Evans • Ted E. Amsbaugh WEId CO. Planning l;n11((Itssipu 8Y i.f SILVER HILL .. +05 Urban Street Suite 302 EON NERGY CORP. Lakewood, Colorado 80228 (303) 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 r;n+ 2 ,11986 Barry L. Snyder • Stephen B. Evans • Ted E. Ameattrh rpplangning Commission 8 ( 0123 , E P6-1 1 i October 21, 1986 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. 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 OIL INC. LA AL .tCJ Scott S. McKinley Landman Enclosure l D "I a I fy N COT 21985 j Weld Co. Planning commission i MACEY & MERSHON OIL INC. SUITE 2150 • 1600 BROADWAY • DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4970 • (303) 861-9183 d 8 0123 t, MURRAY J. HERRING (, Ltd.) Oil and Gas Properties 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1215 Denver,Colorado 80202 1303) 893-9306 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 Weld 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 ay J . H r ing Murray J . H rring Ltd. G� p rv- --. 1 211866 • LCT 221986 Weld Co. Planning Commission 870123 CC D central colorado water conservancy district 3400 West 16th Street • Building 5 • Suite X Greeley, Colorado 80634 (303) 351-0523351-0524 • 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, Tom Cech D Executive Director :1-' 9 19B6 J + TVC/sam cc: Mr. Jim Vetting, President Gragjtil Union Reservoir Company Weld tp,Meant 870123 MEMORAIIDUIll 1119€ To Weld County Planning Comnissiomate October 21, 1986 COLORADO From Keith A. Schuett, Current Planner Subject: Change of Zone Case #430:86:5 Change of Zone Case #430:86:5 for Robert and Susan 3. Pietrak and C.R.S. Investments on a parcel of land described as part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th p.m., Weld County, Colorado. ' Enclosed are copies of responses that have been received from the following referral entities in regard to the Change of Zone request: - Weld County Engineering Department - Weld County Sheriff's Department Union Reservoir Company - Saint Vrain Valley Public Schools - Longmont Fire Protection District - Longmont Soil Conservation District - Saint Vrain Sanitation District - State Engineer Division of Water Resources - Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company - State Division of Highways - Macey and Mershon Oil Incorporated - Division of Wildlife - Weld 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 - Left Hand Water Supply Company - Oligarchy Ditch Company - Boulder County Planning Department - Louis Rademacher - Colorado Geological Survey - Union REA - 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 planned unit development. 870123 Weld _County Planning Commission COZ-430:136:3 Page 2 Attached, is a copy of the performance standards for the -Planned Unit Development as setforth in Section 35.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Please review these standards when giving attention to the referral r-esponses from Macey-Mershon Oil, inc. , _Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, Longmont Soil Conservation District, 'Division -of Wildlife, and Union Reservoir Company. RAS:rjg 870123 35.3 Lerformance Standards. A . . ..-._._ . -. ---„'c and land Us:s in the FED Di-strict shall _i ed, used and occupiai in -accordance . it} th standards enumerated below. 35.3.1 Density. The density of land USES -within a D?UD District shall be designed to Be compatible with other USES -within the PUD District. -Compatibility of USES -stall be determined by their harmony, carrying capacity, character, and buffering or SCREENING. 35.3.2 COMMON OPEN SRAC-E. COMMON OPEN SPACE shall he provided in a -PITD Distri-ct. The amount and type of COMMON OPEN SPACE -shall be proportioned according to the type of USES, BUILDINCS or STRUCTURES to be contained in the BUD District. COMMON OPEN SPACE shall Be designed to be useful to the occupants and residents of the PUD Distri-ct for recreational and - scenic purposes. The COMMON OPEN SPACE in a PUD District shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity by an organization established solely for such ownership and maintenance purposes. 35.3.3 Water and Sewer Provisions. A PUD District shall be serviced by an adequate -water and sower system. 35.3.4 Circulation. t+evelopment -within a PUD District shall be designed and constructed to include adequate; safe and convenient arrangements for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off-street parking and loading spate. :Pedestrian and vehicular circulation shall relate to the circulation system external to a PIJD :.listrict. All STREETS within the PUD District, whether private or PUBLIC, shall he -designed -and constructed to meet - the requirements of the 'Official Weld County Construction -Standards and the Official -Weld County Subdivision Regulations. 35.3,5 Buffering and Screening. USES, BUILDINGS, or STRUCTURES within a PUD District that -woul-d not be compatible with ether 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 -SETBACK, minimum OFFSET, minimum LOT sire, minimum LOT area per STRUCTURE, maximum height of BUILDINGS, and LOT coverage may be -varied as specified in -a -UD District Final Plan. All other performance standards applicable to a PUD Di-strict may he required to he as strict as the performance standards contained in the zoning district in which the USE would usually Be allcwed. 870123 minimum OFFSET, minimum Lc ;i7 e, -._.._.....W LOT area per STRUCTURE, maximum height cf EUILL_ LF , and LOT coverage may be varied as specified in a PUD 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 PUD Plan shall be considered as being • in compliance with the Official Weld County Subdivision Regulations and 30-2€-101, et. seq. , CRS 1973, as amended. The Design Standards and Improvement Agreements of the Subdivision Regulations shall be utilized when applicable to • the PUD Plan review and DEVELOPMENT. Certain PUD Plan requirements may differ from those specifi- cally listed in the official Weld County Subdivision Regulations. 35.3.8 To further the mutual. interest of the residents, occupants, and owners of a PUD and of the public in the preservation of the integrity of the FUD, the provisions of the PUD District and Plan relating to the USE of land and the location of COMMON OPEN SPACE shall run in favor of Weld County and -shall be enforceable -at law or in equity 'by the Board -of County Commissioners -without limitation on any power or regulati-on otherwise granted by law. • • { p • • • • 870123 is' ,4,4 ' I i c• Keith Schuett -- To Planning Department DateOc br\8, 1986 CO LORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer 1 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 "Chance 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. ia M;[,-.N; 1 -;]I ;7/' :game Cr,. Phiomav Hamm:&iiat, DLS/bf xc: Planning Referral File: Bay Shores 87-0120 2 DEPARTiv,ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 7 ,' s f F--» PHONE(3031356 4000 EXT. 4400 �' 915 10th STREET 1 i 1,al i rst, GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 A 0 a COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is a new application from Robert and Susan J. Pietrzak and C.R.S. Investments, for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for R-1 (Low Density Residential) , R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production facilities. The parcel of land is described as part of the Ni of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately three miles east of Longmont; one-half mile north of State Highway 119 and south of Union Reservoir. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response from your office is not received, it may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. Please reply by October 17, 1986, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. Please-x fe�r to the enclosed letter. Signed: �ti\\\ \ ^7 -.. i Agency:t ,lc; r )cc,-„V? Date: rtf-I • cc(. Keith A. Schuect - Current Planner 870123 MEITIORFInDU oat to Keith Schuett ��/�►• To Planning Department Date Septe er 5, 1986 COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga , County Engineer 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 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 3% 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 justifi-cations 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 VW e t - 'PPI U Mae V� j Gloria V. Dunn t._lrLJ ,O . To Planning Department Date July 8, 1986 COLORADO From Donald R. Carroll , Administrative Manager Subject: Bay Shores Planned Unit Development - Sketch Plan S-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 3'2 should be left as through arterial roads . No lots should access directly onto 26 or 31. 2. A 100' right-of-way should be dedicated for roads 26 and 31 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 AASHT0 design requirements . v 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 $n the proposed development? 8. Clarification of the proposed road cross sections will be necessary. DRC/bf 870123 OFF C E or THE SHERIFF 'MEMORANDUM TO Keith A. Schuett, 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 consistant with our earlier communication regarding this project. Please contact me if you have any questions. RD:lch ';�°�,� tn. �ii31t'Ut LU®©ISSICI► 870123 DEPARTt.,L NT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)3564000 EXT. 4400 Mf 915 10th STREET 1 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO CASE NUMBER Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores P.U.D. October 3, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 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 I 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 refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: Agency: Date: Keith A. Schuect Curreut Planner 870123 WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 449 209 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING GREELEY. COLO. 80632 GREELEY. COLORADO J (303) 353-1292 October 16 , 19.E ��Z''''�,I�L 11 ?; it 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Yield to. ?lam I�6" Current Planner Department of Planning Services 915 - 10th Street 1 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 s 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 , 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 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 . 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 . 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 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 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, 1. C Ii>.-1; William H. Southard WHS/C 870123 4,.. ��'��• To Referral Azencies DateOctober 6, 1986 COLORADO From Keith Schuett, Current Planner fiio /4 Subject: Z-430 — Bay Shores Planned Unit Development On September 2, 1986, the Weld County Planning Commission continued change of zone case #Z-430 for Bay Shores P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) , until November 4, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. The applicant, on October 3, 1986, submitted a different planned unit development application. The new planned unit development application is for 1,007 residential units with R-1 (low density residential) , R-2 (duplex residential) and oil and gas production facilities. This application is enclosed. Please review these materials in lieu of the application materials sent to you previously. KAS:rjg :370123 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. a. minimum 8" gravel and 2" asphalt or as needed to meet "3" above. b. 24' pavement width from south property line of Bay Shores to 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 Jane at Highway 119. d. right hand and left hand turn acceleration and deceleration lanes on Highway 119 according to CDOH. e. No Parking signs every 500' on both sides _of WCR 31 The applicant requests reimbursement from adjoining property owners on the east and west sides of WCR 31/2 when they develop their properties. Interest would accrue at a rate of 8 per cent per year. EXHIBIT "B" OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 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 Shores P.U.D. 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 to demonstrate that the proposal is in compliance with the performance standards listed in Section 35.3. The proposal is not in compliance with Section 35.3.1. Section 35.3.1 states that: "The density of land uses within the Planned Unit Development District shall be designed to be compatible with other uses within the Planned Unit Development District. Compatibility of uses shall be determined by their harmony, carrying capacity, character, and buffering or screening." 1. A Great Western Railroad mainline cuts diagonally through the proposed Planned Unit Development District from the southwest to the northeast. The railroad company presently plans to use this track for two train movements per day. However, future plans could increase the number of movements on 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 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 Z-430:-86:3 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. Liven 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 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page A Lea. an agreement addressing its concerns about VIG tie kb_J compatibility with the type of urban area planned have not been meant. The key compatibility issues Q-c-"-) 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 stitch 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 letter dated October 30, 1986, from Neil Piller, representative of the ditch company. This letter substantiates the compatibility issues which need to he 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 latter, event, it will he necessary for the applicant to either construct the necessary improvements before the building $'70123 4 Z-430:86:5 Bay Shores Planned Unit Development Page S 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 so 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 expense in order to secure rezoning. The applicants should complete a separate improvements agreement for off-site toad 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 alto 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 muss demonstrate. . .That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the existing development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Toning." The Submitted Planned _Unit Development District application material-s 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 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 She 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 Mr. Southard, representative for the Union Reservoir Company. This letter has been attached to the staff's comments. IV. The proposed Planned Unit Development district is not compatible with the future development of the subject site and the surrounding area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Longmont. A portion of this site is within Longmont's Saint 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 P1-an. -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 Elan 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 le complete. 870123 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. 870123 7 JOHN H. HUSTON ATTORNEY AT LAW Suite 710 3033 East First Avenue 7 i:7-1110/ t - Denver, Colorado 80206 r (303) 388-8333 r lc? j 1996 iI ' J September 26 , 1986 t'!EI9 Co. Plaua,uM :;:curjt : . Mr . Keith A. Schuett Department of Planning Services Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Color-ado 80631 RE: Bay Shores P.U.D. (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 and the 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. GWR takes tilt position that any construction, expansion _Pi. improvement of such a rail crossing must involve construction of a grade sepa- ration. 4 . Deficiencies in the "Change of Zone Submittal fox Bav - Shores B.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: 87O123 ( 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, the Great Western Railway line cuts diagonally through the prop- erty from southwest to 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 to 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. Sculpted 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 . Improvements to County Roads . The submittal contains var- 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 the subject propertys bisected and lies along t e mainline og A railroad. Properly, it, is not and cannot bg 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 truly yours, 1 John H. Huston JHH: tg cc: John P. Ascher 870123 '`.',. IF\V i ,7 1 1 D -ECIi , t%/, - October 17, 1986 r - � �"i](1 kis / t -1 . ‘; ) 1056 Weld County Colorado Department Weld CO. Planning Ca�IrniSsiDn of Planning Services x 915 10th Street c Greeley, Colorado 80631 L 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 P 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 "4 allowance that Macey & Mershon Oil be permitted to develop only twenty percent (20%) of the mineral estate for which time, effort, risk and money have been invested is ludicrous. Macey & Mershon has performed faithfully under the terms of the oil and gas lease granted by Mrs. Susan J. Pietrzak, the current surface owner, COZ applicant and mineral interest lessor. 3. The Affidavit of Interest Owners-Mineral and/or Subsurface signed by Mr. Jonathan Zimmerman (dated October 3, 1986) is incomplete. a 1 1 MACEY & .MERSHON OIL INC. 870123 ,1 SD.I F 2150 • 1600 BrOADA-A, • DENVER. COLORADO 80202-4970 • 1303) 801 91 N 1 Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services October 17, 1986 Page 2 4. The additional lessors, lessees, mineral and overriding royalty interest owners who derive revenue from the minerals under the subject property will be notified by copy of this letter and we surmise that those individuals may wish to respond to the application. Macey & Mershon is very appreciative that the Weld County Department of Planning Services requested input regarding the oil and gas portion of the application. It was our hope, based upon the results of the September 15, 1986 meeting, that the applicants/developers and Macey & Mershon could work together to address, understand and resolve mineral interest development to our mutual satisfaction. Since the results are otherwise, Macey & Mershon Oil hereby requests that the application be denied. Please advise if further information may be required to further evaluate our position. We will be at the November 4, 1986 hearing and available to speak to the Planning Committee. Very truly yours, MAC Eil & MER3HON OI INC. ! IA 11 L 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 'CHEY & SCHEY, P.C. ,! _ 1986 ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST.1907 THEODORE D.SCHEY,JR. THE PREMIERE BUILDING NEIL E.PILLER VW ft,*wig LdininniSSiQp 700 FLORIDA AVENUE DONALD H.ALSPAUGH SUITE P-300 PHILLIPS.WONG P.O.BOX 267 JAMES H.NELSON October 30 , 1986 LONGMONT,COLORADO 10501-0367 TELEPHONE:1303)776-3511 JACOB S.SCHEY(1661-19631 METRO:1703)441-6081 Mr. Keith A. Schuett Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley , Colorado 80631 Re : Bay Shores P.U. D. Oligarchy Ditch Dear Mr. Schuett : Pursuant to your letter of October 3 , 1986 , I am writing on behalf of the Oligarchy Ditch Company with respect to the most recent Change of Zone proposal 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 discuss 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 otter 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 asisk of personal injury to the residents of , the neighborhood , particularly children. The fore- most concern of the Oligarchy is therefore obtaining some form of protection for the increased liability to which it will he 870123 exposed . As I advised Mr. McCarty and Mr. Collins , this is a very significant problem for which there is no easy solution and I am not altogether certain it can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Oligarchy Board . The Oligarchy is unalterably opposed to any plan which represents the ditch to be a recreation asset for property owners in the P.U.D. because of this liability problem. 2 . Preservation of Historic Runoff . The Oligarchy Board would insist that appropriate designs be adopted to insure that the historic runoff of water from the Bay Shores land into the ditch not be increased as a result of the residential development. The Oligarchy would want any plans addressing this condition reviewed and approved by an expert of its choice. 3 . Lining of Ditch. As another condition for its approval , the Oligarchy would require the Ditch to be lined with concrete in accordance with designs approved by its own engineers . 4 . Deed of Land. The Oligarchy also advised the developer that its approval would be contingent upon receiving fee simple title to the land upon which its ditch is located plus 16-1/2 feet on either side , measured from each bank top, for access purposes. 5. Protection of Downstream Facilities. The lining of the Ditch will result in an increase in the velocity of water moving downstream. It has been the experience of the Oligarchy that when its ditches are lined within a subdivision , significantly greater pressure is directed to downstream ditch facilities which are outside of the development boundaries. The Oligarchy would therefore require the developer to incorporate improvements that would eliminate any risk of damage to downstream ditch facilities and adjacent properties. Again these designs would require review and approval by experts representing the Oligarchy. 6. Lateral Ditches. Lateral ditches which branch off of the main Oligarchy within the P.U. D. to 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 . By : 0,� eil E. Pifler 7 NEP: lm cc : Mr . John McCarty The Oligarchy Ditch Board 870123 3 a` WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 449 209 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING GREELEY. COLO. 80632 GREELEY. COLORADO (303) 353-1292 ap?NR October 16 , 19 "c'' ,. 1 it: 1986 1 i Mr. Keith A. Schuett Yeld CO. NaNIIu¢ ommissau Current Planner Department of Planning Services 915 - 10th Street i Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re : Case Number 7-430-: 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 u-ses of the reservoir cannot be permitted. The open space, if next to the reservoir , would also invite people to fish or otherwise u-se 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 , 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 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 mov-ed 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 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 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 �. sus Di Keith Schuett '1"" II4 Planning Department Oc b r81986a ® To Date ti r\_ ,:_,1986 COLORADO From Drew L. Schel ti ga, 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. IG ,•)":.1.[V,7/ -- .1 Weld Cr,a %int i MIIIIZieu DLS/bf xc: Planning Referral File: Bay Shores 870123 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 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. McCatry delivered additional materials for the Change of Zone application. This information was mailed out to the referral agencies. 9-2-86 The Weld County Planning Commission continued the Change of Zone Case #Z-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 with R-1 (Low Density Residential) R-2 (Duplex Residential) and oil and gas production facilities. 870123 INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Case Number Z '/3D• 496 , s Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing At Rearing ihdre/4 v 1. Application 6.47 Pages 2. 3 Application plat(s) page(s) 3. DPS Referral .Summary Sheet 24yeS 4. DPS Recommendation 7 /929e5 • 5. . DPS Surrounding Propery Owner Mailing List 6. DI'S Mineral Owners Mailing List 7. 3 DPS Maps Prepared by Planning Technician !/ 8. DPS Notice of Hearing v 9. DPS Case Summary Sheet 10. DPS Field Check �. 11. (/4NNiNg Ccpiniss/C/✓ (es do/C/i / 12. telt, ,C,� J'1 G4//)s, /1•C/JFr+>T Aapl/'i , .�1 13. ��/rml lf.sf�eis� GeO/0J'tc/ -Crud 14. telrrre/ twn/se !A// f '.e,h/// .Se/x(1/5 A/ - 15. 4 N 1n-r./ n9-oeA, FNr y/ /'B. 13s fe//,SNye% [Dte a.1.* 16. le//r✓ Ptr,N And `z Nr,y� re St r v -+/ �//,//Sl7afe 17. he4 }rem /!lu/r,1f/frntJ Od/Jcrs o !� 18./eRr darn 1n//r4/ WcorJAo441er D/1f,,c f !�a/a�oet.al 19.,Q / rArd/Rrs�VNsr ' t. ///%.-4% ae ,9.31A'er/Ny DC, s //rr 7t�� 17fsi GF'/`�' 20.'?4,-e/ii-VoNSe trO r'7 i 'h/ict N,/ tees,-Sbenri ?' O1/ L7/,/ccI /3 /1U- I hereby certify that the 172 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 /y(,Y,t'ni ,,,- /0 19066 . Iurrent Planner STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF WELD ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS �0 DAY OF biNsukt.veatitir 19 SIo SEAL • NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission expires May 27, i6G;! 870123 MY COMMISSION F.YPIR!S __.,, ittie 0,- Iv 40,A, 1,44,/A/y a4n,vyc f ^/rd/ �PJsFDit '��/c b[ oor)[.0,01//04/,40754,-1/0/," ah/£TWb, ,frn I////li'/% �� ✓itl�/rt�/eSy4cc c e4 ,/L it/5- r, sma, vJ6 - /-"i pp /re /ro%c/a.v D/,'s/„c ,t�,/' f " / /fie/e //�sim i-sf' wo//Oc//G �'roa airy/ / o7%sL A a r teel only//f sft rrse oo 6t// cc t // e/' G to 4C1;nro//lesgAterC/i.'/,-/ OC// //�JICO/li 54/c er/vje /V Pte"/ D Si Ob h/, /`<saiYC s la ;,„/4`ewar /i./Oc//7!�'�n. e,,h,/clie {• s/f,-nv ,�4C'e I..at e (m 'A/ ` /�P{-ni/v/x ,se r/o/qd/dCt/4/ on, staid, #al ( 164„a/ 0/Q4y/Ckt I? it'en7 !/ hoc ey / /J/e,- s/7 ©4/ ©,/IA/C e p e4 v/Of%D �CI .A/1) s� acre eZ e,./ a/ /7 leni D.'u s/oi✓ of /rJk /,ire I/3 / "no //e,3 f-e/, ti,,,y f/e4k a"? po 41,-,///en/ o41,-, f�c>k6e //5/ /.//�9_"eJf4 e. R e/,, toe p fiewl" eel/9 J 14,/1/G/t lr CI4/e// NOO 3 1/-33 a 1,,e f/�.- 1 ,t/ .5-1- -6,-;7/ Le/ ow,/ fit- AA.,,-/�lc-'I tee- ("o/Vseruo/vcy/ QSt 1f4` / /'/dig Chefl( ,by 2 aiis £Je,iacfl 4er 35— L,e/e.- r/o,n S CNv8s 1men//s tO //aer h? ers6aA/ Hale / „ er 36 Lei, ea izAc/ cc/ /3 -F,otn fc4w /J i �cn/ypicn// //a/v4049 hoof 87012 1 over 10 /// /114 // f'ariay Wearm, / Par/, P37 le hie,- da /d?/ /DO rOber " #.O.7) /VP./c /24 }O r O//,err- e4' D, /ch 113S' L ie,/-� IS,/ cc/obar So Ito in Ale,' Sc%e,- e r (rroaf t e3J9rn( 47,//cac/ 39. Jape, duir,/ fro& 3 . 4,), It). /,ate, ,_ ,„7/4„./ 4r LIN/2W /Jerer vO/r- r, y0 L lir Col ee/ Noo `/ fre"? A.//k7e, e,- I tO /r^ ey,v4 Af d1 U ra/ c/G ti, r IsScC,ce iV A/ ( Lines lBrm�.ry 0 Moc G/AA-e4OA/ 11O 6hari aAr/ 'SJCaN Ptetf r a/(' -itL G't Foss VPmse clee lee/41y 0S'iytG go A-, litil / Sirir'71// of t4e S4/r O,. / , QC/ 9a s (o 47sF,-va//oft/ Oomm/,ss-,b.c/ 870 23 JEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET J -, Case 602- 4 >S Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description fm4/r�. 7.acct %/B• _9..4927/,'�� /T1.eitaan� # >51 % iz /ZCa�h iiY.a C. 2 LLd�O /Y/l/+?j(1 / /N" ALOfl� ' i/� D • SI d'1510-ett- 45i f/A/4atalida9,tas.,,, 4-Z"a d s 4/l- F. /1 L. .-wicaaz,y;i a &e ms �/ H. eeas ozz/e/ - t„,,, eze.,,,- 9 I reP-zi , ,W7 77, M. a/ A li . toms. a1N. 4 ,4 - . �� O. 2 C GGt.-4.e �///�iP1 /19. : -Tel Q/Ll7ZG A/111 870123 EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case: BAY SHORES PUD -Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description , , P. Lth-f:Z6 Q. _�� 7- // R / i L� ,f4 /7 s. �� ' �n >� - T. U. V. W. R. Y. Z. AA. BB. CC. DD. EE. FF. GC. HH. II. JJ. 870123 B V SHD - S P . U . D . 890123 1 CH-ANGE OF ZONE _SUBMITTAL FOR BAY SHORES P.U.D. OCTOBER, 1-986 BY : McCARTY -ENGI-NEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 703 W. THIRD AVENUE LONGMONT, CO 80501 7C rl 1 3 1986 Weld Co. Planning commission 870123 E C. LNG L\ /A CONSULTANTS;IN October 2, 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schuett, Current Planner Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO. 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: Re: Bay Shores P.U.D. , Case Number Z-430:86:5 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 16, 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 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. 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. This plan has been presented with open space allocations within parcels, without the specific layout of individual lots, blocks, and interior street configurations, as has been discussed 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 requests for clarifications 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. J-hn A. McCarty, P •e -ident JAM/sm Encl . cc: Kim Collins 703 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT,CO. 80501 772-7755/449-4373 870123 .t ray , :: C " �:• -' }[stir . V : * l r Y7 y y CALKINS , ' LA• KE q NJU y r 41-•-e:� M). . _ . . 3 31 (UNION RESERVOIR) s 32 4' / ./ t v' `_• I ' WELD' COUNTY i_ ; :1 A I�C. ZONE. , , _ COUNTY ROAD 26 awe •\ *lkl O CO.., a I.1. . �J 2Z 'k , 3 � Ct 1.1 ES7— 'N �xxE '._' 1_ Q _ ..4 J . + Cller WELD iUNTY s ‘ oy 3 Q Lc I AGRIC. !'ONE` ::,, w } • ' .law -- o0 • l'4a .- -- D * 9 Z Midwest NN TO .9}_ _` . .ch_q_._y - •' - ter.,... _ TO DEL LONGMONT - 'X�— : , , LAMING E Cy 0 op a o Y 4=s0 \ . _ �. U - c . C1'Cr'. iv i . - sr"IN e ' .:• ad tw b l • ST VRA 9 , ...n .....:S\,.. e . • ,(r) ( yr, 0 1/2 1 MILE 9 I 1 1 N - APPROX. SCALE: 1" = 2000' 11 VICINITY MAP M0CARTY ENGINEERING BAY SHORES M CONSULTANTS, INC. 703 aRO AVENU■ LON.MONT, COLORADO •0.01 77Y-77■. METRO •t. ::7°. JO. NO 1687-1 DAT.6-1-86 I OP 1 870123 APPLICATION 870123 PCD (?CANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) REZONING APPLICATION Case '/: Dept. of Planning Services App. Ch'd fly: Date Rec'S: 915 10th Street App. Fee: Receipt F: Greeley, Colorado 80631 Record. Fee: Receipt d: Phone: 356-4000, Ext. 4400 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. -Please print or type, except for necessary signature. I (we), the undersigned. hereby request hearings before the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County Board of Sounty Commissioners concerning the proposed rezoning of the following described unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attachment A (If additional space is required, attach_an additional sheet) Property Address (if available): PRESENT ZONE AA ricultural PROPOSED ZONE PUD TOTAL ACREAGE Approx -OVERLAY ZONES None 300 acres SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY WNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONING: :Name Home Telephone d: 927--4467 Address: 1796 E. S orris Creek Rd. Bus. Telephone-I: Carbondale. CO 81621 Name: Home Selephone 0: Address: Bus. _Telephone I: - Name: Home Telephone I: • Address: Bus.Telephone #: Applicant Dar -Authorized Agent (if different than above): Name: McCarty Engineering Consultants . Inc. Home Telephone 0: Address: 703 W. Third Ave. Bus. Telephone 0: 772/7755/ Longmont, CO 80501 449-4373 Owner(s) and/or lessees -of mineral rights on-0r under the subject-properties of record in the Weld County Assessor's Office: Name: Macy-Mershon Dil Co. Address: 1600 Broadway. Su. 2150. Denver CO 80202, • Name: Address: Name: Address: I hereby depose and state under the penalities of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the hest of my knowledge. COUNTY_OF -WELD STATE OF COLORADO ) '�{�d�(// S gnature Own• or Au rized Agent Subscribed and sworn to before me this /9 day of A , 19 . SEA • L 7 NOTARY PUBLI My Coanissionexpires: Y�'.// SKETCH PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Department of Planning Services, ?I5 Tenth Street, Room 342, Greeley, Colorado 806)1 Phone: 356-4000, Ext. +400 FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE. ONLY: CASE NO: APPLICATION FEE: ZONING DISTRICT: RECEIPT NO: DATE: APPLIC. CHECKED BY: TO BE COMPLETED BY -APPLICANT: (PRINT or TYRE ONLY except #or required signatures): I (ve) the undersigned hereby request she Department of Planning Services to -review -a sketch -plan for a proposed Planned Unit _Development of the following described unincorporat-ed area of -Weld County. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHMENT A (If additional epace is-required. attach an additional sheet). NAME OF PROPOSED-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Ray Shnrec P 11.1). EXISTING ZONING Aericul-t ural PROPOSED ZONING PUD TOTAL AREA (ACRES) A55 TAY 300 Arres NO, OF PROPOSED LOTS 424 LOT SIZE: AVERAGE- s Acres MINIMUM .25 Acres UTILITIES: WATER: NAME: Left Hand Water Supply Company SEWER: NAME: St. Vrain Sanitation District GAS: NAME: Public Service Company of Colorado PHONE: NAME: Mountain Bell DISTRICTS: SCHOOL: NAME: 57 . Vrain School District RF-1.1 FIRE: NAME: L-onemont Rural Fire -Protection District NAME OF APPLICANT CRS Investments The. , Kim Iollins, Vice Pres. ADDRESS 1333 W. 120th Ave. , Suite 308 PHONE 457-3775 Denver, Co 350234 NAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS PHONE NAME 9F-APPLICANT ADDRESS PHONE Signature: Applicant or -Authorized agent 87012_3 012.3 ATTACHMENT A 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. 242, Page 392. 870123 Planned Unit Development Plan AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE Application No. S-263 : 86 : 8 Subject Property Bay Shores 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 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. Macy-Mershon Oil Co . 1600 Broadway , Suite 2150 , Denver , CO. 80202 ii114 Z 7-/1914114141 / ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of October , 1986. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: n cu,'1mtssion Fxplres June 1089 N'otaryPublic. g 33 p _.+ �t (4ancl-n . Co. p(it). 870123 Planned Unit Development Change of Zone AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No. S-263: 86 :8 I Subject Property Bay Shores P.11 .1) . 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 Bounty Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date. The foregoing instrument was Ksclibed and swo(n,.to before me this 14th day August , 19J by. WITNESS my hand and -official seal. My Commission expires:4i,«a_ S rik- Notary Public y55 . , 4=,--1 870123 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 # Edmund C Dwnrak 445 Main St 67 120732000041 Longmont , CO ' 80501 Donald H. and 8055 W . 88th 62 120732000031 Genevie Hornor Arvad-a , CO 80002 Paul W. and c/o Raimon K . Newby 62 120733000003 Nellie G. Newhy 12260 Weld Cnty. Rd. 5 Trustees , Heirs of Longmont , CO 80501 Donald M . Lesher 3201 E . 2nd Ave . 62131304000004 Trustee for Wilson Suite 300 family trust Denver . CO 80206 TCK Farm Ltd. 1239 Third Ave . 621313040_00034 Longmont , CO 80501 Barbara J. Johnson 6170 W. 24th St . 621313_05000048 Greeley . CO 80634 Mayeda Farms 10702 Weld Cnty. Rd . 1 62131305000047 C',e orrge T and Sumiye Mayeda John Y. and Betty K. Mayeda 870123 • 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 for) .18442 Weld Cnty. Rd. 17 6213130601)0024 Lois Steverwald Johnstown , CO 80534 Union Reservoir P. O. Box 276 62111306000026 c/o Mrs . Francis LaSalle . CO 80645 Hill (Seery) • 870 2: P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 870123 BAY SHORES P.U .D. DEVELOPMENT PLAN NARRATIVE The Bay Shores project has been conceived as a residential Planned 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 R1 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 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. There are a minimum of 32.8422 acres planned for open space use. representing more than 10% of the total project land area, after the deduction of Rights-of-Way for County Roads 3-1/2 and 26, and the Great Western Railroad . These open space 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 a 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 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 which enhances the visual drama of this development. Extending from the high waterline, a 50-foot easement has been shown on Sketch Plan Amendment A. The use of County Road 26 as part of a spillway has been researched. County Road 26 on the subject parcel is not part of 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 Sitzman; and approved in 1976 by the State Engineer for the State of Colorado Department of Water Resources. (See Exhibit A) 870123 Water Service - Water services will be provided by Left Hand Water Supply Company . Although Left Hand has agreed to serve, details concerning tap fees and costs of lire 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, 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 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) 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) 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 Protection - 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 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. 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. 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 the formation of a Special Taxation District . A Law Enforcement Authority is empowered under the Colorado Revised Statutes, "County Powers and Functions", Chapter 30-11-401, under the Law Enforcement Act of 1961 . 870123 - 2 - 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 homeowners would be determined and reflected in the levy imposed by the authority . (See Exhibit F) Schools - Dorothy Hores, 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 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 cash-in-lieu, should be deterred 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 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 & 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 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 future well site. The applicant requests that the county consider requiring berming, landscaping, and low-profile facilities if a well is ever drilled in this location to minimize visual impact. 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 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) 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 homeowner'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 Burlington Northern line relocating out of several front range cities. 8.yl� 3 - 0123 The applicant is willing to commit to participate in the upgrading of the crossing to the level required by the Public Utilities Commission or other regulatory agencies governing this crossing. Additionally, the submittal indicates large open space areas adiacent 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 concerns expressed by Mr. Houston. He is, however, explicit in his desire to meet 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 Railroad, 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 position of the ditch company, which he conveyed to me as follows: 1 . They have serious concerns which they believe can be resolved. 2. They will not oppose the rezoning. 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 easement is provided, with concrete lining in the ditch. 4. They are concerned about resolving the liability exposure 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. The 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 negotiated and resolved with the ditch company prior to the submittal of a P.U.D. plan. 870123 - 4 - J.C.K. Farms Irrigation Ditch Laterals - 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 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 following 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. The most 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. 870123 - 5 - The advent of this new sanitation district is highly significant in that it is a clear indication that non-agricultural growth is not only L expected in this 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. Surrounding Land 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 compatible with existing and future land uses. Industrial and commercial development would be more appropriately located along Highway 119, which is a major 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 access highway . The Bay Shores project sits atop a knoll overlooking the 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 ideal for utilizing passive design strategies, while capitalizing on the breathtaking views. Contiguous to the Bay Shores property lies an 80-acre 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 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. Further recreational opportunites 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. 87€ 123 - 6 - 3. Improvements to County Roads 3-1/2, 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 subdivision improvements and collateral agreements with the county. The basis for such improvements will be determined - by analyzing traffic impacts coordinated with the appropriate engineering agencies. In a telephone conversation with Drew Sheltinga, Weld County Engineer, on September 30, 1986, some of the above 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 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 roadway in the future. The applicant is proposing an 80-foot right-of-way for 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 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 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 appropriate after rezoning approval . The applicant concurs with this recommendation. (See Exhibits J and K) 4. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Bay Shores Development - Aa 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 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 $125,000. In Parcels A, B, C, and D, there could be as many as 561 units, with an average market value of $90,000. There could be as many as 120 larger R-2 units in Parcel A, with an average market value of $80,000 and no more -than 226 units in Parcels B, C. and D would have an average market value of $60,000. The market value in 1986 dollars, at buildout of the project, is estimated to be $87. 100,000. Applying 870123 - 7 - the assessed value at 21% of market value results in $18,290,000. Current mill levies for the Bay Shore project, including the revenues generated on the above assessed value on the current mill levy, are as follows: Weld County 19.648 $ 35,936 St. Vrain School RE1J 61 .890 113, 196 Water 1 .000 1,829 Water District 0.500 914 Longmont Fire 6.081 11,122 Protection District Library 1 .500 2,743 St. Vrain Sanitation 15.000 27,435 District TOTAL: 105.619 $193,175 This information has been generated through the assistance of Stan Jantz, a residential appraiser in the Weld County Assessors office. It should be noted that 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 the single-family residential PUD will be by way of two main roads: County Road 3-1/2 and County Road 26. From these main access roads, traffic will disperse in the PUD 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, approximately 2-1/2 miles west of Interstate 25, and approximately 1-1/2 miles east of the Boulder/Weld County line. 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 County Road 26 away from the shoreline. This realignment is desirable from the standpoint of increasing marketability of lakefront properties, as well as minimizing public impact on the more sensitive wetland ecology found along the Union Reservoir shoreline. The traffic concerns have been reviewed by the State 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 estimated traffic volume of 10 trips per day generated from the PUD. B 870123 The 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 State Highway 119. Nonetheless, we argue that the estimated traffic volume based on 10 trips per day is excessive due to two factors: a. The majority of households having both adults working outside of the home and b . the rural location of this PUD. These factors should be evaluated. 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 the traffic generated from this development. We feel the 5k 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 limited in nature, anticipated traffic will follow the more direct route along County Road 3-1/2 in the majority of cases. Although the developers concur with the recommendations of the State Highway Department to improve the 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 reimbursement over a number of years. As County Road 3-1/2 and Highway 119 are improved to accomodate traffic generated from this development, a successful handling of traffic will occur. 6. Suitability of Soils for Development 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 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 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 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. $70123 - 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 compacted inorganic soils. Organic topsoils are scraped and gathered into protected piles for use in final grading, planting and landscaping. The soil conditions 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) 7. Relocation of the Oligarchy Ditch - Ditch realignment, relocation, and/or relining is a common practice in the 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, 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 developer and ditch company communicate their needs and negotiate a mutually acceptable solution to reach a formalized agreement. 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 existing unlined ditch. Access to headgates and required maintenance easements will be provided. We do not foresee any insurmountable conflicts with the Oligarchy Ditch Company and expect that discussions and negotiations will lead to a mutually agreeable conclusion. 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 it finds that the applicant has not met one of the following seven conditions: 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 time 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 - 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 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 improve the irrigation system serving adjacent farms. Farming, per se, 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 area . The developer will have to control construction activities and debris. The methodology for doing this will be part of the PUD plan submittal . Surface 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 designed with final drainage plans formulated in the PUD Plan phase of the process. 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. 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 3-1/2 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. 870123 - 11 - Storm Water Management Drainage Plan - The storm water management plan for Bay Shores Subdivision will consist of a -system of detention ponds sized in accordance 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 central portion of the property in a southwesterly direction. Flows north of this ridgeline travel towards Union Reservoir. Runoff from the area south and easterly of this ridge line flow predominately south and southeasterly. The southerly drainage basin is interrupted by the railroad tracks and the lower Oligarchy Ditch. Current irrigation practices take 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 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 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 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 may have entered the Union Reservoir. While it is true that the Union Reservoir Company should be concerned about water pollution, in actuality, a developed residential subdivision will be less likely, at buildout, to provide pollution than is present in the historic condition. 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 these silts are transported into the Union Reservoir during periods of intense irrigation or heavy storms. At buildout, the residential subdivision will have lawns, grasses, and paved streets over the majority of the area, thus reducing the erosion potential of the soils. In the 870123 - 12 - same manner, salt and fertilizer pollution will also be reduced. If, in fact, any storm releases are allowed directly into Union Reservoir, they will also be routed through detention ponds and release facilities to insure releases at the historic rate. Another alternative which can be explored with the Union Reservoir Company is the direct release of some storm flows, which can be demonstrated to be pollutant free, and the detention and historic release of other flows in a westerly direction along the south side of County Road 26. Further negotiations with the Union Reservoir Company will clarify which of these alternatives will be used for the P.U.D. Plan Submittal 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 Generation Manual" . 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 two factors: A. The majority of households having both adults working outside the home and B. the rural location of this P.U.D. 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 collector streets. The percentage of break-out of vehicles on Weld County Roads 3-1/2 and 26 are generated by field observation of existing traffic, including passenger vehicles and farm vehicles. This information is looked at from the standpoint of trip generators and destinations. These destinations would include 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. 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 involve many stops and several miles of dirt roads. Additionally, the significant employment and shopping centers within the City of Longmont are located along Main Street, 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 anticipated that many homeowers will be commuters to employment centers in north Denver. They will also travel south along County Road 3-1/2 and westery along Highway 119. - 13 - 870123 We 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 done in conjunction with the P.U .D. Plan . Additional Information Regarding Policies of Weld County - 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 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 for development of the Bay Shores residential project is the establishment of the St. Vrain Sanitation District. 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 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 response counter to present day realities. The Sanitation District was not approved to preserve agricultural land in the area. The St. Vrain Sanitation 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 , commercial , or residential nature. Industrial and commercial development are appropriate on or near major transportation thoroughfares where utility services are available. A residential development is more properly located away from, but accessible to, major transportation corridors where not only water, sewer, 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 . - 14 - 870123 SOILS ANALYSIS 870123 :SOILS ANALYSIS Located in Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, the Bay Shores PUD consists primarily 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: 75% Heldt Silty Clay, 1-3% slopes 20% Heldt Silty Clay, 3-5% slopes 4% Nunn Clay Loam, 1-3% slopes 1% Renohill Clay Loam, 0-3% slopes The 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 The preliminary review of soils maps and descriptions and county maps does not indicate the presence of underlying mineral deposits in the subject area. • tJ �' 1 �"V 6 A ': b -'•. }yTY yea,K .. i ,•58 '� -a w 4 85 • p�}'6 Ni1fd, A.. Y. .. `l w n r,w. `. 82 ae �.4 - r. 42; .�' , ,, * ..,, ,,,.... ,, , 27 !' ' '� r.: a 41 . di kk , 1 { t �x82 • ., 4'� i., ...... 4 ° 29 . f -4z° " 28 4 u • �L Pr l till t „r„,.., 1 ..` i 82 .k /4, y•. : <)14 - ki � � '.. . BORN r •�µ 82 kr, • y-r + R.S VOIR r •:',EL'a. "rte 82 ;;,1 Ia v ' i• • 1.,,,..•' � N ,„, .8.:ate, }, JiA i 4 rw w ° 32'" at I ; '',4...-''' r :1.' • ' ' . Ali....;t--.t.,4-i. et.;;;, -— NI ill ttiett t 7814kr4\ ,.. ' v w. y4 1 18*.'"'.:2 82t .av f, A ,,i.:-.-�l1•'.�.x- �� parr �.. . . - ry 82 ' • Y !r S e •, 11 .5"..‘,9a, {(.ir9^.' lea IY+Y4.a'1 ^ e 1i y.c,ros79 _. 41 ,r J s �r 6:0,040,..„ �•{ 7"�. 44113. A " .x , }ryt;: GREAT WCl16RR Ad..if `Y CJ �►r.`2F'-" 16y. 4 147 4/4"v , .54p1,.:0 . . � u�.J 51 ra ' iiiiisiiiieb o !Y f j�W t. •, r, < ' Ana. *.d H ••,.). '• r- t 4.: 4 �, tit 'i9 a ,P1 '.' t'1 k Fr 82 41.-t- 836�f:"W 4 L � - r .' d. 1. 83 ` + y. I 4;::w `CV4` 4 F. I " U :.:52 a i o/f'1 If ' , m • L•' e. •m ti8 .a NtiS //\_\ _ :1 All • ..1: _"'` • 40r L'-'41C "ii. A..1 S i .. .141 '• §, 'y, + 3 t} `.y.4t.^' 41 '•4 871i�` k P. 27—Heldt silty clay, 1 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. Buffalograss 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 grama, sideoats grama, 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 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 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. Capa- bility subclass Its irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Clayey Plains range site. 870123 28—Heldt-silty clay, -3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a deep, moderately well-drained soil on plains at-elevations of O950 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 orsilt 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 oP 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 fallowed in alternate years to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and mimimum tillage are needed to control soil blowing and water ero- sion. Terracing-also may be needed to control water ero- sion. -The potential native vegetation is dominated by western wheatgrass and blue grama. 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 grama, sideoats grama, 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 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. 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 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 Hie irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Clayey 87 0123 Plains range site. I2—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 halfand 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 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 grama, sideoats grama, buffalograss, pu- small areas of soils thatare subject to occasional flooding. -bescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable Some leveled areas are also included. foraeeding. The grass selected should meet the seasonal Typically 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. most 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 capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and or more. Surface runoff is 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 com- hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, monly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum. beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, 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 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- All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- ment, 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- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, cial fertilizer are needed for topyields. managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. 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 -fallowed in alternate years. ment. It has moderate to high shrink swell, low strength, Winter wheat is the principal crop. The predicted average and moderately slow permeability. These features create yield is 33 bushels per acre. If the crop is winterkilled, 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, striperopping, and minimum til- and foundations. Some areas of this soil are adjacent to 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 is fair for such recreational development as camp and western wheatgrass and blue grama. Buffalograss is also picnic areas and playgrounds. Capability subclass Ile ir- present. Potential production ranges from 1,000 pounds rigated, IIIc nonirrigated; Clayey Plains range site. 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. 870123 56—Renohill clay loam, 0 to 3_percent slopes. This is years. As range condition deteriorates, a blue grama-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. 1t formed in residuum from vade the site as range condition becomes poorer. 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 about 9 inches thick. The subsoil is grayish brown and if the range is in poor condition. Western wheatgrass, pale brown clay loam about 14 inches _.hick. The sub- -blue grama, ideoats grama, buffalograss, _pubescent stratum is pale brown clay loam. Shale is at a depth of wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable for seed- about-32 inches. ing. The grass selected should meet the seasonal require- 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. ful. This soil is suited to most of the irrigated crops corn- 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. to 4 years 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 from contour ditches issuitable 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. cially in areas of intensive agriculture. Rangeland wildlife, 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 farming, striperopping, and minimum til- strength, and the moderate to high shrink swell. These lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. features severe present The potential native vegetation is dominated by problems in dwelling and road construction and in use of septic tank absorption western wheatgrass and blue grama. Buffalograss is also fields and sewage lagoons. Capability subclass Ills irrigated, present. Potential production ranges from 1,000 pounds per acre in favorable years to 600 pounds in unfavorable lire nonirrigated; Clayey Plains range site. 870123 HAZARD AREAS 870123 HAZARD AREAS There are no apparent hazards -or restriction-s that would conflict with this sketch plan application. The site is well ebcvs the St . Vrain Creak floodplain hazard area . There are no -geological hazards -evident on maps provided by Weld County . The airport overlay dirt-riat does not affect this site. Additional information -will -be collected and reviewed prior to finalization of these plans. The subsequent research will -reveal any hazards not evident at this time. 870123 EXHIBITS 870123 A ELVA C. LNG CONSUC AAN S, N October 1, 1986 Mr. Jim Vetting, President Union Reservoir Company P.O. Box 449 Greeley, CO _8-0632 Dear Mr. Vetting: Re: Weld County Rezoning Z-430:56:5, Bey Shores P.U.D. We are in receipt of letters dated -September 10, 198_8 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 . 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 access by Bay 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. The applicant does not feel any obligation, however, to maintain the roadway within the 50-foot easement discussed above. The easement will to maintained in the form of a 75-font minimum 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 reser-voir. I have obtained copies of the 1903 anti 1909 maps of the Union Reservoir that are on file at the State Engineer's office. Although the 1909 map -was approved by the Mate Engineer's office, t-he 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 RReservoir, at present, has nomads slam" . It appears that, by admission of the reservoir company itself, prior to the proposed enlargement of 1909, the Union RReservoir had no dam. 703 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT,LD. 8O5O1 87-Olza 772=7755/449-4373 Mr. Jim Vetting, Pres. Page 2 October 1, 1986 In the fall of 1976, the State Engineer's office approved plans prepared by Bruns, Inc. , Consulting Engineers, entitled "Plans for Construction of Improvements to Union Reservoir Dam" . Although this title indicates that there is a dam, the -drawings themselves only -refer to some dice construction that was to occur in the southwesterly quadrant of the reservoir which allowed the reservoir to receive and discharge the flows from a P.M.P. storm. These plans also define an emergency spillway -composed of a concrete barrier and requiring reshaping of Weld County Road 26 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 Station 0+50 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 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 n dam within t-he property owned by -Robert and Susan Pietrzak and sunder contract by C.R.S. Investments, Inc. 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 - tall -might be constructed of sheet piling, concrete, timber, or other suitable material . The construction of this type of barrier would substantially reduce the need for the r-eservoir company to make frequent repairs to the shoreline in this location. The construction of this type of wall, in addition to the existing SO loot easement, and a minimum 75-font setback for any structure, as proposes- in our resubmittal, should slit-hate the major concerns expressed in your two letters. If, however, we have overlooked some information that contradicts 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 Mr. Jim Vetting, Pres. Page 3 October 1, 1986 Additionally, 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 project." You will be receiving a referral from the County regarding our new submittal sometime late next week. We ask that you send our office a copy of the response which you submit to the County. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely yours, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. J.hn A. McCarty, P. . JAM/am Encl . cc: File -#16B7-1 C.R.S. Investment, Inc. Harvey Curtis, Atty. 87012"' B SE.47A CONSULTANTS,I INC. LNG October 3, 1986 Mr. Jim Dickey, Manager Left Hand Water Supply Co. P.O. Box 210 Niwot, CO 80544 Dear Jim: 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 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 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 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 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, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc. ohn A. McCarty, P. . JAN tam lJ cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S-. Investments, Inc. 870123 7O3 THIRD-AVENUE • LONGMONT,CO. 8O5O1 772-7755/C49-C373 ' rnic V NZ CONSULTANTS, NCR'NG October 3, 1986 Dick Lyons, Atty. c/o Grant, Bernard & Lyons St. Vrain Sanitation District 515 Kimbark Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Dick: Re: Weld County Zoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. Due to changing circumstance-s 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 Wel4 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 designations which fix maximum densities. Whether or not the maximum density will ever be obtained, the maximum number control-s. 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, as required -by the policies of the district, and as defined through a Suture 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, McCarty -Engineering Consultants, Inc. Jahn A. McCarty, P.E. JAi1/sm cc: Fil-e 111687.1 C.R.S. _Investments, Inc. 703 THIRD AVENUE+ LONGMONT, CO. 80501 670123 772-7755/449-4373 ID VCON U TANTS, NC. LNG October 3. 1986 Bill Meier Union REA P.O. Box 929 Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Bill : Re: Weld County Zoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores F.U.D. Due to changing circumstances and conditions, the Bay Shores P.IT.D. rezoning case has been continued to November 4, 1986. You will 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 the applicant. 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 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 provide a copy of the response which you mail to the county to this office. Thank you for your cooperation on this applicaticn. Sincerely yours, McC rty Engineering onsultants, Inc. ina � J hn A. McCarty, .E. JAM/sm cc: File #1687. 1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. 870123 703 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT, CD, 00501 772-7755/449-4373 E CONSULTANTSI INC. 'NG October 3, 1986 Captain Emerson Longmont Fire Protection District 9119 County Line Road Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Captain Emerson: Re: 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 will 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 the applicant . 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 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 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, McCarty Engineering Consultants, Inc . J hn A. McCarty, P JAM/am cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. 870123 703 THIRD-AVENUE • LONGIGIONT,CO. 00501 772-7755/449-4373 F M�CARTY ENGINEERING N L CONSULTANTS, INC. October 3. 1986 Undersheriff Rick Dill Weld County Sheriff's Department P.O. Box 759 Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Undersheriff Dill : Re: 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 will 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 the applicant. 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 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 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, McC rty Engineering Consultants, Inc. J hn A. McCarty. P.E JAM/sm cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, -Inc. 703 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT,CO. 80501 870123 772-7755/449-4373 U CON ULTANTSI NC. October 3, 1986 Ms. Dorothy Horea, 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 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 being located east, west, and north of the Bay Shores development, as opposed to closer to State Highway 119 where we anti-cipate more commercial and industrial development might occur. 703 TMIRO AVENUE2 .448 4973 T,CO. 90501 870:1123 Ms. Dorothy Mores Page 2 October 3, 1986 If you have any concerns regarding our calculation of 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. in U, / l� t ohn A. McCarty, P E JAM/s■ cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. 870123 H NACONSULTANTS, NC. ING October 3, 1986 Scott McKinley Macy & Mershon Oil, Inc. 1600 Broadway • Suite 2150 Denver, CO 80202-4070 Dear Scott: Re: Weld County Rezoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. 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 . Following our meeting in your office, we modified our submittal to address your concerns 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 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 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 with Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company regarding the requirements for relocating their pipeline. A copy of the letter which we have sent to them is enclosed for your information. 870123 703 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT,CO. 80501 772-7755/449-4373 • Scott McKinley Page 2 October 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, Mc ty Engineering Cnaultants, Inc. ohn A. McCarty, P.E. JAM/am cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company 870123 I MCCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. October 1, 1986 Robert J. Claire Right-of-Way Supervisor Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. P. O. Box 127 Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Mr. Claire: RE: Weld County Rezoning Case Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores Planned Unit Development We are in receipt of your letter dated September 10, 1986. 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. It is the intent of the applicant to eventually reroute the existing gas pipeline from the well head to Weld County Road 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 gas line a minimum of 10 feet behind the flow line of the concrete curb proposed for the streets, and a minimum 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 between that drill site and County Road 3-1/2. In both instances, it is anticipated that the future easement will follow the street pattern which will be developed for this P. U. D. 87012 703 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT, CO. 00501 772-7755/449-4373 Robert J. Claire Page October 1, 1986 You will be receiving a new referral from Weld County regarding this project in the next week to 10 days. Please cony any 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, McCARTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Clohn A. McCarty, P. .it- JAM/lm cc: File CRS Investments Weld County Planning Keith Schuett 870123 CONSULTANTSI INC.RING October 3. 1986 Mr. Ed Dworak A. V. Dworak Insurance 445 Main St. Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Ed: Re: Weld County Rezoning, Case No. Z-430:86:5, Bay Shores P.U.D. Following 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 contact me. Sincerely yours, McCarty Engineering- Consultants, Inc. J hn A. McCarty, P. E. JAM/am cc: File #1687.1 C.R.S. Investments, Inc. 703 THIRD AVENUE • LONGMONT,CO. 80501 870123 0123 772-7755/449-4373 K IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ACCORDING POLICY REGARDING COLLATERAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , by and between the County of Weld, State of Colorado, acting through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter called "County", and CRS Investments. Inc. , hereinafter called "Applicant". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Applicant is the owner of or has a controlling interest in the 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.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. WHEREAS, a final subdivision plat of said property, to be known as Bay Shores P.U.D. has been submitted to the County for approval; and WHEREAS, Section 11-1 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations provides that no final plat shall be approved by the County until the Applicant has submitted a Subdivision Improvement Agreement guaranteeing the construction of the public improvements shown on plans, plats and supporting documents of the subdivision, which improvements, along with a time schedule for completion, are listed in Exhibits "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 promise, covenant and agree as follows: 1.0 Engineering Services: Applicant shall furnish, 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 hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 870123 1.1 The required engineering services shall be performed by a -Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor registered in the State of Colorado, and shall conform to the standards and criteria established by the County for public improvements. 1.2 The required engineering services shall consist of, but not be limited to, surveys, designs, plans and profiles, estimates, • construction supervision, and the submission of necessary documents to the County. 1.3 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 the subdivision by the County, Applicant shall furnish one set of reproducible "as-built" drawings and a final statement of construction cost to the County. I • 2.0 Rights-of-Way and Easements: Before commencing the construction of any improvements herein agreed upon, Applicant shall acquire, at its own expense, good and sufficient rights-of-way and easements on all lands and facilities traversed by the proposed improvements. All such rights-of-way and easements used for the construction of roads to be accepted by the County shall be conveyed to the County and the documents of conveyance shall be furnished to the County for recording. 3.0 Construction: Applicant shall furnish and install, at its own expense. the subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, according to the construction schedule set out in Exhibit "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 such public improvements. Whenever a subdivision is proposed within three miles of an incorporated community located in Weld County or located in any adjacent county, the Applicant shall be 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 standards of the County shall be adhered to. If both the 8 ![ 012(Jryg� /� -2- 3 _incorporated community and the County have requirements and standards, those requirements and standards that are more restrictive shall apply. • 3.2 Applicant shall employ, at its own expense, a qualified testing _company previously approved by the County to perform all testing of materials or construction that is required by the County; and shall . furnish copies of test results to the County. 3.3 At all times during said construction, the County shall have the right to test and inspect or to require testing and inspection of material and work at Applicant's expense. Any material or work not conforming to the approved plans and specifications shall be removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the County at Applicant's expense. 3.4 The Applicant shall furnish proof that proper arrangements have been made for the installation of sanitary sewer or septic systems, water, gas, electric and telephone services. 3.5 Said subdivision improvements shall be completed, according to the terms of this Agreement, within the construction schedule appearing in Exhibit "B". The Board of County Commissioners, at its option, may grant an extension of the time of completion shown on Exhibit "B" upon application by the Applicant subject to the terms of 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 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 reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred by County in defending such suit, action or claim whether the liability, loss or damage is caused 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 of their employment. All contractors and other employees engaged in construction of the improvements shall maintain adequate workman's compensation insurance and -3- 870123 public liability insurance coverage, and shall operate in strict accordance with the laws and regulations of the State of Colorado 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 road . system and will be maintained and repaired by the County. 5.1 If desired by the County, portions of street improvements may be placed in service when completed according to the schedule shown 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 on lots for which street improvements detailed herein have been started but not completed as shown on Exhibit "B", and may continue to issue building permits so long as 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 been faithfully kept by Applicant. 5.3 Upon completion of the construction of streets within a subdivision and the filing of a Statement of Substantial Compliance, the applicant(s) may request in writing that the County Engineer inspect ita 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 streets, curbs and gutters, and 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 applicant(s) of any deficiencies. The County Engineer shall re—inspect the streets after notification from the applicant(s) that any deficiencies have been corrected. If the County Engineer finds that the streets are constructed according to County standards, he shall recommend acceptance of streets for full maintenance. Upon a receipt of a positive unqualified recommendation from the County Engineer for acceptance of streets within the development, the Board of County Commissioners shall accept said streets as public facilities and County property, and shall be responsible for the full maintenance of said streets including repair. 870123 -4- 6.0 General Requirements for Collateral: 6.1 The value of all collateral submitted to Weld County must be equivalent to 100% of the value of the improvements as shown in this Agreement. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall indicate which of the five types of collateral he prefers to be utilized to secure the improvements subject to final approval by the . Board of County Commissioners 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 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 to comply with all current County standards, policies and regulations. The improvements shall be completed within one year after the Final Plat approval (not one year after acceptable collateral is submitted) unless the • applicant(s) requests that this Agreement be renewed at least thirty (30) days prior to its expiration and further provides that cost estimates for the remaining improvements are updated and collateral is provided in the amount of 100% of the value of the improvements remaining to be completed. If improvements are not completed and the agreement not renewed within these time frames, the County, at its discretion, may make demand on all or a portion of the collateral and take steps to see that the improvements are made. 6.2 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 improvements in each portion of said Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, or Change of Zone as he proposes to develop them; the County will place restrictions on those portions of the Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, or Change of Zone, which are not covered by collateral which will prohibit the conveyance of the property or the issuance of building permits on said portions until collateral is provided for those portions or until improvements are in place and approved pursuant to the requirements for a Request for Release of Collateral. 87Oq 3 _5_ C7 E AJ JL�e1 6.3 Applicant intends to develop in 1 phase(s) in accordance with Exhibits "A" and "B". 7.0 Improvements Guarantee: The five types ofcollateral listed below are acceptable to Weld County subject to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 7.1 An irrevocable Letter 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: — The Letter of Credit shall be in an amount equivalent of 100% of the total value of the improvements as set forth in Section 6.0 and exhibits "A" and "B". — The Letter of Credit shall provide for payment upon demand to 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 Letter of Credit shall be equal to a minimum of 100% 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 item exceed the cost estimate 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 15% of the total Letter of Credit amount cannot be drawn upon and will remain available to Weld County until released by Weld County. — The Letter of Credit shall specify that the date of proposed expiration of the Letter of Credit shall be-either the date of release by Weld County of the final 15%, or one year from the date of Final Plat approval, whichever occurs first. Said letter shall stipulate that, in any event, the Letter of Credit shall remain in full force and effect until after the Board has received sixty (60) 670123 days written notice from the issuer of the Letter of Credit of the pending expiration. Said notice shall be sent by certified mail to the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. 7.2 Trust Deed upon all or some of the proposed development or other property acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners provided that the following are submitted: — In the event property within the proposed development is used as collateral, an appraisal is required of the property in the proposed development by a disinterested M.A.I. member of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers indicating that the value of the property encumbered in its current degree of development is sufficient to cover 100% of the cost of the improvements as set forth in the Improvements Agreement plus all costs of sale of the property. — 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 M.A.I. member of the Institute of Real Estate Appraisers indicating that the value of the property encumbered in its current state of development is sufficient to cover 100% of the cost of the improvements as set forth in the Improvements Agreement plus all costs of sale of the property. — A title insurance policy insuring that the Trust Deed creates a valid encumbrance which is senior to all other liens and encumbrances. — A building permit hold shall be placed on the encumbered property. 7.3 Escrow Agreement that provides at least the following: — The cash in escrow is at least equal to 100% 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 and will not release any portion of such funds without prior approval of the Board. — The escrow agent will be a Federal or State licensed bank or financial institution. 870 123 - If the County of Weld 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 business in the State of Colorado in an amount equivalent to 100% of the value of the improvements as specified in the Improvements Agreement. 7.5 A cash deposit made with the County equivalent to 100% of the value of the improvements. 8.0 Request for Release of Collateral:- Prior to release of collateral for the entire project or for a portion of the project by Weld County, the Applicant must present a Statement of Substantial Compliance from an Engineer registered in Colorado that the project or a portion of the project has been completed in substantial compliance with approved plans and specifications documenting the following: 8.1 The Engineer or his representative has made regular on—site inspections -during the course of construction and the construction plans utilized are the same as those approved by Weld County. 8.2 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 "as built" is in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications as approved or that any material deviations have received prior approval from the County Engineer. 8.4 The Statements of Substantial Compliance must be accompanied, if appropriate, by a letter of acceptance of maintenance 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 are in place in accordance with the approved plans. The letter shall indicate if the fire hydrants are operational and state the results of fire flow tests. 8.6 The requirements in 8.0 thru 8.5 shall be noted on the final construction plans. 870123 8.7 Following the submittal of the Statement of Substantial Compliance and' recommendation of acceptance of the streets for partial maintenance by the County, the applicant(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 meeting of the Board. • 8.8 The request for release of collateral shall be accompanied by "Warranty Collateral" in the amount of 10% of the value of the improvements as shown in this Agreement excluding improvements fully accepted for maintenance by the responsible governmental entity, special 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 5.3 herein. 9.0 Public Sites and Open Spaces: When the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to a rezoning, subdivision or planned unit development, requires the dedication, development and/or reservation of areas or sites other than subdivision streets and utility easements of a character, extent and location suitable for public use for parks, greenbelts or schools, said actions shall be secured in accordance with one of the following alternatives, or as specified in the PUD plan, if any: 9.1 The required acreage as may be determined according to Section 8-15-B 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 8-15-B 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 require a payment to the County in an amount equal to the market value at the time of final plat submission of the required acreage as determined according to Section 8-15-B. Such value shall be determined by a competent land -9- 670123 appraiser chosen jointly by the Board and the Applicant. The cash -collected 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 . running 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. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board BY: Deputy County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Attorney APPLICANT: CRS Investments, Inc. BY: (title) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 My commission expires: Notary Public —10- 870123 � s'('11` J'<.!L(l ion *CA if �p C0�0 �-��,, )(1 0003 RICHARD D. LAMM ♦ ,�� V � 41E-87-JOHN GOVERNOR JOHN W'F�L'., * "7 S* DIRECTOR 1876 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER.COLORADO 80203 PHONE(303)866-2611 September 25, 1986 Mr. Keith A. Schwett 29 1986 I] Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Pleld Co. Planning Commission 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. 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 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. 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. ua0123 GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST...K EY TO THE FUTURE 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, Af*V " Y L. R. Ladwig, Chief Minerals Fuels Section • bcr:LRL-87-039 3215/11 870123 Hello