The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About940787.tiffRESOLUTION RE: GRANT CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) TO HID (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR JACK. OLBERDING, BILL BEDELL, JOHN C. WIDERQUIST, AND TERRY A. HENZE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 24th day of August, 1994, at 10:0O a.m. for the purpose of hearing the application of Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C. Widerquist, and Terry A. Henze, 36O5 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, Colorado 80303, requesting a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) District for a parcel of land located on the following described real estate, to -wit: The Ncii SWI of Section 29, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, the applicant was represented by Gary Tuttle, Tuttle Applegate, Inc. , and WHEREAS, Section 28.8 :o f the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of such a Change of Zone, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all the testimony and statements of those present., studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be approved for the following reasons 1. The applicant has complied with all the application requ rem4rtts listed in Section 8.5 et seq., of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The request is in conformance with Section 28.8 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows; a. The request is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PUD District is not located within an urban growth boundary area of the County and., therefore, is reviewed according with Agricultural and Planned Unit Development goals and policies. The parcel has been reclaimed to opens space including a lake from a previous sand and gravel mining land use. The existing soils are not well suited for crop production and are not classified as prime agricultural land. The land area not covered by water is approximately 15 acres in size; this land area is configured so that it would not be feasible for agricultural production, The application materials state that the proposed use cannot reasonably be 940787 PL0966 PLacc-R(ry ti 6/1: a) 7274. 6 `t, &, rt CHANGE OF ZONE TO PUD - OLBERDING, BEDELL, WIDERQUIT, AND HENZE PAGE 2 located on a parcel with a lake amenity such as this in a municipality, urban growth area or the 1-25 mixed —use development corridor. The PUD District provides an alternative means for development by allowing a departure from the standard land use regulations so long as the development is planned as a unified and integrated, whole. The Comprehensive Plan encourages creative approaches to land development which will result in environments of distinctive identity and character. b. The uses allowed in the proposed PUD District will conform with the performance standards contained in Section 35.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. c. The rural residential uses permitted by the PUD District will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing agricultural zoning. The PUD District Conditions of Approval enhance compatibility with existing uses on adjacent properties and within the PUD District. Preliminary provisions addressing issues such as setback, landscape screening, wildlife enhancement, types of animals and number of pets allowed within the PUD District are included in this Change of Zone request. Left Hand Water District will provide domestic water service to the PUB District. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems will be used to serve the residential lots of the P D District Weld County Roads 16.5 and 3.25 will provide access to the PUD District. f. The PUD District site is located in the Flood Hazard Overlay District Area. Structures located in the Overlay District shall comply with the regulations of this district. No other overlay districts affect the subject site. Extraction of commercial mineral deposits on the property has occurred prior to this Change of Zone request. Soil conditions present moderate limitations to the construction of structures on the site. Soil testing has been conducted; the result of these tests demonstrates that soil limitations may be overcome. The PUD District conditions of approval insure that any necessary measures required to mitigate the soil limitations will be taken prior to construction of residences on the site. 940787 CHANGE OF ZONE TO PUD - OLBERDING, BEDELL, WIDERQUIST, AND HENZE PAGE NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C ' ►iderquist, and Terry A. Henze requesting a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to POD (Planned Unit Development) District on the above referenced parcel of land be, and hereby is, granted subject to the following conditions 1. The .PUB District allows rural residential and recreational land uses and shall comply with the POD Zone District requirements as set forth in Section 28 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. All streets within the PL District are private and shall be built to County standards. The private road system proposed as part of a PUD District is subject to review by the Public Works and Planning Departments and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. All streets within the PUD District shall be maintained by the h omeowners association, lot owners, or developer. L eft Hand Water District shall provide the. domestic water supply to the residential uses. 4. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (I . S . D. S) shall provide adequate sewer to the residential uses. Each Individual Sewage Disposal System shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. In accordance with Weld County I.S.D.S . D. regulations, no more than one I ., S . D. S . shall be designed as an evapotranspiration system. Weld County Road 16.5 shall provide ingress and egress to Lot 1. Ingress and egress to Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be provided by an internal street from one access on Weld County Road 3.25. There will be no direct access from the recreational outlot- to the County road system. No other accesses to the property shall be allowed. 6. The PUD District shall consist of six lots, which includes five for residential use and: one outlot for private recreational use and open space. 7. Each residence within the POD District trict shall be constructed with. a minimum ground floor area of 15O0 square feet. Each residence within the PUD District shall be set back no less than 1O0 feet from the property lines which lie adjacent to Weld County Roads 16.5 and 3.25. 9. Each structure within the PUD District shall have a maximum building h eight of 30 feet. 94O787 CHANGE OF ZONE TO PUD - OLBERDING, BED LL, WIDERQUIST, , AND HENZE PAGE 4 10. Maximum lot coverage shall be no more than 10%. The remainder of each lot shall be open space. 11. There shall be no outside storage of equipment, boats, recreational vehicles or automobiles. 12. The outlot designated for open space and private recreational use shall be maintained by the homeowners association or the developer Y 13. No large animals such, as horses, cattle, or pigs shall be allowed within the PUD. 14. A maximum of two dogs and. two cats shall be. allowed per residential lot within the POD District 15. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 12 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. 16. Prior to the issuance of each building permit; the Architectural Control Committee shall provide a letter to the Department of Planning Services indicating its approval of the proposed structure. 17. A qualified soils and foundation engineer shall both design and supervise the construction of all building foundations. The engineer's report shall be submitted with all building permit applications. 18. The PUD Final Plat shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Geological Survey, Mountain View Fire Protection District, and Weld County Public Works Department. 19. The north and east boundaries of the PUD District shall be adequately landscaped to screen the development from adjacent agricultural uses. 20. Residential construction shall incorporate designs to prevent radon accumulation. 21. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat: The access road from the cul-de-sac to Lot 2 shall be delineated as 20 feet in width, as recommended by the Weld County Public Works Department. The location of a potential oil and gas well shall be shown on the plat. 940787 CHANGE OF ZONE TO PUD - OLBERDING, BEDELL, WIDERQUIST, AND HENZE PAGE 5 22. The Change of Zone plat shall be submitted within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Corjuuuiss loners . 23. "T'h+ PUD Final Plat submittal shall includei. a. A copy of the multi -year planting plan for enhancement of wildlife habitat on the site, approved by the Longmont Soil Conservation District and State Division of Wildlife. b. A building envelope location for proposed structures on each lot, to be shown on the piat. a t . c. The dedication of land along Boulder Creek in a public trail system. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and. seconded, adopted by. the following vote on the 24th day of August, A.D., 1994.. a Weld County Clerk to th Board BY: Deputy Clerk to the APPROV. AS TO FORM: k. ouri t y o r_ n V 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Constance L. Harbert a rh a ra Eirkme_ 940787 HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 94-57 CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) TO POD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) - JACK OLBERDING, BILL BEDELL, JOHN C. WIDERQUIST, AND TERRY A. HENZE A public hearing was conducted on August 24. 1994, at 10:00 a.m.. with the following present: Also preset: Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner It H. Webster,, Chairman Dale K. Hall, Pro-Tem George E. Baxter Con lance L.'Harbert Barbara J. K rkmeyer Acting Clerk to the. Board, Shelly Miller Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison Planning Department representative, Gloria Dunn The following lowing business was transacted; I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 18, 1994, and duly published July 21, 1994, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C. widerquist, and Terry A4 Henze for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUB (Planned Unit Development) . Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a. matter of record. Gloria Dunn, Planning Department representative, entered the unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written She noted concerns including density since 26 acres of the 40 acre site are in a lake; therefore, the five homes wouldbe built on 14 acres. Other concerns are the wildlife habitat and the floodplain. Ms. Dunn stated staff recotuunended approval and feels the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the soils are not prime for agriculture. She noted the Planning Commission also recommended denial for a Change of Zone of this property about one year ago, and it was not heard by the Board. Gary Tuttle of Tuttle Applegate, represented the applicants and -stated there are four homeowners who would like to construct four homesites on the property. He said the property has been mined and confirmed a 25 -acre lake exists. Mr. Tuttle further explained the proposal and stated four of the homes are not in the floodplain and will require corral septic systems. The one home in the floodplain will be removed from the floodplain by fill and the septic system will be engineered. Mr. Tuttle reiterated the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan andthe soils are not suitable for farming. He explained there would be a 100 -foot setback and landscaping, /screening along the roads. Mr. Tuttle stated the development will have a home owners' association and very controlling covenants, and it will be unique since it qualifies as a PUB. He noted that only 20 percentof each lot will be used for buildings therefore, less than 5 percent of the entire site will be covered. Mr. Tuttle submitted photographs of the. existing condition of the subject property, Exhibit d, and photographs of two nearby sites similar to which the applicants are proposing, Exhibit K He referred to the wildlife enhancement plan and stated it is economically viable to enhance the pit. Mr. Tuttle contended the development will be rural, low -density residential, and there is no other meaningful use for the land, Jack 0lberding, applicant, reiterated there would be four families owning the homes, all of which are in the construction business. He stated the fifth lot would be sold for funding the landscaping and development of the area. He also reiterated the covenants would be very rigid and the lake would be maintained and stocked, with no motorized vehicles allowed. Mr. Olberding stated there should be no problems with the surrounding farms. John Widerquist. 940787 RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION OLBERDING, BEDELL, WIDERQUIST, AND I- NZE PAGE 2 applicant, stated he is in charge of the wildlife enhancement plan. He stated building envelopes will cover only 10 percent, with 90 percent being natural. Mr. Widercuist stated there have been six test holes on site for soils, and he has met with the Colorado and U.S. Division of Wildlife concerning the wildlife enhancement plan, as well as the. Colorado Division of Forestry concerning the plantings of trees, etc., along the west and north and part of the south and east sides. lie said the final plan will be started upon approval of the PUD, and then itwill be placed on the final plat. Mr. Widerquist said they are willing to commit to a bond if necessary and, in response to questions from the Board, stated the preliminary seeding could begin by spring, with the plantings done before o r during the building, period. He explained they have $15,000 to $20,0400 set aside at this time, with the area to be enhanced over three years: He stated the plan could be submitted to staff within 60 to 90 days and 5 p1emented before spring,. t'Ir.. Widerquist confirmed the noxious weeds would be taken care of. Mr. Tuttle reiterated the proposals compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and stated the area would be improved with no impacts or nuisances to the surrounding properties. Respondingto questions from the Board., Mr. Tuttle stated one or two acres in the corner is divided by Weld County Road 15.5; however, .it will beincluded in the wildlife plan. He confirmed there are 14 total acres of land and 8.5 acres in the southeast portion will contain the four homes: thus each of the four lots will be approximately two acres in size. Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Widerquist pointed out the locations of the surrounding homes and stated. 60 brochures about the proposed development were distributed in the neighborhood. Mike Shaw and Nancy Cole, surrounding property owners, spoke in opposition of said proposal and answered various questions from the Board. Les Williams and Caroline Bolthoff, surrounding property owners, spoke in support of said proposal andalso answered questions from the Board. Mr. Tuttle stated he had no further comments, and Ms. Dunn stated the referral from the Public Works Department had not addressed concerns about dust control. It was noted that Weld County Road 3.75 is black -topped. Commissioner Harbert stated this proposal is difficult to handle: however, the mining lake has ruined th.e property for major farming and it is now growing weeds. She statedthe proposal is well planned and the applicants have worked with the State Wildlife Division to enhance the area in addition to landscaping, Commissioner Harbert then moved to approve the request of Jack Qlberding, Bill Bedell. John C. Widerquist, and Terry A. Henze for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) . based on the recommendation of the Planning staff, with the Conditions of Approval as entered into the record. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Baxter, who concurred this matter is difficult and stated he is Involved in agriculture and aware of the problems 1 He concluded the corridor is going to be developed with agriculture abutting it, and this proposal is well planned and will fit, e ven though there may be some conflict. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she agreed with Commissioner Harbert_; however, she disagreed there would b€ no impacts to the area.. She stated the property itself will be enhanced; however, the owners will need to coexist. Commissioner Kirkmeyer asked the applicants if all Conditions of Approval were agreeable and if they would consider working with Boulder concerning development of a public t rail system along Boulder Creek. Mr. Tuttle affirmed both questions, and Commissioners Harbert and Baxter agreed to amend said motion to include said agreement concerning a trail system. In response to further questions from Commissioner X.irkmayer, Mr. Tuttle explained that the covenants will be recorded, and the PUP would have to be amended in order to amend the covenants; therefore. they would be upheld. Mr. Morrison explained covenants are enforceable by private contract or a PUD Plan. Atter farther discussion, Mr. Morrison stated the uses of the PITS Final Plan could be defined and tailor-made to comply with the covenants. The motion then carried unanimously. 940787 RET HEARING GKRTIFIGATIoN - 0LBERDINGI BEDELL. WIDEL(QUIST, AND HHENZE PAGE 3 This Certification was approved on the 2.9th day of August, 1994. APPROVED BOARD OF COUNTY commIsStONER$ ATTEST: Weld County C1 rk t.l the ioard I By: TAPE #94-33 DOCKET #94-57 FLO966 WELD COUNTY, C ORADO Dale Hall, Pro- em Ge o , Baxter f onstance L. Ear ert ef,r4Affr ArtzwreA__" arbara J. }Urkme er 940787 ATTENDANCE RECORD HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 24th DAY OF August 19941 DOCKET 1d 94-47 - Shaw Cause Hearing, Ed Lolaff LolafI Construction, Inc,. DOCKET fi 94-51 _ Change of Zone a Oiberding, Bedell, Widerquist, and Henze DOCKET P DOCKET Ifi PLEASE write or print your name legibly, your address and the DOCKET U (as listed above) or the n a of the applicant of the hearing you are attending, NAME ten fe5a, ittiZe-n erya,Z6 ADDRESS 5 7,dt VesA CAA _ nc- fii J les iv/I& ecozp 47.0 itfic Aisopie1/4 it744/Z,41.%. //cr � Sys �� air SC lit des atMegg HEARrNG ATTENDING Aierte4 PaP 650,yAl .°f ct BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, P NN I C CO I S S : , rCOUNTY- t,35%1OtipaRs RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY GO 'IAS� �OI� S Moved by Richard Kimmel that the following resolution be introduced by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by t r Planning Commission that the application for: ssage aunty F A ,-..D CASE NUMBER: Z-488 -NAME: Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C. Widerquist, and Terry A. Henze ADDRESS: 3605 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) tc PUD (Planned Unit Development). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, R68of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3-1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16-1/2 be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliancewith the application requirements of Section 28.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance; 2. It is, the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 28.8 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: • i The request is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Planned Unit Development District is not located within an urban growth boundary area of the County and, therefore, is reviewed according with Agricultural and Planned Unit Development goals and policies. The parcel has been reclaimed to open space including a lake from a previous sand andgravel mining land use. The existing soils are not well suited for crop production and are not classified as prime agricultural land. The land area not covered by water is approximately 15 acres in size; this land area is configured so that it would be infeasible for agricultural production. The application materials state that the proposed use cannot reasonably be located on a parcel with a lake amenity such as this in a municipality, urban growth areaor the 1-25 mixed -use development. corridor.. The P1a ed Unit Development provides an alternative means for development by allowing a departure from the standard land use regulations so long as the development is planned as a unified and integrated whole. The Comprehensive Plan encourages creative approaches to land development which will result in environments of distinctive identity and character. The uses allowed in the. proposed POD District will conform- with the performance standards contained in Section 35.3 of the weld County Zoning Ordinance. e$h Pw914 9IOTJI RESOLUTION, Z-488 June 21, 1994 Page 2 The rural residential uses permitted by the Planned Unit Development District will be compatible with the future development of the. surrounding areaas permitted by the existing agricultural zoning,. The Planned Unit Development District conditions of approval enhance compatibility with existing uses on adjacent properties and within the Planned Unit Development. Preliminary provisions addressing issues such as setback, landscape screening, wildlife enhancement, types of animals and number of pets allowed within the Planned Unit Development are included in this change of zone request. s Left Hand Water district will provide domestic water service to the PUD District.. Individual sewage disposal systems will be used to serve the residents a1 lots of the POD District. Weld County Roads 16-1/2 and 3-1/4 will provide access to the PUD District. The Planned Unit Development district site is located in the Flood Hazard Overlay District Area. Structures located in the Overlay. District shall comply with the regulations of this district, No other overlay districts affect the subject site. t Extraction of Commercial mineral deposits on the property has occurred prior to this change of zone request. a Soil conditions present moderate limitations tothe construction of structures on the site. Soil testing has been conducted; the result of these tests demonstrates that soil limitations may be overcome. The PUD District conditions of approval insure that any necessary measures required to mitigate the soil limitations will be taken prior to construction of residences on the site. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities The Planning Commission's recommendation is conditional upon the following: 1. The PUD District allows rural residential and recreational land uses and shall comply with the PUD zone district requirements as, set forth in Section 28 of the Weld County Zoning ordinance. 940'787 RESOLUTION, Z-488 June 21, 1994 Page 3 2. All streets within the PUD District are private and shall be built to County standards. The private road system proposed as part of a PUD plan is subject to review by the Public Works and Planning Departments and approval by the Board of Count' Commissioners. All streets within the PUD District shall be maintained by the homeowner's association, lot owners, or developer. 3. Left Hand Water District shall provide the domestic water supply to the residential uses. 4 . Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (I. S.. D. S) shallprovide adequate sewer to the residential uses. Each Individual Sewage Disposal System shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. In accordance with Weld County I . S . D. S regulations, no more than one 1. S .. D . S . shall be designed as an evapotranspiration system. 5 , Weld County Road 16-1/2 shall provide ingress and egress to Lot 1. Ingress and egress to Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be provided by an internal street from one access on Weld County Road 3-1/4. There will be no direct access from the recreational outlot to the county road system.. No other accesses to the property shall be allowed. 6. The PUD shall consist of six lots, which includes five for residential use and one outlot for private recreational use and open. space. Each residence within the FUl shall be constructed with a minimum, ground floor area of 1500 square feet. Each residence within the PUSshall be set back no less than 100 feet from the property lines which lie adjacent to Weld County Roads 16-1/2 and 3 1/4. Each structure within the PUP shall have a maximum building height of 30 feet. 10. Maximum lot coverage shall be no more than 10Z. The remainder of each lot shall be open space. 11. There shall be no outside storage of equipment, boats, recreational vehicles or automobiles, 12. The outl©t designated for open space and private recreational use shall be maintained by the homeowners association or the developer. 13. No large animals such as horses, cattle or pigs shall be allowed within the PUB. 94079'7 RESOLUTION, 2-488 June 21, 1994 Page. l . A maximum of two dogs and two cats shall be allowed per residential lot within the. P10. 15. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 12 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. 16 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Architectural Control Committee shall provide a letter to the Department of Planning Services indicating its approval of the proposed structure. 17, A qualified soils and foundation engineer shall both design and supervise the construction of all building foundations. The engineer's report shall be submitted with all building permit applications. 18. The PtJD Final Flat shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Geological Survey, Mountain View Fire Protection District and Weld County Public Works Department. 19, The north and east boundaries of the PUD shall be adequately landscaped to screen the development from adjacent agricultural uses. 20. Residential construction shall incorporate designs to prevent radon accumulation. Prior to recording the change of zone plat 1. The access road from the cul-de-sac to Lot 2 shall be delineated as 20 feet in width, as recommended by- the Weld County Public Works Department 2. .The location of a potential oil and gas well shall be shown. on the. plat. The change of zone plat shall be submitted within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The PUD Final Plat submittal shall include: i. A copy of the multi year planting plan for enhancement of wildlife habitat on the site, approved by the Longmont Soil Conservation District and State Division of Wildlife. A building, envelope location for proposed structures on each lot, to be s h o 5l1 l i on the plat. 94U'79'7 RESOLUTION, 2-488 June 21, 1994 Page 5 Motion seconded by Shirley Carnenisch VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Richard Kimmel Shirley. Cameniscti Juliette Krcek:e1 Marie Koolstra Ron S o e r Judy Yamaguchi The Chairperson declared the motion for approval was denied and ordered that. a certified copy be forwarded with. the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Becky J. Ditt nan, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning, Coma s.sion. do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of the Weld County, Colorado, adopted. on June 21, 1994. Dated the 21st of June, 1994. Becky J' . Dittman. Secretary 94(3'73' ADDITIONAL IONAL COMMENTS Jack Olb►erdirg, Bill Bedell, John Widerqu, s t , and Terry Henze Z-488 In correspondence dated June 7,, 1994, the Tri-Area Planning Commission recommended denial of the PIJD change of zone request. Concerns expressed were: l . "Mini subdivision" outside of an urban growth boundary area; 2. Septic system impacts on the fluctuating water table at this location; and 3. Incompatibility with surrounding agricultural land uses. The subject parcel is located less than 3 miles from a recent annexation by the Town of Frederick, necessitating referral consideration by the Tri-Area Planning Comxissian, The Frederick property is presently undeveloped and lies west of Interstate 25. The Town of Frederick proper and remaining Tri.-Area: community is more than 3 miles from the subject parcel. According to the Weld County Urban Growth Boundary Map, this parcel is not located in a Urban Growth Boundary area. 9407q7 MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 2 Keith Schuett entered the recommendation into the record and stated that Condition of Approval 03 that pertains to traffic has been approved by the Public Works Department. Richard Kimmel moved Case Number USR-1048 for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil andgas support and service facility with equipment repair, outside storage, office facility and warehousing in the A. (Agricultural) zone district be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions' recommendation for approval. Motion seconded Juliette Kroe el . The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the member of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Shirley Ca enisch - yes; Juliette Kroekei - yes; Marie Koolstra = yes; Ron Sommer - yes; Judy a, aguchi - yes. Motion carried unanimously., CASE NUMBER; Z-488 NAME: Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C. Widerquist, and Terry A. Henze ADDRESS: 36O5 Table Mesa Drive., Boulder, CO 80303 REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUB (Planned Unit Development) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4 5W4 of Section 29, T2N, gh8W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3-1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16-1/2. Gary Tuttle, representative for the applicants, stated that the four families submitting the application would like to 'build on this property. He stated this application was submitted for estate zoning and was denied. They modified the application for a Planned Unit Development. He stated the Planned Unit Development is 40 acres, 15 which is land and 25 that consists of lake. There will be five lots on the property. Mr. Tuttle stated this is not prime agricultural land and it is a low -density development that will have minimal impact on the surrounding area. He stated this is a creative solution to mined out property. He stated there would be a covenants controlled by the five property owners. Mr. Tuttle stated that they are working on a wildlife plan with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and with Longmont Soil Consecration, District. Ron Sommer asked what would make the property owners follow this plan adequately. Gary Tuttle stated they would Include this as a condition of approval in the Planned Unit Development. John Widerquist also stated they would be willing to post a bond to insure the work will be done . Mr. Widerquist stated that they want to do this work to enhance their homesites. i to s . Marie Koolstra asked where the water in the lake comes from. Gary Tuttle stated that is a ground water system and nowater is diverted to the site. The applicants have a water augmentation plan in place to replace water lost in the lake by evaporation. The Chairperson asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application Kenneth Schell, surrounding property owner, stated he was in favor of the development. Ca y 94Q79'7 MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 3 Mike Shaw, surrounding property owner, statedthat he felt this application was not consistent with the surrounding agricultural. uses. He also stated that he felt this was leap frog development and thatthe area was not safe to build in because of the flood plain. Nancy cote, surrounding property owner, stated she felt this development was leap frog development and does not fit into the neighborhood. She was concerned with the increase in traffic. Ms. Cole also had concerns about covenants enforcement. She also feels this will affect wildlife. Mrs. Cole also stated that the subdivision would set precedence in this area.. Jewels Reneau, surrounding property owner, stated that he felt the property left as it is would become a wildlife area on its own. He was also concerned about nitrate levels because of the leach fields near the water. Mr. Reneau was also, concerned about increased traffic. Virginia Shaw. surrounding property owner, is concerned about the effect the subdivision may have in regards to her long range plan to expand their cattle operation. Gary Tuttle stated that the four families are very committed to making this a good development. He also stated the Division of Wildlife :supports this development. Marie Kdoistra asked who would be supplying police protection and what is the closest to Gary Tuttle stated the Weld County Sheriff would take care of police protection and the closest town was Frederick about two miles away, Ron Seer asked who will be on the fifth lot and who did they buy the land from. Mr. Tuttle stated that the applicants would sell the fifth lot to ensure funds for all the improvements. He also stated that the property was bought from Mr. and Mrs Williams. John Widerquist, applicant, stated that he felt this proposal would be a benefit to the community and wildlife. They, would be good neighbors. Mike Shaw stated that the Town of Frederick was seven miles away from this property. He also said these property owners may have good intentions but things change and the next property owners may not have the same intentions. Helen Bryant, surrounding property owner, stated she would like to keep the area in natural habitat. Gary Tuttle stated this is a reasonable use of the area and the application meets the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Judy Yamaguchi asked if the applicant had read the staff recommendation. Gary Tuttle said they reviewed the staff's recommendation and have noconcerns with it. Richard Kesel moved that the Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) beforwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions' recommendation for approval. Motion seconded by Shirley Camenisch t. 94:0'797 MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 4 The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the members to the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Shirley Camenisch - yes; Juliette Kroekel - no; Marie Koo1stra - no; Ron Sommer - no; Judy Yamaguchi - no, Motion denied. Shirley Camenisch: "My reasoning for changing my vote, the last time I did vote no on this, but they had no plan for this forty acres other than to just try to make it residential or estate, and this looks like a well thought. out plan, like they have done a little work on it in the last six months, so I am going to vote yes this time." Juliette Kroekel: "I'd like to add that I've been known not to agree with staff and this is one of those times. I am taking into consideration the parcel of land, the last time 1 didn't agree with the way it is developed, it holds the same this time around, I feel there will be too many homes on that land, for that. piece, so I haveto say no." Marie Koolstra: s tra "! I vote no also and for a lot of the same reason and I am taking into consideration Tri-Area Planning their considerations on this. I feel this is still basically a mini -subdivision." Ron Sommer "To me it looks like we are taking a cow and dressing him up in a fancier outfit and changing the names and going back with the same thing that we had with the estate planning, you are still putting four or five homes on 2 1/2 acres which is still to me a mini - subdivision." Judy Yamaguchi: "I think that the number of acres for the actual building is not particularly safe Request: Consider proposed amendment to Article V. E , of the Weld County Planning Commission By-laws. Chuck Cunliffe stated to the Planning Commission members where in their information packets they could find the amendment and that is was requested by the County Attorney's Office The Chairperson asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against the amendment. No one wished to speak. Ron Sommer moved that proposed amendment to Article V. E. of the Weld County Planning Commission By-laws be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions' recommendation for approval. Motion seconded by Shirley Camenisch. The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll themembers to the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel yes; Shirley Camenisch : yes; Juliette Kroekel - yes.; Marie Kooistra - yes; Ron Sommer - yes; Judy guchi - yes. Motion carried unanimously. 940'797 DATE: June 21, 1994 CASE NUMBER: Z-488 Nom: Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C.' 'iderquist, and Terry A. Henze ADDRESS: 3605 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4 SWA of Section 29, T2N, R. 8W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3-1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16-1/2, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT TillS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The. submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 28.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 28.8 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The request is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Planned Unit Development District is not located within an urban growth boundary area of the County and, therefore, is reviewed according with Agricultural and Planned Unit Development goals and policies. The parcel has been reclaimed to open space including a lake from a previous sand and gravel mining land use. The existing soils are not well suited for crop production and are not classified as prime agricultural land. The land area not covered by water is approximately 15 acres in size; this land area is configured so that it would be infeasible for agricultural production. The application materials state that the proposed use cannot reasonably be. located on a parcel with a lake amenity such as this in a municipality, urban growth area or the 1-25 mixed -use development corridor. The Planned Unit Development provides an alternative means for development by allowing a departure from the standard land use regulations so long as the development is planned as a unified and integrated whole. The Comprehensive Plan encourages creative approaches to land development which will result in environments of distinctive identity and character. The uses allowed in the proposed PUD District will conform with the performance standards contained in Section 35.3 of the Weld County Or e Zoning Ord ina.nce . RECD NENDATI0N i Z-488 June 21, 1994 Page 2 i • The rural residential uses permitted by, the Planned Unit Development District will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing agricultural zoning. The Planned Unit Development District conditions of approval enhance compatibility with existing uses on adjacent properties and within the Planned Unit Development. Preliminary provisions addressing issues such as setback, landscape screening, wildlife enhancement, types of animals and number of pets allowed within the Planned Unit Development ent are included in this change of zone request. Left Rand Water district will provide domestic water service to the PUP District. Individual sewage disposat systems will be used to serve the residential lots of the PUD District. Weld County Roads 16-1/2 and 3-1/4 will provide access to the PUD District. The Planned Unit Development district site is located in the Flood Hazard Overlay District Area. Structures located in the Overlay District shall comply with the regulations of this district. No other overlay districts affect the subject site. Extraction of Commercial mineral deposits on the property has occurred prior to this change of zone request. Soil conditions present moderate limitations to the construction of structures on the site. Soil testing has been conducted; the result of these tests demonstrates that soil limitations may be overcome. The PUD District conditions of approval insure that any necessary measures required to mitigate the soil limitations will be taken prior to construction of residences on the site This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant. other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following notes being placed on the PUD District Flat prior to recording 1. The PUD District allows rural residential and recreational land uses and shall comply with the PUD zone district requirements as set forth in Section 28 of the Weld County, Zoning Ordinance. 94078'7 RECOMMENDATION, Z-488 June 21, 1994 Page 3 2. All streets within the PIED District are private and shall be built to County standards. The prIvate road system proposed as part of a PUD plan is subject to review by the Public Works and Planning Departments and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. All streets within the PUB District shall be maintained by the homeowners association, lot owners, or developer 3. Left Hand Water District shall provide the domestic water supply to the residential. uses. 4. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (I.S.D.S) S ., D. S) shall provide adequate sewer to the residential uses. Each Individual Sewage Disposal System shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. In accordance with Weld County I .1 . regulations, no more than one I . s . D. S . shall be designedas an evapotranspiration system. Weld County Road 16-1/2 shall provide ingress and egress to Lot 1. Ingress and egress to Lots 2. 3, .4 , and 5 shall be provided by an internal street from one access on Weld County Road 3-1/4. There will be no direct access from the recreational outlot to the county road system. No other accesses to the property shall be allowed. 6. The PUD shall consist of six lots, which includes five for residential use and one outlot for private recreational use and open space. 7 . Each residence within the PITh shall be constructed with a minimum ground floor area of 1500 square feet. Each residence within the PUD shall be set back no less than 100 feet from the property lines which lie adjacent to Weld County loads. 16-1/2 and 3- 1/4. 9. Each structure within the PUD shall have a maxims building height of 30 feet. 10. Maximum lot coverage shall be no more than 107. The remainder of each lot shall be open space. 11. There shall be no outside storage of equipment, boats, recreational vehicles or automobiles. 12. The outlot designated for open space and private recreational use shall be maintained by the homeowners association or the developer. 94O7e7' RECOMMENDATION, Z-488 June 21, 1994 Page 4 13. No large animals such as horses, cattle or pigs shall be allowed within the PILL. 14. A maximum of two dogs and two cats shall be allowed per residential lot within the PUD. 15. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 12 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance 16. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Architectural Control Committee shall provide a letter to the Department of Planning, Services indicating its approval of the proposed structure. 17. A qualified soils and foundation engineer shall both design and supervise the construction of all building foundations. The engineer's report shall. be submitted with all building permit applications. 18. The PIJIJ Final Plat shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Geological Survey, Mountain View Fire Protection District and Weld County Public Works Department. 19. The north and east boundaries of the PUD shall be adequately landscaped to screen the development from adjacent agricultural uses. 20. Residential construction shall incorporate designs to prevent radon accumulation. Prior to recording the change of zone plat: 1. The access road from the cul-de-sac to Lot 2 shall be delineated as 20 feet in width, as recommended by the Weld County Public Works Department. The location of a potential oil and gas well shall be shown on the plat. The change of zone plat shall be submitted within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The. PUB Final Plat submittal shall include: 1. A copy of the multi -year planting plan for enhancement of wildlife habitat on the site, approved by the Longmont Soil Conservation District and State Division of Wildlife. 2. A building envelope location for proposed structures on each lot. to be shown on the plat. 340787 ADD'ITI'ONAL COMMENTS Jack Olbe rdin:g , Bill Bedell, John Wi derqu s t , and Terry Henze Z-488 In correspondence dated June 7, 1994, the Tr .-Area Planning Commission. recommended denial of the PhD change of zone request. Concerns expressed were: 1. "Mini subdivision" outside of an urban growth boundary area; 2. Septic system impacts on the fluctuating water table at this location; and 3. lnconpati iii lity with surrounding, agricultural land uses. The subject parcel is located less than 3 miles from a recent annexation by the Town of Frederick, necessitating referral consideration by the Tr -Area Planning Commission. The Frederick property is presently undeveloped and lies west of Interstate 25. The Town of Frederick proper and remaining Tri-Area community is more than 3 miles from the subject parcel. According to the Weld County Urban Growth Boundary Map, this parcel is not located in a Urban Growth Boundary area. 940'9'7 5 • I' . DATE: September 21, 1993 CASE NUMBER: Z-482 NAME: Martha A. Williams ADDRESS: 8876 Rogers Road, Longmont, CO 80503 REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate) . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, R6SW of the 6th PAC, Weld County,. Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately . -3/4 miles west of the Town of Frederick, south of Weld County Road 16 1/2 and west of Weld County Road 5. J THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES ' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED. FOR TEE FOLLOWING REASONS: a This proposal is not consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. This property is located in the (Agricultural) zone district and is evaluated under the Agricultural and Urban Growth Boundary Goals and ` Policies . Agricultural goal #4 encourages residential development to locate adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities and in accordance with the municipaii4es' adopted comprehensive plan .goals .and policies. This parcel of ground is located 2.3 miles frth the most recent western annexation;to the Town of Frederick. The annexation is uudevel,oped, and the,actual actual core area of Frederick is approximately three miles from the proposed site of rezoning. The Frederick is approximately three miles from the proposed site of rezoning. The Frederick. Planning Commission indicated that_they they have no conflict with the request. However, Jacque Barnett of the Town of Frederick stated that the proposal does riot lie within their town growth boundary nor is it included in their comprehensive plan area. The Weld. County Urban Growth Boundary map illustrates that the property is not located within, any urban. growth boundary. Urban Growth Boundary Policy #1 states that land use development proposals within an Urban Growth Boundary shall be encouraged so long as they conform to the desires of the municipality as expressed in sits comprehensive plan or by its land use decision -making body and if the municipality has agreed to provide services. The. Town of Frederick provides no public services to this site. Left Hand Water District can make water available, and the applicant proposes on -site' septic systems for the acreages. Mountain View Fire Protection District (located in Longmont) and Weld County would provide fire protection, road maintenance and police protection, respectively. A change of zone to Estate will increase the demand for urban -type services to this very rural location. y a. Pi a _ _si��-�.e •awt..a_i •st f.vnt e4...ri-a .seven lil:elalvl/yrff-Ir.ra...•�i.-.*-.7.--. L 940'79'7 RECOMMENDATION, Z 48 2 Martha A. Williams Page It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the uses which would be allowed on the subject property b � � granting the change of zone will not be compatible with the surrounding land . uses. Neighboring parcels containa gravel mining operation, and asphalt and gravel facility, oil and gas related equipment and vacant agricultural ground. The surrounding area is very agricultural in nature with only one residence located within 1/4 mile of the site. Rural homeowners do not have certainty about future character of the agricultural districts and are expected to live with those uses a.11:wed by right and by Special Review in the Agricultural district, according to.the Comprehensive Plan. 6. 1 x • • It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the approval of this request will encourage "leapfrog" or noncontiguous development and, further, that the applicant has not demonstrated that the rezoning proposal conforms with. the goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. • L e • _. • ■ r 944'7$'7 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Martha A. Williams Z-482 R In a letter dated September 1, 1993, the Colorado Geological Survey expressed. concerns regarding. the shallow groundwater table at this location and the property's suitability for -residential -type use. It was recommended that, if rezoning is approved, the proposed subdivision be required to connect to central sewer service as soon as it is economically feasible' to do so. a t. The entire 40 acres lies in the FP -1 (Floodprone) district (area of the 100 -year floodplain) ', according to official Weld County Flood Hazard Overlay District Zoning Maps. Prior to the constrliction of any buildings on the property, approval of a Flood Hazard Development permit would be required by the Department of Planning Services. r t • r fl P 4 • a a n 940797 7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (.303) 353-3945, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO May 10, 1994 Gary Tuttle Tuttle Applegate 11990 Grant Street, suite 410 Denver, CO 80233 Subject: 2- 88 - Request for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to Pl fl Planned Unit Development) on a parcel of land described as NWT- S 4 of Section 29, T2N, P68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Tuttle; Your application and related materials for the request described above are complete and in order at the present time, I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission for June 21, 1994, at 1;30 p.m. This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, first floor, Weld. County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance to answer any questions the. Planning Commission members might have with respect to your application It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application of this nature to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration is located within the comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality* Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Tr_ i-Area Planning Commission for its review and comments. Please call Jay Curtis at 833-3819 for further details regarding the dates timer and place of this meeting.. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance at the Tri-Area Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions the Commission members may have with respect to your application It is the responsibility c f an applicant to see that a sign is posted on the property under consideration at least 10 days preceding the hearing date. Sometime prior to June 3., 1994, you or a representative should call me to obtain a sign to be posted on the site no later than June 10, 1994. The sign shall be posted adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way, In the event the property under consideration is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, the applicant shall post one sign in the most prominent place on the property and post a second sign at the point at which the driveway (access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way. Your sign posting certificate must be returned to the Department of Planning Services office on or before the date of the hearings Gary Tuttle Z-488 Page 2 The Department of Planning Services" staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the Weld County Planning Commissions This recommendation will be available twenty-four (24) hours before the scheduled hearings It is the responsibility of the applicant to call the Department of Planning Services' office before the Planning Commission hearing to make arrangements to obtain the recommendations If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me i Respectfully, • LAW' is Dunn Current Planner Jack Olberding 825 Grape Boulder, CO 80304 Bill Bedell 223 S. Buchanan Avenue Louisville, CO 80027 John r 17 iderg1cJlist 1328 Marigold Court Lafayette, CO 80026 Terry A. Henze 4816 Devonshire Boulder 1 CO 80301 94U'787 LAND -USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: June 14, 1994 CASE NUMBER: Z-488 NAME: Olberding, Bedell, Widerquist, and Henze ADDRESS: 3605 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3-1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County road 16-1/2. SIZE OF PARCEL: 40 acres, more or less. POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS: The criteria for review of this Change of Zone is listed in Section 21.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The Department of Planning Services' staff has received responses from the following agencies: 1. Weld County Public Works Department 2. Weld County Health Department 3. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers 4. Mountain View Fire Protection District 5. Weld County Sheriff's Office 6. Plumb and Dailey Ditch Company 7. Tri-Area Planning Commission 8. Colorado Geological Survey The Department of Planning Services' staff has received one inquiry from a surrounding property owner regarding this request. FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: Z-488 DATE OF INSPECTION: May 28, 1994 APPLICANT'S NAME: Olberding, Bedell, Widerquist, and Henze REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3 1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16 1/2. LAND USE: N Weld County Road 16 1/2, agricultural ground, Boulder and Idaho Creeks, sand and gravel operation E Weld County Road 3 1/4, pasture, agricultural ground S Sand and gravel mining, oil and gas facilities, agricultural ground W Boulder Creek; agricultural production, oil and gas facilities ZONING: N A (Agricultural) E A (Agricultural) S A (Agricultural) W A (Agricultural) COMMENTS: Proposed accesses to the site are from Weld County Road 3 1/4 (paved County local) and Weld County Road 16 1/2 (gravel -surfaced local). The parcel is reclaimed from sand and gravel mining with a 25 acre lake. Boulder and Idaho Creeks lie in the northwest corner; this area is low-lying. No improvements on the site. Nearest residence is approximately 1/4 mile to the east. Glori Curre O FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: Z-488 DATE OF INSPECTION: APPLICANT'S NAME: CURRENT PLANNER: 5//thf--- Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C. Widerquist, and Terry A. Henze. Gloria Dunn REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, R68W Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County adjacent to Weld County Road 16 1/2. LAND USE: ZONING: of the 6th P.M., Road 3 1/4 and south of and N INOt-PCG31W-larS-- -141V fl(-"(-5;suaVe-6 E VCIALG1444) CailtOdi ST)01 eV/4,1 CPYYPO w-eadroto 4,4L ifite--UreteL(aJ N A (Agricultural) E A (Agricultural) S A (Agricultural) W A (Agricultural) NOTICE Pursuant to the zonings laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the following proposed Change of Zone are requested to attend and may be heard;. Should the applicant or any interested party desire the presence of a court. reporter to make a record of the proceedings, in addition to the taped record which will be kept during the :hearing, the Clerk to the Board shall be advised in writing of such action at least five days prior to the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley. Colorado. DOCKET NO. 94-57 APPLICANT Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell.,. John C. Widerquist, and Terry A. Henze 3605 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, Colorado 80303 DATE: August 24, 1994 TIME: 10:00 a.m. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to POD (Planned Unit Development) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW* Slit of Section 29, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M,, Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road. 3.25 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16.5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: DONALD D. WARDEN WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD BY Kimberlee A. Schuett DEPUTY CLERK TO THE BOARD DATED: July 18, 1994 PUBLISHED: July 21, 1994, in the Windsor Beacon ry 1ik)-tP 940'79'i N I 1. Oil ',_ i* . gr; , 'CI i!.,, ll. 1_2,0UnrY, C. t )tlrr 9;4, F,it;t r-argt, Cr .PWv., IC .at th€ Citi"It;_ ��I ed. „III P- i 0)rt An'y tiimn aer toLE:r t.e.J in Itn.D i'iollnWin t r�rc pi ? flat l ! tail Zaric= ark te:c 4 e! t@ i !, Welt! 4.�i":otiki F ie`+ _ pplhC3l,k! t.i.ny .in *r wd paft- detail a Rile ,preserti e of a (lur'I reps rr.r to make -a rQc: r l't rd pt e FYI G-- 'cee0in.gr�I in -adC±ictor Jo the- ap'e'L'r olio. LW kept hog.ifir4, me , I`hrh tilt the I2,nnarCI �htnII he :ACIVivr d b,w+r!t n Lit tinn6��1yr�ti atitQJtetl�4aEI'ti'lh3 hays p to 1,143 -Fte2 cast DI ert_ipprr!. a 1:;:iotilt It f.tt-ntEaC .!,dart be borne by Itm& r,�Ill:ir�r� patty ;KNOWN that a 1 x1 ELn 1! "6 vip{; Sa Pei/Plied 'JIy Il,St iff ?1 1 I`,rurly P innriirrkl rs'i_.eil,Etora:sI' iin naq,e ^ 1_�d ill NI I^_ ,_';i' _ t nil the I.C.C1 me Door iii Cdur14y Derrimissisrugrs, boatel! tee! 171 vital eld: eut1?d Gi .r wnrtraI °outer. 91:5 yUO1 8t1Ce 11 IIIr� 1=1 ', r r`�lcy 001.. Na r i1Lrifro.g, Bill BE''pi1, 'Sohn. es, Itoi'drirou1st, -anti@ I l'D nw 3665 rablgiikal, ,$a Drive e uic , ►:,ictr:-ra ci n ara30 : I IM 1r .LjiLji -71 J.n. REJL1EST:C'.i r,,-1wjpi ?['em- A I.I�,36 Wu1yr rciI1 I _, POD ,f'JnneJ brit t_/iwulnistn,%Ctat) EOAL apLsc`lIPTIO : i'I iL 4 i+' s c''i t , [; l F'e_ t l r,nt sc;: ttiito(1 , i Rang& c .e; i r b ! r, 'firth T1h PM; - tri-z ! r ; LID ATiQN iie7hs, ar-3n41" ;diaceia Tin VaPezioci County F- L^ .c1 125 and seuttt at arld : n1jDr4Pt,h to '/eId County f7 Ft,0: 1'0 '.] ILTI r irtr F 1.=. C ICI N- I- Y I`:U 1Ml,S51aCIEFi r iP;'ADO liY°Di°: INI- LD P WAIROE t.11 WELD w: C UNTY r:LEFIK TO THE 5i0A-RtD iii` Kim I;EU . ScPs1Ir t. DEPtfl'i CLERK T+.1 •ri-11= ocopfin Ps'bilis ie0 hn to WII1r±sur Se -norm on July 21, "S94.. FFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD Ss • I, ROGER A. LIPKER, of said County of Weld,, being duly sworn, say that I am pubiEsher of WINDSOR BEACON a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, in said County and State; and lhaf the notice, of which the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said weekly for / successive weeks, that the notice was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of the paper during the period and time of publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a supplement, and that the first publication of said notice was in said paper bearing the d to of the . /7day of , AD., 19 971 and the r e - _ last publication blaring the date of the day of R A.D , 19 and that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 consecutive weeks, in said County and State, prior to the date of first publication of said notice, and the same is .a. newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate printing of legal notices and advertisements, approved May 18, 1931, and all prior acts so far as in force. LI HER 0 SutTibed and sworn to before me this day of 4)7 , 19 1 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires QL---kir 940797 FLOW SHEET CASE 2e(1 APPLICANT CC 0 ��,�. �i ° 1 1 9e_c1 / () �J /lGl l r, Wlcl 41 /� 1 P"y /i , /4ei z2 REQUEST:01 k L_ 17.LEGAL: /U 1 D n°I_ ((I -10c,) LOCATION: V 01-9— o2 &d r'aGGO k 34 �S Application Received Application Complete Hearing Date: Utility Board Hearing Date: PC Sign given to Applicant PC Sign posted By: n a ✓b ng_ Letter to Applicant Drafted Referrals Listed Public Notice Drafted File Assembled Referrals Mailed Chaindexed Letter to Applicant Mailed Public Notice Sent Out By: _ Prop. & Mineral Owners Notified By:, 51/6- 97 Maps Prepared Field Check By DPS Staff Field Check -Board Member: "J I /1AxL Yhl DPS Recommendation Drafted DPS Recommendation Typed Packets Xeroxed (� PC/BOA Hearing Action: fi�`la� A r • PC/BOA Resolution BOA Resolution Sent To Applicant Meeting Summary or Minutes Filed in Case Case Sent To Clerk to Board CC Sign Given to Applicant CC Sign Posted By: CC Hearing: 4-okik Yl1 Action: 64. Y t rof CC Resolution Received Plat and/or Resolution Recorded History Card Completed. Recorded on Maps and Filed Zorre A-, Z&v�e G ATE BY 3=--9/ -19 ti S— - 9/ 6D S--9-7/ ..r.------./ 60 .5"--- ,/ 6-Z' 5-% 9/ G� ----- - g/ 51 0194 , c IIrr��(4t5 � (*LI' ,, tiiD/% 5 /Co - mil' 4- / , (rof Pig 60 6, -q -V , (p--v--97y 6.0 , - IL/ 66 .41- (0.-)-(4-1(-( . (ii) . (,-O)- L -),--I o -5--.9cl G -b. , S' - 13-9q (46 1,, s;p,.,(1_61Li 64) 9 - ) - qq- . Gic) e_a4-ikt 1 to _ 2.(0 - q 65- il 364,3 •- . _1 - .r _ au is 1 rl AlcdflmM,ftr �Ir re 1 . Department of Planning Services, 915 10th Street, Room 342, Greeley, Colorado PHONE: 356-4000 Ext . 440O FUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: CASE NO. DATE RECEIVED _ APPLICATION CHECKED BY APPLICATION .� RECEIPT NO. I RECORDING FEE RECEIPT NO. OOP2- r n or ypeon: y e*cep ; 5r require signatures 1. I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request hearings before the Commission and the Board of County Commissioners concerning the of the following described unincorporated etee of Weld County DESCRIPTION:the N} !a of the SW 4 of Section 29, Township 2,North, Weld County Planning proposed PUD rezoning Colorado . LEGAL Range 68 West of the oth Pict, Weld County, ., Colorado, except that part deeded toWeld Comity in instruments, recorded January 983 in Book 985 as Rece ti.Qn Nos. alfIA289 arid -19131:91. R (If additional apace is required, attach an additional sheet) "Property Address (if available) PRESENT ZONE • A PROPOSED ZONE PUD OV ERLAY " ES Flood Hazard Area_. N/A NAME; ADDRESS: NAME. . ADDRESS: 1 TOTAL ACREAGE 40.67 :acres Wife PHQ 1 E HOME TELE_ __ '�44'4-O326 8Th Crapeca_� t .f6 nF�•.aas�lan ve . „s_r_LIalail.=„Ix1.200 Louis*a.1Te`� tom. -80027 BUS,_ TELEpRQ E: 44'4-0346 BUS- � T EPFIONE 1• TA. Henze HOME TELEPHONE:.673.Oo57 4816 _ Devonshire HOME- TELEPHONE: 53x155"I Boulder OD 8030k d t than &bpve NAME ADDRESS; FAM E : ADDRESS: HOME TELEPHONE BU a . TELEPHONE: f LE5sEEs OE I G S ON OR._ I KR :EIEL_EMILI.PROrERTIES or SESSOR' Ssfric . 3_ NAME: Basin Ekplaration,.v 1 _ ADDRESS: 37U- 17th Streit II 01890 `1 sfl'&ozoa NAME: ADDRESS: I hereby depose and state under the Oen.alties of perjury that all statements, pr'p'o-ais, and plans submitted with or c.ntaine th this epplic,a -° re rru. - � rr t to the best of my knowledge, COUNTY OF WELD ) SS STATE OF COLORADO) Si a i R. t= y t e R Subscribed and sworn to before me this NOTARY P LTC T A • atore : Signature: ?'Jet art,41"t a 0 0 O a • /%/rtS CD2 / E ), Gel e-1 /Va 7— i ss tc.e_ (,� /�.e . a,o%!reSJ-e G�- s v 06 e z, j Pv_.0 IQs t'/ rG //3/y S Ica . z.4 -1 /c !L)//Q//,- V 'V t,/ // s(1 //,AA'k.P 6L ' aJro �. ih.�e o�►- AO-vo fiood X_. l)/// 1'4, IA) 4/1-Leet- s Es I ( r --eye /e/ 7k_t) hic ird, -0 "I/ c -3-4,frf f4 -6- A7/ ��/� O• -4- C�G /A- ti. //t -r," pr -e > isr pe icc- Z/ L.0.7L- 74,7A e Cj' (A)&1( J/ " O rr 57 . r6/I dk. IF /a/- .2 We/61k1/0 -7 �� / l�Y� f • MV Feb 3) -71pU-K-kil? aEesi ,�c e-ce,,,„ . No_467 (GS) d I, Sys W;/(�"�`` �,� F-4,? o\... -s-A-1-1:r /AR r -/-o 1)Z de, /re -/.o-6-vt.�c76,7 71)--64-1,1 /-4R-11/4N— /( a7 -co J h/^ c S oliff 4 B .432 REC 02379232 n1/21/94 10:57 .5.00 1/Dot F 1102 MARY ANN FEUE BIB CLERK & RECORDER WELl 0, co ._ b WARRANTY DEED P7/449 41? FEB 1 7 1994 THIS t'ittO,, Wade this 14TH day of MARCH, 1994 between Martha A. Williams of the County of Weld and Stale Of Colorado,, grantor, and • dadh L. Olberding and John C, Widerguist and Teri" A. Henan and William U. Bedell r STATE DOCU LENT Date -3 z2/ I AC- RY FEE I W. , w blp • stein legal address is 3605 TABLE MESA DRIVE, BOULDER, CoLORADO 80303 of the County of Weld and State of Colorado, g ran tees s i VITNIESISTE flat the • raptor for and la doneiderstinn of the suer of pliers, th s rues pt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,, has treated bargained., sold and eesn ed, sad by thee. presents does grantt baresis, sell, convey and confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and ensigns forever, alt the real property, together with isprovoesets, if env,, situate, Stater of and being in the county of weld mad Statof Colorado, described ■ s fui.lowe u The 'L/4 of the SW1/4 of section 29, Townehlp 2 North, Weld County Colorndo. Except that part deeded to weld January 10 1993 in Book 905 La Reception No.'s 1913289 mineral rights currently owned by Grantor and 1/4 share 1 share of Gadding Plumb and Dailey Ditch stock Range 68 West of the County in instruments and 1913291. Together of Boulder and Weld JJ 6th P.n., recorded with all itch Company and TOGSTS21 with all and singular the hereditament' and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining and the reversion sad reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, Issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right,title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor, either in law or equity, of in and to the above bargained premises with the hereditament', and appurtenances. 20 SAVE AND TO BOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtsnasces, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the grantor,for himself, his heirs and psrscnsl representatives, does covenant, grant, bargain, and sires to and with the grants.,, him heirs and assigns, that at the Lima of the annealing and delivery of these presents, ha is well 'seised of the premises above conve -ed,. has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convoy the smme in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free mad clear free ell former and other grants, bargains, males, liens, taxes, eeseseseats, encumbrances end restrictions of whatever kind or nature soerer, except general taxes for 1994 and au,basquont years) except easements,, rwatrlctione, covenants, conditions, reservations and rights of way of record, if any' and affpning restrictions if any The grantor shall end will WARRANT AND FOREVER wimp the abovembergainled premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee,, his heirs ,assigns,, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all gander*. IN Mugs WBSREOF the grantor ham executed this deed on the date set forth abOva. STATE OF COLORADO ,Count "f Weld ragtag Atli We tin la Ili se • 1 g. or t e iii r7, . Kb•. 132A, MV, 7e114 Martha A. Wtl l tns as. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged ,before me this 14TH day of MARCH, 1994 Witness my hand and official seal. Hy ciasion expires Vilrfle9 OT Y PUBLIC 1002 11TH AVINBf LONGMONT, COLORADO eosin g407•47 PROPOSED PUD CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION fors CONTINENTAL VIEW POND PUD Intersection Weld County Road 16-1/2and Weld County Road 3-1/4 s PREPARED FOR: Jack O1berdlng 825 Grape Boulder, CO 80304 PREPARED. BY: TUTTLE APPLEGxrE, INC. 11990 Grant Street SuitEs 410 Denver, CO 80233 (303) 4528611 TA #93-174PUD April, 1994 Revised May 5F 1994 940"J97 L&BLEA≥F CONarENrS Change of Zone Application Planned Unit Deveiopment ent ative District Plat (in pocket) Vicinity Map (in pocket) LiST OF EmilBrI`S PUDChange of Zone Application Left Hand. Water District Letter Percolation Test & Soil Report Weld County Soil Survey lnformalion Floodplain Study Lot Elevation Survey Property Owners Within 500 Feet Mineral Owners/Lessees I i Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit 1) Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit ambit H 9407030, A unique natural feature on the site is the lake created by the mining. This lake will he preserved both in terms of shape and water quality. Septic systems will be designed and approved by the Department of Health. Vegetation and wildlife habitat around the take will bc enhanced. The development complies with the transportation section in the Comprehensive Plan. The five lots will not cause any significant trafficimpacts or disruption in the adjoining mad system The short caul de sac in the development wilt be privately maintained and will be developed to Count} standards. The two uses proposed in this development are residential and open space, which are inherently compatible. The open space will be directly accessible toeach of the five lots. The open space will be owned by a homeowners association comprised of the five homeowners and will be maintained in perpetuity:. Proposed residential uses are compatible with the residential and agricultural uses in the surrounding area. Within a two mile radius of this site, our survey co ted 53 homes. Five homes on this 40 aaes may represent a slightly increased gross density, but it will be compatible by a minimum 100 foot setback, the homes orientation toward the interior of the property rather than fronting on the County roads, fencing along the two County roads with an agricultural style rail fence, and landscape screening along both of the County roads. In addition, the lot owners will acknowledge in the covenants for the development that there are certain views, odors, and noise inherent with the suodg agricultural uses and lot owners will not object or complain about these agricultural characteristics. 6. The residential use within in the PUD will be single family homes. Each home will have a minimum first floor area of 1500 square feet, The minimum setback willi 100 feet and maximum um building height will be 30 fleet. All structures, fences„ patios, and pavement oneach lot will be contained with a defined envelope and will .. no larger than 1i2 acre of each two acre lot. Therefore, over 90% of the site will be in undeveloped open space. Accessory detached buildings such as garages, sheds, and barns are all ed by approval of an architectural control ooramittee made up of the landowners. Maximum building coverage on the lot is 10%. There will be five such single family homes in the project. 7. The private open space will comprise of the lake and the surrounding shoreline. This open space is dedicated for private use of the homeowners and will be approximately 25 acres in size. Each homeowner will have access to the lake and be allowed to build such qty as docks and beaches for their access. No motorized boats will be allowed on the lake. The private open space will be owned by a homeowners association which will be responsible for vegetation and maintenance. 8. The development will be senfed by a public water system of the Left Hand Water District. Exhibit B is a letter from the District stating their water is available to the mica. 9. Sewage will disposed by individual septa systems for each ho'tea Exhibit of this narrative is percolation tests and a report indicating the soil is suitable sew systems. Minimum lot s is two acres, which can adequately accommodate a septic system. 4 9407s7 1{ . The project will be serviced by Weld County Road 3-1/4 and Weld County ty Road 16412. These roads have a width and structural capacityadequate to serve the five single family homes proposed. Comments from the Engineering Department and the sketch plan review neither indicated any inadequacies in these roads nor the need for off -site improvements. Appropriate pages from the Weld County Soils Survey are included as Exhibit D. The soil survey was done prior to the mining activity and identifies five soil types. All these soil types are located on bottomlands and floodpiains of Boulder Creek The mining activity has relocated and combined these soils on the lake shore and the upland areas of the site. All these soils, as noted in Exhibit D, had severe limitations to dwellings, roads, and septic syste s due to their low lying location in iloodpiains and, therefore, flooding potential. Since the site has been re -co i nred by mining, these soilclassifications and constraints no longer apply. All septic systems and foundations will be designed by a registered professional engineer based on the enclosed subsurface report (Exhibit Q. The potential for flooding will be discussed in a later paragraph. 12. The property is located along Boulder Creek in a Mineral Resource Zone. The property has been mined out and is currently permitted by a Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Reclamation Permit. Since the mineral resource is exhausted, rezoning this property PUD will not violate any State law. 13. The property is located within the flood hazard area of Boulder Creek. We have included Exhibit E which is a more specific floodplain study of Boulder Creek indicating 100 year flood elevations. As previously mentioned, mining of the property has changed the elevations, The mining company has deposited overburden and waste material in locations we have designated as lots. The applicant has hired a registered surveyor to determine the elevations of these lots. Exhibit F is a survey which indicates lots 2 through 5 are above the 100 year floodplain and lot 1 is level with the 100 year flood elevation Lot 1 may require a minor amount of fill which can be handled in a Flood Hazard Development permit 14. The proposed PUD is not located within a geologic hnapd area. 15. A sign will be posted on the property at the appropriate time. 16. Exhibit G is a certified list of the names,, addressed and the corresponding parcel identification number of property owners within 500 feet of the PUD. 17. Exhibit H is a certified list of the names and addresses of mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the PU 184 The following information has been requested by the Department of Planning Services in our sketch plan review. These points are not covered in the previous narrative. The applicant has contacted Basin Exploration, the lessee of the mineral rights on the property. The lessee indicated they have no plans install an oil and gas production well on this property, but robrill not relinquish their ri + Its.- 'therefore, we have reserved an area on the south property line for the leasee in the event a well is installed. b. Subsurface inst ration indicates at this tune the grow ater table is approxim ate l y eight feet below the uplands lots and four feet below the peninsula lot. The foundation of each home will be individually designed. We anticipate hornes will be on crawl spaces or on basements with foundation drains. Large animals such as horses, cattle, and pigs will not be allowed in the PUD. Each home will be allowed a maximum of two dogs and two cats which must be kept under control at all times in order to avoid disturbance to neighbors, cattle on adjoining, property, and thewildlife r The applicant has met with the mountain View Fire Protection District and determined the best way to provide fire protection is with residential sprinkler systems in each . home. b. addition, we will design our access cul de sacs to their standards of a 10 foot diameter bulb with a 20 foot wide gravel road. e. 'The Corps of Engineers has determined that waters of the US.. which are con.. ° t d within sand and del mining operations, are not abandoned, and are currently permitted by, the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology; are not regulated. When the reclamation has been completed and the State bond has been returned to the mining operator, any existing wedands or wetlands which may develop will be regulated by the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, at this time it is not necessary to prepare a wetlands delineation map to determine if any wetlands exist on the site. f. ' e owners are committing to a multi -year plan to enhance wildlife habitat on the site. The district ranger of the Division of Wildlife and the Longmont Office of the Soil Conservation Service have agreed to prepare the plan.. This plan will consist of plantings for wildlife food and shelter and is based onsoil testing. Soil samples from e site have been sent to Fort Collins for analysis. Due to spring planting season, farmers have priority for soil testing. We expect the test results to return in one week and the plan to be done two weeks later. it will be submitted under separate cover. 17 f . 6 3407c, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE 1. The original P 1 1 ist ict application form and the check for the application fee are under separate cover. Exhibit A is a copy of the application form. 2. The proposed PUD will be a large lot, rural residential development with lake amenities for owners. Single family residential will be the only land use along with the open space. All homes in the ro sed subdivision � built with custom features and minimum required p� square footage on the ground floor of 1 ! square feet. The homes themselves and any other accessory buildings, fencing, and landscaping will be strictly regulated by covenants and architectural controls. Ail homes will be oriented to the lake to take advantage of that view and amenit i. The proposed PUD rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as follows: AGRICULTURAL GOALS This parcel of ground consists of a mined out gravel resource and the resulting 25 a lake. It is considered non -fie Agricultural land and has been recoudzed as such hype Soil Conservation Service. Further, the site is not suitable for any type of cattle or crop growing operation. With only five tots on 40 acres, it is considered low density residential development. The agricultural goals can a mmodate a low density residential development on non -prime agricultural land. AGRICULTURAL POLICIES The PIM site is not located within an urban growth area of the Tri-Towns according to the Weld County Urban Growth Boundary Map (Page 3Z Weld County Comprehensive Plan) . The PUD site does, however, lie inside the three mile boundary from the Town of Frederick's recent west annexations. This POD applications unique because it proposes low density residential lots around a lake created by gravel mining. In early 1993 and prior to obtaining a sales contract on this property, the applicant surveyed this wea of the County and could not locate lakes on a similar Sed parcel for sale within a municipality, urban growth boundaiy area, or the 125 mixed use development corridor. Therefore, our proposed use cannot be reasonably located on any other site. 1 914O7s7 As you review our lan, you will note the application will not adversely affect adjoining mini agricultural uses. The homes themselves will be set back from the property edge a um of 100 feet. The north and east sides of the prtperty will be screened front the adjoining cattle operation by landscaping materials. In addition, the applicant recognizes that agricultural activities create certain views, odors, and noise which are inherent to those agricultural activities and will not be objected to by the lot owners_ The neededpublic services for this p r development are nearby or adjacent ti the site. �' �' Telephone,: natural gas, and electricity are along public rights -of -way adjacent to ` this property. Public water supply is approximately .1 mile away and will extended to the site. Therefore, maximum efficiency and economy has occurred in providing the needed public services. Five lots will create a minor increase in vehicular traffic on Weld County Roads 3-1/4 and 16 - la. predict no additional County m ain tenance will be required on these roads. During the gravel mining operation, the site caused an increase in property tax revenues to the County. With the resource exhausted, the property would normally revert to a lower tax category_ low y density residential use will increase tax revenues to the aunty without significantly � increasing public impacts or public costs. The developer will pay for the cost of the extension and installation of public services for the . Infrastructure improvements include the extension of the water line, natural d,e�re��prnent gand telephone service. a developer distribute these costs equally electricity, between the five lots development. - in the develoent. These infrastructure improvements will be installed e � prior to occupancy ofany homes. Public facilities . and .services such as water, roads, schools, and fire and police protection are currently locat ed next to or in the vicinity of this proposed P 1). The providersof these facilities ` have indicated they are both willing and able to service this low density residential �t�ea development. RESIDENTIAL GOALS - ` Plan and the Zoning Ordinance identifies low, medium, and high density The Comprehensive � uses. The three designations recognize differences among residential environments. L density residential uses located beyond the urban powthgrowth ►und but on nOfjpnrne agricultural land, can be in compliance with County planning provided adequate public services and facilities are available and potential conflicts with land uses are mitigated. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES As previously discussed, public ubli utilities are available and this development can be serviced in an efficient and cost effective manner. The five lots will cau. no significant or measurable case in the need for police, li ce, pro to on, or school sentices. 2 This development can be compatible with the surrounding agricultural and residential uses since the homes are low density and rural in nature. The planned types of homes will blend in with both the site and surrounding area in terns of height, bulk, and Vie. The overall density of the projectis one unit per eight acres, which is compatible with many of the parcels on which the homes are located in the vicinity. An additional five homes w1 not increase impactsin the traffic on adjoining County cads. The interior road will only be 150 feet in length and will not cause significant dust increases. The land use itself of five homes will not cause any increase to dust or noise in the area. The adjoining County roads to the property are adequate in width, classification, and structural capacity to meet the minimal traffic increases. The developer will build one short cal de sac the property to service four lots along County Road 3-1/4. One driveway will be located along County Road 16-1/2. No parking will be allowed on the County roads. This development is so small that such improvements as acceleration/deceleration lanes, signalization, and traffic signage are not warranted. The development plan preserves the shape and sizz of the existing lake on the property, which is the unique natural feature. Vegetation will be enhanced through the landscaping plan and d the wildlife enhancement plan, to be scuff later. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GOALS This development falls within the definition of a Planned Unit Development because it includes an area of land controlled by the five lot owners andit was developed under a unified plan of development for both residential and open space uses. the project is a creative approach to the development of mineral land and will result in a develo eat distin ;ye in identity and character. There are only a few such developments in Weld County. Public facilities and services can be delivered in an efficient and cost effective manner. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The Comprehensive Plan anticipates Planned Unit Developments in areas designated for agricultural use. It requires these applications be reviewed gang to the agricultural and Planned Unit Development goals and policies. 'This PUD development will be compatible with the existing and planned uses on adjacent properties. The residential uses are present in the vicinity and the scale, density, and architecture will be in harmony with the area. Building heights will not be excessive and the minimum setback is 100 feet from the property boundary. Generous open space will be provided by the take. Perimeter landscaping will provide screening and privacy both from inside and ou ide the development. The common open space of the shoreline will be appro ailely 25 acres in size. It wia be easily accessible to all eve of the lots and isdcdkated for the enjoyment and recitation of the lot owners.. The lake open space arta will be owned in common by the five homeowners means of a homeowners asson which w.ill guarantee perpetual mantenwee. 94078'y C- I J w rat- • I "4 N I •E 4 1 , t. 4:1994 B I • ASINFISSI Ailni attaCMa riorrar lbttieApplegatejnc. Consultants for Land. Minera and Water, Development • Glignal I nnn as { Weld . County Hamlin Department 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Continental View Pond SLID Dear Gloria: II • r 1 uc -0 1.'94 "4191�I�F.munty Planning • • , I r, • I • C r 4 • Recently, both John Widerquist and I r .toned = you the possthlity of either re-locatingor droning One of the home sites on the Pliti plan. After some discussions with the four owners, they_ decided to retain the PUD P1.1 i with five units and go forward with the Board of Countym ision rs hearing. I r • a, t With this letter I have enclosed _six copies of -moo al ation packet pre applicants. The.first page is atolor rendition of the preliminary. fcja sigin: t pages two and three are a copy of a letter the applicants sent to 1 all the Ln r _ I and the last pages supply issues and answers for the project. T., •1 1 • I- 1 fora . I. the r I 4 .t. v .•` • r .,-Co'• 4a' .. 1 1 L ! • We Irequest ybu cIu opt of these in the packets to the Comity Commissioners jot: the , 1 r upcoming ward hearing.. g.. n extra packet 'is enclosed for your file : 1` Cordially, • 1 1• { TUTTLE APPLEGATE, TE, INC. (IP Gary . GJT{s utile r -1L 4CVP 1 . • CI. _ Jack dibeiding , c�-k,'3174'4 wcrdunn, I tr I • 11 q'1 • • 1 r . I { II I . • we J. 1i I • • W •la I I ■ w• • ✓ y { S .• r • .1 1 I• • er { .44 art r a 1 — L 41 J. • 1 r I • 11990 Grant Street, Suite 410 • Denver, Cobrado 80233 ■ (303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-2759 F • I, • • • I: e 1 -t t • a . Chuck .Clitiliffe Weld CCounty Planning Department April 22, 1994 Page a The owners and I are tivailable to meet with, you and Work op. ways to improve -our, plan for the _benefit of Weld Cc,unty. Cordially, • TUTTLE :APP ✓IEG ' 1'E, ft:1(.0 .Q.aryTTuftle 'Taira Enc. t. •_ . Fie • 3474 I J lberd nt . I1 I • 1 • c j 74\chibekJ tr • y. 1 — Lea • 1 • • • 1• • r • • • I • 4. • 1 I • • 1 Y Y • • a - 1 a • II • . • • t II I r .1 a 1 aa f • • 4 a II I. - • t • I 1 . • se its • 4 I. I V" I - • T T • • d-• •I r' I. • I- • .1 1 F I * r • a a •.r II 1 -II 1 . •, • J •• 1 • •• II L • ••• • • I. a a • • $'Y e • I. •• . ': ,I d f; f,.; I. a. tia I . • - —� r 1 I 43 . F a. 1 • 4 •. •. -• a .' - _• w ... • • •- 1 .. 1 1 • 1 I IV , I • I T_t — a • • .• 1 • I 1 - ••I• 4 _ ri O • '$ 4 •I •.• F • I. 4 • 1 • ♦a p 1 • I. rI I a I r. I. c 4_ a ' eg • y 1 1 1• a -r I • S. I -*1 w e 1 R • • -a • Y 4. - sea a , •• . - _' $ • ' a '1 - YI • s¢• :1 t • I ••• I • 1 • • e , •II THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY I T INED ROAD RICHT-OF-WAY4 IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE APPLICANT SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS PLANNING cpmmission SIGN POSTING_CERTIFICATE FIGHT E I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR CASE 11 488 THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY: Bill Bide11 NAME OF PERSON -'POSTING SIGN G I ATL RE OF `' * LI GAIT STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF WELD ) SS. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS ) 19 SEAL mY COMMISSION EXPIRES a(1J1I LAST DAY TO POST SIGN IS it 19 letlie . a PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' OFFICE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING. WELD COUNTY DP MENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' CIINQUIRY FORM 1400 4 17TH AVENUE, GREELEY, COLOR,, 80631 PHONE: (303) 353-6100 EXT. 3540 FAX: ( 03) 351-0978 C(. TELEPHONE 0 OFFICE NAME: FIRST INQUIRY? D YES s~i! r� S 0 NO DATE: ADDRESS: TYPE OF INQUIRY 0 n 0 0 I MHZP ZPMH RE AMENDED RE SE C AMENDED SE ❑ SITE PLAN REVIEW 2C,REZONING O POD SKETCH PLAN ❑ PUB DISTRICT O P 'D FINAL PLAT PERSONNEL ❑ Keith Schuett 0 Sharon White ITEMS DISCUSSED: F' r chi))0 c. .2 II SKETCH PLAN O PRELIMINARY PLAN Q FINAL PLAT 0 RESUBDIVISION 0 Elf DP D CHOP ❑! USR AMENDED USR ❑ USR MINING 0 USR MAJOR FACILITY 0 USR DISPOSAL SITE v PHONE 44 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 MINOR. SUB SKETCH PLAN MINOR SUB FINAL PLAT ZONING ADDRESSING BUILDING PERMIT SETBACKS /OFFSETS HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION OTHER 0 Greg Thompson a Gloria Dunn 0 Todd Hodges O Barry Kramer E Chuck Cunliffe 0 .-ej rr y " 111 ii I I _CN 'in at 5 I- xN t �d 1d (IL hAVA.U.s__AABI:EHL2eaTritaS.:---, Lie cat f r CONCERNS: ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Time spent Staff Members Initials (eD [KTELEPHONE NAME: _ ADDRESS: WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES'' CITIZEN INQUIRY FORM 140O NORTH. 17TH AVENUE, GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE: (303) 353-6100 EXT. 3 540 FAX: (3 03) 351-0978 0 OFFICE FIRST INQUIRY? O YES VNO DATE: /fir Lasieff PHONE TYPE OF INQUIRY O HHZP ZPMH RE O AMENDED RE ❑ SE ❑ AMENDED SE O SITE PLAN REVIEW REZONING PUD SKETCH PLAN O I POI DISTRICT ❑ PUD FINAL PLAT PERSONNEL ❑ Keith Schuett ❑ Sharon White ITEMS DISCUSSED: 1 ❑ SKETCH PLAN ❑ PRELIMINARY PLAN ❑ FINAL PLAT' ❑ RESUBDIVISION F.HDP ❑I GHDP ❑ USR ❑ AMENDED USR USR MINING �J USR MAJOR FACILITY E USR DISPOSAL SITE fl • Greg Thompson Q Barry Kramer Ast/5 7::er U ❑! MINOR SUB SKETCH PLAN O MINOR SUB FINAL PLAT o ZONING ❑ ADDRESSING O BUILDING PERMIT SETBACKS/OFFSETS 0 HOME OCCUPATION 0 VIOLATION Q OTHER 0 ❑ Gloria Dunn O Todd Hodges O Chuck Cunliffe ffe U V • e . fir t+ / a,' _. LL--eela ) &ca. (Ana /r/f/ //Ca '1/471,7 iniY1,;;;-) / •c I AVAILABLE ®P.LIONS nst. p Jf CONCERNS.. ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Time spent Staff Member's Initials WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' CITIZEN INQUIRY FORM 1400 NORTH. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE : (3 03) 35361OO EXT. 3540 FAX: (303) 351-0978 TELEPHONE 0 OFFICE NAME: ADDRESS: FIRST INQUIRY? 0 YES O DATE : 1 0VN 1 ! 6-11116erz-Pti a:Vsei PHONE. TYPE OF INQUIRY Q MHZP D ZPMH 0 RE ❑ AMENDED RE 0 SE C] AMENDED SE D SITE PLAN REVIEW REZONING D PUD SKETCH PLAN 0 PUD DISTRICT CI PUI? FINAL PLAT PERSONNEL 0 Keith Schuett 0 Sharon White 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 SKETCH PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAN FINAL PLAT RESUBD[VISION FHDP GHDP USR AMENDED USR USR MINING USR MAJOR FACILITY USR DISPOSAL SITE U Q 0 I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MINOR SUB SKETCH PLAN MINOR SUB FINAL PLAT ZONING ADDRESSING BUILDING PERMIT SETBACKS /OFFSET. HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION OTHER 0 Greg Thompson *Gloria Dunn 0 Todd Hodges 0 Barry Kramer 0 Chuck Cunliffe 0 ITEMS DISCUSSED: alnE e/ /el_ 74 _ i Ail 49 100 fr. tic - ersi AVAILABLE OPTIONS: a -,, 747,e,_„va a-serie f War' br wr — CONCERNS: ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Time spent Staff Member's Initials 4 CITIZEN INQUIRY FORM cTELEPHONE d OFFICE cC NAME: CM. ■ `; ADDRESS: FIRST INQUIRY? C7 YES (,0.(N0 DATE 5--5 PHONE 17 TYPE OF INQUIRY 0 U 0 ❑ 0 :ZP ZETIN RE AMENDED RE SE FR oz Pil) SKETCH PLAN PUD DISTRICT PUD FINAL PLAT PERSONNEL ❑ Keith Schuett O Sharon White ITEMS DISCUSSED: n C ❑ GHDP 0 USIB. 0 U El ❑ SKETCH PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAN FINAL FIAT RESUBDIVI SI UN FHDP AMENDED USR U SR MINING U SR MAJOR. FACILITY USR DISPOSAL SITE ❑ Greg Thompson C ❑ 0 11 Li U ❑ ZONING ADDRESSING BUILDING PERMIT SETBACKS/OFFSETS HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION OTHER gcloria Dunn 0 Todd Hodges ❑ Barry Kramer 0 Chuck Cunliffe fe detri APC / Pt �.+Rmer. 5/ r # Li aS AVAILABLE OPTIONS: La 7s —a— haf) isit.tr:„.(,,:f. CONCERNS: ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Staff Member's Initials WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' CITIZEN INQUIRY FORM 1400 NORTH. 17TH AVENUE, GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE: (303) 353-6100 EXT. 3540 FAX: (303) 331-O 78 XTELEPHONE NAME: ADDRESS: O OFFICE FIRST INQUIRY? O YES WNO DATE: r L �" �a 5- O- cf(f/ PHONE 0 TYPE OF INQUIRY ❑ MH_P ❑ Z PITH ❑ RE O AMENDED RE 2 SE ❑AMENDED SE ❑ SITE PLAN REVIEW 0 REZONING O PUD SKETCH PLAN O PUD DISTRICT O PUD FINAL PLAT PERSONNEL O Keith Schuett O Sharon. White ITEMS DISCUSSED. O SKETCH PLAN O PRELIMINARY PLAN ❑ FINAL PLAT O REIJIILIVISION L# FHDP Q CM)? o TJSR ❑ AMENDED USR D USH. MINING ❑ USR MAJOR FACILITY ❑ USR DISPOSAL SITE O 0 MINOR SUB SKETCH PLAN O MINOR SUB FINAL PLAT ZONING ADDRESSING IQ BUILDING PERMIT IQ SETBACKS/OFFSETS O HONE OCCUPATION ❑ VIOLATION 0 OTHER O ❑ Greg Thompson Gloria Dunn 0 Todd Hodges ❑ Barry Kramer a Chuck Cunliffe ❑ Sitp c Sit -71 Y. _a p P 0 7741; '4/ es l f to flirt !l AVAILABLE OPTIONS. CONCERNS: ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Time spent Staff ember's Initials WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' CITIZEN INQUIRY FORM 1400 NORTH. 17TH AVENUE, GREELEY* COLORADO 80631 PHONE: (303) 353-610C EXT. 3540 FAX: (303) 351-0978 TELEPHONE 0 OFFICE FIRST INQUIRY? 0 YES ,0 NO DATE: NAMEi" L, ADDRESS: TYPE OF INQUIRY 0 0 0 a 0 Q 0 Q MHZP Z Pt1H RE AMENDED RE SE AMENDED SE SITE PLAN REVIEW REZONING PUD SKETCH PLAN PUD DISTRICT PUD FINAL PLAT PERSONNEL 0 Keith Schuett Sharon White ITEMS DISCUSSED: I C P er 0 0 0 0 a U 0 0 0 0 PHONE M: SKETCH PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAN FINAL FLAT RESUBDIVI ION FHDP UHUP USR AMENDED USR. USR MINING USR MAJOR FACILITY USR DISPOSAL SITE o Greg Thompson 0 Barmy Kramer ar o MINOR SUB SKETCH PLAN 0 MINOR SUB FINAL PLAT 0 ZONING 0 ADDRESSING Q BUILDING PERMIT 0 SETBACKS (OFFSETS HOME OCCUPATION 0 VIOLATION C OTHER 0 a a �rGloria Dunn 0 Todd Hodges ❑ Chuck Cunliffe 0 L-0 01, -,Tell 1,8 /3- tict eLLAChifd .( rt iitenthe /0 j At 1 did ;tat AVAILABLE OPTIONS: CONCERNS: 3 ACTION TO BE TAKEN Y A� -1 -+-' a.. r R 1~ r " --c r- t.,,tf Time spent StaffMember's Initials REFERRAL LIST NAME: Olberding, ng , Bedell, Widerquist, st , and Henze REFERRALS SENT: COUNTY May 10, 1994 Attorney Health Department Extension Service Emergency Management X Sheriff's Office X Engineering Housing Authority Airport Authority Building Inspection Office CASE NUMBER: Z-488 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY; May 27, 1994 STATE X Division of water- Resources jLK Geological Survey Department Of Health Department of Transportation Historical Society Water Conservation Board Oil and Gas Conservation Commission X Division of Wildlife FIRE DISTRICTS Ault F-1 Berthoud F-2 Briggsdale F-24 Brighton F-3 Eaton F-4 Fort Lupton 1-5 Galeton Hudson F-1 Johnstown F -B La Salle F-9 Mountain View F-10 Milliken F-11 Nunn F-12 Pawnee F-22 Platteville F-13 Platte Valley F-14 Poudre Valley F-15 Raymer P-2 Southeast Weld F-16 Windsor/Severance F-17 Wiggins F -1S Western Hills F-20 OTHER Central Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. Tri-Area Planning Commission Plumb and Daily Ditch Co. c/ c Margaret Hill 4739 Weld County Road 22 Longmont, Co 80504 School District. RE 1-J Mined. Land Reclamation X Robert Carlson P:0, Box 3B0 Erie, CO 80516 x x x TOWNS and CITIES Ault Brighton Bra om f i e l d Iacono �Eaton Erie Evans Firestone Fort Lupton Frederick Garden City Gilcrest lcrest Greeley Grover Hudson Johnstown Keene s burg Kersey La Salle Lochbuie Longmont Mead Milliken New Raymer No rthg l e n n Nunn P ierce P latteville S everance Thornton Windsor COUNTIES Adams C Boulder L ar imer /FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES X US Army Corps of Engineers USDA -APHIS Veterinary Service Federal Aviation Administration Federal Communication commission, SOIL CONSERVATIO DISTRICTS Brighton Fort Collins Greeley Longmont West Adams , COMMISSION/BOA MEMBER V X Judith Yamaguchi F n 4- • • r• a I a -1i— a sf•;a 1• • _ •• • a • I • a — e^ �• .•� . • a I• • -• 4 j r a• Kraal • • ' 1 al b a •91 • r• - a Maw I • a • C sat - am, a p - at ._ • a • • 4 • ■ a • a •. • r a a • a. .1 • .a • • Sim • 6 BAD° • • .4 • • _a a .a • r mEmORAnDUm Gloria Dunn Weld County .Planning pmmm May 31, 1994 • From Trevor Jiricek, Supervisor, Environmental Protection Services • bled: Case -Number: .Z-488 _ • IPI •• Name: O1bsrdin Bedell Widerquist, Henze ✓ a 'Or SW4, Sectien 9, Td ship 62 North, Range 68 West Envi rvntenta i Protection Services has reviewed this proposal; the following conditions are recommended to be s part of any approval: • • 1. - .Each I Idiyidual Sewage Disposal System ( I:. S ..D. S .) shall be designed by Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. In accordance with Weld County I :. S. D. 8 . regulations, no more than one (1) I .. 'S . D . S ., shall . ledesigned as an evapotranspiration system. TJI h -1I 3 a a aim Pa a a r • a • • • r • a •, • r a • 1- Y • - a El a a a 1• a a a a is • a • a • • a • f • a I a a y• 7 I • a. a - f I a • e I 1 ■ a • •i • a r s • a • I 5 • • • I. • ■ a 1 A a I • 1 a • _a • • I. • • p a • 4t T 19€. COLORADO 0 0 mEmoRAnDum Gloria Dunn Planning Date Ma 27, 1994 From Donald Carroll Subject. Continental View Pncd Z -48R visited the site at the change of zone and have the following comments: The applicant is indicating two access points. The main access is from WCR 3.25. The applicant is indicating a cul-de-sac at that point to accommodate Lots 2, 3, 4, and. 5. I am recommending the applicant increase the access road to 20' to Lot 2 off the cul-de-sac to accommodate an adequate access with' some drainage. Lot 2 will not be allowed to access onto WCR 3.25 other than uy Eh 1 -de -sac . The access to Lot 1 will be from WCR 16.5. We are requesting the applicant to fill out a Weld County road access information sheet on the two access points • • At the field check phase, it will be determined whether the applicant needs to provide a culvert at both access points to accommodate drainage or not. The applicant needs to supply a general statement describing the plan for _dr . and stormwater may gmerit_ , Design standards for storm drainage are listed Th gourlty subdivision regulations. DC/pds:.mgloriai cc.: Commissioner Kirkmeyer File -4B8 ..�OUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROLTION DISTRICT Administrative Office: 9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 FAX (303) 65►1-7702 . Gloria Dunn Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE Case Number Z-488 Continental View Pond PUD WCR :id WCR Dear Ms, Dunn: May 26, 1994 l _ I -I ant• R Diann ittc I have reviewed this proposal for compliance with the adopted codes and standards r of the Fire District. I have also met with representatives of the home owners. During this meeting, the representatives were given a copy of the Fire Protection Development Standards for the Fire District, The Fire District has no objections to this proposal if the requirements of the District can be met, My comments are listed below: Statue 1 9119 Onity Lisle Rd. Longmont. CO 8050 1 The require. fire flowfor a residential subdivision with hexes up to 3,600 square feet in Se, is 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per _ square jjcL Larger homes may resquiows higher than this according to Uniform Fire Code Appendix Table III -A. The number of h . ants required for the subdivision is established by the required fire flew Obtaining the required fire flows for this subdivision will be difficult. The home owners may install lie sprinkler systems meeting the requirements uirements of National Fire Pr teet in loci Lion Standard q� 13D in lieu of providing hydrants and the required dire flow. During my s eeting with the home owners, this seemed to be the most likely solution to the water supply requirement This solution is referenced in the planning document under item 18(d), Access to the individual homes must feet the standards of the Fire District. Siteplan(s). need to be provided to the Fire District for approval prior to beginning construction. Continental View Pond Referral Response 1012 5la'gn' 2. 10971 WCR 13 Longmont, Co 60504 Station 3 P.O. Box 57.5 299 (jPalmer Ave. Mead, CO 805 42 Stellar, 4 P.O. BOX 11 8500 Nivetat Road N ivr 1. CC 80544 Station 5 10911 Dobbin Run Lafayette, CO 80028 Station 6 P.O, Box 665 600 Briggs Erie. CO 60516 Homes need to have readily visible addresses, and access to the subdivision needs to be dearly marked. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Charles E. Boyes Fire Prevention ,Specialist CC: Jerry Ward, Chief of the District William N. Bailey, Deputy Chief, Support Services Mark A. La ley, Assistant Chief, Fire Prevention Con tinen • View Pond - Referral Response 2 of 94'79"! C. COLORADO May 10, 1994 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303) 353-3$45, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 11 140Q N. 1 NTH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 101994 Wald County Planning CASE NUMBER: Zs488 Enclosed is an application from Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C. W der+qu,ist , and Terry A. Henze for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The parcel of land is described as 114 sw4 of section 29, T2NI B6SW of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is west of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3 1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16 1/2. This, application is submitted to you for review and recommendation* Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to, this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by May 27, 1994, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Gloria Dunn, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return, to our address listed above. 4. 5. Signed: Date: We have reviewed this request and find that it does /does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. - We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. -_ A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be ubmitted to you prior to: fer to the enclosed letter. gency: 9407cii 7 June 1994 Re: - 488 Tri-Area Planning by a. vote of 6 to 2 recommends denial of the above captioned application. The applicants. have made e very effort to comply with the specific objections raised in 'previous hearings. The quality of the planned development was not in question. Neighboring residents of the proposed development spoke in opposition. Following are the primary considerations leading to the ✓ ecommendation: A. The proposed development, although consisting of only five houses, is in effect a "mini -subdivision" situated outside the current growth boundaries o f four different municipalities. B. Although contemporary engineering efforts would appear to mitigate any septic system impacts on the water table, the fact that the table fluctuates could create future problems. C* Compatibility with surrounding ongoing cattle, farming and gravel mining operations was questioned. Even though the applicants assured full knowledge of the ongoing contiguous operations and potential n egative impacts, resale of the proposed developed residences could change this position, Surrounding area is in fact agricultural* As a footnote, this type of development. designed to mitigate negative environmental impacts resulting fromgravel mining, is something to positively consider. Gravel mining o perations that include batch and asphalt plants u nfortunately don't lend themselves to this type clean-up. 1 rman r TRLAREA PLANNING COMMISSION P.O. BOX FREDERICK, COLORADO 80530 1 February 1994 RE: Williams PUD s Case Number 5-351 The above captioned application was discussed with representatives presenting the PUD applications We assume that the final application will include additional details. Following discussion of the septic systems, landscaping, covenants, use restrictions, etc., the commission voted unanimously to recommend approval ofthe yapplication. We feel this type of reclamation and use, could be a potential model within areas scarred by gravel mining. rtis, Chairman 0 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT TRI-LAKES PROJECT OFFICE, 9307 STATE HWY 1 2 1 LITTLEE1i•'ON, COLORADO 801 23-69O11 REPLY TO AT7TNTION OF Gloria Dunn. Dept. of Planning Service Weld County Admin. Offices 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Ms. Dunn: May 20, 1994 Reference is made to Case Number Z-488 which is located in Section 29, Township - 2 -North., Range -68 -West, Weld County, Colorado. 1 If any work associated with this project requires the excavation in or placement of dredged or fill material, either temporary or permanent, into wetlands adjacent to the pond or the pond at a is location, this office should be contacted for proper Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Terms McKee of this office at 303-979A120 and reference action ID #199480388. Sincerely, T Project T anager- LOS HPGLER UR. STATE OF COLORADO Y Romer+ Governor it ,r. TEL:303-663-5394 3 3 563-S394 Sep 20 93 10:39 No ,X02 P403 J KK IE R ¶O. 'DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IVISJONWILDLIFE A ' c O uh I. OrPonlUkn'r [ MRILO'YI It Perry D. Olson, Otrocrmr 6O6. E9road'way Denver., Colorado 80216 Tc ra phone z 003) 297,1192 a Weld County Planning Department Gloria Dunn, Current Planner 1400 N. 17th Avenue Gres eY, CO 80631 Weld County Planning Department f September 19, 1993. This letter is in regard to Case Numbers • � �� the rezoning of a40 acre parcel at the intersection of roads 16 1/2 and �'arce l of �landunder-consideration,� �' I,� � . The_ is used by a large variety o' wildlife. Of ` the 4 0 s gerea ; well over BThe lake contains two O% is coverediby lake. islands that provid , nesting areas for Canada peese . .The i€�1ands, a�:.st� other species of wildlife rov ide cover and -resting areas for many amphibians �� as bullfrogs ducks, shorebirds, bullfrogs and: leopard f ro g B , turtles antat m such �.s °mu�.kr�.ts. �'�re..ake and shoreline � a��al� for many more species of wildlife from the Swallows that the water to raccoons hunt insects over food. The lake is ns that work the a shorel ne while searching for probably used, by ducks that nest in the surrounding agricultural areas as a place to raise their young The property is connected to the riparian corridor a Creek, something. that further long Boulder ir��reaaea wildlife use of s the property. Riparian zones or areas provide critical habitat to many species of wildlife. . They also serve :an e)ae +�.� �-� �+�� r� �� r � large number � �' wildlife .-1lent movement species' In tai s area, mammals - as large as deer should be expected area. The wetland areaslong the riparian between the creek and the lake, as well as the shoreline vegetation, would provide nesting cover for some species of migratory song birds such as red winged black on -sight visit to the property onbirds. An � � .�a very rainy day showed several types of ducks using the area, These included mallards and wood ducks. Numerous widgeon, �adwal 1, geese were on the lake) as well as some gulls that were migrating through the area. Not as the land t only bird species inhabit the aroma, mar�m�al , reptile and provides habitat for many amphibian apeden as well. Development of this t _ rIC O __ .. a manner is not much room between the cou i: on two sides of he property and the waters edge. According to the information received, the proposed development sights on the pn�ent calls for five home property, why r these five tights are to be located is not known, as they are not shown - in the buffer zone, or area of no usmaterials received. A � �or development, between the home lots and- the lake would help to soften t ui` �� feet,�he impacts. A buffer zoner more would be preferable, but considering the limited space around the lake, this•may � not be possible. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Mantel J. awry, Executive Director WILDLIFE Cj�y�;Jm George Van(DenBertu,. Chairman f Rosso L Firaidonberger, Vice Chnidu ari * 'i, r'ii am R Heciosngi. ScrP ry ,Idon W, Cooper. member a RQbeccn L. Frank. fin cent) Or * Dennis Lustre . tviernbet • Gene a Peterson, member • Larry mi1� "rr , To M rn � � be r SEP 20 '93 09:28 303 663 a . •Yt a1 ti75 ■ 349787 • There also needs to be movement corridors or pathwaya between the iota to allow for the Movement of wildlife through the area. The loss of habitat through development wildlife that is ��,� is not the only impact on i the p r le or probable, there are other Causes. mpact that pets can have on wildlife. that are allowed to roam can have - � , �''�'�� and cats �� e a serious impact on .may species c i wildlife, Cats can be `per of fe+c��.�e - p �� mammals. Some species .. predators on birds and sma�li, s of wildlife that inhabit the . area may also prey on pets. Animals such as coyotes, foxes and � are known to feed on cats smalland great horned owls e best solution is not to allow free roaming cats and dogs. Cats should. ''fie kept and dogs in fenced or electronic _ p indoors�ema��i�d? � �'e (invisible) �'$�� yards. Other encounters that would be likely include raccoon andskunks getting into g ardens truth �' If wood siding - � , �� and pet food left � outside or shingles are used, woodpecker problems sh expected. Bats may also ,u use dwellings as - ou�. d be _ a �ua�r�e� Mme , �eer are quite fond of roan types -of decorative shrub bery and flowers and if such plantings are used, the deer will likely types � � feed on them. Other of.plants may prove to be very detrimental to i`a+, for example, can out compete the area. Purple lc�ses�ri ��etes.t ion and take �,�rer . _ native wetlands �'�r�� . loesestri fe has almost no wildlife benefit and it will make = areasunsuitable - - US . for wildlife devel1 Ida z —•ay. r`e'! Q i.* ic%! f deve1Iop.m'ient is ` y}��J �'{7 .o o{� c1art types ' . Buffer zones and movement c et a e e'rrr� Q open space can r d rs . fh ��ri�i�� building ' help. Covenants concerni�g_ 'pets, envelopes and landscaping can further help to minim ze the impacts of the land development species of wildlife respond p t on �il�li�e, Some espond well to human development and may / Information on living with wildlife should be provided to prospective home owners. Any developments within wetlands must conform to U. S. Corps of Engineers regulations. Thank you f o r the opportunity to comment ofthis rcp�ert�' � �f � there en the proposed rezoning iLd d i aed are any questions, please call# h 4triltil de gY i r c I ark . Cousins. )District Wildlife Manager, Longmont South /I (30 402)775e57720 5e5 7?2 , 6630157 5 a i SEP 20 '93 09=39 303 663 5394 Y s 5 0 PACE.004 4 1' May 10, 1994 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: DEPARTMENT OF PANNING SERViCES PHONE (303) 353-3845, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEYD COLORADO 80631 'iI irl emointv Planning CASE NUMBER: Z-488 Enclosed is an application from Jack O►lberding, Bill 'Bedell, John C. Widerquist,. and Terry A. Henze for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The parcel of land Is described as NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, R68W of the 66th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is west of and adjacent to weld County Road 3 1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16 i/2 This application is submitted, to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by May 27, 1994, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Gloria Dunn, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. 2, 5. Signed; Date: We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply . with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. we do not have a comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our tow►'n. for the following reasons: We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to refer to the enclosed letter.. _5161254'6',PF P.gencv: May la r 1994 0 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHO N E (303) 353-3845. E.X.T. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N.17TH AVENUE QREEL_EY, COLORADO 80631 CASE NUMBER: Z-468 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; Enclosed is an application from Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John CA t iderquist r and Terry A. Henze for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) . The parcel of Land is described as NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T21 R6SW of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is west of and adjacent to k Weld county Road 3 1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16 1/2 This application is submitted to you for review and. recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated, Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by May 27, 1994, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation, Please call Glo is Dunn, Current Planner, if you have any questions,_about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. a 1. -We have reviewed this request and find that it - -- does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. mis 5. signed; Date: We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request is/is not) compatible with the. interests of our town for the following reasons: We have reviewed the request and find roc .conflicts with our interests. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to Please refer to the enclosed letter. Ant, Ity Agency: • r 0 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303) 353 3645, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AV E N U E GREELEY, COLORADO 8063' May 10x 1994 CASE NUMBER: Z-488 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Jack Ol.berding , Bill Bedell, John C. Widergtiiist , and Terry A. Henze for a Change of Zone, from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The narcel of land is described as UW4 3W4 of Section 29, T N f R6SW of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been, submitted is west of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3 1/4 and south of an.d adjacent to Weld County Road 16 1/2. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. 1994, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation Please call Gloria Dunn, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above j 3 4 Signed Date: We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive following reasons . Plan for the We do not have.a a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior. to Please refer to the enclosed Witter. 4 1 R -I '3 mlf 4714 Le. II 0, • di a "m171rItilogr f. a, a a • F°I+01- lb sikC! ,ter • •iii air,. • • L^n at s � alb toe T1 SP Z4 a IV a • sa i s9 Mr' ■. o ■ 1 '• r a • I r r •• • R • o1 i fir. di Po/ Jodi > art a L 40,i _ ■.-rte -r t'4 ■1 $ • a 1 !_ art 4 t H -1 1 rsirt:SCLan air 1 r � r+ 1 • a 4 • •i tr • ra � am Ma it • • Mira • y P • f ale sar V i. • II • ea a --.i._1`Ir - i Iii it ill -n -�T, r-: i_ rat_ - -,--.1.".. •<r■ Ira ._4 N a • • • • S ■d r I 1 ' r t • ■• !T I f� 1 'i s ' Q • 0 IS 's I 4, ii e ■1 p'Ws 4 as a ' • 14 1a 4 • .:- f»' actes 74 •' 1 fzil 1 • . a p 11 r • cb • I 'p antrIfettorm • R 4 4. a • • ■ ■ r t 4 • S 3r 1 z eau L) 4 992 paes • eer rya LAO • _ p— "ImWrii *sets_ ■ r s 1_ • L c. 4900 • •._gym• _ 492g n� • p PIe: int View Ridge • we Pi I J I SI t ant =ma- 4-- 18 19 31 a Plumbs at I 4950 ,4 950 — In a 125, id 17 - IL -a sis a• ir way alt 4893 iNst 40797 „ciao , arCr..:.---ds Is) 16 21 / • is • 4852, roe r _is, tv le I *et) 4' e DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303) 353-3845, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N! 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO DATE: May 10, 1994 TO: SURROUNDING PROPERTY/MINERAL OWNERS CASE NUMBER: Z-488 There will be a Public Hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 21, 1994/ at 1:30 p.m., in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center! 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado concerning the request Of; NAME; Jack olberding, Bill Bedell, John Co Widerquist, and Terry A. Henze FOR: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to MID (Planned Unit Development). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, ,, P68W of the 6th Poti*, ,f Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3 1/4 and south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16 1/2. Your property is within five -hundred (500) feet of the property on which this request has been made or you may have an interest in the minerals located under the property under consideration, For additional information write or telephone Gloria Dunn, Current Planners Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley/ Colorado 806311 on or before the date of public hearing. 940767 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303) 353-3845i EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 5 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE F EELEY, COLORADO 80631 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN91 S The Weld County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 21, 1994, at 1:30 prm. for the purpose of Considering a Change of Zone for the property described below. Approval pf the request may create a vested, property right pursuant to Colorado Law. AP'P'L I CT : Jack Olberd ing ., Bill Bedell, John C. Widerquist, i st, and Terry A. Henze LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, RBBW of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Co iprado i TYPE AND INTENSITY OF PROPOSED USE: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUTS (Planned Unit Development) . LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3 1/4 and south. of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16 1/2. SIZE: 40.62 acres, more or less The public hearing will be held in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1400 ND 17th Aven .e, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on June 21, 1994. Copies oft he application are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631 = Phone - 353- 845, Extension 3540. Judy Yamaguchi, Chairperson Weld County Planning Commission To be published in the Windsor Beacon To be published o e (1) time b May 12, 1994. Received by: aT Date: Sergi CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Hearing, Docket #94-57, was placed in the United States mail, first class mai1. postage prepaid, addressed to the following property owners. DATED this day of MARTHA A. AND LESLIE J, WILLIAMS 8876 ROGERS ROAD LONGMONT, GO 80501 VIRGINIA N SHAW 1435 WELD COUNTY ROAD 161 LONGMONT, CO! 80501 HELEN la BRYANT 2005 JAMES DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 GARY L. AND SYLVIA L. BURBACK 1532 BEER STREET LONGMONT, CO 80501 VESSELS OIL AND GAS COMPANY 600 SOUTH CHERRY STREET DENVER, CO 80222 PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPELINE COMPANY P.O. BOX 127 BRIGHTON, CO 80601 ROSE T. MAC? 2118 LONGS PEAK AVENUE LONGMONT, CO 80501 BASIN EXPLORATION 370 17TH STREET #1800 DENVER, CO 80202 JACK OLBERDING 825 GRAPE BOULDER, CO 80304 JOHN C. WLDERQUIST 1328 MARIGOLD CT. LAFAYETTE, TTE, CO 80O26 BILL BEDELL 223 S. BUCHANAN AVE. LOUISVILLE CO 80027 1994. C TERRY A. HENZE 4816 DEVONSHIRE BOULDER, CO 80301 JACK OLBERDING, BILL BEDELL, JOHN ILDER UI8T t AND TERRY HENZE 3605 TABLE MESA DRIVE BOULDER, CO 80303 GARY TUTTLE TUTTLE APPLEGATE, I C . 11990 GRANT STREET, SUITE 410 DENVER, CO 80233 Clerk . •the. Board i CLERK TO THE BOARD Ina a �1' 4.4' Pit." i 0 l th.. rt tew <3 X e CL z 1-i4 z 0 0 o r� rzi� H CY.I C CC O c 'J r -I Q 0 0 CO Ed . O I—tG EEC Ce en_ al r p 11 I II III -� 1.`1 4 54 CLERK TO THE EOfJD Zt9L18 OUVISO1O3 'A313lHOO — SQL XOU 'C'd 940'79'7 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE/MINERAL OWNERS Jack 0lberding, rdin , Bill Bedell, John C.Widerquist t and Terry . Henze Z- 488 Martha A. and Leslie J. Williams 8876 Rogers Road Longmont, CO 80501 Virginia N. Shaw 1435 Weld County Road 16 1/2 Longmont, CO 80501 Helen L. Bryant 2005 James Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Gary L . and Sylvia L e Burback 8876 Roger Road Longmont, CO 80501 Vessels Oil and Gas Company 600 South Cherry Street Denver, CO 80222 Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company P.O. Box 121 Brighton, CO 80601 Rose T. Macy 2118 Longs Peak Avenue Longmont, CO 80501 Basin Exploration 310 17th Street #1800 Denver, CO 802O2 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby ,certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Hearing, Docket #94-57, was placed in the United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following property owners. DATED this //i72 - VESSELS OIL AND GAS COMPANY 1050 17TH STREET, SUITE 2000 DENVER, CO 80265 day of Lit 1994. I .771e_ //Lie/Le Deputy Clee o the Board • nnwi+rr.,Us*` ....itz,%HaN =rs Ittsi t z -44 O IA .1Pa eatteln in r O4 gr Coin 0 r= jai 0 z Q 0 et, 4.9* ertit% cbc3 CLERK TO THE BOARD U) L U) Fri ›- VI c z ‘1/21/43 (44 thkNbcti ts \\a w w 940"l5'7 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I have placed a true surrounding property owners and owners and accordance with the notification requirements of Z-488 for Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C Henze in the United States Mail, postage prepaid as addressed on the attached list. this 10th day of May, 1994 and correct copy of the lessees of minerals in Weld County in Case Number Widerguist, and. Terry A First Class Mail by letter 940'79'7 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE/MINERAL OWNERS Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John C. Widerquist, and Terry A. Henze Z-488 Martha A. and Leslie J. Williams 8876 Rogers Road Longmont, CO 80501 Virginia N. Shaw 1435 Weld County Road 16 1/2 Longmont, CO 80501 Helen L. Bryant 2005 James Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Gary L. and Sylvia L. Burback 8876 Roger Road Longmont, CO 80501 Vessels Oil and Gas Company 600 South Cherry Street Denver, CO 80222 Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company P.O. Box 127 Brighton, CO 80601 Rose T. Macy 2118 Longs Peak Avenue Longmont, CO 80501 Basin Exploration 370 17th Street #1800 Denver, CO 80202 cArutsi Virginia N. Shaw Martha A. Williams Leslie J. Williams. Helen L. Bryant Leslie J. Williams Macy Rose T. Willi Gary L. Burback, & Sylvia L. Burback pA}1ES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print of type UNE ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ZDENTIFICATION # 8876 Rogers Road Martha A Williams Longmont, CO 80501 131329000069 1435 Weld County Road 16-1/2 131329000076 Longmont" CO 80501 1.3132900_0068 & 8876 Rogers Road 131320000067 Jr. Longmont, CO 80501 131330110002S 2005 James Drive 131330000072 Loveland, CO 80538 131330000022 Jr., 8876 Rogers Road 7 8876 Rogers Road Longmont, CO 80501 P.O. Box 758 131329000070 Weld County Greeley. CO 80632 131330000071 Weld County Vessels Oil & Gas Company Panhandle Eastern pipeline Company Leslie J. Williams. Gary L. Burback & ,Sylvia L. Burback nose T. Macy EASEMENT HOLDERS P.O. Box 758 Greeley. CO 80632 600 South Cherry Street Denver. CO 80222 P.O. Box 127 Brighton. CO 80601 8876 Rogers Road Jr. Longmont. CO 80501 1532 Summer Street Longmont.. CO 80501' 2118 Longs Peak Avenue Longmont, CO 80501 94V787 111;11 I [-I XAME(S) OF OWNER(S) OF MINERAL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY Please print of type e ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ITATE AND HIP CODE IDENTIFICATION # Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell= 360S Table Mesa Drive _John Widerquist, & Terry Henze Boulder, CO 80303 Basin Exploration 370 - 17th Street #1800 Denver, CO 80202 940 r Weld County Commissioners P.O.Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 8062 V'`7LD COUNTY 194711 ".24 AN 9: 58 CLERK TO THE BOARD August 20, 1994 Re: Continental View Pond PUD' request to the zoning from A(agrricultural) to a PUD(Planned Unit development) As land owners we are urging you to deny this change. We are in the agricultural business and from past experiences, we have found that these homes have not brought anything to our area but more traffic, trash and pets who are allowed to roam free; plus a raise in taxes. As long time residents we have seen this area covered with water and also the road below Plumb and Dailey Ditch washed out to where traffic could not use it. Placing homes in the flood plane areas will increase the amount of our home owners insurance. Homes placed in flood plane areas caused ditch companies not to be able to properly insure their reserviors because of lawsuits brought against them . Are we to get better roads and police protection for our area if this PUD goes without increasing our taxes? Please read the enclosed editorial . We understand that the commissioners have condemn the town of Mead for annexing areas for housing with out proper services. Where and when are the sewers going to be required for such areas? Is it going to be Weld County's policy to a'_low housing in all of the mined sand and gravel areas along the creeks and rivers? We urge you not to approve this change in zoning on the 24 of August1994 AL 914)797 4frdC `� P* c1 _efel O' 7≤T �� CO)_ezzA,Z)� ? 1st 041 V? A 74 qsa ir r-ra I ti 7370 WELD COUNTY RD.#1 In:tti l SV 1, COLO.8C)501- August 17, 1994 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 cLERIA 1-0 Dear Commissioners: We are writing you abouta matter of great concern to us. On August 24th, you are going to consider a request which would permit the construction of five homes adjacent to a wildlife pond at Weld County Roads 16 1/2 and 3 1/4. We hope that you have taken the opportunity to have personally observed the above mentioned property. We do so each evening as we take a walk. Many species of birds, including some which are not often seen, have been observed on this pond. Years ago it was just a gravel pit; presently, it is a beautiful site and a home to many different species of wildlife. There are so few remaining natural areas left that it would be a shame if one more was allowed to be destroyed. We ask that you deny the request for development of this particular site. Thank you. John and Sandy True 7370 WCR # 1 Longmont, CO 80504 kktja:f ad: PL L; &oc 9407S7 e,• . • TIMES -CALL EDITORIAL:; Shall we simply watc our farmland disappea bid waters swirling In many developing nations,; T urthrough the Midwest are '- population -control measures washing away billions of dot have yet to take hold; and in , lars worth of crops this sum- countries like India and China.:4.' mer. Yet after a flood, receding-:: even small shifts in population .;l rivers leave behind nutrient • growth rates can considerably.',:;. rich silt that will rejuvenate the • alter world food supplies. Also, .::: • land and provide robust stands - ' most of the Third World's gains',.E. of crops for years to come: °f.' °r. 5 in food production since 1950;,.; It's a whole different story = have been due to improved..' with urban sprawl: ante deveY , fanning technology —. but late opment flows over agricultural. , ly there have been relatively r acreage, the farmland is lost , .: few significant innovations...;;. forever. 7. When you add to all that the prospect, at least in the fore;,. ,Y seeable future, of continued ,'degradation of the global envi _:5 ronment the notion of protect-;:;;, ing farmland more aggress:`.-,; -�-�'.. sively seems prudent , The American Farmland Trust is calling on the. US. gov, ernment to assign funds now..'' used for farm subsidies to in In Colo�.a rom Ito _1991, more than 500 farms each averaging 1,300 acres disap peared, with an accompan acres. oy, about 2 million acres of farmlands year are ,i:' • lost to other uses. Most seri- ously threatened are. Califor- • nia, the upper Midwest andtherC stead go toward farm preserva-.• East Coast, according. to the; lion. That might not be realistic.-. Washington -based American.: • ' in the short term — subsidies.:', Farmland Trust. — - - u -- However; that group''s list of the top 50 regions threatened;` by cities' growth hits pretty::=' But w close to home as well. Included counties and municipaliti `are the fertile lands of:Weld ` s.=::. begin to jointly plan.for'- County, agriculturally one of -. . scale agricultural presery the nation's most productive tion': . areas:" '� .. --- It may seem to some that, there are endless tracts.of agn - cultural property across this wide nation,. and the efficiency: ' of the American farmer can alp ways guarantee usa bounty: But in the increasingly global , economy, the, United States will. only become a bigger•player in-:.-'a�o�� ert c edit ui ,r: a world food -supply game in. „,';` •e ore too .many years go by, which the stakes may rise con•t: : ' Longmont and several nearby siderably. z, ' :. smaller towns are destined to , Food needs are escalating'as • l. spread their boundaries much.".' populations grow in Latin " further into Weld County. America, Africa and Asia. Re-,. cent indications are that de- spite increased crop productiv ity in the Third World; a food - . supply shortage might be loom-, 'ing at demand for grain lags • behind domestic supply. er rom urban pressure, stay productive...How mucL as learned too late in the pas decade by Boulder County of-, icials who, despite massive down -zoning and acquisiton.of: opernspaeecould only elples a.n ere s o r _r: ' a y e d and municipal leaders can't tit down now and.share the r sponsibilitydiarting a = ourse for development that will channel itaway fro�� erabb1 of i acrea: 940799 -Greg Shaw - 1435 W.C.R. 164 Longmont, Colo. 80504 REQUESTEQ 0qa- E --s.N•Z O PMp �G `9 11 ; '`' I ' AU6l1 /33 C 0; n .v To All Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colo. 80632 • ,� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS- WELD COUNTY, COLORADO RE: DOCKET NO. 94-57, August COUNTY i s -1P 12 At1 9:2� CLERK 24, TIPTHE BOARD ugust 12, 1994 Dear Commissioners: I regret that I am unable to attend the August 24 hearing, however, as a resident in this area for over 20 years, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed change from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development for the following reasons: Although the size of the planned unit development is 40 acres, approximately 14 acres is suitable to build on (site plan, enclosed). With 5 homes, lots would average 2.8 acres creating a high density area. Especially considering that the surrounding land & home owners of the this property average well over 200 acres. Being in an agriculture area, a large amount of big farm equipment and machinery travel along road 16 1/2. Currently, 10 homes use road 16 1/2 as an access to town. With 5 new homes, traffic would be increased by 50% (unless they go 5 miles out of their way by taking road 3 1/4 into Longmont). The PUD states that this would be an enhancement for a wildlife habitat. The planned unit development would not enrich wildlife, but rather, minimize the impact 5 high density homes would make (Division of Wildlife, enclosed). Development of this type can only impact the diverse wildlife in this area in a negative manner. I do not have any personal problems with the current owners, I just feel that this PUD is very incompatible with it's agriculture surrounding. PUD, if chose to do so, should occur where there is zoned, or surrounding zoned unit development, much like that four miles to the west. Niwot has many PUD projects currently for sale that are very similar (or exceeding) to this one. I urge you to read the commentary from the Longmont Daily Times Call on July 28, 1993. Since that time, there have been numerous other reports and commentaries that I could send you that reiterate the same point, but I feel that this one will suffice. The point being; farmland needs a buffer from urban pressure to stay productive. If the buffer goes, so dose the farmer. One may argue, "What will be done with this land if it is not developed?" And I ask, "Dose every piece of land that someone deems unproductive need to be developed?" If so, then the entire front range will soon be one big urban community. Thank you for your time in reading this. I tried to make it as brief as possible. Please consider, and support, the opposal of the Weld County Planning Commission (twice, 9/21/93 & 6/21/94) of this proposed change. nn. PI •411 • Pl-,y'(°_(5) Si,Qicerely, Gre Shaw g r3sweld.Co.Rc/ 1-011q/neti'Ut? Coco 6 -o hey-Ae 3b ) 7h ,/Z§4x'797 Continental View Pond Partnership 825 Grape Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 June 29, 1994 Gloria Dunn Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Continental View Pond PUD - Case Z 488 Gloria, -5 •L:02 CLERK Lit BOARD With reference to the above mentioned PUD application We are all aware that this request was denied by the Weld County Planning Commission by a vote of 2 - 4 at your meeting of June 21, 1994. At this point we would like to pursue this matter with the County Commissoners. Please advise as to which steps need to be taken at this point. Thank you, and we appreciate your time. AC CC .L J B1 RDING Partner Continental View Pond Parntership l� 01#16 17- A JUL 051994 U 1 V planning 940797 here's an old saying that "Fl0000ds are acts of God., bust flood darTiage l,s :an act t of man." That is, if people' didn't build in floodplains where the river Obvions1K flows on occasion, there wouldn'fbe rnalor disasters with every s�-de-thunderstorma—` -` the satrAe`thirrgls-happening this ex with fires. Forests have burned since the Carboniferous Period 300 mil- lion years ago. But when there are houses a the woods -- especially expensive ones pith shake -shingle roofs, cedar siding and expansive redwood decks owned by peo- ple with "Save the Redwoods" and "Pro- tect the Spotted Owl" stickers on their Jeep Cherokees — then a mere brush fire becomes a national disaster. Colorado offers an abundance of other stupid coestruuction sites. McClure Pass between Paonia and Carbondale (a major. commuting route for the working class who are welcome to mop floors in liberal Aspen uaot to live there how can one concentrate on significant global issues. unless there's help to handle the cater- ing?) .was closed fora spell last winter because of a major snowslide. ciy i,iix1Lg vvuuau ue justswell again. E w regulations, we show ED QUILLEN Highway crews used to shoot down small slides and plow them tokeep the highway open. But now there are houses near the slide runs, and the affected home- owners might sue the state if it de- liberately starts an avalanche. Those houses never should have been built they like -houses in the bottom o of t Bigg Thompson Canyon, or houses in the wind zone on the west side of Boulder, or dozens of other places prone to everything from regular hailstorms of biblical proportions to swelling soils that demolish foundations. To solve this problem, some folks favor statewide zoning and building codes. That sounds appealing, but why give our governments any more power? Is that why we live in America? Is that why men died storming Normandy Beach and crossed the icy Delaware to attack the Hessians? Aside from employing building inspec- tors, what do building codes accomplish? Boulder has building codes, and it must al- so lead -the observable universe in quick - spreading apartment -house fires. Saguache County doesn't have building codes, and people I've met there seem quite happy constructing their own homes from adobe, straw bales, recycled plastic, old boxcars, etc. They haven't had any lethal fires, so why inflict regulations upon them? As for statewide regulation in general, recall last September, when Gov. Roy Ro- mer launched his re-election campaign. .Not with a formal announcement, -but by calling the General Assembly into special session to deal with juvenile gangs and to give Romer a front-page way to show how much he's concerned about crime. Among the bills was a law outlawing guns on school property. It seemed rea- sonable until this spring, when I talked to a woman who edits the newspaper in a small Western Slope town, where people were flagrantly violating Romer's grand- standing gun law. "People come to our football games and just park next to the field and watch from their pickups," she explained. "And this being rural Colorado, every local pickup has a gun rack filled' to. capacity, right there on school property. It's what they've always done, • but now they're breaking state law," What was the result? "The school super- intendent and police chief decided that they weren't going to do anything unless some- body complained, and so far, nobody's com- plained," she said. "I suspect that. if anyone does complain, he'll be mercilessly ha- rassed until he drops the complaint. It just shows you how they make rules in Denver that don't fit the world we' live in. Maybe the governor could come over and talk our football fans into giving up their deer rifles. in the name of safer urban schools?" That could be interesting, but there's a better solution than imposing a one -size - fits -all solution from Denver. The state government does have expertise in people who know about floodplains, fire -prone areas, avalanche paths, subsiding soils and dozens of other ways M,lither Nature discourages stable homes in 'Colorado. Instead of passing new restrictions, the state could use its experts to produce a map with official `Stupid Zones You'd still be free to do as yo sheaf with your uropert in a St pid_Zenl_.'How ever, you'd manage on your own with ho governmental property services. No road plowing or maintenance, no rescue,.. yeti_ flood insurance no deputy sheriffs, rlc re bur Wing assis ance, no subsidized electric or telephone service, no standingsto soe in. court for rerty_probl rte, no fire= lg ers dying to protect the trophy -home lifestyles of the rich and famous: The Stupid Zone would allow people to continue building whatever and wherever they liked, so the current real-estate boom could continue unabated, Outsiders buying property could find out about the Stupid Zone if they wanted to, but no one would have to tell them about it. Further, the Stupid Zone would instant- ly cut the size, ex ens nd power of_ goes ernment at all levels tat minimum cost -- just convene the experts and draw the map. It's a worthy project for, say, Doug Bruce, and if he'll take it on, I'll be. t to first to sign the petiiis' Ed Quillen of Salida is a MN -Ile( netvspapsr e it:oi whose column appears Tuesdays and Sundays Aug. 23, 1994 Weld Co. Commissioners Connie Harbert We are writing concerning the PUD request of Mr. Jack Oberling :to be reviewed by you on August 24, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. This appears to be an identical request that was denied in September, 1993 --only the names (from Williams to Oberling & Co.) and category (from Estate Zoning to PUD) have changed. The adverse impact to the area has not changed. We have lived 1/2 mile west of the proposed subdivision for over 22 years and are aware of the tremendous growth currently affecting the front range. We are privileged to enjoy the abundance of wildlife surrounding us: a herd of about 15-20 deer, foxes, coyote, geese, cranes, ducks, pheasants, etc. Though we run a sheep operation of approximately 50-60 ewes and 100 plus lambs, the only trouble we have ever had with predators is domestic dogs. Last year two friendly dogs with collars climbed through the feed bunks and attacked six ewes. A month ago, our new neighbor's "sheepdog" dug under a fence and ran a flock to exhaustion, killing one ewe with twins and chewing a 4 inch hole in the side of a two month old lamb. The neighbors said he just "wanted to play". What we are trying to illustrate is that this area is agricultural in nature, and not located within any urban growth boundary. The closest thing we have to a subdivision is a trailer park on the corner of Highway 52 and WCR 1. This proposed PUD subdivision does not appear to be within the guidelines for growth patterns of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and is not compatible to the surrounding land use. If you allow small acreage such as this to be developed in the rural areas of Weld County, you will effectively destroy the tremendous wildlife habitat that exists and have a negative impact on those of us who are trying to maintain the agricultural nature of the area. The proposed density is, in our opinion, much too great, and we express a very real concern for the possible "leap -frog" effect that such a development would have in this area. Please limit the home building to only one for this 40 -acre parcel, 75% of which is a lake. It is a privilege to live here, and that same privilege is available to anyone who wishes to purchase a minimum of 35 acres, contrary to the economic argument that only a millionaire could afford to live there in a single dwelling. Eighty-five acres just north of us sold last year for $2,000.00 an acre, including water rights. To our knowledge, none of our neighbors profess to be millionaires! Thank you for your time. Dale & Lynn Johnson 505 WCR 16 !/2 Longmont, CO 80504 94C737 1435 WCR 16 1/2 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 772-1297 CD PLIMX1© O seek RANCH Vag hAl- CCU ri 7710 WCR 5 C01. Longmont, CO 80504 19911 i .r .(303) 651-1857 CLERK TH E 1 HE BOARD August 17, 1994 RE: Docket No 94-57, August 24, 1994 Mr. Bill Webster Chairman, Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Commissioner Webster; In reference to the above hearing for a change from Agricultural to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) for Mr Jack Olberding and party, we wish to express our concerns regarding this application. (1) We adjoin this property directly to the east and north of the proposed addition. While this area is not agricultural in the terms of farmland, we are using this property mainly for a livestock operation, with some hayground. Our son, Jeff, runs the operation, and Mike works elsewhere, as this operation does not support two families at present. If, however, sometime in the future, we could afford a larger feedlot operation, would we be able to add a feedlot to our operation with a housing develop- ment across the street? (2) Within the surrounding area, all the homes are on acreages with livestock from a few head to several hundred head. These landowners are knowledgeable in the problems particular to agriculture and livestock operations, but would those not familiar with farming operations understand its problems? (3) In this request for dense housing (one of which would be a "spec" house), what would prevent it from becoming a "leep- frog" effect, with other developments wanting to be added along the river? Does the county have any plans for open space areas or controlled growth patterns? (This location is seven miles from the actual town of Frederick). (4)I This particular request for a housing development has been defeated nce by the Southwest Weld Land -Use Council in Frederick, and twice by the Weld County Planning Commission. The only people who are in favor of this development are those who plan on develop- ing parcels in this area. CX N, e r -r- G, PL - 940797 O 1435 WCR 16 1/2 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 772-1297 oPQao O oek Sp) I RANCH 7710 WCR 5 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 651-1857 Page 2 (5) In 1970, this particular parcel was flooded and several feet underwater. While the houses are supposedly being built one -foot above flood stage, will this really be a preventative in case of flooding? (6) On the original hearing, the Department of Wildlife stated in its letter that a housing development in this area would be harmful to the wildlife in the area. Will the sand -hill cranes and eagles continue to stop in this area with the additional houses? In summary, there are several dense housing subdivisions in Weld County, and our feeling is that those should be expanded as needed. As long as possible, however, the prime agricultural areas (including livestock areas), should be allowed to continue without the threat of subdivisions leap -frogging into these areas. 14- 1 While I, (Mike), might not be able to attend this hearing due to'schedules, I would like to ask that before the hearing that you might come out and see the density of this subdivision, the potential for flooding, and the disruption for agriculture and wildlife in this area. We urge you to vote "NO". Please do not hesitate to give us a call for any additional information of which we might be able to provide. T -nk yo j for yournconsideration, (/9 Gl%eq ✓7 c' ichael & Virginia Shaw 1435 Weld County Road #16Z Longmont, Colorado 80504 Phone: (303) 772-1297 940787 O O June 21, 1994 Weld Co. Planning Commission Tom Rulon We are writing concerning the PVD request of Mr. Jack Oberling to be reviewed by you on June 21, 1994 at 1:30 p.m. This appears to be an identical request that was denied by you in September, 1993 --only the names (from Williams to Oberling & Co.) and category (from Estate Zoning to PYl{D) have changed. The adverse impact to the area has not changed. We have lived 1/2 mile west of the proposed subdivision for over 22 years and are aware of the tremendous growth currently affecting the front range. We are privileged to enjoy the abundance of wildlife surrounding us: a herd of about 15-20 deer, foxes, coyote, geese, cranes, ducks, pheasants, etc. Though we run a sheep operation of approximately 50-60 ewes and 100 plus lambs, the only trouble we have ever had with predators is domestic dogs. Last year two friendly dogs with collars climbed through the feed bunks and attacked six ewes. A month ago, our new neighbor's "sheepdog" dug under a fence and ran a flock to exhaustion, killing one ewe with twins and chewing a 4 inch hole in the side of a two month old lamb. The neighbors said he just "wanted to play". What we are trying to illustrate is that this area is agricultural in nature, and not located within any urban growth boundary. The closest thing we have to a subdivision is a trailer park on the corner of Highway 52 and WCR 1. This proposed MD subdivision does not appear to be within the guidelines for growth patterns of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and is not compatible to the surrounding land use. If you allow small acreage such as this to be developed in the rural areas of Weld County, you will effectively destroy the tremendous wildlife habitat that exists and have a negative impact on those of us who are trying to maintain the agricultural nature of the area. The proposed density is, in our opinion, much too great, and we express a very real concern for the possible "leap -frog" effect that such a development would have in this area. Please limit the home building to only one for this 40 -acre parcel, 75% of which is a lake. It is a privilege to live here, and that same privilege is available to anyone who wishes to purchase a minimum of 35 acres, contrary to the economic argument that only a millionaire could afford to live there in a single dwelling. Eighty-five acres just north of us sold last year for $2,000.00 an acre, including water rights. To our knowledge, none of our neighbors profess to be millionaires! Thank you for your time. Dale & Lynn Johnson 505 WCR 16 !/2 Longmont, CO 80504 cil r.,. I:: a) ^, r> -.:..,_a. 'JUN 2 0 1994 I — ` -. ',. , ' 75 ,. — 9* _ Ra 6.3/ < J I I --_.V • -zit-iv a____ . ,,9_,..i.„).,,,,;„,‘„:„..:,,,,,..„ i •� _e.., ±. . y C / /6% , .4 :cv c. 37)/ S w. -? -a�! .12? .a -kil .-Q n // /a_n GAL/ ��-.s_..D 7 _ \ • .... - O' 940'7137 gt Can Meacl absorb new o� ca Commissioners are worried rapid growth may saturate tow 'Pa By WAYNE LAUGESEN n s sewage system : w, 4 an�esCii Staff Writer "The town board is very careful about what than 300. th' they will and won't annex, and they annex "No matter what MEAD — Rapid growth of subdivisions has something only if it will benefit the town," this community to remain rural," Smith said, happens, the board wants de• of Weld County commissioners concerned about Smith said"But right now there's no way a "The rural setting is what people like about a, sewage and future ground water contami- town of our size can extend sewer services to this town, own and we ' don t want it to become a d nation in the town that calls itself "a little every new subdivision."t The original town is served bswae e, city. It's a tough situation, because growth r ch Mead has annexed six new subdivisions in system that empties into a lagoon It cant small s the tax base but we want to stay town with a big Future. y' less than five years, and most of the homes handle much additional use. aren't hooked . into the town's sewage system. "At some point, I don't know when, we'll septicWebtsaid is that too tanks will satu ate eachfieldsany e c Rather, each home is connected to a septic have to build a new sewage system," Smith which ch absorb the liquid waste and cause re tank, and construction on 100 new homes will said. "But right now it isn't something we can sewage to seep into the water table. le begin in August° afford to do." Septic tanks dispose of liquid sewage allow- Webster said the to "Septic tanks are fine for a farm here and ing it to slowly absorb into the ground. Solid ing so quickly if it cant ex eridsewe b lilies. ex there, but not a neighborhood of 100 houses " is sued in a septic tank and octWebster said. P cis waste The towns iiiost recent annexation, ap_ But sewage problems aren't what most For..._liy pumped have allproper disposal. proved in April, involves about 42 acres of rad nnexatio discuss tewhen asked .ears " these subdivisions on farm land a half -mile north ' of Mead on Weld rapid theexf annexation. Instead, s will express on the • out b septic tanj is like reverting back to . the ou_t- County Road 7. A developer plans to build 100 about hathe effect new homes have on the b louse'' said Bill Webster, c rman of the homes.character of their town. Weld Coui $�ard.folruissioneaps. "A lot of farmers around here can't make a "Where else can you sit at the local gas sta- "Yly Smith, Mead town clerk, said town of profit any more, so they ace working with de- coon and look across the street �,t/vDonothing but a A • l:icials have not discussed septic tanks with velo�pers and we're seeing a lot of proposals small n field?" said at Bud Ghat �,s �o owns a c county commissioner -s and did. not know there for annexation," Smith said. l hangout gasr cadet. that has been a so- was concern. Commissioners expressed con- In the 1980s, before the annexations, Mead cra It won't be like this for long. In some ways f Berns _,bout Mead septic tanks last week in a consisted of about 250 people. Now the town it's too bad. But all this growl:h makes e l n .eeting with citizens from Frederick., Fir= population is close to 600, and the latest an- worth a lot of money. Someday 5,u estone and Dacono.� � ��,exetouu could increase population by more Safeway are going to want thi corm mart and n u N- 2 0- 9 4 T U E 1' 7: 0 J a c k P W o l f e O P _121 1 June 20, 1994 JUN 2 1 1994 Manning Weld County Planning Department VIA FAX: (303) 351-0978 RE: Continental View Pond PUD - Case 1488 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I live approximately 1-1/2 miles east of the proposed PUD at 7249 Weld County Road 5. I received a copy of an information sheet concerning the PUD in my mailbox from the developers. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposal based upon my experience living in the immediate area. Wildlife. The primary wildlife using the site are ducks, geese, herons, egrets and pelicans. Raptors and small prairie birds such as larks, doves and plovers are in the area and undoubtably use the site as well. The primary feature of the site that makes it attractive to water fowl are the islands where the birds can nest or roost with some safety from the coyotes, fox, racoons and skunks that are prevalent in the area. The developers have already bridged over from Road 16-1/2 to the first island in order to drill a soil test hole on their proposed Lot No. 1. From the looks of the map they provided to me,`they will also be bridging over to the second island as well. This, together with the pressure of four homes along the southeast corner of the site is bound to have a negative impact on the attractiveness of the site to water fowl. The water fowl generally do not feed on the dry vegetation, preferring the adjacent grain fields, but they do feed on fish etc. that they find in the water. While soil types on site may be mixed, as they are on our. property, all of the homes in the area generally have excellent percolation due to the layers of sand and gravel mixed in with the other soils. Any pollutants going into leach fields would most likely percolate directly into the adjacent pond. . Land Use/ Impact on adjacent owners. The developers assert that there are 54 homes within a two mile radius of the site. I believe that there are less than 20 within a 1-1/2 mile radius, the majority being on the fringe. The site is located in a truly agricultural area, with homes generally spaced well apart. There are presently three homes under construction on exempt or larger lots within. one mile of the site, and we understand that at least one more is planned. This is already asignificant percentage increase in the number of residences in the area. If five home sites are approved in this application, the number of homes in the area will be increased by fifty percent in one year, and the nature of the area will have changed for ever. Each new home, or small subdivision makes it easier to approve the next proposal. What will happen when the gravel operation just to the south of the site is closed? Obviously the owners will expect the same consideration that you are being asked to give here. With ten houses on the west side of Road 3-1/4, it would JUN 20 '94 16:04 3034444069 owl JUN -20-94 T U E 17:01 Jack P . I -lo I -re O P . 02 then make sense that ten more on the east side wouldn't be much of an impact. If limits are to be placed on growth and land use in the area; they must be established now, or current limits must be enforced! It may be unreasonable for the owner of the site to maintain it as a true wildlife refuge unless the County or some land trust is willing to purchase it. The land to the north of Road 16-1/2 and the drainage ditch, well reservation land around the periphery can probably never be reclaimed beyond its present state. It would take major work to restore the site to agricultural use, so residential use is probably the best use for it. My wife and I have walked and driven by the site many times. We think that it would be well suited for two or three homes in the southeast corner at most. We believe that a home on the "island " on the north side of the site would be a bad idea for many reasons. I don't believe that the cost of bringing utilities to the site would be as high as anticipated. I think that water is already closer than Road 5, and most, if not all, of the rest of us do not have natural gas now. If the developers are intent on a truly rural site as they propose, then landscape buffers will not be necessary and driveway costs will be minimal. We would not be opposed to two or three truly rural lots in the Southeast corner of the site. We would oppose a higher density or upscale development that is rural only so long as the neighbors across the road, or across the pond, are able to keep their land in agricultural production. We also believe that any restrictions that you wish to impose will need to be put on the plat, rather than in homeowners covenants as proposed, if they are to be of any use. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Ve,�^y,truly yours, 6/ Jack P. Wolfe JPW:an pc: Continental View Pond Partnership JUN 20 '94 16:05 3034444069 PAGE.002 94(3"; `? .1 0 0 JUN 1 6 1994 We'd County Planning Sylvia Burback 1532 Sumner Street Longmont, CO 80501 June 14, 1994 Weld County Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Office 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Case Number: Z-488 Dear Commissioners: I understand there will be a hearing held on the above mentioned case on Tuesday, June 21, 1994. As an adjacent landowner, I would like to declare my support on the proposed change from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development. As I understand the proposed plans for this property, they would be an enhancement for a wildlife habitat. As this proposal has been presented to us, it appears compatible with the existing agricultural uses in the surrounding area. Please consider acceptance of this proposed change. Sincerely, Sylvia Burback VIA: Fax with hard copy to follow by regular mail iNIMp JUN 1 s 1994 %N County Planning Leslie J. Williams 8876 Rogers Road Longmont, CO 80503 June 14, 1994 Weld County Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Office 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Case Number: Z-488 Dear Commissioners: In regard to the above mentioned case, as an adjoining landowner, I am writing in support of the change of zoning from Agricultural to PUD. One of the prime considerations in this application is compatibility with existing agricultural uses. I believe that this proposal is compatible with existing agricultural uses. The proposed change in use is on a 40 acre property that has been mined for gravel and no longer has any agricultural value. In the future, I believe that we will see an increasing pressure in Southwestern Weld County for residential purposes. It seems to me that one way to protect the prime agricultural lands in Weld County is to allow residential development on those parcels which have marginal or no agricultural value. This property, I believe, fits that situation. I would hope that Weld County would give favorable consideration to this proposal. Sincerely, VIA: Fax with hard copy to follow by regular mail C- Leslie J. Williams O O john C. 14,rulerquist - 1;28' Jarigold Court, afagette, CO 80026 phones: (F5ome) ;0;-673-0667 - (Office) 30;-444-4405 June 9, 1994 MEW Mr. Jay M. Curtis, Chairman Tri-Area Planning Commission P.O. Box 363 Frederick, CO 80530 Re: Continental View Ponds PUD Previously Williams PUD - Tri-Area Case No. S-351 Dear Mr. Curtis: Weld County Planning I'd like to thank you for your time on Tuesday evening June 7, 1994 on behalf of myself and the other three partners in the subject property (Jack Olberding, Terry Henze and Bill Bedel). I am also enclosing a copy of your letter of February 1, 1994 concerning the subject property and PUD. We are, of course, dismayed, disappointed and puzzled by you and your committee's complete reversal of your position on this PUD after your comments of February 1, 1994. Last Tuesday night we only presented additional details of what we presented to you a few months ago confirming that we had obtained engineering data and studies to address the septic systems and ground water tables that confirmed that we would be able to meet all of Weld County's requirements for these items, we addressed the flood plain questions and showed that all of the building sites would be one foot or more above the 100 year flood plain elevations, we verified that we had met the requirements of the fire district and would be putting a fire sprinkler system in each house, and we reviewed the efforts that we have made with the Department of Wildlife and the Soil Conservation district in order to prepare a wildlife habitat enhancement plan that would be completed shortly and would become a part of this PUD, we also indicated that we were making the PUD even more restrictive that we originally planned by establishing building envelopes within each lot that would restrict any construction of buildings or fences to approximately 5% of the total area which would leave approximately 95% of the site available for open space and a wildlife sanctuary. We feel that we have come up with a plan that will benefit the surrounding properties and improve the existing condition of this site. We would also like to address a few specific issues as follows: 1.) We feel that the proposed PUD offers an economically viable improvement to this area and offers Weld County an increased income that far exceeds that offered by using this site for agriculture. We also believe that this site cannot be reasonably be used for agriculture due to -the small amount of land available for agricultural use and due to the poor soil conditions. 2.) We feel that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses and that it will enhance both the surrounding area and it's wildlife. 3.) Our property is within three miles of the city limits of Frederick. O Mr. Jay M. Curates, Trio -Area Planning Commission - June 9, 1994 Page 2 4.) We have limited the building sites to five in order to balance the minimum density compatible with a reasonable economic cost for a building site. If this site is used for only one homesite the building site would cost approximately $250,000 after the utilities were brought to the site and make this property feasible only for the estate of a millionaire. The PUD, as proposed, will make this property available for five average families and allow them to enjoy the country in the same manner as the surrounding neighbors. 5.) We are planning to use this site for the homes of the four partners, we plan to live there, we plan to make this area a site that improves the area and we want to be good neighbors. We would, further, like to request that you supply us with the written findings of fact as based on the testimony of last Tuesday evening , June 7, 1994 that resulted on the action that was taken on this PUD at your meeting. We would also like to request the names of the parties that offered testimony at this meeting. We assume that this information is available from your minutes. We also have one additional question. If this property is not viable for agriculture due to its small size and poor soil and if it is not feasible for small low -density residential useage then what do you consider that this property should be used for in order to justify a reasonable economic return on it's cost and value? We again thank you for your time and consideration and will be looking forward to hearing from you. We would appreciate your prompt reply so that we can have this information in sufficient time to prepare for our meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission on June 21, 1994. Sincerely, ohn C. Widerquist cc: Jack Olderding, Terry Henze & Bill Bedel Ms. Gloria Dunn, Weld County Department of Planning Services 940787 Continental'View Pond Partnership, 825 Qrape, Xoulder, CO 8O3O4 daek Vlbarding - 444-0326 • 7ohn Wisiorquist - 444-4405 . 7 oreg 6anx 530-5588 - 666 5925 June 14, 1994 Neighbors in Close Proximity to S.W. Corner of Weld County Roads 16-1/2 & 3-1/4 Re: Continental View Pond PUD Dear Neighbor: We would like to introduce ourselves. We are Jack Olberding, John Widerquist, Terry Henze and Bill Bidell. We are all partners in a 40 acre parcel of land located on the S.W. corner of Weld County Road Nos. 16-1/2 and 3-1/4 which is comprised of a lake of approximately 26 acres and dry land of approximately 14 acres. We have submitted an application to Weld County to change the zoning of this parcel to PUD (Planned Unit Development). We became interested in this property over a year ago because we could find no other property like it and we saw the possibility to reclaim a useless mined out gravel pit into a piece of property that would be an improvement to the area and would allow us to live in the country as you now do. All of the partners have lived. in a rural setting before, we all want to build our own personal residences on this site, we want to improve this site to a point where it becomes an asset to ourselves and to our neighbors and we want to be good neighbors with all of the people living in the vicinity of our property. Our PUD will only allow 5 homesites on this site. The homesites will each be confined to a building envelope that is approximately 1/3 to 1/2 acre in size. All buildings and fences for each homesite must be contained within this envelope and all property outside of these envelopes will be left in a natural state. The result of this restriction will be to have approximately 5% of the property area utilized for buildings and fences and approximately 95% of the property area utilized as open space/wildlife habitat. We have met with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the US Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Office and have developed a wildlife habitat enhancement program.that will become a part of our PUD and that will be a condition of approval of our PUD. We are currently checking with the Colorado Forest Service to utilize their services to accomplish the planting and, possibly, the maintenance of this wildlife habitat. This plan encompasses planting of native grasses and plants that will do well in the soils on our site, which we have sampled and have been tested by CSU extension service. Our plantings will also include feed and cover plants for the native wildlife such as chokecherry, caragana, American Plum, sumac, Western Red Cedars, Aspens and Ponderosa Pines. We are also considering the possibility of annual planting of small wildlife feed plots with feed sources such as millet or milo, depending upon the final recommendations of the Department of Wildlife habitat biologist. We developed this PUD trying to reach an economic balance between minimum density that would be compatible with a reasonable cost for a building site. We feel that this site, if used for only one home, would have a site cost between $250,000 to $300,000, which covers the lot cost, cost of bringing utilities to the site, landscaping buffers and wildlife habitat enhancement and driveway costs. This magnitude of site development cost would make this property feasible for only a millionaire. Our PUD, as proposed, will make this property Continental View Pond PUD - June 14, 1994 Page 2 attainable for five average families and will allow them to enjoy the country in the same manner as our surrounding neighbors. Knowing that you might have questions and in an effort to let you get to know us and to know more about this site and PUD we would like to invite you to an informational meeting on Thursday evening June 16, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. at the Raintree Inn on the Longmont Diagonal south west of Longmont in the Arapahoe Room. The Arapahoe Room is located in the building behind the main hotel at 1800 Industrial Circle. All of us will be there, together with our land planning consultant. We will be happy address any questions or concerns that you might have concerning our plans for this site. We look forward to seeing you there and a chance to meet you. Sincerely, John, C. Widerquist, Jack Olberding, Terry Henze, Bill Bidell 940797 0 0 Continental view pond PUS $.?• Corner Weld County Xoad tiros. 16-1/2 cam' 3-1/4 issues & Answers 1.) Isn't this site in the Flood Plain and won't any new houses be flooded out? This site is partially in the flood plain but proposed building sites on lot Nos. 2,3, 4, & 5 are all above the 100 year flood plain elevations by an average of 3 feet in the general area of the proposed building envelopes. Lot 1 is now currently slightly above to 2 feet below the flood plain elevations. A Flood Plan Study and map was prepared by Krucera Associates in 1977. This is the only study of this area and it is currently adopted by Weld County. Rocky Mountain Consultants has prepared a study and survey of how our property is affected by the 100 year flood. This study shows that the building envelope that applies to Lot 1 can be raised to a level that is 6 inches above the 100 year flood plain elevation with a minimal amount of fill. In addition, construction of any buildings within the building envelope for Lot 1 will be concrete slabs on grade with no crawl spaces and the floor elevations on any structures will be installed at an elevation that is 1 foot above the 100 year flood plain elevations. The worst that could.happen in the event of the 100 year flood is that the buildings on Lot 1 could be on an island for a short period of time until the flood waters receded. 2.) Even if the buildings are above the 100 year Flood Plain couldn't the strong flow erode the building sites ? Lots 2 thru 5 will be set back far enough so that there can be no possibility of erosion getting to the actual building sites. In addition, they will be approximately 3 feet above the 100 year flood waters. Lot 1 buildings will not only be set on concrete slabs on grade but they will also be surrounded by concrete foundations that will be anchored 3' deep into the existing soil. In addition, we plan to consult with a soils engineer and will follow his recommendations for the fill placement and will protect the perimeter of this fill with either rip -rap, concrete retaining walls or other means to prevent erosion in the event of a strong current due to flood waters. This protection will be designed similarly to the protection that is placed on either side of bridge abutments to prevent the loss of a bridge in the event of a flood. We are confident that our design will contain adequate safeguards to prevent flood damage as we will have a substantialinvestment in our homes. 3.) Won't this development adversely affect the wildlife in the area? We have addressed some of this concern in our cover letter. In our meetings with the Department of Wildlife and the Soils Conservation Office we have been told that our wildlife habitat enhancement plan will benefit wildlife because we are limiting our building sites to the easterly side of the site and leaving the westerly side intact. The west side is the main wildlife corridor on our property due to the roads on the east and north sides. and the gravel mining on the south. In addition, they have told us that our wildlife enhancement planting plans will provide cover and feed that is not now existing on the site and that in a few years, after our thickets and feed plants have had a chance to mature, our site will actually be an improvement to what now exists that will attract new wildlife and a multitude of birds. We are addressing these issues in our PUD because we want to improve the conditions on this site and enjoy the natural wildlife as much as you do. 940'7S7 Continental View Pond PUD - Issues & Answers Page 2 4.) Won't the five new families disrupt the existing wildlife? We don't think that we will disturb the wildlife any more than your homes do. If you are familiar with some of the stories concerning wildlife encounters on properties that abut the open space in Boulder County we think that you will see that wildlife can coexist with humans. Especially when the people have a love for wildlife as we do. We have taken definitive steps to provide improved wildlife habitat, we have limited the building envelopes to 5% of the available area...leaving 95% for open space/ wildlife habitat, we have limited any boat traffic on the pond to non -motorized boats such as canoes or row boats...there will be no water skiing or motor boats allowed in our covenants and our covenants require that all petsbe kept confined to fences within the allowed building envelopes 5.) What about the animals of the new families disrupting wildlife or surrounding livestock? As we said above wehave restrictive covenants that are included as a part of this PUD as a condition of it's approval. They include.... All pets must be in their owners control, all pets must be confined in a fenced yard or in the home; all fencing must be within the confines of the building envelope, pets are limited to 2 per household and no large animals, such as horses or cattle, are allowed in the development due to it's small size and because all open space is to be maintained as wildlife habitat. 6.) Will the new owners disrupt the surrounding agriculture usage's? We all realize that there are larger agricultural farms in the vicinity of our property and we also realize that there are smaller home sites in the same vicinity. There are approximately 54 home sites within 2 miles of this property that vary from large (100 acre and larger) farms to small plots that are close to, or smaller than, the density that we are proposing. We all realize that we are moving into an agricultural community and accept the dust, smells and other minor inconveniences as a condition of living in this area. We also look forward 'to the many benefits of being privileged to live in the same environment that you do. We have included language in our covenants and our PUD that specifically address acceptance of these types of conditions in return for having the privilege of living in this type of rural area. We would welcome any reasonable input or language from any of the neighbors should you feel that the language we have already included is not sufficient. This language will be recorded with the PUD. and in any property deeds. A review of the enclosed plan will also indicate that we are including landscaping screen areas to screen the residences from the road and gravel mining operation to the south. 7.) How do we know that the open space will be maintained? Our final PUD will have an incorporated homeowners association that will be responsible for the maintenance of the open space/wildlife habitat. This association will be empowered' to assess dues, in the same manner as a ditch company, to cover the cost of any maintenance, new plantings, annual feed plot plantings, etc. We are also looking into contracting with the forest service for the care and maintenance of the open space/wildlife habitat areas. We also feel that having five families to amortize this cost will insure that there are adequate resources to maintain this site which might not be the case with only one family. 940757 Continental View Pond PUD - Is.7s & Answers Page 3 S.) How are you going to handle human waste and won't it contaminate the water table? We have contracted with Empire Soils Laborpries who have examined four test percolation's holes at the site. The percolation rates vary and each homesite will have an engineered septic system specifically designed for each site's soil characteristics. Lot 1 will have a specially engineered evaporative septic system with a lined impervious bed that will prevent any percolation of any contaminates into the ground water system. Empire Laboratory's opinion is that this site is suitable for residential construction and safe septic systems. 9.) Won't construction of homes be unsafe due to the high water table next to the pond? We also had 4 test pits dug to ascertain the water table on this property. 3 test pits at lots 2 thru 5 indicated a ground water table at 7 to 8-1/2 feet below existing grade which is more than sufficient depth to construct a residence, it is certainly deep enough for a crawl space and can accommodate a basement if the home site is elevated slightly: Lot 1 has a depth to ground water of 4 feet from existing grade. This lot will be filled slightly (approx 2 feet) which will yield a depth of 6'. Any structure on Lot 1 will be slab on grade construction with a 3 foot deep foundation wall. This will put the bottom of the foundation approx 3 feet above the water table. 10.) What about availability of utilities? Domestic water will be supplied by the Left Hand Water District and will be brought in from County road 5 as will natural gas. Electric power and telephone already exist at the site. PUD will meet all requirements of the local fire district and each house will be equipped with an individual fire protection sprinkler system in lieu of a fire hydrant. 11.) Is this PUD compatible with the existing agricultural uses? This site, as it now exists, is not usable for agriculture due to its small size and poor soil conditions. The low density residential use, together with the large amount of open space , is compatible with the current agricultural zoning. 12.) Why does this PUD need five homes, wouldn't one be enough? We've addressed this briefly in our introductory letter. We feel that we have balanced the minimum density compatible with a reasonable economic cost for each home site. We have made a, potentially, beautiful site available to five average families to enjoy. The site cost of approximately $250,000 to $300,00 for the land cost, utilities,access roads and landscaping/wildlife habitat plants would be hard to amortize if only one home were allowed unless the homeowner was very wealthy. We also feel that the combined resources of five families, when the cost and labor required to properly maintain the open space / wildlife habitat are considered, will serve to insure that this site is kept beautiful and natural for a long time. 9407S7 O Continental View Pond PUD - Issues and Answers Page 4 13.) Why even consider a PUD for this site? This site is a mined out gravel pit with a land area that is too small for use as an agricultural farming site. In addition, the soils on the remaining land are very poor and are also not suitable for good farming. We saw the potential for reclaiming this property for low density residential use combined with keeping the majority of the property open and reserved for open space/ wildlife habitat. We feel that this will be a benefit to the surrounding area. We think that the population of our area will continue to grow and that, a development like this will accommodate this growth. Our property does.this by providing a majority of the area as open space and keeping the building restricted to a small portion of the land. This will keep the impact of the buildings minimal. We offer a far greater income for Weld County than would be available if this small parcel were kept as is. We also feel that this property should be put to a reasonable economic use consistent with its cost and value. We think that the issues are...How does this property fit into it's surroundings? Is the development being done properly? Does the PUD address the concerns of the surrounding community? and Does it Add Value to the neighborhood? It is our opinion that this PUD addresses these issues positively and that it will improve the property on our site and in our community. 14.) How_ do you know. that we will be good neighbors? Part of this question is answered by the thought and planning that we have already done to make this a positive development and to improve the existing site and the surrounding community. The other part of this question can be answered by having you attend our open house on Thursday night to look us in the eye, ask questions and to make your own judgment after hearing us out. We look forward to meeting you. We want to be responsible neighbors and to be an asset to your community. '.040'7097 IeApplegateIn onsultants for Land, Mineral and Water Development June17,;1994 Ms..Gloria` Dunn Weld County Planning :Department: 1400. North, 17th Avenue Greeley, ;CO :. 80631 ntinentalView Ponds" Dear:,Gloria,. With this letter I have enclosed three prints of our Preliminary 'Wildlife .Enhanoement Plan.. This planis _based on information we received from'the Soil Conservation Service 'office in 'Longmont ,and: Mr. Cousins, a District -Ranger from :the: Division of Wildlife Also with this letter -.I have included a copy, of the: letter from •the:District Conservationist regarding the plantings., These plantings -were based on'a, soil' testing -program carried outby Colorado; State University ' A copy of those soil testing results are included here Weintend'to consult` with. other Division'of Wildlife ; experts prior to finalizing,>our :plan These staff embers ;are on' vacation until first week of 'July :We -intend theintend <to meet with: them as soon as :possible after ,that date and finalize :this plan by mid July Please';can' if ,you have°any,,further comments about our Wildlife Enhancement Plan.. Cordially,: TUTTLE }APPLEGATE, INC. Tuttle GJT/sj r Encs, cc File #93-474CVP John Widerqust;'Latigo Construction c': \93174\pl anni n ga [r.' '. eld County Planninw, 1'1990 Grant Street; Suite 410 Denver, 'Colorado --80233, •:(303) 452-6611` . Fax (303) :452 L0N HAGLER SWA TEL:303-663-5394 Jun 15 94 15:54 No.005 P.02 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN @QUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 60216 Telephone: (303) 297.1192 Weld County Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 REFER TO June 1S, 1984 For WiidlVe- U planning Department, Weld County Planning This letter is in regard to a proposed development located at the intersection of Weld County Roads 16 1/2 and 3 1/4. The development is being proposed and designed by John C. Widerquist of Latigo Construction, Inc. We have met with Mr. Widerquist on a couple of occasions to discuss.the 'possible impacts on wildlife that may occur due to the building of homes on the property. Mr. Widerquist incorporated many of these concerns into his final plan. He has included movement corridors between the building envelopes to allow wildlife access to the lake. Vegetative enhancement is also planned along the property border next to the Boulder Creek corridor. This was an area of concern in the original plan. Mr. Widerquist has also worked with the Soil Conservation Service on which plants would be beat suited to the soil type on the property. The plantings that he has proposed should provide a definite benefit to wildlife when compared to what is currently there. The building of homes in this area will have impacts on wildlife, this is not possible to avoid. However, the proposed vegetative enhancements should help to minimize some of these impacts. The home that in planned on the peninsula will could have the greatest impact. With a home there the land will not be used as a nesting area for waterfowl such as geese. The home and related activity could also discourage use by various reptiles and amphibians. The other homes could exclude ground nesting birds such as meadowlarke and killdeer, but the shrub plantings will encourage use by many other bird species. The proposed development plan has addressed many of our initial concerns. There will still be impacts on some species of wildlife, but other species will benefit by the improvements to vegetation. As far as developments are concerned, it was refreshing to work with a developer that was willing to address wildlife issues and att,mpt to incorporate them into the planning process. Mark A. Cousins District Wildlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director ' WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hogberg, Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Chairman • Felix Chavez, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member Louis F. swift, Member • George VanDenBerg, Member • Larry M. Wright, Member • Thomas M. Eve, Member JUN 15 '94 14:54 303 663 5394 O STATE OF COLORADO . OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources . Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 ' Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 June 9, 1994 Ms. Gloria Dunn Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17TH Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Continental View Pond, Z-488 Previously reviewed as Whispering Waters PUD Williams Pit;, M-74-070 SW1/4 Sec. 29, T2N, R68W, 6TH. PM W. Division 1, W. District 6 Dear Ms. Dunn: Roy Romer Governor . James S. Lochhead Executive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to create 5 single family residential lots on a 40.62 acre parcel. No information was provided on projected water requirements. The domestic water supply is to be from the Left Hand Water District, and'a letter of commitment for service was included. Information in our files indicates that- the District has sufficient water resources to serve this - development. The parcel includes a lake of about 25 acres: This water body is the result of gravel mining operations on the property. Our records show that the gravel mining operator does have a valid well permit for the pit, Permit No. 037710-F, which operates under a, contract with the Water Users 'Association of District 6 to supply augmentation water to cover evaporative depletions from the exposed 25 acre surface. We have no objection to the proposal. If you have any questions in this matter, please. 'contact John Schurer of this office. Sincerely, Purushottain Dass, P.E. Chief, Water Supply Branch PD/JS/continen cc: Alan Berryman, Division Engineer Water Supply Branch • J v+5T JUN 1 3 1994 Weld Coanty 'a�ral�sn C O STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 ' Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 WE -94-0022 June 9, 1994 Mr: Gloria Dunn Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Continental View Pond PUD, No. Z-488 Dear Ms. Dunn: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor James S. Lochhead Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director At your request and in accordance with S.B 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials for the above -mentioned property and has conducted a site inspection on June 8, 1994. A preliminary plat sheet was not included in the submitted materials. The planned PUD is situated at a old aggregate quarry location which contains a large pond. The property is essentially flat with much of the area covered with variable thicknesses of fill from the aggregate mining. A soils and percolation report was completed for this PUD. We concur that additional geotechnical investigations be completed on a site specific basis to insure proper foundation design and basement feasibility. Perc. rates seems to indicate that engineered septic systems will be required. To our knowledge there is no underground coal mining in the immediate vicinity. A determination of this site in relation to Boulder Creek flood hazard is required. Home construction should incorporate designs to prevent radon accumulation. Provided geotechnical engineering evaluations are done and their recommendations are followed with regard to foundation, basement, and sewer design this office has no reservations with the land use as planned. If you have any questions please contact this office: Sincerely, /i/Ze Jonathan L. White Engineering Geologist JUN 1 3 1994 Wok County Planning O O UNITED STATES Soil 9595 Nelson Road #D DEPARTMENT OF Conservation Longmont, CO. 80501 AGRICULTURE Service Phone: 776-4034 June 8, 1994 Mr. John Widerquist P.O. Box 19288 Boulder, Colorado 80308 RE: Whispering Water PUD Seeding Recommendation After looking at and analyzing the soil sample results, it appears that there is a high salt concentration problem over most of the area. This factor will limit the types of grasses that we can seed. Based on this factor, I would recommend the following seed mix: Blackwell Switchgrass 35% .9 #PLS/ac. Vaughn Sideoats Grama 25% 1.1 #PLS/ac. Thickspike Wheatgrass 20% 1.1 #PLS/ac. Tall Fescue 20% .8 #PLS/ac. 3.9 #PLS/ac. Since we would consider this as a critical area, I would recommend that the above rate be doubled. The seedbed should be adequately prepared and free from weeds. The grass should be seeded after Nov. 1 and prior to April 15th for best results. Seedings should not be made on frozen ground. Since wildlife will be the main focus of the open space areas, shrubs that produce a fruit are recommended. Some of these may include: chokecherry, caragana, American plum, sumac and nanking cherry. These can be planted in rows or in clumps. Some of both are recommended. The area in the southeast corner and around the entrance to the acreages could use Ponderosa Pine or Eastern Red Cedar as both a screen planting as well as for wildlife. These species should do well in the soils found in these areas. Plantings of Golden Willows around the water/wet areas to will enhance wildlife. Ihope this information will be satisfactory for your needs. If you desire additional information, please feel free to call. ncerely, brman JU Wells; Y1r: District Conservationist Consultants for 'Land; Mineral. and Water, Development Ms: _Gloria Dunn WeldCounty Planning Department. 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CQ ontinerital., View 'Ponds. . " With 'this letter..you will find two prints of•. a :topographic survey done for the : Continental 'View: Ponds; PUD The purpose of the, survey was to; determine the elevation of;the,100 year , floodplam as it relates. 45' the lots ` As you can:,see, Lots 2'through -5 are., above the floodpl'ain: Lot' 1 is at and slightly, below: the floodplain elevation. :The builduig envelope detail on the sheet indicates how. the house and the garage wil1 be located on this .peninsula.:and the filling: that will be._done:. A very minor amount ;of fill .can get this area up'.out of the: floodplain r This information will be specifically used in our floodplam development 'permit to you after the;Board 'of Courity..Commissioners 'hearing I wanted to supply it-to•17.ou now ;so you would have an understanding of : ,how the . 'project' and the floodplain- relate.; so enclosed are seven` sets of the PUD•'plans per your request of May 26,;19 a uttle' c:\93174\gloria4.1[r. 11990 Grant Street, -Suite 410<• Denver;Colorado 80233 ! _(303) 452-6611 • Fax. (303) 45 • as ''o -e/t/ 3Sy3 April 26, 1994 Bill Bedell 223 South Buchanan Avenue Louisville, CO 80027 Coloalg University Cooperative Extension Colorado State University Boulder County Extension Office Boulder County Fairgrounds 9595 Nelson Road, Box B Longmont, Colorado 80501, (303) 776-4865 (303) 444-1121 (metro) 1 Veg The pH is a little higher than normal for Boulder County soils, but it should not be a problem with most plants The,salts ..are Areryaligh. We recommend a maximum of 3.0 before you need to leach the soil to try and remove the salts. With texture of soil which you have it is going to be difficult to leach the soil because of the clay. We recommend that you leach the soil with 6 inches of water before you try to plant or add fertilizer in this soil type of soil. Since this is near a lake the salts in the soil are high because of evaporation from the surface of the soil which leaves salts behind when the water evaporates. The qrganic matter content is.:-verylow. You should add 3 cu. yards of, good - qualityorganicmatter ,,per 1,„ sq. ft.. This organic matter should not be manure, as manure usually contains high amounts of salts and high pH. The organic matter should be worked into the top 6-8 inches of soil. If you are looking for native vegetation it will not be necessary to amend the soil as heavily, but it would help to establish this vegetation if the soil is amended. The nitrate level is very low. You should add 2.lbs. of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. The problem with adding more fertilizer is that fertilizer is a salt and this will also increase your already high salt =.- level • ,�" \. The phosphorus level ' is 'low: Addy - bs '-of p O -per :1,O00 ..sq. ft.. � / The potassium level is high. You should not add any more potassium in >_ the future. High levels of potassium can make some other elements C unavailable for the plants. The zinc, iron, manganese and copper levels are all okay. 2 Veg The pH of this area is also high. The salts are high. Leach this soil with 6 inches of water before planting or adding any more fertilizer. Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Boulder County cooperating. Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. f The organic matter level is very low. Add 3 cu. yards of good quality organic matter as mentioned in the first part. The phosphorus level is very low. Add 4 lbs. of P2O5 per 1,000 sq.' ft. The potassium level is a little high. Don't add any more potassium to the soil in the future. The zinc, iron, manganese and copper levels are all okay. 3 vegetation The pH is about normal for our county. The salts are very high. Leach with 6" of water if possible. The organic matter is okay. The nitrate level is low. Add 2 lbs. of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. The phosphorus level is low. Add 3 lbs. of P2O5 per 1,000 sq. ft. The potassium level is very high. We recommend 180 ppm. and you have 1070 ppm. Don't add any more potassium. The zinc, iron, manganese and copper are all okay. 4 Vegetation The pH is a little high. The salts are just at the point of starting to be critical. The organic matter content is probably okay. The nitrate level is low. Add 3 lbs. of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. The phosphorus level is low. Add 4 lbs. of P2O5 per 1,000 sq. ft. The potassium level is okay. The zinc level is low. Add 1.0 lbs. of zinc sulfate per 1,000 sgS`ft. The iron, manganese and copper levels are okay. 5 vegetation The pH is about normal for this area. The salts are very high. Leach with 6 inches of water. The organic matter content is low. Add 3 cu. yards of good quality organic matter per 1,000 sq. ft. and work it into the top 6-8 inches of soil. The nitrate level is very low. Add 3 lbs. of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. i ft. The phosphorus level is very low. Add 5 lbs. of P2O5 per 1,000 sq. ft. The potassium level is okay. The zinc, iron, manganese and copper levels are okay. 6 vegetation The pH is very high. Only alkaline tolerant plants will probably do well here. The salt level is okay. The organic matter content is okay. The nitrate level is low. Add 2 lbs of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. The phosphorus level is low. Add 4 lbs. of P2O5 per 1,000 sq. ft. The potassium level is high. Don't add any more potassium. The zinc, iron, manganes and copper levels are all okay. Your question about what natural vegetation will grow in this soil is a difficult one because of all of the different types of salt levels. This area probably also has a very high water table which makes it very difficult to grow woody plants which have a deep root system and it will make it difficult to leach the soil with water to lower the salts. Willows might work here, but I am not sure of the salt tolerance of willows. Many of the plants such as Salt Cedar (Tamarix hispida) are not recommended any more because they escape the area where they are planted and invade other sites. You also didn't specify what you mean by native vegetation. Are you talking about woody plants, grassy plants, wild flowers, etc.? Dr. Klett, the Woody Plants specialist at CSU could probably help you if you are talking about trees or shrubs. Nancy Zuschlag, the natural resources agent in the Jefferson County Extension office couldrobably help you with native grasses and flowers for this -situation. Sincerely, John W. Pohly Extension Agent, Horticulture DATE:, '// /1 1s 9 y NAME: /1 •// >,> «./ // ADDRESS: ,��3 S:.. •-� I u P dry Ave CITY: /�3� : t.. //._ ZIP CODE: 70 02 7 PHONE NUMBER: (3 0 i) GC C- COUNTY: SEND I-VTRA )Y TO: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP CODE: University. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL SAMPLE INFORMATION cilicilqy lye ,e1ease Circle Analysis Desired Cost per Sample Routine (General Fertility Package) pH.conductivityor9anic matter.NO3,P,K,Zn,Fe Cu,Mn.lime estimate,texture estimate Routine + Sodium Evaluation (SAR) Routine + 8oron,Molybdenum,Cadmium,Lead Routine + Sulfate Routine + Nitrate on Subsoil Sample Routine + Salinity on Subsoil Sample $ 16.50 20.00 22.50 22.50 19.50 19.50 LABORATORY NUMBER (DO NOT WRITE BELOW) FIELD ID a(CHECK ACRES IRRIGATION ONE) IRRIGATION WATER NITRATE -NITROGEN (NO3 -N). PPII MANURE TO BE APPLIED TONS/A LAST YEAR'S CROP CROP TO BE GROWN VARIETY (REQUIRED FOR POTATOES AND BARLEY) YIELD GOAL HAY AND PASTURE CROPS (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOXES) ALFALFA STAND IS: GRASS -LEGUME MIX: ROW Oo g SPRINKLE § � C re re G TO BE SEEDED PRESENTLY ESTABLISHED UP TO 25% LEG 25-75% LEG a, 75% LEG µ 11N 8 4rz ,..18sc *3 a6 v " y N 167E t‘. _ - I.I I I z = 1 COMMENTS: Note special problems, fertilizer applied since last crop ..r // sa : / r S4,wJo•-/f ,. tie.�h ,h l JO f.... / 1/e, . A090_44„ - 'ro✓ d kn .4{. 7(-1.s Se • �l s) Send to Soil Testing Laboratory, Vocational Education Building. Colorado State University, 1/4,nuvv[n t,Ur t Bill Bedell 223 South Buchanan Avenue Louisville, CO 80027 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80523 SOIL TEST REPORT NUMBER OF SAMPLES DATE RECEIVED 04/14/94 DATE REPORTED 0 4/20/94 Boulder. COUNTY IDENTIFICATION ROUTINE- SOIL TEST RESULTS ADDITIONAL RESULTS LAB. FIELD NUMBER PH SALTS hoe /1211 mhosNO. ORGANIC MATTER 7i, NITRATE N ' ' PPm PHOSPHORUS P PPm POTASSIUM K PPm ZINC Zn PPm IRON Fe PPm UNE % TEXTURE MANGANESE Mn PPm COPPER Cu PPm 6AR GYPSUM me4'lOG H1 H1186 3 Vey 4 Veg 7.5 7.7 5.2 3.0 3.8 2.3 "' 8 6 .9.5 6.0 1070, 263 2.9 0.8 13.2 46.1 low low sandy clay sandy clay loam 3.6 2.2 3.6 2.9 (DENT. • - FIELD INFORMATION RECOMMENDED FERTILIZER LBSJA . OTHER LAB Na ACRES IRRIGATION LAST CROP YIELD , LAST. CROP MANURE T/ A . PROPOSED CROP YIELD GOAL N P205 in FE (IRON) Mn I Cu be / A GYPSUM T/ A MPORTANT INFORMATION PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE OOPERATING WITH U.S.D.A. vrwrrcn r Bill Bedell 223 South Buchanan Avenue Louisville, CO 80027 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80523 SOIL TEST . REPORT 5I "?a NUMBER, OF SAMPLES DATE RECEIVED DATE REPORTED COUNTY 04/14/94 04/20/94' Boulder IDENTIFICATION • ROUTINE SOIL TEST RESULTS • ADDITIONAL RESULTS LAB. FIELD SALTS ORGANIC MATTER NITRATE N PHOSPHORUS P POTASSIUM K ZINC . IRON Fe UME TEXTURE MANGANESE Mn COPPER Cu SAR GYPSUM NO. NUMBER pH mmlas / cm S • F DPm vwn ODm .Zn vwe R % PPm PPmiLIOg 5 3 Veg'.. 7.5 5.2 3.8. ' 8 9.5 1070• 2.9 13.2 low sandy clay 3.6 3.6 H1186 4 Veg 7.7 3.0 2.3 6 6.0 263 '0.8 46.1 low sandy clay loam 2.2 2.9 IDENT. • FIELD INFORMATION RECOMMENDED FERTILIZER LBSJA - ;OTHER NO ACRES IRRIGATION LAST CROP YIELD LAST.CR0P MANURE T / A PROPOSED CROP • YIELD GOAL N P�6 FE (IRON) Mn I Cu be I A GYPSUI T / A IMPORTANT INFORMATION PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE COOPERATING WITH U.S.D.A. APPROVED �r,uvven a L:ury • Bill Bedell 223 South Buchanan Avenue Louisville, CO 80027 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80523 SOIL TEST REPORT 5ltocry d NUMBER OF SAMPLES ' 6 DATE RECEIVED DATE REPORTED COUNTY 04/14/94 ,04/20/94 Boulder IDENTIFICATION ROUTINE SOIL TEST RESULTS ADDITIONAL RESULTS LAB. NO. FIELD NUMBER DH sALTs mrtSAL / an ORGANIC MATTER 'X NITRATE N PPm PHOSPHORUS P PPm POTASSIUM K PPm ZINC Zn PPm IRON Fe PPm L%E TEXTURE MANGANESE Mn PPm COPPER Cu PPm SAR G PSUI mOW ,85 3 Veg. • '7.5 5.2 3.8 ' 8 9.5 1070 2.9 13.2 low sandy clay 3.6 3.6 H1186 4 Veg 7.7 3.0 2.3 6 6.0 263 -0.8 46.1 low sandy clay loam 2.2 2.9 IDENT.• IFIELD INFORMATION RECOMMENDED FERTILIZER LBS./A QTHER !GYPS T / I LAB N0. ACRES IRRIGATION LAST CROP YIELD ' LAST.CR0P MANURE Ti A PROPOSED CROP YIELD GOAL N P2B6 FE (w°N) lin I CU Ibs I A IMPORTANT INFORMATION PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE rrynorcurnmrs WITLI II R I1 APPROVED 91.1.11 c 3ROWER'S COPY Bill Bedell 223 South- Buchanan, Avenue, Louisville, CO 80027 ".'' COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80523 SOIL TEST REPORT.. st4O NUMBER OF SAMPLES: DATE RECEIVED 0.4/14/94.: DATE REPORTED" 04/20/94';• Boulder.' c IDENTIFICATION ROUTINE SOIL TEST RESULTS ADDITIONAL RESULTS LAB. NO. FIELD NUMBER PH. SALTS I cm ORGANIC MATTER % NITRATE N OPm PHOSPHORUS P PPm POTASSIUM K PPm ' ZINC . Zn PPm . IRON Fe PPm LIME. % .., TEXTURE MANGANESE Mn DPm COPPER Cu . PPM SAR GYPSUM magn00g ll� 1 Ve Iles.4.6 7.7 1.8' r:. 8 8.8 . 547 1,9 31.8. low..., sandy clay 3•.5` 3.I'° 118412 Veg 7.8 4.1 1.1. 3 5.7 374 1.5 24.6 med sandy clay 2.5 2.8 DENT. FIELD INFORMATION RECOMMENDED FERTILIZER LBSJA OTHER- ,: ',: LAB NO. ACRE8 IRRIGATION LAST CROP YIELD LA8T �� MANURE T / A PROPOSED CROP YIELD GOAL N P Z°5 FE (IRON) / A YPSU TI A WANT INFORMATION PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE APPROVED 'Bill Bedell 223 South Buchanan Avenue Louisville., CO 80027 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80523 SOIL TEST REPORT 5/111/q0 NUMBER OF SAMPLES 6 DATE RECEIVED DATE REPORTED COUNTY 04/14/94 04/20/94 Boulder IDENTIFICATION ROUTINE SOIL TEST RESULTS ADDITIONAL RESULTS LAB. NO. FIELDSALTS NUMBER pH inmhos/an ORGANIC MATTER x, NITRATE N PHOSPHORUS P Pam POTASSIUM K Pam ZINC Zn PPm IRON Fe PPm LIME % • TEXTURE MANGANESE Mn PPm COPPER Cu Pm SAR GYPSUM nbd100e H 5 H1186 3 Veg 4 Veg 7.5 7.7 5.2 3.0 3.8 2.3 `` 8 6 9.5 6.0 1070 263 2.9 0.8 13.2 46.1 low low sandy clay sandy clay loam 3.6 2.2 3.6 2.9 IFIELD IDENT.• INFORMATION RECOMMENDED FERTILIZER LBS./A OTHER LAB ' NO. ACRES I PIGATI0N LAST CROP YIELD 'LAST .CROP MANURE T / A . 'PROPOSED CROP ' YIELD GOAL N P2D6 FE (IRON) Mn I Cu Rls / A GYPSUM T / A IMPORTANT INFORMATION PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE APPROVED Lwwirlt.wl►uw ,iiw.a.."i 1 b aa a a 3ROWER^S COPY Bill Bedell 223: -South- Buchanan Avenue Louisville; CO— 80027'., COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ANQ EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY _. • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80523 SOIL TEST. REPORT: NUMBER OF SAMPLES."' 6 s'3 I. -1, DATE RECEIVED. 0 4,4.14/ 94, " • " DATE REPORTED 94,20/94 COUNTY' B o u l d e r IDENTIFICATION ROUTINE SOIL TEST RESULTS ADDITIONAL RESULTS LAB. NO. FIELD NUMBER SALTS mmhos / an ORGANIC MATTER. .x, • NITRATE N ppm PHOSPHORUS P ppm POTASSIUM K ppm - ZINC Zn ppm IRON F� PPm UME x' TEXTURE ' MANGANESE Mn PPm COPPER Cu PPm SAR GYPSUM men/I009 11 118816 5 Veg' Veg . 7.6 8.2 4:9 0.6 ' 1.1. 3•.1 ' 1 8 1.7 4.1 187 354 9.e 3.4 19.7 78.5 med., med sandy clay loam sandy clay loam 1.4 2.9 1.3 3.7 (DENT. FIELD INFORMATION RECOMMENDED FERTILIZER LBS./A OTHER; LAB NO. ACRES IRRgATICN LAST CROP ., ., . YIE,D LAST CROP MANURE T/ A PROPOSED CROP YIELD GOAL N P �5VA FE (IRON) Mn l . Cu 5,4/5 YPSU A POSTANT INFORMATION PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE APPROVED Sep 2U yS 1U:SS No.UU2 N.US,,. PrrER TO. .L0t1 ,HAGLER SWR TEL :SU.i-bb.-5334 STATE OF COLORADO RWy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION ISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL Or'Portiunmy EMPtOYI $ Petry D. Olson, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 Weld County Planning Department Gloria Dunn, Current Planner 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Weld County Planning Department, • September 19, 1993• This letter is in regard to Case Number: Z-482, the rezoning of a 40 acre parcel at the intersection of roads 16 1/2 and 3 1/4. The ,parcel of land under consideration is used by a large variety of wildlife. Of the 40 acres, well over 50% is covered by a lake. The lakecontains two islands that provide nesting areas for Canada Geese. The islands. also provide cover and.resting areas for many other species of wildlife such as gulls, ducks, shorebirds, amphibians such as bullfrogs and leopard frogs, turtles and mammals such as'muskrats. The -lake and shoreline provide habitat for many more species of wildlife from the Swallows that hunt insects over the water to raccoons that work the shoreline while searching for food. The lake is probably used by ducks that nest in the surrounding agricultural areas as a place to raise their young. The property is connected to the riparian corridor along Boulder Creek, somethingthat further increases wildlife use of the property. Riparian zones or areas provide critical habitat to many species: of _wildlife. They also serve as excellent movement corridors for a large number of wildlife species, -In this area, mammals as large as deer should be expected along the riparian area. The wetland areas between the creek and the lake, as wellas the shoreline vegetation, would provide nesting cover for some species of migratory song birds such as red -winged black birds. An on -sight visit to the property on a very rainy day showed several types of ducks using the area. These included widgeon, gadwall, mallards and wood ducks. Numerous geese were on the lake, as well ' as some gulls that were migrating through the area. Not only bird species inhabit the area, as the land provides habitat for many mammal, reptile and amphibian species as well. Development of thistype of area cannot avoid impacting wildlife in . a negative manner. There is not much room between the county roads on two sides of the property and the waters edge.. According to the information received, the proposed development calls for five home sights on the property. Where these five sights are to be located is not known, as they are not shown in the materials received. A buffer zone, or area of no use or development, between the home lots and the lake would help to soften the impacts. A buffer zone of 200 feet or more would be preferable, but considering the limited space around the lake, this may not be possible. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanbenBery, Chairman • Robert L. Freidenberper. Vice Chairman • William R. Hegberp. Secretary .Idon W. Cooper. Member • Rebecca L. Frank Member • Dennis Luttrell. Member • Gene B. Peterson. Member • Larry M. Wright. Member SEP 20 '93 09:38 303 663 5394 PAGE.003 9407197 !_o HAGLER SWA TEL:SUS-bb.-5394 Sep 20 9.5 1U:68 No.002.F.04 There also needs to be movement corridors or pathways between the lots to allow for the movement of wildlife through the area. The loss of habitat through development is not the only impact on wildlife that is possible or probable, there are other causes. One is the impact that pets can have on wildlife. Dogs and cats that are allowed to roam can have a serious impact on many species of wildlife. Cats can be very effective predators on birds and small mammals. Some species of wildlife that inhabit the area may also prey on pets. Animals such as coyotes, foxes and great horned owls are known to feed on cats and small dogs. The best solution is not to allow free roaming cats and dogs. Cats should "be kept indoors and dogs in fenced or electronic (invisible) fenced yards..: Other human/wildlife encounters that would be :likely include raccoons andskunks getting into gardens, trash andfood ft outIf wood siding or shingles are used, woodpecker problems emhoulddb, p be expected. Bats may also use dwellings asa summer home. Deer dare quite fond of many types of decorative shrubbery and flowers and if such plantings are used, the deer will likely feed on them. other types of, plants may prove to be very detrimental to the area. Purple loosestrife, for example, can out compete native wetlands vegetation and take over. Purple . loosestrife has almost no wildlife benefit and it will make areas unsuitable for wildlife use. Wetlands and riparian areas are critical for wildlife and any developments in and around these habitat types willimpact wildlife. If development is- going to occur, steps to Minimize any impacts should be taken. Buffer zones and movement corridors in the form of open space can help. Covenants concerning :'pets, fencing, building envelopes and landscaping canfurther help to minimize the impacts of the land development on -wildlife. Some species of wildlife respond well to human development and may become a nuisance. Information on living with wildlife should be provided to prospective home owners. Any developments within wetlands must conform to U. S. Corps of Engineers regulations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning of his property. If there are any questions, , please call. ark A. Cousins District Wildlife Manager, Longmont South (303)776-5772, 663-0157 SEP 20 '93 09:39 303 963. 5394 PACE. 004 9407197 EFT o$UTwIcT_ August 11, 1993 John Widerquist EXHIBIT E Post Office Box 210, NiCO 80544-0210 (303) , Metro (303) 443-2036 430.4 ZOO Re: NW; of SW; of Sec. 29, T2N, R68W TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The property located at the above legal description is within the "Service Area" of Left Hand Water District. When all conditions and requirements are met, water service would be available to the above stated area. There is a specific time period for completion of the taps. Failure to comply to any of the conditions within the stated time period would cause the request for water service to be void. Sincerely, LEFT BAND WATER DISTRICT z) Terri Magn for James M. Dickey General Manager /rr 940187 WW&U,104 4 1.7:JI isdV., IIV VWMA Lai LLB LILDJ W VY& April 20, 1994 TAH, Inc. 4816 Devonshire Boulder, CO 80301 Attn: Mr. Terry Henze RE: Continental View Ponds PUD Weld County, Colorado al Project #22945059 EXHIBIT C Empire Laboratories, Inc. A Division of The Terraeen Companies, Inc. PO. Box 1135 • 1242 Stanwood Plato Longmont. Colorado SOCICZ Phone 13031 7763921 No NO. (Stl$) f' -4041 Chi..ta C. Smith. P1. ed.avd J Paws. ►E. Datum! R Clerkk, Pi An engineer from our firm observed 4 test pits at the above -referenced site on April 6, 1994. Preliminary percolation tests were also performed on this site. The purpose of our observations and percolation tests were to determine the suitability of the property for the future development of 5 lots for single family residences. The site is relatively level open property which is vegetated with short weeds and grass. A large pond exists at the north end of the property. The property is bordered on the north by County Road 16%, on the east by County Road 3% and on the south by a gravel mining operation. This site exhibits poor drainage characteristics. Three test pits were located on the south side of the pond and 1 test pit was located on an island at the north end of the pond. The soils encountered in the test pits consisted of 6 to 18 inches of topsoil underlain by fill or sand. Four to 5-h feet of clayey sand and gravel till underlies the topsoil in the pits south of the pond. Silty sand exists beneath the fill in the excavations south of the pond arid' exits beneath the topsoil in the excavation on the island. Free groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 4 -Ys feet on the island and at depths of 7 to 8•h feet in the excavations south of the pond. These water levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations and irrigation demands. Please see enclosed test boring logs for more detailed soil and groundwater conditions. Based on our preliminary site evaluation, it is our opinion that this site is suitable for residential construction. It appears that basement construction would be feasible on the tots south of the pond providing perimeter drains are installed. Basement construction is not recommended on the island due to the high elevation of the groundwater table on the island. It appears that conventional type foundations could be utilized on this site, although the integrity of the till would need to be evaluated on each lot Compaction testing of the fill beneath footings or foundation placement beneath the fill may be required on these lots. Odom or The Tirraaow aart nodoo. Mo. O•orebnieal. failio modal and •ataliala PAWN'S miaow %mot IS t u*i. Coloraee Romeo Wow Ft. Colin. Groom~. totlynont • Wow liens, • Illinois: illoominolOfl. C. UCago. Ruth ►:il.a4 ■ love: Cow Fold. Coate Room. 0aronpott. 0•t Mann. mom I ate • Kansaz Loma. Towhr. Wlcnis • oitemoola. W Pala • maooxl. Knoas coy ■ MAN•sw. uncoil. OM.•I* ■ Nevada: Let WINN • an:0mm masons Clq. Tulsa • mew Callas. ;en Worpt. • uun. Salt um* uM is W iatvu . Chnvonns OIAUTY orawcanwa SINCE Wed 940787 04/20/94 13:58 t x303 778 4041 EN!1K r LABS I®00Z Tah, Inc. Project No. 22945059 Page 2 Tcrracon Preliminary percolation rates ranging from 15 to 240 minutes per inch were recorded on the lots south of the pond. No percolation tests were performed on the island since it is our opinion that a lined evapo-transpiration type septic system will be required because proper setbacks from water cannot be achieved. The residence on the island will need to be located so as to allow for room for the evapotranspiration type septic system. Based on our preliminary percolation test results, it is our opinion that standard absorption, evapo- transpiration and/or combination absorption evapo-transpiration systems will be required on this property. Test borings and additional percolation tests will be required on this property to develop soil bearing pressures for foundation designs and to finalize septic system information. Enclosed please find the test boring location sketch, percolation test results and test boring togs. Sincerely, EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC. A Division of he Terracon Companies, Inc. Edward J. Paas, P.E. Longmont Office Manager !pjk AAAAdllttrair1� ;o REc, ,� % *cs et Su - '4 `, ,ONM. a`� wl� •o 15776 940757 Tah, Inc. Project No. 22945059 Page 3 SUMMARY OF PERCOLATION TESTS RE: CONTINENTAL VIEW PONDS PUD WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Percolation Rate Test Hole # Minutes Per Inch 1 2 3 4 5 60 15 120 240 90 940787 04/20/94 15:58 1,303 TT0 4041 EMPIRE LABS ®004 w z (p1NTY riCAO 11. P-3 si YPP3 O SITE PLAN ' ND'T TO SN►LE Empire Laboratories Incorporated Divuwn i i? k ra 00 fig ?".1` o L3 g } a _... Four E �. . 940787 04/20/94 15:58 '2303 776 4041 EMPIRE LABS I® 005 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-1 Page 1 of 1 OWNER TAN, Inc. AaQ11TECTIENO4YEER SITE Weld County Road 3-1/2 Weld County, Colorado ttcl' Continental View Pond:, PUD § V °� p7i o DESCRIPTION . Approx. Surface Ekr.. 0.0 t. O -a r7 SAMPTE ThS1'S w E� a ; Z� �S vs co _ O 3; wo O du Ga. d �a. -1'et7,.+ ,. ***1 MEWL t -I.5 s 4i Iv 4.. gcle .0 -e alf .'jam witb clay, large grained gavel, lied cobbles, brown to dark brows, damp to esa hated, poody graded. .6.0 5—I I BOTTOM of Prr nanzairmarm BErwilltr UPW5RwissauTTERAISEC ar ATRIDLINDARY LIM Cs-'t_47..*_r =LAND ItOCKTIM . TIa71At411T'1CIl M Y U MIASMAL mom- iBORING WATERI�nMO> VATIONS STARTED 44.94 BORING COMPLETSO 4.6.994 ,I 2 4'r ms4 ; Empire Laboratories Incorporated RIG FOREMAN TDK 911. plrWoaetTames APPROVED APPROVEDup JOBS 22945059 WL •�— 940787 04/20/94 15:59 • 27309 TT0 4041 EMPIRE LABS Id) 000 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-2 Page 1 of 1 OWNER TAH, Inc. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SITE Weld County Road 3-1R Weld County, Colorado PRO= Continental View Ponds, PUD -- V it O DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Dm: 0.0 R. g A s u 3 SAMPLES TESTS NUMBER i RECOVERY SPT - N BLOWS / Fr. P DENSITY STRENGTH STTH PSF La:4 11212111. .0.5 _ - 5- iT- with ravel sad cobbles,- •lighdy clayey to with clay, bznwa, poody graded, with inta'auneat clay seam& 5.S -ss, Sid T r • . In to wttre.ed.1oody ice, fine it'd, with taw Rae pained pug 9.5 -9.5 —I -a _ QOM OF PTIr 11913TRAIVICA110111241.12913usiONTTin* yINwldN l5LawlAsa sotRmAfl LIM Cet#a1 s surf Pauserne.P S0IL AND MX TIM WS= NIB TIVOSIII0aNAY theOIIUUAL.. . WAWA LEVEL OBSEItVA IONS Empire Laboratories Incorporated Di.w s etTeaseaa WRING STARTED 4494 ova =METED 4-6-94 Wl, $ Ise ysillt 1r ,Rio FORMAN TDK aR --------• AlPACV® FaP - JOB a 22945059 - cost. 940787 84/Z0/84 15:58 UJ0J 778 4041 EllY1RE LABS. kg 007 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-3 Parlor' OWNER TAH, Ire. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER srca weld County Road 3-112 Weld County, Colorado PROJECT Continental View Ponds, PUD o DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.; 0.0 ft. USCS SYMBOL sAMYLES _ TESTS NUMBER TYPE SPT-N BLOWS / FT. MOISTURE, !6 PCI DENSlTY1 O :: 0s TIM= .0_s PILL MATRRLJ„ medium =aimed add with grand nod cobbles, slightly clrer to with clay, blows, poorly ttadsd. wide iatermitthat clay seams. CO 4.0 -� -i . -••••. ` • �• V• :: !. day. �r (D c poorly eroded, lino 1d. with team Elie stained garryl- g ; as 4.5 BrroM opl� TRestiatine►Ucit agrrreme =as r TIte anaoicatanBo0e1a►n ut s Glier•e Hr w. issili ' S0IL AND MOCKITIIISr MTO. THIMA IDOon s *Y IS0IRADUM. WATER LEVEL trO$$ Empire Laboratories Incorporated Division ur ronatos BORLNG STAMM ammo COMPLETED 44-94 wL. g• rr 41644 i RIO FOA +N TIM WL w l. Arr ovED Fjp loo / 23943659 9407S7 Y4/7.Y/84 10:011 •O•JUJ 110 4U41 EIYIKE LAL55 0OS LOG OF BORING NO. TP-4 Parlor' TAH, Inc. ARC UTEt:TIENcuvEER errs Weld County Road 3-112 Weld County, Colorado PROJEcr Continental View Ponds, PUD GRAPHIC LOG DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. I USCS SYMBOL SAMPLES TESTS II381NMI RECOVERY a.3 vim O DRY DENSITY w z 1..:-7.= as M= -0.5 —a medium grained and with gavel and gobbles, ► clayey to with clay, brows, poorly graded, with iatermimeat clay scams. 43 i 1j SP It ;lib • - . -e d-1.7 '0 SAM with large grained gravel and cabbies, sGgbdy clam to with clay, brown, poly graded, -7.0 7.0 =SM $ i $adD,silty. &NIA= waded, w� to -03 with t:aoa�MaO gravel. TER IntATVICATJottLIMRansom nos AffS ISmoutuartLIM Ogammi,w Pauncoisse 1Mott.ANDacctImes► 1041111. TIM NAY unMADRRAS- ` WATER MEL OEYATICt4$ BORING STARTED 44-94 WL g rr MI94 I Empire Laboratories DoRw4c coMN.ET D 4.-94 RIG FOREMAN WI. Incorporated TDK Masks otTeams JOE, WI. COVED Elp 22945059 940787 " R68W • SOILS MAP a S HWY 52 0000 1'-3000' EXHIBIT D 4 EP - 'TUTTLE APPLEGATE. INC. Ask Carrhanb rro tow/ and lesserc* On*lepareat L 11990 Grant Street, Suite 410 Denver, Colorado 80233 .,1;303)452-6611 SP3 940797 8 SOIL. SURVEY filter the leachate. Sewage lagoons require sealing. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass Its irrigated. 2—Altvan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a deep, well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,500 to 4,900 feet. It formed in old alluvium deposited by the major rivers. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that show evidence of poor drainage. Also included are small, long and narrow areas of sand and gravel deposits. Typically the surface layer of this Altvan soil is grayish brown loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is brown and light yellowish brown clay loam and sandy clay loam about 14 inches thick. The substratum is calcareous loamy sand about 5 inches thick over gravelly sand. Permeability and available water capacity are moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is low. This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Land leveling, ditch lining, and installing pipelines may be needed for proper water application. All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. Windbreaks and environmental plantins of trees and shrubs commonly grown in the area are generally well suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing vegetation should be continued for as many years as possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian -olive, and hackberrv. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum. This soil can produce habitat elements that are highly suitable for openland wildlife including pheasant, cotton- tail, and mourning dove. Such crops as wheat, corn, and alfalfa provide suitable habitat for openland wildlife, especially pheasant Tree and shrub plantings and undisturbed nesting cover would enhance openland wil- dlife populations. This Altvan soil has fair to good potential for urban and recreational development. The chief limiting soil fea- tures for urban development are the shrink -swell poten- tial of the subsoil as it wets and dries and the rapid permeability of the sand and gravel substratum. Septic tank absorption fields function properly, but in places the substratum does not contain enough fines to properly filter the leachate. Sewage lagoons require sealing. Lawns, wns,h and trees grow well. Capability subclass irrigated. 3-Aquolls and Aquents. gravelly substratum. This nearly level map unit is on bottom Lands and flood plains _of all the major streams in the survey area. Aquofs, .which have a dark colored surface layer, make up about 60 percent of the unit. Aquents, which have a lighter colored surface layer, make up about 35 percent About 5 percent is Aquepts and Bankard sandy loam. These are deep, poorly drained soils that formed in recent alluvium. No one pedon is typical Commonly the soils have a mottled, mildly alkaline to moderately al- kaline loamy or clayey surface layer and underlying material and are underlain by sand or sand and gravel within 48 inches. In places they have a gleyed layer in the underlying material Most of the acreage is subject to flooding. The water table is at or near the surface early in spring and recedes to as deep as 48 inches late in fall in some years. These soils are used for rangeland and wildlife habitat. Some small areas have been reclaimed by major drainage and leveling and are used for irrigated crops. The potential native vegetation is dominated by alkali sacaton, switchgrass, and western wheatgrass. Saltgrass, sedge, rush, and alkali bluegrass are also prominent Potential production ranges from 3,000.pounds per acre in favorable years to 2,000 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition deteriorates, the switchgrass, alkali sacaton, and western wheatgrass decrease and saltgrass, sedge, and rush increase. Management of vegetation should be based on taking half and leaving half of the total annual production. Seed- ing is difficult and costly because numerous tillage prac- tices ices are required to eliminate the aahgrass sod. Switchgrass, western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, tall wheatgrass, and tall fescue are suitable for seeding. They an be seeded into a dean, firm seedbed. Seedbed preparation usually requires more than 1 year to eliminate the saltgrass sod. A grass drill should be used. Seeding early in spring has proven most successful. • Wetland wildlife, especially waterfowl, utilize this unit. The wetland plants provide nesting and protective cover, as well as some food. The nearby irrigated cropland, where wildlife obtain much of their food and find protec- tive cover, makes this unit valuable to both wetland and openland wildlife. Openland wildlife. especially pheasant, use this unit for rover and nesting. Deer find excellent cover in some WM. These valuable wildlife areas . should be protected from fire and fenced to prevent encroachment and overuse by livestock. They.should not be drained. These soils have good potential as a source of sand and gravel. Capability subclass VIw; Salt Meadow range site. 4—Aquolls and Aquents, fly This nearly level map unit u in depressions in smooth plains and along the bottoms of natural drainageways throughout the survey area. Aquas, which have a dark colored surface layer, make up about 66 percent of the unit. Aquepts, which have a lighter colored surface layer, make up about 25 percent. About 20 percent is soils that are well drained and soils that have sandstone or shale within 48 inches of the surface. 94079 wheatgrass, sedge, and rush. Cattails and bullrush grow in the swampy spots associated with these range sites. Potential production ranges from 4,000 pounds per acre in favorable years to 3,000 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition deteriorates, the tall and mid grasses decrease, production drops, and saltgrass, sedge, and rush increase. The farming and irrigation in adjacent areas has increased the amount of salts on much of the acreage. Management of vegetation on this soil should be based on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- tion. Switchgrass, big bluestem, indiangrass, western wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, intermediate wheat - grass, tall wheatgrass, and tall fescue are suitable for seeding. The plants selected should met the seasonal requirements of livestock For successful seeding, a firm prepared seedbed is needed. A grass drill should be used. Seeding early in spring has proven most successful Til- lage is needed to eliminate the undesirable vegetation. Wetland wildlife, especially waterfowl, utilize this Unit. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation The wetland plants provide nesting and protective cover may be needed at the time of planting and . during dry as well as some food. The nearby irrigated cropland, periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival where wildlife obtain much of their food and find protec- are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa five cover, makes this unit valuable -to both wetland and pine, Siberian elm, Russian -olive, and hackberry. The openland wildlife. shrubs best suited are akunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- Openland wildlife, especially pheasant, use this unit for an peashrub. cover and nesting. Deer find excellent cover in some Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The areas. These valuable wildlife areas should be protected cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked from fire and fenced to prevent encroachment and pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can • overuse by livestock. They should not be drained. Capa- be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape billy subclass VIw; Aquofs in Salt Meadow range site, cover. For pheasants. undisturbed nesting cover is essen- Aquepts in Wet Meadow range site. tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop - 5 —Ascalon sandy loam. 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is ment Rangeland wildlife, for example, the pronghorn an - a deep, well drained soil on uplands at elevations of 4,600 telope, can be attracted by developing livestock watering to 5,200 feet. It formed in alluvium. Included in mapping facilities, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding are small areas of rock outcrop. where needed. Typically the surface layer is brown sandy loam about Few areas of this Ascalon soil are in major growth and e shrink -swell tentiil d the sub - brown sandy clay loam about 15 inches thick The sub- soil es it wets and dries is the moat hinutuig soil feature ,LEI. COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 9 These are deep, poorly drained soils that formed in If summer followed in ' alternate years, this soil is well recent alluvium. No one pedon is typical. Commonly the suited to winter wheat, barley, and sorghum. Winter soils have a mottled, mildly to moderately alkaline loamy wheat is the principal crop. The predicted average yield is or clayey surface layer and underlying material that ex- 33 bushels per acre. If the crop is winterkilled, spring to a depth of 60 inches or more: In places they have wheat can be seeded. Generally precipitation is too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. a gleyed la in the underlying material. Stubble mulch farming, striperopping. and minimum til- Most of the e acreage is subject to excessive runoff. The water table is at or near the surface in spring and during lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. the peak of the irrigation season. Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion. These soils are used for rangeland and wildlife habitat. The potential native vegetation on this range site is dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue Some small areas are irrigated pasture. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grams, The potential native vegetation is dominated by gz switchgrass, prairie cordgrass, saltgrass, alkali sacaton, and western wheatgrass are also prominent Potential western wheatgrass, slender Production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- big bluestem, indiangrass, ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and switchgrass decrease and blue grams, sand dropseed, and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade the site as range condition becomes poorer. Management of vegetation should be based on taking half and leaving half of the total annual production. Seed- ing is desirable if the range is in poor condition. Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats grama, blue grams, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested wheat - grass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into a dean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has proven most successful Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of b 94U797 SOIL SURVEY 12 of this soil. The potential for urban and recreational Wildlife is an important secondary use This esoilme has good growth in the survey cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked development Increased population dove. Many nongame species can area has resulted in increased homesite construction. The pheasant andby establishing .s for nesting escape chief limiting soil features for urban development are the be attracted b cants, undisurban nesting cover and scape ashrink-swell ptential of the subsoil as it it a loadets s Septic tial and dries cover. For should be included in plans for habitat develop - arid the limited ability of this soil to suppoII in areas of intensive agriculture. tank absorption fields function properly, but community ment, especially deer and antelope, can bRange- sewage at - systems should be provided if the population den- land wildlife, for. example, and reseeding rapid permea- tracted by managing livestock grazing city increases. Because substratum, sewof e eml g ns must be sealed. where needed. or recreational Lawns, devekop- the shrub,andsewage ability subclass This soil is not suited to urban Capability subclass iershrubs, and trees grow well. Cap meat because of the flood hazard. pa Bottom land develop - Ile irrigated. VIw nonirrigated; Sandy 10—Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 rcent slopes. This ivy; irrigated, is a cep, somew a excessive y range so on floodrange site. 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is 4,450 to 5,000 feet It formed in 11—Bresser sandy loam, plains at elevations of soil on terraces at elevations of 4;� stratified recent alluvium along streams and rivers. bars a deep, well formed in alluvium deposited by eluded in mapping are numerous sand and gravel to 4,800 are small areashe and small areas of noncalcareous soils. South Platte River. Included in mapping and in the lower Typically the surface layer of this Bankard soil is of soils that have sand and gravelly brown sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying part of the substratum brnwi, sandy loam pale brown calcareousTypically the surface layer is grayish material to a depth of 60 inches is loam, and yellowish sand ravelfied with thin lenses of sandy loam,brown out l inches yy � about 19 inches thick The sub - fine gravel. sandy id. Available water stratum to a depth of 60 inches is loamy sand. Permeability is moderately rapid. depth is 60 inches or Permeability and available water capacity are capacity is low. The effective rooting P � hazard � moderate. de th is 60 inches °r more. Surface runoff is slow, and the arose more. Surface e runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is j°�"• in it is sandy and It This soil is suited to limited cropping. g low. his soil is used almost entirely for irrigated subject to flooding. Pasture is the best use. Tall wheat -commonly grown in the area crops. It grass, tall fescue, and annual sweetclover are some of the is suited to all crops tib furrows sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain. potatoes. to 4 years o by corn, corn for silage, amount an vegetation is dominated by sugar beets, small gnsirs. or beans. Few conservation prac- The potential native sand reed8s, needed to maintain top yields. most suitable crops. Light, frequent irrigation by system is 3 nag corn, and flooding is best Commercial fertilizer improves the and onions. An example of a suitable cropping t d value of forage produced• f alfalfa followed switchgrass, indiangrass, sand bluestem, a Much sideoats grams, needleandthread' and blue gram of this range kite includes other soils and vegetation in such a complex pattern that it is difficult to map them separately. Potential production ranges from 2,500 pounds per acre in favorable years to 1,500 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition deteriorates, the tall and mid grasses decrease; blue grams, sand dropseed, and forbs increase; and forage production drops. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade the site as range condition becomes poop• on taking periods. Trees that are best suited and have are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa halManagement of halfvegetationhtotal should al base mom �-Rea ter and edar, Tha lug is d sirable n the slar annual p"to interseed or pine, Siberian elm, and Si'beri- is desirable only in areas large enough shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, nag sand bluestem, sand to prepare a seedbed. Swit,hgnss, u- � peashrub. use of this soil reedgrass, sideoats grams, little bluestem. blue grains, P Wildlife is an important secondary bescent wheatgrass, and intermediate wheatgr� are necked pheasant, m°°m'u'g dove, and many >.on- snitabk for seeding. This soil can be seeded by using an. �- species can be attracted by establishing areas for bnterseeder or a firm, clean sorghum stubble. A grass drill game and eel ��, For pheasants. undisturbed required. Seeding early in spring has.pso1/eII most suc- nesting Besting cover is essential and should be included in plans is in areas of intensive ��• not suited to the establishment for habitat development, especially This soil is generally� agriculture. . and growth of trees and shrubs. Onsite investigation This soil has good potential for urban and recreational possible tree development. Lawns. shrubs, and trees prow well. The needed to _ determine feasibility and shrub species. feces are tion are suitable, but furrow ir- All methods of irriga and manure and con- rigation is the most common. Barny mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. nerally Windbreaks and environmental plantings are � in suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazardestablishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation may be needed at the time of planting and during dry a„�t anrvival ir �0 1.- 9407149 100 •OIL SURVEY TABLE 6. --BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT [Some of the terms used in this table to describe restrictive soil features are defined in the Glossary. text for definitions of 'slight,• •moderate,' and •severe.' Absence of an entry means soil was not rated] See i Soil name and I Shallow map symbol { excavations { { { Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings { Local roads - • and streets 1, 2 ;Severe: Altvan { cutbanks cave. • { 16: { :Moderate: .Moderate: : shrink -swell. i shrink -swell. • Aqur lls----------;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: : floods, floods, ; floods, i wetness. wetness. : wetness. I : I { Aquents----- .—;Severe: Severe: :Severe: floods, floods, i floods, wetness. wetness. , wetness. { N• i Squalls --------,Severe: ;Severe: ; floods, i floods, : wetness. : wetness. ; i i { Aquepts------ ----:Severe: :Severe: ,floods, i floods, : wetness. : wetness. { i { { 5-----------------;Slight-----------:Moderate: :Moderate: Ascalon i i low strength. : low strength. 1 i : i 1 i 6. T--------------;Slight-----------;Moderate: {Moderate: Ascalon ! Mow strength. : low strength. { slope, : i i ; low strength. ; { i i 6, 9 :Slight :Moderate: :Moderate: {Moderate: Moderate: Ascalon i ; low strength. 1 low strength. • low strength. frost action, = i •• , low strength. : : : 10 ----;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: ,Severe: Dante { cutbanks cave, : floods. ; floods. : floods. ; floods -.-..- I floods. I i I 8 ' i i i i i :w ` 11, 12------------;Slight---------:Slight-----------:S11ght-- ;Slight--- ---- -----:Noderate: s.': -. Dresser 1 $ 1 : frost action. • 13 ----------------:Severe: Moderate: :Noderate: ;Severe: . ;Moderate: Cascajo : cutbanks cave, slops. i slope. ; slope. : slope. { small stones. I : • i 1 • 14, 15 ------;Slight ---•Slight------ ;Slight ------:Slight ----:Moderate: Colby i { { i I low strength. { i i i { 16. 17 ------------;Slight-. :Slight-----------:Slight-----------;Moderate: :Moderate: Colby i { : slope. low strength. 'j i i i tae: i • i i - Colby--- Slight]Slight-----------SSlight----------;Moderate: Moderate: 1 : j slope. low strength.. .'�.`•', Adena------•------•Slight :Noderate: :Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: -1... i { low strength. Mow strength. = low strength, low strength.,.;_,' i 1 slope. '-• See 'footnote at end of table. : -..".its: ... j glitJ 757 .Moderate: I shrink -swell. i ;Moderate: shrink -swell, i frost action. Severe: :Severe: floods, { floods, wetness. : wetness, • : frost action. • : :Severe: I floods, ; wetness. i Severe: { floods, : wetness. • :Severe: : floods, { wetness. { • • ;Severe: : floods, : wetness. { • ;Severe: : floods, : wetness. i :Moderate: I low strength. ;Moderate: ]Severe: floods, { wetness, ; frost action. :Severe: : floods, : wetness, : frost action. • • :Severe: : floods, : wetness, i frost action. • :Moderate: ; frost action, : low strength. • :Moderate: : frost action, ; low strength. 104 Boil SURVEY TABLE 7.--SANITAI! FACILITIES [Some of the tens used in this table to describe restrictive soil features are defined in the Glossary. text for definitions.of 'alight,' 'moderate,' 'good.' 'fair,' and other terms used to rate soils. Absence of an entry means soil was not rated] 1 Soil name and 1 Septic tank map symbol I absorption fields I 1 1, 2 :Slight Altvan 3•: Aquolls : floods, 1 wetness. 1 Aquepts------------:Severe: •-- �� : floods. : wetness. Aa• Aquolls :Severe: floods, fl000ds. 1 wetness. Aquepts :Severe: 1 floods, I wetness. 5, 6 :511ght-----«____:sevre: seepage. Ascalon I 1 151ight- - ;Severe: Ascalon 1 : slope, 1 seepage. I 1 8, 9 ----(Slight-----------:Severe: Ascalon 0 : seepage. • 10---------------- :Severe: Dam I floods. 11, 12 :Slight -----------:Severe: Dresser : seepage. = Sewage lagoon areas 13__ ---__•_"'___-_-:Moderate: Cascajo 1 slope. 1 1 11, 15, 16•--•�•---:Slight _ Colby 1 1 :Severe: : slope. 1 1 1 :Slight -----------:Severe: slope. 17 Colby $ 1119:Colby-------------- ,Severe: i seepage. :Severe: • 1 floods, ; wetness. 1 :Severe: floods, -1 wetness. 1 :Severe: I floods, 1 wetness. :Severe: 1 floods, 1 wetness. Severe: floods, seepage. Adens-------------- Severe: slope, seepage, small stones. ,Moderate: 1 seepage. 19---------------w Colombo ZO-- - Colosbo Moderate: ports slowly. Moderate: floods. Slight---•---�-" See footnote at end of table. Moderate: seepage, slope. Severe: floods. Moderate: slope, • seepage. 1 Trench sanitary landfill 1 :Severe: : seepage. :Severe: : floods. : wetness. • :Severe: : floods, 1 wetness. :Severe: : floods, : wetness. :Severe: : floods, : wetness. :Severe: ', seepage. :Severe: : seepage. Severe: seepage. Severe: floods, seepage. Severe: seepage. Severe: seepage. Slight --- Slight 1 Area 1 sanitary landfill ;Slight 1 :Severe: wetness. 1 : :Severe: 1 wetness. :Severe: wetness. : :Severe: : wetness. :Severe: : seepage. Severe: 1 seepage. i :Severe: seepage. Severe: 1 floods. • • Severe: seepage. Severe: seepage. 1 1 1 : , ---:Fair: : thin layer. • :Poor: : wetness. : Poor: : wetness. 1 :Poor: 1 -wetness. : :Poor: : wetness. : See Daily cover for landfill Good. Good. , :Good. • • • :Fair: too sandy. : • :Good. i i :Poor: small stones. 1 1 1 Slight -----------:Good. 1 : Slight -----------:Good. 1 I 1 I Slight -----------:Slight-----»--- :Good. 1 Slight----------- t Slight -----------Good. I I Moderate: - :Moderate: :Good. floods. . I floods. _ Slight----- ---ISlight-----------:Good• 1 -1 9407S7 108 ROIL SURVEY TABLE 6. --CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (Some of the terms used in this table to describe restrictivesoil features are defined in the Glossary. See text for definitions of 'good,' 'fair, •poor.' and 'unsuited.' Absence of an entry means soil was not rated] Soil name and map symbol Boadfill Sand Gravel Topsoil 1, 2 Altvan • : :Good----------- ,Fair: : excess fines. 3': : i A uoi - ----- -:Poor: : wetness. i : excess fines. : frost action. : I Aquents--------- ;Poor: :Good :Fair: : wetness, i i excess fines. i frost action. _ 1 i •I: I Aquolls :Poor: Unsuited----- ---:Unsuited- --:Poor: -�- : wetness, I t : wetness. : frost action. _ : : Aquepts Poor: :Unsuited ---- ---------:Uosuited--------- ----:Poor: wetness, : i $ wetness. frost action. : i • i i : 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Fair: :Poor: :Unsuited- :Good. Ascalon low strength, excess fines. a frost action, • : shrink -swell. : : 10---------------- :Fair: Fair: Unsuited--- :Poor: 8an.ksrd i low strength. excess fines. 2 too sandy. I 11, 12 :Fair: Poor: .Unsuited-- -----:Fair: Dresser : frost action. excess fines. : I wall stones. 13 :Good -----------------,Good» :Good -----------------:Poor: Cascajo : : i : small stones. • I I I 14, 15. 16, 17--- :Fair: :Unsuited -------------:Unsuited -----:Good. Colby : low strength. : i : 18': : Colby ---:Fair: Unsuited :Unsuited =Good. 1 low strength. $ I Adena ----:Fair: Unsuited-- :Unsuite :Fair: i low strength. : too clayey. i 19. 20:Fair: Unsuited Unsuited :Fair: Colombo i low strength, i too clayey. : frost action. 1 i 21, 22---------------- Good- .Good--------- .Good- -:Fair: Dacono i _ 1 too clayey. •• Fort Collins 1 low strength. 23, 2; ---.--------.-..--:Fair: !Unsuited Unsuite :Good. �''' $ : 25, 26 :Fair: 11.• -I Unsuited Good. :-‘ _y Severson I low strength. l • , •' 27, 28----------��"=Poor: {Unsul Unsu1 - -,Poor: =� '': y shrink -swell i I too clayey. --.7.1.,,.. " 1: Veldt : low strength. : I '%: 4 - : i ••:-.rte~s See footnote at end of table. `�• • 9407874 Fair: excess fines. ;Good- .Fair: .Fair: : thin layer. i :Poor: i wetness. :Poor: i wetness. SCALE IN FEET 0 400 400 800 CONTOUR INTERVAL 2 FEET F ----I ST VRAIN RIVER AND BOULDER AND IDAHO CREEKS DEL CAMINO AREA MAP PREPARED FOR WELD COUNTY IN COOPERATION WITH COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD KUCERA 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. DENVER, COLORADO EXHIBIT E ICO-'1 A - LOO LA1r`L �I►G?�1�Pt_41 9407-97 RrIL , .UNL . 11� •.�uJ�C>>47�7 rirrc GG y4 ROCKY N.^r)UNIAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. April 22, 1994 Mr. John C. Widerquist Latigo Construction Inc. P.O. Box 19288 Boulder, Colorado 80308 Dear Mr. Widerquist: EXHIBIT F Inc 700 Florida Avenue Suite 500 Longmont, CO 80501 303) 772-5282 Metro 303) 665-6283 FAX 303) 665-6959 At your request, I sent a survey crew to the site of your proposed Continental View Pond P.U.D. located in Section 29, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of Weld County, for the purpose of determining the existing ground contours for areas encompassed by Lots 1 through 5 as shown on the P.U.D. sketch plan, and also to determine the location of the limits of the 100 -year floodplain in relation to these lots. I used the floodplain maps that were prepared for Weld County in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board that you supplied to me as the basis for this survey. As of today, we have completed the field work for this project and have plotted existing contours for the lots. I am presently working on determining the flood limits for the lots, and have concluded that the floodplain limits for Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 are located along the embankment of the existing lake on your property, and that the majority of Lots 2 through 5 are approximately 2 feet 3 inches out of the floodplain in this area. It appears that Lot 1 is very close to being at or just inside the floodplain, and I have asked an engineer in our office to look at it and make this determination. I anticipate that we will be able to give you a finished map with the location of the floodplain limits for Lots 1 through 6 of the Continental View Pond P.U.U. sometime near the end of next week. Sincerely, ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.. (RA), a. Peter A. Bryant, P.L.S. PAB:sp DEPTBETC/13/WSDERQST.LTR CIVIL AND FNVIDONMFNTAL ENCINEFr2ING • PLANNING 940703 1435 WCR 16 1/2 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 772-1297 seek V RANCH eVI5 7710 WCR 5 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 651-1857 September 12, 1993 Weld County Commissioners Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, Colo. 80631 Dear Weld County Planning Commission: It is with deep concern that I write to you and your fellow Couauissioners regarding the proposed hearing on September 21st for the proposed re -zoning of agriculture land to that of estate (Case No: Z-482 for Martha Williams). Martha is my sister, so you can understand how difficult this is. For your background information, both my sister's land and my land were originally my father's. He split it between us several years ago. My family (my husband Mike, and two sons, Jeff & Greg), moved into a house just east of the proposed development in January of 1974, and have lived in that house for all but one of those years. My sister and her family have never lived on her property that adjoins our land. Our family has struggled over the years to try to establish a cattle operation. Our son, Jeff, presently overseas the operation, while my husband works elsewhere, but helps Jeff on weekends and • evenings. We currently have 120 cows of which we are trying to increase and build our numbers to hopefully make a more profitable operation. We now keep the calves to feeder calves, but realize that we eventually need to keep the calves through the entire fattening process. If our plans proceed as hoped for, in 2 - 3 years, we will need additional corral space, as our current corral area is not large enough. The only possible pasture left on our acreage to add additional corrals is the pasture south of the house, which is directly across the road from the proposed development. (Our pasture to the north is under a gravel contract). Thus, this brings us to our major concern of why we do not feel that this development is compatible with our cattle feeding operation. There are other concerns as well, of which we feel a need to mention. 9407'37 1435 WCR 16 1/2 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 772-1297 seek V RANCH eVe5 7710 WCR 5 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 651-1857 Page 2 Secondly, our concern is that of the wildlife that is now on the land of the proposed development. Since the lakes have been completed, there is seldom a time you don't see large numbers of birds on the lake. Geese, ducks, rabbits, raccoons, deer, skunks, sea gulls, turtles, snakes, coyotes, owls, foxes and the more rare sand hill cranes and bald eagles are but just a few species of wild- life that now inhabit the acreage of the proposed development. Where will they go once the houses are put up? Thirdly, as you are all well aware, is the concern of being on a flood plain. While there are rules and restrictions that allow for building in a flood plain area, doesn't it seem that there are more desirable areas? Fourth is our concern that the area for the proposed development falls beyond the 3 -mile limit for urban -growth boundaries. Please see the enclosed map of areas annexed by Frederick (in yellow). The Skelly station on 1-25 is currently annexed to Frederick, but it is approximately 31/2 miles from the property to be developed. The town of Frederick itself is approximately 7 miles from the proposed sight, which is different the the 2-3/4 miles quoted in your Surrounding Property/Mineral Owner memo sent to us advising us of this hearing. Fifth is our concern for the value of our own property. Who would want to buy a cattle operation next to a housing development? Would other development follow if this one were allowed? Even if one development is allowed in this area, then everyone would want to sell their agricultural land for development. Is the county ready for that? I have enclosed two articles from the Longmont Times Call that appeared in July. One article addresses the Weld County planners __..not:to_let their county lose too much agricultural ground and become like that of Boulder County. Finally, I hope you, the Planning Commission, will take charge and not let the approval of this development take place, and thus ruin the potential for agriculture to remain in this area. We do not feel that we should be forced to move because of new development. We would like to have the chance to make our operation work, and hope you will respect our opinion. Thank you for your time, Virginia Shaw 1435 Weld County Rd. #161/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 Phone: (303) 772-1297 Enclosures 940787 0 • 22 • itan 1 24 1 tTM • 29 J�--3050-, Ran..n (t2 ( 7z/c(toi Oa ex) thEeatj fa1:Uland AgricAothers account for some of the tion ulture on nation's highest agricultural sales duct' 55 percent of vegetable pro - on and - . .b " ,j ^ �� and also its highest growth rates productsand 24 percent of dairy the e in population. The study exam- ZS endangered 1990the fined census numbers from 1980 to Asa nation, we either must , most recent. year avail- b�,egin to recognize our urban -edge WASI�TI�TGTON able. It put those numbers along agricultural land as a strategic of the nation's-- (AP) productie ve side data e agriculture. the 1987 census of natural resource. and. take steps to protect it, or one day we sim- landand yet most threatened farm- The population in those regions land lies on the edge of 12 metro- ply will lose it," said Ralph E. areas, ggrew by 21 percent from 1980 to Grossi, president of the group. a preservation 1990, twice the national average, The group said local, state and group said today. The American Farmland Trust farmlane d declined the same time courageal laws preservation of farmland said rapid population y more than 3 courage development agrgreatest owth and million acres in the regions from on the urban edges. It said states threats to pose the Central rate than e40 percent e higher can strengthen right-to-farmcande- threat Florida, California laws, local governments de - coastal south egion and Mid- The regions represented only 5 grams vroop growth management pro - Valley, Atlantic region including the and the federal percent of the U.S. land in farms ernment cart use tax laws to en - Atlantic c Bay region.nlng the but accounted for 17 percent of gov- Those four regions and eight total U.S, agricultural sales, courage "strategic agricultural percent of domestic fruit prouc7,:°reserves",rather than develop- ment. .'1IVIES-CALL EDITORIAL h�ll we simply watch our farmland disappear?. Turbid waters swirling through the Midwest are washing away billions of dol- lars worth of crops this sum- mer. Yet after a flood, receding rivers leave behind nutrient - rich silt that will rejuvenate the land and provide robust stands of crops for years to come. It's a whole different story with urban sprawl. Once devel- opment flows over agricultural acreage, the farmland is lost forever. In Colorado, from 1980 to 1991, more than 500 farms each averaging 1,300 acres disap- peared, with an accompanying reduction of 3.2 million farm - able acres. Nationally, about 2 million acres of farmland a year are lost to other uses. Most seri- ously threatened are Califor- nia, the upper Midwest and the East Coast, according to the Washington -based American Farmland Trust. However, that group's list of the top 50 regions threatened by cities' growth hits pretty close to home as well. Included • are the fertile lands of Weld County, agriculturally one of the nation's most productive areas. It may seem to some that there are endless tracts of agri- cultural property across this wide nation, and the efficiency of the American farmer can al- ways guarantee us a bounty. But in the increasingly global economy, the United States will only become a bigger player in a world food -supply game in which the stakes may rise con- siderably. Food needs are escalating as populations grow in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Re- cent indications are that de- spite increased crop productiv- ity in the Third World, a food supply shortage might be loom- ing as demand for grain lags In many developing nations, population -control measures have yet to take hold; and in countries like India and China even small shifts in population growth rates can considerably alter world food supplies. Also, most of the Third World's gains in food production since 1950 have been due to improved farming technology — but late- ly there have been relatively few significant innovations. When you add to all that the prospect, at least in the fore- seeable future, of continued degradation of the global envi- ronment the notion of protect- ing farmland more aggres- sively seems prudent. The American Farmland Trust is calling on the U.S. gov- ernment to assign funds now used for farm subsidies to in- stead go toward farm preserva- tion. That might not be realistic • in the short term — subsidies are now a complex pattern in- terwoven into the fiscal fabric of U.S. farm life. But what is tenable is that counties and municipalities begin to jointly plan for large- scale agricultural preserva- tion. Farmland requires a huge buffer from urban pressure to stay productive. How much was learned too late in the past decade by Boulder County of- ficials who, despite massive down -zoning and acquisition of open space, could only watch helplessly as one farmer after another called it quits? Before too many years go by, Longmont and several nearby smaller towns are destined to spread their boundaries much further into Weld County. There's no reason why Weld and municipal leaders can't sit down now and share the re- sponsibility of charting a course for development that will channel it away from vul- ........kin ts..,rn onrnnISn �( /'/(-e_j C - g /95)3 ( 9407,97 1435 WCR 16 1/2 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 772-1297 O oPQao O oak v RANCH 7710 WCR 5 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 651-1857 June 14, 1994 Weld County Planning Commission Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, Colo. 80631 Dear Weld County Planning Commission: In response to your notice on May 10, 1994 advising us of the June 21st hearing for case number Z488, that of Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John Weiderquist, & Terry A. Henze, for a change of zone from agricultural to PUD, I would like to ask the following question. Is this not the same case that you reviewed on September 21, 1993? At that time the property was owned by Martha Williams, and the request was for a change from agriculture to estate. Today the property is owned by the above gentlmen, and their request is for a change from agriculture to PUD. Basically, however, it is for the same housing development that you denied in September (see attached copy of your September 21st report.), only the names of the parties owning the land has changed. My feelings regarding this development are the same as they were when I sent you my letter of September 12th (see enclosed copy). The questions and concerns I had then are the same today. We hope you will give this case you upsmost attention, and trust that the reasons this was denied previously will still be valid for the June 21st hearing. Thank you for whatever attention you may give to this case. Si rely, irginia Shaw 1435 Weld County Road #16V Longmont, Colorado 80504 Weld County Planning Phone: (303) 772 - Enclosures Golan C'. 14/Jiderquist - 1328 M,,nrigold Court, afnyette, CV 80026 phones: (F5ome) 303-673-0667 - (Office) 303-444-4405 June 9, 1994 Mr. Mike Shaw 1435 Weld County Road 16-1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Re: Continental View Ponds PUD Previously Williams PUD - Tri-Area Case No. S-351 Dear Mike: I would like to offer some comments about your opposition to our development and attempt to get to the bottom of why you feel the way that you do. We are, of course, frustrated and disappointed by your position on this PUD. We feel that we are offering a PUD that will enhance the surrounding area and that will benefit your family in the long run. We also have very strong feelings about being good neighbors and want to live in a country atmosphere as much as you do. We do not want to disturb the environment with this development, in fact we think that it will improve it. We have been to your home, we have addressed your concerns in the restrictive covenants in our PUD and have done everything that we can to keep you informed and to work with you in this process Last Tuesday night we presented additional details of what we presented to you a few months ago verifying that we had obtained engineering data and studies to address the septic systems and ground water tables that confirmed that we would be able to meet all of Weld County's requirements for these items, we addressed the flood plain questions and showed that all of the building sites would be one foot or more above the 100 year flood plain elevations (and we are satisfied that our engineering solutions will address both the flood elevation as well as any flow problems), we verified that we had met the requirements of the fire district and would be putting a fire sprinkler system in each house, and we reviewed the efforts that we have made with the Department of Wildlife and the Soil Conservation district in order to prepare a wildlife habitat enhancement plan that would be completed shortly and would become a part of this PUD, we also indicated that we were making the PUD even more restrictive that we originally planned by establishing building envelopes within each lot that would restrict any construction of buildings or fences to approximately 5% of the total area which would leave approximately 95% of the site available for open space and a wildlife sanctuary. We feel that we have come up with a plan that will benefit the surrounding properties and improve the existing condition of this site. We would also like to address a few specific issues as follows: 1.) We feel that the proposed PUD offers an economically viable improvement to this area and offers Weld County an increased income that far exceeds that offered by using this site for agriculture. We also believe that this site cannot be reasonably be used for agriculture due to the small amount of land available for agricultural use and due to the poor soil conditions. We think that this development will enhance your own property value over time. 2.) We feel that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses and that it will enhance both the surrounding area and it's wildlife. Mike Shaw - June 9, 1994 Page 2 3.) Our property is within three miles of the city limits of Frederick. 4.) We have limited the building sites to five in order to achieve the minimum density compatible with a reasonable economic cost for a building site. If this site is used for only one homesite the building site would cost approximately $250,000 after the utilities were brought to the site and make this property feasible only for the estate of a millionaire. The PUD, as proposed, will make this property available for five average families and allow them to enjoy the country in the same manner as the surrounding neighbors. 5.) We are planning to use this site for the homes of the four partners, we plan to live there, we plan to make this area an asset and improvement to the neighborhood and we want to be good neighbors. We also visited your home a few months ago and completely reviewed this PUD with your family. At that time you basically said that your only objection was that you were afraid that there might be complaints from the homeowners concerning the smells and dust resulting from your cattle operation. We told you at that time that we accepted this, knew that this was a part of living next to a farm and we have included a specific statement in our PUD and covenants that addresses our acceptance of these types of conditions as a condition of living in the country. We also asked that you check with your attorneys and that you give us language that you were comfortable with that you felt would protect you on this subject. We are willing to include any reasonable language that you ask for to ease your family's mind in our covenants and PUD and to record them with the Weld County as a condition of PUD approval and they would also be recorded in each deed for the lots on this PUD. We would welcome receiving this language, as well as any other concerns that you might have so that we can include them in our PUD. Were we in your position, we would be concerned about the quality and improvement that this PUD would add to our area. We think that people owning property have a right to put it to a reasonable economic use and do not feel that stopping development for development's sake is valid because an increase of population is inevitable. The issue is the use of the property compatible with the surround area, is it being done properly and does it improve the area. We think that ours does. We again thank you for your time and consideration and will be looking forward to hearing from you. We would like to work with you on this property and to show you that we will be good responsible neighbors that will be an asset to your community. cc: Jack Olberding, Terry Henze & Bill Bedell Ms. Gloria Dunn, Weld County Department of Planning Services 9407S" 1435 WCR 16 1/2 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 772-1297 U M s�,sk v RANCH eV3 7710 WCR 5 Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 651-1857 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Sir: September 20, 1994 r —n rn c7-73 This is to request an extention of time from our 30 -way deadline of September 24th, to continue work on the case of doc no 94-57, a proposed housing development on Weld County Rd. #34 and Rd. 16Z.* CD We still feel that serious questions arise as to whether or not this property is in a wetland area (per U.S. Army Core of Engineers), and also cannot find sufficient evidence from the U.S. Department of Wildlife that they have indeed approved the fact that that many houses would not harm wildlife in this area. We also feel that the Cowuiissioners are not respecting propsed growth patterns in the S.W. Weld area, as per the August 24th issue of the Frederick Farmer & Miner. With these questions still at hand, we request that you will extend this deadline in order for us to continue to work on the appeal. Thank you PLC l�� L,.44dr Michael & Virginia Shaw 1435 Weld County Rd. #162 Longmont, Colorado 80504 *This is a PUD Development of Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John Widerquist, & Terry A. Henze. 941384 PL0966 Al TO: 20 CLERK THE Dear Commissioner, Greg Shaw 1435 WCR 16 1/2 Longmont, Colo. 80504 I would like to know some reasoning behind your ruling of case # 94-57 on August 24, 1994. You approved the rezoning of this area from agriculture to residential. Did you review this case at all before the hearing? I doubt it; if you did, you would have noticed that the planning commission had rejected this same proposal twice, the last time being just two months ago. If you did'do research on this case (maybe least five minutes of reading before the hearing), I would like to know why you decided to overturn the planning commissions ruling, and why Weld County even exerts the 'time, effort, and money for a planning commission, when they just get shot down by the commissioners anyway. This is not an isolated case (please see NEW PRISON, DEL CAMINO). Was it the fancy colored charts and diagrams that the paid attorneys of the developers presented at the hearing that influenced you? I bet it looked really neat on paper.• Or is just because the county is full of hungry politician wanna-be's who just want to make some bucks for Weld county. Anyone who lives in Colorado (for more then two years) could tell you the answer (excluding developers). I would really like to hear your answer. However, I'm not really anticipating a response now that this is past history, Weld County has it's money and everyone is happy. Nor do I feel you can answer these questions, without some dubious rhetorical statement such as, "What would you do with this land?" There are a ton of agriculture uses for it as a single piece of property, and the five current owners should have had a little more insight before they were so free with their money. P.S. I would also like some clarification on this article that appeared in the Farmer & Miner on the same day as the hearing (August 24, 1994). I understood this article as Weld County Commissioners wanting to establish "urban growth boundaries" with WCR 7 being the boundary to the west. However, this same subdivision is 3 miles further west then road 7. Is this false reporting? Or did the Commissioners not adhere to the ,inn/ plan? Or is this some kind of special PUD-in-the-country-don't Y'�V`�`�• need to follow any rules type area? 01)./AM�,�� *P�la ;-. Frederick ants county to respect growth plans Weld County Commissioners Dale Hall and Barbara Kirkmeyer recently met with the Frederick Town Board to explain how the county wants to cooperate with municipalities in planning and growth. By Michael Neilson Editor Weld County Commission- ers have said they want to work, with the county's cities and towns in the development of mutually acceptable "urban growth bound- aries." Commissioners Barbara Kirkmeyer and Dale Hall met with the Frederick Town Board recently (Thursday, August 11) to announce that the Weld County Comprehen- sive Plan is being reviewed, and that plans can be developed that incorporate the growth interests of each city and town in the county. Commissioner Hall said this cooperation is favored rather than the formation of a three-mile or half -mile sphere of influence be- ing formed around each munici- pality. Even if a town isn't able to. annex a specific area immediately, but does have a future interest in it, the county could direct develop- ment in that area with a sense of continuity, Hall indicated. Frederick mayor Ed Tagliente referred the visiting commission- ers to the Frederick Comprehen- sive Plan, which has been in effect since 1986. That urban growth area for Frederick is bordered by Weld County Road 7 on the west, Road 26 on the north, State Highway 52 on the south, and Roads 13 and 17 on the east (with Road 16 making !. the dog -leg connection between the two). "We've adhered to that plan," Tagliente told the commissioners. "We can serve this area with utili- ties." The mayor said the criteria for a municipality claiming an area should not be based on the mere desire to have it, but the ability to service it. Tagliente also suggested that any developer locating within a town's planning area "ought to be encouraged to annex into that town," rather than letting the county con- trol that development. Commissioner Kirkmeyer re- sponded, "We can encourage it, but we can't require it." Kirkmeyer ad- mitted that sometimes "developers pit the towns against the county" in promoting their developments. In stressing that the Town of Frederick wants control of what hap- pens within its urban growth bound- ary, Tagliente said, "We could get 30,000 people in that area, and I don't think any of us sitting around this table want 30,000 people there." Kirkmeyer and Hall have so far taken the county's proposal to about 16 of the 31 towns and cities of Weld. The follow-up process for each municipality includes a work- shop session to hammer out an in- tergovernmental agreement be- tween the town and the county. Tagliente said Frederick is anxious to proceed to that step as soon as:. possible. ru rri rn -••t rn rT' rr+ --4 G7 Mc' n moo• m• mt�m� -cOHF X a o In o (D Naotr O w • rt co • n cn o Q. 0 N cn H• WI -1 �• cn �, Pc l CONTINENTAL VIEW POND PUD WEST 1/4 CORNER, SECTION 29. T2N, R68W, 6TH P.M. FOUND PIN & CAP LS NO: 10385 RESET NO. 6 PIN WITH 7' CAP L.S. NO. 20673 &O IV.. V 10.32' 5EE ENLARGEMENT OF THIS - ',RFA 4%'3.4 _ 1332.67 SW CORNER, NW 1/4, SW 1/4, SECTION 29, T2N, R68W, 6TH P.M. FOUND PIN & CAP LS NO. 13446 RESET NO. 6 PIN WITH 2° CAP LS. NO 20673 I I G 374.06 ��- •47'5.19 a. a CENTERLINE Of � 1` NANO N•�0 CREEK PARCELS NOT INCI W THIS SURVEY OZ..X r S 6C16'37.,* -! ..1I6 f i �- S 65'313'7!' w so 2. 79'25 04- yr - ¢y 4a �— Se. 4* 0'' w - 26.59 PLCF^..)4 4: 2.171 !N 7 . ) c. 10 E -415 j L 4 F BY TR! HC4 336' Z54L✓ 5 a t+ 00'03 3.5 t 5.00' S.89'561 7` E _ 1331.82 IIWELD COUNTY ROAD 16 1/2 i 19.54' M - 32 64 s. L 1 w x 3.4 AL_ H.vy i /41 S'ic 1/4, 4, SECTION 29, T2N RESW 89.46'27 * — 162.1C 46 23' w ILO sa EXtSTINC �4LC ►K1 'NORTH 1"-100° 100 0 100 200 300 fee@ triErnia DATE PREPARED JULY 21 1993 Wildlife Habitat / Open Space Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Planted Area Natural Lake / Wetlands i _ i Building Envelopes Landscape Buffer Area I Wildlife Habitat Cover Wildlife Access Corridors FENCE N 31St2 44' r 264 f MAMAIA-ftol ref- oi1.,/1Tvfro W ' L -x + - 2S 65 - ExISTiNG FENCE NE CORNER NW 1/4, SW 1/4 SECTION 29. T2N, R6gw, 6TH FOUND PIN & CAP LS N0 13 RESET NO. 6 PIN WITH 2' CAP IS NO. 20673 I I SE CORNER NW 1/4, Sw 1/4, SECTION 29, T2N, R68w. 6TH P hi FOUND PIN h CAP LS NO. 13446 RESET NO. 6 PIN WITH r CAP LS NO 20673 ARt9N'L+3a 209231 66461 2-727 68/6644 63:56P or 60c 1..94 Pm»[aSeln 41418e3U C'o.. cl010.43.a¢ 10.00 WEST CORNER. iECTiON 20 TDN. y 611 BAW. 6T. P.M, FOUND 861 AT 64P LS RESET N0. 6 RID WIT. r CAP L.S. NO. 20673 SEE A04L ENENT Of 174$ — SW SW CORNER, ;N SECTION T29. F N, 6886, FOUND IN It CAP K 1 cAP C. r PA; LS NON 20660 0,3 IS cR<M L ^ p741 s� 2439 JI�I:�TInlC LAKE - 2.5 = AGMS CONTINENTAL VIEW POND P.U.D. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAT 64P6 89"56'17 E - 1331.82_ 1 WELD COUNTY ROAD 16 1/2 I EXIST810 PENCE j NW 1 /q1 Sw 1/4, SECTION 299, T2N, R68W N 89'49'00" W - 1332.80 ---/NORTH 1"=100' >� LW 'ow ..TE PREPARED: JULY 2:, 1993 LEGEND: • 5ECFI0N CORNER A3 NOTED —C— UNDEROPOUND CAS LINE —E-- OERNEAD EI.ECi?IC —"-- FENCE UNE 61 CREEM A7_ 1/4M WELL E CR _P NW J SWa;',... 1 FOUND 9 2 1.S OUNp N ET C IS h0. h46 ELL RESET'3. 6 2. A 3 NO 20673 M CORNER, NW 1/4.SW 11/4, SECTION 29. T2N, RUDE STD 8.14 FOUND PIN & CAP LS ILO. 1406 ET WON. RESET `O. ON Y 0/40; LS N0. 20873 Z- 488 TT 36 5 89'56'17 E- PEN TES.. OIL ENLARGEMENT S 0011 - CURVE DATA CURSE 60116 66005 ARC CHORD C.. NU. Ct 41'13'55" MOM 199.62 S /62'.:'36' W 19634 C2 30 610" 359.55 009.09 S 74'48'0.5" W 206.59 r,. LINE B.ARND DISTANCE 11 N 050166'0 12.61 12 N $63S'00 0 33.83 03 N 77','02 0 60.76 LS S 6,05'01" E 80.01 LS S 56'22'!0 W 14261 Le N 27'11'58' E 11.53 CO N 7630 x' E 44.94 1H N /0'54'02 C 8660 L9 N 8165.00 ,8869 LID N 0734.0? E 84.87 A6 966!46 615O8 Got. „ 66_ °Ys y'mi LW.Lo t"'" "` ",6„ " LEGAL DESCRIPTION F10,1,1010 0.36 ROD NW. PART MO., TO 33,13 MKT IN 2.116140,03 2[6.030ILL APEA 4, OW ADOVE 03.564.33.4 8.9406 6 TORS .333 MORE OR laS. 10 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE Glt., a. .332 .3µµ.4JAT un'a1 ywa PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATE: 304.6304 I.EILIf newt T"' "Mg 00633.00 FOW TOP 9' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S CERTIFICATE: CWWWW 0634 TO IN, 3330.1r SO 321.0, 30.0 Of 30330" L 00 66: z 26 L O zz. ap 6§n o >6 6 x z V rr En z O O 01 O 0a o o 30 N y La F0 O O Z3 O F a • s 4F !vim 0 >- 603 N Q t- I - J d I - U_ 89- V) 0 PREPARED FOR: JOHN WIDEROUIST & JACK OLBERDING DAT, APRN, 1994 DENG. SY:_ -- M8 N0. 10-0766.005.00 16.66:1 a EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET -718 Case Exhibit 7/GA. 7M B. C. D. 7/r E. 5//, F. 5//g G. 71102,1111 4 VultruiJiitur 5401 CiDZttyse )-tocu , 6id.00, a t; $ C . r Exhibit Description C /1 0:6,1) /ii 1LLO7 t 2� Submitted By Qait" catu-in $�l Q ,nu Cosa ; � i�.ta' ,�'Q ��rrvn�;rrOlarui;6' eteirtaP(aithitteitrarn'i Mir Vflartirtahld- 0-6621-116- L. M. N. 0. P. Q• R. S. T. U. V. W. X. 4Pe-17 ham, co. t _t 1 G, E)/p/1ti ` (. ) oGt6, _ DAgvac.7".c (a Pr) g 407ie hex)" e D '4016 Q I2 rloc ttt () po Twit Y. Z. 94079'7 INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant: Olberding, Bedell, Widerquist, and Henze Case Number: Z-488 Submitted or Prepared 1. Application 30 pages 2. Application plat 2 pages X 3. DPS referral summary sheet and letter X 4. DPS letter to applicant X 5. DPS Recommendation X 6. DPS Surrounding Property Owner/Mineral Owner Mailing list, letter and certificate. X 7. 3 DPS Maps Prepared by Planning Technician X 8. DPS Notice of Hearing X 9. DPS Case File Summary Sheet X 10. DPS Field Check X 11. May 17, 1994 field check by Judy Yamaguchi X 12. May 26, 1994 letter from Gary Tuttle X 13. May 26, 1994 referral from Mountain View Fire Protection District X 14. May 27, 1994 referral from Weld County Public Works Department X 15. May 31, 1994 referral from Weld County Health Department X 16. May 20, 1994 referral from Department of Army corps of Engineers X 17. May 12, 1994 referral from Weld County Sheriff's Office X 18. May 12, 1994 referral from Plumb and Dailey Ditch Co. X 19. June 7, 1994 referral from Tri-Area Planning Commission X 20. Continental View Pond colored graphic X 21. June 14, 1994 letter to surrounding property owners from applicants X 22. June 17, 1994 letter from Gary Tuttle X 23. June 8, 1994 letter to applicant from Longmont Soil Conservation District X 24. June 9, 1994 referral from Colorado Geological Survey X Prior to Hearing X At Hearing 9407Q7 7 owners from a__ icants 22. June 17, 1994 letter from Gary Tuttle 23. June 8, 1994 letter to applicant from Longmont Soil Conservation District 24. June 9, 1994 referral from Colorado Geological Survey INVENTORY OF ITEMS Olberding, Bedell, Widerquist, and Henze Page 2 25. June 9, 1994 referral from Division of Water Resources X 26. June 15, 1994 referral from State Division of Wildlife X 27. June 9, 1994 letter to Tri-Area Planning Commission from applicant X 28. June 9, 1994 letter to Mike Shaw from applicant X 29. June 14, 1994 letter from Virginia Shaw X 30. Letter from Leslie J. Williams X 31. Letter from Sylvia Burback X 32. Referral from Longmont Soil Conservation District X 33. June 15, 1994 letter from Sawdeys with enclosure X 34. June 21, 1994 letter from Dale and Lynn Johnson X 35. June 20, 1994 letter from Jack P. Wolfe X I hereby certify that the 35 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 July 8, 1994. Gloria(Durn, Current Planner STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS day of , 1994. tit,`, 4 * ‘'4‘4. -SEAL •.. .4 ` 'r • O . . PUBV 1 • MX Cor�ad4 ion Expires or to�Q NOTARY PUBLIC Nordetoca, t 6-. 94(17R7 FILE CONTAINS OVERSIZED MAP PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL FILE Hello