HomeMy WebLinkAbout971193.tiffDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
Weld County Administrative Offices, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540, Fax # (970) 352-6312
MINOR SUBDIVISION CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
App. Ch'd By: Case Number
App. Fee: Receipt Number:
Record. Fee: Receipt Number:
Planner Assigned to Case:
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. Please print or type, except for necessary signature.
I (we), the undersigned, hereby request hearings before the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld
County Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed Change of Zone for the following described
unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LO4 B 0f R.._ /r36
(If additional space is required, attach an additional sheet)
Property Address (if available):
Present Zone A-04..,'ec,/firs Proposed Zone Es fa }e Total Acreage .36 (7G 11 0 &ekes)
Overlay District (if applicable) Wen ?
SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR CHANGE OF ZONE:
Name: TA6wct-g S. /Ca sre/5 Home Telephone#: 97o -/fl -.S//3
Address: %/h' py 3 9•A (,a c> • ,e07�) Bus. Telephone*:
/JhdJor� CO B'SS-O
Name: _
Address:
Home Telephone #:
Bus. Telephone #:
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above)
Name:
Address:
Revised: 1-22-96
Home Telephone #:
Bus. Telephone #:
/ , 2 1 -?-0->"
Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent
8
971193
EXHIBIT
z -SOCo
MINOR SUBDIVISION CHANGE OF ZONE QUESTIONAIRE
QUESTION /1:
The proposed rezoning of the parcel currently known as Lot B of
RE 1936 from Agricultural to "E" Estate Zoning is consistent with
the goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
(W.C.C.P.) for the following generalized reasons;
1. The parcel is only a total of 36 acres, 6 acres of
which are taken up by roads bounding the property. The
remaining 30 acres are comprised of irregular shaped
small fields. In the W.C.C.P. under A. Goal 9 it
states, "The minimum lot size of parcels in the
Agricultural zone district should remain at 80 acres.
Lots of lesser size are not generally practical to farm
due to large scale management practices existing today.
2. A consistant supply of irrigation water is not
deliverable to the 30 acres as there was no specified
easement nor right of use agreement to use the
irrigation lift pump and supply lines transferred to
the property when the improvements were divided from
the agricultural ground in 1986.
3. The parcel is an irregular shape, bounded by roads on 3
sides, a railroad R.O.W. on the 4th side and 6
residential dwellings. This creates a unique
situation that provides a buffer to other agricultural
properties in the area.
4. The entire parcel as it is currently used, is an
ineffective farm. The proposed estate zoned acreage
lots will allow for small agricultural activities such
as 4-H Livestock.
5. The low density 5 lot minor subdivision will provide an
affordable quality residential area for families to
live in a rural environment and it is compatible with
surrounding and neighboring residential developments.
6. Public Services and transportation systems are
currently in place and will not impact taxpayers with
additional costs.
7. The uses allowed in the change to Estate zone will be
compatable with or identical to current uses at the
adjacent properties.
971193
continuation of question 11 page 2
Specific responses to the consistency with the W.C.C.P.
Agricultural Goals and Policies as they relate to the change from
Agricultural to Estate zoning are as follows;
A. Goal 1. By multiple definitions within the W.C.C.P.,
this parcel should not fall within the realm of prime farm
ground, so therefore not be preserved as farmground. With
in A. Policy 1. the W.C.C.P. states "...The availability of
a consistent supply of clean water must exist in order to
have prime farmland." The availability of delivery of
irrigation is no longer secure on this property. In 1986
previous owners seperated improvements from the agricultural
ground by way of a recorded exemption and a subdivision
exemption. This created three parcels, two approximate four
acre home sites and the agricultural ground. The lift pump
and corresponding underground irrigation supply lines which
moved the water to the top of the hill are located on the
southern most approximate 4 acre parcel which contained the
improvements. No specific easements for the use of such
were granted to the 30 acre parcel therefore even though
shares of irrigation water were transferred with the
agricultural ground the availability of delivery was not.
A. Goal 2. Does not apply.
A. Goal 3. The subject property is located outside of any
municipalities comprehensive plan, urban growth boundary
areas and I-25 mixed use development, however is is within
refferal area boundaries. There are several reasons why we
feel this intended use is compatible with the intent of A.
Goal 3. To the north of this property (approximately one
half mile) is the Willow Springs Subdivision which has 20
lots ranging from 2-1/2 to 5 acres. There are six existing
and two planned new single family dwellings within 300 feet
of the property boundary and we feel the large acreage lots
will allow agricultural uses in minature and not add a great
density of residents. The property as noted previously is
buffered from other agricultural ground by Railroad tracks,
roads and existing homes. There has been no opposition from
the six congruent homes expressed by them to us at the time
we discussed our intentions to subdivide this property with
them. The other point under A.Policy 3 is to minimize the
costs to taxpayers of providing additional public services
in rural areas for uses that require services on an urban
level. Urban level public services currently exist and any
costs of improving those services will be paid by the
developer.
A. Goal 4. The United States Department of Agricultures,
Soil Survey of Weld County (copies attatched) defines the
971193
continuation of question #1 page 3
soil as #32 Kim Loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. As this
particular parcel is a hilltop the slopes are from 1 to 5
percent. the capability class is Ile if irrigated IVe non
irrigated. Capability class II soils have moderate
limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require
moderate conservation practices. Capability class IV soils
have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of
plants, or that require very careful management or both.
The subclass letter "e" shows that the main limitation is
risk of erosion unless close growing plant cover is
maintained. The parcel is an irregular shaped piece that
makes farming impractical. This parcels small size versus
the encouraged 80 acre minimum in the comprehensive plan,
expounds on the common sense of that guideline by the
economic infeasability to farm a 30 acre disjointed field.
A. Goal 5. The existing service road will be utilized to
provide access for existing oil and gas activities. The
effect on the well by a residential change has been
minimized by design. The larger lot that the oil facilities
are located on will provide for a greater distance from the
oil and gas improvements to future homes. The layout of the
proposed new lots has been done in conjuction with the
future access needs of the oil company pursuant to several
discussions with them. (see attatched letter from Blue Chip
Oil)
A. Goal 6. See attached letters from providers of public
services.
A. Goal 7. The right to farm covenant will be included on
the plat.
A. Goal 8. No basin transfer of water will occur. We use
the same irrigation ditch company to irrigate our working
farm on the west side of Windsor and will use the shares
transferred with the subject property to supplement
irrigation on our feasable farm to improve production.
Thus, the irrigation water will be retained for agricultural
use, just on a different property.
A. Goal 9. This parcel is a prime example of how small
fields are not viable farm ground and therefore it is of
better use in estate zoning.
Specific rsponses to W.C.C.P.; Urban Growth Boundaries;
Unicorporated Communities; Industrual; commercial Development.
Does not apply. Property is not located within any of these
areas.
971193
continuation of question #1 page 4
Specific responses to W.C.C.P. Residential Goals and Policies as
they relate to the change from Agricultural Zoning to Estate
Zoning are as follows;
R. Goal 1. The large estate lots will provide an
opportunity for families that desire a rural type lifestyle
to have an affordable amount of acreage. The west sloping
hill, with views of the mountains will be a desirable
location for families, with access to Windsor and Greeley a
short commute for work, shopping or other services.
R. Goal 2, 3, and 4. The estate lots will be served by
private septic systems built to the standard of and
inspected by the Weld County Health Department. Urban level
public utilities and services currently exist. The property
is bordered on the north by W.C.R. #66, on the west by
W.C.R. #23 3/4 and on the east by a drive currently serving
the 3 eastern bordering residences. In the sketch plan
proposal access was to four lots by way of a new road on the
property accessing W.C.R. #66 at the section line and to
access the east lot #5 from the existing drive on the east.
Both the Town of Windsor and the Windsor -Severance Fire
Protection District have requested and emergency vehicle
lane be constructed from the west end of the culdesac road
to the existing oil well access road on W.C.R. #23 3/4.
This emergency road will be gated and posted for use by
emergency vehicles. The cost of constructing the new roads
will be paid by the developer. Public water supply from the
North Weld Water District, telephone and electricity from
Public Service Company of Colorado are currently in place
bordering the property on the north, east and west sides
with sufficient capacities to support the five lot
subdivision. Fire protection is served by the Windsor -
Severance Fire Protection District and we have arranged to
make improvements to the fire district which will benefit
not only those residences in the minor subdivision, but the
surrounding neighbors within approximately a four square
mile area. Costs of improving these services will be paid
by the developer with no impact of additional costs to the
taxpayers of Weld County. (See attached refferal agencies
responses) The low density of five estate zoned lots will
not add a great number of residencies. There are six
existing and two planned new single family dwellings
within 300 feet of the property, these five new lots would
create a residential cluster in filling the area between the
existing residences that surround this parcel. The
property is unique as it is buffered from any agricultural
properties by roads on three sides existing residences and
the railroad R.O.W. on the fourth side. Willow Spring
971193
continuation of question #1 page 5
Subdivision is a half mile to the north of the property,
which also has estate zoned lots. The railroad R.O.W. on
the south of the property boundary will have no more effect
on the new homes than it does as it goes through towns.
The train only uses these tracks a few times a week. There
will be trees planted along the boundary of the right of way
to mitigate any impact visually.
Specific responses to the consistency with the W.C.C.P.
Transportation Goals and Policies as they relate to the change
from Agricultural to Estate zoning are as follows;
T. Goal 1. The property is bordered on the north by W.C.R.
#66 and on the west by W.C.R. #23 3/4 which are in very good
condition. Access to W.C.R. /66 by the internal road
serving the subdivision will be perpendicular directly to
the south from an existing road intersecting W.C.R. #66 on
the north. This location has an approximate 600 foot clear
field of view to both the east and west on W.C.R. #66 which
will provide a safe economical and efficient system for
residents to access the Weld County Road system.
T. Goal 2. Does not apply.
T. Goal 3. In order to maximize the compatibility of the
internal roads with the adjacent residential land uses we
have proposed and received tentative Public works Department
approval to access lot five from the existing drive to the
east which serves the existing bordering residences. This
system would lessen the traffic between the residences and
would be safer and more suitable to everyone involved.
QUESTION #2:
The proposed change of zoning will be compatable with and in the
majority of instances will be identical to the surrounding
property uses.
The surrounding properties are comprized of two types of uses,
agricultural and single family dwellings with accessory service
buildings to accomodate small scale livestock raising, equipment
service and storage. The predominance is of single family
dwellings, 6 existing and 2 new planned, on lots or within
building envelopes ranging from 2 to 5 acres. The property
proposed for rezoning is uniquely located in that it is buffered
from the agricultural ground by grasslands, county roads, a
railroad right of way and the existing dwellings which greatly
reduces the incompatabilities between agricultural and estate
zoning uses. To the North one half mile is the Willow Springs
subdivision which consists of 20 estate zoned lots ranging in
size from 2-1/2 to 5 acres.
971193
continuation of question #2 page 6
Precise descriptions of the existing adjacent properties are
follows: (see attatched map for property identification numbers)
1. Single family dwelling, accessory service buildings and
small scale live stock raising.
2. Two single family dwellings, accessary service
buildings and small scale livestock livestock raising.
3. 100 foot railroad right of way.
4. Productive large scale farmland.
5. Single family dwelling with an accessory service
building.
6. Grassland.
7. Single family dwelling with accessory service
buildings.
8. Productive large scale farmland.
9. Grassland.
10 & 11. Single family dwelling with accessory buildings
and a planned new residence.
12. 5 acre building envelope for planned new single family
dwelling, accessory service buildings and small scale
livestock raising.
12a. Agricultural ground.
QUESTION /3:
The property will use private septic systems. The U.S.D.A. Soil
Survey of Weld County States "septic tank absorption fields
function property" in this area and the neighboring residences
also utilize approved septic systems.
QUESTION /4:
The North Weld County Water district currently has a water line
in place bordering the property on the North, West and East sides
that serves the neighboring residences. They have made the
committment to serve the 5 proposed new lots as well as the
Windsor -Severance Fire Protection District. (See attatched
letters)
971193
page 7
QUESTION #5:
The U.S.D.A. Weld County Soil Survey States "The soil has good
potential for urban and recreational development. Increased
population growth in the survey area has resulted in increased
homesite construction. The chief limiting soil feature for urban
development and road is the limited capacity of this soil to
support a load." Our engineers assure us these load factors
concerns can be safely and economically satisfied with proper
engineering design.
QUESTION # 6:
The Weld County Public Works Department recently performed a
traffic count survey on W.C.R. #66. With the increase of traffic
generated by the proposed 5 new lots the average daily traffic
counts will still be less than the maximum the current gravel
local road can serve without further improvements. Upon approval
and with the final plat I will deed the property for W.C.R. 366
and W.C.R. #23-1/2 to which I now have title.
QUESTION #7:
There is no sand or gravel deposit under this property. There is
an existing producing oil and gas well. The proposed minor sub-
division has been discussed with the owners of Blue Chip Oil.
Their concern is that there be no structures within 100 feet of
the well head. The existing access on to W.C.R. #23-3/4 is used
to access the facility and will continue to be used in the
future. (see attatched letter)
QUESTIONS 8.9 AND 10:
The change of zone area is not located in a Flood Hazard,
Geologic Hazard or Airport Overlay District.
971193
SOIL SURVEY OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service,
in cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 23
32 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a deep,
well drained soil on smooth plains and alluvial fans at
elevations of 4,900 to 5,250 feet. It formed in mixed eolian
deposit and parent sediment from a wide variety of
bedrock. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that
have loamy sand underlying material.
Typically the surface layer is brown and pale brown
loam about 12 inches thick. The upper 28 inches of the un-
derlying material is pale brown loam. The lower part to a
depth of 60 inches is pale brown fine sandy loam.
Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is
high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more.
Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is low.
In irrigated areas this soil is suited to all crops com-
monly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets,
beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. An exam-
ple 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 (fig. 6), and installing
pipelines may be needed for proper water applications.
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.
In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat,
barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to
winter wheat and is summer fallowed in alternate years
to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is
too low for beneficial use of fertilizer.
Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til-
lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion.
Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion.
The potential native vegetation is dominated by blue
grama Several mid grasses, such as western wheatgrass
and needleandthread, are also present. Potential produc-
tion ranges from 1,600 pounds per acre in favorable years
to 1,000 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition
deteriorates, the mid grasses decrease; blue grama, buf-
falograss, snakeweed, yucca, and fringed sage increase;
and forage production drops. Undesirable weeds and an-
nuals invade the site as range condition becomes poorer.
Management of vegetation on this soil should be based
on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc-
tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition.
Sideoats grama, little bluestem, western wheatgrass, blue
grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are
suitable for seeding. The grass selected should meet the
seasonal requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into
a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a
firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has
proven most successful.
Windbreaks and environmental plantings 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 gas
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
hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac,
lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum.
Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The
cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked
pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can
be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape
cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen-
tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop-
ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range-
land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be
attracted by developing livestock watering facilities,
managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed.
This soil has good potential for urban and recreational
development. Increased population growth in the survey
area has resulted in increased homesite construction. The
chief limiting soil feature for urban development and road
construction is the limited capacity of this soil to support
a load. Septic tank absorption fields function properly, but
community sewage systems should be provided if the
population density increases. Because of the permeability
of the substratum, sewage lagoons must be sealed.
Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass
IIe irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Loamy Plains range site.
971193
v
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 55
seedbed just before planting, which eliminates the hazard
of soil blowing in winter and early in spring.
The heavier textured Colombo, Heldt, Nunn, Renohill,
Ulm, and Wiley soils often benefit from fall plowing.
They are generally not subject to blowing if the tillage
consists only of plowing and disking. They are subject to
more compaction, however, and are often cloddy after
plowing. The action of freezing and thawing helps to
break up the clods, and a good seedbed can be prepared
in spring. Seedbed preparation can be delayed because
the soils are often too wet for plowing early in spring.
Field crops best suited to the soils and climate of the
survey area are mainly those that are commonly grown.
Corn, both for silage and grain, sugar beets, dry beans,
and potatoes are the main cultivated crops; alfalfa is the
main hay crop. Permanent pasture is generally a mixture
of perennial grasses and legumes.
Special crops grown commercially are vegetables and
nursery stock. Large acreages of onions, cucumbers for
pickles, and carrots are grown in the Greeley area. Some
melons are grown in the Kersey area. There are a
number of truck farms between Fort Lupton and
Brighton where strawberries, asparagus, cabbage, to-
matoes, celery, peppers, sweet corn, and other vegetables
are grown for the Denver market.
Current information and suggestions for growing spe-
cial crops can be obtained from local offices of the
Colorado State University Extension Service and the Soil
Conservation Service.
Yields per acre
The average yields per acre that can be expected of the
principal crops under a high level of management are
shown in table 5. In any given year, yields may be higher
or lower than those indicated in the table because of
variations in rainfall and other climatic factors. Absence
of an estimated yield indicates that the crop is not suited
to or not commonly grown on the soil or that a given crop
is not commonly irrigated.
The estimated yields were based mainly on the ex-
perience and records of farmers, conservationists, and ex-
tension agents. Results of field trials and demonstrations
and available yield data from nearby counties were also
considered.
The yields were estimated assuming that the latest soil
and crop management practices were used. Hay and
pasture yields were estimated for the most productive
varieties of grasses and legumes suited to the climate and
the soil. A few farmers may be obtaining average yields
higher than those shown in table 5.
The management needed to achieve the indicated yields
of the various crops depends on the kind of soil and the
crop. Such management provides drainage, erosion con-
trol, and protection from flooding; the proper planting
and seeding rates; suitable high -yielding crop varieties;
appropriate tillage practices, including time of tillage and
.cedbed preparation and tilling when soil moisture is
favorable; control of weeds, plant diseases, and harmful
insects; favorable soil reaction and optimum levels of
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and trace elements for
each crop; effective use of crop residues, barnyard
manure, and green -manure crops; harvesting crops with
the smallest possible loss; and timeliness of all fieldwork.
For yields of irrigated crops, it is assumed that the ir-
rigation system is adapted to the soils and to the crops
grown; that good quality irrigation water is uniformly ap-
plied in proper amounts as needed; and that tillage is
kept to a minimum.
The estimated yields reflect the productive capacity of
the soils for each of the principal crops. Yields are likely
to increase as new production technology is developed.
The productivity of a given soil compared with that of
other soils, however, is not likely to change.
Crops other than those shown in table 5 are grown in
the survey area (fig. 10), but estimated yields are not in-
cluded because the acreage of these crops is small. The
local offices of the Soil Conservation Service and the
Cooperative Extension Service can provide information
about the management concerns and productivity of the
soils for these crops.
Capability classes and subclasses
Capability classes and subclasses show, in a general
way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops.
The soils are classed according to their limitations when
they are used for field crops, the risk of damage when
they are used, and the way they respond to treatment.
The grouping does not take into account major and
generally expensive landforming that would change slope,
depth, or other characteristics of the soils; does not take
into consideration possible but unlikely major reclamation
projects; and does not apply to rice, cranberries, horticul-
tural crops, or other crops that require special manage-
ment. Capability classification is not a substitute for in-
terpretations designed to show suitability and limitations
of groups of soils for rangeland or for engineering pur-
poses.
In the capability system, all kinds of soil are grouped at
two levels: capability class and subclass. These levels are
defined in the following paragraphs. A survey area may
not have soils of all classes.
Capability classes, the broadest groups, are designated
by Roman numerals I through VIII. The numerals in-
dicate progressively greater limitations and narrower cho-
ices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows:
Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use.
Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the
choice of plants or that require moderate conservation
practices.
Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the
choice of plants, or that require special conservation prac-
tices, or both.
Class IV soils have very severe limitations that reduce
the choice of plants, or that require very careful manage-
ment, or both.
`71.193
56
SOIL SURVEY
Class V soils are not likely to erode but have other
limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use.
Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them
generally unsuitable for cultivation.
Class VII soils have very severe limitations that make
them unsuitable for cultivation.
Class VIII soils and landforms have limitations that
nearly preclude their use for commercial crop production.
Capability subclasses are soil groups within one class;
they are designated by adding a small letter, e, w, s, or c,
to the class numeral, for example, Ile. The letter e shows
that the main limitation is risk of erosion unless close -
growing plant cover is maintained; no shows that water in
or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation
(in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by ar-
tificial drainage); s shows that the soil is limited mainly
because it is shallow, droughty, or stony; and c, used in
only some parts of the United States, shows that the
chief limitation is climate that is too cold or too dry.
In class I there are no subclasses because the soils of
this class have few limitations. Class V contains only the
subclasses indicated by no, s, or c because the soils in class
V are subject to little or no erosion, though they have
other limitations that restrict their use to pasture, range-
land, woodland, wildlife habitat, or recreation.
Rangeland
PREPARED RY HARVEY SPROCK, range conervationist, Soil Conserva-
tion Service.
About 37 percent of the survey area is range. This
range is utilized in several types of ranching, chiefly beef
producing ranches. Range is often utilized with farming
operations. Aftermath from irrigated cropland and dry
cropland provides forage and roughage. Wheat pasture,
irrigated pasture and dry pasture also help to balance the
grazing programs. Most ranches are cow -calf -yearling en-
terprises operating on a yearlong grazing program with
winter and spring supplemental feeding.
The native vegetation in many parts of the survey area
has been greatly depleted by continued excessive use.
Much of the acreage that was once open grassland is now
covered with brush and weeds. In places the amount of
forage produced is less than half of that originally
produced. Producitivity of the range can be increased by
effective management for specific kinds of soil and range.
Conservation measures which apply to this rangeland
are range seeding, fencing, brush control, development of
livestock water, proper grazing use, and deferred grazing.
Planned grazing systems that periodically defer grazing
on each field through the growing season and well -
planned structural practices increase the total usable
forage.
Where climate and topography are about the same, dif-
ferences in the kind and amount of vegetation that range-
land can produce are related closely to the kind of soil.
Effective management is based on the relationships
among soils, vegetation, and water.
The potential annual production of herbage in favora-
ble, normal, and unfavorable years, and the names of
major plant species in the potential plant community are
shown in the description of each soil map unit on the
detailed soil map. The name of the range site is shown at
the end of each map unit descripition.
A range site is a distinctive kind of rangeland that dif-
fers from other kinds of rangeland in its ability to
produce a characteristic natural plant community (fig. 11).
Soils that produce a similar kind, amount, and proportion
of range plants are grouped into range sites. For those
areas where the relationship between soils and vegetation
has been established, range sites can be interpreted
directly from the soil map. Properties that determine the
capacity of the soil to supply moisture and plant nutrients
have the greatest influence on the productivity of range
plants. Soil reaction, salt content, and a seasonal high
water table are also important.
Total production refers to the amount of vegetation
that can be expected to grow annually on well managed
rangeland that is supporting the potential natural plant
community. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry
vegetation for favorable, normal, and unfavorable years.
In a favorable year the amount and distribution of
precipitation and the temperatures are such that growing
conditions are substantially better than average; in a nor-
mal year these conditions are about average for the area;
in an unfavorable year, growing conditions are well below
average, generally because of low available soil moisture.
Dry weight refers to the total air-dry vegetation
produced per acre each year by the potential natural
plant community. Vegetation that is highly palatable to
livestock and vegetation that is unpalatable are included.
Some of the vegetation can also be grazed extensively by
wildlife.
Characteristic species of grasses, grasslike plants,
forbs, and shrubs that make up most of the potential
natural plant community on each soil are listed by com-
mon name. The amount that can be used as forage de-
pends on the kinds of grazing animals and on the grazing
season. Generally all of the vegetation produced is not
used.
Range management requires, in addition to knowledge
of the kinds of soil and the potential natural plant com-
munity, an evaluation of the present condition of the
range vegetation in relation to its potential. Range condi-
tion is determined by comparing the present plant com-
munity with the potential natural plant community on a
particular range site. The more closely the existing com-
munity resembles the potential community, the better the
range condition. The objective in range management is to
control grazing so that the plants growing on a site are
about the same in kind and amount as the potential natu-
ral plant community for that site. Such management
generally results in the maximum production of vegeta-
tion, conservation of water, and control of erosion. Some-
times, however, a range condition somewhat below the
potential meets grazing needs, provides wildlife habitat,
and protects soil and water resources.
971193
Windsor - Severance Fire Protection District
Office of the Fire Marshal
728 Main Street
Windsor, CO 80550
January 20, 1997
Shani L. Eastin
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administrative Offices
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Case Number 5-411 Parcel Number 080530000060
Mr. Tom Francis has committed to installing a hydrant to be located at the corner of WCR 66 and
WCR 27. The hydrant will be capable of supplying 500 gpms @ 20 psi. The hydrant will be required
to meet the specifications previously listed with the exception of the flow requirements. The off road
access to this hydrant will be designed to meet Fire District requirements. Although this agreement
does not meet the initial requirements of the Fire District it is understood that the availability of water
in this area is limited by the resources of the Water District. The installation of the hydrant with an
approved access will be accepted by the Fire District.
The installation of a 20 foot wide gravel access road from the west end of the termination of the dead
end street to connect with WCR 23' 'A will also be considered as acceptable. The installation of a gate
at the access road will be permitted as long as the Fire District has arrres.
971193
O?I axle
Yr1'xnrn01.1 `tS IeYL
WIlD C. Weld County Planning Dept.
COLORADO DEC U 91996
November 18, 1996
Case Number: S-411 �� �� �®
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 351-0978
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Parcel Number 080530000060
Enclosed is an application from Thomas G. and Unda J. Francis (Hillcrest Estates) for a Planned Unit
Development Sketch Plan for a five Lot Minor Subdivision. The parcel of land is described as Lot B of RE -1936,
located in the E2 of the NE4 of Section 25, T6N, R67W and the W2 of the NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been
'n ed is south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road
more pre ise location sefe legal.
IkCa 1 Oocrca
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. My 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 December
9, 1996, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. The failure of any agency to respond
within 21 days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the County. Please call, Shani L. Eastin, Current
Planner, if you have any questions about the application.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request is/is not compatible with the
interests of our town for the following reasons:
3. We have reviewed a request and find no conflicct�s with our in rests. n n
2541 C Lae_ ) Q CO�+pdt �1a,A9 GL II�tru�rY� •
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to
5. Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Signed: NA • 'j f
Date:
Agency
Gl nt etf .Snit . (ON.ScR.V r10nl
�1S1-'2►C
971193
Weld County Planning Dept.
wIv
COLORADO
November 18, 1996
Case Number: S-411
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOV 2 5 1996
-109
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 351-0978
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Parcel Number 080530000060
Enclosed is an application from Thomas G. and Linda J. Francis (Hillcrest Estates) for a Planned Unit
Development Sketch Plan for a five Lot Minor Subdivision. The parcel of land is described as Lot B of RE -1936,
located in the E2 of the NE4 of Section 25, T6N, R67W and the W2 of the NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been
submitted is south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road
27. For a more precise location, see legal.
The 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 December
9, 1996, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. The failure of any agency to respond
within 21 days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the County. Please call, Shani L. Eastin, Current
Planner, if you have any questions about the application.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request is/is not compatible with the
interests of our town for the following reasons:
3. have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to
5. _ -Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Signed:
Date:
971193
IIIlk
COLORADO
November 18, 1996
Case Number: S-411 P' ,
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCEI N ' CA.," 4..110-a
Weld County Planning Dept.
140V 2 2 1996
E®
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 351-0978
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Parcel Number 080530000060
Enclosed is an application from Thomas G. and Linda J. Francis (Hillcrest Estates) for a Planned Unit
Development Sketch Plan for a five Lot Minor Subdivision. The parcel of land is described as Lot B of RE -1936,
located in the E2 of the NE4 of Section 25, T6N, R67W and the W2 of the NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been
submitted is south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road
27. For a more precise location, see legal.
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. My 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 December
9, 1996, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. The failure of any agency to respond
within 21 days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the County. Please call, Shani L. Eastin, Current
Planner, if you have any questions about the application.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request is/is not compatible with the
interests of our town for the foliowing reasons:
We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to
5. Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Signed:
Date:
Agency,th AvLr/f_C.!// yts /
971193
s+
at,
COLORADO
November 18, 1996
Case Number: S-411
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Weld County Planning Dept.
DEC 2 6 1996 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
REC
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
_
FAX (970) 351-0978
® WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17Th AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Parcel Number 080530000060
Enclosed is an application from Thomas G. and Linda J. Francis (Hillcrest Estates) for a Planned Unit
Development Sketch Plan for a five Lot Minor Subdivision. The parcel of land is described as Lot B of RE -1936,
located in the E2 of the NE4 of Section 25, T6N, R67W and the W2 of the NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been
submitted is south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road
27. For a more precise location, see legal.
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. My 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 December
9, 1996, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. The failure of any agency to respond
within 21 days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the County. Please call, Shani L. Eastin, Current
Planner, if you have any questions about the application.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request is/is not compatible with the
interests of our town for the following reasons:
3. We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
4. _ A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to
5. ! Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Signed:
i-
Date: /Y 26' n6,
Agency dey
971193
Town of Windsor
301 Walnut Street •Windsor, Colorado 80550 • 970-686-7476 • Fax: 970-686-7180
December 19, 1996
Shani Eastin
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Parcel No. 080530000060
Hillcrest Estates
Dear Shani:
The Windsor Planning Commission reviewed the above mentioned Weld County Referral at
their December 5, 1996 meeting. Since the application was not represented by the developer,
the Commission chose not to make a formal recommendation. They did, however, direct staff
to forward the staff comments included with the application for your review.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
jec
Sincerely,
TOWN OF WINDSOR
anet E. Carpenter
Senior Planner/Zoning Officer
971193
TO: Windsor Planning Commission
ss
FROM: Joseph P. Plummer, AIC1 y�
Director of Planning �,
DATE: November 27, 1996
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
WELD COUNTY REFERRAL - PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN FOR A FIVE -LOT MINOR
SUBDIVISION - HILLCREST ESTATES - THOMAS G. AND
LINDA J. FRANCIS
Southeast corner of WCR 23 1/2 and WCR 66,
approximately 1 1/2 miles east of Metal Container
Corporation
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval to Weld County Department of
Planning Services, contingent upon the conditions outlined
below
DISCUSSION:
The attached permit application requests approval of a sketch plan for a 5 -Lot Planned
Unit Development Minor Subdivision known as Hillcrest Estates. Staff recommends
approval of the sketch plan, contingent upon all of the following requirements:
1. The cul-de-sac length and the radius of the cul-de-sac meeting all of the county
subdivision requirements and being able to facilitate emergency vehicles.
2. The oil well located on Lot No. 1 meeting all federal, state and local
requirements for residential properties.
3. Any right-of-way widths along the east side of WCR 23 1/2 and along both the
north and south sides of WCR 66 which are needed to bring these current right-
of-way widths up to county road standards for the respective road
classifications being dedicated to the County; and
4. All future subdivision plats being referred to the Town of Windsor for
comments.
pc: Thomas G. and Linda J. Francis, Applicants
971193
Ottvvi
wilD C
COLORADO
November 18, 1996
Case Number: S-411
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 351-0978
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Parcel Number 080530000060
Enclosed is an application from Thomas G. and Unda J. Francis (Hillcrest Estates) for a Planned Unit
Development Sketch Plan for a five. Lot Minor Subdivision. The parcel of land is described as Lot B of RE -1936,
located in the E2 of the NE4 of Section 25, T6N, R67W and the W2 of the NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been
submitted is south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road
27. For a more precise location, see legal. -
The 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 December
9, 1996, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. The failure of any agency to respond
within 21 days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the County. Please call, Shani L. Eastin, Current
Planner, if you have any questions about the application.
Check the appropriate boxes below and retum to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request is/is not compatible with the
interests of our town for the following reasons:
3. We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to
5.X
Signed: II /r Agency
Date:
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
01 1 9 r I l,(WI vti
Weld C :Linty Planninj Dept.
DEC 1 8 1996
971197 RECEIVED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1000 10TH STREET, GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 (303) 350-9780
December 13, 1996
Shani Eastin
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Subject: S-411 - Thomas and Linda Francis Minor Subdivision Sketch Plan
Dear Sbani:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal to create a 5 -lot subdivision.
This proposal is located outside of our Long -Range Expected Growth Area, and
therefore, should continue to have a rural density. The City of Greeley Planning
Commission has provided staff with the opportunity to review recorded exemptions
and recommend approval if the density is less than one unit per 20 acres per
Resolution 7, 1985. This rate is applicable to this area and this type of development.
The one unit per 20 acre rate has been determined to be a rural density by the Greeley
Planning Commission.
Utilizing the one unit per 20 acre rate, Greeley recommended against RE -1936 which
appears to have been approved by the County this fall. That proposal, in conjunction
with an RE/SE combination which was done in 1986, created four buildable lots on 62
acres. It's ironic to note the 1986 split was accomplished with the applicants
indicating the prime agricultural nature of the land, the 1996 split indicated farming
was tough, and this application indicates the proposal is only 29 acres, without access
to irrigation. Why wasn't the irrigation issue explored at the time of the 1996
recorded exemption?
Development which relies on special districts is generally not as cost effective as
growth which occurs within areas served by public systems. Clearly, this proposal, in
this location, is not physically related to any communities in the area.
9?1.19d
Shani Eastin
December 13, 1996
page 2
In regards to the proposed design of the subdivision, the proposed cul-de-sac seems
quite long. City requirements would not allow for a cul-de-sac longer than 500 feet
for fire access and would require, at a minimum, the reservation of 50 feet from the
centerline of adjacent county roads for future arterial and/or collector streets.
Additionally, it would seem appropriate to provide access from an internal road to Lot
A RE -846 and to SE -246, which would limit the number of access points onto the
county road. It was also noted that internal access should be utilized, and that access
from Lots 2-5 should not be allowed onto WCR 66. For safety reasons, habitable
structures within 350 feet of any oil and gas wells and associated facilities should not
be permitted.
Through various procedures, this 62 acre site has been systematically divided. The
current proposal doubles the existing density, and proposes 8 buildable lots on 62
acres. The location of this proposed development is not near municipal limits, and
therefore can not be incorporated into either Windsor or Greeley. Because of
overwhelming evidence against the proposal, the City of Greeley recommends this
property not be further divided.
Should any questions arise concerning this proposal or this letter, contact me at 350-
9786.
Sincerely,
Greg TTiompson
Planner II
971193
l j t,,mTity Planning wept.
C�C0�1996
mEmoRAnDum s
m
To jet Fr
IIMg
Sham Eastin, Current PlannerDateNovember 26, 1996
Don Carroll, Project Coordinator
From
S-411, Thomas G. and Linda J. Francis, Hillcrest Estates
Subject:
The Weld County Public Works has reviewed this proposal; the following comments are
recommended to be a part of any approval:
1. All lots must access from an internal road system. No direct access to WCR 66 or WCR 23.5
will be allowed.
2. The applicant needs to place on the mylar the name of road that accesses Hillcrest Estates.
This will be used for addressing purposes to the lots.
3. Lot 5 will access through the existing 25 foot access easement. This easement is a common
easement that accesses adjacent properties. The access to Lot 5 needs to be identified from
the easement.
4. In the Subdivision Ordinance under Minor Subdivisions, 4.2.7, it gives a description of width
and type of surface of all roads proposed within the minor subdivision. I am looking for a
typical cross section identifying a 60 foot right-of-way, the width of the road with adequate
gravel depth, borrow pit ditches, and drainage culverts if required. All roads within the
minor subdivision shall have a minimum of 18 feet in width and a minimum depth of four
inches of gravel base. The applicant may exceed these minimum requirements if applicable.
5. I have visited with Jerry McRae, McRae & Short, the applicant's engineer, to attempt to clean
up the existing county roads and outlot. This area will be resolved though dedications and
reserving out rights -of -way or easements.
6. The applicant needs to place on the mylar a 65 foot cul-de-sac radius.
7. The applicant has submitted a storm water drainage and geological soils investigation. This
has been attested by a professional engineer, signed, and stamped. We have reviewed it, and
have NO conflict with the application.
8. The applicant needs to place on the mylar the utility easements associated with the site. A
15 foot perimeter easement and a 10 foot lot line easement on both sides will be addressed
by the Utility Board.
cc: Commissioner Hall
S-411
plan4
971193
RECEIVED NOV 19 1995
rforvi,
C
COLORADO
November 18, 1996
Case Number 8-411
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 351-0978
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Parcel Number 080530000060
Enclosed is an application from Thomas G. and Linda J. Francis (Hillcrest Estates) for a Planned Unit
Development Sketch Plan for a five Lot Minor Subdivision. The parcel of land is described as Lot B of RE -1936,
located in the E2 of the NE4 of Section 25, T6N, R67W and the W2 of the NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been
submitted is south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road
27. For a more precise location, see legal.
The appfidation 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 December
9, 1996, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. The failure of any agency to respond
within 21 days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the County. Please call, Shani L. Eastin, Current
Planner, if you have any questions about the application.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request is/is not compatible with the
interests of our town for the following reasons:
3. _ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to
5. - Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Signed:
Date:
Agency ulaL
971193
N0V 2 0 1996
N0V ^ 0 199961
Weld County
Planning Dept.
November 18, 1996
Case Number: S-411
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
2 5 1996 PHONE (970) 353.6100, EXT.3540
NQ� FAX (970) 351-0978
n < ttWELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
J - 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
N , a GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Parcel Number 080530000060
Enclosed is an application from Thomas G. and Linda .1. Francis (Hillcrest Estates) for a Planned Unit
Development Sketch Plan for a five Lot Minor Subdivision. The parcel of land is described as Lot B of RE -1936,
located in the E2 of the NE4 of Section 25, T6N, R67W and the W2 of the NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been
submitted is south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road
27. For a more precise location, see legal.
The 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 December
9, 1996, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. The failure of any agency to respond
within 21 days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the County. Please call, Shani L. Eastin, Current
Planner, if you have any questions about the application.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request is/is not compatible with the
interests of our town for the following reasons:
3.
We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
4. _ A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to
5. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Signed: Agency
Date:
371193
BLUE CHIP OIL
2 Ts , :'.- _ �� L1 /9 O� %u��ua�
. Sr
FT COLLINS CO 80529T
March 12, 1997
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administrative Offices
1400 N 17th Ave
Greeley CO 80631
Ret Change of Zoning Application
Thomas Francis
Lot B RE 1936 located in the W 1/2
of the NW 1/4 of Sec 30 T6N R66W
and in the 1/2 1/4
Sec 25 Twp 6 N R 67 W, Weld County
Co
I have discussed the proposed change of zoning and minor
subdivision plan with the owner/developer of the above
described property. Blue Chip Oil Inc, is the operator/
lease holder of the well known as Sloan #1, which is
currently producing oil and gas and is located on this
property.
Our only concern is that no structures be located within 100
feet of the wellhead.
Mr. Francis has accommodated our needs in the design, includ-
ing our service access and we have no problems with this
development.
Tim Hager
President
71.19:'3
Hello