The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About991767.tiff 04-14-1999 09'409M FROM L ITTLE_THOMPSON_WATER TO 19703526312 P.01 ce -6... et re • Weld County ►ef rRrall March 29, 1999 COLORADO) The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review Applicant Eden's Reserve/Mark& Case Number Z-525 Jackie Eberl Please Reply By April 19, 1999 Planner Scott Ballstadt Project Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 9 lots with Agricultural&Estate uses_ Legal Part of the NE4 of Section 21, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 32 and approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road 7_ Parcel Number 1207 21 100029 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Weld County Planning Commission Nearing (if applicable) May 4, 1999 We have reviewed the request and find the it doe does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan Di We have reviewed the request and find no c. `rots with our interests. ❑ See attached letter Comments: W ifthc 4 nelaCg i-r tArf4e ;PA/ TA, f- tivi . cftk Fick PT: Signature e.„..._„---" Date i 4-f/li - �"9 ty Agency ft-IL` 1747- j/o/U wig-T4#t +Weld county Planning Dept. 41400 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,GO.80631 4(970)363-6100 ext.3540 4(870)352t31Z fax 991767 s e 04/14/99 -::56 TX/RX NO.5361 LIflLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DIRECTORS: Telephone(970)532-2096 • Tom Reynolds 8<IS E.Highway 56 President December 9, 1998 835Dra E. G Leo Bakal t Berthoud,Colorado 80513 Keith l W Gibson Glenn W Gibson Dean Anderson Carey J.Salomonson James W Stroh MANAGER: Richard H.H.Whittet Todd A. Hodges Design Development Consultants 2627 Redwing Road, Suite 350 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Dear Mr. Hodges : This letter is in response to your request for a water service commitment for 9 residential lots, in the proposed subdivision described as follows : PORTIONS OF THE NE 1/4 SEC.21, T3N, R68W, -- WELD COUNTY, CO We currently have a 6" Dia . water line located along WCR 32 and WCR 38 with additional capacity available Therefore, we will commit to provide service to these lots via one standard residential size 5/8" X 3/4" water tap per lot, with the following conditions : 1 . In August of 1993 the Little Thompson Board implemented a "system impact" fee of $1050 per lot for all lots to be added to the system. This is due upon completion of the main line extension agreement . 2 . All improvements to District facilities required to provide service will be the financial responsibility of the developer in accordance with the District Rules and Regulations . All improvements must conform to District Specifications . 3 . Little Thompson Water District requires the transfer of one share of Colorado Big Thompson water for each lot in the commitment . The cost of this water is subject to rebate from the tap fees paid from the development . 4 . The installation of a fire hydrant requires payment of a $2, 000 fire hydrant fee prior to final approval of the subdivisions lines . This commitment will expire one year from the date of this letter if the taps have not been purchased and installed by that date. The current fee for the domestic 5/8" X 3/4" tap is $6, 000 . 00 These fees are subject to change without notice. If you have questions, please contact me in our office. Regards, Michael T. Cook P.E. District Engineer MEMORANDUM ye TO: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director DATE: April 13, 1999 s . FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator r;v': SUBJECT: Z-525; Eden's Reserve/Mark Eberl _ran A AlC7sat.d+ The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal. This project falls primarily under the purview of the Weld County Planned Unit Development Ordinance 197. Our requirements are as follows: 1. WCR 32: WCR 32 is designated on the Transportation Plan Map as a local gravel road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is presently 60 feet of right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. In the Weld County Zoning Ordinance(Ordinance 89, as amended)the required setback is measured from the future right-of-way line. A. The Town of Mead has annexed WCR 32 from the intersection of WCR 7 and WCR 32, west 1,382 feet. Calcium chloride has been applied to this road for dust control for the homes adjacent to Hunter's Ridge Subdivision . The portion of WCR 32 which fronts the proposed PUD shall also be treated for dust suppression. The applicant shall enter into a Road Improvements Agreement with Weld County Public Works to provide adequate dust suppressant a minimum of twice a year. B. Bridge 32/5A: During my site investigation, it was noted that this bridge is 20 feet wide with concrete pillars on both sides. The existing approach roads measure 25 feet. This bridge is not posted for a weight restriction but is posted as a narrow bridge. C. Average Daily Traffic Count: The most recent count, February 17, 1995, reflects 131 vehicles in a 24-hour period. 2. Traffic Impact Analysis: Due to the size of the proposed PUD, Weld County Public Works will waive the traffic analysis requirements. 3. Storm Water Drainage: All devetlopment within a PUD zoned district shall adhere to the storm water design and technical criteria regulations. The drainage report has been stamped and signed by the applicant's engineer, Boden Engineering, LLC. We have no conflict with the submitted report. 4. Road Structure/Geometric Design Standards: A typical internal road cross section shall be placed on the plat which identifies width and depth of asphalt and base or full depth asphalt, lane widths; and shoulder. 5. Improvements Agreement According Policy Regarding Collateral for Improvements (Private Road Maintenance): In Exhibit A, additional collateral shall be set aside for street grading. All other transportation items appear to be adequate for he proposed PUD. Once this additional item is added, a signed and dated original shall be provided prior to scheduling board approval. 6. Street Names: The applicant shall furnish street names for the PUD according to Item 10.2.2. There shall be no duplication of streets names within the area. Appropriate signing at both locations will be the responsibility of the applicant as well as a stop sign onto WCR 32. cc: Z-525 EXHIBIT plan14 �I t L:'E%ii{:�+»u/fr.'.:+,r•{fiiur x+iiif APR-15-1999 17' 12 1ST REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC P.01 • : ;:. ■ Town of fa lead . , P.O. Box 626 - -- 401 Third Street Mead.Colorado as -0626 :.......... (970)53.5-4477 r.•April 15, 1999 Mr. Scott Ballstadt Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services MOO N. 17i°`Ave Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Z-525 -Eden's Reserve Dear Mr. Ballstadt: We are aware that you are required to process all plans submitted to you. Many of'the land use proposals sent to the Town of Mead for review and comment are low impact, single or two lot plans. This plan, however, is different_ We provide comments based first upon a critique of the Subdivision itself Second, we provide comments on the larger picture of impact upon our services and our Urban Growth Area_ SUBDIVISIONSPECIFIC COMMENTS It is the intent of the Town of Mead to improve ditchm running through the town to a useable standard. Grading the ditches to a 4:1 slope permits maintenance of the required landscaping and 8' concrete walkway- This standard will result in a useable, PUBLIC waterway/greenbelt instead of the creation of urban development surrounding a private attractive nuisance. As we have seen, unimproved ditches attract young children. At least once if not more times each summer we read in the newspaper about some difficulty that a child encountered in a ditch. We are aware of no such improvements to the Highland ditch contemplated by this development- In the new developments being processed by the Town of Mead,these trails and ditch improvements are being required- In one instance, an existing subdivision's homeowner's association refused to allow these new trails and greenbelts to connect to their system. We would very much like to avoid this in this case- The length of the nil-de-ale pros din a singl cess to the development is excessive in length and does not recognize the potential existence of any adjacent development. The design is problematic in that an obstruction at the single entrance would jeopardize emergency vehicle access to the internal lots- Does the northern access align with any planned access to the north? Roadway alignments should straddle property lines if possible. If not, roads should at least be planned such that the Town'S roadway offset standards can be met Otherwise the Town may have to make unsafe exception to its rules to enable the owner to the north to develop. There is a nagging question about safety measures the applicant plans to take to ensure the safety of children relative to the Great Western Stuart tracks. Apparently, none is proposed based upon current usage. What if the usage increases? 04/15/99 16:05 TX/RX N0.5384 P.001 APR-15-1999 17: 12 1ST REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC P.02 Mr. ScottBallstadt April 15, 1999 Page 2 What is to become of the excluded panel? If it is part of this ownership,it should be included. Being in such close proximity to the ditch,perhaps it is umiseable. If not, what is the owner's intended use? If the proposed open space is to be maintwen�by a Home Owner's Association (HOA), required shoiuld be a thorough review of the articles of incorporation,by-laws, and covenants of the subdivision to ensure that the HOA will be real, active, and capable of performing the required maintenance Otherwise,the County may be called upon for maintenance. Other than the Highland ditch improvements mentioned above,the Town is not interested in owning or maintaining a park on this site. We have a pack dedication or cash-in-lieu requirement and would be happy to accept cash- in-lieu for the proposed lots since the owners will assuredly be using Mead parks in the future. OVERALL PROPOSAL COMMENTS For the benefit of one land owner, a subdivision is being created for 9 households which will likely never agree to be a part of the Town of Mead but will surely use the Town's serviced at no cost. On a larger scale, approval of enough of these developments could bankrupt the town especially in'I view of the Tabor amendment. According to the information available to us,this project has 2,753.53 feet of perimeter that is contiguous to an existing Mead boundary. This represents 1/3.5th contiguity relative to the entire boundary of 9,508.20 feet. According to state statute, only 1,584.7 feet is required to meet the 1/6th perimeter contiguity requirement. Annexation of this property to the Town is exactly what.the state legislature intended in the municipal annexation act when it talked about logical extensions of service. Although there are several proposals,the Town of Mead considers this land to be in both the Mead Planning Area and within the Mead Area of Influence. The proposed Intergovernmental Agreement With the County includes this property inside the Mead Planning Area(what some have called the Urban Growth Boundary). The proposal states that this is not the case but it most certainly is the case. The Towns of Mead,Berthoud and Weld County are working on an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)which sets forth policies regarding to a variety of development circumstances. (The Town of Mead has been working with the County to agree upon an IGA and to prepare its own comprehensive plan since at least 1992 if not before.) Based upon the Town's understanding of the cui,ea IGA', the developer of this development(being a would be required to petition to annex to the Town before it would be eligible for County consideration_ If the annexation were approved, the land would become part: of the Town it is adjacent to. If the annexation failed, the developer could proceed to submit same to Weld County. CONCLUSION The Town of Mead has grave concerns about the design of the proposed subdivision and 04/15/99 16:05 TX/RX N0.5384 P.002 APR-15-1999 17: 13 1ST REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC P.03 Mr Scott April 15, 19 9 t Page 3. about the impact on its services. For example,when the Town establishes its own police department vithich it intends to do within ten years,who will respond to a call in this subdivision? Who will%ssue the sumrnons? Which court will hear the trial? How will the Town charge these residents for use of future library, recrealson center,etc? All of these problems can be resolved if the County adopts the proposed IGA and informs the subject land owner to bring his development to the Town of Mead first for consideration. Thalpk you for this opportunity to voice our most strenuous objections to this proposal. We appreciate being included in the planning process. $mcerely, chael E. McDonough, AICP town Planner ma: Mayor Keith Goshia FileC:\MEAADIZ-525EDEN TOTAL P.03 04/15/99 16:05 TX/RX NO.5384 P.003 St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J 395 South Pratt Parkway • Longmont • CO • 80501-6499 303-776-6200/449-4978 • FAX 303-682-7343 January 26, 1999 Scott Ballstadt Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, Co 80631 RE: Eden's Reserve Dear Scott: Thank you for referring the Eden's Reserve to the School District. The projected student impact upon the St. Vrain Valley School District of 9 new single-family lots on 108.9 acres is a total of 6 students. Any students living in this subdivision would attend Mead Elementary School, Mead Middle School, and Skyline High School under the present school boundaries. However, due to potential growth in these schools this development and other existing developments in this feeder could be placed in another attendance area in the future. THIS PROPOSED DEVELOF 1995-99 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS* BuildIn• Oct. 98 Student! Projected I Over Total 8 of Total Cum. Over Cap W4 Ca•acit Enrollment Impact Enrollment Cap. Proj. Stdnts° Enrollment !_.'s.- . .. .:lementar 456 631 3 634 Yes 3174 3808 Yes (-3350) Middle 349 338 1 339 No 1397 1736 Yes (-1386) Hi•h 1299 1273 a 1275 No 1792 3067 Yes (-1786) 6 6363 (SEATS AVAIL.) ° Qn©e on propoesef oflaudong Dolollieo In PS & collpooll &PPonetnoo ewo®l Ot®um &l0g pnopos©dl mlaeoIopunonPe (9990-9992) The District is on record as not opposing growth so long as the growth is planned and is manageable from a student enrollment stand point. While this development does not impact the middle, and senior high schools capacity, the elementary is already over capacity. In addition, there are other approved developments in these attendance areas which will, together with this proposal, have a significant cumulative impact on these As the volume of developments increases in the Mead Elementary area with no alleviation of the existing overcrowded conditions, the ability to provide the same quality education for these new students that is provided students in other areas becomes increasingly difficult. Therefore, the District would oppose this development because it adds to the enrollment of an already overcrowded school. Should this proposal be considered for approval, the District would request the cooperation and participation of the developer and County in implementing a separate agreement to help mitigate the impacts on the schools. This agreement would include the calculation of an appropriate cash in-lieu of land dedication fee to address the capacity concerns at these schools (per the attached chart). Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ,_�/ / (/� ri i Scott Toillion, AICP Planning Specialist � o a> M N C a> C 0 O d • i. 0 C .O I 03 N N � i Ch N CO o (ft Q V U .i 0 0 0 0 0. -0 d A 0 0 a o c a r d > ►ri Lo Sri to N N N N ca ' FA Ki FA C 0 H 'O 0 CO ' • ►n In �C�p .0 O 0 0 ✓ J w O O id! c:*. i H < o ' ai 0 01 I Q• C O N C.,) 1 f,9 V° go O u. Pa E.) R5 - 0 +0+ Q T N i O c V .rJ ' C N (15- 1 1 O G � C� f0 G N c 0 w _ ►n 0 c 7 R C in r N i c 4- N Q. . = U• -O d 0J T T N T co O 1 COO 0 „z. � A M A T C7 T Lei 0. vs io ► a� as . ; ; E of c co o) cn 8 cu : lo °' o ! E Z' , a) o al L.L . J U LL E. a) a> as m E -o IiiC CD Ql C C N LU, 2 S H UJ Q on .f$ (0 N X L M°""r°'N MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PRO i ECTION DISTRICT a Administrative Office: ( �_ s 9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 772-0710• FAX (303) 651-7702 VIEW April 12, 1999 Mr. Scott Ballstadt Weld County Planning Department 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ballstadt: I have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the zoning change for the Eden's Reserve, located south and adjacent to Weld County Road 32 approximately 'A mile west of Weld County Road 7 (Case Number: S-485). The Fire District does not object to the proposed zoning change, provided the development is able to meet the requirements of the Fire District. All applicable codes must be met as they pertain to water supply, fire hydrant locations, fire department access, and street widths and designs. Due to the length of the primary access roadway and emergency access road for fire apparatus is required. It appears an emergency access road as been provided for as marked on the PUD Zoning Change plans dated 3-23-99, however this access road is not clearly shown on the rendered landscape plan. The emergency access road must be a minimum of 20 feet in width, designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds) and have a surface that provides all-weather driving capabilities. A.11 access roads will need to be constructed and approved before building permits are issued. A minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute, measured at a residual pressure or 20 pounds per square inch, is required for one- and two-family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 gross square feet. All other buildings (including larger one- and two-family dwellings) require a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute and may require more depending on the building size and type of construction as per Appendix III-A of the Uniform Fire Code. Fire hydrants shall be spaced along fire apparatus access ways so that spacing between hydrants does not exceed 500 feet and a hydrant is located within 250 feet of the front property line of all lots. Construction plans for the utilities must be submitted to the Fire District for review and approval. All fire hydrants and water mains must be approved and in service before combustible building materials are delivered to any lot. i i € #T Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 9119 Cnty Line Rd 10971 WCR 13 P O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Dobbin Run P.O.Box 666 l Longmont.CO I..ongmont CO 299 Palmer Ave. 8500 Niwot Road Lafayette,CO 600 Briggs • 80501 80504 Mead CO 80542 Niwot CO 80544 80026 Erie,CO 805to j <: Mr. Scott Ballstadt April 12, 1999 Page Two • The Fire District reserves the right to make further comments as the project proceeds. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve of any aspect of this project that does not comply with all applicable codes and standards. We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (303) 772-0710. Sincerely, C •(: c)*Q_CS LuAnn Penfold Fire Marshal LMP/lp cc: Mark&: Jacquelyn Ebrel, P.O. Box 668, Mead, CO 80542 Todd Hodges Design, LLC.,4119 Granby Court, Fort Collins, CO 80526 • project file file Ip04.06.99 MEMORANDUM TO: Ben Patton, W.C. Planning DATE: April 22, 1999 FROM: Trevor Jiricek, W.C. Health Department CASE NO.: Z-525 NAME: Eden's Reserve/Mark & Jackie Eberl The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal. The application has satisfied PUD Ordinance No. 197 in regard to water and sewer service. Water will be provided by the Little Thompson Water District and sewer will be provided by septic systems. The proposed lot sizes (minimum of 2 1/2 acres) and the overall density of septic systems per acreage (1 per 12 acres) complies with Ordinance No. 197 and our Departmental policy. The applicant provided two separate geotechnical reports. The field work for the first report was conducted in December 1998. The field work for the second report was conducted in March 1999. The reports do not seem to contain consistent data. There appears to be a discrepancy between the reports in regard to relative depth to groundwater and bedrock. The difference in depth to groundwater may be due to seasonal fluctuations. The difference in depth to bedrock is difficult to explain. Based upon the most recent geotechnical reports provided by the applicant, the hydrology and the geology of the site is not ideal for septic systems. However, it does appear that conventional septic systems can be installed on the majority of the lots. On those lots that a conventional system cannot be installed an engineer can design a system that complies with County and State Regulations. Our primary concerns are with groundwater conditions and shallow bedrock. Due to the subdivisions location in relation to the Logan Reservoir, groundwater levels beneath the lots can fluctuate seasonally. According to the applicants consultant, Todd Hodges, based upon observation of the Logan Reservoir, seasonal high groundwater occurs in the spring. However, in most areas seasonal high groundwater coincides with the irrigation season and thus is in late summer or the fall of each year. The geological information (borings and percolation tests) provided by the applicant were collected in December 1998 and March 1999. As a res 4 we are not convinced that l:he geological information provided by the applicant represents the maximum seasonal high groundwater level. To address this issue we will be recommending a condition that requires that either the depth to groundwater is obtained during the period of maximum season high groundwater or that additional precautions are taken in the design of each septic system. The application materials indicated that one septic system envelope has been designated on each lot. We recommend that a second envelope be required on each lot. We also recommend that verbiage be placed in the developments covenant that restricts activities in the unused septic system envelope. Specifically, activities such as landscaping, i.e. the planting of shrubs and trees, and construction, i.e. auxiliary structures, dirt mounds, etc. should be expressly prohibited in the designated leach field sites. The covenants should encourage maintaining these areas in grass. The environmental impact plan provided in the application materials and required in section 6.3.1 of the PUD Ordinance appears to address all potential impacts described in the Ordinance. During field observation of the site, our staff observed that in the vicinity of the proposed development there were numerous small acreage homes in the vicinity of the site. Many of these homes have livestock that include but may not be limited to cows and horses. It is our opinion that any future property owner should be made aware that these agricultural uses exist and that they may be exposed to noise, dust, flies, odors, etc. in excess of the common urban experience. As a result, we recommend that the "Right to Farm" covenant be required to be placed on any recorded plat. In addition to the above, we recommend that the following conditions be part of any approval: 1) The development shall obtain water service from the Little Thompson Water District. 2) A Weld County Septic Permit is required for each proposed septic system. Each system shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. a) Each septic system shall be designed for site-specific conditions, that include but are not limited to maximum seasonal high groundwater, poor soils, and shallow bedrock. b) All portions of any septic system in the development shall be installed a minimum of 200 feet from Logan Reservoir. If you have any questions, please call me at extension 2232. tj\Z525 Hello