The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20252340.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant: Weld County Case Number: PUDF24-0001 Submitted or Prepared Prior to At Hearing Hearing 1 Chris Van Vactor, support letter X 2 Fred Sanchez , support letter X 3 Wesley and Patricha Pike , support letter X 4 Eric and Michelle Bolhuis , support letter X 5 Dr. Linda Black, opposition letter X 6 Linda Cox, opposition letter X 7 Signed petitions in opposition X 8 Kent Lewis , opposition letter X 9 Signed petitions , submitted by William Caldwell in opposition X 10 William Caldwell , opposition letter X 11 Cindy Billinger, opposition letter X 12 Bruce and Susan Beard , opposition letter X 13 Steven Street, opposition letter X 14 Judy Tunis , opposition letter X 15 William & Patty Caldwell and Linda Black and Kay Masselink, opposition letter X 16 Dave Miller and Jo Majors , opposition letter X 17 William Caldwell , opposition letter X 18 Anonymous , opposition letter X 19 Brenda Lewis , opposition letter X 20 Richard Marks , opposition letter X 21 Ed and Mary Jo Farrell , opposition letter X Prior to At Hearing Hearing 22 Brenda Lewis , opposition letter X 23 Mike Konkel , opposition letter X 24 Ken Ross , opposition letter X 25 Johnanna Skalak, opposition letter X 26 Ethan Peer, support letter X 27 Sonia Sato , support letter X 28 Kelley Trujillo , opposition letter X 29 Cristin Wachholtz , opposition letter X 30 Ginger Sage and Christopher Williams , support letter X 31 Carol Satersmoen , support letter X 32 Roy Wardell , opposition letter X 33 Jill Bailey, opposition letter X 34 Anonymous , support letter X 35 John Moser X 36 Kambria TeWinkle , letter of support X 37 Concerned Residents of Beebe Draw Farms — opposition letter X 38 Richard Marks — opposition letter X 39 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 40 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 41 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 42 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 43 Kent and Brenda Lewis — opposition letter X 44 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X Prior to At Hearing Hearing 45 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 46 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 47 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 48 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 49 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 50 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 51 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 51 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 53 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 54 Pam Dechant Pachello — opposition letter X 55 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 56 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 57 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 58 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 59 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 60 Kim Coleman — opposition letter X 61 Fairfield and Woods — Applicant letter to response of concerns X 62 Brian and Colleen Reichert — opposition letter X 63 Brian and Colleen Reichert — opposition letter X 64 Opposition letter X 65 Opposition letter X 66 Sharon Dillon — opposition letter X 67 Larry Suedmeier — opposition letter X Prior to At Hearing Hearing 68 Ana Andrick — opposition letter X 69 William Caldwell— opposition letter X 70 Callie and Matt Megel — opposition letter X 71 Braeden and Emily Dosco— opposition letter X 72 James A. Christianson — opposition letter X 73 Cynthia Christianson — opposition letter X 74 Tamara Andes — opposition letter X 75 Brian Andes — opposition letter X 76 William Caldwell — opposition letter X 77 William Caldwell — opposition letter X 78 William Caldwell — opposition letter X 79 Opposition letter X 80 Carol Williams — opposition letter X 81 Randy Thyfault— opposition letter X 82 Nancy Hilty Brunson — opposition letter X 83 William Caldwell — opposition letter X 84 Petition from Beebe Draw Residents — opposition X 85 Roy Wardell — opposition letter X 86 Roy Wardell — opposition letter X 87 Dr. Linda L . Black and Kay Masselink — opposition letter X 88 Linda Cox — opposition letter X 89 Petition from Beebe Draw Residents — opposition ( Duplicate of Exhibit 84) X 90 Richard Marshall — opposition letter X Prior to At Hearing Hearing 91 Jodi Marshall — opposition letter X 92 Kenneth Ross — opposition letter X 93 Mike Schwan — opposition letter X 94 Mason Milligan — opposition letter X 95 Canyon Jarbo — opposition letter X 96 Cody Davidson— opposition letter X 97 Melvin Oliver — opposition letter X 98 Oliver's — opposition letter X 99 Marilyn Gerbrandt — opposition letter X 100 Debra K Wilcox-Moreland — opposition letter X 101 J .W. Dillon - opposition letter X 102 Undeliverable — Return to Sender X 103 Undeliverable — Return to Sender X 104 Undeliverable — Return to Sender X 106 Undeliverable — Return to Sender X 107 Undeliverable — Return to Sender X 108 Undeliverable — Return to Sender X 109 Undeliverable — Return to Sender X Maxwell Nader From: Van Vactor, Chris <Chris.Van actor mdch.com> Sent: Monday, February 5, 202411:33 AM To: Maxwell Nader Subject Pelican Lake Ranch filling 2 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Maxwell Nader, Hello t recently built a home in titling 'l of Pelican Lake Ranch and learned about an application submitted by REt, LLC for Fitting 2. As a property owner I would like to voice my opinion and say I am in favor of future development and fully trust that the Weld County Planning Department wilt perform a complete review, comment, and clarify all aspects of the application prior to approval. I currently work for a large home builder and with my knowledge I was able to build my first house for my family. We are planning on building another home in the near future and would like to stay in this neighbourhood but currently the supply of lots is pretty small and won't be around when we are ready for the next build . Filling 2 would allow us to build plus I have friends and family that would like to build out here as well. Thank you Sincerely, Chris Van Vector 16475 Stoneleigh rd S8 Platteville Co 80851 , Chris Van Vactor (303) 594-9393 Chris.varivactor@mdch. om Superintendent at Colliers Hill Richmond American Homes EXHIBIT plwvaq -ass I 1 Maxwell Nader From: Fred Sanchez cquestnn 6►@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February So 202411 :45 AM To: Maxwell Nader Subject PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw Farm Pelican Lake Ranch Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution! This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safer Maxwell Nadar, I own a home in filling 1 of Pelican Lake Ranch. Because of my background I was able to build our home myself, which not only made It more of orable, it also provided me the ablity to fully customize It to the needs of our family. Other areas only seem to offer semi-custom or tract housing. As a new resident, I did understand that there would be future fillings* I have been made aware that the developer has submitted an application for filing 2 and that Is the application that is currently being reviewed. I hope Weld County Planning considers that there are very few small acreages in Colorado available with the amenities and flexibilty that Pelican Lake Ranch offers and approves the application. Sincerely, Fred Sanchez 16518 Fairbanks Rd N, Platteville, CO 80651 EXHIBIT 1 puprar4e cool Maxwell Nader From: Wes Pike cwesjpike+@gmaiI.com> Sent Monday, February 5, 2024 10:26 PM To: Maxwell Nader Subject Pelican Lake Ranches New filing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Max, Thank you for the notification to our community regarding the REI, LIC application for Filling 2. I work for the school district and my wife Is a coordinator for a wedding venue in the area and also helps with catering for a local restaurant. My family also hosts foster children, we moved to Pelican Lake Ranch for many reasons but the primary reason was to be able to provide a tranquil stable home for multiple children to have an opportunity to experience a country setting while healing from trauma. It's our opinion that the rural setting is the perfect setting for them. It's our understanding that Filling 2 will offer one to three plus acre lots, relaxed covenants with the ability to have 4- H animals and offer a second entrance off of CNTY Rd 32. We believe in growth as a community and this filing would provide that. The kids would also enjoy the new bike path and future amenities would be wonderful. Our only request would be to consider changing the in filings covenants to match the new filings covenants. We are In favor of Filling two at this time and ask that the application be approved. Sincerly, Wesley & Patricha Pike EXHIBIT 1 1 PUDFaiteotoi Mr Max Nader Weld County Colorado Dear Mr Nader. As former residents of Pelican Lake Ranch ( 2016-2024 ) and Weld County Colorado ( 2004-2024 ) we are writing to express our opinion concerning the second filing for Pelican Lake Ranch . We are of the opinion that allowing the second filing to be completed will be a great asset to the community and those that currently reside there . The community is at a crossroads and for it to continue to flourish it must be allowed to grow and expand . Without growth and expansion, it will stagnate and fall into the hands of a small but very vocal minority that will stifle progress. To prevent the stagnation and demise of the community the population must grow and diversify. There are multiple possibilities that can only be reached within the community by allowing the growth and expansion to occur. This is a community that can build on the heritage of Weld County by allowing the second filing to flourish under a different set of covenants than what currently are in place for the first filing . As we have seen many times over, diversity and a different prospective can bring new ideas and growth to a community desperately in need of fresh ideas. Please do not allow this great little community in Weld County to be overcome by that small but vocal minority that resides within the first filing. Allow the silent majority and the community to flourish by approving the second filing and introducing a new perspective to the community. Eric & Michelle Bolhuis EXHIBIT puoPaiFOOOl EXHIBIT 1 ? UPF3Fooffl January 31 , 2024 $ S Weld County Planning Services 1402 N 17th Ave Po Box 758 Greeley Co 80632 RE : PUDF24-0001 Dear Planning Staff and Commission : This letter represents collective voices of numerous residents of Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) regarding the application packet submitted by Christine Hethcock, REI LLC , for Filing 2, referred to as the Declarant. To be clear, this letter does not represent all PLR resident voices, only those who have signed below. As residents, we have significant and serious concerns with the Filing 2 which are enumerated below. Numerous residents will attend the Planning Commission Hearing for this filing and provide greater detail related concerns specified in this letter. The purpose of this letter is to present our broad concerns to the Planning Commission and to encourage a complete and thorough review. Most, if not all of our concerns, have been previously been voiced to the Declarant and her consultants, yet have not been addressed or resolved in the present filing. We find this unacceptable. The signatories of this letter reside within the boundaries Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District and Authority . Concerns At the outset, it is important to state our support for reasonable and measured development of this property consistent with the original design and PUD for Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) as rural , not urban scale, development. We seek a balance between a reasonable, sustainable rural development and reasonable profits for the Declarant. Regrettably, our review of REI' s Filing 2 indicates that the proposal manifestly alters the original plan for and character of this community, in which all of us invested with the purchase of our homes, potentially endangers residents' safety, is not sustainable, and will have a negative environmental impact. • Density. Attachment A, at the end of this document is a good place to start. A simple comparison of the existing filing and proposed filing is telling. The existing filing demonstrates reasonable open space, larger lots-consistent with rural developments, and appropriate setbacks. In comparison, the proposed Filing 2 has little to no open space, much smaller lots and only one amenity location for new residents. The proposed density in Filing 2 manifestly changes the character of the development. For example, on page 10 the Declarant specifically mentions modular or system-built homes while residents in the existing filing were required to build custom or semi -custom homes with three car garages. The requirements for homes should be as consistent as possible throughout out the development to promote one community and so that existing homeowners do not have the property values negatively impacted by homes/property of significantly less value. Filing 2 creates a very different community that originally approved in the PUD. • Insufficient entrances/exits for a community this size. Presently, we have one entrance/exit for residents. The proposed plan does have a second entry noted, yet we understand that this entrance would not be ` built' until 2028 requiring all contractors and eventual residents to traverse through the current community ' s road severely impacting resident safety and significantly impacting our current roads, which are not in great shape. One only needs to recall the issues residents had with the Marshall fire to i understand the risk to residents when a community traffic patterns are restricted and constrained with insufficient access points. • Waste water. Given the numerous small lots in Filing 2 will the Declarant be installing a waste water treatment system? What is the environmental impact of individual septic systems for each of these new lots? The Declarant needs to specifically address this in their filing and the potential environmental impact. • Water taps. What study, if any, has been conductedwith Central Weld Water, regarding the available water for the new residents? We have heard the Declarant intends to offer new residents a ` budget tap' for these lots. This is simply insufficient and will likely result in new residents paying extra when they exceed their annual water allotment. We urge the Planning Commission to review and confirm that residents of Filing 2 have access to sufficient water resources and will not incur excessive charges due to over utilization . • Amenities. Currently , we have wonderful amenities to serve the existing community which are at, and some times over, capacity. These amenities also require continual maintenance which has been a struggle to get approved with our current Declarant. Z22- 001 response required the REI to submit a plan for specific amenities within each filing and phase, indicating at which point certain amenities and other community improvements will be installed . This element is not present in the Filing 2 documents. Instead, Filing 2 indicates that amenities will be installed ' as needed' , but who determines when they are needed? If the Declarant' s history/engagement with the community is the best predictor of future their behavior, Filing 2 Residents will not see amenities until Filing 2 is nearly built out. Without a definitive plan committing the Declarant to state to where and when the necessary amenities (mail room, pool, trails) will be built, Filing 2 Residents will understandably desire to use the existing amenities further straining current infrastructure and leading to unnecessary community conflict and strife. • Manifest conflicts with current zoning. Filing 2 contains several references that appear in conflict with PLR' s current R- 1 zoning, specifically the construction of a horse boarding facility and allowing homes to be used for commercial rentals e. g. , Airbnb . Commercial ventures are inconsistent with the character of the community and with current zoning. • Lack of planning for reasonable development Building out Filing 2 is anticipated to take approximately 20 years. With no clear plan for how contractors will gain access to Filing 2, residents can rightly assume the Declarant intends to use our existing roads and infrastructure for development of Filing 2 . The impact for current residents, many who have small children, will expose current residents to the risk of increased and constant construction traffic, increased air pollution due to the dust that accompanies new construction and significant disruptions to our way of life. This is simply unacceptable. We ask that the Declarant provide a plan for how contractors will access Filing 2 without using the existing infrastructure or that the Declarant uses their own funds to set up an escrow account to repair the inevitable damage to the existing roads and infrastructure. • Conflicts with current governance structure. Filing 2 sets out several very concerning changes which will result in two communities, not one. Specifically, o the document is titled PELICAN LAKE RANCH FILING 2 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS . There is no legal entity called Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 . if this is a completely new legal entity, then is it not be illegal to use tax money from Beebe Draw Farms Filing 1 to fund Filing 2? o Page 7 refers to the duties of the Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 2 Property Owners Association as covering "the expenses of administration, maintenance, 2 construction, improvement, repair, and replacement of common elements. " Those are all elements currently handled by the two districts and the Authority Board in Filing 1 . Does the new Association intend to issue its own bonds and set up repayment to provide these common elements? o Page 9, where it states that the Declarant reserves the right to amend use restrictions or add new restrictions for 30 years. Currently, it takes a vote of 67% of lot owners to amend covenants. Should the lots be sold before the 30-year deadline will the Declarant still control the covenants when they own no lots? o Page 12 is the first mention of the Authority . It is unclear to us, as residents, as to whether the covenants assume that the Authority and the Association function as one entity? They do not and this is not clearly explicated in Filing 2 . o Page 20 details the requirements to have barns for horses, goats, mules, donkeys, llamas and chickens. None of those are permitted under the approved PUD plan. None are compatible with R- 1 zoning. None are permitted in Filing 1 . People who invested in Filing 1 , thinking it would remain a residential (not agricultural ) neighborhood, are being penalized with Filing 2 . o Page 29 indicates REF s desire reduce the two-thirds majority to vote to amend the covenants to 60%. Covenants are a binding contract that should change only after careful study and community input, reducing the threshold reduces resident' s confidence that their investment will hold value. o Page 32 states the Declarant gets to appoint the board of directors of the association for as long as they still own lots. This is inappropriate as it prevents residents from determining who will represent them , gives the Declarant more influence over community matters than taxpaying residents which calls the question of taxation without representation . Residents in the existing filing have already experienced the Declarant overriding decisions of duly appointed boards like the Design Review Committee leading to arbitrary and capricious decisions for individual landowners putting them in conflict with other residents. in summary, if the Declarant is planning to start a new legal entity using the name Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 then, it is our perspective that Filing 2 is not covered under the existing PUD and would require review as a completely new plan, not an extension and updating of the current approved PUD. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Linda Black, EdD LPC 16478 Burghley Court Platteville, CO 80651 In addition, the signers of the attached petitions strongly endorse the concerns in this letter. 3 It, Attachment A - - I[I Existing sti 1. Filing . -446—.1-44.,. ;.. t II r yr 4 -.r egre. ;.,_.. 1 . _ esa- 1/2-1-24- sia 440, poi emir as , I , .... „ea. j. • i as . i . i•,. .• , a lid, i _ _ .. • rt ., ' arm �� • I1 .ri t O 1 r T, 147 ; We * , If t� II * �' �* j - • ad*: � 1 ...... ,,,, _ . ... i ..3, ear i • all gip ,- ,) , ..,_ i_. rafr _i PliIP • I I Al 44.1 Entry ,.. . OM 1 S 2 y min ,l + 7 41 iA ' a _ se- or a It a , olt ./is Sr a III IS � L' 1 - is e !t a er � le is ii t 'It OF r � P se •• • a w / , ~ et I oat a o r a I t , IM. t ■re an0 * r _ age 0. et bedhi it lo usiL 7 . is .. _2 ' - lee — - �' �� it _ 5. a e I I 11 k It• liPi %i• a III. le ea _au fit No 1.F .' NI. I f a UVea * '� " _ ale 6 tie e la V I a 4 I one fs. Wile Ill dill lir rH I I I I T- ±: I at M1Ski All I i 1 f i II . . ` -a INaltip eAN MN * if thi A •Wit C t •I't gcbsi •sy St f . 1 t 1 , I I Is 0-dal" rip 4 eau I F * r =s • - f -//porisiltta - = A I j or - - i 461* - i.-- — --- --,I frikrit Ana iklaViall lashw ii -I lip S • + 111 ala 4, It . -4.1 Ilialaa 4/II. Ailm 4.-__4.0 I I I . 4 • St WIWI( nougat) se ABANDOMD ad ,I. R1 ia`, `4 ' ' Il 1 it f '-. - 1-. 'j %I Wit Wan) WILLS 4 di"IX ) r 0 1 e 2 0 NW trnlipAC*1 ii ad * Proposed Filing ,k8 \S i ` 1* _ ; 110. — 1sr NI7.4tu %TS I t Ar.. _ I nape= at siren 4 if Ile WM. II III �k T CellyOrin SIOCE tt, 1; * r le *• e to p' '+ u r ial_ Imo...- -� AiiisiL 4. all - WI 14N. I a0 \ / a iiN � + A l Is art � .. la en IDED 4 se — faa MB� S + -- Y .- ti. J. -i-. - -- If - - . - qtyRd 32 a 5 Please note- the original copies of some of the attached signature pages were submitted to your department in an additional letter mailed to your office . 4 r Petition We the undasigned strongly urge the Weld County Plaing Commis n to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planed Unit Development Final Plan for Second. Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number PUDF.24,0001 (also known as PRE234118 on the planning wtite) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding urban scale development in a rural an Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing 1 PUD plan approved in 1989. Inwacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife Prntediallt air quality, soil conservation, fire mitt In ton and protection, d other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the commtmity. Print Name Print .dress Date Silo( = 1. Si !I�I-.a t .--' 7' .... 0 'S -9 -T!' ORM 1 t5 f Gantlrerrat-;4frAWA_ZSIIIM Pflflo : e1 714 _'' M ` 1 a 1 WAW 4 serat _ -- ...�...w.a - Infmnwee: s /rmmirw,Hoznarimmerviatit witremLie ,1711NTSMINEI, 60,0 4.:/Ar._ er illariWAISWIWIMilfiriTH, - ,timinir 4 kitimrizaer, ‘ Ai AL 1 : ' ' . ‘ .* . . 16,1,0747017W01111 WV-21211+rte ITIP2n7rArlartivit7WrIGIMPF -aoratroila 1111.0,,Cti0,9, as ' .1, .. . IP, , AllitilMINI -W-7..L.„ „inn irgt ,t _ ti . i Dump, - ' lb" - ' T'sti' milers t . . MEV%IngfrES1,..IL ' 4 ::ra - Pko _ c ,O= d I , t ', ,:: rot 4 Aarrimiras, . .. : .� J ,. s p. , ,.., , " M . 14 "WITi -, - s arli , . . IS: , - , - , it .. ., - -.. '�_PIONNIMIIMarlit11111 1 ' VanE n" rtimm, ' ArImmrincirr, ,e,kisiS _ g . ima.2 [. FOINIORWW1nig: - 417111411Wlinnen- ILM40•Pw"."11wmr--- Asiaiiiit dr 4sr.A4IIMIE WifirrArla . Hitsii3OPM20111111r/401r1 • H ' blant. ..fellallirlMW: 1!01PECUMFM-471P1164a;_:41P ' fr atarrnarnsikek_ an,• . !INEW.Tefflal a • T sa . Mai - trimTimiennimrsatimaristriEL -Owneivis . . _ __ ._ _____ .. . ._ 4 -e in=lina , k 4641 Si !: ) f • -• 1 ; .EI till 0. 4 / . It. ilaramfra a� .e.1,44=4,. 14PMEITEgattrAIIMISIUSWeiga Jra . ` J - . stir _ fl 1 _. IIMINIIIMIIIIIIR - .- ' ' ' - .IIIW: , _ _ _ _ _ , 'MIS _ _ _ _ , M11111111111111 - . - --- : - = I _ _ _ . rc__ , _ . a_ f u Petition We the undersigned strongly urge the Weld County Planning Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Second. Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number P F- 4-OOO1 (also known as P - 118 on the planning website.) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding scale development in a rural area. Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing 1 PUD plan approved in 1989. Impacts on traffic water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mitigation and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. _ Pmt Name Print ., dress Date Shined !Au ; 0 . 'r- , 4. tins Co I Leclw,ySffc9 riaiigitte r0 _ I � 9 tips/ in 415 / ask ' f - ' MI. di 2, , , L a s ta a .. a sii OW:, . re,,,,,c14... iiiiii . - , - iihri 4, it 71 it lc itil I en) ' a CL a t es.A• _ 114aligirt HIL FLITIMIIIIMENisrinnairilanWeinflaWirEA" : rip?it,,,His r 7 a.. d. IIIMMTERMIAPPIMEIEtz „....., Alli _0*- : .1 ' If e . 0 etaillil 4 - at ‘ -4witir . : i . MIIIIIMPVIIIIPSIWIIIS reteinimv 0. _ , %),,,..„4., _ , ,, „ ,,.. . (4,t4vPss c.a. (1/4istrft1/2031 li irigigatilia - T. • s - t.- i lei iff 5 ells-kirbra.i. gp BB ..)- ) litr" amen's" tok, p ii. rid 11, 14 , .. s. i ' ll 4'4 ' e rar 24 MO_ ' - c Misiailpil - MEI I = n lall , Il == _ _ i a ' + lb I'iSUUSI WI the andleniPed slimelebr WS lit cid amilli nomiligi alamilisimet elle sac Sub. Draw Fa case amenr PIUDIF444X11 Oho bin is PIRMOI I 8 as Ifte PiIS. wit) As pgamsl. this prciim doss ate tatfain so the WM County Code Riming as ale apparsal is I . haps at a nut al and ps rodonica, sipicuitam wildlife PS a t asa *XS nit mitipdols ad Indica asi t is bin ha m asmoh *dad is s Wm* ildS ammialtro . . . . _ __ , ± • •revar vai•olnik•SI _ _. I > > i.+od�t � a •;� •�r ' 1 +yam t 'ICI es _ AS - ...-4 f A, vim= •,,, i A 4 PrOVIVIIMINSIviveripsvip I ass . 4flUallr w' " , Sane 9 Isar....e A . .. r 0 . i . re . . .A, .• , . ' i 6? - e A t„.. 4 dr, is , A... if.# V 1 IS rgringl*Pr- a t* • 1 --- . II I SS • Az .a..., re....terver . 3 4Jis, ( 4 - ' la_ ioiau:uta :i . a g , ,.. A. al. o4 .. War in r +! Wit' d, • _ . ..... .„02,....., , ,,,... einaterim. ,.. . I ir e , , _ , a - - AiellA . . . . ardi OP * : 4 9 Bur \In e C NW. , air I i .101 Jr •A 0 ,. he I � . Wzq flppprflgge CP / I ad ilif A laa _ Lie ..., -.... ..... 9 • m risiceiA4 eppresrair 101. naraMIN ad: 3/440* Atepoltiogall. awmva : . � janaga! . MIN It 441 Ai i .,a-, 0 1 1 .4, a A 4 V _de:, _... ,...................._, . , 4. . ,, ' A a' 1 wa immestvientemi ..._ , _ 46 a l Ai ' 1St ' ilb tinfiginAgga • . _JWfl% PN ItSP9 rilinilliailla TI' f /{s • - . .•.2.4 .• A 4 , is a Air a 40,Aig . mall . f si , , a . IV 114. SC( v' as R' I- LA.4 - b I E s JJ','1 , ti a! int Y0a. .; ,, h .._ ill 1, . . ' s it . IP _a A. . i eis , . a s. .. , . .11 ' I i ii A 4 - , 14 ' ..' i 4 to f urn is r - . . - • - - - . - - - - . ....-4: . gi, , . % . ‘,..:4, Al it4 fa do - - ezt:( z Ti : IIII : ?!!! 4 � r A. Is + .yam J .- _ ti• ISP! ": �.• _ .x71.,1` •.•. . J. 46-4.1 1lw T.,$ S 14° SIVIL . ., - % • 'gat- my , i`'' :i a • legg !A 0., -11 - 4, p iii r . :, ►. ,fir Ir. Petition We me vmdsdgned Saud that the Weld Cony conalSan deny the Site Specific Dewlopmlm Plan and flawed Unit Dswlops PSI Plan for Second Filing of Babe Draw Fa, case number PUDF24-000 I (So known as PRS230 1 l6 on the pluSag weds) As post this Asa doa wit asthma aitta Ic the Weld County Code reniing ueben scale derekpmmt in a rural ax Fula. it Spans au6wntW1Y from the atiMio{ fling I PUD pl�o qpoved in 19119. Impacts on traffics tmer, oil m0 ps arkukta wilcilife psda air spay, soli oomsvain, Are Sipse as patS and other ilea have not been well sigh Mind to mare that this Filing would In any way 6eoe9t the ass* " titans +"TiR5 '^� Dtle %1rl7re7/la FT_ /EL!rt►G��M WtnLril mfirrireAwrirrAmmi twPWAPTht rimantrarimi. nedroraras _ , : ., , . . ILLrrifi1.7,"! reTh/ I-��/"i�� Maxwell Nader From: Brenda Lewis < bjtlewis@yahoo.com > Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2024 537 PM To: Maxwell Nader Subject: Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lake Ranch) Resident Group Letter of Concern Attachments: BBDF Pelican Lake Ranch Resident letter. Petition .pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution► This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening Mr . Nader, A large group of concerned residents of Pelican Lake Ranch met last week to the discuss the proposed Filing 2 by the Developer, REI . The residents , including myself, have many concerns over the proposed development and composed the attached letter that was finalized by one of our long - time residents of the community , Dr . Linda Black . I was requested to send the letter and petition to you for your review . Thank you for your time . Brenda Lewis 16476 Burghley Court Platteville , CO 80651 1 January 31 , 2024 Weld County Planning Services 1402 N 17th Ave PO Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 RE : PUDF24-0001 Dear Planning Staff and Commission : This letter represents collective voices of numerous residents of Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) regarding the application packet submitted by Christine Hethcock, REI LLC, for Filing 2, referred to as the Declarant. To be clear, this letter does not represent all PLR resident voices, only those who have signed below. As residents, we have significant and serious concerns with the Filing 2 which are enumerated below. Numerous residents will attend the Planning Commission Hearing for this filing and provide greater detail related concerns specified in this letter. The purpose of this letter is to present our broad concerns to the Planning Commission and to encourage a complete and thorough review. Most, if not all of our concerns, have been previously been voiced to the Declarant and her consultants, yet have not been addressed or resolved in the present filing. We find this unacceptable. The signatories of this letter reside within the boundaries Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District and Authority. Concerns At the outset, it is important to state our support for reasonable and measured development of this property consistent with the original design and PUD for Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) as rural , not urban scale, development. We seek a balance between a reasonable, sustainable rural development and reasonable profits for the Declarant. Regrettably, our review of REI' s Filing 2 indicates that the proposal manifestly alters the original plan for and character of this community, in which all of us invested with the purchase of our homes, potentially endangers residents' safety, is not sustainable, and will have a negative environmental impact. • Density, Attachment A, at the end of this document is a good place to start . A simple comparison of the existing filing and proposed filing is telling. The existing filing demonstrates reasonable open space, larger lots-consistent with rural developments, and appropriate setbacks. In comparison, the proposed Filing 2 has little to no open space, much smaller lots and only one amenity location for new residents. The proposed density in Filing 2 manifestly changes the character of the development. For example, on page 10 the Declarant specifically mentions modular or system-built homes while residents in the existing filing were required to build custom or semi-custom homes with three car garages. The requirements for homes should be as consistent as possible throughout out the development to promote one community and so that existing homeowners do not have the property values negatively impacted by homes/property of significantly less value. Filing 2 creates a very different community that originally approved in the PUD . • Insufficient entrances/exits for a community this size. Presently , we have one entrance/exit for residents. The proposed plan does have a second entry noted, yet we understand that this entrance would not be ` built' until 2028 requiring all contractors and eventual residents to traverse through the current community ' s road severely impacting resident safety and significantly impacting our current roads, which are not in great shape. One only needs to recall the issues residents had with the Marshall fire to understand the risk to residents when a community traffic patterns are restricted and constrained ned with insufficient access 'points. • Waste water. Given the numerous small lots in Filing 2 will the Declarant be installing a waste water treatment system? What is the environmental impact of individual septic systems for each of these new lots? The Declarant needs to specifically k dress this in their filing and the potential environmental impact. • Water taps. What study, if any, has been conducted with Central Weld Watery r is .,: tag the availablewater for the new residents? We have heard the Declarant intends to offer new residents a 'budget tap' for these lots. This is simply insufficient and will likely result in new residents paying extra when they exceed their annual water allotment. We urge the Planing Commission to review and confirm that residents of Filing 2 have access to sufficient water rescmrces and will not incur excestive charges due to over utilization. a • Amenities. Currently', we have wonderful amenities to serve the existing community which are at, and some limes over, capacity These amenities also .moire continual maintenance which has been a struggle to get approved with our current Declarant. Ze 001 response required the ItEl to submit a plan for specific amenities within each filing and phase, indicating at which point certain amezities and other community improvements will be installed. This element is not prescrit in the Filing 2 doctunents. Instead, Filing 2 indicates that amenities will be installed 'as needed' , but who determines when they are needed? If the D arant's history/engagement with the community is the best predictor of future their behavior, Filing 2 Residents will not see amenities until Filing 2 is nearly built out. Without a definitive plan committing the Declarant to state to where and when the necessary am tries (mail room, pool, trail* will be built, Filing 2 Residents will understandably desire to use the existing amenide further straining current infrastructure and leading to unnecessary community conflict and strife. • Manifest conflicts with current zoning. Filing 2 contains several references that appear in conflict with PLR's current R-1 zoning, specifically the Err on of a horse boarding facility and allowing homes to be used for commercial rentals e.g., Airbnb. Commercial ventures are inconsistent with the character of the community and with current zoning. • Lack of planning for reasonable development. Building out Filing 2 is anticipated to take approximately 20 yen With no clear plan for how contractors will gain access to Filing 2 , residents can rightly assume the Declarant intends to use our existing roads and infrastructure for development of Filing 2. The impact for errant residents, many who have small children, will expose cuffed residents to the risk of increased and constant construction traffic, in ceased air pollution due to the dust that accompanies new construction and significant disruptions to our way of life. This is simply unacceptable We ask that the Declarant provide a plan for how condors will access Filing 2 without using the existhis infrastructure or that the Declarant uses their own tends to set up an escrow account to r. Hi air the inevitable damage to the miffing roads and ifrastntcure. • Conflicts with current governance structure. Filing 2 sets out several very • a m changes Which will result in two communities, not one. Specifically, the document is titled PELICAN LAKE RANCH "DICING 2 IDECLARATION OF COVEZslANTS. There is no legal entity called Pelican Lake Ranch : y;i l i.n 1. If this is a completely new legal entity, then is it not be illegal to use tax money from Beebe Draw Fps Filing 1 to fund Filing 2? o Page 7 refers to the duties of the Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 2 Property Owners Association as Bering ' the expenses of mini won, maintenance 2 construction, improvement, repair, and replacement of common elements. " Those are all elements currently handled by the two districts and the Authority Board in Filing 1 . Does the new Association intend to issue its own bonds and set up repayment to provide these common elements? o Page 9, where it states that the Declarant reserves the right to amend use restrictions or add new restrictions for 30 years. Currently, it takes a vote of 67% of lot owners to amend covenants. Should the lots be sold before the 30-year deadline will the Declarant still control the covenants when they own no lots? o Page 12 is the first mention of the Authority . It is unclear to us, as residents, as to whether the covenants assume that the Authority and the Association function as one entity? They do not and this is not clearly explicated in Filing 2 . o Page 20 details the requirements to have barns for horses, goats, mules, donkeys, llamas and chickens. None of those are permitted under the approved PUD plan. None are compatible with R- I zoning. None are permitted in Filing 1 . People who invested in Filing 1 , thinking it would remain a residential (not agricultural ) neighborhood, are being penalized with Filing 2. o Page 29 indicates REI ' s desire reduce the two-thirds majority to vote to amend the covenants to 60%. Covenants are a binding contract that should change only after careful study and community input, reducing the threshold reduces resident ' s confidence that their investment will hold value. o Page 32 states the Declarant gets to appoint the board of directors of the association for as long as they still own lots. This is inappropriate as it prevents residents from determining who will represent them, gives the Declarant more influence over community matters than taxpaying residents which calls the question of taxation without representation . Residents in the existing filing have already experienced the Declarant overriding decisions of duly appointed boards like the Design Review Committee leading to arbitrary and capricious decisions for individual landowners putting them in conflict with other residents. in summary, if the Declarant is planning to start a new legal entity using the name Pelican Lake Ranch Filing I then, it is our perspective that Filing 2 is not covered under the existing PUD and would require review as a completely new plan, not an extension and updating of the current approved PUD . Respectfully submitted, Dr. Linda Black, EdD LPC 16478 Burghley Court Platteville, CO 80651 In addition, the signers of the attached petitions strongly endorse the concerns in this letter. 3 Attachment A i pelican Lake Ranch Exis• i Filing ._^._.. [ _ - (feek\s\ e ' • i 11Ile alb re NO , r. I -fin A MR ri . Os- ��'�� , {7 Irift liPs, ' r - . ---1r-.1-141Orte.l. ll - 411114 ta il am Id Ai de 2 4 se a ,i sit 4-0 _ IIN Ni Ilibl .0 * e V 4 --. war . _eiotip.),' .i I ale I. . 1S, . . e .41 II j mom lea i II i Effilini 410*. i sail iii $ 4001 IF' la • • �' _ -•" , i 410 7w a ' s. •• ! '• ••� • / 'se i '• .Ii S 4.- •� . i rite lie AISIL 1 go U t ',Oa 1.1 I OiSid t Sri # �. ' s 1 wee er• + es rib i S �■■ IN raWSt ark -..•4 r r 6 `s 4 I 4 - ea y ti4 a— A * I w/ t ! P d , • # . • ~.t ,a iss I A I • i 't. I. - IS 'I i n lr iiiii„ , . ___ • . . I., a a r # I' * ., a , t a yak Fe �, I ht • f e 7 -• ` �[s- -"re- • 3y,a••#_to �r--e■ ,ii• a .+ . tar -Ira (_, * I I I 1 . .--- 4 till • * laillblealp i MUltitrire_ 094_1!,4 i i J i. ' M tr ap • 3 - f it i IL ' illy, 1 IF evi i0 l ill Est _ 'r / :t4' r ' t 1ai • In 0 14 is litOADS • IS4 SMACK Pt 1 "*Lie IUD 4 _ , , g . . . ..,......... ... , ' , . , 4 IIr I , _, a - v i1' a 4 1 t 1r Ce I I .0 proposed Filing 0 slr SS 0 it ,4 sj t 1 w "'r # 44 ;It •rj i it liso + - ilk _ tr tit L 7 k apse apisittelliMENSIMII, III UJ _ 94 'i ' y ' SOS f � �f # i' _ 1 ` 'M YF - �{ __ _ r _ I �y��11�s1 - lit ma agI II alt age 3 , • j T *�4� a�.c _ ire ' !ii �a *la a ~ + _ 3 • imm fT 3 + tri as. #oun d _ 5 Please note- the_originalçgpies of some of the attached signature pages were submitted to your department in an additional letter mailed to your office. 4 Petition We the ndensi, l y urge the Weld County Planning Commission to &sly the Site Specific Developnent Plan and Planned Unit Devdopment Final Plan for end Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number Pty - .4! 1 (also known as PRE23411118 on the 0 i% we- -'S)1Y e .) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regrading Wpm scale development in a mai arm Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing I PUB plan approved in 1989. Impacts on traffic, der, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife Protection, air quality, soil conse ^ratio fire ;on and pcotection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. Pnnt Name Print Address Dube Si lia.71-Kritnall 61P ? al "AEI MIMS ONfilere e WAS .171 .eilMariiiitiMedrireArRAWItfl;;* ibfairafe 17111111MNIM . 4.0 pa APFESTLEIMIWPIIII fiWril 4 el t2I . a4 / e klitynsWarntly_ ( - -i'llr .405tOlliellintsWrcr: 1 _ ._ . I - - fratj Adi # (140 Asivis _ttarea rik _ )4_ g ak, tc, WA! A A / 1ff 11 - estinimetrunw7M7911111MPTIFIlliallifferir JIMA PIL1N,WIEVAN --A T .. 1 , 4 T_ 1 M ��i.I...�IrM mil • - API NIMPIW,TIPIIIT a t #MtifirAgrX t leRMAMPS774 ,MCM0111PrIMIPreirr IMPIRIKOPTall r Et7WWWITAWBEIPINEVIPAEMINIINIFIMIMATI 4 ige tantaliWidialiMMENEMiriatb. Wini V fr E1? jaIWVUw -1 R sPirriMinatrirmarAWIlr __,_ . Petition We the undersigned stronglyurge the Weld Courtly Planning Commission to deny the Site SpecificDevekpment Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number PUDF-24-000 1 (also k:nown as P 118 on the planning web site.) r) As presence this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regardiqg urban scale development in a rural area. Further, it dpi substantially from the existing Filing 1 PUD plan approved in 1989. Impacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, a cultu , wildlife otectiou, air quality, soil commotion, fire mitigation and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. Prat Name Pr ant Address Date Sete-41 Sete-41ed Sa D,1 1 : I Intl *. Eck, & n s Co 10415 Led Artie ' rsit2ippasis "in A-0-6 01111111111 .4ict. cc 0 . AL I CI sic 9 b • time' +el deds is? of tr tivSliNere ir Mill . ` tithe'. liallilail rlinnall :�l1'A rat:_. rii I le MI In:niM I I IFP IR? -, - Pri:740 I r Ulan Di IreM I IFSWPAriti I I I IIII I I I Fa 4 Iiirileirrallorellnellis . d.. .„„tta _......... aid -h........_ ____ .i , , ritarFams- _ - Ehh: tallarlaelll _ a. ,iir Natii ,ii- . Aties c�.t * ,tar , and- _ _ rirdM �. r lli EIMELIMIIIPS sweenzeb * _ _ ___ _ PaI i. • --- !1UI1 , . , __. ___ _ ._ _ _ repose she• thrs oir Bombe Drew Fs am min WINF•24400 I OS Sewn al PRE2341 1 $ co aw Pkgain "who As mei ibis per** does not tonfonn ID the Weld Comte Cak rtiPmfing atm ale eriedopment la a astai‘ a Funteer, k dign subsoil* fits the , i I MD *. appowd in Ike lawn act take INail. 00 la ps productia spriguita wildlik pcoaka no son is S$ S aS - a ods — S bOtalidiasnesinsiaisimilmithisFilitsweiddingayswbeaditSaarnsity. nrin . ,Pvfa • - -• ill lleitillarMilaral et.++ r a ARRIPPIna t • .Iliraat --- j jI!t4$lITh! ia to �. Mtn neigir ME ei at At frinli W b 4.- ' 4 ,._ ISPAIMMIONNINIMIleNaria VW , Sr es Janie: . ! e•-• 5 ! t ? ft IMMOMMInfilffirlega Sr 11Prsallit - a - Mr eller ii J. 4 4 / - (4w11t,0 PM Itt 1 . . A a .1 i#: - Aril . . _. at Wiff ".. tRIMIMPrepril I ., __. . _ 0. 0 ' kik . L li : ' ' ' go a di_ • 0 1 e ' • , g .--_ , -it-, , 4 MI ii• de a - . .1r1741 __ a. a r SS' e if ea" e it it Al MILLIIMWPSANII. 1 . A*dir lib‘1 CIS are ' altRal 9. r l'in c ....4 . 0 Ma 31911MITA.X.A ter , rdie . ip roma . . . _ .. se a 0 - it fie - , te I I a ..• Ed • Winn 4 A , n IL ` Alf f ..f 1 it • Z. It a.. 9 �iti � � . Oen IMPIr. 4 i aarArr air's. all._ lirt ;1 .SMAIIIMan- nrint 'NIP 4 AIMMIRPlatfliliasei - . . ._. . ..., /. , ... , ,, . . , , .4 imispiemma . iimproporanarrammat . .itio - . '' x i' .4. MEWL I EVMPIIII 9 . 1 . AA. Ininni '4 I P • 1 MI . , .iiii, , ...< ....„.....„ H • ._.,. 4. .. imonnor , , , • ,,.. . . , . . _: swincuriwargtommrarts ' . ., . . . .. . , . inimprims a ma ., _. %. .: ... PI i . ., a ,• � � �- ■1r� - -riflillii , 5 - I IMMO , , _. . _ , . . -- . Mnis Roy( • • Li._ i 14- % tAl• b i e . -1 . mnrnms,,,4497 ID ea . lirb 'SOL ... . 0 (9 ge ir 4 • • ._ allisilliralretat"V i e . ,:,, 1 grea,. /..linass,w__ -- } 0. 11M1. .vinarmatts-misob--- . . g it, ._ __ ., . " ' is_elk t a i ' ' 4. . • 4.... ii: ,.p : ail • . awn , _ _ . -±, ' • : , . .d• ti :r .• j 4 atigra 1 fine .0• Mra •_ ��r.. .. .,llaa .4 • - . .. , . -•_ , . . . lir . . . . . - J add 1.. _�j - Petition We the waaeipea demand that the Weld Om* ?being Cow deny the She Specific Wwbpmant Plan and Planned Ilml Devebpart FIS Plan Ibr Second Filing of Beebe Draw IS ewe number PUDF.24-0001 (So wn as PRB7J41118 m the planning whit) As pise4 thE pmjuit manor conform to the Weld County Code mobs Wbmwide aaSopmeetin . nadae.. Fmdxr. e a ti, l from the eximiog Filing. ) PUD plan maul m 1989. lapq€ on ua al S.. piP°àS ipicuifta wildlife poiecd* Mr qintoika sir qua rail aomsratla4 9R midpdan aod piollctloo, godother $temtYvenot bemweti enough defined to ensure that this Filing would is any way benefit the cmiwity. t Name Pro n ‘ tarn Is - I n'Irz wiwna r.mtnire.;:rewerc PIRRIPEAMItriiPMFRATUATMirara:2141111111 FIRMIMPAIIIMIMPFIPSTM MOM EMS AIMS' MISS 1.1111.111r _ is- a _ n_ _ ars ale rismairin Ail 1111111.111111•111 SAM MS Mailitalli . Ira via anal . . lei. sae AL EXHIBIT Pebian 3, 2024 1 POWTOOCi Mr. Nader, Plaming Manager Department of Planning Services 1402 N. 17th Ave. PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: PUDF24-0001 Dear Mr. Nader, As a resident of the Pelican Lake Ranch CPLR) subdivision for over 20 years I am alarmed and surreised by the application filed by Mine Hethcock, REI LLC, for Filing 2. It apps that she, the Declarant,t, has ignored the community voices, and the feedback from the zoning application that was withdrawn, 2 years ago. This letter addresses the most a L, 'ous issues facing both the existing community and future neighbors. * Safety. The existing main thoroughfare, Beebe Draw Farms Parkway DEP) is 28' wide and too narrow for a marked biker and walker lane. As a result, at great expense to owners, a walking trail is under construction. Filing 2 must specify the width of the roads with marked lanes and identify the location so new owners are not encumbered by this unity expense. The existing BDFP entry/exit is a two-lane road with only one way into the neighborhood and one way out, which the Salle Fire Department t wed hazardous in the event of fire. The maize of roads in the proposed development will lead to nowhere until the second entry/exit is addressed in 2028 when more than 1/2 of the homes in the filing are built as shown on page 7 of the Terra Forma app ti of Traffic will be a nightmare and the already deteriorating roads will suffer from overuse. I 4/set to eexagin,g Films ln,ads being used in Filing 2. • Density. For over 20 years a large pxofessional image of the proposed entire development was displayed in the Sales Office (Exhibit 1). It was presented to be a die battinonious community with roads meandering through the beautiful, contoured land complete with horse trails, ample open spaces, and site lines to the prairie, mountains, and Milton Reservoir. A full-size canoe hangs over the entry to emphasize our access to the lake which we no longer have access to. It was a great sales tool and played into the decision of where we and other nature-loving families built our custom dream homes Filing 1, for the most part, followed this plan. Filing 2 is disparate. There is no relationship or continuity to tie these areas together. The lots are sandwiched together with no consideration given to the natural beauty and site lines. Note the cabs : Filing 1 has 186 lots on + '- Soo acres (including ,fin space) Filing 2 has 284 lots on +/- 7® acres (ncluding green space) o Overall PLR acreage 4,200 acres With both Filing lot plans shown side by side (Exhibit 2) the inconsistency screams of the overly zealous and poor planning that changes the character of the n I .borhood dramatically. The density of lots also plays into the absence of green space. Alth w , , h the application touts 30% of the area to be green space, the bulk of these areas marked with red circles are plumed and abandoned stock water wells or producing oil and gas wells requiring a 300' setback., Many of the red circled setbacks encroach or encapsulate lots. Only two areas (starred) are shown to be suitable for building. I dyed to the dntiitp of 284 lots cawing a soiration of netAbbothoods, the lack of anent/mkt/ar apan, and the loss of an idylic harmonious ores/Wan eightim _ : in Finn 2. • Amenities. Initially, the PUD called for a Property Owners Clubhouse to be built with a marina overlooking Milton Moir. (Exhibit 3). Although great in theory, the unexpected slow development of Filing 1 signaled that a full- blown Clubhouse and swimming pool was not reasonable at this time. A survey with 100% of property owners in agreement requested to have a small pool bat within the community with the understanding that each F ; would have its own pool The Declarant took this survey to the Planning Commission, and it was approved. The pool was the first amenity, and it has served the community well,. Other muskies followed and we ate fortunate to enjoy them With the tremendous growth of new housing in the last few years, we have outgrown our facilities. Where and when will a swimming pool be bat in Filing 2? I oyect to the avoidance o idèntiffing iwperkwt amenities and iuØcatthn that Filing I has room to erne 4Clubhouse. In 2009, an architect was engaged to design a Clubhouse by enlarging the existing saps office The schematic plan was presented complete with furnishings and was priced within budget, but the project abruptly stopped when production slowed and the cost of bui1 , s the maintenance facility grew. The Clubhouse was part of the PUD going back to 1989. There are no funds set aside for this project as amenity funds are used for maintenance of existing amenities. It is critical to identify the specifics of what amti , when and where they will be in the Filing 2 documents, or they stand the chance of never being built I ot/ett to the fad that a Clubhouse is hog overdue, peed in the PUP, and omitted in front fikoming. • Covenants. The covenants, as wiitten, further divide the community. It's difficult to imagine homeowners on lots abutting one another having opposing rules and regulations. to live W. Bud f:M. setbacks, types and sizes of homes, farm animals, and landscaping etc, All are different I sing& eyed wag Iwo sets of Covenants and the Dec/anal alone is banded the tights to appoint the members of t Board eh Dina and the membety of the DRC The con:SO is held hostage without voice in dedsion making. Filing I bean Ibis wiv as well and it took a long Se Won we had representaiion on either board • Landscape. Xeriscape for homeowners is wise planning for the future. Howeverdike any other landscape, especially lly trees, it requires plenty of water to get established, Nam Masses may never come back if the topsoil is removed, and water is restricted. It will be difficult for the small lots to grow natal ssses with major disturbances of septic installation, construction of houses, barns and paddocks, and vehicle activity. The density of houses compounds these issues. Too much disturbance will cause erosion, sand ciao, and even dust storms. Water is ev.erything here on the prairie. A '/2 bit water tap may not be enough for a family of 4 , in won areas, it is foolish for Fat' is to deny the need for litigation lines. PLR would not have any trees roadside if it depended fully on hand watering. Our land is sand, and water just disappears. We have been told that if a hundred-fir flood filled the retention area behind the Saes office, it would drain in 45 minutest A 1/2 budget water tap may not be adequate for a family of 4. LaneLrcape is the key to a beautiful neighborhood and mildew water to make it sustainable is ntquired whether t project isxeriscape or not. • Roads. County Roads 32 and 39 are ancillary rural count toads and already heavily trafficked. Little did we know when moving here how much our subdivision affects the ranchers and farms. Moving cattle across the road for grazing has become very cumbcrsom , sometimes even having to move one cow at a time The density of botnes, the quantity of septic systems, the high use of water, and the disturbance of the fragile land strongly affects their business and means of living. The want, loth if. . / 71/.'ning our CONIMMI4 are many and mini The iveliboogiso f'osier and rancher neighbors are threatened ' the heavy and .very whkslar hulk I do not oppose expanding this development, but I must question why so many homes are crammed into such little space in this filing and why 800 overall lots comprise the magic number to meet It cannot be justified in this environment and location, It was always understood that the day would come when the property would be built out. The expectations were for it to be sensitive to the environment and in kee s.e "1. . with the original design. Please Deny this Application, Thank you for your consideration and time, Linda Evans Cox 164865 Letiyard Rd. S. Platteville CO 80651 I f. _ EXHIBIT I. I ii ' i . , II _ _ , I I i - - - ri sil.' 1 - _ _ _i .41, iir ,, - . 111 g\1 i 4$ it• - . Itt i I Ili lop -- -4 ••tie �•- - �_ � -- --1:110Ati: awls Ftlican Lairs Ranch, ifri, - - lir tip - - -- 4 * ittellatillONA II iiii P _ _ 1 ', kerre TO *irk i • es' Ail A i 4tos • w t_._.41 As sr i a" ►ak_ 440 at ; - Ariler 111 r -,." dr 4;"If - I , , , __ _ _ - , 'ANL . 4, sitter , I eD t ..., _ . - II% _ i c,4,_ -N\v, •7 tnie 'fit. e. _-- ,* 0 alike. a __Jr Orel" ' 4 4 rips , .., ) c., 1 ja, eilif, ac isigarar - ---. _ _ ltd. - - - 104 ii,%. .. y‘.446. eirfr7 - KM 4 i ;1/4 ;I- ri _ IVA, eir * -e it - il$ - ! ' A * 0.4.40. lliltip 4. 4 tits ;I , „. Rpm il ar ii\e _____24fr, __ Ilk ‘ (-__,,, ,e 4,i v.% v in 10. 44.071asillisilah ‘e s Arm* Ir‘ lik .,--t _ ivirjapr_ 4 0 iii Ws igi iik kik ibicailt -4,;al, ;-%-- als . . ek . _ Airs " awl ' ----.-____!c) 5. , - r istrnir um, Ila .ii -g.„, a ala -iirr,ds rior a ippc..t• -s irials. • iii.:-__4, , ,, mat ,444WI. IS 0 itere Aar":: ' is i'm . _ 4(sgpt 4,74 tit etre kaa: sat r* t!; ) $ ' *a . s � , _sr 'it Arfralliik% AP al I 1. `.4ea si .W I i Ill lir 4.11 IP 111P 1.0141 alp AD. mi 0 11 '- . ter411 S a% • ip 44, _stew S -,. 111 lir' 414, IIIP, * iiigitill litivalks irr.$ wr- ar S „gm- is- - ce--7404b:illik 4 airtir III Tan 'ibt vet • it saga ' ill a • esf At sit 0tr<* ve - . Se Se .tp. la ems \ dills% ISO" • AP ii iv ie * iect , _.. efts* _sit i phi wig le ilir PACs!! lit- 4 tit alOPS , J, e .t. a, li:-I ' 4 *, - it * ii a • at a'a. - - a it :Oat Aliblfrirtre, 4:41 MPS [IL -MI. a sit is. 14.4pir is a ilt is- Is * a . - 11‘-%0 4-a it simile ,al liti. litilti ratierna I ant grip immrit I Pelican II � ,I I ExistingFlang I _ _ /ye- \ si, . ._ _. .c,sw, ._ . :_- ,- _. _ _. , • oictst \sit is.. • i _.! tor,. . .\ _ lira..? ime, a I it , 4, i \ . ._. litil. 4i 4 4 \caw" al 0 a ._ A -k.- , r• \ InZ A at\ ti \ 1 ,si.>• . ii-- 11-41:4 �. _ia Ili*Hr.' fil ' 1-m.7)4S, 4415 f . . .. : hie .,, , ,, .44 In *A . .._ • i i r ril I . A 1, 4 ,. . , . A i '- • -• IL ty-' t t. it' 4 Ojai A . 461=4" M. I ,A, s . illailis\* _, ,t, 4 A, , tadP .:i a relich IN . . k EMIT_ r• ish , a it 4 . 4411 agt,.._ _ . * alsi . b , 0 A,r_.--p-st` libi 4 \.. ..i • .J H _ __ , it WI Iiiiippr -i• ; - - .. -4. lit II% rr MI. r ' i r . ` At 44.11, ja all .1(01, A . A tit 111111er VA j l Y ill a lilft t - We ...1, • ?clash • FsAir aa iii. , ,o) 0•Bi tom 4 13 Al a a. i _ A a . ,), 1/4 . A. Pig Alllie Stag"I . :_ I r e �•7-1\44111.:3„, ' " tilt ei�o 1 , r_ phsv,: t: f . ),.. golf a, • ., Ls,: elf a: .4164. illbr(s:::\ „ _All 144 . 4 ., i , 0 'd+ .4„,, ,.. - rP- r 1 A i es A _ ._ 4.il . _ _ 1"0 t 1 . T I _, ,110- 4t4;le . ikp, !IMPS 4. a .. %H. rA4 - -- !� _ 16114CUI _ - r_ ' ib i Ie. rirn - i . , . 41MOr a c is pi pit , it *his _ •_-_r, _ — - a I 'iiii lam MI iiii Ill i 6, ` - ' _i" _AmamiMARNMAINA Illit)p, - id \ .. ! pia, • all 7 sir __ * n. : irlik WAIMNOARMME i pi 01;%;N6 11 IIIIII-- . . i .„, "'", t r a a a iii> .. , ., .. , i 401. ii 4 I a . , \ ÷401,Th .- ._ , A -1104 .4,1,.._ _in .„....., ha ii,t,itir % • _ ,. .._ -iiiir ' -"rm .. 4 Z": r . itillitht ,-� ,•- 1. .♦ :all- ROADS Ileilillib- i ., - Mt re______IikLa_ _ ca , tp • el p bi 2,51 SEM= PLIKIGED • ,./. r irss— OP Fr AM q eit '''and ABANIXINED umi Irli 1 14 . • - : ::". ill a In a 4, 1 a . . al a 4 a i hi • ar .1„.., I 300i S MACK SI Ind in ... a .. ar2 . IP PRODUCING WELLS . I .. . g• rip p OSed + I at I Ka 4 r. • ` , a ' i VPIPF ' AntSses- J. lib Priserwah _ .�` ii ti PROPOSED �. SE M= till r �0.7 1:01,\r‘ 4",- , % f - , ROADS SIP _ ----' S -y - - BP SPICE,1:� Y T' a _be. am% 6 . , 1 1......-6 • . 1. . 10 % . ' a +di . . Ail Rea / ., idp , I 0.: . ... l - • ISM I r -illi • . ' .. ;.... rl H ' - -- - - - . . . ...... ......•..........• is i . ndoi aa "in ` 'salami V • _. , -7r F�f11�1 F IIIM G r Ittli ei 7 N. te C ip I so— Renal 1 "Insiilia I 1 It= _-.- .� I 04 .' �%� ass z • I iA�� mallow a I we �- . . .` is. a es .a ei , '� sea I EXHIBIT A 3 11. so w*II *0 I 11 y LI I � "�� _fi _ er _ Ft i — _ . , 1 ., 11 11111 Y li III / I Laccoil 1 ! r 1 1 Pi ir, , - rl 1 li\N*Sii • \ _ stit3/45 ilk1/4. \\pi. tit ic I , I° 14 ) Or' , f .1111 lai le - t dill , 44 I ikc1/444_ own i 4 _ at it . ii. • it si I, I: ' it' - -1 14/1 I ifrill0 : ei - i a l ll I I \* I • '. . % II 1 . I i I a 1Nti• 11.110 .1 /Al) I. % Si I b kit ..., t 4 IFI, V 1 . tr tit ., i , ,,, ,. . s . 4 i H-As*Pir 1 I ID i Ilk t#1 - 104401401 # 0111 R I p 44 - 1 , V . 4 a p R _ ,_ ii is ti + i ink OP RTY lee_`diriall7IN 6 „ to ■{i t :I sirtt,4 :_ AIMI E . _IL a * i . .. Ilk A ilb _ It - te itailliNSIIIII . - IF 6 I 41 I . ,talloirjr . 6 VI till , . i _ l' 6 * * I OWNERS .. _ 2 * s t F * ft iS - is 6 . %Hilitillititibillillin:413/41SibiblitirliblibIN:1 vimiill I 0 *� , itar —+dimarellit 4IP . i M r‘1E I'S Lil B ill 0 U SE _ . , 1 tieSSI4 i 6 * ea t ' O1 I - a * 4 i il ll i I I I 4 1411 a, "t " * . LI , f a it s * * * as F AC 1LIT y _ I , de II ' till . Oh • I - tili el 0 t4 6 $ 10 _ _ _ 4 1.4 0 U T LOT 1 , , 4 , ,.. seis ori., et hiiiiiiiiiil\iiiiii.:\ es%siiiiiii, 4 2 Ft` ' :4 1 wea4i ' • IV i ALL , I b* 1141 S M • • I , IS ' T i Cs ps 1 Pm An Dm) 45En, SKIIII i er LOc 1, HARBOR Maxwell Nader From: Linda Cox < coxlindaevansVii gmaiLcom> Sent: Sundays February 4, 2024 11 :57 PM To: Maxwell Nader Subject PUUFZ4-0001 Attachment Letter to Planning Mgr. Feb 3, 20246dncx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status Flagged ( • aFttb► ou : This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr, Nader, I have attached a letter opposing the Filing 1 Application . The original letter will be delivered to your office tomorrow. Thank you, Linda Cox I am not able to scan the exhibit attachments. They will arrive at your office tomorrow, 1 Maxwell Nader From: Linda Cox <coxlindaevans2@gmaiicom > Sent Sunday, February 4, 202411 :55 PM To: Maxwell Nader Subject: Ply D24s0001 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. . i i '' 1 i �yJ' eif 1 : . . . I T�1}J,1 t4 sit. tell w .) \\,,____—„, • • . rips:. i . . rev , i 4 - tr I i rti , / - . . - 1,1P .. . A .: ,,,,..ii , . _ . '411 L Z . .. th ' 4Art ''' !: 4'il r ., -: -'77:0/7 ,,_ .8 4, IltiX ,4 fr 1,-- 6l - allP4r4illi . Lg. _. • . . . , -* -_ -- - 7.2p, -Altir ' I , - = '' it . - 4 . . 0 .v . f.. ti ' r I.% : I . $ -. IP . 4.,. : te- II . ilk . A _ i 4-Wa . = : '6.11)..1 111 Are- . -- fog( :t , 410 .! HT: - IIIP II. --r ill_ . - - latglik- ' ' - •:hin 1- ; ' 40 41tg.$4 . . . . ' , .06' ,- -I * i' -- 'Pr -- - -- - - - ' 11 ii -*JP . i - - . 4 - - .-- t ., - . : ..,i , -nt-!. :211ilit ' 1)..'"E-- - _ * I, . . - . -t T ' itthir..4 - x , 41 ' • IL r. - lit iit ii i ifii : * - pi 0 -- v. : ' 7 ta —Al *FL?' . ,4,— - ,'!" - '' 44 iht , _ 1 . ' 4 _ : It I I « 4„t 1 •a Ii I , I . • . 1 % *Mb 1 It 11, E . it -I 10 $ • lt - 0 i . 4 r ' . - e. I - 111 f -: IT -I„VIA 11 b i k -14 IC 74: • • • 1 4 : ' . :-. 8"; - ' . , 1 el . j / it - I - 4 ..1 ' -- - : HI H II* ' ' lilt. NPIPH -' . I. i. , k . , -- ,.„... .0. -* Fit tHii Oh _'. i 0 . itr At Al 0 i.e. _ . T a,- 0 _ - - ini Fii lee- :/- <- 414 Irta:t t iti:1-A a . di 414 it - - - ' - W11, ii it '� •A ' 1 1 ireariliiii Sent from my !Phone 1 February 3, 2024 Mr. Maxwell Nader, Planning Manager Department of Planning Services 1402 N . 17th Ave. PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: PUDF24-0001 Dear Mr. Nader, As a resident of the Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) subdivision for over 20 years I am alarmed and surprised by the application filed by Christine Hethcock, REI LLC, for Filing 2. It appears that she, the Declarant, has ignored the community voices, and the feedback from the zoning application that was withdrawn, 2 years ago. This letter addresses the most egregious issues facing both the existing community and future neighbors . • Safety. The existing main thoroughfare, Beebe Draw Farms Parkway (BDFP) is 28' wide and too narrow for a marked biker and walker lane. As a result, at great expense to owners, a walking trail is under construction. Filing 2 must specify the width of the roads with marked lanes and identify the location so new owners are not encumbered by this amenity expense. The existing BDFP entry/exit is a two-lane road with only one way into the neighborhood and one way out, which the LaSalle Fire Department deemed hazardous in the event of fire. The maize of roads in the proposed development will lead to nowhere until the second entry/exit is addressed in 2028 when more than 1/2 of the homes in the filing are built as shown on page 7 of the Terra Forma application. Traffic will be a nightmare and the already deteriorating roads will suffer from overuse. I object to existing Filing 1 roads being used in Filing 2. • Density. For over 20 years a large professional image of the proposed entire development was displayed in the Sales Office (Exhibit 1) . It was presented to be a single harmonious community with roads meandering through the beautiful, contoured land complete with horse trails , ample open spaces, and site lines to the prairie, mountains, and Milton Reservoir. A full-size canoe hangs over the entry to emphasize our access to the lake. It was a great sales tool and played into the decision of where we and other nature-loving families built our custom dream homes . Filing 1 , for the most part, followed this plan. Filing 2 is disparate. There is no relationship or continuity to tie these areas together. The lots are sandwiched together with no consideration given to the natural beauty and site lines. Note the comparison: o Filing 1 has 186 lots on + /- 800 acres (including green space) o Filing 2 has 284 lots on + /- 700 acres (including green space) o Overall PLR acreage 4,200 acres With both Filing lot plans shown side by side (Exhibit 2) the inconsistency screams of the overly zealous and poor planning that changes the character of the neighborhood dramatically. The density of lots also plays into the absence of green space. Although the application touts 30% of the area to be green space, the bulk of these areas marked with red circles are plugged and abandoned stock water wells or producing oil and gas wells requiring a 300' setback. Many of the red circled setbacks encroach or encapsulate lots. Only two areas (starred) are shown to be suitable for building. I object to the density of 284 lots causing a separation of neighborhoods, the lack of unencumbered green space, and the loss of an idyllic harmonious equestrian community in Filing 2. • Amenities . Initially, the PUD called for a Property Owners Clubhouse to be built with a marina overlooking Milton Reservoir. (Exhibit 3) . Although great in theory, the unexpected slow development of Filing 1 signaled that a full- blown Clubhouse and swimming pool was not reasonable at this time. A survey with 100% of property owners in agreement requested to have a small pool built within the community with the understanding that each Filing would have its own pool. The Declarant took this survey to the Planning Commission, and it was approved. The pool was the first amenity, and it has served the community well. Other amenities followed and we are fortunate to enjoy them all. With the tremendous growth of new housing in the last few years, we have outgrown our facilities . Where and when will a swimming pool be built in Filing 2? I object to the avoidance of identifying important amenities and the implication that Filing l has room to spare. Clubhouse . In 2009 , an architect was engaged to design a Clubhouse by enlarging the existing sales office. The schematic plan was presented complete with furnishings and was priced within budget, but the project abruptly stopped when oil/gas production slowed and the cost of building the maintenance facility grew. The Clubhouse was part of the PUD going back to 1989. There are no funds set aside for this project as amenity funds are used for maintenance of existing amenities . It is critical to identify the specifics of what amenities, when and where they will be in the Filing 2 documents, or they stand the chance of never being built. I object to the fact that a Clubhouse is long overdue, promised in the PUD, and omitted in future planning. • Covenants . The covenants, as written, further divide the community. It's difficult to imagine homeowners on lots abutting one another having opposing rules and regulations to live by. Building setbacks, types and sizes of homes, farm animals, and landscaping etc. All are different. I strong object to having two sets of Covenants and the Declarant alone is handed the rights to appoint the members of the Board of Directors and the members of the DRC The community is held hostage without voice in decision making. Filing 1 began this way as well and it took a long time before we had representation on either board • Landscape . Xeriscape for homeowners is wise planning for the future. However, like any other landscape, especially trees, it requires plenty of water to get established. Natural grasses may never come back if the topsoil is removed, and water is restricted. It will be difficult for the small lots to grow natural grasses with major disturbances of septic installation, construction of houses, barns and paddocks, and vehicle activity. The density of houses compounds these issues. Too much disturbance will cause erosion, sand drifts, and even dust storms. Water is everything here on the prairie. A 1/2 budget water tap may not be enough for a family of 4. And, in common areas, it is foolish for Filing 1 to deny the need for irrigation lines . PLR would not have any trees roadside if it depended fully on hand watering. Our land is sand, and water just disappears. We have been told that if a hundred-year flood filled the retention area behind the Sales office, it would drain in 45 minutes ! A 1/2 budget water tap may not be adequate for a family of 4. Landscape is the key to a beautiful neighborhood and sufficient water to make it sustainable is required whether the project is xeriscape or not. • Roads. County Roads 32 and 39 are ancillary rural country roads and already heavily trafficked. Little did we know when moving here how much our subdivision affects the ranchers and farmers . Moving cattle across the road for grazing has become very cumbersome, sometimes even having to move one cow at a time. The density of homes, the quantity of septic systems, the high use of water, and the disturbance of the fragile land strongly affects their business and means of living. The county roads adjoining our community are ancillary and rural. The livelihoods of our farmer and rancher neighbors are already threatened by the heavy and .peedy vehicular traffic. I do not oppose expanding this development, but I must question why so many homes are crammed into such little space in this filing and why 800 overall lots comprise the magic number to meet. It cannot be justified in this environment and location. It was always understood that the day would come when the property would be built out. The expectations were for it to be sensitive to the environment and in keeping with the original design. Please Deny this Application. Thank you for your consideration and time, Linda Evans Cox 164865 Ledyard Rd. S. Platteville CO 80651 EXHIBIT January 29, 2024 I P (ADP 4 ' Dear Community Members, 11 We have just found out that an application has been submitted to the Weld County Planning Commission for Beebe Draw Farms - Pelican Lake Ranch ( PLR ) Filing 2 . Much to our dismay, this proposal will adversely affect the entire surrounding community, and not just the existing PLR subdivision . When each of the current residents purchased properties in this subdivision, it was with the understanding that there would be plenty of open space as well as access to Milton Reservoir. Subsequently, the developers have allowed our access to be sold off to a recreational company who has now made it into a private lake of which no residents have access to. The open space that they have allotted , especially in Filing 2 , is mainly from gas and oil well heads and un- reclaimed land from the removal of tank batteries . As most of you, as neighbors on this kind of soil know, it will take years or maybe never for any natural grass vegetation to be established again . Also, we all know this kind of sandy soil is not suitable for extensive septic systems to be safely sustained with the density that they are proposing . We have already seen a huge increase of traffic on our ancillary roads . Imagine how much busier our rural roads will become by adding almost 300 more homes, with multiple vehicles per home . County Road 32 is already a thoroughfare from Weld County Parkway ( County Rd 49 ) over to Highway 85 . The new entry onto County Rd 32, especially descending from the steep hill towards the stop sign, creates a great potential for deadly accidents . Each property owner is required to have a 2 car garage, however this is usually not adequate, thus all of the property owners likely need to build additional sheds or other large structures . Livestock ( rule is one animal per acre ) are required to have an approved corral and shelter. Which means additional roads paths that tear up the natural vegetation, creating even more dust and blowing. With the extreme density of the proposed buildings and access, the subdivision will become a complete dust bowl . The developers specified folks to plant 10 trees on each property, which would be great if they had more than a half of a city water tap, with no chance for a well . As much water as these trees would take in this sandy soil , it 's another concern for no vegetative growth . There is also a requirement for the landscaping to be Xeriscape around the structures, and the rest of the property to be natural vegetation . With the amount of land devastation required for building the actual structures, the reclamation of natural grasses will be very difficult and the amount of tumbleweeds and cheat grass that will thrive will be unbelievable . Trees along the parkway are also included in the plans, and are to be hand-watered instead of an irrigation system . Who is going to spend that kind of time, effort, and money to keep these trees alive ? Additionally, as part of the covenants for Filing 2, property owners can not only have horses, but will also be allowed to raise farm animals . How are the natural grasses and new trees going to thrive with all of those corrals, alley ways and barns ? And where is the water going to come from ? And how will the manure be handled ? We are begging our community neighbors to not only sign this petition to be submitted for numbers of folks who do not want to see this move forward , but to also write to the Weld County Planning Commission to personally let them know why. Please submit the signed petitions to Linda Cox at (303 : 378-0077, or email : coxlindaevans2@gmail . com Written statements can be sent via email to : Maxwell Nader, Planning Manager Dept . of Planning Services 1402 N 17th Ave . Greeley, CO 80631 mnader@weld . gov (970 ) 400-3527 It is critical to have these petitions returned to Linda before or on Saturday, February 3rd . We have to submit all of these to the planning commission before midnight on the 4'. Therefore, it is also critical to send your written statements to Mr. Nader before midnight on the 4t". Please contact Linda if you have any questions about any of this . We deeply appreciate your help. Thank you ! ,, de 019de Petition We the undersigned strongly urge the Weld County Planning Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number PUDF-24-0001 (also known as PRE23 -0118 on the planning website . ) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding urban scale development in a rural area. Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing 1 PUD plan approved in 1989 . Impacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mitigation and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. Print Name Print Address Date Signed Signatu e Alvin ° Badra 363 Act_ / I r oaf I --3 I tr. ; 41 Dev r &sue, stoh aieet t5 Z `-1 S Gct3vOr .r5 - \ - Z- L' 'L;I 1') vie- 4.4'11_12 n hit I' I erzit'-c- % ), 4 r------Aorz --CMC54041.-A, 41---Ckt Ct 1) \-40eAct- 1..) li r htaSU tit Mfr � ' . es r - / --3 — . ----"' "ANar 1 Whe a � rt6 11 t actti3a , PS 1 " 31 - 2 -1 � / 6 i exicy2+11. Eistakik to3c0 CL2- 5 I --- 5 ‘ ---.2V __ ___ " ct,A -EllsiAANk--- i -b 5si c g--- i 1 -- 31 -- a _______ •�ice '. N1.13/4 C031 /.07 4th i 151/42V - i 'lAsp I i waitcq 1 39C c it 7 ififilr PeorA - . La _ Wei iir / 5 foe( c-e,--#1415- I / 31,01,/ ,------ A . ‘Atet 5frial-c-b--L , 1 fi;. wi /se( /--- -,- ...ciL •71,14 Side* t i t y) c 4 Pr c;i2 "--rl -e e27 • tAjiV wilt- NA o w '1 votebPr�V��,4 L., d 2 — c — 2`{ _�� A Chad yoon7 fel PC S h`e``d rpt z -- ta 2 y . , 1 BritcAILAk, ten-5mo, Tax,) , -eukir, e-i-telsit AUL jest a2aLl c5i/t. , Sil /7°9045 /254 - - ar SSA p.1 -Rim � .� o� nAa� N Ava 2 ) - a y 1 p_ol, it I v OV-4 e { . 22EgitiLic / c/ qIaJciez3z -r 1 -Z.Z/ 4. 7U er cdt,1O I z 5:2 ..5q 6 ? tia- --2 -H_Lij..-- Q .ji._ ."6P r;1161 (13,1 s 1 s- 2-4•1 U ,--) (,Iwr &uuScn ,�,,; 1,./tirtar- r sYrr ci2. " 1 i c %- 2i r- , fog. I oh \Al sie t- i 3147i ci< ii 7- i Heii A bon...10h 1,0171 CIC -11 aei wsi/ a 9 ---242-k -ke------ 4 Or � Petition We the undersigned strongly urge the Weld County Planning Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number PUDF-24-0001 (also known as PRE23 -U118 on the planning website.) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding urban scale development in a rural area. Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing 1 PUD plan approved in 1989. Impacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mitigation and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. _ Print Name Print Address Date Signed Si ature 31 ) 1Sa.; 19 IS13 (Mt39 Wi / 4cketiiitvititc p .- 1041 IPAre r 450.004.4, "Os dealiaOhle VS Yrii vis ‘whe'leaA Ale Sa2., idle lit/ ii;etetetie.--40‘. or fLaWedtVitr , C.0 isisciny1 . . Lay G Sun" ,µ 0 Petition We the undersigned strongly urge thc Weld County Planniag Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number PUDFs24OOO1 (also known as PRE23-01 18 on the planning wcbsite.) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding urban scale development in a rural area. Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing I PUD plan approved in 1989. Impacts on traffic, water, oil and has production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mid r ion and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. Print lame PrintAddress Date Signed Signat ' , min% eSS * a I 0 lag ; v I 3 55 / Cs* r 3 MU 121 ra-ca,dgirra, trillfIIPIIIIrswrnrznmmnanmw/AqtWffti,PallIl 4AW _ • va IMARIPTIr1711111 rierrti,~771111WPTESWIt-i IFIMP1111114 fir--TS,t4i '0WAIMIPIliffiall Wag% bit- WitEtOMIWC-- 1 e Q ( te SEE tolic- , 60A , "Mates ruterana, - )'? wr7fal,st.,a �c-►,ca �� eat o a o( aP-t,rc..d-a.co , _Zit' Ain t 4_4e.Q., 3 Er r7 P.c o f-r prn S ,_ a R • I SI ii Petition We the undendipmed stronglyurgethe WeldcountyManning commissiontodeny thesite Specific Development Plan and Pled Unit nevetoil,. it: : Final Plan for end Filing of Betbe Draw F , case numba. PU - 03I. (0scat• ',moon as P E2 1 18 on the n ; � .) 8.As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding u ale 1�� n a t 1 , it � subs , fly from the existing- Filingl PUD plan approved in 1989. 1 . c.., n on water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil contervadon, In rum a anti protectioni and other items have not been well enough in+ to ensure that this Filing v uid in any itisw fit the community. r •... ."Print d i �. . d aiit?. . w _ mr, -.,-- ir • . II ./.... itfassili .t.il PIN a ji!F ,r, , .: • :. ..,, , _43_, re .a , ,, , _ ....._ ad _. °L . t . 4. - .1‘. "Ili w, -•_-_. , ri ,,,. ArT:He 4T* A :_.. i e _ r` earHar- " . ,. LI, aleel llIra"H ' . ' _ it AL • Allaill• l' 1 see J • iiii. . , - . • I .•- - - - --- -. _Fr-__ _ _ - - - _ - - . - s -- -. -, a- ---nom - �': •I i _ - __- -. _ ._. 1 . _ - - - - --.- - -- .. -Cf-SWi�Y� -L.- ',--....,__, maim.. -. - -....-_.--a--- 1 MIME . I f _ __ --..._. .- - - II 1 i 1 i- i b a • I.• I 1 I., i 1 r -4 r • 1.• - t I n r, Petition 1 f We the undasigned toCommissionSitegly uge the Weld County Planning to deny the SpecificDevelopment Plof and Planned Final Plan for Filing Beebe Draw Farms, case number 3 0118 on theplanningn��►er P'�1�F� � � l �alr �nc� n �� P' website.) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County regarding urban scale development in a rural area. Further, it departs substantially m the existing Filing 1 PUD plan approved in 1989. i9. impacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mitigation and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. hint Name t print Adams DateShed S5iture r 1 a ass. • ,a litrliagriit sit Y_At A , Ilak- - AA ti t . ie 0 -:/i a hI_2 '� - . 6 , � ,i _ ar , - ' e a e/A r 4�.._ ! •41# w,a - - 4 .�.�' � it �NTIVIPIPAMIPI ira �.. - - 1 . 1'1. , tt. E. k 061 I ` di ?!-ns- -- - • PoWlaff ' Li , , Aor Are5 re. f ' MilliiiBC-Ifiria ar. , . 0, , ./ i ... ,,, „AA:a* ' #4 ar ' ,- A___ I 4 .., di A if! 0211ff _ ade . • . :::.41 at a.4 "...- am, Mai IlireiMIPL;ri, re* IllaWar4 A. IL. 8477 20, 4/1 2 a. its 16•• # frit,1, , _ . nivii Baal RD ill vinyl? riS PAIMMIPlirefer , 0., 7,1, __il ' fit, .__ . .* sr ei ,firit sa _ OW .A.ran Id as a". ' luP:44k . ... - ail _ / . 4 .. ir ; oly ....a.... =Pt 1.1rirlik real i als ' AA litirMr411 - SP" 111 :74Mnip - _ iii imp e ozpi oismo t iiiir , , , gi, tizi atiMilligillirelas:_ . to i re, &, a. • a be) - Sel -_ _ r a -ail - 1. allillillailliallial 11111111 - - Ill -- , - _IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - - - i t. : OM= _ _ , , an= - - _ _ _ -s . .-.e. ' - 4P-------.- -. - -- -- - 1 - - - r Petition We the undersigned strongly urge the Weld County Planning Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number PUDF-24-0001 (also known as PRE23-01 18 on the planning website.) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding urban scale development in a rural area. Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing 1 PUD plan approved in 1989. Impacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mitigation and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. Print Name Print Address Date Si : ned Si g r I S C I 4 ,r. .�- - - ea ------ Petition We the undersigned strongly urge the Weld County PlPlanning Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Fanna* case number PUDF-24- 1 (also known as PRE23-O l 1 S on the planning wS c _ita is d„ this project does not conform to the Weld County Code receding urban wale development in a rural area. Further, it �n - :s substantiallythe existing Filing I NEI pia approved in 1989. hupacts on t water, oil and ps i::. 1 , suction. agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire nibs:. . Gaon and protection, other item have not been well enattl, defined to ens that this Filing .ldl in any way benefit the community, t Date i4 ed s 9 e 1M % WOnglill.: 'elf IAL liP , . - 41 1 i, : - -rim tZect . , . . - - • :-=;•. c,,, ? 1, tillar5 Ceps?. f7Wigulik styli lin _ -- - - - - - ...„....,..„..___ _____ _ . ._ __ . , , _ ,.__ . __ __ _ . __ _ _ _ .. - _ _ _ ______ - . . . . . Mal. - ; II ti- _t -� ,_ �r illil' -rte - - • •SIC t ilim iimmi i ___ . _ . I I. -- -__ - Iz I =lgnit,_ _ . ---- - -- . - - -- - - - I EC: ti . 5 : 48 ,,H , .ids LIE L _sr a • . V Sent \dif ' al , welks32@gmail . coM Wednesday To: Devyn Bailer > 49 Re : Pelican Lakes does Attached is the signatures. I will get them from my parents as well . Petition We the undardpod woe urge St Wald Comer Plandieg Camiguin'uion to dew the Stic Specific Developnumt Plan end Plumed US Devciapnettt Ebel Plan for Becnd Meg of Beebe Din Pem a, case nrtroher PUDFF24-0001 (Ilse known es PFS 11 R on die plaice As protented, this mint does aot a xtban to the Weld County Code reprtEng o'it sale daveklanettq[ io a anal tl a Fu t. it de ulw t' staatielly from the ex Filing I PUI)piss wined In 1 81..�g t c1 ,oil n, M� proteation, air mow, soil a axaQY 'lam, Mt nidpetlott and presctin ,and odic item have in been well enough delisted to Gunn IS thin Filing would in say way Sedt the coemi*lty, PSI Nem Print Album SSG Miaowed : 7, , tala cab fen Nam 1 IMe4 . I MI , MIMMal. . .: . ...I=' IMISIII 11 CEA. 1= I .IMIMIII=IIS Maxwell Nader sal From: Brenda Lewis < bltlewis@yahoo,Com> Sent Saturday, February 382024 5:40 PM To: Maxwell Nader; I rn Ogle Cc LINDA EVANS COX Subject: Fw: Petition Scan Attachments: Petition from Surrounding neighbors 2024 02 03„pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening Mr. Nader, Please see the attached letter of concern and petition with signatures from the ranchers and neighbors surrounding the Pelican Lake Ranch Development. These are residents that live near Pelican Lake Ranch (County Roads 391 32, 49, and the surrounding area) . This document was presented to me with a request I email and send to you on their behalf. Thank you for your time . Brenda Lewis 1 January 29, 2024 Dear Community Members, We have just found out that an application has been submitted to the Weld County Planning Commission for Beebe Draw Farms - Pelican Lake Ranch ( PLR) Filing 2. Much to our dismay, this proposal will adversely affect the entire surrounding community, and not just the existing PLR subdivision . When each of the current residents purchased properties in this subdivision, it was with the understanding that there would be plenty of open space as well as access to Milton Reservoir. Subsequently, the developers have allowed our access to be sold off to a recreational company who has now made it into a private lake of which no residents have access to. The open space that they have allotted, especially in Filing 2, is mainly from gas and oil well heads and un-reclaimed land from the removal of tank batteries. As most of you, as neighbors on this kind of soil know, it will take years or maybe never for any natural grass vegetation to be established again. Also, we all know this kind of sandy soil is not suitable for extensive septic systems to be safely sustained with the density that they are proposing. We have already seen a huge increase of traffic on our ancillary roads. Imagine how much busier our rural roads will become by adding almost 300 more homes, with multiple vehicles per home. County Road 32 is already a thoroughfare from Weld County Parkway (County Rd 49) over to Highway 85. The new entry onto County Rd 32, especially descending from the steep hill towards the stop sign, creates a great potential for deadly accidents. Each property owner is required to have a 2 car garage, however this is usually not adequate, thus all of the property owners likely need to build additional sheds or other large structures. Livestock (rule is one animal per acre) are required to have an approved corral and shelter. Which means additional roads/paths that tear up the natural vegetation, creating even more dust and blowing. With the extreme density of the proposed buildings and access, the subdivision will become a complete dust bowl . The developers specified folks to plant 10 trees on each property, which would be great if they had more than a half of a city water tap, with no chance for a well. As much water as these trees would take in this sandy soil, it's another concern for no vegetative growth. There is also a requirement for the landscaping to be Xeriscape around the structures, and the rest of the property to be natural vegetation . With the amount of land devastation required for building the actual structures, the reclamation of natural grasses will be very difficult and the amount of tumbleweeds and cheat grass that will thrive will be unbelievable. Trees along the parkway are also included in the plans, and are to be hand-watered instead of an irrigation system . Who is going to soend that kind of time, effort, and money to keep these trees alive? Additionally, as part of the covenants for Filing 2, property owners can not only have horses, but will also be allowed to raise farm animals. How are the natural grasses and new trees going to thrive with all of those corrals, alley ways and barns? And where is the water going to come from? And how will the manure be handled ? We are begging our community neighbors to not only sign this petition to be submitted for numbers of folks who do not want to see this move forward, but to also write to the Weld County Planning Commission to personally let them know why. Please submit the signed petitions to Linda Cox at (303) 378-0077, or email : coxlindaevans2@gmail . com Written statements can be sent via email to: Maxwell Nader, Planning Manager Dept. of Planning Services 1402 N 17th Ave . Greeley, CO 80631 mnader@weld . gov (970) 400-3527 It is critical to have these petitions returned to Linda before or on Saturday, February 3r'. We have to submit all of these to the planning commission before midnight on the 4th. Therefore, it is also critical to send your written statements to Mr. Nader before midnight on the 4th. Please contact Linda if you have any questions about any of this. We deeply appreciate your help. Thank you ! so ;1/4 ‘ 0191 Petition We the undersigned strongly urge the Weld County Planning Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Pilaw .. Unit Development Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms, case number ' e24 1 (also 'known as -0118 on the planning webs .) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding urban, scale development in a rural area. Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing 1 PIM plan approved in 1989. impacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mitigation and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. Print Name Print Address Date _ i l ed Si : na _ - raii , / I i _ r tr-/ atiti,.., „„.....-- irmireireffiefift4_ , . . , .. .., :._ _ _, ,„. k ,a iii. . I . live:.. 7i An i vawrn nallir re. _ glir if/ r -,. .�. 'r- r • if • 1 4 4 _ 0 "atEN A i 4.7sain- - 1 VjkragastgllLrrSJv .4 :Aar alas f V 23C g. . ( elj % e . I gar / T .e, S ;VA .. ► a _ l it i b5' e• fir- I1WII17 II nih1 CALL C :34 -- 1, ratan - i s rake' .11) uninirdwisni i 42499 Eartriev,Mr#61_49...7 . -fl I CI- 11 _t4,1 35et (it 7fr. Ital. '' l a Lt2 r .- . , Ai. Oat - '' -. . rtdrasall 'igriVAInrikiligialliallial. --ar"r , ai ' A.,..i , i - nlaMlinfigninnaMirfinassifir "e. rtA al Le. % * esi i 11 . t .„ j a Oir lea: — es il esti er_..errarrairr ' lel -it' d' ? . ei is ltifeir rpe ,e simary,-- amilmAr _ was - .• kii id & IA . iiiitlid I . , I - . a . . . 111. A . A Ping" LIMPPInela if kt . .w,i.r,1' M tiv. it CI° dif,Ag. fr. t trinktrAir -Wara [Cl. ____ __ )L it_ A i ' r t . k f '# l &. ill 4.: • _ ' ate' LSI cer4:0!Sr ar e ‘.°Jeri Ilrill _cl .M3M, 7:* _ _ Mali__ , . or- / az ,,,,r, ,, re / , r- taiSforfrAMIli C" ? SEM APAWEINtrieralli Itirir # lap. r le A t ST7 52 Siq 6 ? 111 42 a 1 -. d4 41 sr ile" err , i dr 1 ;all . - . _ . 61 4 e i ter 14 __ til asers'tJ21n _ Pitit: I 3q n VC SI as i as Vii -41tre - ---* ? ‘ : - 'Mir 144 .130 . - Is r - .1 /- a - '-' a ' i 1'w:titer _ IA- . D h oti - . I - A: . . 'err r r Petition We the undersigned strongly urge the Weld County Planning Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Fans, case number PUDF-24-0001 (also known as PRE23 -011 $ on the planning website.) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld county code regarding urban scale development in a Waal area. Further, it departs substantially from the existing Filing 1 FUD plan approved in 1989. Impacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, agriculture, wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mitigation and protection, and other items have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. Print Name Print Address � : - .a � � Si 4J stare 3 tit ) ;bat.; ' I SI aft 3 . ralrAMIIVativillatkrillill111 cv ,►; lac, ci Petition We the undersigned .t n l urge the Weld County Planning Commission to deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Devdopment Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Fang, case number PU F- - _ 1 (also known as PR E23 .0118 118 on the planning website.) As presented, this project does not conform to the Weld County Code regarding ardin urban scale development in a rural area. Further, it departs substantially- from the existing Filing1 PUD plan approved in 1989. Lmpacts on traffic, water, oil and gas production, agieulture wildlife protection, air quality, soil conservation, fire mitigation n and protection., and other Stems have not been well enough defined to ensure that this Filing would in any way benefit the community. Print Name Print Address Date SiSi ti - 1 we s At Lifi L / 7 e , 01 2 e• -40 riV 0 ,te a m _ 14 o•Pet fa/r , ___ a , allnil i i 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 ale, II , i _4_, _ B ose ni r _ � I ' I I - - & - _ ' a 11 I* A - —.1110PI-vr - tiF s.t•S-eb� N _ - - as- ' sad L N4s44: s 115 II , • 4 $ I ; -_ „ . , - •- • * Pt, a A - • I _ Pelican ` . ' e Ranch is the exact opposite of most new home areas in the Rocky Mountain West Sized from 1 . 5 to 3 acacres, our home sites are ten or 20 times the size of lots in typical new nei hbor- - - hoods around Denver - yet we offer a close- knit community , one that nurtures a sense of togetherness with walking and riding trails, corn - - munity events, a clubhouse, fishing lake, ppicnic areas, playgrounds and i HI#- sport courts. Water skiing and guided hunting close by. 114 7NI 2.:1147 Finished Homes from the Mid - S400s ! is a it, meis Ilk lit raj J Average Lot Size 2 Acres ! % • Pool & Clubhouse • District Water/Gas/Electric/WiFi • Tennis courts , I, Playground • Private fishing Lake s Bird SanctuaryRiding• Arenas Jump course • Miles of Trails • Over 1 , 000 Acres of Open Space 451., -4$J• f I i { I � V. tal I e n \ 1 P NI '1.+ I r PELICANC ., ‘ '; YELICAN LAKE? RANCH - EXHIBIT I a 9 w . P e l i c a n L a k R a n c h . c o m ' i i January 17, 2024 To: Max Nader Weld County Planning Department Re: Case # pU DF254-0001 I received the 'Application Review Notification Card' in the mail yesterday pertaining to the Filing Two of Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lake Ranch) and am very concerned about the Filing. I went to the Weld County Accela site and reviewed the documents and attachments as the card directed. This recent Filing is mostly a rehashing of the prior (withdrawn) Filing. We purchased our property mostly on the marketing materials supplied by the Developer, promising an "Equestrian Estate" experience. The new filing has substantially smaller lots and lower price points that will affect all our property values. The table and graph below show that 22% of Filing l lots are less than 2 acres, while Filing 2 lots of equal size amount to 68%. The disparity of 2 to 3 acre lots and lots over 3 acres is even more concerning. On average, Lot sizes are 'v38% smaller. * Fein jF111 2 L1 - 2.0 acre lots 22% 68% 2.0 si 380 acre lots 56% 30% 3.0+ acre lots 22% 2% CI.Av at Size ZS La Fl vs F2 Lot size 56% 50% f 30% 30% 22% 22% i 10% 2% Fling 1 Fling 2 ■ 1.1 - 2.0 acne lets ■ an - 3.13 acre late ■ 3.0+ acre lots a J f I find the Covenants of Filing 2 very concerning. We are officially known as "Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center". Filing 2 states farm animals and 4-H animals are allowed, which our current community does not allow. Farm animals and 4-H animals belong on FARMS, not 1 acre lots with septic tanks, on sugar sand soil that won't support much of any plant life. Setbacks of Filing 1 and Filing 2 should be consistent throughout, not 50 ft for Filing 1 and 25 ft for filing 2 . In Filing 1, the Developer had indicated builders must maintain good land stewardship standards and protect land during and after development. As near as I can tell, none of this has been done. There has been almost no replanting before or after construction of new homes to minimize wind erosion or replanting of native grassed . I am guessing with the high density in Filing 2, this will be even more of an issue. I am not opposed to future development as Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center has the potential to be a premier community, but the Filing 1 aesthetics, covenants, size, and commonality must be maintained to protect the current resident's property values. The proposed smaller home sizes (minimum 1500 sq ft) do not compare with the vast majority of homes in Filing 1. Best Regards, Kent Lewis 10476 Burghley Court Platteville, OC 80651 *Based on obtainable data !3£:y�{g in, .Y{Fen t rfi'n^i•art —s isiri +eta,' jiiitsiiiiL•f .s , .—{:t—rs�.l:d; kT to VF: xaiffs-' t• C'3iii3 ;' 5 £e+fzr3' t+ ! '). t xE.. .2 .... a: i:ain ..[ ar-v In gar m : Z.r...� i::....33W :u •° : ^. •. ' „i i :r- a:i?:..% :n _ al .i: ` 3: if air ' il 'it:£i :T i.a. lug ..t •1fn n to T. fa r� • :•appp•/ •• , . E' in 4 ct,_tiF ai. _ EL: ie. _ �'• 3?, d » 53aEE•. m .�t'"-1 1>}l +. p ' i' - �3i �;�•Ft�E Ot3D1ll. rii?33'ell a { !'} r.H=,{W' c.n • , IIPL•{ iF E: titfi.t.::{ L!3 d. rs •''u( }₹a;. .: -.'£3'. ai i• e' tG t9!, a:r ..r1 E•a' 'Y•' O;iaSeSr i= -'D' _ a:? }''r 2,11 ..f...trim '•.:m., mn .,,u.. m . .... ' t.il•-{lu —''' •rr n lit-•' —� } 3 '--x��_'.aitN[;}:.i6. .. .T.- !iit£iUS., — w—3m.-lnu.: -'M.,. . .H. qs .» (s::•:.r:.'t. '.u•• 'E,a"Ef ..., 3: ;Fsta:ra ' : Y•:T -u. .., ., km'J.r ffitt. ..:«cM ... :E rr'.: -:r.. - 'i^ai3fLr1 :ea . ' ` il •.}l:iirrs' :: .: L'••( i .:. •^:: " -':F.3:.... : t'"i°•6 :Tf.. rA r•} ..Wr.•gs.••„,,.. as iE x ;E n:, , 3. ??'t::. '•m'? - 3 �l :;} ..Ea•. .! - i.. ..a: .^ .. .. 53•. ;;.... '.,'f,G ... ..... t c ,a �,fE;. .: 3 L�•F a�•a. : ..1 �iy--(9 r" ):. £ :tart,• :fi :A�'s:a ..a'Ec:', ,e{ t ..... t^ a . xh.. ., .. S .. •, ..- f -._.ttfiird �.d. '£ !F g �.;{rr �� .... ,?•�ti.� .RJ r•£E'E '«i _ ••�.:::'i• .me rr is«: ._..__�'_..v..... ( -aI{flar },i�t n r. -.•3.. 3 +.. i3 Kh)GY•''iY••'• �'' '' :r,.f•E• ... F3iF.s : fi';tr ,.. RI' 'T rN. ; n.us. ..r �..ai.:3c t ••r li:l ._... ..:.[ .. MFG: a' _ •A. j•}_ '. .. :iE• x.._iultlftiIi " TS !Cjaj ar= 'x :{ ( ',:. A... -:. L...:...I ..- .fc3z .. .: _u L ar�ti3 G•q.....t:••.. _ .._•.,:i s :E:5 .:_. - . i:: .. ,m.. ....:x.: «,in. .almt:.i'a4Eg +n E s: s v r: :^.t .ri L mGr• £ ' .:as • :.!!^s . tr: .: ..._.... :aH. iE.. ... ..i s:, a..aG. .T n 3r .::"•:^.xr:L+.'#.' :. ...T1 n 'sue x::cx x: c •ra d$mmaEr,,. ...f.. c....-•••r:) _n..r:c E . £r t. .tick. �. £t• a :. FF� 't F ES•�££ ' .. •1Ffi: r ..ata.. •E i• L•J• .. .. •y%EE: v^i ` t•.. ,y a: 'lil s lEE:•.;. ...pp{{ .....EE ..e. ....:u•a. . 5 a-.r.. .... )8£5:L-Il:•J i, t£at ( E£V'. tP ^3 E 3ff5 �•;i* . ).i... .. i aiL. •;if3? ... a d �� .E: :.'•�c.Eaiiiir'_'i"::. ."` .:W :. .va3,....,.. :dla I:zzr.... '..r Lr, a:::J ^6iE[.. ;;,_ ... :E}Ew:' g'i{?. uE E: sr�a::b rii: ,'{ ': . .. a • '�..'u^.: :.- 1:.....a•.' m . Solis . x^ .. n •E. m. ....i3. szfia • ' y .. tr Lr. ...iir.'t^m 2:..... ' • ••-d:::a .. I:::{... 1 .�5 .^r • 10 cett,--.E._E }.f'" - .;' . .. .. xµt�•a .:3'.'• i'v _ _ -:. : r.w ' t .' • :%i'. ••••••. G. .pyi�' .[ p ..3?i{''a}...<..,,..,,�.:a:)z EE• :...,l . .(ix _ .�-. JnJIr .• • . .__ ttt•!rr.y-S-... ..« r!t'.`�mn f nY•'� .. iti�'Y• YJ�� 1 .t�,.rtr , ..n . .. i! —_.. 't . ._ .. ,"'•;it s.�F_ n ... ._ .. .. -. - } d... - iu• E:i?;'tm 4 a.. :ice li •'' c 1>) '.rl4.}:+iui--•;3. R •..5 :fa??l:. + :.c. ssy ;•-•:-. -. :� 33n .. ):• .: .: .i: ^ L «' Gr' •, • a�- • iE:(F .. .ii i!. : + .;aE .. u3r •}::.YW: a::::: .EtiaEEklii'E£:n::a.'L5»: • .: ....^i 4:: :• ..• ^. ;; tt'3aEr E :( s + �, r .F:cii3o-i:; a- '.:iE. r iv , .tt'•i a:: xJ•,.E.. . L .n .... c ..E 1t• r• .- thin ' �" i .. ''« ' £•Ei' :ra z Lh- ton ' 7£ - x 3'u'm i'•E3^uI ie s� ::E EWa .......tt:;:• ; 3- . .. ^} „ .''f. tn: a • [: e " r•.... - :5 ... I el.. ! „ '3•. :•i3::. .E,�•L, et:•... ?,',fIlw.n•-•7 3E1:Nar.tH:::•_.Fxrr... 3 r.:: •rti -z•+ f4a' .r:, ;lit t fi .. — _ n n Ft••.:..t ;rr. ❑ .( 1 L{ ( gyp �� "•'a! r Y: •:., u (: ..f.l{t... ...r .:<-•t:aa• E> �„ii...'.i�0 'EE.n.'ti E rR .:: .�, '' .: n.;.... .:• ?tE?:.. ...- -. _ . .� _ 4F �.• ..nir .. ._.... � Y � si�...........»..-. s:Ji+ 3�.:�F •.. . .. 7r P3�-:(F< !?'•'u£££ t?'i£ �� tL. .F •}r •[{_ - r'�' i•,-t?... ..,,. ..w .mx.'rd. 3r'.FE% f£4066 £;u. ni}} a::ell,.,b:tt 11i••ti'=• ..[_- ) — . Elk }r.• nt r '!r :fl.•i. �•r.:r( ys .i• tcl)r ,r .. W'^i -•W: ,+i:: i ..:» -m air.. 15 ., n ittl hans E.i .. :E:fr...:mi £ 3i . .. ;tllf x4is::iF.f!x � ES�Hn. r.:.r .... ... _• r : .: .lG..?ul :: st: •'•a'aE:d:atm?'•:a iia£ •W _. . ...«. -•r'i. . ... .. a:a •'•!£'::.:i:`•:;{^fat.,.;m .ui{.�: nr....,....-(._ .• •�� ... -3�i"ia+�`�'i� Y,... .mt ':EE3••^•.5, aiii..., ' .tfi'i n a..a .R3. of F_;�s ;'l._.. Is % 4a3F'•' '<. �t..: . ,eE:F5 . ?t� 'en . .1. -: ...{ •..:;E. .. �:E::r•:: :•E 5ai;::W:i .r. She tt: •..... .}�,3!� ...;g. ..tm... .. ... ':4. .. .... r . •; t, s.. ._ .. ..: .. d.::d3• '(, [. •i' . •.:,.Y..«r. ..g:'. -:_� i1i. >. "(.a . .� • i.;..5t•e'+r' t„' &; ur•=r .m :.y: . • ^aSs .£ t{3'Hi. ath• �'aa'''•—I? i1., •i 1. � m ..__ . 'F •$:-.'::c: °F . .». ...v33. c d. .». . .. Jn <e T.^ G{:....._f..-?:F 3C,FF .. in. h• np , �i'1 •t [n, •a • ta.. ,.... £` , :t ti' :£.• .rt E: Vic• irE a ��E,- $ _ t 4'i: rii: !!? .. 'J' ': • • . . c°N�f L•:. 'i93'. •£. '.'L'er9 Yt. _Y" .. 5ar.'nm:::i38 G a ..r:: '•..fu:.-stfi . .;f Sii ,:: - lrim.a.#r: . . i r :.td: a iø1mms — nntn .. •• rc. . dn,. _ •x '-tr< ' L• r+!;x?it .:?£: n - ' ...Na ... .^nrtH:• .} i : :n:::'.riE:--= .a n {. - it" ..'3i 't:. :3 -a 3:r•• aE .. . m::.; .. r.. '. i'"•�.tJ::?Yt.i....cs••.Yr{. 1 3. I '- a,:- �:Si . . ' - .: ;. •. .E! ir.•. Y.'.f•• - Jj r ..... 3•::/ . ...:' tt :Yi' W. x..-... .. ....) ^3: .... .. iL`•i. .» '.'r ..- �..:. f;iin?:t?'.. .�.r•:.... ft�F - r. �':F.. ;iP_`i: f ....1 .: r. 1,.. ..:EY.....,, :iC; ..`�' x,�.3' 7w _ ...-.,.. ...a•;•, n •a ._ e::r-. �? 1:) ; � t.E... ,..a3•ur.. .. ai:�. _ _...�� '' r [' { .. :fir. •• .o ..t yr} : .. n=t:!:..'....T,r'J.„ ,�.. - ror .(. .. h4't ....r.r; a .. I. . ::n IS*S*: ...r - yxy Ga.. t :...........:: m ,t:c a» .N ..n1:..4 f.. t.aru',3aifu id: i' .: "i"{ ai:•. .eaE3ts d: d3::':. '1P"::: ?an; :•'ar" s•: ' .E.,} ;, , .. - p - • r.E,y, _:.. :.r:,.... _ .�[}-_ .r•E . ••:.a:r�ur 3:•• .. mc.. e' - 3'pis J.:a{, . 94: .. 'Deem }•.}, ??; .t . }.. r.. s :: u•: _£4" 1.. y. 'E ar' :. . .[ « ..Er::tai • •d'. '?:E�� .,t�;'IH:' ... ••s. !:. '1 _t :1 :• • : ), _fit,•x.a: - {:::.a ., •m" rtr 'i n 1 = is .33E a::fl..• ctt, :rr ib'«iE .,t, I. mat: r •«'"I-4 w u!p• Y s.,m7:13 • {."C:: ' .•- "�� i�ti £ . •L .,. F 1 st. : vi� � . ' n; lair -tape • r • .tr. :Lii — -Etr X5 .il- :di n. .Ln. .... ... .. .!£444.. .i vim: :a[• 7 i . t .--:: " ...:L.. ._ •'et r LS w. •1.. d ..,}x..n: fig:- grit; H.awilth,a.,i' qri n't i:::4 „t' .A..vn[:' a}itLr rn},�C t. .... .4. a d ....a.£. .+ ,kt n_ ... .El. . eft e:£i.:X..a .3. .;':,...:• ». .SY: Eau ':.3�: •'?:J`; ,. ...a33 J E....y E:;a£i•-:;. :Y: ;.. l iii .._ ..aEt:EE:.':W:""' .r•}:..... .5..y'£i₹... f.. E&::: : ....'t}.33 ....:¢ ' ., ?4 r: .. i . ..i •. —.r.^. ...i_t, P s} . !. ,ltttEuT::•x£itJ :R:.''>r•:. t'[r::r4t ,' r: e• £i : p.. ::m. .••:Ta..^..r:3' 33.4 '3 ....33,433„ ,..154&„4£ .ii.'n sE E•x:3:1•x•tSE. i + • ;:.. 'it. ' ' '1... ... - E • s...-- .i' a: .r££ v' ��,•• • 5::xr.:: Via ::•::a ' .ti"3. Wit{:A a,r _ x• • :{. "} a'ail !�1 .. ... fi m.} ... •. s •• i "x.. 'r •i m ne-t4i . a' •.:L....:.::i?£E h'.. : tat"- ^...l... 11 r ,"'—r•- EEL'x'.ua �• ....,{NrEE!r•N{-{g. .' y�� !n • • wk�tri� : ::. {E;r� .•:�eN r� - �••...t� : ?ff}"7. u• jktlsl�r tm. _: �,i.. .R llsr{t •7 .pi�•• . •? .�'L:1 •umrtiu� �}�_ �Th.,niisr.� r�Y�;ayn• ' £�.•tl;- ..t. ittr)ssnr3` YmtJ.r t rs'�iLr,'3d .."143I _Pr JP'I .tart ra:, .. t&S .m .aY. • . P1St . ii; —a.;t{� f ..r ul... • ..:�:'i;ia..• : . .uw _m' _ ..` �(£ .,mE; ,:a....::::-........^ i.. ...:....:xx...._arc. - 33',,x.:. , z.0 tetimu mini +:• _ - J [ .._: •• ::GL.. -. t..g. ^. .^E (. :«% £z. ..• oti" zerni . Y ... ..}U k^ r3• iii#` , ii “iiii Es.4-..aitict:'•.ti •ur:3' .-- :gs::::ur'•a d: ^s4 . .ir C. ,N�£:..{• �Ly( ':, n� it nJ• y} .. X.0..: •-••Y• ' .• ! 8:n:•5 -;•.'.YJ; -,...- r • " Y R x. i #F 3 f . 'f{ ��+EFiii3—W E 3 . .k•., ^.,••Ft.E:'u s : ^ Y'ai . .x . . • ...{. . .. is .(re- mr.:. : .:: Ili,,q}}• kT441-13:41• " a, .....3' . 1.� " a• rr[�r,'ti J• .. . 'may-•:, '?ir r e- . .. ;....".. ... ..a .•5. i•F.. .. .. . ,a•^; Y•3. »i ' iii .t••:r Yr: -i}g 9. � '; ..°(:.. . ''x •3i;r°•°.�< )I V t .. , .1J e wail? -N( �i, :- `E.,Q L4.:: r._tmY..ry W •-i3 r£n3 ryx� .• n r{ngt F,"-}�i'3(n'tf t war :[ ...}(j•Yrd '. v - ..:'7df 't- f n.r n•.•.!t '-3,. 13 in; tit44 -f ,r.•••• r ��•111 .. ; Hmmi::: ...".:,Y1. . :.e7i ... - - _. ... ..Hid• r.. -..-.:camsnc ..a ..:'::am>n•,m.,r• .( .r. -..:., yay.-.V...; . m<n:a::e, .:.nE — '' >::a+ai3e [ c:uan•s:•-: -- -...n •: •{.. Ef' „--k+ :y. m.. .. . _. — ..J•-ir....=3, ...ELunfW.`r- I..a l):F3.7..,r.+?W`,,, {Ntd�2s� _ n LliaifHkiit3:l:,•4fiitt .'tst unit u' .•r5Av Yttllinil3•.:i`..rgi......3)"a-ani}{n°sPrr{i,;APH- 3i.'r£iieVih.,Ygr.F£r...».lsg%fx(''� '.i»i6n;ir.«+d :r.......- :??'q� H;4NlS•'>.•.'3" F:3Ea, ..7'.' ' n•,�_z'r`�'�•^;-ri%%r'i.:iin•4'n{%.i.�3' Way tr n.,{rv. riarisw'{•.. .�.'n='i{3H:nn;.. :s. % nF; u££{r..a..�.'t.'i9.r1f'..rixm%' •.w.d:l._zotr 3 ]•{•, r .:^. -r[[,r ..i,t3YFs'.�{E{7nn1iY�ti!f.—.........-,.. . . . i"n.. •+•s�t°'n t -{.. ..-.-- r tYY' • m• •• W i:,• f+a 4{. '.i3 a"t3: a u 1 o snlG 3 FfxitT33,:,•;i3aitl• Ni: : Y i $i ud sli ii ...r ' T u 'Far .:a- : J •,z d"} " {. ,(' .Cslr L • 'a).'�'(.. 5 I '' "• ir! x• iE•t io' t.. ' tm. V :: ._>: ' : i) .ci i - t (gyp. {_ m ti'. — ^, .. 3• -: T ..:. . i .. •« .l J _ 1. _. 1 : .•.H.n:t t_.i.'Tl:'.SFGLIxdrtlIJx.... .....:t .. H:.5: .. -. .... .. , .--_..,.. . .-.:"--• fr .. ... -- — - :_._ 1.. .....i, Y:...lr:..:..!'-: die r.:—•.. .aAEE..........?i+i::ii:: ...t .. .._..3 .. _...:.-Yli t1l4 to.. •.• s.. ... 833x£ .r dEHk •d k ��(�y thliS a •..^3:" mmm _. t4'agra'a fe. :': 'td£itif: t EEiTMf.'£ ''L;atEE J�+E fit. »- . .. ii:EEa .( ..a .3E...E.rt r :i. .? t ra.:r:....... . . .. . .•_ 3 ..�tS�{'ma'xik'�� i:i8f�iu'f ,Yrrr� n. .0..i� Y(.ir,�{ iP'i�}r,�r .•�..p-d CB�,•'•�i,..•.if�:�+:..�i�('t�R'�.Jtt#ifii..•ym•«H�ilf ��1.,r3~ .f,. �_-..£5£R"'!�f ..++"� 1 •r'�3:.....4-1sR� 3<t �Jxi�omic izf!lft•• �!t?L+••� .a.m ..t. :^.. ' L:- Jr ..:t•�-^ : -.•.j;'a,mh<t - A L: •--; t••+tt•!w-.JJ....•....rw:Ev< mr Fri .: r _ ". lE^ 3F • ' S _. air— Y^y▪ ,t,' ::[ R :{• st % '1:. _. .a 1 i '+f .... tT f' .. "f 'F iT fr: •I<f3' •.AU • ;t t 3.. .J atr.,nrr u: f•$ 9tr- pa' .. IF ii: 'r d' 'lit in ' v^ . i = _fLi' ;.. ,n•.i(fce:lit:_ i+r.':_ arf niirui .:r.yi tNr•tr ^; 3 in . -.� ..t (r ' ' -' .Nr.'rr t?'.1;i3.:J' .;' iiii �',J {'. 3'' :r>;•et a''fi 5C 4 N!.:3: F: n 'i; eu •«,-a :. t •aa ::aGN ;C`. {' Jr: dif: t ' aE.Qr s : -(.4 ;;.�. , °"3{.. _i' -- .A tA• Lair"- ,,FsW ' ^h '- • :' " ..• • A' >-1'.-t�•(Etiwt' ss I'9E, sr ' t;a F:. _ {: ,3 ,r. �E - t. F m:{Js.n.. "?F...-rr•rRi dvpa"•'� i.ic•j- .as. 'Y'?'.ii• m ... .. . y m tm. _a:a[ ti t`i ,• 1: „1 •'rii, , .._ ,y? ..,5.;• ['y' , ' :al...:• 2 •—i�'_u' •E u i.; .an '. . E:. „Arkin.-r @' .....,JP':: • '°= �p1 '....: <,fr:'^iSr3:t{jjy�'�n£Eef' +e :i. .r:ifud:t ,.�4,...,, ate• ₹3�t..•. ...rm . ... ne 3+'9S:: zf: l. r.?4f 3r• .u:ARE'• . idly ..a,fi3riY '.' saaut te&i • r `yx -•iE3E E i .• m7 rfi;; __ tt z.i,-•j •••• > !� Ed . - .. �t;a•i3 S` .—_Peer.'£.... m.:a• i..: i4)?''�,'•l '?� _ .. .... • 3;. ,._> %r''. ' '•r' ?7j_�id. 3 } ;- E, d• .n. • ._ , '_. - Mtn '- a4rr+mn:+' anlrt3uuuimG'f ast•_,__:...:ud.. _ nvt.r t •• dam. _ •4i'n.F=!mod 's _tiN{L�'ihr�}•� . DI. •3t I •• .• .._ isi�,E II Dax n ii op r • :tt i. tl -"'ef. `T'a' t i ..ar-4..:Y:zez::.....:... _ iiii .> , a' to A ..C•' ktr ��}ay.�n�t?1 a ^i• •v} 41�i,...l sc ). �..• It` �n••� ,aii,. it r't E �: �i!8s_ EE Fi s i('tfi { 'snt•'- `- .. r-As. 7 •rc „:. i,,;i,{ ...W ..:• i.E�•' E ,i{t{r` ••Jxs j}, S • Am*. 4it4:•rE •>x.[r.H:,('(,n� rs - - r .}ji:Yn'rrrG'::uxE; m,,f • [ L __ _ 3 ��._ r a u}e�..:. ..::t::...»t+0 ltu. L'............... ... ......'::-11 i!ta u^a •-' •iwk.; '�' i?eS e� •. : i E ':• it'ir ialiirW8.1r ,.sti r•, -. r.E 'C rt4ttyl ^E(r'""d+i'nIre• ..'t:i ii'Ja44TW' I {te• . w-='r- ».. i...,...., i}:rn {ii6 a£y'3fr'i�? G: :E•H'P. :ii - ''l „n,r•r lDif .ar, .11. W .s: G n n s 3. i -i ni x efi •• a I• n JSEE dil ,a(' ^ < '}? ..aF ... . !r ifl ,th •!6 ti'. Es...ir .41 .{ +,'¢'_ger . .r•' at a 1. Y • ifa, 'e !t .-! [ d' • .'•...i3• : 'a mi! H' L1! ','¢f^xr' ¢ }, t}(,• • _'CF Eir.7�'l• •r..'�• x 3• =" .G: at •x /i;• rt D'i w - d' .n4•• (f •r 1_ l I .: it'i' Yt q . ..� r ;,i-( •}t rlr y r' .: _Ai_ xit :- ^ :; : is _ F r?'• 3' ' 13... ;.. ... r��!kr :x s" 4 .E; _-'"•N•r _• a. • t'• 1 ::ii"" s :. ,dr.4:•1' .a i i.-.. *" s� .c. .,a'_ 3 tE'a: r:W 'a dl. ..ter. ._. sly L, i.. . .... ... ' .. ... :' a. : r•. d' [. :.... 34.1s. ._lf• .:F - ', -s33, ` ....rrt -::: - ,s„} ,r��r � area!'.. ::..• Wx.., : . •. '. • ll a• ,.2.,„,t,..,,„:„:, . ...„:' L y3 ♦{gg •Sfi'.ama*tF••^• m44E«: E?ESH • . ••-•••.,•••«:n:e�trEf EE .f . .. '• -• d,." -ii4t,3• _< o-J ln' : t ' '' it ,."':'if£a3H'rFUr<•,.• s:},r;EtEfu??L' .i i i :^.. t, : t' db :ai�idc••:,,,.., •ttrN•.3:1r,..—.. limmt renrndt....... • . E �� — t. - _ g •• . - Y.E.r £' � 3E .. '� �xa'x � t>)EE£it3' n i3�:. rfnrllar.�,i'••: .,..a.• .3 5J'o' -•;E,-.. '}H.{r{. f. t p• i;itJt�i ,r ?? ' '� v u .En3.8, . + Vii.'• '<'ry • ' ri' ..,A ��r[�' M . {!,;1: I - �,^il. j �:. Id' i ... dC gei}t• T /•'tN•E`] F. f :% .,T J t17 ait ,i 'a3• 3.:siu?!9itaitittata of Rmc r. '•. ' 1 r �i .r: .3 F :uai: '`'H:' E.. �:t:i..-_rr t:r-.,h$ .. y 'k'". a• :i. a .:1 ..:t,rtii• itIT ..tFarf•r:ar' •aet ... '—:x .::r--r - L :: : • r Irr• x pen -y u. ..� _r ...... :'££3 ...Rr'Y ..»— ._ ' :E '''r'.f'". • (ax111n.. ... ........ .. . . . _ - .. . ..--..- .. !..... .. J ..;.'d':_.. d,... t' d•••rr' ii_iititx:3aL:.L':(' " ,: :n:t•a:... ,, ....3' i9::4 itta ::d:a'x r:tir,r•}E33FW Rdxn JaC•.•....a, •'.3» 1.. 3 ... . ..dmmi.._:..-• I m 31Innaa a. n. .J x 1. t.,1..,..__l ::as ...._vt ._. ....-m.. - .L. •• srr, t -FH' i.n .!-.E.,.. s ..•tiir• - ......x •m+....a n m e. .T sS' r'�t-,ia. Jfi •riE i4$9 �3�'�"t`n^')tn'•r. f£ !trx° .•••r f - _ - `sA'{'t`£r �r'i -hryi r".3F£'f£F.. i;l " ,[te�a. 333iE.. rr": cn••. ..E.-f:. ., 3 ''?h-..'.:, n 5•1 -'3.. m :rum n . .. .. _i., �, -•3 'Lr• -r•uiiF •r^ .ild:. ✓.::.'e 1 If a e{ n —, i'. .Fi a. E • Il.s.•*" i,L..,•r' 't -1 �" :_',3F. rr' t.,t I) ;f fii{ r"'.•+t{E". 6yn-• 'k 't d{ 1( V � • n•• '. � • L • K g i d • •-7irrt :E ' ' , :{ }3s ",-..�� - re it ,r: ni •i il�in. 'f ✓ E{ (5y,.c,' :� .i' .1• ",.t r ....,. ,3 ,1E �{p'p ,4y�i' ••. .d• • .8..a : _ .i •7 I .:(!�sl .- &3 : Y l Y t{ i'L . a ' f'-£Ei y,r .. 1 li'rr'? • ' .} ._:>'`n,. imml u .. •• ...t_•:i! ,n -_ice": ':r+ii:u� ti .i.:t _ -_.£:'.1-Idl., i_ t:ir.'.. nfxn34'E'xd .;r'.,f'id'...?R}L' ! �E. paif i i.V. f a�„ . Mx{trr6'fft"i J svruwr+ntinnniti immt . :: - - .. Y u_.. t 3 f.. 4n� „ u u . . •.-s . i •ri: 3:# �iri • ,• - • au[ -x. . _ ':' .t ' Tri-- 'krv^t�+!! •" ,, • ' '''y .frr v e F .. ;'yi t'{Y ut-r;i� �-1r .- .•sF J t &':' !Fr ,! rf 1 iG{. _._ &p SB �1-m•• Or +i'd's r ;^,...;... Y-<I. Y3 73 .. :L' t D x'yT 99 ai'. tt a? - 3i +?{sr.:. uelr'•_. .. •• - E H - m [. Ix ?, ,a !'IX4Fsn.»-.r.. xyc4..F..r.::tus?r.,n.- !- • tut E% 9f 'i :: •E' .u •x)' ,y •'{ �s')'a: .=t$c. •. "s^" 1 • •.j' • 4.• • :.al J n- u- 1' 1i3 •a tt rihr r. " :F :. 3 ... ice• t n r{. H :•t: ,ss" ..+ •, — ,t�,q • _ .•. it ••(rr:.^' r Hf E r fiJ.:M 9K �' - +�� - 8 £:; _ i! . £i - , n ! ' 'sit Beta „ n Z ii "a-•I,mp « iy� t .,i:�g;. �0,' y,i L. a 'F 1 .. xy�',''? H .il !lit 6 -dt 'r•_ « :.•i,.f. .tl ,rfi .F. tr -: -hie. ::rx,-,1; : e:- � F ti£ 'F ..:y .d ;i '. kno if n}amr d { {} , �M ✓,.^J::: T,r-t '- ':}'r.: ({� p is ta"n'•[ycP.,q , I �! £ „ •�,.M Ant 3E '^••.� 'i •k,-,:.. {, i , : le ��{ .r[r 11: ,e •r {}��r n. �y,x •xr�E•Vy ' ()�i,:' t n" •, �p i"ce''d .: - . - : ft: 1i it .r"":. pp 1 L•i. .� 6 t,. • �.•l. � ' E, !f al!` 'E3 �. tl'' 'K •"3 .1. .}t, t .. • e .. ..•i'E Pde7 ' j₹[E ••••••• :Y • itni:•"- : '-•tf' !.;. r:m• sHi'• i •:i{HsnrS • sliiirmindnfnt [i,,� till E f..dd(nliriFn}+•A lya 3g8FPL� . . .aJ: ;. rF ,.:,..-_'r.:xim--. ,: a ct m ._ •E '. .. t:.i,i g .. •Jr�t i . rtL-nt..^..:.r.:.t.nn..a. 'y. .;..,..: anjr{44:. ....... J.:.x;.. -' 3 net., ... .. .x .j •E tS �f i51 ._..! }Ymlu . •. . _ ^'la "'"i>a..'t x' .• if ..-.. .-{E:: _. ...,cr(• ._.3r:a, : _ gill—tic; -' . •d:a {'' 4 'a $ i [J n zn, a 'n i. Y 3ni 'i' _atilt , } r Z �2` L'1`° ,,u Ns '£z l8 r k: . �fi !{r i, t 6 f ₹ i c + d_ - _.. Cr- 5F 3 y . Fyn { 9 a••s4•;,T _ f Ki 3' •. 'fig All �qy Sill Er !a.».3r $ i .!(.3:25{. r x ::.^ _ }a tff r3.. : .i rt s• °c't ' - — Iiir ;. {F t P..( :...., :fi t ,ii,+'� _. •Syr i iG N n:...q.url nw. 1' 'E .r .ti 4 ')• i • r:" .i3' " E ri:. 8 t4. cE n ! h3 .11. r1 :':..(ten f f u iF. li :it fi u'.' 8 s I Ezf . £� ;ph Ei it -11 i i' ' ":d i .i L' 3:+ I 'I�:. 3 a : .. .r ^ p•. --rt. ±! •, ?�•.i Iii' � ' - ri �t� ,�c a:3 9 >f• J( .' ,3 5 : ,ii d:--P':•s•Idt'r.• t' 74,447, ..u. ai• x�` )tom i£ .}F,{ t•• it 'Ei k',� li '. a- v..i{•S. • giEr.?t f sue' - f-- d+ u tt. . .d£ y,. . a 'E11.!;'-'; j '•c• g r N i Ili:- ' .'�e i '?arA' _ _ ' £E .. .•). 33.' t4 93 3'>`x4LN::xn :- - -r,-F-,>:'p.«: : uffy'f�sit^,.7 ..- ;-.. ..r �''.. f• .:i{i:!_._:: r ^si?:Jr:e:: su,- s y :fi:rs • ...a'i),,s.. nt -{ t'f . .r. ^ ...ren .ii+ ...�.^;5• _e4ers48i3• �^�i �'5.nEm'Ef43>}i' t'.^.nr tk _ • _{^ ^x. + i m»..^x... t'�..`�al !ijE�••T,3; •c. •m •Wu r>.' '� g� . .. • •• _ • nit•�' -. •- di - .... t3£ a pr i"rirakinrig l..i°umui. r s r£' i. 2,, !l£RGI£•7? kikiewoReef Efii7 F }4i•.. _ .. . •— , i f! f4 S i" 8 £. 's' wµ rc "� •.T r. r i T If z :'ii iV "peg ri,eti ,; _ is •a, ("tit:, : P°°:: •' '•:.a + . ;t�• . l . erne. rrn .tsd?n - _ 'I t ,T b '" .<i 't !.'{� s. r' t •. • :! �s Join, +f' ,:i ,z. r+• H .E{'[i. 'v' ...4i...:i..t••:: :t• ,�r '#� .: 8L .,r^. 6 315 rt - r ..N tt a»4 .r '. ) �: .I .n3f« ., i' '.''1' z� ' 'L :,::.� -9'r ... 'i: r LtY i t' r: 'i _`L•.�-: '!_ ,'I' .5' . •L t.xf" r. .:i.. E fi�r,+• -:'E{=.5-ra• aE x:: 'st ••fi. �{ : E: :FM 14•c » . ma: ,- •: lg./ <.:. pa a t y - H'?-am� s� �' iTM?'x E...F •raft«xsrk . tf: E —fit• E P'-f4 W a '.:r •t ' » .'( :8' ' . FEs: Iv'.,-F''^ 3n3 (({ps 'E .8 .. - x "E r' £ , a ittF',• FF •E' Sir :Eri�' fr u: .g« i r ._E f ' .x..r F3 .t. 4Sd F" . .Vrf• '•1 &i . • _ .: v :x r33ir E q,• '.: gg ti.ya 3'i c:`'rm3., -�r "r bs(4. '*uctR' •�•:i: ..>r .. tt �:�' .{c ^ . • x' :: ... �' i. t•:ar'6 s x.e.. r # '{ iJ r.:•4.nt•� a..c Rdr :.........E.._• .-. • 3Fui» - { •• r''r fr —' ?:: c. T. . '.P. 4: . ..t r. E: -- - r:s ' y��,G, r - ' -;„...:_z4,-,-11,-7.s.....:: T p �i. t„,,,,-..,...,,,s may ( •_ �y,�� tw ar' • 3�LifaTRiEI�rjEEE ' ?4: ,ve �KtrintEP'£L'Ett,: l•�-tr>�r.«iiRttiYd'Y • Y r"et•. ' C3Yt'.T.L .�£. '. n t ..Eir�mTiTR�Jlda ' - ...!•r - ":A ea; -#. rye ': iliy.rxCCr H 8 r :i' r � _ ' k �P 1 .{.{r 3'. }, p t z. ..•n..�tt.n £E a ru."^ It. � p• �{7F y K �'',. .3g1, i� nrs'3' t -:.5.. in 'tj. .i • Yf F ..f:.�. : i p5,a,ui @t.•�if ^i{ '... •i!' ;�%4.-- it 4 •43i 'F t. •tiF "t y, -�t :.$ ₹``r� .rs {}5-•,,�`, • •"yi '3x. '•.n.. -.•1"irmn '£k-. i • .. K i .:" �,- :- - - .... Si at ql. ci x .. '- n, -.3..,-„3 3 '�rt'g••rt ? :u E 'fir.'"•,.: Fit.. �$, ;1 ': a3g aE33 H fi: . 3" In .- '8 - Iii , wJ 3r.,t n u B ..,, rEn'L �Ii�� • - - ,: •^,T ...'F.. ... : '.IJ C. '.M . •' i..: LL A _ _Ilr:-r:• y'• N-MH NFxtnlin. 3.V - .. is 44, „ .4.2l, .. .. ...'7:..t': »..<:'fSj ii `y.°"�;Lt t�u..,••Ji £i ;'i... _. 2,3 �fRG.'irsi�_...... :#iF:•' ' _ . S"0... i'is''�'Er :s.miltr.%E.£MtfTl,d.. ,Je . .... ::c : _ !t ,..'mr as +"iroT�<^'. T.xT�'.W5J≥w n .. (sp �'• P pd4 A •j, �:. 'f: B t'i't £i lit .xt?E>3 im r••• ,i tWnx• a 4L t:E� ur ' ..E+F ! .n} 3F t r • .n 3• 't'.it 'F. _ q• •. a: ,4F £:• I - .. 3 [:c: t t 8. • l a .,•, is nm 63_. W �' E ::tl• '. r 3a u^ I•. r. - n r .rfi • - ••fi. �::. ••u ! g '..... �• x: yr...n - . ''ggyy��{{{•{• x� ._.i.. » . aF•' ... fii-••.... 8 p st-•t. }, ' .fa:.k rn r--•r• n. • ; ?E. ,q; _i; a. $�� A .. :e E: �k.. I .a: tn....--:'f.' 3;r `'wnEr' - ttu. ''it-- 9 Erto -t t' Ha? i a.arr'a5i .. m Hv,k.lye yp� iCjtj HM. QJ`a r O "1 1 - `++5'-'� 4' 1 L13i : tit-- L.Yi?il ' •{a:q•:. ! .m rEeW ter h.' � . .. AE:^FiR 'aR•Y f Arih - . :kn2Yi:.t:sNii:ft.•'_•» ': : ..rr_ .... } •.n izXin:r•a'—d3' Lr . _._ »,LtLLEr•.:4 :v' irrrt"f')rF{xE4i � te�'3 .G' '�)1i3r3• x .3• r".+'llr.'a`:£jti4E? °..Fh::Fiv' in' IeaY«'EkE:)3•'-' - 4 s.. % a :L �^. •.. y it ..a 1h ₹ 'k' rub,t _i • .nt ')i. ! 'l $4 tt{; It'i sir yy, =' ,dt £: ..a. �r^.a •I 18E .'.•. i„. l £L •r, -1=- r!i • _ 5>.,r' d i rt ' E '• 't 3'7• s `).'='r- 'rS .a:. [ r }. -:3t.'t.'. "s ay v. _ _ „a a: '5. Y•' efi'C ;E, , •iti E E �flf s; .r 4' u is 'F a I' ' i. .•° P. 'i y }( L�r tE n. ''3i ii u" � 'r.. '.i: �F t� 'd5 1 F�3n !i'i.. ,} ,E r *—•i. ,, 3�.i_ ^3• Ii�EtW' '9lr ...tU' ". ti 3'tf`E3'4r33••a'}r eu : it ' n .» .t tn::₹ u Al It" nirc :Hcu?��4 °'n • '{Hi y n in d- i'r^... <.. 'R• 0:34, eL- "tot•_ 3F F''r"' .'*rt�s� !:5 litt %Pc - f .u , IF r. 'u' •KA.. cif.e!'8r ern.-.i:i - Tit ^i i li ..I M . i piegi gi*I xltn:•far -" - .t' LY�'.'rN3 "._.. .. -.. r�t..EE - -..r S :>CT•.GmG _ I }��..L_.. •fOtW -��y11.dgNlauv -1<.•n'fffflt�(.a yr Ap rr�EJ338:>X:E.t(.( >Bh,.,Iltf•: . :ridrylanp,r5� ,�q �%et'nid +F{a''rTi C" .' .. -._. 1 nYYYl[WHn tl a' i-= . ... ..• . tTI'�i - _ 4ral*V•MgithD lagrCnl rtalM7nL..11• iNr.AtHtmw R"5�'.lR0.44 ..."<i3?ttn.,:"f,4i}ypotrnti-•.• • p tt E ' - anx 'I. !$1 - -'' — ,is•.8iurmxl'{•} ..,_ •A ti! a£33u4: n..:aSr.:3unin' 7 •fo:-_.' - , . .TN4'JIfEEy1,s{N��. ni.rirrter�rai ! • ,. ..,.. . .... . ..... :::. .. x: am::r-- ,r t: .:;f •^ .__ .[. ., ._. ., . ....m. . ::[o.nrn......._.; .:5 — _ _ _ r. . •thin :ita 1' ::,m-... . .xihr rarer - ..:�'�RRiui{((i�t4fdiY...••ira-.p..N ;;tta.•us.rmG,..��y�� ^, ..r}Jt rr.1:.�y�ddtde,� i yy + ..t 1Y. t+dd,ft{er-'aur:ya .x..n t"c's: . . - "• :(11 2.;&:- 1nAT �} 1,alggPS�•�y �srn.+tg•f4hAr•tri Hta tst n,.-•. •. 5 ..-- . _. • . gyp{p. (... ..r` ,_f3i'.••r1+m1i..... . ti rt^y1:Slut{xitIV/3•}I[•r ....44 i•Witiat:r_'Ili g4 i{tH..'I. Sittig.'r'^t"Mrig •r31itrACWI!Y'=-•t:'•'-•!+}3i'{r .��"+T»•-+ _n :ivfilf-..3tt',:i'' t •<'E :_•:' .rem-•.:£.lr:••er� r=e`a!b'iR+u{"Stianla PV�'c••..+•mx•+ikrimu:.t' FE" __ __ CM •F («tlC �rrnrrAirr'� ( 7�i•A%�•�,0rr ""'�:r '-trlmrn•tlfrc•it•�itr'^�i+„ ....7.._._..-)1R{ :>i✓{irr!;�n "1't'^n^ ^ry�3 ?y .NP m nffi a: ,.Iii . . %la:%e.. .. x iana["x»[[ t __ _ ,+ _ -_ ,ixh{,/r: E' md}NtYPt '7, - , - -tar .1. s:3 atiHK:: 7' c ;:1 ft01.€1i! _.)7 t .> t r :3fi)t5LGinti rirt •••L•33 .". rr "'AP • to etttlH$HEf)ruinl .. n f°s`r ._ tl'4'•ai3�.! — ns__- • , r. •r..,,.... ^ � %Ix it . .,• -.v: .- , •i•nE•�' „S,_ rin M.Mn:r( s} Mni. t=i �i .'r — ti. s' ii�t x�.-iv•,•r ?E{C3EmtYdL, ...,., .. .. 6u�.u��''°J�rtvi� ')C�3�.?•r:'F!_£t......"'n".EIrr.Rm.,:.ep:.�i'.'•mt�._ rr" ri • - IdiMIf!:I!3ItL'£�i_ L• fi7E...uLix }j. a= �'t'�,dr.. .ii r�" •� �[4 v �lf�'a+ >+xr?c�t.•• a :.x. it d.- 11:? 1#1 c}}.i: , •i i fi. " I afi Oil El "9 :T a• i ••:.:^ s:: [v :: r n...: rx:,4r f y.. :,•,-:kf .. tiN u t . qtr I l = ,•Y.,:)• inv •. atitI';`�r 4 ttr.ti�,.(ip t@�( �^ m .. t • mtrt + hMm a i Yu m £ I:•a- l3i'E�,Tsn""'iii ini:G tiniffilli' gririmmfiMil W D#1,S.r._ itaj..:H'.IEES •. •.• •. t':-!r,+ itiaa. tf44��.14 ^,•t;�^.�' J-_-•x[ _ - �• . ..- . •r .1 - .. . .. - na8)£r', .•. 1:-t�"ax�fj'CE;in�{�'N:•'G.') /iin'rtt.•--.•FS�.�r4NleL,tar'�ri,3� � .. .- +�f.flat°n ..�5.iAa�i}{'9f?":<s......I�.".F„rr,.i.�t.�.•t!K"')i7} rtHts. ��cr.;•r .,t .. . .�•a -,n n. • i�s - .r rii. t - lildti'r»`> ',�'-�is� i-s e _ '.. :. „^ )rsfms'ri'G"1[dt'Frt• •- .t .' 3�''t«•„n!3433iEe:L'::Y.tt}.M:.. '"—rfi°» )s.,.-: H-_ _ '�Rr.Qdtnhq�.v[. tl:+x.:r.:m{+ndy }tantutWL.efa..y' -u— ,'([' n • i r- n aa)r"w .• �r•5 r r rti. .:, ,, i a . ... y. y'.13t.. fi dtiliga _fan_ii. b;A . vF � ssH4-eti r3�N lgt E:.I.siv E t t xr- r tit 0..a.t .Tin'•^•^:}y.tyv,t•... x'E..: trif t mf..^ •_ • - ""--, 4. 3. It l•!i iL- ii.."i!'- }�t,�tt3H3d(p�g r.",jt^' - thin •<•_• ��y�, �<j��••,Qpc <r..xTg p(i( z-•93°' i.. S'Xit. •1''[[ { czi + timprE imli •�rr�({i��p z }.:" _-L•_mmdttL ttirJ{ia!11x(311' i " , ilinnmryii T'_ t" • . _-. ..'. .. -rn_t. ' -.: .. .. •.. H... ,,.. J.. 1'I'am. ...A�1r rlmll• _I _i , rlNt..•r. `Wf^err•T"�i'.Y'::+R1.Y(t'-Li-•nEH" ' .% f(/•-•firm rif{m.i 7 :x/4W iim(ii 4" .'-T 3S. � • tnt mot t r.' • - • �: i ' t we • 'r,nr3# i E.. - 2i f f"+�EtaF₹dtNd' r1 tine r ti _ i fi4—ggi 53} y�� v Entryritio' •*+ ii( Eia>R.y. � ---� '1r� 3 n• • •iu:••..-..� , tiu•fr£3fStNr. _ •i= t'a- .: ' 4f -_ t�'r ' {E'i•'>'" _• �pt.Y•' t�' .^ iE --- - .7t .. . • • r Iii if Ei i - . .' �i•^.+iFfu!•i'i 'l-m{I17 �{1•i:::GE ta:•3imxxcr::'av f- r "1,.-, '•F _ ec '"'7t1I1:z':rrrihl"i' Li . ...'(•ii.P'•r'3itf'f[+tI'".r-"• `� .d ' .' s '',31'f!!d �k:s..tf'.S3lH.u'!!°�3lium aE 'L!'nt..«.3's'«.' iH{q{3•ETt4` NMML':.n44:ikW)i'f°..L!.•+"`.".a:'emfn3tt311f%Ilii{Is!}& �i 4kkii -''''mt�. ,.p11i�q . . t�ty...'3)?+JF.:• . . •KifF _�• j ukflik - - �3[q'tmmm' ��yL -px 3nai lmmm�{{ ._. . f� .'Prig... .1.�'.. tEf ..,.m:• r .fi•r.t n MMHiCtmrrmsii v tfa�Jya'(ylitnyl�•yh'u' dIY • I ^I y fl d B: h lb•,-, **113,;.„.,: ti • ! 44 r. :sc( y,M µ:.'.^.4.- '`atein.. _ ..at•, ��tt •. . aullmmnfufn•vi5vmm' .. _+ .. .. f sii im- ... thUssi ' »: '• niiimiri iv.r; [-k pitri_ . 1 eu�N-�;>• a3>:xc>_ '•lrig •..f.. ill 611440‘11#0,140n. .. . .. . 14 .. :-. .'err r Its •r:'"'q'dF[ �.'r"'�,t,r�-tvi�vuwttr»�i•t:v.. r.ma,. !+iiN .�i.r.tW•ski�.a1 -....., ,. . _ - ..�. .x .. _,'#f�S{c�.�r'w))n(uawmsur'^.,"1. .,....':MAff�lnl fn[ •'r'.i-,.—... .. ., zFi rm•n>m:.i•xr�.tt:V1=•:-'h� .. 7f. � �t r'!� . �•Hf�. �_-r_tu. .; . ..I wi 'i?:mu,yt7)Ri;r' cfC�lrtlnitfc'�ii)�r`t)[f{f.i[J•n:rc., .a ...... ,W^t .[. )t r. •titl! ' fi II 33E (R ... ; lr i ii m E{ k «a % -'E Ii E; Ei• s r . mrmtnnnrtrtnn ••••••••- .m -"r:•t .. :in[ ::az r':a : '• i r a. . »•n 1 durtwmE _ "-""ru.w '''n • nmm• •i•• n• I.n ^tRs:I.P-•T tlYNn}s},nai•"^'L'iF':3:rt?Ln-,....nett itCuniM111..3.: • ikki!EfrtedEr.••„ ....L'>MIFF jakretkeel,.it:7„:_.. ,•{ MN.. i ..tt. 8tlt ••ndl:uxtnGtgy3t....:r:ry. d:.r041. _ ...-4„.„.nei!nek... • • s• a : rn•t-_ -�yfitr�• fG[.tn•f[trr�W+ Mt1SSeff..' .'nmmsmu ( 3rZ£reits ti{(...r..t:� i viiyimJfri r.. I - . pVr7fa.1;,,t.xr' r -. ....-.. ... .._..... 'r73'' r8n!T.L.... rnfHn�s)7k7fi`n...in..: .�ti ro, . . fi'3i�'� - tm:ZS;31r.;!san r.re) .rr'i r�.'£7tir7c{:1!""fY} r.{?• ••rr1t•,.,{rr.lmnnuvn.ut.rr._.,..,,,. nN(ffi 1.3? tTd'•, `del.a 1:1r 1,d• y En Y Z• f n:n•..-.r. , ...., r .. : ..-. .t ... _ ... '•n:_ _ '.I",'3.. na'.i -• -.b .. SG' '1 .,:tiir Inr: —+'. atf.'11t:. L..:. .. rmn' nna -..R .Ya.. L .] .w. WsTtfiitelHaZ•{ vm,�rm.E�n+"='H,j3l .- .. n'. f6t Bf�t+.L+F1r. -.. ' Y{'r'++7.•{/ u,y ::n:rtmtmttimntxl�d7•r:rtF83iiiiUr?Ltrn-Tn�it m�rT ltm, i(.. . . .?v'N.ia"��...ii°-tr".{:' .if'I�'� I ,`�,• rrin7rnur:lntttvrrU4/6tun�'ia' i .'•n r•, ,t�n r •il.'' tum r't4A .£.'O.+.i++ s>f i err_•ii•3'x4-r.t+•-t[_•.n•trGT-�tnif£(utt'3tii• .w•.. s,.. ...... � s + •t 'r.7+ anto.-Wcv`1• - _•d (' ii ft "tIa: '4)i ` • r. 'No - ;{ a t is Y n w.. • 'dr lm d -nnlxsmxiP••••, • •_ - 1.. .a mt :,••u ••-. c.q.^ i _. , :nimimt ••c: ir4nntttnnfib :atnn:• ..c'um •ryn dtm.•x. .iE: ` oGl:d xu -^an7:• a ' .•fl'tt1 t-n'fiil: •....._::.d: : ..nf,'m .�t{•.Y,,....r.•n•flier:t{rn�ilH.£•'"te.i:k'mm ,a3E•_ ame@ni,i1S•rre{IMImtu131jll _ - F f 1L'tfSr55 . . k{}dr(."Nbfept+k....,.i.l)ir`€rrlfr?Irr'+ii.'�t ..'. f HHp{tfmnn....,n. - ' n+t••�'--'r4ai�}z��:I,«-,n�'iiF:F3Tf(1+r��rffi:•llni�•)!•:iF?Ei n4�SEi�)i'?Rt.{tFt�iZ??!h'W)Gn rriF'lyd ;;)7..r. V.i.�'J',L''Js;.�.-'a??sarad�m�-•� �t .J .. R•: •'a rin. I . d qJfi4i .. Y 4 - - :�. •. •.'- , tr:•Il tm:L"' ?WTI al fs8' _ 'G"'3 ffistfli .{� An<""sml •• Nti'fi Ii t8f ual-tit 'i �` •• c * 3RD' i,_!T„ t .. . . s .. ... r ^ a C6df�tirH `," i* .._ .... n -° r r- ml a n^.)..r,...n '», rw lt.f''tHts .r ifi�in .tml..m }ei�tit4'•t-•-+t k•........;1i1 ) -....�....—.:r•_ m• _.. _ ., . FlmitlYltTr ttpE/n 044 „— t• .G ' ` mE':.• tP3a�F8�e'{ i,7�='ir t�r7T item a•�' . { c 13uui I•L =F 'fits''{4.. . t 3t' Ht _ _ 't tiit . • "f n siitn'>s..14r?t 'Yii'd� ;4s?•, ti'ms _ t.:. )':r`.KkiifrimiNli•'unmh ' ,, tmt, : _ :nitn)L:St1113ii••tEiSt ii,{surrn, tm--• . .. .._ -E ''•i r n .'' «s t i a•—ter..l t .yf:tt."yn-hiliji.'nl£-•rtrierca�uarva',rs a. _ _. . . .._..i1!3.:1'rtr,.:i fie.-rl[ux",• .^�...,.... vi•is�srirr 3 3'"- . I H Nr� If £dd' 4 a. e i.ni:cie - • • : :at' -..N.S :.r.-s'u i.-t•:.r x:a.: t 's. 33 . ... n n•!SH 1n: §ii}td'?('vnHp...l,'iS13 ;su'tl I; ii7:ihdiet.i";....., : ,1,x.Idli1 S i Kx;ar�yq::.i.t.� - - ti1)rr tru,:a5NeftF.lv15°'_ fu V:'If�tax'a�ylf..l r-cnrmn'mH...N •e .wv(•Ok. : _ si!k'2Ektf�,s+fr , 1 �t__..�r .t r. , t'i 'H+v+f•.'••r�[vr�A•t::*",t.,'.'.i f.. +� : ,•.r,.._._.:.r .'t5P7!N." - :m°:P"rw" �GarJ.nfq{{nz, -Z'1".i a#:::ti ..4 ...I __hi•p,r7:.`i^31'.iiiii£Liim-'�•r r.•.�1`:1` . .: thttrj}} ' - . .al'fu n's i - u. t"tir. : ttirttmuimmt — : n at - £.. N 'yte m mnni _. . _.. . r[uimu i. fit. mmqtln�1t�r• rA ��ty� .. .. g, .t� tp n 1n ,5�!Nrc-..mi i_r•..it�v •. iimttiii ithi ir' at.71,y1i. ila•.• w •fm- Sn..mlr'>3�igium'al%iiintliahir Ii.�n'^'""!R)x�'il{t...:..t?l .�r (+M't�pnp (o�i�i,'37...;• m J. •,., :;v T. " '• t 'tm�'$. . . :zn...nn � _ It:� __ r _ net - :., :!'_••- .._mniSEf.. ,.,,, :nu. .n. .. ., r, _i . .. q..W..� trr!y� :.im�u�.Jirc' x ,x(�H:.. t •^:M.vu . .rstJ. ,ncu(txottinuH£E:3,nsgsgc[ (. ..: I.t • nnem tm .m tx:_.lmamnNIPI1:"..Hidi - ... :,ra:... ...Aglea!rftt l!,.W_4„t'iFsrtl#31 ln-' F.'.:s:. finitil ir. Oill }i}tfi£3f/'ht.-:it:i{{ft• » re, - , . . :wtRrtl?ss.:::r'ti+i'' ]ex •.;•rr•s.T.<-•r•..F.s..�' -3 !9s-nY�'�...:. . ... ... .. ....��.. ..` .. Jri R 1�1.t sorz' i...,:. iftiw( ........ _n = Y 3 : 1 n — r. !•d r :i ,t7ttdttnti' Y'ir*e8.s• rl > - ti - .awmlen -t1US• a=it n �1rii» ii,..a ... .. i iti • .-:t£i$r nFi• {vriAr4r •'4'lii-.9{'•'':',kr-Iiic�t', a{�ivFi�R. ..... . . _ . . ... }rrfr•..{-d13 i-�FLmW-•be:ti7t)ivirriti..{x:;17.., ..Ri !,-tsrr....an'ie ),L£ ::? :: rli3t ^rfi)YI13.5e'' • • - . '•)F','..!1Z'r- 'nli ii'^� rta. f• t ..-d.., .•'v.,t�7.''.S'v1:an:s'+nvn• .. a(r 1 1. .. I .. . .. ,.» • G _. F it, lt''i:nf' .. ty,Y{1 i• $-: l . ....rma c .q. ... .e-..Nu':xa.t:;Y. •••Yb_ ::<w na r. •'• ': � a„ , xanl' era,..,>a[Nv>a•: fii l'hut''�r �td��, };x• 1 }3:S{ G['�y,�[� ,ati{p11t£tI� p.1�G�t ewe.i,�n,.��td,r�- -O g •:.ter t( ((�. 8n ��•�ff laFA3mme 11;u r .rrttn i rntit itaES•,••••••••ti-r„-�-.r,—« Idn kilt.3111'NrNS-+irlr, iLL alk-4W/t^�fRr-.v'r FmWL4ttitmltF:E?!•YrLi�'�{'A Lt^nttltrh .. .... -tr. Wart 1....:' , 7' -**s-a vr• a^tee-Ct+it3} :9i n t: titt N 1 >tY'f(ViY'ftt'13•"Yr' ...Gy: C :tri'' I :. s•. a!'tia - d �;a Si _ I }f in is{ 1. ... . . .. .rx r RaitCL--- IVED Petition r .... 0 0 5 2024 . . csoilsinisims le tow site h0 Dept Wedog undenivad stromioarts Weld n. us. s PS Rc. [kiw FFS case numb : •• •24a0 t (S.. known n P1M2,3001 I am the plasims' As jscsamcd, dl, mica dolt opt tabus Coos Oxic rept, tits lade development in a nod a Fit. 4 dcpn Sn-iOiI from the mdit. it don:arts subssi* from the existing filing I MID San wend is IS tarn an uatilt, ntet al ad as priesaka, aviadta wildlife prommia , sou ammnts. fin SdsS and romaims and t is b n nim boas 1St ewe Mimi w as do this Fihig saId in any vvity Wawa the ocammity. . . . ... .. , .. . . ._.._.. .. . _ •• T ' • • him ijk .. . . ,, DS St 4 -4 t*. S •.. ' . , I t .: * -. I I, 1 / ` 4 a .ridatt. . a •A 401M dra ! IMMISSImm".""ww ,.r I ` ,W le"ftie .4 , .. , 4 a Oa, $ OS 40., 0; ,.. gap ... . , ... .. 4 4 1 i WilWrir - . - elf • 4 .- es............... ingraisiMMMffitstakit ' t.. ` . i,_ «MCI ., - • 1 , i.ill:4404 / 'fir A.)00.J . reicrk. , 4 3 sleet 0 itia j asist4apris 0 -Ii illb' • a 2 4 , 4, - . • aLtal , Ar . .4 ai, rja;WS' fah . ' . e SO 411. : 0 i .: OA. I t_. 0 4a IIIMPS tait a... 4 drat. * IIP 0 all. illirtelWe $ 1 h A 1 44,,, lie. . 011221.11,114)011WINWIlli , . ....... i ■r9 B O r )e) ei C . di, 0 . . Law en . . _ , 1 fa. e • 4.. .. 0. A : ff• Ile ' Want A A 0 ". d . F I eft A ‘1 0 . / e ffi Z i2 it jagnatair Al . .Illa Aar -, ..Ir a " • ' . . I /5 ' 73° / 47- ei tariallallain o• nir. - 9 (H ,iceaiir .�' Acrallint 4f , . ; „ .;V ' ' ,J ., a , . .. :: Ir amiss riwaral :. .. . .• a _ ,• . . , A. -moo i . lam, lea ell ; gal*SiIIIPIMUMUNAass' . ligaltelOOMUI .Y. g . ) .- • A iihri . . . lat IMIM . „ . _ .. . . . . . • .rlb' ' t • _, - I,. : �'�7�✓7R►Kr�IM:c+a o . a 0 . ! . 4 - ` ^ `' 161 . A.... + A IlL. .. E. 5.k er • , ..4 • *rat oinansmum___ Ir i ,, . _ , s,, , QICAft c ,,, LiNi • . a eCt ir e ilb -mu.- 111111.11 • 0 ' t Settreit - , . " y Rot N (.9 g v , e , 01111111neturmAlpix / .-.-- . . . • . is er ett...: . ' . 0 ti f IL . 1 04 lib k , , , , III I , . . ., . . .. . .. . . . I a a .. i kir le h. gf 9 ail a / ,mow -.r' . ... _-. .. .. ._ . . . .. :. .:.. . I, . . . . - �` �' :. _ .. ,a��,b'-NV iN5 G Vlti—:1L;w M4AENi"•i.MW/.MgS'. .•-- •d. - . 4e4K4nM'."414::Ak_____ c" - :9E N''V"ani'MD-M'^,F .• . . . . .. -.. ./ . .n. . . Petition We the undasigned demand that the Weld County Planning CaqS t deny the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned US Devekpmet MS Plan for Suomi Filing of Beebe Draw Funu, cam number PYJDF-24-I�100 l (So known as .PRE23-O 11$ on the planning rvetakC.) As pmsemedr this project does not aim to the Weld County Code reding. ran scale development in a rani yea. Further, it departs substuainily from the existing Filing 1 POD plan appumtd in 1989. St. tiai'lic, wager, oil and gas production, wicultum, wildlife protectim air qiality, 60]l ^ jl# fire midgatkm j •i .' i $nd other it= have not ban well enough defined to enure that this Filing would in any way benefit die mum*. Print Name Print A + dress taMil tune 1r /AL Firninfrinign Wierivaeni PrnreAstrelare,n rifiranFAIFF. & flffil �/1:�,�a nivfirrelinF „ AA/ sit )zoilaA 4,4,,ty% NA 1.1 th tillSteDab 14 li 7 1 4 Ni .14te 4 44 */**(1 Ilasii nitro o s 3/4‘a r` ; Put f - 7,144 owlSritironSti b PRE - Z3 - ott8 �°'' SAN t e 1 : T1 Btiz geargat VIA r ULL* ptiins I.. irci czner cer "raw fitynNsi hr a. 084 reic1cnkaL Le cis reatyttrek tin, 14.A. kw edit 4 � Lr 43175 LA + iPturil effe6 tie A ) ifitt ) fooStL L •6� Z84 acre. "in • �-i c4 w. SlettettlAs� 'Sem fla ( Sot! Caveitestiii Sead � Lobs 7-34 Loki r 706 tcrcs d5 16 . 1P Ut/ L.s. eAcs 16, +kg, CuvYtvCL Ani evcifigv Poo lCIa' iL Qcaam ca.. 4k� ° t10 ” avataat 1 ) coam•Avi avatia0142) taut `rt'vpo5 - . ' Cxpna5 .iev " Wilt gru.N1 '% rvt +1a. 1c) 0L" APtitiVii�� ' tAli �ti ISILI2tAtt � l, O;4o ;v�q ito Adifrciat$1o.�us- Jp ElLvL & L ac ,o& LM .C . �,. YaP5 ��. � � n� 5� ' Rom /al:099 cgtx— 4 fr Witt ou'evive,�.v WoviLthi t via perivIteutts hldatbcvzLea a 'Rracienz ‘ 111 fielosde 0...., , I CI r ase4A-Aw Iiiii 91 rs' we estM $ Illettattell RA4 iviorrtemi ilia d� tfrit oVA c$tct 4tct� �,aa.,., v�o � pirouinegra it 0 : - rlircriti atacts:E;,? At fir � per, "glues "li IL' not14 aeatmrisk . Ts ` 64 La e� •,, 1 : ATii . _ s 1 hot relo rogreaseL . ii - 1 -W , leisure e IL Ittwi.► cam , . 3H _ _ Wit, ., 1 .� 7 41O1, flutue IL — gs : Ltd.L�' p. -�N ! theta aetexottion � �.X.NI� A4116;1K/ ftCWJ £u+Trt11retA iis q..w�l- wdt xw4.tn IML � e4� , 1. # Like. , Li; L i; isa, Lics: 1 iitt Fluotetet Lc) i vio ifyistui m 14 L Iv\ LakIjC re* etsøc .. . i , arms al ( a .eoin5MdLr 2,14 J,� c,.rzka on tat dml�tsA. Lads a � 46a.. cloy_ ± a. 1, attettAirumbilioleo po5ak.1 I � hccb vYLac{wR� coi 1 W fetilett. 1 C?1 � �pat.A..� Gt+itt�— Itat 5i �es ass tilt � Vx.c( .¢ v�: kenc.e cAitt.d. Los . "a tkitssist 2) hit 141 PiA a f e 2.4 e oat/ FRE 2.51a el 1 1 & 1.4.. 5}vau,ii e � �� .` , \dh ' t` CUW4L i4,401.. . to at 5 ol�" 1- + ,tilt. Co E, k Pelican . . •. 0 . Ranch ..... ........:i......*...::•.::....,.:... .. :„.. .. . .. . . . . .... .. .".. . ... ... . ..... ... .. .. .. . . .. Existing . .. . . t► ...• • : .. . .• : .. i........ ........ . . . ..... . . . . ' .. . `IsA . . , • . . yam► . .., ...: ... . . . ........... f , . .•a Via_ 41�T44o i►►► , ' s. G > I. y� _ . f :;:,:l.c.;:•••.,:t„.. 3. ' ,.1 - , ...... -.:'''.j 1 4,111 gh ((y �y► 43 yl/�p� 53• *a1 • • R It• 40 . :t i1 li! Yid <«sspa 1 „ ilk �+ . .. t�.:\<:441 t • N. i ' <:.-:--1 . --.-:-.:N\ 4C:i:1:11..::3...:kik% 44,14.::+•...•Ajo. ...;.:,..,,...: ...,;,..• • , .11 *. :1.:1.. • .... "." : ‘-. .: .•.., .:I r'...S.,..;.1.'...::!..i.:,::i.ii.cpie . ..:. elgliv . • .... , . . ... , . . ..„ . .. . . i, . esur! ° s •• 2• Z `(. iFAQ 7•b�y. / < '�J +. . `�yf�2fr� .T� ₹...bbbFFF- a�f`w `•�:1:114%\\)+, ,-!,.�:. =IFi1/� ..fM. '� k�W1.'� .. �I { -f7 f•f.{i :17 ......4.1..x"7T/� IFwMR>` • Nihth - gt a 91 'mit E� s !1 A a#161,14 '' ti#t / 1 i 'Datst . • -• .::. 'tfil'i 'J tc:ciZew •N. - • - -1,44,1 ili f lade i < .. r, ., \ . 2jtJkø .. Ett#7 q litir; Apr ✓ r� it 1 & 4 t:Oil) --••••••• fte.etkr/ ! ` % C�IiXi4 x� j Salta , . : • EJIIP: ii,}RI tfAOi.f t N : 1�.. p v1/4• rr �r::V ` t ' y „ .>_ `� +4�.� ♦e✓.♦ i� Sir N y f.,.\• r. ,,,,,9- -4 I44211 j!I I >•Ells • ; itkdtE. Sa�+�1Q 1.1. 4111..c:16^ j/t` `:} ��..�o,,if� 'tip [ e <� a I .♦ sa`�lV�� yr-�=.{� / iK'�A TF�} • 2. is+i' . 3 rFK _. " y 4Yl w ;�C tkS ¢ ` E+i?'� a : �+IGh c %•" c< 1Sa!w. .. ♦'. ?rev ; ^•: ,. 'er o�lfy .y' „) '�.. .� :3 we.,,...;. ..,J/�q. - - !2 .a-..»w. • , ; {'J ^'„ n /, r < -viry,, "9N,G ,,,,,,,u..YJP' :) ` ) 1�t f " _ :. 1: . . :. 7 ilk:'x �"4•"P• 4 �A r, i 54:Jr •it : `X {'v ,+4r ' �z n. „V y/ y "�.v I / f y in:::llilia J414 . ! ) '+VCI J vw• !!igtitg Mj r ;:::::? 4.4 .: ' ....It.C N I t w or -S•c.e- - itt `A v :: r S• �} '.•}L'�S�1R'_+ � `K %%-'S"S�� r:r , Sii .tMY- '.��IP.� 1a4MIM J - • l J taj 7:1.vJl-+.Ma • +w / -e........ . : ., r. . . ....„....... ,,,::: - . ,-44, '< "•' w ;fiYf .4.74...7;7 •v.r ././' r:'-.• J /'. )°Ntt5 )TiJ? a Y.. F.F��(((��- M • • i�'M! � - .. - - •• .. 'H ^'evr -. Y,J,:j$,'11v r4v b =' rrJ• < J�t� / V�l ,.!!'Map•yol�.vR'� v.0w `.1 - �' i, fc ,:� a -t:a;^• < Zr•✓ dy ; : - r✓ `: /� q•:' - 9 -,L. ..+_ r..,.„r.. p. . .�'r ://,'! 1 ,•• b x' 4.6• //J / �.<•u'. ' .�/ ,arc.,.:W,..-.. :1 . { ,..Miii:l; 1 ',::..>—1 f •411143/43/4‘ „"l/mitrw .. Sf f . . :: • ^' ...'j f' • S •• / 'f/.Jr•!{..r4.:/'h �.•KJ/ 4h r. ' .. J✓ /< ° S a��f n"• - J ) • .....<r < 9 ti ,N<r=��3 v:-.rt. i / 4 V` 4 i• J' ic'', ��7�.� �� MASii .!...,.d., • ...wy'Y%OP • YN : L air' /l :',Z:4,.. ,M ` Q?v to:: � .. • wJ ..5' ,F. • • llJ r > 9 Y/ ) to. ^�i ry. ) !i .. hfa4Y/.tu , a ♦ . � 5 F , x "� i s,,J� / / �.. Y • r,v-•: 9a 's.L JJ�R. • t2:',.,•„7„• f: . •3/4.i.' ae •, �' .. ✓ , .C> - ."4.J ' , Gar } ,.. * WINDMILL . . ...... .. • - V.1:0k., : ..i., .•.(1/ . Xy.,^ - ..r .). a .. _ . :.: .4' .: ., :. . .��l,A`ir fu' knin. ».rw wMwr arpw rt�?1►t+ le . ., - a.�^�- -ts WALKINGIIORSii . -- RIDING wIRAILS it• 4 ... KwM »..- a•.MMr• 1 . .�rA.r « - y , _ ti 1 (f - ,wn■ ,. .4•-•,...... ` it + aY,... 1 Y4 ' ,... r.......�.._a.,AMM..frrrrrr� B ii .l�� PATH 4. ,.., 4kt:: . .1,, . .wat es . l IMI • . ; • i inill. H. \ - ♦�h/.1lb Al1/4444 lit r 1... .,,, :..,. - II ...•y. 1 .. �Yr 1•� >W� Ow�' .iletik Ye 1F SED VIL SERVICE Ilk. 7 :. . . tiel „ ,� ROADS ini,... M � YS M♦1er+V`.. � •y AKMYED Jsi __ ' --- '9�'w.w 'it f II c 1n. r •' _ j MY�I.MI!.A ` g25 ACX �FP 0: . AAIS OS-ley iti=1 IiiiiHIC) . Int I ''',........-t-s. •Y • f� • STOCK WATER WELLS Imes, > / '. ✓c 'f`"- .w+.le peRli H•••• t. .< : .1114PI1/2"s I r Y u : o».» a ....... . ..ww • aaau _ ) +!'��/g� SETBACK }AJ� �ye W M « - �.. ...»n.. ,-�.yy„»...«....-.^.« ,: - a•J' � .R W 6'71.4 Si w �� B aYy .%PA • L TRANSFER LINES wR♦ I .wrq♦,. ..../_rroposedFiIin .. t- * -Ar, , _ . J ♦ nM•. t_M e•Iti :i `. • O .+.+. i�-w:. -:YMfI. .. ,w•n.. �w+� '♦s, •fit'•. �« Y ,fpy`� f y bat .ar.+,r►� fir 'INOMMISIONIMIS ++moo illa rer «-a .r � �-- PROPOSED OIL SERVICE 4 v . f .0 .. \ •4 �� Ewa 4 441.14% •''>. .. w�►wc i •s _ �`" �' ` OPEN SPA' v0* vit•AF . Irak OMB, -•1! I11Ma'M pw~.. + � ) "�`. 'k, .• r yr iii,,O,�� MOs R7i< ♦M►IbM • 1 _ -. ,_. w,• •w++0► t a1 r.. 00x•-,{� • 'ji�.�w i >�f;. Cew 1�M - _• - • aS•: :•• 121 . , . ... ,K ,�♦�I� tow le!,.......i .. _ a.hit .<� .�� J►eC � Mw in :Lot . M4;+� o . � i+w,.wwA4i 'r, ' � --... '}:la_. • . „ .� ikka t >taatms�..e t.,-0 in NS • In =AM • f -. • ✓+ • Mwy�'e a.,v 5. M♦K. 1141.4.40•00, . IN AS•• lit ! ,! !• • k • y � ( �, *so, t - ,. .a .^ ,, � p ... - Y�. ,,�� IIyy�r T'.ROI17t w�. woes • ^ C: • ' .... C♦ - �,.1.� yr. woe, ♦: LT c .',.. - u` r errs wow „e«e1e.<rvv *Ask t , tiMwE lr• ..,..a..,>I,aa» IS ISM fit s' ..3r"�t it A Y . „ �. +Fw�„rI >aEra; County Rd 32 ........ ..,......„2„4.3, ..,,,, 45:.:.„. ,„....„.., . . . „. , , , 1 .. . z s w "PtCI '1/4 '4A'SA, 14.27-2024 Co Seib., ci Itat Max Nader -VA/ 11.411 Dept. of Planning Services skew 1402 N 17th Avenue, 179 tem Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Mr. Nadar, My name is Cindy Bilhinger, and I am a property owner in Pelican Lake Ranch/Beebe Draw Farms, Platteville. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed new housing development. This development will have a negative impact on the community. I believe that this development will have a detrimental impact on our community. just mentioning a few: • Septic systems: All the homes would have a septic tank and leach field, one acre lots do not give a lot of space between houses. A reminder that this location is a very sandy environment. The existing subdivision homes are on 2 to 5 -acre lots with an average of 5 acre lots. • Population and the roads: The increase in the population's density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic on roads that are not designed for that kind of use. • Fire and roads: Additionally, from the plat maps for phase 2 it appears that they are planning on using the existing entrance on county road 39, Beebe Draw parkway is 50fl wide, Ledyard and Fairbanks are 32 feet wide, inadequate to evacuate nearly 472 possible families. I want to remind all of you that if we have a fire like what took place in Superior and Louisville which could very well happen out here, there would only be that one road in for the emergency vehicles and all of us scrabbling to get out I personally don't think you will get 472 houses evacuated safely without additional entrances. We are now dependent on LaSalle and Platteville for all emergency services. • Safety Risk: This will also pose a safety risk for pedestrians, cyclists, and children who use the roads. The project does not provide adequate measures to mitigate these problems, such as traffic calming devices, sidewalks, bike lanes. • Schools and public services: The project will also put more pressure on our already overcrowded and underfunded schools and public services, such as water, fire, and police. The project does not offer any contributions or improvements to these facilities, nor does it address the potential increase in demand for them. The project will also reduce the tax base of our neighborhood, as the new homes will likely be valued lower than the existing ones. • Environmental impact: I am deeply concerned that the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting our wildlife at huge risk. We have a strong wildlife presence here with owls, bald eagles, EXHIBIT golden eagles, badgers, foxes, and more, as this development will destroy the natural habitat and grasslands. Please consider their lives as well. • Character and aesthetics: The project will also erode the character and aesthetics of our neighborhood, landscaping, and culture. The project will introduce smaller homes on smaller lots that do not fit in with the existing style and character of our neighborhood. The project will also reduce the property values and attractiveness of our neighborhood, as it will create a visual blight and a sense of overcrowding. • Buffers: from the map it appears that there are no buffers planned between the two developments. We would like to see a large buffer between the two to keep the integrity of our community. For these reasons, I urge you to reject the proposed single family housing development at Pelican Lake Ranch/Beebe Draw Farms Platteville and to preserve the integrity and livability of our Sgt. This .development is simply wrong for this area and would do more harm than good to the existing homes and the existing wildlife. I appreciate your attention and consideration of this matter. It looks like this plat map is the same one that was reviewed and rejected two years ago. The only difference I see are the dates. I urge you to reject the proposed development Sincerely, eidtAttAi lialads÷ Cindy Billinger liner 16494 Burghley Court Platteville, CO 80651 303.579.3422 cindybillinger@tyahoo.com Pelican Lake Ranch . . . Existing Fi II ... il. .. . . . . . ... ._ lila If pct t�. �.. ___ __cansimtit_ .....1. In . .. . ___ ,....s. _ ___ . , , 19 \ `' . r •lrw+. I 1,31 :L, 1 oMolt 37 1,.. . \It ..9. .-- t. 1uI` Ill‘ a 1 • - illgi i4 it"Isle 4i$/t flit �. �.. we t— .. ... illiSi Gana ISICI WI II 61 a qAt . ,1 ' *I all �It 40 n ail _ q .`y -L. ! 1A}�eiiAli 4wl P.., s' els Rte.t, toNW ã6t den iloi 1 4-3is 1121 I:110 -- - - j 1 6 i is ,ss. 1 idQt if6H1 Entry44 hbe _ 1 10 13 iiIQ1 ee t iltM�tJI /4 flJ rI j iW� :41 10 di. 1 to • PSI .4.- I - w..r. .... ..r • 111 t - !4 lesod 144 Ps x � 1 ,..t A 2. w - bra Ems._ r— -� ' 44 !dam } 1 itiif ^¢ ". .."".e..._ ' "''s"'p4�'ft�' = a ! 1 eb 1 I i , `' J " tr kilt.. ..Y t9Aig.V • IMO , ... !I !- 1 i 't AND + L •Lam-• _ •"•. - - - / • _ �'i �- ^" M ' ? 121 1 s� IAdB� >> r Ur y !4 I beii _`f' t. 1 tall11PPtelly4114: 141i11 MO 1M� illiki- . _ml 7 1 ?i I�So0lid 11 ? r y - 'p 64 _� t 179 "II t 74 {4M I!A< 1K91 tatrb t, !1 4* r \cam illp __ ret7, 4i 1 71 loon T7 V isetJ » - 400110 i :Syila + recto -n �. 1 F T y i tR e+01t 104 1r 41e i�3 • I ' IK�0 ? r .. q� iit ' II* ' � 4Q Kt ; ---- 4 ima:, I 0 lw.S � � ir. 1°2 101 �ti 1 t,..-: lite. -'� , �: . 10IIPINIPID: I 4.04 . S ,+ r oil 1 / 1.499 I-114 1;r1 %Is , - 7- !sO •3 "; 1t1 i" .� 1 i1 ----we 1 1 r 4Mi . . _.! l s + lair rtr ' Kt 1 ,, t"p tN 1MJe t • . i r' _ lipig t - '1 - 7 a)1 _ lib! 7l it, I tAllii rii rallitlittaVall sem ..s. ...... ,,=. a ES 4. IESI i I e ' I I se imi!.- . 111 A ....s. e 31rliNil _ AMENITY AREA I � _ �..� _ .ice. . �.� . - _�� I _ �.. -` ^_�_.II 'a ia. ...... 1141r `. .. * yr, Es% 1 isr . --I ek ...... • , , , ti171 -1"444H4 * WINDMILL t el ea . i ` Iilliit � � 1 Mb. , - - \ WALKING/HORSE I r ,�., \ .rr. 1 •� ..x • ,.rte".. _+a+ _a f MEI �r RIDING TRAILS I ales .I f - \ ,__ �" BIKE/WALK PATH sws. I I 4lir I la libillb.4rgirArt.:7.... / is e MP•• 1 m am waft. 'IN J III Ili %%4041 /fa" it I. 111110" � , , �.� ...,.�. --PROPOSED OII. SERVICE ii - . + �.. ROADS-.. •.----i •, `~ -3- - �; .. . I '� 25' SETBACK PLUGGED I I �.. ' L _ : ; - _ _ • ' and ABANDONED and fir{ - „i 1 ate..•- I.'I 7J 4 ...Le as •••rab• _ .r.► assest.•. ars a rM�. w_ n I •�♦ WELLS •s/0 1 •.maw 1 w ~ �"' �@ 1.� STOCK WATER iii1 i f. ■ ■ ,, 304' SETBACK SI and 6114- r- 11� Flllng ! 2cT: PRODUCING WELLS / 0 oQ l r WADI OIL TRANSFER LINES I irigitifir _. __ijrfir4 , , _____ ......... Lipp / 41 . ll, ,410, `� �. • � \ -,' ,' A, ......... PROPOSED OIL SERVICE ��' ... } ROADS,...,, r , __ ._ _ ...„.„ _...., . .. t + ..0.6.4. a .0 i lilf 0\1O ,,,,.. leak .. . es;In !Pk 4116. , , di• ...... ; �_• OPEN SPACE brsa i ;ti . all% ' I A, •aI a al10te - ISM Oil. ..r __V \\ , = as_w ISM { M._h / III I Z a i iSdisidialie 4:21 if, 40t dM t)ssl W/lrs� *11AiAw1� S.r PPS., Y/♦ _ `� e•1_ 4b 4 afwe e/ ars4 S` _ Lau :_ _ _ . ___ _ _ .•••••—_ __ _ _____ . y - _ , _ _--- , _-_. / a a. 21 I '-l�+r.r4 112 saw.I lell I ICI// la-Sian In $3 In Asa ill LLLIT) : A/•sysMs 1 rr.au• 1 .,•• 4 -.'CitaI1 F '' Vas Las2S4 Wenn PIA T + 1 1 s".---- -all « In AS r� I, lail , d• 1 1• CIII4 OPP Sas .....m. Mai aft 1 _ - -- - _ . -_ - _ .` 1 .yam / •' --•-e- IS Is nisr awry • # V ! county Rd 32 January 31 , 2024 0 0 dikerio E1/4-di Weld County Planning Services 440fro ' Os Ceirt I4O2N17thAve sop , *j. PO Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 beiit RE: PUDF24-0001 Dear Planning Staff and Commission: This letter represents collective voices of numerous residents of Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) regarding the application packet submitted by Christine Hethcock, REI LLC, for Filing 2, referred to as the Declarant. To be clear, this letter does not represent all PLR resident voices, only those who have signed below. As residents, we have significant and serious concerns with the Filing 2 which are enumerated below. Numerous residents will attend the Planning Cominission Hearing for this filing and provide greater detail related concerns specified in this letter. The purpose of this letter is to present our broad concerns to the Planning Commission and to encourage a complete and thorough review. Most, if not all of our concerns, have been previously been voiced to the Declarant and her consultants, yet have not been addressed or resolved in the present filing. We find this unacceptable. The signatories of this letter reside within the boundaries Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District and Authority, Concerns At the outset, it is important to state our support for reasonable and measured development of this property consistent with the original design and PUD for Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) as rural, not urban scale, development. We seek a balance between a reasonable, sustainable rural development and reasonable profits for the Declarant. Regrettably, our review of REI 's Filing 2 indicates that the proposal manifestly alters the original plan for and character of this community, in which all of us invested with the purchase of our homes, potentially endangers residents ' safety, is not sustainable, and will have a negative environmental EXHIBIT impact. fUOF6t&00C1 I � • Density. Attachment A, at the end of this document is a good place to start. A simple comparison of the existing filing and proposed filing is telling . The existing filing demonstrates reasonable open space, larger lots-consistent with rural developments, and appropriate setbacks. In comparison, the proposed Filing 2 has little to no open space, much smaller lots and only one amenity location for new residents. The proposed density in Filing 2 manifestly changes the character of the development. For example, on page 10 the Declarant specifically mentions modular or system-built homes while residents in the existing filing were required to build custom or semi-custom homes with three car garages. The requirements for homes should be as consistent as possible throughout out the development to promote one community and so that existing homeowners do not have the property values negatively impacted by homes/property of significantly less value. Filing 2 creates a very different community that originally approved in the PUD. • Insufficient entrances/exits for a community this size. Presently, we have one entrance/exit for residents. The proposed plan does have a second entry noted, yet we understand that this entrance would not be `built' until 2028 requiring all contractors and eventual residents to traverse through the current community 's road severely impacting resident safety and significantly impacting our current roads, which are not in great shape. One only needs to recall the issues residents had with the Marshall fire to understand the risk to residents when a community traffic patterns are restricted and constrained with insufficient access points. • Waste water. given the numerous small lots in Filing 2 will the Declarant be installing a waste water treatment system? What is the environmental impact of individual septic systems for each of these new lots? The Declarant needs to specifically address this in their filing and the potential environmental impact. • Water taps. What study, if any, his been conducted with Central Weld Water, regarding the available water for the new residents? We have heard the Declarant intends to offer new residents a `budget tap' for these lots. This is simply insufficient and will likely result in new residents paying extra when they exceed their annual water allotment. We urge the Planning Commission to review and confirm that residents of Filing 2 have access to sufficient water resources and will not incur excessive charges due to over utilization. * Amenities. Currently, we have wonderful amenities to serve the existing community which are at, and some times over, capacity. These amenities also require continual maintenance which has been a struggle to get approved with our current Declarant. Z22-001 response required the REI to submit a plan for specific amenities within each filing and phase, indicating at which point certain amenities and other community improvements will be installed. This element is not present in the Filing 2 documents. Instead, Filing 2 indicates that amenities will be installed ' as needed' , but who determines when they are needed? If the Declarant's history/e1gagement with the community is the best predictor of future their behavior, Filing 2 Residents will not see amenities until Filing 2 is nearly built out. Without a definitive plan committing the Declarant to state to where and when the necessary amenities (mail room, pool, trails) will be built, Filing 2 Residents will understandably desire to use the existing amenities further straining current infrastructure and leading to unnecessary community conflict and strife. • Manifest conflicts with current zoning. Filing 2 contains several references that appear in conflict with PLR's current R- 1 zoning, specifically the construction of a horse boarding facility and allowing homes to be used for commercial rentals e.g., Airbnb. Commercial ventures are inconsistent with the character of the community and with current zoning. • Lack of planning for reasonable development. Building out Filing 2 is anticipated to take approximately 20 years. With no clear plan for how contractors will gain access to Filing 2, residents can rightly assume the Declarant intends to use our existing roads and infrastructure for development of Filing 2 . The impact for current residents, many who have small children, will expose current residents to the risk of increased and constant construction traffic, increased air pollution due to the dust that accompanies new construction and significant disruptions to our way of life. This is simply unacceptable. We ask that the Declarant provide a plan for how contractors will access Filing 2 without using the existing infrastructure or that the Declarant uses their own funds to set up an escrow account to repair the inevitable damage to the existing roads and infrastructure. • Conflicts with current governance structure. Filing 2 sets out several very concerning changes which will result in two communities, not one. Specifically, o the document is titled PELICAN LAKE RANCH FILING 2 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS . There is no legal entity called Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 . If this is a completely new legal entity, then is it not be illegal to use tax money from Beebe Draw Farms Filing I to fund Filing 2? o Page 7 refers to the duties of the Pelican Lake Ranch filing 2 Property Owners Association as covering "the expenses of administration, maintenance, construction, improvement, repair, and replacement of common elements. " Those are all elements currently handled by the two districts and the Authonty -: oard in Filing 1 . Does the new Association intend to issue its own bonds and set up repayment to provide these common elements? o Page 9, where it states that the Declarant reserves the right to amend use restrictions or add new restrictions for 30 years. Currently, it takes a vote of 67% of lot owners to amend covenants. Should the lots be sold before the 30-year deadline will the Declarant still control the covenants when they own no lots? o Page 12 is the first mention of the Authority. It is unclear to us, as residents, as to whether the covenants assume that the Authority and the Association function as one entity? They do not and this is not clearly explicated in Filing 2 . o Page 20 details the requirements to have barns for horses, goads, mules, donkeys, llamas and chickens. None of those are permitted under the approved PUD plan. None are compatible with R- 1 zoning. None are permitted in filing 1 . People who invested in Filing 1 , thinking it would remain a residential (not agricultural) neighborhood, are being penalized with Filing 2. o Page 29 indicates REI 's desire reduce the two-thirds majority to vote to amend the covenants to 60%. Covenants are a binding contract that should change only after careful study and community input, reducing the threshold reduces resident's confidence that their investment will hold value . o Page 32 states the Declarant gets to appoint the board of directors of the association for as long as they still own lots. This is inappropriate as it prevents residents from determining who will represent them, gives the Declarant more influence over community matters than taxpaying residents which calls the question of taxation without representation. Residents in the existing filing have already experienced the Declarant overriding decisions of duly appointed boards like the Design Review Committee leading to arbitrary and capricious decisions for individual landowners putting them in conflict with other residents. In summary, if the Declarant is planning to start a new legal entity using the name Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 then, it is our perspective that Filing 2 is not covered under the existing PUD and would require review as a completely new plan, not an extension and updating of the current approved PHD. Respectfully submitted, Ar iti Resident Signature Page ., — . iSstoree AMISS 1 64 urghley Court Platteville, CO 84651 ■ AttachmentA . •• • • . •. :.:.. Pelican Lake Ranch / �.�. fY, x4- ��r r- 3 ,1 9 <ts yy ,/ 7:.. "i • it Jy� ,r *%.c..a (yi y Kr�, r i' .. . „ , . :.„2.. ..??......:7:, .:... . .:: . .... • ..:::::)..K.::*.l..,:.:,::: .:,::: : ::: .. . • ... . . ..: •.:::::::::::::::::.::::. .. ..::. : : . . ..: ...i.t . . . . . ".. . .. , . • . , t . ...........,...".... ....... ... •••.•. . . ••••• •• ,..,::..,..„,::,..:,,,. , • • . • • . . . . .. . .., •-74•.<,‘ 't1.44: A.:::,ast„.4, .. „. • .. , ., --.1... • q d ' y _ . • . �y r ;J,�iyi . . q+��' • .' S �' I <iW'fAc/sss. .«s ". r .?, fill • • • ( . . e '^Y'', _ /Y" • •• •. ,r'r•j� ' - �yw ' `'l!r° �, 2.4 . ; J„.„:„. ••w.}ht . (S • • •> .. ' • •>ayf�YT rr f } ��y�¢f a ^oa ,4�1 ti�i at s Ss .... ...s . as J• lfi ../.. :%�+vA>fqyr tai :-,.... y, y • • a' 4Y T V 1&. • t vM Y..'1JtJA'.r • .n ;{(<�� H�,p "•: ��:aunM'{f\„» s1�R I'�.Y� £p '_ y . • •• 1 . (f�??y a �j1' l' R. :W 1 iy •4~L', �((t/� fitl�Ot ' • 13 ` h• •1-s, Yy IAN 'H»' ,04 I �'. ,t <•,•.Y` . K 'N/l%➢ ..•.nay !'Y4' ? r '�y<r•' •f<r �' , • •f! �?. ; ,'< >.<Yy,. �/ 4�'./� a • J'A• Job' ¢' • %x.' ,ri'' r aF .c ie sZy Y • •# /:..�„"•'b i{ 3_K:i,cS>� �ityS�p i�;.;,...:,5.3:‘,...v«''6 Y 3' �rJ. a1 - N ,A,, ' Y n21 S : „. r .F< '> ' �If `SN� n t >' `fn,, 2Y; ! 3 ' ' •it$ J • ' t<yy i/0P,� s 6.e :�y_<y. �O�C •'w►t < !T' ',7C cr: •_ bA j, °yr 'ati ,>;�t, , ••. 54 y ♦ i`ci0➢t 9f 3'fi. • {. t ', •. ii, jc"vJ• '3J�',, tt</N.A • .1�r9%1N • r' / 'J r t h V �� .=v 2. .. ` e • r R ti S !yt. /. / Sys 3CF y S1..:(1.:.:.E...-.- �. : _• . • a. F %tom' f .r,�. -q!!•' f\��^}� l c°•f.r �.'••r, fru :,,,,,./.....„...,. � /, %l•. f - / Ytl�►y� <f{%l +C< ,t$s, �„- Y u J• •7 re ,: q • ,y. Fi w, ....,,,w...:% f h • r .i... . . ', r i f /'rviiiiii, • n. , 4 ,y4 < < (¢rli<Sh'c ) r _r JJ3.CJJh /r'�r { , 6.. / - 1 r /wry -e .53fr R>�Q((�fQR�� " vs. >::. �,. . 'Jh .• .'s' 'Jl.a:G�8�' „ c r: 2 r' 42� -•:•,.'`.�� I. • F Cf: �.. ,yr-`^' _ pyf'�: ,g, µw/'4 Y'• �' , '. 4'. '''�".. �Y.�.. "• ,. /≤'E9Y� • '�3S'tkc'Sf, C f 3�a9;t,`w Y}lo:Y 'tA�Cr•Y.t e r t. nr,1'% 1 � .. ! '+J } < Tj �F , v `rl ' ` _ • Y ,,,, f{}, ««f ( ., Y Y r .6 ¢2 ? l' •- ��,,�,J�-...�� 1 ; y f;f _ • ,-�• li 1 . `� y •. l,/l 'it' '400: .:5 lS� y• di ' ` S r .x ^'�* �� ,��' . .49NkF.b).rC° A's.v-m '! - • fr F ?�. � .C rfr v rfcd 'qC/i •'v,/. `7 +/A � .JS ' / •,! J � (/ . W'N'• / F :R'.X' ) TY -• .la` ./ zi r// xij.-i <.. '�1�°Sl-^'-'�l Zi•t%+A'� f�l► rY < .% Y J 2) .e*'' '`�r"4U r4y/ _.•.S • / T r C 3 r t r ,;:"./1.5,..;.::.' al •. - tdcJ � ' . . < y r X79 $• • * e. y 2 • • / /':} rJ �. �' vF�l'i.l r' y• At Y/�//t, > tliCSt°,, it > 7Aww• ��3 rot . • • / .;<r fj •• / % '4 91►MIK vplSJ►} ��[ 411141K101.1._ �11�� ' SI %COAT MUCK titAnCliD ad Alliairpt Mg f • t�,��,,� 1yss� . ' i � + r✓ op Ma 1114O11A Ma. qy y 7...:7,;.(;;%. ;.c; 1:;:.:-..:;,.. ...;7:::;11.41.i?4,447.%re l / ' I. 2� 5;:tr. :pi r.'4i r. x '�WNDS,t4. ;tri 110 NKr }c� -T rH£ f;. .yv,.r. ..•wn.ni,c .3fa ,`•: ' y ..:tsi• • y n • k as rX�t5b p�;9;`{ ₹ 2 s 4 ` • �, • r ��% 4•'F1Q Yxy f .: Zr 4t • t..:. r s.. ' 7 T• y 'T'>h <. '' r''�..f, Y MtSY r`.� Y !• / ,"`"'. ,f 'i $ 1'I�•1� �I.7/1R5•�� I .' <r 9:,y��y Y ' 'Y. � a'y pf. ". .:::>+:. JY4i' ,r r �, ` N '5•!::" V 4S `§r!• ,yam ''+� �T • /. ite • • t 41%. E / 1F•>•s. Fuegrs �'3. 'Y h • •, rio. • ', N ♦,9' S�` IWe. .s..r/ ..:s 3 < J )> .(, *tint f. • • 2. • •4 Y y • . ' - Fi^r.%;: h '' / 4 :x�%;+w 2J'7.• h. 1�t. - k f t; T" • -yrj. :,. ! _ •6 .{ fS .'nrHY'ty►'K Y <. c. c ''•' • tvi- }; Sti. ✓' J # ' � .dS r CS: . . ..... . .v...vr:'� . J,Grfi.r�:•n}':r.' { yn c c G':. ., r • • nti x : „ 4; . ,y as �' )�dYlta* 1F:s;.[. 1 aw- f f -::,.� .. T . fJ ° b"' 7/a'eJ/b6�., ♦� • .I ' J: j #pMMtMM> i i. Art r^ % .Y 'S>'on n}a.•}q,>„naa wwgO:vOet/nv/A w»NAwY " ^: ' > • - !�.' l `^! k•::•/ ..<5~::)-•:., : S44,..:rw;t ••cie ;-cr. /. > '' Y� 'W» . t.: (.Y*16$.170110-& 'a ' t') 1,11 FF�1 3 • ?.. y . Jt'.- •,1',:. . IeY.. 7� ....;.•:'.;:": 2T i‘:ST•':/i•Y •. <y• e. )r,: ,y • ' • ,{ i. >'rntky - J. ! r .;. Z,'�>fi t>t% a!• de�N N7 0M171lf �•• 7 7: �. <` • , Y!•1i'�. ' Sr. Or wR'NRR r.,u:' iriv7 r/.<.:e" 2.;'±.:.v,«a / h!-:y :. .fJM'' Y / (� '$4••••,,,,,)-4:•>:/•))4)-4'.6'•,- '' 4..4.+4,44.444.444444r)44•44•44-4, • `4%)•,.p..4,11Ye.• 'L� ' < • 111 S { .• �: .. ,q _ '�•, >.•. ! fief} '/ is �•sSMAT MHb it* .< H•.' • r '/jy..//# /a'I....: .t..yvc.:Wth•+:kO45JrMJACJ> •ra*>*J"•-•"" ". r • V ,.. ,,,161616 < k ` AAi'''/ ., •wna' MYnn ./> a '- n r1"Af/lJrn <::1W.y ..00a.... ...».YVMVJ q�..:•'e. /.%f,„r•%. ::rfaw. .�, FA -J{H,.,.,w.,KwV6.4x4.Jaer.HlOrH .na...,n\vHvyv.,54> (w,sH ,ua{<a,.- { K M••t..A..A:4.44,'YWvlS« 0,4c'A',..-no :innb n.si:roNeadir K52'h<Y1P-4-..".se of ,n. -a 6 74144 Max Nader ' ' N., Planning Managerrr ':If (970) 400-3527 OA, Di, 01 mnader@weld .gov Tfftigibi 1402 N. nth Ave. s044 • • PO Box 758 �` "'Pt Greeley, CO 80632 January 30, 2024 RE: PUDF24-0001 Dear Mr. Nader, My name is Steven Street and I have lived in Pelican Lake Ranch ( PLR) since March 2005, so a month away from being here 19 years. Back in late 2004 when my family was searching for a home to relocate to from Chandler, AZ, I was looking for a place that had several acres and was extremely quiet. I spent ten straight days searching everywhere from Elizabeth to Wellington without finding a location that was well kept, quiet, and had the desired openness feeling until finding PLR via an ad in the Denver Post. Every location that seemed to be a close fit was either getting run down and high crime (I have relatives in law enforcement and dispatch, so was able to get crime stats readily) such as Great Rock east of Brighton and Aristocrat Ranchettes east of Ft. Lupton. The lack of crime and the openness feeling of PLR with the restricted fencing and large lot sizes (2.5 - 5 acres) made this an ideal location. One of the other deciding factors was that the future growth of PLR was going to be restricted to the same proportional lot sizes based upon on the Sales Literature and Huge Wall Maps that to this day are still present in the PLR Sales Office. Of course I do realize that these future buildout plans were not 100% official by any means, but to make such a drastic change by adding upwards of a 460 lots (based on planners drawings) in this next filing whereas the plans shown to sell homes up until now showed only 245 lots in the next phase. By reducing the lot size down to 1 acre (which goes against Estate Zoning requirements, but because it's a PUD and open space is averaged in, it is allowed), it defeats the integrity of that zoning guideline even though it is technically legal. This new layout from the developer based upon their drawings has absolutely no 'blending with its natural surroundings' as the developer is stating in their literature as compared to their original plat (I haven't even mentioned the commercial rezone for NE corner of WCR32 and WCR39 yet). The original plat is 100% in-tune to what is already in place at PLR, the open space, road access; everything is exactly what the 186 residential lot owners expected when they decided to move to PLR. There are numerous other developments throughout the front range that offer what the developer is wanting to do with this next filing, but that is NOT why we moved here, we wanted something different. I ask your Weld County Zoning Department to please not allow this change in zoning request to take place. I am not against development at all, development of PLR is what I expected when I chose to move here, but not this sudden U-turn of plans and make this as condensed as any other planned location along the front range. The developer has failed greatly to take care of their existing roads and amenities, they definitely should not be allowed to create a new, denser phase without first taking care of what they already have in place. The promises by the developer in their original PUD have not been fulfilled in regards to amenities and community features, Weld County needs to enforce that and not allow further growth until the initial promises to Weld County and PLR residents are fulfilled. In consideration of your time, VII make these points as quickly as possible of why I feel the developer's request for this Filing should be denied as it would greatly impact the character of the existing development. EXHIBIT ?t'WFc9tIetOOI i . I have horse property with a fenced horse corral that is limited to 10% of my property. But because of the sandy roam soil that is prevalent in this Beebe Draw Farms area, within two weeks that entire fenced area of my 3 acres had been trodden down to pure sand . Now every time for the past 17 years that the wind blows, the sand blows (away) and onto other neighbors' property. The developer is stating that with this next filing, they want these new horse property owners to be able to have 25% of their lot fenced horse/animal corral . PLR is not an area where this can be sustainable. This blowing sand from 25% of these lots will become a nightmare for everyone residing within along with the farmers/ranchers adjacent to PLR. ii . The 186 lot owners in Filing 1 were told and shown (see attached photos) that the future build-out of PLR would mimic what they were buying into. But now the developer is getting greedy, these 1- acre lots and the unwanted/unneeded commercial development were not a part of that forecast. The developer(and/or their representative) have even promised brand new residents in writing that this existing layout would not be changing in order to expediate the Filing 1 buildout. But then less than a year later they are filing this re-zoning request. iii . The first thing a newcomer notices about PLR is the wide-openness feeling. However by allowing this zoning change, this development becomes like any other (See Great Rock/Aristocrat Ranchettes) . It is mentioned many times in the original literature of PLR about the 'wide open nature of the spaces at PLR', but now none of that is being considered by the developer, which is what sold most lot owners on PLR here in the first place. iv. Traffic has gotten much worse in just the past three years with the buildout of the remaining lots, but adding this increased density of homes without adding additional entry/exit points will now not just be an annoyance, but a huge safety issue. A traffic study was done by the developer, but those numbers are in contrast by other professional studies. In addition, that study was done in the summer, in the midst of Covid when residents were working from home, along with not shuttling kids to and from school or athletic activities . If anyone were to monitor traffic now that workplaces and schools have reopened for in-person learning, a big change would be noticed from the traffic study done in the summer of 2021 . The designated internal feeder routes of Beebe Draw, Essex Road S., Ledyard Road, and Fairbanks Road S. are not wide enough nor designed to be able to handle this increased density of housing, let alone the failure to keep them maintained . I have lived in PLR long enough now to have experienced three grassland fires . There currently is only one commonly known egress point for PLR which is WCR39. Two of these three fires started in the west and proceeded westward . These fires could have easily prevented the ability of fleeing residents to escape if the wind would have increased intensity. What will happen with all of these additional residents trying to reach safety in a true emergency? v. I just want it to be noted in the public record that former long-standing and respected Weld County Commissioner, Bill Jerke in no way represents the residents of PLR. It seems that Bill has been brought in by the developer and Robert Molloy ( Planning/Landscape Architecture) to smooth things over and give the perspective that this development/rezoning is a 'plus' based on Bill's public comments from the in-person and 3/2/22 zoom meetings that the residents of PLR have been invited to. However there was only ONE person that had voiced any very slight positively for this development, yet Bill made it sound like on the call that it was a consensus feeling among the residents. I have absolutely nothing against Bill; in fact I have twelve of his trees growing on my property that I bought from Bill about 14 years ago. However Bill has moved away and now no longer lives on WCR39 which will be seeing a large increase of traffic if this re-zoning passes, but instead he lives in Texas (which also has never been stated as part of these meetings) . vi . The wildlife in PLR is simply amazing; on our property we have had Deer, Coyotes, Eagles, Hawks, Owls, Badgers and Turtles to name just few species . High density housing being allowed along the Below is the rlit inal PLAT design from the developer that shows how the next filings were supposed to be synchronous with the original filing of 186 lots. On first glance, 'green' Is the focal point of this layout It's a `Like-for-like' with the existing structure. This original PLAT design is still being shown to prospective new home/lot owners. This is GOOD, but the new condensed version is not acceptable. - Pi 'caa LDwk aw 1 r of, �I II T" ' ,-, 1 • ;,' ' - •!. ' on crngar,, . L"�. _ d entryway an (�[. 1[nlr Mai iw- i. 4�Ai1• - - 1.t'--- MatiledI h- r lalt^+I . ell■ e de. 6 . • • ■ • h ' e••• �• MI �7 I 1- ' '.- 1<•a - - - -_ - - - -- -• I EMI • ,�. kLit _ - - al +`I 6 ti we. 41611/4"H� M .1 r � 0 +" '�. .a ' 1 # t.1 IL e fee 916 +d ''! ! e ._ I. I Pl N _ r ! pit . _ •+ -Eh 44 4 v.ir illt sill i lie YII.1P a• • .s • Ire Cr*+1 o - at .. _ � �• ! a It s /tut Ati.. '�`t •. -.la {{ �1' i `� r EP `fir _ __ - — • �. O P t ,. • Y 1 _ _ B 4 • — ' t :Kt i • 4, P "el `4a. `� _ i . It 'r — e '• d e' J 4 y _r. ni . •Ia- +r �. -1!(�{L�I II A O . a .. , I _• - r II L . w e I +%1 F •• y -It • _ ip ell 4(III Jahillivor inif I or li Jar 14 Jar MY i • p, -A - ! r ,i1/2„...„.. •11 .. + lik Id is_ at\ it r a _ _ as vitr. .. dq MINI I . \ a . - • t i,I .'•a! 1 ■ . ...r I 0 ' ' ilrillilliS fel - !"-• - IN a Ur Wr r I I riallWill ti K s PSIS a a-lifii— MOW • 1 rqr 1 ` -41 1 e mor ea =a _ - ! _ - YJ. el CAIIIIIMPIRI !hint pia I ' _raw" 37...— na ,f _y I , - — s- -- 1 — s. 4 •gyp se _al antlers r [ owe a lint n $4 'tom= west edge of Milton reservoir will have a big impact on these animals residing/passing through the area. Being able to see the Eagles nesting and flying through the development, or just last year seeing them fighting with a hawk over whom gets the spoils of a rabbit carcass is nature at its best. vii. The developer has been completely unable to maintain the existing infrastructure or amenities of their original filing. I can provide numerous photos of the extreme road cracking, pot-holes that have not been filled, but only having been given a cursory coating of chip seal which does absolutely nothing to cut down the size of these cracks. The putting green is basically unusable due to the settling of the ground with the cups (golf holes) now sitting inches above the surface. Residents have been telling the developer for several years now about the safety of anyone walking/riding bikes/pushing strollers and that some type of pathway needs to be constructed along Beebe Draw before someone gets seriously injured by the speeding vehicles up and down Beebe Draw. But in any case, the developer needs to complete the promises that they made in their initial PUD filing to Weld County before being able to pursue additional filings, let alone increased density. viii. Rise Broadband which currently supplies Internet access to at least 90% of PLR residents has stated that they will be unable to support internet access to these additional homes. One of their two towers is already at capacity, with the other one rapidly approaching capacity. Excel electricity is already experiencing frequent outages in this area, they will need to change their infrastructure model to be able to improve their existing service, let alone all of these additional residences. And water, Northern Colorado Water has been struggling with being able to provide water taps in northern Colorado; WCWD which has been a great provider of water to PLR, but the water pressure now is nowhere near what it used to be, but is still in within acceptable ranges, but what happens when these additional residences try to put in landscaping, plants, trees, the struggle for WCWD to maintain this service will be real. ix. One final note, its good to remember that before oil/gas money came along, farming and ranching is what built Weld County into a National Top Ten producing County. The countless farmers along WCR32 and WCR39 will be impacted by this increase of traffic. Yes, they will still be able to farm and ranch, but it will be with a much greater difficulty of having to coexist in a rural part of the county that is now no longer purely rural. In summary, I would just like to sincerely Thank You for taking these actual warranted concerns of myself and other Weld County residents into consideration. Developmental build-out of PLR is fine, just have the developer do it in their originally stated PUD (which conforms to Weld County Charter Rule 35 which states it must be 'Reasonable and Sustainable' neither which are true with this Filing), the photos themselves of the original and planned plats do not-lie, it is clear that the uniformity-between filings will be very-different. Please ctcrnot allow the proposed Sincerely, Steven Street 4 /Pt aktjb l e � ita; p . :all 4- January 2 , o2 rr 4741 Attn Mr. Max Nader CS:9S 164 st:41) -wife%Oopt Case #PUDF24-0001 REI I LTD Liability Co and Investors LTD Liability Co, This letter is in regarding the Post card I received here at Pelican Lake, I'm sure that someone there really has to know what has been going on Here there has been several complaints with Weld County Planning since I have been here, and seems to go in one ear and out the other, If I had known this all was going on I NEVER bought out here, its very sad what an has happened here and there is no one from the county that really cares to listen, but i guess they donut have 850k invested Out here like 1 do and got screwed from the beginning from Christina Hethcock, This all start from the beginning from purchasing the land and Tina Wersman Who I thought was the realtor was not got a 7k kick back from Christina and then New Expression home builder (long story Thanks to Tina gets a Kick back there) Than to financing with Harmony Brokers (thats another story that to Tina ) with a kick back No knowing that all for them are tied into getherr, Qook at the county recorders) After hiring a lawyer (another story) we are now trying to close Jeff from Harmony Hides out for 2 weeks, building insp don't pass eme.iiiiLiaaries I don't know how The county passed everything ' , we are now getting ready to Close New expression Charges me extra 2200.00 because they said im moving in early, Christina raised the water Tap 13000 00 Holy Crap we signed in Sept and told the price and at closing guess what she raised the price and said that's what it is screw again so between Christina and Tina they made out pretty good, i would of love To have walked away but New expression has me out now 200k and I was putting down Another 200K yep and the fees they keep charge me where outrageous , Mc Any even Try to fight but again Christina and New Expression said it is what it is, and hew Expression Said th eyne►w she would do that, and wow all the stuff they said we had access to and what we Can do was total lies, but again im screwed, Now were here in the home Sept, 0MG Nightmare City I had to do a early retirements do to health reason, Dr advise move out of the City, So I did, Well Oct I Got COVID in the Hospital, My grandson was Born, my DLL Grandma passed away, My sister passed away in No Dak, Nov trying to get my head wrapped around everything ( MY Son and DIL live with me to Help me ) Dec all Hell breaks loose again My dad passed away, my Niece, my aunt and 2 uncles and you can see it was tuft, didn't really !grow anyone here, so I thought it would Be great if we did something like neighbors helping neighbors NOT mars when I found out what all was happening out here and stand going to meetings. I have been on several boards and i was totally SHOCKED how this board was ran Christina is heartless, rude , and very inconsiderate, she does as she wants she does EXHIBIT plADRVI- OOD I v • • cr-fr PV-/ Not want to hew from any of us, she actually told a couple if you don't move WOW, Pelican Lake has Sued Chirstina back in 2001 or 2001-i m trying to pulled The case, and she was to due many many things here and she has NEVER Completed them, our road need fixed we have no lights (but Christina says We need to live on then dark side) she refuses to fix anything, There is so much That needs to be done here, and she continually gets by with it. I could go on and go, But this is got to stop and now she wants to do 294 residential Units We here have some pretty tough guidelines and this new build lets do some Comparable with Us r . . and ask here were the monies coming from she had not right to sell 422 acres of land that was not hers and this Is a private sale.. And refuses to tell us anything because she's above everyone , , no not right, and then moves to MEXICO yep MEXICO , What's your though i think there's things that need to be corrected, I also have a VERY HARD time that when this was purchased by The Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Co. . someone didn't do there DUE DILIGENCE, very strange on 422 acres again this was not Hers, are we going to reward her by letting her do a new development She needs to finish the Pelican lake, before she starts another one , she needs to make things right first, how can you manage a development From MEXICO ?and she need to sign the community center back to us she signed contact from her to her, she paid out some pretty high ants Tb the engineer Mr Wernsman, why don't the new development have the Same restriction as Pelican " where are basely one in the same, I was told you can have chickens, ride a tvv mini bikes, Milton Reservoir, Again lies lies lies , I know each of these letters will be pulled and copied And given to Christina or Tina, but the truth will come out in the end , ,,, ainepAti < raJ1(6 A;(2° 18 h e 4(° 27/;c177E Vfrilef rjet g k6. Uos ice, January 31 , 2024 Weld County Planning Services fib, Cvatfr Ik46. 19 1142 N 17th AveS �C` PO Box 758 �ity (#4 '� Greeley CO 84632 ski)40t�V! RE: PUDF24-000 1 Dear Planning Staff and commission: This letter represents collective voices of numerous residents of Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) regarding the application packet submitted by Christine Hethcock, REI LLC, for Filing 2, referred to as the Declarant. To be clear, this letter does not represent all PLR resident voices, only those who have signed below. As residents, we have significant and serious concerns with the Filing 2 which are enumerated below. Numerous residents will attend the Planning Commission Hearing for this filing and provide greater detail rciated concerns specified in this letter. The purpose of this letter is to present our broad concerns to the Planning Commission and to encourage a complete and thorough review. Most, if not all of our concerns, have been preciously been voiced to the Declarant and her consultants, yet have not been addressed or resolved in the present filing. We find this unacceptable. The signatories of this letter reside within the boundaries Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District and Authority. Concerns At the outset, it is important to state our support for reasonable and measured development of this property consistent with the original design and PUD for Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) as rural, not urban scale, development. We seek a balance between a reasonable, sustainable rural development and reasonable profits for the Declarant. Regrettably, our review of REI's Filing 2 indicates that the proposal manifestly alters the original plan for and character of this community, in which all of us invested with the purchase of our homes, potentially endangers residents' safety, is not sustainable, and will have a negative environmental EXHIBIT impact, piwrgq -0-00 , 16 • Density Attachment A, at the end of this dooument is a good place to start. A simple comparison of the existing filing and proposed filing is telling. The existing filing demonstrates reasonable open space, larger lots-consistent with rural developments, and appropriate setbacks. In comparison, the proposed Filing 2 has little to no open space, much smaller lots and only one amenity location for new residents. The proposed density in Filing 2 manifestly changes the character of the development. For example, on page 10 the Declarant specifically mentions modular or system-built homes while residents in the existing filing were required to build custom or semi-custom homes with three car garages. The requirements for homes should be as consistent as possible throughout out the development to promote one community and so that existing homeowners do not have the property values negatively impacted by homes/property of significantly less value. Filing 2 creates a very different community that originally approved in the PUll • Insufficient entrances/exits for a community this size. Presently, we have one entrance/exit for residents. The proposed plan does have a second entry noted, yet we understand that this entrance would not be `built' until 2028 requiring all contractors and eventual residents to traverse through the current community 's road severely impacting resident safety and significantly impacting our current roads, which are not in great shape. One only needs to recall the issues residents had with the Marshall fire to understand the risk to residents when a community traffic patterns are restricted and constrained with insufficient access points. • Waste water. Given the numerous small lots in Filing 2 will the Declarant be installing a waste water treatment system? What is the environmental impact of individual septic systems for each of these new lots? The Declarant needs to specifically address this in their filing and the potential environmental impact. • Water taps. What study, if any, has been conducted with Central Weld Water, regarding the available water for the new residents? We have hearts the Declarant intends to offer new residents a `budget tap' for these lots. This is simply insufficient and will likely result in new residents paying extra when they exceed their annual water allotment. We urge the Planning Commission to review and confirm that residents of Filing 2 have access to sufficient water resources and will not incur excessive charges due to over utilization. • Amenities. Currently, we have wonderful amenities to serve the existing community which are at, and some times over, capacity. These amenities also require continual maintenance which has been a struggle to get approved with our current Declarant. Z22-001 response required the REI to submit a plan for specific amenities within each filing and phase, indicating at which point certain amenities and other community improvements will be installed. This element is not present in the Filing 2 documents. Instead, Filing 2 indicates that amenities will be installed 'as needed' , but who determines when they are needed? If the Declarant's history/engagement with the community is the best predictor of future their behavior, Filing 2 Residents will not see amenities until Filing 2 is nearly built out. Without a definitive plan committing the Declarant to state to where and when the necessary amenities (mail room, pool, trails) will be built, Filing 2 Residents will understandably desire to use the existing amenities further straining current infrastructure and leading to unnecessary community conflict and strife . • Manifest conflicts with current zoning. Filing 2 contains several references that appear in conflict with PLR's current R- 1 zoning, specifically the construction of a horse boarding facility and allowing homes to be used for commercial rentals e.g., Airbnb. Commercial ventures are inconsistent with the character of the community and with current zoning, • Lack of planning for reasonable development. Building out Filing 2 is anticipated to take approximately 20 years. With no clear plan for how contractors will gain access to Filing 2, residents can rightly assume the Declarant intends to use our existing roads and infrastructure for development of Filing 2. The impact for current residents, many who have small children, will expose current residents to the risk of increased and constant construction tragic, increased air pollution due to the dust that accompanies new construction and significant disruptions to our way of life. This is simply unacceptable. We ask that the Declarant ,provide a plan for how contractors will access Filing 2 without using the existing infrastructure or that the Declarant uses their own funds to set up an escrow account to repair the inevitable damage to the existing roads and infrastructure. • Conflicts with current governance structure. Filing 2 sets out several very concerning changes which will result in two communities, not one. Specifically, o the document is titled PELICAN LAKE RANCH FILING 2 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS . There is no legal entity called Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 . : If this is a completely new legal entity, then is it not be illegal to use tax money from Beebe Draw Farms Filing 1 to fund Filing 2? o Page 7 refers to the duties of the Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 2 Property Owners Association as covering "the expenses of administration, maintenance, construction, improvement, repair, and replacement of common elements. " Those are all elements currently handled by the two districts and the Authority Board in Filing 1 , Does the new Association intend to issue its own bonds and set up repayment to provide these common elements? o Page 9, where it states that the Declarant reserves the right to amend use restrictions or add new restrictions for 30 years. Currently, it takes a vote of 67°,/a of lot owners to amend covenants. Should the lots be sold before the 3U-year deadline will the Declarant still control the covenants when they own no lots? Q Page 12 is the first mention of the Authority. It is unclear to us, as residents, as to whether the covenants assume that the Authority and the Association function as one entity? They do not and this is not clearly explicated in Filing 2 . o Page 20 details the requirements to have barns for horses, goats, mules, donkeys, llamas and chickens. None of those are permitted under the approved PUP plan. None are compatible with R4- 1 zoning. None are permitted in Filing 1 . People who invested in Filing 1 , thinking it would remain a residential (not agricultural) neighborhood, are being penalized with Filing 2 . o Page 29 indicates RH's desire reduce the two-thirds majority to vote to amend the covenants to 60%. Covenants are a binding contract that should change only after careful study and community input, reducing the threshold reduces resident's confidence that their investment will hold value. o Page 32 states the Declarant gets to appoint the board of directors of the association for as long as they still own lots. This is inappropriate as it prevents residents from determining who will represent them, gives the Declarant more influence over community matters than taxpaying residents which calls the question of taxation without representation. Residents in the existing filing have already experienced the Declarant overriding decisions of duly appointed boards Like the Design Review Committee leading to arbitrary and capricious decisions for individual landowners putting • them in conflict with other residents. In summary, if the Declarant is planning to start a new legal entity using the name Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 then, it is our perspective that Filing 2 is not covered under the existing PUD and would require review as a completely new plan, not an extension and updating of the current approved PUD. Respectfully submitted, 161 : ( i4rta ki1cA i tr, esuAaays L4sve& E4 ?Ansi e•Athexit I cialotaulid co Resident Signature Page face° Linda L. Black and Kay Massdlink 16478 Burghley Court Platteville, CO 80651 Q ...... Existing .. Filing I . . . • . • ••• : : . . . . • . "..,." . . : . a. :. , . , :,„ .. .: . ,...:::.• . : ... ..,..._ .. . • ...• .. , ... •_...,. ., ..::::...::::.:;::.:,:.:., . ...„...,:),,,. t • ... .• . . .. . . • di. . ... ti' . ...., : .. :. _ . ... . . F/1 ..t., I."... ..„. .... • • • ..„ .. . •::.::.„:.:. .:,.::::i.::: :::.. . .F ,..:. It „::,.....:,...:•. . . ... . : : ki‘: .. •...... .. . .'• ,, t, J . .. . . „ • •••.. • . : •• . ... . . .:.k.1›. .....„....4c. :..... .. .:: 4%.:..:„..i...,:_I....A./F....4 . . ......i:, c.,., J., • .:„... : . .. . . . . , ... ..• . : . . . . . x ., . ..:.,...:..:..or,..;:::::. f y �/ • r • • y r 1t. r ......,,„„•••„..r• r aY • :iSW& "2�1j , +ts g,,y��}t }y�..yy'��•{{<>J<'•.fi �}ry'1• K o - • }� R ,yy�y .• •.44( 4 • • • • I •'N➢f'f..9` 'F.r • fk�- + phis ,:JY, .y � �♦1:4:, • r46„. Y �rs,ryyE 4-died s r v?' NYr• + ti i to- ` •+ DB ?f `t� v' •�y..• ' s • ter •` ��7�,7 "0.. .,,.557'!.4 ! • • a,yy? I� >SS' ,,..,,,,yyyy, >, • ' 'yaw ,.,,y./t t k P k {,;� � i c ' G t J�3 / .. . 4 I T •nkry : :. ,is`"'� >" rh{A4•2 # '`ti., iiiiii /,RS. ,' '., ' -� .. ' /' °{{ ,, �'- 2(.576• n'+!M!• • '< ` ti ,tw: , 7WOW r. � . ,, a>•na ''r'"` , ,I • sE y;.: ; •?...,'.. > ..,. - 1/4 v� r.. faV PJf/7r I r /� 4<;• t {„� / r< $; pM1 ""::z . .». . r# � '{ t� >� r D fy+q. e, ''Jn. - .y,:)!wawa + 2. r a MS 4444 • ity • 4.i ,qMt ;'ot�V +J'a. .7q- t, • ,Y "4: "r,,,< tl '36,,, n rt1k i " `E ' �:ri v . . i. 4 3}{{ f i • g< $+loll! (� t 3 • Y' E s� <>AN 3 • :. .v.' , ' n` r fre'y ' v / r JY _/! yr SiG�'Gfa • 0f r ~-i•<it v r . . • •?�� { t/7ji • .: .Vr4i0,Y5y �+ ,,tom{p. 'c{a. < , - ,< 4_ iJ�2c; • .ii- {y K9s 4.' S+/, / `�. y7 x113'' y/ ID"- 7 7.-5-51 • .ry y�,. '�1� '', ��/ !M > f 6a < 'r. • . ::::.:.> y �i i �j:�I • { iiCCNN • _ ' ' . r :l we. ., x, v n rY .y.+.y„ k-Ye!hr/ :r::?. k+K5{`. • •.,. 'I' Jr Jr•r•47'{'A4h<Y/s!..•.:1F<dfP,{I]' ,`'�. }�. •'- 2 • _ - .. R `VI, J z:04.73> t } t , P.t '"y ` . ..(75%.4.• rfJ r 4;r • • i : '-./fi .'+rval -;yy ' �4i4A.yr1` r _ .: t v �r ;•,?. { •{ ;.•:,...... ::2-....:::-.. r ,k<5 lSJ.Slrrr/ C r/ l 7 :.• n r aF >" /. 1 vY> � < 'J {<;.i .c-.,'<ta • ...,•-••.T< /, v 'I ' '<'. 7} t ' T4` ' r /� r J .,:n.". l T 3Mr.f'4 ,ir 11 - -�?:; ,� �!'4 %✓r4 r 'IN< ruc<'fSk.,,> 3�k' _ � % naan-Caa 4' ,r lr i'yY`' )3';;"):•••:•:).%"• • ?: f '/+ > _ } r�r,{r, r 3Ss>y.. { .� '•t ' ` . ° #5 �`',. ��fe',ll ii J' Le• I - ..[ J v y S Y /'j:' ..:• ,0„, • : ...,,4,, .3 'tlfjitt• ' :G ` 'C 7,. </ ltaL�fllyl�` kNt�Miaw�M� A. • T •N 1A'IJ'/ - p pp rr t •V;.;.;:•% t� >n ,:Y' > ' �I ` < /'�' • •P .... : a�F , x /+ ter' f •4 ,> ,' ``'r k 'Y A�• 4 / 4 �li., , toms f� .C .,^� ; ` ¢5�' n 'I"" f7' C: * yyr 0 ,..,trvl. ' ag 7�f��pY�F�� v v t9ltvti'7a i.. LFt> r. Y .Ar Y A'S ' ':`W t �AY5ir.�. STOOL ICS- W% : i, /, '� ` ti 4 sr/�Y n<''�'PropOseØFiIing !21 : '' ... v ,J ?/Yr : J76kW StellMtit II old I SP: • •• .r••• posed ,-.4,. Ftriiin • al'ryr9r' -.k' ' - .,ry, £ : 1i1� 1��1� V�'5is. al .- 4010000100allia a y Nry. j' w" E IYG. . tc J _ 9 ... / / y Fy' { s6 9di i>x� a a ti �� 3 r: jM1 oire, c. �f r}rYr i :� - '^'9 {�� Vyfl?. t y s .�ff>1rr >N• s. `'- r yV }' 4 i� :.. Y i .� �i ....4',"./4.2.•/, ,S ry,tt+>' t.'5: �s1 a Jl a 6h y i •. . . . .. . R // t r' ••: f! "r )'.• •Q ?, / vV. _•y-•- <c-wvvc'4, +�„ .... ,. , t2 1."•a•-.�..: , a - �tf'3. :� j� ';�iftie} I,yax•. .Y .,.,��gyr � :. Y� s : - t. r ,u... • :•I v v r-., n r �+ j 1 ,ycu { y "'Tr'" J;- ' , t. '�' -0 *tow i Uwtl! ww+ipwww, wwww • 4. £ a Y: >. Y r7y i - . � , {, • • , / '� ://":'...%*. , O{ �Y'?(y.7>N Yrr `t • • • Sp .. :.-.:.>: . . .ws...waesv...wrGww•aeNN+waywvc, $•••. •,,:.„.".*„.... . '»: S�yr •I: ::A • <{ •. < �'.Y '/Y+t f� t� /../i.;#.#;(" .9i t//r»Ji <? n' 'i,Y1�� •�,..,y,.,,.,,vy 5 _ .. ,, ,•w•21rraiswsANA, vrk rTarlurrw�n r'e ' 7,.• 3.'• •-.*,'fr/f>&»> ' • • }� y b y • •y� ~'2a.6 .. :. I .:•A►Y7'/`•1Ais* 1.'.t}.SN'r N ':4 q " y*tr Y { - n *ask E, .% '� QS. AS: .'.qy,�t> -i. 1 7. y(. r �•-w:r6..).•)",1%.4y:r,•.vnyn•�. v<.�t•.„»>n»<N>N7, . »»»»•wva. ..•1 - .y ' p.yY 'A9?'+v ` , . _ -r v..yJi:.-w .'4w,•>nbvwsrrAse *�N.a,?a7K' Y,armaaas<• X ¢'Y It. r r -• - t ' < 'yY`< I r r Li..:, t� - r , • S < a r .+..• ' T•J v,o...,.dt.•rr..v............................0.0-..r ��"' Y/ wgw4,. Tifton* 4 - r�` .. ' d y .�71:N gY.3Ylc-tt ? w WKKk1k'u _. ,; :/,.-na:t+.:.. .. / +" � r .:ti:,,: 1AfY??t I 6 nfY > »»+»'i>»t>»s,o6 >,tpMy.Y "1..- ,nWv^,3.4ti"fS5k •H3 >%dNY/sr>S»>Y+> x ° � Rd r • !•r'{i ry i...94 641.0ff u APPY/44ffits t.tffist rY 6 • ikter,01 From: David Miller and io Majors t Cnekpipak Address 16499 Essex Rd S Platteville, CO ken Pelican Lake Ranch (Beebe Draw Farms) 4onpninal Dein To: Maxwell Nader, Weld County Planning Subject Pelican Lake Ranch Filing, 2 Case #: PUDF2 1 We are writing to you with concerns re rding the reference filing. We have listed those concerns below. 1) The minimum size of lot Is 1.1 acres, which Is considerably less than the current development. It also appears that there Is a cluster of smaller lots along the western border adjacent to WCR 39. 2) The property setback for lot boundaries not next to easements has been reduced to 25 feet from SO feet. Coupled with concern #1 will give a more crowded appearance to the misting development, which will have a negative impact on property value. 3) i do not see plans for where the new development owners will receive mall. Is it to beat the current facility? 4) Promises were made to all Filing I owners. Primal), among them was adherence to the Covenants. The Filing 2 covenants vary significantly from the Ong covenants. This will have a negative Impact on current property values. 5) Filing 2 mentions water planning, but there Is no details provided. Will increased water usage result in increased rates for existing homes. And how is the water to be delivered to the new development. Will that result In lower water pressure, and disruption In service while installation occurs? 6) With Increased density does it allow for adequate area for proper septic? There is mention of septic use but no details. 7) These concerns all result from the Filing 2 =tenants: a. Current =tenants require the primary garage to be at least large enough for 3 cars, New covenants allow for a 2-car garap. This will decrease the apparent size of the home and have a negative Impact on existing home value. b. As mentioned above the reduction of setbacks will increase the density or housing. c. The new covenants allow Air BnB short-term rentals Of the owner Is not resident). Short term rental in areas for permanent residency has a negative Impact on home value. d. Heavy equipment and semi-truck parking is allowed for the short term, and without limit to quantity of vehicles. There Is no definition as to what short term means. e. The statement In d. above applies to RVs also. Currently RV parking Is limited to a few days. The new covenant could have RVs parked on the lot indefinitely* f. in neither d. nor e. as stated above do the covenants prohibit parking large vehicles for a short term then move them for a few hours then return them thus starting the 'short- term' over. Effectively, a lot-owner old run a semi dispatch from their residential pPe • g. Wild animals can be kept If they are young or injured. h. Chickens may be kept Goats may also be kept. EXHIBIT Put9FdIkzei I to I 4-H project animals are allowed to be lacpt. Na limit on how many or what kind of animals can be kept, nor how long the animal can be laept Pigs, sheeP, cows, bulls, chickens, etc. are all 441 animals. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and consider our concerns. Jr3L. 14,114,44)11 10 Majors Dave Miller r R �lC4N (2M1111" Pulley- aell Pub F srZ4 . )„ off k3/4494,01, PRE a £ 3 ,-, 00118 Vaeikateadoipen vies/ Lo FilivirLeo en Lois 04de4L /o,01 Ac, E�l�S/iA Priori Lis �a�' /LtBatt b-hear Attila - mExL Is' int nl pfj ito< gP, RE /CL doca,na, i 12710.4. - 1;7 ler&q 1 A Ast, 444) attef 4,1, A) at stis. 50O-11 erhc 0-0154/147 r) At propos:4 RI, A9 1 Los �$ ‘Atiatieely trierGterSS it�R. as (diem peopesesi A Alirinje 1 . vi,608 Inlet, hatted. uma Z aYGwt 6:1 ; 4e ) tea { sels- 61dto /TOM' �iJll f aS�tenrt -51 ��, � . a Ca#'jwjc7+� 2 es t � , C6mf4Yeot � //rir� ire A / nil 2 4swt4czf/ow&.d) ISc adjeued to auk WI scrrened pie a9urhsaL a. mwM mare /'eshot Aadr Cgshn, (ey ;hir9) A one • EXHIBIT PuDI �a�-ooa � , 7 1st S‘ eat lit VeS loy 1k; Akke agail ar kips i+'₹PC. ,L prd.ur Fanis magi/ JI` 6L N �aeLr:..�;,, meEP. - t,1sim n4S Pern&n �c�Lc.J rdieriars eetyst - t Pre) Se z hod �! &Atha, //‘ Ex /ski Aini5 af . • het s t hill n Hi eutrik ilLikei !ewe Lite '1 1 Zak dkre At 1 l t p<aY c.L. � /Yov Mt o/ &trOtflt( s (sitzen tits ) JA! hee A � , saititte4tki, amthoiao� ( I3eii/ditl �/� /rrYou net s ) basin fro;imect e ap 60.5424 7 4 ,a1,,,,„ arms ) I 140 - Lay meet •. r 1N'• I . - • �•• ippyli ZA , ■ 0.1,/- - +-rr•_T TAI-•• _w.,, ,t ..•.-�....-....� .. . Wit-- ;• • � . f... 1: lo... r. . •I. - ,:1 L•:. :�.,_ ;;-h �; Jul : P. - :"; • \41 • ' r. I -t Pelican Lake Ranch• . - ;•.�1 i, ..` �•' a Y^ :-. , , ,: , ,I :' ( ;C ,e■y a I•F y. a a " ,:ii (y�t�s.q w'♦, ..:.'i . , ^mill�•' 1(41.-.1;1..71,:r• II Aft • . 4.r '5 *.•,1' a., 11' J 1 r � tilt f�� .I��.^l .• ; ' . I • _-�ji 1° F . 1 . n 9 Il ,, n •Ir•-,r r • .,...tiLd ' • lli`•r .Sltf igr•'1JI.IP�1 1:,• •.sa i.1". 00: r i • . •.). A t. I ii. • r . i../414,71:li-lp\ d .. . so , ...... .c.. : . o ;4•V :D.• Suilm'o •...ill:. . W.:, 17. • 141 %. li . a . , ••1, ,.a. r,; ii...... ea EXISILI ng 'i . ..itzzirtr_, di •I e. j ii; • lit 491 . a . ..,A. ,,,,.. aftl . , .., • at 15.1O .. .. :. ' 0. .r a _ ' .,,,. . ic.: Alanial a . _. 1/1 A it •gs. . .* es r.).111 ' . I\- • • .4 1 • ilikt la All rr el . .: la, .I a _. . ,I , . fig . 0 .., — ..... 1 11 11 � . di ii -4 . . I " Apt . AIL, . .. ,a,,h...LHklHr4ll'41. ‘PPP ,,,,,, , jr, ,, 4, ,1ell IfI 2i 4, .. r a 6 at \ ' Itelliii S � F . II h ri . lir . . . 11, , GA' , I A A.I..v....s. isiilt . .. y i" . , 11.1tir 1 • 1,T ° 1 isit •y • 40111 i., • Ill . i , 5.,.. ,,.. • ,. f - 4 aT.., . • fia4 . r., , telit • y y . a ir..._ , a Anil As .. . 10. .., ..vrAp . .L..; . 4, 4iii i. i J a MA r-i ,, 2 gpr a , • • 4 , 4(i...is..... : II • 1 -. • . No 1 ; ', 4Liri,'i:ell .: 4SE baba -• . - - . . �iI .4 ` ' ' ' • + }� w rte.Yr . 6*3.. I... — . P lie r.:,..,s; i , I., . .., :. - illi*D. e r Of. " •lir_ ls clCi ii1T5 Y '"!' 1�1 •_1L,I • , I--• I. 14 A �L�Jj1�Q f 1'rS ,• - _. _......„. ,...,,i .•• 1. I.l '•1 ` . , '�M1tyt .. . ,• `,; 11 t I r -tfw'�- . ..1 •` T t • . ft I I rI� � { ift '� '., i •F+irk �! � _s+.1-tJr"�41ifr \..tIr,�l�t,'.'�•�K..1t9 - �I I:I 4-- t v.1 a Lj ;a" Is Sp" i MI" • vows - - • -..- MIN : "..."•, 24101°.:4'• -Cill.WIMVOlell_iiiir5 - AIONITY AM -• • • . pit. . to) 1 IIi i.era. / •� I. t \` ''1 ..._� •1 �r�I '' t, • j‘j�af 1'�. '"'JS C~ `• ' : * nt °P ill �'± -�.-- V,M,,,,,,. �,fwnww> , t '.• r faa rh' 1.11L{'�1,, .•f rt 1. X41' .t-� ' 1 - IIMINIIIM e �' ��n • • _1 • ' ;'t • -�'" 4 +'711 Terri G, {e4ci-i.1, "+ i• ' 5 r .''� •, � •I'r • 1 I i7� VbastRibMan . , Mr�I , . i ?,�Ia'Y� 5, >ti � 1 r • r;� t for is ' :,,,.1y}y -d t ` vo.,�i M •' tto: •/ rI� l ^ (P t•.', . '•. _ '1'•• L j"L` !I ti.l• .�l ',,, ,. �L \ .Illgett •j'•r• ,. ,i, y- Iu i; '�.1,' �;'F• .'4'j -J'"' 'iTi RMI1G UAW ..ra 4, I . - it • eh t I .•eZ` - • . r .,. % I1 ' "E,•x.. r1at..t..) :* = _j Il.';I mix Ai ! s , I. rill: kit: 1"717%\ i nlart Slit r- r)1Ires _ . \:\si . ...• Itil,4 ii. A 4'•••••••••4„. .1in • ... fie. �� fifffr In 91MilliPlbrigr/r" 414 s• tiiiikiS. jjkiii- •••••-•,,..._. ....1:...•_ AA .. *rt. 411�`'. � ' 17; 7thlli '` � � '4 • • r 1 v rt. �, 1. ,•+ ` int .,a•"•r ?. N 1' .Ink . !it, t-- . : .• 4 a .- - • Is. er• ," 1. r raltof I,' . IIP •L� • " I J_ - a I I.er �„��, -'' ' •'IR1•f• -�� .. �... . .q - .Mtn,. — >•. s. . ' •are .: iSitilmtac si r. 1 min PRODUONO Willa s- _ i ng s J1 41 _ •iry d... ski I r _ I4 iiii r 4(4 I PRoPOSIID OIL Svcs 0 irifitb e., .., 0a • it ill 101 ' . L I • It. 0- siloppiii iii. . a Stour... • .- 1: i it-:': - . % 0 • in,,, ,,,r1 i,. ... II\4 5 r ' manp \kill% • . alt er I -444 "c• . CI I: : 1:__...? !I Il -zsi atA a 1. ,,,1 . . . m ear ...: ,•er si.0 ., mac ., + ' �� ' r •, = ` y .• C.I.r ni LI y _ , � — _ . 1 17P . i 41 i• . .1 Iill F o I i. tilt* 111:31. Ilirm=ligta . als I,• err.; ,, ..is • I • 1 t . i1 h' I•• I. 1• • .r ,1 .• ••, .‘"••••4 L 7 •" ' i I et I ' ISIWilail .......-, - I CounW Rd 32 ,5 sit r Mil itireoposeP „.. term i ft PUD Final Plan application are not detailed. Section 27-240►. a Buffering and screening states: "Uses, buildings or structures within and 9 adjacent to a PUD Zone District shalt be ad uate buier�ed and screened to make their appearance and operation harmonious with the surroun • ng uses. 0-iciesktii balan The application materials discuss some buffering strategies to be inrpo In relation to 141444 ditches, Milton Reservoir and oil and gas development. However, no information is provided on buffering, screening or otherwise achieving harmonious appearance and operation between the irini PUD and the traditional surrounding land uses. Mal Section 27-2-?4. - Conservation area states: "Conservation areas are environmentally sensitive areas with characteristics such as steep slopes, wetlands, flood plains, high water tables, endangered species habitat, riparian areas, historic woodlands, native prairie, areas of significant biological productivity or uniqueness, or areas of significant cultural resources that have been designated for protection from any activity that would significantly alter their ecological integrity, balance or character." The application materials do not adequately address concerns regarding environmentally sensitive areas, most notably regarding the impact to species habitat within portions of the PUD near Milton Reservoir. This topic is later reviewed in Section 2.H . 1 of this document. C. Section 27-6- f . S.2.c - The uses which old be permitted shall be compatible with the existing or Mute development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning, and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code or master plans of affected municipalities. The Amended PUD Change of Zone application has not demonstrated that the proposed PUD "-r---> zoning and requested uses would be - co o liaann wi isti or future development of the surrounding area for two primary , as further e d below. First the additional c development, which would be made possible by this Amended PUD Change of Zone application, has not been adequately detailed in the application materials. Although the zoning request has been defined , the timing, design, quality and layout has not been provided to staff for review. For a development of this scale, these preliminary design details are imperative to understanding the actual impacts with respect to existing and future uses within and adjoining the PIED. Second, a development of this magnitude, by Its own nature, is not compatible with the surrounding area. >, Regarding the first reason, this Amended PUD Change of Zone application lacks sufficient detail for approval. This detail is necessary to properly evaluate the proposed impacts of the PUD with the area and those entities whose infrastructure and interests are located within the PUD. Several instances of this point are described below. The Amended PUD Change of Zone application does not include adequate drainage information to evaluate the proposed drainage impacts to the existing and future land uses within and adjoining the PUD, as detailed in the Weld County Department of Planning Services — Development Review referral, dated January 24, 2022. The drainage design is not in compliance with the Weld County Code as no detailed engineering study, from a Colorado licensed engineer, that shows both the undeveloped and developed drainage patterns for the project site, that tracks the route of off-site discharge until it reaches a natural drainage course, and that demonstrates the off-site discharge will not damage downstream property, roads, or brides, has been provided. The Amended PUD Change of Zone application included agreements with oil and gas operators ° and ditch companies, the majority of such agreements being from the 1970s, 80s and 90s. It is unclear If these parties have since entered into updated agreements, especially those agreements that integrate the plans for the proposed development direction of the PUD, which differs from what was originally proposed. As outlined in the Farmers Reservoir and irrigation Company referral, dated February 16, 2022, there are multiple requested plans and agreements for review and approval, regarding the proposed impacts of the PUD to the Platte Valley Canal. PUDZ22-0001 - Pelican Lake Ranch Page 9 There Is an approximately 3.4-acre area within Section 3, being the portion of the P U D east of the n Platte Valley Canal and Evans #2 Ditch. This area shall be designated for 1-2 ( Medium Industrial ) Zone District uses limited to an outdoor storage facility to be permitted by separate Site Plan Review application. This area shall be bound to the Industrial bulk standards in effect at the time of application. The outdoor storage facility will consist of recreational vehicles (RVs), boats, trailers and similar vehicles; no commercial vehicles, equipment, materials or cargo containers shall be permitted. There is an approximately 5.5-acre area within Section 17, being the far southwest corner of the PUD at the County Road 39 and 32 intersection. This area shall be designated for Cl• (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zone District uses limited to convenience store, gas station, retail, and/or restaurant uses to be permitted by separate Site Plan Review applications. This area shall be bound to the Commercial bulk standards in effect at the time of application In addition to the complete rezoning, the applicant has requested that setbacks from oil and gas facilities be sourced from the E (Estate) Zone District for all areas included in the Amended PUD Change of anew Specifically, no occupied building or structure shall be constructed within two hundred (ZQO). feet of any tank battery, within one hundred-fifty (150) feet of any oiJ and gas wellhead or within twenty-five (25) feet of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas well, unless a greater distance is otherwise prescribed in an executed Surface Use Agreement. This is a reduction of the existing setback radii, being three hundred (300) feet from any oil and gas drill site and production facility. The applicant also requests the ability to utilize the outer fifty (50) feet of the setbacks from the above-described active oil and gas sites for common open space. The Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, codified in Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code, ® . . seeks to manage growth in unincorporated Weld County in an orderly and efficient manner, promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the County, and encouraging well-planned subdivisions by establishing adequate standards for design and improvement. The variety of land division options encourage urban-scale development to be located closer to municipal boundaries and less dense divisions of land to be located in the rural areas of the County , where compatible." The Amended PUD Change of Zone application has not demonstrated consistency with the existing adopted Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, as PUDs of this type are encouraged to be located closer to municipal boundaries and less dense divisions of land to be located in the rural areas of the County. In this way, the PUD is not considered a well-planned subdivision. Although the PUD was originally approved in this location, the continued development of this area, compounded with an increase in density and land uses, does not support the goals and objectives of Chapter 22 or the intent and requirements of Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code Chapter 24 also contains numerous Subdivision Design Standards which are applicable to Planned Unit Developments per Section 24449 of the Weld County Code. These design and improvement-based. Standards will be reviewed in future PUD Final Plan applications, should this request be approved. Consistency with Intergovernmental Agreements and Chapter 19 ( Coordinated Planning Agreements) is later mviewed in Section 2. H.8 of this document. Consistency with Chapter 25 (Regional Urbanization Areas), although no longer applicable, is later reviewed in Section 2. H.7 of this document. B. Section 27-5-120. B 2.b - The uses which would be allowed In the proposed PUD will conform with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article lit Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code. The Amended P U D Change of Zone application has not demonstrated conformance with select Performance Standards as outlined in Chapter 27, Article II, Section 27-2-20 through Section 27'- 2-220 of the Weld County Code. These Performance Standards are discussed below. The Performance Standards to which the application Is compliant or those that are applicable during a PUDZ22-0001 — Pelican Lake Ranch Page 8 The Amended PUD Change of Zone application did not Include any level of detail to determine the character and design within each of the generally defined future Final Plan boundaries. This is of special concern regarding the development of the narrow portion of Section 15, being adjacent to Milton Reservoir and the portion of the PUD lying east of the Platte Valley Canal, as such areas are largely identified as High Priority Habitats and environmentally sensitive areas, as discussed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife in their referral dated February 7, 2022, and in the review of previously denied applications to develop the PUD, being S-525, and PFa1O21 . Within the most recent application materials, being PF-1021 , reviewed and denied in 2003, the Developer stated in their application materials that no development associated with the PUD will occur within Section 15, being a narrow strip of land (approximately 380 feet wide by one (1 ) mile tong) west of the Milton Reservoir shore. Furthermore, the Developer stated that this strip will be designated as a wildlife refuge with signage indicating this status and access restrictions. The subject Amended PUD Change of Zone now proposes this area to contain a commercial campground and eventually, residential development. This residential will back up directly to the Heritage Sporting Club access road, active hunting areas and oil and gas facilities. Such existing uses are incompatible with proposed campground and residences and poses a safety concern. Additionally , it has not been demonstrated that viable lots may be platted In this area without being greatly encumbered by oil and gas setback radii. This area is also intended to indirectly benefit from proximity to the Milton Reservoir. However, views of the Milton Reservoir are largely obscured from the proposed residential development on this strip by large earth stockpiles, berms and riparian woodlands which lie between the strip and the Reservoir, on lands owned by the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company. It is also unclear how the proposed buildout of the PUD will comply with current Memorandum of Agreement with the US Bureau of Reclamation for development of such areas. Additionally, previous applications capitalized on a major recreational component, being the use and enjoyment of Milton Reservoir, which wa.s considered as a part of every previous application. However, the PUD no longer has lease access to this major feature of the development, as originally proposed. The original zoning Z-412 and Amended 2-412 plats Included all of Section 16, being a single parcel of land owned by the Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners. This parcel of land was under contract to be purchased by the Developer and to be developed as part of the PUD. However, following financial difficulty in the 1980s, this parcel was not purchased and is not Intended to be part of this PUD. However, beyond this intention, there has been no discussion on the future of this parcel of land, which once was proposed for development. This presents an issue with compatibility, given that this PUD will be located on the lands to the north, west and east of this State Land Board Section. It Is unclear how the future development of either the PUD or the State Land Board parcel would be compatible with the other. Given that this State Land Board parcel is surrounded on three out of four sides by the PUD, this is a material consideration that was not addressed In the subject application materials. Furthermore, this Amended PUD Change of Zone application does not include Section 16 or the School District and Fire District parcels of land in Sections 4 and 5, meaning that the State Land Board parcel, School District parcels, Fire District parcel and the residential portion of the First Filing will continue to be affected by the current zoning approved by Amended 2-412, thereby, two concurrent PUD zone districts will exist In this area, should this Amended PUD Change of Zone request be approved. The above-described areas that will remain under Amended Z-412 will therefore be disconnected from one another, which does not adequately address certain zoning issues with this PUD. In the case of the School and Fire District parcels, this will create the challenge of evaluating the Impacts and compatibility of two PUD Zone Districts under a single future PUD Final Plan application . In the case of the existing zoning to which the residential area of the First Filing is bound, this may create conflicts with differing land use rights between the existing residential area which will be more restricted compared to the proposed residential areas under the new PUD zoning . In the case of the State Land Board Section, this m . remains under the existing zoning, being a large single parcel of land that is residential uses, which Is inconsisten e g ag cu urn u likely future uses of this parcel. The applicant has not addressed the status of the State Land Board parcel. At some point this parcel shall be addressed whether by vacating it from the PUD or rezoning it back to A (Agricultural). For reference, in the most recent application affecting this PUDZ22-0001 — Pelican Lake Ranch Page 10 EXHIBIT pac ' = cot , January 14, 2024 RECEIVED To: The Weld County Planning Department J4,v z WeldC l ?D2, Attn: Maxwell Nadar ou1I J~ i .9 Dept Mr. Nadar, Please see the attached article from June 2003 about Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lake Ranch). Please know that NOTHING has changed with the current developer, Christine Hethcock. She holds back funds for needed improvements and our once beautiful neighborhood is falling apart. We have broken streetlights, leaking sprinkler lines, a pool that is terrible disrepair, and awful roads, just to mention a few things. We have also learned that she sold 422 acres of OUR District 1 property to FRICO without our knowledge, therefore cheating homeowners out of thousands, if not millions of dollars. The developer should be in prison, NOT developing a subdivision. It is understood that she has recently filed for phase 2 of our development and we hope you will look seriously into not approving anything under Hethcock's management. She has cheated the residents here out of so much and if we complain, she takes severe retaliation on people. Thank you for your attention to our concerns in advance. A concerned resident. T .y' 44 1114124, 1 :32 PM Families in subdivision waiting for promises to be fulfilled -- Greeley Tribune LOCAL NEWS ! in - amp ies subdivision waiting for promises to be fulfilled By ANNIE P. HUNDLEY PUBLISHED: June 25, 2003 at 11:53 a.m. I UPDATED: May 13, 2020 at 6:15 a.m. In March 2000, Donita Paranto's family became the fourth to move into the fledgling Pelican Lake Ranch subdivision south of La Salle. Paranto's family was fleeing the noise of metro Denver. They decided to move to the country. "We could have bought 40 acres for what we paid for this," Paranto said. "But we thought, wow, we have a clubhouse and a community center and a swimming pool and a lake:" A real estate agent told the Parantos their 3-acre property would be on the seventh-hole fairway of a future golf course. EtIP *Twee• *is en a. nab aare 1r♦s*. aae'eaIs(kAds a an as a awwwstasaa,- aaa a a al iw aa,:11 aa.naan. 1 venwen https:l/www.greeleytribune.com/2003/06/25ltamilies-in-subdivision- waiting-for-promises-to-be-futfilledPclearUserState-true 1/4 11141641% 1 :32 PM Families in subdivision welter bar promises to be fulled Greeley Tribune "None of us would have ever bought out here if we had known the truth, Taranto said. Plans submitted to the county showed 361 homes would be built in the 4,000-acre subdivision by 2003. There are 37. Meanwhile, Paranto and other homeowners have been paying taxes into the subdivision's metropolitan disbict, which functions essentially like a town, to fund the community's infrastructure. Subdivisions typically are not developed as a metropolitan district. Usually, developers pay for the infrastructure and other features. In this case, homeowners assumed that cost as taxpayers of the district. According to the laws that guide metropolitan in Colorado, there is no time requirement to when a developer must deliver what has been promised. Paranto and other residents are considering filing a class-action misrepresentation lawsuit against the developers, a Inver-based company called REI ac. Christine Hetheock, a development manager at REI and a member of the board, said the company has been confronting demands based on what homeowners were promised by former sales people. REI bought the development in 2001. Some residents acre not counting reads and water lines as major amenities, I 'etleock saki. "But they ldnd of are when you live all the way out there " The development, also known as Beebe Draw Farms, has a complicated history* The land was rezoned from agriculture to residential in the 1980s. Developers spent almost 10 years arranging oil and ps agreements for the pry. Eventually, they asked the county to approve plans for about 800 homes. The commissioners said no, that it was too dense, and approved fewer than 200 homes. In August, developers will go back to the commissioners oners to ask for approval of about 400 more homes. The slow pace of the development is the reason for the delay on amenities, said attoi,ley Paul Cockrel, who represents the sub i ision% metropolitan district , . ht psJ/ .gree dune com, girdles-in-eubd -waitie eforrpmrrO n-to-be-hatllller "' nrUsr ete=true 214 1/14/24, 1 :32 PM Families in subdivision waiting for promises to be fulfilled — Greeley Tribune Each homeowner pays 40 mills of taxes to the metropolitan district. For a $200,000 home, that amounts to $732 a year. That home's total tax bill is $1,866. Current homeowners aren't paying for perks such as the pool, and then not receiving them, he said. Either the developer or homeowners in the second phase of development will pay for those. "The whole issue here is timing," Cockrel said. "The district does not currently have funds sufficient to pay for amenities which the homeowners rightfully expect will be built." However those perks end up being funded, they won't be built overnight. "There were various representations that were made not by district officials but by sales people," Cockrel said. Homeowners are saying they just want what they were promised, but the district cannot incur debt if it does not have the ability to repay, he said. Paranto said she and her husband have considered selling and giving up on the vision of Pelican Lake Ranch they bought three years ago. But they fear no buyers would be willing to pay what they paid to live among fields they now see as empty promises. So, because they plan to stick around, they said, they see no other choice but to sue. January 17, 2024 RECEIVED To: Max Nader JAN 2 2 1a24 Weld County Planning Department Weld cmavty Re: Case # PUDF254-0001 I received the "Application Review Notification Card' in the mail yesterday pertaining to the Filing Two of Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lake Ranch) and am very concerned about the Filing. I went to the Weld County Accela site and reviewed the documents and attachments as the card directed. It appeared there are MANY inconsistencies in the various reports. In one narrative, it states there will be a second entrance on Cty Rd 32. The residents in the current Filing One are extremely concerned about the conditions of our roads, additional traffic, and construction trucks. If you review the construction timeline map, it states the "green area" where the 2"d entrance will be, is not scheduled until 2028, That means at Least 4 years with only the main entrance for all the traffic (if not longer). Additionally, the lot sizes are much smaller overall than our current "Equestrian Estate" type homes, therefore dramatically changing the character and appeal of our community. Putting smaller homes on smaller lots would lower our current property values. The Covenants of Filing 2 are also concerning. It states farm animals and 4-H animals are allowed, which our current community does not allow. I know people with pigs as 4-H projects. Can I now expect pigs in the homes behind me? Especially now that they will only have a 25' setback, when ours is currently 50'. I could go on about the new filing and the concerns that most of my neighbors and I have, but I think our primary concern is the Developer, Christine Hethcock with REI. She has treated the residents here with little respect and has not given the upkeep and reputation of our community a thought. I have personally witnessed her telling neighbors "If you don't like it here - MOVE" and when people bring up questions at meetings, she shouts "MOVE ON; so their questions cannot be answered. If we try to have a voice, we are treated with severe retaliation by her sales staff. The residents are bullied by the current developer, and it cannot continue. Beebe Draw Farms has SO much potential and could be a premier home development in Weld County where people strive to move to, but REI and Hethcock are destroying it and the reputation we once had as a desirable place to live. Please consider all the resident's concerns when doing your Filing assessment and approval Best Regards Brenda ewis 16476 Burghley Court Platteville, OC 80651 EXHIBIT PIA-P1=31/ - 000 ( EXHIBIT 4. 4 I FWD Faire 0O( Dear PLR Neighbors, Imagine you own 422 acres of land, and your business manager has been approached by a company to lease or buy the land. Instead of 'corking out the best deal for you. your business manager deeds the property over to herself and then sells it, leaving you with no land or money . How would you feel ? What would you do about it? i wish I could tell you that this is a fictional story, unfortunately it is not. You have been stolen from . We have all been stolen from . Let me explain by telling you the story of Pelican Lake Ranch . officially known as Beebe Draw Farms ( BBDF) . When the Developer first went to the county requesting to develop the area, she submitted a plan . That plan included promises of roads. electricity. water. amenities and everything a thriving community would want. The county approved the plan which became known as Filing I . The Developer started to improve the land using bond funds that were paid back by property taxes and is now supported by ongoing property taxes . The Developer started selling lots, houses were built and residents moved in , Over time the residents became disgruntled with how the Developer was spending their property tax dollars and lack of fulfilling the promises made . It got so bad that in 2009 they filed a lawsuit and asked the county for a quinquennial review . After two long years. in 2011 they reached a settlement in which the residents would drop the lawsuit and quinquennial review and in return the Developer would turn over all amenity land to the newly formed Authority and a new service plan was adopted along with the creation of the Authority Establishment Agreement (AEA ) . This new governing structure allowed for the residents to have equal representation on the board that controls the processes and use of taxpayer funds . They finally had a say in how their tax money and the amenity land was used . And they all lived happily ever after. . . or that is what I wish I could say . The Developer simply waited until she had a compromised Authority Board and in April 2022 , deeded 422 acres surrounding Lake Christina and Milton Reservoir back to her private company, REI, LLC . She did this without paying the Authority anything for the land except for reimbursement for the costs of installing the RV court . She did this while Conoco and the Farmer's Reservoir and Irrigation Company ( FRICO) were pursuing negotiations with her for a lease or purchase of the land for projects they had in the works. They needed the land, and the Developer knee they needed the land . So much so that imminent domain was mentioned . Within weeks after having the Authority quit claim deeded the 422 acres to her private company _ it was announced that the Developer. Christine Hethcock, was selling her majority working interest in REI to FRICO allowing her to greatly profit from the land transfer. FRICO to control the land they needed and Conoco to move forward with drilling on the land A win . win for everyone hut the true owners of the land. the taxpayers of Beebe Draw Farms . You may wonder, how could this happen? It was a combination of things creating the perfect storm . First, the passing of time saw mane seasoned residents move leaving a newer residents with less historical knowledge and a hole for the Developer to exploit. Second. a compromised Authority Board made up of the Developer herself. Eric Wernsman a contract engineer for the Developer. Jac Knopinski a contract consultant for the Developer and one other despondent neighbor. Of special note, shortly after the transfer took place, Eric Wernsman was awarded a lucrative engineering contract approved by the Developer on behalf of the Authority and has since received hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayer funds in spite of concerns of nonperformance . Thirdly. they skipped steps in the approval process making the transaction mostly unnoticed, flying under the radar. Now the question is. can anything be done about this? Fortunately , the skipped major steps in t'i Page 2 the approval process making the transfer illegitimate . First, they passed it with only one reading when the AEA 3 . 4(d)( 5 ) states that any items requiring approval from the Authority must be discussed at a minimum of two public meetings for approval . Second, they did not have express written consent from the District 1 and District 2 board members which is required before the land could be transferred to any other party . Third. AEA 12. 1 and I2 . 2 gives remedies in the event of a default for nonperforrnance of any "covenants, agreements. or conditions" in the AEA . According to AEA 3 .5(h ). Authority Board members are required to "conduct its business and affairs in the best interest of. and for the benefit of. the Districts and their inhabitants" . Sadly, this did not happen with the prior Authority Board, instead the very ones in charge of conducting our business stole and then profited from our assets . They breached their fiduciary duty and violated the public' s trust . What can you personally do about this? Do not let this flay under the radar. Let the District Manager and our representatives, thc BBDF District I Board members. knom that you are not okay with our land being stolen . That you want them to pursue the remedies as outlined in AEA 12 . 1 and 12 . 2 to right this wrong. They are victims of this injustice too, so let them know you care and want what 's right for our community. As the old saying goes, it takes a village . Your Neighbor. Richard Marks BBDF District I Contact Numbers: District 1 Manager Lisa Johnson Direct 303 -439-6029 Lisa. Johnson q C• LAconnect . eom District 1 President Bill Caldwell bcaldw ell . bcebedraw -g1grnail . cone District 1 Vice President Brenda Lewis brenda beebedraw I a gmail . com District 1 Secretary Catrena Rosentreader catrena . bdf4a tnai l .com District I Treasurer Cindy Billinger cbillinger. bcebcdraw irr_gniail . corn District I Assistant Secretary Sharon Dillon dillonbbdd l a .�e.mail . com 10 r e taassaar,C40.11......5„ PELICAN LAKE �. tIttAN A NC El December 19, 2023 Dear Property Owners at Pelican Lake Ranch, You may have recently received a letter providing a narrative regarding a land transfer at Pelican Lake Ranch, aka Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center rPLR"). This letter is my initial response to the issues raised in the previous letter you received. Asa new owner in REI, LLC we have some work to do in getting up to speed, on the issues addressed in the letter. Once that work has been comnpleted, we will have a better undentanding of the validity of the issues in the letter and, will be able to direct a path forward for R.E1, LLC. Sincerely, . 1 Scott gar Manager, PLR Invatments, LLC REI Limited Liability Company, Member RIFE , I I tit DM Pelican Lake Ranch Page 1 EXHIBIT PF:4 - cccI 01 Weld County Planning Services RECEIVED Max Nader, Planner 1402 N 17th Ave 1 k ` Li ;1:. 4 Po Box 758 Weld County � la. . n . .^ r wng Dept Greeley Co 80632 RE : PUDF24-0001 January 22, 2024 To the Planning Staff and Planning Commission : We have reviewed the application packet submitted by Christine Hethcock for Filing 2 and we have several serious concerns we would like noted for the record. We reside in Beebe Draw Farms Corrected First Filing and have paid taxes into Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District and Authority since 2016. Application Looking at the application itself, we see several misstatements of facts. The legitimate owner of that land under discussion is not Christine Hethcock, as she states. The land is titled to REI LLC. She is one of the shareholders, but it is not her land. She lists her address as Red Feather Lakes, but she moved to Mexico before the end of last year. She has stated her intent to retire soon , which leaves us wondering who will act as Declarant when she leaves the development company. In no part of the application packet does it give us any hint of who the other current owners of REI are (the form she included is out of date) and the letter stating that FRICO now owns a voting majority still does not answer the question of who we will be dealing with for the next several decades. Narrative Moving on to the Narrative document, again we find several troubling statements. Page 6 refers to a central equestrian center with horse boarding facilities, even though there is no commercial zoning approved anywhere in the community. The equestrian " facilities" consist of a round pen, a fenced arena, and several broken down jumps with a dangerously rickety judging stand . The old structure is so rotted that it is unusable. No attempt has been made to maintain it. " Boarding" generally means a place to pay to keep a horse with shelter, water, and somebody to feed, groom, and exercise the animal. That's not a permitted use in R- 1 zoning. Page 7 describes the area as being bounded by several major roadways. Yet CR 38, the north boundary, is a sand and gravel road . I have not seen anything in the county budget that mentions paving that road anytime soon . And that's the road for the dedicated parcels for the school and fire station, even though it won 't be suitable for buses or fire trucks . Page 9 talks about recommending xeriscaping, but then requires 10 trees be planted, and that up to 5000 square feet of each new lot can be irrigated turf. When we planted our trees in 2017, we learned that they would require 40 gallons per tree per day. Current regulations allow much less of the lot to be irrigated turf. (One of the defining characteristics of this whole development is that it has poor soil and not enough water for farming. . .yet it has enough to sustain 284 new houses ??) Page 11 says that after initial grading is complete, no further impacts remain . Lot sales are projected to take at least 20 years. Once graded, what measures prevent that exposed dirt from blowing and drifting around ? Any dirt disturbance that covers more than 25 acres or lasts longer than 6 months requires a detailed plan be provided for preventing air quality impacts. That has not been done. Page 11 states that the fire department dedicated site will be a strategic location for further expansion . If you look closely at the referral response from the fire department, it does not say that they are HAPPY with that site. It sits on a sand road, making it very difficult to navigate in pumpers and tankers. Also, that parcel was illegally platted and title has not been integrated, as the planning staff listed as one of the requirements to be submitted before final plat approval . Utilities As far as referral responses, the letter from Atmos states that they do not have sufficient capacity at this time to serve that many new homes, and would need to significantly expand their capabilities to do so. We have not seen any cost breakdowns for that process, or any explanation of who would pay for that. And speaking of utilities, the developer represents that fiber optic service would be provided by Hilltop Broadband . Yet she has conspicuously absented herself from any discussions about paying for any part of bringing that service out from the closest hub in Platteville. Instead, she insisted that the homeowners in Filing 1 hold a millage election and agree to assume an additional temporary mill increase to pay for it. She gets around that by saying that any new homeowners in Filing 2 would be charged a portion of the cost of bringing it in from Filing 1 . She is financing this whole expansion with taxpayer money collected from Filing 1, yet residents here get little if any benefit from those expenditures. Declaration of Covenants Next, in looking at the proposed new covenants, we find several major points of disagreement. The document is titled PELICAN LAKE RANCH FILING 2 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. There is no legal entity called Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1, so it makes no sense to name this one in sequence as if there were. Also, if this is a completely new legal entity, then it is illegal to use tax money from Beebe Draw Farms Filing 1 to fund it. (The signs at the entrance that say the neighborhood is called Pelican Lake Ranch have been explained to residents to be a " marketing name " that the developer and her sales representatives came up with . Residents who attempted to start a new Facebook group using that name as part of their title were threatened 2 with legal action for using a trademarked name . ) If the developer is planning to start a new legal entity using that name , then it is not covered under the existing PUD and would require review as a completely new plan , not an extension and updating of the current approved PUD . The proposed new covenants contain several troubling changes from those in Filing 1 . Page 7 refers to the duties of the Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 2 Property Owners Association as covering " the expenses of administration , maintenance, construction, improvement, repair, and replacement of common elements . " Those are all elements currently handled by the two districts and the Authority Board in Filing 1 . Does the new Association intend to issue its own bonds and set up repayment to provide these common elements ? Are developer expenses (which became Special District expenses in Filing 1 ) going to be shifted to the POA in Filing 2 ? Another change appears on page 9, where it states that the Declarant reserves the right to amend use restrictions or add new restrictions for 30 years . Currently, it takes a vote of 67% of lot owners to amend covenants. What if all the lots are sold before 30 years? Does the Declarant still control what happens to covenants, even after she owns no more lots ? Page 10 specifically mentions modular or system-built homes . We have heard informally that the new lots directly to the south of us will be PRIMARILY modular construction . That does not bode well for property values held by custom- and semi-custom-built homes . Especially when there is no obvious separation or any kind of buffer between existing homes and newer ones, appraisers in the future will have a hard time coming up with appropriate comparable sales to determine value for lenders and buyers. Page 11 states that it would take a vote of 85% of homeowners to terminate these covenants and dissolve the Association . That seems like an awfully high percentage, especially if the Declarant still has a voice for 30 years . Is that even legal under Colorado law? Page 12 brings the first mention of the Authority . Do the covenants assume that the Authority and the Association function as one entity ? Because they are markedly different . Page 13 , Section 5. 1, allows the Association access to all lots for maintenance . That seems appropriate before the lots are sold , but it goes further and states that if a homeowner has not maintained the lot to Association standards, the Association can do the maintenance and bill the owner. It is already a big hot button in this area for anyone but the owner to determine who can come onto their property. Page 15 says the Declarant and the Design Review Committee must approve all initial improvements . In the past, the Declarant has over-ruled the DRC and pushed through designs ( and dimensions) that the neighborhood did not want to see happening. Variances were supposed to be given only in rare and extreme cases, but she handed them out indiscriminately, creating headaches for enforcement later on other properties. 3 Page 18 says secondary structures can combine to take up 10% of the lot, but that individual structures can comprise 5%. That would mean you could build a 5410-square foot shop on a 2 .5 acre lot (the current limit is 2500 square feet and already seems to dwarf many of the residences where they have been built. ) That seems excessive . Page 19 shows another contradiction in Section f: it requires a 150-foot setback from oil wells. The Narrative said 300 and the state regulations are even more restrictive. Page 20 lays out requirements to have barns for horses, goats, mules, donkeys, llamas and chickens. None of those are permitted under the approved PUD plan . None are compatible with R- 1 zoning. None are permitted in Filing 1, whose homes could be as little as 50 feet away u nder current proposed setbacks. People who invested in Filing 1, thinking it would remain a residential ( not agricultural ) neighborhood, are being penalized with Filing 2. Page 21 states that privacy fencing can be 20% of the lot. Currently, it can only be used sparingly, to screen a patio, hot tub, or pool . Paddock fencing can be 25% of the lot (currently it's 10%. ) Again, without any buffer zones between the two filings, this will create some hard decisions in enforcement, and in neighbor disputes. Page 22 says sprinklers can be used on 30% of the lot. If a new homebuyer gets a so-called " budget tap" and has to supply water for a family of four (typical here) plus 10 trees, plus farm animals, plus 30% of the lot, his water bill is going to be unsustainable . A half tap allows for consumption of 114,000 metered gallons a year. The average household of four uses 146,000 metered gallons a year, and that's without farm livestock. If you also have six chickens using 550 gallons a year, and llamas using 1100 gallons a year, and trees taking anywhere from 6000- 10,000 gallons a year apiece, you can see it severely impacting new buyers . Page 23 says AirBnB is OK, as long as the owner maintains the property as his principal residence . Who is going to monitor that? Current regulations providing for only long term rental with an approved lease fit the residential nature of the community much more closely. Page 25 mentions that it will be OK to park horse trailers next to the barn or residence, but no other RV or camper can be there longer than 72 hours. Current regulations allow for the loading and unloading, but not parking trailers . The closest washout for stock trailers is mites away- -- does that mean that neighbors will have to put up with the added smelt and flies when stock trailers sit idle next door? Page 26 says goats, llamas and chickens are OK. In questioning the sales center representative, we found that no studies have ever been done on how often potential buyers did not complete the purchase when they found they could not have farm animals here. In the 17 years I have been selling real estate, l have never once had a buyer ask if he could have llamas or goats in a residential ( R-1) zone. People who think it would be great to have chickens have obviously n ever had to care for them in their own yards before . Where is the research that says buyers n eed farm animals now? ( I 'd be happy to show them some nice AG zoned properties. ) 4 Page 29 presents a significant ( and troubling) change, removing the requirement for a two- thirds majority to vote to amend the covenants . It reduces the requirement to 60%. Covenants aren 't supposed to be easy to change . They are meant to hold up over time, so that investors who plan to own for many years know their investment will hold value . Page 32 contains probably the most worrisome change of all. It says that the Declarant gets to appoint the board of directors of the association for as long as she still owns lots. Currently, residents vote to elect their POA board . This blatant patronization smacks of "taxation without representation . " And this is confusing : page 38' s signature line reads Beebe Draw Farms Authority, even though the Declaration is titled Pelican Lake Ranch . Which is it? Previous Staff Requirements In preparing our remarks for this letter, we went back through the Declarant's most recent application to the Planning Commission (spring of 2022 ) and re- read recommendations and requirements the planning staff wrote at the time, just to see for ourselves how many of the concerns she had addressed . The results are depressing. Z22-001 response required the applicant to submit a plan for specific amenities within each filing and phase, indicating at which point certain amenities and other community improvements will be installed . She still has not done that, vaguely saying only that amenities will be built as residents require them . In Filing 1, residents had to sue her to get amenities she had promised . In this case, she expects to continue to use the Filing 1 community center as her sales base of operations, effectively shutting out community use; she plans to send new residents to the Filing 1 pool ( capacity 25 persons, only slightly larger than a residential pool . ) Also, she has not specified where she will put the new filing' s mail room, even though her contract with Platteville post office states that they will serve this neighborhood only with single-point delivery, and the existing Filing 1 mail room is already at capacity. Also under amenities, she has not indicated specifically when she would construct the new community entrance from CR 32 accessing the southern neighborhood . We don 't want all of the sales and construction traffic pouring in through the only existing access point off CR39 . We don 't want Fairbanks Drive South extended into the new filing. We don 't want Ledyard Road extended south into the new filing. The new neighborhood needs to have its own amenities and access point ( s) , making it unnecessary for the increased population to drive through Filing 1 at 'till. Declarant was supposed to submit a plan to properly plat and integrate the illegally created parcels of land " owned " by LaSalle Fire and school district RE- 1 . It has not been done, yet she points proudly to those two locations as being selling points or benefits to the community. She was supposed to submit evidence of hard rock or mineral agreements . Nothing . S She was supposed to submit evidence of wildlife protection strategies, and that has never been done. On the contrary, she has ignored all of the state's regulations as far as staying 1/4 mile from eagle nesting areas and has allowed uses much closer than that between Milton Reservoir and Lake Christina . She was supposed to provide detailed maps showing no oil and gas transmission lines, active or retired, under any buildable lots or within more than 50% of the setback radii . So far, we have not seen those. This developer has no apparent awareness of the definition of urban scale development, nor does she seem aware of the county code that prohibits new developments of this size in otherwise uniform agricultural areas, this far away from existing municipal areas. She continues to labor along under the mistaken belief that because the original PUD plan got approved back in 1989, she can still go ahead and do whatever she wants. In the meantime, she has made substantial changes to the character of the new Filing, even departing from the legal named entity, and does not seem to notice (or care) that she is proposing uses that were never a part of the original approved PUD plan . Our biggest objection is that she is doing all of this with taxpayer money that has been faithfully paid by owners in Filing 1, while letting the amenities and infrastructure here rot away. For years, she has sat on the District 2 and Authority boards and has consistently refused to support any of District 1 's attempts to allocate money to take care of infrastructure and amenities. ( Her response is typically, " If you don 't like it, you should move. " ) Our roads are a mess of patchwork sealed cracks. Our pool is overdue for resurfacing. Our residents are clamoring for reliable internet. The developer does not allocate any resources beyond what she absolutely has to for any of those. Then, any budget "surplus" ( because she won't allow it to be spent it where it needs to be) gets returned to the Authority, where it ends up right back under her control, applied to the infrastructure " needed " for Filing 2 . She is sitting on literally millions of dollars of Filing 1 taxpayer money and only approves of it going to create Filing 2 . If she wants to go forward with " Filing 2 of Pelican Lake Ranch, " let her pledge her own financing, not ours, and go through the new development filing process, and not try to slide it through as a continuation of what has been done in Beebe Draw Farms Filing 1 . They are not remotely the same PUD. Respectfully submitte : -- ql) tacv 'ud( ut, 16499 Fairbanks Dr S Platteville CO 80651 9254-890-7991 6 Maxwell Nader From; brenda lewis < bjtlewisl @gmail.com > Sent Saturday, January 27, 2024 4: 11 PM To: Maxwell Nader Cc: Kim Ogle; Elizabeth Relford Subject: Re: PUDFF254-0001 Beebe Draw Farms Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Nader, I am a resident of Beebe Draw Farms and am writing about my concerns over the Developer's ( REI) plans for the new Filing and the addition of 284 more homes. The information on the Weld County Accela site indicates the lots in the new filing will be substantially smaller than our current community, with smaller setbacks. We do not have city or county sewer systems here and all the homes will have separate septic tanks and leach fields. As you may know, the soil in our area is basically sand and the environmental impact of that many septic tanks in the very sandy soil would likely concern you and your department. Additionally, our previous experience with the Developer's "Preferred" home builders has not been favorable . Even though the home builders are supposed to be held to a standard of soil (sand) preservation and provide landscape mitigation, it has never been done. As residents here, we suffer with blowing sand, dust, and a devastated landscape . I have included a few pictures of the section of land where the developer wants to start the new development and of a current new build home (from a preferred builder) that is for sale. It is easy to see the erosion in these few pictures of the now undisturbed land . I can't imagine how bad it will be once the building commences. Thank you for your time. Brenda Lewis 16476 Burghley Court Platteville, CO 80651 EXHIBIT PUPFatf -0DUI 1 o1,0\ i r 4_ _ _ _ J --tom r _ —f _ ial .LP r 'r!* yl pr..- F .t rsf / a� 's-� + _ .�?•s�._ _ r •-qtr .;. - - ,- -r'-`-ie�` —fl ii .. _ s � r`.c•��► % r . r z -f"" It It 1 - at i' • ' C - aLJ •b a a' a-- r if -4 :3 1 ': . • 4atillittrajtabler" 11454?" •awe iiiWaillik- �I r fir+' r• 1_ •S{• ' �, ter" , . .v- R' _ ! . "" y' :12:,.41 a 4 .. - - 1 '1 it- 144 - ‘1 1 S '‘ : 1 S as-•�. r r' 1M. h ? � 1 a t . '.• 7 ' i. l ! j, o riellis�� f �£`'� ` rte' a`#i — 1 '� 1 ,� '' u + 'It 'll _ a.!lei yf.�}� 1 r ‘" ��t L;Iiirt ,y kr4 n `it y• �}�i ` •r 10 F F a, } t' ' • • 1 rya < . Y \ •1. • • _ . N ! et. !. v <Q'*1 . J•• i i• S, fly �' 1 . •r ' u 1 �S t4t , • s .. yyvit f 1 it Ore— J r -` -. hbr! }: ti•�... '. •p/* `+ ' • � 4 � yy� 1• r . , `y,�y •'• .�d••f.*' - $ •1`.. y u 7\ V O •1 f�. a�4\1 Y4• •q�`s /I. ► s . 1 _ t'�•�. `I �.•• .b•YI/o)t .r * , .' 4`, r ��'� J t °s, 4 , `� ` ai ,.. }.� `i!�w' �� :\ •`(1 c4." '- '.`�.`��+ _.t 6 �r i 11 .iA "'4 a '� t. < t, ., 6 _ 9 ♦> 7 ` _! °t, + a �'� �;�i ^ 1► 11 t 1� g. ,vim i5! c _ n \ • ' *' f . -1414411 •. �� . ..wg� i. f • f 1 R�1 t ti ` m , +4 tt it • •'k, 4K, >• .,� '� ,, '� .ads i.y + • `� do r �N � r . +� � : a - _ D' 6 . . I v ..1•lalk ors,. lTv 0 9 , ; \-. ..zi ;!- v�\��`��b �- FFI v �) .,. A a V. 11 • _ 6 •'f[ ' � � 4Rl1. J�P�c� } 11 •u.w� - , 01�S`� .4T a 41-% � e \ •s�; 1:4A,*,• 4, 1. ,..r.:, z. eir•r“ 0. * .likli . 4e��. I .f4 •y.S}. . \Iy"I x • Al. IQ.. '4: • Lis • ; a '4 `1 f +.• 44 r • ' r, .t ea�. .v �4i. II\ .+ - IS: • \ rilt• • t. • t A 4, ry • lw +� _ 44.lid akai �, �.. � 4< �. j 1. 1 11,-.r \ itk.:N A- 7► • _ .6 \ < �1 �•p1 �,.�4+� r / y1. l •• *At tall. i !. 6 L Vitt • 4.0, 6 .4c V•„4e.4,k b ip a ei,40e."4.."4 CI. t , r fla 0 .v 44-jpr •'•I iti i ve. ‘..t1/41. ms • -Is* . tor" . ..,i i'it4„, Ake :Ts Its so ..•a p , . rike r>rtkl Isill_ , ‘. silk. "0 lc% %, 4 %% IA Ilibtli,i, '''' Nt okl,„ , .14, 10 . Na /s+ • ' `. . ° yak. p .- _ • .6 �,'� f_ o • �'.i � �. �, • ��!'r4 •�•a'� . ;:+4 '> . . k.�_ • , . . i; ,• t % •I► '.. 2 issay UI _eTy - c —, _. : r it 1 _ .. 11 9. 14 , III II Ill II4F4: i IIr I , r I llI I Ili --‘1.,___Ai ribt I . r I s= 111 RE 5' ,. ),,�. . , i %.,,,,„,,, cf it Po'>,x l;it c CI;I'. L L _ - _ L LL -,-: I - e aril _� 1 k I ,,, loppir_ _ . r it I II F , s j I� r I I i r il I , iii d , .. .„. .,..,, , i. I 4 II.if E. p. - �rly R r'+ - I ' 6. ull _ n. I ��'a . , .� I I II I _ +`' ..ili ' ' I ;;1 _.- 11 ; r. 1 ti , rI - -rj f r - ._ _ r — +'I .1""- --ma 4 _ I lip- a I•II. assigir 41 i ._tlis ! l 3 • I s' 444 4114 - * r'r. - —agy a. ass _cw f -wefit ; r - _ X 40 — �+r - -1 f s ., ,A •w 11 r • -F, r thatt- 4 .jri' s I rte- • ..- c . , • _ 71 - _ � •pyt1 ti a ii,�'_+? , ' 4 _ r. r .twti :•s. �p ' `fit . e~ ..t -'�F- �' ' .. P la r i i et . - •• rj. _ s arm 1 it,. a• iz _ +yam hi Jag 'J. ' �r1r r r.. .. :,.1. • it:„.., .t _ - _ ..., 1 h _s.+�i I F 4 .- 4144- L. pia r ,, 'r !Zil K ..! r• 4:, - ii: e' 'Az .s - QTR - a _ V' 1,74-!;a: r•�a. lirr G tuft* . . ' t a, .+ .� .y r', fl,,((``�� y��y' . . �".. .I 'f.• , r _ .c •—J 'r _tom r �a is -_ al _ _ . Ar �_'1._ ^'!^. '� '' a. 1 ' F - '" ,� it �' t ♦ _ _ �i�� •-a. -•- a a !ee!!•••• _ [yam+ R sr r ••� %t' , '.�'r -. � '.$ '_ t�iti_ s 1t. ' r ".t I. 111241111 '2. I Pc . f r . nip. •. a i 1 d ti : Ali Ili �' 1 ' • ;10' s �I' • r"I I! �1 1 ; A .rte ., :l rr. "1 - ;_ _ .. i ii f } n t t iPt ♦ p } ( '4 — y i , u * }I . r I .0 Tpf •r, t " y`. - :•`rj , y .ate A st g It • : PilI N. fir. te. f 1a. � '.i .; i) ' rp.. ii it - : 1 , 'ail. t.k ' f ' 1 .1 . tti , , . , IN fit 41. it ir-il ,. )1.. .- ill i ' II ill *I -A 1 ,p- , - .„.,`' 4 liti - 4 ", fi q� 1 fli. u " iii t t.• 5� �y P _ (.. ititsm /Pio_ , A Ali iliss: ili: 41 1 L4 Deis It I IS 4 I ' I 4 1 1 Stills 1,11 1,kaiii4cit . , , 4. r 01 rliI ' 1 i f'� ''r f M ,' , I f fl1`1 i ; ,f Y �1 �+':. , i , 1 1 1" ii , .1, AUL , IN -NA, I 4176(?4," i IN' .„ST . tr-c .. 1.4 , -1 r- i ' , 11 If i 1- } e A r ID 7.I 1 ; \ tr 5- j,, l 4 • ill 4 • _- s - -lir � _ t '-*ai ' - s s - l'r, a ' Vtlif .- - ' a - _.. y - Hr\ at 1 ' - it % siirf,..„...,c2a. ...... 4. .....„ tit r`-r u _ .T1 .� I F f TT l "' ' f-s I ft Ape-- War.: .. %.\.11hRH H. I. . '• , i2,1,.. . _ Iiir _ i , _ • ri- . „ . . . .. • .. . . I .... . illik".. o . . es ::" - - -11.7: -.11. ; 4'r s't = c 3 i-, . F- p� E u al L '1 �a ' _ . rte T _ ,... J Iw _ r , I -Or !. ti.y.ra "rise A. �.'. . 1 71 Y • }5 !S'�.r rfait = C.Vie' 1 .r. 9 ' ir 'M. 4't Y ' Ps ' - _ 1''U JAI, st tI �1 VT' '•. l -F3fj ,�, '' L,. p• Yi1il ;� •k 7 L .,, s. , , AI t. -I tit a_ -1! it . • 1 l- illks4 illill * , a 14 Ili ill 1 pii . • 4,9 ... _ ,:„.air .. t .: ., . .., t4s, ,,,„. Juke • - 'AN, r. t t s� • it �. a� ..• t ' - • ► f il_ lip I T i. J a st . . ,_-4It• .. • . SP • 4. -. 5 _ __ +s 4. _ ME ' _ • _ -_ - — •- YiS - _! _ . V�N- der dor 417.= 7471 ;} t. l _ - s rte• . . 1 :.� ir -or at � < — ` " y , _ , .r 'tom ' bars x ' - - ''1- �r sti,• t. .. -v. la<. 0,-- ,,,,,,„ riktit - i„,,.}.a r 1 ' ` t ! JE t . R. • _ " to _r awns - Jo; s W-sone JM Lam,VTJW _ , 'Sr . • -r rii�" -r '�`t9 i �.... - )' 7k' am. •• w 1 •?IS _ a -70. - , a J r'al 1 _ X 71 � • - We IL ear s. T J ` _ f4� •• / _ Is _ L L WISP i 1S a Illi rare - ;IP - i . II - - �it it c —F 40 _ -towii - _ rte t -.�11 ` al 1 .4111,r _ i -_ - - wT ise saserut.. _ _ ` mil • a - - _ - ;. •� ~ 1 sf2"Ik 1r t t air-• : ` 1 -- + "- � .i'-mot_40 ~ • '� . a �. y EV • �•�• � e mss. -Le-ta _ ---.�.s: - .sue _ - "I - i j,tws- isir -" 4 Igir 41.- II Vi kik. ..z. i i - I. IL "kr.Pr r er • SI It teli It : ' o.� .aim _ it 4 _.i' !' il T. r _ 6 Maxwell Nader From: Mike Konkel < mjkonl@hotmail.com > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 4;07 PM To: Maxwell Nader; Kim Ogle; Elizabeth Relford Subject Re: PUDFF254-0001 Beebe Draw Farms Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Nadar, We are residents of Beebe Draw Farms. We are writing to express our concerns about the Developer's (REI ) plans for a new Filing (PUDFF2S1-0001 Beebe Draw Farms) and the proposal to add 284 homes on approximate 700 acres to our community. Information on the Weld County Accela site shows that the lots will be much smaller than the lots currently in our community creating higher density housing. Our community currently has 174 homes on 800 acres. Our concerns include : 1 . Too many septic systems in the new filing. The soil in our community is mostly sandy and it drains very well. This proposed filing is on land that has major slopes to the south toward County Road 32. As we all know water seeks the lowest level and we see the potential for the leaching from 284 septic systems to contaminate the ground water in this area . Disturbing the delicate top soil will lead to erosion that does not currently exist on the land that is now used as pastureland with an agriculture use zoning designation . 2. There is one road into our community that serves as the only entrance and exit to this community of approximately 174 homes. The proposal indicates that the new filing will use the existing road as it's entrance and exit and not create a new one . That would mean that the capacity of these roads would more than double. There are not currently constructed for that much traffic 3. Safety issues such as fire and emergency services access. If no new entrance and/or exit is built and the current roads are used for these services the new filing will be quite a distance in and will make the response times greater. 4. We have Central West County Water District water taps in our community. The proposal indicates that water taps will be split between two homes with in house use only yet there is an allowance for livestock in the new filing. We are retired from a farming and livestock operation and know how much water it takes for livestock. It is not practical to expect a split tap to supply needed water for in house use, landscaping and livestock particularly in the heat of summer. These are issues causing us concern from what we have been able to determine from the information we have found . We are certain that there are many other issues that are just as concerning in the proposal that will come to light. EXHIBIT P Ut) F qt -Mat Over the course of time that this community has been here this Developer has made many promises that were not kept . We are not sure that the Developer has completed this community as proposed and approved by the County to date . Until the amenities included in the original filing have been built there should not be another filing approved . This lack of performance has caused mistrust of the Developer and their intentions to comply with their County approved planKim . We appreciate your attention to our concerns and hope you will keep our community informed as this proposal moves through the county process . We strongly urge the Weld County Planning Department and Board to deny this proposal as it is not in the best interest of our community or our County. Weld County is known for it' s rural life style . Putting high density housing in rural areas does not reflect the lifestyle that Weld County is so well know for. Mike and Janet Konkel 16491 Ledyard Road S Platteville, Co 80651 Sent from Mail for Windows 2 1/26/ 2024 Max Nadar Weld County Planner 1402 N 17th Avenue, P . O . Box 758 Greeley, Co 80632 Sir Max Nadar, I am writing regarding Pelican Lake Ranch , Filing 2 . lam not thrilled about the smaller lot sizes , and less open space between groups of lots of Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 2, resulting in a much higher density development as compared to Filing 1 and a future negative affect on my property value, but my main concern is with increased traffic on Beebe Draw Farms Pkwy . For the South -Western part of Filing 2 , abutting CR 32 and CR 39, there definitely needs to be a new entrance to Filing 2 off of CR 39, somewhere between CR 32 and the current, single, entrance into Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1, off of CR 39 . I would also like to suggest that CR 41 /z , off of CR 38, be improved so as to provide a functional second entry/exit option into the East end of Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 , which could also help reduce the future increase of traffic on Beebe Draw Farms Pkwy due to the new East part of Filing 2 , located at the East end of Beebe Draw Farms Pkwy . An improved CR 41 /z would also provide an alternative Emergency Exit out of Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 . Thank you very much . ..,..X-13c Ken Ross 16501 Essex Rd N Platteville, CO 80651 Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 , Lot # 56 EXHIBIT t P1,4) 04 - 0061 C EXHIBIT 41 PLu) F2q -coil a ;26 January 31 , 2024 Weld County Planning Services 1402 N 17th Ave PO Box 758 Greeley CC) 80632 RE : PUDF24-000 I Dear Planning Staff and Commission : This letter represents collective voices of numerous residents of Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) regarding the application packet submitted by Christine Ilethcock , REI LLC, for Filing 2 , referred to as the Declarant. To be clear, this letter does not represent all PLR resident voices, only those who have signed below. As residents, we have significant and serious concerns with the Filing 2 which are enumerated below. Numerous residents will attend the Planning Commission Hearing for this filing and provide greater detail related concerns specified in this letter. The purpose of this letter is to present our broad concerns to the Planning Commission and to encourage a complete and thorough review. Most, if not all of our concerns, have been previously been voiced to the Declarant and her consultants, yet have not been addressed or resolved in the present filing. We find this unacceptable . The signatories of this letter reside within the boundaries Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District and Authority . Concerns At the outset, it is important to state our support for reasonable and measured development of this property consistent with the original design and PUD for Pelican Lake Ranch ( PLR) as rural, not urban scale, development. We seek a balance between a reasonable, sustainable rural development and reasonable profits for the Declarant. Regrettably, our review of REI' s Filing 2 indicates that the proposal manifestly alters the original plan for and character of this community, in which all of us invested with the purchase of our homes, potentially endangers residents ' safety, is not sustainable, and will have a negative environmental impact. • Density. Attachment A, at the end of this document is a good place to start. A simple comparison of the existing filing and proposed filing is telling. The existing filing demonstrates reasonable open space, larger lots-consistent with rural developments, and appropriate setbacks. In comparison, the proposed Filing 2 has little to no open space., much smaller lots and only one amenity location for new residents. The proposed density in Filing 2 manifestly changes the character of the development. For example, on page 10 the Declarant specifically mentions modular or system-built homes while residents in the existing filing were required to build custom or semi-custom homes with three car garages. The requirements for homes should be as consistent as possible throughout out the development to promote one community and so that existing homeowners do not have the property values negatively impacted by homes/property of significantly less value. Filing 2 creates a very different community that originally approved in the PUD . • Insufficient entrances/exits for a community this size. Presently, we have one entrance/exit for residents. The proposed plan does have a second entry noted, yet we understand that this entrance would not be ` built ' until 2028 requiring all contractors and eventual residents to traverse through the current community ' s road severely impacting resident safety and significantly impacting our current roads, which are not in great shape . One only needs to recall the issues residents had with the Marshall fire to understand the risk to residents when a community traffic patterns are restricted and constrained with insufficient access points. • Waste water. Given the numerous small lots in Filing 2 will the Declarant be installing a waste water treatment system? What is the environmental impact of individual septic systems for each of these new lots? The Declarant needs to specifically address this in their filing and the potential environmental impact. • Water taps. What study , if any, has been conducted with Central Weld Water, regarding the available water for the new residents? We have heard the Declarant intends to offer new residents a `budget tap ' for these lots. This is simply insufficient and will likely result in new residents paying extra when they exceed their annual water allotment. We urge the Planning Commission to review and confirm that residents of Filing 2 have access to sufficient water resources and will not incur excessive charges due to over utilization . • Amenities. Currently, we have wonderful amenities to serve the existing community which are at, and some times over, capacity . These amenities also require continual maintenance which has been a struggle to get approved with our current Declarant. Z22- 001 response required the REI to submit a plan for specific amenities within each filing and phase, indicating at which point certain amenities and other community improvements will be installed. This element is not present in the Filing 2 documents . Instead, Filing 2 indicates that amenities will be installed ' as needed ' , but who determines when they are needed? If the Declarant ' s history/engagement with the community is the best predictor of future their behavior, Filing 2 Residents will not see amenities until Filing 2 is nearly built out. Without a definitive plan committing the Declarant to state to where and when the necessary amenities (mail room, pool , trails) will be built, Filing 2 Residents will understandably desire to use the existing amenities further straining current infrastructure and leading to unnecessary community conflict and strife . • Manifest conflicts with current zoning. Filing 2 contains several references that appear in conflict with PLR' s current R- 1 zoning, specifically the construction of a horse boarding facility and allowing homes to be used for commercial rentals e. g. , Airbnb . Commercial ventures are inconsistent with the character of the community and with current zoning. • Lack of planning for reasonable development. Building out Filing 2 is anticipated to take approximately 20 years. With no clear plan for how contractors will gain access to Filing 2 , residents can rightly assume the Declarant intends to use our existing roads and infrastructure for development of Filing 2 . The impact for current residents , many who have small children, will expose current residents to the risk of increased and constant construction traffic, increased air pollution due to the dust that accompanies new construction and significant disruptions to our way of life . This is simply unacceptable . We ask that the Declarant provide a plan for how contractors will access Filing 2 without using the existing infrastructure or that the Declarant uses their own funds to set up an escrow account to repair the inevitable damage to the existing roads and infrastructure. • Conflicts with current governance structure. Filing 2 sets out several very concerning changes which will result in two communities , not one. Specifically , o the document is titled PELICAN LAKE RANCH FILING 2 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS . There is no legal entity called Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1 . If this is a completely new legal entity, then is it not be illegal to use tax money from Beebe Draw Farms Filing 1 to fund Filing 2? 2 • o Page 7 refers to the duties of the Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 2 Property Owners Association as covering "the expenses of administration, maintenance, construction# impmvement, rte, and replacement of common elements." Those are all elements currently handled by the two districts and the Authority Board in Filing 1 . Does the new Association intend to issue its own bonds and set up repayment to provide these common elements? o Page 9, where it states that the Declarant reserves the right to amend use restrictions or add new restrictions for 30 yea Currently, it takes a vote of 67% of lot owners to amend covenants. Should the lots be sold before the 30-year deadline will the Declarant still control the covenants when they own no lots? o Page 12 is the first mention of the Authority. It is unclear to us, as residents, as to whether the covenants assumc that the Authority and the Association function as one entity? They do not and this is not clearly explicated in Filing 2. o Page 20 details the requirements to have barns for horses, goats, mules, donkeys, llamas and chickens. None of those are permitted under the approved PUD plan. None are compatible with Re t zoning. None are permitted in Filing 1 . People who invested in Filing 1 , thinking it would remain a residential (not agricultural) neighborhood, are being penalized with Filing 2. 0 Page 29 indicates RI's desire reduce the two -thirds majority to vote to amend the covenants to 60%. Covenants are a binding contract that should change only after careful study and community input, reducing the threshold reduces resident's confidence that their investment will hold value. O Page 32 states the Declarant gets to appoint the board of directors of the association for as long as they still own lot This is inappropriate as it prevents residents from determining who will represent them, gives the Declarant more influence over community matters than taxpaying residents which calls the question of taxation without representation. Residents in the existing filing have already experienced the Declarant overriding decisions of duly appointed boards like the Design Review Committee leading to arbitrary and capricious decisions for individual landowners putting them in conflict with other residents. In stmrmaiy, if the Declarant is pp to start a new legal entity using the name Pelican Lake Ranch Filing l then, it is our perspective that Filing 2 is not covered under the existing PTA and would require review as a completely new plan, not an extension and updating of the current appmved P . a Respectfully submitted, 1 LAH 914 m...S is\Arva in rtoseiS4414, alc 1 ,rs-bn, izattA3 P I a Odell C6 8 apt 1 EXHIBIT" PtzPF24 -ccoI 010 Maxwell Nader From: Ethan Peer <ethan.peer.co gmaitcom> Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2024 5:27 PM To: Maxwell Nader Cc: Kim Ogle Subject PUDF24-0001 Applicant: REI LTD Liability Co. and Investors LTD Liability Co. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe, Dear Max, I am a current property owner at Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 1. I wanted to ensure I made the effort to express my Interest In Filing 2. This email serves the purpose to express my interest in the approval of Filing 2. The Developer REI, has addressed any and all outstanding concerns and the additions it plans to add I believe will strengthen and improve our community. I had some Initial reserves when It came to add itio na l traffic, lot sizes, and added/shared amenities to name a few. After further discussions, REI plans to add an additional mad entrance which will alleviate any traffic concerns, lot sizes may on average be smaller, but that is due to a concentrated group of smaller lots along the county road, which seems appropriate. Additionally, they plan on adding a bike path which will be an incredible amenity for outdoor recreations and allow the connection of the Filing 1 community to the variety of additional amenities to be added in Filing 2, Our community is in desperate need of additional Infrastructure to support all of our wonderful amenities we have here, fishing lake, horse trails & equestrian arena to name a few. I am also Incredibly excited the Pelican Lake Ranch will finally be able to have chickens! Currently Filing 1 does not allow chickens, but look greatly forward to being able to have access to local fresh eggs each morning. live even considered selling my property in Filing 1 and moving to Filing 2 so we can have that luxury on our own property. I strongly urge Weld County to approve Filing 2 and allow our community to blossom and growl Sincerely, Excited Resident of Pelican Lake Ranch. EXIBIT Puorn-oog I (41 T0 Max Noire �F on Cumin!. Resident u f' PCItiavfl Lake Rauch, aka Pleat rwParma & E Cants (P +i D P 3, 2 il Mt PUD -000 t fit; MU LTD Investors LTD Liability Ca, Liability Cu, end In i Dear Max, I wanted to thank you ibr notifying ue about fining card and urge 2 via t , you to approve It. � c a pr's ill Pelican Lake Bch, Hine I . We h li t lly etijoyeti our Prop. We moved too PLR fo country gib �a �n affordableattr� a� a q�, r* eBsy in care dlor , and we halve certainly tbund IL Our hope is that othcr5 wishing to escape the hustle and bustle of city c y lire would also have an epportunity to live at PLR. The idea that filling 2 may open up for additional Miltnitial iS very exciting!� l b M A eletAX , - . EXHIBIT PuDp84 -ôooi J8 February 4, 2024 Weld County Planning Services 1402 N 17th Ave PO Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 RE : PUDF24-0001 Dear Planning Staff and Commission : This letter represents my concerns as a resident of Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) regarding the application packet submitted by Christine Hethcock, REI LLC , for Filing 2 , referred to as the Declarant. Concerns At the outset, it is important to state my support for reasonable and measured development of this property consistent with the original design and PUD for Pelican Lake Ranch (PLR) as rural, not urban scale, development. I seek a balance between a reasonable, sustainable rural development and reasonable profits for the Declarant. Regrettably, my review of REI ' s Filing 2 indicates that the proposal manifestly alters the original plan for and character of this community, in which I invested with the purchase of my home, potentially endangers residents ' safety, is not sustainable, and will have a negative environmental impact. • Density. Attachment A, at the end of this document is a good place to start. A simple comparison of the existing filing and proposed filing is telling. The existing filing demonstrates reasonable open space, larger lots-consistent with rural developments, and appropriate setbacks . In comparison, the proposed Filing 2 has little to no open space, much smaller lots and only one amenity location for new residents. The proposed density in Filing 2 manifestly changes the character of the development. For example, on page 10 the Declarant specifically mentions modular or system-built homes while residents in the existing filing were required to build custom or semi-custom homes with three car garages . The requirements for homes should be as consistent as possible throughout out the development to promote one community and so that existing homeowners do not have the property values negatively impacted by homes/property of significantly less value . Filing 2 creates a very different community that originally approved in the PUD . • Insufficient entrances/exits for a community this size. Presently, we have one entrance/exit for residents . The proposed plan does have a second entry noted, yet we understand that this entrance would not be ` built ' until 2028 requiring all contractors and eventual residents to traverse through the current community ' s road severely impacting resident safety and significantly impacting our current roads, which are not in great shape . One only needs to recall the issues residents had with the Marshall fire to understand the risk to residents when a community traffic patterns are restricted and constrained with insufficient access points . • Amenities. Currently, we have wonderful amenities to serve the existing community which are at, and some times over, capacity . Filing 2 indicates that amenities will be installed ' as needed ' , but who determines when they are needed? Without a definitive plan committing the Declarant to state to where and when the necessary amenities will be built. Filing 2 Residents will understandably desire to use the existing amenities further straining current infrastructure and leading to unnecessary community conflict and strife. • Manifest conflicts with current zoning. Filing 2 contains several references that appear in conflict with PLR' s current Rd zoning, specifically the construction of a horse boarding facility and allowing homes to be used for commercial rentals e.g . , Airbnb . Commercial ventures are inconsistent with the character of the community and with current zoning . • Lack of planning for reasonable development. Building out Filing 2 is anticipated to take approximately 20 years. With no clear plan for how contractors will gain access to Filing 2, residents can rightly assume the Declarant intends to use our existing roads and infrastructure for development of Filing 2 . The impact for current residents, many who have small children, will expose current residents to the risk of increased and constant construction traffic, increased air pollution due to the dust that accompanies new construction and significant disruptions to our way of life . This is simply unacceptable . We ask that the Declarant provide a plan for how contractors will access Filing 2 without using the existing infrastructure or that the Declarant uses their own funds to set up an escrow account to repair the inevitable damage to the existing roads and infrastructure. • Conflicts with current governance structure. Filing 2 sets out several very concerning changes which will result in two communities, not one. Specifically, o Page 20 details the requirements to have barns for horses, goats, mules, donkeys, llamas and chickens. None of those are permitted under the approved PUD plan . None are compatible with R- 1 zoning . None are permitted in Filing 1 . People who invested in Filing 1 , thinking it would remain a residential (not agricultural) neighborhood, are being penalized with Filing 2 . When we moved here, we understood that like properties would be built on the remaining land as displayed in the sales office. Filing 2 does not represent "like properties" and adding a commercial aspect to our community definitely does not support "like properties". All of the above items will have an impact on our home values if filing 2 is allowed to move forward as submitted. Thank you for your time. 2 Respectfully yours, Kelley Trujillo 16468 Essex Rd S Platteville, CO 80651 3 Attachment A - Filing Existing i .serserldr -PS ..., W.Illaalea..6gailla PM_ del err. IF it -.. 4„, _ __ . i ai I a I t Nit tali , A I r _ ., Is _ , 11"11,411.. !f 1' — I e • i1 — 1\ ` ip W_ .�I- 0 i 7 J r •♦ ire 1 N. w _ - - - - - - . ce : tIi It a si , I r04.4„,0 _••41#riat _ _, , 4,,p. ____ ilk I 4 If a 1 IIIF Ili En il fas try, , 1 • 6> j-. j I f r Enty 1 ' f-Nta.,It. 141 e _ .... CIO CI Ara 00 1 e MP 451 : t i is. , 0: IA te c II tail yP all a� fee At S s - S - a , 4 "s11/4\31 i I SD A V _ar t rt•In _ . I r iill N li VIP 1 tr s0 is z h � up al lip fII li MI Al lii\Ciej i Ill . t 11 _ r _ =. -, it - spa % Il•_rit 0 / a 11 701 4 _ P 7_ s I ,� I ; ,► ArilkoseSi al s-aF- 1 .� I o I CM. itaineallb ilik1/4\ alp it. A 'Line( AittrA • 1 a I * ill i I * nallgat 1 s I I -itA pki - rte--, -\ -4t q .j Mil )iiie ..... ill kir . 3 • _ • alk I 0 A c . 1_j __ rgi)lit 0' arlithillitil(glillik II I �„ a �� 4nq � - — I - f . I T dila ,` a s ain ty R g al "69ill ‘ri ' •1 r yk Jrab 1 r 4 tr.a te i al1 , 8 i apt- 4 sushis miaow i l i ( ate 1 Ir ce , , Ft9pQsedJ - Ill 9 X f. le . , * al t Pli0OWP101 i I 1 Mein pre if +I irsi_its - ii . a ian‘i 04 I -� r" 1 -%s_ -1,44: I 11001, ilri i ROAM i I 0 t al qh A i • 001\ t j z LtII li ........: Aida. S t % l' . 4 Ili" i t eI a e _. I _fl ; _def lig --- r•' WS'S' �,, . .' i VII l I ellilir, _ ft arms , , _ . - a til -4ti a . as.. i is miss a I tap ,41111 _ , li lit twat I I C i - - _ I a See y; - - v _ _ —- - -- u I 4 EXHIBIT Nora -tool egg Maxwell Nader From: Cristin Liska c cliska 13@yahoo.com > Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 12:30 PM To: Maxwell Nader Subject: Second Filing Pelican Lake Ranch Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe, Hello Max, We have several concerns with the 2nd filing that is currently under review. Our biggest concern is the amount of traffic that will be coming in and out of the one entrance into Pelican Lake Ranch. There has been concern for years already in regards to there only being one way in and out of this subdivision and theamount of people. In the event of a wild grass fire there is not a second option to evacuate. This is just not safe at all„ especially cause you can't really just go around or in the open area. It Is extremely sandy and you could get stuck. There's also been discussion before the proposed traffic increase about the lack of a walking/bike trail. They are finally putting a trail off the main road Beebe Draw Farms Parkway. Burghley ct and Ledyard are not main roads at this point and it is a little safer to walk/ride on the streets. There have been close calls though and we already feel uncomfortable with our little kids on that road. With increased traffic this will be a huge concern. The subdivision has already been promised one vision for the future and now there is change in regards to the covenants. It's going to feel like a completely different subdivision but yet it will be part of ours and back right up behind It. The strain on the amenities In the community. This has been a talk of concern for several years. There are already too many people to accommodate everyone comfortably. The lots seem to be smaller in size, and the set back is only 25'. Also the allowance for second living quarter. This would create a subdivision that looks completely different then the current one and more like something that should be in town,. Dropping property values. Thanks for taking into consideration our concerns. Best regards, Cristin Wachholtz (970)691-2739 16477 Burghley ct Platteville, Co 80651 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 EXHI IT PUPFG4-CØg .36 Maxwell Nader From: Ginger Sage <gingersaga45 @gmaii.com > Sant: Sunday, February 4, 2024 4:22 PM To: Maxwell Nader Subject PUt 2nd Filing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caudon: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Nader, We are residents of Pelican lake Ranch and wanted let you know we received your postcard regarding filling 2. Our story is that due to extenuating circumstances, we found ourselves unexpectantly raising a second family. We wanted to find a quiet place to do just that when we found PLR We are grateful for the lifestyle and love the property. We are surrounded by families with children and between the friendships and playdates, we feel like we have more than community, we have the village we were seeking. PLR is a lifestyle that we would vvish for all families to be able to experience. We really appreciated being here during covid when everything was dosed, we still had each other, our fishing lake, trails, cabana & park equipment area, pool and open spaces. We live a lifestyle that we would want for everyone to have an opportunity to experience. We understood when we purchased our home that there would be future development and hoped it would be sooner than later. Of course, the thought of additional amenities is always exciting. We appreciate your sending us the notification and we do not object to Filling 2. Sincerely, Ginger Sage and Christopher Williams Current Residents of Pelican Lake Ranch, aka Beebe Draw Farms & Equestrian Center (PLR) 1 EXHIBIT FIAPPO4 -tits 51 Maxwell Nader From: Carol Satersmoen <csatersmoen ( ) yahoo.+com > Sent: Sunday. February 4, 2024 6:15 PM To: Maxwell Nader Kim Ogle Subject: Beebe Draw Farms/ Pelican Lakes Ranch fling 2 Attachments; BBDF#2 Boundary Map.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I just wanted to express my opinion about filing two at Pelican Lake Ranch. It has always been clear to me that the neighborhood was going to be developed further. Eight years ago filing one was still being developed and it was clear that, once It was completed, work would begin on filing two. I understand that the developer has to build for what the market will bear. It Is unrealistic to expect otherwise. The land under consideration for development Is located within the district boundaries of Beebe Draw Farms Metro District 2. httos://,beefed rawfarmsauthorl .colorado.eov sites eebedrawfa truss uthority file documents lB gDF%232%2OBound ara Ithi lao.pdf Thank you, Carol Satersmoen Sent from my iPad 1 -- IBC!NO. DISTRICT RIOT BOUNDARY MAP x BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPPOLITAN DISTRICT NO, 2 ' SWAN IN SECTIONS 3, 4, 5. 8 9, 10, 15 AND 17, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, : RANGE 65 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. WELD COUNTY ROAD 38 r-4- 4 Irtl SO 'Ca Rai/ 1.1 7 . m rd. let FOIE lilt 1 � .:::: . .:. I 1 if : • • . . • ........ ..... •••••• .••••:J�y�/� yam{,, •a.••• • -. vamin .. ... wmir 1:.�!:.../ rF"IYl • a,�•�;Tit...'• d.V.W irYY..�' •' J I k T rut a••.•......•'alit:el '. .Y •t•ir..::::•: :- :: s AMNIACK : ' -VW Y Hit•rP• u•u\\r ......................... • ....:J.I�—.•�1.. ..�.. . •... .• 1 1 I IMO, • -- IreMa MEM auwealasikillis SAM - I _ 4 • • Mtge r••r • • :(.0•.V•••(r•Ir UWYµ1.1•�.• I .. ...1.1••4J/•lJ 1 • •IIw WR1w.t1 • •. •. �"� ■ • • • . • • • • •W • Win f•.• •• • ♦ • I I . • I 44 /.1 ••.K o ••.*? R • . , • • Ir. w • •P•• •t• IV • • •w t ■ • ww•o•w:u:.:. • :• . ■ .:.r�\at�xr}xsJ1.e�t1r�•:. . ...� r.. .us. Vs • . a r.ti. r......r.. •e1hY7r�R':::: :::: YL1.TrWili6 • le. • 11M••' • Ir: [�••::::•� . ••/I tJ•►1• •Wt[ • 1 • • • • • • un s.� . I inia ~PM • • 111 . • *Sae isl allillan rime li ID 1 11111**Tra Olt 00. num nINE 4 cal 1 MIMI i . O.*rii* II 104 ma ii I.IIII-. -• 11,13 q A ate Ap "'O , , •.,r• .1 14111412111114•1111.• . . 11..• 1•I V 4P ,a-.g Ifiligstik 40k, _ lki. . lie # 64 Agilli limn EOM 1 CC IMO all tag 444 WitiNrapi • * 0' 111 _ . i d lir : •olisi ad*. obis air. , sm. si acas it I II it i : c P..44,1117resAllL' 1.110471\14r:11/411114, xV�/,� 1 1 sera-. tild u s% ill • .. I pit . ilritiiitillogi fp dil c i _ 1 W r.,} mu• w tJ tIll I iii ,! 1 STAVE LAM ' t • u•• • • w•.• ••••••s••• I II Sal non . •'--- 1 I I 1 • I . ... .. .... .. •. . ---•= • ." • . '.�iiu:fi lint.. .: aj I .YYti1ddNL.411fM1'• 1Lrhrru%W.VtWti'Y. Mall ■ • 1 II IL MN Ma YOM • f • • I••••.. R non • /•n • 1••I I I • • I • • • u • I • • \ N•• J •!6•x!'1 pL- .._ 0.2.11013 on •'` YEW COUNTY ROAD 32 oONrwSr: a DPUCIIND/F\ jals istIbmi i1uliMdW BEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2 I—\ • t :,_.1_1 I warm M I EXHIBIT PLIPFati t001 Maxwell Nader From: Roy Wardell < rwardell@what-wire.com > rdel l @what-wi re.com > Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 6:20 PM To: Maxwell Nader Subject Erosion control, Pelican Lake Ranch PUDF24 -00001 , Filing 2, Attachments: Scan_20240203 (2). png; Scan_20240203 (3) . png Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution : This email originated from outside of Weld County Government . Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe . Hello Mr Nader, et al, I 've attached 2 items . One is a letter describing the absolutely essential erosion mitigation procedures that must be part of any approved plan for future development . The second attachment is 2 pictures of a spec house ( Filing 1 ) that was very recently ( Nov, Dec 2023 ? ) sold and occupied ( one of the last few lots available ) . These pics were ones that the realtor used in promotion of the house . Please note the drifted sand next to the house and the completely bare surface (very sandy soil ) of the lot around the house where the drifted sand blew from . Respectfully submitted , Roy Wardell, 16512 Essex Rd S, Platteville, CO 80651 970 396 1870 < rwardell@what-wire . com > 1 Jan 27, 2O24 ?o - Weld County Planning Commission and Weld County Commissioners From: Ropy Wardell, 16512 Essex Rd N, Platteville , Co 50651 Re: PtlOF24 - 0001 Filing 2, Retrain Lake Ranch Planners and Comnnissia+era: I write from two vantage pointy as an !8-year resident of Pelican lake Ranch IPLR) and as a r generation owner of the Wardell Ranch that borders the existing and proposed development for 1 A1Ne on the south and 23 miles on the wet Our tench es WirF/• andhig ecology and the loll b primarily sand that blew here and b still highly vulnerable to severe wind erosion if the fragile pbnt cover is thsturbed The anOhius that are the proposed area for development in plies 2, are some of the a and most fragile in the entire area . My most basic arrow* is that this very fragile sasyttem should NEVER be subjected to the extreme surface disturbance of an extensive housing development like the one proposed — period. And K it does proceed as proposed, unless there are extensive mitigation procedures required and implemented, thee WILL be SEVERE wind erosion, similar to, but much worse than has already happened in multiple places in the area previously developed (Filing 1). (in attached pictures). The extensive erosion control practices which 1 will stagiest below could reduce, but never eliminate, problematic wind eros +on of disturbed areas as roads and houses are developed. These practices should be mandatory in. any approved development plan in this free, sandhfll ecosystem. 1) Before a builder is allowed to disturb any suiate, a maximum foot print IsurFace area) Etta is reasonably needed for construction of house (kidudk vehicles) will be pre -determined and boundaries marked. 2) My part of the top 8 inches of the surface that is moved for construction is valuable top soil and must be reserved in a separate pile for redamitlon of lot after building S 3) Due to difficulty of landsmfn" and likelihood of wed and water erosion on steep slopes, no mope of more then . 20% (!4 ) may be left on any portion ai a bt's disturbed surface. 4) Before a builder can rNease a new house to be occuped either by the owner or by a future buyer, the surface of the St must be erosion mitigated by the builder. This would probably be done bars professional reclamation company and would usually ent,ail straw scrimped' into the disturbed surface. A sandy soil grass mix planted Into the surface would be Inevtnsire and might pMe the new occupant a little headstart In the usually daunting task of rrveptating disturbed wrbces. 5) The above practice neat be mandatory In any appraed plan and provision for awnfEorlOg and anforaeenene must be included. I am also a signer to the petition by PLR residents asking the Counter to deny this application. AND I strongly endorse the very Important concerns. listed In the ktber submitted by neighbor, lip 81ecic. tc:4472"y it/H4C-41 4111 - 1111111111- ii . . ii H - Oil `. I - __,A • it 4. 4 It Iis- le. or s r = , ___ eir ..... , _ - _. 1 I I - r lik " VI - • a. or-.... 1 . , , eas", _ _ ish.1/210s,_ .4 . ,.. . - IIP _ HI I ill • i - ' lerill; El ' i ' 1 t1 0 .. I I I 't P:71 dst i It ,,i:i. I I,ih Ill ibil- tail .SI} $ — u q r- tipi , , I J . 1 Y ♦, 4._ . __ _ _ , . ,. wit;L::a ... , , , _ . ik, i iiiit. _ ,_ _ S , . _. - - _ curiiiii - 4 Ars 0 -' - - , • r EXHIBIT PucritltbOtl Maxwell Nader From: jilibailey@what-wire.com Sent Sunday, February 4, 2024 11 :36 PM To: Maxwell Nader Cc: coxlindaevans2@gmail.com Subject: Pelican Lakes Ranch Filing 2 Application Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Nader, My husband and 1 purchased our initial 40 acre property just 2 miles south of Pelican Lakes Ranch on County Road 39 in 1993 . We purchased this property so we could have some peace and quiet in the country and have a lot of space for our horses and cows . We also have been able to expand our property to 120 acres , and have very strict animal and land husbandry in order to preserve what natural vegetation and regrowth that we can . The old and gas industry does not do this kind of soil and fragile vegetation any favors , even when they try to " reclaim" the land after abatement. We have struggled with it since moving out to this property. We have watched this rural area grow and have tolerated our ancillary roads becoming busier and busier, not only with increased residential traffic , but also the huge amount of oil and gas traffic, and livestock trucks etc. It seems that County Road 32 has become a thoroughfare for vehicles and semis getting from Weld County Parkway (Kersey Road) to Highway 85 , and we have often wondered how many of them are avoiding the weigh station just south of Platteville . The proposed Filing 2 puts the new entrance before a steep hill where trucks often are going too fast heading west to quickly stop before the stop sign . And , the vehicles heading east and accelerating up the hill would have no idea of traffic entering the highway until possibly too late. There are just too many vehicles already on these ancillary roads that are not designed to handle the current volume. Either there will be more potential for deadly accidents or the County will need to invest a lot of money into fixing the traffic lanes to handle the increased load . We knew about Beebe Draw and some kind of housing development when we moved out here , but had no idea that money and greed by the developers would culminate into something like this kind of proposed filing . We have nurtured many friendships over the years with Pelican Lake Ranch residents , so we have come to appreciate the folks who have spent the money to construct large beautiful custom homes and have landscaped their properties beautifully and appropriately. However, it is distressing for us to see how the newer properties are much smaller not only in lot size but also in the beauty and size of the homes built. Many have not bothered to plant any trees but just have their buildings set upon the land , with a lot of destruction to the fragile , natural prairie vegetation that is so difficult to recover. And because this soil out here is sugar sand , it does not retain moisture nor will it sustain that kind of building construction damage ; and the environmental damage that the unbelievable number of septic tanks and leach fields will cause . And with each resident only getting a 1 /2 share of city water, there is definitely not enough for them to water the suggested 10 trees per property while getting their roots established ° can't tell you how many trees we have tried to start 1 and failed on our property because of the soil), the livestock they might have, the landscaping they will need to get established let alone regrowing naturel grasses, as well as the daily use of each resident. It is also shown on the map that the 300' well setbacks impede on many of the lots, which will restrict where and what they can build and what they can do with their properties. I just fuel that this is poor planning and a way to pad certain peoples pockets with no regard to the current let alone suture residents of this subdivision and the surrounding residents. It appears to me that there has been a lot of misinformation to rope people in, and then the ball drops and they find themselves holding the bag without actually getting what they were promised and what they paid for. The total acreage owned by these developers is around 4,200 acres from what I understand, with a preciously approved total of 800 houses for ALL of the filings. So why are they trying to push through this kind of density on such a small amount of land and at such a busy intersection? Who benefits the most and why? Is there any consideration for all of the rest of the neighbors of this rural community and their quality of living and safety? How does the planning of the streets , with only ONE entrance until way in the future where there will be a total of TWOS provide safety for that many residents in case of fire or other emergency? With the kind of tumbleweeds, cheatgrass , and other dried vegetation all around this area, the chance of a wildfire is always high except in spring and early summer. And , with all of the land devastation during construction and for years fallowing as natural vegetation is trying to take hold , it will be a DUSTBOWL in this area, more so than it already is with the current oil and gas devastation . So I ask that you please go back to the initial approved PUD and see if they are going way beyond what was already approved by Weld County, and ask 'what is the motivation for this change?'. It seems like they are trying to sneak something unsavory through for their own gain . I do not agree with what appears to be the extent that they have gone to possibly deceive the current residents and the surrounding area residents, and what BS they will use to deceive new residents. It just seems wrong, and there has to be a better way to work with the community. We are all affected by this, it's not just the Pelican Lake Ranch residents who will suffer. I thank you for your consideration and greatly appreciate your time. Sincerely, Jill Bailey Extremely concerned neighbor Jill Bailey 13723 CR 39, Platteville, CO 80651 (9l0) 396-0509 2 EXHIBIT papigg-- 0661 LEITER IN FAVOR OF THE FILING 2 To: Maxwell Nader Via: email Maxwell Nader mnader@weld.gov Cc: Kim Ogle : koglegweld.gov From: Resident of Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lake Ranch) Date: February 1 , 2024 Re: PUDF24-0001 Applicant: REF LTD Liability Co Maxwell, I want to express my desire to have Filing 2 of Pelican Lake Ranch approved. We are a community in the rural area of Weld County with a plan for 800 lots. So far we have only 185 lots In Filing 1 . Our community is dependent on the remaining growth to sustain and maintain all of the infrastructure and amenities that have already been built. Many more rooftops are needed for our tax base as our roads and amenities are operated and maintained by metro districts. Without additional homes our community will suffer as there is not enough tax dollars coming in to support all the amenities we have including a swimming pool, parks, entry monumentation, gate house, fishing lake, miles of walking and riding trails, an upcoming separated paved walking trail along Beebe Draw Farms Parkway, picnic facilities, playground , horse amenities, and more. I bought into this community knowing that there are many more lots and homes to be built and I want to see this happen. We haven't had new lots or homes in several years and we need to grow. I have reviewed the plat and the narrative provided and am very pleased with the plans in this PUDF 240001 . Filing 2 will make a perfect addition to our community. You just can't find another wonderful community like this in northern Colorado. We have acreage lots with lots of open space and trails and a place to hike, ride a bike, go fishing and enjoy nature. I also like that people can have chickens, and goat companion for their horses. Goats and horses are great companions. I look forward to seeing these new homes and neighbors. Many of my current neighbors are nothing but complainers and negative people attacking to kind helpful people in our neighborhood . Respectfully supporting the approval of PUDF 24-0001 . LOGISTICS & LANDSCAPE SUPPLY RENEWABLE FIBER INC . P.O. Box 205, 305 Denver Ave., Suite B, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 I 303.857.0763 I renewablefiber.com AiStsitz. C s . 4% a ItIP tin M r . Weld County Planning Services 1402 N 17th Avenue PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 9-632 RE : PUDF24-0001 January 30, 2024 To Whom it May Concern : With reference to Case # PUDF24-0001, I would like to remind the Planning board that I operate over 3000 acres of farmland , dairy and a compost site within a short distance of the proposed 2nd phase of this development . ' Of course , that means there are smells and flies normally found in agriculture in the area . Thank you, t / it & John Moser, Owner Wes Moser, Inc . Morwai Dairy, LLC Renewable Fiber, Inc . EXHIBIT PuipPGq --0-0O Maxwell Nader • From: Leah Flesner Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 7:07 AM To: Maxwell Nader Subject: FW: Comments for PUDF24-0001 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Max, Not sure who would be able to answer this email, if I need to send it to someone else I can. Thank you, Leah Flesner Office Technician Weld County Planning & Building Department 1402 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 400 - 6100 issi • r Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : Susan Ditson <SDitson@RenewableFiber.com> Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2024 1: 11 PM To: Leah Flesner <Inaranjo@weld .gov>; Julie Haywood <jhaywood@weld .gov>; Brittany Thompson <bthompson@weld .gov> Cc: JMoser_forward <johnmoser@comcast. net> Subject: Comments for PUDF24-0001 Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please ensure that our comments regarding this Planning Service Case are submitted . I have mailed it, but want to make sure we are not too late . 1 Weld County Planning Services 1402 N 17th Avenue PO Box 758 Greeley , CO 9 - 632 RE : PUDF24 - 0001 January 30 , 2024 To Whom it May Concern : With reference to Case # PUDF24 - 0001 , I would like to remind the Planning board that I operate over 3000 acres of farmland , dairy and a compost site within a short distance of the proposed 2nd phase of this development . Of course , that means there are smells and flies normally found in agriculture in the area . Thank you , John Moser, Owner Wes Moser, Inc . Morwai Dairy , LLC Renewable Fiber, Inc . Susan Ditson Finance and Operations Renewable Fiber, Inc . Sditson@renewablefiber. com 970- 539- 1069 Mobile 303 -535 -5500 Direct 2 Maxwell Nader From: luvingeveyday77 < luvingeveyday77@9mail.com > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 10:26 AM To: Maxwell Nader Subject Entrance/Exit at PLR Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Maxwell Nader, Several residents in our community received notification that an application was submitted to Weld County by the developer of Pelican Lake Ranch . I understand that this new application provides a separate entrance be constructed off of county Rd 32. I was initially concerned about safety and traffic through the neighborhood via Beebe Draw Farms PKWY but this new design has eliminated our concerns . Please know that when we were in search of a country acreage it was a very hard thing to find . We were thankful to finally find and purchase our property. We approve of Filling 2 for several reasons, the developer addressed our concern , we look forward to the new bike trails and the possibility of other amenities and we want other families to also be able to make their dreams come true with a country living experience . Thank you for your time ! Wholeheartedly, Kambria TeWinkle EXHIBIT BUDF24 -01 1 � N ‘ov ► • N June 26, 2025 Mr. Max Nader Weld County Planning Services 1402 N . 17" Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Mr. Nader, We are writing as a group of concerned residents of Beebe Draw Farms ( Pelican Lake Ranch) to express our strong opposition and deep concerns regarding the proposed Filing 2 development buy REI (developer) and would request this communication be added to the record regarding the public hearings. Many of us recently received notice about upcoming hearings scheduled for August, and we feel compelled to share our concerns with you and the Weld County Commissioners . It has come to our attention—and and we assume yours as welt that REI has effectively taken control of a 422-acre parcel that was intended for the benefit of the residents and the D1 Metropolitan District. To date , there has been no resolution regarding repayment to the district for this land . More troubling is that we've been told by the developer ( REI ) that the only path to reimbursement is through the approval of Filing 2 . in short, REI wants our District 1 representatives to agree with the statement that they ( REV ) will ONLY pay the district back to an agreed amount, IF Filing 2 is approved by the county. This creates a disturbing implication : that residents and district boards must remain silent during the public hearing process to secure what is rightfully owed . We find this unacceptable and akin to a "gag order." We also believe REI had admitted wrongdoing by offering a settlement to the district . The 422-acre parcel in question has no direct relation to the Filing 2 proposal. Linking the two is inappropriate and places unfair pressure on our community. For your review, we have attached a recent article from The Denver Post, along with a whistleblower letter that has been circulated among residents , which provides additional background and context. Furthermore, we are concerned that the current PUD (Planned Unit Devetopment) does not reflect REI 's revised plans for the area . The proposed changes, including significantly smaller homes and lots, reduced setbacks (as little as 25 feet) , and the inclusion of farm animals---are starkly different from the standards outlined in the previous filing. We believe EXHIBIT Putt) Fac - cool $ t this inconsistency threatens both the character of our community and the value of our properties. We appreciate your attention to this matter and urge you to consider the tong-term impact this filing could have on existing residents of Beebe Draw Farms . Sincerely, Concerned Residents of Beebe Draw Farms Ptattevitte, Colorado Cc : Wetd County Board of Commissioners Dear PLR Neighbors. Imagine you own 422 acres of land, and your business manager has been approached by a company to lease or buy the land. Instead of working out the best deal for you. your business manager deeds the property over to herself and then sells it, leaving you with no land Of money . How would you fed ? What 1sould you do about it? I « ish I could tell you that this is a fictional story, unfortunately it is not. You have been stolen from . We have all been stolen from . Let me explain by telling you the story of Pelican Lake Ranch , officially known as Beebe Draw Farms ( BB ► ). When the Developer first went to the county requesting to develop the area, she submitted a plan . That plan included promises of roads, electricity, water. amenities and everything a thriving community would want . The county approved the plan which became known as Filing I . The Developer started to improve the land using bond funds that were paid back by property taxes and is now supported bs' ongoing property taxes . The Developer started selling lots, houses were built and residents moved in . Over time the residents became disgruntled with how the Developer was spending their property tax dollars and lack of fulfilling the promises made . It got so bad that in 2009 they filed a lawsuit and asked the county for a quinquennial review . After two long years. in 2011 they reached a settlement in which the residents would drop the lawsuit and quinquennial review and in return the Developer would turn over all amenity land to the newly formed Authority and a new service plan was adopted along with the creation of the Authority Establishment Agreement (AEA ) . This new governing structure alloyed for the residents to have equal representation on the board that controls the processes and use of taxpayer funds . The). finally had a say in how their tax money and the amenity land was used . And the). all lived • • happily ever after . . . or that is what I wish I could say . The Developer simply waited until she had a compromised Authority Board and in April 2022 . deeded 422 acres surrounding Lake Christina and Milton Reservoir back to her private company, LLC . She did this without paying the Authority anything for the land except for reimbursement for the costs of installing the RV court . She did this while Conoco and the Farmer's Reservoir and Irrigation Company ( FRICO) were pursuing negotiations with her for a lease or purchase of the land for projects they had in the works. They needed the land . and the Developer knew they needed the land. So much so that imminent domain was mentioned . Within weeks after having the Authority quit claim deeded the 422 acres to her pnvatc conipazn it was announced that the Developer, Christine Hethcock, was selling her majority working interest in REI to FRICO allowing her to greatly profit from the land transfer, FRICO to control the land they needed and Conoco to move forward with drilling on the land . A win, win for everyone but the true owners of the land. the taxpayers of Beebe Draw Farms . You may wonder, how could this happen? It was a combination of things creating the perfect storm . First, the passing of time saw mane seasoned residents move leaving a newer residents with less historical knowledge and a hole for the Developer to exploit . Second, a compromised Authority Board made up of the Developer herself. Eric Wernsman a contract engineer for the Developer, Joe Knopinski a contract consultant for the Developer and one other despondent neighbor. Of special note, shortly after the transfer took place. Eric Wernsman was awarded a lucrative engineering contract approved by the Developer on behalf of the Authority and has since received hundreds of thousands of dollars front taxpayer funds in spite of concerns of nonperformance . Thirdly. they skipped steps in the approval process making the transaction mostly unnoticed. flying under the radar. Now the question is. can anything be done about this? Fortunately., they skipped major steps in EXHIBIT fl& Faqcooi ft Ar Pop 2 the approval process making the transfer kilegititate. First, they passed it with only one reading when the AM 3. dX3) states dart any items mulling apps from the Authority must be discussed at a minimum of iwo public mectinp for approval. Surd, they did net have express writ at seat nom the District 1 emd District 2 board ntomben which is requital babe dic land could be transferred to any other party. Third, AEA 1211 and 12.2 gives resnedics in the event of a d uk fOT nonperfonnanee of any ..eovcaaats. agyvanents, or +c ditions" inthc AEA. According to AEA 33(h), Authority Board members are requited to "conduct its Sines and emirs in the but in of, and fix the benefit of, the Districts and their inhabitants". Sadly, this did not happen with the prior Authority Board, instead the very oncs in chop of conducting our business stoic and then pro flitcd from our its. They breacind their fiduciary duty mid violated the public's trust What cat you personally do about this? Do not let this fly under the Sir. Let the District Manager and our reptepresentadves, the BBDF District I Board ambers,, know that you am not okaY with our land being stoke. That you want then to pursue t e remedies as outlined in AEA 12. 1 and 12.2 to right this wrong. They arc victims of this irjustioa too. so let them know you cam and want what's right for our community. As the old saying gocs, it takes a villa. Your Neighbor, Richard Malts BBDF District 1 Contact Numbers: District 1 Mr Lisa Johnson Dist 3034394029 Linhillethatillatatom District I President Bill Caldwell bawaraikabsdastegaitsgm District I Vice President Brenda Lewis btailiticagataimaila District I Senn Canna Rosentreader GNignagreamail .com District I Trca umr Cindy Billingert tbillinger.bcobedrawidsnuil .eom District 1 Assistant Seemtary shaman Dillon • a I11$2 BM AM The Dew Poet I. METRO DISTRICTS Letter caused uproar over a $ 10 land deal BeBee Draw Farms residents say sale of 400 acres is an example of a flawed system . I, I : _, .: . , Ht : • :, , , i. ri ,P. . 44!J . . I , , � Jf_Ili • 4 . I I 1 . .: .1 4 i bi 4, It 1 ' . ' s. ! 41Yttkil: .71t4 . it_ ii, - 40# r I .. e lAils1/4"- - - . SIMOIPMIr 1 - F - 4 .,r # ;1401. - - . is ' •� .4410C#* - (r iu 7.14: i '(H Rt_4, or sle Ski 411 1 , - it I 4*=. { _ u t. r II 4 .s — * 41inbat 7tairman UPI • ', _ '��Lur it i _ - _ • " ' • _ - _ .--se sys ' - - - - - .. . - art : f41/4 - - alit! e :: at sw - - ns.44S - : - - - - - le , . 4or I . 1 t • - ' - s ; ! - - Ht - I ire - . ,_ _ ;41.4-- _, . 7 i : _ Residents Jeff Heley, left , his mother, Judy Tunis , and Kent Lewis discuss their concerns about the future of the Pelican Lake Ranch area in Platteville on May 1 . The sate of 400 acres of open space owned by the community and its Later resale to an irrigation company has caused controversy. PHOTOS BY HYOUNG CHANG f THE DENVER POST EXHIBIT b PLtDP9LIrCbO( i .S el Wel lenewepeper ipubidnefill19316414043.06017-5815015150if 1111 WI * eft NA The Dow Post I ' se; i +ti — A -detilesfria7 1.111.1.011 - V•6-41I ildirgebb 'sr ; ihst ' i ,. a , V We I 7 A. iiele4 daliglekr - .a - -%ate Swale- .� t $- +r �► mss+ i IF 4 a re -aPT amption lop _ ameekstioff 7c:Illege he F.- h�T v. i net - 44441 ertir • , " taps lor - *-S- isper-over- marinrattize - • THE PELICAN LAKE RANCH SUBDIVISION , WITH MILTON RESERVOIR IN THE BACKGROUND. BY NOELLE PHILLIPS PLAUEVILLE> > An anonymous letter, signed by someone calling themselves Richard Marks, append in mailboxes in December throughout the Bebee Draw Farms neighborhood in Weld County. telling neighbors they were swindled in a secretive land deal approved by an elected board that oversees the 186-home subdivision. That hoard, known as the BeBee Draw Farms Authority, sold approximately 400 acres of open space owned by the community for $10 to RE1 LW, the company that built the subdivision and had plans to add a second phase. The problem, the letter said,, was that one of RBI's co-owners was the development's general manager and also sat on the board that approved the sale. Within six months of the sale, Farmer's Reservoir and Irrigation Company„ one of the largest water manswement companies along the Front Range, bought REI LLC --- including the additional 400 acres it now awned ab for an undisclosed amount. The litigation company hasswasswinnat 1 1d44c'043+k 7- "1R1i f 2iii 6/16/24,, 8:35 AM The Denver Post not only wanted the land for a dredging project , but it also was expanding its interests to real estate , said Scott Edgar, the irrigation company ' s executive director. REI LLC 's general manager, Christine Hethcock , knew the irrigation company wanted to dredge the reservoir and that it would need land for the project , the letter said . " Imagine you own 422 acres of land , and your business manager has been approached by a company to lease or buy the land , " the letter said . " Instead of working out the best deal for you , your business manager deeds the property to herself and then sells it , leaving you with no land or money. How would you feel? What would you do about it? " I wish I could tell you that this is a fictional story, but it is not , " the anonymous letter stated . The anonymous letter alarmed residents in the rural subdivision about 15 minutes south of Greeley in Weld County known for its large lots, lakes , horse trails and wild birds , including white pelicans who nest there . The approximately 400 acres served primarily as open space for the community with promises to use it for amenities such as scenic overlooks and horse jumps . The land never should have been given back to RE ! LLC because it was meant to be a benefit to families who bought homes in the neighborhood , the Richard Marks letter said . Now, the property manager had orchestrated a deal to enrich herself and other investors while allowing what was once beautiful land to be ruined by the irrigation company' s lake dredging project . " What can you do about this ? Do not let this fly under the radar, " the letter, which was obtained by The Denver Post , warned . Since the letter was placed in mailboxes in December, the subdivisions ' residents have packed various board meetings as they tried to figure out how the land slipped away with little notice and what they can do to regain what they lost . The saga of the $ 10 land deal at Bebee Draw Farms is complex, and the community has a history of disputes between residents and elected hoards that date back more than 13 years . The story' s layers involve Colorado ' s controversial system of metro districts and complex water rights . Along with anger over the land transfer, residents are upset about the dredging project on Milton Reservoir, a 1 , 500- acre lake adjacent to Bebee Draw Farms that is owned by the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company. Many also oppose plans to build new homes as part of a second phase of the subdivision ' s development , which is why the developer said it needed the open space back . Metro districts that govern the subdivision are involved in all of it . https://enewspeper.denverpost.comfiiml5/readeNproduction/default.aspx?pubname=8pubid=c861931d-b4c7 -434ab017-5a5c7751501 f 3/11 6/16/24, 8:35 AM The Denver Post Bebee Draw Farms is unusual in that it has two elected metro districts and an authority board , which is a third governing entity, that make decisions on how land is used , how much residents are taxed and how that tax revenue is spent . There also is a property owners association , funded by dues and fees for violations of community covenants . Metro districts , which are taxing authorities created by subdivision developers , have come under scrutiny in Colorado because they give developers enormous power to raise taxes to pay for their projects and often are used as an avenue for developers to line their own pockets . A 2019 investigation by The Post found they often are troubled by a lack of voter oversight , conflicts of interest and financial insolvency. John Henderson , a member of the Coloradans for Metro District Reform , said the situation at Bebee Draw Farms is a classic example of how developers make up rules and use metro districts to their financial benefit . Without voters watching every move those elected boards make , abuse happens . "The first lesson of metro district law is just do it , and if no one objects , it 's legal , " Henderson said . But Hethcock, who is a co- owner of REI LLC and was the Bebee Draw Farms development ' s general manager at the time of the land transfer, told The Post that everything about the land deal was above board and within Colorado law. Her company gave the open space to the community more than 20 years ago for free , and it was never utilized or improved , she said . Now REI was reclaiming it for future development . Hethcock and residents disagree on how much land was actually handed over in the $ 10 transaction last year; residents say it was 422 acres , while Hethcock says they are mistakenly including land around a small lake on the property and the acreage was actually 398 . Although Hethcock is an elected member of Metro District 2 and sits on the Bebee Draw Farms Authority board , she recused herself from the vote that transferred the land to RE! LLC because she had a conflict of interest . Edgar, general manager of Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, also said nothing illegal or underhanded was done , especially because the development company donated the land to the community in the first place . Still , he met in March with the community to discuss why his company bought REI LLC . He offered a settlement , but the metro districts and property owners association declined while they seek an appraisal for the 400 acres . " Given the residents and their tax dollars did not pay a dime for that land it , would be fools hearted to gloss over or ignore that , " Edgar said . A nice place to live https:l/enewspaper.denverpost.comfitml5lreader/productioNde(ault.aspx7pubname=3pubid=c861931 d-ir4c 1 -434c-b0 i J-Sa5c7751501 ! 4/11 6/16/24, 8:.35 AM The Denver Post The subdivision once was a cattle ranch , but the landowner sold 4 , 200 acres in the early 1980s to a developer, who had the idea to build a rural neighborhood where people could buy big homes on lots large enough to house horses with plenty of trails for riding and hiking . The land' s proximity to Milton Reservoir also would be a big draw. Bebee Draw Farms needed the metro districts and their ability to tax so there would be money for water lines , roads and other infrastructure , Hethcock said . It was expensive to bring those utilities to the community because it was so far away from Greeley or Platteville, the closest municipality. The original owners with the big idea for Bebee Draw Farms went bankrupt before the first home was built . REI LLC bought the property and built the first homes in 1999 . RE! LLC , which is no relation to the outdoor recreation retailer, is not a big player in Colorado real estate ; Bebee Draw Farms is its only project , Hethcock said . Over the years , those who co- own REI have come and gone as people retire or decide to do something else with their money, but its investors almost always have been secretive . Today there are 186 homes , and plans are under consideration with the Weld County Planning and Zoning Department to add an additional 1 , 200 single- family lots . Although Bebee Draw Farms is the legal name, the development also is known as Pelican Lake Ranch , a name created to better market the subdivision . The rural setting and large lots attracted Kent Lewis , a retired engineer, when he and his wife moved to the neighborhood in February 2021 . Lewis enjoys running his three German short -haired pointers through the open space and birdwatching from the deck of his two- story house . But the fallout from the land deal is changing the nature of the neighborhood , he said . "The developer has harmed the people of this community, " Lewis said . Since the irrigation company began its dredging project , the company has heaped sand and slurry from Milton Reservoir' s bottom into a massive pile that now is nicknamed " Mount Milton " by residents . Although the pile sits on acreage owned by the reservoir company, it blocks Lewis ' view of the lake . Sand that has been spread across open space is killing vegetation , Lewis said . Heavy trucks damage the roads that the community pays to maintain . " You talk about a wind erosion problem , " he said . " When the wind blows you wake up in the morning and go to the furniture and it' s dusty in the house . " Even as Lewis shared his gripes about what has happened , he stopped to point out a red tail hawk flying overhead and rambled off a list of birds that he sees almost daily. Mips:U9newspaper.denvarposi.comlhtml5lreader/production!default.aspx?pubname=&puDid=c86193 7 d-b4c 1 -434c-b017-Sa5c775 7 501 f 5/11 6/16/24, 8:35 AM The Denver Post " I mean this is a nice place to live , " he said . " It' s just the broken promises . It takes a big set of cojones to deed yourself 422 acres . " An unusual structure Like many other subdivisions across Colorado , Bebee Draw Farms ' infrastructure , maintenance and amenities are overseen by metro districts , which raise money by taxing homeowners and other land users . But BeBee Draw Farms has a more complicated structure than most other districts . Weld County established the first metro districts for the development in 1986 when plans for it were first drawn and a second district was created in 1999 when the first homes were built . Metro District 1 represents the homeowners , while Metro District 2 represents the developer- controlled land that does not have houses . Each metro district has five elected members . The two metro districts have a history of conflict . In 2009 , homeowners filed a lawsuit , saying RE! LLC controlled both district boards and had too much power over how tax dollars were spent . That lawsuit resulted in a 2011 settlement called the Bebee Draw Farms Authority Establishment Agreement, which created a third governing body for the development . That third body is now known as the authority board . Under the settlement agreement , each metro district appoints two of its five elected members to the authority board . The taxes collected by each metro district flow to the authority board , which makes decisions on how the money will be spent — whether that is to buy street lamps , repair the swimming pool or build a new walking path . Authority boards are one of the tools developers employ when they want to exert their influence and power over metro districts , said Henderson , who advocates for statewide metro district reform . Developers can still stack the deck so that the majority of members on an authority board can vote in favor of the developer' s plans . " it ' s pretty rare , " Henderson said of the authority board structure . " You find it almost exclusively in districts where there ' s a significant amount of money involved and you have fairly sophisticated players . " Henderson argues that authority boards are illegal under Title 32 . the Colorado statute that sets the rules for metro districts , although that hasn 't stopped developers from creating them . "There ' s nothing in Title 32 that says they can do this , " he said . "The way Title 32 is written there should be only one district . Period . " https://enewspaper.denverpost.cornthtrnt5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubnanier&pubidzc861931 d-b4c 1 -434c-b017-5a5c77515011 6/11 6/16/24, x:35 AM The Denver Post When the authority board voted in January 2022 to transfer the 400 acres back to the development company, REl LI.C , Hethcock recused herself, and the sale was approved 3 -0 . Although Hethcock didn 't participate , the authority board was stacked in her favor, said Crystal Clark , a Bebee Draw Farms resident and a member of property owners association . Two of the three people who voted included the spouse of one of REI ' s employees who had done contract work for RE! and a consultant who did work on behalf of RE! , she said . A third member, who was a resident and long- time Metro District l. board member, also voted in favor. Hethcock and another person who voted in favor of the land transfer stepped down from the authority board this year but remain elected members of Metro District 2 . The other two no longer serve on the authority board or metro district . Edgar, who runs the irrigation company, now has a seat on Metro District 2 and the authority board . The residents who led the battle back in 2009 had moved away, and the community became lackadaisical by not attending public meetings to keep an eye on the governance , Clark said . Most residents did not realize the deal had been approved until months later. Clark, who has researched the deal and has a thick folder of documents , said the authority board ' s vote was not legitimate . The $ 10 sale was approved with just one round of voting instead of two , which is in violation of the authority board ' s rules . She said she has asked for more than a year to see proof of a second reading . "This got passed on a first reading, " she said . "They ' re saying it got a second reading , but there' s no minutes . There' s no proof anywhere ? Clark also believes the land deal should have been sent to each of the two metro districts for approval because it involved what is considered an amenity for homeowners . She said the only exception under the governance rules would have been if the land sale was a " bona fide emergency. " " diving the land away for free is not a bona fide emergency action , " Clark said . The developer wanted the land back in its hands because of development plans . Hethcock , however, said the land deal had two readings — once in ,July 2021 and again in January 2022 when it was approved . She said there was a lot of discussion in January about why they wanted to transfer the land away from the authority and back to REI . All five members of the metro district that represented homeowners attended and no one objected to the deal , she said . " It made sense to everybody, " Hethcock said . hftps:l/enewspapet.denverposl.canfitml5/reader/productioNdefault.aspx?pubname=6pubk1=c861931 d-b4c1 -434o-b017-Sa5c7751501 i 7/11 6/16J24, &:35 AM The Denver Post But Henderson said Hethcock never should have been involved in any discussions that came before the authority board . And anyone closely affiliated with the development company also should have recused themselves . " You 've got to completely remove yourself from the conversation , " he said . In July 2022 , six months after the authority board sold the 400 acres back to REI , the authority board announced that REI had been sold to the irrigation company. Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company now owns all of the undeveloped land and is in charge of building phase two . Word spread through the neighborhood that Hethcock had cut herself a sweet deal by convincing her fellow authority board members to sell the land at a cheap price back to the development company that she co- owned , boosting the value of its holdings . Because she also served as Bebee Draw Farms general manager, she knew the irrigation company wanted the land and then negotiated REl ' s sale , making a nice profit for herself, Clark and others maintain . " Back in the old days you called it ' back room , cigar smoking deals ' and no meeting minutes were required , " said Todd Sundeen , a Bebee Draw Farms resident . "This is how this happened . It ' s a result of a lack of transparency. " But Hethcock said those accusations are overblown . She said she never owned more than a 15 % interest in RE! , which was not enough to unilaterally force a sale . The deal was approved by two shareholders who owned a much larger interest and wanted to sell . The irrigation company bought a majority stake and now is the controlling interest on what happens with Bebee Draw Farms ' undeveloped land , not her. " I never would have had an ability to sell the whole thing , " Hethcock said . " I 've never had a controlling interest . " Hethcock, who said she now owns 3 % of REI , said she is retiring from the company as soon as Edgar, the irrigation company ' s director, finds her replacement as manager of the development . Hethcock and Edgar declined to say how much the irrigation company paid for RE ! . Neither would disclose who the majority shareholders are in either entity because both are privately held . Dredging up a conflict The irrigation company wanted the land because it needed to dredge Milton Reservoir, Edgar said . https:l/enewspaper.denve►post.com/fitml5/reader/praduction/default.aspxlpuhname=1Spubid=c881931 d-b4c1 -434c-b017-5a5c7751501f 8/11 6116/24, 8:35 AM The Denver Post "We are dredging Milton Reservoir, and part of the arrangement for the purchase of REi allowed us to use the REI land for our project , " he said . Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company was founded in 1902 and owns four major reservoirs in Colorado and 400 miles of canals . The company built Milton Reservoir in 1909 and it is fed water through a series of sandy ditches , Edgar said . The company built Milton Reservoir in 1909 , and it is fed water through a series of sandy ditches , Edgar said . But after 115 years of operation , the sand caused the lake to become more shallow. "We ' re reclaiming lost capacity by doing maintenance on the lake , " he said . Hethcock said she had one meeting with Edgar about the dredging project before the $ 10 land transfer and the 400 - acre parcel was not part of the conversation . By owning the nearby Bebee Draw Farms property, the irrigation company does not have to drive the dredging spoils long distances and pay someone else to take the dirt . The irrigation project created multiple retaining ponds on the Bebee Draw Farms property, trucks and heavy equipment run ali day and residents notice large holes get dug in various places and then filled with dirt , Lewis said . When Bebee Draw Farms was first developed it held a lease to use Milton Reservoir and its surrounding lakefront . The metro district spent tax dollars to build a retaining wall and a boat ramp , and residents were allowed to fish and boat on the lake . But several years ago , FRICO put the water usage out for bid , and Heritage Sporting Club won the lease . The club ' s members use it for boating and camping in the summer and duck and bird hunting in the fall . Bebee Draw Farms residents now can only look at the water even as they watch trucks haul sand from the lake bottom around their land and dump it in piles . " It would not surprise me if you said folks were concerned about that, " Edgar said . The irrigation company also is adding real estate development to its portfolio , which added to the company ' s interest in RE! . Edgar declined to disclose other developments his company is involved in . Edgar admitted all of the controversy at Bebee Draw Farms caught him off guard , saying his 15 -year-old daughter had less drama in her life . " It' s fair to say the passion of some of the residents was not disclosed , " Edgar said . " That ' s OK . We' ll work through it . " In March , Edgar met with the residents to talk about FRICO' s ownership and explain the company' s intent . Mips:l/enewspaper.denverpost.comfi1mf51reeder/productioNdetauN.anpx7pubname=3pubid=c861931 d-b4c 1-434c-b017-5a5c7751501 i 9/ 11 6/16/24, 8`.36 AM The Denver Post " As a starting point , nothing was done illegally or wrong , " Edgar said at the beginning of the March 7 meeting . " Maybe things could have been done better. " He also acknowledged that FRICO had upset residents seven years ago when it awarded the water lease to the sporting club . " 1 may have a bit of a reputation in Pelican Lake Ranch , " he said at the meeting . " I took Milton Lake away from the neighborhood . I would do it again . " Edgar offered the metro districts three options to settle at that March meeting that involved various revenue -sharing plans from future home sales and donations of additional open space . One option was a one-time $375 , 000 payment to an amenity fund for the community. Edgar would not further discuss those offers with The Post . "This may end in litigation , and as such I need to be a little bit more careful on this topic , " he said . " I certainly hope not . That was the purpose of the settlement offer. " Residents have not accepted an offer and now are hiring an appraiser to assess the value of the 400 acres , Clark said . No one wanted to settle until they understood the actual financial value of what they had lost . Lost trust Jeff Heley and his family moved to Bebee Draw Farms in October 2019 because they wanted to raise their sons in a rural setting . They also needed a house big enough for his mother and mother- in -law to live with them . They wanted to own horses and looked forward to the recreation opportunities at Milton Reservoir, which they were promised access to , he said . The Heleys learned once they moved in that Milton Reservoir was closed to residents because of the sporting club agreement . Heley said that was the first time they were misled by the developer. Heley said they also were told additional houses would be built across the street , and then construction would stop . But the latest plans show more homes much closer to his . When rumors started bubbling up about REI LLC 's land transfer people at first were upset over the future of an RV storage lot and an equestrian center — two amenities for residents that were on the 400 acres . " People were up in arms over the equestrian center and no one asked how the land was transferred , " he said . hops://enewspaper.denverpost.caNhtmi5/readeriproductionidefault.aspx?pubname=lipubld=c861931 d-b4c1 -434c-b017-5a5c7751501 i 10/11 4/1p/24 , 8t35 AM The Denver Post People eventually started asking about the land transfer, and Heley said he tried to find old minutes from past metro district board meetings to figure out what had happened . Then the letter that spelled out the $ 10 deal — signed by a fictitious Richard Marks — appeared in mailboxes . "They were acting like everybody knew about it and everybody was informed , " he said . "The Richard Marks letter filled in some blanks . " The land transfer caused Heley to lose all faith in the developer and the metro districts . "They showed their interest was personal and not for the metro districts , " he said . The metro district system in Colorado needs more oversight , and the districts need to be held accountable for their record -keeping, Heley said . "They're comprised of controlling interests who are there to make money, " he said . https:/lenewspaper.denverlwst.comlhtml5lreadeNproductiorUdefault.aspx?pubna+ne=8pubid=c861931 d-b4c1 -434c-b017-5a5c7751501 i 11 /11 EXHIBIT b Pub 1.- 7-y -ate. j Maxwell Nader From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn.com > Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 7:41 AM To: Maxwell Nader Cc: Diana Aungst Subject: Re: Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Upon my own research , I found the chapter that prohibits these major changes . My New objection . Subject : Request for Full Denial of Filing 2 — Beebe Draw Farms PUD Based on Chapter 27 Non-Compliance Dear Planning Commission Members , I am writing to formally request that Filing 2 of the Beebe Draw Farms Planned Unit Development (PUD) be denied in its entirety pursuant to the provisions of Weld County Code Chapter 27 , which governs all PUD approvals , amendments , and filings . Legal Basis for Denial : Chapter 27 — PUD Continuity and Compliance According to Chapter 27 -2 -210 .B of the Weld County Code : "The character of the Planned Unit Development shall be preserved. Subsequent filings shall remain consistent with the density, dimensional standards, and design intent of the originally approved PUD unless a new Planned Unit Development application is filed and approved. " Filing 2 fails to meet these requirements in multiple material ways : 1 . Density and Lot Size Deviations • Filing 1 was approved for 188 lots on 1 , 163 acres, averaging 0 . 16 lots per acre with large estate-style lots . • Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on just 105 . 5 acres, resulting in 2 . 7 lots per acre—a nearly 17-fold increase . • This is not a minor adjustment; it completely alters the rural , low-density character that defines the original PUD . 1 2. Elimination of Community Features • The originally approved PUD included equestrian trails, meaningful open space buffers, and setbacks that contributed to the semi-rural design. • Filing 2 removes the trail system, fails to include new amenities , and does not maintain the open space integrity. • The community pool, with a 25 -person capacity, is already at full use and cannot absorb hundreds of additional residents . 3 . Unsafe and Inconsistent Setbacks • Filing 1 used responsible setbacks from oil and gas infrastructure consistent with public safety . • Filing 2 ignores these standards, with lots directly adjacent to former well pads and active lines, putting public health at risk. 4. Infrastructure and Water Constraints • The Can Serve Letter from CWCWD (2025) offers only "budget taps ," which may not support proper fire suppression or irrigation . • Filing 2 increases water demand without verifying long-term capacity—contrary to PUD sustainabilityr requirements in Chapter 27 . 5 . Violation of Procedural Integrity • The deviations in Filing 2 are so substantial that they require a new PUD application, as explicitly required under Chapter 27 -2-210 .B . • guise � «o,�l�.�A�� , �nt filing" nnS� ��!l� �c public trict and Pimcaliii6under the of G. "subsequent v k v uaa a a v violates both the spirit and letter of the Code . For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Weld County Planning Commission deny Filing 2 in its entirety . The application fails to meet the legal requirements under Chapter 27 and represents a significant and unjustified departure from the approved development plan . The Planning Commission has a responsibility to enforce these regulations and to ensure that Kim Coleman From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn .com> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8 : 17 AM To: Maxwell Nader <mnader@weld .gov> 2 Cc: Diana Aungst <daungst@weld . gov> Subject : Re : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map Hi Max, Thanks again for your previous responses . I want to be absolutely clear : This revised Filing 2 application does not match—nor come remotely close to—the original PUD approved for Beebe Draw Farms . The scale and nature of these changes go far beyond any minor amendment. Specifically : • Setbacks have been reduced to 25 feet, where the original Filing 1 required 50-foot front setbacks , which supported rural character, drainage needs , and septic spacing . • The revised lot density now proposes 284 lots across 848 acres , with a significant concentration of 192 lots on 1 . 1 -2 . 0 acre parcels . This results in a visibly denser layout that contrasts sharply with the original rural estate design . • Open space and trail continuity from Filing 1 are vague or missing entirely— especially regarding equestrian trails , which were a core part of the original development promise . • Oil and gas setbacks appear to have been reduced or disregarded, despite existing plugged wells shown on the new plat. • The use of shared driveways contradicts the original design of individual lot access and spacing . This filing should not be considered an amendment—it constitutes a materially different development. According to Weld County Code Chapter 22 and Chapter 23 , as well as Planning ' s own procedural documents, when a proposal changes the lot configuration, density, setback standards , or approved land uses , it must trigger a formal PUD Amendment process with public notice and BOCC review—not just administrative review . "Any change in zoning , land use intensity, or deviations from the conditions or representations of the original PUD approval shall require a formal application and review under the Planned Unit Development zoning provisions . " Weld County Code § 22 - 2 - 30 & § 23 - 3 - 110 3 My questions to you are as follows : 1 . Where in your process does Weld County define the threshold for when a PUD amendment becomes a materially different project requiring new public hearings and approvals? 2 . At what point is a new PhD designation required, rather than treating this as Filing 2 under the original ? 3 . Given the scale of change , shouldn ' t a new metro district and development agreement be required to match the actual project being built—not one based on a 20-year-old approval ? I ' m asking Weld County to apply the plain meaning of its own code and held this applicant to the same standard as any other developer. This new submittal is not what residents were promised under Filing 1 —and it creates a precedent that could undermine every existing PhD � rr,�a�arr�Pnt in the rnnnh�agreement u vu � au county . . I appreciate your transparency and hope to receive your clarification soon . ,7111VG1 G1�` , Kim Coleman Beebe Draw Farms Resident jc4buffsmsn . com Kim Coleman From : Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld .gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 7 : 56 : 25 AM To : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn . com > Cc : Diana Aungst <daungst@weld .gov> Subject: RE : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map Kim , Thank you for your comments . We have included them into the record for PUDF24-0001 . Best, 4 miLEIff?.%*MtL4it' COUNTY, CO Maxwell Nader Planning Manager Dept. of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3527 1402 N 17'h Ave . Greeley, CO 80632 Ca g et, ia Join Our Team IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 7 : 52 AM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld .gov> Cc: Diana Aungst <daungst@weld .gov> Subject: Re : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To be absolutely clear : this new application for Filing 2 does not match—nor does it even come close to—the original Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved for Beebe Draw Farms . The scope of changes proposed, including reduced setbacks , increased density, lack of clear trail and open space planning, and the abandonment of previous oil and gas setback requirements , fundamentally alters the original intent and design that was agreed upon in Filing 1 . These are not minor amendments . They represent a wholesale shift that deserves to be treated as a brand-new development application with full public review and justification—not simply as a continuation of the original PUD . Please advise when Weld County intends to acknowledge this as a materially different project and require it to be processed accordingly . 5 Kim Coleman From : Maxwell Nader < ni ader@weld .gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 7 : 50:06 AM To: John and Kim Coleman < jc4buffs@msn . com > Cc: Diana Aungst <daungst@weld .gov> Subject: RE : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - riling 2 map Kim , Sorry so the Second Filing of the PUD? Best, 'siv: _; WEER COUNIY, CO Maxwell Nader Planning Manager Dept . of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3527 1402 N 17th Ave . Greeley, CO 80632 O X O 0 Join Our Team IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents other writinge nra intAndari only for the pPrcnn nr This Its electronic Ill. transmission 1 .711 issio 1 and any attached led �.. ocu 11e1 � s or other • . r gs a e � �e l . o A. �.,. erso , , entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure , copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : John and Kim Coleman < jc4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 10 : 07 AM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld . gav> Cc: Diana Aungst <{_a ung_s1 (FoviieItl .gov> Subject: Re : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the PUD . Kim Coleman From : Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld .gov> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 9 : 52 :49 AM To : John and Kim Coleman < "c4buffs@msn . com > Cc : Diana Aungst <cfaungst ((Pweld .gov> Subject: RE : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map 6 Kim , Are you speaking specifically to mining operation or second filing? Best, oir COU Mf Y, CO Maxwell Nader Planning Manager Dept. of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3527 1402 N 17th Ave . Greeley, CO 80632 X a 0 It Join Our Team IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : John and Kim Coleman < Ic4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 10 : 55 AM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld .gov>; Diana Aungst <daungst weld .gov> Subject: Re : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Max, Thanks again for your response and for including my concerns in the file . I wanted to clarify something further. At what point does Weld County determine that the volume and nature of changes to an existing PUD , such as those now proposed by REI/FRICO , warrant classification as an entirely new development? From what I ' ve seen, the scale of changes appears to go well beyond what should be considered a simple amendment . Wouldn ' t this trigger not only the requirement for a new PUD but also the formation of an entirely new metro district? These changes seem to create something separate and distinct from the original intent and scope of the existing PUD . If the County has guidance or rules on when that threshold is reached, I ' d appreciate you pointing me to them. From : Maxwell Nader < trili icier@weIdd . gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 7 :43 : 10 AM To: John and Kim Coleman < jc4buffs@msn .conl>; Diana Aungst < aungst weld .gov> Subject: RF : RPPhP Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map Kim , Apologize for the delayed response on this email . But I appreciate the details and this will be put into the file for the PUDF. Best , WEER COUNTY, CO MaxweR Nader Planning Manager Dept. of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3527 1402 N 17th Ave . Greeley, CO 80632 OX Ea Join Our Team IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return email and destroy the communication . Any disclosure , copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : John and Kim Coleman < ' c4buffs@msn .co.m> Sent: Friday/ June 13, 2025 5 : 57 PM To: Maxwell Nader <mnacler@weld . gov >; Diana Aungst < tin ungstffrAtelci ov > Subject: Fw : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr . Nader, I am writing to formally express concern regarding the proposed reduction of front setbacks in the draft plat for Beebe Draw Filing 2 . The document titled DRAFT Colored 8 Plat for Filing 2 clearly shows a proposed 25 - foot setback, which is a significant departure from the established 50-foot front setbacks implemented in Filing 1 . This change is not acceptable . Phase 1 established a standard that supported the rural residential character of the community—offering privacy, proper drainage planning, landscape buffering, and compatibility with septic system spacing requirements . Reducing this distance to 25 feet not only disrupts visual continuity but may also conflict with covenants and development expectations agreed upon during the original PUD approvals . Additionally, I would like to bring to your attention the following inconsistencies in the new proposal : • The updated lot layout and orientation appear denser than originally planned, particularly given the lot sizes of 1 -3 acres . • There is no clear documentation in the draft showing how open space connectivity and equestrian trails (as emphasized in Filing 1 ) will be preserved . • The use of shared driveway access on certain parcels is not consistent with the individual access points laid out in Filing 1 . • The absence of 300 -foot oil & gas setbacks around plugged wells contradicts the 1st Filing ' s planning standards and stated surface use agreements . I respectfully request that the Weld County Planning Department require consistency in setback standards and conduct a thorough comparison against the original PTJD to ensure no material deviation occurs without public transparency and proper justification . Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate a response clarifying whether the setback change has been formally reviewed or approved, and what process residents have to formally object to these changes . Kim Coleman From : John and Kim Coleman <ic4buffs@insn_com > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 10 :09 :03 AM 9 To : Johnson, Lisa < isa . .lohnson@claconnect .COm > Subject: Re : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map Thank you , received . Kim Coleman From : Johnson, Lisa < Lisa .Johnson@ciaconnect . com > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 7 : 55 :44 AM To : : (,:: huffs ?Un1sn .corn < eci iniIi '; r) t ,1 r . corn > Subject: Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map Good morning Kim , Per your request, attached please find the Filing 2 map that Bruce provided to me last evening after the Board meeting . Thank you, Lisa Lisa Johnson Principal Direct 303-439-6029 CLA (CliftonLarsonAllen LLP) lisa.jol r son@clacpnnet com Well get you there. CPAs I Consultants I Wealth Advisors CLA ( CliftonLarsonAllen LLP) is an independent network member of CLA Global . See Investment advisory services are offered through CliftonLarsonAllen Wealth Advisors, LLC, an SEC- registered investment advisor The information (including any attachments) contained in this document is confidential and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient , you should delete this message . Any distribution , disclosure , or copying of this message , or the taking of any action based on its contents is strictly prohibited . CliftonLarsonAllen LLP -a�ta Belli arilS_eec-is-n/- 10 EXHIBIT Anti seckovi I lat Maxwell Nader - - From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn .com > Sent Monday, July 7, 2025 7:41 AM To: Maxwell Nader Cc: Diana Aungst Subject: Re: Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Upon my own research , I found the chapter that prohibits these major changes . My New objection . Subject : Request for Full Denial of Filing 2 — Beebe Draw Farms PUD Based on Chapter 27 Non-Compliance Dear Planning Commission Members , I am writing to formally request that Filing 2 of the Beebe Draw Farms Planned Unit Development (PUD) be denied in its entirety pursuant to the provisions of Weld County Code Chapter 27 , which governs all PUD approvals, amendments, and filings . Legal Basis for Denial : Chapter 27 — PUD Continuity and Compliance According to Chapter 27 -2 -210 .B of the Weld County Code : "The character of the Planned Unit Development shall be preserved . Subsequent filings shall remain consistent with the density, dimensional standards, and design intent of the originally approved PUD unless a new Planned Unit Development application is filed and approved. " Filing 2 fails to meet these requirements in multiple material ways : 1 . Density and Lot Size Deviations • Filing 1 was approved for 188 lots on 1 , 163 acres, averaging 0 . 16 lots per acre with large estate- style lots . • Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on just 105 . 5 acres , resulting in 2 . 7 lots per acre—a nearly 17-fold increase . • This is not a minor adjustment; it completely alters the rural, low-density character that defines the original PUD . Cc: Diana Aungst <daungst@weld . gov> Subject : Re : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map Hi Max, Thanks again for your previous responses . I want to be absolutely clear : This revised Filing 2 application does not match—nor come remotely close to—the original PUD approved for Beebe Draw Farms . The scale and nature of these changes go far beyond any minor amendment . Specifically : • Setbacks have been reduced to 25 feet, where the original Filing 1 required 50- foot front setbacks , which supported rural character, drainage needs , and septic spacing . • The revised lot density now proposes 284 lots across 848 acres , with a significant concentration of 192 lots on 1 . 1 -2 . 0 acre parcels . This results in a visibly denser layout that contrasts sharply with the original rural estate design . • Open space and trail continuity from Filing 1 are vague or missing entirely— especially regarding equestrian trails , which were a core part of the original development promise . • Oil and gas setbacks appear to have been reduced or disregarded, despite existing plugged wells shown on the new plat. • The use of shared driveways contradicts the original design of individual lot access and spacing . This filing should not be considered an amendment—it constitutes a materially different development. According to Weld County Code Chapter 22 and Chapter 23 , as well as Planning ' s own procedural documents , when a proposal changes the lot configuration, density, setback standards , or approved land uses , it must trigger a formal PUD Amendment process with public notice and BOCC review—not just administrative review . "Any change in zoning , land use intensity, or deviations from the conditions or representations of the original PUD approval shall require a formal application and review under the Planned Unit Development zoning provisions . " Weld County Code § 22 - 2 - 30 & § 23 - 3 - 110 3 se e ETha COUNTY, CO Maxwell Nader Planning Manager Dept . of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3527 1402 N 17th Ave . Greeley, CO 80632 Xi Oa CD MI Join Our Team IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure , copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn .com > Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 7 : 52 AM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld .gov> Cc: Diana Aungst <daungst@weld .gov> Subject: Re : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To be absolutely clear : this new application for Filing 2 does not match—nor does it even come close to—the original Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved for Beebe Draw Farms . The scope of changes proposed, including reduced setbacks , increased density , lack of clear trail and open space planning, and the abandonment of previous oil and gas setback requirements , fundamentally alters the original intent and design that was agreed upon in Filing 1 . These are not minor amendments . They represent a wholesale shift that deserves to be treated as a brand-new development application with full public review and justification—not simply as a continuation of the original PUD . Please advise when Weld County intends to acknowledge this as a materially different project and require it to be processed accordingly . 5 Kim , Are you speaking specifically to mining operation or second filing? Best, orie ne.+��--.wiEttefiCOUPtTY, CO Maxwell Nader Planning Manager Dept. of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3527 1402 N 17`h Ave . Greeley, CO 80632 Ox net a Join Our Team IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure , copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : John and Kim Coleman < jc4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 10 :55 AM To: Maxwell Nader < rlirlacier a� weld .gov >; Diana Aungst <daungstfflweld .gav> Subject: Re : Beebe Draw Farms Authority - request for information - Filing 2 map This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Max, Thanks again for your response and for including my concerns in the file . I wanted to clarify something further. At what point does Weld County determine that the volume and nature of changes to an existing PUD, such as those now proposed by REI/FRICO, warrant classification as an entirely new development? From what I ' ve seen, the scale of changes appears to go well beyond what should be considered a simple amendment. Wouldn ' t this trigger not only the requirement for a new PUD but also the formation of an entirely new metro district? These changes seem to create something separate and distinct from the original intent and scope of the existing PUD . Plat for Filing 2 clearly shows a proposed 25 -foot setback, which is a significant departure from the established 50-foot front setbacks implemented in Filing 1 . This change is not acceptable . Phase 1 established a standard that supported the rural residential character of the community—offering privacy , proper drainage planning, landscape buffering, and compatibility with septic system spacing requirements . Reducing this distance to 25 feet not only disrupts visual continuity but may also conflict with covenants and development expectations agreed upon during the original PUD approvals . Additionally , I would like to bring to your attention the following inconsistencies in the new proposal : • The updated lot layout and orientation appear denser than originally planned, particularly given the lot sizes of 1 -3 acres . • There is no clear documentation in the draft showing how open space connectivity and equestrian trails (as emphasized in Filing 1 ) will be preserved . • The use of shared driveway access on certain parcels is not consistent with the individual access points laid out in Filing 1 . • The absence of 300-foot oil & gas setbacks around plugged wells contradicts the 1st Filing ' s planning standards and stated surface use agreements . I respectfully request that the Weld County Planning Department require consistency in setback standards and conduct a thorough comparison against the original PUD to ensure no material deviation occurs without public transparency and proper justification . Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate a response clarifying whether the setback change has been formally reviewed or approved, and what process residents have to formally object to these changes . Kim Coleman From : John and Kim Coleman <icabuffsuiirisitcom> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 10 :09 :03 AM 9 EXHIBIT I> U � zz -000 / Maxwell Nader =- — From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn .com > Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 1 :03 PM To: Maxwell Nader; Diana Aungst Subject: Fw: REI Informational Session on Filing 2 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe . Subject : Formal Complaint — Lack of Timely Public Engagement and Procedural Violations in Filing 2 Process To : Weld County Planning Commission CC : Weld County Board of County Commissioners ; Maxwell Nader, Planning Manager From : Kim Coleman, Beebe Draw Farms Resident Date : July 7 , 2025 Email : jc4buffs@msn . com Dear Planning Commissioners and Weld County Officials , I am submitting this formal complaint to express my strong objection to the manner in which Filing 2 (PHDF24-0001 ) of the Beebe Draw Farms PUD has been advanced without proper public engagement, in violation of Weld County Code Chapters 27 , 22 , and 23 . The recent announcement of a July 21 town hall hosted by REI , LLC ( included below) is a clear acknowledgment that the developer has failed to meet the expectations and requirements of meaningful community consultation prior to submission and design finalization . This so-called informational session, scheduled well after the application was filed, does not remedy the County ' s responsibility to enforce transparency , continuity, and procedural fairness . Grounds for Complaint 1 . Failure to Engage the Public During the Critical Planning Stage Residents of Beebe Draw Farms and Pelican Lake Ranch were not consulted during • Written response from Planning indicating how public engagement standards are being enforced and why this filing has been allowed to advance absent those safeguards . The credibility of the Weld County planning process—and the trust of the community— depends on the enforcement of fair and consistent procedures . Allowing this filing to proceed as-is undermines both . Thank you for your attention to this complaint. Kim Coleman From : notifications@rowcal . com < notifications@rowcal . com > Sent : Monday, July 7, 2025 12 :01 PM To : John Coleman <JC4buffs@msn . com > Subject : REI Informational Session on Filing 2 Dear residents of the Pelican Lake Ranch Community : On the evening of Monday July 21 , REI, LLC will be hosting a town hall type informational session to update Pelican Lake Ranch residents on REI ' s progress and plans for Pelican Lake Ranch Filing 2 . LOCATION : Pelican Lake Ranch Community Center TIME : Two identical sessions to provide flexibility ; Session One will be 5 : 30 to 6 : 15 followed by Session Two from 6 : 45 to 7 : 30 TOPICS : • Filing 2 plans status and schedule for processing Filing 2 with Weld County • Filing 2 design updates • Covenants update • Anticipated phasing • Community input • Q & A Please plan to attend , light refreshments will be provided . To unsubscribe, click here 3 EXHIBIT Maxwell Nader 93 From: brenda lewis < bjtlewisl @gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 6: 57 AM To: Maxwell Nader; Karla Ford Subject: RE: Opposition to the PUDF24-0001 Filing 2 Proposal at Beebe Draw Farms This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information , clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified . Kent and Brenda Lewis 16476 Burghley Court Platteville, CO 80651 720 -384- 3561 July 10, 2025 Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 l 1 c.rdkoweld .gov Weld County Planning Department Attn : Mr. Max Nader 1402 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Ian nadarab 'tvel ci .gov RE : Strong Opposition to the PUDF24-0001 Filing 2 Proposal at Beebe Draw Farms Dear Weld County Commissioners and Planners, We, as residents and landowners in Beebe Draw Farms Filing 1, respectfully submit our firm opposition to the proposed Filing 2 development in its present form. Our concerns are rooted not only in the proposal's incompatibility with our current neighborhood and surrounding rural area, but also in the troubling history and ongoing conduct of the developers, which continue to harm our community and undermine public trust. 1 . Developers Have Not Acted in Good Faith Since the project's initial approval in 1989, residents have endured repeated broken promises and disingenuous practices by the developer, REI LLC . These include : - Failure to deliver promised amenities such as a "real" clubhouse, workout facility/gym, updated equestrian facilities, and a boat marina. 1 requirements, costing them hefty surcharge amounts. The Filing 2 new homeowners will most likely have an unpleasant surprise when they start receiving their water bills. Approving this proposal would directly undermine the County's own planning standards and compromise the rural fabric of the region. 3 . Homeowners Continue to Be Denied Representation Just as Filing 1 residents have gained a modest voice on the Authority Board, the developers plan to take control over the POA board and completely change the current covenants for Filing 2, therefore creating two vastly different sets of rules for what is projected to be ONE metro district in the future. Despite relit on Filing I tax f nds. the continue to gn re objections from existing residents regarding housing densit r, manufactured home hypes, road connectivit ► r more. 4. Unethical Leverage Over a 422 -Acre Parcel One of the most egregious concerns is REI's effective takeover of a 422 -acre parcel originally intended to benefit the D1 Metropolitan District and its residents. No agreement has been reached regarding repayment to the district for this land. More troubling, REI has directly told representatives that repayment will only occur if the County approves Filing 2 . This conditional approach sends a chilling message : that Filing 1 residents and board members must remain silent during public proceedings to recover what is rightfully owed. We consider this tactic coercive and deeply unethical a de facto gag order placed on the community. It also implies acknowledgment of prior wrongdoing, since REI has offered a settlement to the district. To be clear, the 422-acre parcel has no direct connection to the Filing 2 proposal. Linking the two is entirely inappropriate and places undue and unfair pressure on our community. Conclusion The Filing 2 proposal is flawed in substance and tainted by process. It offers no meaningful benefit to existing residents, undermines agricultural integrity, and is tethered to ethically questionable demands. We respectfully request that the Weld County Commissioners reject the Filing 2 proposal and uphold the Weld County's commitment to responsible planning, community trust, and environmental protection. Sincerely, Kent and Brenda Lewis 3 EXHIBIT f'cAVeg (.cct i a From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn. com > Sent: Sunday, July 20. 202511 :39 AM To: Ma ell Nader cmnader@weld . gov›; Diana Aungst <daungst@weld.gov> Subject: Subject: Formal Objection to PUDF24-00O1 (Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms I PeLican Lake Ranch) with reference to WeLd County Chapter Violations Weld County Planning Commission 1402 North 17th Avenue P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Subject: Formal Objection to PUDF24-0001 (Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms I PeLican Lake Ranch) Dear Planning Commission Members, I submit this formal objection Z QcmQ►RYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmC)KittpfpthannerEnd Weld County Planning Commission 1402 North 17th Avenue P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Subject: Formal Objection to PUD F24-0001 (Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms I Pelican Lake Ranch) Dear Planning Commission Members, I submit this formal objection to PUDF24-0001 , the Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Filing No. 2 of Beebe Draw Farms, scheduled for hearing August 5, 2025. This proposal represents a substantial and unacceptable deviation from the original PUD approved under Record No. 2037657 and violates key provisions of Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, 27, and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 22). Below are the specific objections, aligned with the County's regulatory framework. 1 * Major Deviation from Original PUD (Chapter 27, Planned Unit Development) The original PUD approved approximately 186 estate Lots fr4-5 acres each) with an equestrian, rural, character. The new filing proposes 284 Lots, with average lot sizes reduced to ' 3 acres and some as small as 1 , 1 acres. This increases density by ~50 and fundamentally alters the character of the development, violating §27-7-20 and §27-740, which require substantial conformance with the original Specific DevelopmentGuide. 2 Violation of Zoning and Subdivision Standards (Chapters 23 and 24) • Encroachment Into the 300-frfoot oil and gas setbacks violates §234-50. • Misrepresentation of "30 open space by counting utility corridors, retention ponds, and oilgaaas buffers violates open space definitions in §23 and §24. 1 • Urban-scale density (> 1 unit per acre ) in an unincorporated area contradicts county standards discouraging such development outside municipal boundaries . 3 . Misalignment with Weld County Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 22) The Comprehensive Plan , codified as regulatory under §22-1 -100 , prioritizes : • Protecting agricultural areas by limiting density (§22-2-30 .A) . • Locating urban -scale development inside municipalities with urban services (§22-2- 30 . B) . • Harmonizing development with surrounding land use , including appropriate buffers and wildlife protections (§22-2-30 .C, §22-2-60) . • Connecting developments to public water and sewer where feasible, and preventing surface and groundwater contamination (§22- 2-50 .A, B) . PUDF24-0001 directly violates these principles by introducing suburban-scale density in a rural zone, with partial water tap allocations ( 192 taps for 284 lots) , full reliance on individual septic systems in sensitive soils, and failure to address critical wildlife impacts. 4. Utility Infrastructure Deficiencies • Water: Not enough Colorado - Big Thompson water shares are secured ; reliance on partial ('/2) tap capacity is not a long-term solution . • Septic : Sandy soils and perched groundwater require engineered , lot-specific systems, increasing contamination risks. • Natural Gas : Atmos Energy has noted capacity limits, and major system upgrades are still undefined . • Electricity: No infrastructure assessments or upgrade plans are included , raising risks 0f underserving later phases . 5. Improper Use of Retention Pond Variances (Section 5. 10 . 1 , Drainage Criteria ) Retention ponds are not allowed under Weld County drainage code except for hardship cases. The site 's topography and soil conditions were known at the time of original PUD approval, making current variance requests improper and shifting environmental risk t0 neighboring properties. 6. Wildlife and Environmental Impact Ignored The proposal ignores formal concerns from Colorado Parks and Wildlife regarding bald eagle nests, mule deer severe winter range, and critical habitat areas. Proceeding without wildlife impact studies or mitigation plans violates the county's duty under §23- 2-20 to protect public health , safety, and welfare. 7 . Long-Term Phased Buildout Risks A 1O-20 year phased construction plan exposes existing residents to decades of traffic disruption , construction noise, incomplete amenities, and uncertain infrastructure delivery, violating responsible growth objectives under §22-2-40 .A. 8. Transportation and Access Concerns The project adds over 2 , 600 daily vehicle trips at buildout but lacks a detailed , guaranteed plan to mitigate impacts on Filing No. 1 residents and meet road safety and capacity requirements under Chapter 8 and 24. Request for Denial For the reasons above, I respectfully request the Planning Commission deny PUDF24-0001 as noncompliant with Weld County Code and the Comprehensive Plan . This application is not a minor modification it is a fundamental change to the land use , density, character, and environmental impact of the area . Approval without full re - evaluation and rezoning sets a dangerous precedent for undermining Weld County's own regulatory framework. Please include this objection in the official public record for the upcoming hearings . Kim Coleman EXHIBIT PuopatkUotYt 46 From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2025 7:22 PM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader@weldegov›; Diana Aungst <daungst@weld .gov> Subject: Formal complaint PUDF24-0001 focus Violation of Owner Consent Requirements (ordinance 2025-01 , Chapter 27) Subject: Format Complaint and Legal Objection to PUDF24-0001 ( Filing No. 2, Beebe Draw Farms / Pelican Lake Ranch) Dear Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, I am submitting this formal complaint and legal objection ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Subject: Format Complaint and Legal Objection to PUDF24-0001 (Filing No. 2, Beebe Draw Farms / Pelican Lake Ranch) Dear Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, I am submitting this formal complaint and legal objection to the approval of PUDF24-0001 (Filing No. 2, Beebe Draw Farms / Pelican Lake Ranch) , based on multiple violations of Weld County Code, Colorado state law, and the developer's original commitments under the approved PUD (Filing No. 1 ). Below are the specific violations, supported by code references and public record statements. 1 . Violation of Owner Consent Requirements (ordinance 2025-01 , Chapter 27) In March 2025, Weld County passed Ordinance 2025-01 , repealing and reenacting Chapter 27 of the County Code. This ordinance requires that any material amendment to a PUD— including changes to lot count, density, utility service levels, allowed uses, or setbacks must have the written consent and signed affidavit of every existing lot owner within that PUD. As confirmed publicly by Planning staff member Jim Fleischer during the March 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting: "Chapter 27 was rewritten last year. . . And one of the requirements in there was for changes. To change the allowed uses or the setbacks within a PUD would . .. require every owner within that PUD to sign the application and an affidavit acknowledging Source : https ://welacocossuiteonemedia .com/eventnid = 1154 Filing No . 2 introduces material changes including a lot count increase, reduced utility service ( half taps) , added shared driveways and flag lots , and shifts in infrastructure responsibility but no owner consent process has been conducted , and no affidavits have been collected . Under the ordinance, this makes the application incomplete and invalid , and it cannot lawfully proceed . 2 . Violation of Utility Service Confirmation ( Chapter 27 , § 27 - 9-40 ) The application proposes 284 lots with only 192 full Central Weld County Water District (CWCWD ) taps , relying on unapproved " half taps" or " budget taps ." Per §27- 9 -40 , no PUD can be approved without written confirmation from each utility provider proving sufficient capacity for all proposed lots. This confirmation has not been provided . 3 . Violation of Financing Method Disclosure (Chapter 27 , §27-7 - 301) The developer has not disclosed how water shortfalls, road expansions , drainage improvements, or infrastructure upgrades will be funded . The plan pushes these costs onto existing residents forcing original lot owners to pay for water taps and infrastructure meant to serve the new development , which violates the financing disclosure requirements under § 27 -7- 30 . L. 4 . Violation of Open Space Requirements ( Chapter 27 , § 27- 9- 30 ) The developer is misrepresenting open space by counting oil and gas setback areas and stormwater retention basins as part of the 30% open space calculation . Per §27-9- 30 , open space must be usable, functional, and community-serving, such as parks , trails, or recreation areas . Regulatory no - build zones and functional drainage infrastructure do not qualify. This misrepresentation inflates the development 's open space compliance and misleads residents, buyers, and the County. 5 . Violation of Flag Lot and Shared Access Standards (Chapter 27 , § 27 - 9-20) The new filing increases the use of flag lots and shared driveways without demonstrating hardship or physical necessity, violating the intent of §27 -9- 20 , which limits such designs to cases where no other access is feasible . 6 . Violation of Setback Requirements (Chapter 23 , §23 - 3- 50) Setbacks must be measured from the future right- of-way, not the current road edge, per §23- 3- 50 . Filing No . 2 does not account for required future road expansions on CR32 and CR39 . 7 . Violation of Utility Easement Requirements ( Chapter 24, § 24- 3-60) The plan lacks clear easements for utilities and drainage across shared stems and flag lots , violating §24-3 - 60 . 8 . Violation of Site Plan and Engineering Standards ( Chapter 25, §25-3- 20 ; Chapter 26 , §§26-3 - 30 , 26- 3-40) The filing lacks finalized , engineered plans for drainage , fire flow, and utility expansions , as required under Chapter 25 and Chapter 26 . 9 . Violation of Colorado Special District Transparency Laws (SB 21 - 262 , HB 15-1092 , C . R .S. Title 29) The Beebe Draw Metropolitan Districts and Beebe Draw Farms Authority have not published full, line- item budgets covering Filing No. 2 impacts , nor have they filed required resolutions or held public hearings on major capital expenditures . This violates : • SB 21 -262 (special district transparency) , • HB 15-1092 ( budget filing requirements) , and • C. R .S. Title 29, §29-1 -108 ( local government budget law) . Formal Requests Given these extensive legal, financial, and procedural failures, I formally request that Weld County: • Deny or delay PUDF24-0001 approval until all legal requirements are satisfied , especially homeowner consent under Ordinance 2025-01 . • Require the developer to submit corrected utility confirmations , financing disclosures, and open space calculations . • Require the Metro Districts and Authority to publish and file full budgets, resolutions, and infrastructure funding plans , and hold public hearings per Colorado law. • Investigate how this application advanced without satisfying the requirements outlined above , despite public confirmation by staff that they are mandatory. I request written confirmation that this complaint has been entered into the public record . Thank you , Kim Coleman EXHIBIT puvFrn/ cCuI s Ltio From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Sunday, July 20. 2025 8:30 PM To: Maxwell Nader cmnader@weld .gov>; Diana Aungst < d a u ngst we gow > Subject: Addition to Complaint: Timeline and Applicability of Ordinance 2025-01 Addition to Complaint: Timeline and Applicability of Ordinance 2025-01 Timeline of PUDF24-0001 Activity PubLic records from WeLd County show the following key submission dates for PUDF24-0001 (Beebe Draw Farms Filing No. 2): February 13, 2024: ZjQcmgRYFpfiatBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZisQcmpQRYFrafpthannerEnd Addition to Complaint: Timeline and Applicability of Ordinance 2025-01 Timeline of PUDF24-0001 Activity PubLic records from Weld County show the foLLowing key submission dates for PUDF24- 0001 (Beebe Draw Farms Filing No. 2): • February 13, 2024: Referral comments upLoaded • February 20, 2024: Referral documents uploaded • March 4, 2025: Second Submittal application uploaded • June 19, 2025: Latest application updates and submittal checklist uploaded While referral documents existed in early 2024, no substantive progress or movement on the application occurred until after March 1t0, 2025, when Ordinance 2025-01 took effect. The key second submittal occurred March 4, 2025 Oust days before the ordinance), but the critical application materials were not finalized or submitted until June 2025 — three months after the new Law went into effect. Why Ordinance 2025-01 AppLies Ordinance 2025-01 , adopted March 10, 2025, repealed and replaced Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code. It introduced mandatory rules that apply to any material PUD amendments that are submitted, modified, or actively processed after its adoption, There is no grandfather clause or exemption for applications that were merely started before March 10, 2025, especially when major revisions or approvals were still pending. Because the Beebe Draw Fling No. 2 application was actively under revision and processing as of June 2025, it is subject to alt provisions of Ordinance 2025-01 . What the New Rule Requires Ordinance 2025-01 explicitly states that: • Any material amendment to an existing PUD — including changes to Lot count, density, setbacks, service Levels (such as reduced water taps), or infrastructure responsibility -- requires the written consent of every existing lot owner in the PUD. • These signed owner affidavits must be filed with the County before approval, • Without these affidavits, the application cannot legally be approved or processed . There is no exemption or grandfathering provided in the ordinance for pending applications. Once the law was adopted , all active, revised , or unapproved PUD amendments must comply. Why the Application Date Does Not Exempt Filing No. 2 The second submittal ( March 4, 2025) occurred only days before the new ordinance and was incomplete . • The June 19, 2025 application update shows the project was actively under county review and revision after the ordinance took effect . • The project does not hold a vested right to avoid compliance with the updated law. • The County is legally obligated to apply Ordinance 2025-01 , including the consent requirement, before considering or approving Filing No. 2 . Format Request Based on Timeline Analysis I formally request that Weld County: • Confirm that Ordinance 2025-01 applies in full to PUDF24-0001 . • Deny or delay approval of the application until all required affidavits from existing lot owners are collected and filed , as mandated . • Provide written legal clarification on how the County is applying the March 10 , 2025 ordinance to pending applications with post- ordinance activity. This is not a procedural detail; it is a legal requirement put in place to protect property owners and ensure transparent, fair development . Kim Coleman EXHIBIT pat7P24e.aooi t/-r From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn ,com > Sent: Monday, July 21 , 2025 7:48 AM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader ; vvetd . gov >; Diana Aungst <daungst@weld . gov> Subject: Object for tax payer burden . Subject: Formal Objection and Request for Maintenance Cost Disclosure PUDF24-0001 (Beebe Draw Farms / Pelican Lake Ranch Filing No. 2) To Weld County Planning Department, Planning Commission , and Board of County Commissioners, I am submitting ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Subject: Formal Objection and Request for Maintenance Cost Disclosure - PUDF24-0001 (Beebe Draw Farms / Pelican Lake Ranch Filing No. 2) To Weld County Planning Department, Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners, I am submitting this formal objection to PUDF24-0001 (Filing No. 2, Beebe Draw Farms / Pelican Lake Ranch) and requesting full disclosure of long-term costs and responsibilities that will be placed on homeowners and taxpayers if this application is approved . Major concerns: Filing No. 2 is not a minor addition — it is a material expansion of the original PUD, increasing the lot count from 192 to 284, reducing service levels (such as water taps) , introducing new covenants, adding more flag lots, and changing the character of the community. Critically, the developer, REI , is proposing a development model where all profits from lot sales go to the developer, while all long-term maintenance costs — including roads, drainage systems, retention ponds, sidewalks, trails, and shared infrastructure are passed on to homeowners and taxpayers through the Metro District. This shifts long-term financial burdens onto existing residents, who had no input in the process and no opportunity to consent to these obligations. Request for cost disclosure (based on Weld County Code requirements) : Under Weld County Code Chapter 27, the developer is required to submit: • §27-2-30 (Application of Standards): assurances for continued maintenance of improvements and facilities, • §27-7-30. L ( Financing Method): a description of how streets, utilities, drainage, and common improvements will be financed during construction and after development, • §27-9- 30 (Common Open Space) : a legal and financial mechanism for long-term maintenance, acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. To date, the public has seen no clear, itemized explanation of: • What the estimated long-term maintenance costs are, • How those costs will impact Metro District mill levies, homeowner fees, or special assessments, • What, if any, contribution the developer will make toward long-term maintenance after lot sales are completed . Format requests : I formally request that Weld County: 1 . Provide a public, itemized disclosure of all anticipated maintenance costs over 5, 10 , and 20 years tied to Filing No. 2 infrastructure and amenities . 2 . Confirm who will pay for these costs once the developer has sold the tots. 3. Clarify what financial commitments, if any, the developer is making toward long- term maintenance. 4. Delay or deny approval of PUDF24-0001 until these disclosures are provided and the financial impacts on homeowners are fully understood and addressed . This is not just a planning issue -- it is a matter of financial fairness and legal compliance. Please confirm that this objection and request will be entered into the public record Kim Coleman EXHIBIT Pidt0F9LfrtObl From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn .com > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 6: 21 AM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader@vveld . gov >; Diana Aungst <daungst@weld . gov> Subject: PUDF 24-0001 Violation of Weld County Code 2025-1 — No Adequate Utilities at Time of Application I submit this formal objection to Pelican Lake Ranch Filing Two (PUDF24-0001 ), based on clear violations of Weld County Code 2025-1 , critical infrastructure concerns, and failure to engage with the impacted community. This objection is based ZjQc mQRYFpfptBannersta rt This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd nerEnd I submit this formal objection to Pelican Lake Ranch Filing Two (PUDF24-0001 ), based on clear violations of Weld County Code 2025-1 , critical infrastructure concerns, and failure to engage with the impacted community. This objection is based on the developer's statements at the public meeting held on July 21 , 2025, and on the Weld County Commissioners meeting held on June 30, 2025, where it was publicly confirmed that the new 2025-1 requirements apply to this application . 1 . Violation of Weld County Code 2025-1 - Adequate Utilities at Time of Application Weld County Code 2025-1 requires that all necessary utilities and services be secured and available at the time of application — including sufficient water supply, gas, electric, and waste systems. However, the developer's own statements reveal they do not meet this standard . Bruce ( REI): "We do not today, no one has sufficient water for the 171st home or beyond... We just don't know today, you know, beyond 170, what the solution will be for water." This is a direct admission that the project lacks sufficient water rights for the full proposed buildout and has no plan for how the additional water will be secured or funded . 2 . Water shortfall puts future residents and taxpayers at risk Residents asked : Resident: "Which is paid for by our tax dollars?" Bruce : "To be determined ?' Without a guaranteed , developer-funded water acquisition plan , this project offloads the financial burden onto existing residents through mill levies and special assessments, violating the principle of 2025-1 that places responsibility on the applicant to prove service capacity upfront. 3. Lack of developer communication with District 1 and POA At the July 21 meeting, residents pointed out that: • The community had not heard from the developer on this project in over two years. • REI did not engage or consult with District 1 or the Pelican Lake Ranch POA board before submitting its application to Weld County. This shows a lack of transparency and failure to work collaboratively with the impacted community, further undermining the project 's standing under 2025-1 . 4 . Infrastructure phased for profit , not community stability The developer confirmed : Bruce REI : "We could not . . . build all these roads and install all the infrastructure at once. It has to be done in small phases . . . this probably takes 9 to 10 years to build out at that roughly 30 lots a year cap ." This phased approach , without secured water, violates 2025-1 's intent to ensure safe, reliable, and sufficient services for each phase at the time of approval not years later. 5 . Mismatch between developer promises and homeowner impacts Residents raised concerns about : • half-tap water service, • increased taxes without developer contributions , • unclear commitments to amenities , • septic capacity on small lots, • and lack of coordination with POA covenants. Under 2025-1 , these gaps should disqualify the project from moving forward until resolved . Request for Action I respectfully request the Planning Commission deny or defer approval of Project 2025-1 until the following are provided : 1 . A binding water acquisition and funding plan that covers all 283 lots . 2 . Developer commitments to pay for infrastructure and amenities, not push costs to District 1 taxpayers . 3 . Transparent communication to future buyers on water limitations, covenant obligations, and community rules . 4 . Proof of meaningful engagement with District 1 and the POA board . 5 . Full compliance with the new Weld County Code 2025-1 , as confirmed at the June 30 , 2025 , Weld County Commissioners meeting, where it was publicly stated that 2025-1 applies to this application and all incomplete or pending filings . Approval under current conditions is a violation of Weld County Code 2025-1 and an abdication of your duty to protect this community. Proceeding without full compliance would disregard both the letter and the intent of the county 's updated development standards . Thank you for your careful consideration EXHIBIT paonq -tcoi Lig From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@m n.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 202512: 25 PM To: Maxwell Nader < nnnader@weld .gov>; Diana Aungst <daungst@weld .gov> Subject: Low Density argument Dear Commissioners, I am submitting this formal written objection to Filing No. 2 of Pelican Lake Ranch , as it fails to comply with the low-density residential intent of the original PUD, violates Weld County Rule 2025-1 , and contradicts multiple ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart ne rsta rt This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Dear Commissioners, I am submitting this formal written objection to Filing No. 2 of Pelican Lake Ranch, as it fails to comply with the tow-density residential intent of the original PUD, violates Weld County Rule 2025-1 , and contradicts multiple provisions in Chapters 23, 24, and 27 of the Weld County Code. These failures directly impact residents' expectations of rural living and impose significant unmitigated burdens on local infrastructure and community resources. 1 . Violation of Low-Density Rural Character The original 1989 PUD approval, based on the R-1 zoning district, set forth a vision of rural estate lots with the following core principles: • Minimum lot size of 1 acre • One horse per acre allowed • Low-impact septic systems with 300' setbacks from oil and gas welts • Wide-open character with equestrian traits, grazing land, and limited residential development (800 homes across 4,200 acres) Filing No. 2 claims to average 2. 5 acres per lot, but this number is grossly misleading. Many of the proposed lots are barely over 1 acre, and the density has now increased to 284 homes within just 847 acres-- to density far exceeding previous filings. Even when accounting for open space and oil and gas setbacks (much of which is non- buildable land), the usable residential density is no longer consistent with the estate rural character outlined in the original filings. The development has transitioned from true low- density to cluster housing, with narrow roadways and closety spaced Lots. 2. Noncompliance with Weld County Rule 2025-1 Weld County Rule 2025-1 , adopted and reinforced as of June 2025, mandates that any new or amended application not yet approved by the Board of County Commissioners must fully comply with updated County codes and development standards . Filing No . 2 has not received final approval and therefore must : • Be re- reviewed under 2025-1 • Include updated amenity and infrastructure studies • Ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses under Chapter 23 zoning • Show compliance with rural design principles • Provide clear public benefits to justify deviations in density under Chapter 27 PUD regulations Filing No. 2 does not meet these standards . It is being presented as an extension of the original PUD but in reality constitutes a major deviation in scale, lot configuration , and development intensity. 3. Violation of Weld County Chapter 27 — Planned Unit Development Standards Per Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code , PUDs are permitted only when they provide greater public benefit than traditional zoning, including: • Open space beyond required setbacks • Amenities accessible to the broader public • Infrastructure scaled to serve the proposed density • Traffic impact mitigation and service agreements Filing No . 2 includes : • No new confirmed amenities • No binding timeline for trail development or equestrian facilities • Heavy reliance on existing infrastructure , some of which is already under strain • No new recreational sites, public parks, or water features beyond regulatory minimums These deficiencies mean the filing fails to satisfy the purpose and intent of the PUD mechanism under Chapter 27 . 4. Conflict with Chapter 24 - Subdivision Standards Chapter 24 requires : Consistency with community plans • Logical and phased infrastructure extensions • Safe and reliable water, sewer, and roadway service The subdivision proposes on - site septic for all homes, despite significant oil and gas activity and high water table areas . Furthermore , water service is dependent on phased tap availability, with only 65% of raw water dedicated to date , per the developer's own narrative . Additionally, the subdivision 's phasing over 12 + years lacks clear commitment to how roads , trails, and public safety services wilt be implemented and funded at each stage. 5. Inconsistency with Chapter 23 - Zoning Standards Chapter 23 establishes intent for each zoning district, including the R-1 zone that underlies the PUD : • Preserve rural open space • Prevent overdevelopment in agriculturally sensitive areas • Avoid concentrated housing that creates suburban -style land use conflicts The density and lot pattern of Filing No. 2 directly conflict with these goals . The perimeter lots back up to agricultural grazing land , but the development pattern reflects urban fringe expansion , not rural- residential design . Conclusion and Request Filing No. 2, as currently proposed : • Violates Weld County Rule 2025-1 by circumventing modern review standards • Breaks with the low- density, rural character promised in the 1989 PUD • Fails to provide the public benefits required by Chapter 27 • Contradicts zoning and subdivision standards in Chapters 23 and 24 • Increases burdens on roads, services , and water infrastructure without clear mitigation I urge the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners to : 1 . Reject Filing No. 2 as submitted 2 . Require a full review under Rule 2025-1 3 . Enforce compliance with Chapters 23 , 24, and 27 4 . Mandate a full density and infrastructure comparison between this and all prior filings 5 . Hold a public hearing with complete notice to all residents within the affected metro district Kim Coleman EXHIBIT Ption4 -00 50 From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn .GQm> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 2:24:23 PM To: Maxwell Nader < rn d_ r@we d .gov>, Diana Aungst < daungst@weld . gov> Subject: Re : Covenant objection for PUDF24-0001 This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Correction . Please disregard and accept this covenant objection . Dear Weld County Planning Commission, I respectfully submit this formal objection to the proposed Filing 2 covenants submitted by REI , LLC for Beebe Draw Farms. After comparing these new covenants with the original Beebe Draw Farms P0A documents, it is clear that the Filing 2 proposal represents a material departure from the established Planned Unit Development ( PUD) framework and fails to meet the requirements of Weld County Code, including Chapters 22 (Zoning), 23 (Design Standards), and 27 (Planned Unit Developments). 1 . Unilateral Declarant Control Violates Chapter 27 Requirements The original Beebe Draw Farms P0A was governed by a resident-led model, with one vote per lot and no centralized developer control. Filing 2, by contrast, grants REI , LLC (the Declarant) sweeping powers to: • Appoint and control the Design Review Committee ( DRC), • Amend the covenants without member vote, • Combine, divide, or withdraw lots at will, • Assign reduced assessments and enhanced voting power to undeveloped lots they own . These provisions directly conflict with Chapter 27-5-10, which prohibits substantial changes to a PUD's governance or density model without a formal major amendment. The Declarant's control under Filing 2 effectively bypasses community input and allows for unchecked expansion, densification , and modification of land -use obligations. 2. Restrictive Use Provisions Contradict Original Rural Character Filing 2 imposes land-use restrictions that are incompatible with the original PUD and inconsistent with Weld County's tow-density zoning standards: • Temporary Structures Banned : Section 3. 5 prohibits temporary buildings, including RVs, trailers, campers, storage containers, and portable carports—unless specifically approved by the DRC. These are common in rural communities and permitted under the original POA , which emphasized reasonable use and self- management. • Accessory Structures Heavily Regulated : Section 3 .3 requires that all sheds, barns, garages, and similar structures match the home's architecture and obtain DRC approval restrictions not present in the original filing. This burdens owners with costly and subjective design obligations. • Livestock and Animals Limited : Section 3 , 7 allows horses only on Declarant- designated lots and prohibits most livestock or farm animals. These limitations undermine the agricultural lifestyle that drew many owners to the community and contradict the original equestrian -friendly design . • Home- Based Businesses Discouraged : Section 3 . 10 effectively prohibits any visible or service- based home business by requiring that all activity be undetectable from the street or to neighbors—an overreach in a semi-rural environment. Such restrictions reflect a suburban HOA-style governance regime not the flexible, rural- residential character of Beebe Draw Farms—and violate the compatibility expectations outlined in Chapter 23-3-30 of the Weld County Code. 3. Lot Combination Rights Undermine Density and Transparency Filing 2 grants the Declarant unilateral authority to combine, replat, or withdraw lots from the POA . This practice creates multiple concerns: • Lot density can be manipulated without a public hearing. • Voting rights and assessments are distorted , concentrating power in undeveloped lots held by the Declarant. • Owners may be assessed unequally or lose governing rights due to changes they did not approve. These actions violate Chapter 27-3-20 , which requires that changes to density, access, and infrastructure be reviewed for equitable impact on all affected property owners. 4. Elimination of Transparent Community Oversight The original POA structure ensures homeowner oversight of budgets, covenants, and amenities . Filing 2 replaces that system with a complex, developer- controlled " Beebe Draw Authority," which will own and manage common areas, roads, parks, and infrastructure, outside of POA governance. This removes any accountability to residents and is not consistent with the PUD's originally approved organizational framework. Conclusion and Request for Denial Filing 2 is a materially different covenant structure that: • Consolidates long-term control under the developer; • Adds disproportionate restrictions to land use; • Undermines the governance rights of current and future homeowners; • Increases the risk of uncontrolled densification and financial imbalance. These changes violate the spirit and requirements of the Weld County Code and should trigger a major PUD amendment review under Chapter 27. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Filing 2 Covenants be denied in their current form and that any resubmittals be required to: 1 . Align with the governance and use standards of the original POA; 2. Respect the rural-residential character of the community; 3. Comply with Weld County PUD regulations governing transparency, equity, and community integrity. Thank you for your time and commitment to protecting the voice and interests of Weld County residents. Kim Coleman From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffsgmsn.com_> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 2:03: 17 PM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld . gov>; Diana Aungst <daungst@weld . gov> Subject: Covenant objection for PUDF24-0001 Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff, I am writing to submit a formal objection to the proposed Filing 2 covenants submitted by REI LLC for the Beebe Draw Farms development. After reviewing the original Beebe Draw Farms Property Owners Association (POA) documents and comparing them to the proposed Filing 2 Covenants, it is clear that the Filing 2 plan represents a substantial departure from the original Planned Unit Development (PUD) and violates both the intent and requirements of Weld County Code, particularly Chapter 22, Chapter 23, and Chapter 27. 1 . Violation of Weld County Code Chapter 22 - Land Use and Zoning Chapter 22 governs the use of land within Weld County and requires that all proposed developments comply with the original character and intent of an approved PUD. Filing 2 fundamentally alters the governance and land use expectations originally approved by Weld County: • The original POA established a resident- led governance model with equal voting per lot and minimal restrictions. • The Filing 2 Covenants transfer power to a developer- controlled Declarant , who can appoint board members , amend covenants unilaterally, and control architectural decisions for up to 30 years . • This shift directly violates Section 22 -4- 220 regarding community integrity and fair representation of property owners . 2. Violation of Chapter 23 — Design Standards and Community Character Chapter 23 requires that developments be consistent with the surrounding community and maintain continuity with the design standards of previous filings . The Filing 2 Covenants include : • A new Design Review Committee ( DRC) that has not existed in prior filings and is fully controlled by the Declarant ( REP LLC) . • A significant increase in architectural restrictions and use limitations , including bans on temporary structures , mobile homes , certain animals, and specific fencing or landscaping types . • These changes conflict with the existing aesthetic and lifestyle expectations established in Beebe Draw Farms and contradict the requirement under Section 23- 3-30 that subsequent filings remain "substantially similar in nature and design ." 3 . Violation of Chapter 27 — Planned Unit Development ( PUD) Requirements Chapter 27 governs the creation and amendment of PUDs . Specifically, Section 27- 5-10 prohibits major changes to a PUD without a full public review and justification . Filing 2 represents a major change in the following ways : • Lot Manipulation : The Declarant is granted unilateral rights to combine, divide, or withdraw lots from the POA an action not permitted in the original development and which affects lot density, assessments, and voting power. • Voting Inequity: The introduction of tiered voting rights and reduced assessments for vacant lots contradicts the original PUD model, where each lot had equal standing. • Loss of Community Control : The POA's authority is diluted by the Beebe Draw Authority (a non - elected quasi -governmental entity) , which is given control over roads , parks , trails , and other infrastructure in Filing 2 . This removes oversight from the POA and homeowners again conflicting with Section 27- 3-20 requiring transparency, equity, and local control . Additionally, the new density and land - use regime outlined in Filing 2-paired with the Declarant 's right to replat lots and shift obligations may allow for substantial densification and governance manipulation without any meaningful homeowner consent . 4. Failure to Honor Original Intent and Promises to Homeowners Many residents purchased property based on the reasonable expectations set by the original POA: equal voting rights , simple use restrictions, and resident governance . Filing 2 upends these expectations. It introduces a legally binding structure that disadvantages current and future owners, potentially resulting in: • Increased developer influence for decades • Reduced homeowner voting strength • Devaluation of property for those seeking autonomy and lifestyle freedom • Legal conflicts between POA filings and a master declarant regime Request for Denial For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that Weld County deny the current Filing 2 application and require that any proposed amendments to the Beebe Draw Farms PUD: 1 . Be brought into alignment with the original POA's governance, density, and usage structure. 2. Follow the public hearing process outlined in Chapter 27 for major modifications. 3. Include clear and enforceable limitations on declarant powers to preserve local control. Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to protecting the rights of Weld County residents and property owners. Kim Coleman 0 EXHIBIT i PaoFati -eat 51 From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 6:30 AM To: planning@weldgov.com ; Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld. ..gov>; Diana Aungst <daungst@wetd .gov> Subject: Subject : Formal Objection to " 18B Final PUD (3) " - Noncompliance with Weld County Regulations To: Weld County Planning Department Email: planning@weldgov. com Subject: Formal Objection to " 18B Final PUD (3) " - Noncompliance with Weld County Regulations Dear Weld County Planning Staff, I am submitting this letter as a formal objection ZjQcmQRYFpf ptBa n nerSta rt This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZJQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd To: Weld County Planning Department Email: planning@wetdgov.com Subject: Formal Objection to " 18B Final PUD (3) " as Noncompliance with Weld County Regulations Dear Weld County Planning Staff, I am submitting this letter as a formal objection to the proposed " 18B Final PUD (3) " filing for Pelican Lake Ranch Filing No. 2. Upon detailed review of the submitted plat and accompanying revisions (notably revisions I through L), the current proposal violates multiple provisions of the Weld County Code, as outlined below: fl Violation of Low-Density Zoning Requirements: The development proposes 283 lots, many between 1 .2 and 2.4 acres, some even smaller. This exceeds the density typically permitted in low-density zones under Weld County Code Chapters 23 and 24. It deviates from the original Beebe Draw PUD, which featured larger lots. Rule 2025-1 (adopted in 2025) requires all unfinalized applications to meet current standards. e Lack of Adequate Equestrian, Open Space, and Amenity Continuity: The original PUD included equestrian trails and access. This plan eliminates those trails without providing comparable alternatives, violating Section 24-6-20 requiring consistency with previously approved amenities. Unapproved Roadway Reconfiguration: New road access from WCR 39 and 32 was added without updated traffic or environmental review, violating Chapter 27 road design and access requirements. B Inadequate Septic and Water Infrastructure Disclosure: The plan provides no confirmed capacity from Central Weld County Water District or engineering support for over 280 septic systems, potentially violating OWTS regulations and Section 24-6-90 . e Tract Naming, Lot Renumbering & Omission of HOA Enforcement Plan : Revisions include new tracts and lot numbering without updated POA covenants, design standards, or enforcement documentation , in violation of Sections 24-6-30( b) and 24-6- 50(c) . B Failure to Conduct Community Notification or Updated Public Hearings : Major changes were made without proper notice or hearings as required under Section 24- 5-50 and 24-6-20(c) . Summary of Key Code Violations : Category Code Section Violated Issue Density Rule 2025-1 , Ch . 23 & 24 Exceeds low-density standards OWTS I Public Health + 24- Lot Size & Septic Undersized for septic 6-90 Amenity Removal 24-6-20 Equestrian trails eliminated Road Access 27-3, 27-4 Access points not evaluated HOA/Design Enforcement 24-6-30, 24-6- 50 No updated POA rules Missing Public Process Bypassed 24-5-50, 24-6-20(c) Material changes not re- noticed I respectfully request that Weld County Planning Staff and Commissioners reject or postpone approval of this PUD until the applicant has submitted a corrected and compliant plan consistent with Weld County's rules and the rural character of the surrounding area . Sincerely, Kim Coleman EXHIBIT PlA0Prie&001 9 f9C From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4butfs@msn .eom > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 6:43 AM To: planning@weldgov. com ; Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld .gov>; Diana Aungst <da u ngst@weld . gov> Subject : Subject: Format Complaint Regarding Buffer Notification Report for PUD Application - Parcels # 121308000014, #121317100016, and #121309000026 Weld County Department of Planning Services Email: planningweld . gov Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Buffer Notification Report for PUD Application - Parcels #121308000014, #121317100016, and #121309000026 I am writing to submit a formal ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart rt This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcm Q RYFpfpt Ba n n e rE n d Weld County Department of Planning Services Email: pianning@weld . gov Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Buffer Notification Report for PUD Application - Parcels #121308000014, #121317100016, and #121309000026 I am writing to submit a formal complaint regarding the Buffer Notification Report submitted in connection with the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) affecting the following parcels: • #121308000014 • #121317100016 • #121309000026 The report, dated November 16, 2023 and January 8, 2024, was submitted as part of the applicant's effort to fulfill Weld County's 500-foot notification requirement. However, after reviewing this documentation, I believe the report does not comply with Weld County Code and fails to support a valid PUD application . 1 . Failure to Comply with Chapter 23-2-80 - Notification Requirements Weld County Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property be properly identified and notified within 30 days of application submission. Several issues raise concern : • The report shows duplicative entries for entities like " REI LTD LIABILITY CO" and " INVESTORS LTD LIABILITY CO" at the same addresses, which suggests consolidated ownership is being artificially split to inflate or obscure the ownership map. • It is unclear whether individual property owners in the surrounding neighborhood received proper certified notice, particularly where parcels are jointly owned or show discrepancies in formatting and entry. • Some parcels (e.g. , those associated with the Beebe Draw Farms Authority) raise concerns of conflict of interest, as the applicant is effectively notifying itself. If any owner was missed , misidentified , or not property notified by certified mail, this application should be deemed procedurally deficient and non - compliant with Chapter 23 . 2 . Incompatibility Under Chapter 2735 - PUD Compatibility and Transition Standards The subject parcels are immediately adjacent to long- established low- density residential n eighborhoods , as reflected throughout the report (e . g . , parcels along Essex Rd , Burghley Ct , and Stoneleigh Rd ) . Under Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code, all PUD applications must demonstrate compatibility with surrounding land uses . This report shows that the proposed development borders hundreds of single -family homes , yet the application faits to demonstrate : • Transitional buffering between densities , • Architectural consistency with neighboring properties, and • Measures to mitigate infrastructure and amenity strain on current residents . This violates the spirit and language of Chapter 27 and directly undermines the criteria u sed to evaluate infill PUDs . 3. Violation of Rule 2025-1 — Density and Character Transition As adopted during the June 30 , 2025 Weld County Commissioners meeting, Rule 2025-1 requires that all PUDs proposing changes to density or use within existing residential communities demonstrate a preservation of neighborhood character and appropriate density transitions . • The buffer report clearly reflects a surrounding area composed of predominantly single -family, low- density residential lots. • If the developer is proposing medium - or high - density development (as indicated in other filings) , the failure to include defined transitional elements, setbacks, or landscape buffers would violate Rule 2025-1 . 4. Unclear Inclusion of Water Stakeholders Entities such as the Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Company ( FRICO) are listed as adjacent landowners , yet the application and this buffer report fail to explain how water rights, irrigation access , or infrastructure will be protected . This creates further concern under Chapter 27's requirement to demonstrate adequate public infrastructure . Request for Immediate Action I n light of these findings , I respectfully request the following : • That this buffer report be rejected as non - compliant with Weld County public notice and PUD review requirements . • That the PUD application be suspended or denied until a new, fully verified and legally compliant notification process is completed . • That Planning staff review the consistency of this application with Rule 2025-1 and Chapter 27-3- 5 , particularly regarding density compatibility and character preservation . Please confirm receipt of this complaint . Kim Coleman EXHIBIT p (ppqe000i a 6S From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4thjffs@msn .cgm> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 6:52 AM To: . lanningCa vveldgov.com; Maxwell Nader <mniader@weid .gov>; Diana Aungst <d.a ungst@we id...gov> Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding PUDF24-0001 - Noncompliance with Weld County PUD Regulations as Evidenced in "01A Comment Response. pdf" Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding PUDF24-0001 - Noncompliance with Weld County PUD Regulations as Evidenced in "01A Comment Response. pdf" Dear Weld County Planning Officials, This letter serves as a format complaint and objection to the pending ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding PUDF24-0001 — Noncompliance with Weld County PUD Regulations as Evidenced in "01A Comment Response. pdf" Dear Weld County Planning Officials, This letter serves as a formal complaint and objection to the pending application PUDF24- 0001 (Beebe Draw Farms Filing No. 2), based on the applicant's first submittal response titled "01A Comment Response. pdf." Upon review of that document and its accompanying references, I respectfully assert that the application fails to meet multiple requirements of the Weld County Code, state planning law, and environmental compliance standards. The following are key deficiencies and noncompliance concerns that render the application unsuitable for approval in its current form : 1 . Violation of Oil & Gas Setback Standards (Weld County Code Chapter 23, Article il) The document acknowledges that several proposed lots (including but not limited to Lots 92, 153, 179, 219, 220, 228, 229, 283) encroach within the 300-foot minimum setback from oil and gas wells . This directly violates Weld County PUD requirements, as well as public safety standards. 2. Inadequate and Speculative Water Supply Plan - C. R.S. §30-28-136(1 )(h)(i)-(II) According to the State Engineer's Office, the applicant has not demonstrated adequate water supply for all 284 proposed lots. Only 192 water taps are confirmed ; the rest rely on future acquisitions of CBT shares. State law prohibits subdivision approval without clear, secured water for each lot. The applicant's deferral of this issue violates both statutory requirements and Weld County's development procedures. 3. Failure to Address Wildlife and Critical Habitat Impacts Chapter 23, Weld County Code The applicant did not include a wildlife impact statement for Parcel 3 (Section 9) . Colorado Parks and Wildlife identified this area as overlapping with : • An active bald eagle nest (within 0 . 25-0. 5 mi) • A bald eagle roost site • Colonial waterbird nesting zones • Mule deer severe winter range The proposal fails to comply with CPW's recommended seasonal restrictions and federal laws protecting these species (including the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act) . 4. Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Concerns - Weld County Health & Environment While a preliminary Soilogic report was provided , it does not confirm suitability on a lot- by- lot basis. The document acknowledges that gravity-fed or pump systems "could be considered ," yet this is speculative and not supported by field verification . Approving the plat without individual OWTS feasibility evaluations violates local health and sanitation planning standards. 5. Drainage Plan Violates Weld County Code §8-11 -40(C) and Appendix 8-Q The application proposes retention ponds, which are generally not allowed unless formally approved through a variance under Chapter 12 of Appendix 8-Q. No evidence is provided in the response that such variance approval has been granted . Additionally, FRICO submitted a formal objection stating that retention ponds adjacent to their canals are not permitted , and no approval has been issued to override that restriction . 6. Roadway Access and Spacing Conflicts — Appendix 8-Q, Table 1 Internal roadway designs appear to violate minimum access spacing requirements, including: • 330 ft between access points • 660 ft between intersections and access points No documentation is included to confirm that these variances have been requested or approved . This raises direct conflicts with Weld County road planning and safety codes. 7. Inadequate Easement Documentation - Section 24-3-60 Several utility, drainage, and access easements (including those involving WES and FRICO) remain undocumented or unresolved . The response document admits that key easements and licenses will be provided " later," which is noncompliant with requirements that they be finalized prior to approval. The same applies to FRICO 's demand for a license, seepage, and access agreements . 8. Unresolved Environmental Dust, Grading, and Erosion Plans - Chapter 15 and 8-Q The response notes understanding of dust , grading, and stormwater permits but does not include approved plans . Weld County Code requires a fugitive dust control plan for any disturbance exceeding 25 acres or lasting over 6 months. The developer acknowledges the need for this but has not submitted final documentation . 9. Public Service Company ( PSCo) Utility Conflict Xcel Energy has stated that the plat lacks required dry utility easements . This is a basic platting requirement , and failure to depict and record these easements is grounds for denial . 10. No Evidence of Compliance with Environmental Buffer Zones or MOU Platte Valley Irrigation Company raised concerns about missing documentation referenced in the applicant 's narrative, specifically the Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Reclamation . The applicant failed to provide this MOU or any site-specific impacts relating to ditch operations . This violates principles of transparency and renders the environmental impact section incomplete . Conclusion : The February 20 , 2025 document titled " 01A Comment Response . pdf " demonstrates numerous unresolved issues , including code violations, speculative planning, and failure to meet minimum statutory and engineering thresholds . Given the cumulative weight of the concerns above, this application must be denied or suspended until all violations are remedied , and the applicant meets the full requirements of the Weld County Code, state law, and federal environmental standards . Please include this complaint in the official record for PUDF24-0001 and confirm receipt . Kim Coleman EXHIBIT PtwF3zfrOOOl 51/ From: Pam Dechant Pachello < pacheltopsd@gmailtcom> Sent Friday, Duty 18. 2025 4:24 PM To: Maxwell Nader < mnad_er@weld . gov> Cc: Bret Pachelto cbgpachello@gmail._com > Subject: water issue at Pelican Lake Ranch Hi Max, Bret and I own a home and 2 empty lots in Phase I of Pelican Lake Ranch *Beebe Draw Farms) in Platteville. We know after working with you on another small subdivision in Weld County that it is necessary to show adequate water supply ZjQcmt' RYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified . ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi Max, Bret and I own a home and 2 empty lots in Phase di of Pelican Lake Ranch *Beebe Draw Farms) in Platteville. We know after working with you on another small subdivision in Weld County that it is necessary to show adequate water supply for any proposed development that is being considered . We also know that to get a building permit for a home you must show adequate water supply for that home. We feel safe in assuming that Phase 1 (flung 1 ) of Pelican Lake Ranch was originally approved based on adequate water appropriation for ail lots to have a full tap of water through Central Weld county Water District. One of the two empty lots we have, we bought with the intention of building a spec home on to re-sell. When we bought the tot we knew there would be no problem getting a full water tap through Central Weld County Water District. ( A full tap being 228000 gallons per year , equal toe' share of CBT water ). We have purchased full taps on all the other properties we have helped to build out in this development in the past. A full tap is essential out hem in this sandy environment if you are to have any of the Landscaping requirements In place that the HOA requires, as well as general household use for a family of 4-5 people. Since we purchased the lot the Authority Board (with out the general knowledge of home/lot owners) passed some verbiage that says only half taps may be purchased unless you have a plan for a 6 bedroom/6 bath home. A home that size is cost prohibitive to build at this point in time, as well as PLR would never carry that sales price for appraisals, However, we have come across a serious issue with FRICO who are the owners of the rest of PLR. We are now ready to begin a build on lot 149, and are now being told by FRICO that we cannot obtain the full water tap for this property as they need the water for the new Phase 2. They did agree to let us to have a half tap , and we could buy a half share of CBT water on our own to donate to the Authority Board and then we can have a full tap. Now by doing this we would pay approximately $30 , 000 for half share of additional water, plus the $90 , 000 cost of the full tap. This would now cost us $ 120 , 000 , and that's contingent on if we could even purchase a half share of CBT water as private buyers . We ask you why should we pay extra for something that we were originally available with the purchase of a lot in Phase 1 . We are being penalized as owners of a lot in Phase I because of the proposed development. Essentially they are taking water shares away from Phase 1 that was developed with adequate shares bought to supply full water taps if the owners so desired . There are 9 - 10 other lots out here in Phase 1 that are privately owned but not built on . That means there are 9- 10 full shares of CBT water that should belong to Phase 1 development ( including our lot) & NOT the proposed Phase 2 . It's our understanding from what we 've been told that whatever water was left for the current Phase 1 is virtually being stolen to support the new development of Phase 2 . It 's also our understanding that even by doing this there is not enough water to support the full development of Phase 2 . We are told that PLR has a total of 85 full shares or as they say 170 half shares of CBT water for the proposed Phase 2 , with 280 or so proposed homes in the future . So if you remove the 10 full shares that belong to and should go to the building of homes on lots sold in Phase 1 , FRICO in fact has 75 full shares of CBT water equaling 150 half taps . We know they are proposing half taps only in the new phase 2 . That leaves a lot of homes with out adequate water supply, which leaves us to question how this phase could be approved without the stipulation of demonstrating adequate water supply. ( Per the county regulations ) The other issue with half taps only is you are allowed 114 , 000 gallons of water usage per year, which is household domestic use, with limited outdoor usage . The HOA guidelines require a minimum of 10 trees to be planted , which in an extreme sandy soil requires a lot of water to prevent death of said trees& any other landscaping put in for aesthetics . They are planning on allowing not only horses but other animals as welt, thus increasing the usage of water. They also are planning on allowing for Additional Dwelling Units on each lot , again increasing water usage. We can tell you with certainty that 114 , 000 gallons of water ( 1 /2 share water tap) WILL NOT be an adequate water allotment for any home out in this area , be it Phase 1 or Phase 2 without going over that water allotment and causing the homeowners to have outrageous water bills after 5-6 months into each year. ( $600 to $ 700 plus each month ) We bought ours in 2017 and were blessed with 300, 000 gallons allotment per year and use every bit of that (family of 2 humans , 2 pets, 25 or so trees and minimal grass ) This letter is meant to be informational to you and the county commissioners in the review of the proposed Phase 2 ( Filing 2) development of Pelican Lake Ranch ( Beebe Draw Farms) , as well as stress how frustrated we are in basically being put in a position of not being able to build a reasonably priced home to sell with an adequate water supply. Our arguments : 1 . Some of this water in proposed development belongs to the original Phase 1 2 . There is NOT enough water available for proposed development in Phase 2 3 . We should NOT be penalized on being able to obtain a full tap because of proposed new development 4, We should not be penalized on bing able to obtain a full tap because we are not building a huge 6 bedroom/6 bath house . 5 . We should not be forced into paying an extra $30, 000 or more for an additional half share of CBT water for them . 6 . ) This ruling was not told to lot owners who had lots left to build on until after the authority board approved it , nor was it put out to the owners before hand to give them the chance to purchase that full tap before it was put into effect . 7 . ) The sole reason were were told as to why this was put into effect in 2023 was to use the existing water shares that went along with PLR Phase 1 in the future Phase 2 , thus essentially " drying up" and "taking away " the opportunity for full water taps in an established phase . Facts : * * A Half tap is only 114 , 000 gallons of water allotted per year equal to 1 /2 share of CBT water) . That would easily be used up by mid -summer resulting in huge overage charges ($25 per 1000 gallons over) . ) * * A full tap being 22800O gallons per year , equal to 1 share of CBT water (Overage charge is $ 15 per 1000 gallons over) . * * Home owners who bought before 2018 or so were able to get a full tap with 300 , 000 gallons of usage per year. Sincerely, Pamela and Bret Pachello 16480 Essex Rd S. Platteville, Co 80651 Bgpach_ell0@gmail.com Pte. chellpsd@g✓malco m EXHIBIT I Pa P2*-boo I 56- From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4bi.ff_sCamsn .com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:50 AM To: Maxwell Nader <rnnader@weld .gov>; Diana Aungst <daungs @weld.gov>; planni ng@iweldgov.com Subject: Subject: Request for Clarification on Revised PUD Submission - PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing ( Revised 2025-07-24) Dear Maxwell Nader and Weld County Planning Team , I 'm reaching out with a concern regarding the updated document titled " PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing (Revised 2025-07-24) 7 which was uploaded to the portal on Friday, July 24, 2025—just ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Dear Maxwell Nader and Weld County Planning Team , i 'm reaching out with a concern regarding the updated document titled " PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing (Revised 2025-07-24) ,' which was uploaded to the portal on Friday, July 24, 2025---just 12 days prior to the scheduled August 5 Planning Commission hearing. We just became aware of this new version over the weekend and are uncertain how Weld County handles a situation like this. The revised filing contains substantial changes to the proposed PUD, including: • A new traffic study projecting over 2,600 daily trip ends • New access points on CR 32 and CR 39 • Updated setback requirements tied to future right- of-way lines • Stormwater detention and runoff obligations not previously specified • Confirmation that Weld County will not maintain internal roads or drainage features • Utility easement and access agreement requirements not shown in prior versions Questions for Clarification : 1 . Does the Planning Department automatically apply Rule 2025-01 in a case where substantial revisions are submitted less than 14 days before the hearing? 2. If so, will the August 5 hearing be postponed , and how will the public be notified ? 3. If not, does the responsibility fall on the public to request enforcement of Rule 2025- 01 and the applicable 14-day public review window under Chapter 22? 4. If the hearing is continued , what is the process for rescheduling, and how long will the public have to review the revised version? We want to ensure the process is handled with full transparency and in compliance with Rule 2025-01 and Weld County Code. We appreciate your guidance on how this situation is managed . Kim Coleman EXHIBIT TI/ DPai/rcoca From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn .com > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:41 AM To : Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld ._gov>; Diana Aungst < d.aungstgweld . gov>; planning@weldgov.com Subject: Re : Subject: Follow up Request for Clarification on Revised PUD Submission - PU DF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing (Revised 2025-07-24) Dear Maxwell Nader and Weld County Planning Team, I 'm following up on my previous email regarding the document titled " PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing (Revised 2025- 07-24) :' which was uploaded just 12 days prior to the scheduled August 5 ZjQcmQRYFpfptBan nerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQc mQRYFpfptBan nerEnd Dear Maxwell Nader and Weld County Planning Team, I 'm following up on my previous email regarding the document titled " PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing (Revised 2025-07-24)P which was uploaded just 12 days prior to the scheduled August 5 Planning Commission hearing. As residents and objectors, we want to express that many of us are not experts in planning procedures and are still learning how this process works. We are doing our best to stay informed and engage appropriately. This most recent revision appears to include substantial changes, new traffic impacts, drainage obligations, access points, and long- term maintenance shifts; which we only became aware of over the weekend . We are trying to understand whether this type of late-stage revision automatically triggers a postponement under Rule 2025-01 and Weld County's 14-day public review requirement, or if a formal request from the public is necessary. We're asking for clarification and guidance on how this situation will be handled so that we can plan our participation accordingly. Our goal is to ensure the process remains transparent and fair for all stakeholders involved . Thank you again for your time and support Kim Coleman From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:40:43 AM To: Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld .gov> ; Diana Aungst < daungs.t@weld .gov>; planning@weldgov. corn <plarining@weldgov.com > Subject: Re : Subject: Request for Clarification on Revised PUD Submission - PUDF24- 0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing ( Revised 2025-07-24) Changes in the July 24 Submission That Trigger the 14-Day Rule? 1 . New Traffic Impact Study and Infrastructure Requirements • New document includes a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated September 2024, which was not previously available. • It projects 2 , 636 daily vehicle trips, including 193 AM and 265 PM peak-hour trips. • This triggers new required turn lanes : o Eastbound left turn Lane at CR 32/Pelican Lake Drive. o Southbound Left and northbound right turn lanes at CR 39/Pelican Lake Lane. Why it triggers 2025-01 : These are new infrastructure obligations affecting public safety, traffic patterns, and cost. They materially change the development's transportation impact. 2. New Access Points and Road Reconfiguration • The revised plan introduces two new proposed access points : o One on CR 39 (approx. 2, 914 ft north of CR 32) . o One on CR 32 (approx. 1 , 997 ft east of CR 39) . • • These were not previously disclosed or discussed in public review. Why it triggers 2025-01 : Changes in access materially alter lot orientation , emergency routing, traffic impact, and require updated County permitting. 3. Drainage and Detention Requirements Newly Added • Now requires stormwater detention of 100-year storm events . • Must release water at historical 10-year storm flow rates. • Requires capturing runoff from Essex Road and the Equestrian Center, per a 2020 REP letter not previously disclosed . Why it triggers 2025-01 : This adds major engineered infrastructure and compliance responsibilities that were not part of the prior submittal. 4. Revised Setback Requirements from Future Right-of-Way Setbacks must now be measured from future ROW lines ( not existing road edge) , per Section 23-3-50. • Affects usable lot space and may shrink buildable areas. Why it triggers 2025-01 : Alters site layout and could reduce homeowner development options -- a material design change. 5. Shift of Long-Term Maintenance Responsibility • New Language explicitly states Weld County will not maintain : o Subdivision roads a On-site stormwater or drainage features Why it triggers 2025-01 : This is a direct shift in financial and legal responsibility from the County to the Metro District/HOA — a major material change for future homeowners. n 6. New Requirement for Recorded Utility and Drainage Easements • Final plat must now show all utility access easements crossing third-party property. • Developer must secure and record legal agreements prior to final approval. Why it triggers 2025-01 : Introduces legal hurdles, compliance burdens, and access issues not previously discussed or noticed Kim Coleman a From : Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld . gov> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:36:01 AM To : John and Kim Coleman <jc4bu_ff_ s@m_sn . com> ; Diana Aungst < daungst@weld .gov>; planning@weldgov.com < planning@weldgov. com > Subject : RE : Subject: Request for Clarification on Revised PUD Submission - PUDF24- 0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing ( Revised 2025-07-24) Kim , We have had added this to the file but I what is the 2025-01 rule you are referring too? Also planning@weldgov. com is not a valid email address. Best, '0. ... wag , , COUNTY. CO Maxwell Nader Planning Manager Dept. of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3527 1402 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80632 x ® ® o Join Our Team IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn . com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:50 AM To : Maxwell Nader < mnader@wetd . gov>; Diana Aungst < daungst@weld . gov>; planning@weldgov. com Subject: Subject: Request for Clarification on Revised PUD Submission - PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing (Revised 2025-07-24) Dear Maxwell Nader and Weld County Planning Team, I 'm reaching out with a concern regarding the updated document titled " PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing (Revised 2025-07-24)," which was uploaded to the portal on Friday, July 24, 2025 just ZjQcmQRYFpfptBa n nerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBa n ne rEnd Dear Maxwell Nader and Weld County Planning Team, I 'm reaching out with a concern regarding the updated document titled " PUDF24-0001 Beebe Draw - 2nd Filing (Revised 2025-07-24)," which was uploaded to the portal on Friday, July 24, 2025 just 12 days prior to the scheduled August 5 Planning Commission hearing. We just became aware of this new version over the weekend and are uncertain how Weld County handles a situation like this. The revised filing contains substantial changes to the proposed PUD, including: • A new traffic study projecting over 2, 600 daily trip ends • New access points on CR 32 and CR 39 • Updated setback requirements tied to future right-of-way tines • Stormwater detention and runoff obligations not previously specified • Confirmation that Weld County will not maintain internal roads or drainage features • Utility easement and access agreement requirements not shown in prior versions Questions for Clarification : 1 . Does the Planning Department automatically apply Rule 2025- 01 in a case where substantial revisions are submitted less than 14 days before the hearing? 2 . If so, will the August 5 hearing be postponed , and how will the public be notified? 3 . If not, does the responsibility fall on the public to request enforcement of Rule 2025- 01 and the applicable 14- day public review window under Chapter 22? 4 . If the hearing is continued , what is the process for rescheduling, and how long will the public have to review the revised version? We want to ensure the process is handfed with full transparency and in compliance with Rule 2025- 01 and Weld County Code . We appreciate your guidance on how this situation is managed . Kim Coleman EXHIBIT I 'Faq-o001 From: John and Kim Coleman <jo4buftsemathcom> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:28:08 AM To: Maxwell Nader mnacier@mgaci ..go ; Diana Aungst icclaungstamteistgov>1 g@seid ' g@weldgmacem> Subject: Objection Based on Noncompliance with Rule 2025-01 - Application PUDF24- 0001 This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Formal Objection Regarding PUD Amendment Application - Rule 2025-01 Noncompliance Application No.: PUDF24-0001 To: Weld County Planning Department Re: Objection Based on Noncompliance with Rule 2028-01 - Application PUDF24-0001 Dear Planning Staff and Review Committee, This Letter serves as a formal objection to the PUD amendment application submitted under case number PUDF24-0001 , based on multiple instances of noncompliance with WeLd County Rule 2025-01 , adopted in January 2025 to govern PUD amendments that seek to modify existing entitlements. According to Rule 2025-01 , a proposed amendment must meet all of the following requirements to avoid triggering a new PUD application: Required Criteria Under Rule 2025-01 : 1 . Substantial Conformance with Original PUD 0 Rune 2025-01 , Section 11(A): Requires that proposed amendments maintain substantial conformance with the originally approved PUD in terms of land use, density, infrastructure, and layout. Q Violation: PUDF24-0001 proposes significant increases in housing density, reconfigures tot layouts, and shifts utility responsibilities without maintaining originals infrastructure commitments. 2. 3. Public Notice & Review Timeline Compliance 4 Rule 2025-01 , Section HHI (A)(1 ): ALL supporting documents and updated plans must be submitted and posted to the public portal at Least 14 days before the hearing. 0 violation: Key documents were uploaded after this 14-day deadline, including revised covenants and density maps--preventing adequate public review. 4. 5. clarity in Proposed Amendments o Rule 2025-01 , Section 111 ( B) : Requires that amendments clearly indicate all proposed changes and include redlined or annotated documents comparing the amendment to the original PUD . o Violation : PUDF24-0001 Lacks redlined comparisons and fails to indicate where changes deviate from the original entitlements . 6 . 7 . Transparency with Supporting Documentation o Chapter 23 , Article V, Division 2 - § 23- 5-270 . B. 3 & 5 : Requires thorough submission of supporting documents such as traffic studies, water demand e stimates , and utility plans . o Violation : Revised utility and infrastructure reports in PUDF24-0001 are e ither incomplete or do not align with earlier filings . 8 . 9 . Demonstration of No Adverse Impact o Chapter 23 , Article V, § 23-5-270 . B. 2 and Chapter 27 (Subdivisions ) , §27-5-20 : Require that development not negatively impact existing infrastructure or surrounding neighborhoods . o Violation : PUDF24-0001 introduces new water and utility demands without demonstrating available capacity or mitigating impacts on Beebe Draw Farms or surrounding systems . 10 . 11 . Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code o Chapter 23-2- 20 & Rule 2025-01 , Section 11 ( B) : Require conformity with Weld County's Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the original PUD and zoning district . o Violation : The proposed density and lot configurations in PUDF24- 0001 contradict the Comprehensive Plan 's intent for rural residential transitions and open space integrity. Triggers for Rule 2025-01 Violation Observed in Application PUDF24-0001 : • Increased density o Source : Rule 2025-01 § 11 (A) ; Chapter 23-5-270 o Issue : Material deviation from original density approvals • • Reconfigured lots and reduced setbacks o Source : Rule 2025- 01 § 11 (A) ; Chapter 27- 5-20 o Issue : Violates subdivision layout standards and diminishes transition zones • • Manipulated open space calculations o Source : Rule 2025- 01 § 11 ( B) ; Chapter 23- 5-270 .C o Issue : Includes detention basins and right- of-way in open space totals, which is noncompliant • • Utility and infrastructure burden shifted to others o Source : Chapter 23-5- 270 . B. 3 ; Chapter 24-5-10 o Issue: Transfers new responsibilities to existing metro districts or POAs without agreements or mitigation • • Late submission of revised plans and materials 0 Source: Rule 202541 §IIi(A)(1 ) o Issue: Substantial documents posted less than 14 days before the public hearing, Including revised density table and covenant Language. Conclusion: Application PUDF24-0001 does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 2025-01 and conflicts with multiple provisions of Weld County's Land Use Code, including Chapters 23, 242 and 27. The extent and substance of these changes clearly exceed what Is permissible under a simple PUD amendment. As such, we respectfully request that: • This application be rejected or deemed incomplete, • Or the hearing be postponed and the applicant required to submit a new PUD application In accordance with Rule 2025-01 . Thank you for your attention to this matter and for ensuring fair and lawful public process in all land use decisions, please add this to the file for the commissioners and the fuli PUD Kim Coleman EXHIBIT jktV FoLl 000 ! 5s7 From: John and Kim Coleman <jcAbuf msn .com > Sent: Tuesday, July 29. 2025 5: 17: 19 PM To: Commissioners scCOMMiSSIQNERS@co .weld . co . us > Subject: Subject: PUDF24-0001 Request for Rejection Based on Staff Conditions and Rule 2025-01 This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Weld County Board of County Commissioners Email : commissioners@weldg_ov.com CC: Weld County Planning Department planning@weldgov. com From: Kim Coleman Subject: PUDF24-0001 Request for Rejection Based on Staff Conditions and Rule 2025- 01 Dear Commissioners, Now that the Planning Department has uploaded its staff comments and 24 conditions for approval regarding Beebe Draw Filing 2 (PUDF24-0001 ), ! am writing to formally request that the Board reject this Final Flat application in its entirety. The 24 conditions attached to the recommendation of approval are not minor corrections or clarifications. Each one reftects a material deficiency, substantial design change, or deviation from the originally approved PUD (AMZ' 41 2). These conditions prove that the application does not comply with Rule 2025-01 , which this Board adopted to prevent outdated PUD entitlements from being used to justify inconsistent or modernized developments without a new public process* Rule 2025-01 was enacted to: 1 . Ensure any new filing is in substantial conformance with the original PUD approval. 2. Require applicants to clearly identify material changes in land use, layout, utility burden, and governance. 3. Mandate that any filing with material changes must go through a new PUD application, 4. Enforce a minimum 14-day posting period for final hearing materials, This application clearly triggers all four. summary of the conflicts is as follows: • Conditions #10.3 confirm that utility services and water sufficiency are unresolved directly conflicting with Land use assumptions in the original PUD. • Conditions #4-6 create new construction burdens and traffic impacts that were not contemplated or approved under AMZ-412. • Conditions #7-10 require major drainage redesign and relabeling of the plat, indicating this is not a continuation, but a materially new plan. • Conditions #11 -13 adjust lot Layout and road right-of-way widths, changing density and buildable land — both core PUD features. • Conditions # 14-18 include grading permits, certified as - builts, and reengineered stormwater systems none of which match the original development plan . • Conditions # 19-20 shift permanent road and infrastructure responsibilities from the County to Filing 1 homeowners a governance change of financial consequence . • Conditions #21 -24 show that the application remains incomplete and is subject to potential revocation if requirements aren 't met affirming it is still a proposal, not an extension . These 24 staff conditions represent proof that the application is not in substantial conformance with the original PUD . The lack of a redlined comparison , narrative explanation , or identification of changes only reinforces that the process required under Rule 2025- 01 has not been followed . This Board passed Rule 2025-01 specifically to prevent legacy PUDs from being misused . During public discussion , commissioners emphasized that: "Any major change to layout , infrastructure , or governance requires a new public process ." This filing meets that threshold . It introduces changes to water systems, lot geometry, access routes , drainage plans, and maintenance responsibilities all of which materially alter the approved development . Therefore, I respectfully ask the Board to : • Reject PUDF24 - 0001 as a Final Plat; • Direct the applicant to submit a new PUD application ; • Ensure full compliance with Rule 2025-01 and all relevant sections of Weld County Code (Chapters 23, 24 , and 27) . Thank you for your time and your continued efforts to uphold transparency and fairness in Weld County planning decisions . Respectfully, Kim Coleman EXHIBIT PuPF8i/-iyoo, From : John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn .com > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 5: 38 PM To: planning@wcldgovcom ; Maxwell Nader < mnader@weld . gov>, Commissioners <COMMISSIONERS@co .weld . co . us > Cc : Perry Buck < pbuck@weld . gov> Subject: Failure to Enforce Rule 2025-01 - Conditional Approval of Beebe Draw Farms Filing 2 PUD Subject: Failure to Enforce Rule 2025-01 - Conditional Approval of Beebe Draw Farms Filing 2 PUD To: planning@weldgov. com CC: bocc@weldgov• cam Dear Weld County Planning Department and Board of County Commissioners, I am writing today in response ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Zj Qcm Q RYFpfptBa n ne rEnd Subject: Failure to Enforce Rule 2025-01 - Conditional Approval of Beebe Draw Farms Filing 2 PUD To: plan n i n_ @weld gov.com CC : bocc@woldgov.com Dear Weld County Planning Department and Board of County Commissioners, I am writing today in response to the recently uploaded staff report recommending conditional approval of the Beebe Draw Farms Filing 2 PUD amendment. While we understand that the Planning Commission may recommend conditions as part of their review, we are extremely concerned that Rule 2025-01 has not been properly applied or enforced . Rule 2025-01 was adopted to preserve the integrity of existing Planned Unit Developments and to ensure that any proposed amendments remain in substantial conformance with the original PUD , Yet, this application introduces numerous material changes that violate the rule outright, with no clear justification for sidestepping these requirements. We respectfully ask: Why is Rule 2025-01 being ignored in the staff's recommendation? The rule explicitly allows both the Planning Commission and the BOCC to deny proposals that do not comply with the original PUD design or infrastructure obligations. The conditional approval is insufficient and does not remedy the following fundamental issues: Violations of Rule 2025-01 That Should Trigger Denial: 1 . Substantial Departure from the Original PUD Design o The proposed densities, setbacks, and land use configurations materially differ from the original Filing 2 approval. This includes smaller lot sizes, inconsistent front setbacks , and the elimination of transition zones between filings . o These changes are not minor or administrative they shift the overall character and buildout assumptions of the approved PUD. 2 . 3 . Absence of Infrastructure Alignment o The revised PUD introduces no clear plan for road improvements or maintenance despite increasing traffic impacts and connecting through Town of Platteville infrastructure . o There is no formal agreement or IGA with Platteville to handle these off- site burdens. 4 . 5 . Lack of Transparency in Changes o The applicant has not provided redlined comparisons or clear descriptions of all material deviations , as required by Rule 2025-01 . instead , major documents (e . g1 , revised covenants and exhibits) were uploaded within 12 days of the hearing, in violation of the rule 's 14- day public notice requirement . 6 . 7 . No Valid Utility Commitments o The proposed density increase does not include updated water tap commitments from service providers , raising concerns about over-allocation and future availability for existing residents . 8 . 9 . Usable Open Space Misrepresentation o The claim of over 30% usable open space is misleading. Large portions are either drainage swates , pipeline easements, or retention ponds not usable for recreation or public benefit, and therefore not compliant with PUD standards . 10 . 11 . Failure to Identify Responsible Parties o There is no formal designation of who will maintain infrastructure ( roads , trails, landscaping, drainage) . Rule 2025 - 01 requires that operational responsibilities remain consistent with the original plan or be clearly reassigned with approval . Request for Immediate Action As residents and stakeholders , we urge both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to uphold the enforcement of Rule 2025-01 and deny the current amendment application in full . A conditional approval that fails to resolve these substantial issues will leave residents , service providers, and surrounding jurisdictions exposed to legal, financial, and environmental risks . The public trust in the County 's regulatory process depends on consistent application of adopted standards especially Rule 2025 -01 , which was passed precisely to prevent situations like this . We respectfully request a written response clarifying how the County intends to apply Rule 2025-01 in this case and whether this rule will be enforced prior to the Board 's final decision . Sincerely, Kim Coleman EXHIBIT Pc1QFJ4'iijoi CoD From: John and Kim Coleman <jc4buffs@msn . com > Sent: Wednesday, July 30. 2025 6:52 AM To: MaxweLL Nader cmnader@weld .gov> Subject: Re: Failure to Enforce Rule 2025-01 — Conditional Approval of Beebe Draw Farms Filing 2 PUD Subject: Clarification Request Regarding Staff Recommendation Prior to Public Hearing — PUDF 4-0001 Dear Weld County Planning Department, We understand from the staff report that a conditional approval recommendation has already been submitted zjQcmQ RvFpfptBa n ne rSta rt This Message is From an External Sender This amok was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click Links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Z jQc mQRYFpfptBan ne rE nd Subject: Clarification Request Regarding Staff Recommendation Prior to Public Hearing PLC D F4-00o t Dear Weld County Planning Department, We understand from the staff report that a conditional approval recommendation has already been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Beebe Draw Farms Filing PUD application. Frankly, we are surprised -- and concerned — that such a recommendation wo u ld be made prior to the scheduled public hearing. As residents most directly impacted by this proposed amendment, we are struggling to understand how our input can be considered meaningful. if the staff recommendation is already in front of the BOCC before we have had the chance to be heard. This gives the appearance that the process is predetermined and that the voices of the community — especially those living within and around the affected area carry little weight. Can you please explain how the recommendation process works, specifically: • Why a conditional approval would be forwa rd ed ahead of the hearing? • Whether the staff report is intended to i nftu enc a the BOCC before public input has been fully collected? • How this aligns with the intent of Rule 2025-01 , which clearly calls for substantial conformance with the original PUD and proper public process? We are asking for transparency and accountability. At present, this process makes Little sense to those of us trying to participate in good faith. Please clarify the rote and timing of the staff's recommendation and how resident objections factor into the BOCCI; decision. Sincerely, Kim Coleman EXHIBIT puvFW-aWI Fairfield & Woods Jack E. Reutzei Direct: (303) 894-4410 Cell: (303) 9154530 email: freutzeldefwiawacorn July 30, 2025 Weld County Board of Commissioners Weld County Planning Commission 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80632 Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the property owner and applicant of Application PIM 24 0;001 ("Filing #2 Application"), I have had the opportunity to review record tt documents and Weld County Code provisions regarding the current zone designation for the property (the "Property")r rty") as well as the applicable review and provai criteria used in reviewing the Filing #2 Application. This letter provides the results of my research and addresses erroneous information from individuals opposed to the Filing #2 Application. Zoniaj.l)esi ion The Property is zoned PUD. The conclusion is supported by a review of the following recorded documents: 1 . In 1984, the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") approved Application No. 2412 rezoning approximately 4, 134.98 acres from Agriculture to PUD (" 1984 PUD") (Reception No. 0199273). The permitted uses within the 1984 PUD were Residential-One, Residential-Three, and Recreational Uses. 2. In 1989, the B0CC approved an amendment to the 1984 PUD ("1989 P11(Yt). The 1989 PUD modified the pitted uses on the Property by adding oil and gas production facilities and removing Residential-Three uses. The 1989 PUD also added additional notes relating to the Fire District, School District, Law Enforcement Agreements and Road Maintenance Ai/cements. (Reception No. 02180623). The 1989 PUD references Re 1 as the underlying residential zone district. Since the 1989 PUD did not modify any aspect of the R-1 Zone District, the bulk standards and uses of the Re I Zone district that govern uses, heights, setbacks and lot sizes that are permitted within the residential portions of the 1989 PUD apply. See Sec. 234 - 160 of the Weld County Code ('WCC establishing minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setback, maximum height, and maximum lot coverage among other bulk requiremmts. The Filing # 2 Application greatly exceeds the minimum bulk requirements for the R- 1 district and therefore consistent with the 1989 PUD. 1801 California Street ■ Suite 2600 • Denver; Colorado 80202 t (303) 830-2400 • f (303) x-1033 ■ yaveLfribiugifi vu FFairfield & Woods Weld County Board of Commissioners Weld County Planning Commission July' 30, 2025 Page 2 3 . Also in 1989, the BOCC approved Application S -299 , a Corrected First Filing of the PUD , for approximately 186 lots. The approval was the first phase of the 1989 PUD . From the foregoing recorded documents, it is clear the applicable Zoning of the Property is PUD and that the proposed residential lots follow the R- 1 Zone District and the provisions of the 1989 PUD . Approval Criteria The County reviews the Filing #2 Application under Chapter 27 and Articles 1 , II and III of Chapter 24 of the WCC . Chapter 27 of the WCC provides alternate review criteria for PUD Final Plans depending on the status of the PUD . The Filing #2 Application is the second phase of the 1989 PUD (the first phase was approved in 1989) and is therefore subject to the submittal requirements and review criteria found in Sec . 27- 1 -60 relating to a "phased" PUD. The Filing #2 Application is consistent with the following Chapter 27 criteria : ( a ) general conformity with the comprehensive plan and any county approved .future development plans .for the area, specifically finding that the land use goals set forth in Sec. 22 -2-30 (b) of the WCC acknowledges residential densities should be less than I unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plann Map identifies the area of the 1989 PUD as having "residential constraints". The designation refers to underlying zoning such as PUD 's that pros ice for different land uses. Neither the text nor the map of the Comprehensive Plan precludes the approval of the Filing #2 Application. (b) all relevant standards _found in Chapter 24 of the WCC. The County Code incorporates Articles I , H and III of Chapter 24 ( Subdivision Code) into the review of phased PUD final plans . Specifically, the Filing #2 Application has : Engineered roads consistent with Sec . 24-3 -20 . A . : - Laid out blocks consistent with Sec . 24-3 -40 ; - Depicted lots consistent with Sec . 24-3 - 50 ; Followed the easement standards of Sec. 24-3 -60 : Engineered potable water supply standards consistent with Sec . 24- 3 -70 . B ; tveg Fairfield Weld County Board of Commissioners Weld County Planning Commission July 30, 2025 Page 3 Agreed to abide by the On- Site Wastewater treatment systems report requirements of Sec. -3 -90; and Agreed to all other applicable Article III design, standards , (c) compliance with the uncial:1*w PUD zoning plant. In this regard it is important to reemphasizethat residential use within the PUD is governed by the County's RI zone district, The Filing #2 Application greatly exceeds all of the R- 1 bulk standards and has fulfilled all of the PUD Plan requirements. �t ,Arnen�dments to Cha r 27 The amendment to Chapter 27 approved by the BOCC through Ordinance 2025-01 on March 10, 2025, is inapplicable to the Filing #2 Application. The changes adopted deal exclusively with amendments to approved PUD's. Since the Filing #2 Application is not seeking an amendment to the 1989 PUD, but only a final plan as part of a phased PUD, the modifications establish 44 w in Ordinance 2025-01 are inapplicable to the Filing #2 Application. conclilijon Based on the foregoing analysis and the clear direction of Sec. 27- 1 -60 of the 'ACC, the continued use of phased PUDs is unqu lioned and necessary to fully realize the common plan and investment backed expectations of the PUD as envisioned by the 1989 PUD approval, The applicant has addressed and met all relevant criteria for approval of a final plan. FAIRFIELD S, P.C. By: J : ck B. R tiel EXHIBIT Puoaq S (Doi Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley, Co 80631 planning@weldgov.com Date : 17/21-1 lee b. Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 -- Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27 . Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025 -01, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1 , 163 acres. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862 .8 acres. This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. No meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes. This is not a minor continuation it is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025 -01 . I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations. Sincerely, ce2syne Ca1-01/ - 61)1/4gtijitJ EXHIBIT P uPP (fOD61 t (ie_?-3 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80631 mmn weld ov. Date : 7 25 .2,c Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025 - 01 , which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1, 163 acres . Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862 . 8 acres , This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. No meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes . This is not a minor continuation it is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025 - 01 . I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations . Sinc rely, i ;elect 1 e., % 4 . EXHIBIT Pt1PP?1NAOOI I (off Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, Co 80631 pl anning@weldgov.com Date: Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 202501, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1,163 acres. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862.8 acres. This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. No meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes. This is not a minor continuation—it is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025-01. I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations. Sincerely, „, 1 / 4 / 1 Ir �j43-0 y ! EXHIBIT (O6 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1 150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80631 allinialighlraggragan Date: Subject Formal Objection to Filing 2 is Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most Importantly, It contradicts Ordinance 2025-01, which prohibits material changes in density setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Piling 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1,163 acres. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on appr rxdmately 862.8 acres. This represents a significant Increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire pro ecdon; Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Piling i allowed, violating safety best practices. No meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes. This is not a minor continuationsit is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025-01. I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application In full compliance with county regulations. Sincerely, 1 EXHIBIT Rior2gr0001 (O ( Sharon M. Dillon 16489 Stoneleigh Rd. S., Platteville, CO 80651 Beebe Draw Farms/Pelican Lake Ranch property owner 303-775-87% Weld County Planning Services 1402 N. 17th Ave. PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Case number Pt3DF24-0001 I am opposed to this application for the following reasons. 1 . Water. Filing 2 owners are limited to "1/2 tap" water, 114,000 gallons per year. The covenants for filing 2 require that owners plant a certain number of trees and allow for small lawn areas. But, a "1/2 tap" of water is likely not adequate for a family of 4 water-use inside the house plus irrigating trees and lawns. Owners may not be able to comply with the covenants and stay under 114,000 gallons of water per year. The developer landscaping plan is for trees to be planted in "public areas" and call for "hand watering". There doesn't seem to be a plan for irrigation lines to those trees. Where is the water supposed to come from for those trees? Currently, the developer/Authority Board of Beebe Draw Farms does not possess enough water shares to supply filing 2. The current price for a water tap, through Central Weld County Water District, is extremely likely to increase within the next 12 months. It's also likely that the allotment of 114,000 gallons will decrease. Buyers looking to move to this rural setting are often not informed by their realtors or other professionals about the water supply. This can result in some very unhappy buyers and possible lawsuits. The increased density of homes proposed in the filing 2 plan will undoubtedly stress the water supply even more than it already is. The covenants for filing 2 allow for "farm animals" which aren't allowed in filing 1. Animals need water just like people do. Is 114,000 gallons of water enough for the people AND the animals? This plan seems like a set-up for failure for filing 2 owners. 2. Covenants The filing 2 covenants are noticeably different from filing 1. If filing 2 owners form a separate Property Owners Association, which the declaration outlines, they could, in theory, enforce their covenants according to their document. But, when those developed properties are transferred (conveyed) to Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District 1 and the Beebe Draw Farms Authority, the properties in filing 2 will be in conflict with the existing covenants for District 1/filing 1. This is also a set-up for failure and, likely, a lot of unhappy property owners. Thank you to the Planners for your hard work on this application. • r EXHIBIT tarry Suedmeier PIADF2u D-0QI 16489 Stoneleigh Rd S 1011 Platteville, Colorado 80651 720-468-3214 July 29,2025 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1402 N. 17th Ave PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Subject: Formal Objection to PUDF24.001 Dear Weld County Planning Commission : As a property owner in BeeBe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most importantly it contradicts Ordinance 2025-01, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application . Filing 1 consists of 188 lots across 1, 163 acres. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862 .8 acres. This represents a significant increase in destiny, undermining the rural character of the community and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure and resources. One of the first concerns is water. Filing 2 lots will be limited to 34 tap of water, which is 114,000 gallons of water. While this may provide adequate water for a family of 4 to use inside the home, there is very little left for any outside landscaping. Additionally, landscaping and trees in the common areas are noted as being "hand watered." Its' not clear if the filing 2 has an allocation for watering common areas with the already expensive and scarce water, or if this will become an unsightly community. Also according to the covenants, residents will be required to plant trees and will likely overrun their allocation of water with costly overages. Residents will likely not care for their properties and the community will be unsightly. Second concern is septic. As there will be no community sewage system, all homes will have septic, which is the same as Filing I . The increased density is a huge concern to residents and surrounding areas as the waste that will enter the ground may leech into the ground and into surrounding lakes, changing the balance of plants and animals. Please consider the environmental impact. Weld County Planning Commission July 29,2025 Page 2 Third is the overall community density. Many of the residents of Filing 1 moved to this location to escape the city and suburban areas and enjoy the open rural feeling. The increased density of Filing 2 will be more of a suburban community and will affect the residents of Filing 1. Fourth is the lack of planned amenities of Filing 2 . The current plan has no pool, tennis courts, basketball courts, playgrounds, etc. The amenities of Filing 1 are already well used by the current 188 home. Adding another 285 lots with the expectation of having those people use the existing amenities in Filing 1 is absolutely ridiculous. I strongly and respectfully encourage the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to reject the current submission and request the developer to submit a plan that aligns with the existing Filing 1 community Sincerely Larry S dmeier EXHIBIT pLPF24 -too cog Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 July 7 , 2025 Subject: Format Objection to Filing 2 -- Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners , As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms , I _Aki 14 A n Ck t ctA strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development . This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements . The proposal fails to maintain the intent, density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why This Filing Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density Increase Filing 1 consisted of only 188 lots acro 1 , 163 acres , equating to 0 . 16 lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on only . 5 acres an enormous jump to 2 . 7 lots per acre , nearly 17 times denser than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental ; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and imposes undue strain on infrastructure and community resources . 2 . Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity ( Chapter 27 Violation ) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27 , Section 27 -2210 . 8, any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards , and intended land use of the original PUD. Filing 2 : o Shrinks lot sizes dramatically o Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes o Removes equestrian trails and open space buffers o Adds no new amenities or community features 3 . These are not minor changes . They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a " continuation ." 4 . Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing 1 residents . Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities no trails , parks, open space, or recreational facilities , placing an unfair burden on current homeowners . 5 . Inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps " are being offered . These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents . 6 . Unsafe Setbacks and Oil & Gas Proximity Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former wells . These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7 . Lack of Community Input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes . The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood . Requested Action For all the reasons above , I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : • Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing I and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, (7 ACEct_e+4, (wife_ S CT ti f � C/2 ( ,) 010 s- 1 EXHIBIT „I_ Y � PuPPIfrecto g leg kat ieta zq - 2eo2i ALU eighik AO/1Gil ISMC4IS'we /' Pa) F' -,2 V _ cool (iecittiti x21 11, 4fl 410ip 6,;- ; rfJJk _ . . 40014 Agoteda. 14. axamea etebffi lit prOp6Se-dt 161 ph :- (60564 �a Lia i/ davd.e., mX 44,4etdo , &cpropadfdik. 4444 it � �Src�rc:�� KESlitoi u' 12,244 �� 5maL2 - '24 earrind yo �¢ ES(csi4g1 (Vitt //Lit / 47) 97 beratihieladd - warri4. IL 11414 asp wit( itaikto axe ade/Sn •• 61): 756 resris'en/s . tad:tit Poo9 �.rya �,�y 25 wit ..cQs�+K�Clubl► mu<. (' z2 dtuznoL / zcc� �-dest,444 , 752, tfaco„:.44: .74AL p, 4 14 `7.ieddr- friceicigt-ta -gw : " A AO We 4apratnz'.c. rnave44t2 eilnatilhae:407, -f�Cc Au- tov, 444no l�.o4 /'.c .twd.�.. n/w i r� Lctu.� (is ` ' Am�n ,� SI/drirq�, � PJOV 1,46100 ��iotw traCe514, *4.4: . % g C � 3 41.O1 ;11 tan , n anathelta. t�a � I � n h �iiimmecif(6yi Or 41-1 -�vcv , v raid' tu) ktuivti Ice4ivt detirado fiCiL Aakesill w Vstattin-k (Ai grit 11 aft. Oadtak., delta buretevicto AJLtka� eskM. CACOcu . Ludt licy1/4 c2oetvick tray IfL I RA 's . RED PakiDFLeyltia-o ftaL •$ vv& � � 0o4 Pl044 . ( rem , 11 weatd, cast “ 64o/tot war :Pzumilcek: k461441 altar atittrAtaidibps, Lt / k6. Actgiovitt ultilA Ivedgaiit:Vt Nowt Pstvde,i .. 4 p � AL � -� o � YN� Db ,o 4 84 PELICAN LAKES RANCH FlUNG ._. . . . " - 14w I. . . . , i i fl I L X: X '1r1� . • • , ��r OVERALL U11LITYlid ray% - : it a „ait - _ bass, dit ire1 Ni. r %+ 7. rah. iiiia I= %it / �r OF "Cal 111 illi . 4 ii ii4 % 2-1 mdirrie iv IN ig I I I 0 % i ase .., r. _ . __ 4 iltit iDe fl7r, . tll ; ni, .. . . • a stribe ri II - : - sv Itii , ., it Ior. IN 1 II i , dt1 ;5 4 ‘,/' 0 frt. a.. • ..,11 :IS g 1 : Pp/ 4 ,. , i , / I . 4 ., . .. ,, . . . .,_ it _ a, , _ j . ii /4, il # _ ... . r I : 1 II I III I IN it , . III _. _ __,... . , ci 4 t 4 , , , II , . . , . ._ . __ 4 L 1 % ..- El Add Or il 7 tNia ...5%., /if lIN . . . , • . . ' .. II lo _it . , I ee 444 . e. 4 LII•11 II II : iiii i Y I IN, .1_ s.IN i .,, , . . , ther ei _J .. .. .Ji ; + -7:r 0 11 9/ II i I ill il Le- % IIII il Ill i i2 to' ti. I: I % .1 n Al it r a wm• f It II \pa1 ,, 4 I I 0 , di '. :1\ I : :: , ..j.. % I ,fr: -. 4 N La Its'i ade•Are Q. i t in aeabaa, Illti ille ,,,frecill:pp Ill d. .ii: -Ls-c--'. - '- , 0 'I), . , i .,.. • - ,. , , , , f IN ,.0. 1 r ENS 14ses Nstk 4 .3/4'1%7,1 14 • Its f e or ii I PI C III � � -••• . .-. thin III -- I erlig I ti it i __tr.- es, fieih _ ti1 __1h1 ;'al Fri . . III Iiii u . , a ity • ... .. t 4 , „ ,rte. s\* ii ill I IPS UM +' ` il I • \IV IN , , ., ` III %N.sN ' i t . - X lallkr. II I le I ,,` -ridi1 r�.•a.% VI Or 41 i I ‘ipj 9th / 4 � _... ..• �� ... \ ill a i . 4 -- : _ _ if so ' 10#1 ' d ''''.\ II I ill\ i il g.. .!! iiII. _en. .." _.,..... g § !ø__- : ii _ _ %.„). 1,31I . 11: 1 ,r II , Iii, 4,, � E � it'll . 4,/ tie . ;, '`"►,� I ril i it; v ' Cp % I i 4 tIt I I to : 4, A fig iii, Nif< tg frt., . .„ , 4 . i .... a .....i* "r . • \N • 1 . bill . I 0 OA ! I iisit I% / J - 1 1 ( ts-3 , N .$ I ,..is.is. -11 1 II 0 4 ...„ i , I 13 g ..: ii �. r , 0,4 di RI kr• O J . ' 1 aria ..01 4 Iii ar II - :ti III III i n.... :.,. g : - i di la 1 a 4 . i di 4 IN ill IR IR III . - . 4 , .., et % i ,,, .71%. I It' ea " ",,,,i0 ev O - "- 'Irf _a _I 7 ' ! II I el5S111 c I) MI il 1 7 I I , i. 41 - . ./ 4 ",„: ........, . . ,, , %.,,,...„„ . 4 I i III ' .. : s itin der i IL.. . ell iff tk II 4ii•ler ' DI i 1 4Liiiitts1/2.04in t , ... ,...... .a _till i 1 gayS if 0 i I -1 iff---a... . . it ti t, ...,-4.--. _ ii il di . . , • ... . - . It il ii 4 4 4 . . ibs) i . Q - _ 7.7 lit 4 s J _,..Le 1 s _____ .. maim.. ...1 id t - — .. - - - 4 U. gutiL. .:. , . , I . i 4 tit 4: 4 ii ill 1 in . it - . . 4\ s7.7 EXHIBIT Puini/ -ovo 7D Weld County Planning Commission RECEIVE D Weld County Board of County Commissioners JUL 292025 1150 O Street WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 July 7, 2025 Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 we Beebe Drew Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I ridb ? 1}1*jc/ strongly oppose the proposed filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements. The proposals falls to maintain the intent. density, design, and Land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Why This Filing Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density Increase Ring 1 consisted of only 188 tots acros 1 , 163 acres, equating to 0. 16 Lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 285 Lots on only • acres—an enormous jump to 2,7 Lots per acre, nearly 17 times denser than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and Imposes undue strain on infrastructure and community resources. 2. Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity (Chapter 27 Violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27, Section 27-2-2f0.B, any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards, and intended land use of the original PUD. Ming 2: 0 Shrinks tot sizes dramatically o Replaces estate lots with tightly decked homes o Removes equestrian traits and open space buffers o Adds no new amenities or communiiyf+eatures 3. These are not minor changes. They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path Is a new PUD application, note "continuation." 4 . Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing 1 residents . Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities no traits , parks , open space, or recreational facilities , placing an unfair burden on current homeowners . 5 . Inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps " are being offered . These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents . 6 . Unsafe Setbacks and oil & Gas Proximity Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former wells . These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7 . Lack of Community Input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes . The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood . Requested Action For all the reasons above , 1 respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : • Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, (akil /7/ge:eAel `,-(.891 EXHIBIT 1 Pun fdi -tOol 7 / Weld County Planning Commission RECEIVED Weld County Board of County Commissioners JUL 2 9 2025 1150 O Street WELD COUNTY Greeley, CO 80631 COMMISSIONERS July 7 , 2025 Subject: Format Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I er it2X16c0strop l a ose p p ty � g y pp the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Devet merit. This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements. The proposal fails to maintain the intent, density, design, and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why This Filing Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density Increase Filing 1 consisted of only 188 lots across 1 , 163 acres, equating to 0 . 16 Lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on only 105.5 acres—an enormous jump to 2.7 tots per acre, nearly 17 times denser than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and imposes undue strain on infrastructure and community resources. 2. Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity (Chapter 27 Violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27, Section 27-2-210. B, any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards, and intended land use of the original PUD. Filing 2: o Shrinks lot sizes dramatically o Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes o Removes equestrian trails and open space buffers o Adds no new amenities or community features 3. These are not minor changes. They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a "continuation." 4 . Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing 1 residents . Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities no traits , parks , open space, or recreational facilities , placing an unfair burden on current homeowners . 5 . Inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps " are being offered . These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents . 6 . Unsafe Setbacks and Oil & Gas Proximity Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former wells . These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7 . Lack of Community Input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes. The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood . Requested Action For all the reasons above , I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : • Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, EXHIBIT PuoFU i201 72 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, Co 80631 July 7, 2025 Subject Formal Objection to Filing 2 Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner In Beebe Draw Farms, t ejaitimeicali strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. This application represents a majorand unjustified deviation from the originally approved Flung 1 PAD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements. The proposal fails to maintain the Intent, density, design, and land use balance approved in the orinsl plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Why This Ming Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density Increase 1546 . Filing 1 consisted of only 188 lots acrossri ,163 acres, equating to 0.16 tots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on only 11.0575 acres -ten enormous Jump to 2.7 lots per acre, nearly 17 times denser Man Filing 1 . This change Is not minor or Incidental; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and imposes undue strain on Infrastructure and community resources . 2. Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity (Chapter 27 Violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter a ? t1fg - must preserve the overall density, design standards, and Intended Land use of the original PUD. Filing 2: O Shrinks lot sizes dramatically o Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes o Removes equestrian trails and open space buffers t o Adds no new amenities or commune features 3, These are not minor changes. They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path Is a new PUD application, not a "continuation*" 4 . Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing 1 residents . Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities--no trails , parks, open space, or recreational facilities , placing an unfair burden on current homeowners . 5 . inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps " are being offered . These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents . 6 . Unsafe Setbacks and Oil & Gas Proximity Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former welts. These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7 . Lack of Community input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes . The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood . Requested Action For att the reasons above , I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : • Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, ear,' __----- y � EXHIBIT PUPF84rIY0 ! t71/4 weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80631 July 7, 2025 Subject Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, ge . As a property owner i n Beebe Draw Farms, i 4 P P strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements, The proposal fails to maintain the intent, density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Why This Filing Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density Increase 846 Filing 1 consisted of only 188 Lots across , 163 acres, equating to 0. 16 Lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on only acres—an enormous Jump to 2.7 lots per acre, nearty 17 times denser than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or Incidental; It fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and imposes undue strain on Infrastructure and community resources, 2. Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity (Chapter 27 Violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27, Section 27-2-210. B, any subsequent filing must preserve the averall density, design standards, and intended land use of the original PIJ . Filing 2: o Shrinks lot sizes dramatically O Replaces estate tots with tightly packed homes o Removes equestrian trails and open space buffers O Adds no new amenities or community features 3. These are not minor changes. They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application, not a "continuation." 4 . Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing 1 residents. Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities—no traits , parks, open space, or recreational facilities, placing an unfair burden on current homeowners. 5 . Inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps" are being offered . These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents. 6 . Unsafe Setbacks and oil & Gas Proximity Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former wells. These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7 . Lack of Community Input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes. The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood . Requested Action For all the reasons above, 1 respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : • Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes, and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements. Sincerely, P1/45' 12 LIOAA1134filhj• EXHIBIT Paarait000 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 o Street Greeley, CO 80631 July 7 , 2025 Subject Format Objection to Filing 2 -- Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners , As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, t SIMAICA-- .S strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements . The proposal fails to maintain the intent, density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why This Filing Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density Increase Filing 1 consisted of only 188 tots across 1 , 163 acres , equating to 0 . 16 lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 285 tots on only 105 . 5 acres--an enormous jump to 2 . 7 lots per acre, nearly 17 times denser than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and imposes undue strain on infrastructure and community resources . 2 . Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity (Chapter 27 Violation ) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27 , Section 27- 2--210 . 8, any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards, and intended land use of the original PUD. Filing 2 : o Shrinks lot sizes dramatically o Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes o Removes equestrian trails and open space buffers o Adds no new amenities or community features 3 . These are not minor changes . They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a "continuation " 4. Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing residents. Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities-.notrails, parks, open space, or recreational facilities, placing an unfair burden on current homeowners. 5. Inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only +'budget taps° are being offered. These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents. 6. Unsafe Setbacks and Oil & Gas Proximity Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former wells. These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7. Lack of Community Input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes. The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood. Requested Action For all the reasons above, 1 respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to: • Submit a new PUD application it they wish to proceed with such significant changes, and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filling al and Chapter 27 requirements. Sincerely, 6 EXHIBIT PuOF2tktiiOt 76. Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 July 7 , 2025 Subject : Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners , As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms , I 5R ( 1% NJ__ PçM D (FS _ _ strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development . This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County 's Chapter 27 PUD requirements . The proposal fails to maintain the intent, density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why This Filing Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density Increase Filing 1 consisted of only 188 lots across 1 , 163 acres , equating to 0 . 16 tots per acre . Filing 2 proposes 285 tots on only 105 . 5 acres an enormous jump to 2 . 7 lots per acre, nearly 17 times denser than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and imposes undue strain on infrastructure and community resources . 2 . Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity ( Chapter 27 Violation ) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27 , Section 27 - 2 -210 . 6, any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards , and intended land use of the original PUD. Filing 2 : o Shrinks lot sizes dramatically o Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes o Removes equestrian trails and open space buffers o Adds no new amenities or community features 3 . These are not minor changes . They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a " continuation ." 4 . Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing 1 residents . Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities—no traits , parks , open space, or recreational facilities, placing an unfair burden on current homeowners . 5 . Inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps" are being offered . These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents . 6 . Unsafe Setbacks and Oil & Gas Proximity Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former wells . These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7 . Lack of Community Input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes. The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood . Requested Action For all the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : • Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements. Sincerely, a EXHIBIT z5a ' 2025 Coon ]1 PIanna' / /nf"-f Caifavell For 7teeitesst) ,(AandA59 /4749 .q jojr4A 51r; faialte fit? 114211Aj R&jou Th2tnie4L - - _ :Sac1 lee ��{t e � �IYO. •�e .. ' ke �/ _ . . 4 J wish lid 14/dere.. Mg - 1111 gni) 1 Wit inra ii otolitn3 :1 zfrt flu. Zed�rs � � �s,�e�/�r�es �Qe�+ ' � 1Let 14 Oemeg earrptad fro 1,4 6 )4 tt4th Ititic / 797 higailfatved ithfssehi - es 2 . deitiotif 46,4, We. .itquo�. 4 cip# ed�.�r7 • 44% 75óres 'e4' � eieLe_zt 25 {� 241544,41164_4 heuce. L' ,�,� 22 esionmit Mat gtoszen&mad I. N2 etattpcal reigh44 .• eitA• tsf oh/ tioe caPeademogir tH • AD _ „dr p frdl/aLSCA _ a.r41104442. Pee n.19€41 gas Neaelot 1/244414 `A� crr AslAavit n� , � al a I; ,t Cr). t . _ �II _ *, ,. - _ 37 . I CO 1. --.- - ' 1.4 tn , . _. , . . _ . .. _ , . . ___ _ tit CI , 9 TI'SIP 4 ,... -r._ I eall. en life_ . I' 1St . Lt-tiftleioadt _ ._ . _____ # n I ar . wt, ., .. . , it , ,. . Ir _ t . 7 • . , __ _ _ _ .. . . - P . its A6 Li) _ _de_ A . _ _s, a _ _I , - iij�~ ytt , '" y tilt"( fiE i .,_ ,I ._ i _ _ , r .J - _ - . esti i , I .' . , thildatelpir (0141) . . galial"'"=IL=1". kapdAte4 44 oi a � •-ter • r 'R a 1 ' too' P ' . . i �fv re" _ * i itakt..fafrsik, it _ • • , _ ____, .,.....„ • , : , IP aft aMiteas I 0 ilk cc, i , la . .. . 1 ft 4141 f _ i eto 46 f„,.. . ,. , .. . . . .,, IA , _ ._ s....._,,_______ _ _....s.__ ,..e__ ______ ______ Ea . ass t _a 1.. q cid y fli w , , _ : -- __._-_, __ 'WC it 411_ - 7 __' - - - 9. tellifil,alkikst' eltirmattileti _ . ir,,,#:, _• . __ _ a, . . ad 6.4 do _ 4,./ • • . . _ _. .. k. pc., . Y . 41 1 . seri / , . 4e : . , . .._t • . _ _ mar ___ _ : _ _ _ _ .,e.._ . , ve edilatata 0.. r_._.: _ __ _ _ _ „an,. 1�-� -._TT--_ - L 4 iC: 43Id uir sa _ PELICAN LAKES RANCH FILING 2 .-- -1,:-: s..i - ,: .. - 811 ' 8 I P MI ASCW FINAL PUD F0 21-XXXX � d OWNS Yt'i1t'll�N 7141 VOMIYl11ot Id !I ANY WYK TN conetailla COMMA NO OVERALL UTILITY PLAN ia.fferaargare-crar4r4tchTiry2 — — C$H ems, ,,a up. lig . his 1 1 ........ • p' ,,es � i r' r, „ I, ,... e re) .400###Crin le ii- i III to tit III 1"%lis / L ..00. , - ---- 7—� r 4 111:11 . .___. i r iii 1 .. � : IIILi- I _ - + 4 : lc ilk if 1/ Jo - • 5 1I i! - . -- - . - m III,47141 ill III ill or NI it Ilk r. .. ka ,�� iii r J II ill IN i 4 ,i c ----icj A --# 1 .0 „,,.! ,/ IN IRE �H Aile MI!J ..!!L ! r"! ' . p - .,:11. IN u . T ill, , I ) .. . di.. Then : III : , . ig 2 4) i i ! I,.. . ,,,, �� R cI il ill ( 1(. 7 . gis, ....::„A Id __*-=-3, _ -t , i Pr_ ea t 4: IN 4 % r, (ir. q 1 1,,t eettre .,i .4 : II 4 ut: CII . ill11 % --i ; * . .:' It\e"-e- . .1—amtel 3, i i :AL -----is $ t fc ; ) 1 I .. f , . Ii''Ai . CIE 111 . . \ . al II -lit , ..-., tli .. .;a % il .1 IN I all !II :teast7/ 1 :tit 4 I., ,„7.- 111 /_ ‘ ,,, Ili . . ,,,, ,,,. .- .-.1., il ___ .. . • , qv I .'.. - - .-J, yr e. 7.a itigriff . r IN •P i al 1 II! In -1:ff * '''S:71.!: e. "--i qr "11:s)—il 4-1 .. „, ---p—iii " ill , il u i , o/ di % 4 . .k:: . It) ‘N„.) . _.— e _____ 0 ... UT°. ,, ,, i- : , IN t !fir-lit u .-44 c__;;>-.)- ir .• iii t ( i.. , - III 1� 1 III E --` ' � _.•__�II 22 1 �" '� �� O- );)A '- + h• — � - \ � 1 � � I di � �_„fir ; ' -. " - :! �`L_• . T I,,,,� .rte 1 1 �r 01 II taas4 L . '.1. ..— 7 1 d.- . .1 - I /1 1 IC la it • vir---- 111111 i ri I I -4 I : iIII ill. ..se II .. . Nis \ 4 AilALA kill f. I to !IILae- 4 , se it et ti 1, t it< 0 i i ..ryi 1/4-111 . . IN : ' rt.% i 7:\ i(::\ 1110 \lig 17I11 III Al .11 -- 4 1 iftwate•- •••0 illi I ,' I 1 I . 1011 i iriir;ba•-•-tiassirig . ( ( i ' fir.,.•,�! 7 . ut ill li - AI • - ,.. 1. ,, tty 4 fir i 1—ili . � I):\ � 1 rr- 1 rerNe, !II iii\ IR i „ft/ � �� .. . J et t, ix:N.4 n � _ 4 . 1 _ I ili 4 IN 4 smEs 41# "41. la ilill I 1 II ll 'f� ii -7 - _ -_----ter _ . _ N di .t.i., IN , 1 ocr� tit ' . "I tihL 1 11 II i I H II YIII 4 '1114 di 4 tri IN ti m.: - - 1 -- - VI I hi 1 - - 1 { I r I I i j#5,:j - I J ..1- 1 1-41-c\Cill li I ill ilk / 1 i-p::--- _ . _ _ _._ _ .. __, . . - i_ 'et. IIII °S a . .. . I" it it it 41 IN 1 ill ! Pi swain %Li's/ ilhilliniltiLltil _. s I - 4 ill . J , \ -- rilli a EXHIBIT Wstiliawl L-�� iu'� """ �- , PLIOFg/t1 ,0o01 1Q4fl . Ldqiv4 tici s. 7 � Thitieztiltic lea ediehi h/1 23/Zv25 pc.i n F Coo s Vvege bz, vaaaraiLivis iftakouvui Liget Cathiii -tLb I <- t I-CL lao L ��elerl 4-L *” sittp f e 2.4 a opoi Ci hJceleian :c. � 2 � 4- LLc . cog `�e�io . ' oat addz �rcna�-At Luvax Lok if Lara 4:Yo 414Lp co 194, ; 761IL ck 44` L Gx; k toc1 raeuideris Lo Its 1 IA to; AS (Ay; , ot , p LAs are. ofuLtivi S ,Nallev au,d-. ciefite.4 a. &owt61) igGetit,,(0,Aeterbk ice,/ fia, ft it k its� 't' 4itaisatse 1.ocs + 1. avc t kir O41AL c5fietcaL (rd31/2. tat rcILL (M\ Cffnceec , . Lc1tt . (4. ILdJSrLO.i� (1N.0. Lzie erattert. 1,45 E/1�� 0,,v4. a JCL Lidt .4" Lae leAt UltA Se-Stin rip Ogasicitsiteci4:) 0,15 :41 ics;) & S€Ji z64frc.ac/ Lok akirPCOvvI +1As Mg1r_ Wien �ea.u� z.� 4 Pic �, 3 6ei• C arevir (..o � J-O � el &artee., (aotowA ) :Fitt AI&btvt rsArr0, � I J 119L- fitrista Ptivil * to clowitiat 7r< wc. 'JEri dakite Child( rthrstc. f ► 9 7 ç A -6u `ate- RMs r . e 4114As ryas& agenirositeakieulets PVIGLu4Xa eso ci Lana. " ' Soo 1,2) 15- SI .�a. tif �fc , .Alti u� � res de . , . LIZ a�Y�.. � ar� �u+�la� 2, �o�+, capcm..rs Re5eArvol ;r svev.; 0461 CiFiz) upo) J 4L64riwtwn*L 44 (04,0 6r) cifirsineoSta.b e�/ Theadmit, sited- LAO/ ' 4 , 36 -1 like se La dal-ea ,. .39r) 14u. frog. - 2 !in (014 traLs 49 kit. 4asehlowd. t kAtt 21 ) 1 SS (We% ave. Ko Leavitt t) 191 est tar 15a 1201)103 fetnvieS � • Syt �t,c, S �.C� paL * 2 ,4cra' wive- LaPtatrt4 fAserto sFHe 422 Mai cw.c clash &Jai CdO le- 4.1 esbeA) 'do pilot) Ccn4aw 'vi t Lc4 be � dej . "� `�.ttl<.� ppme �,i 19 . muse+ NI 7. / 5 TA CGS i 0 19 ,U 414it alg a- to a 1 yq �. • _ -� _ - 4-�rsr -:c„ !�_ a._-.awed - ... Er D iej 9 tr soriist.i ‘e . _ ....illb 11116 all(lait amaisa.2.i.i.. ...imiThrAsi, ! doeste. la .. _ di y NI CILIA t 0. • r•rir• 1 11 • a an. Sm=r111 .Slre Z Sasi SMEMASISS OWES' ia itlioU - - - -- -._-._- SM. - eteLL T ‘I 11 ICSIghill 151 .• -- ----=-=w- ' -----,' '' -9-J- -Sies ieltStpok.....e. in6 .' .I � AtiviaLisinmaimmumgmansumninuteseemaw .n. (4 n _ _. . ... .. . ._ lbibbS. s Coq 4 u Is 1:2O st Itil rIlk It L it, ., .. 3 ----c--Fezzieisti P as Eli ser w n��T ��al Y M —ialilf. .i _ ._ .� .4f� .i_,.�� _.e-- �� Nh.—=r.r tea.-. � --a..-tea,- -ss-a' .. ...- +asa-7 illt lit) llfalliaLP t 03/4--• 4 _ VSOT • ••••••.l. \ la ma�v va - - -�.�liteR yam- - �•_ -.�,. •_ .+v re 1"-W. sa= ,mss=- .T . c.a . ca P Ip 6esby AY WA-, lit vai t____, t 4 iia-penanaggaina. , .) ‘3= -. :d4��f. ••.ti:.f�cifiripi.. .. . :{6.-11-41 i ia +.2)... 24.,... coal ii li ito 1.110 te. pi- . Law etigj. WISE j a 461.di .. a • r a -szv Wva•g s . r -i.... ._. .. .It/S il? of M _ Ae44a � � _ . . . . _ .. - ..kr� — sus Viii006 ii. o _T►.7 _. _ a as . �o� a ._ _ _ urn .. I .1 4 � 1 - r Ji. massy I yA alb 4 '■ I P DRAFT ■ m t. a 1 a •n ad 01117 PELICANLAKERANCHF]L1NG2CONCEPTEXH1BIT • } I +3 I, IIIC 7 rib f Inc • .•--•-•••• •••••,—...•••••••••-•-•-•a...••••-..—....Tea•-•• •• ••.- ,1+�}•a• " �`�-"� •' i • . wF •■•} . , i .. ' ^SPY' ' 4 .•�ale • j,eittleI ulna.% 9 //I a'• : • Ilki. .1 . lit I jar 13 a I� il \ tre's\orE •, `Iiics.. ..iir at ii Nsisearreara,sue ite r ti■ 9 • e I • t• I + P '1 t�• f , _ . min[ a-s.„ eat At err\>He aos ; 1 r it. I, : - , ,;•-• FL - , JO ilk aliddill\>ta ::,,,,1„,..." isc, Nis\a, 4)?' U- ii el pieletlit• ; 'lily. \IL is al ■ •wrens N yt•'� firin :44 i+ .4' , i II ell ll I IIIP Iralliht \VI4ilit \ Ile lelAle\\ salliPlelic V -4r-eel 5 „,421%....,,,..s.....„Nci.>:..""N.„. \ •It- . .ili I• ,9 1 \1/41).) (time/ 0 \ i,„i I I ‘ 1< 14,6 N. ; 1 0.4.\\11\ke,eZ i P i1/4 "ses, Il lairt\ garreigAl • 4s. I i i i.i r 24.‘��•� 1 �w M at its risi4V1 I X tsh1/4446%.„.rn tosier`� aauue''°`ynr ��r 1saw Ili -- # 1- ttest a tipi I 0 waltriestri?talla\ ;I al :al iLec-s—P-A vriseare � { 6 teams. . iresbc a eidAS/ II \CILISNIPealea\s)t50/1 Fit;thall••••••• illic 0746 jai i (1 1 5 \ 7 I I \IN%:tin°4 Inlj il \ il. . ‘AeaSt"\I i I w ak •I all `- • • 'kik, ill\ / I. ill I yrs-ft 2\i, 1,,,: • . rm..i 0 . . . .ii- it 1. . - ... • rhaliiiiiiiirsta-i "4".."1"14.-- 4 illr-4 a I . . t. .,sir.:.;: _.:..,_ . ,, x „ t %woe ; ill; -V ns,I.M.44.1".1111%. Seliter.,,••-I:.8 4 le LIMP ik a litIlkLt ...% / I Milieftleirall I i• 'I r I" L .+{L r. .` ,r ', e } , r ` Rljb illi kw I ! tt* ktkrt _ - .ie r 1k .. 's� { ;+,h t, ••• I:::: .`;�1 �,`' #' *11f egi AMEIMAINA 111 —r . , . s. - -r • L ��{■■■YYY... , �, J . - - • t}*1;1_1 1, .3 A 4r l., I ,ire. F� i>. �fi' Main I Aef• - - !.•' 1. - _ . S ,fir• n II • iti. I:CI: "..4.e‘CI ::.. _,.":1 a •1 .; 0 . „ ••• cl ' ' • a ik /�/ _" '`> I ip. • •I �, I ' y .... •'i' l 1 y. .fir r-� �' --a- -Fl''l (` , }• -a. 1. lIRCIPOSIDOILMODIEll I WADS il It 4.‘. IS , r .4:: , ll • I I , _it, :,•- -- itt.•,•• :',,,• ,,,• F ' . a ',1I g',4 aid AIIMMIONED ad _ rte_. r ~s? •. }1: ' ■{yti . 4 .kii >.... s L'..'}!' 10..e.:,:::: ' '4I..+4 •; { 1, I• }fr/Lit. till" 1 t' '#' n �•} . .I L :1.4. . I 1•..6i N .Y. . �, '•Ii•�wj Ma 1 �, .,� F, '^ ,.1. • . , c .l ';-q �• as, L ,ti+.Vrt� ?'J4Ic. 1f ..I-'r •I '=' • :' ;�,4,Z - ''.`tf1I..• k „=,1 1r 241•". ' . '..•..." Fir- sAitThai- .. ,..„;!,,.‘„b,,I. t ......., .r.s.„.[::.:Fiji ..,. •• ._.- 1 .. ` .' I I. 1 • if, ,1 •-•h L PI py,'�S V. `.L ' s��/�� ill . , .... .,J l'ts, . ;{ • 1� r • It -r1''''Y�4.r�Csat1 a . sMai 1 ',, ,.. ..,„ , a_ , ..- 1111.1 , ~ , �{ 1 I- ,I Y ♦,.4 �. ••• 4.• ,•t'•-. . C:. 111 ... - e 1 _1 • . }; .�. .1,'• • i`" ,II .y ,r .r r L '.ti_-f Iid l►1� *Jinn . I Tp v. • - I ti4.1' , YYrt'? '�• y '�Y UNIVIIII Mao �Il is Iniwas I Ri+ #I fit' h' ' •%41;1116/./. { I it Iit r Y•iisrll ialev TS - .n. , ✓ fir ' _, r 1►atees i . 4, , . .. , alike art 106 • --I r ,.. IT 5 'i•:t.s'p' -t_hy, in 1 ,bar. • ,b LWas i ISM MN III .� MOIL I1�� aa .1.11 r'�IN NM - r�frrr ar>r r�r�� -'� r am' Kam. "�-i �ra•�rq #A - : . - •_- , } .la I 4s�• Orallidally Gad—$fib Yn tlil i4 DSC and eiddea Lta dart AU am potdmiligmdis swag the pin&bin toed us dadavid w1 lir i.m 300i r epos= sad di anekied flog limo aro big! . . C tri LOct 'gm-I:Ate " ed. et tate Lo ...$. to Vti, : irt ‘ „sr. . Mani: From the 1997 EA for Beebe Draw Farms (PLR ) I -sesa" Pursuant to the agency prosed action . the District would secure water to meet deveThpment needs by purchasing shares of £ •B7 water . The C.BT shares would be transferred to the Central Weld Water Conservation District in edsange for trifled water delivered to the deve1oent per intergovernntai agreement . The prcpo;ed . residential development and equestrian center would include app. 3 , 500 Sns of a" land sldcb would be *v.mps to .ccxedfle 2 .000 peruimst resiSts 7ivin� 1n 86D. single - family unit residence . The project would include approx . x, . 700 acres of green- belt buffer zones . An additional 2 , 285 acres would be leased from the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Cowiy ( FRItO) for aesthetic and recreational purposes . Suggest preserving the original intent of this subdivision by capping this developement at 60U single -family residences and requiring the overall ratio of lots to total land be maintained at 4. 38 acres/lot to preserve the open nature. "=L qGQ ( 4)0 II EXHIBIT ��„� �,J � II �oM.ti o.hcdhlwa g , PiAnfeetel i '76 14, 4 91a Latittiti tici 5. liktliahlit lea 110 .14 I ,q0/1 40, . Pov F - 24 - ovo1 EVeleket. 1) yo..s.ffrall5 . II ft it kit II;it s L3iLb Coou &1M i at ?this: 71 70 di I ' LH; . it =-7.1 e._ i . i Fitful ie. te 73411)1 - 24 - mos . :' 06 .$46-11611. : . ktisI. �' q tole ` �„ 1 . ak ac�htaxA.� �' 2 84 L4s , j) LtLt 1-15k sa, � �7 � 0al .kConcydri- ; xl4 la. SO: Hod a_41,4; v� UJLWkL 1,4s, ex ; 6111119. . $ , 40va La.klifictiAL, bciii . a. Fril ''aii,, ,........, t, eTus lAs a wittai taittiler cake ck . it ate. _ _ A 0401)461) IfG,*i.(0a^�14444v11( 14G¢. 4 r = eltatillitt CI, Lok eliktit, ( a •_ if _ _el, ijej..) � Lust/ 0414_ 3fau,�.. a�iaX1-. � � - _ -0 41t.,... coint,tti, Egic-, ,i) ,Pik -0 , ,,,ffl tot i Cendos1, awd.. C.,4orch . wit,145abot • , t r �� — cia iiKsj,itoar _ StezitiM, (14o'F�.rxcsis _i_. — vi. 41cc SesediermfPowi th 1g9 GA+ .11te.A.At `Dro.w- fe.vMs HeaJL fit•. iter'1 SerOititede-0 . . 4. 38 aittrevita ID .� res�✓tcst lit optn n;'4 (14W , :„ i! 2 , 1 ,, ,, ii. ' , l'i, illtweiversteA Ptirfirt, _, _.. .,. _ , _ ____,...friats freseaff.c.e iii,o) ;.. Aviei_Lektiee __ , _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ii C47-14it.'�tsiti ,: reithiAtti4n, 119 7 eci �✓ -19*,.l,Ix. Tvas Nyms li inse AL porarseS, cl .. ,. , .__ii _ jilleikcilitittieRiSek t IA atijeCe ,, . _, aiiii01 (W/42. jAka. . , , goo 9nk - A _ . _ _ a illail cai if resoit a __ g _as __ LIPP eteetea- I . . , i_ _ 1....)i of ' , 124 ) t 5 67 Acres iseretetterl tefrowt *Fiv/ wias 5.i i3/45 .0r0.0:r w+Ad leve:Ithevelik L PP)'rCC7) 410. (g - 4 -0 Arictive. 4641001. 6'ecekolk! vith tettrL _ _ In Corporaisfek ..fr Rteriti _ i i :: :- 41#440 • _ _ . 1940 . 14 • 36 i 1447 a Lek_ -se: _.c,_ __ „_ _ 1 , . . _cid : lee/a liven 1412 � aP�, • e •• f‘444 ar____112k . ,,,, - : a te , , _ , L:2: : .-_, 011 .. , . i_ __AgdAtea. _ _ • _ _ .2 - . 6 I I tiVi I 2 , 106 deles Wep, Reo killer- i,t___ e Lean', viteer _line lb a 641Dir42:, . 1-- - '' . - i r _ _ _ _ , in 41“,.. Ve Uw.� -rrI. Sfiew „_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ WAIL- 4 L &,Lto fiPa _ ,_ _ _ _ _ Ike. A21 AtecvetA aVzie. frityk act,cticitte• 3 . Tv� closo �j 4kerot vim-- relate, I-0 ftcc, _ &dock/J. _ ist• _ art ( _ _ _ _ _ rtevi 8 , -Cked , hitickitaLAt TEhh1th1 Z CAtati 1142-4 t e 5 6 (o filos (Pq4 Lts $6, • b� 111,6t _1, :teptik 3 -{4c4. ona Esc Fgrco pro ft, vie e� _ al/catlikeVia , fJeG � !/laur" I' DRAFT L , ,,. ^ -; -- --r-" ---- .••••• .—...r—.-- 411 : i ,.. I.CEPT EXHIBIT 1 • organ : . . ; 7 / 'ere `ter. iii 14 r A p �+' 11 1111 `•-ti.,,�_1 i•..lk �r et ," �• 1. .�•• , f ,,1111. • psi Is Li cr• • 0":/m-- a -7 ' i I i S , 1 "�J.I. I I ; I _ et Torn•reIbro - 3 A li 1 Lie,:•;;* k%- earn re 6•44, \I .)• I,•tt 4401 . ; , I JOI ; ir dit et liX #asi k *fik \ ç *t :ter, ,+ if * au '/ 'Wab• y1 �• r.✓a #•r 'f•, 4%.,,uhf / e rr• • � - 7,4_....... .. ' 1 / \ eAk _. e\ Nair We. • i 11111_ . ji d ,�,� ,.;., .� I. I 14# \\11,;# J .r i ,i141, .,,:„ treetrA / i' }� ! T T. • 1111. • "gfaajeleZcirr'sire Ihress a %so am tt)1/4441. , w\ i kt IA riserismiti I 1 ISVIPPDI is14;i4 albil��t+�' /wspsR�.r+ti }`+.`'`Mylit I IN °` :�q�ct:s'td�' aive.' ``r', j IIII * . . 're" li N1/44 4,11. c riNt's se% . ..4 ea ,ai . i. 1 a I i \ hi %a illa... laltlemillb• 1 I a Nike.•••Ms jir....A ' Ira. kli I i a f / I ( .) amemmmarlas,..... 7 41•64.. / I[ sva,....1., teals, .1%.*3/41/2%finfLasil r Illailatemer lc, IIP i ii, I \ .L1714 . fr.a•.uy 1 il aniall i v \Ansierseit ~', Ss 4 iat r\ L. 'golf it I t- "LS...min iliSesj al: i I IA 'Litt vIONIPIrriassas... -ems ..... di(a,• t t Ji • • 11l' i I , ' l _1- A ile LA ..e..1...,. LT% II lass IS owe ohm. ill•Ibiltr* bast ly % I . ., ` .-y, \~ ti� 1 �' 5N4.4 I,... ...4 . \s„, ` it ` + f `4 �,i.�' 'may •••• •,\ f + :. I. /Joe I. I ,f a -r' , 1; . ' '1*1i . likikApyr ' / t ��: a.r,• ..1�a el 1111 , -,;4 -; 0 loillillt •1•IiL. Are" s.4%. - 4.1.... _ ibtil ! •[' 1_ I 7 ' :\ f 1 , •yr. 4 - y�1 r Yom• • .-s `�+'-A i Me ' I . a r 1 1 - r 1 '�7a''' 1�''d �. ' ,�, , . ' • 'I •• !"Ifs• -. . • I j1 r • fc+s}, i ti,... .-.::,;., .. A.‘, .- e1„• 1r am a • 1111. - ' . . • 1P I.''' . " 7 ' 4111K:..: . . H .i. . kirks •N . CIL . .. er . _ : . .i. . i• -tititri * WilialbaLL . • , f.r. mi. ..?....1.I.' i - ` - -- - ,� :5:4,, • a` 1111. y..,.11 tOillY $ I - 't4g :I:::iivit-ts . .4 it, 411, e REMO TRAILS 1 .� �, • 1}y, ; ` :A, j . .. .. a li‘fr, II li :C . : 1 ' el I . 7 i t • -1 tk r . . I' ....I'- .-4,I: . 1::-IL,- - •• ,,:,11, 4P:2,.idi A AIPINII-ii-PliPri 4—'1P le. sa aPPROPCIMED at IMIIMICIE li ,..kmktitc:t....... It. ii: ....:, ,it .. ..; • : ali 1...• - . ROAES 1 i Wit � , Y. 1..�., 1.-• -b• •1'1 ,''- al., - 1 -'tfr r ,If- ahr '-1. 1•p, i:'~',L. r sr•-• s• '-� -ter ' I. w.---,tr.� i:), f I,,f '' • a IPOIPII- . , , 1111# , - V ...t\--III 0 ro+ no-. JIM l'—'4� _ I- ' '5* ..., al ABACONIED mid• Lir!"..,...,,. .. a tinc'n.4 i 4 ,. • ' r a \ _ . ate,,.ciii... 4 a' 4 414 - . rit n. is r Awl.Fr ir-14 a. _ . _ : , i . -. : . .ii 4r1 , _ . at PV 1 i'idJi�l' i&;t; . 2!; t1 ;,►• -• 2:* r , {1 , a - S. . • r- - ' - - rill( 7-g 'it} 'frH-1\ - • -I- ' II SIMIS, 011/11tANSTINES • 1 • 01 1•rI -' ' - %FILIN0G. , a -IL 1 • a:\•;1 -* a* /co; -;-•-- ,' __ ,114.11...;:t . •' ..;:bl.)::: : .: 11 , • c(tr- ,..P;4J- 'b.. • 1 . .-- ' A .4-- Ill. a Ler riles lane 1. AN again + •r . - ,• ,� / .' \� 1•.aa•r�l•1 ■r/•I/�r�� Iaa.�.._ J ,� _,J.:.::2':!” ti , 'At.' r i a • .I 'Tr -"''_ .. _ - •il(�,:•ec' ., 1 ;1 ,_ it( maps I I '�„� • •I• + �} • • 6 IIlibelnall I ill Sam �.,, ,. __ r . �'.I1 •r j11t.J ' r� `7•`y[', . ._ 1111 - - - _ y� �� '� �� 11 • iss lib 1, ••••• _^ • # wool I se ..i int" •I. i•; IP II r ■urJ 4 •••••41111/a� rat•rr�a arrange. T• imi•-Is vs ea. Pin are assn.*SS\ilose soOS VP vas lora/•;>•mai IS sea ata• w ••••I/184 I � 1 1 r OM= it II I 'mg . _ ___ gi 1 C +rphin, ml se hnsaad subject tote - - fil mii 300 ir All seelpsediesintuelh se ilk S' pleaped S thelosrd kirt OW Iapin S ell theimided lbw ilea we bra l aved. 1 In )40\4 _ roe" ( ea \( iett, c,,,I2 . % ti b id Li) imp ' Mr /CIO C: itagatala: From the 1997 EA for Beebe Draw Farms ( PLR ) Pursuant to the agency proposed action . the District would secure water to meet deveThEment needs by purchasing shares of CBT water . The CBT shares would be transferred to the Central Weld Water Conservation District in exchange for treated water delivered to the deveiqitent per lntergoverrntal agrut . The proposed residential development and equestrian center would include app . LSO acres of land which would be developed to accouimdete 2 , 000 perumumt rssiduts living in 800 singlefamily unit gresidencits . The protect would Include Vic . 7„ 7D0 acres of green- belt buffer zones . An additional 2 , 285 acres would be leased from the Fanners Reservoir and irrigation Coupany ( FRICO ) for aesthetic and recreational purposes . Suggest preserving the original intent of this subdivision by capping this developement at 800 single -family residences and requiring the overall ratio of lots to total land be maintained at 4. 38 acreslfot to preserve the open nature. - Sao ' �� r lir EXHIBIT b Papflii 1-7q Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO . 80631 planning@weldgov. com July 28 , 2025 Subject : Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD (Pelican Lakes Subdivision) Dear Commissioners , As a property owner in the vicinity of Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lakes Subdivision) , strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development . This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements . The proposal fails to maintain the intent , density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why this filing must be denied : 1 . Unjustified Density Increase: Filing 1 consisted of only 188 lots across 1 , 163 acres , equating to 0 . 16 lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 283 lots on about 800 acres - a sizable jump to . 36 lots per acre making it 2 .25 times more dense than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental ; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and poses undue strain on infrastructure and surrounding resources. 2 . Failure to maintain original PUD continuity (Chapter 27 violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27 , Section 27 -2 -210 . B , any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards , and intended land use of the original PUD . Filing 2 does the following : -Shrinks lot sizes dramatically Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes - Removes open space buffers -Will force major road reconfiguration to accommodate for the increased traffic dangerous egress points , especially close to the stop sign on County Rd 32 . 3 . These are not minor changes They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a continuation . 4 . Public services strain Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents who will be needing more and more services whose infrastructure are just not in place in this rural setting . It affects all of the current land owners and rural residents that have lived in this area for decades. It will be a huge time and build commitment for all of the service providers to get this huge infrastructure in place. Meanwhile, it greatly diminishes the services that the surrounding community already rely on and have issues with . Also , why should the surrounding property owner tax dollars go to pay for the $ 14 million plus price tag to reconfigure and rebuild the roads to accommodate the new egress points for this . 1 many people , just for the greed of a few people who live in condos or homes in the densely population cities ? We didn 't chose to have this many people clogging up these " ancillary" roads . 5 . Inadequate water, septic , and fire protection capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from the Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps " are being offered . These will not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents of Pelican Lakes as well as all of the surrounding community neighbors . If there were to be a fire, the chance of it spreading to all of the surrounding vegetation and grass land causing acres of destruction and loss of buildings and livestock is of great concern . Also , because the natural vegetation of this area is so fragile, with that the density of population the disruption of the vegetation and blowing sand is of great concern . The amount of water needed to try to " reclaim " disturbed soil from housing and outbuilding construction would be astronomical , and with the supply of water already in question for the existing properties as it is , this seems to be an impossible situation for the kind of density proposed . Those of us who have had to deal with gas and oil disruption of our land , and their continued failed efforts to " reclaim " that land know that once this soil and vegetation are disturbed , there is no way to bring it back just with dry land growth . The way the covenants require natural vegetation and trees , it is just not possible without a lot of water. This issue was also mentioned in the application for the reason the land is not farmed and was accepted as a PUD . Is that not agreeing to the fragility of the land ? Regarding septic , there are many rural property owners who have wells . With the density proposed with septic and leech lines , there is a concern for contamination to the aquifer which we rely on for our daily living . 6 . Lack of community input Residents of not only Pelican Lakes but also all of the surrounding areas were not consulted or given any notice about these drastic changes . The plan violates the original vision of this subdivision and drastically affects those of us in the community around it . This is a rural area and for that reason , many of us have invested a lot of our money and sweat equity to have the rural life with the hopes of not having a densely populated area just down the road . Everyone understands that growth is inevitable, but not like what is proposed . There is no consideration for any of the surrounding property owners , just seems to be the padding of the pockets of those involved in developing . There seems to be no understanding at all of what it is like to live in a rural area , and why those of us have chosen to live here. If they want that kind of density, put it in the city limits where there are already services and infrastructure available. Requested Action For all the reasons above , I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to: Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and - Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, ti 6 EXHIBIT 1 go Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley, CO . 80631 planning@weldgov. com July 28 , 2025 Subject : Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD (Pelican Lakes Subdivision) Dear Commissioners , As,sa property owner in the vicinity of Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lakes Subdivision) , � �� _ 1..`11 \. �-}-,. strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned nit Development . This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements . The proposal fails to maintain the intent , density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why this filing must be denied : 1 . Unjustified Density Increase : Filing 1 consisted of only 188 lots across 1 , 163 acres , equating to 0 . 16 lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 283 lots on about 800 acres - a sizable jump to . 36 lots per acre making it 2 .25 times more dense than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental ; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and poses undue strain on infrastructure and surrounding resources. 2 . Failure to maintain original PUD continuity (Chapter 27 violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27 , Section 27-2-210 . B , any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards, and intended land use of the original PUD . Filing 2 does the following : -Shrinks lot sizes dramatically - Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes - Removes open space buffers -Will force major road reconfiguration to accommodate for the increased traffic dangerous egress points , especially close to the stop sign on County Rd 32 . 3 . These are not minor changes They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a continuation . 4. Public services strain Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents who will be needing more and more services whose infrastructure are just not in place in this rural setting . It affects all of the current land owners and rural residents that have lived in this area for decades . It wilt be a huge time and build commitment for all of the service providers to get this huge infrastructure in place. Meanwhile, it greatly diminishes the services that the surrounding community already rely on and have issues with . Also , why should the surrounding property owner tax dollars go to pay for the $ 14 million plus price tag to reconfigure and rebuild the roads to accommodate the new egress points for this many people, just for the greed of a few people who live in condos or homes in the densely population cities ? We didn 't chose to have this many people clogging up these "ancillary " roads . 5 . Inadequate water, septic , and fire protection capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from the Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps " are being offered . These will not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents of Pelican Lakes as well as all of the surrounding community neighbors . If there were to be a fire, the chance of it spreading to all of the surrounding vegetation and grass land causing acres of destruction and loss of buildings and livestock is of great concern . Also , because the natural vegetation of this area is so fragile, with that the density of population the disruption of the vegetation and blowing sand is of great concern . The amount of water needed to try to " reclaim " disturbed soil from housing and outbuilding construction would be astronomical , and with the supply of water already in question for the existing properties as it is , this seems to be an impossible situation for the kind of density proposed . Those of us who have had to deal with gas and oil disruption of our land , and their continued failed efforts to "reclaim " that land know that once this soil and vegetation are disturbed , there is no way to bring it back just with dry land growth . The way the covenants require natural vegetation and trees , it is just not possible without a lot of water. This issue was also mentioned in the application for the reason the land is not farmed and was accepted as a PUD . Is that not agreeing to the fragility of the land ? Regarding septic , there are many rural property owners who have wells. With the density proposed with septic and leech lines , there is a concern for contamination to the aquifer which we rely on for our daily living . 6 . Lack of community input Residents of not only Pelican Lakes but also all of the surrounding areas were not consulted or given any notice about these drastic changes . The plan violates the original vision of this subdivision and drastically affects those of us in the community around it . This is a rural area and for that reason , many of us have invested a lot of our money and sweat equity to have the rural life with the hopes of not having a densely populated area just down the road . Everyone understands that growth is inevitable, but not like what is proposed . There is no consideration for any of the surrounding property owners, just seems to be the padding of the pockets of those involved in developing . There seems to be no understanding at all of what it is like to live in a rural area , and why those of us have chosen to live here. If they want that kind of density, put it in the city limits where there are already services and infrastructure available. Requested Action For all the reasons above , I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : - Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and - Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, f EXHIBIT • PuoE8q - 000i 5 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 o Street Greeley, Co . 80631 planning@weldgov. com July 28, 2025 Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD (Pelican Lakes Subdivision) Dear Commissioners , As a property owner in the vicinity of Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lakes Subdivision) , I 4% -ra, .c l t strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit D veloprrfent . This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements. The proposal fails to maintain the intent , density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why this filing must be denied : 1 . Unjustified Density Increase : Filing 1 consisted of only 188 lots across 1 , 163 acres , equating to 0 . 16 lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 283 lots on about 800 acres - a sizable jump to . 36 lots per acre making it 2 .25 times more dense than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental ; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and poses undue strain on infrastructure and surrounding resources . 2 . Failure to maintain original PUD continuity (Chapter 27 violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27 , Section 27-2 -210 . B , any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards, and intended land use of the original PUD . Filing 2 does the following : -Shrinks lot sizes dramatically - Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes - Removes open space buffers -Will force major road reconfiguration to accommodate for the increased traffic dangerous egress points , especially close to the stop sign on County Rd 32 . 3 . These are not minor changes They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a continuation . 4 . Public services strain Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents who will be needing more and more services whose infrastructure are just not in place in this rural setting . It affects all of the current land owners and rural residents that have lived in this area for decades . It will be a huge time and build commitment for all of the service providers to get this huge infrastructure in place. Meanwhile , it greatly diminishes the services that the surrounding community already rely on and have issues with . Also , why should the surrounding property owner tax dollars go to pay for the $ 14 million plus price tag to reconfigure and rebuild the roads to accommodate the new egress points for this .. many people , just for the greed of a few people who live in condos or homes in the densely population cities ? We didn 't chose to have this many people clogging up these " ancillary" roads . 5 . Inadequate water, septic , and fire protection capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from the Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps" are being offered . These will not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents of Pelican Lakes as well as all of the surrounding community neighbors . If there were to be a fire, the chance of it spreading to all of the surrounding vegetation and grass land causing acres of destruction and loss of buildings and livestock is of great concern . Also , because the natural vegetation of this area is so fragile, with that the density of population the disruption of the vegetation and blowing sand is of great concern . The amount of water needed to try to " reclaim " disturbed soil from housing and outbuilding construction would be astronomical , and with the supply of water already in question for the existing properties as it is, this seems to be an impossible situation for the kind of density proposed . Those of us who have had to deal with gas and oil disruption of our land , and their continued failed efforts to " reclaim " that land know that once this soil and vegetation are disturbed , there is no way to bring it back just with dry land growth . The way the covenants require natural vegetation and trees , it is just not possible without a lot of water. This issue was also mentioned in the application for the reason the land is not farmed and was accepted as a PUD . Is that not agreeing to the fragility of the land ? Regarding septic , there are many rural property owners who have wells . With the density proposed with septic and leech lines , there is a concern for contamination to the aquifer which we rely on for our daily living . 6 . Lack of community input Residents of not only Pelican Lakes but also all of the surrounding areas were not consulted or given any notice about these drastic changes . The plan violates the original vision of this subdivision and drastically affects those of us in the community around it . This is a rural area and for that reason , many of us have invested a lot of our money and sweat equity to have the rural life with the hopes of not having a densely populated area just down the road . Everyone understands that growth is inevitable, but not like what is proposed . There is no consideration for any of the surrounding property owners, just seems to be the padding of the pockets of those involved in developing . There seems to be no understanding at all of what it is like to live in a rural area , and why those of us have chosen to live here . If they want that kind of density, put it in the city limits where there are already services and infrastructure available. Requested Action For all the reasons above , I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes, and Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, EXHIBIT put F Ott 'la( Pre Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley, CO . 80631 plannin @weldgov. com July 28 , 2025 Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD (Pelican Lakes Subdivision) Dear Commissioners , As a property owner in the vicinity of Beebe Draw Farms (Pelican Lakes Subdivision) , I Nmvsnjt4i 1414 1qr4fl S on strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development'. This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements . The proposal fails to maintain the intent , density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why this filing must be denied : 1 . Unjustified Density Increase: Filing 1 consisted of only 188 lots across 1 , 163 acres, equating to 0 . 16 lots per acre . Filing 2 proposes 283 lots on about 800 acres - a sizable jump to . 36 lots per acre making it 2 .25 times more dense than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental ; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and poses undue strain on infrastructure and surrounding resources . 2 . Failure to maintain original PUD continuity (Chapter 27 violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27 , Section 27-2-210 . B , any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards , and intended land use of the original PUD . Filing 2 does the following : -Shrinks lot sizes dramatically - Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes - Removes open space buffers -Will force major road reconfiguration to accommodate for the increased traffic dangerous egress points , especially close to the stop sign on County Rd 32 . 3 . These are not minor changes They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a continuation . 4 . Public services strain Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents who will be needing more and more services whose infrastructure are just not in place in this rural setting . It affects all of the current land owners and rural residents that have lived in this area for decades . It will be a huge time and build commitment for all of the service providers to get this huge infrastructure in place. Meanwhile, it greatly diminishes the services that the surrounding community already rely on and have issues with . Also , why should the surrounding property owner tax dollars go to pay for the $ 14 million plus price tag to reconfigure and rebuild the roads to accommodate the new egress points for this many people , just for the greed of a few people who live in condos or homes in the densely population cities? We didn 't chose to have this many people clogging up these " ancillary" roads . 5 . Inadequate water, septic , and fire protection capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from the Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps " are being offered . These will not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents of Pelican Lakes as well as all of the surrounding community neighbors. If there were to be a fire, the chance of it spreading to all of the surrounding vegetation and grass land causing acres of destruction and loss of buildings and livestock is of great concern . Also , because the natural vegetation of this area is so fragile, with that the density of population the disruption of the vegetation and blowing sand is of great concern . The amount of water needed to try to "reclaim " disturbed soil from housing and outbuilding construction would be astronomical , and with the supply of water already in question for the existing properties as it is , this seems to be an impossible situation for the kind of density proposed . Those of us who have had to deal with gas and oil disruption of our land , and their continued failed efforts to " reclaim " that land know that once this soil and vegetation are disturbed , there is no way to bring it back just with dry land growth . The way the covenants require natural vegetation and trees , it is just not possible without a lot of water. This issue was also mentioned in the application for the reason the land is not farmed and was accepted as a PUD . Is that not agreeing to the fragility of the land ? Regarding septic , there are many rural property owners who have wells . With the density proposed with septic and leech lines, there is a concern for contamination to the aquifer which we rely on for our daily living . 6 . Lack of community input Residents of not only Pelican Lakes but also all of the surrounding areas were not consulted or given any notice about these drastic changes . The plan violates the original vision of this subdivision and drastically affects those of us in the community around it . This is a rural area and for that reason , many of us have invested a lot of our money and sweat equity to have the rural life with the hopes of not having a densely populated area just down the road . Everyone understands that growth is inevitable , but not like what is proposed . There is no consideration for any of the surrounding property owners , just seems to be the padding of the pockets of those involved in developing . There seems to be no understanding at all of what it is like to live in a rural area , and why those of us have chosen to live here . If they want that kind of density, put it in the city limits where there are already services and infrastructure available. Requested Action For all the reasons above , I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : - Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and - Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, EXHIBIT PLU71-5A -0tbi From : Caldwell, Bill < vvCaldwell cr wje . com > Sent: Friday, August 1 , 2025 3 : 02 PM To: Maxwell Nader < mneder@we_ld . gov> ; Karla Ford < kford@weld . gov> Cc: Caldwell, Bill <WCaldwell@wiescom > Subject: FW: Objections to PUDF24 - 0001 Planning Dept Weld County Please find below a 3- page document objecting to PUDF24-0001 „ Beebe Draw Farms, Filing #2, Please confirm via email the document was entered into the objection files for PUDF24-0001 Respectfully, Wm Caldwell 16497 ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Planning Dept Weld County Please find below a 3- page document objecting to PUDF24-0001 „ Beebe Draw Farms, Filing #2, Please confirm via email the document was entered into the objection files for PUDF24-0001 Respectfully, Wm Caldwell 16497 Ledyard Rd S . Platteville CO 80651 Resident of Beebe Draw Farms, Filing # 1 ;714 i , 441 i • ZO 2 5. WEFT. Cab+, , tlian�►� St* 11141 "SA WSW , ik F1/44. Vevtnitt- Faø' - gm . t400i kr cilit Smirk' 1. CL 'Pu n F _ ea I. -14 14r3,...- 01,1 cock {r dik 4411144 aWa, ?" ') ui , ' Stark iril % it) ii SddiAsts toe tin ntio , , L 1104, ciamwrif quo $ iit.410;4ei et re t H��. , , gob 144 Lots , 4 , I I as 0 irk.s' { ;(414..utii i PeirseS sect Web wiry itito, lin - ills soSsittot, Stag An 4 , Sin 1 i ,f,,., I luvie. Laditedi 4aitimik kt) 44tis tiliriitt, L ` . �, � fi "^^"' Eta 4sIsuv4West Ai— &au ifitg. elota Laid., Ise iftiA. taitosur. I , el" m4 � oicc,LtaemigiVi a" ' t, . , _ i t , soi Lois li . . 1,.. 414, Lie Otfrtui iirt gitilt :itrirfaseenslI 45 ,41416-- {�,� I� Ise' '&444° 1 PI i`�1 � Jr, III I 3 . 4L. 'Paves . TA), _ se 4a+t taissi, .. 540 ttiE* 51.44ab :i are- elkirdriJ- chi LryDr on rt. ii I . , , , Marc Utak didark's' ure, Is i Mgr CwnnekL I' I 1714 4 ittia ern te tarn 171 111) Vag& Ci 1 (14 alt (dig dd tier Withal } C°WIWI ew �f.- &mitt ' SSC 44/.4. 1544 liar 1;014410.# t& LILL 4 AIM , CC4avadW AtI , IfljC.M1fl4640 IL 1 44u. mit;taiuk dryhteilart ( P1 t014 aO 4) dicta) IL 151#10 I: SIA411, 4u. Nora- Pit citoTstitti Ltlatitist 444t* 0.41441j1 Oki loco &UztJ VEt .fa et' 6` - LL hMLtdn . DYPedyst.vn � „� �.. , Pjty it(L, F1t41 !.A ‘1ecws . frtiV041, eve 'BILL Novell �`r �-o.;� W � t1S+�- aci -6fagoscd II Pi . 13 dM A WWI; lit.? VOX ea IL La a WO UAW 1 6rti rat . aaak AJaIWts ifzeseidt, etwil Vivolia Y� tit%siiztormsahvgt FlO 171 Atiti p . 4,611;s Are lituaiwao NWT zestaat_rttu-sta P)tMo?tt.&. ( ! -+{ 2452-4re s } ) coiovako nessinci cateinieDssidigin • stit Ag .t liun Hi ►ii `lPtA 0 cm * 2A sae) bl slisa tie & Alt a1 nAc.iL r O d eta , WALLOW, 11. 49 Letyd'v1 gak S 1 ktiezt.lit Li Co 8o4fl rayed ,- Sitecervi tvivAir Farm 5 EXHIBIT b p toraq • tut Mr Nader: Please see the attached " Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24- 0001 "" that has been signed by over one hundred residents of the Beebe Draw Farms Community and surrounding neighbors. We urge the Weld County Planning Department and the Weld County Commissioners to read the petition and listen to their constituent 's concerns . Please know, we are not against development of Filing 2, we are against the current plan as it is proposed . Respectfully, L, Kent Lewis Beebe Draw Farms Resident Petition to Deny Approval Q UDF24-0_QQ1 : The Proposed PU J _ Final plan for Second EiLijigof Beebe DrawFarms To : Weld County Board of Commissioners Subject : Formal Opposition to the Planned Unit Development ( PUD) Final Plan Submitted by REI , LLC Dear Commissioners, We , the undersigned residents and property owners of Beebe Draw Farms and the surrounding communities, respectfully petition the Weld County Board of Commissioners to deny the approval of the recently submitted Planned Unit Development ( PUD ) amendment by REI , LLC . The proposed amendment represents a substantial and unwarranted departure from the original PUD that was approved and under which our community was planned , developed , and purchased by individual tot owners . The revised proposal threatens the welt- being, character, and infrastructure of our community, and it disregards the original intent and commitments made to current homeowners . Key Issues with the Proposed Amendment: 1 . Unjustified Increase in Density Without Supporting Infrastructure The new application proposes over 200 additional residential units far exceeding the original tow- density framework . This increase wilt overwhelm existing infrastructure, including roads , water resources , and emergency services , all of which were not designed or approved for this level of development. 2. Inclusion of Legally Unverified Land The revised PUD includes approximately 422 acres of land that remain under legal question , with no publicly verified documentation confirming REI , LLC 's ownership or authority to develop . This raises concerns about the legality and procedural integrity of the application . The deed to the land was fraudulently obtained when Developer and D2 board member Hethcock insisted on transferring land from the Authority to REI , bypassing District I written approval as required by the Beebe Draw Farms Authority Establishment Agreement. 3 . Environmental and Public Health Risks There is a tack of comprehensive environmental planning or mitigation in the new proposal . Concerns include inadequate drainage, oversaturation from too many septic systems too closely placed , potential contamination from dredging near Milton Reservoir, insufficient open space, and other ecological disruptions that could pose direct risks to both residents and local wildlife. 4. Disregard for Original Community Vision and Covenants Beebe Draw Farms was established with a clear commitment to rural, low- density living , with equestrian and agricultural elements central to its character. The new PUD abandons that vision and violates the spirit of the original covenants and design guidelines that current residents relied upon when investing in their properties . 5 . Absence of Transparency and Public Engagement The revised PUD application was submitted without adequate notification , consultation , or meaningful engagement with affected residents . Numerous objections and concerns voiced by the community have been ignored . Our Request : We urge the Weld County Board of Commissioners to deny approval of this proposed PUD Final Plan in its current form . In addition , we respectfully request the following actions be taken : • A thorough review and side- by-side comparison between the original PUD and the proposed Final Plan . • Format verification and public disclosure of landownership and water rights by the applicant . • Completion of an independent environmental and infrastructure impact assessment . • A structured public engagement process that allows for transparent, meaningful input from the community before any further consideration of this application . Approving this amendment would set a troubling precedent, one that compromises established development agreements , disregards stakeholder trust, and accelerates the erosion of Weld County 's rural character. We ask that you stand with the residents of Beebe Draw Farms in protecting our community, our environment , and our future . Respectfully, [Signature Page Attached / Online Signatures Collected } l . Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24- 0001 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date `1oHn Stki4e) C.T �� . ._ ( (PLR\ IrCeilC. Colk C' s 5 s`t ' l`ii 1S_ rC. \ u v b e-v \ LO\1�l- t: J �,..l �p� �. rrlI[+ rC.{ MS 7) Iyj.)5 7/ ? Air Hweigi ' l ill 610 le nfrictel 6),C4VAL_ (69Veg rkirksEt5, e.4 7 Cfeett K6,27e-H,r , ,, ,ia_ gyz± /oirtfi.;- /Aceori-iias 74,77_5---• BRrAd1/4r AgbaS V � 'Qauemr 1 (04194) LENsafrEin a /zE, iQ,JDEs^� �(� / G 'ftlo r EoYMc0 1eD3: 7/to s � tS�-AnnCl� r5g4or / 0740‹(li crear"----7___AltAlL c\fmact1..P.iS lfto (zr \csretstAtil(A0 • o ' l% + Ab91264øve1cjhC�d5 el la WO ES3Cria . ?iv ase a4SZatAsP • "'- 4 . XONNI er / 155'61-1 EasS 0 _ i ,A re EtAKcaL4r) Oa./ iss vt45 AA-- epovw.c? c , , a Zi Za----' ,(‘- c-C.,, Nr404N- IsiNc.,, c-', rN. cks- Wat\c-SS cc\ A t'\ 1\ tx efreS . 70\ k / a\-5 ( a_ ; r .c. p, Kim- , n�v sL„ic t'�¢ k�`1q5 ca :ickvc� K4 0 r S � IaII a5 (� riS �ex �(os- , � /6&re4czi%' S 7 �L //�S Lava oc.> 1 ��' � /65 / 7 %'too a� �„ i " izd c 7/ 1 /as Eva RIest.. � �-9-°^— i ;t; . 6a,vs aci NI 14,242s- Som QeeS— 514M /4ç — ) 46ot Co ' reban\i-s Qd hi '1 ) 224 2S Lip1/4-1-) Cl,ecke �#s 1,,e , C � � i ii� v � y �:� x �d s . 14),(01c;rs- Robed die ck<-� S � � _ k; t( 9L/ &lac ,ci s7 / fl / ic 2 Petition to Deny Approval of PUAF24- 0001 : The _Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw farms Petition Signature Page Please clearly print your name, sign, and provide your full address and date. Printed Name Signature Full Address Date Js5Cc 1/4. Nkd a.( , iria4-e-4er\-C ' lif , l (L 51K)StY4ie % j1 PC/ ,.S -7/2-61Z9- 4, s , 9 ocN.1 0 PHCCLIB vkl 1n( C4- \a 6 as d;,,,, f'//%Z/�s'f�9�Ls'ct/� ArA;,,,/� , - i zSD3 Mt iigAikc r.r• 7 - .<;1 ,:e f . LII;( \ii UAz3)- Or0) 1\--, &S\i\ittsti dN:\ . li C; 5 c �3 fil \ C VV\dOS Ild `7 "A - OE 1\i\JP\- /1)71c-C62/C1( y . Wiz. / L292 ErcitLifijet aertsi c , 4-) /x/ao; C--C () tic iiveicy, t i cdz /IN) i \ obi- -% u 71 -242s)75- _, *pc? , Pecil- e ), lArc Dane, p - . Rok s .5 -fsaoitA5b Pi4 -7 /21 .?74 Jr :HH ) iw -F: .)(9k "---71-- HH H;i: AtaarHial: & cinb,- 6.1544 . -6i v *-7A2erfh, 1 Cor4 ina-+(i/wee - ' - gr. va:4-> H__ c ' - I 7 (--zcs e k (t-wt VLkMUA OpOilfrra:- Hr. i 1 G sua ,, t, -i n\w 7 C 2-,/k3I HI : _ V:A: tc"--0 i . O : C. AlA V Larf:_t_\LA ii. a &SC' {-5ee -• C : 7 id Ar (du - 1 , - 1G4-17c H N H . H c 7 c:aS ;CSC L3LCY CD � �.-� ._ kelac Sicnt lett �c+1 ://, Am \i ij,„ ,,,ii.,H, 4._ . / I 11 i it51171ioi f 1> n ,/{ k 5 (1 I I/ 7- ) / c )5 ( a 4 ( t ill .1 CI4 wk . n v\,v-\'‘ it t____ i i , 1 , a O vvit 0 Woo' 04 , . 1 bq ci I Bviti.kki," g2) , , t 4 (firDo .., i ,X i 69 q I but/ iii la t 6 k 7/z 6A-7_ f-H ..) / 7, lybo„\A1-2tko. . O1e)yai-2 8, 40 2.552ay- as iicciais f\icc.- LAHagt-2.. � 4 1 icpsncei 6p4piv4AnN cat ,V -- /L (viLJ - 1 ) /VI ti)- \ . L4 teLeg _ '.k - - --1:71kt 1 t, •r ,t1/4/.. p 5 .7 I Zh.,/z; .____............:1. 3 ,,, Petition to Deny approval of PUDF24a0001 : s _ The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw + Farms r\ • Printed Name Signature Full Address Date ___ �L_ a - -- - . ..frar 1 1'- • -e - /4 - -- ', - / , S t e- fir . , • • \ C‘7 fl r ii ifuL hi) . /V .. " ." ih ti 9 G) 5 4s-c. , 0 c. it; i*zt I ) i 7/z4-/zser- 4 / „LS:I- \ ' 1 ( P ,, _,.,2,_, Th i \ \ \R0L Li Se ti . 1 cm5DLI Oci.ditvii /*JO V--(\ ti\A . - 1 / ? it ) / Si / ', 1 ../C7C--s--- air _ a I ji4:>/e'S le;(4. # e , a - . ' lerata 0--C2Vte; .%4EZ /2 -/. TV.7C-;? 7-- - fil*.. ‘ / I : i .z. / I ti d 1 171 -e 17 % - I) C': ::\je, ItQL(6,2 6S5oe ',jeci 5 ;1111.110P se c -p Re - ,—....p.pes;e. / . Ill " . -- -- A . EN. l\-/ \ ( ( L- fittit: ‘--' - a _ — .-.__ ; 7: ( ' Y i % I ;--it, , , g \ liPlid?2 aec- c"X i&c-4 D -1/1 / 7 ;?v-- , \,,c_p_s,,,. :7415! , ‘,7 ,-(r/ :2 j ^A et f} - 4 (' (-61y _ /-;-)49 /1/Rr im A 1 .ILL,L>) Gc.:' ( Li- - 1 brOmce-151-r*--V-- L.CL-11. eA3 . 21„, ')-C4 At n .)(\ %s\IACQL-U L.Cary\-1--k-tc- . (1. Icr \ O (c( ' c 1 •Chairt 'A71 nt,e; \ \ ()) \ fir 1/14%1 0 isaaa1 � 5_-<?I (--, L) evNe , e, / 6: 9s75 Si*yeiettc4 LI 40C . 4 7726 . ,) ce ?cQS: 9) c -enk c._, La.L,ot 5 a,--)\ -,,,„-_-,__________,- 1/*) vi 1, i_. . .b). . .1( ( p 0 7 ---;,---)6 ,-? .s 4.0.1/45 (... __a. A : , d ..... , i / __y , ., bre. (47-- tic.---2,O it. . , , i 4..) 2 -,ti-- & A el - --7417/27 '3 _4_ f I+__iltA._ /4 s 4 7 , (..._ .,,,,---) /a le / / 7 0-I , , . g r7f/A•24Sr * eatliiAtat KO kkiej -1 °148 4 1 (. (111 istoret.A 0 I 5 ssit /42s• .. -- - _-_ , . .__4_ _ I - a -- Petition_ to Deny Approval of PUDF24-0001 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature - Full Address Date 80- a 7 •q.f w a.r. rQ�' ltrAINIIILtiw r + - ..y.: . Vrj Y'Y •s-‘s a4' .-- •�-- !�! are a1 .... ti s MA f 1 n Cline 2\ .�. 427 YmaLikistgen ,a___koeezttcr Lthk17 Ofu-ALKkA-cts Mrsaiiv \ -\.rgi r av e 16 (4 -2 fyiteic KA-3/4 -7(eWair t. Petition to Deny Approval of PUDFZ44)OO1 : • The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms ______ Petition `>igr asurY v3 ;, e Please clearly print your name, sign, and provide your full address and date. Printed Name Signature Full Address Date iresa 1-sk-ctryeAr �- k# 9 c24M ; 717 j�k�s L.uid c C (V �t ,t�l li (-70>e / 6 u5'5 .rdyid Rat, ST 7/i2o a S ccA'ni(P&iwv* . &QIooi 4 . s '• qh 0 .2as SAL illickkwsup, 4. a..........__ _______ ,_ JO c3 15-50) . c1 i Si Vi1/4-ilase 51,1411UMe\R6thirkilk-Wiedilu -nur�a �. ln �- r RiLIGM04-- � / i41� 5 1 lwiaO & x Rc+ 3 17A L 5 sr- 1921151a, of lei- iiii- 'ilha ) ii098Z ESL< 03 7W23. \ w QC a it9 ?, 1 =C-> &qZfYs er?,c\ IN /25— i )fr c * 9' as-ss 1 //‘ air 1 4 ecslaa,0 , / , t6 qpi kansext% 5 91 1 Lib 45r. i frytn• v . g - • - te s Is , _ „ . t�c�tS ikterS °��- ll iG, Y87 (gc�,.,m 2 � is 7�� S�,� Jes5it f7orrc if„ , ,��/' � yRo 111 QcIS 7JJ9L2r AnJrt� 6wer9 ,-- � C up4/ 96 Wqd Pd c 7/19 > Y (4) Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF �P 24 001 . The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing FllYng of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name - _ Signature Full ull Address Date %a\-\ts\ ��tA�1`'� \ S , _ TiS ces, r ' T • • • aas 1 - ---_- -- -------.-- IT Petition to Deny ApprQyal of PUDF24OOO1: The Pr9posedPUD Final Plan for Secojid Filing of Beebe. Draw Farms � Printed Name -7-Signature ' Full Address v Date IC!� �� t3 , ll_��, 4 . . ' . �.. ia, 91iii4 u ,�lt y ci- . 7�a ��s f9 eii /tiar gQ 4 ai,oridoshhyr , 7 py- do--- ' � �� L...:MKtik-H - Cr--: ,� . � I 6 � &�� 1 ( 1YI2 _A 1 (� 4 7 e 8v.� f� lyl , Jittets 143 /1\1 . 9 (3 .v-t! ‘, ar-4--- ik ii92-ityrniTh ti,S 5 7/2-9/zC k t 4,r-tiv Rolo( nc. ion • ."-- g lb (I cc--) (-4,1cr0ZIL 7 41 fc3S lb rn (4(d‘ er _ i oteVn ?_f/jig i iL ctr -c-) Ld410E1 ars 7 i I c? (-7 4: iSci.) eilie -ijy i ei- \ , , /1, are/i to 7/2r24--- - ... e --D-\-ic,---c\--(LA csk kis_ S --- acre \ �. , . _ , ` 1u4c \ Sion- ls �j�� )(xi _„h 7, / 71-. ?41. 5-- 4/1,1` " �22✓e\c) A6, 3L,NR,\e t , ib in ‘ 7.) 7 I icgq j9i � ' • ��/1 _ � �, 1ls �orid/7�t -�lD' _ . , 72 ti - 2oz5 S • », SUor .i \Oos � a�.�-.✓� J 'st &sc .waat ,. Vfl/?a? s: _ / ' , , eal : ncic - orirl , c1 <-_-, v Petition _to Deny Approval of PUDF24-0001 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address I Date /ce•ii tL) ke ass :te,i1W,Lita,_ issco I Eat ffci , 7n2 7 -a. 2s: s_ i - 1 i ! I i 1 I! I E + E k f 1 , 1 Petition to Deny Approval of PUDFZ4-0001 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date dIME550111011, A . • , .. .. > ow .3. . . op di ...f AlliarraMilinil;i441; - t aj•'' •• a allier a TTTT )-.. .. _, , & .s. i ,_ . 7 [ Er' " -," Y. "e .. - \ \I eall 111, 72C ih 4 1/ ./ / t l/ ./ . • Sar )t, ,AissA4Cik ki . era , 1 / 146522C 7/yo/ a 6 / bieftct‘ iv) 1 r grlc er . ( 0 `_ (o'vc 7 I fe rui t->� 1 (?c5 x/7O a , ,,In :7 , T vi Oman it- € 7 Sk9vi 1 =. Di -) //7-2 , • , r ■ 1 Petition to Den rov 1 of PUDF 4-0001 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name I Signature Full Address Date //CriL I "Pres-# Y. /A- L.. 30 /41., niatft-v- ce '44/ (-/ 7/ (I /7S - 1 1 1 I • 1 ,I i 3 1 i I 1 •• - f 4 � t I a � Petition to Deny &pprpyal of PiJDFZ4OQO1.& The Proposed PUD FInal Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Drew Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date ieTh c40 9 PentriceL, \ Leg 7 1_ 6Thiu -c) ck its ao N AcCic r-4/ mint _ 1 % 1 /kgtCP 5417,e iez)60 r— k5GC111 (1. a4 • ° VITA . , / 499 77 5roitd2 . 17 l 25- fr-ak)no,nc.)., Cear.Th4sN&Th/ ae)4ant lag SondriA all 1 - 3lest25 eon-Lam POLmLLO eionAaki Tot ,,,ricca l60 ? sr qu �Le... Lie 111.11k. N I" alassises4alial Uca ; 4- 1?-ti.Yefre‘ err 14L11- 8 51empars ?AdIAgL I f Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24 OOO10 The Proposed PUW Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date ta \r , ( TIJ eCt \ACC " t -qi(VI -nd,, r ib (-; 441, (Ntt4e3 tOke -- 6Mier _ _ Of/14 ) lesTo / aaolt- r/ C 7/ Sn � „adz •� l' elf23.addfrigrae /zoes I 1 '_ :2,#) Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF211-00Q11 The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing Q( Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date Petition to Deny Approvals' PUDFZ4 -0001: The Propused PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name I Signature Full Address Date ig.J\0e,)- ( att,-Tri r T7; cyri ulaft )c s a I 01 ) 9 _)- , _)- k j _4 4 1 1 Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24- 0001 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date Jot 5(7tHel-ii #, 54'4- tdeh 11,1-/b<i) so,,JkicbQt) s 7- c??.--„25-- ok(\ e, ‘1 )0 catl ancsi-I\ Lk) Lt (-3 ei;s5 eteaa, - -29 -as „ A , Kmen / 3 ?-4,6 N.) cr,arz (/// •7Th ca./1;i .er i ( / -?->C :4) // 724(k:5- 4 - _ - 1 fr Petition tq Dopy Approval of PUDFZ4000i : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Tiling of Bgebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature I Full Address Date 9"), C r.70N1J G !ti'�t� t 6y sv. CA-re 8N04 )n r4 S DS ?PO Is S 6 6A territ ) t 1- 044A-;-• 4 1 (iLifie rAlA LA Ai 'Lc 4bg- )frrrroti nze--- t ELI n 1 16414 rill mihNics _ idtriaser CeDvm $0 &La_ i () rZ I a /tin r-e.4- 464tevi) Der 7 /30kS Altkivkze Aikr4-1 .. a4.14kate �(,�( a- ; r" ibfl'i fiirGajtk≤ Dr S 1/ 1 / 2s RECEIVED August 3, 2025 Pelican Lake Ranch , Filing 2 ( PUDF24 — 0001 ) AUG 42025 To : Weld County Planners, Planning Commission and Commissioners Weld County Planning Department From : Roy Wardell , PLR resident and neighboring ranch owner, 16512 Essex N Platteville, CO I am the third generation owner of the ranch that borders the proposed development for one mile on both the south and west sides (County roads 32 and 39 ) . I reside in the already developed portion ( Filing 1 ), of PLR and I strongly believe that the proposed second- phase build out ( Filing 2 ) is a very poorly conceived and poorly planned idea for many reasons . You will receive letters about and hear those reasons during public comment on August 5 from several of my neighbors . A summary of those reasons has also been presented to you as a petition to deny approval of Filing 2 in its current form . Approval of Filing 2 as proposed will lead to many future problems for our community and the County. As an owner of similar land `across the road ' I want to focus on huge environmental problems this build out would cause . Compared to the existing, already developed Filing 1, a major portion of the proposed n ew area is made up of very much larger sandhills - originally wind deposited sand dunes - that are steep and critically vulnerable to wind erosion , especially, and even to water erosion from heavy rain storms, if the small and fragile vegetation is removed . In the build out of Filing 1, because the applicant ( REI ) did n ot implement any erosion control requirement of builders, some new home owners had to shovel — not just sweep — wind deposited sand off their steps and patios . Even established home owners next to n ewly built homes have had their completed landscaping partially buried and badly damaged by sand blown from the lot of the next door newly built house . Even though these concerns were presented to the developer during the previously denied application for Filing 2 (two years ago ) the developer made no mention in the current application of any intention to mitigate these large erosion problems . I have again recently voiced my strong concerns to REI regarding this issue and have received written intention that these concerns will be addressed going forward . REI 's reputation with residents is very poor because, over the years, many promises have been made that were never fulfilled . REI must require that builders mitigate existing potential erosion problems on the lot of a newly built house before turning it over for sale or for occupancy by owners Approval for this current application for Filing 2 should be denied again and the applicant be required to address this erosion problem along with several other serious problems that are being described by other letters and will also be described at the August 5 public hearing by other concerned residents . Respectfully submitted, Roy Wardell c„ 0.. CrYfikliottei EXHIBIT or✓aii- o1 RECEIVED Weld County Planning Commission AUG 4 2025 Weld County Board of County Commissioners Weld County Planning Department 115th O Street Greeley, CO 80631 ingnning@weldgov.com Date: alit/ 32 (9% Z—re Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025-01, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1,163 acres. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862.8 acres. This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited Infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. Na meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes. • This is not a minor continuation—it is a materially different development It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025-01. I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations. Sincerely, agit / /laths (,/ EXHIBIT 7a,(1 W/4 /2 bet- 11 /liven -evil EXHIBIT fuPF8t 0001 ,47 August 1 , 2025 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1402 N. 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80632 Re : Formal Objection to PUDF24-0001 Filing No. 2, Beebe Draw Farms / Pelican Lake Ranch Dear Planning Department Staff As a 23-year resident of Beebe Draw Farms / Pelican Lake Ranch and the current President BBDF Property Owners Association (POA) Board I am submitting a formal objection to PUDF24-000 1 — Filing No. 2 . I support the development of homes in Filing 2, given it is executed in a reasonable manner, consistent with the PUD for Filing 1 . Our community needs an expanded tax base to survive, yet the plan submitted this year by the developer is neither reasonable nor is it consistent with the previous PUD. The developers did not involve current residents or their elected boards for input; there was no collaboration with the current POA (Rule 2025-01 I.G) regarding covenants, covenant alignment or enforcement; and it appears PUDF240001 is in significant conflict with many of the development standards/rules/laws of Weld County and contains at least 20+ unresolved conditions from the 2024 submission. Again, I am flummoxed how this filing is moving forward to the BOCC . Please see my letter to your office dated January 31 , 2024, noting numerous residents' concerns with the first submission of Filing 2 and folks, many, many of those concerns remain. Specifically, please review the section entitled Conflicts with current governance structure, on the bottom of Page 2 of the document. PUD24-000 1 contains numerous and profound inaccuracies and omissions. The filing, at best, is incomplete and significantly mischaracterizes that the nature/density of Filing 2 is comparable to that in our current community, this is just not accurate. One only need look at the proposed plat map to see that sloped/fenced out lots are misrepresented as usable open space and that the majority of lots in Filing 2 are 1 -2 acres making the proposed density of homes materially different that the Filing 1 . So, I ask planning services, does this not violate Rule 2025-01 I.B? This error-filled filing is basically the same plan the developer submitted, then withdrew in the summer of 2024, save a few changes (e .g., second entrance to the development on CR 39 etc.). At worst, this application represents the same adversarial non-process process, the developer, REI, has engaged for well over the last two decades. Unsure about my statement, ask Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer about the history of our development and REI . Given the errors, misrepresentations, and profound lack of collaboration with the current community, city of Platteville and surrounding ranchers, I wonder to myself if any other PUD, with well over two dozen unresolved concerns, would be moved to a BOCC review if a heavyweight like, FRICO were not involved as a partner in REI . My most notable concerns follow in a bullet list. Truly , there are just too many concerns list in one letter, so I am depending on other residents to raise their concerns as well . • Rule 2025 -01 does not seem to have been applied . Rule 2025 -01 requires any final filing under an old PUD to follow the original design, stay within the infrastructure plan, and provide clear communication about what's being changed. Other than hard utilities (water, electrical, gas, roads , etc . ) PUDF24-000 I is silent on specifics regarding the increased density of homes, smaller lots and amenities infrastructure. Specifically, there is no projected timeline and location of amenities in Filing 2 . When questioned, the developers ' representatives say Filing 2 residents will use the current amenities in Filing 1 -which at time are over capacity, e.g. , pool and many need repair/upgrading. It appears this rule was ignored in both the planner 's staff report and the approval resolution. An associated concern with the developers failing to follow the original design is that in the current filing drainage out lots are falsely counted as open space — Rule 2025 -01 I .B . • The developers have failed spectacularly regarding communication about the filing and any changes . If it were not for the efforts of a committed group of concerns residents , we would be in the dark, as so the county planners . The developer held its one and only community meeting in late July 2025 just weeks before the Planning Services hearing and the BOCC review. Given that the application for Filing 2 significantly and materially changes the nature and character of this development per the original PUD-the lack of communication, and accurate communication is appalling, yet consistent with REI 's prior practices . • Water tap availability. Central Weld County Water District (CWCWD) confirmed the developer is on a waitlist. There are no taps available, no service agreement, and no guarantee of water. Under Rule 2025 -01 and state law, this project cannot move forward without a secured water supply. In the public meeting with residents in late July, the developer 's representatives said they had secured budget taps sufficient to begin the project and we ' re ` confident ' they could secure the remaining taps needed as the project rolled out. • Little to no consultation with the City of Platteville RE : School Impact Plan I find no evidence of a school plan or input from affected school districts . Isn't this a violation of Rule 2025 -01 I .F? • New covenants submitted without public notice — Rule 2025 - 01 I . E As current POA President, neither I nor any member of our Board were contacted or invited to discuss the covenants proposed for Filing 2 . In the July 2025 REI presentation to the community, I offered to have the POA Board discuss the current and projected covenants with the developer to discuss-no response . To date, the covenants for Filing 2 are different from those in Filing 1 , which would be a nightmare for any POA Board to oversee . So, are we to have two contiguous communities governed by two different sets covenants and two different POAs? Will the residents in Filing 2 or the declarant cover the cost of a property management company for covenant enforcement in Filing 2 given, at present, the community will have a different set of governing documents? The developers are potentially shifting the responsibilities and certainly additional costs to current residents and their POA board to monitor and enforce an incompatible set of covenants without input or approval from said residents . The proposed development introduces an entirely separate set of covenants, setback standards, and density rules that are discordant standards governing our current community creating legal and administrative confusion for property owners and the POA Board who are charged with enforcing community standards . The absence of clear authority will result in disputes, selective enforcement, and long-term administrative burden on the current POA and its subcommittees like the Design Review Committee-the group of residents specifically tasked with reviewing and approving building or lot improvement based on the current Filing 1 covenants . The covenants presented in the Filing 1 application effectively grant automatic variances for smaller lots and reduced spacing without POA approval , bypassing our established variance process and stripping current members of their rights . We urge Weld County to reject the current filing and require the applicant to revise it so that it clearly and fully complies with the established Weld County guidelines, the BBDF existing covenants, and PUD design standards/requirements , and governance framework in our community . Respectfully submitted, Dr. Linda L . Black and Kay Masselink 16478 Burghley Court Sincerely , EXHIBIT pOF ' CZ01 Map -- AmendedZ-412ZoningChange 1 _ _ _ • _ __ • __ ZONING cHANGE z • 412 AMENDED rant ar.ernr--. .. lerMMM I I- _a:.:.niiinN�� t r �� 7a�1 4 �'. ac ct- — — _ - 1.A In �♦� �Q/��r r a.a as Inn.44...i 11‘ s>. - • � .. i s it r1 rY -.. r. .. T IMF et �lTS^�*�!T•r li! ra terms _i. - 4 - _ J I I ._ltd illir : ♦ a— a ! a t 7 7 riquinatia _ I .. S T _ ri s •t �wr rrr+e• iit0a� i6_' ; . r.ar a . . . . * r ' --_ i 4 . ' b r r sit a a s M .lYz\Jb ►. ♦ �r-_ . 6 s •=!a• • mil' 1 rims ..T* �' . .t ► 7.4r'ts r • 1 It•- , lr . •y . l _ • 4 -.a.aa �-• a a4 Itir•" f' y� �, . M . . $4 .111.14i ` n u. . _ aria.Maki:\iiiiiiikre• lir SW 1 as y J f *t¢ ' r ',writ-- .-••r-. e'r' . jor..) , sr IP • 1. r . i 4 at. Nis tele .. irtie,TM itiair ill,',Pliers i� `aa! • it 1 . •ITh. t�/' a .....1as- � � • *. . ..a.. sac. ,.i•>as rse •- w -tea! ; _ • -1 ^r4 isktickikame y z {{ Jr_ 0. 71\lirt ,.. : a I lialik- - 44 ums c 4. r y. : 4,. .4. : Wee 4 . _. m - .. .". .. ° :: \ : ( - . ♦ ' . rs- • ,,. . �. a ._ii:Nta amaasimui. l 4 r r -le-wire • J '%h i°-a . r ti \ • • ap,�� I'•�, .O a • 4 - e - t a. •s:: -.as +e a>; .aac �ra1 ■ - • - arr -a- cil • -� • • _ .l • - . i4 a. • ^• �11a ..1 `TT• 7r. i. -1.t ,�r _ _ Olf. a r i • �_ Y t t 1 r► \ a • • r - P • se - ip • 3 I -1. ..- itler"illTh Janailtet is ! e • w `I a _a - el CD it/ a ID li.4\ -ow Pill a .4\ a .. r •M • �. oas 4 1. 'L- t r G. o . . __�. ®O b _ _ �� x'4..1 -- ii ___Thbor, . • , . . ,. _ . _ . • ... _ .._., . a me. en.... 4- it % el OS 0 OMB shoots se, ems II t• • - _ ` s II •sa A 1 .v . .- _ _ . - �iiL� _ a -# +� Ir-'-ass I r•.r w fif ...it • WE . •• . at .• TRt wry + ' 't - ••r • r - •� a • • t e-r • , _ s .id s 'a•-- u ac a .l n •� se . MS f. e a St frail"� .• 0► \ a . 4 A .rs of tan SO w '�. - y+. ter ' - --�-- " ��' *� Lillie sew lir al ale ... .._••• 1aaa lit a t t L'iseAkkts , ` • : ;: _.. _ . , , . — tip ,rE w .s �.r r • n....t f r r - . _ - r �' _ , o s 1E- �+-.r�ra s.a Ar s ,!! . y r /U A aa! M �A 4- a a -a •ate/ A ail Ana ry ES- LI ..11 Air eir as ens ea arra arat um OW Pa' V a �r.! wr air. lie* Ora . re.1. r 040S~++�i i . . � lea.+ �++ .+ r �I� d��lll �L a _ 'WIIIIII :lc., . . .... arbiSt �- • �! aSua errwe. Mr.� • away rwwti • � � -�— � e�.aaA. M sea ate • war = _ 4 I _ � l• SO IPS se an SD A eaM N �, • yla Oa MS a1i�l. M ea/ 1 +IAIDI! - - I , i- - _._. N a!/ s ?- ^ •n • 4r ea• ISOM= ell al el ISO w ar• . _ -a. ri e• ird a •,+�•a..a. `w...��ri .r�La: -ftionstale �`-y�.� -N• ` d w a -� fi .♦�� 'l. � �.-.t . t /! ��J tie "�1 11M 10.41 �� !! •mow a •r ■rlr� at* !lf_,B tar ae !M 1 aft um r me flits MO fan e,r�rL e imeng wan as raw rags 6r sue e e - - - fetes !9lFk 44. son �. • u• s s r *s a1• �,n ma r.�s — me _ a I ester sway t ,,t, ga . as die tad M'1i • °aM a T-T ?ion_ a1a, r .J s�sY� "RIX mu a as a s le al MIS ea • Sat an Waft rocs a wa w ass a a MGM! • N_trlta6ti• WR9 IS. art +� •EFI,t ailUswa .. gip •.M ,rare, •allal w .war - *NNW era I as ar .e/t * OS : ' Fl I..._.-•-_. ■s do a r- ..•a r re `!!� IN • in ■eat *Mae ate. SS f SW w / r. spa �t I n • . “! a 1:// no r lbw- This asopiel a bag UdallrS is as a s lass OW lea a k,S w MS Is ililliell SINS SINN - imil as role sal is a r Aeri , d a area/do s a. Casa Mr *rs and •gawp r ea a a a e r sad 6.es alcimil i n, r Cal aq as as solo t-_-a u it dIs/mea Wale dr --_.^.a- --- .-_ . a.... ...a - r elk a- — r.•.. . Exhibit - MiltonReservoir Minin Permit Ar FRI 2024_ 057 ) ___ ...fsl, lla our It — a mfat Nits •CO�+I+f Uri 3 - 41... "' i -_ a Ifir,- Mi- . lift laill 4114141 .11-VASO , - _ • - l' i 4 1 III 44 l be A ;ice A i Jo - .wRV LTD Ueda, Coories, ' _: AiltMOlI;1* 0 it 0 '4+ t Pry ra I it . r � 9r I I • . ,r, 1 _ 1 it w •,_ �� - _ i ' a is ` T io Nu_ 4 . . 7.1,- . - � v. - - -- .- s=ue ikiHie_ lk Maw,11, ....,. . t ti II'S 1 I -liTir - _ — I - 4 - I 4 4, 7. a il _ _ II, mi. lh, Sai - lb, 41r. It - f A 4fr-F 44) 4 vitTli ' ....girl t - ` *MIS?OC3*t faseaut - iiiiberik 4 jilt 1 :111 - r!1‘. Vie. - a �0 4 I ♦ 'rt'O I , -IN 9 eva�t7e® 4�$ lii�iRi fit ; to _ - ,: i s ItAtr M { WI L10 G j �� I t 4 - P , A -4 ir ,,s,, - P Milton Rnerroif S.- it . • VsilltsreA I 1 - 'tan 1 s ), I,. _ i i >sr 4 jp, 1 . •41 DOIOTIHMIA :II I r.. t 6k I 40 lie, i q eirilill... I' IN t - iml a\ NAAS s_ r , - liiiiikki_ !-6 itakikIL 3 W Illik a 1 .. d 1 .eV - 3 I IL. Vs -1 il: * misir:Gor i I ril:ea_ 411 ID; -.. I. EMI _ 3 r Apr i is. errakallMinia° eeipmri Ott ,' Attic lib. EXHIBIT C (a) ' ADJOINING SURFACE OWNERS OF RECORD • � .r C06 0 FARMERS SAND ni . — i �••■ talb • r &•• % ,,i , yriti. - 202.4e WELD COUNTY, COLORADO O.SSC , G`i r 04i - I I I Zoning Overview with Mining Overlay and Buffer Zone Loss itho Mr* F Lai .._. �r - _ 4. aMOe a Late 54•41:1 Jos 1 Mivtt GIPiI P rf: etas I Itill nairillittinsern as re se ZON/N6 snit , m ..it ��,,..,.M, u L3OACC 422Zits. i a •+i a wr ! r met Boa :_ r��t, ,is# ir„„ �, r- _�_ • le, � / eagle WS Tilt"' $ i • t - tow dt ^- Y v. t&---- St 1 40 Ika,-4,, ar fOr.:* N ••• ifil un se i-**4,;":sr- V ftL‘.. , . .0..allis... . . ..... • •A�l- a. lir.4 is 'lirft •A �iv I*ay. .ate. • l ' . . a[ 4:4-0-Pipt N. --is,1/4 6 • - Y' . , • rr- isto��.•''� r,, -'fir ITV • • .. • ._ • � �' `Ii i es • lb lei : I sae I 14Per . •-•. Lc , 4 \s„, ' 'w.ilk iiiirtir - 1:114,3 Mk Irby\ Pi % . • i • k#3IIL z,,..-7-.,..- , eal• i iii, 41 lit til‘. . e • � •..7 I Itil ‘Itsb- . to : 4 ' .. tiiiiir g4tç watI�ra.�..' al . linatier S ea". allif* limmil •Rano �M- M fr er. � t► In M rmr w rlii ems . Q roes ism see ea it ea Mr.S al 0 sea {!3 5107. 4 as earlwrs L. r fy�• S el iron Si �.1�..af�a � ° Paws!Si IMO 1St a saw , a• ett aia .� - _ • Original 1997 EA — Intent of 800 Homes and 4 . 38 Acres/ Lot „ _ 1. From the 1997 EA for Beebe Draw Farms (PLR ) Pursuant to the env prqosM action. the District could scare water to mut devilment needs by purctiasi, Sirs of CDT war. The car ,yes would be . trasfated to the Csitrsi Id Wits taussmtlan District in emthwqs for LnaLwd water Silvered to the SV&Ip * per intrpaverital prwimrK• The pr . residential devehjauvt and equestrian mar could include app. 3.E00 ins of land dud' could be developed to soae i '. J2S retina lthri 1e MO fleila• fw11Y uMt residences . The project wand liduds u ,t. x.700 sera of p'óSsbe1t buffer cones . Mi additional 2 , MS acres could be lid fray the Parrs Reservoir mid lrrlSion Cpany (FRI ) for aesthetic aid nensttarl pw'psis . Suggest pres.rving the original Intent of this subdivision by capping this deval . � ameM at BOO sfnglsfamlly residences and requiring the overall ratio of lots to total land be maintained at�acresAot to present the open nature. EXHIBIT p ,1/4» F 7-4 iciect ?.? Weld County Planning Plannin Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1402N . 17th Avenue / PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 planning@weldgov.eo Date : August 3, 2025 Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, My name is Linda Cox, and I have been a resident of Pelican Ranch since 2003 . I 'm curious as I read through the document you submitted to the BOCC approving the application submitted by REI/Terra Forma. Decisions were made on a red-lined, unprofessional Narrative document that should have been updated and corrected in the two years since it was written. • REI /Terra Forma has held only one meeting, on July 21, 2025, to communicate their intentions and get feedback from the PLR community. This meeting occurred after the application was submitted and served only as an informational session not a collaborative planning meeting. They state that they have given updates at the Authority Board Meetings, but minutes do not show the updates, and very few people attend Board Meetings in the Maintenance building. • The elephant in the room that the developer ignores is DENSITY. Simply put, there are too many homes and very little green space. Filing 2 does not look anything like Filing 1 . (Exhibit 1) You do not have to do the math to see the difference. The developer has been very creative in finding green space, even using existing green space in Filing 1 that is flanked by housing on Essex and Stoneleigh Roads. This manipulation violates Weld County's intent under Chapter 23 -3 - 10, which requires compatibility with surrounding areas. • The "market driven pace of twenty-four (24) lots per year" maybe overstated. Weld County is currently recording its highest housing inventory since 2011, with 1,471 active listings, including 306 properties that have recently seen price reductions. This is an issue and will impact funding and how infrastructure, emergency services, and school capacity are planned and allocated. This trend indicates a softening market and reduced buyer demand. Complicating the issue is : "A recent report from the Common Sense Institute (CSI) shows that Colorado now ranks 50th in the nation behind every other state and Washington, D .C.-in terms of housing affordability." (Exhibit 2) . Approving this plan on speculative absorption rates contradicts Rule 2025 - 01, which requires economic feasibility and timely phasing. If oversupply continues while new developments are approved, such as the PUD amendment in Filing 2, it could lead to inflated projections, underutilized services, and misaligned funding priorities. Planning decisions must reflect actual market conditions to avoid straining taxpayer resources and community systems . 1 Pelican Lake Ranch has a storied history of buying houses when the prices were high, then devalued when the economy soured. Too many people were upside down on their mortgages. Bankruptcies, lost jobs, and vacant houses prevailed. • The Development Standards/Concepts calls for a separate HDA with its own Covenants and Design guidelines. This concept doesn't work when houses of both filings abut each other. Filing 1 for example, does not allow chickens and farm animals. This design will create conflict and confusion and fail to meet 2025- 01 's standard for consistent governance in interdependent developments. • The Construction Phases should be firm, not open to change or whim. Vague or fluid phasing undermines service planning and violates Rule 2025 - 01's requirement for predictable phasing tied to infrastructure. • A 2 -mile roadway in filing 2 will provide an additional marked lane for the safety of pedestrians and bike riders. Weld county calls for a 10' wide + 2 -foot shoulder lane. 8' is an absolute minimum, and ideally aim for 10'- 14' plus the 2 ' shoulder. This needs to be identified in the drawings, as it may affect lot sizes. This must be shown clearly in final plat and engineering plans to meet safety and roadway design standards. • The existing public improvements in Filing 1 are exceptional, but over-stated in scale. The swimming pool has a capacity of 22 . The other pool is a baby pool. It is a single sports court where tennis, basketball, volleyball, and soon pickle ball can be played. The Community Information and Sales center is not open to the public but can be rented. It was once used as a Community Center and gathering place. These amenities are not sufficient for another 284 homes. Milton Reservoir used to be considered an amenity until our 30-year lease expired, and we did not have the funds to outbid a sporting outfit. We can look at it but cannot trespass. Our view now is blocked by a 30' tall sand hill where mining will continue for the next 20 years . These facts directly contradict the developer's description of amenity capacity and demonstrate that new amenities must be identified, bonded, and included in the PUD. Filing 2 has only one area designated for an amenity. That amenity should be identified. If left up in the air, it will likely never happen. There is no money for new amenities, unless a bond is issued. Rule 2025 -01 requires that all amenities be clearly defined and financially guaranteed as part of the PUD. • Pelican Lake Ranch, though only a 15 -minute drive to either Platteville or LaSalle, is remote. Electrical and internet services are often disrupted, especially at peak usage times. For several years we have applied for grants for fiber optics and have asked the developer to help with the expense, since it would serve Filing 2 as well. Infrastructure inadequacies are not addressed in this PUD application, despite known issues and population doubling. 2 • In this application, REI/Terra Forma should have included the new entrance on County Road 39. Something as big as this should not be an afterthought amendment. Access and traffic plans must be part of the initial PUD, not deferred. Our community has learned to ask for everything in writing, so there are no surprises. We do not like seeing an incomplete list of referral cases, nor do we like that Platteville has not been involved in the planning process as a new population will have a major effect on their schools. We have been deceived on many occasions. Please don't let this happen to you. Thank you, Linda Cox 16485 Ledyard Rd. S . Platteville, CO 80651 3 1 /30/24, 8:00 AM 02-Drawing- 11 inches tall copy.jpg pelican Lake Ran ch EMI OM Si xisting 1l1n - _ _ - It e gee::i y7.5:irealiwitmagra3/4...s.....mitutH., • --'vim`_- _ • all • Ili- Nit:\ .; sea: I. mop I a. itS�: 11151 /li a a It =ZOO •J .� lap Ilya, ,. . ..„ • / *rap _ 111514 . i I ! \ , .)41:42-eq a:----..... t hal los ^ --s --o I \ • • ' w at _it t ni / tli,ild. 1 04A1 NIF 4 t 4 - -' e‘ ____set, ,,i, i • IAA f u •,a l .--......r A0 • 11.44 111 14311 al,`� r HI 1 i.'.. F _ .dr 144, • ii` l . e'^ . s�� P ' 1 ' 1 ' ,yI � 14, - . 'i - f f 1 ,!• ^tom 7 i.., e l { •a I Ill lot lia VI M iW5tF bra :I 1"IWO o 14 41 1y iThI.• l+5 �, III T poktNull • ��r S 0 tiler :� t, f� 11Y r ti.th ' ' toil .tY - •� - {, _ � r t..- - x•" 41► ? &1Ptzt ts.I ox• _ _ _ �ip.Z. Jr"- a __ oak • 4049,t 4 , las ti lit Illti spit I� r'' 1`,i i •I if [ .." A,PI I .to rlf eM J.ill �� . lit r M y `` 7 +��rr F -P. 1 a x : ra�+11 air 11411 I" ,1 I link. is* F+a In 4 r/�. 3 • tit .1 -- 7..r._ Wiik $34 illifr• t i)) fr _ice tat, r . IS 1 141 'N' 1 el 411 Apr .N Ilb. 0.41,1\s_. 49 -' ' Ahill6 _ �: " r �11 �' A _- r�rrth ....,. i : . ...ts, . ...iti• F • �.M - fj'1 ei -VIDfr .., r, ,I'-"i' - �.` -.I ‘. e oldll i 44? 1 annr I /1 1 : . 4:i D1/4 17 a; ealliblkH. ;67` Cw - i. Ji grat i+a-.al � .. ,ter• '�M �i 'iJ -r. /LiPar tit _ ,_mss.- -- , ,: �r."�•Sl .tlti Ilia ..rte. a• ... • C~ w.a�ot 3aatt • t -. �= "vim. N _ � - _ � _ I �. ♦ .,.. _ i~ `- at:-.2, � J4_ �sj}� .... - rs•,! I�_1 _ _sss 'cc- 4s u (' 4 it >ea:� —o a. Ka. ea •'� aa�ki /Mslall �"��' "i'+��. . y' {'��,^.�.�- or `-� +. I. as Oils w01+•r : , .r• .rr�ri ��. s. "'— s=rte • -- r�'S. ti -�•J•, att. '>, ,!{ate AMENITY AREA FS A *� -1 mot ` se v. * f y=. y 0 • k. ■`� / .. T''J• v a ; . '.Cf �y'� 1 i at A— __ u I i -•�.� A ` - — - - '� ' t_ti.'•.41..• f ��' ,i., E � ` Y — �! WINDA &9 Ili , v • . sagla *In WALK1N(MORSE 1/41/4 "la \yes RIDING TRAILS P. t �� 1. .�.. _ �.s. s, •*taro, eta lss a, eiI 3a S' _ ♦ X,PII PATH 6 KErWrALIK 1' 1 f t•A • al• 'Sit i..i(. f y g-�'r ,r J"`" .. J� •. r '�'-• ♦♦+an�aYFa•+�P�•! >__I ' I' �.1 r t rill 1st•r� 1 t , , ti+ ♦',w + L► - 4 i aar" , �s 41. ip---- .-- _, �L1 • rRfR" .LA 's 'PROPOSEDOIL SER • CCil..•/• }'Y y� f .1 •PIP el r"" sus -' - — k ROADS Nib IMil a .. • -a If 4,w 140IIIDI 5+' r '�. . f 411 a!AL• it.+ • V w {� 25' `yQ SETBACK c�p iFr� [/�. PLUGGED 1y+� G f�.yp r�y�y 'a .y._a.a Fiti , .• 0... ,r,fr........PO I . • ..: r A+If�! lil I �,F�� _ and ABANDONED and A. �I r- I JRIR}S^, S3S0T0a1 CS KETWBAATcEKR3W:LdLS ...014/40 a eir ....pp a . t MI ar a I Irik Ili ill• '. i, Las= _ fit\ .18:0 4 ro pose . - 1L1�# fp - Si� - PRODUCING WELLS ,ter ...erAaC-gni I I "•.it . s 3. R .„_ ,., tatli OIL TRANSFER LINES - /IT - -.... a I **tr.** einglaSini •akirlb- .....1%) le a -__. ''y •i� / .ia• .r, �* . �1 far ` d r - +1� - _ , /L1► •A PROPOSED A }� OIL SERVICE • x.3.8 � 411 .a•r 1. a. -- , a ►+r,a. A ,•• r' .r ROADS....Cat F r� I, 'CS 4 14e �'• lige s`.�'''i. \....d.-ea w fi.v. at Illit1.�'f OPEN SPACE w.v , IPn \ ' . l�+s, p ' ' fF� • •i 0 EN $6 ACE Nit' ��FrSINI .�.�ese FFF •�I" MS ail. Lek +4 • ►. ZTr * •W2r I ,• ,• �. tt. ,z1/4 J•. i,►S'Z •� i.� We UM �p ate. NSW /� .y��ty •� H J girt, Liilip II+ ' V+ ` I �V� a✓� �� We UM hil.WS. NS W M44 P 1'JB,Aa. ,.ASS• �, ._Ili or ea a r ,.. 181•QleplJf��IInTii: Ft: 60 1f , � .. I -�- alit 77 4 3 ' • ~1y .IA�.� tl7i F - . N.If/iiiiise 11 JIL ir- I r . . ,. . AA v. i ` i'� _ }ly/Leb ODiAYYes IPA 1 •+'► .., % a`Y '� ' _�Pt --s7Lisnit �� f1N�lnni....,, ,I _ St 1". Mil .. . •.r ti -mil v "� rl.r 44* i44Nn 2ii__ J • ,, vCounty 32 - e a r ' Ts htt s://mail. oo le. com/mail/u/0/#inboxiTMfc zGwJvICxC kJ'xsWKtb NRRhbKm? ro'ector= l &messy ePartld=0. 3 1 1 1 /1 p 9 9 9 9 J P p 1 9 111CC of Common Sense Institute Colorado • • ° '5e' og Colorado is dead last in the nation for housing • affordability - even surpassing D . C . Reasons for this ranking include : - severe housing shortage - rising homeowner workload 4 - continued permitting gap Read all the insights in CSI 's housing affordability update : hittps : //bitily/3GOWRIli = Read the article : https : i/bit . Iy/45s70d1 TFIEDAHY SENTINEL " A RECENT REPORT FROM THE COMMON SENSE INSTITUTE ( C51 ) SHOWS THAT COLORADO NOW RANKS 50TH IN THE NATION - BEHIND EVERY OTHER STATE „. AND WASHINGTON , D . C . - IN TERMS OF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY . " -T. �r LI* t%) ! COMMON SENSE INSTITUTE A 1 1 � '� '.-. t wM1r h5l N5 [ . :i : l t I ,. IiY,: t, u . , P4 • '1 tz EXHIBIT p ‘ib 2t(25 Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24-0001 : Th ePro pos ed PUD Final Plan for SecondFiling of Be abe Draw .Fa r r s To : Wetd County Board of Commissioners Subject: Formal Opposition to the Planned Unit Development ( PUD) Final Plan Submitted by REP , LLC Dear Commissioners, We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Beebe Draw Farms and the surrounding communities, respectfully petition the Weld County Board of Commissioners to deny the approval of the recently submitted Planned Unit Development ( PUD) amendment by REI , LLC. The proposed amendment represents a substantial and unwarranted departure from the original PUD that was approved and under which our community was planned , developed , and purchased by individual tot owners . The revised proposal threatens the welt- being, character, and infrastructure of our community, and it disregards the original intent and commitments made to current homeowners . Key Issues with the Proposed Amendment: 1 . Unjustified Increase in Density Without Supporting Infrastructure The new application proposes over 200 additional residential units far exceeding the original low- density framework. This increase wilt overwhelm existing infrastructure, including roads , water resources, and emergency services, all of which were not designed or approved for this level of development . 2 . Inclusion of Legally Unverified Land The revised PUD includes approximately 422 acres of land that remain under legal question , with no publicly verified documentation confirming REI , LLC 's ownership or authority to develop, This raises concerns about the legality and procedural integrity of the application . The deed to the land was fraudulently obtained when Developer and D2 board member Hethcock insisted on transferring land from the Authority to REI , bypassing District 1 written approval as required by the Beebe Draw Farms Authority Establishment Agreement. 3 . Environmental and Public Health Risks There is a lack of comprehensive environmental planning or mitigation in the new proposal. Concerns include inadequate drainage, oversaturation from too many septic systems too closely placed , potential contamination from dredging near Milton Reservoir, insufficient open space , and other ecological disruptions that could pose direct risks to both residents and local wildlife. 4. Disregard for Original Community Vision and Covenants Beebe Draw Farms was established with a clear commitment to rural, low- density living, with equestrian and agricultural elements central to its character. The new PUD abandons that vision and violates the spirit of the original covenants and design guidelines that current residents retied upon when investing in their properties . 5. Absence of Transparency and Public Engagement The revised PUD application was submitted without adequate notification , consultation , or meaningful engagement with affected residents . Numerous objections and concerns voiced by the community have been ignored . Our Request : We urge the Weld County Board of Commissioners to deny approval of this proposed PUD Final Plan in its current form . In addition , we respectfully request the following actions be taken : • A thorough review and side- by-side comparison between the original PUD and the proposed Final Plan . • Format verification and public disclosure of landownership and water rights by the applicant. • Completion of an independent environmental and infrastructure impact assessment. • A structured public engagement process that allows for transparent, meaningful input from the community before any further consideration of this application . Approving this amendment would set a troubling precedent, one that compromises established development agreements, disregards stakeholder trust, and accelerates the erosion of Weld County's rural character. We ask that you stand with the residents of Beebe Draw Farms in protecting our community, our environment, and our future. Respectfully, [Signature Page Attached / Online Signatures Collected] t Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24- 00Oi : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filingof Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date �loHn Sle,)-CT 9%traieN.-„.. ((Pliqck kfls5 , ibc— • YNC-' \to v.* i.p,svp ‘ . a v. , , • r7 C / al ati • • - .--- se" ' 4— A- *le _ ' c;aa b dr ° ^ a role. J*� cr ot. 7L ""'_. /áfl , ,LAs 7//;/jjr_ figiAM AMbEs .: &tat- &Al % cariftett Res VaptS '�,K�mitir 411€4es r I i kifa 7/to /c lA5i-Annit Ystersidt±re) •� ra A.a�� _ N 4 cask it. S\ OKe1cG S1..04( S lftofrr crevo 0 e i . 1 Vino S'leotArtc ii.4�r1-1 c/ iC we-lv" J?th3ne4 i 7 • ice i i .04‘ IC tivr,scAcelita .A," ' - ,,,,c--6Qexe , IL6- 611 Eist ,,‘, 0 . I gyoyskr • ist),,i.4 _o.t.c., 0,4 _ ite -ei,- 169 %, it: A_7,5.----- ---- wt\css 47,,, ,i,, , , it -prs . 7 / ai / a5 c- ,---c.„. 4% ;\\(:34Nd tst\cd c-‘, .. c_66 , de.,.,_______L—___-) irecc\ (: \cisc& K, , ,,,,,,_3_ � - . ` / tb9gs Ca \caoY.s Or S . 7 l @I l a5 a riSile A dis ae-Z, /‘&79 4 eoll• 40,4 S ? /1247/25 iabLra �f Qle.. ce..,.,L,_„._ i- !cos / 7 1 - ( inb iZd <, _7/a 1107 s JA it!{$ke 2'.2.fiserib----- I&5sO1 F2*iransI24 hi _ r7 /.24w So Sat xcccsee , ,,50 , cothrk,e,a, ps, IQ _ n 12.242-5- . h e r - clieckels IG Li ? y E-55.eck goi s 7 / zó / zs Ar inA-uv1 &1t4Cr `'sp k1/40q15-E5 is \. -actoka5 , 2 • Petition to Deny_Apparoval of PUDJ24OOO1 : The Proposed PUB Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Petition Signature Page Please clearly print your name, sign, and provide your full address and date. Printed Name Signature Full Address Date J--e 55 ca. -Rtr kid eur At -\ Ar i 4_, Y45> -• ' "kith 9 119111_ , raja'e4 . safte) BviLA • &QM iki „ (.f-Stme-- IA(t c_A- ' - kaG admii -,-, - IF d;eiti eitiiimptistifim/ rarrall ` � .' ` � � r i _ MEI I _ _ , i. UNA za�SJ VA-, _ t N C,,,, t 6'10.41C# d11\1\ , En I N iCn, , 16 4i r-N ` z s . kifik 780(1092..-cc I illrarnillitcca Foci/6k vcr ( - xi / NMI Cr Q ise. it Hi ret Ai 1 11 d T : L: ! -1, ENVOIS 1)0 A Pei- e on f i (0 Li S Masnie LA k INA *4, 0;411A 1!,g. ' a k-tH.1--- (0S-- er 1 Fraff Iii _k__ _I a a _ Arrinvc-e i _Asi; t ifiligk_ isev° it .1C-egirga 4 ' ce; liN ili, nfirar - Fine Metrair , ' C), ,Ku1/4) s, ' I Witrriti ( " 670 -93ee- ' • w . 1-3 ‘ C. -VA raw _ ( I rtr—VA Wil _ erkt . cocoo iseet.. , dice 0 -) Id_ .lorY Cam - - I : asks �� .� . , , to I � 4 �-1 �� c _ �. � fi 70� 1/4 ,t 1 ' _ Uiran1/4 ) i 7re sic le- IA ' ' . ,. _ CO /Viki i lick _ i , Ft i 190, i bsc/ v i i' ) / c )--1 ra - ; � . c( 11 , � � � he Ls rY./ ( 4141-4 _ 1 A - , i JQwLe, \JCoOdt kg� � _ � itqcsi 1 Biil.54. -±li- o2‘ i 3 Petition to Deny Approval of PU0F244 001: (1)) The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date a _ • 14iijtO _gtg%eiffiglkNeMIIIiiia "Ill(PIP - - / 7 /7101411.10.1MARPOOS. 411111111r- ar , / �C � .6 b � . I rir /4 Ili %kcN c ;4 4 7/Z44r 5 \ vi & Ltcsev ( 05oct eNdevi;a-60 4,1 Ivo ] t.s- t/Ithos4 _ /64sYv,c2-45zezooge,./ 7vizions:- Leon Atilt/ - ) Leq624Q? 6,3rey� �� S . 711c-2 /tir� � tic V' � �-C " � � �1� Rp( 5 { /,��i/�= _ Ac\i\\et, 4 -s&cc,_ ! � �.!.� �v� loLiclv : Le- Draw ¶ rM 7 AQ AS- V3 ( 1-4., :\4esswjcC1:1e.,�(-�lk . Il()y-1 1 ,aavide ;�l �r, C -7/ a(0 /9_s 51'oxonTj io ? . ,. at - 1.--;ifra5 Laffi S ' QJNeltr _ T4P / o . j"T ola / of. 7:26 -af (12%) cry‘ ka... I_Leguili 5 _ Buraigrj, eis28 °% ac Ktf,a- dr • Il 0i6P lattveittli q/ref/e A. / j. fliZte tp, _ 91,/its0,,,,, 4007,4r_ QTamitt± Kolotkided 1 -• , , , r4, (14r _ tit.cAi s 71 /ac __kti et/21,a_?ri /4ifse.,auct _ Thiei '� �'aJdc= �eu �, 4, - /b /97ICc4rned ) S , (c- I - Zb _ Petition to Den fA poval of PU F24-000 .: The Proposed MD Final for SecondF In . of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Pull Address Date m S — T 4 1 ii �♦ _� ' � - - � v Wit. ♦ � f ~ � a ` eft i 1' � • 1� - r . - +rti- _ 4, r +�ara�r _t _ • -. - b - +H. - _ - Ir y.• 4 MiAVIVAPVit4ler :4 // 02 I-411_.,61.h, tt CI 1 Irk ii2S hildnam.t arretes:'"eer. tfir,906 7/21/ -7 asksilitifre, -7 tin ) . r - +l _ Aabilikintsc* iHNiL-4, 2010 ) 14._(iisa,Ans&_oivact r - 3inieditky ?Marataves2e- viJ*-9O/ 16 co2 Ey' sir 7(e2-7-72 • - 5-4 Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24-U041 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for .Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Petition Signature Page Please clearly print your name, sign, and provide your full address and date. Printed Name Signature Full Address Date _ _ • It . _. • AiblAWAVIS % dai a _ • La Ida- COV 41-7(lOt.- L---rri/iNg / 6, 475 leceta4d C is 2,0 25 • c . Imre, ice les • pd . & 07 icy SAL- iloatosiutp., I 1 ,16qc9 iseistk. I St. siligiaST AinAltriet tet G201 _ e4- - hirne\CtektlintV a _ _ /Kt sten 430 e. Le. s meile, PY ; Tat. • /gbh . ( )1 0: 4. SI . ) vP if 3 - / ea, r‘ . N° , ibl(91 \ TE.:>JSYS Vak it )125 Jak . f__"?Afitik _ _ `raa ,: c / - crtai 4..; ' 1) 1/6 44.r ! frit 14CYP kit sai MIA knxigiS re) IL 4-75--- ) Jo fw � � & �la . ' ILcAt YB 'l Leda„-,nc 7114141 Jo ` 0 _ Orfc - 1 -90 'Eva 7119 )? ki ,6011(e9 AtirSedialefi; ( ) 096 WCIBILICI J142- 57 Ae,04- "'' . �". `"� t - A6493 ••‘)wart III S mictetr PetItion to_l er Ap nova of PU . F2 - 000l : The Pro used PIM Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date MaNNS NLW434as ictkssavv-"vnmtos-...‘ Cs:s 49thrp5 -7\\*-1S- 1 V - 1 - Petition to Deny Anoroval of PUDF24-0001 : The Proposesl PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date • CI I . i9 'vi4qLyc / 7 �<r �s re 47 -c 47/4A/k/ G c CI Tie saiVe 17?, t 0 %. cif 6z rc Lel:A. K4L " a' ces7 ix r sa: VfAircsetvJ - /fr471f3 BdAtE2ijI44jls`_ ki4/fiDypterio5 ��291z3-- 4skircit Polo( nc. n - * 10 < c) codas, le I 11.2Js- for,-, C-3- 4++ ben-) ilettrD Le..6410d4.5, ft- d�ag 'it) 7 2 2 --- or\ ni-s- Lpocit _ TICe �� u� _ -7-/a4fa� .37t_ e \ r ° ` a— _ c9 &St athr jiztyr , /6064 69.94 . X29 . 2025 3 % 414i. � orhrocc ` a,.�� res�6 Es � r � i2� 1 74c-7// pc az/ / � nPe �orhpiss Ør . /� '6 ( Petitef pUDF24-Q001: The Proposed PUD final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date 61 .5 lacti eatx 1ao1Esstxflg722 ji) 7-92 2 PQUti•oniojkny of P L - 0 f l j The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date _ _ mac" � �' v r delSEEESe ♦ a l/ - . ._ _ - �. - �. rere _-- /, , •. v.-. wr y^ # ,thitiVi (r •1 ' ritice(„sacc. utc\ lh 4, 7Adrio,/ , .. FA; . , _ z 1 07 de- A, jet Sett-,) u 104elk 4 / .- / r 16n ' wk . ell 74.750/CH I , (6-0 Uelk 4- Ot .,.... \. , r ‘...%.4. t r tr. / 1 Ctlea, ( if ' . - ---P:re-K-/- z esize---9i ikettc 7 510 ("ti 4 Re.5 7/7o/.z rzatili , i p a i fre? i an.t.)- -- tha0,10/1_, . i /714( / / /,,,i / at / it _it /7 _ ( 112 4€ 7 , (_.- ..,...) L. --- I i i'� . , 1 , , ` - a - i 1. Petition to Deny Approval of P DF - 000i The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Film of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date .V' 07./k- 0 7C9tc55o 'd346 arc 7,,ca, ...efaencviffe ce bv-ep Litrtir,/&5 S I f . 0 • gm Pet*tion to Deny Approval of PUDF24- 0001 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe_ Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date_ _ _ 'Rog esiblUgj k to_ So 13 !/1.9.7, r„. Jecestpr,1/444, _ _ smerit,i a60 -vv/oz," rkr AnqT! ' r4k . . - �.J� ,� AA5flfliEtEtci-j . - 3/ 7?.�r _ aeyarst .45kne,16 , 31e°75 P 71 L(. a �� Arle ' ct � 16q ) ? S•r AA/ el.cLia in L,ne ct 2r"' __ ..DatetiTh Q. _ arria4 141(19 Nontklits Z s 7/is VezA f 4 - tit Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24. OOQ1: The Proposed PUP Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date pia\ ( -4—IA4o „„. MarkstivN t rw1 , 906-2,37- t°1771811 amor a Ms7o AAA/ r ' RA 'V 009/2sr jjj ' r>n' - �i� /ao/ BaJAfrn4fa3fi/ 7/fl /aoes • ( , Petition to Deny Approval oval of PUDF 40QOO1: The Proposed PUB Final P1an1or $econd F lin of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date acs \ , 2. LLL';\ \U'„ L7ka-:et:-)6'ccdo , _- - 4 4 144-- Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF'24- 0001 : The Proposed PUD Final Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date t6ecy de� 4.).k, ' dit6 seieinste,se, gp47 ) 0%0 x sea 011/4402e5s* 1 (%) fjfltlon to Deny Ap The Proposed P F' I ar c Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature Full Address Date Joe- Sea cr S _ aq.mss- N1A e 1\1\0 calf\ cuL (n. Be lei col ASS 6624, S . 7 z9 � Z5 Zeitleg P-4),A3 igq7/ /5,-5EA rt)• 54 (1/126?-5- Lit • Petition to Deny Approval of PUDF24-OQQ1 . The Proposed PUD Ffnal Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Printed Name Signature I Full Address Date 3-014A) 6 A-latti* C 91L, b4 S% Cse K- s- S Sia s' S 6 64 be (IA- (541`") * /bat-€.4-4:4 i 6110 r-Atlic hit Anesbit at-a/a s I *Hit, 64±eacni ki cat rnpveyfocis bits :--7 /cyr/bv cre Dvits) lite) (SQL 14e / Wcie7 icteic64-435 7 /3okS "'LC Ma-441v\ ‘24444- 1440L•tt-t---- ibgq11- 6-irtictatks br S 1/ I ;as- _ EXHIBIT 10 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 July 7 , 2025 Subject: Formats Objection to Filing 2 Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners , As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms , I 1 OV¼OCC r'sl.a_- _ �strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development . This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements . The proposal fails to maintain the intent, density, design , and land use balance approved in the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . Why This Filing Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density increase Filing 1 consisted of only 188 Lots across 1 , 163 acres , equating to 0 . 16 lots per acre . Filing 2 proposes 285 tots on only 105 . 5 acres an enormous jump to 2 . 7 lots per acre , nearly 17 times denser than Filing 1 . This change is not minor or incidental ; it fundamentally alters the rural character of the development and imposes undue strain on infrastructure and community resources . 2 . Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity ( Chapter 27 Violation ) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27 , Section 27 -2 -210 . B, any subsequent filing must preserve the overall density, design standards , and intended land use of the original PUD. Filing 2 : o Shrinks lot sizes dramatically o Replaces estate lots with tightly packed homes o Removes equestrian trails and open space buffers o Adds no new amenities or community features 3 . These are not minor changes . They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by taw. The proper path is a new PUD application , not a "continuation " 4 . Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing1 residents . Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities--no traits , parks , open space, or recreational facilities , placing an unfair burden on current homeowners. 5 . Inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps" are being offered . These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents. 6 . Unsafe Setbacks and Oil & Gas Proximity Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former wells . These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7 . Lack of Community Input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes. The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood . Requested Action For all the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : • Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes, and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements. Sincerely, EXHIBIT i a . id. Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80631 pinaziIng c wive ] . com Date : Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025 - 01, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1, 163 acres . Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862 . 8 acres . This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices . No meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes . This is not a minor continuation it is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025 - 01 . I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations . Sincerely, EXHIBIT 3 L_: 2. Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80631 plafluiil T ci weld ov.con Date : P47--- Teat °i2s„ a 5.-- Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27 . Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025 - 01 , which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application . Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1 , 163 acres . Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862 . 8 acres. This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. No meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes . This is not a minor continuation it is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025 - 01 . I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations . a Sincerely, sc icroli-friA1-4 "" 161e#17-4.--- Alitc0 / F is c x ei /ii 1 ti / 1 As„(2/ ?L½ L, iJ) t EXHIBIT Pt2Pttf-000 i 145 From: Kevin Ross To: Esther Gesick; Maxwell Nader Subject: Fw: CASE PUDF24-0001 Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:10:37 PM Just received Kevin Ross From: MIKE SCHWAN <mjschwan@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1 :09: 18 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weld .gov> Cc: Jason Maxey <jmaxey@weld .gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld .gov>; Kevin Ross <kross@weld .gov>; Perry Buck <pbuck@weld .gov> Subject: CASE PUDF24-0001 This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it Concerns: I am writing to you to voice my concern regarding case PUDF24-001. Our community is composed of farms, ranches, dairies, oil and gas, and crucial high desert wildlife habitat, all of which will be severely damaged with the proposed expansion . We, therefore, oppose this case for the following reasons. The expansion of development is in direct conflict with the comprehensive plans for development. I urge you to please consider the following deleterious consequences this expansion would result in our community. 1. Inability of police and fire departments to properly serve what would be equivalent to a new small city. 2. Inability for already understaffed local schools to serve the increased amount of children . 2. Loss of crucial habitat and migratory corridors for bald eagles (eagles' nest in this area), whitetail and mule deer, foxes and coyotes, dryland tortoises, native amphibians, waterfowl, dove, assorted birds of prey and more. 3. Dust and traffic which contribute to stressors on wildlife and livestock. 4. Extreme fire danger in a hard to protect area . Ignoring what we learned from the Marshall fire would be ignorant to say the least. 5. Poisoning of water supplies for livestock, people, and wildlife due to lawn fertilizer and septic systems. 6 . This is a heavy oil and gas producing area , serious if not fatal traffic collisions with pedestrians and commuters are inevitable with the increased population . 7 . Inability of already overused water resources to supply the needs and wants ( lawns) of these residents . Please remember that we live in a desert ecosystem . Our community is composed of farms, ranches, dairies, oil and gas, and crucial high desert wildlife habitat, all of which will be severely damaged with the proposed expansion . Please do not approve this case for change of Zoning ! Thank you , Mike Schwan (970) 203 - 5396 EXHIBIT PU19 FA tool From: Esther Gesick Tot mason milligan Ca Maxwell Nader S u RE: la to Oppose PUDF24 1 Data: ThewlaY, Augusts. 20251:21:0'5 PM Anson image001 .pnq image002.pnq image003.png Hello Mason, Your correspondence has been received and, by copy on this response. I am sharing it with the Ptann ing Department to be included in the public record as an Exhibit. Thank you, \us.' ,f+c,, COUNTY. CO Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board Desk: 970-400-4226 Cell : 970-302-7415 P . O . Box 758 , 1150 O St., Greeley, CO 80632 Ox 621 Join Our Team IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return a-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: mason milligan <masonitoleman.milligan@gmaik m> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:35 AM To: Esther Gesick icegesick@weld.gov> Subject: Letter to Oppose PUDF24-0001 This Message is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking Mkt or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. Good day, I am writing to you to express my extreme concern regarding case PUDF24-001 . I and others in our community strongly oppose this change . The expansion of development in this area is directly contradictory to comprehensive plans for development to occur close to services . This would be creating urban sprawl. The ill effects of urban sprawl are welt documented and understood . I urge you to please consider these well understood effects including the following that relate to our situation specifically: 1 . Inability 0f police and fire departments to properly serve what would be equivalent to a new small city. 2 . Inability for already understaffed local schools to serve the increased amount of children . 2 . Loss of crucial habitat and migratory corridors for bald eagles (eagles nest in this area ) , whitetail and mule deer, foxes and coyotes , dryland tortoises , native amphibians , waterfowl, dove , assorted birds of prey and more . 3 . Dust and traffic which contribute t0 stressors on wildlife and livestock. 4 . Extreme fire danger in a hard to protect area . Ignoring what we learned from the Marshall fire would be ignorant to say the least . 5 . Poisoning of water supplies for livestock, people , and wildlife due to lawn fertilizer and septic systems . 6 . This is a heavy oil and gas producing area , serious if not fatal traffic collisions with pedestrians and commuters are inevitable with the increased population . 7 . Inability of already overused water resources to supply the needs and wants ( lawns) of these residents . Please remember that we live in a desert ecosystem . Our community is composed of farms , ranches , dairies , oil and gas , and crucial high desert wildlife habitat , all of which will be severely damaged with the proposed expansion . Please do not not bring about the peril of our community! Thank your Mason Milligan EXHIBIT c7 August 5 , 2025 Weld County Planning Service 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley CO , 80631 Attn : Maxwell Nader Case Number: PUDF24-0001 Change of Zone- REI LLC and Investors LTD , LLC I am writing this letter in opposition of the proposed change of zoning and development in case number PUDF24-0001 . It poses tremendous risks to the livelihood of land users in the area as well as the health and stability of the entire environment. Water and soil are foundational to every ecosystem - and both are at risk. When these critical resources are compromised , the health of humans and all forms of life that depend on them are jeopardized . The area is full of agricultural use that depends on healthy water and soil . Degrading these resources threatens not only their livelihoods but also the broader county economy, which benefits significantly from agricultural productivity. Livestock , like humans , are directly impacted by declining water and soil quality, making the protection of these natural assets vital to the long-term health and sustainability of the entire region . The predominant soil type in the proposed development area is Olney Loamy Sand , which is characterized by high sand content, excellent drainage , and low runoff potential ( USDA, 2005) . While this soil structure allows for rapid water infiltration and percolation (EPA, 2025) , it also presents significant environmental concerns , particularly when paired with increased population density and activities such as high-density septic system installations . Runoff from residential and commercial development—including pavement and concrete surfaces—will rise significantly with further development. With the addition of over 200 septic systems and increased potential for contaminated runoff, the soil's natural capacity to filter and treat wastewater would be severely strained ( Hygnstrom et al . , 2011 ) . In such sandy soils , untreated or partially treated effluent or contaminated runoff can rapidly migrate to groundwater, increasing the risk of contamination by pathogens and nitrates---posing a direct threat to public health through compromised drinking water supplies. Moreover, nutrient loading from septic systems can elevate nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in nearby surface waters, promoting harmful algal blooms . These blooms degrade aquatic ecosystems , impacting not only fish and plant populations but also birds and large mammals that rely on clean , functioning water systems . Over time , nutrient saturation will reduce the soil 's natural filtration capacity, further destabilizing plant communities and ecosystem function . Degraded soils ultimately lead to degraded ecosystems. This development would place the local environment---and the communities it supports—at significant and lasting risk. With a deep compassion for the health of the community and environment, I deeply oppose this proposal and urge the rejection by the commission . Canyon Jarbo EXHIBIT Puon11 -6001 5 q Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80631 July 7, 2025 Subject Format Objection to Filing 2 — Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I 614 anithel strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development* This application represents a major and unjustified deviation from the originally approved Filing 1 PUD and violates Weld County's Chapter 27 PUD requirements. The proposal fails to maintain the Intent, density, design, and land use balance approved In the original plan and contradicts the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Why This Filing Must Be Denied 1 . Unjustified Density Increase Filing 1 consisted of only 188 Lots e c ro s 1 , 163 acres, eq u ating to 0.16 Lots per acre. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on only 1 . 5 acres-man enormous Jump to 2,7 lots per acre, nearly 17 times denser than Filing 1 . This change Is not minor or Incidental; it fundamentality alters the rural character of the development and imposes undue strain on Infrastructure and community resources. 2. Failure to Maintain PUD Continuity (Chapter 27 Violation) Under Weld County Code Chapter 27, Section 27-2-210.B, any subsequent filing must preserve the mama density, design standards, and intended land use of the original PUD. Filing 2: O o Shrinks Lot sizes dramatically o Replaces estate Lots with tightly packed homes _ • 4i 4411 '016 14b o Removes equestrian trails and open space h ffe o Adds no new amenities or community features 3a These are not minor changes. They represent a substantial material change that violates the continuity required by law. The proper path is a new PUD application, not a "continuation." 4 . Elimination of Amenities and Public Services Strain Our community pool holds only 25 people and is already at full capacity with Filing 1 residents . Filing 2 adds hundreds of new residents without contributing any new amenities no traits , parks , open space, or recreational facilities , placing an unfair burden on current homeowners . 5 . Inadequate Water and Fire Protection Capacity The 2025 Can Serve Letter from Central Weld County Water District clearly states only " budget taps " are being offered . These may not support outdoor landscaping or fire suppression and pose a public safety risk for future residents . 6 . Unsafe Setbac a ' lkps PtrAgieity t A Filing 2 disregards oil and gas setbacks used in Filing 1 . Some homes are proposed within unacceptable distances of active or former welts . These reduced setbacks are inconsistent with state public health guidance and compromise homeowner safety. 7 . Lack of Community Input Residents were not consulted about these drastic changes . The plan violates the original vision that homeowners bought into and drastically changes the quality of life in our neighborhood . Requested Action For all the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to : • Submit a new PUD application if they wish to proceed with such significant changes , and • Align any new plan with the density, infrastructure capacity, and rural vision outlined in the original Filing 1 and Chapter 27 requirements . Sincerely, EXHIBIT Puvra u coot Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80631 planning@weldgov.com Date : Sal 30, " IS Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27 . Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025 -01, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1, 163 acres. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862 .8 acres. This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. No meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes . This is not a minor continuation it is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025 -01 . I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations. Sincerely, Akin:4 'nor a So/ ,8. JM'4y Mot " /20"PrX,,74, CV cY'c9‘ EXHIBIT POPraq•--0601 Off Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, Co 80631 planning@weldgov.com Date: Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 -- Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025- 01, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. y r 7 f / 9½! 't-& et r-- a -7tevs% l:G. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1 163 acres . Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on P � p p / approximately 862 .8 acres. This represents a significant incre e in density, undermining Careen i placing pressure on limited infrastructure. _ z the rural character ando greater - 6 -roc? "2C,- -S r•ats&t4ev 77? `WC, Se?Wg C-t/e- 6,a (r,r/ile The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates space buffers, adds w -r� � p p open no new r� ameniti , and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. No meanirigtuiI community in t was solicited for these drastic changes. This is not a minor continuation--it is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025 -01 . I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations. Sincerely, 40/2"04,1_g der /61-a/ a% % /(d /2/ /12 ?#),.// rh (F66 EXHIBIT PcwP8u -poi qg Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley, CO 80631 planning@weldgov.com Date 9e( r-7s .0.3c Subject: Formal objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development. It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025-01, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1, 163 acres. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862 .8 acres. This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. No meaningful community input was solicited for these drastic changes. This is not a minor continuation—it is a materially different development. It must be submitted as a new PUD per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025-01 . I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations. Sincerely, tti If Lt NCira OiX&) . tk ) 929Lc ( EXHIBIT PUPPY (lend ) io1 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 pianni aaweld. rn Date: T - fl rats Subject: Formal Objection to Filing 2 - Beebe Draw Farms PUD Dear Commissioners, As a property owner in Beebe Draw Farms, I strongly oppose the proposed Filing 2 submission for the Planned Unit Development It represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the originally approved PUD and violates Weld County Code Chapters 23, 24, and 27. Most importantly, it contradicts Ordinance 2025-01, which prohibits material changes in density, setbacks, amenities, and design elements without a new PUD application. Filing 1 consisted of 188 lots across 1,163 acres. Filing 2 proposes 285 lots on approximately 862.8 acres. This represents a significant increase in density, undermining the rural character and placing greater pressure on limited infrastructure. The proposal removes equestrian trails, eliminates open space buffers, adds no new amenities, and relies on budget taps for water that may not support landscaping or fire protection. Homes are planned closer to oil and gas wells than Filing 1 allowed, violating safety best practices. No meaningful community Input was solicited for these drastic changes. sop ' � rr� - -.-.. 1 o � This is not a minor continuation--it is a materially different development. It must be p submitted as a new PIM per the requirements of Chapter 27 and Ordinance 2025-01. I respectfully request the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners deny Filing 2 and require the developer to submit a new PUD application in full compliance with county regulations. Sincerely, (Cit;L *11,641.49"1 4,90CeSte0 / X99 &at ofrua EXHIBIT Pubragetiboi 1'OI From : john dillon <jwdillon44@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10: 10 AM To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld .co.us> Subject: PC Hearings COZ25-0003 Dear Ms. Snyder and Mr. Nader, Just learned that REI LLC, developers of subdivision adjoining the Coyote Creek Ranch has applied for change in zoning/ development of an additional 284 houses -- way more than doubling the subdivision . Such an ZjQcmQRYFpfptBa nnerSta rt This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified . ZjQcmQRYFpfptBan nerEnd Dear Ms. Snyder and Mr. Nader, Nader, Just learned that REI LLC, developers of subdivision adjoining the Coyote Creek Ranch has applied for change in zoning/ development of an additional 284 houses -- way more than doubling the subdivision . Such an expansion, particularly to the north and east encroaching on the wetlands surrounding Milton reservoir, will be huge negative impact on the wildlife in our area . No to mention problematic traffic volumes , fire danger, stresses to power /water/septic infrastructure and first responder service in emergencies . Vote NO on COZ25-003 LW. Dillon f + � � 11� � . • PITNEY 1.1��V�i��. .� Case # 1 Caso # PUDF24-0001 iM, E�� 1E .�• ', US POSTAGE Rot DENVER 8O2 ' � ' ' c4- 4== Name / Nombre : REI LTD Liability Co and Investors LTD Liability Co �,. - I.- • +� rs�rr A Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit ve + - er " tnu • , ;�' littir 111) 60631 Proposed Project: p P ,� � _ ., . .,� , .� $ 000 .�i 90 Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 284 residential lots with R- 1 Low-Density �� , . , � € 02 4 'V Residential Zone District uses Proyecto Propuesto : Uri pan de desarrollici especifico del sitio y un plan final de desarrollo de unidades planificadas para la segunda presentacidn de Beebe Draw Farms para 284 lotes residenciales con usos del distrito de zone residencial de baja densidad R- 1 . Location : East of and adjacent to CR 39 ; north of and adjacent to CR 32 * ° �' Weld County Planning Services este adyacente a CR 39 ; al none y adyacente a CR 32 . 'I_ ?.4 r 1 ---' I 1402 N . 17th Ave Ubicacion . Al y Y - Li, r • E �, a P.O.Box 758 Planner / Planificador: Max Nader I Greeley , CO 80632 PC Hearing Date : August 5 , 2025 at 1 : 30 p . m . PC Fecha de audiencia : 5 de agosto de 2025 a las 13: 30 horas BOCC Hearing Date : August 20 , 2025 at 10 : 00 a . m . Fecha de audiencia de BOCC : 20 de agosto de 2025 a las 10 : 00 horas -7---- '-'--- " r:rs--7:77/2 - ' -c7----r----\\.s, FARMERS RES & IRRIGATION CO ¢'.b i` COCH RAN BLDG 4 `y0`L DENVER CO 80202 .T cis ..' - rl•- J. nt r. fr' r` J. i EXHIBIT R. E T 5 . R f TO SENDER 1 . i puDraz Li •—roC0C11 -'1". N! 5::: 14c r .-7"--* T" r' T .i":": IN ""ir - A !). D F: czt 5 i NA . L. .E TO F 0 R W AR . . ��. , e, ,e' r< st -qs`. '�`j �.rs i ,jrl 5; P, C, A�: � e 5 . ".. el: a _,1.. !,.rs• 2. ^' 7- , r , !' l it t ll ji �� :� _ 1q' i� 1 f� nA {� , c� PL r)7 . �! J :' ;t J •' + :1 {• 7 l' u J " A i a i g 4 S2 t J U :� ! ? v y t'� lI \ ll v :t J :l SCI }; .i II''� ♦,EhE e-� 1lNy maw .Eap y,E.E *w �NrREEf fsE �, J �l i� :1 :� f :� vi y �I f J �• • n y Tf ♦n� yw s • J S({ lkl lry1 la r1 1)� fl �I 1 1p1 1•�l (1I� :L tl •♦I ( f� 1n y `L • a • . yam} ?1�` ,.may {.� �� T• r7� .1 • n " WI: 1 1 Jl •t .. II n rats ' t !, n Ir rl ti i n ii f ,i .! a .• '] i + 1 ^ 0 n •:1 Y �1 II Sl .l 4l h{ C (1 )l '1 FEEL♦ • kE11 _�E EE'�+ }ECM ati k� YK �� : J24 L) 9 •/l.� '�:/1 ('1I �t ' { l f ry p Ekk��EFEis wE.Eu`E si'�Ali�Tt rf-��EIE tom- MIiE E� <t r4 -r_ Fr .C� U 11 J i� ,� -,) �� l •,\ l <i Application Review Notification Card Tarjeta de notificacion i ' revisiOn t icac� on de revision de solicitud " �tti A public hearing will be held before the Vveld Se Ilevara a cabo una audiencia publics ante la Comision de '�;r ^ ; ;� Planificacion del Condado de Weld (PC) y se Ilevara a cabo una ,.__. � , County Planning Commission (PC) and a � , i audiencia posterior con la Junta de Comisionados del Condado - subsequent hearing will be held with the Board (BOCC) . Ar1� ias audiencias' i ' •::4_ s�� IV' - eras se Ilevaran a cabo en la Sala de J of County Commissioners (BOCC) . Both Audiencias, Edit rcio de Administracidn del Condado de Weld, hearings will be held in the Hearing Room , Weld County 1150 O Street, Greeley , Colorado. Tenga en cuenta las fechas y Administration Building , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. Please horas de audiencia que figuran en el otro lado de esta tarjeta note the hearing dates and times listed en the other side of this card Para el proyecto propu'esto . La Agenda se publrcara en nuestra for the proposed project, The Agenda viii!l be posted on our paging w'eb' una' semana antes de la audiencia. Las audiencias tambien se transrrritiran en vivo en I�tt,ps�lwww.weld. govl webpage one week prior to the hearing . The hearings will also be GovernmentlDepar tments/Coma issionersfpublic- Meetin_ s! live-streamed at hftpsJ/www.weld .qov/Government/peoartments/ Commissioner-Agendas-and-Minutes Com issisuers/Public-Meetings/Commissioner-Agendas-ande Minutes Sr desea mss rnformacion sobre esta propuesta y las condiciones que debe cumplir, el expediente es de information pubica y esta If you would like more information regarding this proposal and the disponible para su revisiOn en nuestra oficina. Tambien puede ver conditions that must be met, the the is public information and is el arch'rvo en linea en Accela Citizen Access. Haga clic en available for review at our office_ You may also view the file online at BOsqueda de permisos y, en la pestana Planificacion , seleccione Accela Citizen Access. Click on Permit Search , and under the "Buscar registros y permisos", luego inserte el ni mero de caso en Planning Tab, select "Search for Records & Permits", then insert the el cuadro % mero de registro. Los comentarios a objeciones rela- case number in the Record Number box. Comments or objections cionados eon is soiiciiud deben enviarse por escnto a Weld County related to the request should be submitted in writing to the Weld Planning Services, 1402 N . 17th Avenue , P . O_ Box 758 , Greeley, County Planning Services, 1402 N . 17"x' Avenue, P . G . Box 758, CO 80632, en o antes de la fecha de la audiencia publica . Greeley, CO 80632, on or before the date of public hearing. Todos los casos programados ante la Comision de Planificacion All cases scheduled before the Harming Commission are subject to estan sujetos a continuation debido a la falta de ` continuance due to lack of quorum o1 otherwise. Contact the quorum o de otra of Planning Services at (970) 400-6100 or email rnanera. Comuniquese con el (�epartamento de Servicios de Pla- Departmentnil`icacron al (970) 400-6100 o envie un correo electrOnico a pctechs@weld _gov for hearing continuance information . pctechs@weld.gov para obtener inforrnaciOn sobre la contin i .uacion de to audiencia. ATTENTION: Proposed Conditions related to this case are subject to change or removal at both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners TEI CI N: has condiciones propu+ s#as relacior�adas con este caso estan hearings. �sujetas a cambios o elimination en las audiencias de la Comision de lanifrcaciOn coma de la Junta de Comisionados . ComisiOn de Planificacion y la Junta de Comisionados Case # / Caso # PUDF24-0001 ' V '1,, ' " '•s US POSTAGE:mill `Cv ES f f'�TiUE I �i�WCJ Name / Nombre : REI LTD Liability Co. and Investors LTD Liability Co w _re 0 • • ,cc � eiffi =r , Aissis r�r •R 590 Proposed Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final w ii • . ZIP 80631 Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 284 residential lots with R- 1 Low-Density r '4 U a 02 4tvi $ 000 Residential Zone District uses a. it % ' 0000335769 JUN 20 2025 Proyecto Propuesto: Un plan de desarrollo especifico del sitio y un plan final de desarrollo de unidades planificadas para la segunda presentaci®n de Beebe Draw Farms para 284 lotes residenciales con usos del distrito de zona residencial de baja densidad R- 1 Location : East of and adjacent to CR 39; north of and adjacent to CR 32 . w1/4 . �r,pr ` Weld County Planning Services Ubicaci®n : Al este y adyacente a CR 39 ; al norte y adyacente a CR 32 1 .9 T!, $- ! ', 1402 N . 17th Ave Planner / Planificador: Max Nader L , nurt . f `P . O . Box 758 ` � 32 PC Hearing Date : August 5, 2025 at 1 : 30 p . m . .JJ . LJ ( PC Fecha de audiencia : 5 de agosto de 2025 a las 13: 30 horas , BOCC Hearing Date: August 20 , 2025 at 10:00 a . m . JUL 0 ,7 Z�Z5 Fecha de audiencia de BOCC : 20 de agosto de 2025 a las 10 : 00 horas .- Weld County Planning Department vii,‹ = f - r r��lk\J \St . _�__liNk ,\ ). ,,,,t ti NEW EXPRESSION HOMES LLC M . •: �� , 8734 LONGS PEAK CIR , •,'`•'` WINDSOR Co 80550 ii NI I L SOS ` E 1. 7 206 / 29 / .za R EXHIBIT RETURN TO SENDER: POT DELI E ABLE A ADDRESSED I b Oki . iit::: Itif -OO4 r UNABLE TO FORWARD 1 3 _ 32075858 * 196S - 04754 .- 29 - 1 _ 1 .��.,,.,.' ...,� .�ti', 1 1 C 806?i Ill 11 11 I i 11- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii11IIIia1 % iitiit11i11111i1it1ttliiiliililltitiliiili1iii IIIiii •ii Rli 5 Iii 1 1 ilil i9llli ! 9 i l � ii � 9 . � _ I Application Review Notification Card Tarjeta de notificacion de revision de solicitud -Z.4.40,2.6.1,0.- A public hearing will be held before the Weld Se Ilevara a cabo una audiencia publica ante la Comision de _ 4, ``, County Planning ( ) Planificacion del Condado de Weld (PC) y se Ilevara a cabo una P1.r r ..,; Commission PC and a i , , r �, ,, audiencia posterior con la Junta de Comisionados del Condado � . , � r L � subsequent hearing will be held with the Board (BOCC) Ambas audiencias se Ilevaran a cabo en la Sala de (' - - I i of County Commissioners (BOCC) . Both Audiencias , Edificio de Administracion del Condado de Weld , hearings will be held in the Hearing Room , Weld County 1150 O Street, Greeley , Colorado . Tenga en cuenta las fechas y Administration Building , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado . Please horas de audiencia que figuran en el otro lado de esta tarjeta para el proyecto propues#o . La Agenda se publicara en nuestra note the hearing dates and times listed on the other side of this card pagina web una semana antes de la audiencia . Las audiencias for the proposed project. The Agenda will be posted on our tambien se transmitiran en vivo en httr. sli www.weld.govl' webpage one week prior to the hearing . The hearings will also be Dover riiiien DepartnientsicommissionersiPublice eetingsl live-streamed at bttps ://www.weld . gov/Govern.rnent/Departrnerits/ Commissioner-Agendas-and-Minutes Commissioner"siPubliq-MeetingsiCornrnissioner-Agondas-and, Si desea mas informacion sobre esta propuesta y las condiciones Minutes que debe cumplir, el expediente es de informacion pUblica y esta If you would like more information regarding this proposal and the disponible para su revision en nuestra oficina . Tambien puede ver conditions that must be met, the file is public information and is el archivo en linea en Accela Citizen Access Haga clic en available for review at our office . You may also view the file online at BUsqueda de permisos y , en la pestana Planificacion , seleccione Accela Citizen Access . Click on Permit Search , and under the " Buscar registros y permisos" , luego inserte el numero de caso en Planning Tab select t "Search Records Q Permits" , then insert the el rt adrn NI_imern de renistrn i ns rnmpritarin¢ I1 nhierinnPc rela- �� , , r� � � �g �� , �e�2c� S2a� �� for .E�,orCis �� e� �rise� < the - - _. _ , -- case number in the Record Number box. Comments or objections cionados con la solicitud deben enviarse por escrito a Weld County related to the request should be submitted in writing to the Weld Planning Services , 1402 N . 17th Avenue , P . Q . Box 758 , Greeley , County Planning Services , 1402 N . 17th Avenue , P . O . Box 758 , CO 80632 , en o antes de la fecha de la audiencia publica . Greeley , CO 80632 , on or before the date. of public hearing . Todos los casos programados ante la Comision de Planificacion All cases scheduled before the Planning Commission are subject to estan sujetos a continuaciOn debido a la falta de quorum o de otra continuance due to lack of quorum or otherwise . Contact the manera . Comuniquese con el Departamento de Servicios de Pla- Department of Planning Services at (970) 400-6100 or email nificacion al (970) 400-6100 o envie un correo electronico a pctechs weld .gov for hearing continuance information . pctechs©welcd .gov para obtener informacion sabre is continuaciOn de la audiencia . ATTENTION: Proposed Conditions related to this case are subject to change ATENCION: Las condiciones propuestas relacionadas con este caso estan or removal at both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners sujetas a Crilbios o elirrrincicn en las audiencias de laorrrisiori de hearings. Planiticacidn como de la Junta de Com signados. t . Corms/OM de PlaniticaciOn y la Junta .de cotnisionada 4/. ( .ragii:14. • t:eh 1 . . vitrifies's' Case # / Casa # PUDF24-0001 � US POSTAGE Name / Nombre : REI LTD Liability Co and Investors LTD Liability Co. III I • , W:ti i CrillereallaNar Proposed Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final i I n�0 ' Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 284 residential lots with R- 1 Low-Density a to •�, '� +��ir _ �' �►'� ` Residential Zone District uses . 20 2025 Proyecto Propuesto : Un plan de desarrollo especifico del sitio y un plan final de des de unidades planificadas para la segunda presentacibn de Beebe Draw Farms para 2 lotes residenciales con usos del distrito de zona residencial de baja densidad R- 1 Location : East of and adjacent to CR 39 ; north of and adjacent to CR 32 ices Ubicacion : Al este y adyacente a CR 39 ; al norte y adyacente a CR 32 -i Planner / Planificador: Max Nader C 11 PC Hearing Date : August 5 , 2025 at 1 : 30 p . m . REcE \ILsy V PC Fecha de audiencia : 5 de agosto de 2025 a las 13: 30 horas 2 4 1025 BOCC Hearing August Au ust 20 , 2025 at 10: 00 a . m . JUN Fecha de audiencia de BOCC : 20 de agosto de 2025 a las 10 : 00 horas p��-�r��ngDepartment Weld Count , Ir I I IS 5 '1 1 � '1 _ ,, r k1 \spistr...ri .1,,,i7- -- : ,,:\.„....±: .. v ..J 1\V Iv ` r DI All F1/II I F rn RClFS1 - i yY F . v.. ..y_ I /,tk ae• 4-17 p(s / 2 2 if 2 EXFIi s- c A P. 'at-A • .n rs- Tsi i• .. ' '?` s Ti` 4:-. ' ,t 1 ` laM v •.. w:t a � :-� ?.r= �•� �.r •s w.• +.�� ; 'k . s n S v r '4�` aI s.► 't s sd. i Pr GOODSTOCK D } F M 3 1 _ Y N T ' E 7 ! N. '7"' P "is P . .. _- �! '1.011 a !. 4 •w 4� iv r .: N. � �i --a a� ,T a 7.3 f•. 4A.1� a 4I�11 EJ y.a Y x.a. M ii '? U N �1 ` Iat D{ ldI i, iAi1 fig, w,fi� p q I! ?' ? r h a a i ,p S` r� �4 1t ,Y � ll u Gg9 �a4 tai g ^ q r i �jgf3 d • 11 U i " . . I', h _ "i , „ ' Q. II Application Review Notification Card Tarjeta de notification de revision de solicitud A public hearing will be held before the Weld Se llevara a cabo una audiencia publica ante la Comision de ` ,� �'` Planificacion del Condado de Weld ( PC) se Ilevara a cabo una County Planning Commission (PC) and a audiencia posterior con la Junta de Comisionados del Condado : r l_ subsequent hearing will be held with the Board (BO � ) Im, b s audiA ri se l !e ran a n An Ia la dA I - L - -- ' --, . ,V/ r. 1/ C , . /A' 1 , n! `I V.{ \A I V n a V .S/v a .,. . � cabn b V . . .M v/ ,v 4 V L. == of County Commissioners (BOCC) . Both Audiencias , Edificio de Administration del Condado de Weld , hearings will be held in the Hearing Room , Weld County 1150 O Street, Greeley , Colorado Tenga en cuenta las fechas y Administration Building , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado . Please horas de audiencia que figuran en el otro lado de esta tarjeta para el proyecto propuesto . La Agenda se publicara en nuestra note the hearing dates and times listed on the other side of this card pagina web una semana antes de la audiencia Las audiencias for the proposed project. The Agenda will be posted on our tambien se transmitiran en vivo en ,https ://www.weld .govi webpage one week prior to the hearing . The hearings will also be Goverr mentiDepar-tments/Commissioners/Public Meetings/ live-streamed at I titps://www. welargoviGovernmentiDepaltniemst Commissioner-Agendas-and-Minutes Con issiOnerslPubhc-Meetings1Connnissioner-Agendas-andl Si desea mas infarmacion sobre esta propuesta y las condiciones Minutes que debe cumplir, el expediente es de information publics y esta If you would like more information regarding this proposal and the disponible para su revision en nuestra oficina . Tambien puede ver conditions that must be met, the file is public information and is el archivo en linea en Accei_ Citizen Access. Haga clic en available for review at our office . You may also view the file online at Busqueda de permisos y , en la pestana Planificacion , seleccione Accela Citizen Access . Click on Permit Search , and under the " Buscar registros y permisos" , luego inserte el numeeo de caso en Planning Tab , select "Search for Records• -t Permits" , then insert the ei Wadi () ivurrlel u de registru . Los comerliar ius u objec;iurres teid- case number in the Record Number box. Comments or objections cionados con la solicitud deben enviarse por escrito a Weld County related to the request should be submitted in writing to the Weld Planning Services , 1402 N . 17th Avenue , P 0 Box 758 , Greeley , County Planning Services , 1402 N . 17th Avenue , P . O . Box 758 , CO 80632 , en o antes de la fecha de la audiencia p0blica . Greeley, CO 80632 , on or before the darteTif prrhlin hearing Todos los casos programados ante la Comision de Planificacion All cases scheduled before the Planning Commission are subject to estan sujetos a continuacion debido a la faits de quorum o de otra continuance due to lack of quorum :Dr otherwise . Contact the manera Comuniquese con el Departamento de Servicios de Pla- Department of Planning Services at (970) 400-6100 or email nificacion al (970) 400-6100 o envie un correo electronico a pctechs+ welci . gov for hearing continuance information . pctechs we ci gov para obtener information sobre la continuation de Is audiencia ATTENTION: Proposed Conditions related to this case are subject to change ATENCION: Las condiciones propuestas relacionadas con este caso estan or removal at both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners sujetas a cambios o elimination en as audiencias de la Comision de hearings Planificacion como de la Junta de Comisionados Comision de Planificacion y la Junta de Comisionados � 4,i .a� � . .,. •� t US f V S"1MV G lrv�I PITNEY BOWES Case # / Caso # PUDF24-0001 � (no � ' " �'t. �� (qC ' Name I Nombre REI LTD Liability Co . and Investors LTD Liability Co . I ' as Plan and Planned Unit Development Final en {, • . ZIP 80631 $ 000 Proposed Project: A Site Specific Development i Draw Farms for 284 residential lots with R- 1 Low-Density ace Plan for Second Filing of Beebe � � � } .� . , �iC] 0f� �� •957�i9 JUN 2�' 2025 Residential Zone District uses. Proyecto Propuesto : Un plan de desarrollo especificO del ibo y un plan final de desarrollo Y �' de unidades planificadas para la segunda presentaciOn de Beebe Draw Farms para 284 lotes residenciales con 4JSOS del distrito de zona residential de baja densidad R- 1 . County Planning Services to CR 32 , i84 Weld Location : East of and adjacent to CR 39; north of and adjacent 1402 N . 17th Ave bicacion : Al este y adyacente a CR 39 ; al node y adyacente a CR 32 . _ JO'U �` � -..; ' 7- P . O . Box 758 Planner I Planificador: Max Nader Greeley , CO 80632 PC Hearing Date: August 5 , 2025 at 1 : 30 p . m . PC Fecha de audiencia : 5 de agosto de 2025 a las 13 : 30 horas BOCC Hearing Date : August 20 , 2025 at 10: 00 a . m . Fecha de audiencia de BOCC : 20 de agosto de 2025 a las 10: 00 horas �pLasarirnme � 4. itisc ti w r'cas kt y LEAH T00LEY jk. ' .`�4) ji., ,-,, . 16516 FIARBANKS RD N y1V�y y : -4 5 wR, WAR D r TOOL E Y . 4 L E AH 3 i PVoriii I • 1. 1513 Nig 108TH TER, YUKON K. 7 309.0—Set- 5 '? ii +iii„, _ t TN7 � c_ T t, flj T S S '. , ((! 1 �t M1 L 1. ! ll ! 1 �j I >> ,; _ 1 S 1 [� � �pp ttll � `1 � it } —s ^� � � ' �' � � s. . r-x. . ,+.�1re ,s � l . . 11.u.X =. .9'. . y�, ,.'{*'{. . 1 �. p �.� � nnj8 �[( � Pd » $ � ,� 6 ?4 Application Review Notification Card . .Tarjeta de notification revision solicitud de rev� s � on de solicrtud -2" - - A public hearing will be held before the WeldSe lfevara cabo una audiencia p ublic ante la orrtisi n de :, '�' '�., -raj �pt .', County Planning Commission (PC) and a Planlfinacron del Condado de Weld (PC) y se Ilevara a cabo una 'D -lir ' y subsequent hearing will be held audiencia posterior con la Junta de Comisionados del Condado with the Board ��, (BOCC) . Ambas audiencias se Ilevaran a cabo en Ia Sala de � of County Commissioners (BOCC) . Both Audiencias, � de � � . hearings +rwri!l be held in the Hearing Room , Weld County df�c�o o�drninistrac�on del Condado de Weld , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado . Tenga en cuenta las fechas y Administration Building , 115O O Street, Greeley, Colorado. Please horas de audiencia que figuran en el otro lido de este tarjeta note the hearing dates and times listed on the other side of this card pars el proyecto propuesto. La Agenda se publicara en nuestra for the proposed project. The Agenda will be posted on ourpagina web una semana antes de la audiencia . Las audiencias talTrbian se #ransrrlitiran en vivo en ht#es_/Iwvirw.weld_ avi webpage one week prior to the hearing . The hearings will also be Covernmen ! 0 live-streamed at htt s-l�'www.welr✓i . ovl� o�►trr�lr��eErtiI�e t ��artrnents� ��rtr��r�srpners�'Publac- eetrngs0 artnieritsl or nrnissior�rer.Agendais-and-Minutes ommissior ers/Public- eetings/Comr is loner-Agendas-and- I' inutes Si desea ma' s information sobre este propuesta y las condiciones que debe cumplir, el expediente es de informacion pUblica If you would like more information regarding this proposal and the disponible pars su revision en nuestra p blrpu y ee ver that must be met, the file is public information and is el archivo en linea ofitrna . Tambien puede ver available for review at our office. You may also view the file online Bias ued en Accela Citizen Access. Haga tilt en . . at q a de permisos en la pestana Planifi cio aloe ione Accola Citizen Access. Click on Permit Search , and under the "Buscar regrstros y permisos", o inserte s„"��,C�v� is Planning Tab, select "'Search for Records & Permits" , then insert the el cuadro No p " g serte el nur�rero de ciao en mera de registro. Los comentarios u objeciones rela- case number in the Record Number box. Comments or objections cionados con la sclicitud deben enviarse or escrito to the request should be submitted in writing to the Weld Planning Services, 1402 N . 17th Avenue, p a Weld County County Planning Services, �r, venue, P. O. Box 758 , Greeley, 1402 N . 17 Avenue, P. O . Box 758 , CO 80632 , en o antes de la fecha de la audiencia p ublica . Oreeleyr CO 80632 , on or before the date of public hearing . P All cases scheduled before the Planning Commission are subject to Todos los casos programados ante la ComisiOn de Planificacion continuance due to lack of quorum or otherwise_ es#an sujetos a continuation debido a la fella de quorum 0 de otra Pia- Department of Planning ServicesContact the n�anera. Coi�+uniquese con el Departamento de Serviciosat (970) 4O0 �� (�o or email � de PJa- • - nificacion al (970) 400-6100 o enure un torrel� electrOnico a pctecl�s_ weld_gov for hearing continuance information. ctechs c�. v�r pare obtener informacron sobre la continuation ATTENTION.[f�J fJJ��J+ ��y{raw.; yy�,)f Conditions r/.�� this case subject + de la audiencia. M . F TI r 7f . Proposed Co I11 iti ns relatedto ih/s V a are b.'ub ect to change ge or removal at both? the Planning Commission and Board ofCommissioners + 11+F 1+ 111.• Las c ndiciones propuestas relacionadas con este case hearings. sujetas a cambios o eliminacion en las audiencias de la estan Gomision de PlanificaciOn comp de Ia Junta de Comisionados. C0;nision de Planificaccon y la Junta de Cornisionados. WI; • • ' • • • • mil PITNEY BOWES # PUDF24-0001 a y ! 's:X : US POSTAGE P� Case # / Caso 0 0i { . affin_v_ipi as Liability Co and Investors LTD Liability Co �' Q "Ai z -aitarA Name / Nombre : REl LTD Lab y 0 v Proposed Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final w g ': #atin =� • ZIP " 6 " 1 Si 596 P Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 284 residential lots with R- 1 Low-Density re � ' .,� � Qaa 357G9 JUN 2_ C1 2025 F�esc�lefi�taal Zone District uses: Proyecto Propuesto ; Uri plan de desarrollo especifico del sitlo y tin plan final de desarrollo de unidades planificadas pare la segunda presentacidf de Beebe Draw Farms para 284 lotes residenciales con usos del distrito de zona residential de baja densidad R-1 . in Services lio‘� , S, � ; Weld County Planning Location : East of and adjacent to CR 39 ; north of and adjacent to CR 32 �`` � N . 17th Ave i ' adyacente a CR 39; al node y adyacer�te a CR 32 . _ 'I f T ,� -=► = II 1402 Ubicac�en . Al este y y ' Q . O . Box 758 Planner Planificador: Max Nader Greeley , CO 80632 PC Hearing Date : August 5 , 2025 at 1 : 30 p . m . PC Fecha de audiencia : 5 de agosto de 2025 a las 13 : 30 horas BOCC Hearing Date : August 20 , 2025 at 10: 00 a . m . Fecha de audiencia de BOCC : 20 de agosto de 2025 a las 10 : 00 horas -- -_j--,r\ z—`` -'\ t ",0;yerii bey , — • \I% �v.Mi` . f- y�+ ., CRISTIN& MATTHEW WACHHOLTL 16477 BU RG H LEY CT aE ix G ;` 4IJ.066 ' 2 _fit25 fl.' da . �r vie p. y- p TN To c = NM s EXHIBIT WACHHOL puebrri , °ccf 3226 IVY CT LOVE/ LAND CO 5O537c- 366 7N Y 1. mil O 1. V•Y Trt�. � ��,, 4r.0,1e hwVWu d . ' . .a a. p.�. �, a 3 a.}Iu�, k F ". � [■ 's11 ;�� t •.. • 51 • , `I v n i n N i 1 3 i � • + Application Review Notification Card Tarjeta � � � - � � - de notif� cac�on de revision de solicitud - _,� a- A public hearing will be held before the Weld Se Ilevara a oab ► una audiencia p bli, a, ante Ia Comision de N ;war; r..:. • County Planning Commission (PC) and a Planificacion del Condado de Weld (PC) y se Ilevara a cabo una -,--`7-: .,r i 1"' ,. audiencia posterior con la Junta de Comisionados del Condado - subsequent hearing will be held with the Board (BOCC) . Ambas audiencias se Ilevaran a`_ `_ v scabo en la Sala de of County Commissioners (BOCC) . Both Audiencias, Edificio de Administracion del Co ndado de Weld , hearings will be held in the Hearing Room, Weld County 1150 O Street, Greeley , Colorado. Tenga en cuenta las fechas horas de que y Administration Building , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. Pleaseaudiencia figuran en el otro lado de esta tarjeta note the hearing dates and times listed on the other side of this card pars el proyecto propuesto. La Agenda se publicara en nuestra for the proposed project. The Agenda will be posted on our pagir�� web una semana antes de la audiencia Las audiencias webpage one week prior to the hearing. The hearings will also tambien se transmitiran en vivo en httes://www.weld .govi { .r�veld . �r/ g g be Government/ epariments/Commissar ners/Public-I1 eet ngsi live-streamed at his: l+ rww.welagov/ everrur entvDepejjmentsi Commissioner-Agendas-and-Minutes Como issioners/Public- eetin slCommissioner--Agend s-and- Iinutes Si desea moos informacion sobre esta propuesta y las condiciones que debe cumptir , el expediente es de inforrnacion publica y esta If you would like more information regarding this proposal and the disponible para su revision en nuestra oficina. Tambien puede ver conditions that must be met, the file is public information and is el archivo en linea en Accela Citizen Access. Naga clic available for review at our office. You may also view the file online at Bosqueda de permisos y, en !a estana Planificacion seleccione � 2 rct,.t.iviiC Acceia Citizen Access. Click on Permit Search, and under the "Buscar registros y permisos" , luego inserte el numeeo de caso en Planning Tab, select "Search for Records & Permits", then insert the el cuadro Numeeo de registro. Los comentarios u objeciones rela- case number in the Record Number box. Comments or objections cionados con la solicitud deben enviarse por escrito a Weld County related to the request should be submitted in writing to the Weld Planning Services, 1402 N . 17th Avenue, P . O. Box 758 , Greeley, County Planning Services, 1402 N . 17m Avenue P.O. O 80632 , en o antes de la fecha de la audiencia ublica . _ O. Boy 758 , p Greeley, CO 80632 , on or before the date of public hearing. All cases scheduled before the Planning Commission are subject to Todos los casos programados ante Ia Comision de Planificacion ester) sujetos a continuacion debido a la falta de quOrum o de otra continuance due to lack of quorum or otherwise . Contact the manera . Comuniquese Pla- Department of Planning Services at (970) 400-6100 or email q con el �epartarnenta de Servicios de nificaciOn al (970) 40o-6160 o envie un correo electronioa a pctechs@tyLekl .gov for hearing continuance information. ectecl is@weld . ovpara •f � obtener informacion sobre la continuacion de la audiencia. A TTENTI ON: Proposed Conditions related to this case are subject to change or removal at both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners A TENCIN.' Las condiciones propuestas reEacionadas con este caso estan hearings. sujetas a cambios o eliminacion en las audiencias de Ia Comision de Planificacion como de Is Junta de Comisionados Comision de Planificacion y la Junta de Comisionados. .Ir .f! i... r••'•'r. * �• YI . ...�I. N a4d.. f • Erar 9 E W►+-' •�s �a. : . • .. . 7i4; a u PosTAGlitiliiii ! IIIIIIIErtifill ; Ilittli ( IIIIIIIIIIIi ( lifilliillifulli . . r..e� 1�YtJlr•�'�r�y fr��•�j, � � •Ia • - • k•-s :3 :ea a ims L . A nit= Smog O - 6 • Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final ; �� ., • - �`'� � i Proposed Project: A Site Specific r 284 residential lots with R-1 Low-Density "° ' �Q5 Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farm Residential Zone District uses . Proyecto Propuestor Un plan de desarrollo especifico del sitio y un plan final de desarrrc p de unidades laniticadas pare la segunda presentaciOn de Beebe Draw Farms para 284 lutes residenciales con usos del distrito de zona residencial de baja densidad R- 1 . Location : adjacent of and adjacent to CR 39 ; north of and adjacent to CR 32 \-\11e9 Ubscacron . Aleste y adyacente a CR 39 ; al node y adyacente a CR 32 . Planner / Planificadoro Max Nader \\1----C1/4:3:CC �" t 5 2025 at 1 : 30 p . m . PC Hearing Date : Angus• 25 a las 13 : 30 horns041: • de 20 ia . 5 d - det 15 e agosto PC Fecha de audiencia : 0 Y August 20 2025 at 10: 00 a . m . BOCC Hearing Date : Aug _ 2025 a las 10 : 00 horns ` -� Fecha de audiencia de BOCC : 20 de agosto de -�1466 Ce'sti 14i ,?:" \ ::____ ____„ _,.4 .„.___, i „sr, _______—.....e-----\\ ,i 1 i:k „.,:ini:.: Tr----,._ -`;r'': Donn 5 20TH ST UNIT 11 -\ '' +,C GREELEY CO 80634 EXHIBIT t im.,40 Foci/ scr..0 i , a / 87 i Application Review Notification Card . .de notificaci " i • on de revision de solicitud " �. � f A public hearing will be held before the Weld Se II'e 'a a cabo una audiencia p ,Mica ante !a Con�isi ►n de '' , ` 1 It': = t_ '; County Planning Commission (PC) and a Planificacion del Condado de Weld (PC) se Ileva • a . i I subsequent hearing audiencia posterior con la Junta de Comisionados cabo una ' c o_p_,'r, _- = q will be held with the Board �siona+dos del Condado (BCC) . Ambas audiencias se Iler�ai#gin a cabo en la Sala de of County Commissioners (BQCC). Both Audiencias, Edificia de Admini . hearings will be held in the Hearing Room, Weld County 1150 O Street, Greeley, stra'cron del Condado de Weld, Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. Tenga en cuenta las fechas Colorado. Please horas de audiencia que figuran en el otro lado de este tarjeta note the hearing dates and times listed on the other side of this card para el proyectc propuesfio , a Agenda se p!ublicara en nuestra for the proposed project. The Agenda will. be posted on our paging web una semana antes de la audiencia . Las audiencias webpage one week prior to the hearing . The hearings tambien se transr�itrran en vivo en https;Ilvvwu�.+�ve1�1 . av� will also be Government/Departments/Com issioners/P�,hlic-Meg live-streamed at https://ww�eld. gov/Covernn ent/Departm ntsl Co nr�nis inner-A_ endas-a - trn sl Com issioners;Public- ings/Co mrssioner-A endas- '� Mi utes Minutes and- Si desea mss informacion macron sobre este propuesta y las condiciones que debe cumpiir, el expediente es de informacion publica y esta If you would like more information regarding this proposal and the disponible pars su revision en nuestraTambien conditions that must be met, the file is public information and is el archrv►a en lines en A a�'crna . puede ver available for review at our office You may also view the file online � Bus ueda de �cela Citizen Access_ Naga clic en �I �# lies �rtrist�s y, en la pestaha Planificacion , seleccione Accela Citizen Access. Click on Permit Search , and under the "Buscar registrosaction ermisos"" luego ` Planning Tab, select "Search for Records & Permits", then insert the el cuadro l�urr�ero y p � inserte el numeea de caso en case number in the Record Number box. Comments gar obj s cionados con la solia registra . Los con-rentari�►s u objecic�nes rela- citud deben enviarse per escrito a Weld Count related to the request should be submitted in writing to the Weld Planning Services , 1402 N . 17th Avenue y County Planning Services , 1402 N . 17th Avenue, P.Q. Box 758 , CO �J32 , en o antes , P. C . Box 75g , Greeley, Greeley, CO 8O632, on or before the date of public g hearing. de la fecha de la audiencia publics . All cases schedulers before the Planning Commission are subject to Todos los casos programados ante la Comision de Planificacion continuance due to lack of quorum or otherwise. Contact the estan sujetos a continuaci�on debido a la felts de quorum o de otra Qep�irti��ent of Planning Services at (970) 400-6100 manera . !Cor�rur�iquese con el Cepartarrientc� de Servicios de Pla- Department Depart vrel _ ov for hearing or email nificacidn at (970) 400-6100 0 la ..��. continuance information . envie un cameo eie�ctronica a pctechsvueld.gov pars obtener informacion sobre la continuaciOn de la audiencia. ATTENTION: Proposed Conditions related to this case are subject to change or removal at both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners s de is Comisian de 4 T; 4JCI V. Las condiciones propuestas velacior�adas con este caso es " hearin ►s. sujetas a cambios o eliminacic n en las audiencia tan Planificacion corns de la Junta de Comisionados. Cornisron de Planificacion y la Junta de Comisionados LOOS .. ,_•a ♦ .•• ♦..i. n .aaf S ® PITNE`l BOWES • d} • j , 1 / ! {� l , i]r. �� ' qE• : •_) : ,• yl�,�t i:Fb: '5 3 US PO S' t ,.., ..}NA) PITNEY 6 ` i l l i i f f 7 , i r i s c i l i i i i i i i iii i l i a i i i t i l l i •l l c 1 L d i + t l ; G { ♦ i i t l _ [ +L�rw�tari� r ••aI awra a •e ' r':jwd•rye s•r'III < I • - cra. kirmwrigentrmair . i M i t f , • Unit Development Anal in ti; :,. ,_: t + SIP �3(�� 3� 1 � . � � � S ecific Develo ment Plan and Planned i „i , , � . $ 00Proposed Project. A Site p p02 t Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 284 residential lots with R- 1 Low-Density ' r { � � (� t� 033 789 JUN 20 2025 Residential Zone District uses Proyecto Propuesto: Lin plan de desarrollo especihc0 del sitia y un plan final de desarrollo de unidades planificadas para la segunda presentaciOn de Beebe Draw Farms para 284 Ices residenciales con usos del distrito de zona residenctai de baja densidad R- 1 . adjacent to CR 32 �i _lato ,:�` Weld County Planning Services Location : East of and adjacent to CR 39; north of and 'I f � . � ,� 1402 N . 17th Ave Ubicaci®n : Al este y adyacente a CR 39 ; al norte y adyacente a CR 32 . _ :. L�.si _ l'1 --,,,villaP . O . Box 758 Planner ! Planificador: Max Nader Greeley , CO 80632 PC Hearing Date : August 5, 2025 at 1 : 30 p . m . PC Fecha de audiencia : 5 de agosto de 2025 a las 13 : 30 horas BOCC Hearing Date : August 20 , 2025 at 10 : 00 a . m . Fecha de audiencia de BOCC : 20 de agosto de 2025 a las 10 : 00 horas _ _ _ - :--7c...45,:tyz- - ------r--_ -..=-;_-_--- -,...\ : is +r ti. 1 t. C d BAUER UTLEY VICKI - Iii bk UTLEY STEPHEN 'mil fi. le-. . \ Nuc 16491 ESSEX RD S PLATTEVILLE CO 80651 i, EXHIBIT i votittPzem entice' los i 4; - _ . Application Review Notification Card Tar notificacion revisiOn solicitud de notificacior� de revision de --"� ' A public hearing will be held before the WeldSe Ilevara a cabo una audiencia publics ante la Comision de � . ` '' ` � � �: County Planning Commission (PC) and a Planificacion del Condado de Weld (PC) y se Ilevara a cabo una audiencia posterior con la Junta de Comisionados' ��• �" C- �'� �' - subsequent hearing will del Condado q be held with the Board (BOCC) . Ambas audiencias se Ilevaran a cabo en is -7 - Sala de ' of County Commissioners (BOCC) . Both Audiencias, Edificio de Administracion Administracian del Condado de Weld , hearings will be held in the Hearing Room , Weld County 1150 O Street, Greeley , Colorado . Tenga en cuenta las fechas horas de audienciaque figuran y Administration Building , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. Please g an en el otro lado de esta tarjeta note the hearing dates and times listed on the other side of this card para el proyecto propuesto. La Agenda se publicara en nuestra for the proposed project. The Agenda will be posted on our paging web una semana antes de la audiencia . Las audiencias tambien se transmitiran en vivo en https:,�lwww, weldFgovf webpage one week prior to the hearing . The hearings will also be Government/Departments/commissioners/ p b ' t- ' I�`ublMt, I'�eexingsi live-streamed at https://vvw w.weld .qov/ oyernrnen 'Departments/ Commissioner-Agendas-an inutes Cornmissioners/Public-I fee fCarr,nrnis.sianer-Actendas-and- . , Minutes Si desea mss rnfarrna,cian sdbre esta propuesta y las condiciones que debe cumplir, el expediehte es de infom'iacion pUblica y este If you would life more information regarding this proposal and the disponible pars su revision erg nuestra oficina . Tambien puede ver conditions that must be met, the file is public information and is el archly() en linea en Accela Citizen Access. Haga clic en available for review at our office You may also view the file online at Busqueda de permisos y, en la pestana Pl rnificaciel i , sele •cione ►ccela. Citizen Access. Click on Permit Search , and under the "Buscar registros y perrnisos", luego o inserte el nUimero de caso en Planning Tab, select "Search for Records & Permits" , then insert the el cuadro NOrnero de registro , Los comentarios u objeciones rela- case number in the Record Number box. Comments or objections cionados con la solicitud deben enviarse por escrito a Weld County related to the request should be submitted in writing to. the Weld Planning Services, 1402 N . 17th Avenue , P. O. Box 758 , Greeley , County Planning Services , 1402 N. it Avenue, P. O . Box 758 , CO 80632, en o antes de la fecha de la audiencia p p ublica . y Greeley, CO 80632, on or before the date of public hearing. Todos los cases programadbs ante la Comisidn de PlanificaciOn All cases scheduled before the Planning Commission are subject to Contact , a estan sujetos a continuacion debido a la faits de quorum o de otra continuance due to lack of quorum or otherwise. C the rnanera. Comuni uese con Department of Planning Services at (970) 400-6100 or emailq el Departamento de Servicios de Plan nificacion al (970) 400-6100 o envie un correo elec#rbnic+c a ,pctechs@weld , gov for hearing continuance information . pctechs@weld .gov para o b n r informacion • . gb#e a sabre la continuation de la audiencia . ATTENTION: Proposed Conditions related to this case are subject to change or removal at both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners A NCI+ N• has condiciones prapuestas reiacionadas con este caso estan hearings. sujetas a cambios o eliminsciOn en las audiencias de Ia Comision de Pianificacion como de Ia Junta de Cornisionados. Comision de PlanificaciOn y la Junta de Comisionados. " '� US POSTAGE"' PITNEY BOWES Case # / Caso # PUDF24-0001 © "• Sr�. • ; w ,..r... Name / Nombre : REI LTD Liability Co . and Investors LTD Liability Co . i- Q • ; ailli" Proposed Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final 2 t 1, • • • Pc 7W' 8O63 1 000 .59 ° r Plan for Second Filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 284 residential lots with R- 1 Low-Density ce re ""g • •.� , ©00033576 JUN 20 2025 Residential Zone District uses °� " Proyecto Propuesto: Un plan de desarrollo especifico del sitio y un plan final de desarrollo de unidades planificadas para la segunda presentacion de Beebe Draw Farms para 284 lotes residenciales con usos del distrito de zona residencial de baja densidad R-1 Location : East of and adjacent to CR 39 ; north of and adjacent to CR 32 -Nauss Weld County Planning Services Ubicacion : Al este y adyacente a CR 39 ; al none y adyacente a CR 32 '19 I IS T— '._ 1402 N . 17th Ave ` r p P . O . Box 758 Planner / Planificador: Max Nader .. •:-41 - . . Greeley , CO 80632 PC Hearing Date : August 5 , 2025 at 1 : 30 p . m . PC Fecha de audiencia : 5 de agosto de 2025 a las 13 : 30 horas BOCC Hearing Date : August 20 , 2025 at 10 : 00 a . m . Fecha de audiencia de BOCC : 20 de agosto de 2025 a las 10 : 00 horas -- ---_,,r---fsroir-- ti I :el : 'Iv:lir \\ lir -7[ 71\1°. *01141111- i`-- ARIEL & JOSHUA DESMOND ( ,` , i - r�r r •_1 16483 BU RG H LEY CT P LATTEV I LLE CO 80651 DESMAB * 808 NLL ;:i. L o, . SZ41 f 2 2f 3 i FORWARD TIME EXP RT TO SEND EXHIBIT D E S M O N D Pu 0 F2.. Ct - I' C A ES ORE OK 74019 - 2113 N! -r RETURN TO SENDER 1 et 7F--tom Ilili ! 1111 ! ; 1111111PI1111111 16I111Illiillilli1i41li1i111i4111111 ... .r r ,+ • 3 I 4 I I III 111 F9 I II 4 hill I A Application Review Notification Card Taijeta de notificacion de revision de solicitud _y , � it A public hearing will be held before the Weld Se Ilevara a cabo una audiencia publics ante la ComisiOn de PlanificaciOn del Condado de Weld (PC) y se Ilevara a cabo una ) , l'i r. : _ It \\ County Planning Commission (PC) and a audiencia posterior con la Junta de Comisionados del Condado f_ . subsequent hearing will be held with the Board (BOCC) . Ambas audiencias se Ilevaran a cabo en la Sala de L. 1 of County Commissioners (BOCC) Both Audiencias , Edificio de Adrninistracion del Condado de Weld , . hearings will be held in the Hearing Room , Weld County 1150 0 Street , Greeley , Colorado . Tenga en cuenta las fechas y Administration Building , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. Please horas de audiencia que figuran en el otro lado de esta tarjeta para el proyecto propuesto . La Agenda se publicara en nuestra note the hearing dates and times listed on the other side of this card pagina web una semana antes de la audiencia . Las audiencias for the proposed project. The Agenda will be posted on our tambien se transmitiran en vivo en https://www. weld . govi webpage one week prior to the hearing . The hearings will also be Government/Departments!Commissioners/Public-Meetings/ live-streamed at rittps://vvww.weldAjoviGovertiUrier1t/L)QJ)artII1 wft$i Pomrnissioner-Ayencias-and-Mira ale Commissioners/Public-Meetings/Commissionpr-Agendas-and- Si desea mss informacion sobre esta propuesta y las condiciones Minutes que debe cumplir, el expediente es de informacion publica y esta If you would like more information regarding this proposal and the disponible para su revision en nuestra oficina . Tambien puede ver conditions that must be met, the file is public information and is el archivo en lines en Accela Citizen Accesch Haga clic en available for review at our office . You may also view the file online at Busqueda de permisos y , en la pestana Planificacion , seleccione / ccela Citizen Access . Click on Permit Search , and under the " Buscar registros y permisos" , luego inserte el numero de caso en Planning Tab , select " Search for Records & Permits" , then insert the el cuadro Numbro de registro Los comentarios u objeciones rela- case number in the Record Number bb x. Comments or objections cionados con la solicitud deben enviarse por escrito a Weld County related to the request should be submitted in writing lo the Weld Planning Services , 1402 N . 17th Avenue , P . O . Box 758 , Greeley , County Planning Services , 1402 N . 17th Avenue , P . O Box 758 , CO 80632 , en 0 antes de la fecha de la audiencia publica . Greeley, CO 80632 , on or before the date of public hearing . Todos los cases programados ante la ComisiOn de PlanificaciOn All cases scheduled before the Planning Commission are subject to estan sujetos a continuacion debido a la falta de quorum o de otra continuance due to lack of quorum ,: or otherwise . Contact the manera . Comuniquese con el Departamento de Servicios de Pla- Department of Planning Services at (970) 400-6100 or email nificacion al (970) 400-6100 o envie un correo electrOnico a p techs©weld qov for hearirng. Gontirluarlce iiifor ''nation. pctechs©vveld . gpv para obtener informacion sobre la continuacion de la audiencia . ATTENTION: Proposed Conditions related to this case are subject to change ATENCION Las condiciones propuestas relacionadas con este caso estan or removal at both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners sujetas a cambios o eliminacion en las audiencias de la ComisiOn de hearings. Planificacion como de la Junta de Comisionados Comision de Planificacion y la Junta de Comisionados Hello