HomeMy WebLinkAbout20182847.tiffUSE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ER ICE it 1555 N. al7THI AVENUE * GREELEY, CO 80631
vvww.weldgovacom � 970-353-6100 EXT 350 * FAX 970-304-8498
FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE:.
AMOUNT
APPLICATION RECEIVED BY
Parcel Number: 0
DATE RECEIVED:
CASE # AIGNED::
PLANNER ASSIGNED -
Address of site: 22014 WCR 52 Greeley CO 80631
Legal Description: W2NVVieliE2NW4
Zone Disirict AG
Acreage: 72,8392
FEE OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY:
Name: Les Matson
Company: Les Matson Construction
Phone #: 970-396-1973
Street Address: PO Box 336668
City/State/Zip Code: Greeley, CO 80631
Name:
Company:
Phone #:
Ftood;plain:
-0 5 5
CA 12 digit number on Tax 1.D. al
information, obtainable at
VAWV w . m).
Section: 35 Township: 5 N Range:.66
eological Hazard: YCN
Email: les@lesmatson,.com
Street Address:
City/State/Zip Code:
Name:
Emil:
Airport Overlay: V
O
Company:
Phone
eet Address:
City/State/Zip Code
Email:
SI
APPLICANT NT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: (See below: Authorization must accompany all applications signed byAuthorized Agents,
Name: Brian Hartman
Company: Jabez Trucking, Inc:_
Phone #: 970-590-2722
Street Address: 2413 27th Avenue Ct,
Er ails hartman_hlamsn_com
City/State/Zip Code: Greeley, CO 80634
PROPOSED USE:
The proposed use of the property is for storage of personal and commercial vehicles in conjunction with the currentagricultural
�t
use of he land. The proposed use will not impact the current agricultural operations in any way_
I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, andior plans submitted with or
contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my (our)knowledge, Signatures of all fee owners of propel
must sign this appiic.a on. If an Authorized Agent signs, a letter of authorization from all fee owners must be included with the
apps alien, If carpeion is tie fee owner, notarized evidence must be included indicating _ �t the signatory has to legal
ty " - erporati on.
i'
Signature- •weer or Authorized Agent Date
"7
1
Print Name
"fi i.`tr
/ 2.r
aiure: Owner Autho ed Agent Date
iras
Print Name
Rev 4/2016
Subdivision Name:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONNMENT
1555 NORTH 17TH AENUE
GREELEY, CO 80631
AUTHORIZATION FORM FOR BUILDING, PLANNING AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT I�ARTMENT
PERMITS AND SERVICES
II Les MatsonBrian�'_ermission to Hartman
give P
(Owner as please print)
(APPiicantiAgent- please print)
to apply for any Planning, Building or Health Department permits or services on our behalf, for the property located
at:
22014 WCR 52 Greeley CO 80631
Legal Description: W2NW4/E2NW4 of Section -35 Township NI Range _ 65
Lot Block
Properly Owners Information:
Phone: X70-39619'73 Eemai!: des a�leSr1`Iatson.coil
ApplicanUAgent Contact Information:
phone: 970e590-2722
hartman_hl@rnsn.com
Email correspondence to be sent to: Owner Applicant/Agent Both
Postal service correspondence to be sent to: (choose miry ore) Owner X
Applicant/Agent
Additional Info:
Owner Sig
Date:
Owner Signature Date
USR Questionairre Answers
for
22014 WCR 52
Greeley, CO 80634
Planning Questions:
1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property.
The proposed use of the property is for agricultural purposes and for storage of commercial vehicles
to be used off -property. Les Matson is the current property owner. He is retired and would like to use
the property and the proposed structure to store his personal vehicles. Brian Hartman plans to pur-
chase the property in the future. He owns a small commercial trucking business and would like to use
the property for storage of his vehicles and equipment while not in use. Drivers may leave their per-
sonal vehicles on the site while they are on the road. Minor truck mainenance such as oil changes,
tire and brake repair and replacement are preformed on site. Garrette Construction, a small excava-
tion company would also like to use the property to store his equipment.
2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 22 of
the Comprehensive Plan.
According to Chapter 22, Article II Section 22-2-20.G.A Policy 7.2 "Conversion of agricultural land to
nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site
is in an area that can support such development, and should attempt to be compatible with the re-
gion." This USR requests a small portion of agricultural land to support the proposed commercial use.
The proposed commercial activities will not impact any of the current agricultural use of the land. The
proposed commercial activities will be compatible with the current agricultural activities.
3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 23
(Zoning) and the zone district in which it is located.
According to Chapter 23, Article III Section 23-3-40.S "Any use permitted as a Use by Right, an AC-
CESSORY USE, or a Use by Special Review in the COMMERCIAL or industrial zone districts, pro-
vided that the property is not a Lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map
or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions. PUD development proposals
shall not be permitted to use the special review permit process to develop." The proposed commercial
use would be permitted as a use by special review in the commercial district (parking, staging, and
storage of commercial vehicles and equipment) and does not interfere with any approved or recorded
subdivision, nor will it impact any future developments. It also does not interfere with current agricul-
tural use due to the proposed location.
4. Describe what type of land uses surround the site. Explain how the proposed use is consistent
and compatible with surrounding land uses.
Currently, most land uses surrounding this property are agricultural in nature. There are also a few
commercial and industrial facilities (a welding/fab shop) and some residential properties nearby. On -
site now, there are 2 oil wells. The proposed commercial activities will have minimal impacts to resi-
dential areas and no impacts to other commercial or agricultural activities.
5. What are the hours and days of operation? (e.g. Monday thru Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
The typical hours of use for the proposed property are to be 7am - 6pm, Monday - Friday with occa-
sional use on Saturdays between 7am and 6pm. The people who use the property for personal stor-
age will typically access the property during the same hours with occasional use on Sundays as well.
6. List the number of full time and/or part time employees proposed to work at this site.
There is 1 full time employee associated with the trucking company and 3 full time employees associ-
ated with the construction company. None of these employees will be onsite full time (<20hrs per
week) and will be considered part time employees for the purposes of this USR.
7. If shift work is proposed include the number of employees per shift.
N/A. No shift work is proposed.
8. List the number of people who will use this site. Include contractors, truck drivers, customers,
volunteers, etc.
There will be 4 part time employees and 6-8 people will use the property for personal use. There is al-
so 1 farmer who leases the land and an unknown amount of oil field and Lower Latham Reservoir
personnel who frequent the property as well.
9. If this is a dairy, livestock confinement operation, kennel, etc., list the number and type of ani-
mals.
N/A. There are no animals.
10. Describe the type of lot surface and the square footage of each type. (e.g. asphalt, gravel, land-
scaping, dirt, grass, buildings).
The entire lot is 71.28 acres. The majority of the lot surface is dirt/agricultural. Only a small portion
('-3 acres) of the property is to be used for commercial purposes. The proposed commercial activies
will include the addition of a 50ft x 104ft or 5200 sqft building and 1000 sqft of gravel to be brought in
for the parking areas.
11. How many parking spaces are proposed? How many handicapped (ADA) parking spaces are
proposed?
There are no proposed designated parking spaces. Parking will be on the dirt or gravel lot. No handi-
capped (ADA) spaces are proposed. It is estimated a maximum of 5 parking spaces will be used for
employee and personal vehicles and 3-5 spaces for over the road trucks.
12. Explain the existing and proposed landscaping for the site.
The only proposed landscaping would be for gravel to cover the area surrounding the proposed build-
ing as needed. After discussion with the neighbors, it is possible that gravel would be added to the
road to reduce fugitive dust generation from vehicle trafffic.
13. Describe the type of fence proposed for the site (e.g. 6 foot chain link with earth tone slats)
N/A. There is no proposed fence.
14. Describe the proposed screening for all parking and outdoor storage areas. If the site is lo-
cated in a floodplain outdoor storage is restricted.
N/A. There is no proposed screening.
15. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review
activity occurs.
N/A. There is no proposed reclamation as the changes to the landscape are minimal.
16. Who will provide fire protection to the site?
The property lies within the La Salle Fire Protection District so the La Salle Fire Department will pro-
vide fire protection to the site.
17. List all proposed on -site and off -site improvements associated with the use (e.g. landscaping,
fencing, buildings, drainage, turn lanes, etc.) and a timeline of when you will have each one of the
improvements completed.
The proposed improvements to the site include the addition of a storage building and reconfiguring
the main access to the site.
- Addition of the storage builing is expected to be built by March of 2018.
- Changes to site access are expected to be completed by July of 2018.
Engineering questions: 970-353-6100 x3540
1. Describe how many roundtripslday are expected for each vehicle type: Passenger Cars/Pick-
ups, Tandem Trucks, Semi-Truck/Trailer/RV (Roundtrip ri p = 1 trip in and 1 trip out of site)
1-3 trips per passenger car/pickup per day are estimated.
1-3 trips per semi -truck and trailer per day are estimated.
2. Describe the expected travel routes for site traffic.
It is anticipated that all travel occures from WCR 45 and WCR 52 to Fern Avenue.
3. Describe the travel distribution along the routes (e.g. 50% of traffic will come from the north,
20% from the south, 30% from the east, etc.)
It is anticipated that 50% of travel will occur on WCR 45 and 50% of travel will occur on WCR 52.
4. Describe the time of day that you expect the highest traffic volumes from above.
Highest traffic volume is expected to occur between 7-9am and 3-5pm
5. Describe where the access to the site is planned.
Access to the site will be the same as it currently is via Fern Avenue off of WCR 52 or WCR 45. It is
anticipated that in the future, access to the site will be reconfigured to make the site easier to access
from the county roads with a semi -truck. Plans will be submitted to the county at that time.
6. Drainage Design: Detention pond summarized in a drainage report is required unless the proj-
ect falls under an exception to stormwater detention requirements per code section 23-12-30 F.1.
Question 6 TBD by engineer.
A. Does your site qualify for an exception to stormwater detention? If so, describe in a
drainage narrative the following:
1. Which exception is being applied for and include supporting documentation.
2. Where the water originates if it flows onto the property from an offsite source
3. Where it flows to as it leaves the property
4. The direction of flow across the property
5. If there have been previous drainage problems with the property
B. Does your site require a stormwater detention pond? If so, the following applies:
1. A drainage report summarizing the detention pond design with construction
drawings and maintenance plan shall be completed by a Colorado Licensed Profes-
sional Engineer and adhere to the drainage related sections of the Weld County
Code.
2. The drainage report must include a certification of compliance stamped and
signed by the PE which can be found on the engineering website.
3. A general drainage report guidance checklist is available on the engineering
website. More complete checklists are available upon request.
Environmental Health questions: 970-304-6415 x2702
1. What is the drinking water source on the property?
If utilizing a drinking water well include either the well permit or well permit application that
was submitted to the State -Division of Water Resources. If utilizing a public water tap include
a letter from the Water District, a tap or meter number, or a copy of the water bill.
The drinking water source will be bottled water as no employees onsite will be full-time employees. All
employees will be onsite less than 20 hours a week.
2. What type of sewage disposal system is on the property? If utilizing an existing septic system
provide the septic permit number. If there is no septic permit due to the age of the existing septic
system, apply for a septic permit through the Department of Public Health and Environment prior
to submitting this application. If a new septic system will be installed please state "a new septic
system is proposed". Only propose portable toilets if the use is consistent with the Department of
Public Health and Environment's portable toilet policy.
Sewage disposal is going to be via Porta-John's with waste being removed as needed.
3. If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored?
Proposed storage will be of vehicles, lumber, steel pilings, construction equipment, and commercial
vehicles.
4. Describe where and how storage and/or stockpile of wastes, chemicals, and/or petroleum will
occur on this site.
Small amounts of waste oil will be generated during routine oil changes. Waste oil will be captured
and retained in a 55 gallon barrel until the barrel is full at which time the barrel will be transported to
La Salle Oil for disposal. The 55 gallon barrel will be kept in secondary containment consisting of a
330 gallon plastic tote which will be cut in half. This will provide 115 gallons of containment for the 55
gallon barrel. General waste will not be stockpiled on site. Any waste that is generated will be re-
moved the same day by the person who generated it. No chemical products will be stored on site.
5. If there will be fuel storage on site indicate the gallons and the secondary containment. State
the number of tanks and gallons per tank.
N/A. Fuel will not be stored onsite.
6. If there will be washing of vehicles or equipment on site indicate how the wash water will be
contained.
N/A. There will be no washing of vehicles or equipment onsite.
7. If there will be floor drains indicate how the fluids will be contained.
N/A. There will be no floor drains.
8. Indicate if there will be any air emissions. (e.g. painting, oil storage, etc.)
N/A. There will be no painting or oil storage to contribute to air emissions.
9. Provide a design and operations plan if applicable. (e.g. composting, landfills, etc.)
N/A.
10. Provide a nuisance management plan if applicable. (e.g. dairies, feedlots, etc.)
N/A.
11. Additional information may be requested depending on type of land use requested.
Building questions: Jose Gonzalez 970-353-6100
1. List the type, size (square footage), and number of existing and proposed structures. Show and
label all existing and proposed structures on the USR drawing. Label the use of the building and
the square footage.
Existing structures include several conex storage boxes and a portable camper trailer for office pur-
poses.
- Two 20ft x 8ft conex boxes = 160sqft each or 320sqft total
- Three 40ft x 8ft conex boxes = 320sqft each or 640sqft total
- One portable camper trailer 40ft x 8ft = 320 sqft
The proposed structure includes a large storage building.
- One 104ft x 50ft storage building = 5200sgft total
2. Explain how the existing structures will be used for this USR?
All structures are used for storage purposes. Con exec are currently used for storage of personal
and commercial items.
3. List the proposed use(s) of each structure.
The proposed building will be used for storage and maintenance of personal items. In the future,
the proposed building will be converted for use to for store and maintain commercial vehicles.
Notice of Inquiry
Development Within a Coordinated Planning Agreement
or Intergovernmental Agreement (CPA or ICA) Boundary
Date of Inquiry
12/1/2017
Municipality
With
CPA or IGA
Kersey CPA
Name of Person Inquiring
Brian
Hartman
and Jeanette Ratliff
Property Owner
Les Matson
Planner
Angela Snyder asnyder@weldgov.com
Legal
Description
Lot B of REC 17-0143
(or RE -3338) S35, T5NII R6SW
Parcel Number
0961-35-3-00-055
Nearest Intersection
CR 45 & CR 52
Type of Inquiry
USR for Construction
Business (vehicle and equipment storage)
The above person inquired about developing a property inside your designated CPA or IGA boundary, This person
has been referred to community by Weld County Planning to discuss development options on this site. Visit
Chapter 19 of the Weld County Code for specifics on your agreement.
Weld County Comments
Commercial vehicle parking and equipment storage are a uses allowed by special review (USR) in Weld County.
Name/Title of Municipality Representative X 'b \
Municipality Comments
No C�OflTPCf
gart
Signature of Weld County Planner Signatuof Municipality Re resentatiue
Plase ase return the signed form to:
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 353-6100 x3540 nd (970)304-6498 fax
ME
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
DRAINAGE REPORT
LES MATSON SHOP ADDITION
La Salle, Colorado
This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF.
Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety. When
a hard copy is absolutely necessary, we recommend double -sided printing.
nU
June 5, 2018
Prepared for:
Les Matson
La Salle, Colorado
Prepared by:
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
820 8th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Phone: 970.395.9880
www.northernengineering.00m
Project Number: 1384-002
INorthernEngineerin,g.com /' 970.221,:4158
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
June 5, 2018
Weld County.
Department of Planning Services
1555 N 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80513
RE: Drainage Report
Les Matson Shop Addition
Dear Staff:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Drainage Report for your review.
This report has been prepared in accordance with the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria
along with Urban Drainage and Flood Control Criteria and serves to document the
stormwater facility improvements associated with Les Matson Shop Addition. We
understand that review by the County is to ensure general compliance with standardized
criteria contained in the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria. If you should have any
questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us.
I hereby certify that this report (plan) for the drainage design of Les Matson Shop Addition
was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) for the owners thereof and meet or
exceed the criteria in the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria.
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
r
Carlos Ortiz Garcia
Project Engineer
301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Brad E. Eaton, PE
Project Manager
970.221.4158 www.northernengineering.com
Pin
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Berthoud Crossing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Scope .•..,n..,, ..en t
2.0 1
3.0 t
4.0 2
5.0
6.0 Floodplain n Encroachment ,......3
7.0 Proposed Drainage Plan 3
.0 Rational Method 4
9.0 Erosion and Sediment Control
10.0 Conclusions S
11.0 References
Design Criteria and References
Site Location and Description
-
Historic Drainage Patterns
Irrigation Facilities
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 3.1: vicinity Map ......
Figure 6.1: FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
2
3
Hydrologic Calculations.
Retention Calculations.
Web Soil Survey — Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Certificate ofCompliance & Retention Variance Request.
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS:
— Overall (Developed) Drainage Exhibit.
— Basin A Exhibit.
Figure 1
Figure
NORTHERN
[iIGINEERIIIG
Les M atso n
1.0 Scope
The purpose of this Drainage Report is to summarize the historic and developed drainage
patterns, to address general drainage concerns, and stormwater impacts for the proposed
development of the site using a detention with infiltration (retention) facility. Storm
drainage issues to be addressed include:
1. Proposed drainage patterns and quantities of flow
2. Proposed stormwater infrastructure design
3. Proposed management concepts
2.0 Design Criteria and References
The drainage criteria outlined in the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria, and the Urban
Storm Drainage Criteria Manual prepared by Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
were used in preparation of this report.
The Rational Method was used to estimate the retention volume base on the 24 -hour, 100 -
year storm event in accordance with Weld County criteria.
The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual has been used for best management practices.
3.0 Site Location and Description
The project site is located in Lot B of RE -3338 being part of Section 35, T5N, R 65W, Stn
P M . This site is located west of County Road 45 and east of the Town of La Salle, CO. T h e
properties surrounding the site are undeveloped, agricultural farm land. The Property is
bordered on the south by Lower Latham Reservoir and agricultural farmland, on the west
by agricultural farmland, and on the north by County Road 52. Figure 3.1 is an aerial view
of the proposed site.
The site is a 72.69 -acre parcel and is in a non -urbanizing region. Currently, the majority of
the parcel with the exception of the 4.60 acre building envelop in the southeast corner, is
used for raising corn. There are two different NRCS hydrologic soil types on the property:
Group A, Vona loamy sand (0% to 3% slopes) and Group D, Aquolls and Aquepts (flooded).
The majority of the soil on the property is well -drained, hydrologic soil group A and the
entire building envelope boundary is contained within the well -drained soil area (see USDA -
N RCS soil report in Appendix C).
No major drainageways exist on the property. There is an irrigation ditch on the east side.
See Figure 1 (Drainage Exhibit) for more detailed information.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report 1
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Les Matson
County Road 52
County Road 45
Project Location
Figure 3.1: Vicinity Map
Latham Reservoir
Map data @2018 Googte United States Twins Send feedback ZOO ft
4.0 Historic Drainage Patterns
The site is located in rural Weld County and is surrounded by undeveloped, agricultural
land. Lot B has relatively flat topography and predominately slopes to the north, east and
west from a high point located close to the center of the existing pivot irrigation system.
Topographic maps were utilized from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website
and are shown in Figure 1 (Drainage Exhibit) The overall percentage of imperviousness for
the entire 72.69 -acre site is estimated at 2.0% using the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District (UDFCD) recommended values. The percentage of imperviousness will be
altered slightly by the proposed shop addition and associated equipment area (see
Appendix A).
Historically, stormwater from a portion of the undeveloped building envelop has been noted
to flow overland to a swale along the west side of County Road 45 to a culvert that crosses
the road to the east and discharges to the adjacent Latham Ditch.
Additionally, there have been no known historic drainage issues associated with the
property or the adjacent properties and no off -site drainage entering the project site.
5.0 Irrigation Facilities
There is an irrigation delivery ditch known as the Latham Ditch that is located along the
east side of County Road 45, adjacent to the east property boundary. The ditch conveys
water from Latham Reservoir to the north for irrigation purposes.
Final Drainage and Erosion► Control Report 2
Pin
NORTHERN
E* GIHEEftING
Les Matson
6.0 Floodplain Encroachment
The property is within Zone X as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) per Flood Insurance Map Panel (FIRM) No. 08123C1735E, dated January 20,
2016 within Weld County, CO. There are no FEMA designated floodplains ns encroaching
onto the site.
. ; .
..j"-
S////')may}/ Jf�f{
. IJJ
Ir`
.
.r-
. , •'
MAP SCALE 1" a 1000'
00 0 �o� 2000
:.'i,•
f • is
P`
�
.. �<.{_' t 1
v.. � � °
: r•.r I Pte
nil ,+ a r: el • +
r —t { FEET
li—t
M1tIFTFQC
.11
r`
I,
PANEL 1735E
rfti
•_;...,� — . .
Ddija.�
—'dy'`� 'gall1
IIIIIII
, .;
FIR
"
I
FLOOD
INSURANCE
RATE MAP
sy
,.
a7
,. - . .
_ 1.
w ,. t+,
' s
Y�
a
> �
' -4II
Z -Sill
I,.'
]
Ty
.,.
A'.!
.... till
*
Y
ti
it
FI
��;;,�
\ - •i r
•�''•
,_
, �4Fy
I
"A ► 1
1
icI
cel-Lis� '
,�
I'
w'
ii
I
is
WELD
COLORADO
AND
II
COUNTY,
CORPOR
.TEDAREr4S
PANEL 1735 OF 225Q
''�
11
1
[
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
(mil
.••
COMMUNITY NUNB&R MWEL SUFFIX
ID
ul
watt cOutvlv okeet ON E
m
Jm
1»._1
.1�_.. •liNii
}�
111111
ASS*
II.
•i'r
4 1
M .`•I
+ ♦
f•si
• •
.t.'+"
•
-' 4e4t .
fr ++
• ••••-• f • •
4.71.4. -'Veer
4.i a • J ••} •.• it•L
tt
P
94'
r
.1•1141$014614•110e41*
firer
*••tl•a
•}.i
*•.
s••.
e ll t • ',Spit•
�� tat •,-.
•♦ i; a. • a
_
Notice
to User The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number spawn above should be
1
i
��
..4.4.4"•
• ♦
Crier
► •r
• •
. . ..
# • r • • • •
911"+:
• • •IM In ••••
..
.
...reari • •
• . • • ...
used on nsurance applications for the subject
Ut ,,.-.
p
• .:
i••
••••••t"'••.•:
••••'r:
i i 1••••:.
lit
a-:
• i
i•,ai
•+-•
••
•
r•♦.•.
• ••
.••♦••••,•••••.•,•..,♦
i
•
i rib• i •
• •
r•Y
••
4.4
ii
•
i
•• • • a •
s . • •
!;• ••••••••R•..41_,r'
• • • •• • •
a • •a tiI
• • r
• .y or • •
• •••••••
• y •
►.
41.•
�
%•4144144114
♦
•ii
• • • i
{ 1, •
♦•
► • • • • , •�'
.•. ,
•i �E4
c„
ip;slitU
1 '�
¢1W
e•--�,<'
MAP NUMBER
08123C1735E
h
1111"�
4 II
..
' ,,
•!-YD Pic-
EFFECTIVE DATE
JANUARY 20 2016
r ••
--.-,,,„1„4........•••„4.44,4•T•
••ar••
♦r.•• a• •a•
i.fP.M
it II
e ` 461.4;71. f
-'�
• •. f • • t • .
f}•
..•e • • • -..
11
wits-.
Federal Emergency Mlanagrmr®t Agency
• • •. • • a • .
• • •
• •♦
• •
•
•
a*PA a a r. ,•.
r,•
•
• t / s • • i Sr
f'
.•-• •.•..• • •
•.r
♦ .••
r
•
•-•
{i•-i-•�•r•••i.y..•
q.♦••'pie
L••.y ••.4..
IP •••••4.• �'
•.
• r•. • • ♦ •
.••
. •
r r
.
•
♦ • ♦ •Y•♦ i
J
r
es•
•1 ••
Craw
•• ••.�••• as•i,•
• •
• i • • * • w
• •
• ♦
• a
•
•
•• s f • • • • r
•
• •
a • / i • • • • • •'• i
f ? it !'
• • • : : • •
•
• : •
• ■
•
•
• • • ♦ ♦ • • r •
•
• •
•. • • A R r • i ••r .
f
This is an officia copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. R
was extracted using F-i41iTl�n ilne. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been mact subsequent to the date en the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps Check tha FENIA Flood Map Store at www msc.`erna gov
• r • • • • •
♦ •
+ .
• •
.
•
r • • • • • • • • •
r ♦
a • • • • • • • . •:r 1 1
---/
•- • • • ••• •
....r
• ♦
...
• • • • ..••••••
r •
a ••r•• • • . e • ! • r
-
r•
I
T
r •'
Figure 6.1: FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
7.0 Proposed Drainage Plan
The property owner, Mr. Les Matson, has proposed the addition of a new 5,200 square
foot building with concrete entry pads at doorways along with recycled asphalt equipment
parking areas, located in the southeast corner of Lot B within the 4.60 -acre building
envelop.
We understand from Weld County drainage criteria that the size of the purposed building
requires the addition of a detention pond to capture the developed runoff and release at the
historic undeveloped flow rate. As noted above, stormwater from a portion of the
undeveloped building envelop has been historically observed to flow overland to a swale
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
NORTHERN
E*1'iINEEI1IHG
Les Matson
along the west side of County Road 45 to a culvert that crosses the road to the east
discharging to the adjacent Latham Ditch.
With a detention and release concept following the historic pattern in mind, Mr. Matson
met with the president of the Lower Latham Reservoir and Irrigation Company on April
28th, 2018 to review the project and to request permission to release the historic flow rate
from the property to the ditch, as has occurred in the past.
The ditch board president denied this request, which therefore has led to the proposed
concept of detention with infiltration (retention) for the developed flows from the proposed
improvement which is further detailed in this report.
Based on USGS topography of the site, Drainage Basin "A" consisting of 3.19 acres has
been identified from the total site area of 72.69 as the area that will drain to the proposed
retention pond, which includes the proposed improvements noted above. Using
recommended percentage imperviousness values for buildings, concrete, packed gravel and
recycled asphalt, a weighted imperviousness of 26.42% was calculated for Basin A. The
developed runoff from this area will sheet flow to the east and slightly northeast to be
captured in a proposed retention pond that will infiltrate the developed flows in
substantially less than 72 hours as required by Weld County criteria as further described
below.
Otherwise, the undeveloped portion of Lot B will remain as active farmland and drainage
will follow historic patterns described in Section 4.0 above.
8.0 Rational Method
With the refusal of the ditch company to accept historic flows from the developed area, it is
necessary to construct a retention pond to meet the projects requirements for the proposed
improvements. The retention pond for this project has been designed to meet Weld County
requirements as follows:
1. Sized to contain 1.5 times the volume of runoff generated by the 24 -hour, 100 -year
storm for runoff generated by Basin A.
2. Provide one foot of freeboard with an emergency spillway.
B. Infiltrate the retained post -developed volume in less than 72 hours.
Basin A has been delineated as shown on Drainage Exhibits figure 1 & figure 2. Mr.
Matson has provided grade elevations of the developed area relative to the finished floor
elevation of the building and the retention pond has been designed using this elevation
information.
Basin A has a calculated percentage imperviousness of 26.42%. Infiltration from the
retention pond will be controlled by the final infiltration soil type (table 6-7 Recommended
Horton's parameters, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1, page 6-15, Dated
March 2017).
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Les M atso n
Retention Pond Results Summary Table
Pond
Total
Retention
Final
Infiltration
Rate
Estimated
Drain
Volume
Required
(inches
per
Hr.)
Time (Hrs.)
Ac -ft.
A
0.59
1.5
18
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) in not necessary for a retention pond of this type.
An emergency overflow weir has been provided which will spill to the existing swale along the west
side of County Road 45, along the eastern berm of the pond. The overflow weir has been sized to
convey the full 24 -hour, 100-yr developed flow.
9.0 Erosion and Sediment Control
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor constructing the retention pond to ensure erosion
control measures are properly installed and maintained utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs)
from the UDFCD criteria. Erosion control measures expected during pond construction include silt
fencing along the downhill edge of graded slopes along with protection of the existing drainage
swales until vegetation is established as the permanent erosion protection measure. It is
recommended that the bottom of retention pond be disked on an annual basis to ensure that
infiltration rates remain at the optimum level.
10.0 Conclusions
The drainage improvements proposed in this report conform to Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria
and Urban Drainage and Flood Control (UDFCD) criteria. The proposed stormwater system will
adequately capture, retain and infiltration the developed runoff from the proposed improvements on
the site thereby protecting adjacent properties from adverse impact resulting from the proposed site
improvements.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report 5
114iE
NORTHERN
Lu'IGI NEERIIIG
Les M atso n
11.0 References
1. "Weld County Engineering and Construction Guidelines", April 2012, updated July 2017.
2. "Hydrologic Soil Group — Weld County Area. Web Soil Survey - Home. February 2015, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 20 February 2015,
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
3. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright Water Engineers, and Others. Urban
Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3. Denver, Colorado: Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District, Revised January 2016
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
APPEN IX A
HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS
Northern.E.n.g.ineering xonv /./ 970.221.4158
COMPOSITE "C" VALUE
Project Name : Les Matson
Location : Weld County
Item Composite "C" Values & % Impervious - Basins
Project Name 1384-002
Computation By : COG
Check By BEE
Percent Impervious
AREA
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
Acre
Basin :
Ex. A
3A9
A
3.19
Composite 2-yr Storm
AREA
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
Acre
Basin :
Ex. A
a19
A
3.19
Composite 5-yr Storm
AREA
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
Acre
Basin :
Ex. A
3.19
A
3.19
Composite 10-yr Storm
AREA
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
Acre
Basin :
Ex. A
3.19
A
a19
I
Composite 100-yr Storm
AREA
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
Acre
Basin :
Ex. A
3.19
A
3.19
2962.08
2265.12
5183.64
66821.04
22084.92
39770.28
SOIL GROUP "A"
AREA OF
Recycle Asphalt
°a
IMP.
AREA OF
Drive & Walk
°%
IMP.
AREA OF
Roof
RUNOFF
COEF.
AREA OF
Gravel
.0.,
IMP.
AREA OF
Agricultural
0?{o
IMP.
AREA OF
Open Space
3a
IMP.
1.77
40
0.51
2
0.91
2
0.07
70
0.05
90
0.12
90
1.53
40
0.51
2
0.91
2
COMPOSITE
% IMP.
(.i)
23.11
26.42
COMPOSITE
% IMP.
( I )
23.11
26.42
COMPOSITE
% IMP.
{I)
23.11
26.42
COMPOSITE
% IMP.
(I)
23.11
26.42
CA=0.841 sac2
SOIL GROUP A
AREA
RUNOFF
COEFF.
3.19
0.12
3.19
0.15
C =086i 1.276
SOIL GROUP A
AREA
RUNOFF
COEFF.
3.19
3.19
In
CA,=0.87i 1.222
SOIL GROUP A
AREA
RUNOFF
COEFF.
3.19
0.14
3.19
0.17
CA=0.781 +0.110
SOIL GROUP A
AREA
RUNOFF
COEFF.
3.19
U :et.
3.19
C • =0.8311.1.22
G�LI
SOIL GROUP Cid
AREA
RUNOFF
COEFF.
Cc,c=0.82 i+0.035
SOIL GROUP CO
AREA
RUNOFF
COEFF.
Cc,u=0.74 i+0 ,132
SOIL GROUP CO
AREA
RUNOFF
COEFF.
Cc,0=0.41 i+0.484
SOIL GROUP CD
AREA
RUNOFF
COEFF.
COMPOSITE
"C"
0.12
0.15
COMPOSITE
"C„
0.13
0.16
COMPOSITE
"C"
t _
0.14
0.17
COMPOSITE
"C,,
0.29
0.32
COMPOSITE
% IMP.
23.11
26.42
1384-002 - C Camp 2016 USDCM, 'Ks Imp. & C -Values, 6;5(2018, 10:19 AM
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Project Name :
Location :
Item :
Les Matson
Greeley, CO
Time of Concentration (Initial & Travel Time)
Project No. : 1384-002
Computation By : COG
Check By : B E E
SUB -BASIN
DATA
INITIAL/OVERLAND
TIME (ti)
TRAVEL TIME
(ft)
COMP
to
tc CHECK
(URBANIZED BASINS)
1 FINAL
'LC
DESIGN
(1)
HYDROLOGIC
SOIL GROUP
PERCENT
IMPER-
VIOUS
(%)
AREA
(Ac)
(2)
C5
(3)
LENGTH
(Ft)
(4)
SLOPE
(%)
(5)
ti
(MINI)
(6)
LENGTH
(Ft)
(7)
CONVE-
VANCE
COEFFICIEN
(Cy)
SLOPE
(%)
(8)
VEL
(FPS)
(9)
tt
(MIN)
(10)
ti
(MIN)
1
+ tt
(11)
(11)
Min. of
& (13)
(MINI)
(14)
REMARKS
TOTAL
LENGTH
(Ft)
(12) I
tc=
(L/180)+1O
(MIN)
(13)
HA
C
23.11
3.19
0.13
300.00
0.80
32.65
430.00
10.00
0.80
0.89
8.01
40.66
730.00
41
DA
C
26.42
3.19
0.16
300.00
0.80
31.64
430.00
10.00
0.80
0.89
8.01
39.65
730.00
14.06
14
For developed condition it was assumed the same Drainage path and Slope.
Initial Time : ti
Travel Time: tt
W.
13151-3—c;.
'-In
as =; wetland (initial) flow time (ntaxies)
S )
Cs = runoff 'coefficient far 5 -year ftetpency Mona i ab s 6-4)
= length of °teri r ri flow (ft)
S., = avera: a slope along g ovriaad slow path (fat).
60K S, 60V
= chna' Pli7ad flow tinoe (travel time, min)
L_waterway length CIO
So =waterway slope Witt)
i = travel. time velocity (ft/sec) = K y`
_IsTRCS ccnueyne fear (see RIMP 2)
Ems . 5-3
Table 6-2 NRCS Conveyance Factor, K
IJ CCM (V.1) March 2017
Type of Land Surface
Conveyance Factor, K
Heavy meadow
2.5
Tillage/field
5
Short pasture and (awns;
7
Nearly bare ground
10
Grassed
waterway
15
Paved areas and shallow paved swales
20
1384-002 - Time con. Sheer,. 6/5/2018, 10:28 AM
Table 6-3. Recommended percentage imperviousness values
Land Use or
Surface Characteristics
Percentage Imperviousness
(%)
Business:
Downtown
Areas
95
Suburban
Areas
75
Residential
lots (lot area only):
Single-family
2.5 acres or larger
12
0.75
— 2.5
acres
20
0.25
- 0.75
acres
30
0.25 acres or less
45
Apartments
75
Industrial:
Light areas
Heavy areas
00
Parks, cemeteries
10
Playgrounds
Schools
Railroad yard
areas
0
Undeveloped Areas:
Historic
flow
analysis
2
Greenbelts, agricultural
2
Off -site flow analysis (when land use not
defined)
Streets:
Paved
100
Gravel (packed)
4
Drive and walks
(00
Roofs Roofs
)0
Lawns. sandy
soil
2
Lawns, clayey
soil
2
6-8 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1
March 2017
Table 6-4. Runoff coefficient equations based on NRCS soil group and storm return period
NRCS
Group
Soil
Storm
Return
Period
2 -Year
5 -Year
10 -Year
25 -Year
50-Y ear
100
-Year
500 -Year
A
C_—
CA=
CA=
CA=
(A_
CA_
CA—
0.84i1302
0.8611.276
0.8711.232
0.8411-124
0.851+0.025
0.781-0.110
0.651+0.254
B
CB=
0.84i1'169
CB —
CB=
CR
C13
(
C
0.86it.088
0.811+0.057
0.63i+0.249
0.56i+0.328
B—
0.37i+0.536
O.47i+0.426
CID
Ccm=
Cc/D=
CCMM =
COD =
CCU -
CcM =
CC/D _
0.83i1.122
0.82i+0.035
0.741+0.132
0.56i+0.319
0.491+0.39_
0,411+0.484
0.321+0.588
Where:
i = % imperviousness (expressed as a decimal)
CA = Runoff coefficient for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) HSG A soils
CB
Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG B soils
Cc fn = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG C and D soils.
The values for various catchment imperviousness and storm return periods are presented graphically in
Figures 6-1 through 6-3, and are tabulated in Table 6-5. These coefficients were developed for the
Denver region to work in conjunction with the time of concentration recommendations in Section 2.4.
Use of these coefficients and this procedure outside of the semi -arid climate found in the Denver region
may not be valid. The UD-Rational Excel workbook performs all the needed calculations to find the
runoff coefficient given the soil type and imperviousness and the reader may want to take advantage of
this macro -enabled Excel workbook that is available for download from the UDFCD's website
www.udfcd.org.
See Examples 7.1 and 7.2 that illustrate the Rational Method.
March 2017
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-9
Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1
Table 6-5. Runoff coefficients, c
Total
%
or
Impervious
Effective
NRCS
Hydrologic Soil Group A
2 -Year
5 -Year
10 -Year
25 -Year
50 -Year
100
-Year
500 -Year
2%
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.13
0.27
5%
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.07
0.15
0.29
10%
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.19
0.32
15%
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.1
0.15
0.23
0.35
20%
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.2
0.27
0.38
25%
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.19
0.24
0.3
0.42
30%
0.18
0.19
0.2
0.23
0.28
0.34
0.45
35%
0.21
0.23
0.24
0.27
0.32
0.38
0.48
40%
0.25
0.27
0.28
0.32
0.37
0.42
0.51
45%
0.3
0.31
0.33
0.36
0.41
0.46
0.54
50%
0.34
0.36
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.5
0.58
55%
0.39
0.4
0.42
0.45
0.49
0.54
0.61
60%
0.43
0.45
0.47
0.5
0.54
0.58
0.64
65%
0.48
0.5
0.51
0.54
0.58
0.62
0.67
70%
0.53
0.55
0.56
0.59
0..62
0.65
0.71
75%
0.58
0.6
0.61
0.64
0.66
0.69
0.74
80%
0.63
0.65
0.66
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.77
85%
0.68
0.7
0.71
0.74
0.75
0.77
0.8
90%
0.73
0.75
0.77
0.79
0.79
0.81
0.84
95%
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.87
100%
0.84
0.86
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.89
0.9
Total
%
or
Impervious
Effective
Hydrologic Soil
Group
B
NRCS
2 -Year
5 -Year
10 -Year
25 -Year
50
-Year
100 -Year
500 -Year
2%
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.26
0.34
0.44
0.54
5%
0.03
0.03
0.1
0.28
0.36
0.45
0.55
10%
0.06
0.07
0.14
0.31
0.38
0.47
0.57
15%
0.09
0.11
0.18
0.34
0.41
0.5
0.59
20%
0.13
0.15
0.22
0.38
0.44
0.52
0.61
25%
0.17
0.19
0.26
0.41
0.47
0.54
0.63
30%
0.2
0.23
0.3
0.44
0.49
0.57
0.65
35%
0.24
0.27
0.34
0.47
0.51
0.59
0.66
40%
0.29
0.37
0.38
0.5
0.55
0.61
0.68
45%
0.33
0.36
0.42
0.53
0.58
0.64
0.7
50%
0.37
0.4
0.46
0.56
0.61
0.66
0.72
55%
0.42
0.45
0.5
0.6
0.63
0.68
0.74
60%
0.46
0.49
0.54
0.63
0.66
0.71
0.76
65%
0.5
0.54
0.58
0.66
0.69
0.73
0.77
70%
0.55
0.58
0.62
0.69
0.72
0.75
0.79
75%
0.6
0.63
0.66
0.72
0.75
0.78
0.81
80%
0.64
0.67
0.7
0.75
0.77
0.8
0.83
85%
0.69
0.72
0.74
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.85
90%
0.74
0.76
0.78
0.81
0.83
0.84
0.87
95%
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.85
0.86
0.87
0.88
100%
0.84
0.86
0.86
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.9
6-10 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1
March 2017
Table -5.. Runoff coefficients, c (continued)
Total
% Impervious
or
Effective
NRCS
Soil Group C
Hydrologic
2 -Year
5 -Year
10 -Year
25 -Year
50 -Year
100 -Year
500 -Year
%
0.01
0.05
0.15
0.33
0.40
0.49
0.59
5°/b
0.03
0.08
0.17
0.35
0.42
0.5
0.6
10%
0.06
0.12
0.21
0.37
0.44
0.52
0.62
15%
0.1
0.16
0.24
0.4
0.47
0.55
0.64
20%
0.14
0.2
0.28
0.43
0.49
0.57
0.65
25%
0.18
0.24
0.32
0.46
0.52
0.59
0.67
30%
0.22
0.28
0.35
0.49
0.54
0.61
0.68
35%
0.26
0.32
0.39
0.51
0.57
0.63
0.7
40%
0.3
0.36
0.43
0.54
0.59
0.65
0.71
45%
0.34
0.4
0.46
0.57
0.62
0.67
0.73
50%
0,38
0.44
0.5
0.6
0.64
0.69
0.75
55%
0.43
0.48
0.54
0.63
0.66
0.71
0.76
60%
0.47
0.52
0.57
0.65
0.69
0.73
0.78
65%
0.51
0.56
0.61
0.68
0.71
0.75
0.79
70%
0.56
0.61
0.65
0.71
0.74
0.77
0.81
75%
0.6
0.65
0.68
0.74
0.76
0.79
0.82
80%
0.65
0.69
0.72
0.77
0.79
0.81
0.84
85%
0.7
0.73
0.76
0.79
0.81
0.83
0.86
90%
0.74
0.77
0.79
0.82
0.84
0.85
0.87
95%
0.79
0.81
0.83
0.85
0.86
0.87
0.89
100%
0.83
0.85
0.87
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.9
C
LT
i
7
1.00
0.80 _
O_60
a_40
0.20
0.00
9O
0 10 20 3O 4O 50 60 70 80
Watershed Peroesi ago Imper iiousnesst %
100
l
r
__ 5-
yr
-O-10
-O-50-yr
X 100-yr
Figure 6-1. Runoff coefficient vs. watershed imperviousness NRCS HSG A
March 2017
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-11
Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
APPENDIX B
RETENTION CALCULATIONS
Northern.E.n.gineeringitom / 970.221.4158.
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
Location name: La Salle, Colorado, USA*
Latitude: 40.3584°, Longitude: -104.6366°
Elevation: 4663.28 ft**
* source; ESRI Maps
** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale
Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches/hour)1
Duration
5 -min
10 -min
15 -min
30 -min
60 -min
2 -hr
3 -hr
6 -hr
•
12 -hr
24 -hr
2 -day
3 -day 1
4 -day
7 -day
10 -day
20 -day
30 -day
45 -day
60 -day
Average recurrence interval (years)
I
2.92
(2.40-3.58)
2.14
(1.76-2.62)
1.74
(1.43-2.13)
1.16
(0.960-1.43)
0.724
(0.597-0.687)
0.432
(0.359-0.526)
0.316
(0.263-0.382)
0.182
(0.153-0.218)
0.105
(0.089-0.125)
0.063
(0.054-0.074)
0.036
(0.031-0.042)
0.026
(0.023-0.031)
0.021
(0.018-0.025)
0.014
(0.012-0.016)
[0.011
0.009-0.012)
0.007
(0.006-0.008)
0.005
(0.005-0.006)
0.004
(0.004-0.005)
0.004
(0.003-0.004)
2
3.53
(2.90-4.32)
2.58
(2.12-3.17)
2.10
(1.73-2.57)
1.41
(1.16-1.72)
0.861
(0.709-1.06)
0.509
(0.422.0.620)
0.368
(0.306-0.445)
0.214
(0.179-0.257)
0.125
(0.106.0.149)
0.074
(0.063-0.088)
0.043
(0.037-0.050)
0.031
(0.027-01.036)
0.025
(0.021-0.029)
0.016
(0.014-0.018)
0.012
(0.011-0.014)
0.008
(0.007.0.009)
0.006
(0.005-0.007)
0.005
(0.004.0.005)
0.004
(0.004-0.005)
5
4.69
(3.84-5.77)
3.43
(2.81-4.22)
2.79
(2.29-3.44)
1.87
(1.53-2.30)
1.14
(0.931-1.40)
0.668
(0.552-0.816)
0.478
(0.396-0.581)
0.279
(0.233-0.336)
0.163
(0.137-0.195)
0.095
(0.080-0.112)
0.054
(0.046-0.064)
0.039
(0.033-0.045)
0.030
(0.026-0.036)
0.020
(0.017-0.023)
0.015
(0.013-0.018)
0.010
(0.008-0.011)
0.007
(0.006-0.008)
0.006
(0.005-0.007)
0.005
(0.004-0.006)
10
5.81
(4.73-7.19)
4.25
(3.46-5.26)
3.46
(2.82-4.28)
2.32
(1.89-2.87)
1.41
(1.15-1.75)
0.831
(0.681-1.02)
0.594
(0.489-0.726)
0.344
(0.285-0.417)
0.199
(0.166-0.239)
0.114
(0.096-0.135)
0.065
(0.055-0.076)
0.046
(0.039-0.054)
0.036
(0.031-0.042)
0.023
(0.020-0.027)
(0.018
(0.015-0.021)
0.011
(0.010-0.013)
0.008
(0.007-0.010)
0.007
(0.006-0.007)
0.006
(0.005-0.006)
25
7.58
(6.01-10.1)
5.56
(4.40-7.38)
4.52
(3.58-6.00)
3.03
(2.41-4.03)
1.86
(1.48-2.49)
1.10
(0.888-1.47)
0.790
(0.641-1.05)
0.452
(0.368-0.592)
0.255
(0.208-0.327)
0.143
(0.117-0.180)
0.080
(0.066-0.099)
0.056
(0.046-0.069)
0.044
(0.036-0.054)
0.028
(0.023-0.034)
0.021
(0.018-0.026)
0.013
(0.011-0.015)
0.010
(0.008-0.011)
0.008
(0.006-0.009)
0.006
(0.005-0.007)
9.14
(6.98-12.3)
6.69
(5.12-8.98)
5.44
(4.16-7.30)
3.66
(2.80-4.91)
2.26
(1.74-3.05)
1.35
(1.04-1.81)
0.969
(0.755-1.30)
0.549
(0.430-0.724)
0.304
(0.239-0.393)
0.168
(0.133-0.215)
0.093
(0.074-0.117)
0.064
(0.052-0.081)
0.050
(0.040-0.062)
0.032
(0.025-0.039)
0.024
(0.019-0.029)
0.014
(0.012-0.017)
0.011
(0.009-0.013)
0.008
(0.007-0.010)
0.007
(0.006-0.008)
in 100
10.8
(7.93-15.0)
7.94
(5.81-11.0)
6.46
(4.72-8.92)
4.35
(3.18-6.01)
2.71
(1.99-3.76)
1.62
(1.20-2.24)
1.17
(0.874-1.61)
0.658
(0.494-0.891)
0.357
(0.269-0.475)
0.195
(0.148-0.256)
0.106
(0.081-0.138)
0.074
(0.056-0.095)
0.057
(0.044-0.073)
0.035
(0.027-0.045)
0.027
(0.021-0.033)
0.016
(0.012-0.019)
0.012
(0.009-0.014)
0.009
(0.007-0.011)
0.008
(0.006-0.009)
200
12.8
(8.84-18.2)
9.34
(6.47-13.3)
7.59
(5.26-10.8)
5.12
(3.55-7.30)
3.22
(2.24-4.60)
1.94
(1.36-2.75)
1.41
(0.993-1.99)
0.782
(0.556-1.09)
0.416
(0.298-0.571)
0.225
(0.162-0.304)
0.121
(0.088-0.161)
0.083
(0.061-0.110)
0.064
(0.047-0.085)
0.039
(0.029-0.051)
0.029
(0.022-0.038)
0.017
(0.013-0.022)
0.013
(0.010-0.016)
0.010
(0.007-0.012)
0.008
(0.006-0.010)
500
15.5
(10.2-22.8)
11.4
(7.49-16.7)
9.24
(6.10-13.6)
6.25
(4.12-9.18)
3.97
(2.62-5.84)
2.40
(1.61-3.51)
1.75
(1.18-2.55)
0.963
(0.653-1.38)
0.501
(0.342-0.709)
0.267
(0.184-0.373)
0.141
(0.098-0.194)
0.097
(0.068-0.133)
0.074
(0.052-0.101)
0.045
(0.032-0.060)
0.033
(0.023-0.044)
0.019
(0.013-0.025)
0.014
(0.010-0.018)
0.011
(0.008-0.014)
0.009
(0.006-0.012)
1000
17.8
(11.3-26.3)
13.0
(8.27-19.3)
10.6
(6.72-15.7)
7.18
(4.55-10.6)
•
4.59
(2.91-6.78)
2.80
(1.79-4.09)
2.04
(1.32-2.97)
1.12
(0.726-1,61)
0.571
(0.376-0.814)
0.302
(0.201-0.426)
0.157
(0.106-0.219)
0.108
(0.073-0.149)
0.083
(0.056-0.114)
0.049
(0.034-0.067)
0.036
(0.025-0.049)
0.020
(0.014-0.027)
0.015
(0.010-0.020)
0.011
(0.008-0.015)
0.009
(0.007-0.012)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a
given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not
checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
PDS-based intensity -duration -frequency (IDF) curves
Latitude: 4 .3584 Longitude -104.636
100.000
10.000
Lri 1000
U)
u aa�
0 100
5,
cu
0.010
X1.001
100.000
10.000
art
ae 1.000
0,1
Ari
0.100
,a 0_010
0.001
C rte-�
4s �'
o
!-i
C
,vl
r 1
10
25 50 100 200
IN1OAIA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
L. La
I a I i a a
I a I I e a a
1 a a I a a a
a a I I a I I
I I I .a. a. a
I a I I I I I
I f I I I I I
I I I I I I I
....e. .....-r.... IL .1• ..am. m. ss. sa..
I f a a a i a
I I I I I I- I
a a 1 I e a
• I I I I I ■
a I A a I I. a
I I I I I a I
I a I I I I I
1 I I I I 1 I
F • I I I
a a_ _ a. a _ -I _ J - .
I a I I I I I
• 1 • 1 I I a
I a I I I a
a a I 1 1 a
a a I I I
I I a
tO
Duration
S
rti r0
SL! g,..) c'
7\1 Ian
Avei age recurrence, interval (years)
in 0
1 'd r J C
(3 113 TIM
C I
500 1000
Created (GMTl: Fri Jan 12 23:19:45. 2018
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
AvRr.age recurrence
interval
(years)
1
2
S
1C
25
100
200
500
1000
Duration
5-rrwn 2 -day
10 -man 3 -day
15fln 4 -clay
30 -min — 7 -day
60emin 10 -day
2 -hr — 20 -day
3 -hr — 30 -day
6 -hr - 45 -clay
12 -hr se 60 -clay
24 -hr
I! tir-IL
EV2 ink
3km
I _
I
2mi
I
U
County Rd 56
EASTON
. LL EYY.IEW
c+A. ARPOR I
Large scale terrain
Lel
S
�.h eyenn e
FortCc f1 ins
•
t 1 1 ifcir. ,�
I- !
L_ I I
I der.
_4
17-7
•, Longractint
100km
I
I
60mi
EN4IVAIL\t &.‘
•Vret ley
Denver
Tht
ate<
Large scale map
Medicin
3:70,0.* tri
F cr srt
Ch! arms
- F= ;_ -)
er
dpbrwe
i.
Iil
E F 100km
-to I
I
60mi
Large scale aerial
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: HDSC.Questions th.noaa.gov
Disclaimer
N2
DETENTION POND SIZING
Project Name : Les Matson
Location Weld County
Item : Detention Pond "A"
Project Name :
Computation By
Check By :
1384-002
COG
BEE
Developed Conditions :
Land Use
Area (sf)
%Imp
Area x%imp
Recycle Asphalt
Drive & Walks
Roof
Gravel
Open Space
Agriculture
2,962.08
2,265.12
5,183.64
66,821.04
22,084.92
39,770.28
70.00
90.00
90.00
40.00
2.00
2.00
207345.60
203860.80
466527.60
2672841.60
44169.84
79540.56
Total
"% Imp " (Composite)
"C100" Value
I (Intensity)
"A" (Area )
Time
(min)
139,087.08
Q = CIA Runoff 1O0-Yr. Storm
0.32
0.195 24 -Hour, 100 Year storm (NO AA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2)
Intensity
(In./Hr.)
3674286.00
26.42
3.19
Flow (O)
(Cfs)
Ac.
Volume IN
(Cf)
Outflow
Volume
(Cf)
Storage
Volume
(Cf)
1440
0.20
STORAGE REQUIRED
Times de Volume
0.197
17, 002.33 CF
1.5
25,503.49 CF
17,002.33
0.39
15
0.59
0.00
17,002.33
Ac -ft
Ac -ft
Volume Reg'!
Total Required Storage :
ACTUAL STORAGE :
(A)
Elevation
92.00
93.00
94.00
95.00
96.00
Depth
1.00
1.00
1:00
Total Volume
Elev. (A1)
Volume (D1)
Partial volume (G2)
Depth, partial volume
High water level
Spillway Depth
Free board
Top pond bank elevation
Water Depth
Average Depth
1.00
(B)
Area
(Bf.)
1.00
6,628.00
10,991.00
15,692.08
17,710.96
(C)
Volume
(Cf.)
3314.50
8,809.50
(D)
Volume 'Volume
(Cf.) (Ac. -ft.)
3,314.50
12,124.00
10 "401 154_
SEI
16,701.52
25,543.49
94.00
12,124.00
13,341_54
1.00
95.00
0.05 ft.
1.00 ft.
96.00
3.00 ft.
1.50 ft.
25.465.54
42,167.06
0.08
0.278
0.585
0.97
0.59 Ac -ft
1384-002 -D-i oad Raliomil IAA Rusin Dl. 6-'5i2G13, 10:23 AM
PHECOLATION CALCULATION
Project Name : Les Matson
Location : Weld County
Item : Detention/ Infiltration Pond "A"
Project Name : 1384-002
Computation By: COG
Check By : BEE
Percolation :
Water Depth
(Average Depth with 2.46%
slope)
Soil Type A:
Final Percolation Rate
(From Urban Drainagee and
Flood Control District Table 6-7)
Percolation Time
NMI
1.50
1
Feet
18 hr
Table. -7. Recommended Horton's equation parameters
I
NRC
S
Soil
Hydrologic
Group
Infiltration
(inches
per
hour)
Decay
Coefficient
initial
/2
Final
.
a
A
I
5.
.
1.0
.0,0007
B
43
0.6
0.0018
C
3.0
0.5OOOi8
i
3.0
0.5
0.0018
D
P:\1384-002\Drainage\Hydrology\1384-002 - Percolation, 6/5/2018
Weir Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
Weir Detention Pond A (24 Hr., 100-Yr. Storm)
Trapezoidal Weir
Crest
Bottom Length (ft)
Total Depth (ft)
Side Slope (z:1)
Calculations
Weir Coeff. Cw
Compute by:
Known Q (cfs)
Depth (ft)
2.00
150
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
_ Sharp
5.00
1.00
- 4.00
- 2.60
Known Q
= 0.11
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (ft/s)
Top Width (ft)
Weir Detention Pond A (24 Hr., 100-Yr. Storm)
Monday, Jun 4 2018
0.05
0.110
0.26
= 0.42
= 5.40
V
l
0 2
Weir
I
4 6
6
10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
Length (ft)
NO 'THERN
ENGINEERING
APPENDIX C
NRCS - WEB SOIL SURVEY
Niorth ern E ng in eerin;g.com it 970.221.:4158
40° 21' 51" N
40° 21' 17" N
8
:g.,
104° 38' 31" W
530400
A
530500
Hydrologic Soil Group Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
(Lee Matson Property)
53oeoo
530700
530900
531000
531100
530500 530600 530700 530800 530900 531000 531100
Map Scale: 1:5,140 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Meters
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 200 400 800 1200
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
104° 37 58" W
8
8
40° 21' 51" N
40° 21' 17" N
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/12/2018
Page 1 of 4
et
a.
a
0
F
6
V
L
o t+
0
0 N
c L-
o c
0
It!
z
O
5
O
U -
z
0
S
MAP LEGEND
were mapped at
O
E
0
to
_c
Q
o -t'
r
a
o 'o o
= ci
_o w co C3
C 0 ci)Q2
co
L
0 E co o
0 L3
C c co
0 03 2 g a
E co
Cl) o ec.C
c
o
BocA na)
_
> nfl0)
0 "0 c.
C
ID
>1 .Q 0
E 0- "'- a.-
ru
a 0 n
(' E C
15 "ic" co .cow
co a) Ea)
.. E L 0 c
C 0 CO
.` co 3 a 2. 4i
R3 co o c co
w 'E C O
0 O 0
a)
co
co
C
0
a)
1
Co
z
i i O
Rating Polygons
.3
U)
Water Features
i!)
C
C
C
cu
E
cr)
m
Transportation
,.. "-C > -0 o 5 n
a co -o W cU -0 coct N
03 CL 10
�-- a c� -c L c) o r- c'�
.c cn c us D Cl)c] o
o4) . L 0 �} 0 0 (.) U
o L.co co O i-JO co
C o o N .2- C.13 C
o (0 > 0 4) C E. 3 co
N +_",+ 0 C co
q> 3 q) 0 o) -0 0 .0
L _C .Q �- •C o a) o
.0 cfs 03 Q .. Q 0 0
L
Ct) Z D q) - • 003 r3 0 L:
n > 0 37 N R3 CO 00•}
C -i 0- N co 93 3 , U]7:3 L 0 u) co
o c co ,a � € 0 c co
o 2 r3� #-' 2 co � .F > c L.
E +_ �J J. 4 E c co C 0 3 L 4? ,L 3 0
Q o 0 o '" ` < ac
0 3 a) c!] •— 4—
+-i U L 3 }, C3
co u� 2 t (}3 C L L a 0 U7 0 E O
cocameci a .0 030 3 U7 .� - > — C�
a. E O) so m 0. -0 < co i— o G0 c1) CO r
co
0
`— 0 co
co € co
a� o CO
a U 0 00 co
no -C2 CO D 0 0 0_ 3
_
Er ---
(D _
w.3E
C .0 Cl) 4) a
cU '� -C
S3
in
_c 0 ( ) Cr CO L
E
0 -+—' 3 N 0 0
UJ L' J C u m ®
L" n/ w 4-
F
a
2
CO ' d f[5 cu
J "O
C
2 L
cys
•
Q)
co
co
0
C
0
-a
C)
R]
I-
0 a.1 .— 0
Ratin
0
17, 2015 —Sep
images were photographed:
co
^ r
a) N
0�
E()
c- o
.Fs
Cu>
'5C
0
-o
cam!)
Co
L.
z
Rating Points
.3
ofs
ines were
C o
o .c-
cb
= 0 0
cr
C
0
0 �
L CO -0
CO -CS 'co • ai
e>
-C2 CD ca
CO
72
-C
0
CD C
ONO in
_� 0
CL G3
0 sa g .c
I- ca.- 5
a
co
V f
VJ
co
co
V J 43
o
03
o
0
CO
z
Resources
cts
z
Conservation Service
Hydrologic Soil Group Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
Lee Matson Property
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AO1
Percent of AO1
1
Altvan
loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
B
0.1
0.1%
4
Aquolls and Aquepts,
flooded
D
33.5
24.2%
21
Dacono
clay
1 percent slopes
loam, 0 to
C
39.9
28.8%
72
Vona loamy
percent
sand, 0 to
slopes
3
A
64.1
46.3%
85
Water
0.8
0.6%
Totals for Area of Interest
138.4
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/12/2018
Page 3of4
Hydrologic Soil Group Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Lee Matson Property
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive
precipitation from long -duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (ND, BID, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively
drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well
drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of
water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay
layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious
material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in
their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Higher
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/12/2018
Page 4of4
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
AP'ENDIX D
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE AND
RETENTION VARIANCE REQUEST
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
ENGINEERING DESIGNED TO WELD COUNTY CODE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
1, Brad Eaton of Northern Engineering Services Inc., Consultant Engineer for Les Matson ("Applicant), ), understand and
acknowledge that Applicant cant is seeking ng land use approval of case number C 17-00343 ("Application") cation") for the property
described in the attached Exhibit "A," I have designed or reviewed the design ("Design") for the proposed land use set forth
in the Application. I hereby certify, on behalf of Applicant that the Design will meet all applicable drainage requirements
of the Weld County Code with th m�,,� ::tea' �'lk.y variance(s) described below_ This certification is not a guarantee or warranty
either expressed or implied.
p p 3 -s
(Engineer's Stamp)
En neer of Record Signature
wil‘%:Ziz;sPso$KPI‘w ARIANCE REQUEST
1) Describe the Weld County Code criteria of which a variance is being requested.
2) Describe why it is not possible to meet the Weld County Code.
1) Describe the proposed alternative with engineering rational which supports the intent of the Weld County Code_
1) The requested variance to Weld County Code criteria under section. 23-12-90 is to allow for detention with
in fi ltrat_ion (retention) for the proposed 5,200 square foot stnicture and associate parking area.
It is not possible to meet the above referenced Weld County Code criteria under section 23-12-90 for conventional
detention with surface release because the Lower Lath= Reservoir and Irrigation Company has refused to accept
thehistoric flows and developed runoff volume from the proposed improvements into the adjacent Lathuni ditch.
Please see the attached meeting confirmation with the ditch board president. of z1/28/18.
3) The proposed alternative of detention with infiltration (retention) has been designed in accordance with Weld
County requirements under section 23-12-90 "Retention Criteria" and meets or exceeds County requirements for
this type of system, thereby meeting the intent of Weld County Code by protecting adjacent property from injury.
Please see the project drainage narrative and supporting documentation for a comprehensive description of the
proposed alternative.
1 understand and agree that the intention of the Code is to reduce impacts of development on neighboring downstream
properties and the public. I understand if this variance request is approved it is not precedent setting and is based on site
specific constraints.
Planning Director Approval indicated when signed by director or appointee:
Planning Director Name
Signature.
Date of approval
/13115
EXHIBIT A
A RELOCATED BUMMING G ENVELOPE BEING A PORTION OF
LOT Br RE 3338 ALL SPATE WITHIN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35,
TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 65 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.,
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO.
r
w
15
.Me
0
%SURVEY PRO
NORTHWEST CORNER
SECTION3545N-R65W
Zo
a
x
cC
w
rn
U-
C
0)
WEST 1/4 CORNER
SECTION 3 T5 -R6'5W
NORTH
40O
WEST 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 35-T N-RG5W
LOTA
RE 3338
LOT B
R E-3338
ti
NE
TABLE
LINE
r
i LENGTH
BEARING
L1
89.19'
N12` 25" 4411V
889°281211E
Ili is
,,-
l:::„?i0
r1/41 in
c
2
63-7115, fr,,
ENVELOPE `
tn
20'023$ sq„L cu, eb
4.60 ac 1,6105I'?'
sit sTar53"'‘
a$ CENTER -WEST 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 35-T5N-R65W
POINT OF
BEG C NING
POINT OF
COMMENCEMENT
40O Feet
IN 4.N)�pS�.. SURVEY FEET )
1 Inch = 400 ft
ref%a C..cc:M�Pa3 NMI Abe* K 3
',jut tti•. WV%M Ls i
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING)
i'.'�`' .�'e�
Les Matson +Constr-uctcrn r Inc
R O. Box 336668
GreeCey, Colorado 80633
Northern Engineering
820 Stn, Street
Greekey, Colorado 80631
Brad Eaton
On April 28, 2018 I had a meeting or my Property located fetid County roads 45 gre 52, with
Ted Bu+ arras "President of the Lower Lathum Reservoir and Irrigation Company".
I had asked for him to meet to discuss the possiNityr of allowing us to discharge the run off water from
our detention pond into their Irrigation ditch,
At that time Ted informed me that the ditch company would not allow lus to discharge into their ditch.
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
Northern.E.n.gineering.cony /./ 970.221.4158
1384-002
IkU
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Approximate Location,
United States Geological
Survey (USES) Contour.
Envelope Boundary
4.6 Ac.
LOT A
RE -3338
COUNTY ROAD 52
Latham
Ditch
Retention Pond A:
Retention Volume Required =0.59 Ac -ft.
(1.5 Times the 24 Hr., 100-Yr. Storm)
Bottom Inv. El.= 92.0 ft.
High Water El. (Bottom/Spillway)= 95.0 ft.
Spillway Water Depth= 0.05 ft.
Top of Berm El.= 96.0 ft.
Retention
Pond A
Proposed
Improvements
LOWER LATHAM RESERVOIR
LES MATSON SHOP ADDITION
LA SALLE, CO
FIGURE 1
[brairya!e Exhibit
P:\1384.002\D'NGT RAINAGEl138 4-002 DRA I NAG E. DWG
Envelope Boundary
4.6 Ac.
Approximate Location,
United States Geological
Survey (IJSGS) Contour.
xx.xx.xx
Basin
Boundary
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
P!\1384-0D21pWGk6RAINAGE\13E4-002 DRAINAGE -DWG
5 ft. Long
Weir Overflow
Retention
Pond A
Ex. Swale
The bottom of the Retention
pond will need to be disked
occasionally to improve the
infiltration rate.
LES MATSON SHOP ADDITION
LA SALLEr CO
12/20/2017 Gmail - Tuesday Dec 19 meeting.
M
Gmail
Jeannette Ratliff <jhartman345@3a gmail.com>
Tuesday Dec 19 meeting.
2 messages
DI <mugsyinco@aol.com> Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:41 PM
To: jhartman345@gmail.com
Due to the short notice prior to the meeting time ( we just received your letter today, Tues 19, 2017) and with the very
busy holiday season, we are unable to attend the meeting tonight from 5:30-6:30 p.m. on such short notice.
Because of our age and the possibility of our children inheriting our place we respectfully request that our son be afforded
the opportunity to ask questions and offer comments in regard to the proposed commercial
site as it could affect our agricultural property. He is not available on such short notice as he manages his own business
and has prior commitments.
I hope we will have a more opportune time to meet concerning this matter. (After the busy Holiday season.)
Dennis and Sharlene Loose
22035 CR 52
Greeley, CO 80631
Jeannette Ratliff <jhartman345@gmail.com>
To: DI <m ugsyin co@aol . com>
Bcc: Brian&Hannah Hartman <hartman_hl@msn.com>
Hi Dennis and Sharlene,
Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM
Thank you so much for your email! I do apologize for the short notice on the neighborhood meeting time. Donna passed
on your thoughts and we decided that we will hold another meeting after the first of the year and will provide more notice
in the future. The reason this one was such short notice was due to our deadline with the county for our submittal of a
Use of Special Review permit which is due on the 29th of this month. We are trying to get their requirements completed
before the holidays which has been slightly inconvenient.
We would love to add your son to our contact list and have him join us at our next meeting. As I said, we all discussed
another meeting should be held after the first of the year. Donna kindly offered for us to use her home so we don't have to
stand out in the cold this time.
I would also like to offer some clarity to what we are doing on the property. We are NOT zoning the land commercially. It
will remain agricultural in nature. We are also NOT putting a commercial business on the property. The southeast corner
of the property (3 acres) is going to be used for storage purposes for Garrette Construction. He will keep equipment and
metal pilings and things of that nature on the property. The corner will also be used for storage by Brian Hartman who
owns Jabez Trucking. He is an owner -operator who will keep his trucks and trailers onsite when not in use. The goal is
also to erect a building on the corner for storage purposes which will help clean the area up.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments. I am Jeannette, Brian and Hannah's daughter. I believe
we met on the road last spring when I was riding with my mom. We want to be good neighbors to you guys and we look
forward to seeing you again after the first of the year.
Thank you,
Jeannette
[Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=c87973837d&jsver-M6fEKBcEEk0.en.&view=pt&search-inbox&type=1005b80d76293691&th-16074a7a83... 1/1
Les Matson
PO Box 336668
Greeley, CO 80633
Brian Hartman
2413 3 27th Avenue Ct
Greeley, CO R0634
December 14th, 2017
To Whom It May Concern,
We have recently purchased a property near you, located at 22014 WCR 52, Greeley CO 8 06 31. We are currently
proposing a few small changes to the use of this property and are working toward becoming compliant with Weld
County requirements. We are proposing to use a small portion of the property for commercial purposes, specifically,
storage of supplies and equipment relating to construction and trucking. The trucking company is small with only 2
trucks. The construction company is also small and only stores equipment and supplies, At this time, no commercial
activities will occur onsite other than general maintenance activities.
We would like to invite you to a friendly, neighborhood meeting to discuss the details ofthe activities we are propos-s
ing, as well as address any questions or concerns that may arise, We will be hosting the meeting on Tuesday, Decem-
ber 19th from 5:30-6:30pm at the property: 22014 WCR 52, Greeley, CO 80631. If you are unable to attend and have
any concerns, please feel free to email them to jhartman345@gmaii.com.
We look forward to meeting you and joining your community.
Sincerely,
Brian Hartman
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
22014 Country Road 52
Greeley, CO 80631
December 19th, 2017
5:30 - 6:30pm
Meeting began at 5:27pm Tuesday, December 19th, 2017 at 22014 WCR 52 Greeley, CO 80631.
Attendees included Les Matson (property owner), Brian Hartman & Hannah Hartman (business
owners), Jeannette Ratliff (Brian's daughter), Donna and Scott Stevenson (neighbors), and John
Flack (Lower Latham Reservoir Company).
Brian initiated the meeting by a brief discussion of the plans he and Les Matson have for the
property which include using the property for storage of personal and commercial items.
Scott asked if Les was going to have to get commercial zoning for the property. Les explained
that the zoning would remain the same and he would be obtaining a USR for the proposed use.
Donna had a few points to make:
• She had spoken with a few of the other neighbors and they were unable to attend due
to the short notice of the letters.
• Her biggest issue with the proposed use is dust. A high amount of dust is stirred up by
vehicles driving down the road too fast.
• She doesn't want a lot of commercial traffic.
• She is curious many trips per day are there going to be?
• She and Scott moved there to get away from trucks and commercial.
Jeannette explained the short notice of the letters due to the limited time frame for submittal of
the USR along with the holiday season. It was generally decided that another neighborhood
meeting should occur after the beginning of the year.
Brian addressed the dust control issue by proposing to put a speed limit sign on the road, looking
into the possibility of obtaining a water truck for dust control, and looking into obtaining gravel
on the road to reduce the dust from dirt.
Donna said she understood that dust and sporadic hours are typical for the current agricultural
operations but agricultural operations are seasonal not year round.
Hannah asked if Donna was able to differentiate between noise and dust from large trucks vs. oil
field traffic vs. random people who just show up?
• Donna said she does not typically know who is making the noise or dust at the specif-
ic times.
Scott said he would like to see a copy of the USR after it gets submitted. He is curious of the
timeline for all of proposed activities. He has less of a problem with the trucks and dust than he
does with the junk/visual effects of the materials currently laying out in the open.
Donna was curious if the trucking company and the construction company were separate entities
or if they are must be on the property together?
• Brian and Les explained they would be onsite together.
John commented at the lack of communication to date. He also received short notice on the meet-
ing and remarked about the main entrance gate being moved with no notification to Lower Lath-
am
about it.
• Brian explained he was under the impression the gate was the property owner's and
could be moved at will. He will provide better communication in the future to Lower
Latham about the activities being conducted onsite. Especially concerning the
changes he and Les would like to make to the main entrance (addition of a box cul-
vert and changing the angle of the road).
Scott remarked their biggest concerns are dust and junk obstructing their view. They want to be
aware of the changes that are going to be made and want a chance to review the USR when it is
submitted.
Everyone agreed another meeting should be held after the first of the year to discuss the USR
and so anyone unable to attend this meeting will be able to voice any questions or concerns they
have.
Meeting ended at 6: 14pm.
Neighborhood Meeting Sign -In Sheet
22014 Country Road 52
Greeley, CO 80634
December 19th, 2017
5:30 - 6:30pm
o
t
u +nine
ile
5 At oo
,4_ -0
)4a
z -
" if
y}� f �≤le
user/ 4 4-" r
J
I„ a t /11 4 -nazi/
r
fil
lieg
ji,
4/
K ce.,, -6.
9 7.9 X
ad
-
Y
I'�
j
j
ir
46(4%O iiii pwili—J
1. `
e
l a i
f�du_Ca_
�
�
532
r �_
i
,rnk
,�
1
n _
air
Coeffn-
Hello