The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20101475.tiff • EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case ORD #2010-1 - TODD CREEK VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (DRY CREEK RUA) Exhibit Submitted By Description A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 1/19/2010) D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearings (Filed under Legals) Resolution of Concern and Disapproval of Proposed E. City of Brighton "Dry Creek RUA", dated 5/4/2010 F. Planning Staff Two Dry Creek RUA Maps G. Nancy Fichter E-mail of Opposition, dated 7/09/2010 H. Sharlene Krantz E-mail of Opposition, dated 7/09/2010 • I. Applicant Hard copy of PowerPoint Presentation J. Applicant Redline Version of Proposed Ordinance Changes K. Planning Staff Map of Fort Lupton 208 Boundary L. Kyle Stidham E-mail of Opposition, dated 7/14/2010 Molly Sommerville Letter of Limited Withdrawal of Objection, dated M. Buchanan 7/26/2010 N. Paul Edwards E-mail of Opposition, dated 8/1/2010 New Brantner Extension O. Ditch Co./Barry Marrs E-mail of Concern, dated 8/2/2010 P. Alvin and Nancy Fichter E-mail of Opposition, dated 8/2/2010 Q. Sharlene Krantz E-mail of Opposition, dated 8/3/2010 R. Peggy Namanny E-mail of Opposition, dated 8/4/2010 S. Applicant Packet of Memos and Articles Hazel Frank/on behalf of T. Various Citizens Petition of Opposition (10 signers) Sharlene Krantz/on behalf • U. of Various Citizens Petition of Opposition (36 signers) Anthony Espinosa/on behalf of Various V. Citizens Petition of Opposition (30 signers) Larry Johnson/on behalf W. of Various Citizens Petition of Opposition (21 signers) aWolO-H75 • William Grant/on behalf of X. Various Citizens Petition of Opposition Y. William (Bill) Wycoff CD Disc of Todd Creek Audits, dated 8/4/2010 Katee Kirkmeyer/on Z. behalf of Various Citizens Petition of Opposition AA. Larry Johnson Letter of Concern, received 08/17/2010 BB. Clerk to the Board E-mail Response to Paul Echternacht, dated 8/10/2010 CC. Paul Echternacht Letter to Tribune Editor, dated 8/11/2010 David Norcross, Sharon Crespin, Robert McWilliams, Debra Yates - Fort Lupton Council DD. Members E-mails of Opposition, dated 8/21/2010 EE. Applicant Third Reading PowerPoint Presentation FF. Applicant Dry Creek RUA Metro Study Market Update, 8/2010 GG. Applicant Ft. Lupton City Council UAM 2006-018 • HH. Applicant Copy of Fort Lupton IGA 11.1-11.5 Applicant 5 Maps JJ. Applicant Copy of HB08-1141 KK. Anthony Espinosa E-mail of Opposition, dated 8/23/2010 LL. John Vandemoer E-mail of Support, dated 8/22/2010 MM. Applicant Map of North Campus Prairie Waters Project NN. Doug Meyer Letter of Concern and Tribune Article clipping OO. Hazel Frank Map showing properties in opposition PP. Hazel Frank Map of Dacono Comprehensive Plan Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered QQ. Jim Johnson (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems Letters of Support from Albert Sacks, Candelario and RR. John Howard Conrad Sacks Various Documents - 1) Annual Audit Requirements, 2) TCVMD Audit Extracts, 3) Commissioner qualifications,4) Commissioner responsibilities, • SS.1- 5) Future Land Use Map, 6) Financing Residential SS.6 William Wycoff Development with Special Districts TT. Caroline Kirkmeyer Written Comments UU. Planning Staff Email Notice from Norris Design dated 11/23/2010 • VV. Applicant Invitation for Open House, dated 12/20/2010 Letter from Fort Lupton Fire Protection District, dated WW. Planning Staff 01/11/2011 Letter to Fort Lupton Fire Protection District, dated XX. Applicant 01/25/2011 Letter to BOCC stating support of Dry Creek RUA, YY. Sheriff John Cooke dated 02/08/2011 Letter to BOCC with Letter to RE-8 from Dry Creek ZZ. School District Weld 8-RE 02/162011 Engineering Report, dated January 2011 AAA. Applicant *This exhibit is lacking pages 15-16 & map, see EEEE BBB. Applicant Notice of Special Meeting, 02/17/11 CCC. School District RE-8 Letter of Support, dated 02/16/11 DDD. Clifford Wagner E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 Letter of Support from Sheriff's Office, received EEE. Nanci Kerr/Applicant 02/18/2011 FFF. Kenneth Wagner Letter of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 GGG. Delsa Dee Johnson Letter of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 • Power PowerPoint Presentation for Upcoming BOCC HHH. Applicant meeting, received 02/18/2011 III. Jane Wycoff E-mail of Opposition, received 02/19/2011 JJJ. Dan Stanton E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 KKK. John & Mary Morales E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 LLL. Arthur& Mary DeHerrera E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 MMM. Sharlene Krantz E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 NNN. B. Michl Lloyd E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 Larry, Karen & Keith OOO. Johnson E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 PPP. Hope Adame E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 QQQ. Roger Hollard E-mail of Opposition, received 02/22/2011 RRR. Applicant Financial Statements, dated 12/31/2008 Summary of Water Supply for Todd Creek, dated 01/2011 revised 02/20011 • SSS. Applicant *This exhibit is lacking pages 15-16, see EEEE -ITT. Hazel Frank RUA Map UUU. Hazel Frank Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map • • VVV. Hazel Frank Summary of RUA Application, revised 02/2011 WWW. Skipped Hazel Frank/on behalf of XXX. Various Citizens Petition of Opposition YYY. Anthony Espinosa Letter, dated 02/23/2011 ZZZ. Wes Lavanchy Letter of Opposition, dated 02/22/2011 AAAA. Linda Zimmerman E-mail of Support, received 02/23/2011 BBBB. Bill Wycoff Comments, dated 02/23/2011 Guideline 2003-5 Regarding the Use of Wells Within CCCC. Bill Wycoff Water Service Areas, DDDD. Mike Lloyd Comments, dated 02/23/2011 EEEE. Wayne Mueller Summary of Water Supply System, dated 01/2011 FFFF. Caroline Kirkmeyer Hard copy of PowerPoint Presentation & CD GGGG. Katee Kirkmeyer Written Comments • HHHH. Caroline Kirkmeyer Written Comments 1111. Caroline Kirkmeyer WrittenComments JJJJ. KKKK. LLLL. MMMM. NNNN. OOOO. PPPP. QQQQ. RRRR. SSSS. . TfTT. UUUU. VVVV. • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO EXPRESSING ITS CONCERN ABOUT AND DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED "DRY CREEK RUA" DEVELOPMENT IN WELD COUNTY; INDICATING THE CITY'S DESIRE AND WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPERS OF THE DRY CREEK RUA TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES AS THE PROVISION OF UTILITY AND OTHER SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS, SCHOOLS, DESIGN STANDARDS, RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, ETC.;TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS FOR AN IGA AND TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO WELD COUNTY REGARDING SAID DEVOPMENT THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY;AND SETTING FORTH OTHER DETAILS RELATED THERETO. RESOLUTION NO. 1010-50 WHEREAS, the City of Brighton received a referral from the Weld County Planning Commission regarding an application for an amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan to establish an Regional Urbanized Area ("RUA') designation for approximately 2095 acres located in southwest Weld County just north of Adams County, to be known as the "Dry Creek RUN' (the"Application"); and WHEREAS, the Dry Creek RUA site is bounded on the south by WCR 2, on the west by WCR 27, on the north'/ mile north of WCR 6 and on the east%, mile east of WCR 23; and WHEREAS, the City provided written comments on the Application to the Weld County Department of Planning Services in September of 2009, setting forth the City's serious concerns about the Application and its potential negative impacts on Brighton and the surrounding area; and • WHEREAS, despite a recommendation of denial by the Weld County Planning Department, the • Weld County Planning Commission gave preliminary approval to the Application at the hearing on January 19, 2010; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on February 2, 2010, the City Council received information from the City's Director of Community Development regarding the Application and the potential negative impacts of allowing a high density urbanized area in a county setting (potential of 6600 dwelling units and an eventual potential population approaching 20,000); and WHEREAS, recognizing that the development is proceeding through the approval processes in Weld County, the City, in an effort to address its concerns regarding the impact of this development on Brighton and the surrounding areas, is desirous of entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the developers to address such issues as the provision of utility and other services, transportation, open space and parks, schools, design standards, residential densities, commercial development,etc.; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines (i) that the proposed Dry Creek RUA, as it is currently proposed, is not appropriate in a county rather than municipal setting, (ii) that the County is not positioned to adequately provide utility and other services, (iii) that the transportation issues associated with the proposed development are significant, (iv) that the proposed high density development will potentially have significant impacts on Brighton and the surrounding areas, and (v) that if the development is permitted to continue as a county development, it is essential that an intergovernmental agreement be entered into to address Brighton's concerns. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: • 1r 1 2010-1475 ' L.I7 tie* • 1. The City Council has serious concerns about the feasibility of the proposed Dry Creek URA as it is currently proposed, as a county urbanized area and officially states its disapproval thereof. 2. That such issues as the provision of utility and other services, transportation, open space and parks, schools, design standards, residential densities, commercial development, etc. must be adequately analyzed and addressed. 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and strongly encouraged to voice the City's disapproval of this development and to continue to provide comments to Weld County in opposition thereto. 4. That the City Manager is further authorized and encouraged to enter into negotiations with the developer of the Dry Creek RUA and other interested entities, as applicable, to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement to address the City's concerns. RESOLVED this 4 day of May , 2010. CITY OF BRIGHTON,COLORADO ayor Richard N. McLean • ATTEST: 4)1131 Natalie Hoel,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Zia) Margar R. Brubaker,City Attorney • 2 t ti ' &• -iiiii . . . . . . • ..,. . . . .. .. • , • . . .. . : . .. . . .,,_ . ').yrf ,. . , . . ,• ,_. ...... _ . c. • • ,•• • . .,,,.. :.....:. ..:::. ; . .... . .... . . . . . ..: _....s.y .,.• .. ., . _ . , . . . ....... . .i.., .7: -. • - nJ •r t t --,-•- -- -41.4"""g '. R s .l:. r i ,;"'_" < P L `Y •'err'.`i•, ,....7' -4.-5.f.411,""'., ''+ r�?: ..'2.,,,c/x. • i } ' r a U ;se -.:(g.;: •7 ., ,,. €<- . < t �/ ,,y�� s rl �� • t r, j',S�l ' ...j7 s'•4�'..r3,:�v/ H ' _ - -, ter _;. - _,,�•�/Q 2 $ rc ,[t 1' f .�...; cl �JrJ x 'l+ 'y,i' Sy f x. V • 1! .- 5^ 4 ,r �• .4- &, p r-�' w', ...:-....„-,;•F• T` r,,. s aSi".1.• ti ! a '.' . \`T':::; •:•CeA'F;'k rtiOi :iii ii T`S^...t"4 ") 'l'Ge'aF 4'4 .• i ..i a t +-I + 4 ri 1h N yy �r\N . .✓ s r •• i i \_: 'q, .-.1e4.41. ;j 54 C } 1`'�Y �y .+• "t�Yi t �j',' r 1(rJj1e....`.env.,�uf$t*c ¼ ' 1."�eN •/�• .� /� Y S T M1 1 f 1 r< fYJr �� '� � y. �� S T 5. ' :4:r �> r . ....::„..4,..: wlq 3yr r. ,,,- A w Jv.,� t r.� .� f 1 +a ; < /tc 'fi.�d- "5 / + z .,.y . ..� iW r '�{"" Af'� �:t/P n•: ti k r wivx -tKc z ',.7`.••! ,•^♦rr 'l Si t,;il a �E r ¢ C"' �t r 'br4s lri(" �Q"�>v rJ ��E�(��¢ 1 ^ 7J . ' f 1�.-;.iiiiii.7.:.ye..z.:;,...,.., , ryP..N S�gL. __ . tonne r _ r r '>—�'•t() h 1. ..4 .�� µr<"• �:i FU ! j ' ^ - ,\FFF" ,OD ---.4): - .; . ..- ��7y7yy..$k. i V .� -� v`/4 2P`ci'�•`�'J� `,P.,...\?..,-.."�rn4 rore , . . . :, ._ _.. ..e. . .„ • _ ....:..,........ . .. .„ ,. .......i . sa... _ ., o - tia,. . ,. . ..per ....4 �'�,rf " ,L J Z r. ... a CTS" �: ar ' rj is r+a¢ r a: ; � y ' /tom M, N !. rt' l/�' `) ?f�{ 1 ]. it 1 r\ N'1' _� I �Y 1 V.la\ �.. E . . i + -r�, �, }�' t� ,F''o-,3' t` , , G F v.. l •b! ,�la,,•.�ra 9 n�r'.�'';� , ": ., •= an C r" ,+•+ :.cF S 5� . < > }2 i. �.♦Y"j v J l'z.' c,c + ^.! - $1, ,..1:;1.,f.,:::::. , r i', 'WXf:'j,.n✓r ter•` Z< ze.-d *.Ma♦ ,t u r J„y I �Z: ;} ti l'.)......:, J ' ' /.....-.-,,,,4, 'fir 12rs y r�'a- 'J{...v.".11."4•1•04.`14`.7,-;4',',:";,..{'' [ 'a l"j ,C'. �p^s; _ +�I g"f1 t vs , # ...,•%1(.:j:..,.:< ,t• 4 i'X.-c ?l�r -'='�✓r . { �y' = / r -''.- .u S45:).. ... " r �{7y; .. � �� !'v)' yf �> F 'ti ihF. 4 y�_; ,.........�., + �y /�^ '•' -. , � Z` 'l`l ')? .� "Fiv' Yipj,p� 1,Qi A. -' :� ' 1 v,? f 11_ '114'..`'1` "f s.F ,y, .rt $C,. . • .--- a +C •'S''�r'y��,��`. 44 a r't \' •, / t ` . X S ! ,',,...(1,,.,7,7 y,< 4s'f•u 'rte > `J/Y,P y, ° J �'. \ C 2 `' n' �',f' � `•qr. c.t•-v. .•v {<.v) '^'y1•,v, rs '' \r '•'r< r r� 1u."•`-‘72.- •'>yY, a I,- \-'1 .'. 1v':r ( ' -, #o • /.., ., '/1 ��,) y \ „aTr t••. -L'w,\ r >5 r{. • ��' . .y' `�J �.. ) �, .�. ' !Y '! ,� .+ rf rJ �'wY�w''�,@t.r..l,�''f^ �+ ,...-:"--:2,7,E,„ �a�d . 1 a1'.f�.f>r q�6^`Y 1 . .4- ;a, ...p- -kY' `v //�� ✓eJ-wr�`ii. rZ- 1 4-�Y') • •F °�;: <-r_rll,fi, l' *,...;4.....s.'. it �. � ♦vi "ry " `- 1-..?...... .A........, .i r s yl1 ,or 1 /T P,Yy ac" Jn ) � \ S-1 i V ,:::-.•(;.....,.... V • JY'> Y' s n " ✓i w r :.r 'tt 1N- < �L ry. h ♦.- J'A.1 '`^A. t�rol , .NJ-. sr�₹yf,,cp•�• /r> tY r )\,Y� �• Y'.Y '.S"i� + • -. :;-,,,,,,:2,-.:;-:-•••••,,,,,:•••••-,7,-,;,-,'N! }r T' r e. . e >i ,i�.�:.� . • '.S•� 2. y, �r. �V 'tit �w J•a2.4 :S1N is Y' ..a,Y♦<,rei r1.1!..-',:::Z4%-, • v• �x+ F\ ✓;.'�,•� ✓ ' 1 L. ,'• r A<!_ '> 7h r1.• . _ /.. r:; t .+:'1 L ..yN._. WfF_�; ✓$ r � . rte:. . r. fy .'�2'< .. ,t y ' ,� r /ems, 1a� a) , bJ:'Y/ t--,:i'`,. j t^yi�•x �' it ��",r.tX< VA.- 4. 'CS ≥�i F as=-v Ni '�(3 _•//'�� Tr: 1 Jim �l '. N' V^C'C 1' 1; ' • J. `C�• `�! J.;r T .JUI .'+ l 1 1 w,is`+"•cS�'' ♦ -`' 1 .11:14- , YY ' v,�� '�...T4 rr 'r � �. r '' ,�•>C�'n �.C 1 , _`oS4`W F �`,:�^u'4!'l )v ,fi Y r i :. } * rll••- f . '1 'y;r4{ ` / . >. \ \.y�y�<. • l!n >.2✓fy ''C eIP, .q`:.K .1 CC R'r"\LY1L�y^. r '•/ t �< .J 'sj',,< '� tp,ur F` . r ri ! ♦ o'b. <, h a rF G. +a \ . _ } ' . , s .: . �fi ' -i:/1,14.: • { 1L r, . L'. R .� y`I' r.b• 1• r / ,t LI eirmj s., R ). a •U n ;� M v ` `�r. 0 c r i �Q 2RX, t r ii u T: Q �y �' a t L� fC c; m c `G� {azj ?2 U C E w .t c • • v U Nr n a r m a'� .n u. 11 x Li.? wl I a .. to t I 11 U ' • ,/� 13 P. o r.ceksi 4 ,bil g thin ill". a g H L3 ;O) 1r2o /� £z i�O J a -RM6 a $ 1 -II 2 . 31}[�rc�E�a A c c aiII:IIi�° 8 3 PI w Pli§liblVil ati 'Llano 0+� ▪ b 4 'E u m c or r }:I!! a. 2 1 lc § .:g w t E r:Eli L 3=E� • l e r < °I 0 W • S • \ / • cu . \ _ • SIM tts- ttttst2 • • • • • • • • • • •C .'USr , • O • c � CO O . n . @1 : • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •li\+Lza0 • • • •• - • • • /1"--) • • • • • • @---N) • • • • • • • • • • • • • N 41411' • • • CC • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ , • 0 • - -Yee �JO • •` • . • H •6/ist c_ u \ Q-:-111 . • a it W CA • • W Or • c • • • a • • 2 N ro • • O2 - • • Off} o • • O c%• • 0 66 213 • • • . • • • ••• •• • • Tr • . • d • • • 'I Ui • • • • • . • • . o • m O 1.-a L, ) II M ( 13Q. C.) ® o �el • �� 'a . o -- Ammar N,\ L 1, 2i 0 III �1 F G z t rri l • 2 Ce • :��'v„,�tlJlG'�l6+�OsTI'!L'6"1i G/'&+fI Y6'L'(i S�`Fi4"ir�rL S • ' ►. �4fwrri.sefryv� r � r i.ncrw+wwww�+r.�rrrrr__ Z m"€ •��._ i l� ..[ P lS NOM a H i N 1 �A tØi. ■ • �L_..r -. awe 's HI A Er .e2 • s ±1 1 ��li ' 3 -I -R ga �:! yl■1! �`' mISt Wa • Bl NOM lid W au_.w�� n�__.r� § . 111111 �JI�CD11�11r ` G��C 0 a b a ,t-- 11111��ZCC . 11,�,fif�111111r 0 vimg iij fi{{��. ��\,err..._..._..\...-� �� q€pip F ��-1:111■11■►�ti�.. \\�. �111■11■►m�w1 I 1 ( - - - \Ill�ll�llla;l o Jii gill , p i ii LL NOM Z rc c 4! ..,, W F w ] o) a m a« w r t Esther Gesick 0.0m: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:35 PM : Commissioners; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: 2009-XX Dry Creek RUA From: Fichter Farm <nancy@frii.com> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Fri Jul 09 13:10:25 2010 Subject: 2009-XX Dry Creek RUA Dear Commissioner Kirkmeyer, I am writing to tell you of my opposition to the above mentioned RUA. This RUA will not be beneficial to our agricultural area. Our clean air will become polluted with vehicles from a great number of projected homes and resulting extra vehicles. The increase in new roads and widening of some existing roads will further deplete agricultural land. Even though there may not be many to protest at the July 12,2010 hearing,there are few who support this business.A number of residents in the RUA area were repeatedly visited by the proponents and pressured to sell out. Several public meetings were held to tell, in glowing terms,of the advantages of this project. However,to my knowledge, only two groups did sell or have contracts to sell. How does this RUA fit with current subdivision rules? Since there appears to be so little public interest for this RUA, will there be enough homes for the contract with the Ft Lupton sewage plant to be fulfilled? We have still not heard about all the water resources that they have. They mainly concentrated on telling us of their multiple storage facilities. One major factor against this project is the necessity of hooking up to the RUA system if our septic systems fail and also hooking up to their water system if our wells fail. There are alternatives for the well problem as in hauling water. We feel that Weld County . ould not give anyone a septic permit, if there was a sewage system available. Since the RUA is a private company,there is no cap on e charges that can be made. People living in Todd Creek can attest to that. Please do not support this incursion into our rural area. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Fichter 8706 Weld County Rd 8 Brighton, CO 80603 1 Esther Gesick rom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:35 PM WO: Commissioners; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Dry Creek RUA From: Sharkrantz@aol.com <Sharkrantz@aol.com> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Thu Jul 08 23:55:42 2010 Subject: Dry Creek RUA My name is Sharlene Krantz and my husband and I live at 1755 Weld County Road 23. Our property is within the boundaries of the proposed Dry Creek RUA proposed by Todd Creek Village Development. I am writing in opposition to this Dry Creek RUA. We purchased our land and house 33 years ago because we love living in the country and raising farm animals. We do not want a housing development around our home. We have many concerns regarding our private property rights and future costs that may be assessed to us as property owners should this development be approved. I attended all the public meetings held in early 2009 by Todd Creek to inform residents of the RUA. I gave them my name and contact information at each meeting. At the last meeting, George Hanlon with Todd Creek Metro District announced that they had personally contacted each property owner within the RUA and yet not once did they attempt to contact me and I told him so. There were several other property owners that had not been contacted either. attended the Weld County Planning Commissioner Meeting on January 19, 2010 regarding this RUA and oke to the planning commissioners about my concerns. I was pleased when I heard Brad Mueller say that the Weld County Planning Dept. staff were recommending denial of the RUA because 15 approval standards would not be met in the code and that the RUA does not meet other criteria per the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. I was later disappointed when the planning commissioners voted in favor of the RUA. Thank you for your time in reading my email voicing my opposition to the Dry Creek RUA. I wished I was physically able to attend the meeting on July 12`h but I had surgery on June 30`h and am still recovering. Sharlene Krantz 1755 Weld County Road 23 Home phone: 303-659-0205 • 1 I f.. 1.7.— -- . — - - • - a m 1 1 .saKa4Q3I . 4-J U • 4J (/1 0 C y CB O a r CU , i 2 # 1 a) tDD • i. . . . Cow a T, : . . _ , > F , ._ .. . _ . ', F . r- , it < 4) cm W D U i = -0 _ _ I i 1 S E2 4D . . C ai II I co . U Li a ? . - : t i _ , 1 a �. > Q ii I I a I L._ . I 4. 0 • 00 .101100011410111100011011000111100110111111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 I .-(7,-(1) O >,..---+ a, .0 cm co L '- >' L _ a ca Ca a) 0 n3 " E v) c cu c (/) Q E _ cu 4u 06 0 >- .D. CC D v O to co — ca O w u_ 7) O I I I I I U • • co —C3 c o c cn 4-) c 94: CD w ,..) . _ ro —O_ u.) 2 ca_ ,-) . w C E a.)ta0 > Q o c n3 o O E ° Q o>t a. ' — O Cr CA • LEM L• a) c 'c Q. D Q E 44L- C (el +� E 44c5a) o 4 ) E .2 a) O E 7 C , O r u clic Ov) eC fis 3) a) cts — no L*- 73 E U 06 bA n 4-J-0 c.. 2 a. 4__) p CAA , C O .� 4-) .2 2 C n a) C c . -s--Ef u> (cad cubri .2 4r2 ". C a 0 ca cu Q I I I a I 1 1 1 a_ _ D cr • • • NED . ) 4 . 4,7. 11'x"1• . il' ;14/`x. I ( •1 jr �/ X4.1 1 r l -, . Z • 0 - 4.°1 °ern al* SIN Al O ` OIsk a _ r D 0 U -J C I W Oa U (in ------- 4\15_4 -S1 ti Ct (3) st o V % ow , 'SOS C4.1.•.. le 40.4.1 Illa ,.1 ,.r lib is, 4- # z ilf 0 Sib O z r • co....„44r.........._.: H Z ' O Z O / = w i U 1- J �� ♦ iCO it z 1 C % , 0 / OW O. • � t 1r be 0 W W 7 m CL a 1 I D co Et M a) S w I 0 1 t 1 • t 4 1, .,t Va , 121 } illi • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • rn c 1 i — — -1 - O II co cu ;re W cry ri e. co Ii L2 R3 •� _ °,„' � • :� y a N V — c4 3 e Q s > = � ti► •° • gl 3 d L • iii W W k.. H o �! 4.) —• ...�--t- �:.. _ e% ,.ttii � 111 18 • • } • 4 Az • ttttttttt. .Y V 1. 4i --- - 7 i - �� ri 4 i 0 _ - I O _ f ,r1 4 , drairel .1 .- _ , %4N !sN r� - - fIr.�i ` '2ilk r t .__� �. __ i � • t �! lz. ,i ' „2 . .i 2 a .1 ;ti f alue!tb. I—. 1-ita . 2-'-% _ , • I 1I _.-- fir: i a) ! • CCCCCC r OD , 1 I imil CD i /t.tM • .. E• 1 • / 1 ") gt • \L---.N/ - r a a 'y.B..M'•... / CU p . .i 1 0 C , (4.10) °' t — 4 s 1 • i Ni. ` L.44 T _73 - i -. • ._ _ `Ima 0) , .. ' .1 ' t tt 5 ip . , 4_,. ___ _.1 ,._ e__. • _ . ‘ 1 _ . ii , . . I ; \FINS . , I --7 7_ , _.'.—i _t)">.mc r'r I 1 pz , .] ,4 ( s T .• '' '/'fir'f: a .i• .k......4‘. ..• . . •. --i , 71.,---t: ..#\ CD L U O 111 0 '• •' To I. of . �� át ; ±_ 5t' 'if, _ ..71III:c .! - - . , SI - ? )„...... .. ---. . .1.-344.4--e"-. - - -ifal \--- - a a.\.....1 •t :. . S. /..., ` i N y . .Hr illi rot• .f b + ` .r.f 1 L c t 1 ^- -L •�tI . `• r•CI ,,-..1...,.. ...,- • . A Ni4 Ok _ 4/1:...;• , Si- a l �4-1 a) . 1/41; c d\ E i.-i 0 i tor: m • -Jo 2 v) s.... c.) , o a.) D L b.O K ,. . a o ,} eir v • L z S '. Y � a> a.) E 1-2_ ... ...i. a • c L., i . . ... ...._ • . re I vi • .. _,_ .. ,ip S ONtle ul t°mod 1,0.47104.64)1 s ... - .••••••ftS. 4 V / o V) � i awill U . • 1,15 ,erek .-Milir U a) Z , D �J O O0 I t ' . itl . . y 1 /� I . 1. c V J to /!� '1 d� 7:5 w Q - T "al 1 , iLic�MO 0 �, 4, a, O N, 4. . ..• ,' st ',,N . 1 -�'I . . . ;1/4. , - ,,,, 4:4-ii EK • ask 4, - _ - - agnwitramtvirorrirsirrmr, ., , " f / � r ,r J- •7.►� .'4114** !1 rid ) 1�,,`t Sil If kt }, H 1 r ' ' t. fill•'JO; 11 . h • ' . i 1 � ' - . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r 4--) • - 4- J 0 o L. +-a E .„ ,, , , ,. 1 Q.) > 2 O1, 5_ ::,.. J I' Ez . _ I. • tal(:1 a) a) I , ' f • Y # I CO *Is r s Iiiimd in go b. u a - I 1 • , L > Sii . lemIJI lert _ a) a a) , . . _ L,.. U o • . ....... ac:3 .... 2 r• -O Ii_O LD ii- in- D Ct • ),: .��:�;iii ,, , 4 7 1 0 . i 0'..14`18' , ti >41 " � Z. r L Ill , , Rf-T"yni Ti S J ' 1, ' 0 -4 • az 4 IS O V cf • a Lima N ° o a+.1) ' � N 8 E a • a y m CI O .11 t2 2 p...�. ` cn n_OO 1Tn , p - ~ 4 SII CC O O Iiii) t - MI - O it z 111 - 1� G"� 2 3 CI) . 7,- , /if__ . , --_p re isait' ttA 41 ItIs1 : CU • _ -- - • L.- -- > a) a) •4 _ a) II ► IP c. / or CL) >. i hi" • CU E ca. co O_ cu L.. . _ if. 11.0 U .- �. _ to jrzsii_ _ . __ —C3 (i) _r) O 1 • t E -C3 a) 4_,) a a , O , p Q It • a) a) 'v ,• �L1/ ,w Y1/4 ? , t .„-.4.•• •H N it r., L V it kYi , : t ' I'. '_. ^ r' a+ • `t ft it id; • 1 't . t -• + .4 i �y P 1 1, .r. . '•• iI • • 'wa � 1 � ,' . A • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II 4—) v) • _ s.. Li., 'I .4—> v) • — 0 a) -it,„ a)O • _, . • , i . lb ,. , s.,_ .4_, a.) E co a . 1 ilt \lc•' r 2 (i, -O ,‘, CU 111. CO .0. it • ii,- *;:HH ai . - t:11) o • \1/44%. co me. r I ...., . _ > a) L V) r a4. ‘1._ '. n _ \ 'I ai) I • i as) > it 1 s... E CD Li +3.) Ln 03 • *Stir es ii 6.13 >4cn an 1i sob (13 Paige 7.3 0.0) o o i a � . - O {/� . A ry • 0 0 U , r ` J Ill r r el . r► L 1 - ' - 06 45 • QD D Q2- cc cc t o 'IJ p 0 V � � 'c- E o _ C c E a • � O o Co n.03 o < CO (I3 Minjp I _o (/) til C V Z O _ C 1 61 a 2 N o 6. vl co Q Li J C I ON O 0 `^ O l.i CU = N o 0...OC Li r0 b 4J a) -O w C ro o 13) o o Q °° 2 L. CL a J CO .- N ci Q 4-' .4-, C) L a c in co a) D cc O: : D 00 Ii CO > be Q.) V) L. ti FV- 0 Q co in co �? - o 4.) • r � o • a c O O c •> >% C °v v v n 1 Q) C c W Q Li w O al w _ o a) 1... rN a) ...a ooa) O4.... u _o U m z V) 73 O o —O 2 w cc ._ p u i 2 Q LCC 0 N Q) a) a , ' L 4. ' I' .' *.Y 41 ' '`'l :4- _ . miwipli I S. AAA, _ ,�� •. � Ii , Q 0 1 ft . / t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • . • • • C O II , a) 7 �- t C U o 3 t' m a a � c + +, lea CO a s n v bp 3 a aCi c cti a - we' OS °' (n -" aci 0) c E a cn c.2t) 0. D 73 f aa) r 0C 0) QI as eta `� .9—' � o •c cn ct?, ° y 'a Z.,co> (n -1-0 '' � D cis " SA MS OV a w S. 0 CD w O- ' 0 L CO O u_ o �; � ocn 4 CD ca i> `.. 0 o cn (an) I 0 s � � LU W D m c N O 03 C3 z ° c tea' °a. I �C) > z a� NI et oId CD f a Vla cu oav 4-9 a � � axi � zu) a < li sa) 4., Q a * c ea 0 y c °'Ca 0 III D _ ..? _. O `' � N Q O •- O CLI _ cCa > > C C r.. ` o 0 o a = W W •No � � a 0 0 in • Y moaaW ct V (! a .- m 73 c co Z Z~ Q sisilJl1J Q aEII 0 D Z °C a CC o U f a Q uj CL l Q ft a) o , . t L. I. , , ft, , - - ,;,, II I,J i ... . , . , .. , .. . , • .. --:, ,,..44i M i _... II Q - 041- - OZ - ZQJ - NO - OZ y a a. -I W CL _ U va Q d 0 c F cCn 1D o a Q v o cr, o u J d, o w c co m v, b e m WM m E a13 = E a = E a = I r o c o c')lo o a U U U Q• Z waZ ; - 4 � w 1 c W Oi cN � g I aU MD QaaJ — v4I- - O z _ - nc a oa = J U ii- I- G m M co Iv c Q co o v) CB U C CO O o. O 0 cn coQ ca /'1 a C Q (� o Q N V) J o D m D c d a ii a CC a a d a ii a aQ O * ' • Si 4 C °es a c W Z O � Q. a � c' c n ≥ `n O- C V < en O O O V O O �� .OL-LL O \V 03 ithW U Q In Y w - C - Q In Y. �, � � o oho 0 oo 0 ° D1 a D = jO aO � a = � 3tU v> Cw aa J 0- * . . H LL F- m U, co a C i- W U O a! 0 E aa, U -c i 0. N " cn . o -c Q CA o cn c� o n '- a Q Q .> 6 in cot o �a c c c Z Z wQ a c wQ I- 06 < a Q Q ID Ct a) c L.- y- D L U U W ►— a o< < o L'4. toQ tY o 0 2 O• - 211:AMIIIIMNIIIINIMgallIll: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -a c c 4- r� o L. -0 cn .� LO • a -OC — C Q 0 -0 CO W D co E cu 4-, cc p @ E c E . 5 (/) -0 a c co O co v) OV Cr CU Q> O TU. co > L. " U c > _c M ,L._ a @ 0 . rt3 V) O 4-re 0... E o cu = > p 0 c < -O c _c D cu O 4. cu E -0 ..c CC E c C I a) c 4- 47 ca V 4-1 c� O O ca -I—, .C L 4) >ft E 4— E -c o Q E a a a 0 � c c ca a +� CU s. . cl CI V -O v O ,�, ra CU E E � Q a� � o � � � a� D C -a -O L -O a0 ° -O taoF— -0 O. can I' v) O Q I a cc rt • • • • • -a) a) .r ;4>! illy L:_ • M C C 'o > O 4--;L. a , O O o_ a O _c c 73 W Q a) O 4) cn CO • V cn o C O ' O U ca CU MO • - 7 • O C UMC (1) 0; WC L C o +' o- inan) 4U a. U C —a) a, +J > — C > @ • +-) a• E o ro .4.) , ID Q.)pa Q.) U Ca cn so O U I a) a s c ago a O r E a) a) 1 c E . 0 , o E '5 CU ' — U (0 +-' OE , 0 E • O. p o , . b„ ...., a) -0O c all U ca c a ct3 L_. -• u -9 L... c 4_, L. as I. a : , E a) a U > (1) 0 • U Q v) O ca _c X O Q I— cD crl -C CD F-- W U CC • • • w N is t pr .rte �� ' s i -y ' tIli t : di, 1 , s*uit , c t ,,,‘4 Y ' 1 i' .a 0 I .“. # • • - • et ., r- I : • - •-4 / 0 r L ` • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I -0 -0 co -0 co up c c c ... 4_, c j. `y.- 0 AA 1 / - ra • — O Q. , L- 0 • >C o V) bp -2 D no ...c a) — _ 4--) 4-0 E _c L... co ' ' E ro . ... .4_,> . _ v, C 0 0 a o C o -o • — D U D CO CD ru -° .... NJ co < au. C E E • 4— c L �, o �, C O • — • — o G., -O 4-1 C V cn . Imam %di V)E i co v) ...0 ma a) --c v) E 4-) —L, w . , v) cuS. L. P v) C k- E --a v, • . D a) . D (0 ai a) 'n t 4...) L -a.L. a) u cry w -o Eo >% EE ca be co C rt,C (.0 -0 .O raw ' 0 P p -0 -O a) a al • v) O. (1 ) o ( . C N o c o OD V 1 L. a a) Q o CU oL. a cn O O — L CC a re V . V cn a s- a c.n ' - W 0 V) a) 4--a 2 co4Wai C C Q D I— D cn = +—J I— C H c6 Ct • • • 1 on, L • `t ._ a W t r , , • 4 •1 ' ., •t1 i.d - r., , N » sty f ' V g } \. 4. :le I1 '� aN:t I .r1; \,.• I . • , ,I l ' ; 1. �, ,S s: � f A i • 75 C CD L -o CO -ej ca O C I _c a) • x _c Li) co CD _0 D CU 73 @ a) 4i a. Ncu co a) L_ Co CD ..4-) ago a) u < > V) .4.7 C C S. O CO o • _ C 0 a 4-) -t3 E . - ° o CU in a CO _0 -1--) L c O O >- a) (13 E (in co < so- 4-) (1) CO 4-) > NJ E c 0 c (73 C 0 c v) 0 E (10 4--; ,.... in L4- CU CU 0 a3 V) o _c 0 >% ro E u (in aJ >3/4 _O cu -o L. O LD — L— E .cu CCD aC -0 v) a} CO a) cn V) bp E CU " C C6 can • cn -� nj s- c O in') 0 v) . a) . O C CU C (i) O CU aA OD a Sti) Cli 'ad it E 0- 4.)(1) a 'DLL) a �- • • (/) � O ca L. a � CU +�-� � C -C CU p cu c -C -0 -0 O Q I- (6 v) � CU I— ca O CC v • • • • a) 2 i A. ' 'it ,. X44.:44C.. { ( 'el )i '11' ' • ! L , - ..1. '7 ' .‘,:b , Ht.:. iin ' 0 r , . I li " . ,' 14#0000:‘ • d , •U 4- ' v f 1 { . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I a) c6 a) C a3 • _ V, (D Cl.) C (./) ` - a) _C V o L. CU a O 0O D c co> 4- \ CAA V O � +�LI ti C L. > a CO CD V) 4-' `n T-' • - U O ca ° O03 a § ,r3 O j Lms. 'p CD O an a) L. tr: c CD C6 -o O. a) ago c c an c c a) c c to C � • _ ca C D CO < C C D a O V U D L. c c ro cu 4....) a3C3 U • -= CC Q O L., ca 4-1 co a) > . ID ' L ro .C `+- aA V a) O 4 J 0 -a L c 4-) t cn Li— co ca a) 0 �o Q C 0 COO 2 L... s... ..c o 4-.) D 0 --a) E D L.) O c 4- • ---, _ > > 4_, c ....7 c o ° — L. >. > gm F-uv, L._ • a 00 • _ a) _ - ,-.:• ..., O • V U 4-) " ', , tou =. 5 c V • _ mt.,U O c� D O }, c Do 6 (0 D Q JO z 2E a s < c cc O can r • • • • • CD If U 1 1, al I „ , 0 O 't s a } rte t r I. 0 CD 0 75 _C L. (134_ C) Cu D D < cO _ CU C L -� ' V Dc,,r� a c ° o > eC _ic wu E E +-' U cn D CO S v) C . X0 � � Q i 4U 0 . C a) C 2.) o 'S O > ,h_ ...c co Ca C) Q O0 o O 0 C p 92 U ,_ O 0> 4o a, � o � �al ra (1) n3 SsbCDIi n ( OD C • a) • — ° E ' -a ' cn >% uco O 4) Q CD C 4--) -O C `n O 0 CU D Le— c . o n, a) C U Co O C6 +� }, > •.4. ' , o o a, by -0 cn U C6 C6 c — C6 C LI— v) Cid C -C ca � °- p n:5 cn Qi • o cn _ tn a) C 10 ° — 'I v) aid a) U al hA U D to 4u a) m .a,w CD U t/1 bA O Q Et • • • • • o 0 0 . r _ , . V .,: t , .,.-� N: ,,.. . , , 1 Se ,. , „, ,:t;�ti ,:' q X11 1L f I. ¢t 0 s. . . . .f ; a) - : ' ' 1 1 , A ..xit-. it?. . . . . 3 %, „Ai il ' y ; fillt fir • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • tr ► ~► 1 c • Nit fl • iM is Oft_ , � � It. s _ . II .I taiditt • ii _ c. 1111 t - • I II • -• •t .1 I' 1 F.-- et ♦ • '1 tII lJ - ' - - I lipf • i 7 - 4 i II IA I r • II I: r • 1 1 Ill, I i I 1' , r I I I , • w • 411/4143/44413/411,4 wisp 1 } iti 114 I '113r • S a • • • • t..�_ ilo O • • a • r if , A �..+�r I� A A it r I ,is i; 11, I a) I 1 _• A 1 ,, a I a ir ...., sii ipoitillerlie ft A Jo 1 S: l1 1 , #Us it 4 t i AI - - 1.11 a i is 53 S III 4 7 1 r • 0 11 I V II i= _ •44 I !1 .I a ` cif • MSS at AIM 6 t61 bp m 1 " % rp sr. ' " all I III • , et is i • I r or Ira e Q • I el _ WI1isarme tor s .ir sr .a INi. rw 1 ( I rillimaintsc , i I 1 • Y • It 41 fl 1 i R r r _that- • • 2 • Millillir • fr iim 111111— at ii- _it i Ism. - sot / i •I F i Ili ; ; I i 1 H • r s (� a4 44 1 i IIIt S M s 'r 1 7J' Iti. n • iD Y !' • . , - - - awl .1 • _ e � _.1 Ill : Ii • 1 v x E c ii C .bA n v) 4--+ N E o tt C 73 v _c ero cc a) 0 O S -a .Q) C L -a • • v o L L. (11 L CU p 0 � C O — c� v o p o Q v • _ au Qcr +-) L `n O Q Ql ,� L ,I�_ N a) r. Q 0 a) co H co a) ItIh 0 co I D ro E O CU t10 co L. p C I C L j s v) C by E W 0 L v O N cn coco -o Q) co 73 O N cu N U N aJ Q 4-' . . . . > ft 4- C • — o CD .i..a o v L O v Q v -5 •— v, o Qi o ono +as r �' ≥ C ^ , �- tau aJ N �-+ - U — O `VNi p v . c OO1 p O a9 C L L a) — N N u O L C L o a� • a a Q QJ a� 0:30 a n , ca to 4.- /� Q. 2 O v, E Lfl O a W •C_10 Q au n V)1 < a. 0 _ r C-I lD Q 0. CO .7... CC CO Q O I I I I I I D CCII o CC • • a) r , . iI' • . . • , . * 714411 u - L \ • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X 4 a) too ,_. a) c C > o C) O 4.1 co X p ca 0) .� 4-1 CU CU — s-- CD O 4) Q) 0 C __ cm Q) • - •�CD U >- ..s_a)• - .+� U 4-1 r Q j •U f .�n 4-1 U O +-' J• N • O O� c _C U n 4-1 CL O C O Co o U S U O cm CO O co O CD CD C13 O v -� O .� O O O (73U •- v)4 -1 L _� Co t�A L 1D Cl.)- S. p 1- O C Q) E i) 00 0 —II cu 73 I I s... VO Q. 4 O U Q) O Co • 1= O ...._ ... C13 o 0) N co Q U L. Co II O = CU CD LL '- C N _� 0) +-' o °o 4- CU -C O D< c:CQ Q)4-1 Q a) CD O 1- CO OC CoC Q) Q) = a (1) -C__, I tap O-CC . . - U D O S O > o o c = Co U u_ 00 Q) (1) Co" Q) ..Q • — Co O >- > a • • a) • • • C O 0 0 _C� -c Q U I I I D CC • a) 22 4 .1?);• _ Y.t 11 `4•• 4- 1. U • . r • , a . Se II 1 '. I4 1 s l 1'''wit - • , 'I p � y\4 0' 1.. .I Q • D CC cc a) _ 4-) Q CO sI1 U t tai) 4-_ S C C .> ti) Co o U • — ._ OU O _ 4-0 -O -O O C CU S a_ CD C Li a, `'- E l_ O O �� CU -O V) > U_ Q) • SD E • • , Q} O CU O (1.) CU L. OD L. V U O � Co l_ Li) CU < a) O O D >,, _O _a. .4_, c tap �' Q) — �-1- m c v) 03 LA 0 •0 0 • C� O sa) O_ I ( C U E = Q W I I I = • • D • • a) a) • . , i • ., ,,‘ ,e.,;:• , i. ivictilt, dnt L... .r/ill, O +� ••:f �. 1. ' t _-"'1 K t 4 `•• 1 4 .. t . A ••,. • iji •�� i y 1 1:'' '. r;•x •411�. [i`''ii • I ; � `i h , ', , O 0 t . , ; i tit / °+l1 a iI 1 t t .4, y 4i `v . i_4•1 t fff !Ai?}:e r 'i3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II lD 4-0 -o 03 N C •CD 4- U E 4-1 U •- C a C N N i C O O co ' p C N Q) > a N E ro 0 co •- v U Q) LO -0 4J ro (1:3 i4= c v y- v .- U CAA O -C > N O v — co +-' p "' C O 0 o Q C O V) Q .6-i �' 0 1 4-00 L a v 0 c U Co CC no L C -C a0 O C 0CD o a)4-0 •-' n ,E Q� to C Q� U N L W +--+ Ca co 73 '12- LU U a L > N p •+,., C • — C V) 0 C O U O O Q — D 0 O '- -c v O CD N U O U E L_ =0 O L Co •C U(13 O L ,��- Oti) Q) + 4- +-1 5.1 O CD CC _c 0 N +J LI) C •_ rc° - 4' N t� ) O C rV as _ — c 4-) o N bA c v O1 a rI0 _ CU 4-0 +- z p E tfo CU c c v c O- •L 4— U N = •O N Q) O III Li— co > 0 .... , row ,_ 4_, E LL L 4.-)— v +, p +-' 0 L- -5Q 4-0 a� .1 J Q c > c a c 5 p O v V) C� +J D Q) L ( 3 ana U C Co N N C E Q U N +� O 4- • Q I- N `O C Q) O C ro 0 C C O co L U CD o o — dJ O O U Q) ) " SD aJ ' co Lc-) . _ O C�0 N Ca _ U U -- N CV1 (1') O +_' •C QCj ro Ca }' CD CU L C co C 4aj• — 0no cc a E o •> -a ; v-CD > c 22 >. p a, fa co u Q- co v O CC3 — J Q L Q v • �_ c �_ L _E OD �_ �_ C u a ro 0 C D ± o E -c > �O ' > N N > ] :4-1-7.-, t- N Q) E U cc C C 4--, p Q - o C n3 O o L ._ > L- O L L L p L L (o O O `Tv. C _ R3 O C� N Q Qc-i N ('r1 ND a. It • • - a) a.) J -ri '. 1 • ..; '4 Sic �� s ._ 1. fl .t Y • ,..,ID : : r 'r 4. . • r T111 f ' •• r 1+ Q • L 0 Co v) U C0 0) I L, C CD >. C6 C CA .O C L. -0 U C = a) a) ... txo to 4-' .... ...) s c6 E n v) O • — O c6 U o c (≥3 v, cu U a) - co f- 4-- ca c 'c 0 4— ° .0• D CU C1 ) • v x U bA c a5 a) a. L. C CU • . 0 C a) • — -' C Cn C L. +CCD. CU CD 03 -C3 CO O Q. 1. .a' a U O CU CU _ 2 in > Q CC • a) a) t , • t L,c -;:;r4, r . U4' ? {{ / r� r r ,i :fi b;s s y� y 41/4 � , t 1; • tarI ,'OY � � r 4 • . • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I 1 • +.4 X ‘..° �- vi) 4-1 s. �. ' —4-1 V) , V) o a) CO N ( >, (1) V .� m /> -�-� • .=.m. • a/ c aD -0 O C O 0 Q) a. o (I) 4-41 4_, v) O w win��-- >, si ro bp E4— O ca • - _ Ln CZA O • _co c . - O ^ 1 i U ' • _ a CD OL. - °- II 4-- 0 • V V E v) 4J 0 4- cio 4--) r a� O 4L. 4-0 C cn CO i 4.) C O • C) . .... ft 4- E cn • o L. C c D a) o D o O E s mie O O 0 • - 41 V .� N CO L. p -o 4-1 c0 G) +J F- o a. x Q Q ca I I I . _ V Ct • /Q] :Cul lb * - '' ' t � ►. G . �,�� ` "mot,• _ y-4 tio Ft ' II 1 J ;! }. . I • D 0 4-1 V1 CX • a) co E a) 0/) _a) O C6 O 0 o U �° 4_, • _ ... , E 4_, • 03 ›. co a o +J au 4 C1") 0 I OD _1:5 • _ ` — O re al C }' c 0 CO a) co p CL P • _ bp -c a � ~ a. Q CC CU I D VCC • a) a) ,- . ' . ; r .?- f t Vil■■ ., _, I F L fe ./h 9 • rL r 1. Si /1 ' ' r1 fr . .. U aikl • i 1. . . ., A . •. • e, . r : , .-, . . . . . ik, .. L F • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • III L a) 0 CD >. CD Eth E a N i 1 . L. a) CU cD c " C E _ th co O U up . . bib) ttO El 4_, L "' co L- O 2 Qi) . _ _0 O a o L. +Ja cuO -03 Lia cD I 4-• It ro 4-0 *4-90 CD cu CO O 4...) (1) ' D • —. • - s. V CU C `+- X O O L. C , _ U _ MO Q no c C '03 W 4-0 tio � (I) . V m • — a1 F-- O s= I I I D Ct is a) ,. L t 13 0 1 , a 0 It . , . a ID , Ifr • V co Cu L. 4-1 t X0 co p ^ taA U 4�- D • . O I .4-; v)_ . — C 0 au V o CU 73 D E Ovi, E E O Q o s_ p bn U .a; O D o c bp _ �, o o • — > -0 a) • �1-- 0 U Eo Q (13ca wcu Q -I--) 7= C ° >. M O L U • > C ca C c v6 O s- c a3 a- Ca p = p D p 4-0 ca 2 c 4-1 Mili (3,) E arz U (1) 4-I > s — o a Q • — I I �— c _ I I I D ft • • CD WLi k { a {� . /4 ' .` ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r ... C 1 ,,,, .....„ V D L EW D O c V ca bf .' • V , c D > re8 ' - V 0 CU c -a -a Q_ C C . - • V 73 EL (./) C C) E 4,..., • _ (i.., ro rt:3 E O O co o 0 CU U S 4-it • - CU o CD D To W O _ S p -� O III 4— co 0 V V c L-0 = 0... -0 as) § (f) a ..;`1) E 'LE' r.,., v) , bD c0 o be . O •�D C CU> 0 a w 03 C (1) p v7 v a) ca ••- as +� CV . - " I O Cl.) L ICU0 S ' `� D V a O .I, O Q. > . -- Q ct • a a)•. .6 . .. ...„ , . • • , F „, ,,..„,,.. v ,. • . f•a a. • .fi r I . F •fir♦ 1 • C et, 0 V 4-0 V) . —, __I 44 4-1 E ,..., c .4...) c O a) a) ' E E cu o_ 73 O ew w D a.) aJ � o p > 1 U -o a, ago a) 2 0 Q _ -1--' , X (f) C W CI C O ca 1 2 4_,L ttO _a O Q 1 > Q. U = c D _ o +j - %C O +: 4.1 O C LL co v) v) OO_ a •0 c J (....) o OL+- a) i 0 O Q I I D CC • a) a.) . . • �, r�' k, 1 1.J {6„„..!.,,. .4 at !j`J ti ` r1II , I '•�lY 1 ;r .r+ Nil.:a(��1{ j 1011 fl ] 4. ...0 .. ._ . ♦� `Y :)/ It f / . ,J • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 1100 ?. a - i - - Ip . 4.__t ', =se C -C "Iiketitrr r c0 a--' LEM @ a0 C0 41 CO ° — cD a . . . ! a a) 0 , CO CO la i Ai • — O - r CU a) E ID •.-i: - • 03 E D u a� • — tL.4-.) _ _ ... • _ v) — • . a) -isvii. ri- 4--) a o p 0 iii --4 O lES C ID -C4_1 U C 0..c ip= II z • _cn E �; a o . U ° _ L . _ w U Dv) D a . . ,..... 4_,, 0 . -a . L ...C v) O ,... • . >3/4 w cu cu . ........ F-- _ -0 C C >. to • _ k.. fp- . 4--) *= Owit (13 :4..) _ u ¢' ec ,... em 73 .. c6 U N tbf . 4 r C CO + ) h n +J Q) 0 ca ' � 1_ • tin o a) • — - cu a • •, • - L Ec' -c .4 -) Q O W = X O 4) C D - CC U w Up - Et . • . . . . CD a) L .w - O • s. CI II • . I , . . . t. ,.. _ . • .. . . .1. . .__, . . . . ,, . _ .4. Id . _ • •• ►_ l E . • cc D eC C) 4-.) _c ) C a) M 4- C • Co v, _cv, . _ ' >•1- O • - v) co C/) 4-, • — (1 a) c.) " a) • - Q cm 1IIt < E .4..J a) >% " cap Q.) c.) �C cz , _ Q o u., It • • • • • a) .i :.t;! r {r ! . � t . �.i1 '/it -i all • ++''iMf 4 , . v y! 3is L. iii. , , . ,.. , 1,... . .t ;.v.,,. . . ,' "i ' "Vil \ ' O • I . 1 r " . firer; if ... y. !. ilk • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II O 4-1 4_ 0 L O C ) 4 . -D C — a) a)a) ca (o c0 0 L+— C p C � Q • - to tbo a3 -C3 CO C CC .— v) 0 O aJ _C ••1-0O — > _ N a) c I _ cD _ n3 a) a) a) a) + c v) s_ v _a 0 >, c O L fl 03 ( \ a) _' � ca tan 0 = Q cn cn +-� v -O Q ) O "' a) T U CD 4- U a) a° V) ate-+ v `+- 0 I v) v c N m o Q 4� v Cr) ' a (1) 0.0 _ — cv .- � ICU 4-1 O • C CO {� -2 "1JW ca v o au � U = O •bp •— co cu 4- ) 4....? _ CU a) Oro cu OD us) cm ., ,_ �, .� a) " U a) C •E 5- tt .4_, „, Cu co a) C > +� w W +J cD = = a. EiO c cc - •4-1 C U u U cn 4v O w •X :-O •— cv Q ._ C� I I 0 a. � ZOO w CO w < U I I I I I I I I I CC • , . . a)v ., � J. 92 Dr - ✓ S f il 41b -d . 'd 1 AS4 0404#164 - r • O Q a-+ N D 4.1 = O OOcu LL NI s C E D C E ca a. . — S- C ca U "' o a o � > am w 4--) 2 C O -Q; > Q -O O (0U F. x (1) O c w o • J-' a) Q) O 0 (13 > (73Q. 0_ Lea 4-1 4J > c ID Cn • - -O +J 0 Nc C C i- i L -Q o l a) a) O E tiD. ..,— C CU co E E ai > ellimj O Ct O � N 4) Ct 0 Cn X se a) 4- Dca ,_ C 0 CC S a5 O 12 N o a L o Q E Q ,_0 +J J 0 , C L7 I • • • 0 :,�q a) IT 7 V LS :i ' S4 't ) 't sit 44 •• tw U .' yye, . . j . . • • yr • • r ` r I •. 1 1 r, If • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I _ . • ism., is...c.-- ,,, 0 c c ar. _.... o O � a asUn�� ! . _ is a ea lia . -1 C \ al. , as wa- L. ro O O Co X 1- ..u_., 0 II (I) 2 _ •_ = (ip V) • Me 016 4-1 c a) E . -_. _. o a o fr._ a) a) Q CI D CC • o L • \M v1y l I I i 11'!Z r. 4 \' . I � V Itl1. to 1 • , • .1. E i •�f � PV o =1,1k:0 i o 0 rZ l Am H a a aaaa t = = ii-i-naaaa aaaaiii ,1 N i Y ° lio , , - ....../ : � o v> oot, L 0 0 I �, dx o , o i W a a� 0 Y 0 , P is uosonl > is Q d W o a 3 O o 0 1°8 ° ��w \ I I 3c, 0 C .I 0 'i O ' ° ° O ° ° o 1 O 0 0 O (0 ,i o a o ° O i ° S... 1 o I 'ts Oua!1 O ' _ 1 o o 0 0 0 • o Is O- .i o o r o O • x ,i ° 0 0 0 ° O o I..1-1 i t/) i ' C o o 9 O n3 oo n0 0 0 C..9 o c • 0 00 ' O o a i a a i in p Q O C9 ° 0 _0 0 0 0 0 II f OOa` a o ° • 0 S • a waso ,k r s �.,., f ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ° 0 0 i �� O 0 ° ° ° 0 o ° 0 0 i 0 ° 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 �, si �� ° ° ° ° V' ° ° g 0 o 0 o 0 ° 0 J 0 .y h.•� ii ,. iiiaa - - Ce 3agant� 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O 0 • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • pa III / a I y S S t. .... • e s' u 5 k W U _ t W6 t / 4 G 5 ' ru. _ k' •SNIP ^L ill Q O i 4 7 IL co E 2 ai be c co cL a o Q Ct a as) . h. , ,• 17 ! Is+) 3. . . i .e,„• , • ,,..•.. .._/7.,.i.,. •,_ . , , _I . ,, ,i. ...... , ... . .. , i I .. . ......_ .31., 4.0_• -• • 4 �V Ij L? �` : . �r - • ZA - -. Y `` tie rid', D t� '` f\--,......-----. 1 1 i ft- __) _ �� — •\ 1:_b- 1"t t u • e t on Q1 2 1 rictaiimiotzikiiiiii% iiii:43/4. O • L.) i V) — to E>% •-..Y c , i c , c . . ? • Q M z : - 1 r - - a--1 a) , , Cl) 'I....C 1\17 - - S • C2 L., . - r i dap a , d ` - . ,- i it all, , i_ . a)�f __ _ _,.. _wk, st, .. ..i...i eiv__ _ , ,) 4-.i:-..•4\ l 41 404. Om i . " 4. atiliti '.-1" i i• Evc4,1Fti I N s- L ., ai pc � ' r3, - 1t ;t1 yFir -- n/ iv rn 1.---\\ ..alkdi-kiiist- I- r .., ' !..Q Qy"yLis��'tt L 'K tY,:?iitP.t,' I' Irk e:..4•47 -:•.•.• �. :f 7 . r .[ Ire 11 r•r D11, .lal - •• !, , •1 0• 1.- , i t i r. ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I '..\\Nin w ; o 1 lib Jai ¢ �• 7 Q J • ill\):IF-Cssi- Q I AP • `3 Ill• , n -i SSW :,1x • ±-) °-' r.If tam. a r•I Of vii �wSpa CCr' t41'711• , 0 ,_ ' I (c-:, co , cp--..: 4 —O g 1._ O i, 4.e. i # L-6 ��+ [ co —..1 WI 5' i�� Lu O O mil. , • 11: + O v n Ilig-5i • r.... �� ^O O jO 4 4--) ______74_,51,__ . —_-mac _ 4'g ` E. II in O S a . . . . 2 :-. . (`Y la ? L E ., .„ .,. .,,- r • ti , to 4.. a : ° mii ,. CL. , • tie O J , 1 w W , ..... 1.. , O , . _ w EmJ. w IllelCt w e _ re b J U � L.L Q) L U L Ci • J. ` -L• " 1 I . .1. ' -4 £ d kuno� y ,� ?� • (7......, c'" r-7-i- _"- 74; 42 — I.: I U al g I}} ', • . r � ' rr � rrrrrrrr ri rsrs orrr . r� O I � ''� 00 i V C y•• il lei ! litWit'-" t � o• LA o (1 -.',0"./ oc _+ a s l N ~ 7 } N. t ifj • it titio,Nism„...j . r "may^ - 1�� \_-__ ,s� �� l� ,_ • ' '1- *- - ,voi i __ �� co I 71/4„,- •-•..0 = V o L \-i-,, T ` s C I C mnh/ �.r `� o t- Lj I< I- , iti, , .,.. IL . 4 rah. .. ..... . z • .•kJ r 1 U j • C als) it i I - ii ..., ___ i. \ourr4. . , _. oC 41 _ s�►1...7:1 E . . ,,..,.., ,._ _:?;: : . . _ • • r. , i,„.i.,..„._, • . ,...., •1 :t.it. .; , •. r.....;_iii• t. • • , n t Fri:- . O S . a .. . i 4 .... O-- .E4 It E _i_;___ ... it, ... % % 4, _ . _ a. ‘tv ft, . , III lib le%Ca OM'S; - ---,in..— \ ail. LJJ �, /*art .,S . a am 00 0 U Ile" ,:i. '>7-1_ d, a • D chi ✓ {f�,j ,, dd h/ h � � 1LL •` o - Li , Y.. iffivid Suel l ' Allik hJhli1 A< U• N r L. ahN 4,, -,J { ti• r ,f• it _ 1; 0 fi ,, ;kW. - r ." •.: :41.1fr.:1.0.',1, .‘• . , ,. . . • ,_ .t. .. • 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II ...c p 4-- CIO 0 a W N C . le � - >Qj CU S C L C ca -� co -a CD D -1-1 V 4-) 4-C )O a..) V V > v) h. s- • (/) ) D L. L- O V -0 CU O Cl) 0 Q) • - it L. ° a) °�' V (I) V) V) 0 • > X a) Q c• C ) = L II u 0 . _ " • .. " , ci, 0 0 @ O cn CD E O E -0 , c be L > C cDL.... M 0 C CU CO -N O L.. • . V 0 03 -0 D (6 -E--) Q_ V Q Ln be E O O I , in• in CZ V EG.) m 4-J .4-). c L.L.J 03 4_ ----- 0 cn c v, a Cv , • - O . - tap . � • - V L. 4J O V Ca L • — Cv•N 4— Cv Q . CU ca 0 L. V Q O Z c0 U. W E G 0 L Et • • • • CD • . . .A t t j a o ..; ....::1"1-,4 sir i :1 t,i ii 1 ' ' . I I I 11 't S417'4-11 vleS# ' II 1$44-9$ , i i AI ' >1 I . H. . fr4,4-‘ '11.4:t4 ) lir )T 4 j4.41 ; r 5 44 lb t • ..♦ *., s'7 • J • CU s_ � o O cn v CO C c/) C Q) c aA (13 c — � n3 4-1 C � w o @ • . = _c n3 V'1 c13 •— C L. v) C0 o c E -a - C CO a) O a- cv -� 0 E . • _ -O > V _, . L s... s 0(1) Q.) @ E c c 0 O O • 1= L. 0 ..c 4-) a0 too c c "c3 bn v) 4-1 3.. cu 0 > 0 E 0 c E v) v co • _ o • _. a) � L � � v u_ a--r v) co ,,,_ vi) E 0 v) � cn CC (13 O < --, E c>) c La D ti U . _ E _ E a) co Q > E2 E O_ r_ cu v) v) a.) E -0 D D L C C V 0� aC N U ' V O = c0 cv a a) L cc w V) Cl- > . C O _, L. a I I I I I L I p Q H 0 Ct • • • • 0 2 o • 1 •r _ .4 . ' 4 4 • r it ` 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II Q) 4_, f,„ 0 , Q. a) v o _, up ..-,>, v) V C4 co ....• O 4-) `n C c1� C in x U4- co ._ N111 te 0 0 c� o o up o •c E Q) E `n = N -O 0 CU N U cu p -C C -4-$ U U (1) •- C o .� IIc/ -ocu :4-) a� p x E � N to I E v) Cl.) 4-1 ra •- ca p Co 0 ate-# (f)4.-) n ca tapU ( ) L. �' p c e- V _ wvia) 0 c �+- . _ •— LL v- O O ..1-ILI) � 0 ap +., .1 — c2 a) -5 (1/4≥) 4- ro L.-- . ._ E cc SD CL a-; Ln Q_ �C4-1 O CO bp (u c a) w 4-) v) v E 7O DD 4-0 CC (1) •- E E CU L CU a3 -O - Ubp — o- — cal O •— °' n CC c O `1 `J cc . _ 0 2 I I D V) Et o cu U r�, 4 dT' ? I (.t :�•� „,,j - f t a V si s• O I f ! . j r '( . 7 - /( f L • a } t = ' l I f 0 >% ` �-(1-l� S 0 V C i co t _C , i H r 'I ' � 1 I C 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Esther Gesick oorom: Michelle Martin nt: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:02 PM : Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Dry Creek RUA Attachments: 100709_Ch 26 changes to planning staff doc.pdf Esther, Here are the redlines. Michelle Martin Planner III 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co.weld.co.us PHONE: (970)353-6100 x 3540 FAX: (970)304-6498 From: Michelle Martin Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 8:55 AM To: Heidi Hansen; Janet Carter; Clayton D. Kimmi; Lauren Light Cc: Tom Parko; Trevor Jiricek; Bruce Barker Subject: FW: Dry Creek RUA I Everyone, The applicants are proposing new modifications to chapter 26 I have attached a redline copy of their changes. I am sorry this is so late as you can see I did not receive these until late Friday and I had already gone home for the weekend. See you all at the Board hearing. Michelle Martin Planner Ill 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin( 'co.weld.co.us PHONE: (970)353-6100 x 3540 FAX: (970)304-6498 From: Braun, Alexa [mailto:Alexa.Braun@aecom.com] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 4:51. PM To: Michelle Martin; Roger Hollard Subject: RE: Dry Creek RUA Michelle- Here is the redline you requested. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Alexa Braun, LEED AP associate Ji • •° Tanning and Urban Design Practice Leader EDAW, Inc. 1809 Blake Street t 1 Denver, CO 80202 main: 303-595-4522 direct: 303-308-3553 alexa.braun@edaw.com • • 2 • Attachment — J THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER IS FOR INCLUSION AS A SECTION IN CHAPTER 26 OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE. • Chapter 26 I• July9,2010 1 • Article IV Dry Creek RUA Section 26-4-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. A framework plan for the Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area (Dry Creek RUA) is established to provide a foundation and general guidance to enable the County and its citizens to make appropriate decisions regarding future development within the specified geographical area. It represents a vision of what the Dry Creek RUA could look like over the next 20 years and is supported by specific land use goals and policies. The following sections outline the framework plan and how it will be used to guide future growth in the Dry Creek RUA. B. The proposed Dry Creek RUA is located in one of the fastest growing areas of both Weld County and the Denver Metro Area, near the developing growth areas of the I-25 and Highway 85 corridors. Surrounding municipal populations are increasing quickly, and employment and retail opportunities are moving to the area at an accelerated rate. The Dry Creek RUA is an effort to ensure that future development is compatible with the existing and future character of the region. Future development shown in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map will conform with the goals and policies outlined in this sectionssection, as well as all policies and regulations found in Chapter 22 (Weld County • Comprehensive Plan), all zoning and subdivision and/or planned unit development regulations, and all other applicable portions of the Weld County Code. Section 26-4-20 INTENT The intent of the Dry Creek Framework Plan and resultant Goals and Policies is to expedite the planning review process by clearly outlining the expectations for future development within the area. To this end, the principles defined in the Framework Plan and Goals and Policies seek to ensure that new development is consistent with the county'sWeld County's overall vision, the surrounding context, and is in accordance with general Dry Creek RUA Goals and Policies outlined in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The framework planFramework Plan and Goals and Policies within this application are intended to be specific and clear enough to guide development, but not to preclude creative design solutions. The Dry Creek RUA seeks to create an integrated community that balances development with riparian corridors, oil and gas production, and the site'sDry Creek RUA's agricultural heritage. The framework plan seeks to ensure that future Dry Creek RUA development fits into the contextual character and planning efforts of the surrounding area while creating an attractive living and working community. • I July9, 2010 2 • Section 26-4-30 MAXIMUM WORK AND LIVING POPULATION Appendix 26-C outlines the maximum number of people who are projected to live and work in the Dry Creek RUA and the maximum non-residential uses. The projected population of the Dry Creek RUA is between 6,500 and 19,700 people and between 2,200 and 6,600 dwelling units. Non-residential uses in the Dry Creek RUA are projected to be between 66,000 and 187,000 sq. ft. of Gross Floor Area (GFA) and 187,000 sq. ft. of GFA:k These non-residential uses include but are not limited to small neighborhood retail and civic uses. These uses, and are projected to employ between 130 and 373 people (exclusive of school employment). Including school employment, projections are between 218 and 605 people would work within the Dry Creek RUA, as currently projected:_ Section 26-4-40 SERVICE AND SCHOOL PROVISIONS Appendices 26-B and 26-O outline the agencies that will provide services and education -within the Dry Creek RUA, together with school facilities requirements. Around Approximately 20% of the Dry Creek RUA is within Brighton 27J School District, with the remaining 80% of the boundary iscontained • within Fort Lupton Weld County 87 school district. The Dry Creek RUA population projections would justify approximately 35 K-8 schools and 1 high school. The general locations of these schools are depicted in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map. Locations and facilities are subject to change pending final input from the respective School District..Districts. Section 26-4-50 DRY CREEK RUA GENERALIZED PLANNED LAND USE CATEGORIES The overall goal of the overall Dry Creek RUA Framework Plan is to structure land use categories is to , which establish a harmonious design that protectsprotect and enhancesenhance the value and character of surrounding land uses by attracting clean and non-polluting land uses to the community and minimizing view obstruction of the view of others through4he careful use of perimeter landscaping, screening, and buffering. The goal is also to discourage development in hazard areas where a significant risk to life and property exist, such as in areas of floodplain, geologic hazard, unstable soils, undermined areas, and steep slopes. A. General Planned Land Uses • I Ju1y 9. 2010 3 • InLand uses in the Dry Creek RUA, land use is are grouped into four land usefive categories. These categories are conceptual and not intended to create vested property rights in the continuation of any particular use, district, zoning classification, or any permissible activity therein. The Land Use categories are as follows: 1 . Mixed Use Neighborhoods 2. Suburban Neighborhoods 3. Estate Neighborhoods 4. Limiting Site Factors 5. Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities Each land use category consists of distinct and unique qualities and is. The categories are established as a matter of policy to guide and implement planned land use development. These categories are delineated in the RUA Framework Plan and are correlated to the generalized zone districts as defined in Chapter 23 of Weld County Code as noted below. In all cases, Chapter 23, 24, and 27 should be consulted for clarification of specific requirements. B. Mixed Use Neighborhoods • The goal of Mixed Use Neighborhoods within the Dry Creek RUA isare intended to create higher density nodes proximate to major regional arterials that provide convenience goods and services for residents of the immediate area. Mixed Use Neighborhoods should be linked to transportation networks but should minimize traffic and parking issues for the adjacent residents, while promoting compatibility between the commercial and nearby residential areas.- Encouraging commercial uses in Mixed Use Neighborhoods will allow for employment opportunities within the community. POLICIES a: a. Higher Density Nodes: Mixed use neighborhoods are intended to provide a-safe, proximate, and higher density activity areas offering employment opportunities and convenience goods and services to residents of surrounding neighborhoods. Environmental and service-related impacts are minimal. h b. Properly Scaled: Non-residential uses should be appropriately located and scaled withinwith easy access and integrated within the surrounding neighborhood context. I S July 9. 2010 4 c. Allowable Land Uses: Generally, commercial uses should be similar to the uses described in Section 23-3-210 (C- 1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone District), including both the Uses allowed by Right and Uses by Special Review. Residential Uses should be similar to those described in Section 23-3- 130 (R- 3 Medium-Density Residential) and Section 23-3- 140 (R-4 High- ' Density Residential), including both the Uses allowed by Right and Uses by Special Review. Both the commercial and residential uses include but are not limited to: i. Stores and shops which furnish personal services and merchandise primarily intended for personal, family, or household purposes by the residents of the area in which the use is located. ii. Restaurants iii. Schools and Public School extension classes iv. Public Recreational Facilities, Community Buildings, Museums, and Libraries v. Police and Fire Station Facilities vi. Offices vii. Utility Service Facility viii. Child Care Center ix. Places of Worship x. Clubhouse and Recreational Facilities • xi. Attached Dwelling Units xii. Group Home facility xiii. Foster Care Homes d. Serviced by Infrastructure: Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will utilize public sewer and water services. e. Provision of Employment Opportunities: Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will incorporate commercial uses to offer employment opportunities to residents. f. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Development of Neighborhood Mixed Use Centers should meet the goals and policies in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Section 22-2- 100 (Commercial Development Goals and Policies), as well as the goals and policies in Section 22-2- 120 that specifically discuss Urban Residential Uses. e. Compatibility of Building Heights: Buildings should be considered in terms of their relationship to the height and massing of adjacent buildings, as well as in relation to the human scale. i I July 9, 2010 5 • Jr h. Green Transitions:_ Development within Neighborhood Mixed Use areas should use landscaping to provide a transition and buffer from higher density, more active land uses, to lower density residential land uses and existing rural land uses. g1/4 i_Clustering of Higher Density Uses: Non-Residential Uses, larger buildings and attached multi-family housing should cluster near commercial centers and transition to the surrounding residential neighborhoods through the use of lower density products. #� ,Pedestrian-Oriented Mixed Use Areas: Create pedestrian- friendly and human-scaled commercial areas by providing open areas for gathering places, creating a tree canopy between on- street parking and store fronts, and minimizing the visual impact of parking lots. h k. Building Integration: Mitigate large-footprint commercial structures by minimizing the impact of parking areas and incorporating more human-scaled streetscapes into designs. • I 14. Building Orientation: Reinforce the character and quality of the streets through the development of buildings that provide orientation and access towards the street. C. Suburban Neighborhoods The goals of SubrubanSuburban Neighborhood residential districts within the Dry Creek RUA is that theyare intended to be cohesive, identifiable, and diverse, while still being integrated into the regional context of the surrounding area. POLICIES a: a. Developments are encouraged to coordinate neighborhood design efforts with regardsregard to circulation provisions, conservation of natural features, and relationship to established neighborhood areas. b: b. A diversity of housing types is encouraged to include both owner-occupied and rental housing, which serves all economic I• July 9, 2010 6 • segments of the population and match local incomes and age groups. I e c. Higher residential densities should be situated within close proximity to designated neighborhood/activity centers. d. Each neighborhood should have an interconnected network of local streets that provide direct connections to local destinations. e: e. Allowable Land Uses: Generally Residential Uses occurring in the Neighborhood Mixed Use should meet the requirements set in Section 23-3- 130 (R- 1 Low-Density Residential Zone District) and Section 23-3- 140 (R-2 Duplex Residential Zone). f. Serviced by Infrastructure: Suburban Neighborhoods will utilize public sewer and water services. g: g. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Development of Neighborhood Suburban Residential Areas should meet the goals and policies in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Section 22-2- 120 (Residential Development Goals and Policies). #: h. Housing Diversity: Residential areas should reflect affordability and lifestyle choices that include dwelling unit type, density, environmental setting, and convenience levels. Diverse housing options serve people of all income levels and may provide some citizens the ability to live where they work. I h i. Compatibility with surrounding proposed/existing land uses: Thorough examination of issues such as compatibility with surrounding and regional land uses, availability and adequacy of infrastructure, impacts on the natural environment, drainage and transportation, and other issues should occur in the review of all residential developments Adequate Services: Improvements associated with residential development should be based on the direct impact those development proposals have on the infrastructure and services related to that development. - Ensure that adequate services and facilities are currently available or reasonably obtainable to serve the residential development or district. - Ensure adequate mechanisms are in place to manage and maintain all public and private improvements in residential • I July 9. 2010 7 • development. These improvements may include water delivery, sewage delivery, sewage disposal, drainage facilities, roadways, trails, common and private open space, landscaped areas, and fencing. Mechanisms may include, but are not limited to, homeowner's associations, metropolitan or other improvement districts, agreements with utility or service providers, or protective covenants addressing privately-owned property. k. k. Neighborhood Emphasis: Development within the Dry Creek RUA is encouraged to be focused in distinct neighborhoods that arc walkable, pedestrian friendly, and integrated into the regional open space and circulation network. Walkability of Residential Neighborhoods: Suburban residential neighborhoods should be pedestrian friendly and walkable. Detached sidewalks and pedestrian and bicycle paths are encouraged. m:m. Neighborhood Interconnectivity: Neighborhoods located adjacent to future development areas should provide opportunities for future roadway and open space extensions. Where cul-de-sacs are used, pedestrian connections are • encouraged between the street and adjacent open space areas, trails, and other common areas to promote neighborhood connectivity. I n n. High-Quality and Attractive Neighborhood Character: Non-residential uses such as civic buildings within suburban residential neighborhoods, should be appropriately scaled and of similar character to the surrounding residential neighborhood to promote an attractive and high-quality neighborhood character. Repetition of identical homes and garages along neighborhood streets detracts from the visual character of the neighborhood and should not be encouraged. D. Estate Neighborhoods The goal of Estate Neighborhoods within the Dry Creek RUA is that they are intended to provide an appropriate transition from more intensive development to existing rural/agricultural areas. These low-density neighborhoods should maintain a country living and rural atmosphere while preserving the vegetation, significant geological features, wildlife habitat/corridors, views, and privacy. • I July 9. 2010 8 • POLICIES L a. Allowable Land Uses: Generally Residential Uses occurring in the Estate Neighborhoods should meet the requirements set in Section 23-3-410 (E Estate Zone District). it b. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Development of Residential Estates should meet the goals and policies in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Section 22-2- 120 (Residential Development Goals and Policies). I e: c. Compatibility with surrounding proposed/existing land uses: Thorough examination of issues such as compatibility with surrounding and regional land uses, availability and adequacy of infrastructure, impacts on the natural environment drainage and transportation, and integration with the rural agriculture character of the area should occur in the review of all Residential Estate. I d: d. Adequate Services: Ensure that adequate services and facilities such as sheriff/fire protection, medical support, and efficient service delivery such as school busing are currently available or reasonably obtainable to serve Residential Estate Developments. e. Emphasis on Open Space: Lots should have access to common or private open space if applicable. Private open space is encouraged on individual lots to support high-quality rural character. f. Estate Neighborhood Character: Residential Estates should be designed with development patterns, design features, amenities, and architecture that support a high-quality estate character. g: g. Pedestrian Interconnectivity: Pedestrian connections to surrounding properties should be included, where feasible, to ensure connectivity between adjoining properties as they are developed. I h. Visual Screening of Estate Land uses: Perimeter treatments, entry ways, and setbacks are encouraged to be individually tailored to each development proposal, but should support a high-quality estate character. h i. Development Clustering and Transitioning: Development clustering techniques to preserve natural amenities, scenic view corridors, and agricultural viable land is encouraged. Residential • July9. 2o10 9 • Estate developments should be considered as transitional areas between higher intensity urban uses and existing rural uses surrounding the Dry Creek RUA. LSmall-Scale Farming: Support opportunities such as, but not limited to, hobby farming and home businesses to supplement family income and reduce living expenses for farm families and others who prefer a rural lifestyle. E. Limiting Site Factors The Limiting Site Factors area aredesignation is used for those areas comprised of limiting site factors containwith certain physical elements that obstruct, or are hazardous to, certain types of development. These physical elements include floodplains, critical wildlife habitat areas, aquifer recharge areas, riparian areas, topographically constraints, regional utility easements, regional oil am gas pipe ine easements, and oil and gas processing and distribution facilities. and topographical constraints. The goal within the LitmitingLimiting Site Factor areas are to discouragenot intended for development within limiting factor areas,, but instead are intended to preserve the natural features of the site, to avoid areas of environmental sensitivity, and to minimize negative impacts and alteration of natural features. Preserve, protect, and enhance areas from development defined in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map, including but not limited to surface water bodies, wetland habitat, riparian corridors, significant oil and gas processing and distribution facilitiesand floodplains. POLICIES a, a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goals and Policies regarding the Protection and Preservation of Limiting Site Factor Areas are consistent with those outlined in Article V Natural Resources, Section 22-5-10, and 22-5-20 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The following policies are consistent with the County's Goals and Policies as outlined in Section 22-5-30 but have been modified, revised or clarified to reflect the desired policies of the Dry Creek RUA: i. Discourage excessive or unnecessary removal of riparian vegetation and alterations of stream beds and banks, or other significant or critical habitats during the design and development of land uses that require grading and drainage 111 ink 2010 10 improvements unless specifically permitted for restoration, enhancement, creation of additional habitat or open space activity areas that enhance the uses of the area. ii. Conflicts with fish and wildlife habitats and travel and migration routes should be considered and avoided in land development. iii. Development adjacent to rivers and streams, waterfowl areas, significant or critical habitats areas should incorporate reduced densities, adequate setbacks, and buffers. iv. It is incumbent upon all land owners (private or public), metro districts, developers, and site construction contractors to be aware that it is illegal to place fill material in any jurisdictional water or wetland. Impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands will be mitigated in the Dry Creek RUA by the responsible party according to requirements, regulations, and guidelines set out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). v. Unnecessary destruction of riparian areas is strongly discouraged. Impacts to riparian areas will be mitigated in the Dry Creek RUA by the responsible party. Mitigation will be accomplished through restoration, enhancement, or • creation efforts. v. Developers will coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to identify issues and implement measures for the protection, restoration, enhancement, or creation of fish and wildlife habitat. K b. Compatibility of Uses in each Zone: Areas comprised of Limiting Site Factors contain certain physical elements that obstruct, or are hazardous to, certain types of development. These physical elements include but are not limited to the following uses: i. Floodplains (within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain) i i. Critical Wildlife and Riparian Habitat Areas iii. Wetland and Aquifer Recharge Areas iv. Surface Water Bodies v. Topographical Constraints vi. Transmission Line Easements vii. Regional Oil and Gas Easements viii. Oil and Gas Distribution and Processing Facilities Although these sitesareas contain factors that limit certain types of development, these areas are, nevertheless, usable for agricultural I• Ju1Y 9. 2010 11 production, recreational activities and parks, or other functions that cannot damage or be damaged by the constraining site factors. These areas can also enhance the character of thisthe Dry Creek RUA by providing corridors for trails and wildlife and for the protection of natural resources, riparian habitats, and natural features essential to the identity of thisthe Dry Creek RUA. c.Importance of Limiting Site Factors as Open Space: Development in the Dry Creek RUA should preserve and enhance the Big Dry Creek floodplain and riparian corridor, improve habitat conditions and create quality open space, and, to the extent feasible, preserve and enhance significant non- jurisdictional farm ponds and associated aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats to encourage wildlife use. d`: d. Preservation of Habitat: Development within the RUA should preserve, create, and enhance grassland buffers around Sensitive or Critical Habitats within areas defined as Limiting Site Factors in Appendix 26-S Thy Creek RUA Map. i-.-vi. Discourage development and avoid disturbance to sensitive, significant, or critical habitat areas. Encourage buffers and setbacks around such features. Preclude any new structural development in the riparian areas. • . Encourage the restoration and enhancement of water resources to provide a diversity of water-based active and passive recreational opportunities as well as wildlife habitat. Create, preserve, and enhance grassland buffers around Sensitive or Critical Habitats within areas defined as limiting site factors in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map. e: e.Importance as Water Resource: Within limiting site factor areas, development within the Dry Creek RUA is encouraged to utilize Low Impact Development (LID) methods of reducing impermeable surfaces, create stormwaterstorm water detention and permanent water quality ponds, bioswales and wetlands to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of water released from development sites and to create functional wildlife habitat. Locate and design stormwaterstorm water facilities to take advantage of and enhance existing water resources and habitat. f. Interconnection of Limiting Site Factor Areas: Create an interconnected system of open space that incorporates water bodies, wetland habitat, riparian corridors, buffers, floodplains, and other Significant or Critical Habitats. • I July 9. 2010 12 g: g. Compatibility with State and Federal Laws and Regulations: Abide by Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and adhere to the State and Federal rules, regulations, and guidance governing the preservation of water quality and protection and mitigation of waters of the United States, and wetlands as administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). lb h. Discourage New Development within Limiting Site Factor Areas: Discourage development in hazard areas where a significant risk to life and property exist, as in areas of floodplain, geologic hazard, unstable soils, undermined areas, and steep slopes. Minimize development and encroachment in the floodplain and preclude any net fill in the floodplain. Distribution: Oi . anc gas cr1 ing, processing, ane cistribution in tie Dry Creek RUA are a significant economic component and s_la _ De protected. It is important twat proper mitigation measures suc.i as screening and buffering are employed to address potential • conf icts between existing industria areas and future urban development. i_Confirmation of Floodplains: While general locations of floodplains have been shown in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map, prior to submitting a Change of Zone application, the Applicant must define floodplain source of the data, accuracy, modeling methodology, assumptions, etc. Numerous factors can change floodplain limits. The- applicant shall apply to FEMA to modify the defined floodplain boundary to take into account any proposed floodplain changes concurrent with submitting the Final Plat. F. Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities are those areas that contain utility service facilities, major facilities of a public utility, oil and gas production facilities, oil and gas storage facilities, and oil and gas support as those terms are defined in Section 2423 of the Weld County Code, as amended. July 9. 2010 13 le POLICIES a. Compatibility of Uses in each Zone: Areas comprised of Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities contain certain physical elements that obstruct, or are hazardous to, certain types of development. These physical elements include but are not limited to the following uses: i. Transmission Line and Other Regional Utility Easements ii. Oil and Gas Easements iii. Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities b. Discourage New Development within Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities Areas: Residential development or other development that is not directly tied to Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities is discouraged. c.. Buffering of Existing Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities: Oil and gas drilling, processing, and distribution in the Dry Creek RUA are a significant economic component and shall be protected. It is important that these activities and facilities continue and may expand in the area shown in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map, without the need • to otherwise comply with the requirements of this Chapter 26, Article IV. It is important that proper mitigation measures such as screening and buffering are employed on areas adjacent to the Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities to address potential conflicts between existing and potential future industrial areas and future urban development. Section 26-4-60 COMMUNITY AND EMERGENCY FACILITIES The goal of locations designated for Community and Emergency Facilities isareas are intended to ensure the efficient and cost-effective delivery of adequate public facilities and services within the Dry Creek RUA that provides for the health, safety, and welfare of the present and future residents of the County. POLICIES I az a. Minimum Service Standards: Minimum service standards and facility standards will be established in determining whether public services and facilities are adequate for residential and mixed-use development. II I July 9. 2010 14 • - Each service provider will advise on acceptable standards of service and facilities as each is a technical expert. - As site-specific development plans become available for each phase of development, direct input from each service provider will be incorporated into the planning efforts. it b. Minimize Fiscal Impacts: The Dry Creek RUA will provide mechanisms for funding public facilities, accommodating service expansion and community amenities based on the demand created by the development. - Mechanisms for funding infrastructure improvements should be promoted to ensure equitable participation by the developer, utility providers, service providers, the county, future owners, and surrounding properties. Such mechanisms may include over-sizing or payback agreements, impact fees, interim/ultimate design and installation plans, improvement or metropolitan districts, and/or other methods. - Strive to set common urban development impact fees within the Dry Creek RUA, to encourage parity. - Review impact fee policies within the Dry Creek RUA, or around it, as appropriate to ensure that the basis for impact fees remains equitable and fair and reflects the current cost of construction. • - Cost-sharing strategies could be implemented for the construction of infrastructure. - Consider both the physical and fiscal impact on the local districts. If it is found the service providers, as a result of the proposed development, require additional facilities, or incur costs requiring additional local revenues, the project will negotiate with the service provider to determine the contribution level necessary to cover the costs directly attributable to the project. Ie: c.Embedded Community Facilities in Neighborhoods: Locating schools, a library, and sheriff and fire satellite stations within the community Dry Creek RUA are hallmarks of the charter the Dry Creek RUA seeks to create. They are desiredcharacter intended for this area. Such land uses4hat improve the sense of safety and overall desirability of the community. d. Regional Cooperation: Cooperation or consolidation of urban services among the county, special districts, and private developers is encouraged, when appropriate, to avoid duplication and overlapping costs to establish a satisfactory level of quality, quantity and dependability of those services. I• .itdv9. 2010 15 • - Development in the Dry Creek RUA should participate in joint planning with the countyWeld County and service providers to coordinate a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. - Development should work cooperatively to the mutual benefit of the new residents and the public service providers through the use of such mechanisms as IGAs. I e: e. Utilize Existing Capacity: Development requiring urban services and facilities should be located where services are currently available or reasonably available. When additional capacity is available with existing facilities, then the Dry Creek RUA will work in partnership with the service provider to appropriately and efficiently utilize what is already available. #: f. Collocation and Shared Use of School Facilities with Civic or other Community Uses: When appropriate, collocation or shared use of schools with other civic uses such as a public library, fine arts center, senior center, health clinic, community college branch, recreation facility, or Public Park can create more walkable and integrated neighborhoods and should be encouraged. g. Collocation and Shared Use of School Facilities as a • mechanism to offset cost of public service provision: Collocation of Civic and or Community Uses should be promoted within the Dry Creek RU& because it can reduce cost of service for all agencies involved. Such collocation can more efficiently utilize public funding and offset some public school construction costs through cost-sharing by different public agencies. #: h. Phased land dedications: Provide phased land dedications for public services and improvement as conditions of development are warranted. Section 2426-4-70 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE All land use applications in the Dry Creek RUA shall adhere to the following regulations governing the maximum percentage of lot coverage..-, except that Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities shall instead comply with the requirements of the underlying zone district. Maximum lot coverage is defined as the maximum percent of the total area of a lot in a zone district that shall be covered by any covered structure. The percentage of coverage on a lot shall not include the area of the lot or development designated as open space. The • I July 9. 2010 16 • percentages outlined in Table 26. 3 shall be deemed the maximum lot coverage for each zone district within the Dry Creek RUA. Table 26-3: Maximum Lot Coverage in the Dry Creek RUA Table 26-3: Maximum Lot Coverage in the Thy Creek RUA r-iiiAmiteill LUi L t+-t i-tigk. Pcrcentut Covered Nei:hborhood Mixed Use 85% Suburban Residential Nei:hborhoods 60% Estate Neighborhoods 40% Limitin: Site Factor NA Oil and Gas Processing and NA Distribution Facilities I Section 2426-4-80 OPEN SPACE The goal for open space within the Dry Creek RUA is to establish a functional open space system that balances development with the needs of wildlife and existing agricultural and rural uses and incorporates the protection, maintenance • and management of natural, scenic, historic, cultural, archeological, drainage, floodplain, and agricultural resources. The Dry Creek RUA has defined an overall Open Space framework defined I primarily by thecertain limiting factors on the site. These are as follows: Dry Creek Riparian Corridor and Floodplain, the Brantner Irrigation Ditches, Critical I and Sensitive habitatsHabitats, and Utility Easements. These environmental constraints can be improved and provide key linkages to create an integrated open space and trail network. This would provide a greenway throughout the Dry Creek RUA and ensure that the Dry Creek RUA open space and trail network could tie into a potential future regional recreation and open space system. In I addition to the limiting site factors on the site, there are other important Open Space conditions, and there are goals and polices for each of these following sub- categories: - Buffer Conditions Landscapes [Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map] - Common Open Space - Parks and Recreation - Landscape Medians and Roadsides - Agricultural POLICIES Ill I July 9, 2010 17 • a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goals and Policies regarding Open Space are consistent with those outlined in, Section 22-5-40 (Article V Natural Resources) of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The following policies are consistent with the County's goals and policies as outlined in Section 22-5-50, but they have been modified, revised, or clarified to reflect the desired policies of the Dry Creek RUA: i. Developers will provide open space to enhance the quality of life and enjoyment of the environment, while protecting private property rights. ii. Encourage private-sector, non-profit organizations, non- county agencies, and other governmental jurisdictions to participate in the provision of open space in and around the Dry Creek RUA. iii. Developers will identify and set aside significant, critical, or sensitive habitat and natural land features in tracts, outlots, or easements where appropriate. iv. Developers should ensure the future management of public open space and create management plans that identify the managing entity, funding source, and stewardship IPresponsibilities. Encourage native, drought-tolerant landscaping in open space and new landscaping in developed areas. K b. Minimum Standards: The minimum percentages of land in each land use designation devoted to Open Space and limiting site factors are listed in Table 26-3, except that Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities shall instead comply with the requirements of the underlying zone district. Department of Planning Services' staff reserves the ability to evaluate development design proposals with less common open space than listed in Table 26-4. Staff will determine at the time of land use application if the proposed common open space meets the intent of the requirements in this section. Table 26-4 Minimum Open Space Standards Minimum Open Space for each Percentage Land Use Designation Covered • July 9. 2010 18 • Neighborhood Mixed Use 15 % Suburban Residential 15 % Estate Neighborhoods 25 % Limiting Site Factor NA Table 26-3: Maximum Lot Coverage in the Dly Creek RUA Neighborhood Mixed Use 85% Suburban Residential Neighborhoods 60% Estate Neighborhoods 40% Limiting Site Factor NA Oil and Gas Processing and NA Distribution Facilities • et e.Provision of Open Space: Developers will dedicate open space, initiate land trades within the Dry Creek RUA, or provide cash- in-lieu when open space opportunities are not available in desired open space locations. In lieu of the preservation of land for on- site common open space, and subject to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant may utilize the cash-in-lieu-of-common-open-space option outlined in Section 27-6-80.B.8, with terms defined in Chapter 27, Article II of the Weld County Code. This option shall be outline in the Sketch Plan Application to the Department of Planning Services. d. Preservation and Interconnectivity of Open Space: i. The Recreation District and Developers should coordinate and encourage the preservation and creation of a continuous, interconnected, and permanent system of open space that capitalizes on natural and man-made features and incorporates sensitive and critical habitat such as streams corridors, floodplains, irrigation canals, reservoirs, ponds, wetlands, and ponds. ii. Development within the Dry Creek RUA should dedicate and protect natural open space that incorporates sensitive and critical wildlife habitat in a variety of forms, including large patches, corridors, buffers, and linkages and will • discourage small unusable patches of open space. I July 9, 2010 19 • iii. Patches of open space should be linked together via open space corridors of adequate width to protect sensitive species and allow for genetic diversity through species movement. Creation of isolated or small patches of open space or habitats that are inaccessible or unusable for wildlife is discouraged. e: e. Emphasize Importance of Habitat: Development of a parks and trails system should avoid negative impacts to Sensitive or Critical habitat. I E. f. Management of Open Space: A Recreation District, HOA or other approved entity should fund and develop an open space management plan that addresses the restoration, enhancement, operations and maintenance standards of open space, and balances the level of public use of open space with the sensitivity of the wildlife/habitat resources and goals for protection of those resources. A Recreation District, HOA or other approved entity should collect fees as necessary and provide adequate funding to support the open space management plan. g. Enhancement of Open Space: The restoration and enhancement of open space and water resources is encouraged, IIIin order to provide a diversity of water-based active and passive recreational opportunities as well as wildlife habitat. It h. Create a Visual and Attractive Environment: Development within the Dry Creek RUA should provide a natural appearance and configuration of graded land forms in open space and stormwaterstorm water and drainage facilities to create an aesthetic appearance of community features. Section 26-4-90 BUFFER CONDITIONS The goal for designated Buffer Condition areas within the Dry Creek RUA isare intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of land developed in the Dry Creek RUA and protect the economic viability and long-term sustainability of the surrounding agricultural and oil and gas industries. The Dry Creek RUA is in a developing and changing area with significant existing agriculture and oil and gas industries. Certain urban land uses, because of their character and intensity, may create an adverse impact on less intensive and varied adjacent land uses and negatively impact the economic viability and long-term sustainability of surrounding oil and gas industries. Alternatively, the noise and dust that can be associated with more rural uses, such as agriculture and oil and gas production • and distribution, can adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare of I July 9. 2010 20 • surrounding urban development. Accordingly, the following policies arc established to protect and preserve the appearance, character, and value of property within the Dry Creek RUA and buffer adjacent more rural uses from the adverse urban development of the Dry Creek RUA. POLICIES lb a. Screen or buffer between incompatible adjacent land uses: All land withindesignated Suburban Residential areas within the Dry Creek RUA that is directly adjacent to an existing rural or agricultural use and is not separated by a road right-of- way, and where "Buffer Condition" is noted in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map, need to be evaluated based on the intensity of land uses and the intensity of the landscape treatment proposed. One or more of the four basic variables in buffer design should be used. Distance as follows: distance, plant material, plant density, and land forms. such variables should be employed to ensure that incompatible land uses are adequately buffered and screened. • l : b. Transition from higher density urban uses to rural uses through lower density development: Where indicated, lower density Estate Neighborhoods have been cited in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map. These Estate Neighborhoods have a lower density and are more rural in character and allow for a more gradual transition to existing rural and agricultural uses. e� c. Buffer or screen between development and oil and gas operations areasprocessin2 and distribution facilities: A landscape buffer should be employed for the outer portions of the setback from an oil and gas well or operations area.processing and distribution facility. This buffer area may be used for streets, underground utilities, sidewalks, trails, parking, and must be landscaped with grasses, vertical landscaping or shallow-rooted landscape. Section 26-4-100 COMMON OPEN SPACE All developments within the Dry Creek RUA shall also preserve a portion of the site as common open space above and beyond the areas that have been delineated in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map. • Jule 0, 2010 21 • DEFINITION: Common Open Space is defined as any usable parcel of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated, or reserved for future public or private use or enjoyment or for the use and enjoyment of owners or occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such an area. Common Open Space shall be freely accessible to all residents and property owners of a development. Common Open Space shall not be occupied by buildings or structures other than those in conjunction with the use of open space, roads, or parking nor shall it include the yards or lots of residential dwelling units required to meet minimum lot area or parking area requirements. Section 26-4-110 PARKS AND RECREATION All Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) within the Dry Creek RUA shall also preserve a portion of the site as Parks and Recreation above and beyond the areas that have been delineated in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map. The goal for Parks and Recreation within the Dry Creek RUA is to provide high- quality, strategically placed parks and recreation facilities for present and future residents • POLICIES Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goals and policies regarding Parks and Recreation are consistent with those outlined in Article V Natural Resources, Sections 22-5-40 and 22-5-50 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. I l}: Compatibility with Existing Zoning Standards: Common open space shall be delineated in the Sketch Plan or Change of Zone phase of the land use process and meet the performance standards established in Chapters 24 and 27 of the Weld County Code. e: a. Diversity of Parks: Parks provide opportunities for active and passive recreational experiences within the community. They reinforce a sense of community by providing places for members of the community to gather, interact, and exercise. Parks also enhance a community's image and quality of life. A comprehensive park system should include the following: ■ NeighborhoodPocket Parks-Pocket parks are small parks that are provided by the developer of a subdivision and maintained by the development. They provide opportunities for passive outdoor recreation at a sub- s I July 9. 2010 22 • neighborhood scale. They are ideally located within 0725 '/4 mile of the residences they are intended to serve and may include lawn areas, picnic shelters and tables, play equipment, artwork, or other amenities that are appropriate for the demographics and types of activities that the neighborhood may desire.- Pocket parks are typically between 2,500 square feet and 1 acre size. ■ LocalNeighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks provide places for informal recreation and gathering places within walking distance of most residences (0.5, usually '/4 mile). May to V2 mile, and may include multi-use lawn areas, picnic areas, playground equipment, restrooms, drinking fountains, small court games, community gardens, and recreational fields and facilities as appropriate.- Neighborhood parks are typically 5 to 10 acres in size with 5 acres being considered a minimum size. ■ Community Parks—Community parks serve multiple neighborhoods (typically within 1 to -1.3 miles) and are focused on the recreational needs of the whole community. They provide opportunities for self-directed and programmed recreational activities as well as community events and gatherings. They also offer • opportunities to protect unique landscapes and open spaces. Community parks are usually between 30 and 50 acres, but can be smaller or larger based on the uses that arc being accommodated in the park. th b. Accessibility of Parks: Parks and recreation facilities provide an adequate range of active and passive recreational opportunities to meet the needs of a wide array of citizens. Special emphasis should be placed on ensuring that residents have access to neighborhood parks and recreation centers within walking distance of their homes. a: a. Development within the Dry Creek RUA should centrally locate recreation centers and other facilities that serve large numbers of people on sites with visual and vehicular access from major roadways, direct trail connections, and provisions for future transit. h b. Development within the Dry Creek RUA should design neighborhoods that integrate parks, trails and recreational facilities with utility infrastructure and transportation systems such as detention basins that serve as usable fields when not flooded. I e- c. Development within the Dry Creek RUA should organize and conjoin parks, trails, open space with 11 I July 9, 2010 23 • schools, churches, and other quasi-public land uses where possible to create larger, more contiguous parks and open space network Section 2426-4-120 AGRICULTURE The goal for agriculturalAgricultural uses within and nearby the Dry Creek RUA isare intended to preserve agricultural productivity and values. POLICIES lb a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Protection and Preservation of Limiting Site Factor Areas are consistent with those outlined in Article II Land Use Categories, Sections 22-2-10, and 22-2-20 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. h b. Consider Agriculture Water Delivery: New development will recognize and accommodate the traditional and future operational viability of existing water delivery infrastructure. Water and the irrigation delivery systems need to be regarded as • a critical component of the agricultural heritage and continued productivity of the land. I : c.Compatibility b i lity with "Right to Farm:" Respect the continuation of agricultural land uses and operations in the area surrounding the Dry Creek RUA. Farming and ranching operations in Weld County are important businesses that require land preparation, burning, planting, and harvesting that can cause nuisance dust, objectionable odors, noise, and smoke. Maintain Weld County's "Right to Farm" policies, which protect farmers and ranchers from nuisance and liability lawsuits and enables them to continue producing food and fiber. Section 2426-4-130 ARCHEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES It is a goal for within the Dry Creek RUA to preserve and protect archeological, cultural, and historic resources. • Jul\ L)._Q ) 0 24 • POLICIES th a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Protection and Preservation of Limiting Site Factor Areas need to be consistent with those outlined in Section 22-5- 110 F (Article V Natural Resources) of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. I it b. Compatibility with OAHP Regulations: Developers will contact the Colorado Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) regarding the preservation and protection of any potentially significant archeological, cultural, or historic artifact encountered during construction. Section 2426-4-140 LANDSCAPED MEDIANS AND ROADSIDES It is a goal for within and around the Dry Creek RUA that major roadways play an important role in the function and image of the Dry Creek RUA. All major arterials should incorporate landscape design features. The following design policies relate to the visual quality of these roadways. • POLICIES I lb a. Integration of Roadside Planting: Plantings along road rights-of-way shall be integrated with the rest of the site. I It b. Compatibility with Existing Zoning: Required landscaping and screening within the landscape setback and other portions of the property shall be governed by the landscape standards requirements contained in Chapters 23, 24 and 27 of the Weld County Code. c. Screening of Adjacent Uses through Landscaping Berming and Clustering: Uses adjacent to Weld County Road should be screened through best practice landscape treatment including, but not limited to, landscape berming, berm-walls, tree clustering, fences, and high-intensity planting. I d; d. Maintenance: Maintenance of landscaping in landscaped medians and along roadsides shall be by a metropolitan district, HOA or other approved entity. I Section 2426-4-150 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 411 July 9. 2010 25 • Within the Dry Creek RUA, it is a goal to create a transportation network serving the Dry Creek RUA that unifies and coincides with state, county, city, and community transportation systems. The transportation network should be an integrated system of streets, sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that provides for optimal movement of people, bicycles, and automobiles within the community to and from adjacent streets, developments, and uses. INTENT: As transportation demands increase in the Dry Creek RUA, the need to preserve the functional integrity and hierarchy of the existing roadways and provide new roadway capacity will become increasingly important. The purpose of this section is to provide for the planning, design, and construction of improvements to new and existing roadway facilities consistent with Chapters 22, 23, 24 and 27 of Weld County Code. These standards seek to provide for a certain level of performance for the transportation network serving the Dry Creek RUA. Consequently, if it can be shown that an alternate design, material, or procedure will provide performance equal to, or better than, the required design, material or procedure, that alternate may be approved by the Director of Public Works. POLICIES a. a. Circulation System: 4-i. The proposed Dry Creek RUA circulation system is exhibited in Appendix 26-S Thy Creek RUA Map. The • transportation network reflects a road hierarchy, from a major arterial that serves both the regional and local traffic with higher speeds and capacities with controlled private access, to a collector that serves local traffic and provides access to future development. The proposed hierarchy of roads includes both reconstruction and/or widening of existing roads and alignments for new roads. The transportation network also identifies locations of future traffic signals and roundabout intersections. The roadway classifications and circulation will be determined based upon the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis and the "Master Transportation Plan." The Dry Creek RUA cross sections are identified in Appendix 26-T Dry Creek RUA Street Sections. These standards delineate right-of-way, lane configurations, median treatment, bike lanes, and pedestrian sidewalks. Roadway classifications may change as development in the Dry Creek RUA areas occurs. Roadway classifications may be reevaluated by the Director of Public Works based on the results of a traffic impact analysis. -When proposed development within the Dry Creek RUA triggers the need for construction of on-site or off-site transportation, commitment to construct the needed • July 9, 2010 26 • improvements and funding for engineering design, right-of- way acquisition, and all construction costs for those improvements shall be secured and guaranteed by the developers or districts of the Dry Creek RUA, their successors and assigns, prior to recordation of any Final Plat. K b. Traffic Impact Analysis: All significant developments within the Dry Creek RUA area shall be required to prepare a traffic impact analysis at the time of the Sketch Plan Application. All traffic analysis information and reports shall be prepared and certified to by a registered professional engineer competent in traffic engineering. The intent of this analysis is to determine the project's cumulative development impacts, appropriate project mitigation, and improvements necessary to offset a specific project's impacts. TheWeld County will require the developer to pay a proportionate share of the costs of said improvements through an improvements agreement. The developer will be responsible for all pertinent road improvements. This may include improvements required outside the Dry Creek RUA due to development within its boundary. All traffic impact analysis shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: • -hi. Introduction: Describe the proposed development and parameters of the study area. 27ii. Existing Conditions: The street capacity standard in the Dry Creek RUA is Level of Service C and the intersection capacity is Level of Service D. a. Conduct a.m. and p.m. peak-hour turn movements and average daily traffic counts for intersections and links within the study area if there are no available counts collected within the previous 12 months. it b. Conduct a peak-hour intersection level of service analysis for the intersections. c. Determine whether the existing daily traffic volumes exceed the arterial daily volume standards as identified in the Dry Creek RUA street standards for major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector and local streets presented in Appendix 26-T, Roadway Cross Sections. These standards delineate right-of- way, lane configurations, median treatment, bike lanes, and pedestrian sidewalks. Cumulative Conditions: • July 9. 2010 27 • I i a. Identify previously approved or anticipated developments that may affect the study area's circulation system. I b. Generate, distribute, and assign traffic to the existing roadway network. I iii c. Determine annual growth rates and project future traffic volumes for the time frame corresponding to project build-out. d. Identify funded circulation improvements, both public and private, that will be constructed prior to the proposed development's occupancy. I e. Conduct a peak-hour intersection level of service analysis and compare daily volume forecasts to street standards assuming cumulative developments, annual growth rates, and funded improvements. I v+ is Determine mitigation measures to offset cumulative conditions if the level of service exceeds the Dry Creek RUA area standards. I4.-iv. Trip Generation: Determine daily and a.m. and p.m. peak- hour trip generation for the proposed development, using established rates identified in the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, or • as agreed upon with county staff. I 5v. Trip Distribution: Based on assumptions contained in the Dry Creek RUA area traffic analysis or market estimates, describe the anticipated trip distribution patterns for the proposed development. I Lvi. Trip Assignment: Based on the projected trip generation, assumed trip distribution, and the prevailing roadway network, assign the projected traffic to the intersections and streets within the study area. I 7vii. Existing + Committed + Project (E+C+P) Traffic Volumes and Level of Service: a. Add project a.m. and p.m. peak-hour and daily traffic volumes to existing plus committed traffic volumes. I viii b. Conduct intersection level of service analysis and determine whether daily traffic volumes exceed street standard thresholds. Lviii. Signal Warrant Analysis: a. Using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or other adopted standards, determine whether proposed intersection volumes exceed signal • Julv9, 2010 28 111 warrants for those locations on the transportation network where signals are proposed. 9-.-ix. Access: Projects involving access to the state highway system shall indicate appropriate conformance to the latest revisions of the State Highway Access Code. The report shall discuss how the proposed development meets the access control guidelines. 10. x. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures will be implemented to provide the needed improvements to offset project impacts as determined by the traffic impact analysis. e• c.Design Standards General Design Standards: All development within the Dry Creek RUA areas shall comply with Chapters 8, 22, 23, 24 and 27 of Weld County Code and the Colorado State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1 . Consistent with the urban-scale development standards in the Dry Creek RUA areas, all driving surfaces and parking areas for commercial and industrial development shall be paved according to geometric and road structure design standards. 2Tii. Geometric Design Standards: Geometric design for streets and roads shall be in accordance with Weld County • Engineering and Construction Criteria and with A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Specifications, standards or design criteria, published by other governmental agencies, professional organizations, or generally accepted authoritative sources, may be used in geometric design. All specifications, standards, or design criteria shall be referenced and copied as part of the submittal information. Road Structure: Structural capacity shall be designed in accordance with the Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, published by AASHTO. Specifications, standards, or design criteria published by other governmental agencies, professional organizations, or generally accepted authoritative sources may be used in design. All specifications, standards, or design criteria shall be referenced and copied as part of the submittal information. All roads shall adhere to the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria and with the standards set forth in Chapter 24, Article VII of Weld County Code. • July 9. 2010 29 • I 4:iv. Structural Road Improvements: Adjacent roadways shall be designed to meet the full typical section specified in the County Transportation Plan and Chapter 24 of the Weld County Comprehensive Code. For example, improvements may include the construction of travel lanes, shoulders, bike lanes, medians, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Required improvements may also include the acquisition of right-of- way and construction easements that will be dedicated to the public. Improvements attributed to the development shall be consistent with the direct impact a particular development has on the county road system as determined by a professional transportation study. The road improvements agreement and roadway construction plans shall be considered for approval by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. I 5v. Signage & Striping: All signage and stripping within the Dry Creek RUA area shall comply with Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). I cl-: d. Transit: As development occurs, the feasibility of a public transit system in the Dry Creek RUA area should be examined.III I Section 2426-4-160 TRAILS It is a goal that, withinWithin and around the Dry Creek RUA, that the transportation and circulation system shouldis intended to provide for an extensive network of neighborhood, local, and regional trails open to all types of non-motorized travel that link neighborhoods to community features and the region. A pedestrian friendly, off-street trails system is encouraged that provides a positive experience with areas of interest along the trail routes. Trails should provide reasonable accommodation and access for people of all ages and abilities. INTENT: Provide for an extensive network of neighborhood, local, and regional trails open to all types of non-motorized travel that link neighborhoods to community features and the region. POLICIES a. Regional Integration: Encourage facilitated coordination between jurisdictions and between private and public entities to integrate the Dry Creek RUA Regional Trails, shown on Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map, with other regional trails, such as the Colorado Front Range/South Platte River, Saint Vrain, and the Big Dry Creek trails. • I July 9, 2010 30 • I It b. Trail Interconnectivity: Develop an interconnected network of neighborhood and local trails within the community and with nearby jurisdictions that will also provide connections to regional trail systems. I c. Minimize Conflict with Plant and Animal Habitat: To the extent possible, trails should be located, configured, and set back from natural creeks or water bodies so that recreational use will not significantly impact native plant and animal habitat. I d: d. Universally Designed: Create pedestrian friendly, off- street trails that provide a positive experience with areas of interest along the route and provide reasonable accommodation and access for people of all ages and abilities. I Section 2426-4-170 INFRASTRUCTURE It is a goal withinWithin the Dry Creek RUA that the use ot; centralized water and sewer systems will be promoted for development in a consistent manner with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. These systems should be capable of complying with all regulatory standards for potable water and wastewater • discharge. These systems should be self-sustaining and able to fund the initial, operational, and long-term replacement infrastructure required to maintain service. I a-: a. Promote the use of renewable water sources within the capability of the water service provider. Renewable sources should be encouraged, in order to reduce the consumption of finite water supplies such as groundwater. It b. Promote Water Conservation. Promote water conservation within the capabilities of the water and sewer providers, and apply water conservation in a manner that is compliant with all regulatory standards. I c: c. Encourage dual-pipe systems. Encourage a dual-pipe system to reduce the consumption of potable water and promote high effluent standards for wastewater treatment facilities. Treatment facilities should maintain a high effluent standard to maintain water quality throughout the areas watershed. Proposed I development within the Dry Creek RUA should be discouraged from using septic systems. • itil', 9. 2010 31 • d: d. Setbacks and Design of Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities. Development should be set back from oil and gas wells and processing and distribution facilities for safety reasons. Development should seek ways to make these buffered areas as attractive and useful as possible. Mitigation of oil and gas wellwells or processing and distribution facilities through color, profile, and visual screening is encouraged, and the use of low-profile tanks as new wells are established is recommended. I e: e. Minimize Impact of Utility Transmission and Distribution Systems. Utility providers and easement holders need to ensure that distribution, pipeline and storage facilities of electric, natural gas, petroleum, and other types of power generation, distribution, pipeline and storage facilities are located in a manner that is safe, environmentally sensitive, and minimizes aesthetic impacts. The Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities area identified on Appendix 26-S Do, Creek RUA Map meets this criteria and future expansion of facilities located within this area is permitted. Lines will be placed underground to the maximum extent feasible. €: 1. Respect Surface and Mineral Owner Rights. Respect the • rights and uses of surface owners and oil and gas mineral owners and operators. Developers within the Dry Creek RUA should communicate with oil and gas mineral owners and operators to develop surface use agreements that accomplish cohesive development of the surface in the Dry Creek RUA that respects both the rights and uses of surface owners and the rights and uses of oil and gas mineral owners and operatorsr, provided that the Oil and Gas Processing and Distribution Facilities area identified on Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map is recognized as a pre- existing area which is not limited by the provisions of this Chapter 26, Article IV. g: -2. Mitigate Impact of Oil and Gas Operators on land development. Surface Use Agreements between developer and oil/gas operators should be used to allow current and future development of oil and gas resources that minimizes the impacts on land and land use. Methods employed by oil and gas operators and/or land developers to accomplish concurrent development of the surface along with oil and gas minerals shall be in compliance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules and regulations and with Colorado Senate Bill 07-237 provisions, and may include, but is not limited to, centralizing exploration and production facilities, clustering • July 9. 2010 32 • wells, constructing alternative structures and landscaping to mask wells and equipment, directional drilling, installing low profile or compact equipment, locating drill pads in commercial or industrial areas, and using existing service roads and sites. I h. Facilitate ongoing communication between oil and gas operators and developers. As development progresses over time, ongoing communication with operators and developers should continue to address the challenges and issues and develop solutions, so that oil and gas development and residential development may proceed concurrently over the years while conserving land and water quality. i. Promote integrated and environmentally sensitive design, conservation and reclamation practices, such as:: i. -Practices that maximize the use of renewable resources, reduce water consumption, and provide the greatest end value and aesthetics of the land ii. Conservation of water resources in the landscape through the use of native xeriscape principles and non-potable water for landscape irrigation. iii. Low impact development that retains the water that falls on site and puts it to beneficial use. • iv. New development that is set back from oil and gas wells for safety reasons, and make the oil and gas wells, processing and distribution facilities and associated buffer areas as attractive and useful as possible. I Section 2426-4-180 DRAINAGE I The purpose of the StormwaterStorm water and Floodplain Management portion of the Dry Creek RUA is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, protect adjudicated waters for the use of downstream water rights holders, preserve the viable and productive use of agricultural lands, promote the equitable, acceptable and effective use of land, and meet the requirements of Colorado Drainage Law. Development within the Dry Creek RUA shall adhere to the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria, as currently adopted by the County. These criteria have been adopted in order to provide minimum standards to preserve and protect the public health, safety and general welfare in the unincorporated lands of the County, pursuant to authority granted by Part 4 of Article 15 of Title 30, and Article 35 of Title 30, C.R.S. These criteria are designed to provide storm drainage best management practices to accommodate the unique characteristics of the County. All submittals for development within the Dry Creek RUA shall include the information listed in the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria. I• hlismo 33 • The policies set forth in this document for the Dry Creek RUA are intended to I define the responsibilities of the developers within the Dry Creek RUA to best manage this area as a new urban corridor. These policies are designed for the commitment to preserve the natural beauty of the region, without hampering its development potential. By preserving prime irrigated agricultural land for local farmer use and designating a variety of land uses for commercial, industrial, and residential functions, the natural landscape of South Weld County and the need for economic development will be blended to create a mixture that will serve the region for years to come. t a. Promote runoff control: Protect runoff control measures that minimize impacts due to changes in land use, including preservation of the existing hydrology to the extent practical as related to quantity, rate and timing. i. Minimize the creation of impervious surfaces and preserve open space to the extent practical. ii. Encourage Low Impact Development and other Conservation Design principles in future land use changes. iii. Encourage best management practices (BMPs) and runoff infiltration to the extent practical. iv. Encourage no increase in runoff volume related to changes in land use by creative use of native vegetation, trees, and • the concepts in the policies above. v. Consider hydrologic timing of discharge to avoid coincidental flood peaks. bz, b. Protect water storage and conveyance: Protect existing and future water storage, conveyance, and delivery infrastructure of water rights holders while promoting beneficial uses of excess stormwaterstorm water runoff through sustainable development, conservation design, and best management practices. i. Maintain "first in time—first use" water rights. ii. Encourage incorporation of water conservation into future land use changes. iii. Encourage innovative uses of excess stormwaterstorm water runoff once initial water rights obligations are met. e c. Surface Water Treatment: i. Treat surface runoff through water quality measures prior to discharge to streams and rivers during and after construction activities. Control erosion and sedimentation due to wind and water to the extent practical and in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). • Jul% 9. 2010 34 • I ii-i iii. Reduce point and non-point source discharges of pollutants through the use of non-structural and structural BMPs. d: d. Promote the preservation and enhancement of aquatic resources, riparian corridors, wetlands and wildlife habitat I e e. Provide recreational, aesthetic and functional use of natural water resources I f. Minimize flood danger: Protect human life, health, safety, and property, including buildings, public facilities, utilities and mineral rights, from the hazards and associated costs of flood damages by promoting regulations that reduce the risk of flooding. i7 i. Reduce and repair stream bank erosion through sound engineering design, fluvial geomorphologic principles and "living river" concepts. Assure that changes in land use do not result in unstable conditions that may lead to stream bank instability or erosion. I ice. iii. Preserve the flood carrying capacity and volume of the existing floodplain. • ( iv. Comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (44 Code of Federal Regulations 59-75, as amended), which provides eligibility for federally subsidized flood insurance. I v7 v. Establish a minimum Flood Protection Elevation of one foot above the 100-year Base Flood Elevation to reduce the risk of flooding of habitable structures. I 1; g. Encourage cooperation: Participate and encourage cooperation between counties, municipalities, special districts, companies, and other governmental entities pertaining to I regulations involving stormwaterstorm water and floodplain management. Coordinate construction activities with the ditch companies to avoid activities that may interfere with filling reservoirs during the spring. IIt h. Operate and maintain stormwaterstorm water and floodplain infrastructure on a regular basis: Provide long-term, legally binding operation and maintenance agreements for the continued operation of I stormwaterstorm water and floodplain infrastructure. • July 9. 010 35 • it ii. Require maintenance schedules as a part of all future land use changes as well as identification of parties responsible for operation and maintenance activities. i iii. Provide suitable funding mechanisms to implement and maintain the above goals. iv. Prepare fair and equitable funding mechanisms that consider quantifiable impacts to the stormwaterstorm water management system, such as StormwaterStorm water Utilities, Special Service Areas (SSAs), and/or Special Districts. Section 2426-4-190 GROUNDWATER Proposed developmentDevelopment within the Dry Creek RUA should preserve, protect, and improve groundwater aquifers and local areas of high groundwater. POLICIES a-: a. Encourage Best Practice Storage, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Chemicals: The Dry Creek RUA water provider is encouraged to educate residents about behaviors and • consequences, and proper storage, use, and disposal of chemicals, petroleum products, cleansers, fertilizers, pesticides, and any other solid and liquid household product or hazardous waste that could pollute surface water or groundwater, drinking water wells, fish and wildlife habitat, or the general health and welfare of the public if unintentionally released into the environment. t b. Compatibility with Federal and State Water rules: Development will be permitted and performed in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, and the rules and regulations as administered by EPA and CDPHE. +: i. Contractors and residents will be required to adhere to the PDES and Colorado SPCC regulations. ii. Site developers and/or construction contractors working within the Dry Creek RUA must obtain a general and/or specific StormwaterStorrn water Discharge Permit as appropriate to the situation if any discharges of stormwaterstorm water into receiving waters are anticipated or proposed. ii iii. Site developers and/or construction contractors must obtain, develop, and manage a StormwaterStorm water Management Plan (SWMP), adhere to any reporting • July 9, 2010 36 • requirements, and make said plan available to all employees and CDPHE. I Section 2426-4-200 WILDLIFE Development within the Dry Creek RUA should preserve and protect wildlife, and enhance wildlife habitat. POLICIES a: a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Protection and Preservation of Wildlife needs to be consistent with those outlined in Section 22-5- 10 (Article V Natural Resources) of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan I h h. Compatibility with federal and state laws for threatened, endangered, and candidate species: Identify, preserve, and protect critical habitat of federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate species (i.e., "Critical • Habitat"), and unique nesting, breeding, or spawning areas of state listed species of special concern (i.e., "Sensitive Habitat"), and abide by the following Federal and State laws governing their protection: • U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) • U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ■ U.S. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) ■ Colorado Non-game, Endangered, or Threatened Species Conservation Act e: c. Compatibility with state wildlife statutes: To the greatest extent possible, development with the Dry Creek RUA should preserve habitat that provides essential life requisites of food, water, cover, and space, and adhere to state statutes and regulations regarding general game and non-game wildlife that are not afforded greater legal protections by the county, state or federal governments. I d: d. Honor Existing Visual Natural Amenities: Conserve mature trees that add character to the community and provide habitat for wildlife. Support the conservation of mature trees and native species to the extent possible and encourage the • July 9. 2010 37 • incorporation of these features as amenities in future neighborhoods. Invasive species should not be preserved. I Section 2426-4-210 VEGETATION Development within the Dry Creek RUA should encourage healthy and diverse native plant communities and preserve and protect unique plant species. POLICIES at a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Protection and Preservation of Unique Plant Species need to be consistent with those outlined in, Section. 22- 5-10 (Article V, Natural Resources) of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. h= b. Compatibility with Federal ESA Act: Identify, preserve, and protect critical habitat of Federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate plant species (i.e., "Critical Habitat") in accordance with the ESA. e- c. Compatibility with State threatened and endangered plant species: Identify, preserve, and protect critical habitat of State- listed threatened and endangered plant species (i.e., "Sensitive Habitat"). d. Compatibility with Federal Plant Protection Act / Colorado Noxious Weed Act and Colorado and Weld County's Noxious Weed Management Programs: Encourage the eradication, control, containment and management of noxious and restricted weeds in accordance with these Acts and programs. e: e. Promote the use of diverse and adapted plant species: Table cross sections arc identified in Appendix 26-G Adaptable and Native Planting List. This list is a partial list of plant material that are native or adapted to Colorado's Front Range. This is not an all-inclusive list and is intended only to act as a general resource. New plant materials are being made available on a commercial basis and local nurserymen are a valuable resource when trying to determine the appropriateness and adaptability of plant material to a particular location. • I July 9, 2010 38 Add to: Appendix 26-B Service Providers for the Dry Creek RUA SerNiCe I'rinider Domestic Water TCVMD Metro District Sanitation TCVMD Metro District Gas Xcel Energy Electric United Power Fiber Optic/ Comm Qwest/Comcast School Weld 8 Ft. Lupton Brighton 27J Law Enforcement Weld County Sheriff Fire Brighton Fire Protection District/ Mountain View Fire Protection/ Ambulance Brighton Fire Protection District Highway & Roads CDOT. Weld County Dept of Public Recreation TCVMD Recreation District Service Providers for the Dry Creek RUA Smicc Prmidcr • Domestic Water TCVMD Metro District Sanitation TCVMD Metro District Gas Xcel Energy Electric United Power Fiber Optic/ Comm Qwest/Comcast School Weld 8 Ft. Lupton Brighton 27J Law Enforcement Weld County Sheriff Fire Brighton Fire Protection District/ Mountain View Fire Protection/ Ambulance Brighton Fire Protection District Highway & Roads CDOT. Weld County Dept of Public Recreation TCVMD Recreation District • I July 9. 2010 40 • Add to : Appendix 26-C Table #7: Projected Residential Population and Uses in Dry Creek RUA Projected Population Net Min Max Min Max Min Max Acres Density Density DU DU PopulationPopulatio Rural Estates 93 1 .0 4.0 100 400 300 1200 Suburban Residential 907 2.0 5.5 1 ,800 5,000 5300 14900 Neighborhood Mixed Use Residential 60 5.0 20.0 300 1 .200 900 3600 'Net Acres include development and local roads 2,200 6,600 6,500 19,700 ' Household Size is 2.97 Table #7: Projected Residential Population and Uses in Dry Creek RUA Projected Population Net Min Max Min Max Min Max Acres Density Density DU DU PopulationPopulatiot Rural Estates 93 1 .0 4.0 100 400 300 1200 Suburban Residential 907 2.0 5.5 1 ,800 5,000 5300 14900 Neighborhood Mixed Use Residential 60 5.0 20.0 300 1 ,200 900 3600 'Net Acres include development and local roads 2,200 6,600 6,500 19,700 ' Household Size is 2.97 Table #8: Retail, Office, and Commercial Program of the Dry Creek RUA Min // Max 4 fvlin Max • Retail/Office/Commercial/Program Acres FAR of jobs of jobs Sq Ft Sq Ft Community and Local Services 5.0 0.2 44 126 22,000 63,000 (Sales Center/Day Care/Real Estate Offices, Fitness, Civic Uses, etc) Leisure/Dining/Professional Office 10.0 0.2 87 249 44,000 124,000 (Restaruant, Cofffe, Ace Hardware, Fast Food Bank,Medical/Dental Office,Local Retail,etc) Daytime Shopping 0.2 0 0 0 0 (Sporting Goods, Bike Shop, Bookstore, Salon Pharmacy-Walgreens, Small Grocery, Gas,etc.) TOTAL 15.0 131 374 66,000 187,000 'Jobs calculated as 1 per 500 sq.f t. of commercial sq. ft. Table #8: Retail, Office, and Commercial Program of the Dry Creek RUA Min # Max /$ Min Max Retail/Office/Commercial/Program Acres FAR of jobs of jobs Sq Ft Sq Ft Community and Local Services 5.0 0.2 44 126 22,000 63,000 (Sales Center/Day Care/Real Estate Offices, Fitness, Civic Uses, etc) Leisure/Dining/Professional Office 10.0 0.2 87 249 44,000 124,000 (Restaruant, Cofffe, Ace Hardware, Fast Food Bank,Medical/Dental Office.Local Retail,etc) Daytime Shopping 0.2 0 0 0 0 (Sporting Goods, Bike Shop, Bookstore, Salon Pharmacy-Walgreens, Small Grocery, Gas,etc.; TOTAL 15.0 131 374 66,000 187,000 . 'Jobs calculated as 1 per 500 sq.ft. of commercial sq. ft. I July 9, 2010 41 • • Add to Appendix 26-G DRY CREEK RUA: ADAPTABLE AND NATIVE PLANTING LIST for RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPING and NATURAL OPEN SPACE RESTORATION TREES AND SHRUBS Mature Mature Scientific Name Common Name Height Width Riparian Trees: 60-80 feet 40-50 Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera plains cottonwood feet 60-80 feet 60-80 Salix amygdaloides peachleaf willow feet Riparian Shrubs: • Amorpha fruticosa lead plant 2-4 feet 2-4 feet July 9, 2010 42 • Rosa woodsii woods rose 2-4 feet 2-4 feet Salix exigua coyote willow 5-10 feet 5-10 feet Upland Shrubs: Atriplex canescens four-winged saltbush 2-4 feet 2-4 feet Ribes cereum white squaw currant 2-4 feet 2-4 feet Symphoricarpos occidentalis Western snowberry 2-4 feet 2-4 feet WILDFLOWERS Mature Mature Scientific Name Common Name Height Width Achillea lanulosa western yarrow 1 -2 feet 1 -2 feet Liatris punctata dotted gayfeather 1-2 feet 1 -2 feet Linum lewisii blue flax 1-2 feet 1-2 feet Mertensia ciliata streamside bluebells 1-2 feet 1-2 feet Oenothera pallida white evening primrose 1-2 feet 1 -2 feet Penstemon strictus Rocky Mtn. Penstemon 1-2 feet 1-2 feet Ratibida columnifera prairie coneflower 1-3 feet 1 -3 feet Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed susan 1-3 feet 1-3 feet S GRASSES Mature Mature Scientific Name Common Name Height Width Achnatherum hymenoides indian ricegrass 1 -2 feet 1 -2 feet Andropogon halii var. Hack sand bluestem 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet 1 - 1 .5 1-3 feet Bouteloua curtipendula side-oats grama feet 1- 1 .5 1-3 feet Bouteloua gracilis blue grama feet 1 .5 -5 1 -3 feet Calamovilfa longifolia .prairie sandreed feet Elymus elymoides bottlebrush squirreltail 1 -2 feet 1-3 feet Elymus lanceolatus dasystachyum thickspike wheatgrass 1-4 feet 1-3 feet Festuca arizonica pinegrass 1-2 feet 1-3 feet Koeleria marcantha prairie junegrass 1-2 feet 1-3 feet Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass 1-3 feet 1 -3 feet Poa secunda (sandbergii) Sandberg bluegrass 1 -3 feet 1 -3 feet Sorghastrum nutans yellow indian grass 1 -3 feet 1 -3 feet Sporobolus cryptandrus sand dropseed 1-2 feet 1 -3 feet JAIL 212(110 110 43 • Stipa comata needle and thread 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet Stipa viridula green needlegrass 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet GRASSLIKE SPECIES Mature Mature Scientific Name Common Name Height Width Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet Carex praegracilis Black creeping sedge 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet Distichlis spicata inland saltgrass 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet Eleocharis palustris creeping spikerush 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet Glyceria striata mannagrass 1 -3 feet 1 -3 feet Juncus balticus Baltic rush 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet Juncus tenuis slender rush 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet Juncus toreyii Torrey's rush 1 -2 feet 1 -3 feet Scirpus pallidus cloaked bulrush 1 -3 feet 1 -3 feet Scirpus pungens three-square 1 -3 feet 1 -3 feet Scirpus tabernaemontani softstem bulrush 1 -3 feet 1 -3 feet Spartina pectinata prairie cordgrass 1 .5 -5 feet 1 -3 feet Add to: Appendix 26-O • Dry Creek R UA School Program School Program Requirements K-8 HS Estimated # of Schools 3 1 Land Area (AC) 60 50 Student Capacity per school 765 1020 Average Size (AC) 20 50 Min # of Jobs 61 19 Avg # of Jobs 114 36 Max # of Jobs 177 58 Min # of schools 1 .55 0.39 Mg # of schools 2.87 0.73 Max # of schools 4.48 1 . 19 Note: Source Brighton 27j School District Ft. Lupton Weld 8 School District • Jul'. 9. 2010 44 • Dry Creek R UA School Program School Program Requirements K-8 HS Estimated # of Schools 3 1 Land Area (AC) 60 50 Student Capacity per school 765 1020 Average Size (AC) 20 50 Min # of Jobs 61 19 Avg # of Jobs 114 36 Max # of Jobs 177 58 Min # of schools 1 .55 0.39 Avg # of schools 2.87 0.73 Max # of schools 4.48 1 . 19 Note: Source Brighton 27j School District Ft. Lupton Weld 8 School District Note: Land Area requirements are to be confirmed with the school districts at time of school site selection. . • July 9. 2010 45 • Add: Appendix 26-S in Q CV K ix U CR 6 r (.} i , , —l_� --....-•,• ‘ l r y,• w NIo l .� Li w.., NM . _T. ILJ . CR4.5 ;`...H..... . art- • • • -¢ 7 1 Li '\ Draft g .0 • • • •se• • 1 OOOOOO . • • . , ,, Dry Creek RUA Map • RUA Co.intnrlr Points •t•CI Gnat eS Camas: I ® funs 1 fi.atM it i "rot tee 'L i sea Ova U w � A a. il. .,•aR•Oa ., +a.f. F/eta+clait LI * cat r wf•..e1a..Caaf Miami. • / i O l.rn l..4rl.Getr• WA using 0.rosy, ;n>.r.41M1)P Yi.ve•l wan ff1TRoss at..Marta r_Sts.Mars ALAWar coal WO Oatelt aba• 0I•. Run a a ar ilport>aor R ' ea yatr CR2 �` —Ia. ••bar _ I :y i a .s as �r';'u;T}' , .'.r , •. L. L . . I like the following language to be added on the map: • 1 s u to revision at time of PUD zoning. ID I July 9. 2010 46 • .._ -' a 1 • ■ r.. - aft /. IP .1O0, . . . u rr I II:I::::I I::I:I:4'Z Oat .--I :� ^Y .an Ov • wf7te, l ii:=i_; was r a-ter-ter ■- a i i. e� a. t me imi a T_ .t. l► �+I y�u� , sir or .irf=iltidtirt ./itf i. f'�.Ira.-.R • .• ... IN) 7 •1 , rOwaN^tm<. •. rl'�l_L■aVJtJ. .L..■� .ec�:eaN.aa. Lb ' r.rA■al r.arMr..fe• .e►-- Va Dra al EMMONS*III aa._ . '.■.r'• 'dw■■aa\\\■■\■w\a■\\a\■.■I ' • .l■\aawa _al II't:::I:W ■, ■■w■■a\�aa■tiat�aa" I .el-r.SRO maw titan N ate. �'�"'�, in, ■awaw■•■aa w� ♦MHO N\1 ■New YI , i•1 ri ■f/\afflauu/!\/„.14. u\Nn 6 •w_aw_± dwta IMEIllr 4r: tl.IiG.6.■J4 ■ e..arrr....aj„::1�1:1j11 !nr: l� 7.� . •J I iii: •.��►■■■ •s. ;u::spa:::u: :u::::: • 1 t:a' 4::::1111::R ` / 5 4111111111IMI: imiram 11dij.•411, II s Rp ■s■wu. I III LIT IIIIIIIIIIIIII sans -r eggi numemeav . 1■M••••MIS•w/■. 4..�...rr RN. qI...anion PlI fAMR .L.■■Ra■.n.eaaaaeew.a, ill PiRI®tt4 hiV/■waw\■f LEGEND' avutoson in° "• ,Ra,n a / )um ii�i 'Can Sad Ma Ling Hon i eurarcarmat SI.fra SadUnar rr - J t\\\ =NM f t.•.alrrt Iaa..•/ti.1l ti ( wdt 2 ) a .•v►• a "`sPates PRY GREEK REGIONAL URBANIZATION AREA FRAMEWORK PLAN r.„.„ aii 43 Pet fi) in Tt W Ns leader.O.rd naer all . t-.T RU.' d Cent Sea PS fake Pat Ar—as ad i� Mr Tart a•• N.d1.WIN noun n nine /YU a mown T c mo .1 a<d NO+a'ei.P s/.dr.rae asA.Pea Jinn Q.t.a.. • Pal 4-..-1 namewritwinetaaa as Ornab Pea Carded Nonni)see U... Am. 10.2010 Laos • • ' 0 47 per- it . j 1b t 1I lb 1O 14 a Tv f r4ni .E ; ICZ WCR 32 t. • 2/1U 22 23 24 L / 20 21 22 23 24 19 M tl - i 0 19 �� '8 27 25 i 29 28 27 26 25 30 1Z 33 36 32 33 34 3 36 31 w T3N - re /'/ T2 5 rrf5S---)CS .1 3 ` ( 1 ( `° 5 O4 3 2 ili 1 6 'NCR 24 8 , ( p _r--J 8 10 11 9 10 11 12 d li, a • ,) , , I 8 16 15re 14 3 j 18 7 1� 15 14 13 18 U • I� -- --- 3 " 0 ' 1 I �}g 9 4 20 21 22 23 3 iii 4 22 3 24 i-....d, O GRANT AV WCR 18 1: —r- * 29 8 27 26 2• 1 29 28 r k 24_,,,,--38-- o • 1ST ST t. H ' /'1 3 � .2 34 32 R 16 33 34 /35 i 3 31 agev �1 ' T2N �1�1�11. T2 h! .. � „is ." '" T1 •:; itc SIC '° ��ii i i t ' - T MWY e _Q • 5 1— Cr Cr. n CC P 11. _ id j..--e-c, 7 t a.c), 7 9 3 10 11 12 7 W o 0 ill 11 2 7 Ci_ g 1l n -r a 18 17 6 15 1 13 1 : -"- 17 a16 15 �I 14 13 18 ci I ao 5 Cti ! -- . d 1 ' r I 1. 19 20 Q • i1 z�2 24 1 20 2 1 22 23 24 c1 y .30 a • e O 27 26 .r 3 1 29 28 27 2t5 -5 30 D ! 4 _. �., �. . M 31 32 1 34 5 6 34 35 C�j� ]]� I1 AV • b _ 9 1 r r l c2 lark ay Weld county WS t . i eq ' '�� i.n . 4 1 h Adams County Treatment Plants FORT LUPTON T' i r• 21 Major " FORT LUPTON 61 NORTHGLENN Minor � BRIGHTON PLATTEVILLE 0 1 2 1 Industrial G DACONO S.D. G ST. VRAIN S.D. 1 Miles LOCHBUIE EXHIBIT March 2008 kli ft Ora eci j Esther Gesick oorom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:27 PM : Commissioners; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: FW: RUA For public file - thanks Original Message From: Kyle Stidham [mailto:klstid@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:37 PM To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Subject: RUA Hello, My name is Kyle Stidham. I spoke to you briefly yesterday about my concerns with this RUA nightmare. I own property on W.C.R. 23.5. The maps I saw yesterday were confusing because one showed that I was involved and one showed that I was'nt. I DON"T WANT ANY PART OF THIS! Am I to believe that I get to pay for this and not recieve anything from it? Furthermore what will this do to the traffic on rd 6 and rd 2? Both roads are already over used. I have lived in this area for a decade now and would hate to see it turned into what's proposed. Obviously the housing market is in decline, all you have to do is look at Baseline Lakes. What have they sold, two maybe three lots? I think the commisioners who voted for this need to get out and actually hear what the people impacted have to say. Obviously I don't think this is a good idea and neither do my neighbors. We live where we do to get away from urban sprawl, and Illfr work very hard to live there. More homes, traffic, wastewater treatment aciliteis are not what the constituants of this part of Weld county really want. Thank you, Kyle Stidham ,S 1 • MOLLY SOMMERVILLE BUCHANAN. P.C. Molly S. Buchanan 1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 700 msb@msbuchananlaw.com Denver CO 80203 Telephone: 303.825.0416 Fax: 303.825.3202 July 26,2010 Via E-Mail and Federal Express Brad Mueller Weld County Planning Department Limited Withdrawal of Objection for 918 10th Street Sections 27 and 35 Greeley,Colorado 80631 Re: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District Application for the Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area Township 1 North,Range 67 West Sections 21,26,27,28,34 and 35(portions) Weld County,Colorado Dear Brad: This letter constitutes a limited withdrawal of the objection filed by Anadarko E&P Company LP and Anadarko Land Corp., together the "Anadarko Entities,"and Kerr-McGee Oil • & Gas Onshore LP ("Kerr-McGee") by letter dated December 30, 2009 with respect to certain property included in the application for the Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area filed with Weld County by Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District ("Todd Creek"). The application covered portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 35 in Township 1 North, Range 67 West ("Property"). The Anadarko Entities own mineral interests in Sections 21, 27 and 35 and Kerr-McGee owns oil and gas leasehold interests in all referenced sections (Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 35). The Anadarko Entities and Kerr-McGee wish to withdraw the objection to the application with respect to Sections 27 and 35 in that they have reached agreements with Todd Creek for the two sections of land. Their objection continues to stand with respect to the other sections. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please call either me at the telephone number on the letterhead or John Butera with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation at telephone number(720)929-6000. Best regards, Molly Buchanan cc: Marla Jones, Esq. John Butera zt T*` • David Bell Don Ballard in Roger Hollard/for the Applicant egp��. Esther Gesick oorom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Sunday, August 01, 2010 7:19 PM : Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick; Michelle Martin Subject: Fw: Dry Creek RUA Please make part of record From: Verlyn Edwards <verlynpaul@mesanetworks.net> To: William Garcia; Sean Conway; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Douglas Rademacher; Dave Long Sent: Sun Aug 01 19:14:09 2010 Subject: Dry Creek RUA Paul Edwards P.O. Box 825 Brighton, CO 80601 July 31, 2010 Weld County Board of Commissioners 4.115 Tenth St O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Case Number: 2009-XX Dry Creek RUA Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing in opposition to the Dry Creek RUA. My wife and I live at 7900 East 168th Avenue(also known as Weld County Road 2). I bought my home and property 47 years ago because I enjoy country living. I heard about the Dry Creek RUA from my neighbors and since it is located across the road from my property, I attended several of the public meetings held in 2009. I am very concerned about this future housing development for several reasons: 1. I'm concerned about my property rights should Weld County approve this future development. The Dry Creek RUA proposal includes plans to change Weld County Road 2 / 168th Avenue from a 2-lane road to a 4-lane road. Currently, this 2-lane road is only 29 feet to the front steps of my house and if the road is widened, it could potentially eliminate my front yard and possibly part of my house. 2. I'm concerned about my community water well (Mountain View Water Association) and how the impact of this development might draw down the water resources for the surrounding neighborhood. 3. I'm worried that this future development will change my quiet, country lifestyle into a busy residential community bringing increased traffic and noise. 4. I'm concerned about the impact that this development will have on my friends and neighbors who have • lived in southern Weld County for many, many years and also enjoy their country living life style. 1 Iy ".1 Y I am encouraging you to vote against the Dry Creek RUA so that my neighborhood remains as it has been in the past, an enjoyable, quiet country area. •espectfully submitted, Paul Edwards I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. SPAMfighter has removed 1922 of my spam emails to date. Do you have a slow PC? Try free scan! • • 2 Esther Gesick rom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:22 PM o: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick; Michelle Martin Subject: FW: Todd Creek RUA Attachments: Todd Creek RUA.doc Please add to file. Also why wasn't the ditch company sent a referral??? thanks Original Message From: Barry Marrs [mailto:bmarrsl@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 8:23 AM To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Subject: Todd Creek RUA Barb Attached is my response to the Todd Creek RUA as it applies to the Brantner Ditch. Thanks, Barry • t 1 4a'a4-2,a41 The New Brantner Extension Ditch Company do Larry Leinweber, Secretary 4686 County Road 23 Fort Lupton CO 80621 Weld County Commissioners, This letter is in reference to the Todd Creek RUA proposed for south western Weld County. While I personally have reservations about the proposal for reasons similar to my neighbors, I am writing in my capacity as President of the Board of Directors of the New Brantner Ditch Company. Because of scheduling conflicts, I may not be able to attend the RUA hearing in person. As several miles of our ditch goes through the proposed RUA, we are concerned with potential problems that may arise if not addressed. I am writing this directly to the commissioners because we have no record of being notified with a referral request form, or materials sent to other referral agencies, even though I recollect a conversation with a county representative assuring me that our ditch was on the referral list of Weld County. Our main concerns are: • 1. Storm flow runoff. Area ditches have seen serious problems develop the last few years with storm flows impacting our ditches and our ability to maintain the integrity of the ditch. 2. Public access to our prescriptive easement without an agreement. 3. Infringement on our prescriptive easement that impedes our ability to maintain and operate the ditch and deliver water to our stockholders. Also, some information provided you concerning ditch average daily flows is incorrect or misleading. The New Brantner Ditch respectfully requests that if this RUA is approved and goes forward, that the applicant be required to submit design plans to the Ditch Company for our legal and engineer's review of areas that may impact the ditch, especially storm water flows and retention/detention ponds. Also, an agreement must be reached concerning any crossing or other direct impact on our prescriptive easement. For the Board Barry L. Marrs, President • Esther Gesick rom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:25 PM o: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick; Michelle Martin Subject: Fw: Case#2009-XX Dry Creek RUA Another one for the file From: Fichter Farm <nancy@frii.com> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer; William Garcia; Sean Conway; DLong@co.weld.co.usa <DLong@co.weld.co.usa>; DRademacher@co.weld.co.usa <DRademacher@co.weld.co.usa> Sent: Mon Aug 02 13:23:38 2010 Subject: Case# 2009-XX Dry Creek RUA Dear Commissioners, What are you thinking? How could any Commissioner vote in favor of this RUA and the Revenue District?It is a"taking"and it is all"Blue Sky"!! This is just another incursion into our private property rights. Any property owner can sell to whomever he wishes, but don't drag the rest of our community into the plan. Some points for you to consider: 1 Fort Lupton sewage plant must be ncreased in size before they can supply service to the RUA. Currently the sewage system can handle 2900 single family equivalents(SFE's).The IGA with Fort Lupton stipulates that Fort Lupton will accepet sewage from up to 14,000 SFE's plus up to one million sq ft of commercial property. Where could Fort Lupton possibly get money for this especially with the reduced size of the current plan and the subsequent loss of remuneration?The current proposal for pricing to people in the RUA is up to 200%of the residential rate in Fort Lupton and it the rate will be decided by the RUA Board. 2 The RUA only has 1/3 of the water that they need for this current projected 6,000 homes. We need proof of water purchase and !verse osmosis plant production. 3 The Big Dry Creek area is not suitable for this RUA due to E. coli and selenium.(See Public Works referral) 4 Many of the old farm houses are very near roads that will be widened and there is not sufficient traffic to make that a viable option.The new roads will definitely decrease their property values. The RUA will put the road in but Weld County must maintain them,another cost for the taxpayers. 5 The retention basins that would be required would take more agricultural land out of production and could cause further problems for nearby farms. Note:" Weld County strongly discourages retention basins". in a referrral. 6 The Metro District has the Right of Eminent Domain which always causes damage to agricultural land when putting in underground facilities. It takes about five years for the soil to"settle down"after pipe lines are laid in farm fields. Until that time passes,irrigation can be a nightmare if it crosses any where,but on the property boundaries.The laying of water and sewer lines will cause a lot of disruption to the families who do not opt for housing,but wish to continue farming. Down here in south Weld,people are still very involved in agriculture. 7 There does not seem to be a need for new houses at this time. Weld County has 22,000 vacant homes and Adams County has 69,000. 8 For the school and fire houses that will be needed in this giant subdivision,the developer only provides the land,then Weld county has to pay for the maintenance and up goes the mill levy just so the TCVMD can enter our area. This will not go over well with the voters. 9 This private companty is controlled by the Board members and the people have no vote on them or on their decsions and there is •o cap on any charges that they may wish to make. Any homowner who is in the HMO must abide by their rules which can be very estrictive.For instance in some areas controlled by Todd Creek,the stipulation is 10,000 square feet of Kentuck blue trass lawn.No wonder those people have water bills of$600-700 per month! In this high desert,this is preposterous! }1 IN 1 10 If this RUA should be placed in Weld County,this will be the only developer and there will be no opportunity for another developer who might have higher standards or who might be preferred by the land owner,to come in. This area will be tied up. Please remember, Weld County is about agriculture, not about housing. Thank you. Sincerely, • Alvin K. and Nancy H. Fichter 8706 CR 8 Brighton,CO 80603 • • 2 Esther Gesick Orom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:38 AM o: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick; Michelle Martin Subject: Fw: Dry Creek RUA Please add to file From: Sharkrantz@aol.com <Sharkrantz@aol.com> To: Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher; Sean Conway; William Garcia; Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Tue Aug 03 00:49:52 2010 Subject: Dry Creek RUA Dear Weld County Board of Commissioners: My name is Sharlene Krantz and my husband and I live at 1755 Weld County Road 23. Our house and land is within the boundaries of the Dry Creek RUA proposed by Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District. I understand that the Dry Creek RUA is on the agenda for a second hearing during the Weld County Commissioners meeting on August 4, 2010. Once again, I am writing in opposition to the Dry Creek RUA. I am planning to attend the meeting and voice my opposition. I am opposed to this proposed residential development for many reasons, some of which are: 1. .We have our own water well and septic system located on our property. I am concerned about the source of water for this development and how that will affect our own water supply in the future. My • understanding is that if our water well goes dry or our septic system no longer works, we will be required purchase a water tap and connect to the water system or sewer lines if they are within 400 feet of our property. We should be given a choice and not forced to pay monthly water and sewer fees that are out of our control. 2. We are concerned about the increased population growth of approximately 20,000 people (6,600 residential units) within the proposed Dry Creek RUA. This will bring an increase in traffic on surrounding road ways and require some road ways be widened, thus infringing on some property owners land. 3. We are concerned about the increased services to the Dry Creek RUA and cost to the various agencies for these related services. I attended the January 19, 2010, Weld County Planning Commissioners Meeting in which the Weld County Planning Dept. made the recommendation that the Planning Commissioners vote against the Dry Creek RUA based on data they received from the various agencies that would serve the Dry Creek RUA. Many of the agencies indicated concern or opposition due to the cost to provide the increased services for this new development. 4. A portion of the Dry Creek RUA is within the boundaries of the Brighton School District 27J. This development would require at least one school to be built by the Brighton School District. I have worked at the Administration offices for the Brighton School District 27J for over 37 years. I have talked with Joy Gerdom in our Planning Dept. and there are many concerns that the Brighton School District has with this proposed development. The main concern is that a bond election would need to be passed before any new schools can be built. The November 2008 school bond issue failed. School District 27J will not put a bond issue on the ballot for 2010. It could be many years before the Brighton School District 27J passes a bond election, and if so, there are other immediate areas of growth within the school district that would need new schools built first. alPask you to vote against the Dry Creek RUA to do what is best for Weld County and its current residents. 1 go/D- 1415 a Respectfully submitted, Sharlene Krantz X755 Weld County Road 23 illrome phone: 303-659-0205 • • 2 Esther Gesick From: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:29 AM To: Esther Gesick; Bruce Barker . Subject: FW: please don vote For the public file Original Message From: Peggy Namanny [mailto:peggynamanny@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:18 PM To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Subject: Fw: please don't vote Hey Barb, This is what I sent to the other commissioners & I though you'd like to read it -- I'm not that great of a letter writer but I hope I got my point across -- I've got to work all day tomorrow so I can't be there - I'm hoping that Kim can go -- he'll have to see how early he will get done with his work - anyway -- kick ass dear -- thanks peg Original Message From: Peggy Namanny <mailto:peggynamanny@hotmail.com> To: sconway@co.weld.co.us ; wgarcia@co.weld.co.us ; drademacher@co.weld.co.us ; dlong@co.weld.co.us Cc: peggynamanny@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:19 PM Subject: please don't vote Dear Comm. Conway, Comm. Garcia, Comm. Rademacher, Comm. Long, This is Peggy Namanny & my husband Kim & I live at 8448 WCR 4 - across from the John Howard's farm & have been here in wonderful Weld County for 7 years. We have been attending meetings about what Mr. Gene Osborne the developer for TCFMD & CEO for Equinox Land Group wants to do with the property that the Howards are wanting to sell to him. Now I do not want to tell the Howards that they can not sell their land but this developer is not the best person to sell to. It is awful what they want to do & their plan it is the worst I've ever seen - no thought for those of us who moved out here to Weld County to be "out in the country" & no regards for the beauty of the open land. These people only see dollar signs & I for one will fight for our private property rights with every breath. I am hoping that you will not vote for this plan again as Barb Kirkmeyer has told us that everyone but herself has voted for this awful plan. I clean homes for a number of people in the Todd Creek area & everyone of them are not happy with the Todd Creek Development that they live in now -- they have no rights & are told how many trees they must plant, how much area they must water - pay HOA dues, pay a lot for their water & can't park anything that the HOA says is unsightly -- wow -- sounds like a prison. Not only that but due to the fact that the Todd Creek subdivision is build on expansive soils - (which by the way I've said that out loud at the last meeting to the developer who was at the Watenburg meeting) - I see homes that are falling apart & they are trying to keep their foundations from falling apart & the developer looked at me when I told him this & his remark was - "It's not our problem it's the builder's problem" wow -- how wonderful for the developer -- pass the problems on to someone else. My point with this is that if that is how this developer is where they build a mess & live in some other area because they never live where they've made a mess. Who wants them here?? Not us! ! ! ! a0iO-HOS We do not want to be a part of the water system nor do we want the RUA & Metropolitan District to come in and take over - these people don't care about the Weld County people or the beauty of the land they too see dollars signs. RUA's are very powerful & once they have their foot in the door we loose big time. We do not want to take on their debt & losses that they have over in Todd Creek & see them take off when they can't deliver what they promise to use land owners. Even thought we only have 10 acres - we feel very strongly about this area & value the water as it should be used for crops & ag use - not for 6000 homes to have green lawns - this in no way will increase our property values & will put a burden on every resource we have here in Weld County. Please do your job & protect our private property rights -- do not vote for this plan. Also we've never been notified of any of this that has been going on nor have we had the chance to vote for any plan that these people have shown the county. It's a good thing we have a calling tree as that is how we find when & were these sneeky bastards plan their meetings. I thank you for your time & I'm sorry that I can not attend the meeting on Wednesday Aug 3rd as I have to work all day. Please make sure that my voice is heard through this email. Thank you, Peggy Namanny peggvnamannvghotmail.com 2 ill -IP lt � -_ i, � _ II EXHIBIT �,..Ii _ S - • i dr-a- , ■ , (6 is 0 S4 r . II ry Creek RUA Applicant : Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District T • • - - F 1 s.-'—r' ..- -'_-I.a .� _:-# - T r -air sr -" I - - PM► - - _rag!, - - .----at- e. �'"4-3. `--�`- my=1111 eld County - B aountgCommissioners ampncl_ .0Reading 204,0 _ 1 t 6 '�- f 2 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • CONTENTS Memorandum: Memorandum 1: Economic Feasibility Follow-Up dated August 3, 2010 Memorandum 2: Dry Creek Financial Analysis dated December 15, 2009 Memorandum 3: Response to Memo of December 21, 2009 dated December 15, 2009 Articles: Vestas' Colorado Plants will Get Work from Canada Order, Denver Business Journal, June. 23, 2010 Vestas to Build R&D Facility in Louisville, Denver Business Journal, July 7, 2010 Vestas Plans to Hire Hundreds for 3 Colorado Plants, Denver Business Journal, July 14, 2010 Economic Growth in the wind for Vestas, Denver Business Journal, July 17, 2010 Vestas Lands its Largest North American Wind-Turbine Order Ever, Denver Business Journal, July 21, 2010 New Home Construction Shows Signs of Rebound, Denver Business Journal, July 27, 2010 Colorado Oil Drilling Aimed to Bring Business to Small Towns, The Denver Post, August 1, 2010 i•gym"�:lbwrseu . re . 4. _ _ I �•I. I l I I _l _lam • . • • emorandum • . _ - �_ R wI 1 - tici rr,. - Ic .I . . .• - . I �t _ Y'S-fll y�1ML. • :! 4 71a1647.r Tar ....� r _ _ -�.MCA— • Q_ � -S r -t4 4244 • - - L alliMIS leallitStip_ _ ._ -. III -j. I - -a- � = ill•Tt--+ • R_ S alle • glialattass --- -I- - _.,- - - "ea albs " - —• ales s 4 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • ;4„). o To: Weld County Board of County Commissioners From: Nanci Kerr Date: August 3, 2010 RE: Economic Feasibility Follow-Up O During the first hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Dry Creek RUA in southern Weld County, a few concerns were raised about the application's economic feasibility. In an effort to provide timely information to address the Board of County Commissioner's concerns, summary responses are included below for your CL consideration. Concern: "The Sheriff's Department lacks the resources to absorb additional service demands." In response to staff referral comments, a memo dated December 15, 2009 was prepared to further analyze the County's property tax allocation by key departments. In 2009, Weld County allocated approximately 2.594 mills of the 16.804 mills collected to the Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department indicates it can serve the Dry Creek RUA and requests the formation of a Law Enforcement District (LED) with an additional 7.000 mills collected to supplement their services. Combining current funding levels and the proposed LED, the Sheriffs Department could receive approximately 9.594 mills or 270%more revenue than most of Weld County receives annually. Concern: "There is no need for the proposal because Weld County already has over . 22,000 vacant homes." Amending the Comprehensive Plan is a forward looking process responding to growth trends. Best planning practices suggest growth trends don't need to be fully realized, but rather identified, in order to engage in the comprehensive planning process. The evaluation criteria outlined in Chapter 22 of the Weld County Land Use Code to amend the Comprehensive Plan identifies a change in social, economic or land use conditions of the County. Weld County is on the cusp of enjoying the many benefits of Vestas and their many supplies locating near the Dry Creek RUA. In addition, the Dry Creek RUA benefits from a competitive advantage in location with relatively easy access to employment via I-25, US 85 and C470. Concern: "They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development." Primary jobs are defined as jobs which produce goods and services in excess of what can be consumed by the local market. Those goods not consumed by the local market are exported to other markets in exchange for money, or export income. 450 Lost 171h Avenue Primary jobs are desirable because of their multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is the Sub 400 spin-off of indirect jobs typically associated with the number of jobs required to meet the needs of one primary job. The larger the multiplier, the greater the economic impact of Damnr,CO 80203 the primary job. p 303.5921111 F 303.592.1144 wwrukybgound.00rn • -. '.. '�.....'?�r'YJ'd r +L�:+:Se�re'YXYPhti^ti :•,."3.._ . . _ ... -. :: v. s wow ...Y .rJ v'•,�..^� • 5 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 Vestas' manufacturing of wind turbines is an ideal example of the creation of primary jobs. More turbines will be manufactured and exported than consumed in the local . market. By contrast,the services of a dentist are necessary, but probably do not result in an exporting of services beyond the local market. Generally, spin-off jobs are suppliers, . retail services, lawyers, teachers, non-profit employment, etc. These occupations provide services to primary jobs. They may also include jobs that meet the required"input" needs • of primary jobs. Primary jobs are exceptional and few applications can create them. One primary job can . create between one and six full-time, year-round jobs. Understandably, local governments focus much of their economic development efforts on the attraction and . retention of primary jobs. However, the creation of primary jobs is not a condition to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the Dry Creek RUA application is in response to the creation of both primary and spin-off jobs between the 1-25 and US 85 corridors in Weld County. . Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.5 states, "In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, local accessible employment opportunities exist, and there is an . integrated balance of housing and employment." The creation of significant new primary and spin-off jobs within a few miles of the Dry Creek RUA is undisputed. It is impractical and unfeasible to require the balance of housing and employment to occur in the same . application. Rather, reasonable proximity more accurately reflects the intent of the regulations as well as market tendencies than co-location. Specialization in the production of goods and services creates market efficiencies. Vestas specializes in the manufacturing of wind delivery equipment and Todd Creek Village Metro District (TCVM) specializes in the delivery of water. A key difference between the two is that TCVM can never create primary jobs. By definition, metro . districts are local governments created to serve a local area. It is inefficient to require one type of industry to provide what another can do better. It is not necessary for . primary jobs to be present in order for this application to move forward. O Building a new community is a significant economic engine unto itself. The economic . modeling provided in the initial application demonstrates the metro districts will collect nearly 60M in property taxes and fees to invest in public capital improvements. . Estimated metro districts revenues are relatively small when compared with the . estimated eight-fold increase in private capital needed to design and build up to 4,500 new homes and related amenities. Undoubtedly, numerous jobs will be created or kept . active through build-out because of the Dry Creek RUA. Concern: "There is no sales tax." As directed by the County's staff and using modeling techniques affirmed by the County's economic consultant, Leland Consulting, the Dry Creek RUA economic . feasibility study indicates metro and other special districts can match or exceed current levels of service without a sales tax. A sales tax is not necessary for the Dry Creek RUA. If the revenues a sales tax could generate within the Dry Creek RUA are deemed necessary, a Public Improvement Fee (PIF) could be adopted. A PIF may be . implemented by developers requiring their tenants collect on their customers sales transactions to pay for the improvements on their site. Generally, these improvements . are financed through a Public Improvement Corporation or a Special District. The PIF O • 2 6 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 collected repays debt incurred by the developers. Some examples of such improvements are construction of water, sanitary sewer, and storm water lines, curbs, sidewalks, parking facilities and outdoor public plaza. The opportunity to collect a fee very similar to a sales tax is still available within the Dry Creek RUA. Concern: There is little commercial land use proposed. The Dry Creek RUA can likely support neighborhood retail (grocery anchor) sufficient to serve the residents within the planning area. At a regional level,the trade area is already over supplied with malls and super community centers including Larkridge, The Orchards, and Prairie Crossing. Northlands and Parterre are also planned regional shopping centers within a 15-minute drive of the Dry Creek RUA. All five retail centers offer superior traffic and visibility with access from 1-25, I-76, and E-470. It is in the applicant's and the County's best interests to acknowledge the Dry Creek RUA exists within a competitive environment and develop a framework of planning policies reflective of those market realities. Concern: There is a current market slump. Few sectors have dodged the pains of this economic down-turn. It is widely published during the last two years the new housing market drastically shrank due to a severely constrained lending environment. Like all market cycles, this too shall pass. Due to southern Weld County's proximity to the Denver Metro Area and Vestas, the Dry Creek RUA is well positioned to assume residential market share when the market recovers. Advanced planning should not respond to today's circumstances, but rather consider the complex trade-offs of future competing priorities. Concern:Assessed valuations are down. Weld County experienced an average 9% drop in housing assessed valuations in 2009. The lost revenues were more than offset by the rise in oil and gas assessed values in the same year. Weld County's assessed value, which generates nearly 70% of the property taxes to support nearly 40% of the County's budget will experience some volatility during the next three years due to anticipated reduced oil and gas assessed values. Stabilization is anticipated by 2013 (Weld County 2010 Budget Message). A loss of 9% of assessed valuation would be challenging to any special district, including the Dry Creek RUA. Like other local governments, the Dry Creek RUA will maintain a reserve fund to assist with the next rainy day and is required to have a balanced budget. A phased approach to construction can respond to dips in projected revenues. By organizing and constructing the infrastructure into smaller areas and slowing down the project schedule, metro districts can reduce the risk of taking on too much debt too soon. 3 • 7 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010•• • Concern: Residents of the Dry Creek RUA will be double taxed (property tax to the County/sales tax to a municipality). This concern seems odd when viewed in context of the apparent advocacy for a sales • tax within the Dry Creek RUA. Never the less, residents within the Dry Creek RUA will pay increased taxes. They will pay the same property tax to the County as do all other • County residents. They will pay property tax and fees to the metro district and other • special districts to fund any gap between the County's current levels of service and the needs of urban level service. Residents who choose to live within the Dry Creek RUA . will likely seek and value the enhanced levels of amenities and services metro and special districts can provide, including open space, parks, recreation facilities, and • cultural programming. If Dry Creek RUA residents choose to shop within a municipality, they will also pay a sales tax. The reasoning is a sales tax paid to a municipality off-sets any incremental impacts the non-municipal resident may cause to the infrastructure. For . many, living in on the edge of Greater Denver Metro Area and shopping in a municipality is a lifestyle choice. • Concern: There will be overlapping mill levies. As identified above residents of the Dry Creek RUA will pay property tax to the County, • metro and special districts. Included in the December 15, 2009 memo are tables comparing other metro districts in the greater Weld and Adams County trade area. A • dozen metro districts serving master-panned communities in Weld and Adams Counties were evaluated by their metro district levy, overlapping levy and ranking for overall mill burden amongst other metro districts within their county. Comparable metro district 41,• levies ranged from 31.700 to 63.000 mills with the Dry Creek RUA at an estimated 58.000 mills. The comparable overlapping levy ranged from 137.600 to 281.017 mills • with the Dry Creek RUA at an estimated range of 120.400 to 136.920 mills, depending on the school district. Generally, the Dry Creek RUA's proposed mill levy and • overlapping mill levy are on middle ground in the trade area. • Concern:Metro districts are risky and not right for Weld County. • While this concern was not specifically stated, it seems to be a possible underlying issue. If Weld County wants growth to pay its own way and avoid shifting financial burdens to • the rest of the County's residents, metro districts are the best financing tool available in Colorado. The County's policy of not accepting maintenance of new local streets almost • requires the formation of metro districts to provide a viable means of long-term maintenance of streets and other public improvements. This must have been understood by the Commissioners when special district regulations were adopted in • recent years to allow for the formation of metro districts. • Concern: There is high risk for bond holders. • Metro district bonds, like all securities are a risk-reward proposition. Initial offerings of metro district bonds are available only to qualified institutional buyers, typically banks, • professionally managed funds, or sophisticated high-net worth individuals. Typically metro district bonds are issued in minimum denominations of $500,000 and are • specifically structured to be unavailable to the typical investor at initial offering. Bond • • 4 8 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • issues are structured this way to protect homeowners within the metro district by ensuring the bond buyers fully understand the level of risk. Initial offerings are often negotiated and tailored to the bond buyer's needs and risk tolerance. To further protect homeowners, all metro districts are capped at collecting 50.000 mills. The maximum mill levy and the debt service reserve fund are the primary sources of bond repayment. If those sources are exhausted, homeowner's within the district have no further obligations. Concern: There isn't room in Ft. Lupton Schools. In the summer of 2009, Weld County 8 Superintendent, Mark Payler, indicated the School District was under capacity with approximately 200 open desks. Mr. Payler clearly communicated he prefers all classroom capacity in existing Ft. Lupton schools be absorbed before new schools are constructed. • 5 • • • g Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • • • To: Roger Hollard, Equinox Land Group, Inc • From: Nanci Kerr • Date: December 15, 2009 • cl RE: Dry Creek RUA Financial Analysis • Objective • It is our objective to demonstrate unincorporated Weld County can benefit from urban level development without its citizens incurring undue financial burdens. This objective • O. can be achieved through modeling the revenue-generating capabilities of metropolitan (metro) districts within the Dry Creek RUA. In addition, metro districts are able to • remunerate other service providers for new users. Weld County's goal that"growth pays • its own way" can be met through a dedicated mill levy, impact fees, development fees and land dedications. • Our analysis answers a series of pertinent questions demonstrating availability of viable . financing tools to the Dry Creek RUA. First, we address the questions of annexation, urban level of services and disproportional impacts identified by the Finance Department. Second, a metro district "mill levy only"financing option is modeled. Third, we compare • a proposed Dry Creek RUA metro district mill levy and overall mill levy rates in the larger trade area. And, fourth, MetroStudy drills down further with a comprehensive residential • market feasibility study. • Why Not Annex? fla• The question has been asked why doesn't the Dry Creek RUA area annex into Dacono, Ft. Lupton, Brighton, or Thornton. While annexing or incorporating urban level • development into a municipality is a common planning practice, it simply is not available. At present, no nearby municipality seeks to annex the Dry Creek study area, in part • because existing intergovernmental agreements(IGAs)specifically prevent it. IGAs between adjacent cities currently prohibit one municipality from annexing the entire • Dry Creek RUA. The Cities of Ft. Lupton and Brighton agree Ft. Lupton will not annex south of WCR 6 to WCR 21. The Cities of Thornton and Brighton agree Thornton will not • annex west of Yosemite Street/WCR 19. Although the Dry Creek RUA is in the path of Denver Metro growth it is simultaneously the hole in the municipal government donut. • • Is Annexation Still Available? The applicant does not object to possible annexation in the future. Under appropriate • conditions and with political will, the site could be annexed to one of the neighboring communities. In the absence of an annexation agreement, the RUA enables the County • to make decisions regarding future development within this specific area, thus facilitating • opportunities that might otherwise be lost. • Are there Backstops? An RUA is a collection of policy statements on how to accommodate future development • ISO ha 17111A but, it is not entitlements. All future land use applications must comply with County zoning and subdivision regulations. When a metro district is formed, there is ongoing Suk•400 scrutiny to assure revenue gaps are identified and backfilled. The same is true with each Denver,CO 80203 subsequent land use application. Backstops are built into each step of the development review process, allowing regulated, intermittent reevaluation and confirmation that the p 303392.1122 development remains capable of paying its own way. • f 303.592.1144 • • wwwukylogound.00m 10 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • What Services are Provided by Other Districts? Within the study area, the County provides traditional public works functions including street and drainage maintenance, sheriff protection and social services. Other key services are provided by existing special districts. Even if the Dry Creek RUA were to annex to a municipality, schools, and fire and library services are furnished by special districts, and the study area would not enjoy a consolidation of services. Unlike the County, the school, fire and library districts already serving urban areas make no distinction between rural and urban levels of service. Therefore, the modeling will show per capita spending for usual County offered services adjusted upward to address perceived differences in urban citizens'service expectations. Can Metro Districts Support Urban Level Services? Since annexation is not available at this time, an RUA supported by metro districts are the best tools for the situation. Consistent with the goals of an RUA, metro districts are able to provide efficient and cost-effective delivery of public facilities for the present and future residents of the County. According to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, metro districts are most often created to fill gaps that may exist between the services counties provide and the services residents' desire. This means metro districts are the best financing tool to develop in a county. The majority of districts state-wide draw their boundaries in unincorporated county land. Currently, there 1,232 metro districts in Colorado making them the fastest growing type of local government. Since 2000 the number of metro districts has grown in number from 378 to 1,232, an increase of roughly 226%. During the same time period, the number of other special districts has increased by only 1.1%. In 2009 there were 163 active metro • districts in Weld County The last year the State tracked metro district revenues was 2004. That year there were 694 metropolitan districts in Colorado. These districts brought in $1.3 billion in revenue and spent$1.2 billion (Colorado Departement of Local Affairs). What are the Benefits of Metro Districts? Metro districts are typically smaller forms of government which often offer citizens more opportunity to influence how and what services are delivered. Metro districts are responsive to and accountable for decisions through the election and public hearing processes and business is conducted at public meetings. Because they are local by definition, metro districts are often better able than a municipality to address local concerns. Got Experience? The Todd Creek Village Metro District (TCVMD) is the Dry Creek RUA applicant. The TCVMD was formed in 1996 to provide water service to the Todd Creek development. Since then, the District has constructed and maintains 58M of public infrastructure, including a reverse osmosis water treatment plant. This district has significant knowledge and experience and dedicated employees who provide administrative, financial and technical services. Specifically, Equinox Land Group is the developer representative for TCVMD and five other healthy metro districts in the northern Front Range. Equinox Land Group and their investor, American Land Fund, are experienced in forming and successfully managing metro districts in this area. 2 • • 11 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • • • • Can This Work? • As an example, Highlands Ranch is a 22,000-acre master-planned community with a • population of 93,500 founded in 1981. The Highlands Ranch Metro District (HRMD) is the local government of the Highlands Ranch community providing municipal level • services and extensive amenities. The community is located 12 miles south of Denver in Douglas County with 29,040 single family homes and 3,305 apartments. During the • 1990's Douglas County and Highlands Ranch received national attention for high rates of • growth. The community is approaching its 30th anniversary and is one of the most populous unincorporated communities in the United States. • Services offered directly by HRMD: • . • Construction of major roads • Installation and maintenance of landscaping adjacent to major roadways . • Installation of traffic signals and street lights on major roadways • • Construction and maintenance of parks and trails • Youth and adult outdoor recreation and sports programs • • Management and maintenance of extensive non-urban natural open space areas • Construction of storm drainage facilities • Law enforcement provided by Douglas County Sherriff's Department at no additional • cost to HRMD • Emergency and fire protection services through a contract with the City of Littleton • • Water and wastewater services through a contract with Centennial Water & Sanitation District(www.highlandsranch.org). • • el HRMD publishes the following financial accomplishments: • • In November 2008,the Metro District received an AA+ rating from Standard& Poor's, • a level rarely achieved by a special district. • Stable property taxes have been maintained by requiring developers and home • builders to pay system development fees. The Metro District collected over $125 million in development fees from its inception. • • Developer donations of land for parks, open space, major roadways, landscaped areas and other Metro District facilities have helped keep capital costs low. • • When combined, these practices have allowed HRMD to provide above average • services without an increase in average residential property taxes for more than a decade. • "The Metro District was established with the intent to blend funding from property taxes • and development fees to provide municipal services. Growth in Highlands Ranch allowed • development fees on new construction to shoulder much of the burden of funding the community's needed infrastructure. Highlands Ranch and the Metro District are an • excellent example of growth paying its own way"(www.highlandsranch.org). Can a Metro District Provide Above Average Services? • HRMD utilized National Research Center, Inc. to prepare a service benchmark report earlier this year. Below is a summary of the results. • • • fri 3 12 Dry Creek RUA - BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 I Exhibit 1 No. of Jurisdictions Comparison Average for to Quality of Life Benchmarks Rating Rank Comparison Benchmark Highlands Ranch as a place to live 83 3 18 Above Overall quality of life in Highlands Ranch 82 3 18 Above HRMD Services Benchmarks Following are services provided by the Metro District: Parks 83 1 13 Above Trails 84 1 8 Above Outdoor recreation programs 73 1 15 Above Parkway landscaping along major roads 66 Not Available Open space management 70 2 5 Above Web site: www.highlandsranch.org 64 2 8 Above Newsletter: Metro District Messenger magazine 64 Not Available _ Storm water management 67 1 7 Above Construction of infrastructure 66 Not Available Fire and emergency services (contracted with Littleton Fire Rescue) 78 Not Available Snow removal on trails and sidewalks along major roads 64 2 20 Above Drinking water (provided by Centennial Water and Sanitation District) 62 4 7 Similar Overall performance of the Highlands Ranch Metro District 70 1 5 Above II Overall quality of services provided by Highlands Ranch Metro District 71 3 17 Above Metro District elected officials generally act in the best interest of taxpayers 66 1 6 Above Highlands Ranch Metro District employees perform quality work 75 Not Available I receive good value for the taxes I pay to the Metro District 69 1 13 Above I am pleased with the overall direction the Metro District is taking 70 2 17 Above The Metro District welcomes citizen involvement 71 1 17 Above Average rating: 100 = excellent, 0 = poor The 100-point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each response option is assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example, "excellent"=100, "good"=67, 'fair"=33 and 'poor"=0. If everyone reported "excellent, " then the average rating would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a "poor", the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of "excellent" and half gave a score of "poor, "the average would be in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a teeter totter) between "fair"and "good. " 4 . 13 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • List below are the jurisdictions including the Front Range benchmark comparisons provided for HRMD followed by its 2000 population according to the US Census. . Arapahoe County,CO,487,967 Jefferson,CO,527,056 Arvada,CO, 102,153 Lakewood, CO, 144,126 . Aurora, CO,276,393 Lorimer County, CO,251,494 Boulder,CO,94,673 Lone Tree,CO,4,873 . Broomfield, CO,38,272 Longmont,CO, 71,093 Castle Rock,CO,20,224 Louisville,CO, 18,937 . Colorado Springs,CO,360,890 Loveland,CO,50,608 Denver,CO,554,636 Northglenn,CO,50,608 Douglas County,CO, 175,766 Parker,CO,23,558 . Ft.Collins,CO, 118,652 Thornton,CO,82,384 Golden, CO, 17,159 Westminster,CO, 100,940 Greenwood Village,CO, 11,035 Wheat Ridge,CO,32,913 Highlands Ranch,CO. 70,931 . What's Different? . There are differences worth noting between HRMD operations and proposed metro districts in southern Weld County. Douglas County receives 4.000 mills for road and . bridge maintenance passed from HRMD. Douglas County performs or contracts for the road and bridge maintenance for all of Highlands Ranch. In 2010, for the first time since the inception of Highlands Ranch, Douglas County will fund road and bridge . maintenance at a level higher than the 4.000 mills generates in revenue. For years, Douglas County's capital improvements approach was new streets in HRMD did not . require and, therefore, did not receive as much maintenance as other areas in the County. Douglas County reallocated excess road and bridge maintenance revenues from HRMD to other County maintenance projects. In some years, as much as 2M was . transferred from HRMD to other County priorities. As currently conceived, metro districts in the Dry Creek RUA will construct, own and maintain all of the public streets. Weld ▪ 41) County will assume no street maintenance responsibilities. . What Can We Learn? . Douglas County Engineering Division credits thoughtful infrastructure phasing and avoiding premature capital investment as the keys to HRMD and Douglas County's . financial success. The phased construction of collector and arterial streets until demand for full build out was reached is among the reasons Douglas County enjoyed excess . street maintenance revenue for nearly 30 years. After considerable discussion, HRMD would prefer to share Highway User Trust Fund . (HUTF)monies with the County. Simply stated, HUTF is the redistribution of federal gas tax back to Counties based on a calculation of vehicle lane miles. Douglas County treats . HRMD differently than municipalities in the County. Douglas County shares 50%of each cities allocation of HUTF monies, but not with HRMD. HRMD estimates a loss of 1M . revenue annually from HUTF. HRMD continues to seek a more fare distribution of the federal gas tax within Douglas County. . How is Weld County Compensated for Disproportionate Impacts? . Road and Bridge Dry Creek RUA metro districts are similar to HRMD in that residents in both communities not only pay the metro district road and bridge mill levy, they also pay their County road . and bridge mill levy. In the case of Weld County, residents of the Dry Creek RUA will pay for the new public streets within their neighborhood (7.000 mills) and the . maintenance of existing County streets and roads (1.613 mills), at the same rate as the rest of the County's residents. This two step approach is designed to preclude negative . disproportional road and bridge impacts to the County. . • 5 y., . 14 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • Human Services The Human Services Department has six divisions offering support to Weld County residents. Four divisions offer assistance and programs that are income qualified. Programs like Parents Plus Program, RIBICOFF, Pregnant Women, Transitional Medicaid, CHP+, Child Care, LEAP, Food Assistance, Medicaid Qualified Pregnant Women and Children, TANF are available to residents earning between 60% and 185% of the poverty rate and incomes ranging between $13,236 and $45,204 for a family of four. New home sales prices in the Dry Creek RUA are estimated to be between $205,000 to over $500,000. Qualified buyers need an annual household income in excess of $70,000, well above the County's assistance program eligibility. The valuation of most homes in the Dry Creek RUA will also be above the Weld County average. Based on per capita evaluations, assuming Weld County continues to assess taxes and collect revenue at the same level and by the same means in the future, the Dry Creek RUA is projected to generate more property tax revenue and use fewer Human Services. Two divisions of Human Services, Child Welfare and Adult Services serves are not administered based on income. The Child Welfare division currently employs 7 full time equivalents (FTEs), conducts approximately 830 investigations and manages 60 active cases annually. At full build out, the incremental demand created by the Dry Creek RUA is less than .5 FTE. The average annual wage of a Child Welfare worker is $55,000 including benefits. Based on our analysis,the Dry Creek RUA could support more than 2 new FTEs for the Human Services Department. (See Exhibit 5). The Human Services Department's referral letter identifies possible division expansion in the southern portion of the County as well as allowing foster and group homes within the Dry Creek RUA. It seems possible current County offices in Ft. Lupton or Dacono could • expand to accommodate new cases in the area. Accommodating foster and group homes is important and will be specifically addressed with the zoning. Generally, the type of for-sale housing offered in the Dry Creek RUA is associated with a lower Sheriff and Human Service reporting volume. Rental units and mobile homes typically experience higher call volumes. Home ownership is often associated with residents making investments in their homes and their community. Sherriff The Weld County Sherriffs Department requests the formation of a Law Enforcement District (LED) to supplement their services. The LED will be formed like other special districts; However, all the services will be contracted by Weld County Sherriffs Department. Services should appear seamless. Under state law, an LED can collect up to 7.000 additional mills. In an effort to offset disproportionate impacts, the Sherriffs Department is slated to receive 7.000 mills in addition to 2009 estimated 2.594 mills allocated for a total of 9.594 mills. This is significantly more money for law enforcement than most of the County operates to compensate for possible increased demands in an urbanized area. 6 • . 15 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 ID • • Won't the Metro District Just Incorporate Later? Communities choose to incorporate for a variety of reasons. The City of Lakewood incorporated 40 years ago in part to prevent annexation by the City and County of Denver and avoid court-ordered busing. Lakewood incorporated five years prior to the . adoption of the Poundstone Amendment, thereby curtailing Denver's appetite to absorb surrounding communities. "Centennial was incorporated to prevent the City of . Greenwood Village from annexing certain portions of Arapahoe County to improve its tax base" (www.wikipedia.com). While there could be benefits to annexation, the typical benefits of a single consolidated service provider and sizable sales tax revenues are not . available to the Dry Creek RUA. The next best option is to utilize metro districts and create an active homeowner's association. . The community of Highlands Ranch has considered incorporating over the years, hoping to create an even stronger community identity than is already enjoyed. However, the . community has always reached the same conclusion: It is more cost effective to operate as a metro district than as a municipality. Highlands Ranch, like the Dry Creek RUA, is served by several special districts and would not gain economies of scale with unified . services. . Our analysis suggests metro districts can provide resolution to many of the most important questions how Weld County avoids assuming undue burden for services to current residents. . PROPOSED OPTION As proposed, metro districts within the Dry Creek RUA will construct and maintain the core functions of water, sanitary sewer, drainage, roads and bridges on par with, or to . • exceed, current levels of service. The water provider will be the TCVMD and sanitary services will be provided by the City of Ft. Lupton. Additionally, parks, trails, recreation . and open space and cultural programming can be offered by metro districts. These desirable amenities are not currently available in this part of the County and contribute to . a richer lifestyle. Mill Levy . The proposed metro district mill levy distribution shown below in Exhibit 1 is an example of the metro district collecting 58.000 mills, the County collecting16.804 mills, and the . LED collecting 7.000 mills. This model shows an additional 23.500 mills available for direct operations and maintenance dispersed among the metro districts' road and bridge services, Weld County Sherriffs Department, High Plains Library District, metro district . parks, trails recreation and open spaces as well as a possible cultural district. Exhibit 1 also compares the proposed metro district mill levy to the County and special district current mill levies. 0 • 7 16 Dry Creek RUA - BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 I Exhibit 2 Residential Weld Metro Development Developer County District LED Variance Fee Per Unit Contribution Debt Service N/A 40.000 Administrative Services N/A 1.500 District Road and Bridge 1 .613 7.000 433.97% $1 ,000 Weld County Social Service 1.266 0.000 0.00% Weld County Sheriff 2.594 0.000 7.000 269.85% Brighton Fire Protection Fire station site District 11 .795 0.000 0.00% dedication Weld 8 Ft. Lupton School School sites District 24.220 0.000 $1 ,010 dedication Brighton 27J School School sites District 45.215 0.000 $1 .010 dedication High Plains Library District 3.260 0.500 15.34% Parks, Recreation and Open Space N/A 8.000 Possible Cultural District N/A 1 .000 Total 58.000 7.000 $2.010 Impact Fees Supplementing the 23.500 mills for direct additional services, this model also supports a $1 ,000 per unit transportation impact fee and assumes the current Brighton 27J School District $1 ,010 per unit impact fee for both school districts. Land Dedication The Brighton Fire Protection District seeks a site for a new station. The two school districts seek a combined 80 acres for new schools. All parks, trails, recreation and open spaces will be planned and dedicated at no cost to Weld County. METRO DISTRICT MODEL Exhibit 7 provides a more in depth financial review of a metro district's ability to generate 172M in new assessed valuations for the County at the end a 24-year build out. Our analysis assumes bonds are issued in 2011 , 2016, 2023, and 2029 for a total of 207M in revenue and 200M going towards infrastructure construction. Through completion of the community nearly 51M will be collected in specific ownership taxes, residential development fees, residential impacts fees, commercial property taxes, commercial development fees and investment income. It is worth noting the specific ownership tax is assumed at 8%, the residential development fees are projected at $4,000 per unit, the residential impact fees at $2,010 (as mentioned above) and both the development and impact fees escalate at 3% annually. The Residential and Commercial Gross Property Tax Collocation towards the bottom of the page are a break out of revenues accounted for in the Estimated Sources and Uses. Exhibit 5 is the updated Dry Creek RUA Service Providers Revenues and Expenditures tables showing the baseline property tax revenues without a metro district. A weighted per capita approach, based on today's tax structure is used to estimate nearly 4.7M in revenue for service providers. The allocation of specific metro district mills to specific service providers in Exhibit 2 is intended to backfill where the baseline county mill levies are insufficient. 8 • • 17 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 S Exhibits 2 and 7 do not answer all the financial questions that might arise. Prominent among which is related to sales tax. • Is Sales Tax Necessary? . A sales tax is not contemplated within the Dry Creek RUA because we feel it is not necessary. Our modeling indicates metro district mill levies, impact fees, land and facilities dedications, developer and builder contributions are sufficient to support urban • level development infrastructure. • Better retail opportunities are already located on periphery of the Dry Creek RUA and the majority of the retails needs will be met outside the RUA on Hwy 7 and 1-25. Retail sites . along Hwy 7 and 1-25 corridors experience higher volumes of traffic and visibility and are, therefore, more attractive than sites along WCR 6, WCR 2, or WCR 21. Neighborhood services, such as grocers, drugstores, banks, quick-service restaurants, hair salons, liquor stores, dry cleaners, and coffee shops are possible within the Dry IP Creek RUA at approximately 75% build out. When the community is sufficiently mature it could support about 125,000 square feet of commercial retail on 20 to 25 acres. Our • analysis suggests this is the maximum retail the Dry Creek RUA could sustain. . Therefore, it is unlikely the Dry Creek RUA will see sales tax as a significant source of revenue during the first 18 years. • Conversely, the cities of Broomfield, Thornton and Brighton will likely experience sales . tax leakage into their coffers. Reason indicates residents of the Dry Creek RUA will shop . and dine at existing regional retail centers, like Larkridge and Prairie Crossing. A referral letter from the City of Brighton also identified the concern of undue burden on their city. . • Since 18% of all the City of Brighton's income comes from sales tax, the City may ultimately appreciate the advantage of a densified trade area. • How Does the Dry Creek RUA Compare? Exhibit 3 compares a Dry Creek RUA metro district mill rate to surrounding communities . and the HRMD. The exhibit identifies each community's reliance on property and sales taxes. The model shows 25.000 mills collected for operations and maintenance to . ensure financial health without a sales tax. Exhibit 4 goes on to show the total 58.000 mills, including debt service, to be competitive for master-planned communities in the area. Exhibit 5 demonstrates the modeled metro district's total property tax burden is . between Adams and Weld County's medians for overlapping mill levies. Our analysis indicates a metro district in southern Weld County collecting 58.000 mills is viable in the . new home market. • • 9 • _ 18 Dry Creek RUA - BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-201 C II Exhibit 3 2009 Adopted Revenues Sales Property Tax as General Property Tax as '3/0 ')/0 of Jurisdiction Mill Levy Fund All In Tax of All In Sales Tax All In Highlands Ranch 19.750 19,460,759 68,601 .430 24.610,432 35.87% 0 0.00% Thornton 10.210 85,271,440 183,199.842 9.328,000 5.09% 44,243,000 24. 15% Brighton 6.650 19,195,726 50,355.532 1,825,650 3.63% 9,075,968 18.02% Ft. Lupton 25.952 4,465,888 15,459.455 1 ,228,316 7.95% 1 ,458,600 9.44% Dacono 25.837 2,022,304 2,989,771 977,656 32.70% 809,983 27.09% Dry Creek RUA and LED 25.000 Note: The Dry Creek RUA metro district model includes 40.000 mills for debt service. Exhibit 4 2009 Rank of Tax District's Metro Overlapping Mill Levy in District Mill Overlapping Relation to the other Metro District County City Levy Mill Levy Tax Districts by County Bradburn Park Adams Westminster 50.000 150.721 14 Bromley Park No. 2 Adams Brighton 61 .725 156.984 11 Buffalo Ridge Adams Commerce City 42.827 156.783 12 Eagle Creek Adams Thornton 54.000 137.600 20 Lambertson Lakes Adams Thornton 37.000 147.940 15 North Range Village Adams Commerce City 63.000 165.996 8 Potomac Farms Adams Commerce City 60.500 174.456 5 ill Riverdale Dunes Adams Thornton 31 .700 146.196 16 Silver Peaks No. 2 Weld Brighton 51 .118 281 .014 13 Vista Ridge Weld Erie 57.827 154.698 35 Sample Dry Creek RUA Weld 8 School District Weld Unincorporated 58.000 120.400 n/a Sample Dry Creek RUA Brighton 27J School District Weld Unincorporated 58.000 136.920 n/a Exhibit 5 2009 Max. Overlapping Median Overlapping Mill County Max. Mill Levy Median Mill Levy Mill Levy Levy Adams 99.000 46.449 213.496 147.068 Weld 61 .725 15.000 376.458 101 .496 Note 1: Weld County's median mill levy is low. in part because there are many districts that did not collect a mill levy in 2009. Note 2: Altamira No. 1 thru No. 6's overlapping mill levies are between 376.458 and 364.834 making it the highest taxed area in Weld County Note 3: The five Silver Peaks metro districts' overlapping mill levies range between 76.542 and 281.014. causing it to be an outlier in the trade area. 10 II _ _ , , . _ __ ___ 19 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • • • What about a Residential Market Feasibility Study? MetroStudy provides extensive analysis of housing starts and closings, absorption timing . by product type and moths supply of housing inventory. Included in their report is detailed data about housing types, pricing, cost per square foot, room counts and a . review of the competing communities and builders in the area. By in large, MetroStudy concludes much of the housing inventory available today will be sold and out of the . market when the Dry Creek RUA is ready to enter the market. Conclusion . It is our objective to demonstrate unincorporated Weld County can benefit from urban level development without its citizens incurring undue financial burdens. This objective is . achieved by addressing each of the Finance Department's concerns, modeling a viable metro district, comparing the model against other districts and providing a detailed residential market feasibility study. It is our opinion growth can pay its own way in . southern Weld County. S . • 11 11, • - ___ __ - -urn ✓r.- 20 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • Si` To: Roger Hollard, Equinox Land Group, Inc g ;' jaw From: Nanci Kerr Date: January 8,2010 RE: Response to Memo of December 21,2009 OPrepared by Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration 3 In and effort to answer questions identified by Don Warden, below is a point by point response to his memo of December 21, 2009. The comments are italicized and responses are in standard font. The very fact that the area is in a government donut of neighboring municipality's raises the public policy issue of whether the project as proposed by the developer is really good land use planning and financially responsible long term? This comment presents valid and somewhat complicated issues. While the Dry Creek RUA is in proximity to the cities of Thornton, Brighton, Dacono and Ft. Lupton, there are 5 identifiable reasons why there are gaps in the four jurisdictions'planning areas. 1. Gaps exist in regional planning because Thornton, Brighton, Dacono and Adams County are members of the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), and Ft. Lupton and Weld County are not. Therefore, these jurisdictions are not required to plan cooperatively, are not governed by the same planning policies, and may not share the same goals. 2. A patch work of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) amongst Thornton, Brighton • and Ft. Lupton prevents the Dry Creek RUA from annexing to any one municipality. In addition, there is no indication that the three IGAs were reviewed by the three municipalities and two counties in aggregate with the intent of excluding urban level development in the Dry Creek RUA. 3. Planning best practices encourage comprehensive planning in advance of growth to head off unintentional incremental development and facilitate opportunities that might otherwise be lost. The Dry Creek RUA provides the policy framework to prepare for anticipated changes in population and land use on the boundary between Adams and Weld Counties. 4. Growth patterns indicate southwest Weld County will experience pressure to accommodate the projected job growth along I-25 and US Hwy 85 corridors during the next two decades. The surrounding economic development corporations forecast continued population growth in response to renewable energy and energy efficient industries locating in the north and northeast Denver Metro Area. 5. At the urging of the Weld County Planning Department, the Todd Creek Village Metro 450 East 171h Assn" amendment (TCVMD) prepared the following comprehensive plan amendment. That plan amendment used the newly adopted Regional Urbanization Area technique to address Saki 400 this very issue, i.e., How to successfully approach urban level development in unincorporated areas. Denver,CO 80203 p 303.5921122 f 303.592.1144 wwwcdryloground.oan • • • 21 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • • •• "...Douglas County dedicates a large portion of the Douglas County's road and bridge ' sales tax to the Highlands Ranch area for road and bridge improvements each year. So, even Highlands Ranch is indirectly supported by sales tax." • Unlike Weld County, Douglas County adopted a county-wide sales tax of 4/10 of 1 cent in 1995. Forty percent of Douglas County's sale tax is allocated to road and bridge • capital improvements and maintenance, making Highlands Ranch indirectly supported by a sales tax. ID Viewed in a larger context, Highlands Ranch Metro District (HRMD)was formed in 1981 and a county-wide sales tax was adopted 14 years later. For the first half of HRMD's life, sales tax revenues were not available. Most importantly, Douglas County's Engineering • Services Division reports when all funding sources for road and bridge operations are • totaled (property tax, sales tax, vehicle registration fees and HUTF) the area within HRMD provided a net gain of revenue to Douglas County every year for almost three • decades. •• Currently Lakewood has a 3.0% sales tax and Centennial has 2.5% sales tax to support their service requirements. • These facts demonstrate that when unincorporated areas choose to incorporate often • they adopt a sales tax, too. However, whether collection of a sales tax is a driving factor • or an additional benefit for newly incorporated municipalities has little bearing on the Dry Creek RUA's ability to fund and maintain infrastructure. There are two reasons a sales • • tax is not significant when evaluating the Dry Creek RUA. First, a sales tax is not available in Weld County. Neither the applicant nor the County seeks to change current conditions. Second, analysis of the retail market opportunities and shopping site selection trends reveals that the Dry Creek RUA will likely support neighborhood scale • retail. The trade area of the proposed Dry Creek RUA is already over supplied with regional malls and super community centers including Larkridge, The Orchards, and Prairie Crossing. Northlands and Parterre are also planned regional shopping centers within a • 15-minute drive of the Dry Creek RUA. All five retail centers offer superior traffic and visibility with access from 1-25, 1-76, and E-470. It is in the applicant's and the County's best interests to acknowledge the Dry Creek RUA exists within a competitive environment and develop a framework of planning policies reflective of market realities. • If the County or a metro district deems a sales tax appropriate when retail development is realized, that would be the time to revisit the matter. As proposed, a sales tax is not • necessary for the Dry Creek RUA to build and maintain infrastructure and community • amenities without disproportionally impacting the county. • "...HUTF funds are state tax funds, not federal, and the county's portion is not shared • back 50% within municipalities in Colorado. The county share back of 50% with municipalities in Colorado is the property tax portion collected from county's road and • bridge mil levy within the incorporate municipal boundaries." • The explanation above is appreciated and offers additional clarity to Highway User Trust • Funds (HUTF). Ultimately, however, in the case of HRMD and Douglas County, HUTF • • . 2 • • • �� 22 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 allocations continue to be a topic of ongoing consideration. HRMD seeks a more favorable distribution of HUTF monies. In spite of HRMD's circumstances, HRMD offers above-average services while contributing to Douglas County's financial health. "The fact is 30 out of 32 of the municipalities in Weld County function WITH a sales tax. The only two Weld County municipalities without a sales tax are Grover and New Raymer, both very small towns." This point can be quickly cleared up with the addition of a small and important prefix. The response should read: The Dry Creek RUA will function like the other developed areas, or the over 30 unincorporated towns in the County without a sale tax. The Weld County web site includes a link to a list of over 30 unincorporated towns (www.co.weld.co.us/redesiqn/assets/d954DC133C9bB2c17C7B.pdf). "The data provided indicates that the development will be primarily residential properties with approximately 125,000 square feet of neighborhood and convenience retail several years (18 years per the report) out in the development. This means there will not be a good mix of residential, commercial, and industrial property for the assessed values. This lack of assessed value mix could be problematic for a metro district to be able to get bond financing long term, especially in the current credit market." It is critical for any proposed metro district to be financially viable. However, viability does not necessitate a mix of assessments. More types of assessment do not create more bond financing. The Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) staff estimates most metro districts currently operating in Colorado are single use districts. And, the • overwhelming majority of metro districts are residential districts. While the applicant and the County should be keenly interested in the credit markets when metro districts are considered, there is no indication increasing the mix of assessments increases metro district viability. In terms of Weld County wanting to strengthen the County's tax base with more commercial assessed values, the Dry Creek RUA also seeks to capture as much commercial development as the market will bear. If demand for commercial development exceeds current projections, then amendments to the comprehensive should be considered at that time. Attracting a viable and sustainable level of commercial development within the Dry Creek RUA is advantageous to the County and the surrounding community. 3 • . 3 - _ -. ID i • • • • •1�i • Art cI e � • • I - - - u-. • t _ ..t��•�y:•' • 1• • ' I . k y • t Ille.. - .. .. ' �` { if • �- S. • 171441121"11".. ' a -.1..4., 24 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 Vestas'Colorado plants will get work from Canada order-Denver Business Journal Sinn In/Reaivtet Deriver Bualnaw Journal•June 23,2010 • / estorie.12010/0R121/da1N4%bjm.t BhS ss Joy • Vestas' Colorado plants will get work from Canada order P Cathy Proclvl Vestas Wind Systems said Wednesday it's received an order for 79 wind turbines,capable of generating 142 megawatts of power, from Capital Power Corp.for a wind farm in British Columbia,Canada,and the turbine maker's Colorado plants will be involved in filling the order. Capital Power(TSE: CPX),a power company based in Edmonton,Alberta.ordered 44 Vioo-1.8 megawatt turbines and another 35 V9o-1.8 megawatt turbines for the proposed Quality Wind Project, Vestas said.The turbines will be delivered in 2012 and the Order includes a lo- year service and maintenance agreement,the wind turbine manufacturer said. Vestas'manufacturing plants in Colorado—its blade plant in Windsor,a nacelles plant in Brighton,and a towers plant in Pueblo—will get work from the order,said Vestas spokeswoman Aili.lokela via email. Capital Power also placed an option-order for another 163 turbines for the Port Dover and Nanticoke Wind Project in Ontario and 150 turbines for the proposed Kingsbridge II Project, also in Ontario,Vestas said.The Ontario projects still need environmental and regulatory approvals. But if all three projects are developed,Vestas would deliver a total of 287 turbines to Capital Power,the company said. "'These turbine agreements with Vestas represent a significant milestone as the majority of the capital costs for the projects are now fixed, providing cost certainty and capitalizing on economies of scale,"said Capital Power President and CEO,Brian Vaasjo. The Quality Wind Project, including turbines,design and other work,will cost a total of about$455 million Canadian, about$437.8 million • U.S.,according to Capital Power. The Port Dover and Nanticoke Wind Project in Ontario is expected to cost up to$340 million Canadian, or$327.2 million U.S.,according to Capital Power. Capital Power has said the Kingsbridge II Project in Ontario could cost$800 million Canadian,or about$770 million U.S. Vestas(Copenhagen:VWS.CO)is based in Denmark;its U.S.headquarters is in Portland,Ore. CPROC7 OR CIlhizjournal s.conl 303-803-9233 All contents of this site©American City Business Journals Inc.All rights reserved • http://denver.bizjoumals.com/denver/stories/2010/06/21/daily43.html?t=printable[8/3/2010 9:36:57 AM] . 25 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • Vestas to build R&D Facility in Louisville-Denver Business Journal • Sian In I Reoister . • Denver Business Journal-July 7,2010 Alenveristodes/2010/07/05/dallv14.htnd • • &SPIESS JOURNAL Vestas to build R&D facility in Louisville Vestas Wind Systems A/S,the Danish wind turbine manufacturer,announced Wednesday it's creating a new research-and-development facility in Louisville that will employ up to 240 people in the next three years. • During the first year,Vestas said it plans to hire up to 125 people with a payroll of about$8 million,the manufacturer said in a June 10 • letter to Louisville.The company said it plans to move 46 employees into the site, north of Denver, starting Wednesday. • Vestas'letter asked Louisville to approve a"Business Assistance Package"designed to"help us choose this Louisville location over other • competing sites." • The Louisville City Council on Tuesday approved a 50 percent rebate,estimated to be worth about$5,500,on the use taxes charged for Vestas'tenant finish at the facility.Vestas estimates it will spend$650,000 on the building.Vestas will begin to retrofit the facility on Sept.1 • and plans to occupy the space by Nov.1,according to the city and Vestas. The new division's goal is to increase turbine efficiency and lower the cost of energy,according to Vestas. • Vestas has three factories in Colorado: a blades factory in Windsor,a nacelles assembly plant in Brighton and a towers factory in Pueblo. • "We are extremely committed to Colorado,and we look forward to a long,successful relationship here,'Finn Madsen,president of Vestas Technology R&D,said in a statement. "By co-locating engineering and design competencies with the production cluster in Colorado,the proximity of technology R&D to manufacturing creates significant efficiencies that can be passed along as a direct benefit to our customers." • The division.Vestas Technology R&D Americas Inc.,leased 49,675 square feet at 361 Centennial Parkway in Louisville. Vestas Technology R&D worked with Kittie Hook of Fuller Real Estate,the State of Colorado,the Metro Denver Economic Development • Corp. and the City of Louisville on the site-selection analysis. All contents of this site©American City Business Journals Inc.All rights reserved. • • • • • • • • • • • •• . http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/07/05/daily14.htmRt-printable[8/3/2010 9:35:51 AM] 26 Dry Creek RUA - BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 Vestas plans to hire hundreds for 3 Colorado plants - Denver Business Journal Sign In / Register Denver Business Journal - July 13, 2010 /denver/stories/2010/07/12/daity21,htmt DENVER Busiiss JounAL Tuesday. July 13. 2010 I Modified. Wednesday. July 14. 201x; Vestas plans to hire hundreds for 3 Colorado plants Denver Business Journal - by Cathy Proctor Vestas Wind System A/S said Tuesday its three Colorado wind turbine factories are officially up and running, and the company has hired more than 1,00o people, with hundreds more expected to be hired in the next 12 to 18 months. NIS The three factories — in Brighton, Windsor and Pueblo — plus a fourth one under construction in Brighton represent an investment of nearly $1 billion in Colorado since 2007. Vestas (Copenhagen: VWS.CO) is based in Denmark; its U.S. head quarters is in Portland, Ore. as has from cei RE an order S q an S Americas for 139 V90- "We have now hired more than 1,000 highly skilled workers [in Colorado] and seek a number of more workers," said 1.8 MW turbines. Torben Poulsen, vice president and factory manager for Vestas' nacelles and hub factory in Brighton, the company's View Larger largest such factory in the world. "We're committed to building local economies wherever our factories are open." The Brighton nacelles factory finished its first nacelle on April 15; it officially opened July 7. A nacelle is the 72-ton housing unit at the top of a wind turbine tower that holds equipment needed to convert wind energy to electricity. The Brighton nacelles factory currently is working to fill an order for 139 of its V90-1.8 megawatt turbines for the Cedar Point wind farm in eastern Colorado. The 250-megawatt wind farm is being built by Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc. (RES Americas) - the Broomfield-based U.S. unit of Britain's Renewable Energy Systems Ltd. — and Canadian energy company Enbridge Inc. The power generated by the wind farm, expected to be operational in late 2011, will be bought by Xcel Energy Inc_ I Vestas officials said more workers are needed at each of its three plants, plus a new wind turbine blades plant under construction in Brighton: • At the Windsor wind turbine blades plant, Vestas now employs about 600 people and expects to hire 10o more. • At the new blade plant in Brighton, scheduled to open in 2011, Vestas expects to hire 750 people. • At the Brighton nacelles plant, about 28o employees have been hired and the factory expects it will have between 5OO and 55o people when running at full capacity with three shifts. • At the Pueblo towers factory, 283 employees have been hired and the plant expects to have 465 by the end of the year and about 500 employees when running at full capacity. About 70 percent of the jobs available are production jobs, according to Vestas. Vegas officials said the best way to apply for a position is to go to a website operated by SOS Staffing. Vestas' tower factory in Pueblo will be recruiting at the Southern Colorado Jobs and Career Fair at the Pueblo Convention Center on July 22. Available jobs at Vestas' Colorado plants include: production, welders, shipping and warehouse staff, quality inspectors, maintenance, buyers, accountants, and managers. The company pays wages of between $17 and $25 and hour for production staff. In addition, the company pays 100 percent of health care premiums for employees and their family, and offers four weeks of vacation a year. "We believe this attracts and retains the best talent in Colorado," said Gary Held, Vestas' manager for people and culture in the Brighton nacelles factory. Vestas estimates more than 2,500 workers helped to build the three existing factories. http://denver.bizjoumals.com/denver/stories/2010/07/12/dally21.htrnl?t=printable[8/3/2010 9:35:11 AM] - _ • ..�- - 3 s • 27 Dry Creek RUA - BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 Economic growth in the wind for Vestas Denver Business Journal • Sign In / Register • Denver Business Journal - July 19, 2010 'denver/stories)2010J07!19'story2.html • • DENVER EUSi\TSSJOIT1INAI • • Friday, July 16. 2010 I Modified: Saturday. July 17. 2010 Economic growth in the wind for Vestas . Denver Business Journal - by Cathy Proctor More than 1,00o Coloradans are working on the state's New Energy Economy inside the huge, brightly lit Vestas MEDIA . factories in Windsor, Brighton and Pueblo. . In Pueblo, they're building the big steel towers that hold too-ton units with wind turbines and blades hundreds of ` feet in the air. ` _'�/� In Brighton, they're assembling big, school bus-sized nacelles and hubs, which hold equipment that helps convert 4.' wind energy to electricity and anchor the giant rotor blades to the machine. And in Windsor, they're building gleaming white, gently curving turbine blades — up to 144 feet long — to capture the wind's energy at wind farms throughout North America. _ • • s""""41146- • tin • ., s . This article is for Paid Subscribers ONLY. If you are already a Denver Business Journal subscriber please create or sign into your bizjournals.com account to link your valid print . subscription and have access to the complete article. • Purchase a Subscription Create a bizjournals Account • Become a Subscriber Already have an Account to receive Email Address: 1mix • Immediate access to this article Password: • Access to additional exclusive content - every week rail • Free copy of the Book of Lists (a $78 vet"` value) Forgot Your Password? • 4 Free weeks with purchase of one year subscription S All contents of this site ©American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. ill . http://denver.bizjoumals.com/denver/stories/2010/07/19/story2.html?t=printabie[8/3/2010 9:43:18 AM] 28 Dry Creek RUA - BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-201C Vestas lands its largest North American wind-turbine order ever - Denver Business Journal Sign In i Register Denver Business Journal - July 21, 2010 idenveristories/2010107/19/daily47.htm( DENVER EusDiss JOURNAL 'Nednesday July 21 2010 Vestas lands its largest North American wind -turbine order ever Denver Business Journal - by Cathy Proctor Global wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems A/S — which has three operating factories in Colorado — _ _ -- said Wednesday it has landed its largest North American order for wind turbines to date. The 19O V9o-3.o megawatt turbines to be made by the company are destined for four California wind farms at the Alta Wind Energy Center near Tehachapi, Calif. Vestas said all the blades for the Alta order will be made at its Windsor factory north of Denver. A majority of the Vestas'V90-3.0 MW towers will be made at its Pueblo factory, the company said. wind turbines are seen near Rio Vista, Calif. Vestas' nacelles factory in Brighton won't be involved in the Alta order because it manufactures the housing units for View Larger 2 megawatt turbines; the Alta order calls for 3 megawatt turbines, Vestas spokeswoman Aili Jokela said via email. The nacelles will be made by Vestas factories in Denmark and Italy, Jokela said. Vestas (CPH: VWS ) is based in Randers, Denmark. Portland, Ore., is its U.S. headquarters. The four wind farms, called the Alta Projects II-V, will be capable of generating up to 57O megawatts of power when completed in 2O11. The buyer, Terra-Gen Power LLC, based in New York City, on Wednesday announced it had closed $1.2 billion in financing for the project. 1111 "The entire Vestas team looks forward to helping Terra-Gen bring this exceptional project to reality," said Martha Wyrsch, president of Vestas Americas, in a statement. Vestas said the Alta contract includes delivery and commissioning as well as a five-year service and maintenance agreement. Delivery is scheduled for late 2O1O. The first 6o turbines will be commissioned by the end of 2O1O and the remaining ones will be online in the first half of 2O11. Vestas said the Alta order is its eighth deal announced for the North American market so far this year. To date, the company' has announced 1,336 megawatts worth of orders in North America, Vestas said. Power from the Alta wind farms will be sent to Southern California Edison. CPROCTOR@bizjournals.com J 303-803-9233 All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. I http://denver.bizjoumals.com/denver/stories/2010/07/19/daily47.html?t=printable[8/3/2010 9:36:20 AM] • _ - _ z�. � .� _. . 29 Dry Creek RUA - BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • New home construction shows signs of rebound - Denver Business Journal 0 Sign In : Register • Denver Business Journal - July 26, 2010 4, idenverlstoriesl2010107126!story8.html • . DENVER Eusniss0 B Jouii'a • riday, July 23. 2010 I Modified: Tuesday. July 27. 2010 • New home construction shows signs of rebound • Cienver Business Journal - by Paula Moore • Metro Denver's new-home market appears to have started rebounding in the second quarter, with a jump in construction starts. a L a • But experts say long-term health won't return until local economic fundamentals improve. ' w -, 0 Construction starts for newly built homes in the first two quarters combined rose 71.5 percent to 2,055 from 1,198 for t • the same period last year, according to data from housing data provider Metrostudy in Greenwood Village. Starts were i • basically flat from the first period to the second, at 1,005 and 1,050, respectively. —A��-,a • "The new-home market has reached the bottom, and is trying to grind forward," said John Covert, Houston-based _ ci Metrostudy's Colorado president. "It all comes down to consumer confidence and jobs." i, • KB Homes is building . in the Parkfield development near Pena Boulevard and • 56th Avenue. . View Lamer S al This article is for Paid Subscribers ONLY. . If you are already a Denver Business Journal subscriber please create or sign into your bizjournals.com account to link your valid print subscription and have access to the complete article. S . Purchase a Subscription Create a bizjournals Account • Become a Subscriber Already have an Account to receive Email Address: IIy yiti ;� • Immediate access to this article • --1 Password: Password: • 1; • Access to additional exclusive content • every week .-- — .,. fir- • Free copy of the Book of Lists (a $78 - . value) Forgot Your Password? a • 4 Free weeks with purchase of one year subscription S 0 All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. 0 II e • • http://denver.bizjoumals.com/denver/stories/2010/07/26/story8.html?t=printable[8/3/2010 9:37:36 AM] • _ _ . -i 1 . 30 Dry Creek RUA - BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 Colorado oil drilling aimed to bring business to small towns - The Denver Post Page 1 of I denverpost . com ilE DENVEK I' 1 business taken place for nearly a century — but energy analysts say horizontal drilling has the potential Colorado oil drilling aimed to bring business to A Noble Energy drilling rig rises small towns above the plains in Weld County. The By Steve Raabe firm has been The Denver Post drilling in the Posted: 08/01 /2010 01 :00:00 AM MDT Niobrara Shale. ( Diego James GROVER — In the shadow of Colorado's largest Robles I The wind farm, the new-energy economy is taking a Denver Post ) back seat to old-fashioned oil . Drilling rigs are springing up in areas of Weld County largely bypassed by the natural-gas boom of the past decade. Dying agricultural communities where to open up millions of acres that previously were boarded-up storefronts outnumber open deemed uneconomic for production . businesses envision a fiscal jolt from oil that could keep the towns' fragile economies afloat. Townspeople and energy executives alike are trying to guard against excessive optimism The impetus is a new horizontal drilling based on only preliminary results from a few technique that allows energy firms to produce months of production . more oil with fewer wells. A handful of wells drilled this year in a geologic formation known "But when you're out here in the middle of as the Niobrara Shale have been gushers by nowhere, every little bit helps," said Mark Zitek, Colorado standards. owner of the Hereford Bar & Grill . Oil drilling is nothing new in Weld County — Barely registering a blip on a road map. exploration has minuscule Hereford , just south of the Colorado- isimminguimmaimid6aninn S • 31 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 • Colorado oil drilling aimed to bring business to small towns - The Denver Post Page 2 of S S • denverpost.com 0 InF.I)WN,.1.:R Post S Wyoming state line, maintains a population of financially from the drilling surge have been S "about 20 if you don't count the dogs and cats," upset with the truck traffic, noise and dust • Zitek said. plumes coming from just the first few new wells. S On a recent weekday lunch hour, the bar and The impact— good and bad —from wind-farm S grill would have been empty save for a table of construction was temporary for Grover. • six oilfield-services workers grabbing a bite before heading out to a drilling rig. Oil drilling's employment also is front-loaded, S with up to 75 workers at a rig site. When drilling • Eight miles south, the same scene unfolds on a is complete, only a handful of workers service • daily basis at the Grover Market Basket, a hybrid the producing wells. grocery-cafe that is the only surviving business S on Chatoga Avenue, Grover's six-block-long But unlike the wind-farm workers' temporal • main drag. boost, oilfield roughnecks move from drilling site S to drilling site as long as the oil keeps flowing. Owner Steve Wolff is hoping for a repeat of the S business surge he saw in 2007 when the nearby Excitement built earlier this year after Houston- Cedar Creek wind farm was built with an army of based oil and gas firms EOG Resources and Noble ▪ • 300 construction workers. Energy disclosed impressive results from new S horizontal wells in Weld County. • "That was a captive audience for us," said Wolff, • whose shop is the only place to buy food in a 30- Noble's Gemini well south of Greeley produced mile stretch between Hereford and Briggsdale. 100,000 barrels of oil, mixed with natural gas, in S its first four months of production — making it • "We were able to pay off a bunch of bills during one of the most prolific in Colorado history. S the wind-farm construction," he said. "We're h oping for more of the same with the oil Horizontal wells are more expensive than S drilling." conventional vertical wells to drill —about $3.5 • million per well versus $650,000 — but early S Energy production on Colorado's Eastern Plains results show them yielding from five to seven traditionally has generated less environmental times more oil than vertical wells. 5 and land-use opposition than drilling on the Western Slope. "The Niobrara Shale has been somewhat of an enigma, with production efforts in the 1980s and S Yet Wolff acknowledges that some of his '90s having only limited degrees of success," said • neighbors and customers who don't benefit Ted Brown, Denver-based senior vice president S S S S 32 Dry Creek RUA-BOCC 2nd Reading 8-4-2010 Colorado oil drilling aimed to bring business to small towns - The Denver Post Page 3 of • denverpost.com litf. UI_wt_e POSE of Noble Energy. "But we think horizontal drilling dramatic," said market owner Nancy Allshouse. has tremendous potential." "But sure, it would be great. Who in their right Brown said if oil drilling increases substantially mind wouldn't want to see this take off?" in northeastern Colorado, the economic boost enjoyed currently by a handful of cafes could Steve Raabe: 303-954-1948 or extend to broader development of motels, sraabe@denverpost.com grocery stores, housing developments and industrial parks. Cirque Resources of Denver has leased about 250,000 acres of mineral rights in Weld County and southeastern Wyoming, and plans to start drilling soon. "All of a sudden, oil is the flavor of the day. Oil prices are so much better now than (natural) gas prices," said Peter Dea, chief executive of Cirque. "If the (Niobrara) play works the way we think it will, we could see a whole lot of rigs out here by 2011." The region was the focus of a recent mineral lease auction by the Colorado State Land Board t hat brought in a record $12.7 million for 45,000 acres. In tiny Briggsdale, few signs of a prospective drilling boom have surfaced so far. But there is anticipation. The Briggsdale Market is the sole commercial presence on the town's unpaved Main Street. "Some of the guys stop in for a pop before or after work, but it's nothing I would call very • • To the Weld County Commissioners: We, the undersigned,are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District (TCVMD) or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights.Any future development of properties within the area,or for that matter, once the sewer lines are in place, any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD. If this is approved, property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200%higher than those who live in Fort Lupton. We had NO say in being included in the service area; we had NO say in the costs of the service; and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands. We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just • exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a "master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist, this proposal is premature. None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area, and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions—sewer from Fort Lupton (to the north), and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation, since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line —a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools. Growth should pay its own way! • 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. EXHIBIT 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or • purchase rights to water, in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA p5zeov_be<fee,,,4-Ai 7/Sy //wcd/4J&' Bie'p"r'/{'cyyan! 1/ 303-♦♦(0��3..7-o30 J�jcl 1'. � ., // 7574 o c . /5 a hlny / 7 .SLR ) -h.�y - .„)." 9..5- .?", / d {� 36 t�'c'.e 1s L3,.`4.0,4.7- /7 303 -65V-/M C/l'A�Ai ' /D7rwe? /3i� ' - 1f *3- 65-7- //h(7 • /[fl")LQ�i 4475L°i27L �u . 37 3o3-557-no, C�p1Aaa :r �K75eK27112wf4,. 57 5193157-ZY77 2 761 6-,G2 a 7 i?Gg;, /z 302-65-(.5--2,2,1575 /C ce6 !;ryL 1rizn �j SOS-434 o6n9 7"-- ) L ;✓1.a. ZzS2 GR-z l Ft 03 9 3/ 9�. -7S- 009,C 22Sa Rzl , Ft. Lu.pi-v '7 3o3-y3)-90'7c7.... • I • ti • To the Weld County Commissioners: We,the undersigned,are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District(TCVMD)or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights.Any future development of properties within the area,or for that matter,once the sewer lines are in place,any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD. If this is approved, property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200%higher than those who live in Fort Lupton.We had NO say in being included in the service area;we had NO say in the costs of the service;and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands.We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a "master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a • municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist,this proposal is premature. None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area, and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions— sewer from Fort Lupton(to the north),and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation,since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line—a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools.Growth should pay its own way! 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water,in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. . EXHIBIT u Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded • property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL ,./ AREA dt�4 v glob We 12� i ,,, gyp ® -�'l ,, *14-- oy 63� 4,,,....g I%,3 GF Lis /Fv3 (A e D. 3-GcY- -�31 o5" //5"/n ,jul S'9 ,j.-/5"9-2.a'// EjdittL a _/4 3 lax, _ 2 _i3-46j &a/ 45).° 3 (fah /AS-7C rriet -q 3-- IS"P -y c,/ 87ob WC"R . Ee '�"o 'ln.a�wc *'0 , % fa rli .''Y 2 tv c # / 9 lea X6s -L S9 -3128 T/ �i 79oa x'761 ,El�r,q // 2,03- C 54 -,zsz9 tL.� .-4-6 , y 900L i (�'�3ais/,Scrr M '7 303- b 57 - 2 8'2-7 26-7,-, ,ter 4.Y8 Luc /24/rst irua 67 303 5"y �9z9 - :av LyeA/eve/98 ra,, 650 3v3e5Q 33S.c • -7,2:3-,2,6 :.4 ,{ 9i3h t n' Y (�r' le�e t1 27,c; 91� S TS 5,12f� � TISo LA q,4o S`to 467L G .PA✓ aAirc '✓ c?39 �, ,tf' 0, 3b3 4 5-y d as/ EE4 Ss/ -aivc,e/9 /D �w_ 7c-P/92 6116- 0?I9 /o ,9' 665?-779,3 796-'7/vck 17 , 7 303-8x3 +Tad 9L.-1L--r—Gr Gc---.-s- 2927 tc,c.c' i 9 2 9 SeY-35"3- `/72° AL44 af�Nape) ID tf 87 c�-6 7294y 1 30cb-d,37 -7'e4 iv4c,- we-t2�' r-TI 3 lag- s9-as‘X osete-f- /0'167 A)oc a FilekiA4 .7 /arty/ten- 4a/.lnn-, /04v7 UAL6LS1 FT-1-.p Co x'10 *av77/-/8703 '3/cb INc2.?/,F7za#r-y✓ 93 3-C6'-9ks70o, ii26 ptlog gl-{ti,W ( intiz3 310o We Ra 1 /5 3n3-8.59-17W e-bloradoe3rwn pj 5 Kc+N11 l ler 3'-x'35 cP-21 C. -12-O vri t is, Q, g,o`°.,Ir t ' I Iev' 36- 74 Ce 720 4oSs zy 157 41O9 0" �SI cg- -2/ 6P fl2 4303 6959-7/9z IA Mor vti45 5545/ c(e .21 IL ,33-beg-9/9a . •r 1 - t Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,expanded . property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA Shari a Krantz. 17S5 LaCR 13 33 sharkmnf2a_aoLcam ranlZ 1 1S' WCR 23 3 363-6S-13-020g f} ELLLd��}$QU 3�SoWG(z 2l 3O3 9ro3Z 111013/4t ECG sr'esj t. M' V SC 6t 3 B 8 ge • Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA TO Gi„-,,y Or //< r�rit 1' 36v�A7y rltft 52 o3 -‘. 7 -'.Zy3 P,,( ' �45oCz //P12-J GraO 6, r,3).cl/7-7953 's k reZ C. t£4 ��y rp a3 •C7-9Fiy j d tl �O ,5 `l 3O3-506- 6,17b lin& M'9icy Map_ 5 303 -50- (NAT i l9.24(;(2.4C4 Ave 70 <ai> rx/a.,c.d ,A .,.A'— i'V • . `'2`-f , ,/,(34, }no, & c6c X4/1 ,7O3 6gr4— `f Y mat, /7 is, 717 aty c- 40 s—r 303 -4sg- 7294 M _ th..elas f735 M.,/ Awe_ 36 303 Lss 72k'el /10( MARY AVE" /2 3o3G5°/ 2117 f a.>7cicr'. /? fl]613 bla Afro 3 sag 4.59 y2Q5 e/S . .e(/ c v-c - 46,94fG(/ /l G d 9 itd eCt 5_,/ ° 6o €c ,j • I _--k?7 • Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area-our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you- \„ IQ1-, ' (t NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA 1 ba ,.ia, lSIA, c 3 3 Ca S1 - lY-Ib' r7 Edna VOOP< nave.) /lbw &d Word si— 79 3o - - 10Sq --iriVer M n ifiNtf, p dairfitt---- UGk4 fd.7-,d1 SF 9 363 6,6,1veliziy 04?-05-0 A Jurb.� lC mKlntAv_e 9T �( 5(P5 - °�S86 Ltoe. ttS c, � Y Ave- A11;IV fffffJJJ�JJ1 0"A dO& in toy Ad - ,5 le t3os -4‘1 -9,141 flt r or M!c t/aro !too / s u'-( .�^] ?9) tfq a atjl�„-, NuVaind /4Db "- 7 4 c, U io 6C - Ail tdJ en ;l/as 1'1,Q5 Mar AL-c 3O ,3a3- 25q- 7a9y V 1 la) ilk; mo,Ly iw�- , 3i) 'l zi ?la -13 ti g Jr...L.-- /764, ,t f76r ,q-,„,c 303-G55- y/o7 • a ' /9a/ g,g6Zioe-Ait: g 303 -659-/94 Am.Q 1I O9 fidleakat Ate 6, 303- ail- _____ e- 4 • To the Weld County Commissioners: We,the undersigned,are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District(TCVMD)or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights.Any future development of properties within the area, or for that matter,once the sewer lines are in place, any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD. If this is approved, property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200%higher than those who live in Fort Lupton.We had NO say in being included in the service area;we had NO say in the costs of the service; and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands. We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a "master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a . municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist,this proposal is premature. None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area, and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions— sewer from Fort Lupton (to the north), and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation,since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line—a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools.Growth should pay its own way! 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water, in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. • EXHIBIT I \It) Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,expanded • property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you- NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA 4,1 ./.6.p /449 .20 9- ca- e/ 7Z ,1'7 i� / rJ 303 954-GS-99 L'R. ti.L. _ i o 303 - 5 5-6-4.46 //7/I L`i2 21 o 5r0 t�-•� \An r/`1I we l? ...II .( h 5 � 33'7 5- • • L Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,expanded • property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA /WIaC4at& 42 e/.CO+k /4/64aej L. gr'k ,73 Ca'-z' 2) /7 /2 Ira -vs9-- pint 8pen da, nm .�.QsK'' 39 Cow //&e / 7 / 2 7o2,-57.29.— Y&e7 X. `ne ca Saki... AA—VS. - Ye Ltd c 17 ,3B B 323 594135N 433 /vt24G{7 gy AS.6 Sig..,3tn. 403 2u r7 R 17 3f :1 v 1.5q 173.3 A I(4.446 5d& 'WC.CL �- / �IIea. {_- e4w_; !z/G O.:-Co:, r tijiRL6t'�.�o} ,SL. 47:oak) 5.26, tv 0 P� /9- 107 t./7 rail. "'r'<< kat /y S. U'1 W. ,PfaaOrt rieur e 30y 2 /q aZps 2P 303-b59-56sq . < _lale 7 CA / 9 17 '05 LC? F6e�.��aia�w /7 j2f ago tats Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,expanded • property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area-our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you- NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA 6uw, 30Z c t� 3 3-405-I-9 PO V a IceR r 3 Cs�'�517S� • To the Weld County Commissioners: We,the undersigned,are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District(TCVMD)or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights.My future development of properties within the area,or for that matter, once the sewer lines are in place,any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD.If this is approved,property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200%higher than those who live in Fort Lupton.We had NO say in being induded in the service area;we had NO say in the costs of the service;and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and dearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands.We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a"master planned community'. It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without • the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist,this proposal is premature. None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area, and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions— sewer from Fort Lupton(to the north),and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation,since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line—a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools. Growth should pay its own way! 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving endaves of agricultural zoned properties. 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water,in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. • EXHIBIT I �G-�f_'r`KJ '1 • 10. Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area— our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA A-CA ><( -na\. /6</cc C,2 303 C77 'f1 0.O.1 b1c,4 S G(Cr. c, 7 lri 7 • • a Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded I. property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA *daze( -icawk ISgbL--)C@ is 1'7 3n5-7z6-279R �' r>7 fVain nn SyyB UJ��°. 7 303-037-OZZZ• / � � 31/307 :t2/ i5 3. 65' . 92rL41#J/J9/y ieeors `9 .5 ac 2 & tide, s Ly 3 e -s`//S y '" '�'` 1171 z / 5[ t6'.�X 5-r7_ . L if 'a�v v.c�� I`un0vL 16k Lv C R Z f 30 3,�, jr-3335 i tc,4toc 7�/y�j Clain nmv,i 21(31' tuck/ 5 Fi pi-oo l ,3o3/ib—Y- 747/ U.o,.6,y,, .)L; 3.) c-cis I F+ L 317 3L'75-1.4,1/43-9-7(07/ ,ve c f a6,0 1 wcF Iq /4I,, 7Q __K4S sy-I Js-, 4 III • Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA GO.c,?.P..:., et() 333 c/. /7 28 f.3ycof('aK. &4o/,Cow, 0) ,It? t31 C )Q- 9g a<<. e�41�,col 0, k., kit8`0114 Wcga a cino,(Qkcm��r.coe�. ,5911 u_X F g a .303 25;-Il ian`/ tale] 1.-i".2 a. a- 3°-. ,2 fi (.01 o .W.Ck=/7 A2 3e5 f3V-8Z/0 � r eckg ( av-7 /0 5o3 - ES9 -slf0 ✓// C, Lt e3 3 etc L-7 C/171 3---45Y-4 4-5 ' C O ACV t7 aS )tc soli1t6�6 ft-etio ky u Vic) 7‘.2() 9 0 ,3307 • To the Weld County Commissioners: We,the undersigned, are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District(TCVMD) or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights. Any future development of properties within the area, or for that matter, once the sewer lines are in place, any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD. If this is approved, property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200% higher than those who live in Fort Lupton. We had NO say in being included in the service area; we had NO say in the costs of the service; and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands. We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area —this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a "master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a • municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist, this proposal is premature. None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area, and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions— sewer from Fort Lupton (to the north), and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District (to the south). The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation, since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line—a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools. Growth should pay its own way! 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water, in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA. The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. • ' 1 • Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA 9hinb:.y 65-7),z"s-i p559'(A sza4r /9'yei 36 03-- 9537 � iQ:r c fr sa 7(5J4 C/�,,,s n, 3,;(4, 79 eyy�� 2o - 7- � G GO ' a/ (4k 'zL . cfl 036,3 h / 1 1`r.!S Yj4Cr.p 64IF , ylcS irst - 5&ef ' C a l0itlC Milt( A-uF. J)gai s x/639-3&d1 .�.r...¢. 18 (.0 5 know). Ct tw ,.-� 1,o [aeio...t.�r 3.3/4n-5'j 9 L P-nn LA�120a' �5aq cr 2 ► a t i,�Y( r�.r��J,@s�ssaaCr.�ci qsht) (-1 ,r i, „ r�odraor-�abi Om r 'v-24 211Y Of /el ry,� Wardle.&LI/ni,4o... • Ma.. 252Y6,tvn ia/7 , 303-659• SS9b • • Exhibit Y is a CD copy of Todd Creek Audits • Dated August 4, 2010 • • To the Weld County Commissioners: We,the undersigned,are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District(TCVMD)or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights. Any future development of properties within the area,or for that matter,once the sewer lines are in place, any replacement of our septic systems will be required to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD. If this is approved, property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200%higher than those who live in Fort Lupton.We had NO say in being included in the service area;we had NO say in the costs of the service; and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands. We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. • 3. The RUA is not a "master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist,this proposal is premature. None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area, and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. S. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions— sewer from Fort Lupton (to the north),and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation, since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line—a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools.Growth should pay its own way! 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water, in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. • EXHIBIT I ' , • Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. 4 Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA I(1 41 TP34 CE- 9,1 la . s_-Sys i 1 u>c/2gI na ,� 60 i)od) cost a 3O3, 6Sq_ir3 9.6 7S-vztair a(v 323 C. 1G-Z o J a3GY tic/ R3 /S do) ti -o yyo ed/ 7}s'3 cQ6 Jo 505-lay-/632' _it 9,-sa AJG'C (o ,/p. X03- tiv4 - 1U35 i'442665 WOC 03 :5 506 • 710 - IlI N • Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— 7g2/L4 ? i3air6hn f' n "I x • 411 Hello