HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101460.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
• Applicant Todd Creek Village Case Number 2009-xx
Metropolitan District
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1 Staff Comments X
Department of Planning Services Field Check Form (Aid L.uda,,p.(tv A) X
Letter to Applicant X
•Affidavit of cign poeting N j q X
Legal Notifications X
2 Application X
Maps X
Deed/Easement Certificate ( I q) X
Surrounding Property/Mineral Owners X
Utilities ( Al R) X
3 Referral List X
• '' Referrals without comment X
Weld County Code Compliance Division, received 8/27/09 X
X
N 4 Referrals with comments X
Weld County Paramedic Services, received 10/13/09 X
Weld County Planning Commissioner Robert Grand (District 6), received X
9/1/09
Greater Brighton Fire Protection District F-3, received 9/25/09 X
Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment, received X
10/25/06 9/.25/09
Todd Creek Metropolitan District, received 10/2/09 X
Weld County Finance &Administration Department, received 9/19/09 and X
12/21/09
• X
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), received 11/9/09
EXHIBIT
h2010-1460
• City of Erie, received 9/8/09 (pc, CA*.,r,.t.i.) X
Weld County Department of Public Works, received 9/24/09 X
Weld County Sheriff's Office, received 10/14/09 X
North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association, received 9/23/09 X
School District RE-8 (Fort Lupton), received 9/17/09, 9/22/09, 11/20/09 X
City of Thornton, received 10/30/09 X
N. City of Fort Lupton, received 10/15/09 X
City of Dacono, received 9/14/09 X
City of Brighton, received 9/24/09 X
Colorado State Division of Water Resources, received 8/28/09 X
e County Department of Human Services, received 9/28/09 X
• 5 Surrounding Property Owners-Letters u/A
6 PC Exhibits X
" A Letter from Gerald and Sharlene Krantz dated 1/11/2010 X
B Referral from School District Weld RE-8 dated 1/19/2010 X
C Referral from School District RE-27J dated 9/10/09 X
D Letter from Alvin and Nancy Fichter dated 1/18/2010 X
E Applicants Comments regarding the conditions of approval X
\ F Letter from Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District dated 1/15/2010 X
G CD of the applicants presentation X
H Hard copy of the applicants presentation X
7 Plduul ig GUI io3Ioil Resututicm
hereby certify that the items identified herein were submitted to the Depart t of P nnin a 'ce t or prior tot scheduled
a ing om s ers hearing.
•
Mich a Martin Planner
• \ LAND USE APPLICATION
JJJ SUMMARY SHEET
WUDC
COLORADO
Case Name: Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUN')
Comprehensive Plan & Weld County Code Amendments
Hearing Date: January 19, 2010 Planner: Brad Mueller& Michelle Martin
Case Number: 2009-XX
Applicant: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
10450 East 159th Court
Brighton, CO 80602
("Represent eight fee owners of all properties within the proposed area.)
Request: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area ("RUA").
• Location: Approximately equidistant from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono, with
adjacency to the Adams County border. The majority of the proposed
area lies between County Roads 4 & 6, and between County Roads 17
and 21.
Legal Description: Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28 34, and 34, Township 1 North, Range
67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. (See Application
Submittal, Section 5.0, Exhibit #11.)
Parcel Numbers: Various, 26 total. (See Application Form.)
Size of Parcel: 2,095 +1- acres
ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS
The Department of Planning Services' staff has received responses from the following agencies:
• Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment, received 10/25/05
• Weld County Sheriffs Office, received 10/14/09
• Weld County Department of Public Works, received 9/24/09
• Weld County Code Compliance Division, received 8/27/09
• Weld County Department of Human Services, received 9/28/09
• Weld County Finance &Administration Department, received 9/19/09 and 12/21/09
• Weld County Paramedic Services, received 10/13/09
•
EXHIBIT
File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") / Page 1
0gh2oa-I
• Colorado State Division of Water Resources, received 8/28/09
•
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), received 11/9/09
• City of Brighton, received 9/24/09
• City of Dacono, received 9/14/09
• City of Erie, received 9/8/09
• City of Fort Lupton, received 10/15/09
• City of Thornton, received 10/30/09
• School District RE-8 (Fort Lupton), received 9/17/09, 9/22/09, 11/20/09
• North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association, received 9/23/09
• Todd Creek Metropolitan District, received 10/2/09
• Greater Brighton Fire Protection District F-3, received 9/25/09
• Weld County Planning Commissioner Robert Grand (District 6), received 9/1/09
The Department of Planning Services' staff did not receive responses from:
• Weld County Attorney's Office
• Weld County Extension Office
• Weld County Emergency Management Office
• Weld County Housing Authority
• Weld County Building Division
• Colorado State Historical Society
• Colorado State Water Conservation Board
• Colorado State oil &Gas Conservation Commission
• Colorado State Division of Wildlife
• West Adams Soil Conservation District
• City of Northglenn
• Adams County
• • Broomfield County
• School District RE-27J (Brighton)
• Denver Council of Governments Metropolitan Planning Organization
• United Power
• Fort Lupton Fire Protection District F-5
•
File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 2
• STAFF REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
II. Application & Staff Recommendation
A. Request
B. Location
C. Staff Recommendation & Compliance with Approval Standards
D. Conditions If Approval
III. Context
A. Background & Pre-Submittal
B. Adjacent & Regional Land Uses
C. Urban "Sprawl"
D. Residential Demand
E. Economic Impacts
F. Employment
IV. Physical Site Characteristics
A. Site Characteristics/Constraints
B. Soils & Geology
C. Floodways & Drainage
V. Proposed Services
•
A. Access & Transportation
B. Schools
C. Emergency Services
D. Water& Sanitation
E. Utilities
F. Parks, Trails & Recreation
G. Social Services
H. Library & Cultural Services
VI. Conclusion & Summary
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 3
• COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
wok
COLORADO
Case Name: Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA")
Comprehensive Plan &Weld County Code Amendments
Hearing Date: January 19, 2010 Planner: Brad Mueller & Michelle Martin
Case Number: 2009-XX
Applicant: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
10450 East 159th Court
Brighton, CO 80602
(**Represent eight fee owners of all properties within the proposed area.)
Request: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area ("RUA").
• Location: Approximately equidistant from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono, with
adjacency to the Adams County border. The majority of the proposed
area lies between County Roads 4 & 6, and between County Roads 17
and 21.
Legal Description: Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28 34, and 34, Township 1 North, Range
67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. (See Application
Submittal, Section 5.0, Exhibit#11.)
Parcel Numbers: Various, 26 total. (See Application Form.)
Size of Parcel: 2,095 +/- acres
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District, is acting on behalf of eight landowners
in south Weld County to undertake a "long-range planning effort to ensure that future
development occurs in an attractive & functional manner based on sustainable planning
concepts." They propose to undertake this planning of a sub-area by creating a new "Regional
Urbanization Area" ("RUA"), as that concept is defined in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
• The general land use request is to amend the Weld County Comprehensive Plan to plan for
File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 4
• urban-level mixed-use development and amenities within a 2,000-acre area along the south
Weld County line between 1-25 and Highway 85. More specifically, the request would revise the
Urban Development map (a component of the Comprehensive Plan) to include the "Dry Creek
RUA," define development standards for the new "Dry Creek RUA" in Chapter 26 of the Weld
County Code, and adopt a new "Dry Creek RUA" map (also part of Chapter 26). As proposed,
2,200 to 6,600 dwelling units could be allowed, and limited commercial.
After review, Weld County Planning Services Staff recommends denial of the
amendment, because the proposal does not maintain the Goals and Policies of the
existing Comprehensive Plan or comply with the County's vision for future land use. The
submitted amendment does not comprehensively account for future land uses in the
greater south Weld County/North Denver Metropolitan region.
More specifically, the proposal for a new Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area should be
denied because:
• The Weld County Comprehensive Plan more strongly encourages urban-scale
development in and around existing urban areas, and this application does not provide
any evidence that outstanding circumstances exist that would justify development
outside of these existing areas, or give cause for the creation of a new such area. The
request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full
range of uses characteristic of towns.
• The proposal is wholly reliant on paying for public infrastructure and services via
• metropolitan district taxes, homeowner association fees, and developer contributions
(passed through to the homebuyer). As an unincorporated community, the site would
not benefit from being able to levy sales taxes, which has proven to be a critical
mechanism — particularly in the current economic crisis — for financing public services.
Furthermore, because future residents would still be paying sales tax— "off-site," as they
go to nearby municipalities for goods and services — they essentially would be paying
double taxes, without seeing any of the benefits from the sales tax.
• The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist, and will not for the
standard 20-year planning horizon. This is evidenced by the fact that none of the
surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed
area, and by the fact that the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is
enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. For
example the City of Dacono currently has zoning or vacant platted lots for 7,168
potential dwelling units. Furthermore, the 30-year build-out model used for purposed of
the application suggests either a premature planning process, or an uncertain regional
need for additional urban-scale housing.
• The application 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 seem to suggest 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.
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 5
• • If the site develops as part of a metropolitan district in unincorporated Weld County, later
annexing the properties into a municipality will be difficult or impossible, since revenue
streams and services would have to be integrated into the municipal tax structure.
• The proposal for urban-scale development directly conflicts with two existing
Intergovernmental Agreements ("IGA's") between Weld/Fort Lupton and Weld/Dacono.
These IGA's indicate, for significant portions of the proposed Dry Creek RUA, that the
County will "disapprove proposals for Urban Development." Furthermore, a separate
IGA between Fort Lupton and Brighton indicates that Fort Lupton would not annex south
of County Road 6, east of County Road 21. This would limit any possibility of Fort
Lupton to annex into this future area, which it nonetheless proposes to serve with sewer
under its agreement with the Todd Creek Metropolitan District. This situation also
creates the improbable longer-term scenario of Brighton annexing (or wanting to annex)
land that has sewer service from another municipality (i.e. Fort Lupton).
II. APPLICATION & STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A. REQUEST
The applicant's request is for an amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan to
support urban-level development within a defined area in the vicinity of Weld County
Roads 4 and 6, between County Roads 17 and 21. More specifically, this request
consists of the following elements:
• • Creation of a new Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") in a region of the County
currently designated as Non-Urban by the Weld Comprehensive Plan. The
boundaries of the proposed RUA are found in the Application Submittal, Section 5.0,
Exhibit #11; it is also included with this report as Attachment A. If adopted, this sub-
area would be added to the Urban Development Map that is maintained according to
UD.Policy 1.3 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan (Section 22-2-40.A.3 of the
Weld County Code).
• Adoption of new goals & policies, specific to the Dry Creek RUA. The proposed Dry
Creek RUA Goals & Policies are found in the Application Submittal, Section 4.0. If
adopted, these goals and policies would be added to Chapter 26 of the Weld County
Code. These goals and policies would be applied to any future land use applications
(such as a Change of Zone) proposed within the Dry Creek RUA.
• Adoption of a new RUA map, showing generalized targeted planning areas and
uses; key transportation corridors; general service facilities such as schools,
emergency service centers, and parks; and any other key land planning elements.
The proposed RUA map is found in the Application Submittal, Section 5.0, Exhibit
#12; included with this report as Attachment B is a staff prepared draft RUA map. If
adopted, the Dry Creek RUA Map would be added as an Appendix to Chapter 26 of
the Weld County Code.
The proposed application and Code amendment would be one part of an overall process
required in advance of the zoning, platting or any other development of the area at
• urban-scale intensity. Because only exemptions, rural residential subdivisions, and uses
File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 6
• by special review are generally supported in the non-urban area of the County, an
amendment such as the one proposed would be necessary for establishing a new urban
area in Weld County.
It is important to clarify and acknowledge what this proposal is, and what it is not. The
application proposes that the County amend its Comprehensive Plan, which is "a
document that serves as the foundation of all land use and development regulations in
the County." (Weld Code, Section 22-1-10) The Comprehensive Master Plan, created in
compliance with Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-106, provides for the "general location
[and] character of . . . development."
The Comprehensive Plan does not, in and of itself, confer zoning rights, define lands
suitable for development, or create urban-scale parcels eligible to obtain building
permits. The Comprehensive Plan and associated area plan do, however, establish the
context in which re-zonings, subdivision, platting, and site development may occur.
Note that in this report, the terms Regional Urbanization Area (RUA) and Mixed Use
Development (MUD) area are used somewhat interchangeably. Code changes enacted
in the fall of 2009 are transitioning all references of"MUD areas" to "RUAs."
B. LOCATION
The proposed Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area (RUA) is proposed for
approximately 2,095 acres in southwest Weld County, just north of Adams County. Most
of the proposed sub-area lies one mile north of the county line, between County Road 17
• (Quebec) and extending east beyond County Road 21.
At its closest reach, the site is within less than a mile of the historic townsite of
Wattenburg, along the South Platte River. Among incorporated municipalities, the
proposed RUA could be described as a "hole" in the donut. The closest portion of
Dacono is approximately one mile to the northwest. Fort Lupton, Brighton, and Thornton
city limits each lie approximately two miles from the proposed RUA boundaries.
Subtracting approximately 500 acres that are considered "limiting" (i.e., allowing little or
no development), approximately 1,500 acres are proposed for future urbanized areas.
This compares to other County and regional urban areas as follows:
• About the same size as the Town of Eaton
• 1/2 the size of the Town of Hudson
• 1/3 the size of the City of Fort Lupton
• 1 1/2 times the size of the Town of Platteville
• 1/8 the size of the Town of Windsor
• 1/9 the size of Highlands Ranch (minus conservation region)
• 1/3 the size of the Stapleton Redevelopment (at build-out)
• '/the size of Reunion (in Commerce City)
• '/ the size of Beebe Draw subdivision (including un-built areas)
• 1/3 the size of the Town of Mead (including un-built areas)
• 1/3 the size of the Pioneer PUD
• About the same size as the Town of Keenesburg
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 7
• A middle-level projection of housing units for the site consists of 4,500 dwelling units
("du's"). (A range of 2,200 to 6,600 is indicated in the application, though for regulatory
purposes, at time of zoning a cap would have to be defined.) At about 3 people per
household, 10,000 du's would result in a population of about 13,500 at build-out. The
application suggest a build-out of 30 years, to 2039.
A population of 13,500 people compares as follows:
• 13,500 = Sterling current population
• 12,300 = Dacono & Frederick current population
• 7,3000 = Fort Lupton current population
• 15,000 = Windsor current population
• 18,500 = Evans current population
• 32,000 = Brighton current population
• 115,000 = Thornton current population
• 82,000 = Thornton population in the year 2000
• 251,200 = Year 2008 population for all of Weld
• 400,000 = Year 2025 projected population for all of Weld
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL STANDARDS
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS
REQUFST BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
A proposed amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and Weld County
Code must meet the three standards listed in Section 22-1-150.B.12 and, in the case of
any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the seven additional standards listed in
Section 22-1-150.B.12.e. In the case of the amendment to Chapter 26 and the potential
adoption of a new RUA Map, the proposed amendments must follow the procedure
listed in Section 26-1-30 ("Amendment procedure" [RUAs]) and Section 1-3-60
("Amendments to the Code").
See Application Submittal, Page 7 (labeled "Weld County Submittal Requirements Key"),
for a chart that describes the applicant's response to the Approval Standards.
Staffs analysis is that the proposed amendment does not comply with Sections
22-1-150.B.12.a-c, portions of 22-1-150.B.12.e, portions of 22-2-130 and other
relevant elements from the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, nor Sections 26-1-
30 or 1-3-60 of the Weld County Code.
Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.a (Need for Revision)
"The existing Comprehensive Plan is in need of revision as proposed."
Discussion:
The applicant argues that the proposed planning area is in the path of significant urban
growth, which justifies revising the existing Comprehensive Plan in order to have in
File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 8
• place "a "long-range planning effort to ensure that future development occurs in an
attractive &functional manner based on sustainable planning concepts."
The application further submits data suggesting that new employment and retail are
coming to area, citing known examples such as the Vestas manufacturing facility, and
projected examples from national retail and employment projection sources. (For a
detailed discussion of regional context, see Page 20 of this staff report below.)
Furthermore, the applicant cites state-wide population projections to support an
argument that significant urban development is likely in the region.
Staff's analysis is that this Approval Standard is not met.
A long-range sub-area plan is an effective tool for managing future urban growth, and
new employment and retail are likely to come to the larger regional area. Staff agrees
with these assertions. However, overall the need for revising the Comprehensive Plan is
not met at this time, for two reasons.
First is timing. Land use and market conditions in the area do not suggest that the
timing is such that urban-scale development can be planned or anticipated for the area.
The applicant's submittal materials suggest that retail and employment uses will be
adequately provided within existing towns and cities. As proposed, the logistics of
providing services — water, sewer, police, schools, etc. — are such that they would be
extensions of municipal service areas, without the benefit of being in the community. In
addition, the municipalities have indicated they are unwilling or unable to annex the sub-
area —which further suggests that the timing for such uses is not ripe.
•
A 30-year build-out, as modeled for purposes of the application, located in an area
purported to be quickly-growing, further suggests that planning for the area is premature,
particularly in the current economic environment, where many of the fundamental
assumptions — a major new E-470 interchange and light rail station, job creation, retail
expansion, etc. — are very uncertain.
Second is the existing supply of zoning for housing. Municipalities in the region
conservatively report zoning and/or unbuilt platted lots equal to 22,000 dwelling units, or
approximately a population of 50,000 people. Examples include 7,168 zoned/platted
dwelling units in Dacono, and up to 11,000 zoned/platted dwelling units in areas of
Thornton located within five miles of the proposed Dry Creek RUA.
Population forecasts for all of Weld County do not anticipate an additional 50,000 people
until the year 2015. Recognizing that other areas of Weld such as Greeley and the I-25
corridor will absorb some of this population, it will be 2020 before an additional 100,000
people are added countywide. These population forecasts, along with existing
zoning/platting for 22,000 dwelling units (conservatively), further support the idea that
there is not an overall need to designate an additional urban area in Weld County at this
time.
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 9
• Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.b (Addresses Changing County Conditions)
"Social, economic or land use conditions of the County have changes, if applicable, that
would support amending the Comprehensive Plan."
Discussion:
The applicant cites population growth in Weld County from 2000 - 2007 as 4.4%, noting
that the majority of this has taken place in the southern region. They also note an
increase of over 100,000 people in the City of Thornton from 2000 -2006 as evidence of
changing conditions in the region.
As evidence of economic and land use changes in the region, the application notes that
the Brighton area is listed high on national retail lists. The applicants also cite plans for
a new FasTrack rail station and interchange at E-470 and County Road 17/Quebec
within 2 — 3 miles of the proposed RUA as further evidence changing land use
conditions. They further suggest that major transportation options (Highway 85, etc.) lie
within a 10-minute driving distance.
Staff's analysis is that this Approval Standard is not met, despite these assertions.
Economic and land use conditions are constantly changing. However, the
Comprehensive Plan was last updated just one year ago, in December of 2008, and
conditions in the area have not changed significantly enough to merit dramatically
amending the Comprehensive Plan to add a new urbanizing sub-area.
• While the population of Thornton and, to a much lesser degree, surrounding
communities such as Brighton and Dacono and Fort Lupton are increasing, population
projections suggest that existing zoning and planning areas for those communities would
support future growth for years to come.
Similarly, the transportation improvements cited as growth-drivers — the FasTracks
station and E-470 Interchange — remain years in the future. Current estimates, which
are unreliable, suggest that the North Metro Light Rail Station may not be built until
2015. Similarly, the Quebec/E-470 Interchange, while planned, is not funded or
scheduled for construction. Once these improvements are built, then planning for the
proposed sub-area may be better supported, and specific planning more credible.
Therefore, while the economic and land use conditions may change significantly enough
in the future to justify this type of amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, there is not
enough evidence that they have to date, or will within the next 20 years. The application
is premature, in this respect.
Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.c (Consistent with County Goals)
"The proposed amendment will be consistent with existing and future goals, policies and
needs of the County"
Discussion:
The applicant argues that the most relevant Goals and Policies are those found in the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan concerning RUAs, providing responses in the
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 10
• Application Submittal, Section 3.0, p. 28. Staff agrees that the RUA Goals and Policies
form some of the decision-making, and an analysis of the Applicant's responses follows
these sections, starting on Page 15 of this report.
Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.1 (Diverse Uses & Service Capacity)
"In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the proposed amendment
includes a diversity of land uses and will address the impact on existing or planned
service capabilities, including but not limited to all utilities, infrastructure, stormwater
infrastructure and transportation systems."
Discussion:
The applicants indicate that the proposed 3-square mile RUA would enable diverse
housing types, retail activity and some employment. Furthermore, they suggest that "by
planning for urbanization and allowing higher densities closest to existing urban areas,
economies of scale can be realized by the public service providers." (Application
Submittal, page 19)
The applicant provides information as to how services could be provided for water and
sanitary sewer, utilities, schools, law enforcement, emergency services, transportation,
park and recreation, social services, and library services. (Application Submittal, pp. 16
—23) For a detailed discussion of proposed services, see Section V, page 24 of this staff
report below.
Staff's analysis is that this Approval Standard is not met.
•
Providing services is a function of being able to fund those services, being able to
physically deliver such services, and being able to manage the logistics of service
delivery.
The application only proposes conceptual funding mechanisms, without the benefit of
knowing how or when those mechanisms could and would be realized. Those
suggested include metropolitan districts, homeowners' associations, land/facility
dedications, impacts fees, and developer contributions. (See Table #5, page 23,
Submittal Application.) While not all funding can be anticipated or developed early in the
development phase, an accurate funding analysis — such as what would be provided
with a metropolitan district's service plan — is necessary to ensure adequate service
capacity.
Second, the ability to physically deliver services is questionable. Designating this area
as an RUA requires the improbable scenario of providing sewer pipelines from the north,
and water pipes from the south. This implies that the first home constructed would
require that the entire build-out length of either the sewer or water pipe be built. Another
concern with physically delivering services is with water; the application does not provide
detailed information about whether the current Todd Creek Metro District, which
proposes to provide water, has either ownership or purchase rights to water, in amounts
adequate to serve the proposed RUA.
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 11
• Third, the logistics of service delivery are in question. Without the benefits of municipal
services, even lesser services such as the organization of recreational athletic leagues
and snowplowing become complicated and uncertain. These, and other similar services,
would be rightfully expected by future residents living in an urban-scale development.
Finally, significant barriers to funding and implementing services exist. (The Conditions
listed below in the case of the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval are
largely designed to address how services could logistically be provided.) A major barrier
is that municipal sales tax will never be a revenue stream available to augment services
for residents at the site.
Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.2 (Impacts to Environment)
"In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the proposed amendment
will address impacts on the natural environment."
Discussion:
The applicant suggests Goals and Policies that would apply to the proposed Dry Creek
RUA (as an amendment to Chapter 26 of the Weld Code). These Goals and Policies
are drafted for topics such as drainage, groundwater, wildlife, and vegetation. (See
Application Submittal, pp. 61 — 65.) The draft RUA Map includes "Limiting Factors"
areas that limit or mitigate the effects of development in constrained and sensitive areas.
The applicant also provides an analysis of the existing natural environment. (Application
Submittal, Appendix C, Sections 3.0 — 9.0) The application seems to suggest a general
•
conclusion that there are some unique features — limited prime agricultural land, historic
irrigation ditches, some riparian areas, below-ground mineral resources — but that these
elements of the natural environment can be accommodated by development or would be
minimally impacted.
Staff's analysis is that this Approval Standard can be met, with the requirements
suggested by the application for amendment to Chapter 26, as suggested for revision by
the proposed Conditions of Approval, should the Commission recommend approval.
Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.3 (Compatibility)
"In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the proposed land use is
compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses."
Discussion:
The application suggests that the social, economic and land use conditions of the region
have changed and are changing, and that as such, the proposed RUA would provide a
planning context compatible with the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the applicant
indicates that new Goals and Policies (proposed as revisions to Chapter 26 of the Weld
Code) for planning areas within the RUA will ensure future compatibility, both within the
RUA and at its boundary. (See Application Submittal, pp. 41, 43, and 45.)
Values expressed in the County Charter (and throughout the Weld County Code) are
sensitive to the rights of landowner applicants. Under current zoning, the applicant and
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 12
• those represented by the applicant are allowed a wide range of agricultural uses, as well
as many potential commercial-type uses through the use by special review process.
Other additional landowner rights may already exist as part of the "bundle of land rights"
— water, mineral, oil and gas, and air rights, for example. 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 County.
Staff's analysis is that this Approval Standard can be met, if design requirements within
the proposed language for Chapter 26 are strengthened to ensure that the edges of the
RUA contain lower densities that transition to the rural densities surrounding the
proposed sub-area. These design issues would ultimately be resolved at the time of
Change of Zone. Alternatively, the County may want to simply recognize that a high-
density urban edge is preferable to the attempt to "feather" densities, when planning for
urban development. The proposed Conditions of Approval address the issues of
compatibility, should the Commission recommend approval.
Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.4 (Resident Services)
"In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the proposed number of
new residents will be adequately served by the social amenities, such as schools and
parks of the community."
Discussion:
The application suggests a population of between 6,500 and 19,700 (although as a
regulatory document, at rezoning any adopted RUA would need to specify a maximum).
Using the analyzed amount of 13,350, the applicant indicates a need — based on
Brighton and Fort Lupton School District student generation rates — of three
Kindergarten-8th Grade schools, and 1 high school. Conceptual site locations are
proposed on the draft RUA Map. Referral comments were only received from the Fort
Lupton School District, and they did not disagree with the student generation rates.
(They did, however, express other concerns; see "Schools" discussion below.)
The application does not attempt to define how many park or park acreage should be
required of future development in order to adequately serve the proposed future
population of 13,350. It does, however, propose parks and trails "at the county
dedication standards." (Note that the County does not currently have quantified land
dedication standards, though a goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to develop these.
Local norms along the Front Range have been used in the past to define this amount.)
For a more detailed discussion of proposed park and trail standards, see Section V,
page 27 of this staff report below.
The application does not address cultural social amenities, such as those for the arts or
community gatherings.
Staff's analysis is that this Approval Standard might able to be met, with the
requirements suggested by the application for amendment to Chapter 26, and as
suggested for revision by the proposed Conditions of Approval, should the Commission
recommend approval. However, funding for the parks, recreational, and cultural
components cannot likely be adequately provided for without a sales tax.
•
File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 13
• Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.5 (Employment Opportunities)
"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."
Discussion:
The applicant provides data is from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment,
producing a map of current jobs per square mile. (See Application Submittal, Exhibit #3)
The map shows less than 250 jobs per mile in the immediate area; areas with more than
250 jobs per square mile are located in Brighton to the east, and approximately 3 miles
south of Highway E-470 in Thornton. The applicants also suggest that existing or
planned infrastructure in the region will result in more employment opportunities in the
immediate area in the next 20 years (citing Vestas Manufacturing as one example).
The applicant argues that the proposed plan represents an integrated, but somewhat
limited, balance of land uses that is nonetheless appropriate for this particular location
along the Front Range. They cite a significant amount of regional commercial and
employment uses as a reason to promote up to only 187,000 square feet of commercial
uses on site, mostly in smaller Mixed-use Neighborhood Centers; four such centers are
proposed on the draft RUA Map. (For size comparison, a typical supermarket store is
about 45,500 square feet.)
• Staff's analysis is that this Approval Standard is not met.
Access to jobs and commercial services is a very important function of urban-scale
communities. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan supports this concept of urban
form, by indicating that RUAs should be based on employment development and plan for
commercial components. (Section 22-2-130.B & C, Weld County Code)
While regional employment centers and retail destinations can be expected to supply
some of the needs of any urban community, they should not be the only economic
drivers for that community. As such, the Dry Creek RUA, as proposed, does not provide
for an "integrated balance" between these uses and housing. Furthermore, such limited
commercial and employment activity prohibit the realization of any future sales tax,
which further discourages economic balance.
In addition, there is a discrepancy in the housing types proposed (i.e. high-cost), versus
the jobs generated or available in the area (i.e., low-paying). Such discrepancy is
another indicator that a proposal for urban-scale development in the area is not ripe.
(See discussion below, "Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact", Page 22.)
Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.6 (Adequate Services)
"In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the proposed amendment
has demonstrated that adequate services are currently available or reasonably
obtainable."
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 14
• Discussion:
The application argues that all important urban services are reasonably obtainable for
the site. It cites an existing Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") between the City of
Fort Lupton and the Todd Creek Metropolitan District (the applicant) as reasonable
evidence that sewer can be provided to the site, and the District's own adopted service
area and water resources as further evidence to provide future water. The applicant's
proposal for how other services could be available is discussed above, and in Section V,
Page 24 of this staff report below.)
For the reasons noted in the Discussion of Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.1
above, staff's analysis is that this Approval Standard is not met.
Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.7 (Referral Responses)
"In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, referral agency
responses have been received and considered."
Discussion:
A total of 19 referral agencies responded. Their comments are integrated into the
services narratives listed below in this staff report; in other cases, their responses form
the basis of the Conditions of Approval that are recommended by planning staff.
The applicant has also responded to various referral agencies. Their response
correspondence is found as Appendix D. In some cases, the applicant has provided
• additional information as requested by the agency; in others, they have explained how
they agree (or disagree) with an agency's response. The applicant's correspondence
also indicates which conditions or changes proposed by the referral agencies they have
already agreed to in writing.
Compliance with the Goals & Policies of the Comprehensive Plan
The applicant argues that the most relevant Goals and Policies are those found in the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan concerning RUAs, providing responses in the
Application Submittal, Section 3.0, p. 28. Staff agrees with this approach, and staff's
analysis of their responses follows. Only key criteria are analyzed, but it is important to
note that all County Goals and Policies form the basis for determining how the
application complies with the Comprehensive Plan and County Code.
RUA.Goal 1. Plan and manage growth using new and existing Regional
Urbanization Areas.
Discussion:
County policies indicate that an "RUA" is a policy "tool that facilitates
opportunities that might not otherwise be available" for a particular geographic
area. The applicant suggests that the proposed area is unique because it
generally lies outside the planning horizons of any of the neighboring
municipalities. Because of this, they point to the County and the RUA tool as the
logical mechanism for managing growth that is likely as part of the Denver metro
expansion.
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 15
• Staff's analysis is that this Goal is not met by the proposed application.
As noted above in the Discussion for Approval Standard Section 22-1-150.B.12,
a long-range sub-area plan such as the RUA can be an effective tool for
managing future urban growth. However, as proposed, the Dry Creek RUA does
not adequately account for the timed need for such development, nor meet other
standards for an RUA, as discussed elsewhere in this report.
RUA.Policy 1.2. Consider urban development within existing, expanded, or
newly-created Regional Urbanization Areas; AND,
RUA.Policy 1.3. Prioritize infill of existing RUAs.
Discussion:
Last year's Comprehensive Plan update process identified new RUAs as one
potential land use tool available to landowners, in contrast to limiting urban
growth only to existing municipalities, municipal IGA areas, county-defined urban
growth boundaries based on existing sewer, places where urban infrastructure is
currently available or reasonably obtainable, or the existing 1-25 or Southeast
Weld RUAs.
Staff's analysis is that these Policies are not met by the proposed application.
As proposed, a new RUA in the manner suggested could result in a "super
subdivision" with significant impacts to the area municipalities. The proposal
does not realistically account for the likelihood of continued urban-scale
development directly along the 1-25 and Highway 85 corridors, whether
•
developed ultimately within the municipalities or incrementally within
unincorporated Weld County. By not coordinating land uses with the towns, the
types of problems that can result from not supporting these two Policies, such as
incompatible adjacent land uses, are very likely to occur. A better process would
be a comprehensive independent land use planning effort for the entire south
Weld County region, sponsored jointly by the governments of the municipalities
in the area and the County.
RUA.Goal 4. New development within Regional Urbanization Areas should
pay its own way.
Discussion:
The applicant argues that new development can be required to pay its way by
virtue of the RUA planning framework. The application proposes policies and
requirements for funding sources that should be required at the time of future
requests for Change of Zoning (and other land development proposals). (See
Applicant Submittal, pp. 22 — 24, and p. 47. Note a methodology error should
result in Total Estimated Property Tax Revenues of $5,569,149, versus what is
shown.)
Analysis provided in the application suggests that roughly half of future public
costs at build-out would be provided by property tax revenue. The remainder of
revenue, it indicates, would be from a proposed metropolitan special taxing
district, homeowners' associations, land and facilities dedications, and direct
construction/contributions by future builders and developers. Regional impacts
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 16
• fees or other taxing districts (such as a Law Enforcement Authority) could also be
used.
Staff's analysis is that this Goal is not met by the proposed application.
There is enough uncertainty in the proposed funding mechanisms to make
reaching this RUA Goal doubtful. The application only proposes conceptual
funding mechanisms. Without the benefit of a metropolitan service plan, for
example, the true costs of providing infrastructure, versus projected revenue,
cannot be estimated accurately. However — very significantly — even with this
information, one irresolvable fact that remains is that municipal sales tax will
never be a revenue stream available to augment services for residents at the
site. In light of the current credit and financial crisis, coupled with Colorado State
taxing limitations, it has become clear that all public sources of revenue need to
be available in order to ensure the full range of services expected by urban
residents today. In referrals dated 9/19/09 and 12/21/09, the Weld County
Finance Department, Don Warden, speaks in detail about the need and
importance of sales tax to the financing of development as proposed.
RUA.Goal 5. Ensure the efficient and cost-effective delivery of adequate
public facilities and services within a Regional Urbanization Area that
provides for the health, safety, and welfare of the present and future
residents of the County.
RUA.Policy 5.1. Ensure adequate facilities such as schools and satellite
• stations for police, fire, and ambulance, and encourage the siting of co-
located facilities and equipment.
RUA.Policy 5.2. Provide land for public facilities and public services.
Discussion:
The application suggests that land dedications would be required for schools, a
fire station, parks, and utility sites. (See Application Submittal, p. 35 — 54.)
However, key facilities are missing from the proposed RUA map, including a
community park, library site, cultural center, fire/sheriff site, etc.
Approval Standard Section 26-1-30 (RUA Map)
"Individuals may submit a proposal to amend the RUA Map in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 22-1-150 of this Code."
Discussion:
The application proposes a Dry Creek RUA Land Use Map, consistent with RUA.Policy
1.1 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and as indicated by the new RUA
submittal requirements of Section 22-1-150.B.5.(15). (Applicant Submittal, Section 5.0,
Exhibit#12)
The proposed Dry Creek RUA Map includes the following generalized targeted planning
areas and uses: Suburban Neighborhoods, Estate Neighborhoods, Mixed Use
Neighborhoods (which would allow commercial), and Limiting Site Factors areas. Each
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 17
• of these is defined and discussed in the text that is proposed for inclusion in Chapter 26
(found in Application Submittal, Page 28).
In addition, the proposed Dry Creek RUA Map includes requirements and general
geographic locations for the following: three K-8 school sites, one high school site, a
Regional Trail, two buffer condition areas, and defined improved roadways.
Staff's analysis is that the Goals and Policies of the Weld Comprehensive Plan are not
met by the proposed RUA Map.
Urban social amenities include a complex mix of urban design elements — walkable
streets, attractive architecture, and a defined sense of "community" and "identity." Some
of these elements are difficult to summarize; others include basic items such as parks,
trails, shopping, and institutional uses — churches, libraries, recreation centers, and civic
buildings.
Many of these items have not been defined by the proposal. The structural land use
plan offers very few mixed uses, and lacks those elements that define an authentic
"community."
In its referral dated September 25, 2009, the Weld County Environmental Health
Department note that such urban design elements promote healthy lifestyles and
reduces health care costs, and that retail, religious, and public gatherings areas should
be designed with the livability of residents in mind. Conditions are recommended below
• that would modify the proposed RUA Map to include general designated areas for a
Regional Park, emergency services (sheriff/fire), and a regional library.
Approval Standard Section 1-3-60 (Amendments to the Code)
"Ordinances and parts of ordinances adopted by the Board of County Commissioners or
by initiative or referendum after the adoption of this code shall be adopted in the form of
amendments to this Code, referring to the specific section or other portion of the code
being amended."
Discussion:
The creation of a new Dry Creek RUA requires that all three elements discussed above
be provided — creation of a new RUA area on the Urban Development Map; adoption of
new Goals and Policies specific to the Dry Creek RUA and added to Chapter 26 of the
Weld County Code, and adoption of a new Dry Creek RUA Map. If any of these three
elements is missing, remains undefined, or is not approved for adoption, then the RUA
may not be created.
The process of legal notifications, a press release, the referral process, and agency
meetings sponsored by the applicant are some of the ways in which this request for an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is being processed in a fair manner, consistent
with this Approval Standard.
The recommendation of denial is based upon the specific criteria required of the Weld County
Code, as discussed above. It is also based, in part, upon a review of the application materials
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 18
• submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses
from referral entities.
D. CONDITIONS IF APPROVAL
Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, staff recommends the
following conditions of such approval:
1. Prior to scheduling a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the
applicant shall submit the following to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services.
a. Modify the RUA Map Application Submittal, Section 5.0, Exhibit #12 to
reflect the following:
1. Add two additional K-8 Schools
2. Add a future transit parking site
3. Add a library site
4. Add a Community Park site
5. Add a Cultural facilities / Recreation Center site
6. Add a fire/ sheriff site
7. Clearly illustrate the Estate Neighborhood
8. Add buffers south and west of the Estate Neighborhood and along the
northern boundary of the RUA from the Estate Neighborhood to CR 21.
Also continue to the buffer along the southeastern portion of the site.
• 9. Rename "Trail Connections" to "Regional Trails"
b. The applicant shall define the following elements in terms of goals and
policies for potential inclusion into chapter 26 of the Weld County Code:
1. Employment Centers
2. Revise the proposed amendments to Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code. The
applicant proposed that Section 4.0 (Application Submittal) be included in Chapter 26
of the Weld County Code. Planning staff recommends the changes as found in
Attachment J.
3. Prior to submitting a Sketch Plan for either a portion or all of the RUA, future
applicants shall address the following items:
a. Provide evidence of an attempt to enter into a pre-annexation agreement
with Fort Lupton
b. Submit and have approved a Title 32 Special District.
c. Provide a "master transportation plan" that shows the hierarchy of roads to be
constructed, traffic capacities, and timing of construction tied to the
development phasing plan, for review by Weld County Public Works, as
indicated in their referral of September 24, 2009.
d. Provide a multi-basin wide master plan for stormwater for review by Weld
County Public Works, as indicated in their referral of September 24, 2009.
•
File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 19
• e. Provide evidence of an agreement with the school districts to provide a
voluntary capital construction school fee.
f. Verify water in terms of quality, quantity, dependability as being fiscally,
physically, and logistically available.
g. Develop a Recreation District
h. Form a Law Enforcement Authority
III. CONTEXT
A. BACKGROUND & PRE-SUBMITTAL
In preparation for submitting, the applicant conducted various stakeholder meetings.
Three open house meetings were held in the Spring 2009 for all landowners in the south
Weld County region between Highway 85 and 1-25. Attendance was generally good,
and planning staff members attended only to provide input about Weld County
regulations concerning urban development. The applicant also met individually with
various landowners during these months.
During this timeframe, the Board of County Commissioners provided guidance on the
submittal requirements for proposed amendments to create a new RUA, and the
applicant finalized which landowners would participate in the RUA application process.
The applicant indicates that they also met with a variety of stakeholders, including area
• municipalities and referral agencies. Planning staff has independently confirmed the
applicant's discussions with municipalities in particular. In preparing for application, the
Dry Creek Metropolitan District indicates it contacted over 40 agencies, as summarized
in Table #13 (found in Section 5.0, Application Submittal).
B. ADJACENT & REGIONAL LAND USES
All of the properties adjacent to the proposed sub-area are zoned (A) Agricultural. In
addition to traditional farming and ranching, the (A) Agricultural Zone District allows a
wide range of commercial and industrial uses. Residential densities are limited to one
residence per legal lot. Generally, lots surrounding the proposed RUA are about 80
acres in size, with the smallest being about 10 acres.
Land uses that immediately surround the site include dryland and irrigated farming, as
well as fallow lands. Some more intense land uses are in the immediate vicinity —
permits for a natural gas facility and control substation (Use by Special Review Permit
Nos. 2ndAmUSR-589, 3rdAmUSR-778), gravel mining (USR-1533), a landscaping
business (USR-1376), a kennel (USR-1261), and a meeting hall (USR-980).
Regionally the land uses are more varied. A built large-lot development — Todd Creek
Village — is located immediately to the south, within Adams County. The majority of the
Todd Creek subdivision is built-out. The historic unincorporated Weld townsite of
Wattenburg is located approximately '/ mile to the east of the site. There is only one
county Rural Residential subdivision anywhere in the area — the 4-lot Jacobucci
subdivision located a mile southwest of the proposed site.
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 20
• The proposed sub-area lies about 2 miles from Highway 85, and about 4 miles from
Interstate 25. Four municipalities are within the region. Dacono lies approximately 1
mile to the northwest. Portions of Fort Lupton lie 2 miles to the east, as do portions of
Brighton. Thornton city limits are within 1 mile of the southeast portion of the proposed
sub-area. Northglenn is located 2 miles to the west, and City and County of Broomfield
3 miles to the west, though neither is expected to expand.
The proposed Dry Creek RUA falls nearly completely outside of the land planning areas
defined by the surrounding municipalities in their respective comprehensive plans.
There are two exceptions. The northwest corner of the proposed sub-area (within
Section 21) of about 80 acres overlaps Dacono's planning area. Similarly, all of Section
28 -- the western third of the proposed RUA-- lies within Thornton's comprehensive plan
map, where it is anticipated as future "residential estate."
Four Intergovernmental Agreements ("IGAs") are known to apply to portions of the land
proposed for the Dry Creek RUA. (See Attachment C map.) The first two are with Weld
County. The Dacono-Weld IGA defines the "Southern Weld Planning Area,"
encompassing much of Section 28, in which a policy applies that "the COUNTY will
disapprove all proposals for Urban Development" to the extent legally possible. (Section
19-2-60.B, Weld County Code) Similarly, in the Fort Lupton-Weld IGA the County
agrees to "disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of the MUNICIPAL
Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area," which encompasses most of the eastern
half of the proposed RUA. (Section 19-12-50.B)
• A Fort Lupton-Brighton land use IGA commits each city to not annex on either side of
County Road 6, west to County Road 21. This means that the eastern third of the
proposed RUA, within Sections 26 and 35, if annexed in the future would have to be
annexed by Brighton, despite the proposal that Fort Lupton provide sewer service to the
site. Fourth, an IGA between Thornton and the Todd Creek Farms Metropolitan District
No. 1 (asserted by Thornton to be a predecessor to Todd Creek Village Metropolitan
District, the applicant) indicates that the District will not expand to provide service within
the City's Development Area. (As noted above, Section 28 lies within Thornton's
comprehensive planning area.)
The entire proposed Dry Creek RUA also lies within the Weld portion of the Denver
Regional Council of Governments ("DRCOG") Metropolitan Planning Organization
("MPO") area, a transportation planning district. Weld County is eligible for regional
transportation planning and funding in this area, but it is not subject to the land use
planning policies represented by the council of governments aspect of DRCOG.
C. URBAN "SPRAWL"
Another way to determine the characteristics of a potential new urban area is to discuss
what it should not be. Policy-makers, Weld citizens, and the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan warn against the dangers of "sprawl," so any proposed new
Regional Urbanization Area must be designed around policies that avoid the
characteristics of sprawl.
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 21
• "Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact" (Smart Growth America, 2001) is one of the most
comprehensive attempts to quantify and define sprawl. It focuses on the following four
factors that determine the level of sprawl, "the process in which the spread of
development across the landscape far outpaces population growth."
1) Residential density
"Residential density is the most widely recognized indicator of sprawl.
Spread-out suburban subdivisions are a hallmark of sprawl, and can make it
difficult to provide residents with adequate nearby shopping or service, civic
centers, or transportation options. Yet higher density does not necessarily
mean high-rises. Densities that support smart growth can be as low as six or
seven houses per acre, typical of many older urban single-family
neighborhoods. Such densities allow neighborhoods that can support
convenience stores, small neighborhood schools, and more frequent transit
service." ("Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact," p. 9)
2) Neighborhood mix of homes, jobs, and services
"One of the characteristics of sprawl is the strict segregation of different land
uses. In sprawling regions, housing subdivision are typically separated —
often by many miles — from shopping, offices, civic centers, and even
schools. This separation of uses is what requires every trip to be made by
•
car, and can result in a "jobs-housing imbalance" in which workers cannot
find housing close to their place of work. More traditional development
patterns tend to mix different land uses, often placing housing near shops, or
offices above storefronts. Measuring the degree of mix is therefore an
important descriptor of sprawl." ("Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact," p. 10)
3) Strength of activity centers and metropolitan centers
"Metropolitan centers, be they downtowns, small towns, or so-called "edge
cities," are concentrations of activity that help businesses thrive, and support
alternative transportation modes and multipurpose trip making. They foster a
sense of place in the urban landscape. Centeredness can be represented by
concentrations of either population or employment. It can also reflect a single
dominant center or multiple subcenters Centering appears to operate
quite independently of residential density; metro areas can have strong
centers with or without high density." ("Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact,"
p.11)
4) Accessibility of the street network
Street networks can be dense or sparse, interconnected or disconnected.
Blocks carved out by streets can be short and small, or long and large. Busy
arterials that are fed by residential streets that end in cul-de-sacs are typical
of sprawl; they create huge super-blocks that concentrate automobile traffic
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 22
• onto a few routes and hamper accessibility via transit, walking and biking.
Compact development generally includes a network of interconnected streets
with shorter blocks that allow greater accessibility and a broader choice of
routes for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists." ("Measuring Sprawl and Its
Impact," p.12)
D. RESIDENTIAL DEMAND
Households in a 5-mile radius around the propose sub-area are reported to be slightly
larger and a bit younger than those in the entire Denver Metropolitan Area (i.e., the eight
county region surrounding Denver). They earn about 95% of the median household
income of the Denver Metro Area. (Applicant Submittal, Appendix C, Section 2.0.5)
Without elaboration, the application indicates that 325 new residences will be demanded
within a 5-mile radius within the next 5 years. The application also suggests that "over
the next 30 years, demand for new home construction is projected to increase to over
425 per year," although it does not clarify when or how that increase will accelerate.
(Application Submittal, Appendix C, Section 2.2.6) Considering that a 5-mile radius
includes major sections of Brighton, Dacono, and Thornton, absorption of the 300+
homes over the next 5 years would seem to be easily accommodated in these
municipalities.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Little is provided concerning the economic impact to area municipalities. The cities of
•
Brighton, Thornton and Fort Lupton express concern in the referral comments that the
proposed RUA would be detrimental to municipalities in the region and impact their
future commercial growth.
F. EMPLOYMENT
The submittal indicates more than 1,000 employers within a 5-mile radius of the site.
(Application Submittal, Appendix C, Section 2.1.1) These account for between 7,377
and 9,176 employees. Key employers are government (local, school, post office, etc.),
medical, retail, and service (Halliburton, Leed Fabrication, etc.). Vestas Wind Systems
is expected to employee up to 1,350 workers at the new Brighton facility.
IV. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISITICS
A. SITE CHARACTERISTICS / CONSTRAINTS
The site is characterized by a mixture of natural vegetation and farming, along with a
dispersed pattern of rural urban residences. Natural vegetation in the region consists
mainly of short grass prairie, and some riparian areas bisect the proposed RUA as well,
containing Plains cottonwood, willows, and, increasingly, some invasive species such as
Russian olive and tamarisk. Overall land cover in the area, however, is dryland farming
and irrigated cropland. Winter wheat is the predominant crop in the area. Less than
10% of the area is considered prime farmland of statewide importance, as identified by
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 23
• the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource Conservation Services, but the
vast remainder is considered "prime if irrigated."
B. SOILS & GEOLOGY
The site is characterized by loam/clay loam soils that are deep, well-drained, and slow-
to-moderate permeable. Along the Big Dry Creek, soils are Weld and Olney. The
majority of the site is flat, with the highpoint located to the southeast of the proposed
area. No significant geo-hazards have been identified in the area at this time. The
subject property is located south of, but not on, strippable coal resources.
C. FLOODPLAIN & DRAINAGE
Big Dry Creek, which has its origins in Stanley Lake in Westminster, runs south-north
diagonally through the western third of the proposed sub-area. Big Dry Creek has not
be confined or channelized significantly by development activity and is still allowed to
meander naturally. Some significant erosion problems exist along the channel, forming
vertical soil cliffs on some outside banks of the stream. Irrigation ditches that run parallel
to Big Dry Creek make both the ditches and the stream susceptible to flash flooding.
Approximate 100-year Flood Boundaries were delineated over 25 years ago by the
Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). These are approximate and
would have to be further defined if specific development is proposed for the area in
proximity to Big Dry Creek. It is also likely that channel stabilization and on-line regional
detention basins would be necessary as flood control measures.
Drainage on the proposed RUA all runs to the north and is part of the much larger
•
watershed that feeds Big Dry Creek. Big Dry Creek Box Elder Creek is a tributary of the
South Platte River. Urban drainage criteria would need to be met to address stormwater
impacts. A stormwater plan would integrate water quality and water quantity control.
V. PROPOSED SERVICES
A. ACCESS &TRANSPORATION
Regional vehicular access to the site would come from primarily from County Road 6
(east-west, leading to both 1-25 and Highway 85), and, from the south, via County Road
17 (Quebec), County Road 19 (Yosemite), and County Road 21 (no direct connection to
the Denver metro grid).
The submittal indicates that approximately 50,700 external vehicle-trips will be
generated on an average weekday, at projected build-out in 2035. A significant number
of these trips will be oriented east/west, with approximately 30,000 Average Daily Trips
projected in 2035 to go in each direction, towards both the 1-25 and Highway 85
corridors. Average Daily Trips in 2030 going south are projected to be less, with the
highest amount along County Road 17 (Quebec) at 25,000. ("Traffic Impact Analysis:
Dry Creek RUA," LSC Transportation Consultant, Inc., July 30, 2009, Application
Submittal Appendix A.)
• File 2009-xx, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 24
• The application indicates a number of improvements that would be required for these
regional roads. (Application Submittal, pp. 25 & "Traffic Analysis" [Application Appendix
Al, pp. 22) The application also acknowledges access limitations and traffic control
improvements that would be required.
Weld County Public Works, in their referral dated September 24, 2009, did not disagree
with these findings, and indicated that such improvements be required prior to, or as a
condition of, application for any Sketch Plan of the area. A "Dry Creek RUA Master
Transportation Plan," modifications to the draft RUA Map, and Access Control Criteria to
be added in the Development Standards for Chapter 26 are all listed as proposed
Conditions of Approval, should the RUA be adopted.
It is possible that significant improvements that are located well off-site, such as at the
intersection of County 6 and Highway 85 or widening of the bridge across the Platte
River, would be required to be committed prior to future development of the RUA. These
were not identified or specifically committed to in the submittal. Rather, these would be
identified in the Dry Creek RUA Master Transportation Plan referred to above, and
required at the time of zoning.
The concept of a "commuter-shed," or the areas to which residents would need to
commute, is another measurement of both transportation and services demand. The
applicant's submittal does not offer a detailed analysis or mapping of this, but the
submitted TDVMD IGA Study Area Report provides some insights. (Applicant Submittal,
Appendix C, TDVMD IGA Study Area Report, Section 2.1.9 & Regional Employment
Map 2006) Per the submittal, if residents were living in the proposed RUA today, the
• following activity centers would be located 30 minutes from the site:
• 1-25 & 1-70 in Denver metro area
• North Commerce City
• Broomfield Tech Center
• 1-25 & Highway 66
• Gilcrest
• Hudson
It is important to note that commuter times to these destinations will increase over time
as new stoplights and congestion are introduced into the regional system.
B. SCHOOLS
School service would be provided primarily by Weld County School District RE-8 (Fort
Lupton). A small portion of the proposed RUA — about 20% -- lies within School District
RE-27J (Brighton).
In its three referral letters dated September 17, September 22, and November 20, 2009
the Fort Lupton School District did not disagree with the applicant's demand analysis of
2,850 new students at build-out. The applicant concludes that this would require three
new K-8 schools and one new high school for the mid-level population projection. Two
additional elementary sites would be required for the maximum number of dwelling units.
• The Dry Creek RUA Map reflects the approximate location of these sites, which should
File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 25
• be dedicated at the time of subdivision. The minimum lot sizes for schools are reflected
in the Development Standards proposed as Chapter 26.
A school foundation could be formed to allow for voluntary contributions made by
developers in conjunction with the creation of a Dry Creek RUA, but the School District
indicates that this is only a partial solution to what would be required is projected to be
for the newly proposed development to pay its own way in terms of constructing the
newly-required schools.
C. EMERGENCY SERVICE
As an unincorporated area, law enforcement would be provided by the Weld County
Sheriff's Department. The application suggests that because higher-cost homes are
projected for the site that per-capita sheriff services will be lower, but it also suggests
that land for a sub-station could be dedicated and a Law Enforcement Authority taxing
district could be formed to fund service.
In its referral comments from October 14, 2009, the Sheriff's Office requests that a Law
Enforcement Authority ("LEA") be required; additional taxes from this authority, up to
seven mills, would help pay for urban-level safety services.
The existing Greater Brighton Fire Protection District would serve the majority of the site.
A small portion of the proposed RUA lies within the Mountain View Fire Protection
District. The Brighton Fire District, in its referral dated September 25, 2009, indicates
that land dedication of 2.5 acres would be necessary to partially accommodate the
•
increased services demands that would accompany an urban population.
D. WATER & SANITATION
The applicant suggests the use of a State Title 32 metropolitan district, a type of quasi-
governmental taxing and service authority, to fund water and sanitation service for the
future residents of the proposed RUA. The applicant suggests that Fort Lupton would
provide sewer service to the site; the City of Fort Lupton's 208 Sewer Service Boundary
was amended in 2007 to include the subject site, and the City has executed an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Todd Creek Metropolitan District to serve the
area.
Water is proposed to be provided through contract to the Todd Creek Metropolitan
District to the south. The District has amended their internal future service area plans to
include the proposed RUA and a greater area around the RUA. However, as with
sewer, a new metropolitan taxing district (or an expansion of the existing one) would
have to be established. New metropolitan districts, or existing ones that are proposed
for a material modification, must be approved by the Board County Commissioners, if
located in unincorporated portions of the County.
The application includes some information about Todd Creek Metropolitan District water.
(Attachment G) However, neither the amount of water that would be demanded at build-
out nor the legal or physical source for future water are defined. It appears that future
development within the RUA would have to provide water to the project, without
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 26
• identifying potential sources or likely costs. In order to evaluate whether there is an
adequate level of water service for the future, the quality, quantity, and dependability
should be defined, and it should be demonstrated that the water is reasonably available
fiscally, physically, and logistically.
E. UTILITIES
United Power would provide electricity to the site, while Xcel Energy would provide
natural gas service. Qwest and Comcast would provide phone, cable, and
communications service.
An overhead transmission line runs east-west through the proposed area, which likely
would need to be developed around. A regional natural gas line and water lines
associated with Aurora's Prairie Water Project are located just east of the proposed
RUA.
F. PARKS, TRAILS, & RECREATION
The applicant proposes parks on three scale levels: Neighborhood, Local, and
Community. (These are called "Pocket," "Local," and Regional" in the Submittal
Application, Page 53, but they are proposed to be re-named as a Condition of Approval,
in order to be consistent with the terms used in other parts of Weld County.) The
standards proposed for inclusion in Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code indicate that
•
Neighborhood Parks should be found within each subdivision and located so as to be
within '/ mile of any given residence.
Local Parks are to be available for multi-use fields and more extensive play equipment,
and should be found within a ''A mile of all residences. Community Parks support
community events and gatherings, as well as formal recreational sports and extensive
facilities. Staff's preliminary analysis is that the RUA should contain one Community
Park of 50-acres, based on Front Range park land dedication standards, although this
should be further examined during any future Change of Zone application. (Submittal
Application, Page 53)
The submitted RUA Map does not include a conceptual Community Park location.
(Application Submittal, Section 5.0, Exhibit #12) Because of the possibility of future
fragmented ownership across the RUA, a 50-acre park general location should be
designated on the RUA map, just as a regional trail, schools, and neighborhood retail
sites are. This is found as a proposed Condition if the Planning Commission
recommends approval.
The application supports Goals and Policies concerning trails that are consistent with
urban development best practices. (Submittal Application, Page 59) These trail goals
would be codified during the Change of Zone phase. The draft RUA Map includes
conceptual locations for Regional Trails. (Submittal Application, Section 5.0, Exhibit
#12)
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 27
• While talking generally about funding sources for all potential service, the submittal does
not specifically address a recreation district. In its referral dated September 25, 2009,
the Weld County Environmental Health Department recommends developing a
recreation district, to allow and facilitate recreation opportunities for future residents, in a
manner that does not fragment amenities that might otherwise be available only to
residents of a certain subdivision within the RUA. This is included as a proposed
Condition, if the RUA is accepted.
G. SOCIAL SERVICES
The impact to social service was analyzed by the applicant, who indicated that that they
anticipate below-average demand for Weld County social services, such as child
welfare, due to the anticipated higher-income nature of the development. (Applicant
Submittal, Page 22) However, in its referral dated September 28, 2009, the Weld
County Department of Human Services indicates that planning should take place for
additional child welfare staff, and that additional foster and group homes should be
anticipated. As such, zoning options allowing such facilities should be tracked for
inclusion during any future Change of Zone application.
H. LIBRARY & CULTURAL SERVICES
The High Plains Library District would provide library services to the future RUA, which
would be included in the tax district. The District seeks a library within a 15-minute drive
of every urban home. The applicant suggests a land dedication, consistent with this
• goal. A Condition of Approval recommends modifying the draft RUA Map to include a
conceptual library site.
The application does not include land or contemplate facilities for cultural amenities that
would associated with a town, such as a community gather space. A Condition of
Approval seeks to address this.
VI. CONCLUSION & SUMMARY
The recommendation for denial is based, broadly, on the following summarized items:
a) The Weld County Comprehensive Plan more strongly encourages urban-scale
development in and around existing urban areas. This application does not
overcome the burden of proof that would justify development outside of these
existing areas.
b) The proposal is very reliant on paying for public infrastructure and services via
metropolitan district taxes. At the same time, the benefits from sales tax revenue are
not possible in this proposed unincorporated community, despite a scenario where
future residents would be paying sales taxes in the nearby towns.
c) The interim need for additional residential zoning is not definite, based on existing
zoning in the County and analysis of the greater Denver metropolitan area market.
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 28
• d) It is unclear as to whether the market assumptions behind the proposed concerning
residential absorption will be achievable. It remains unknown as to whether County
revenues that would be generated by development of the area would support a
proportionate share of County service demands.
e) The submittal does not overcome the characteristics of "sprawl," as measured and
identified by recent land use planning research.
f) Providing and sustaining service levels is one important element in the consideration
of urbanizing the south Weld region. However, there are uncertainties with the
submitted plan in several areas, such as water, traffic, schools, etc. Existing
municipalities and service providers are concerned with under-utilization of existing
infrastructure.
g) Adequate future employment and commercial opportunities are not included in the
proposal.
h) The ability to provide services is only one consideration in the creation of a town,
which is effectively the case with this proposal. Livability issues such as urban
design, one's ability to identify with a community, and the ability to coordinate social
interactions such as sports teams are all sociologically important.
i) The proposal for urban-scale development directly conflicts with existing
Intergovernmental Agreements ("IGA's") held by regional stakeholders.
• j) Few referral agencies indicated support for this application.
k) Through a coordinated inter-regional effort with the surrounding municipalities, a
larger, more comprehensive regional plan could be developed that would result in a
more integrated and truly mixed-use community that is fully sustainable (and likely
incorporated) and which would respond directly to the expanding dynamics of the
Denver Metropolitan area.
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area("RUA") Page 29
• VII. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Proposed RUA Boundary
Attachment B Draft Revised Dry Creek RUA Map
Attachment C Jurisdictional Influences Map (IGA's, etc., in the Region)
Attachment D Referral Agency Comments
Attachment E Applicant's Response to Referrals
Attachment F Correspondence
Attachment G Todd Creek Metro District Water Information Letter (12/9/2009)
Attachment H Sky to Ground Financial Analysis Report (12/15/09)
Attachment I MetroStudy Market Study Report (12/11/09)
Attachment J Recommended Revised Weld County Chapter 26 Additions
Attachment K Dry Creek RUA Submittal Notebook ("Applicant's Submittal")
•
• File 2009-XX, Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") Page 30
•
Attachment— J
THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER IS FOR INCLUSION
AS A SECTION IN CHAPTER 26 OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE.
•
Chapter 26
• 1
• Article IV Dry Creek RUA
Section 26-4-10. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. A framework plan for the Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area(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 sections, as well
• as all policies and regulations found in Chapter 22 (Weld County
Comprehensive Plan), all zoning and subdivision 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's overall vision, the surrounding context, and in
accordance with general RUA Goals and Policies outlined in the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. The framework 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's
agricultural heritage. The framework plan seeks to ensure that future RUA
development fits into the contextual character and planning efforts of the
surrounding area while creating an attractive living and working community.
• 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 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 RUA are
projected to be between 66,000 sq. ft. of Gross Floor Area(GFA) and 187,000 sq.
ft. of GFA. These non-residential uses include but are not limited to small
neighborhood retail and civic uses. These uses are projected to employ between
130 and 373 people (exclusive of school employment). Including school
employment, between 218 and 605 people would work within the 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 and the Dry Creek RUA school facilities requirements. Around 20% of
the Dry Creek RUA is within Brighton 27J School District 80%of the boundary
is within Fort Lupton Weld County 8. The RUA population projections would
justify approximately 3 K-8 schools and 1 high school. The general locations of
• these schools are depicted in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map and are
generally located along Weld County Road 4, which is envisioned to be a green
parkway linking Big Dry Creek with the Brantner Irrigation Ditch to the east.
Section 26-4-50. Dry Creek RUA Generalized planned land use categories
A. The goal of the overall Dry Creek RUA Framework Plan structure land
use categories is to establish a harmonious design that protects and
enhances the value and character of surrounding land uses by attracting
clean and non-polluting land uses to the community and minimizing
obstruction of the view of others through the 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.
B. General Planned Land Uses
In the Dry Creek RUA, land use is grouped into four land use 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
• 3
are as follows:
1. Mixed Use Neighborhoods
2. Suburban Neighborhoods
3. Estate Neighborhoods
4. Limiting Site Factors
Each land use category consists of distinct and unique qualities and is 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.
C. Mixed Use Neighborhoods
The goal of Mixed Use Neighborhoods within the Dry Creek RUA is 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 minimize traffic and parking issues for the adjacent
residents, while promoting compatibility between the commercial and
• nearby residential areas.
POLICIES
a. Higher Density Nodes: Mixed use neighborhoods are intended
to provide a safe,proximate, and higher density activity areas
offering convenience goods and services to residents of
surrounding neighborhoods. Environmental and service-related
impacts are minimal.
b. Properly Scaled: Non-residential uses should be appropriately
located and scaled within easy access and integrated within the
surrounding neighborhood context.
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.
• 4
• 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. 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.
• f 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.
g. 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.
h. 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.
i. 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.
j. Building Integration: Mitigate large-footprint commercial
structures by minimizing the impact of parking areas and
incorporating more human-scaled streetscapes into designs.
k. Building Orientation: Reinforce the character and quality of
the streets through the development of buildings that provide
orientation and access towards the street.
• 5
•
D. Suburban Neighborhoods:
The goals of Subruban Neighborhood residential districts within the Dry
Creek RUA is that they be cohesive, identifiable, and diverse, while still
being integrated into the regional context of the surrounding area.
POLICIES
a. Developments are encouraged to coordinate neighborhood design
efforts with regards to circulation provisions, conservation of
natural features, and relationship to established neighborhood
areas.
b. A diversity of housing types is encouraged to include both owner-
occupied and rental housing, which serves all economic segments
of the population and match local incomes and age groups.
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. 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. 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. 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
j. Adequate Services: Improvements associated with residential
development should be based on the direct impact those
• 6
• 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
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. Neighborhood Emphasis: Development within the Dry Creek
RUA is encouraged to be focused in distinct neighborhoods that
are walkable, pedestrian friendly, and integrated into the regional
open space and circulation network.
I. Walkability of Residential Neighborhoods: Suburban residential
neighborhoods should be pedestrian friendly and walkable.
Detached sidewalks and pedestrian and bicycle paths are
• encouraged.
m. Neighborhood Interconnectivity: Neighborhoods located
adjacent to future development areas should provide opportunities
for future roadway and open space extensions. Cul-de-sacs and
other dead end streets are discouraged unless necessitated by the
natural or built constraints of the site. Where cul-de-sacs are used,
pedestrian connections should be provided between the street and
adjacent open space areas, trails, and other common areas to
promote neighborhood connectivity.
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 is strongly
discouraged.
E. 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
• 7
• while preserving the vegetation, significant geological features, wildlife
habitat/corridors, views, and privacy.
POLICIES
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).
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).
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.
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. Rural Neighborhood Character: Rural Residential Estates should
be designed with development patterns,design features, amenities,
and architecture that support a high-quality rural character.
g. Pedestrian Interconnectivity: Pedestrian connections to
surrounding properties should be included, where feasible, to
ensure connectivity between adjoining properties as they are
developed.
h. Visual Screening of Rural Land uses: Perimeter treatments,
entry ways, and setbacks are encouraged to be individually tailored
to each development proposal, but should support a high-quality
rural character.
i. Development Clustering and Transitioning: Development
clustering techniques to preserve natural amenities, scenic view
corridors, and agricultural viable land is encouraged. Residential
Estate developments should be designed as transitional areas
between higher intensity urban uses and existing rural uses
surrounding the Dry Creek RUA.
j. Small-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.
• 8
F Limiting Site Factors
Limiting Site Factors area are areas comprised of limiting site factors
contain 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 and gas
pipeline easements, and oil and gas processing and distribution facilities.
The goal within the Litmiting Site Factor areas are to discourage
development within limiting factor areas, 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, floodplains, transmission lines, significant
regional oil and gas lines, and significant oil and gas processing and
distribution facilities.
POLICIES:
• a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and
Policies: Goals and Policies regarding the Protection and
Preservation of Limiting 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 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
improvements unless specifically permitted for restoration,
enhancement, or creation of additional habitat.
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
• 9
• 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
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 RUA by the responsible party. Mitigation will be
accomplished through restoration, enhancement, or creation
efforts.
vi. 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.
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)
ii. 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 sites contain factors that limit certain types of
development, these areas are, nevertheless, usable for agricultural
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 this 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 this RUA.
c. Importance of Limiting Factors as Open Space: Development in
the 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.
• 10
• 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 Factors in
Appendix 26-S Thy Creek RUA Map.
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. Create, preserve, and enhance grassland buffers around
Sensitive or Critical Habitats within areas defined as
limiting factors in Appendix 26-S Dry Creek RUA Map.
e. Importance as Water Resource: Within limiting factor areas,
development within the RUA is encouraged to utilize Low Impact
Development(LID) methods of reducing impermeable surfaces,
create stormwater 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 stormwater facilities
• to take advantage of and enhance existing water resources and
habitat.
£ Interconnection of Limiting 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.
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).
h. Discourage New Development within Limiting 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.
i. Buffering of Existing Oil and Gas Production and
Distribution: Oil and gas drilling, processing, and distribution in
the Dry Creek RUA are a significant economic component. It is
• 11
• important that proper mitigation measures such as screening and
buffering are employed to address potential conflicts between
existing industrial areas and future urban development.
j. 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 the
proposed floodplain changes.
Section 24-4-60 COMMUNITY AND EMERGENCY FACILITIES
The goal of locations designated for Community and Emergency Facilities is 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:
• 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.
- 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.
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 RUA, to encourage parity.
• 12
• - Review impact fee policies for within the RUA, if developmed
for within or around it, every three years and after each
decennial census 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.
- Establish ways to have a common proportionate impact fee
among the multiple jurisdictions within the larger SouthWeld
County region,perhaps within all of the Metropolitan Planning
Area.
c. Embedded Community Facilities in Neighborhoods: Locating
schools, a library, and sheriff and fire satellite stations within the
community are hallmarks of the charter the Dry Creek RUA seeks to
create. They are desired land uses that 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.
- Development in the RUA should participate in joint planning with
the 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.
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.
• 13
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 RUA
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 24-4-70. 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. 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 structure. The percentage of coverage on a lot
shall not include the area of the lot or development designated as open space. The
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
Maximum Lot Covcra:c Pcrcenuric
COv Bred
Nei•hborhood Mixed Use 85%
Suburban Residential Nei:hborhoods 60%
Estate Nei•hborhoods 40%
Limitin_ Site Factor NA
Section 24-4-80 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
primarily by the limiting factors on the site. These are as follows: Dry Creek
Riparian Corridor and Floodplain, the Brantner Irrigation Ditches, Critical and
Sensitive habitats, and Utility Easements. These environmental constraints can be
• 14
• 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 addition to the
limiting 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
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 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 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 responsibilities.
v. Encourage native, drought-tolerant landscaping in open space and
new landscaping in developed areas.
b. Minimum Standards: The minimum percentages of land in each land use
designation devoted to Open Space and limiting factors are listed in
Table 26-3 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.
• 15
•
Table 26-4 Minimum Open Space Standards
Minimum Open Space for Percentage Covered
each Land Use
Designation
Neighborhood Mixed Use 15 %
Suburban Residential 15 %
Estate Neighborhoods 25 %
Limiting Site Factor NA
c. Provision of Open Space: Developers will dedicate open space, initiate land trades
within the 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 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.
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. Emphasize Importance of Habitat: Development of a parks and trails system
should avoid negative impacts to Sensitive or Critical habitat.
• 16
• 1. Management of Open Space: The Recreation District 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. The Recreation
District 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, in order to provide a diversity of water-based active
and passive recreational opportunities as well as wildlife habitat.
h. Create a Visual and Attractive Environment:
Development within the RUA should provide a natural appearance and
configuration of graded land forms in open space and stormwater and
drainage facilities to create aesthetic non-engineered appearance of
community features
Section 26-4-90 BUFFER CONDITIONS
The goal for designated Buffer Condition areas within the Dry Creek RUA is 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
surrounding urban development. Accordingly, the following policies are
established to protect and preserve the appearance, character, and value of
property within the RUA and buffer adjacent more rural uses from the adverse
urban development of the RUA.
POLICIES:
a. Screen or buffer between incompatible adjacent land uses:
All land within 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
• 17
• be used. Distance, plant material,plant density, and land forms should be
employed to ensure that incompatible land uses are adequately buffered
and screened.
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.
c. Buffer or screen between development and oil and gas operations
areas: A landscape buffer should be employed for the outer 50 feet of the
setback from an oil and gas well or operations area. This buffer area may
be used for 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.
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
• 18
•
a. 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.
b. Compatibility with Existing Zoning Standards: Common open space
shall be delineated in the Sketch Plan phase of the land use process and
meet the performance standards established in Chapters 24 and 27 of the
Weld County Code.
c. 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:
• Neighborhood 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-neighborhood scale. They are ideally located
within 0.25 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.
• Local Parks—Neighborhood parks provide places for informal
recreation and gathering places within walking distance of most
residences (0.5 mile). 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.
▪ Community Parks—Community parks serve multiple
neighborhoods (typically within 1 to 1.5 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.
d. 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. Development within the 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.
• 19
• b. Development within the RUA should design neighborhoods that
integrate parks, trails and recreational facilities with utility
infrastructure and transportation systems such as detention basins
that serve as athletic fields when not flooded.
c. Development within the RUA should organize and conjoin parks,
trails, open space with schools, churches, and other quasi-public
land uses where possible to create larger, more contiguous parks
and open space network
Section 24-4-120 AGRICULTURE
The goal for agricultural uses within and nearby the Dry Creek RUA is to
preserve agricultural productivity and values.
POLICIES
a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
Protection and Preservation of Limiting 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.
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.
c. Compatibility with "Right to Farm:" Respect the continuation of
agricultural land uses and operations in the area surrounding the RUA.
Fanning 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 24-4-130 ARCHEOLOGICAL,CULTURAL AND HISTORIC
RESOURCES
It is a goal for within the Dry Creek RUA to preserve and protect archeological,
cultural, and historic resources.
POLICIES:
a. Compatibility with Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
Protection and Preservation of Limiting Factor Areas need to be consistent
• 20
• with those outlined in Section 22-5-110 F (Article V Natural Resources) of the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
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 24-4-140 LANDSCAPED MEDIANS AND ROADSIDES:
It is a goal for within and around the Dry Creek RUA that major roadways, along
with the greenway connection proposed along WCR 4,play an important role in
the function and image of the Dry Creek RUA. All major arterials and WCR 4
should incorporate landscape design features. The following design policies relate
to the visual quality of these roadways.
POLICIES
a. Integration of Roadside Planting: Plantings along road rights-of-way
shall be integrated with the rest of the site.
b. Landscape Setbacks along WCR 4: A minimum landscape setback
• along Weld County Road 4 should be established and significant
landscape treatment should be proposed for any development along Weld
County Road 4 to ensure that Weld County Road 4 has a green character
and functions as a green connection between Dry Creek Corridor and the
rest of the RUA.
c. 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 and 24 of the Weld County Code.
d. Screening of Adjacent Uses through Landscaping Berming and
Clustering: Uses adjacent to Weld County Road 21 and Weld County
Road 4 should be screened from Weld County Road 4 and Weld County
Road 21 through best practice landscape treatment including, but not
limited to, landscape berming, berm-walls, tree clustering, fences, and
high-intensity planting.
e. Maintenance: Maintenance of landscaping in landscaped medians and
along roadsides shall be by a metropolitan district or other approved
entity.
Section 24-4-150 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
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
21
• 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. Circulation System:
1. The proposed RUA circulation system is exhibited in Appendix 26-
S Dry 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."
2. 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.
3. 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 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 approval of any Final Plat.
• 22
• 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. The 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:
1. Introduction: Describe the proposed development and parameters
of the study area.
2. 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.
i. 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.
ii. Conduct a peak-hour intersection level of service analysis
for the intersections.
iii. Determine whether the existing daily traffic volumes
exceed the arterial daily volume standards as identified in
the 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.
3. Cumulative Conditions:
i. Identify previously approved or anticipated developments
that may affect the study area's circulation system.
ii. Generate, distribute, and assign traffic to the existing
roadway network.
iii. Determine annual growth rates and project future traffic
volumes for the time frame corresponding to project build-
out.
iv. Identify funded circulation improvements, both public and
private, that will be constructed prior to the proposed
development's occupancy.
v. Conduct a peak-hour intersection level of service analysis
and compare daily volume forecasts to street standards
• 23
• assuming cumulative developments, annual growth rates,
and funded improvements.
vi. Determine mitigation measures to offset cumulative
conditions if the level of service exceeds the Dry Creek
RUA area standards.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Existing + Committed + Project (E+C+P) Traffic Volumes and
Level of Service:
vii. Add project a.m. and p.m. peak-hour and daily traffic
volumes to existing plus committed traffic volumes.
viii. Conduct intersection level of service analysis and
determine whether daily traffic volumes exceed street
• standard thresholds.
8. Signal Warrant Analysis:
ix. 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 warrants for those locations on the transportation
network where signals are proposed.
9. 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. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures will be implemented to
provide the needed improvements to offset project impacts as
determined by the traffic impact analysis.
c. Design Standards
1. 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.
• 24
• 2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Signage & Striping: All signage and stripping within the Dry
Creek RUA area shall comply with Manual on Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD).
d. Transit: As development occurs, the feasibility of a public transit system
in the Dry Creek RUA area should be examined.
Section 24-4-160 TRAILS:
It is a goal that, within and around the Dry Creek RUA, that the transportation and
circulation system should provide for an extensive network of neighborhood,
• local, and regional trails open to all types of non-motorized travel that link
25
• 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Section 24-4-170 INFRASTRUCTURE
It is a goal within the Dry Creek RUA that the use of centralized water and
sewer systems 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.
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:
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.
• 26
• 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 development within the RUA should be discouraged
from using septic systems.
d. Setbacks and Design of Oil and Gas Facilities. Development should be
set back from oil and gas wells for safety reasons. Development should
seek ways to make these buffered areas as attractive and useful as
possible. Mitigation of oil and gas well through color, profile, and visual
screening is encouraged, and the use of low-profile tanks as new wells
are established is recommended.
e. Minimize Impact of Utility Transmission and Distribution Systems.
Utility providers and easement holders need to ensure that electric,
natural gas,petroleum, and other generation, distribution, pipeline and
storage facilities are located in a manner that is safe, environmentally
sensitive, and minimizes aesthetic impacts. Lines will be required to be
placed underground to the maximum extent feasible.
f. 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 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 RUA that respects
both the rights and uses of surface owners and the rights and uses of oil
and gas mineral owners and operators.
g. 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 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.
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:.
• 27
• 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 facilities and
buffer areas as attractive and useful as possible.
Section 24-4-180 DRAINAGE
The purpose of the Stormwater 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.
The policies set forth in this document for the Dry Creek RUA are intended to
define the responsibilities of the developers within the 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.
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.
• 28
• 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.
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 stormwater 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 stormwater runoff once initial
water rights obligations are met.
c. Surface Water Treatment:
i. Treat surface runoff through water quality measures prior to
discharge to streams and rivers during and after construction
activities.
ii. Control erosion and sedimentation due to wind and water to the
• extent practical and in accordance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
iii. Reduce point and non-point source discharges of pollutants
through the use of non-structural and structural BMPs.
d. Promote the preservation and enhancement of aquatic resources,
riparian corridors, wetlands and wildlife habitat:
e. Provide recreational, aesthetic and functional use of natural water
resources
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.
i. Reduce and repair stream bath erosion through sound engineering
design, fluvial geomorphologic principles and "living river"
concepts.
ii. Assure that changes in land use do not result in unstable conditions
that may lead to stream bank instability or erosion.
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.
• 29
• 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.
g. Encourage cooperation: Participate and encourage cooperation between
counties, municipalities, special districts, companies, and other
governmental entities pertaining to regulations involving stormwater and
floodplain management. Coordinate construction activities with the ditch
companies to avoid activities that may interfere with filling reservoirs
during the spring.
h. Operate and maintain stormwater and floodplain infrastructure on a
regular basis:
i. Provide long-term, legally binding operation and maintenance
agreements for the continued operation of stormwater and
floodplain infrastructure.
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.
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 stormwater management system, such
as Stonnwater Utilities, Special Service Areas (SSAs), and/or
• Special Districts.
Section 24-4-190 GROUNDWATER:
Proposed development within the Dry Creek RUA should preserve, protect, and
improve groundwater aquifers and local areas of high groundwater.
POLICIES:
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.
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 RUA must obtain a general and/or specific
• 30
• Stormwater Discharge Permit as appropriate to the situation
if any discharges of stormwater into receiving waters are
anticipated or proposed.
iii. Site developers and/or construction contractors must
obtain, develop, and manage a Stormwater Management
Plan (SWMP), adhere to any reporting requirements, and
make said plan available to all employees and CDPHE.
Section 24-4-200 WILDLIFE
Development within the Dry Creek RUA should preserve and protect wildlife,
and enhance wildlife habitat.
POLICIES:
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
b. 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
c. Compatibility with state wildlife statutes: To the greatest extent
possible, development with the 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.
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 incorporation of these features as amenities in future
neighborhoods. Invasive species should not be preserved.
Section 24-4-210 VEGETATION
• 31
• Development within the Dry Creek RUA should encourage healthy and diverse
native plant communities and preserve and protect unique plant species.
Policies:
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.
• 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.
b. 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").
c. 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.
d. Promote the use of diverse and adapted plant species: Table cross
• sections are 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.
• 32
• Add to: Appendix 26-B
Service Providers for the Dry Creek RUA
Scnice PruViticr
Domestic Water TCVMD Metro District
Sanitation TCVMD Metro District
Cgs Xccl 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
•
• 33
•
Add to: Appendix 26-C
Table #7: Projected Residential Population and Uses in Dry Creek RUA
Projected Population Net Min Max Min Max Mm o Max
,
Acres Density Density DU DU opulation opulatior
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 Sae 6 297
Table#8: Retail, Wee, 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, Ci)./ic 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.
• 34
• 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
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 Mm. 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
• 35
•
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
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
• 36
• Add to: Appendix 26-O
Dry Creek RUA 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
•
• 37
Add: Appendix 26-S
a
ti g
CRS i
° .>
:II, CR4.3
11
M1
Draft
Dry Creek
RUA Map
a� »w - —
Er::
mg—
CR3 nl
• 38
• ,
Add: Appendix 26-T
-
I
C I:r 9 I lii • 5 —
33� i
I i 3
I. 1 O •-.., I
•
- I • ; •.'g ice_ n I w
i it Eta 1 xi i ql. t
4c�' m m ♦F I c �.. <3:
Y st \
Kv i ; 'iS.... N I 3 `
•• I
i I
!
i it)+. t.
o I .'I. H
3
a a
E a, 1 ��{]' 7$
! c1kt
A• 0e:.r� l . mss '9:7, •
I
I
•
• 39 I
Hello