HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073394 J'
JACKSONK(f LLY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLLC
1099 18TH STREET,SUITE 2150•DENVER,CO 80202•TELEPHONE:303-390-0003•TELECOPIER:303-390-0177
www.jacksonkelly.com
Direct Line: 303-390-0012
• smadsen@jacksonkelly.com
October 19, 2007
The Honorable David Long, Chair The Honorable Douglas Rademacher
Weld County Commissioner Weld County Commissioner
The Honorable Rob Masden The Honorable Bill Garcia
Weld County Commissioner Weld County Commissioner
The Honorable Bill Jerke
Weld County Commissioner
915 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Cambria Crossing
Dear Chairman Long and Commissioners:
On behalf of our client, 610 South Main, LLC, the developer of a proposed 289
acre mixed-use development to be located south of Highway 119 and Birch Street in
unincorporated Weld County, we are seeking a Board determination of the application of
the Interim Coordinated Planning Agreement among the County of Weld, the City of
Dacono, the Town of Firestone and the Town of Frederick("Tri-Town Agreement") to
our client's proposed development. The development will be known as Cambria
Crossing.
We are aware that the Town of Firestone adopted a Notice of Termination of the
Tri-Town Agreement in August of 2006. Since that time, Firestone elected officials have
made various public representations underscoring a desire to terminate the Agreement.
The requisite 12-month notification period has now expired and our client desires to
proceed to request development approval in accordance with Weld County Land Use
Regulations.
Apart from the issue of the status and effect of Firestone's Notice of Termination
is the question of whether the Tri-Town Agreement would be applicable to prevent a
submission by our client to Weld County under the unique facts and circumstances of its
experience with Firestone.
C�✓yimu ui3OJf 4
/b/91/7 i D04ocIvalg{ton,WV • Clarksburg,WV • Martinsburg,WV • Morgantown,WV • New Martinsville,WV •Whee -'
Lexington,KY • Pittsburgh,PA •Washington,D.C. 2007-3394
Weld County Commissioners
October 19, 2007
Page 2
Initially, we observe the proposed development is intended to be compliant with
Weld County's planning and land use requirements and is designed to meet the articulated
goals and purposes of the Tri-Town Agreement for the benefit of the entire region. The
development is designed to be a regional commercial, employment, housing, recreation,
shopping and entertainment center. Further, the subject property has been identified in
the South Weld 1-25 Corridor Master Drainage Plan as a location for a regional storm
water and detention facility for the benefit of both upstream and downstream property
owners. We believe that these factors indicate a need to proceed through the County's
development process to assure that regional needs and requirements are adequately
addressed. Our reading of the Tri-Town Agreement is that it has no provision to mandate
that the County disapprove the processing of a development proposal located within
Firestone's UGB, except for a "commercial or industrial use pursuant to Sec. 31.4.18,"
and then only to the extent "legally possible." We do not interpret the Tri-Town
Agreement to require that Weld County refuse to process a mixed-use development
application, or an entirely residential development application, under circumstances
where Firestone has failed to timely process annexation petitions since 2005, has refused
to hold a public hearing at the request of the developer to address staffs insistence on
using Firestone's standard form annexation agreement, which is wholly unsuitable for a
large mixed-use development designed to be developed over a 30 to 40 year period, and
has, in effect, repeatedly put up roadblocks to reasonable requests, such as the use of non-
potable water for outside irrigation, insisting instead of a dedication of CBT shares. It is
the applicant's belief that Firestone has been stonewalling this process since 2005 to wait
until the parcel becomes an enclave. (Note: only voluntary annexations are subject to
the Tri-town Agreement.)
It is not the purpose of this letter to recite any of the details concerning the
development. Such a presentation must and should wait until a development application
is filed and the public process begins. The sole purpose of this letter is to request that the
developer be authorized to submit a proposal and then initiate the public hearing and
decision-making process.
Sincerely,
>
l(. fr- )1,C Z;--\_..��__.__—__ ..
Shayne M. adsen
Cc: Everett Pfeiff
Monica Daniels-Mika
Bruce Barker
Thomas Honn
{D0467516.1)
CAMBRIA CROSSING
FIRESTONE PROCEEDINGS
AUGUST, 2005
Informal meeting with Town Planner
OCTOBER, 2005
Initial meeting with Town Attorney
OCTOBER—JUNE, 2006
Informal meetings and discussions with Town Staff
JUNE, 2006
Formal pre-application meeting with Town Planning Department
SEPTEMBER, 2006
Annexation Petition and ODP filed reflecting 2005 & 2006 discussions
Petition withdrawn;discussions on ODP continue
OCTOBER 25, 2006
First formal response from Town Staff on ODP
NOVEMBER 16, 2006
Developer meeting with Town Staff to discuss October 25 comments
NOVEMBER—APRIL, 2007
Developer responses to Town Staff questions and various meetings with Town Staff
MAY 4, 2007
Resubmittal of revised ODP and second Conditional Petition for Annexation; request for
a pre-annexation agreement to set forth a time table for future filings and Town Staff
responses to avoid additional delays.
MAY —JUNE, 2007
Town Staff meetings; additional developer responses and Town Staff comments.
JUNE 15, 2007
Developer request for hearing before Town Board on Developer's request to vary from
Town's standard form Annexation Agreement to address the unique features of the 289-
acre development to be developed in phases over 25 to 30 year time period. Request
includes provisions such a vested rights, dual water system for outside irrigation, special
district formation, traffic signalization, etc. Request appended the Agreements from
Berthoud, Lochbuie and Broomfield that contained such customary and routine
provisions.
O0468302.11
CAMBRIA CROSSING
FIRESTONE PROCEEDINGS
Page 2
JULY 9, 2007
Town Staff refuses to schedule Town Board hearing on requests and directs Developer to
go back and work with Town Staff. Town correspondence indicates that the Town Board
was not provided with Developer's request for hearing with attachments.
JULY 11, 2007
Developer withdraws Conditional Annexation Petition.
{D0468302.1
Hello