The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20060340.tiff ead Town 2of6 Mead P.O. Box 626 441 Third Street Mead-^A Little Town Mead,Colorado 80542-0626 With a Big Future" (970) 535-4477 January 27, 2006 Board of County Commissioners Weld County P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioners: Re: Case No. 2005-XX, Benson Farms LLC It is our understanding that the request of Benson Farms LLC to amend the M.U.D. and Comprehensive Plan designations for the proposed development north of SH 66 and east of WCR 9.5 is scheduled for a public hearing before the Commissioners on Monday, January 30, 2006. Please incorporate this letter into the hearing. This project, known under various names or combination of names of owners or project titles, i.e. Benson, Reynolds Cattle Company, Woods, and/or Meadow Ridge, lies fundamentally within an in-fill portion of the Town of Mead. The Town has annexations on all four sides of the parcel — Lake Ridge on the north, Sekich Business Park on the west, Westrian Ranch on the south, and Grandview Estates on the east. It is logical for this project to be part of Mead than for it to be a quasi-island of unincorporated territory. The Weld County Planning Commission, at its December 2, 2003 meeting, recommended that in-fill developments like this should go to the Town. More fundamentally, a substantial portion of the parcel lies within the urban growth boundary of the Town that the County agrees to recognize pursuant to Section 22-2-100-E of the Weld %'.. . . . Code, -tom:_ if.- ile i from , T V.0 AnLy Luu�„ r2VLL.,,h Ia a half-mile pc'ri2tIcicr oat uarn the Town's ,Jake Thomas yr'astc'Wa:et' Treatment Plant (WWTP) site. Please see the enclosed drawing depicting that perimeter, which is then overlaid on this parcel as depicted by angled lines. Accordingly, the County should not be entertaining this request, because the Town has never denied annexation of this parcel, a step that Section 22-2-100-E recognizes. The"Weld County Urban Growth Boundary & Intergovernmental Agreements" map on the County's website is in error because it does not depict the aforementioned half-mile boundary around a public sanitary sewer facility, and under separate cover to the Planning Department we have asked that this error be corrected. Furthermore, to the Town's best knowledge and belief, this parcel was not even in the County's M.U.D. at the time that the Lake Thomas WWTP was annexed, when the Lake Ridge = EXHIBIT cE C' fC I M- Weld County Commissioners January 27, 2006 Page 2 Subdivision, of which it is a part, was annexed on September 25, 2000. Please note the enclosed drawing labeled "Meadow Ridge" furnished by the developer, dated March 10, 2003, which depicts it adjacent to the M.U.D., but devoid of land use designation. We also have found a note that indicates that it was placed into the M.U.D. in May 2002, so we are not sure of the applicable date. Accordingly, the County should not be entertaining a request to amend the M.U.D. designation, and the hearing should be cancelled, as the request is invalid and violates County Code, because any of these actions clearly occurred after September 25, 2000. The Town Board also wishes to convey, similar to other projects like this that the County has considered, its strong opposition to the County approving unincorporated subdivisions adjacent to Mead, for many reasons. First, the request for some 3,000 homes on this parcel is urban development that belongs in a municipality, as it will require municipal-level services. If this remains in the County, it will have a dramatic negative effect on the Town in terms of traffic generation and demands for services, impacts on the school district, and the like, without any control by the Town or revenue generation for the Town. The County does not charge enough in fees or development requirements to make growth pay for itself, and it expects such entities as metropolitan districts, homeowners associations, and law enforcement agencies laid over such parcels to provide human, social, public works, and public safety services that it itself does not provide, or cannot provide adequately. Second, most of this parcel is within the Town's 208 sewer service boundary. The Town has issued the developer a"will-serve" letter for sanitary sewer service. There is no reason for this project to go into Weld County because the developer somehow thinks it has to get service elsewhere. Third, the developer is asking for maximum flexibility for itself to the long-range economic detriment of this parcel's value as tax base,by wanting "flex zoning" that would allow all, or virtually all, of this parcel to be possibly developed as residential (depending on how one interprets the application). The Town's Comprehensive Plan for this area depicts that there should be commercial uses along both SH 66 and the east side of WCR 9 %, the latter particularly because there is an industrial park to the west that residential will not want to be adjacent to and would be difficult to sell, and the former because SH 66 is a significant regional arterial with a nearby interstate interchange. It would be short-sighted for the County to acquiesce to draining this valuable site of an adequate future tax base in order to cater to the short-term desire for residential development, which, as is well-known, does not pay for itself. Fourth, and similarly, the elimination or reduction of commercial areas in an instance such as this is contrary to the County's stated concerns that it is being somehow forced into providing housing for people who work in other counties because housing is too expensive elsewhere. The Weld County Commissioners January 27, 2006 Page 3 elimination of appropriate job-producing parcels within Weld County like this so that residents can both live and work here is also short-sighted and not in the County's best interests for employment opportunities. It would also unnecessarily add additional work commuter trips to an area transportation network that is already under stress due to lack of adequately improved roads. Accordingly, the Town requests that the request be denied, that the hearing be cancelled, and that the petitioner be referred to the Town for annexation. Sincerely, /1& t �. FAA-I/444.z Michael D. Friesen Town Manager On behalf of the Town Board cc: Michelle Martin, Weld County Planning Department ration Limits Map 8.23.05.dwg,11x17 OVERALL,8/23/2005 3.08:08 PM,robyb F 7 F II " I q A y I A m G 4 a l 4 NI a 4 m y I WCR 5 m — __ N mo 'o� 91; N r- a —L�-- -� A ILA m m> IL2 r a .p._ � _ F I g �� g"=' I I I =m WCR 7 I G ' 5 I ; I I / I 'yoI O2 'z Z" W I €"I 222 \II g I \ nn :I l y x =F y6 I =' r -t-22 I yam. C i IIIL IZ 1J $ n �'5 I Qaf� n I ,`>b . L 1 lixf =5,R0P05ED COUNTY ROAD 9 1/2 I 42 _ ZE A OO • iIII At F n 4 A IA n v II?),3 P 4 m \WCR 13 /V - — i ': [ es31 $f r i 4 ili ft , WCR 15 MEADOW RIDGE Weld County CLIENT BENSON FARMS and REYNOLDS CATTLE COMPANY Conld Cary woody ongs t.CC 80111V. IBl F.bal0Fn1199 MEADOW RIDGE b. V \QI Leib N. eildiCJOS (1 g" IN ICCS.OW \\ Rea 1 0 I \c 4, if Al i ...i : I RCS UM L -_ JO :. L L R I JO ilia w au ME 3 ill-\ I■ Ca n Lake`` 3I\ `� • 5J JP'h (Union Ras.) \ ° ... �\ ' r;d, . r1 of ewe ill , ire � � � 1 - 1 .,� wit 4 ` g fa 9 n yJ ( y .r, L ,... h .tom . - r I >mare a r® .., s�_.** 1► „ L�1 aca aEu II rt raw I ( � rr aLrai rt.= S ; • S : 0 1500]0W Fast v Legend —h]5 NLO Inge BWpF mumIIoIM Sin Factors-Lino In1-idly ®Taw/QY Ammorllw N _OM.yn.,t Cents-KM Nrl+ty . _R.r.d Pat —C..ty evunany OA 3 _Ree mal C.r.n.m-MYnn Monty a ��,P•t —E+aa1N1R Rr• w bnM1eetl o,11--La nr,dLr R. S Ma! », e� © NddiLsAW P.N Rgrld Tnl Sl.rn jj 1II IYdEnW Q Tr-IM Cntr —6slMOno F WBy TIM ' F3 * Navl./GnnnNy Center S :j CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE cmi;n'r.,nnmyi. Weld County 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Plan I.ANI)N^!.ARC1IITECT5 MARCH 10,2003 ead Town of Mead P.O. Box 626 441 Third Street Mead-"A Little Town Mead,Colorado 80542-0626 With a Big Future" (970)535-4477 a February 8, 2006 Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE FEB- 1 0 2006 Ms. Monica Daniels-Mika Director of Planning Services RECEIVED Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Monica: With reference to your letter of February 1, 2006, there is a potential confusion or conflict with its wording and Section 22-2-100-E of the Weld County Code. Section 22-2-100-E states merely that the urban growth boundary perimeter is one-half mile "from the existing public sanitary sewer facilities." It does not state anything about being limited to "public sewer lines" as added in the letter. A wastewater treatment plant is a sanitary sewer facility as well. If there is a package treatment plant or some other equivalent-scale facility on a property, for which the plant services only that property, that situation could be construed as having no "lines," if"lines" means a sewer main. A sewer"line" generally means, however, the service pipe that would run from a house to a main, in which case there is certainly a "line" that runs to such a plant, while a "main" or a "trunk"would run to a larger, conventional treatment plant. I think the old language in the Weld County Code said something about lines, but that was inherently unfair and unworkable. The new language adopted a few years ago substituted the word "facilities," which is better overall, and avoids the whole issue of defining or regulating on the basis of what a "line" is. This does not mean, of course, that the Town of Mead even agrees with the whole concept of the County defining Urban Growth Boundaries in this way. The Town believes that this rule is arbitrary, absent a technical, engineering, planning, or statutory reason why it should be so. Please advise so that we can more specifically respond to the February 1 letter. Sincerely, 41,/tatad D. Fa' Michael D. Friesen Town Manager • Dec . 19 . 2001 1 24PM WHEfJ.ER L0NGM0NT .-. No . 1363 P . '/1 Town of Mead ead PO.Box 826 441 Third Street Mad•"A IiWcTene Mead.000redo 00542-0526 With a Ng rvNne (970)535-4477 * * *MEMORANDUM * * * TO: Robert Anderson,Planner via fax 970-304-6498 A FROM: Michael B. McDonough, AICP, Consulting Town Planner t e/e�C DATE: December 19, 2001 SUBJ: Reynolds & Woods Property Proposed Inclusion in the Weld County Mixed Use Development Area We apologize for the tardiness of this letter but sincerely do appreciate the opportunity to work with Weld County toward the mutual goal of the betterment of the built environment. The Town of Mead understands the concerns of farm property owners with regard to potential state wide growth limitation legislation or initiatives. Our Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the County includes an Urban Growth Area map which encompasses this property. We also understand that entry into the Mixed Use Development area does not constitute a development proposal. The only concern to be expressed by the Town of Mead regarding the above captioned land use proposal is that any actual development that is proposed to be adjacent to or capable of being adjacent to a Mead town boundary be sent to Mead for consideration of annexation before the County grants any entitlements to the land owners: (For example,we believe that the Douthit property south of State Highway 66 and west of WCR 13 was permitted entry to the MUD Area but was also referred to the Town of Mead for consideration of annexation which was subsequently successful.) This is our understanding of the Intergovernmental Agreement we have with Weld County. If this is not the case, please advise. Additionally, we anxiously await initial annexation discussions with proponents of any other developments that are proposed adjacent to a Town Boundary such as the potential commercial development proposed at the southeast comer of I-25 and State Highway 66. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment on this and other land use proposals. If our Planning Commission has additional concerns, we will send them to you under separate cover. EXHIBIT l3 (ita DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES NORTH OFFICE 918 10TH Street GREELEY, CO 80631 mmikaaco.weld.co.us I PHONE: (970) 353-6100 Ext. 3540 FAX: (970) 3046498 lige SOUTHWEST OFFICE 4209 CR 24.5 COLORADO LONGMONT, CO 80504 PHONE: (720) 652-4210 Ext. 8730 FAX: (720) 652-4211 February 8, 2006 Michael Friesen Town of Mead PO Box 626 441 Third St Mead. CO 80542-0626 Dear Mr. Friesen: I would like to acknowledge receipt of your January 27, 2006 and February 8, 2006 letters, concerning case number 2005-XX Benson Farm LLC. In this letter you raise questions concerning a parcel of property known as Lake Thomas Water Treatment Plant which was annexed into the Town of Mead in 2000. You assert that the "Weld County urban growth boundary map on the county website is in error because it doesn't depict the aforementioned half-mile boundary around a public sanitary sewer facility". The Lake Thomas Water Treatment Facility was constructed in the mid 1960's to support the needs of the County View Care Facility. Our records indicate that the facility has a capacity of 12,000 gpd which supports the sanitary sewer needs of approximately 120 dwelling units, however when factoring in the demand from the facility roughly twenty-five (25) additional dwelling units can be served. The intent of the Urban Growth Boundary is to provide an indication of the area which may be served by municipal sewer capabilities. Based on our understanding of this facility,there is a finite limitation of sewer capacity available. Should this information be in error, we are happy to revise the Urban Growth Boundary. You also state "to the Town's best knowledge and belief, this parcel was not even in the County's MUD at the time that the Lake Thomas WWTP was annexed, when the Lake Ridge Subdivision, of which it is a part." The Benson petition into the MUD occurred in December 2001. Attached is a copy of the Town of Mead's response to the Benson Farms petition. In this letter the Town did not state an objection to the petition for inclusion into the MUD. In February 27, 2005, the Department of Planning Services sent you a letter asking you to review the Urban Growth Boundary depiction concerning your town. Your town chose not to respond to our letter for modification to your Urban Growth Boundary, therefore no changes were made. Should you wish to now modify this boundary I am happy to do so, however I would ask for more information concerning specific placement of sewer facilities and or sewer capacity information presently within your municipal limits to show you have the ability to meet sewer capacity demands. As previously stated, the Department of Planning Services endeavors to ensure that we have the most up-to-date Urban Growth Boundaries identified for each community. As a practice, we routinely ask on an annual basis for this information to be provided by municipalities who wish to modify Urban Growth Boundaries. I am happy to discuss this issue with you further, please feel free to contact me at (970) 353-6100 ext 3540. Sincerely, -^1 Moni a Daniels-Mika Director Attachments Cc: Weld County Attorney's Office Michelle Martin Benson Farms File Planning Staff Town of Mead2005xx BENSON FARMS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4725 S . MONACO ST . , SUITE 205 Weld County Planning Departm�ItE N V E R , COLORADO 8 0 2 3 7 GREELEY OFFICE 303-708-1105 . 303-708-8819 (FAX) FEB 0 3 2006 February 1, 2006 RECEIVED Ms. Monica Daniels-Mika Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Weld County Urban Growth Boundary— Town of Mead Letter of January 27, 2006 Dear Monica: Reference is made to Mike Friesen's letter of January 27, requesting an urban growth boundary around the Lake Ridge waste water treatment plant operated by the Town of Mead. We think this request is highly inappropriate, given that the Lake Thomas waste water treatment plant is not a viable source for service of the 1/2 mile radius requested by the Town of Mead, and expansion of this waste water treatment plant is not within the contemplation of the Town of Mead. By virtue of the Benson Farms and Reynolds family properties (i.e., Meadow Ridge) being in the I-25 MUD, it is my understanding that Weld County has already assigned urban growth boundaries within the County to this property. This is simply another maneuver by the Town of Mead in the ongoing disputes between the landowners on the east side of I-25 and the Town of Mead which is currently in litigation. Mr. Friesen's letter omits to inform you of material facts regarding the Lake Thomas waste water treatment plant. Benson Farms is in possession of the Town of Mead's WWTP Facility Study, February 4, 2005. I attach an excerpt from page 2 of that study that describes the Lake Thomas waste water treatment plant as to its limited scope and capacity. It is simply a single project aerated lagoon facility and should not be the basis for claiming additional urban growth boundaries by the Town of Mead. In addition, this study analyzes seven or eight alternatives for expansion of the Mead sanitary sewer capacity, none of which deal with expansion of the Lake Thomas waste water treatment plant. • I s oRD 9000 Ms. Monica Daniels-Mika February 1, 2006 Page 2 I encourage you to ignore and/or reject the request by the Town of Mead as set forth in Mr. Friesen's letter. If I can be of further assistance in this issue, please feel free to contact me. Ve ly yours,, W ary A. ods GAW:hja Enclosure cc: Bill Woods Stephanie Stewart Tom Reynolds Ronda Sandquist, Esq. inc uding a fermentation cell, aeration cell, and settling cell. In 1992 and 1993, the two- basin cultative lagoon treatment system was converted to an aerated lagoon treatment system. rovements included placing an earthen berm across Basin 2, which created Basin 3, plact aerators into Basins 1 and 2, changing the method of chlorination, and installing flow r rding devices on both the influent and effluent sides of the plant. Following a study of th stem by the Town's consulting engineer, it was determined that sludge needed to be re ved from Basin 1 and that its detention time allowed algae to grow and be discharged in t effluent, thereby exceeding the TSS for the plant. In 1995, the Town began bypassing sin 1 of the plant and drying it for sludge removal. Curtains were placed across Basin 2 t reate three cells, and the polishing cell was also bypassed. This effectively cut the detentt time and allowed the plant to operate more efficiently. In July 1996, Basin 1 was cleane ut and 1.1 million gallons of biosolids were removed. A new influent headwork structure was constructed in 98. Four new 4,500-gallon chlorine contact vaults were added in 2000. These tanks a sized for a 30-minute detention at the peak flow rate of 180,000 gallons per day. The WWTP currently treats an average of 80,000 gpd, and has the ign capacity to treat 140,000 gpd. However, the lagoon system has had treatment failu s in the recent past that make its ability to effectively treat the higher design flow questio ble. The accuracy of the flow meter is also in question, since recorded flows have not t reased as expected a s have been added to the s stem. In 2000, the Town acquired the Lake Thomas Wastewater Treatment Plant. This facility has a hydraulic and organic loading capacity of 12,000 gpd. The aerated lagoon facility was constructed in 1989 and was used to serve the Country View Day Care Center. Currently the facility is receiving minimal flow and has not discharged into Lake Thomas since the day care facility was closed in late 1998. The day care center was renovated and converted in 2001 to the Lake Ridge Condominium complex. The Lake Thomas WWTP lagoon was also rehabilitated. New inlet and outlet structures, a new chlorine contact chamber, rehabilitation of the lagoon banks, and removal of solids from the bottom were completed in December of 2001. The 12,000 gpd capacity of the Lake Thomas WWTP equates to an approximate population of 120, assuming a contribution of 100 gpcd. The flow from Lake Ridge Condominiums is expected to be in the range of 5000 gallons per day for the 29 units available. This flow recognizes an average population density of 1.75 residents per unit, because the complex is targeted to senior citizens. Considering the remaining 7,000 gpd, an additional 23 single-family residences (beyond the existing 29 units of Lake Ridge) could be connected to this facility. Town of Mead,Colorado TOM 00196 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 2 i co r 0 a a) O O R3 LON N - C = Cow O a) > N a" E 4) .- RS O as a M O Ctiag 0 W C O > -O O a) , .C --co - O 2 O- 0 0 a) t). m -- as CD * 2 ° 0000 > C -c o O 2 O j i to -0 a a) a) co tie c E 0 a) w Q a) Q (Ts 2 • • tw 1 �r Ii yl� I .144\\t‘:J.I., "1/4 ,t"., I ( I, ( t r . l' i C . e .„,...... ,_ i '..� .: ,,," ' -4, _. .. . .iii., F..,i,., , , ",_, . - $ ,,� W$111 1• 1w` ..try•• '�. I /` 14, „31 . 1 4l _4 1 1 ' 1---- i N n r , * ;► aaaaarosen. ii. ri,fi f;u , +;�i �, uw ,gypr of r L. Aii lip,. —, f • I ..,.. I' 44: I a k • jr-�? rs �� & ' ' j �, - fi . _i , 1 a ,,. . . 1.J , i+ - ,- . fi+M rMa !� 1 t II V --1 I w ii- i` ii I x il r i 11 I_i z (r g _ 11111 lit RI A i Fi ill kl i 7 S �} L .( I jl +t'i. "1 �I. !fui44sl�''• All) • .i it a .. ... .i a i pi .1' • ;. . i*' T.,' Ii' 3 11 +ii III yg:lij To li i ill.. II • i if . • III 1 ' H so, . .., a HT1L Ili, I . irli n7,uglMo 1s;: Np. ... !II: 1 IIII1 r!iluii 11,,,,,+,„„i, q g Hii i�jn:lt „Ili.+: , s 1IT -r rn ce U a) co ) N C a) 6 lO10 ira O 4- CN co itT- i - ' Co a) c-) a) (0 r N -C QQ > '� N _ 2 ` U o o cu c o 7 c o a) 0 i > - 0 Cn O C c N cu a) o in D 1.O---i � a) O C CO > � O C ii o ma L O `n _if, W cts Q U co co r co r i co o (n O I a) co v O a) c� Q rn e c aa)) o 0 cy N. a) U O d: �_ in U CO -a v � o O CO r I E. 2 oo a) I o L N a) c c0a >+ Sri CO .C N 000 nc oo CZ OJ 3:37, a ... rn � ys Ce E Z C0 in Hello