HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060942.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Pioneer Communities LLC Case Number 2005-XX
Request to Amend the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1 Staff Comments X
Attachment C—Site Photos X
Attachment I—Potential Revised Weld Code Chapter 22 X
Attachment J—Potential Revised Weld Code Chapter 26 X
2 Application X
Attachment F--Correspondence X
Attachment G-- Buchanan Water Report X
Attachment H--Leland Consulting Group Financial Review Report X
Attachment K--Pioneer Submittal Notebook("Applicant's Submittal") X
Attachment A—Vicinity Map X
Attachment B—Site Map/Proposed SE MUD Structural Land Use Map X
3 Attachment E—Referrals without Comments X
4 Attachment D—Referrals with Comments X
5 PC Exhibits X
a Exhibit A—Citizen Sign-in Sheet and Late correspondence X
b Exhibit B—"Superslab"exhibit from citizen testimony X
c Exhibit C—Update letter from Weld 3J School District X
d Exhibit D— Memo to Planning Commission concerning potential conditions X
I hereby certify that the eighteen items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the
scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing. �\
Brad Mueller,Planning Services
d EXHIBIT
R
2006-0942
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
WL`Dc• SUMMARY SHEET
COLORADO
Case Name: Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case Number: 2005-XX
Hearing Date: February 21, 2006 Planner: Brad Mueller
Applicant: Pioneer Communities, LLC
c/o: Jack Reutzel and Associates
9145 E. Kenyon Avenue
Denver, CO 80237
Request: An amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the Mixed Use
Development area plan to create a new urban Mixed Use Development area.
Location: Adjacent to and surrounding the intersection of Weld County Roads 22 and 49,
approximately three miles northeast of the Town of Hudson and three miles
northwest of the Town of Keenesburg.
Legal Description: Portions of Township 3 North, Range 64; Township 2 North, Range 64; Township
2 North Range 65 West; all of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. (See
Pioneer Submittal Notebook ["Submittal"j, Appendix A.)
Parcel Number: Various. (See Submittal, Appendix A.)
Size of Parcel: 5,667 +/- acres
POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS
The criteria for review of this request are found in Chapters 22 and 26 of the Weld County Code. The
Department of Planning Services' staff had received responses from the following agencies on the date
noted:
• Weld County Attorney, 1/20/06 • Colorado Division of Wildlife, 12/19/05
• Weld County Public Health & Environment • Platte Valley Conservation District, 12/19/05
Department, 1/5/06 • Southeast Weld Conservation District,
• Weld County Office of Emergency 12/19/05
Management, 12/5/05 • City of Brighton, 12/27/05
• Weld County Public Works, 2/10/06 • City of Ft. Lupton, 1/12/06
• Greeley Weld Housing Authority, 1/3/06 • Town of Hudson, 12/21/05
• Weld County Building Inspections • Town of Keenesburg, 12/14/05
Department, 1/18/06 • Town of Kersey, 12/28/05
• Weld County Zoning Compliance, 11/28/05 • Town of Lochbuie, 12/22/05
• State of Colorado State Engineer's Office, • Platte Valley School District, 12/12/05
Water Resources, 11/30/05 • Weld County School District RE-1, 12/29/05
• Colorado Department of Transportation • Weld County School District Re-3(J),
(CDOT), 11/28/05 12/27/05
• Colorado Historical Society/Historic
Preservation, 11/28/05
The Department of Planning Services' staff has not received responses from the following agencies:
• Weld County Extension Office • Adams County
• Weld County Sheriff's Office • Hudson F-7 Fire District
• Ambulance Services • LaSalle F-9 Fire District
• Oil & Gas Conservation Commission • Platteville F-13 Fire District
• Town of Platteville • Southeast Weld F-16 Fire District
(itt
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Wipe.
COLORADO
Case Name: Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Hearing Date: February 21, 2006 Planner: Brad Mueller
Case Number 2005-XX
Applicant: Pioneer Communities, LLC
c/o: Jack Reutzel and Associates
9145 E. Kenyon Avenue
Denver, CO 80237
Request: An amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the Mixed
Use Development area plan to create a new urban Mixed Use
Development area.
Location: Adjacent to and surrounding the intersection of Weld County Roads 22
and 49, approximately three miles northeast of the Town of Hudson and
three miles northwest of the Town of Keenesburg.
Legal Description: Portions of Township 3 North, Range 64; Township 2 North, Range 64;
Township 2 North Range 65 West; all of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado. (See Attachment K, "Submittal, Appendix A.")
Parcel Numbers: Various. (See Attachment K, "Submittal, Appendix A.")
Size of Parcel: 5,667 +/- acres
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The applicant, Pioneer Communities, LLC, is requesting to amend the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan to allow for urban-level mixed use development ("MUD") and amenities
within a 5,600-acre area of Southeast Weld County north of 1-76. 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 1-76 corridor. The proposal is for a suburban-scale subdivision that is nearly the size of
Stapleton, but lacks the multiple elements necessary for a sustainable community —
employment centers, public spaces, sufficient commercial, or a mixture of housing types at
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 1
various price points. Instead, the amendment would encourage development of a "bedroom
neighborhood" on a city scale, with all residents being forced to commute a minimum of 40
minutes for jobs and sub-regional services (health care, wholesale retail, etc.).
Significant questions remain concerning the ability to provide and sustain services. An
independent review of financial assumptions for the plan concludes that the project cannot
build-out in the manner suggested and would result in a fiscal deficit with County services. The
proposal is not supported by a significant number of the referral agencies, and analysis
suggests that existing zoning throughout the County will accommodate population demands
through the year 2025. Overall, the plan fails to meet existing County Goals and Policies
concerning future land use, urban growth, and the Comprehensive Plan's guiding principles.
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 22 and 49. Broadly, this request consists of the following elements:
• Creation of a new Mixed Use Development area in an area currently designated as
Agricultural within the Weld Comprehensive Plan.
• Adoption of a new Structural Land Use Map that would reflect this proposed area.
• Adoption of new Residential, limited Commercial, and Agricultural Structural Land
Use Categories.
• Adoption of Goals, Policies, and Development Standards that would define and
support this new Structural Land Use Map and Categories.
• Modification of Weld County Code Chapters 22 and 26 to reflect these various
changes.
Chapter I of the applicant's submittal identifies it as an Amendment to the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the submittal acknowledges that "this Amendment is
one part of an overall process required in advance of the zoning, platting and
development of the [area]," and "this Amendment is the keystone for establishing a new
urban area in Weld County." (Attachment K, Submittal, p. 1-2)
It is important for Staff to reiterate 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 capable of obtaining building
permits. The Plan does, however, establish the context in which rezonings, platting, and
site development may occur.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2
B. LOCATION
The new Southwest Mixed Use Development (MUD) is proposed on 5,667 acres at the
intersection of County Road 22 and County Road 49 ("Kersey Road"). Its proposed
location is approximately three miles northeast of the Town of Hudson and three miles
northwest of the Town of Keenesburg.
Subtracting areas indicated as "Agricultural" Structural Land Use Categories,
approximately 4,200 acres are proposed for the urbanized areas. This compares to
other County and regional urban areas as follows:
• 8 times the size of Keenesburg
• 2.5 times the size of Hudson
• about the same size as Fort Lupton
• 4 times the size of Platteville
• 1/2 the size of Windsor
• 1/3 the size of Highlands Ranch (minus conservation region)
• slightly smaller than the Stapleton Redevelopment
• one-third larger than Reunion (new town in Commerce City)
• one-fourth larger than Beebe Draw subdivision (including un-built areas)
• 'A the size of the Tri-Town city limits (incl. un-built)— Firestone, Fredrick, Dacono
• about the same size as Mead (including un-built areas)
The site is characterized by fine, sandy soils and scrub vegetation, except in lower
areas, which are irrigated and sustain crops. A north/south ridge runs east of County
Road 49, while the majority of the site is generally flat. West of County Road 49, Box
Elder Creek runs north-south, containing the active farming and generally defining the
western edge of the proposed urban areas to the east. Box Elder Creek and a smaller
tributary two miles to the east generally run dry.
A middle-level projection of housing units for the site consists of 10,000 dwelling units
("du's"), though a range of 7,389 to 12,425 is indicated in the application. At 2.5 people
per household, 10,000 du's would result in a population of 25,000 at build-out, which is
projected for the Year 2025 (i.e., 19-year projected build-out).
A population of 25,000 people compares as follows:
• 100,000 = Greeley/Evan current population
• 17,000 = Keensburg, Hudson, Lochbuie, Ft. Lupton, Platteville, Gilcrest
combined population in Year 2003
• 15,000 = Tri-towns of Dacono, Frederick, Firestone current population
• 100,000 = Population for 40,000 new units approved (or likely to be approved) in
in the Tri-Town area (including unincorporated) in Years 2005-06
• 220,000 = Year 2005 population for all of Weld
• 400,000 = Year 2025 projected population for all of Weld
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 3
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS
REQUEST BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
The proposed amendment is not in compliance with Sections 22-1-120, 22-1-150, 22-2-
20, and 22-2-100 of the Weld County Code.
Staff believes that the applicant's submittal generally identifies correctly those elements
of the Weld County Code that apply to the application. (See Attachment K, Submittal,
Chapter II.) Specifically, these are the following:
• Section 22-1-150. "Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure"
• Section 22-2-20. "Foundations of future land use."
• Sections 22-2-100. "Urban growth."
However, it is also appropriate to look at the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and to recognize that an urban area similar to the existing 1-25 MUD is being proposed.
Therefore, it is also appropriate to apply the following element to the application:
• Section 22-1-120. "Comprehensive Plan guiding principles"
Each of these elements is discussed in detail below, with a citation of the Weld County
Code followed by staff analysis.
Section 22-1-150.6.a: Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure
The existing Comprehensive Plan is in need of revision as proposed.
Discussion:
The existing Weld County Plan does not need to be revised in the manner proposed by
this application. The revisions proposed would result in an isolated, low-density "super-
subdivision" for the reasons discussed throughout this report, a concept that is
inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. While there may be valid
reasons to consider revising the Plan to acknowledge an urban corridor along 1-76, the
proposed revision is not comprehensive of "community." (See discussion of the 1-76
Corridor below, Section E, Page 13)
Several referral agencies noted the inconsistency between claims of a "sustainable,
coordinated community" and the requirement that most residents commute to distant
employment centers and service areas. The City of Brighton notes in its comments of
December 22, 2005, that "an amendment of this magnitude should be made in an area
truly ready for urban uses and urban densities. . . . A community of this size should
include the provision of all necessary services, including employment possibilities and
commercial development to sustain itself."
The Town of Hudson notes in its letter of December 19, 2005, that "in the absence of
single governance, it is our expectation that the proposed development will negatively
impact County services within the region and particularly in Hudson."
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 4
The proposed revision is also not the product of public visioning and regional study that
is characteristic of comprehensive plan amendments, including the Southwest Weld 1-25
Corridor MUD study that is currently underway.
Section 22-1-150.6.b: Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure
The proposed amendment will be consistent with the existing and future goals, policies,
and needs of the County.
Discussion:
The submittal is not consistent with many significant existing goals, policies and needs of
the County. The proposal would require the revision of many existing goals. (See
Attachments I & J.) Also, the submittal does not achieve many of the County's
"foundations for future land use," as discussed below.
The proposal is also not consistent with future goals and policies of the County. The
recent Interstate-76 Study conducted in the Fall of 2005 by Weld Planning Services
shows a diverse rural development pattern in the region, with no clear market trends or
landowner preferences.
Future goals of the County will build on the broad current goal of directing urban growth
to existing urban areas and municipalities. Future Weld citizens will demand full-service
communities with defined, "home-grown" identities. Future County goals might also be
more fiscally constrained, the result of a likely national "housing bubble," lower state and
federal funds, and an increased need to more efficiently use existing infrastructure.
Finally, the submittal is not consistent with existing or future needs of the County.
Generally, Weld citizens have expressed a need for convenient, cost-effective urban
services, and support for agriculture in the form of farm-friendly policies and services.
As an expanding and urbanizing County that is part of the Colorado Front Range
community, Weld County's future needs will be increasingly defined in a regional
context, which will rely on regional planning, IGA's with existing towns, and greater
levels of coordination.
"Needs" is both a qualitative and quantitative concept. Qualitatively, one can derive the
needs of the County based on the desires of its citizenry and elected officials. These
can be referred to as the "County's vision," or, perhaps, the "citizens' will." The existing
Comprehensive Plan is, in part, an expression of this vision, and therefore addresses to
some extent the needs of the County. Other mechanisms for determining the County
vision could include citizen surveys, open house meetings, town meetings with elected
officials, and participation in regional and state processes. The current Southwest Weld
1-25 MUD Study incorporates many of these qualitative elements.
Quantitatively, "future needs" can be evaluated based on supply and demand — for
example, the amount of housing that will be required for a future population, the amount
of agricultural production that will be required for a future population, and the level of
services and amenities that will be demanded of future residents. All of these can be
quantified and evaluated in detail.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 5
One measure of supply and demand is to look at the amount of available zoning in the
County ("supply") and compare it to the amount of population anticipated for the future
("demand"). Preliminary analysis shows that the projected population in 2025 is 400,000
Weld residents.
The current population of 220,000 will be added to by recent activity in the Tri-Town area
(1-25 corridor), where likely or approved zoning will allow for a population of 100,000.
Tripling the current populations of Keensburg, Hudson, Lochbuie, Ft. Lupton, Platteville,
and Gilcrest would result in an increase of 30,000 people. Build-out within the existing
cities of Greeley, Windsor, Severance, Milliken, Johnstown, Mead, and Berthoud could
conservatively provide for an additional 50,000 people. The total of all of these existing
circumstances equals the projected population of 400,000 for all of Weld.
The submitted proposal includes significant data and analysis in the form of a market
feasibility study (Attachment K, Submittal, "Appendix C"). This study confirms
demographic analysis showing Weld's "increasing capture" of Front Range growth,
characterizing the Pioneer property as part of the "Northeast Denver submarket." (p. 3)
The study concludes that, from a market demand standpoint, sufficient population
demand will exist, increasing sufficiently over time to allow for the 19-year build-out of
10,000 units projected by the proposal. One feature of this projection is the expectation
that a population of 2,500 would exist at the subject site within the first five years of
construction.
One of the limits of market studies is that they, by definition, look inward only to the
feasibility of a particular project. They do not tend to focus on existing supply
(housing/zoned land/infrastructure). Instead, they tend to focus on the demand side of
the economic equation, estimating success of competition and the reasonableness of
achieving market share. This particular study suggests that up to 2.5% of the total
building permits for the entire Extended Denver Region will be achieved by the project in
certain years; the Denver Region is defined as all of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder
Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Gilpin, Jefferson and Weld counties.
An independent review of this study was requested by Don Warden, Director of Weld
County Finance and Administration. In their report dated January 30, 2006, Leland
Consulting Group notes the following items relevant to the submitted market feasibility
study (see Attachment H):
• The absorption rates (i.e., sales rates of homes) assumed by the submittal
are aggressive and likely unachievable.
• Because market values and assessment rates are likely to be lower than
what is assumed by the study, there would be negative fiscal impacts to the
County.
• These lower values and assessment rates would negatively affect other
jurisdictions (library, schools, etc.).
Some of this information used for determining "need" — both qualitative and quantitative
— is available, as discussed. However, much of it is not at this time, and would require a
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 6
specific initiative from either the County or the applicant. The proposed amendment to
the Plan, as submitted, does not attempt to define or update current citizens' vision of
the County, nor does it provide a county-wide analysis of housing, employment,
agriculture, or service levels. It is therefore inconsistent with the existing and future
goals, policies, and needs of the County.
Section 22-1-150.7.a.: Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure (MUD)
The proposed amendment inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area Map or
modification to the existing land use classification as outlined on the Mixed Use
Development Area Map is adjacent to and contiguous with the existing 1-25 Mixed Use
Development Area Map.
Discussion:
The amendment includes property that is neither adjacent to, nor contiguous with, the
existing 1-25 Mixed Use Development (MUD) area. However, because the proposal is
identified as "urban" and because of its scale, it is appropriate that this proposal be
considered as the creation of a new Southeast Weld MUD, requiring its own area map,
goals, policies, and development standards. As a new MUD, it should be subject to
criteria similar to those that created the existing 1-25 MUD.
Section 22-1-150.7.b.: Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure (MUD)
The proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or planned service
capabilities including, but not limited to, all utilities and transportation systems.
Discussion:
Concerns about the impact to other towns and cities have been previously noted. Utility
capabilities are discussed in detail throughout this report.
In preliminary comments dated August 15, 2005, Weld Public Works notes problems
with capacity improvements, use of the strategic roads, misuse of the "urban node"
concept, assumptions about future construction, and trip distribution estimates.
Additional comments are not available based on the traffic analysis that accompanied
the submittal. (See Attachment K, Submittal, Appendix E, and Attachment F,
Correspondence.)
Other transportation concerns are noted by Public Works in their memo of February 10,
2006. (See Attachment D.) They note that both a master transportation plan and a
multibasin-wide stormwater master plan should be required prior to scheduling a hearing
with the Board of County Commissioners.
Specific transportation concerns include capacity needs for County Roads 22 and 49,
and assumptions about the County's plans for widening these. Public Works also notes
their estimate that the vast majority of trips generated (75%) will be south on CR 49 and
1-76, the result of high commuter demands.
The Town of Kersey notes its concern about the increased traffic on County Road 49.
The Town of Lochbuie notes that the submittal does not address alternate routes due to
traffic congestion. They are concerned that demand for service on County Road 37,
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 7
which is a direct route through Lochbuie to an interchange on 1-76, will increase as an
alternate route.
Section 22-1-150.7.c.: Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure (MUD)
The proposed number of new residents will be adequately served by the social
amenities, such as schools, of the community.
Discussion:
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 — religious sites, 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."
An especially important community function is that of schools. In its referral of
December 23, 2005, Weld County School District RE-3J notes, after significant analysis,
that the "Amendment is inappropriate for this area and that the public good would be
better served if higher density or urban style development . . . occurs within existing
municipalities or . . . within their urban growth boundaries." They note that the project is
expected to have considerable adverse fiscal consequences for the School District, with
a possible shortfall of$31 million.
Section 22-1-150.7.d.: Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure (MUD)
The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate services are currently
available or reasonably obtainable.
Discussion:
This criterion is discussed in detail throughout this report.
Section 22-1-150.7.e.: Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure (MUD)
Referral agency response have been received and considered.
Discussion:
Please see Attachments D and E for referral responses. Also, specific referral agency
comments are discussed in detail throughout this report.
Section 22-2-20: Foundations of future land use
This is a significant and lengthy section of the Weld Comprehensive Plan that describes
the costs and benefits of growth, which are understood to be measured in economic,
environmental, and opportunity costs. The various policies in this Section of the Code
are designed to ensure and maintain a high quality of life for existing and future
residents throughout the County. (Weld Code Section 22-2-20.G)
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 8
Discussion:
The application focuses on four aspects of these foundations. These are generally
described in Chapter II of the Submittal, with multiple discussion points under each. A
summary and analysis of each follows.
1) Infrastructure & Services (Weld Section 22-2-20.8 & C; Submittal p. II-1)
Discussion:
This criterion is discussed in detail throughout this report.
2) Quality of growth & sustainability of growth (Section 22-2-20.D; Submittal p. 11-1)
Discussion:
As previously noted, the proposal does not support the "jobs/housing balance"
necessary for a sustainable community, a problem experienced in other parts of
the Front Range such as with the City of Boulder (which has more jobs than
housing).
There is a discrepancy in housing types projected (i.e. high-cost), versus the jobs
generated (i.e., low-paying), which is another indicator of a poor growth pattern.
(See discussion below, "Measuring Sprawl and It's Impact", Page 15.)
3) Supporting agriculture (Section 22-2-20.E; Submittal p. Il-1)
Discussion:
The proposed plan includes an agricultural structural land use category and
approximately 1,400 acres that would be subject to policies associated with that
category.
However, as currently proposed, rules governing the expansion of the Southeast
Weld MUD would allow agricultural land to be automatically deemed "urban" by
simply showing adequate services, so the protection to agriculture is limited. At
the same time, the Plan does not account for the reality of development
pressures on agricultural land directly accessible from 1-76.
Suburban and town-level densities allow for the most efficient use of land, which
ultimately allows for more agricultural land to be preserved in production.
Because the proposed plan is relatively low-density, agricultural interests are not
supported as much as they would be with a higher-density vision.
4) Directing urban growth to appropriate area (Section 22-2-20.F; Submittal p. 11-1)
Discussion:
See previous comments and referrals concerning directing urban-level growth to
existing towns and urban areas.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 9
Sections 22-2-100.A: "Urban growth."
Urban growth boundaries and uses within these areas shall be determined through
coordination between the County, the participating municipality and the individual
landowner. Efficient development in the area surrounding municipalities requires this
type of coordination which is achieved by three methods: the three-mile referral,
intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreements, and the standard one-half-mile
urban growth boundary. When growth at the municipality/County level is not
coordinated, problems can occur, with incompatible adjacent land uses as the most
obvious.
Discussion:
The proposed new Southeast Weld MUD lies outside the urban growth and
intergovernmental agreement boundaries of both Hudson and Keenesburg. However,
the relationship of this proposal to each of the towns is nonetheless very significant.
As proposed, a new MUD in the manner proposed could result in a "super subdivision"
with significant impacts to the towns. The proposal does not realistically account for the
likelihood of urban-scale development — especially commercial — along the 1-76 corridor,
whether developed ultimately within the towns or within unincorporated Weld County.
By not coordinating land uses with the towns, the types of problems suggested by this
policy, such as incompatible adjacent land uses, are very likely to occur.
Sections 22-2-100.F: "Urban growth."
[U]rban growth nodes are identified areas of potential urban growth. . . . The boundaries
of these areas are identified as being located within a one-quarter-mile radius of two or
more roads in the state highway system.
Discussion:
The proposal suggests that urbanization is appropriate at the intersection of Country
Roads 22 and 49 because these —while not state roads — are designated by the County
as Strategic Roads. Strategic roads, however, were designated primarily to maintain
functionality and to allow for regional destination travel, not necessarily for accessibility.
The proposal erroneously suggests, then, that the intersection of CR 22 and 49 is
appropriate for urbanization; it also suggests a concentration of development that is
significantly larger than a quarter-mile radius. Furthermore, the intersection of County
Road 49 and 1-76, which does meet the criteria of an urban growth node, is omitted from
the proposal.
Section 22-1-120.A: Comprehensive Plan guiding principles
One of the basic principles upon which the United States was founded and continues to
preserve is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property. Private property rights
are not unlimited rights, but rather rights balanced with the responsibility of protecting
community health, safety and welfare. It is the goal of the comprehensive plan to
express the needs and vision of a developing county, while protecting individual property
rights.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 10
Discussion:
County rules are sensitive to the rights of the landowner applicants, which under current
zoning includes allowing a wide range of agricultural uses, as well as many potential
commercial-type uses through the use by special review process. Other existing rights
exist as part of the "bundle of land rights"—water, mineral, oil and gas, and air rights, for
example.
An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,
expanded property rights against the current rights of other towns and landowners in the
County. Some of the considerations include efficient use of existing infrastructure, the
sustainability of resources such as school service and roads, and the quality of life for
future residents.
Section 22-1-120.B: Comprehensive Plan quidinq principles
The County has an agricultural tradition . . . . As these new land uses evolve, it is
important that the established agricultural businesses and associated infrastructures are
allowed to continue to operate without additional constraints. Individuals who move into
these areas must realize that they will experience conditions and services unlike an
urban setting and must be willing to accept this lifestyle.
Discussion:
Urbanization of 5,600 acres would result in a population that would demand urban-style
amenities. At that scale, it is unrealistic to expect that future citizens would be willing to
accept agricultural conditions such as tractors on County roads, blowing dust, or feedlot
odors. The result would be classic urban-interface conflicts. This type of conflict could
be lessened if the proposal was more coordinated with existing urban areas and relied
more directly on 1-76.
Section 22-1-120.C: Comprehensive Plan quidinq principles
The County has established various regulations for the process of land use change.
This process must be fair and equitable to all parties . . .
Discussion:
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.
Some agencies, such as the Southeast Weld and Platte Valley Conservation Districts,
have suggested that the public process should be broader and that the hearings for this
request should be more broadly advertised.
Section 22-1-120.D: Comprehensive Plan quidinq principles
The County's four-thousand-square-mile area is diverse geographically,
demographically, culturally, socially and economically. Land use changes, therefore,
must afford flexibility based on the specific location and the particular circumstances
encountered within this locality. It is also important to weigh the cumulative impacts that
specific land use changes will have.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 11
Discussion:
Many of the referral comments received discuss the cumulative impacts that this
proposal would have to existing areas in the County. The principles that led to the
formation of the 1-25 MUD -- employment center development, interconnection of
community, consistent land use standards, and appropriate zoning mixture — are
fundamental to the development of a successful town or community. These principles
can be met in a different manner than they are along 1-25, to reflect this different area of
the County, but the basic requirements must be in place to provide for the welfare of
future residents and landowners.
Section 22-1-120.D: Comprehensive Plan guiding principles
Land use regulations which address land use changes should be written so as to protect
the rights of private property owners and the public health, safety and welfare.
Discussion:
If accepted, this proposal to change the County Comprehensive Plan would result in a
land use change. As proposed, the new Southeast MUD would not adequately protect
the public health, safety and welfare for the reasons discussed throughout this report.
Section 22-1-120.D: Comprehensive Plan quidinq principles
Land use policies should facilitate and complement a diverse economic prosperity and
harmonize with associated growth.
Discussion:
The proposed MUD does not provide diverse land uses necessary to sustain a
population of 25,000, as indicated by the Leland financial review (Attachment H) and the
discussion of a new MUD below.
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 submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the
request, and responses from referral entities.
D. RECOMMENDATION WITH CONDITIONS
Should the Planning Commission chose to recommend approval of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, staff recommends the
following conditions of approval:
1. Prior to scheduling a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the
applicant shall address the following items:
a. Revise Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code as shown in Attachment I, to
include the omission of any policies governing expansion of a Southeast
Weld MUD, and to include transportation and stormwater policies as further
determined by Weld Public Works.
b. Revise Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code as shown in Attachment J, to
include transportation and stormwater design standards as further
determined by Weld Public Works.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 12
c. Modify the Structural Land Use Map as follows:
• Define limiting site factors
• Define neighborhood centers (or other commercial indicators)
• Define employment centers
• Define neighborhood and regional parks
• Define school sites
• Define transit sites
• "Round out' the proposed Southeast Weld MUD area to eliminate in-
holdings, "flag" sections, and peninsula parcels.
d. 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 February 10, 2006.
e. Provide a multi-basin wide master plan for stormwater for review by Weld
County Public Works, as indicated in their referral of February 10, 2006.
E. BACKGROUND
I. Discussion: A New Urban Area in Southeast Weld County
Before looking in detail at the specific Pioneer submittal, it is important to first examine
the general prospect of a new urban policy area along Interstate 1-76. Two fundamental
questions must be addressed:
1) Is there a need? (What are the trends and demand?)
2) What would be the characteristics of a new Urban Area?
Weld County has, as a basis for answering these basic questions, a history and
framework of urban development along a federal highway (the "Mixed Use
Development" ["MUD] area along 1-25), supporting MUD studies, the recently-completed
"Interstate-76 Corridor Study," and general land-use knowledge and research.
Is There a Need?
Growth in the Northern Colorado Front Range is a well-documented fact. Recent news
stories and data from the State Demographer's Office indicate not only significant
population increases (almost 17% in three years), but a shift in demand from other areas
of the state.
This trend of increased population is both a cause and effect of growth. Regular natural
and in-migration population, coupled with new employment centers in Northern
Colorado, cause an increase in population. New housing development and other
components of development — increasing land costs, shifting water uses, jurisdictional
actions, expanding infrastructure— are the effect of growth.
Whether this need should be met in the relatively undeveloped 1-76 Corridor, within
existing municipalities, along the 1-25 Corridor, or among a combination of each is a
matter of market preferences and community values.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 13
At this time, Staff can only quantify these choices in limited fashion. The current Weld
population is approximately 220,000, and the projected population for 2025 is 400,000.
Housing for roughly the equivalent of an additional 100,000 people is in the process or
likely for the MUD/Tri-Town area. Tripling the populations of the six Highway 85 and l-
76 towns would result in an increase of 30,000 people. Build-out within the existing
cities of Greeley, Windsor, Severance, Milliken, Johnstown, Mead, and Berthoud could
conservatively provide for an additional 50,000 people. Combining all results in 400,000.
Such information is an approximation, of course, but it is based on existing conditions
and consistent trends. With additional time and research, it would be possible to more
accurately describe how many units could be built under existing zoning within the
County and its cities and towns. Similarly, with more research, it would be possible to
describe in more precise terms where exactly growth is trending. (In fact, the scheduled
2007 update to the Weld Comprehensive Plan may offer more of this type of
information.)
Fundamentally, however, the magnitude and existing conditions for growth exist as
described above. The conclusion is that existing zoning within Weld County will
accommodate future populations through 2025.
Trends and analysis of existing conditions are, of course, only one manner in which to
answer the question of need in the 1-76 Corridor. A second consideration is that of
market demand.
The economic need for a new Urban Policy Area is an important consideration. It is also
one, luckily, that the market — with its system of risk and reward — is best suited to
address. However, it is also very important to consider the externalities of even perfect
market dynamics; externalities in this case include impacts and opportunity costs to the
existing towns, and the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure.
What Characteristics of a New Urban Area?
1997 MUD Special Study
The following set of principles guided county officials and study participants and is the
foundation of the 1997 MUD Special Study, which subsequently led to the Weld
Comprehensive Plan update of 1997:
1) Employment Center Development
The Structural Land Use Plan provides a unique opportunity to create a major
center of new employment in the 1-76 area. The creation of an employment
center should be located and oriented toward regional and national roadways
serving the area. This center needs to be carefully planned to ensure that it
will take advantage of the many opportunities in the area.
2) Interconnection of Community
Liveable neighborhoods are a critical factor in the future quality of life in an
area. Interconnectivity of community nodes and activity centers throughout
the urban influence area would aid in its viability. Community facilities and
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 14
employment centers should interconnect. New residential growth should be
configured as neighborhoods, not as isolated enclaves.
3) Consistent Land Use Standards
The Structural Land Use Plan should outline standards which are intended to
shape and enhance the MUD area. These standards should also support
and implement land use policies found in the County Code.
4) Appropriate Zoning Mixture
The Structural Land Use Plan should provide a mixture of conceptual land
use categories throughout the MUD area.
"Measuring Sprawl"
Another way to determine the characteristics of a new urban area is to discuss what it
should not be. Policy-makers, Weld citizens, and the Weld County Code warn against
the dangers of sprawl, so any new urban policy area should avoid the characteristics of
sprawl.
"Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact" (Smart Growth America, 2001) is one of the most
recent and 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." (Page numbers
are from the report.)
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." (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." (p. 10)
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 15
3) Strength of activity center 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." (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
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." (p.12)
II. Discussion: The Proposed Pioneer New Mixed Use Development Area
This section summarizes key elements of the specific amendment proposed by Pioneer
Communities LLC.
1) ACCESS & TRAFFIC
Regional access to the site would come from County Road 22, County Road 49,
and Interstate-76. There is an existing interchange at CR 49 and 1-76, which is
immediately northeast of the Town of Hudson.
The submittal indicates that approximately 92,500 external vehicle-trips will take
on an average weekday at build-out. A significant number of these trips will be
oriented to/from the west on 1-76. Weld County Public Works indicated
preliminary disagreement with these projections. A subsequent evaluation of the
submitted traffic plan should be a condition if the proposal is accepted.
The submittal indicates that CR 49 would need to be expanded south from CR 22
to a 6-lane arterial, with reconstruction of the 1-76 interchange required.
Additional improvements might need to be made to the Keenesburg interchange
to accommodate capacity.
The submittal also indicates that CR 22 should be reconstructed as a 4-lane
arterial westbound towards Highway 85, and that CR 49 also be reconstructed as
a 4-land arterial northbound.
The submittal also discusses the "commuter-shed," or the area where residents
would need to commute. The submitted market study assumes that people will
trade longer commute times for less expensive housing. (Attachment K,
Submittal, Appendix C, p. 3) It is unclear whether this trend is sustainable.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 16
Per the submittal, a majority of residents would commute 45 minutes or more,
which will increase over time as new stoplights and congestion are introduced
into the regional system. The following commuter times are provided:
o < 15 minutes to 1-76, Hudson, Keenesburg
o 35 minutes to Brighton
o 35 minutes to DIA
o 35 —40 minutes to Ft. Lupton / Platteville
o 50 minutes to Greeley
o 50 minutes to Downtown Denver
o 50-60 minutes to 1-25
o 40 minutes to C-470 interchange south of Brighton
2) FLOODPLAIN & DRAINAGE
Box Elder Creek runs north-south to the west of County Road 49, containing
active farming along the creek and in the associated floodplain. A smaller
tributary is located two miles to the east, which bisects the urban portions of the
subject site.
Drainage all runs to the north and is part of the much larger watershed that feeds
Box Elder 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.
,.� 3) GEOHAZARDS
No significant geo-hazards have been identified in the area at this time. The
subject property is located near, but not on, strippable coal resources. The site is
characterized by fine, sandy soils and scrub vegetation, except in lower areas,
which are irrigated and sustain crops. The majority of the site is flat, with the
exception of a small ridge running north-south just east of CR 49.
4) AGRICULTURAL USES
An Agricultural Land Use Category is proposed as part of this potential new SE
Weld Mixed Use Development area. Consisting of approximately 1,400 acres,
these areas are generally currently farmed.
Prime agricultural land — both irrigated and non-irrigated — is identified in the
proposal, though some aspects of the classification differ from County standards.
The submittal suggests that, as a County in transition, agriculture will need to
adapt to accommodate closer, urban consumers. (Submittal, Appendix L, p. 15)
Some potential uses that could accommodate this transition include vegetable
production, turf grass production, greenhouses, tree production, an "ag
university," and farmer's market-style retail.
5) RESIDENTIAL USES
Residential Structural Land Use categories are proposed within the potential new
SE Weld MUD. Preliminary information suggests a range of densities proposed,
with a minimum of 7,389 and a maximum of 12,425 total dwelling units ("du's").
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 17
This translates into the following densities:
• Gross density: Min. = 1.3 du/ac, Max. = 2.2 du/ac
• Density, net of agricultural areas (only): Min. = 1.7 du/ac, Max = 2.9 du/ac
• Density, net of all presumed open space: Min = 3.1 du/ac, Max = 5.2 du/ac
Approximately 75% of residential acreage is within 2 — 6 du's/acre, which is
equivalent to '/-acre and 1/6-acre lot sizes. For purposes of comparison, '/ acre
lots equal 21,780 square feet, and 1/6-acre lots equal 7,260 square feet.
6) COMMERICIAL USES
Commercial land use categories are not specifically called out on the draft
Structural Land Use map. However, a draft conceptual master plan for the site
indicates approximately 270 acres (i.e., approximately 12 million square feet of
land) for commercial use at the four corners of County Roads 22 and 49. The
proposal identifies this area as an "urban growth node."
The proposal includes goals and policies for the creation of a "main street" of
small-scale buildings and walkable blocks that would avoid strip development
patterns or the creation of destination retail. However, the Structural Land Use
Category does not appear to locate commercial uses interior to the site, and it is
unclear what types of mechanisms would ensure either this scale or type of
development.
The draft conceptual master plan for the site indicates a limit of overall
commercial square footage for the entire site to 200,000 square feet. This
equates to 0.125 square feet per resident, which compares to 15 square feet in
typical, developed towns.
For size comparison, a typical supermarket store is 45,500 square feet. A typical
big-box retailer, such as Wal-Mart, is 100,000 square feet. The new auto retail
center planned for south of Winsor includes a 45,000 square feet building.
As a comparison to the amount of commercial and office center serving a
population of this size, Highlands Ranch (which is three times larger) has
approximately 5 million square feet of commercial and retail building space.
7) ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Little is provided concerning the economic impact to area towns. The Town of
Kersey expresses concern that the proposed amendment will be detrimental to
small towns in the region and impact their future commercial growth.
The proposal indicates a positive fiscal impact to Weld County services of $6
million. The independent review by Leland Consulting Group (Attachment H)
disputes this. The review indicates, while still accounting for site-specific tax
revenues provided by the metropolitan districts, that general government costs
will exceed projected revenue, resulting in a $5 million deficit to the County.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 18
8) EMPLOYMENT
The submittal identifies the nearest employment core as Denver International
Airport. (Attachment K, Appendix C, Exhibit 1-3) Other employment cores
identified are the following: downtown Boulder, Rocky Flats, Interlocken Tech
Park, Stapleton, Commerce City, Downtown Denver, Denver Federal Center,
Downtown Littleton, the Denver Tech Center, and Buckley Air Force Base.
The City of Brighton notes that the submittal cites 7,000 jobs from construction at
the site and 470 retail jobs. They notes that neither of these job generators are
long-term or provide an income-level to match those of the residents who would
be able to live in the community.
9) EMERGENCY SERVICE
Law enforcement would be provided by the Weld County Sheriff's Department
through the current Beat Three. A Law Enforcement Authority ("LEA") is being
proposed; additional taxes from this authority, estimated at seven mills, would
help pay for urban-level services.
The existing Hudson Fire Protection District and the Southeast Weld Fire
Protection District (SEWFPD) serve the majority of the site, and the submittal
proposes expanding the districts to include the subject property. The SEWFPD
is an all-volunteer fire district; the total number of volunteers for the district
cannot exceed 75. Significant increases in population will require that a
professional, paid staff be developed.
10)WATER & SANITATION
Metropolitan districts (a type of quasi-governmental taxing and service authority)
have been proposed and approved for the Pioneer site. According to the
Districts' Service plans, water and sewer service would be provided through
contract to another metropolitan district, Resource Colorado, a water and sewer
wholesaler.
According to the applicants (see Attachment K, Submittal, Appendix F),
approximately 6,000 acre-feet will come from the following sources:
• Denver Basin — 23%
• Lost Creek Basin, Prospect Valley area— 36%
• Box Elder Alluvium —40%
The Denver Basin is a deep, non-renewable water source that extends from
Greeley to south Denver. It does not get recharged.
The Lost Creek Basin underlies Lost Creek east of the subject property and
extends from Bennett (east of Denver) to the South Platte River east of Kersey,
as identified in additional information provided at the request of Weld Department
of Public Health and Environment. (See Attachment G.) Lost Creek is an
intermittent stream that infrequently carries water on the surface. The Lost Creek
Basin wells owned by PV Water Holdings LLC were recently reappropriated for
municipal uses and are considered to be a reliable source.
File 2005-xx, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 19
The Box Elder Alluvium is a shallow-aquifer water source associated with water
in the Box Elder Creek.
Future water demand as submitted by the applicant is for 6,186 acre-feet per
year total, or 0.415 acre-foot per residential unit. The proposal also anticipates
return flows to be available in an amount up to 2,477 acre-feet. These return
flows would be used for augmentation of water pumped from the Box Elder
Alluvium to meet annual source quantities. Some augmentation waters may also
be available for agricultural purposes, though no estimated amounts are
provided.
The Resource Colorado Metropolitan District is proposed to provide sewer
service as well. A wastewater treatment facility is proposed at the north end of
the site. The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association granted
Resource Colorado conditional approval of a 280 Service Area, inclusive of the
subject site on September 22, 2005.
11)SCHOOLS
School service would be provided by Weld County School District RE-3J. A
school foundation could be formed to allow for voluntary contributions made by
developers in conjunction with the creation of a SE Weld MUD, but the School
District indicates that this is only a partial solution to what is projected to be a
financial shortfall for the District.
The District concludes that the proposed population would require the
construction of 8 new elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 2 high schools.
Current enrollment at the RE-3J District is 1,900 students; creation of a new SE
Weld MUD would result in a student population of between 6,000 and 8,900
students.
F. SUMMARY
The recommendation for denial is based, broadly, on the following summarized items:
a) It is likely that there is a long-term need for urbanization along the greater I-76
corridor. However, . . .
• The submitted proposal does not effectively address this need.
• The demand should be met in a coordinated, efficient manner that supports
existing residents and provides future residents in the area with an equally
high quality of life.
• The long-term need is not immediate, based on existing zoning in the County,
and analysis of the greater Denver metropolitan area market.
b) Creating a new SE Weld MUD is the correct mechanism for amending the
Comprehensive Plan to urbanize the I-76 corridor. However, . .
• The submittal does not meet the criteria that resulted in the creation of the
existing 1-25 MUD.
• The submittal does not overcome the characteristics of "sprawl," as
measured and identified by recent land use planning research.
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 20
c) Providing and sustaining service levels is one important element in the consideration
of urbanizing the 1-76 corridor. However . . .
• There are uncertainties with the submitted plan in the areas of schools, water,
traffic, etc.
• Existing towns and service providers are concerned with under-utilization of
existing infrastructure.
• Employment and adequate commercial services are not accommodated by
the proposal.
• Independent review of the market assumptions suggests that absorption
necessary to provide services will not be achievable, and that County
revenues generated by development of the area will not support a
proportionate share of County service demands.
• The ability to provide services is only one consideration in the creation of
towns and cities.
d) A significant number of referral agencies have objected to the proposed amendment
or offered only qualified support.
e) Through a coordinated inter-regional effort with the Towns of Keenesburg and
Hudson, a larger, more comprehensive Structural Land Use Plan could be developed
that would result in a mixed-use community that is fully sustainable and responds
directly to the critical role Interstate-76 plays in the area.
G. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Vicinity Map
Attachment B Site Map / Proposed SE MUD Structural Land Use Map
Attachment C Site Photos
Attachment D Referrals With Comments
Attachment E Referrals without Comments
Attachment F Correspondence
Attachment G Buchanan Water Report
Attachment H Leland Consulting Group Financial Review Report
Attachment I Potential Revised Weld Code Chapter 22
Attachment J Potential Revised Weld County Chapter 26
Attachment K Pioneer Submittal Notebook ("Applicant's Submittal")
File 2005-XX, Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 21
ATTACHMENT C
Site Photos
p
ri
'' Fes: f� '."c .9TUa `�;k•5'.A@i�.
01 12 '2006
Geographic center, looking west to ridge Geographic center, looking west
over ridge to CR 22 & 49
''
{ !M1 w d WS Y 1
;5 ..4«",„‘,„":„. X 1 x0006 i4�
Intersection of CR 20 (proposed extension east to Keenesburg) & CR 51 (south to 1-76)
�x r
m
' '- - 01/12 Z00E-
01/12 2006
%
Looking north up Box Elder Creek, from CR 22 Looking east on CR 22 to proposed
residential/commercial at CR 49
•
. n �.. 7,,
D1/12/2006 "' 01/12/2006
On ridge looking west over CR 49 Same vantage point, looking NW
taktori `Ywfvf--4rtn" -5- :✓i'6
a ,ks '3. s'satuz.ti
4
91140%.4 fr PC"
Far southeast corner of entire site, looking W Turning east, to eastern extension of CR 20
to Keenesburg
r
�r
01!122006
Looking to Hudson from south border Looking to site from 1-76 on-ramp near Hudson
� - Y J 1 f
a r
n..
- .I .
•
01 / 12 / 2006
i =e
I
• � ." . .
swoweo
ti .
b. _ .t,... O1 / 12/ 206
=e
•
_7_ _
I
in n
01 / 12 / 2006
- - �,L • - �
p
_11 IN
•
4 off
01 / 12 / 2006
, i• y
te r; .{-• - `'s %. .. -. kr ME,Yety79Mb`. • :'�T"n ` � �'���..'#:4���a��Y-�'-1�,f^'1�1`.r'�'nj�•2-a 4.�..t
� '�_l L-i . _
I Cm
�� awry
sen". ,r te' ._ . . �. r I.). -.•••••
n
..... -.
01 / 12 / 2006
. _ 1. . •
<,zm ••� *
L-i .
u p � I
a'—
74 -
•
... t- .\
i-t—IIIIIII - �,I. -
` ` �
air hl
I ' • tom ' AIX
_ -
^_
_ - - �. _. 12 / 2006
. 4
1 T
<Ffl � _ -
ft
t
S
t,
�.c A . n '
J i
01 / 12 / 2006
_ r
�I p �M
i
n 1.
•
. t ) . .
-�
kt I_ /L_ ---
r, r.I . 1. 1 1 ;-14--
flLt1
ran
01 / 12 / 2006
_7_
7 • `Y - SS
c • _ i9
01 / 12 / 2006
- I =e
e . 1 1. w
,.
.1 .�'. 01 /
Hello