The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20060700.tiff 4(1a 1: Weld County Referral WIIDe. October 18, 2005 COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Tom Morton Case Number PZ-1078 Please Reply By November 15, 2005 Planner Kim Ogle Project PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agriculture to PUD with (E) Estate ; (R-1 ) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District (St. Vrain Lakes PUD) Legal Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location East of and adjacent to CR 19 and 1/4 mile north of CR 70. ,--- Parcel Number Various Parcels The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 20, 2005 D We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ili We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. ❑ See attached letter. Comments: U(x)(\ (`-etV1 U . �n� I �{C1' 1 innp lint mac{-cry. Signature Date t o- iq 'bS Agency Zbrt 1N\. .f�F t�CQ �" EXHIBIT ❖Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10'"Street, Greeley,CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 .•(970)304-649 1 2006-0700 Vladhp& Pi � a Weld County Referral IReftl tou y Planning Department I G EELEY OFFICE October 18, 2005 CT 2 2005 RECEIVED Or CEIVED OCT 2'5 2005 COLOR AD CD0T Region 4 Traffic Section The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Tom Morton Case Number PZ-1078 Please Reply By November 15, 2005 Planner Kim Ogle Project PUD Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD with (E) Estate ; (R-1) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District (St. Vrain Lakes PUD) Legal Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location East of and adjacent to CR 19 and 1/4 mile north of CR 70. Parcel Number Various Parcels The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 20, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. ❑ See attached letter. Comments: IUD In Re_ raijort was ;ncUkcod w/ + s su.bm'4+a1. CLOT u t-1 l 1 v1t.2ct -b rtt-ice-Lx-' . UAL -FLU( movtr&Ln+ ciec.cs ses ox.p pLa v. -� SignatureMtLA--rx— 4 t - I Date l 0/21 /o Agency C DOT Acces., EXHIBIT 4),Neld County Planning Dept. 4918 10'Street, Greeley, CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-. Iegai b- i r -1 ri q �+ i + ,- -- 5 (CR Ili ) 3 4 haJ C- u3`ul bcJ-U)w _ \/L rnplc spaci✓lq . Adclliftorla4 tcc2ss w II rviicl cov irrvid and ,s sk-A-b1ecf -fp Sfa-fe- /�cCQss CocCi ccv\-exia. 0CT-26-2005 12:57PM FROM-AMR +9703502198 T-629 P.002/002 F-774 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 4 TRAF OZ 1420 Second Street Wesley,Colorado 80831 (970)350.2148 (970)880-2198 fax Weld County,SH 66 St.Vrain Lakes Between WCR 11 and WCR 13 E of Longmont October 26,2005 Ben Waldman LSC Transportation Consultants 1889 York Sweet Denver,CO 80206 Dear Ben: The Colorado Department of Transportation agrees to allow the St.Vrain Lakes development,full movement access to State Highway(SH)66 at the existing Weld County Road(WCR) 11 and WCR 13 intersections. An additional full movement access will also be considered if placed at a#mile between WCR 11 and WCR 13. Additional accesses(right-in/right-out,right-in/right-out/left-in)will be considered provided the criteria stated in the State Highway Access Code can be met. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ( �p 1 a Ince-Idler Access Manager xe: file (tesssett(17:-..N.444mWeld Count YWeld Plannin ' �RfELEy OFFICE County Referral epartment October 18, 2005 C. ��CT3 � 2005 COLORADO CEIVED The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Tom Morton Case Number PZ-1078 Please Reply By November 15, 2005 Planner Kim Ogle Project PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agriculture to PUD with (E) Estate ; (R-1 ) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District (St. Vrain Lakes PUD) Legal Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location East of and adjacent to CR 19 and 1/4 mile north of CR 70. Parcel Number Various Parcels The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 20, 2005 U We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached letter. Comments: Signature �'� 2 2rie Date aGroti'� 2 A00 3— Agency EXHIBIT +Weld County Planning Dept. 4918 10'"Street, Greeley,CO. 80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 li 7 Weld County Sheriff's Office M e mo To: Kim Ogle From: Ken Poncelow Date: October 28,2005 Re: PZ-1078 The Sheriffs Office recommends the following improvements for this housing sub-division: 1. The Sheriffs Office requests that builders and developers designate an area by the entrance of the sub-division in which to place a shelter for school children awaiting the school bus. This area should also include a pull off for the school bus which enables it to safely load and unload children out of the roadway. 2. Either mail distribution within the sub-division or a central drop off location within the sub-division should be developed so that residents do not have to cross a county road to obtain their mail. 3. A permanent sign should be placed at the entrance to the subdivision detailing the name of the sub-division,address,and a graphical presentation of the roadways within the subdivision. There should be a plan developed to maintain this sign. 4. If the roadways within this sub-division are not maintained or adopted by the county, individuals purchasing property in this sub-division should be notified that the Sheriffs Office will have limited traffic enforcement powers. 5. A plan should be developed to maintain roadways within the sub-division especially during inclement weather conditions for emergency vehicles. 6. The Sheriffs Office is very supportive of homeowner funded homeowner's associations. These associations provide a contact for the Sheriffs Office and a means of maintaining common areas. 7. If there are oil or gas production facilities within this sub-division, they need to be fenced off in order to mitigate the potential for tampering. These facilities are known to create an attractive nuisance for young people. Tampering not only creates a significant danger to safety but also of environmental damage with extensive mitigation and clean-up costs. 8. The names of all streets within the sub-division should be presented to the Sheriffs Office for approval. This will eliminate duplication of street names within the county. 9. The Sheriffs Office encourages Law Enforcement Authorities to provide additional funding for law enforcement requirements in the future. The Sheriffs Office lacks the ability to absorb any additional service demand without the resources recommended in the multi-year plan provided to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners or as 1 indicated by growth not considered at the time the plan was developed. I have no other comments on this proposal. r r • Page 2 STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER io Division of Water Resources )epartment of Natural Resources .+�oF.00-Coto 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 ' *' Denver,Colorado 80203 *1876- Phone(303)866-3581 Weld 00un FAX(303)866-3589 ty Planning Department Bill Owens October 31, 2005 www.water.state.co.us GREECE' OFFICE Governor 0 V X 2 2005 Russell George Executive Director Tom Morton RECEIVED Hal D.Simpson,P.E. State Engineer Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, Co 80631 Re: St. Vrain Lakes, PZ-1078 Sec. 25, 35 and 36, T3N, R68W, 6th P.M. Water Division 1, Water District 5 Dear Mr. Morton: We have reviewed the additional information submitted for the above referenced proposal. The previous submittal stated that the developer plans to subdivide a 1,313-acre parcel into 4800 to 5131 single-family residential and commercial building sites. The proposed water source for domestic water is the Little Thompson Water District (District). A letter of commitment for service was provided for 4,500 residential lots and 90 acres of commercial land. The previous referral stated that the District will require the developer to purchase and transfer to the District 1.4 shares of the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) water per lot, prior to the tap activation. Prior to further evaluation of the water supply plan a commitment of service from the District must be submitted for all of the proposed lots. According to the submitted information, there are lakes on the property that were created by previous mining operations. The applicant must provide evidence that the area exposed at the lakes was exposed prior to January 1, 1981, in connection with the extraction of sand and gravel by open mining as defined in §34-32-103(9), C.R.S. If the area was exposed after December 31, 1980, or was exposed due to reasons other than open mining, the applicant must demonstrate that depletions to the stream system caused by evaporation from the ground water ponds is being replaced pursuant to a court approved augmentation plan or substitute water supply plan approved by the State Engineer's Office. The applicant must also specify the party that will be responsible for any long-term augmentation requirements. This information was previously requested in our November 8, 2004 letter to the county, however was not provided in the referral information. According to the water supply plan, irrigation water will be provided via a duel water system. The plan states that treated effluent volumes from the site will be calculated and an equivalent amount of water will be diverted from the St. Vrain River into the community's southern pond. The water will then be used to irrigate residential and community landscaping. This process must be further described including, but not limited to, the right under which the EXHIBIT 18 Tom Morton Page 2 St. Vrain Lakes water is being withdrawn from the St. Vrain River, if the water is being withdrawn pursuant to an exchange or direct delivery, the location of the waste water treatment plant discharge in relation to the location that the water will be withdrawn and if the southern pond is lined and approved for storage. The plan must also show that the effluent will be adequate to satisfy the irrigation water requirements of the subdivision. The plan states that documents and agreements related to the water needs for the community were included with the submittal. These documents may clarify the situation, however they were not included with the referral information. Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), C.R.S., the State Engineer's Office has not received enough information to render an opinion regarding the potential for causing material injury to decreed water rights, or the adequacy of the proposed water supply. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact Joanna Williams of this office. Sincerely, /VS-5Ced-4-erliin Dick Wolfe, P.E. Chief of Water Supply DW/JMW CC: Jim Hall, Division 1 Office Water Supply Branch Subdivision File . 0 61a ‘ Pr DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION "lige Weld County Administrative Offices 918 10th Street, Greeley, CO 80631 WEB hone 90 www 100, Ex. 3540 Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540 Fax (970) 304-6498 COLORADO November 1, 2005 Tom Morton PUD Change of Zone. PZ-1078 1. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building. 2. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall include a floor plan. Commercial building plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer.Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit.Commercial building plans require a Code Analysis Data sheet, provided by the Weld County Building Department. Residential building plans may be required to bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. 3. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the time of permit application. Current adopted codes include the 2003 International Residential Code; 2003 International Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. 4. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. 5. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. When measuring buildings to determine offset and setback requirements, buildings are measured to the farthest projection from the building. Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior to the first site inspection. 7. A Flood Plain Development Permit will be required any building in the 100 year flood plain. Please contact me for any further information regarding this project. r-. rely, EXHIBIT jog Vigil Building Official (/� MpUN1/2N MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT a Administrative Office: 9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501 E • 1� F (303) 772-0710• FAX (303) 651-7702 view November 3, 2005 Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: I have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the change in zoning for the Saint Vrain I akes/Carma project, located east of and adjacent to the east 1-25 Frontage Road; west of and adjacent to Weld County Road 13; and south of and adjacent to Highway 66. (Case Number PZ- 1078, Applicant Name: Tom Morton). The Fire District does not object to the request for Change in Zoning provided the development meets the requirements of the Fire District. All applicable codes as they pertain to water supply, fire hydrant locations, fire department access, and street designs must be met. Before street construction may begin, construction plans for the utilities showing the location of fire hydrants, the size of water mains and available fire flows must be submitted to the Fire District for review and approval. The submittal must include a water supply analysis indicating the available fire flow at the most demanding point in the water system. We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 772-0710. Sincerely, C LuAnn Penfold j Fire Marshal LMP/Ip cc: project file Ip11.03.05 EXHIBIT 'D Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 9119 Cnty Line Rd. 14308 Mead St..Unit B P.O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Dobbin Run 50 Bonanza Dr. P.O.Box 40 Longmont,CO Longmont,CO 299 Palmer Ave. 8500 Niwot Road Lafayette.CO Erie,CO 100 So.Forest St. 80501 80504 Mead,CO 80542 Niwot,CO 80544 80026 80516 Dacono.CO 80514 L6 ' 1 o i , Weld County Referral WIWeld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE October 24, 2005 I D C. NO V 14 2005 �` COLORADO RECEIVED 4- 5 .� The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Tom Morton Case Number PZ-1078 I Please Reply By November 15, 2005 Planner Kim Ogle Project PUD Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD with (E) Estate ; (R-1 ) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District (St. Vrain Lakes PUD) - Legal Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location Multiple parcels generally located East of and adjacent to the 1-25 Frontage Road, — South of and adjacent to SH 66; west of and adjacent to CR 13 and north of and adjacent to St. Vrain River For a more complete description see Legal. t Parcel Number Various Parcels I The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 20, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ i1/e have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached letter. Comments: Signature Date Agency EXHIBIT , +Weld County Planning Dept. •'x918 10"Street, Greeley, CO. 80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6' 1 /1 Longmont Conservation District 9595 Nelson Road, Box D-Longmont, Colorado 80501—Phone (303) 776-4034-Fax(303) 684-9893 November 4, 2005 Site Review Memo To: Longmont CD Board From: Nancy McIntyre Subject: (List site name, location, Permit#, Purpose, etc.) Tom Morton, St. Vrain Lakes Case#PZ-1078. St. Vrain Lakes east ofand adjacent to I-25 Frontage Road, south of adjacent to SH 66, west of and adjacent to CR 13 and north of and adjacent to St. Vrain River. Prime Farmland: Mostly prime if irrigated. Water Quality: St. Vrain River is the southern edge of the property. It should be protected from any runoff. Noxious Weed Control: Ground is currently farmed. Need to develop a noxious weed control plan to keep seeds out of the river. Soils Limitations: Soils are somewhat shrink/swell. Other concerns: Summary comments: CONiSER 6:I TIO:V-DEITY TY OP LJEVT-SELF GOI F_R.V:1 MIST Nov 08 05 07:08p Division of Wildlife 303-776-6663 p.1 i;Nsss\H F\ mpg Weld County Referral ' October 18, 2005 C. COLORADO • The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Tom Morton Case Number PZ-1076 Please Reply By November 15, 2005 Planner Kim Ogle Project PUD Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD with (E) Estate ; (R-1) Low Density Residential; (R-2)Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District (St. Vrain Lakes PUD) Legal Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location East of and adjacent to CR 19 and 1/4 mile north of CR 70. Parcel Number Various Parcels The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consicer relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 20, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. ❑ See attached letter. Comments: S• / jam Alt 442. Gcst +snerita`27 C' .— to "O-Pare LT- SGJjJL-7 �. ,T/�77L.T • Signature `f7�Ls�� 7jf • Date tee. "Lill• gar Agency G ULGo .a-t-' Lr/.e.e2i irk /'2IYCA; GH Sa,•/9 +Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10"Street,Greeley,CO.80631 +(97C)353-6100 ext,3540 '-(970)304-6498 fax EXHIBIT ea.L _ „. Weld County Referral C. COLORADO November 1, 2004 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant CARMA COLORADO Case Number PK-1078 I Please Reply By December 1, 2004 Planner Kim Ogle Project PUD Sketch Plan for 4800 to 5131 Single Family Residential and Commercial building sites(St Vrain Lakes) Legal Part of Sections 25, 35 and 36,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. i ), Location East of and adjacent to ; 1/4 mile north of GR 70 f I t'd> /> Parcel Number 1207 25 000023, 1207 25 1000001, 1207 36 000056, 1207 25 000006, 1207 36 000029, 1207 25 100002, 1207 35 000051 & 1207 25 000020 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Department Design Review Meeting: We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. )8( See attached letter/A/oyz Comments: y cc.9,4 p is cr?A/44// /4.6uaS Afr'fear .77/ar 3 y syJ.4r(' uisdtu1 s cor a`uvie., tV vv 27?G- /r'Jv .e�ilrcr U CO. a co3- ,7pq- c a -6Oa- w///CW p7r7S cc .vca v .9 C/ o,v X76, Signature /7'i G/- �� i a 7i/ Date • va .,7t2 ,P424,47` Agency crx0 . /Ji v. CV= Lr//L,JG/%e- 7--MY fl 70 tal-4O cv a c.OcP cJ ee +Weld County Planning Dept. t918 10th Street,Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax Gff Ski} 2 'd E999-9LL-E0E adtjPTtn do uoTsTAHI dLT :2T SO BT clad (71" ;Ns:34%s\ Weld County Referral February 5, 2002 11111 p C. COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Mike Siegrist, Riverdance Case Number CZ-602 Development Company Please Reply By February 25, 2002 Planner Kim Ogle Project Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Residential Uses (R-1, R-2, R- 3, & R-4)for six hundred eighteen (618) Residential Lots,thirty-one (31) Lots with Commercial/Industrial (C-1, C-2 &I-1) Uses and 239 acres of Common Open Space including a Community Clubhouse in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Legal Part of Section 35, the SW4,NW4 and the NW4, SW4 of Section 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. Location South of and adjacent to WCR 28 and east of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road. • Parcel Number 1207 35 000038, 39, 51, 57 and 1207 36 000025, 31 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) April 16, 2002 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. �f See attached letter/A/07e Comments: j kg-'049 w .o/o!//.Ssr /" W/<.O4Jd5 /4i?VTKT/Onr> pWMr /!/O .010,07 fl' C/P/9rir /31r /9LLO r.dew con., r9/c1j C7/' T//r L/44,-Pre /SL/!+c-4<2% 7O /3r L�Lrnne //1/ 7Ji/T LH/rb3 ./attla Ge//L CJL//%Lr arerniw/6 -r 720-16W- 'Lt7 77P.4/LS CZ? CtWSreetan20 w/iN .I-/VO CL an 7/*9N yea f j39Cn> TtJr ..-P/1-409°P,41,--/9'P/4KJ 1941 Signature /7)a.e_go,--.G,.r ; a71/ Date ,gy muss? 6r2- Agency C Leo /a/u. 44.--1/4.04 ( 209X6'7JJ +Weld County Planning Dept. 91555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax E 'd E999-9LL-E0E adnnpTtm 3o uoistATU dLT :2T SO BT clad Ca_ Best Communities. Best Value.Since 1958 Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE APR 13 2005 April 8,2005 RECEIVED Monica Daniels-Mika Weld County Planning 918 10th Street Greeley,CO 80631 Dear Monica: This letter is to request a meeting with the Weld County Board of County Commissioners in regards to the_St Vrain Lakes project that is currently being processed through the Coun_ty._During the reviewof our project, there have been comments from the referral agencies that necessitate a discussion with the BOCC in order to properly address them. The issues that we would like to discuss are as follows: • The ownership and maintenance of public roadways within the community • The County MUD roadway sections and the impact on the overall maintenance and community design Please let me know if the County needs any additional information on the topics of discussion or if there is anything that we can provide to assist in setting this meeting up. We are looking forward to the opportunity to discussing this with the County. Sincerely, ,6") Carma Colorado, Inc. Tyler M.Packard Development Manager Highland Place II, 9110 E. Nichols Avenue, Suite 180 Englewood, Colorado, U.S.A. 80112 Tel: (303) 706-9451 Fax: (303) 706-9453 denverinfo@carma.ca Weld Cc '! Plannirr._. Department ELEy fl FILE #46 N0V I is ?005 \(94.1,: MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: Kim Ogle, Pla ng Manager DATE: 15-November-2005 III D nDepartment Peter .E.,and David Bauer, P.E., Public Works De artment COLORADO SUBJECT: PZ-103$St. Vrain Lakes PUD(Zone Change) Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Zone Change plan request. Comments made during this phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. Comments ❑ Public Works has reviewed drawings titled: Detailed Change of Zone Plan for St. Vrain Lakes PUD dated August 2005, by DTJ Design, Inc. o The Vicinity Map (Sheet 1) shows (only) the proposed development and no adjacent properties; especially to the South around SH 119,to the North of SH 66, to the East of CR 13,or to the West of I-25. It is reasonable to request a one-mile outer limit of the proposed PUD be shown on a revised vicinity map to be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. ❑ St. Vrain Lakes PUD is planned for up to 5,131 buildable lots with various uses, including residential and commercial. ❑ Public Works will supplement this memorandum with additional in-depth technical comments provided by our retained transportation engineering consultant before long. External Roadways: ❑ The proposed development property lies within the MUD; therefore Public Works recommends that all external roadway improvements shall meet Weld County MUD criteria/standards(typically CDOT and AASHTO). o It is not known at this time if the applicant seeks a variance for external County roadways, since specific cross- sections were not provided for these corridors and a letter seeking any variance to County roadway standards was not provided in the application materials. o The applicant must request a variance at the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Change of Zone Hearings, if any variance from County standards for external roadways is requested. ❑ Public Works has reviewed drawings titled: Detailed Change of Zone Plan for St. Vrain Lakes PUD dated August 2005, by DTJ Design, Inc. o While the Phase Plan Map(Sheet 2)and the Street Cross—Sections(Sheet 20)are useful to Public Works, there are no plan drawings locating (dimensioning and labeling) road rights-of-way. Additional change of zone plan maps shall be submitted to Public Works, prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing illustrating road rights-of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled for all external roads (and known proposed internal roadways). Any roundabouts proposed shall also be shown, including road rights-of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled. o The Street Cross—Sections(Sheet 20) shall include typical cross-sections for each of the external County roadways planned to be constructed for the proposed development: CR 9 'A, CR 11,CR 13, and CR 28. Care should be taken to accurately depict,dimension and label(any of the required): rights-of-way, easements, road surfaces,travel lanes, turn lanes, shoulders, drainage ditches, medians,bike lanes, sidewalks,curbs&gutters,and landscape buffers. Each of the external County Roadways must be depicted by a separate roadway cross-section and labeled to match - to avoid any confusion. Any roundabouts proposed shall also be shown, including road rights-of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled. The applicant shall indicate their intentions and responsibilities with respect to the construction of said associated roadway cross-sections in graphical and written manner to clearly indicate objectives. Any phasing may also be included with the depiction of each roadway cross-section. Revised Street Cross — �' Sections (Sheet 20) shall be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. EXHIBIT Page 1 of 7 1 13 ❑ Weld County will not maintain median areas proposed for external roadways. ❑ Road classifications shall be adhered to with respect to County access standards. ❑ The Traffic Impact Analysis — St. Vrain Lakes - Weld County, Colorado, dated August 01, 2005, by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.,sealed by Benjamin T.Waldman,P.E.has been reviewed for the proposed development. o Of particular concern are the impacts to the fringe areas surrounding this tremendous development in Weld County and the potential maintenance concerns to the infrastructure. The applicant should address a fringe area of one-mile surrounding St. Vrain Lakes PUD and the impacts thereof. ❑ This development may introduce approximately 49,104 additional vehicle trips per day to the off-site roadway system based on the proposed 5,131 residential homes as calculated by Public Works for an estimate. o This increased level of traffic on County roads creates surface / maintenance problems, levels of service, and capacity concerns. ❑ SH 66 adjacent to this development has been annexed by the Town of Mead. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. Additional change of zone plan maps shall be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing showing road rights-of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled for all external roads. o SH 66 is paved and maintained by CDOT adjacent to this development. o The applicant's engineer, Ben Waldman, P.E., with LSC Transportation Consultants has submitted a letter from Colorado Department of Transportation dated 26-October-2005 by Gloria Hice-Idler stating that full movement access would be allowed onto SH 66 at the CR 11 intersection and the CR 13 intersection. An additional full movement access would be considered onto SH 66 if placed a half-mile between CR 11 and CR 13. • The letter states the third full movement access would be considered, but it is not clear if it has been granted by CDOT. The applicant shall clarify this access point with CDOT in writing and provide Public Works with said validation prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing for the zone change. ❑ CR 13 is classified by the County (Weld County Roadway Classification Plan, June 2002) as a major corridor - arterial road (adjacent to the east of this development) and requires a /40-foot right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of- way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. Additional change of zone plan maps showing road rights-of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled for all external roads shall be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. o CR 13 is paved and under the jurisdiction of Weld County. o Public Works normally requires that access points to an arterial road be limited to half-mile intervals. The County will consider quarter-mile access points if safety issues, roadway capacity and the level of service(LOS) for CR 13 (arterial)are not compromised. Public Works generally agrees with the proposed access points for the development. ❑ CR 9 'h is classified by the County(Weld County I-25 Parallel Arterial Study, September 2003)as a major arterial road(adjacent to the west of this development)and requires a 140-foot right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. . Additional change of zone plan maps showing road rights-of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled for all external roads shall be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. o Public Works normally requires that access points to an arterial road be limited to half-mile intervals. The County will consider quarter-mile access points if safety issues, roadway capacity and the level of service(LOS)for CR 9 '/2 (arterial) are not compromised. Public Works will finalize access points for the proposed development with the applicant at the change of zone as the final traffic impact study will be needed for evaluation of locations. o The alignment for CR 9 '/2 will jog at the south end of the proposed development site, requiring adequate transportation geometric curvature through the applicant's property. The Weld County 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study documents this route and illustrates conceptual alignments. o A portion of CR 9 '/2 would be in the jurisdiction of Weld County and a portion may be within the jurisdiction of Mead for this development. • The applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate authority concerning respective rights-of-way and roadway improvements meeting MUD criterion. o The County also anticipates coordination efforts between the applicant and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)for the CR 9 '/z project. Of special concern are any signalization requirements at intersections. Page 2 of 7 ❑ CR 28 is classified by the County (I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan — Map 2.2 Structural Transportation Network, July 2004) as a minor arterial road within this development and requires a 110-foot right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. Additional change of zone plan maps showing road rights- _ of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled for all external roads shall be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. o CR 28 is gravel with sections maintained by Weld County and Mead in the vicinity of this development. o The applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate authority concerning respective roadway improvements meeting MUD criterion. Of special concern are any signalization requirements at intersections. o CR 28 must be improved for both on-site and off-site development impacts,along with CR 28 at the under-pass of I- 25.An item of interest will be the safety conditions at the I-25 under-pass. ❑ CR 11 has been annexed by the Town of Mead. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. Additional change of zone plan maps, showing road rights-of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled (for all external roads and known proposed internal roadways) shall be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. o CR 11 is gravel and maintained by Mead adjacent to this development. o The applicant shall coordinate with Mead concerning respective roadway improvements meeting MUD criterion. Of special concern are access points and any signalization requirements at intersections. ❑ At the final plat stage for all phases of development the county will require road improvements agreements and collateral according to County policy. ❑ All offsite road improvements required by the development shall be shown on a plan map, with consideration for probable phases, to accommodate the proposed development's traffic generation. Since Public Works does not know when the future final plan (phases) application will be submitted or the extent of the proposed development, future roadway improvements shall be identified based on traffic thresholds and approved by the Board of County Commissioners(BOCC)prior to recording any final plat. U The applicant's engineer shall agree to coordinate future local/collector roadway connections through the proposed development and consider interconnectivity of all modes of travel in the immediate area(e.g. trails, bikes, etc.) at the final plan stage for each development phase. o Connectivity of roadway systems reduces trip lengths between neighborhoods and helps reduce traffic congestion. Neighborhood centers are intended to provide community services for residents within the MUD area. Alternative means of transportation and opportunities for those who seek to walk or ride their bicycles should be provided to connect community facilities and employment centers. ❑ The applicant will be required to work with appropriate emergency response jurisdictions (especially law enforcement and fire protection) for approval of the proposed roadway system and minimum design standards prior to recording any final plat for each development phase. Internal Roadways: ❑ The tremendous scope of this proposal greatly exceeds Weld County's ability to serve and maintain internal roadway infrastructure. The County recommends that a metro-district be formed to handle all internal roadways and any related issues for St.Vrain Lakes PUD. o The applicant has submitted a Memorandum of Understanding. U Public Works has reviewed drawings titled: Detailed Change of Zone Plan for St. Vrain Lakes PUD dated August 2005,by DTJ Design,Inc. o The Street Cross—Sections (Sheet 20) shall accurately indicate where the Link Street, Residential Local Street, and Alley cross-sections will be utilized for the proposed development. This may be best shown on a plan map that dimensions rights-of-way and includes a label of the proposed roadway cross-section to be utilized for the PUD. Any roundabouts proposed shall also be shown, including road rights-of-way clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled. A plan map and revised Street Cross — Sections (Sheet 20) shall be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. ❑ The proposed development property lies within the MUD; therefore Public Works recommends that all internal roadway improvements shall meet Weld County MUD criteria/standards for a PUD(typically CDOT and AASHTO). o In general, the applicant has proposed to build public roads that differ from County standards, since the proposed road cross sections submitted with the zone change materials do not match the MUD standards. o A letter seeking any variance to County internal roadway standards was not provided in the application materials. o The applicant shall request a variance from the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners at the Change of Zone Hearings for any deviation from County standards of internal roadways. Page 3 of 7 .0 Weld County will not maintain median areas proposed for internal roadways. ❑ The internal local road right-of-way shall be sixty(60) feet in width including cul-de-sacs with a sixty-five (65) foot radius, and dedicated to the public. The typical roadway section of interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot paved lanes with 8-foot paved parking lanes on the Change of Zone plat(the final traffic impact study shall also be reviewed for interior roadway cross- sections). The cul-de-sac edge of pavement radius shall be fifty(50)feet. The MUD criteria require curb,gutter and sidewalk. Any internal collector road right-of-way shall be eighty (80) feet in width and dedicated to the public. The typical roadway section of interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot paved lanes (with turn lanes as needed) with 6-foot bike lanes on the Change of Zone plat(the final traffic impact study shall also be reviewed for interior roadway cross-sections). The MUD criteria require curb,gutter and sidewalk. ❑ Easements shall be shown on the final plat for each development phase in accordance with County standards(Sec.24-7-60) and/ or Utility Board recommendations. ❑ Intersection sight distance triangles at all development entrances and intersections will be required. All landscaping within the triangles must be less than 3'h feet in height at maturity,and noted on the final roadway plans for each development phase. U The applicant shall submit to Public Works stamped,signed and dated final plat drawings and roadway/construction&grading plan drawings for review & approval with the final plan application for each development phase. Construction details must be included. o Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections and shown on a signing plan on final roadway plans for each development phase. The current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)shall govern the signing plan. ❑ The applicant shall submit signed Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding Collateral for (on-site) Improvements with the final plan application for each development phase. These agreements must be reviewed by Public Works and shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners(BOCC)prior to recording any final plat for each phase. Geotechnical/Pavement: ❑ The applicant has provided a pavement design in the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report — Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Carma Weld County Site, Weld County Road 30(Highway 66) and Interstate 25 - Weld County. Colorado, dated May 26, 2004,by Terracon(Terracon Project No. 25045122). o Weld County does not recommend or accept full-depth asphalt as a paving option/alternative. o Soil borings and analyses were not prepared for the future road alignments. o The applicant shall prepare a final geotechnical / pavement design report prepared by a professional engineer submitted with the final plan materials for each development phase. This report may be prepared after overlot grading and utility installation has been completed. • The report must evaluate subgrade soils associated with construction of the roadways. • Final recommendations for pavement and base course thicknesses shall be included in the report. Storm Draina¢e: ❑ The applicant must address the CLOMR related to this development site and the sewer(pipe)project proposed to extend across the parcel(s). ❑ Public Works has reviewed drawings titled: Detailed Change of Zone Plan for St. Vrain Lakes PUD dated August 2005, by DTJ Design,Inc. o There were no plan maps submitted with sufficient detail to explain stormwater/drainage/grading/erosion control as required by Weld County CODE. Additional stormwater/ drainage / grading / erosion control and topography plan maps shall be submitted to Public Works with sufficient detail prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Change of Zone hearing. ❑ Weld County will not maintain drainage easements/stormwater detention ponds/landscaped swales/related areas. U This PUD is adjacent to or in close proximity to other proposed development(s)and must collaborate and coordinate drainage of the vicinity region. It is important to understand the existing drainage of the area(s) and incorporate in an engineering manner the proposed drainage with-respect-to development of the land(s). Public Works intends to preserve the safety of development in this vicinity as a whole without unanticipated surprises amounting to an isolated parcel drainage perspective. An adjacent proposed development may impact St. Vrain Lakes in a manner it was not anticipating or vice-versa. A conservative approach now may prove beneficial to future home owners. o The applicant is best served by the expertise of the Department of Planning, when investigating what are the proposed developments of the area. ----- Page 4 of 7 _ U The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report—Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Carma Weld County Site, Weld County Road 30 (Highway 66) and Interstate 25 - Weld County, Colorado, dated May 26, 2004, by Terracon (Terracon Project No. 25045122),addressing groundwater conditions, is satisfactory. o A cursory review indicated groundwater was encountered during the geotechnical investigation. Areas of the proposed site may not feasibly allow full-depth basement construction, thereby influencing the development plan layout. The applicant shall address potential groundwater / full-depth basement construction issues prior to scheduling the Change of Zone hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. o Mitigation measures shall be detailed by the applicant at the time of final plat application for each phase. o The amount and depth of the borings is appropriate for this large site. o Ground water was encountered in nearly all of the 32 borings. The average depth to ground water was about 12 feet, ranges from 6 to 20 feet below ground surface(bgs). o Public Works noted mostly lean clay and shales in the sample descriptions although there are some sandy layers that appear approximately 5 feet bgs across the site. The sandy layers are the sources of seeps along the St. Vrain cut bank(south edge of the St.Vrain Lakes PUD site). o The seeps support some wetlands(numbers 6,7,and 8 in the ERO study). o Given the depth of the groundwater over most of the site, Public Works believes that most of their proposed construction areas are constructible. The depth of the sanitary sewer lines may intersect the ground water in some portions of the site so trench blockers may be needed (in-trench plugs to prevent the sewer line's trenches from becoming rapid conduits for the ground water,discharging to the St. Vrain cut bank area). o Detailed grading design and locations of services (manholes, sewer lines etc.) may reveal additional concerns / requirements. ❑ The Master Drainage Report and Storm Water Management Guide for St Vrain Lakes PUD Development, July 01, 2005, by Carroll& Lange, Inc. (JN: 3075) sealed by Fred G. Tafoya III, P.E. (#30446) is generally not acceptable for this change of zone application and must include basic core provisions addressing storm drainage requirements described in the Weld County CODE (Sec. 24-7-110, 120, & 130). A revised drainage report shall be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners'Change of Zone hearing. o A one-mile outer limit of the proposed PUD shall be shown on a revised vicinity drainage map to be submitted to Public Works prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. ❑ The St. Vrain Lakes PUD project drainage report submitted to Public Works is incomplete. Sufficient information to evaluate the proposed project was not included. o For a Change of Zone request, their drainage reports should provide us with a significant amount of detail(per Weld Code - Chapter 8, Article 7, Chapter 23 Article 3, and Chapter 24 Article 7-130). For this level of review Public Works expects to see the details of detention sizing, pipe sizing, swale design (especially relative to adjacent dwellings), street inundation limits, inlet capacities, and other drainage details for a safe and workable design(See Chapter 24,Article 7). A big project like this typically has a HEC or SWMM model,not just Rational Method. o Also this project falls within the 1-25 -MUD area so those criteria apply(See Chapter 22,Chapter 26,Article 2—50, and Chapter 8,Article 7). From our past meeting with the St. Vrain Lakes PUD applicant,Public Works saw that this site discharges at least some water directly to the St. Vrain River. With a full build-out with the number of proposed dwellings (over 5000?); the St. Vrain Lakes PUD project itself will easily be a standalone MS4 (over 10,000 residents). So, to meet Federal NPDES Phase II regulations, St. Vrain Lakes PUD will need to provide some water quality "treatment" for their stormwater discharges prior to discharge to the river (discharges through their wholly owned ponds are not an issue as long as there is capacity to clip off the hydrograph peak - something the applicant should also show to be viable at this stage of the review. At this stage, the plans should show the location and capabilities of the water quality features—doing so will speed the process at final plat. The Federal NPDES Phase II program is administered by the state of Colorado - See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnitlms4guide.pdf for a start on what is required. Colorado's Construction Stormwater discharge permits will also apply to a project like this. In order to properly review the drainage report for the St. Vrain Lakes PUD project,Public Works will need: • Grading plans(detailed scale sufficient to see proposed finished floor elevations,minimum 2-foot contours, channels and swales)—so the plans should likely be at I":200' scale or better. • Maps showing offsite topography and channel constraints for all contributing areas to the north(for flows coming into their site). This preliminary report needs to have enough detail about how they will handle the very large amount of offsite flows that will be moving through their site (the area to the north may eventually be developed and Public Works would require those releases to be at 5-year historical UNDEVELOPED discharge rates (i.e. with detention) but they are currently NOT detained so potentially offsite 100-year flows would flow to St. Vrain Lakes PUD. A quick look at the topo maps show a large (multiple square miles) area extending all the way to Mulligan Reservoir on the west side of the Interstate that historically drained through this St. Vrain site. Public Works will need to verify that the Interstate does Page 5 of 7 — capture those west side flows and take them down on the west side OR explain how the flows get under the Interstate and then to the river on the east side(presumably through St. Vrain Lakes PUD). • Public Works also needs to see similar exhibits for the offsite areas to the east and west (knowledge of flows from these were discussed at our last meeting with the St.Vrain Lakes PUD people). • The exhibits need to show what flows to and from the site for the north-south roads,that sufficient capacity exists—this was a concern on their east side. • Public Works also discussed the need to have easements to pass concentrated discharge flows across adjacent properties — the plans should show all easements, top width with appropriate freeboard, how constructed,erosion protection,etc. • Public Works needs to review exhibits showing construction-phase and post-construction-phase erosion control. For a very large phased project like this, these are essential to ensure no downstream and east side impacts and prevention of sedimentation in the ponds (capacity loss), and to Highway 66 at the project north exit. The erosion control plans would be part of meeting the NPDES and Colorado's Construction Stormwater discharge permit anyway. • Design details and preliminary pollutant reduction calculations for the water quality treatment (the Urban Drainage Criteria Manual has a lot of support,methods for these). ❑ The draft of the Change of Zone report for the St. Vrain Lakes PUD project that Public Works reviewed (without plans or exhibits) had apparently described releases of the 100-year developed flows at the 100-year historic rates. That is not a correct approach. Weld County detention release criteria specify that the development must detain the 100-year developed runoff and release it at the historical(undeveloped) 5-year rates. Undetained flows from offsite can be passed through undetained of course the St. Vrain Lakes PUD project will have to pass through those flows in a designed channel that safely conveys those flows to the outfall. If St. Vrain Lakes PUD chooses to, those offsite flows can go through the St. Vrain Lakes PUD ponds, but St. Vrain Lakes' developed areas will need to be detained and released at the 5-year historical rate as described above. Also the street capacities need to keep water depths at 6 inches or less for the minor storm(10-year developed case)and 18 inches or less for the 100-year event. The 18-inch maximum depth in the streets must of course not cause flooding of any structures. Li The St. Vrain Lakes PUD project shall specify the 5-year storm design for residential areas, the 10-year storm for designs in commercial and public facility(schools)settings, and detention of those events with the 100 year event RELEASED at the 5-year historic(undeveloped)rate(per Weld County CODE Chapter 24,Article 7). ❑ A final drainage plan for each final plat (development phase) application shall be submitted stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.The final drainage report shall include a flood hazard review documenting -- any FEMA defined floodways. The engineer shall reference the specific map panel number, including date. The development site shall be located on the copy of the FEMA map. Each final drainage plan must address any existing St. Vrain Lakes PUD development with respect to the proposed development and downstream mitigation requirements. o The engineer shall submit a detailed overall(final)drainage plan with the final plat application materials,to include a phase one drainage plan. • Public works shall approve the overall/final drainage report prior to recording any final plat. • Subsequent phases must show how they incorporate stormwater flows into the overall plan. • If necessary,as-built information may be required to update the hydraulic models. ❑ Early development phases may require improvements and construction of downstream mitigation infrastructure external to the phase in consideration. ❑ In addition, drainage coordination may be necessary between Weld County, City of Longmont, CDOT, ditch companies, and/or the railroad. ❑ Public Works noticed that, per the 1-25 - MUD requirements, St. Vrain Lakes PUD has required setbacks on Highway 66 - these may provide sufficient channel to carry the offsite flows but adequate information has not been received in the application materials received thus far. ❑ The St. Vrain Lakes PUD project, while in the I-25-MUD area,lies north of the St.Vrain River and so is not covered by the South Weld I-25 Corridor Master drainage Plan(Anderson Consulting, Sept. 1999). ❑ Public Works has reviewed the wetlands study performed by ERO for the St. Vrain Lakes PUD project. The study is typical of the type done for similar projects. o ERO identified 12 wetlands on the site, 7 are likely jurisdictional (so any modifications would require a COE 404 permit. Some of the others are isolated wetlands associated with stock ponds and irrigation facilities and so will likely go away when site grading occurs and irrigation ceases. o Although not part of our official drainage review, how their construction plans (grading and paving) effect these wetland areas cannot be determined at this time. Additional comments may arise, when the detailed plans are submitted to Public Works. ❑ The engineer shall include in a final drainage report detailing road overtopping issues by stormwater and incorporate this consideration into the final design to be submitted with the fmal plat application materials. _._--_ Page 6 of 7 _ • o Arterial roadways require two lanes of travel open in a major event(one in each direction) with no curb overtopping (Urban Drainage, Vol. 1, Section 2.2). Here, Weld County defines the "major" event as the 50-yr storm and the "minor" event as the 10-yr storm. However, this standard was intended for more rural subdivision development. It is prudent to examine the 100-yr event to determine affects on the arterial road system. This may require improvements to existing culvert crossings. o The interior collector should allow for one lane of travel open in a major storm event with no curb overtopping. LI The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage for the final plan application. Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed. In addition, drainage for rear and side lot line swales shall be considered. Building envelopes must be planned to avoid storm water flows, while taking into account adjacent drainage mitigation. U Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report) stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be submitted with each final plan(phase) application. These plans (stormwater management plans)may be based on Urban Drainage methodology. Recommendation ❑ The Public Works Department recommends approval of this change of zone plan based on the above comment conditions and at the appropriate submittal timing indicated herein. Public Works requires reasonable and adequate time to review materials submitted to this office. The applicant shall address the comments listed above at the specific step of the review process stated. The review process will continue only when all appropriate elements have been submitted. Any issues of concern must be resolved with the Public Works Department prior to recording the change of zone and final plat. PC: PZ-1078 St. Vrain Lakes PUD(Zone Change) -- Email&Original: Planner: Kim Ogle PC by Post: Applicant: Carma Colorado: Tom Morton PC by Post: Engineer: Carroll&Lange, Inc.:Fred Tafoya III, P.E. Page 7 of 7 _ Weis riaiining Department GREELEY OFFICE a NOV 3 0 2005 jct MEMORANDUM RECEIVED ' TO: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager DATE: 28-November-2005 FROM: Peter Schei, P.E., Public r ep ent and Chris Fasching, P.E.,Felsburg Hon.&Ullevig COLORADO SUBJECT: PZ-1078 St. Vrain Lakes PUD 2 (Zone Change) Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Zone Change plan request. Comments made during this phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. Comments ❑ St. Vrain Lakes PUD is planned for up to 5,131 buildable lots with various uses, including residential and commercial. Transportation Analysis: ❑ Public Works and their transportation engineering consultant (Felsburg Holt & Ullevig) have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis - St. Vrain Lakes PUD, Weld County, Colorado, dated August 1, 2005, by Benjamin T. Waldman, P.E. (Colorado PE#35827)with LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (LSC#040840). o This is a big study in which numerous assumptions had to be made. Many of them are reasonable,but there are few that warrant comment and an updated study. ❑ Technical comments pertaining to the traffic study: o Assumptions made for internal trip-making all seem reasonable. o Land uses analyzed in the study are 3,308 single-family homes, 1,823 town home units (including multi-family residential),three schools, a 300,000 square foot municipal center,40,000 square feet of recreation club, and 435,000 square feet of shopping center. • This is consistent with the numbers provided in the development plan drawings ftled: Detailed Change of Zone Plan for St.Vrain Lakes PUD dated August 2005,by DTJ Design,Inc. o The LSC traffic study identifies three phases. Phase One is approximately the western half south of WCR 28 (year 2011). Phase Two is approximately the eastern half south of WCR 28 (year 2014). Phase Three is all other development north of WCR 28(year 2025). • This is not consistent with the plan drawings titled: Detailed Change of Zone Plan for St. Vrain Lakes PUD dated August 2005, by DTJ Design, Inc. DTJ drawings propose four phases to the development. There must be consistency between the traffic impact analysis and the proposed development (including plan drawings);especially traffic thresholds and phasing. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o The traffic numbers shown in the LSC report compare reasonably well with the I-25/SH 66 EA re-evaluation Felsburg Holt&Ullevig prepared(for SH 66 east of 1-25). • However, The St. Vrain Lakes Traffic study does not recognize WCR 9.5 north of SH 66. This is one of the County's strategic roadways and the north leg of the SH 66/WCR 9.5 intersection should be incorporated into the LOS analysis and into the site-generated and total traffic figures. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing ------ Page 1 of 3 . . . ..... ..... ...._. . o Year 2025 site-generated traffic (Figure 14) does not reflect the full trip generation estimates from Table 1. Somehow, 13%of the Table 1 trip estimates were not assigned to the network. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o The trip distribution does not reflect WCR 9.5 north of SH 66;this road currently exists and will be extended further north in the future as one of the County's Strategic Roadways. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o Similarly, the distribution of traffic to/from the north via WCR 13 may be low(only 2 % in the report). WCR 13 is also a planned Strategic Roadway with continuity planned as far north as SH 14. A greater portion of the site traffic is likely to utilize this roadway. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o Trip distribution using WCR 28 under I-25 varies by planning horizon year. It drops between 2011 and 2014 and then increases to 2025. • The report does not indicate the specific reason for this change. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o Background traffic developed for this study appears to be reasonable,other than WCR 9.5 north of SH 66. o The LOS analysis of the SH 66/1-25 Frontage Road intersection does not account for this signal serving six legs;the ramp approaches were not included • This LOS must be updated accordingly. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o Roundabout intersections are shown to function properly,and the County would concur with that fmding. • More analysis will be needed in the future when detailed design is to be done. o The study should ensure that the planned interchange improvements for the I-25/SH 66 interchange are adequate given 2025 projections. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o The LOS table identifies a school access; this could not be found on any of the study figures. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o There is some inconsistency in the lane geometry for the WCR 9.5/Frontage Road intersection. Some graphics show this as full movement, some do not. • What is the intent for this intersection? • Similarly, some of the figures show only a 3/4 movement for the PA-1 access onto the Frontage Road, others full movement. • More narrative may be needed for this area to explain the intent. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o Intersection numbering on the figures was not consistent with the LOS table. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o The traffic study needed to make some assumptions relative to access for specific parcels which is fine for now. • Specific access may be subject to future site planning when more detail is known about each parcel. • The assumptions might be fine for now, but a note indicating that access is subject to further study and CDOT input/approval might be wise. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. Page2of3 ❑ *Improvements likely to be considered(above and beyond those listed in the LSC traffic study): o The LSC report identifies three planning horizons for development and identifies improvements for each. There are some off-site improvement considerations that are identified in the study. The County has pointed out some others below, but does not intend to imply that these improvements should be the responsibility entirely of this development. Rather, Weld County simply wants to point out that there are other improvement considerations that should be considered for the area. Additional discussions are needed to fully flush out the items identified. • The LSC report must coincide with the proposed development by DTJ Design, Inc. DTJ drawings propose four phases to the development. There must be consistency between the traffic impact analysis and the proposed development(including plan drawings);especially traffic thresholds and phasing. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o The LSC traffic study shows a fair amount of traffic utilizing the WCR 28 underpass. This is currently a one-lane box-culvert. The County may want to consider a means of getting this widened. • By 2025, this should be conveying four through lanes of traffic and a center left turn lane. With Phase One, approximately 2000 vpd could use the underpass according to the study. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o The study also shows that Phase One of the development would add 2000 trips per day onto the Frontage Road just south of SH 66. Consideration should be given to construct WCR 9.5 in its entirety (up to SH 66) as part of the development's first phase. • The 1-25 North ramps/Frontage Road/SH 66 intersection is very awkward today, and relocating the frontage road to WCR 9.5 would be preferred over adding traffic to the Frontage Road if all involved parties can be coordinated to do so. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o The study recommends dust control along WCR 28 and WCR 11 for phase 1. Each of these roads could see 2000 to 3000 additional vehicles per day from Phase One. • It may be necessary to add pavement rather than dust control. • The applicant shall submit a revised traffic study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. o The study identifies many future traffic signals and lane additions that are summarized in Section G and not repeated here. ❑ The applicant shall submit three sealed copies pertaining to the updated traffic impact study to Public Works prior to scheduling the Planning Commission hearing. Recommendation ❑ The Public Works Department recommends approval of this change of zone plan based on the above comment conditions and at the appropriate submittal timing indicated herein. Public Works requires reasonable and adequate time to review materials submitted to this office. The applicant shall address the comments listed above at the specific step of the review process stated. The review process will continue only when all appropriate elements have been submitted. Any issues of concern must be resolved with the Public Works Department prior to recording the change ofzone and f nallage PC: PZ-1078 St. Vrain Lakes PUD 2 (Zone Change) Email&Original: Planner:Kim Ogle PC by Post: Applicant: Carma Colorado: Tom Morton PC by Post: Engineer:LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.:Benjamin Waldman, P.E. --------- Page 3 of 3 St. V ram ey Weld County Plannin naa School District GREELEY oFFICEpariment NOV 1 November 15,2005 2005 Kim Ogle RECEIVED Weld County Planning Department 918 10th St. Greeley, CO 80631 RE: St. Vrain Lakes Change of Zone (Situate in Sections 25, 35, 36, T3N, R68W) Dear Kim: Thank you for referring St. Vrain Lakes Change of Zone to the School District. The District has reviewed the development proposal in terms of (1) available school capacity, (2) required land dedications and/or cash-in-lieu fees and (3) transportation/access considerations. After reviewing the above proposal, the School District finds that it will likely not support future plats related to this proposed development without some form of mitigation. The reasons for this position are as follows: • The 125% Capacity Benchmark is expected to be exceeded at the elementary and middle school levels in this feeder and there is insufficient capacity to support this development. • The District has discussed mitigation options with the applicant but has yet to come to any formal agreement. • High School capacity will not be exceeded due to the inclusion of High School 5 in the capacity of this referral. This facility was part of the 2002 Bond and is projected to be constructed in the next 5 years. Until this facility is completed, Skyline High school may experience crowding in the short term. Should this development be approved, the options for managing the short and long term overcrowding in these schools may include adding modular classrooms and implementing split or staggered schedules as needed. Other options may include, but not be limited to, implementing year-round schools or asking voters to approve new bonds for additional school facilities or a mill levy for additional operating funds. It should be noted that a lack of operating funds may be a factor in delaying construction and occupancy of new school facilities in this area. Detailed information on the specific capacity issues, the land dedication requirements and transportation impacts for this proposal follow in Attachment A. A land dedication is required with this project and there are comments on pedestrian access included in the attachment. The recommendation of the District noted above applies to the attendance boundaries current as of the date of this letter. These attendance boundaries may change in the future as new facilities are constructed and opened. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this referral, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at seorue alen@stvrain.k12.co.us or at the number below. Sincerely, Glen Segrue, AiiCP Planning Specialist Enc.: Attachment A—Specific Project Analysis Cash-in-lieu chart EXHIBIT it t ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT.395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY,LONGMONT,CO 80501.SCOTT TOILLION, DIRECTOR.PHONE 303-682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344. ATTACHMENT A - Specific Project Analysis PROJECT: St. Vrain Lakes Change of Zone ^ (1)SCHOOL CAPACITY The Board of Education has established a District-wide policy of reviewing new development projects in terms of the impact on existing and approved school facilities within the applicable feeder system. Any residential project within the applicable feeder that causes the 125% school benchmark capacity to be exceeded within 5 years would not be supported. This determination includes both existing facilities and planned facilities from a voter-approved bond. The building capacity, including existing and new facilities, along with the impact of this proposal and all other approved development projects for this feeder is noted in the chart below. CAPACITY INFORMATION CAPACITY BENCHMARK (includes projected students,plus development's student impact) School Building Stdts. Stdt. 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Level Capacity Oct-05 Impact Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. stdts cap. Elementary 504 504 1410 504 100% 586 116% 643 128% 716 142% 798 158% Middle 360 320 641 320 89% 371 103% 394 109% 451 125% 496 138% High School* 2073 1372 631 1372 66% 1591 77% 1668 80% 1763 85% 1853 89% Total 4272 2682 2196 2548 2705 2930 3147 *combines capacities of existing schools and those approved in the 2002 bond that will alleviate this feeder Specific comments concerning this proposal regarding School Capacity are as follows: • Specific Impact- This application could add 3308 new single-family dwelling units, 1081 town homes and 742 multi- family dwelling units with a potential impact of 2682 additional students in the Mead Elementary, Mead Middle and Skyline High School Feeder. • Benchmark Determination- Of the schools in this feeder, the elementary and middle schools are projected to exceed 125%of capacity in 5 years with students from this development. The School District is therefore not supporting this application at this time. • Additional Capacity Impacts- An additional high school is available for the Weld County area through the 2002 bond approval, however,the Board of Education has not yet determined when this facility will be constructed. • Mitigation Options-The County and developer should also be aware that the School Board has developed a mitigation policy that would assist in providing capacity for the new students in this subdivision. Under the policy, should an applicant wish to begin construction on a residential development prior to the District's ability to provide additional capacity, the applicant may mitigate the development's impact on the feeder by agreeing to a voluntary, per-unit payment. Funds would be used to provide permanent or temporary capacity within the impacted feeder. The Planning Department would be happy to discuss this type of mitigation for the proposal with either the County or developer. • Phasing—The capacity information in the chart includes phasing information provided by the developer. (2) LAND DEDICATIONS AND CASH IN-LIEU FEES The implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Concerning Fair Contributions for Public School Sites by the Weld County requires that the applicant either dedicate land directly to the School District along with provision of the adjacent infrastructure and/or pay cash-in-lieu (CIL) fees based on the student yield of the development. CIL fees only provide funds for land acquisition, which is only a small component of providing additional school capacity for a feeder. Specific comments regarding land dedications and CIL fees for this referral are as follows: • Dedication and/or Cash-in-lieu Requirements-The School District is in discussions with the applicant about receiving two 10-acre elementary sites and a 50-acre high school site. The estimated impact of this development would support this level of dedication, according to the current District formula. The District will continue to work with the applicant to modify the current plan, which indicates a 25-acre middle school site rather than the District's requested high school site. Also, the westem most elementary site is shown to back up to a number of residential lots, which can lead to future conflicts between the operation of the school and homeowners. Otherwise, the indicated elementary sites are acceptable in size and location but do require final verification from the State Geologist before the District can give final approval. Should the number of dwellings exceed the number of required dedicated school lands, Cash in-lieu fees will be assessed per the attached chart. • Number of Units covered by dedication/cash-in-lieu—All units in this development would be subject to CIL fees. • Dedication/Cash-in-lieu Procedures - Cash-in-lieu payments are to be made to the St. Vrain Valley School District Business Office—395 S. Pratt Parkway, Longmont, CO. 3)TRANSPORTATION/ACCESS Transportation considerations for a project deal with bussing and pedestrian access to and from the subdivision. Pedestrian access, in particular, is an important goal of the School District in order to facilitate community connection to schools and to minimize transportation costs. Specific comments for this application are as follows: • Provision of Busing- Busing for this project, under the current boundaries,would most likely be provided. • Pedestrian and Access Issues-This proposal has good internal pedestrian access.This District asks that the proposal be integrated into any regional pedestrian pathways should they exist. ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT.395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY, LONGMONT,CO 80501.SCOTT TOILLION,DIRECTOR. PHONE 303-682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344. wi CU Y C C N .3 N p E ..--c U A 3 a :_ a by ad Q ;; � L ea U .00 c °o A o a C .00 V e 0 .p c L. w CO O e U M O a W O O Q Nm c ., •� .... II N E in c i' w O �+ L in G M C N L. C Co W Oi.. i Q V Q II a w a u a o u L. a' v -J O O 0 3 0 in 0 y live O O a 0 N 0 o 0 t d t t > in- U c '^ C vi O � ct M N Mad it, M �+ M y -0 C W y, lei▪ 'R > w w O C C • C E C m S Y. d O is M H v M i in t 40 to . M N C CC�� O O C L I « W N. « M « to N U •= Q C r O ,aYlt I' .`� N a' }�bc- a ON, cc /'�.- �n O c Q C N j \▪ ' h M .7 p o . A A O U N _Lx N `� U g 4 l y O b O 4 ca V i R a W 7 Z :e Z W ta 2 U tn an Li N G N = p II C N II C Ip II 2 y + .5 �Cp - a Q C C C C p p„ ..1 µ N N C V a O N .� h ' W .1 to `I 8 In 4 1st .5 O O a O N t+ i0 W 0 4q.� Z ••• C r" 9:1 in A C O C N 4O C asta 1/1 in 2 , N S C Ni co in O V' ^I O N. M O N. 5 o S To M n _ _ S sins: O — a O E O . ▪ S E M J ' `U N N < i V 2 N W L 2 4 m C m C m C co Q N "r 0 O p rn O 0 O p ; o O 7 M e NI a M M Q M cta. C W W W 11) W 3 in T iss a O E u. 3 J V L W W in N 6o E v 'c, 9 To C d O G in w f S I- h in 0 0 N h ` ° b - _k a B C j \ ) a ° co U i } ra ) o- ! ] 0 § to ) 3 0 o li O o O IN C : 2 ) 1 ) 7 a / 4 ) _ \ ill \ o ) o ) o jII1° o ) o o \ \ @& k a ! 5 «_ ) \ 20 E \ ) \ / 4 / \ - tv % 85 � 84I G ' \ Q42 8 / C < C & !ill la ) : * ( \ � 2 \ ~ illUl • - f t w § } _ n% # X• 201 a � ■ « ) f $ � , f © ill: , U ® / \ lei � \ % ] % 4 % \ U al � / f # Jill' II � f � § k % a \ { \ \3X ! E ` ~ § I K ` ! ) k ) z % 7 ; Vr % ' 2 . } _ j \ ) ci . \ { � � k ° � k 3el IL " / III a. in =ii \ ~1 ,1~ Il \ ~ \ ) \ E j / \ x \ I ± ) I 0 � cb j '6j \ \ [ 2 as o U 3 / a a. k § ! ) na )P111 ° ' ` L. - : Ik 111 3 \ § N _ '3 3 \ } a § \ " \ "co o ] ) o 8 -6-,1111 IlH 1gj 0 \ % §44 4 � � } f &C � A \ t| ; � 'a \ % § f- - � � = % � ; � - B ~ el ! Q X2 } 1111 § ea- 2 \ � 04 % \ k \ \ ( � aa . A � 0 •_ § } N. = § • \ 20 � k V Ci # 0a 0t- � ) kJ fa . ! / « , ! % - 2 WC 2 k2 § eei # r / \ 9 { / f 13 Ti tv vi in •i ) •i ® i / ( / J ° $ •\ k k Itid ka \gg ; N 1'i� ) � )— ; V % � � # \ F as} fJ j ) \ j � ) § ( ) \ \ 2 / � ! \ s 2e2 N w \ / . in s z N. \ 91, 3 T -C \ t i e k \ ) \ H C 0 KERBACOLORADO MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTAIN CORPORATION 1999 BROADY,SUITE 3700•DENVER,Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE DEC 2 0 2005 PHONE: 303-296-3600 L.E C E I\f E D FAX:FAX: 303-296-3601 December 16, 2005 VIA FACSIMILIE AND U.S. MAIL Weld County Planning Department Attn: Kim Ogle, Planner 918 10`h Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: St Vrain Lakes—PUD Change of Zone 3N-68W, Section 25, 35, 36 (Part) Dear Board of County Commissioners: Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation ("KMRMC") is the owner of valid oil and gas leases underlying all or part of St Vrain Lakes, for which Tom Morton, is seeking PUD Change of Zone approval. KMRMC and Tom Morton have been negotiating a Surface Use Agreement, the terms of which will govern the parties' simultaneous u::e of the subject property. KMRMC does not object to the plat for which Tom Mom n is applying. However, the parties have not yet concluded an agreement, and KMRMC therefore requests that the Weld County Planning Department withhold final approval of this application until the parties execute and record a surface use agreement. Sincerely, Kerrr--McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation 1 . Terry :. En .ght Landman Specialist cc: Tom Morton- Applicant James P. Wason— Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation r WNW I �5 Weld County Planning Department CREELEY OFFICE Weld Coivt P' NOV 2 8 2005 NUv . .. [0, 4.6tizE(..-EivERAemorar�r �� TO: Kim Ogle, W.C. Planning DATE: November 23, 2005 O FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Department of Publi COLORADO Health and Environment ) CASE NO.: PZ-1078 NAME: Carma Colorado/St. Vrain Lakes The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal for 1313.4 total acres to be developed into various residential housing units (3284 low range to 5131 high range), 123.2 acres of commercial, schools, municipal complex/recreational and recreation center uses, 272.4 acres of parks along with open space, trails, detention/drainage uses (from the Conceptual Land-Use diagram, sheet 3). The application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water service. The application states that water will be provided by Little Thompson Water District and sewer service will be provided by St. Vrain Sanitation District. An agreement between Little Thompson Water District and the applicant was included in the application material. The application states that the development will be served by the St. Vrain Sanitation District. There was no letter of intent, availability or discussion of service areas from St. Vrain Sanitation District included in the application materials. Active and passive recreational opportunities were noted above. While the Change of Zone application does not elaborate, the Sketch Plan application states that these opportunities will include such things as sports fields, fitness/recreation center, swimming pool, trails, beaches, small boat docks, fishing pier, picnic grounds, bike paths, playgrounds, etc. These varied recreational opportunities must address the sanitation requirements of any area where people work, live, or congregate. The applicant states that permanent restroom and handwashing facilities will be placed in close proximity to those public gathering areas where water and sewer services are available. The applicant also states that restroom facilities will be placed around the lake as recommended in the Sketch Plan comments. Any swim beaches must require compliance with the water quality standards of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations. The commercial uses in the development will be subject to the Site Plan Review process once they are identified. The Department will conduct additional reviews of those uses at that time. The initial impact plan submitted in the application materials appears to address all the environmental impacts of Section 27-6-40. It should be noted that there are Confined Animal Feeding Operations(Aurora Dairy)in close proximity to this development. A note should be placed on the plat notifying residents that there may be flies and odors associated with these activities. The Department recommends approval with the following conditions: EXHIBIT 1. Water service shall be obtained from Little Thompson Water District. ' tO 2. Sewer service shall be obtained from the St. Vrain Sanitation District. 3. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within easy access of all public gathering areas. At a minimum permanent, vaulted restroom facilities restroom facilities shall be placed around the lake. A vault facility similar to a rest area or park service facility is recommended. 4. The recreational uses on the lakes may be subject to the water quality standards of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations. 5. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development/redevelopment /construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information. 6. During development of the site, all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request of the Weld County Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted. 7. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and practical methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust emissions. 8. If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6 months in duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan, submit an air pollution emissions notice, and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 9. "Weld County's Right to Farm" as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall be placed on any recorded plat. 10. There are Confined Animal Feeding Operations in close proximity to this development. Residents should be aware that there may be flies and odors associated with these activities. O:\PAM\PLANNING\CHZONE\PZ-1078 CARMA COLORADO.RTF 2 01/05/2006 23: 38 9705350831 TOWN OF MEAD PAGE 03 ead Town of Mead P.O.Box 626 441 Third Street mtineld-w�i Mead,Colorado 80542.0626 (970) 535-4477 • Mr. Kim. Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: Re: PZ-X078 (St. Vrain Lakes— CARMA) The Town Board objects to the County's consideration of this project on several counts: 1. There are too many as-yet unresolved issues, including road networks, how the residents of this project will receive services such as police protection, which cannot be adequately provided by the Weld County Sheriffs office and should not be funded by an LEA, recreational and other social services, and the like. There is no coordination of services when an unincorporated subdivision has some responsibilities provided by an HOA, others by a metropolitan district, and still others by an LEA, which if they were in a municipality would have better coordination. The County's approach will work against the long-term social health of the neighborhood. 2. The number of homes is too high., and the density is too high. 3. The impact on the school district will be tremendous, even. i.f school sites are designated. Th.e County should require this project to conform with and pay into the district's school mitigation program at a minimum. 4. In spite of representations to the contrary, this is not a good example of regional planning and cooperation. Lip service is only being paid to the impacts this scale of project would have on adjacent communities, without any financial benefit to mitigate the impacts. 5. This project should be in a municipality, and the County should therefore not approve the project and instead require the applicant to petition to annex to Mead (or to Firestone, if Firestone would be interested). Sincerely, � • 2). £sLCfa roc Michael D. Friesen Town Manager EXHIBIT St. Vrain Lakes Page 1 of 1 Kim Ogle From: Hice-Idler, Gloria [Gloria.Hice-Idler@DOT.STATE.CO.US] .t: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:03 AM To: Kim Ogle Subject: St. Vrain Lakes Kim, I'm just now starting the review of the St. Vrain Lakes study. There are a couple of things that I've already seen that concern me: 1. The study says the speed limit is 45 mph in this area. That is incorrect. A portion is 65 mph and closer to WCR 13 is reduces to 55. I'm sure that these guys would like it to be 45, but that's not what it is. 2. The current category of roadway is RA now. In order for these guys to get additional access besides the county roads, the roadway will need to be reclassified. That will require a letter from the County (or Mead if appropriate) asking that it be reclassifed. 3. The study says that SH 119 is 45 mph in this area. In fact, SH 119 does not exist in this area. From the existing frontage road connection east, SH 119 is actually WCR 24 and I believe now a Town of Firestone city street. 4. CDOT is not opposed to allowing additional access besides the county road connections, but only if the category of roadway is changed and the accesses can be built to meet Code criteria. The problem is, if they've assumed a 45 mph speed limit, that impacts the auxiliary lane lenghths. (They would be shorter.) Since the speed is 55, it's possible that their plan for additional access to SH 66 won't happen. I'm,.a illing to consider phased improvements, but if in any phase they trigger the need for the improvements, those improvements sl 1 be made prior to that phase issuing CO's. I might have more comments later, and I will forward them onto you. Gloria Hice-Idler Access Manager CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley CO 80631 (970) 350-2148 EXHIBIT 18 01/08/2006 Page 1 of 2 Kim Ogle EXHIBIT From: Drew Scheltinga 4t: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:39 AM To: Kim Ogle Subject: FW: St. Vrain Lakes - FHU review of revesed traffic study From: Drew Scheltinga Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:36 AM To: Frank Hempen; Perry Eisenach; Peter Schei Subject: FW: St. Vrain Lakes - FHU review of revesed traffic study Frank, This is the review from FHU in response to LSC's revised traffic study that everyone has been talking about. This review was turned around in two working days (based on when it was received and when we got Chris's email this morning). Drew From: Chris.Fasching [mailto:Chris.Fasching@FHUENG.COM] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:27 AM To: Drew Scheltinga Subject: St. Vrain Lakes D, , I have reviewed the second version of the St. Vrain Lakes Traffic Study which as provided to our office on December 30, 2005. Nearly all of the technical comments I provided from the previous review have been addressed. A few considerations yet: 1. There is still an inconsistency between the 2011 and 2014 traffic numbers and the 2011 and 2014 Lane recommendations for the 1-25 Frontage Road/WCR 9.5 intersection. The Lane Recommendations show a lane for a left turn movement onto NB WCR 9.5, the traffic numbers do not. The cover letter indicates that this intersection should be considered a 3/4 movement intersection, so I tend to think that the Lane Recommendation figures are simply in error. This is not a big deal; we just all need to be in agreement that this intersection will be planned as a 3/4 movement intersection. 2. The WCR 28/1-25 Frontage Road intersection's function will be based on the traffic control nature of the one-lane underpass. The study recommends that this one-lane box be controlled via a traffic signal until widened to carry 4 lanes. I did not see any information on how this would operate and how it along with the 1-25 Frontage Road/WCR 28 intersection would operate together. The report does show that the 1-25 Frontage Road/WCR 28 intersection would operate acceptably as an isolated unsignalized intersection, but I think we need to know how this intersection and the one-lane box will function together and if this strategy is appropriate. 3. LOS results at the I-25/SH 66 interchange area, including the Frontage Road intersection, are poor by 2011. This further emphasizes the importance for the various parties to come together and make WCR 9.5 happen sooner rather than later. The study assumes that WCR 9.5 would not occur until after 2014, but I think it makes sense to try and get this improvement in as soon as possible. This is clearly a need beyond just this development. Improvement considerations include: F. 3E 1 (2011 in the Traffic Study) • Pursue the full length of WCR 9.5 and realign the Frontage Road into Mead Street (at SH 66). • Temporary pavement or chip seal may not be adequate for some of the roads where it's being recommended. 2000 vpd 01/08/2006 Page 2 of 2 are projected along WCR 28 between the I-25/Frontage Road and WCR 9.5; this might be ok as chip seal especially given that this is offsite. However, WCR 11 between WCR 28 and SH 66 could carry 5000 vpd. A permanent asphalt"mat"of some kind might makes sense here. Also, the segment of WCR 28 east of WCR 9.5 should constructed (or at least half the road) to WCR 13. "" Potential improvements may be necessary at the 1-25 Frontage Road/WCR 28 intersection depending on the operations of this intersection along with the one-lane box. A NB left turn lane may be needed (other wise the through traffic will be blocked until the signal for the box would turn green). This whole situation needs to be better analyzed. At a minimum, adding a traffic signal at this underpass box is necessary as part of Phase 1. • The Study suggests building half of WCR 9.5 and having it function as a four-lane road. Will there be enough width for this? A four lane road might make sense where there is St Vrain Lakes frontage on both sides (about one-half mile of length)and then a two lane road where there is frontage on one side. Center left turn lanes be also be needed at intersections. PHASE 2 (2014 in the Traffic Study) • SH 66/WCR 13 intersection should be incorporated with left turn lanes at some point. I recommend these be added prior to this intersection's signalization which is estimated to be between 2011 and 2014. • The Study recommends paving half of WCR 11 and WCR 28 within the site by this time. It might make sense to include this as part of Phase 1 (see second bullet above in Phase 1). • Relative to the WCR 28/WCR 11 roundabout, I am not sure how one opens up half of it as an all-way stop. Maybe this is possible, but I cannot picture this. Maybe it makes sense for the full two-lane roundabout to be built by 201 and let people moving in the area get used to the idea that its there. YEAR 2025 • The study shows that"everything else" needs to occur by 2025 including four-laning several roads and installing signals. Presumably the County will have a developer's agreement, or similar, generally committing the development to these future adjacent improvements. r It. of think a new study is necessary However, it would be beneficial for the roadway phasing to be clearly laid out in plan form as it relates to each development phasing. Also, a supplemental analysis addressing the WCR 28 one-lane underpass and I- 25/Frontage Road would be helpful. These could be done as separate supplemental submittals. I hope this helps. Chris Fasching, PE Felsburg Holt& Ullevig 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303-721-1440 Fax: 303-721-0832 01/08/2006 MEMORANDUM ignID C TO: Kim Ogle, Planner DATE: 6-January-2006 FROM: David Bauer,P.E.,Public Works Department COLORADO SUBJECT: CK-1078 St. Vrain Lakes PUD (Change of Zone Plan) Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Change of Zone plan request. Comments made during this phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. Comments ❑ St. Vrain Lakes PUD is planned for up to 5,131 single family residential and commercial building sites. ❑ The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report — Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Carma Weld County Site, Weld County Road 30 (Highway 66) and Interstate 25 - Weld County, Colorado, dated May 26, 2004, by Terracon(Terracon Project No. 25045122) is satisfactory. o As stated in the Sketch Plan comments, the applicant must address potential groundwater / full- depth basement construction issues. A cursory review of the Terracon report indicated groundwater was encountered during the geotechnical investigation. Areas of the proposed site may not feasibly allow full-depth basement construction, thereby influencing the development plan layout. Further details of the applicant's approach to dealing with shallow groundwater are needed before Public Works approval of the project. Groundwater management systems may require permits from the State Engineer's Office and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Drainage: o Weld County will not maintain drainage related facilities, the plans and plat must so state. o All drainage facilities, including water quality ponds, detention ponds, drainage swales, and storm sewer pipes not in the public Right-Of-Way shall be placed in dedicated easements. ❑ The Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide for St. Vrain Lakes PUD Development, dated December 5, 2005, by Kevin Jennings, E.I.T. and Fred Tafoya, P.E. with Carroll & Lange, Inc. (JN: 3075) is generally acceptable. Specific concerns and comments are included below. The submitted Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide was not stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. As discussed on the telephone with Kevin Jennings on 1/5/06, the method for conveying offsite flows through the St. Vrain Lakes PUD site, as presented in the submitted Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide, must be re-designed so that on-site flows resulting from the 100-year storm falling on the "`illy-developed site are detained in onsite ponds designed to release at the rate of the 5-year storm falling on the an-developed site (5-year historic event), and offsite flows are conveyed through the St. Vrain Lakes PUD site. C\Documents and Senin s\ko Iekkocal Settings\Tent Internet Files\OLK574\CZ-1078 Sr Vram Lakes PUD Drains el doc EXHIBIT Page 1 of 3 B B' Temporary ( 8 ) S as As discussed on the telephone with Kevin Jennings on 1/5/06, summation of offsite and onsite flows for sizing detention release structures is not acceptable and is contrary to established practice. 'he Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide provided by the applicant did not provide the .;,quested construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage for this Change of Zone application. Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed. For Final Plat approval of each Phase of the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, Weld County Public Works will require these construction details for lot grading need to be provided and indicated as to each building lot on the Final Construction Plans. The submitted_Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide had numerous inconsistencies between the plans, tables, and text. Public Works requires that, for Final Plat approval of each Phase of the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, the Final Drainage Report and Final Construction Drawings and Plans must: o Provide calculations of groundwater drawdown rates in relation to soil types, water table, seasonal variability and proposed future land uses (e.g. open space vs. residential lots). ❑ Provide profiles of the underdrain pipe system. ❑ Provide evidence of the Colorado State Engineer's Office approval of groundwater discharge system o Provide evidence of CDPHE approval of the groundwater discharge system. ❑ Provide description of the interaction of underdrain system discharges with storm drainage and proposed water quality treatment features (swales,ponds, the St. Vrain River). o Provide a copy of the St. Vrain Sanitation District approval of the proposed underdrain system. o Provide Final Construction Plan grading plans for all drainage features (swales, channels, water quality ponds). Provide Final Construction Plan erosion protection designs, calculations and specifications for all proposed swales, ponds, and each pipe outlet location(give Q100 flow rates, velocities, D50, quantities, extent of riprap apron, etc.). o Provide Final Construction Plan hydraulic grade line for proposed storm pipes and street inlets (showing Q100 street inundation). o Provide and show on the Final Construction Plan cross-sections of each swale and channel indicating developed case Q100 water surface elevation and freeboard in relation to adjacent proposed homesite finished floor elevations. o On the Final Construction Plans, provide invert in and invert out, diameters, and materials for all proposed storm drainage pipes. o Account for all offsite flows (adjacent roads, offsite properties historically flowing to the proposed site) ❑ Provide street inlet capacity calculations for each proposed inlet, including clogging factors. o Show the proposed water quality ponds and swales on the landscape architecture plans. o Demonstrate that ALL of the site runoff receives water quality treatment. o Describe detention and water quality pond ownership, maintenance requirements, and erosion control. ❑ Add note on plans that all pipes, swales, water quality ponds, and drainage easements to be maintained by home owners association or property owner. o Describe required maintenance (e.g. frequency of inspections, clean-outs) for drainage facilities. ❑ Provide evidence of easement agreements for all stormwater discharges from the St. Vrain Lakes PUD site to private property, in particular to the south and east. o The Final drainage report shall include a flood hazard review documenting any FEMA defined floodways. The engineer shall reference the specific map panel number, including date. The development site shall be located on the copy of FEMA FIRM maps of the area. C.\Documents and SettingsdkoglekLoca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK594\CZ-1098 St Vram Lakes PUD(Drainage').doc Page 2 of 3 o Public Works requires that, for Final Plat approval of each Phase of the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, the Final Drainage Report and Final Construction Drawings and Plans must provide calculations showing the effectiveness of the proposed stormwater capture/water quality features and demonstrate the effectiveness of the applicant-proposed best management practices in protecting water quality of all stormwater discharges as required under NPDES Phase II regulations and other applicable regulations. o Stormwater runoff shall not adversely impact downstream storm drainage facilities; especially the St. Vrain River. o Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report) stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be submitted with each Final Plan (Phase) application. These plans (stormwater management plans) shall be based upon the best management practices and accepted Urban Drainage methodologies. o Public Works may have additional comments and concerns that arise when requested details and the Final Drainage Report are reviewed. The applicant shall address the comments listed above at`the specific step of the review process stated. The review process will continue only:when all'appropriate elements have been submitted Any issues of concern must be resolved with the Public Works Department prior to recording the ehange of zone and f alai plats.a CADocuments and Seningsrkogle\Local Settings ATemporary Internet Files AOLKS]4ACZ-1078 St Vrain Lakes PUD(Drainagel)doc Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager DATE: January 6, 2006 I WI O FROM: Drew Scheltinga, P.E., Public Works Department COLORADO SUBJECT: PZ-1078 St. Vrain Lakes PUD(Zone Change) Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Change of Zone plan request. Comments made during this phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. Comments This memorandum is supplemental to Peter Schei's memorandum of November 15, 2005. There are items in Mr. Schei's memorandum required prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing that are not a part of this review. The following comments pertain to the Planning Commission zone change hearing scheduled for January 17, 2006: 1. The Public Works Department does not concur with the applicant's request for a variance to reduce 12' travel lanes and 8'parking lanes to 10' and 8' lanes respectively for Local Residential streets. Also, the requirements for sidewalk widths should be maintained. The MUD standards should be adhered to. 2. On page 54 of the revised traffic study by LSC there is a suggestion that WCR's 11 and 28 could have chip seal or temporary asphalt paving. This will not be acceptable. At such time as the traffic generated by the development creates the need for paving an adequate construction meeting Weld County's design standards will be required. The following items need to be resolved prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing: 1. Weld County's traffic engineering consultant has reviewed LSC's revised traffic study. There are several items listed in a memorandum from Chris Fasching, dated January 6, 2006,that are not major but need to be resolved, 2. David Bauer of the Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed the geotechnical and drainage reports and provided comments in a separate memorandum. These comments should be addressed at the appropriate stages of review as noted in Mr. Bauer's memorandum. 3. LSC's traffic study identifies improvements in the surrounding road way system that will be required as a result of the traffic generated by proposed development. We are in general agreement with the recommendations and the information supplied in its present form is acceptable for the Planning Commission hearing. However, because of the extent and complexity of the improvements, a much more detailed plan, including estimated timing and phasing for the improvements and a drawing illustrating how the phasing will come together, will be required prior the County Commissioners hearing. Public Works staff is prepared to work with the applicant on how this information is to be presented. 4. On January 6, 2006, Weld County staff met with Colorado Department of Transportation staff regarding the outer road of I-25. We were informed that it is very likely funding will become available for the widening of 1-25 between SH 52 and SH 66, including the SH66 interchange, within the next few months. CDOT has completed the design and approval process for the construction, therefore, CDOT is prepared to begin the construction in 2006. As a part of the widening, CDOT will abandon the eastern outer road and provide funds to construct C:AWINNIPTemp Temporary Interact Files OLK I Ea''..PZ-1078 St Vrain Lakes PUD 3.doc Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT a/ WCR 9% from a point north of the St. Vrain River to SH 66. CDOT has indicated that WCR 9' will have to be completed by the third quarter of 2007 to meet their schedule. This alignment is reflected in the zone change application materials. Neither the County nor the applicant anticipated the widening of I-25 to take place nearly this soon. There will be a great deal of detail to work out in terms of design, financing and agreements between the County and the applicant in order to accomplish the completion of WCR 9% in time. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners zone change hearing, the applicant should be required to work out an agreement, in principal, with the Department of Public Works for a financing and construction of WCR 9/ as well as the other improvements identified in the traffic impact study. fl `i t#te above at tl9te t attep of the revie t roma stated. The review proem*Mill iodine only when adl appropriate elements have been submitted. Any issues of concern must be resolved with Die Palle Works Department prior to recording the change of zone and final plan: C9WNNTTempTempotaty lmenct Files\OLKI ES`PZ-1078 St Vrein Lakes PUU 3 doc Page 2 oft Hello