HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060951.tiff Referral List— "REFERRALS WITH COMMENTS" ATTACHMENT D
Name: Pioneer Comp Plan Amd. Case#: 2005-XX
County Towns&Cities Fire Districts
�X Attomey Ault Ault F-1
X Health Department _Berthoud _Berthoud F-2
X Extension Office X Brighton _Briggsdale F-24
X Emergency Management Office-Ed Herring _Dacono _Brighton F-3
X Sheriffs Office _Eaton _Eaton F-4
X Public Works _Erie _Fort Lupton F-5
X Housing Authority _Evans _Galeton F-6
_Airport Authority _Firestone X Hudson F-7
X Building Inspection X Fort Lupton _Johnstown F-8
X Code Compliance-Beth_X_Ann_ _Frederick X LaSalle F-9
_Garden City _Mountain View F-10
_Kim Ogle(Landscape Plans) _Gilcrest _Milliken F-11
_Lin or Peggy(Addressing Change of Zone) _Greeley _Nunn F-12
X_Ambulance Services _Grover _Pawnee F-22
State X Hudson X Platteville F-13
X Div.of Water Resources _Johnstown _Platte Valley F-14
_Geological Survey X Keenesburg _Poudre Valley F-15
_Department of Health X Kersey _Raymer F-2
X Department of Transportation _LaSalle X Southeast Weld F-16
-"XHistorical Society X Lochbuie _Union Colony F-26
_Water Conservation Board _Longmont _Western Hills F-20
X Oil&Gas Conservation Commission _Mead _Wiggins F-18
Division of Wildlife _Milliken _Windsor/Severance F-17
X South Hwy 66(Loveland) _New Raymer
_North Hwy 66(Greeley) _Northglenn Legal_various
_Division of Minerals/Geology _Nunn Parcel ID_various
Soil Conservation Districts _Pierce Zone_A-1 Acres? 5667
_Big Thompson X Platteville USDA no
_Boulder Valley _Severance Airport_no
_Brighton _Thornton Geo Haz_no
_Centennial Windsor FP?_y_Panel#_various
_Fort Collins Counties
_Greeley X Adams
_Longmont _Boulder IGA?_no ORD#
_Morgan _Broomfield MUD?_new
X Platte Valley _Larimer
X Southeast Weld Other J I
West Adams _Central Colo.Water Conservancy Dist
...--Federal Government Agencies _Left Hand Water
US Army Corps of Engrs X School District RE-3J(also RE-1 &RE-7)
_USDA-APHIS Vet Service _Art Elmquist(MUD Area)
Federal Aviation Admin(Structures over _Ditch Company,
over 200 ft or w/in 20000 ft of Pub Airport Commissioner 7 I- 2006-0951
Federal Communications Comm
TO: Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney
FROM: Lee D. Morrison, Assistant Weld County
Attorney
DATE: January 20, 2006
RE: Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
I have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment of Pioneer Communities revised
10/17/05. I have also reviewed the table prepared by Planning staff which comparing the current
Mixed Use Development area to the Pioneer Plan amendment. The comparison is complicated
by the fact that the existing and proposed MUDs are not parallel in form. The comparison table,
in some cases could show the same proposed language under both goals and policies and design.
For example, 3-60 could also correlate to 26-2-70. The comparison document does high-light
those areas which may not have been addressed in detail in the proposed MUD. However, the
document might be read to imply that the design elements of Chapter 26, Article II carry the
same weight as the goals and policies of Article I and I do not concur with that approach. At this
point in the process, the goals and policies are the primary issue not design.
The existing MUD serves as a template for the proposed MUD. The applicant did not
approach the proposed MUD as simply an amendment to the existing MUD at a remote location
but instead proposed a more or less complete package for a separate identifiable MUD. It is my
view that if this amendment is adopted, it should be kept as a separate subchapter and that there
not be an effort to fold the two MUDs together. The proposed MUD is richer in detail in goals
and policies and less detailed in design.
The applicant has proposed an MUD area and justified it with more specific goal and
policy language on a number of issues. For example, MUD C. Goal 1 is general in calling for
managing residential, commercial, industrial, environmental, esthetics and economic components
in the area establishing a sense of community identity. The proposed MUD, Goal 2 -3-30,
addresses this by indicating that land uses will be organized around passive, active and
agricultural open space. The policy supporting that goal specifically call out a main street,
commercial village with a character of rural western communities while avoiding strip
development patterns and discouraging creation of destination business uses. It also discusses
integrating the strength of the existing businesses in Hudson and Keenesburg and calls out
specific anticipated uses with the neighborhood commercial centers. The applicant has provided
greater detail than is provided in the existing MUD as to how the general policies will be
accomplished.
The proposal appears complete with respect to addressing the issues that must be
considered for an amendment. The fact that the comparison document indicates a lack of
information regarding design of landscaping, roads and signs is not a fatal flaw. These sections of
the existing MUD were intended to provide a baseline standard for development within the
County and Tri-Town and, is derived from the Tri-Area IGA (19-3-220). These design standards
are currently under review, were created in a different area of the County and negotiated, in part,
with municipalities in the vicinity.
I have reviewed the information regarding public services and believe that the
information is adequate for this stage of review. The applicant has secured a will serve letter for
use of the Lost Creek ground water and is in the process of creating the special districts to
directly serve parcels within Pioneer Development. It is probably more typical that special
districts be formed simultaneously with the zoning rather than in advance of the zoning. The
applicant is proceeding with the districts as a means by to demonstrate the availability of the
services. The actual entity responsible for wholesaling the water and sewer services, Resource
Colorado, already exists and currently holds a conditional 208 the North Front Range 208 Plan
approval. I also note that unique to this proposal is a policy that water be available not only for
the development and regional communities but also agricultural. This serves to illustrates one of
the primary differences between the existing MUD and the proposed MUD. The existing MUD
presumes conversion to urban uses. It appears to me that the only deference to agricultural uses
in the existing MUD is a recognition of the number of"agrarian" uses which fit more within the
large lot hobby farm than the economically viable agricultural operations. The proposed MUD
envisions maintaining an agricultural environment and this is only possible because of the
availability of reusable water credits from the Lost Creek Basin which can been used in the urban
development and revised for agricultural purpose.
Where the proposed MUD is silent, there needs to be clarification as to whether there is
an intent as to incorporate such things such as landscaping, road design and sign requirements
from the design provision of the existing MUD. It may be more appropriate to require those
design elements to be developed as part of the initial change of PUD Zone.
The proposal sets forth a slightly different method of amendment which again is more
specific to location regarding the water and sewer availability. The notice and hearing process is
not substantially different and I think that process is appropriate.
M:\WPFILES\MEMO\PIONEER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND.WPD
Weld CouiViyPlanning Department
^nEELEY OFFICE
2.005 Memorandum
DTO: Brad Mueller, W.C. Planning
DATE: January 5, 2006 7' ',
C• FROM: Pam Smith and Trevor Jiridek, W.C. Department f
COLORADO Public Health and Environment
CASE NO.: 2005XX NAME: Pioneer Communities
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Weld County Health Department has reviewed the proposal to amend the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan.
Pioneer Communities, Inc. and HP Farms, LLC own the property under consideration in this request.
The property is located in southern Weld County, generally in the intersection of CR 49 and CR 22,
and north of Hudson and Keenesburg. The amendment would change the property from Agricultural
to Residential, Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed Use uses.
Pioneer Communities, Inc. addresses the concerns of the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways:
• The development preserves Prime Ag as outlined in Section 22-2-20 E. Land within PDA that
is currently irrigated will remain an integral, active farming component to the character of the
community.
• Pioneer Communities, Inc. adequately addresses the Environmental Resources outlined in
Section 22-4-10 by creating a community that accepts and incorporates the rural character of
the area. Residential development will create densities from 1 du/ac to 10 du/ac.
• Pioneer Communities, Inc. also intends to create a sense of place by providing a
neighborhood retail area, active and passive recreational areas such as ball fields, recreation
centers, a 21 mile network of pedestrian and bike trails, neighborhood parks and gathering
areas.
Weld County wants to recognize the applicant's efforts to create a community that encourages active
lifestyles. Physical inactivity has contributed to the obesity epidemic in America. Obesity is a risk
factor in high blood pressure, heart disease, some types of cancer, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder
disease, stroke, osteoarthritis, high cholesterol, and other chronic ailments.' In 2000, total costs
attributable to obesity— including direct medical costs and indirect costs due to losses in productivity
and wages—were approximately $117 billion.2 Designing bicycling and pedestrian trails into a
community promotes healthy lifestyles and reduces health care costs by providing opportunities for
regular exercise.
Community designs that provide travel choices such as bicycling and walking in addition to the
automobile reduce vehicle air pollutants that can degrade air quality. Respiratory and
cardiopulmonary problems, headaches, reduced learning ability, and premature mortality are some of
the health effects of vehicle emissions. Reducing auto emissions in turn limits the incidence and
severity of these diseases and ailments.3
The community form of the Pioneer Development Area seems to be somewhat unique in that the PDA
concentrates the lower density housing on the perimeter of the community. Larger lots at the
perimeter of the community fits with the rural character of the land they are trying to preserve, while
the higher density housing is concentrated in the center of the community. The creation of the Town
Pioneer Communities,Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 2 of 2
Center at the center of the community supports the commercial and retail needs of the community and
the region. Banks, day care facilities, restaurants, offices, recreational centers, places of worship,
public gathering areas, etc. will be designed with the livability of the residents in mind, and avoid
development patterns that are 'destination' oriented. With these varied uses being mixed in with each
other and close together, people will find it easier to walk and bike rather than drive to their
destinations.
The Department encourages Pioneer Communities, Inc to incorporate the following types of design
elements into the Pioneer Development Area:
• To develop a recreation component that allows all residents of PDA the opportunity to
participate in and support the cost of the recreational centers, ball fields, etc. The PDA will be
developed in multiple smaller subdivisions, each potentially offering amenities (i.e. fitness
centers, pool facilities, baseball/soccer fields, tennis/basketball courts, etc.) that are exclusive
to the subdivision. This exclusivity could possibly leave segments of the population without
access to organized recreational opportunities. (A draft Service Plan for Pioneer Metropolitan
District Nos. 1 through 6 that will address the Parks and Recreation Services of each District
has been submitted separately to the County for review and comment, so no further discussion
will take place here).
• To include design elements that provide for a safe (i.e., visible, well-lit), attractive trail system
that connects neighborhoods to school properties as directly as possible so that children can
use it easily and safely. The Conceptual Master Plan indicates a lack of good pedestrian
connection between some of the proposed major and minor trails and proposed school sites.
• To consider a Park-and-Ride facility for residents commuting outside the PDA. The total
vehicle trips are projected to be 92,574 at full build-out, and there is no foreseeable future
inclusion of Weld County into the Regional Transportation District (RTD) planning area.
Staff has also specifically reviewed the amendment for adequacy in regard to water and sewer
provisions. Based upon information provided in the amendment, additional information provided by
Timothy Buchanan, esq., and discussions with Brad Simons of Gateway America Resources, LLC, we
believe that adequate information has been presented for this stage of the process to indicate that
these services can be provided should the development be approved. Should this applicant move
forward to the Sketch Plan process we recommend that a detailed water supply plan be a requirement
of application in order to demonstrate adequacy in regard to quantity of water. Note: Staff has
requested further information from Mr: Simons concerning the estimates of future quantities of water
necessary to the development of the Pioneer project.
Please do not hesitate to call either of us if you have any questions.
Funders' Network For Smart Growth And Livable Communities, Translation Paper#11: Health and
Smart Growth: Building Health, Promoting Active Communities, pg 6, www.fundersnetwork.org
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid, pg 8.
O\PAM\PLANNING\SKETCH\PIONEER COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 2005XX.RTF
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1111 II STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, CO 80632
WEBSITE: WWW.CO.WELD.CO.US
PHONE (970) 356-4000, EXT. 3750
FAX: (970) 304-6497
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2006
TO: Brad Mueller—Assistant Planning Director
FROM: Frank B. Hempen, Jr., P.E. —Director of Public Works/County Engineer
CC: Peter Schei, P.E. —Senior Engineer
Perry Eisenach, Engineering Division Manager
file
RE: Pioneer Communities Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Public Works Department has reviewed the above referenced comprehensive plan amendment and offer the following
^'mments. Comments made during the comp plan amendment process may not be all-inclusive. Other issues may arise
..uring the subsequent submittal phases that may supersede comments provided herein.
• Public Works received the following document to review: Pioneer Communities, Inc., Weld County
Comprehensive Plan Amendment(July 29, 2005) and amendments dated October 17, 2005.
Transportation Comments
Prior to Scheduling for County Commission Docket: Public Works will require Pioneer Communities to provide
a "master transportation plan" that shows the hierarchy of roads to be constructed, traffic capacities and timing of
construction tied to the development phasing plan. The transportation master plan must also show how connections
to existing county roads will be made and their respective impacts.
•Section 1-90 Existing and Proposed Public Facilities and Services.
This section of the comp plan identifies Weld County Public Works as a provider of services— "Highways and
Roads". The Public Works Depaitinent is not prepared to accept any responsibility for maintenance of
highways, roads, drainage facilities or other infrastructure improvements associated with this development.
The applicant should plan for maintenance of all interior roads through metropolitan districts.
•Section 1-110 Transportation and Circulation
The comp plan amendment states that the roadway system(i.e. WCR 49 and 22) will not need capacity
improvements prior to the construction of 1,800 residential units. Public Works does not agree with this
statement. Improvements to WCR 22 and 49 will be required at the onset of the development. These will
likely include shoulder widening, auxiliary lanes on WCR 49 and potential signalization. A more thorough,
comprehensive investigation of the traffic impacts will need to be performed.
� . . n >.r,.. .. rota, ., ku ..7n i;FU hone 0;:1( CJnc
•Section 2-10 Urban Growth Nodes are Identified Areas of Potential Urban Growth
A comparison is made between the Weld County Strategic Road system and the state highway system as
potential justification for the"Urban Node" growth concept. While the strategic roads (WCR 49 &22) are
ultimately envisioned to be 4-lane roadways, they are not envisioned to "be designed to carry more traffic than
many of the state classified roads. " They are envisioned to provide intra-regional travel options between
communities. Conversely, the state highway system is designed to provide inter-regional travel options across
the state. It is Public Works' recommendation that the"Urban Node"concept for growth not be extended to
include Strategic Roadways, many of which travel through very rural parts of Weld County.
•Section 2-20.5 Transportation
This section alludes to the metropolitan district only providing maintenance for"certain"roadway
improvements. Public Works will not accept maintenance for any improvements other than those completed
on the already-existing system.
•Section 2-50.09 Transportation and Circulation (paragraph#3)
This section discusses the metropolitan district's financial participation in both on and off-site road
improvements. Public Works will require that all off-site road improvements, needed due to the development,
will be paid for 100% by the metro-district and not a"pro-rata" share as mentioned in the discussion section.
•Both the comp-plan amendment and the traffic study state "it is anticipated that this roadway (WCR 49&22) will
be widened to a four or six-lane arterial roadway cross section with or without the traffic from the proposed
Pioneer development. " This statement is incorrect. The county's approach to strategic road improvements has
been one in which we prioritize the highest need and construct a two-lane facility. Any widening beyond this
two-lane configuration will be done by development. We currently do not have any improvements planned on
WCR 49 or 22 in our 10-year capital improvement plan.
•LSC assumes that extra capacity in a roadway equals safe, efficient operation. Again, improvements to the WCR
49/22 intersection will be required at the onset of the development.
•Public Works does not agree with LSC's estimates for trip distribution. As shown in the comp-plan projections,
the largest amount of users will be commuters to the Denver-metro area. As such, the distribution should be in
following ranges (75% south on WCR 49, 15%north on WCR 49, 10% west on WCR 22).
Storm Drainage Comments
Prior to Scheduling for County Commission Docket: Public Works will require a multi-basin wide master-
planning effort as mentioned in the comp-plan amendment text. This effort should include a strong watershed
approach to stormwater management component. Full developed condition flows for the 100-yr design storm must
be considered as well as 2, 5, 10 and 50 year events to determine levels of protection and provide for water quality
analyses. Included in the plan should be a phasing plan for improvements that reflects protection of downstream
properties.
•Special consideration should be given to all identified floodplains within the development. Preferably,
development should be highly discouraged from encroaching into the flood-fringe and floodplain. FEMA net-
rise standards will be the standard measure.
•All master planning and stormwater design must follow Urban Drainage Criteria, latest version or the Weld County
Storm Drainage Criteria if adopted prior to development of the required master plan.
•Given the size of this development full consideration of water quality issues associated with MS-4 Regulations
shall be included in any master planning.
o. ,_ .,.,a .. .� , u� 'i: :,o, >.t,i�� i� ,..ii}. ,, Pro ..,n I'LL <., i.. ti rc n . T'rCnG u �5(_.......
•Additional detailed studies maybe required with future phasing plans.
.ecommendation
The Public Works Department is not providing a formal recommendation of acceptance or denial of the comprehensive
plan amendment. These comments should be conditions of the plan amendment. Significant additional information shall
be required of each development phase. Additional requirements including improvement agreements for each stage will be
provided at the time of submittals.
es-
. __ _. .. _ 'you :r` ,_ .. .; n; -� rc;-•_ r,i_1,
Lug- t �lsz
j";),
Weld County Referral
November 15, 2005
C The submitted application proposes to amend the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23, 2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Parcel Number Several Parcels Approximately 5,660 acres
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. 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 February 21, 2006
❑ 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.
V— See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature
7. c j' Date ,�,S
L.
Agency 4 : 1, I ( Jana
+Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10'"Street. Greeley,CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
•
MEMORANDUM
Wi`Pc.
COLORADO
To: Brad Mueller, Assistant Director November 28, 2005
From: Bethany Salzman, Zoning Compliance Officer II
Subject: 2005-XX Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Referral
Upon review of my case files and computer, no open violations or building permits were noted. I did find 2
parcels (1305-17-2-00-029 and 1305-17-0-00-015)which have been "locked"due to an illegal land split.
For questions regarding this "lock", I would recommend that you speak to Sheri Lockman, the Planner who
placed the "lock" according to the computer.
SERVICE.TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY.QUALITY
STATE OF COLORADO
"1FFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER of coz
Avision of Water Resources Weld County Planning Department Q et;�,
Department of Natural Resources GREELEY OFFICE
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 9
♦ r
r +�
Denver,Colorado 80203 NO V 3 0 2005 +lave`/
Phone(303)866-3581
FAX(303)866-3589 November 22, 2005 p'r c a V LF'p.r Bill Owens
www.water.state.co.us C Governor
Brad Mueller Russell George
Weld County Planning Dept. Executive Director
918 10th Street Hal D.Simpson,RE.
Greeley, CO 80631 sate engineer
Re: Pioneer Communities, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Mueller:
This referral does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in Section 30-28-
101(10)(a), C.R.S. Therefore, pursuant to the State Engineer's March 4, 2005 memorandum to
county planning directors, this office will only perform a cursory review of the referral information and
provide comments.
According to the referral information Resource Colorado Metropolitan District("District")will
provide bulk water to towns and other metropolitan Districts which will then provide water service to
customers. Please note that Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), C.R.S. requires a municipality or quasi-
municipality, upon receiving the preliminary plan designating said municipality or quasi-municipality as
the source of water for a proposed subdivision, shall file, with the board of County Commissioners and
the State Engineer, a statement documenting the amount of water which can be supplied by said
municipality or quasi-municipality to proposed subdivisions without causing injury to existing water
rights. To expedite the evaluation of the water supply for the subdivisions, a water supply report or
statement should include a detailed summary of water rights owned or controlled by the District, the
yield of those rights both in an average year and a dry year, the present demand on the system and
the anticipated demand due to commitments for service entered into by the District, and the amount of
uncommitted firm supply the District has available for future development. A report of this nature must
be submitted to this office by Resource Colorado Metropolitan District and the Water District that will
contract with Resource Colorado Metropolitan District to provide water to a proposed subdivision.
These reports must be submitted prior to or at the time that a subdivision relying on water from the
Districts is referred to the State Engineer's Office for comment.
According to the submitted informationswater from the Lost Creek Basin near Prospect Valley
will be used to supply water to proposed subdivisions. Prior to claiming any water within the Lost
Creek Designated Groundwater Basin as part of a subdivision water supply it must be shown that all
requirements of the Ground Water Commission have been satisfied to allow the water to be used
outside of the Lost Creek Basin.
Should you have any questions in this matter, please contact Joanna Williams of this office.
Sincerely,er c5i
Kevin G. Rein, P.E.
Chief of Water Supply
KGR/JMW
Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 1 of 1
Brad Mueller
From: Hice-Idler, Gloria [Gioria.Hice-Idler@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 3:59 PM
To: Brad Mueller
Subject: Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Brad,
Thanks for forwarding the amendment to me for my review. I don't have any comment regarding this proposal,
since, as you noted, specific uses will require additional review.
I'd say CDOT has no comment regarding the plan.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Gloria Hice-Idler
Access Manager
CDOT Region 4
1420 2nd Street
Greeley CO 80631
(970) 350-2148
12/15/2005
Vitat planning PePactmp�t
Weld Couo Y q4O
EEIE
r�> '
CN®v 2 2005
RECE�v H C0L0RAD0 SRICA
L
SOCIETY
The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver,Colorado 80203-2137
21 November 2005
Brad Mueller
Assistant Director
Weld County Planning Services
918 10`h St.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Weld County
Dear Mr. Mueller:
Thank you for your recent correspondence dated 15 November 2005, concerning the proposed
Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Our office conducted a records search to determine
whether any surveyed cultural resources were known to exist in the project area(defined below).
The project area consists of the following Townships,Ranges, and Sections:
Township 2 North, Range 64 West: Sections 4, 5,7, 8,9, 17, and 18
Township 3 North, Range 64 West: Section 32
Township 2 North, Range 65 West: Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15
Our office found one surveyed site within this project area: Site 5WL.3171, located in Section 1,
Township 2 North, Range 65 West. This site was determined to be not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places in 1999, and it does not appear to be eligible as of 2005.
Please note that our information may be incomplete. Many of the sections searched came up with
no sites listed,which indicates that they have never been surveyed fur cultural resources. There
may be unidentified or buried cultural resources within the project area.
If you have any questions, please contact Joseph Saldibar, Architectural Services Coordinator, at
(303) 866-3741.
Sincerely,
' 1 ;
_
lr-QC-Georgianna Contiguglia
State Historic Preservation Officer, and
President, Colorado Historical Society
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
303-866-3392 *Fax 303-866-2711 *E-mail: oahp@chs stateco.us* Internet: www.coloradohistory-oahp.org
Dec 19 06 04:10p Division of Wildlife 303-776-6663 p.1 it
4\f(1-
Weld County Referral
' November 15, 2005
'V The submitted application proposes to amend the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan_
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23,2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Parcel Number Several Parcels aSoproximately 5,660 acres `_
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. 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 February 21, 2006
❑ 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: 4/0 COi?Jn7U71�.6S Air zw-s i o.lCt_/S 7!o
aia/UsfY4_ '.4/ /yiig-,c,rr1G", 4.7:410 /9i14evi1s .r o.o jr .p ,z.-0s5/.eel'
- • AacTsz - 946O ni/ ter//S�3r �Lf�Y�O ✓771tgytedi.)
Signature Al .a .4jt> C71/ Date /9 /'ie_ c'cst's'
> Oda
Agency GGGt9. /.1/1/- GU/G,4GfjG', G/iybti ?2' /3 2/74 ate-59-
-1 j cUtst..a co,
-Weld County Planning Dept. 0918 10'Street.Greeley,CO.80631 0(97(1)353-6 6498 fax
' a." ,,cca.(t-' tc1rcL rc e.
r
44-11 Weld County Referral
November 15, 2005
C The submitted application propose NA wpfri the
anning Department
Weld County Comprehensive PIanFREELEV OFFICE
COLORADO DEC 2 2 lour
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for reR' C E \fE D
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23, 2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Parcel Number Several Parcels Approximately 5,660 acres
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. 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 February 21, 2006
D 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.
`r See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature � �� �al�rs2i^�<a Date 42_rp_400 j
�""� T—
Agency pVC) Cwv�A
Vc*1 it \(Ac, c Cer,S' . r�
S F IA . e..-r- N0V 1 7 7621
+Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10'"Street, Greeley, CO.80631 •}(970)353-6100 ext.3540 d•(970)304-6498 fax •
December 12,2005
Weld County Planning Department
918 l0a' Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Attn: Brad Mueller,Assistant Director, Weld County Planning Services
RE: Pioneer Communities Comprehensive Plan Amendment
In consultation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS),the Southeast Weld
and Platte Valley Conservation Districts have reviewed the referenced proposed amendment to
the Weld County Comprehensive Plan to create an urban level mixed use district in south central
Weld County. We have the following concerns and recommendations on this proposed
amendment.
Soils Limitations and Erosion Control
This large proposed community development site has primarily sandy soils, including Valent and
Osgood sand, as well as other soil types. These soils have a very high potential for erosion from
wind and water and should be protected. Appropriate measures should be taken to minimize soil
erosion during future development activities, such as minimizing soil disturbances, avoiding
disturbances to large areas and preventing soil movement offsite.
During development, it is reconau.sided that site grading be done following a phased approach
that includes an area that can be developed in a six month period. Each phased development area
should be followed by temporary re-vegetation of the disturbed area to stabilize the highly erosive
soils prior to progressing to the next site grading phase. Using a phased approach will limit the
amount of land temporarily susceptible to wind erosion.
Regularly scheduled water application is recommended during construction activities to control
dust. At the conclusion of construction activities, disturbed areas should be stabilized with
perennial vegetation, gravel or pavement. Some recouu,a,ndations for grass seeding of disturbed
areas are included under reclamation and re-vegetation.
Topsoil
Topsoil should be removed from each phased development site and stockpiled in a separate pile
with a recommended 4:1 side slope. If the topsoil will be stockpiled over 30 days, it should be re-
seeded immediately with temporary vegetation such as Regreen, a wheat and wheatgrass hybrid
that establishes quickly and produces a sterile plant. Our recommendation for seeding the topsoil
stockpile as soon as possible is based on soil erosion,both from a wind and water standpoint, as
well as from a weed standpoint. Weeds are very invasive and move into disturbed areas quickly.
Some of these can be noxious weeds and would require control based on the state noxious weed
list. By seeding the temporary topsoil stockpile, the chances for weed invasion will be lessened,
as will the potential for erosion. It is recommended that Tina Booton,Weed Specialist with Weld
County at(970) 304-6496X3772 be contacted to assist in developing a weed management plan
for the project.
Reclamation and Re-Vegetation
During development site reclamation topsoil should be spread in lifts not to exceed 4 inches and
worked into the slopes to ensure good adhesion and to minimize soil creep. Prior to applying a
re-vegetation seed mix, soil testing should be performed to determine if fertilizer is needed Our
normal recommended seeding dates are November 1st through April 15th. All seeding should
take place on unfrozen soils. A good quality grass seed drill with an agitator, depth bands and
press wheels is recommended. If seed is broadcast,recommended seeding rates should be
doubled.
The following general seed mix and application rate is recommended for re-vegetation of sandy
soils and is based on NRCS "critical area"seeding rates, which is double our normal rates. Given
the large area of this proposed development, it is recommended that specific soil samples be
analyzed and that an appropriate seeding mix be used for the project phases.
Pioneer Communities General Seeding Mix
PLS/Ac Rate
to use % in (PLS
Species Variety (100%) mix Ib/ac)
Sand bluestem Elida or Garden 16.0 30 4.8
Prairie sandreed Goshen 6.5 25 1.6
Switchgrass Grenville, Nebraska28 4.0 20 0.8
Yellow Indiangrass Llano, Holt, Cheyenne 10.0 10 1.0
Little bluestem Pastura or Cimmarron 7.0 5 0.4
Sideoats grama Vaughn or Butte 9.0 5 0.5
Western
wheatgrass Arriba 16.0 5 0.8
We recommend mulching re-vegetated areas with weed-free straw or native hay. Mulch should
be applied at a rate of 4,000 pounds per acre. After the mulch is applied, it should be crimped
into the soil to help anchor it. Crimping should be cross slope or on the contour, if at all possible.
The State of Colorado has a list of certified weed-free straw available on the internet or through
the local county Extension Service office.
It is recommended that future landowners be encouraged to plant and maintain a minimum
number of suitable trees on each development lot. Planting and establishing trees will help
control soil erosion. The NRCS can be contacted for recommended tree species appropriate for
the soil types found on this development.
Water
Water availability, utilization and conservation are important concerns to the Southeast Weld and
Platte Valley Conservation Districts. We have serious questions relative to the long-term
availability of water for domestic and limited outside use by homeowners in this large
development. We highly recommend that an independent water assessment be completed as part
of the County's review process to ensure the adequacy and long-term availability of water for this
proposed development.
Further, our conservation districts have serious concerns with the proposed amendment to the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan to create an urban level mixed use district that would permit
massive developments such as Pioneer Communities in south central Weld County. This
proposed development would have significant long-term impacts on local resources and
infrastructure. The fundamental goals of our conservation districts are to conserve and protect
our soils, water and agricultural values in general. Projects like Pioneer Communities are
generally incongruous with these important goals.
The Southeast Weld and Platte Valley Conservation Districts appreciate the opportunity to review
and comment on this proposed amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan to permit
large community developments such as Pioneer Communities. Conservation and wise use of our
natural resources are foremost in our goals. If you or the applicant should have questions, contact
NRCS at 303-659-7004.
Sincerely,
at.0
Southeast Weld Cons ton District Pla e Valley Conservation District
District Board of Supervisors District Board o Supervisors
•
-PL F_ k)cs{C-- ` - pv is ctppfra-v
A-1-_vv--Harth cn" erto coca aeskt- i
l �T 1�s 4 ✓C��7II lti d ✓t s s-t Y( ni '
` pry d ( f7✓b ost. Ova^-a-v.
fi
% ' ' -te.,_ . _0 _ ti"-4 twos
CITY OF
BRIGHTON ?Canning -Dermot/Rent
22,�joath 4th/laenue, Brighten, Coiora≥o 80601
Weld County Planning Department
December zz, 2005
GREELEV
OFFICE
DEC 2 7 2005
Brad Mueller,Assistant Director
Department of Planning Services •`CQ CCEI VE®
Weld County
618 mu' Street
Greeley, CO 80631
VIA FACSIMILE
Re: zoos-XX Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Mueller:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the referenced comprehensive plan amendment
referral. While this property is not located within the city of Brighton Planning Influence
Area, the Planning department has a few concerns regarding the proposed amendment.
According to section I-4o Justification (page I-6), the Comprehensive Plan requires an
amendment due to changed conditions in Weld County and the surrounding areas. The
changes include the availability of utilities (specifically water and wastewater) through the
formation of a Metropolitan District (i.e. Resource Colorado), existing and planned
transportation improvements (i.e. the designation of Weld County Road 49 and zz as
"Strategic Roadways"), and the "accessibility to urban services and the opportunity to support
and protect existing agriculture." The justification continues on to say that the area should be
designated for urban use and urban densities. Curiously, the nine-square mile development
totaling approximately 5,667 acres is, as the document states in the Executive Summary,
"predominantly surrounded by vacant and agricultural property," and should be considered as
appropriate for "urban use and urban densities?" Urban uses and urban densities should
develop in a consistent and well-thought pattern; this project appears to be a mini-city (i.e.
to,000 residential units with approximately 25,000 residents) in the middle of vacant and
agricultural areas.
According to section 1-30 Concept (page I-5), "at full build-out, the Amendment area is envisioned
as a sustainable, coordinated and integrated community (emphasis added) of ro,000 equivalent
residential units," and section rtoo Community Form and Structure (page I-z6) states, "the
PDA will be a balanced and sustainable community (emphasis added) that integrates the traditional
rural heritage..." As set forth in section r-80.or (page I-r4) "due to the nature of the development,
retail and commercial services will occur predominantly in existing towns along 1-76, with most
residents commuting to existing employment cores for jobs." This statement is the most
disconcerting for two reasons. First, a truly balanced, sustainable and/or integrated
Atone: 303-655-2059 lax: 303-655-2019
community should not require most residents to commute to employment cores for jobs. As
noted in the document, the only employment possibilities within the community are "7,000
jobs from the construction of the to,000 housing units and zoo,000 square feet of neighborhood
retail over the 3o-year period." The document also denoted approximately "470 retail jobs"
due to the development of the neighborhood commercial within the project. Neither of these
job generators are long-term or provide an income-level to match those of the residents who
will be living within the community. In regards to the Pioneer residents having to leave their
community to commute to employment cores, it should be noted that Appendix C, Exhibit I-
4 denotes the nearest employment core, as Denver International Airport (as shown in Exhibit
I-3) with a driving distance of 33 minutes from the Pioneer development. While I-76 is
currently an underutilized transportation corridor, the proposed and under construction
development taking place in unincorporated and incorporated areas along I-76 will invariably
effect driving times, making it highly unlikely that an average Pioneer resident's commute to
an employment core will take place in less than an hour. This may be a coordinated and
integrated community, but only unto itself. Second, and most importantly to the city of
Brighton, is the statement that the residents of Pioneer will be traveling to existing towns
along I-76 for retail and commercial services. The residents of Pioneer will now be traveling
into communities like Brighton to acquire services and items unattainable in their own
communities. This places a burden on our transportation systems in terms of traffic and
maintenance issues, and can affect our ability to provide fire and police protection to our
residents.
Overall, the City of Brighton believes that a Comprehensive Plan amendment of this
magnitude should be made in an area truly ready for urban uses and urban densities. The
applicant's justification that the area has the capability for the provision of services, should
not negate the fact that this area is vacant, agricultural land and that development should be
taking place in a more appropriate area. Furthermore, a community of this size should
include the provision of all necessary services, including employment possibilities and
commercial development to sustain itself.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at (303) 655-2022 (or via e-mail at hprather@brightonco.gov), should you require
additional or more detailed information concerning this response.
Sincerely,
Holly P�, ICP
Y
Senior Planner
cc: File
Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page zof2
‘H"---N__iii Weld County Referral
vfig ' November W 15, 2005
O The submitted application proposes teo aittiji@ ng Department
Weld County Comprehensive Plan."' y OFFICE
COLORADO JAN 13 200E
RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer I
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan I
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23, 2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. •
E
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson. ; •
Parcel Number Several Parcels Approximately 5,660 acres � � u k
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. 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 February 21, 2006
❑ 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:
7
Signature f/`/, /✓/ -- 1�', Date j /jZA
Agency r 7/ A/ , r/ /t fr,/A%-I/
/
+Weld County Planning Dept. +918 101h Street, Greeley,CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax
,• •` FONT
leo City of Fort Lupton
„tridetifita � Planning and Building
lier9cat moo Department
Performance,Integrity,Teamwork,
Accountability and Service
(303)857-6694 x 125
Tom Parka,Planning Director Fax(303 857-0351
130 S.McKinley Avenue e-mait planner@frii.net
Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 http://www.fortlupton.org
January 12, 2006
Weld County Planning
Attention: Brad Mueller
918 10t Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Mueller:
The City of Fort Lupton would like to thank Weld County for sending a referral on case number
2005-XX (Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment). On January 10, 2006 per the request by
staff, the developer's attorney gave a presentation before the Fort Lupton Planning Commission.
The meeting was beneficial and productive. The City of Fort Lupton would like Weld County to
take into consideration the following items discussed.
As the City understands it the developers are seeking a total of seven (7) districts within Pioneer
Communities. Each district will require a service plan detailing the specifics of the development.
Weld County is considering at this time the adoption of an ordinance that sets guidelines for
districts. Will the guidelines set by Weld County take the following into consideration?
• Police protection. Will Weld County require a LEA? If no, will the developer
look to other surrounding municipalities for law enforcement assistance?
• School and Fire Districts. Will there be any impact fees or system development
fees to offset capital costs for schools, fire stations, etc.? If the service plan does
not provide for this will Weld County require them at time of final plat?
• Water and sanitation districts. After the service plans are approved Pioneer will
inevitably create competition with surrounding municipalities. Has there been an
effort by the developer to work with the Town of Hudson or the Town of
Keensburg for water and sanitation services? Has either municipality discussed
annexation?
• Traffic. Does CDOT have an access control plan for I-76 and if so how will
Pioneer make efforts to improve the corridor?
• Extra-territorial service. Does the developer intend to serve other unincorporated
areas outside the district boundaries? If so, what areas and what services will be
provided?
- 1 -
1/12/2006
The City would like to request that additional referrals be provided as this development makes its
way through the planning and public review process. As always, if you have any questions
please feel free to call me at the number listed above.
Best regar ;
aak0
Tom Parko
Planning Director
Cc: Referral File.
-2-
1/12/2006
'Art a
eld County PlaW r�ne€ounty Referral
^';EELEti f
DEC 2 ? ZQQ5 November 15, 2005
Ca�tEDpplication proposes to amend the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23, 2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Parcel Number Several Parcels Approximatel 5,660 acres
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. 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 February 21, 2006
❑ 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.
.82 See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature c( Date j9Qec co
Agency v� w,.) c-r (40'7..7 @rJ
•:•Weld County Planning Dept. +918 101"Street, Greeley, CO. 80631 t(970)353-6100 ext.3540 t(970)304-6498 fax
L' . TOWN OF HUDSON
�" f 557 ASH STREET, P.O. BOX 351,HUDSON,OO 80642-0351
Phone. 303-536-9311 FAX: 303-536-4753
FOUNDED 1887
December 19, 2005
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Attn: Mr. Brad Mueller, Assistant Director
918 10'" Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Case Number 2005-XX
^ Dear Mr. Mueller;
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the application for amendment
of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan by Pioneer Communities. It is our understanding
that the application from Pioneer Communities requests that an urban development of
almost nine(9)square miles be permitted within existing agricultural zoning. The proposed
development is approximately two miles north of the current Urban Growth Boundary of the
Town of Hudson.
The ambitious development plan, submitted by Pioneer Communities, will incorporate
layers of newly formed or yet to be formed Metropolitan Districts for the provision of various
municipal services. It is our consensus that such basic services have been traditionally
provided more effectively by incorporated communities within Weld County. The use of
metropolitan districts operated by citizen groups can be problematic. The Town of Hudson
was previously serviced by a Metropolitan Sanitation District for decades. The failing
infrastructure, poor maintenance and delayed capital investment within the Metropolitan
District operations forced the Town to intervene and ultimately undertake control of
operations to preserve a basic service to the residents.After almost a decade of operation,
the Town continues to overcome ongoing challenges created by the past errors in
management of the Sanitation District. Consequently,we find it significant to note from our
review of the referral that the proposed metropolitan districts, within the Pioneer
Development Area,will ultimately be operated by the future owners of the lands developed
by Pioneer Communities. We also would suggest to you that the visions of a utopian
development within the Pioneer Community Project are misguided through the extensive
use of metropolitan districts.
We recommend to the Weld County Planning Commission that it would be more a practical
proposal to annex this area to an existing municipal entity so that essential community
services would be preserved and managed by single governance rather than a multitude
of homeowner associations. We encourage the Commission to consider the ultimate fate
of similar developments such as Centennial in Douglas County and the parallel issues with
this proposal.
In the absence of single governance, it is our expectation that the proposed development
will negatively impact County services within the region and particularly in Hudson. Should
this proposal move forward through the Weld County planning and amendment process
despite our objections in its current form, we respectfully request that referral and public
hearing notices be sent to Hudson so that we may continue to provide comments which
protect the quality of life for our community.
Sincerely,
Tammy McCain, Chairman
Hudson Planning Commission
Cc: File
Planning Commission
Town Administrator
uvumy r iaumng uepanmeni
GREELEY OFFICE
DEC 1 5 2005
RECEIVED
Weld County Referral
WI
I
November 15, 2005
pe The submitted application proposes to amend the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23, 2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Parcel Number Several Parcels Approximately 5,660 acres
•
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. 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 February 21, 2006
D We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑J We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
bE See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature �J G� / �� Date /2-441,5
Agency .OWN llOz�E KEENEES�
ate.
+Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10'"Street, Greeley, CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
TOWN OF KEENESBURG
P.O. BOX 312
KEENESBURG, COLORADO 80643
303-732-4281
December 14, 2005
Attn : Brad Mueller
Weld County Planning Dept.
918 101h Street
Greeley, Colo. 80631
Dear Mr. Mueller:
RE: Weld County Referral Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer Comprehensive plan Amendment
The Town of Keenesburg finds no conflict of interest with the amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan. The Town of Keenesburg has a concern with the amount of traffic generated from Pioneer
Communities and how that will effect the intersection of 1-76 and WCR 49. The Town in addition
has an interest in the traffic pattern for the development and would like to see Pioneer
Communities, Weld County and the Town work jointly.
Mark D. Gray
Mayor
Town of Kersey 3¢°:�►`e�
Come grow with us
weld Co
uo`y P!a
f �EFCEY FFCE/Dart/neat KERSEY
DES 2 g 2 p 332 Third Street
R05 P.O. Box 657
E/VE0 Kersey, CO 80644
phone: (970) 353-1681
fax: (970) 353-2197
December 22, 2005
Brad Mueller
Weld County Department of Planning Services
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case Number 2005-XX pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Mueller,
r
The Kersey Planning Commission has considered the referral on the above mentioned
case and does wish to voice opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The Commission is concerned about increased traffic on WCR 49, particularly as it will
impact Kersey over time. The commission is in agreement that the proposed amendment
will be detrimental to small towns in the region and impact their future commercial
growth. Finally, the proposed amendment is not in keeping with the current Weld County
Comprehensive Plan which focuses on agricultural uses in the county and directs urban
uses to municipalities.
Thank you for your consideration of Kersey's comments.
Sincerely,
Trudy Peterson
Town Manager
Town of Kersey
Weld County Referral
' November 15, 2005
C The submitted application propostiEldeoallDielThdatibp Department
Weld County Comprehensive PIthREELEY OFFICE
COLORADO DEC 2 9 2o05
RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23, 2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. •
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
As-
Parcel Number Several Parcels Approximately 5,660 acres
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. 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 February 21, 2006
J 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 ��tit Date tii2 'S//f) -
Agency 4.t 11" Of C--it
+Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10'"Street, Greeley,CO. 80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4•(970)304-6498 fax
0C HSUIE�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
703 Weld County Road 37. Lochbuie,CO. 80603
Phone 303-655-9308 x126 Fax 303-655-9312 www.lochbuie.org
December 22, 2005
Brad Mueller
Weld County Planning Dept.
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Subject: Case No. 2005-XX Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Mueller,
Though the primary purpose for your referral is for an amendment to the Weld County
Code to create a new district similar to the MUD in Chapter 26, Lochbuie is concerned
about the potential development this proposed new code could allow for.
The Town of Lochbuie is apprehensive about the County's ability to serve the potential
residents of Pioneer Communities and continue to serve the existing residents and
businesses in the surrounding area at or above the quality currently provided.
It has been Lochbuie's experience that the Weld County Sheriff's Department is
understaffed within Beat 3 of which Pioneer Communities will be located within. On too
many occasions Lochbuie police officers are requested to respond to calls for service
outside of the Lochbuie's town limits due to the unavailability of deputies because either
the deputies are on other calls or are too far away to respond in a timely manner. With
the potential demand that 10.000 residential units and supporting commercial
businesses will have on Beat 3, Lochbuie staff believes the calls for service will require
additional deputies to cover Pioneer alone. As it stands, according to Appendix G of the
packet provided by your agency, the Undersheriff has stated that Beat 3 is to date
adequately served 60-70% of the time. This lack of adequacy will continue to diminish
as growth naturally occurs within Beat 3 and will significantly be affected if Pioneer
Communities if approved and built.
The concerns for quality of fire service by the Hudson Fire District are similar to that of
Sheriff service. Hudson Fire District response time and quality of service is stretched as
far as a volunteer program can be stretched. The demand that 10,000 units, its vehicle
traffic, and businesses put on a volunteer fire department may be more than the District
can handle.
The traffic study does not address alternate routes due to traffic congestion. Lochbuie
is concerned that the demand for service on WCR 37 will increase as an alternate route
from Pioneer Communities. WCR 37 is the most direct route to the next southern
interchange to 1-76. When the level of service on WCR 49 and 22 becomes
Weld County Case No.2005-XX
Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 2
unacceptable to the commuters the drivers will look for alternate routes; WCR 37 being
the most logical. As the report states, until Pioneer Communities has 1,800 units the
need to expand WCR 49 and 22 will not be necessary, however before that time the
commuters will be seeking out alternate routes as the routes become congested and
especially during the reconstruction period.
Lochbuie recommends that a more detailed study be conducted on the current condition
of the sheriff, fire, and traffic services, consequences the development will have on the
services, and how the development will financially maintain and/or improve the quality of
these services. Weld County residents and businesses should not have to suffer from
decreased level of services in order for a developer to create a "community" that doesn't
already exist. Our priority should be our current residents and businesses.
Sincerely,
(Paa daaet
Paula Mehle
Town Planner
Weld County Planning Department
GREEI.EY OFFICE
NOV 3 6 2005
a cela 'Wield County Referral
WI
f
� 91 .1046
INovember 15, 2005
ei , The submitted application proposes to amend the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23, 2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Parcel Number Several Parcels Approximately 5,660 acres
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. 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 February 21, 2006
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
�.CWe have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments: Gat -11.0. 1p.Q
n n.43 al .o lt) CIA) �, f11t ti.�q.Qa!L{�p e
I— A�iue7�.
lil gn of R- I pp I I�Ab `�AIrt Q 0. C tDM s��f�p± &i)
Date ,//1E hS
Agency (.3) .4)Na4R04-4) *)
- oteld County Planning Dept. +918 101°Street, Greele CO. 80631 +(97 353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
4.1 .-)1111H4n- a
" Weld County Referral
November 15, 2005
O The submitted application propo% m ,A4nend the
Weld County Comprehensive fify OFBICEparfinent
COLORADO DEC. 1
� 2OO5
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item fiR :EI tt ED
Applicant Pioneer Communities, Inc. & Case Number 2005-XX Pioneer I
HP Farms, LLC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Please Reply By December 23, 2005 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Legal Several Parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Parcel Number Several Parcels Approximately 5,660 acres
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. 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 February 21, 2006
❑ 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: we have reviewed the request and find the property does
not lie within , the boundaries of our district .
Signature Date December 12 , 2005
Agency Plat-ta Vallay crhnnl Tli atri r^t Weld Re-7
tWeld County Planning Dept. +918 101h Street, Greeley, CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax
Weld County School District Re-3(J)/99 West Broadway/P.O.Box 269/Keenesburg,CO 80643
Tel:(303)536-2000/Fax:(303)536-2010
WELD
Weld County Planning Department
CREELEY OFFICE
DEC. 2 7 2005
RECEIVED
December 23, 2005
Mr. Brad Mueller,Assistant Director
Weld County Department of Planning Services
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Pioneer Communities Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Mueller:
The above referenced Comprehensive Plan Amendment is proposed for approximately 5,670
acres north of Weld County Road (WCR) 20 and approximately bisected by WCR 49. This letter
first summarizes the implications for school sites and facilities. Second, it addresses the school
district's ability to financially accommodate the large number of students this subdivision would
generate.
The Pioneer Communities proposal information suggests a mix of housing types while
retaining a portion for agriculture-based activities. Approximately 2,350 acres are designated for
residential uses with a potential population of 25,000 persons. Limited neighborhood commercial
uses (perhaps 200,000 square feet) are proposed but no other non-residential, which would assist
with the typical adverse fiscal implications experienced by school districts. Based upon the
application and previous information provided on behalf of the applicant, the following student
generation is anticipated:
Estimated Student Generation
from Potential Units:
School Type (Grades Served) Maximum Minimum Average
Elementary (K-6) 3,663 2,201 2,932
Middle (7-8) 1,121 672 896
Senior High (9-12) 2 269 1.367 1.818
Total 7,053 4,240 5,646
This level of student generation results in the need for 123.3 to 205.1 acres of land necessary to
support the school facilities required to serve these students. Further, this represents an extremely
large addition to a relatively small School District (fall 2005 enrollment = 1,900 in grades
Kindergarten through 12), a characteristic that could cause substantial financial difficulties if the
pace of growth from the proposed development is rapid. Adding to this the concern regarding rapid
growth in other areas of the School District, it is quite likely that Re-3J's financial capacity to
provide facilities for the students generated will be outstripped. This and related concerns are
discussed in detail below.
One primary concern relates to the proposed project's location well removed from existing
development. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan (Section 22-2-20-F-1) provides for "directing
growth to areas where it is appropriate as determined through the land use application process."
Weld County School District Re-3(1) (Weld Re-3J) questions whether the proposed development is
appropriate because it is not adjacent to or near existing public infrastructure or services, as opposed
to simply being available as indicated in the application (Section-40, page I-6). Developments of
such density that are removed from existing development and communities substantially increase the
costs of providing public infrastructure and services, including school facilities and transportation.
It is Weld Re-3J's opinion that residential projects of this magnitude and density should be directed
to existing municipalities or communities to minimize the adverse fiscal effects of "leap frog"
development to minimize costs that may be borne by our mutual constituents.
Site Issues
The applicant indicates the need for six elementary schools, two middle schools and two high
schools. However, the calculations were based upon incorrect (in part) student generation ratios
and upon facilities in place prior to bonding for the new Weld Central High School that is currently
under construction and the renovation of the existing junior-senior high that will serve middle
school students. The correct student yield to apply for single family detached homes is:
School Level Student Yield
Elementary (K-5) 0.390
Middle (6-8) 0.120
Senior High (9-12) 0.240
Total (K-12) 0.750
These standards were developed using a historical analysis of student enrollment and housing counts
from the County Assessor's Office. Consequently, the use of a reduced student yield (0.645 for K-
12 applied by the applicant) substantially understates the impact of single family homes in the
development. Further, school facility capacity standards as reflected by new construction and
funded renovation have not been incorporated. A comparison of factors applied by the applicant
and those that are currently in progress is:
School Student Capacity (K-12)
Level R.C. Lesser Weld Re-3J
Elementary 525 480
Middle 600 675
Senior High 900 960
The Re-3J capacities shown are based upon completion of the funded construction under way for
Weld Central High School and Middle School.
Page 2 of 5
Utilizing the correct information above has a significant implication upon facility needs and
capital costs that will be made necessary to serve residents of the proposed development, if
approved. Based upon the correct school capacity and site standards, the project would generate the
following number of students and school site needs:
Estimated Student Generation
from Potential Units:
School Type (Grades Served) Maximum Minimum Average
Elementary (K-6) 3,663 2,512 2,932
Middle (7-8) 1,121 768 1,019
Senior High (9-12) 2,269 1.558 2 063
Total 7,053 4,838 6,015
School sites needed:
Elementary 7.63 5.23 6.11
Middle 1.87 1.28 1.70
Senior High 2.36 1.62 2.15
The applicant's school site needs analysis (and the fiscal analysis in Appendix C) is apparently based
upon a build out of 10,000 housing units or about 50 units more than the average of the maximum
(12,203) and minimum (7,692) number of housing units as shown above and requested by the
application. (The unit count specified is based upon material previously provided to Re-3J by the
applicant but was not identified in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment referral packet.) Until it is
demonstrated that the 10,000 unit level is definite, it is strongly recommended that the maximum
number of units approved be utilized as the appropriate infrastructure calculation base. Thus, the
District requests that, if approved, the applicant provide for eight 10-acre elementary school sites,
two 22-acre middle school sites and two 40-acre high school sites. Additional acreage requirements
can be met via cash-in-lieu of land dedication.
Facility and Fiscal Capacity Issues
Current facilities that currently serve this area are either Hudson Elementary or Hoff
Elementary (Keenesburg) and Weld Central junior-Senior High. Capacities and enrollments of
these schools are:
Seats
Student Enrollment Available
School (Grades) Capacity (10/1/05) (Short)
Hudson Elementary 480 340 140
Hoff Elementary 480 341 139
Weld Central Jr. High* 675 312 363
Weld Central Sr. High* 960 499 461
*:Applies capacity available upon completion of current construction program.
With the recent high school construction and pending middle school renovation/expansion, both
secondary schools have adequate capacity to accommodate modest growth. However, elementary
Page 3 of 5
enrollment will likely equal or exceed capacity by the time this project would experience initial
housing unit occupancy.
The fiscal analysis included in Appendix C-2 applies the information corrected above. Certain
assumptions applied in the fiscal analysis are contrary to statutorily established taxing rates and the
District's facility planning standards. First, the fiscal analysis applies a 9.21 percent assessment rate
for residential properties rather than the state-set rate (currently 7.96 percent). Second, the school
size standards (square feet per student) for the new Weld Central High School (to open fall 2006)
are not applied and are substandard. A comparison of the assumptions applied versus the
appropriate Weld Re-3J standards is:
Planning Assumptions Fiscal Effect:
Applied by Overstatement
Factors RC Lesser Actual of Revenues
Residential assessment rate
(from Appendix 1, page 2 of 25) 9.21% 7.96% -15.70%
Monetary effect on revenues
(millions) -- 30 year total $ 174.991 $ 151.291 $ (23.700)
Per unit effect (based upon
applicant's assumed 10,000 units) (2,370)
Understatement
of School Size
High school size: (App. 1, p. 4)
Square feet per student 117 161 -27.47%
School capacity (students) 900 960 NA
Monetary effect on costs (millions)
-- 30 year total $ 16.795 $ 24.777 $ (7.982)
Per unit effect (based upon
applicant's assumed 10,000 units) (798)
Total Fiscal Effect:
Revenue & Cost (millions) $ (31.682)
Per Unit $ (3,168)
Even applying the minimum "gap financing" methodology utilized in the fiscal analysis (also
proposed for the Foundation) and disregarding the new middle school standards applicable for the
funded project, the project will generate a financing shortfall of well in excess of $31 million or
approximately $3,170 per unit. If the new middle school standard is applied this deficit would
worsen. Implications for the proposed Capital Facilities Fee Foundation funding level of$1,010 per
unit are thus fundamentally undervalued and represent an additional tax burden (development
subsidy) for existing residents.
Page 4 of 5
While the concept of the proposed Capital Facilities Fee Foundation (attachment K) is
sincerely appreciated, its language contains elements that are objectionable to the School District.
The District is open to discussing changes that may make such a supplementary funding vehicle
acceptable. However, the District is opposed to any language that supplants the Board's authority
or restricts prudent control over district-wide assets, as obligated by statute and expected by our
mutual constituents. As an example, item C.6 restricting funding to schools built only within the
project is unacceptable. It may well prevent sensible use of District-wide assets as determined by a
comprehensive facility master plan (addressing the entire District's needs) that may lie outside the
project but can still satisfactorily serve its students, for example a high school that is a regional
facility. Such a requirement may force inefficient and costly use of funds and assets for the benefit
of one development. Combined with the substantial facility funding deficit apparent from the
project, the applicant should certainly not be placed in a position to dictate School District, or any
other local government entity's, policy. That is clearly the statutory responsibility of elected school
district officials and should not be supplanted by a private or county action.
At present, the district's total bonding capacity approximates $56.1 million at 20 percent of
assessed valuation per state statute. Debt outstanding from the previous bond election is $38.7
million leaving about $17.4 million available for future facility needs throughout the district. Given
other development potential from already approved projects, this amount could likely be obligated
within the next few years.
Recommendations
The School District remains very concerned about the recent trend toward accelerated
residential activity and the ensuing enrollment that will follow as well as the District's physical and
financial abilities to serve that growth. In addition, it is Weld Re-3J's opinion that the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is inappropriate for this area and that the public good would be
better served if higher density or urban style development such as this proposed by Pioneer
Communities occurs within existing municipalities or, at minimum, within their urban growth
boundaries adjacent to the municipal limits where infrastructure is more readily available and more
cost-effective to provide. Further, the project is expected to have considerable adverse fiscal
consequences for Weld County School District Re-3(1).
Thus, it is recommended that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment be denied. Should the
County decide to approve the Amendment, it is strongly recommended that the concerns cited
above be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the County and the School District. Further, it is
requested that mitigation he provided to more fully offset the unmet capital costs that will be
experienced for school structures. Without such mitigation and agreement, the School District
reserves the right to recommend denial of any subsequent subdivision applications if capacity to
serve is inadequate.
We appreciate your continuing cooperation and the opportunity to comment upon issues of
interest to both the County and the School District. Should you have questions or desire further
information, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Marvin Wade, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Page 5 of 5
JAN-30-2006 16 39 REUTZEL ASSOCIATES 3036943831 P.01
REUTZEL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Land UscJ7oning
keal Getate
9145 EAST KI NYON AVFNIIF,St)1'I'I?30l Annexal ions
DENVL:R.C'OLORA DO 80237 Community Associations
Telephone(303)694.1982 Oil and Gas
Fax 13f13)694-3 A3I Local(lovemmem
www.rcutzelandassoc.com Corporate
January 30, 2006
Mr. Brad Mueller, Assistant Director
Weld County Department of Planning Services VIA TELEFAX
North Office 1-(970) 304-6498
918 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Brad,
Attached is a copy of the letter prepared in response to the referral letter on the Pioneer
comprehensive plan amendment from Re-3J School District Superintendent, Dr. Marvin
Wade. It is our goal to work on matters raised through the referral process with the
respective referral agencies. The letter to the School District was followed up with a
meeting to further discuss the issues outlined. As next steps a "foundation exploration"
meeting has been set with the School Board. Pioneer will have a representative in
attendance. The first meeting is to be held at Hudson Town Hall on Thursday February
9 from 7:00pm to approximately 8:30 pm.
Thank you for copying us on the letter from Fort Lupton, we hadn't seen that referral.
We will keep you informed as the process moves ahead with the school district.
Very Truly Yours
REUTZEL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
. 4
Jo S cry e
D' or
SRN-30-2006 16:40 REUTZEL RSS0CIRTES 3036943831 P.02
FOSTER GRAHAM at CALISHER LLP
'4-, no, Ylt4 1 vf�' Y
Yl '�,� ATTORNEYS AT LAW Daniel K.Colisher
Daniel S.Foster
David Wm.Foster
Robert G.Graham
January 23,2006
Stacey S.Chapman
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Randall M.Chin
Jennifer G.Feingold
Dudley W.Morton
Dr. Marvin Wade Cynthia Treadweli-Miller
Superintendent
School District RE3-J sp rrW ca,,,,..rh
95 West Broadway Susan H.Schneider
ICeenesburg, CO 80643. Shari t.ulery
RE: Pioneer Communities (the "Project"); Amendment (the "Amendment") to
Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan")
Dear Marvin:
We are in receipt of a copy of your letter (the "Letter")to Mr. Brad Mueller, Assistant Director
of the Weld County Department of Planning Services concerning the proposal of Pioneer
Communities, Inc. ("Pioneer"), the owner of the Project, to amend the Plan. In the Letter, you
raised a number of issues pertaining to the Project and the proposed Amendment.
The purpose of this correspondence is to address the points raised in the Letter, and hopefully
allay any concerns you may have with respect to the Project.
Before we get into specific issues, however,we would like you to be mindful of the following:
• The Amendment, like the Plan itself, is a proposal for long-term, carefully
orchestrated growth. The 10,000 residential units which ultimately may comprise the
Project will be built out over a period of 19 - 25 years, which will cause any impact
of the development of a parcel this size to be gradual, as opposed to immediate.
• The numbers set forth in the Amendment were based upon figures we received from
Denny Hill of Strategic Resources West, Inc. ("SRW"), the strategic planning advisor
employed by School District RE3-J (the "District"). This information was delivered
to us during the first meeting we had in July of 2005. If there has been a change in
the way the District calculates student generation, school capacity or square footage
requirements, we will be happy to utilize those revised numbers in our calculations.
• The primary objective of Pioneer is to be a partner in the future growth and
development of the southeast portion of Weld County. The reason the Amendment
was proposed was so we could participate in this growth in a meaningful and
constructive way. We intend to respond to the concerns raised in the Letter so we can
move forward in a manner that is beneficial to all parties.
1226 Bannock Street a Denver, Colorado 80204
303.333.9810 phone o 303.333.9786 fax
www.fostergraha m.com
JAN-30-2226 16:4a REUTZEL ASSOCIATES 3036943831 P.03
With these thoughts in mind, we would like to address the specific issues mentioned in the
Letter:
1. School Board (the `Board"); Capital Facilities Fee Foundation ithe "Foundation").
When we met with you last July, one of the topics we discussed was the input and
involvement the Board would have in connection with the development of the Project.
You then expressed concern about the impact of extensive growth on the ability of the
District to serve the additional students generated by the Project, together with the
corresponding financial needs,
In response to your concerns, we raised the possibility of establishing a Foundation. The
Foundation would be a tax-exempt entity to which developers would contribute a set
amount per structure in order to off-set the timing lag between the immediate funding
needs created by additional student generation from the Project and the gradual increase
in assessed valuation of the District created by these new residences. The increase in
assessed valuation creates additional bonding capacity within the District,
When we proposed creating the Foundation, you asked about the relationship between the
Board and the Foundation, and whether the Foundation, since it was the entity receiving
the funds from the developers, would control any decisions previously made by the Board
about school related matters.
During the meeting and in subsequent conversations and correspondence, we made it
clear that the Foundation did not intend to supplant the power of the Board with respect
to school issues, We sent you a provision from the Capital Facilities Fee Foundation
Agreement (the "Agreement") currently in effect in Adams/Weld County District 27J
("27J"). We propose to retain the form of the Agreement currently in effect in 27J which
clearly precludes such interference. Specifically, the Agreement provides "the
Foundation shall not substitute its judgment for that of the District in the detennination of
the expenditure of funds released"under the Agreement, and that "the District shall retain
the discretion to apply the funds in accordance with the Agreement, in a manner which
serves the best interests of the District." We do not intend to revise this language in the
citation of the Foundation to serve School District RE3-J.
We also propose to organize the Foundation for the District in the same manner as the
271 Foundation. There are 9 board members of the 27J Foundation. Three of these
individuals are representatives from the school board.
The retention of both the language and structure described above should assure you of the
intent of the proposed Foundation to ensure the continued autonomy of the District in
deciding how to expend funds collected by the Foundation, and the regular participation
of the District in its operation.
2
JAN-30-2006 16:40 REJTZEL ASSOCIATES 3036943831 F.04
Another question you raised with respect to the Foundation concerned the use and
application of the funds collected. In the 27J Agreement, the funds are used to acquire,
construct or expand existing school facilities and are applied in the "feeder area" in which
the funds are generated (the feeder area is comprised of a particular high school and the
elementary and middle schools which feed into that high school). We would propose any
Foundation created in connection with the Project also would provide money to build
new schools or add capacity to existing facilities in its "feeder area."
Since the District currently has only one high school, in the beginning, the "feeder area"
would be all the elementary and middle schools in the District, together with the high
school, As growth demands the construction of a new high school, a second "feeder
area" would be created. In accordance with the requirements of the Foundation, the
funds generated by the new growth would finance the new "feeder area." With this new
growth contributing to the Foundation, the additional residences would not only
contribute land upon which new schools could be built currently, but this Foundation fee
would ensure that this new growth would be exceeding its requirement to "pay its way."
The growth also would cause an increase in the assessed valuation of the District.
Increases in assessed valuation create increases in District bonding capacity, another way
to provide necessary financing for school projects.
2. Financial Analysis,
As we stated in the beginning of this letter, the financial analysis set forth in the
Amendment was based upon figures we received from SRW last July. By employing
numbers provided to us by your consultant, we intended to propose models for student
generation, school capacity, bonding capacity (the figure Mr. Hill used for assessed
valuation was 9.14%), school site needs and square foot per student requirements that
were consistent with District guidelines, Please do not interpret our financial
presentation in the Amendment as an indication of our intent to disregard District
standards in the development of the Project. We propose to begin a constructive dialogue
with your experts in order to refine the numbers, thereby creating a revised proposal,
consistent with current requirements.
Another figure capable of revision is the S1010 per unit developer contribution to the
Foundation. This S1010 amount was based upon certain factors unique to 27J. Attached
to the Amendment was an estimate that the Foundation would contribute a total of S8.5
million to the District for capital facilities over its lifetime. We expect to perform the
necessary analysis in the District in order to determine an appropriate contribution level
for the District Foundation, consistent with the growth and development factors
applicable to the District.
3. Services: Timing
Another item raised in the Letter was the additional stress imposed by the Project on
services provided by the District, such as student transportation. While we acknowledge
the need to address this issue, we propose it is a matter to be resolved either at the time
3
JAN-30-2006 16:40 REUTZEL ASSOCIATES 3036943831 P.05
^ specific plats are presented or when all parties agree that the need for additional services
is related directly to the Project. Facilities, including schools, transportation and other
required services, will be built contemporaneously with demand. The ability and
willingness of this developer to respond in a timely manner to the needs of its community
was demonstrated not only in Fronterra Village in Commerce City, Colorado, but also by
the participation of the principals at Pioneer in the creation of the 273 Foundation. We ask
you to rely on this and the history of other parcels previously developed by our client as a
good faith demonstration of our responsible and responsive planning procedures.
4. Benefits.
While we understand that the purpose of the Letter was to raise concerns about the
Project, would be remiss if we failed to mention some of the Project's positive aspects,
including the benefits to Weld County and its communities;
• Water will be kept in Weld County, with return flows directed to agricultural use.
This will assure the viability of an agricultural economy in Weld County,
especially on the portion of land in the Project reserved for agricultural purposes.
• Growth will generate new property tax revenues. The Project will be a planned
residential community with a concentration of families with children. The
residences will create the demand for services in adjacent communities. The non-
residential business growth will provide expanded property tax revenues to the
County, thereby increasing the assessed valuation of the District and allowing the
District to enhance the delivery of its educational services. Regional
transportation solutions will be developed as the County's Transportation Master
Plan is implemented.
We hope we responded to the issues you raised in the Letter and answered your concerns, If we
can provide you with any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at the number printed above. We look forward to working with you as the process
moves ahead.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
ery trul y ors,
David W . oster, Es .
For
Foster, Graham, Milstein& Calisher,LLP
4
JAN-30-2006 16 40 REUTZEL ASS0C IRTES 3036943831 P.06
:,c�:m6:fig;.^:5,"c• ttr�.y
FOSTER = GRAHAM v MILSTEIN CALISHERM
LLP
r y� ATTORNEYS AT LAW Daniel S.Foster
26 David Wm.Poster
.,/ Robert C.Graham
January Y5' 2006 Michael G.Milstein
Daniel K.°Maher
Shan L.Wee/
Susan 8.Schneider
Randall M.Chin
VIA E-MAIL Jennifer a r-cingold
Cynthia Treadwcll-Mil lei
Brine C.Proffitt
Dr. Marvin Wade
marvinwade@rebel-net.tec.co.us
Superintendent
School District RE3-J
95 West Broadway
Keenesburg, CO 80643
Edward Meier
edwardrneier@rebel-net.tec.co.us
Director of Business Services
School District RE3-J
95 West Broadway
Keenesburg,CO 80643
Re: Pioneer Communities/Summary of January 25,2006 meeting
Dear Marvin and Edward!
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us Wednesday. I feel we accomplished a great deal
and look forward to working with you in the future.
I wanted to confirm a number of issues we discussed:
The following are the tentative dates for meetings, along with the proposed topics and
attendees:
(a) February 8th at 10:00 AM to discuss school specific issues, including establishing
criteria for school site selection. The location is yet to be determined, but we will provide you
with some suggestions for site criteria. Attendees will be the District, representatives from
Pioneer and perhaps some planning advisors for the District;
(b) February 9th at 7:00 PM at Hudson Town Hall to meet with representatives of the
three towns to discuss the foundation proposal. We will have comments on the draft of the
Participant Agreement you delivered to us on Wednesday. The location for this meeting also has
yet to be determined. The attendees will be the District, representatives from the three towns and
representatives from Pioneer; and
(c) February 15th at 8:30 PM at Weld County High School. The purpose of this
meeting will be to deliver a presentation on the project,together with an update to the
1226 Bannock Street a Denver, Colorado 80204
303.3339810 phone 303.333.9786 fax
• wrww.fostergraharn.com
JAN-30-2006 16 41 REUTZEL ASSOCIATES 3036943831 P.07
commissioners on the progress made by the parties on the open issues described in your
December 23rd letter, including the foundation. The attendees will be representatives from
Pioneer,and any other individuals you feel would benefit from the presentation.
2. We have agreed to use the revised District numbers for student generation, school site
and facility size, per square foot requirements for each student and assessed valuation. You will
deliver to us the most recent figures and methodology for the ,District, so we are able to prepare a
revised proposal, consistent with current District guidelines;
3. You would support the proposal that the first school situated within the Pioneer project
may be a K-S facility;
4. You will attempt to advise us of the developers who currently have projects proposed or
approved within the District. This will give us an opportunity to discuss the foundation with
them; and
5. We will explore the possibility of establishing an Intergovernmental Agreement between
Weld County and the District,which agreement would seek to establish criteria for land
dedication for school sites and/or fees in lieu of such land dedication.
Once again, we appreciated the opportunity to meet with you yesterday, and look forward to
continuing the positive working relationship we enjoyed on Wednesday.
Sincerely,
•
David Wm. Foster
FOSTER,GRAHAM,MILSTEIN&CAIASHER,LLP
DWF/sbt
2
JAN-30-2006 16 41 REUTZEL ASS0C IRTES 3036943831 P.06
Weld County School Dlsulct Re-3(J)/89 West Broadway/P.O.Box 2B9/Keenesburg,CO 80843
IS:(303)538-2000/Fax:(303)536.2010
WELD
3J
TO: David Foster,John Honnold, Clyde Mayfield, Sean Vis
FROM:Oarvin Wade
DATE: 11 January 26, 2006
RE: Fee Foundation
Thank you all for agreeing to meet about the establishment of a fee foundation in Re-3J
that would be similar to the one in place in Brighton 27-J. David Foster, who has extensive
involvement with the Brighton foundation, has agreed to meet with us about beginning this
process.
Our "foundation exploration"meeting will be held at Hudson Town Hall on Thursday,
February 9 from 7:00 p,m.to approximately 8:30 p.m, Please bring to this meeting the Re-
33 Board of Education proposal that was sent to each of you on January 14,2006, as well
as any other documents you would like to discuss. The Re-3J document is proposed as a
starting point for our discussion because the Re-3J Board of Education is already familiar
with its content.
I look forward to seeing all of you on February 91°. Don't hesitate to contact me at 303-
536-2000 if you need a copy of the Re-3J proposal and/or if you have any questions that
should be answered prior to our meeting.
r-.
cc: 'Yield Smith,Re-3J Board of Education Member
TOTRL P.08
Weld County School District Re-3(J)/99 West Broadway/P.O. Box 269/Keenesburg,CO 80643
Tel.(303)536-2000!Fax:(303)536-2010
Weld County Planning Department WELD
GREELEY OFFICE
FEB 0 1 2006
RECEIVED January 31, 2006
Mr. Brad Mueller, Assistant Director
Weld County Department of Planning Services
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Pioneer Communities Comprehensive Plan Amendment Update
Dear Mr. Mueller:
Representatives of School District Re-3J and Pioneer met January 25th to discuss concerns
identified in my letter to you dated December 23, 2005. As a result of this meeting, Pioneer made
commitments to the following:
1. To use student generation, school site and facility size, school location and square foot
per student numbers consistent with current District guidelines;
2. To host a meeting with District officials on February 8th to discuss school specific
issues, including criteria for school site selection and project development phases;
3. To assist in the development of a capital facilities fee foundation (the "Foundation") to
mitigate the financial impact of the timing lag that exists between the generation of
student demand for District services and the availability of District bonding capacity to
meet those financial needs. Toward this goal, representatives of Pioneer have agreed to
participate in a February 9th meeting with representatives of the District and the Towns
of Hudson, Keenesburg and Lochbuie. The specific purpose of this meeting is to
develop Foundation parameters acceptable to Pioneer, the District and the three Towns.
4. To present a revised proposal during the February 15th meeting of the Re-3J Board of
Education.
I will provide you with another update of our progress on February 16th (after Pioneer's
February 15 presentation to the Board of Education). In the meantime, please contact me if
you have any questions, comments or concerns about Weld Re-3J's efforts to responsibly
address issues related to growth.
Sincerely,
Marvin Wade, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Weld County School District Re-3J
Hello