HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021690.tiff REFERRAL LIST
NAME: Reynolds&Woods Properties CASE NUMBER:
County Code 2001-
XX
REFERRALS SENT: October 23, 2001 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: November 13,2001
COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES
_Attorney Ault
_X Health Department Brighton
Extension Service Broomfield
Emergency Management Office _Dacono
_X Sheriff's Office Eaton
_X Public Works Erie
Housing Authority Evans
Airport Authority _X Firestone
Building Inspection Fort Lupton
Code Enforcement Frederick
STATE Garden City
Division of Water Resources Gilcrest
Geological Survey Greeley
Department of Health Grover
_X Department of Transportation Hudson
Historical Society _Johnstown
Water Conservation Board _Keenesburg
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Kersey
Division of Wildlife: LaSalle
Loveland Lochbuie
_X Greeley-east of 1-25 Longmont
Division of Minerals/Geology _X Mead
FIRE DISTRICTS Milliken
Ault F-1 New Raymer
Berthoud F-2 Northglenn
Briggsdale F-24 Nunn
Brighton F-3 Pierce
Eaton F-4 Platteville
Fort Lupton F-5 Severance
Galeton F-6 Thornton
Hudson F-7 Windsor
Johnstown F-8
La Salle F-9
_X Mountain View F-10 COUNTIES
Milliken F-11 Adams
Nunn F-12 Boulder
Pawnee F-22 Larimer
Platteville F-13
Platte Valley F-14 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Poudre Valley F-15 US Army Corps of Engineers
Raymer F-2 USDA-APHIS Veterinary Service
Southeast Weld F-16 Federal Aviation Administration
Windsor/Severance F-17 Federal Communication Commission
Wiggins F-18
Union Colony F-20 SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Brighton
OTHER Fort Collins
_X School District- RE1J Greeley 2002-1690
Ditch Company _X Longmont
_X Artie Elmquist West Adams
anew
COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER
kUco,....4„,/,<.-- -- , " ›, 54 cgc,
, , .,‘
...
725
OA cr(41 AV-% ..N.;:'6 (7,
Q.. - ld County Referral
t
\WI I D C
a��la��eP October 23, 2001
COLORADO L"
r t9
The Weld County Department of Planning Servic tOSe following item for review:
Applicant Reynolds &Woods Case Number County Code 2001-XX
Properties
Please Reply By November 13, 2001 Planner Robert Anderson
Project Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of Unincorporated
Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26
(Mixed Use Development Plan).
Legal E2 of Section 23, T3N, R68W and the N2 and the SW4 of Section 24, T3N,
R68W and the NE4 of the SE4 and the E2 of the NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R67W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 66, and 1/2 mile east of 1-25.
Parcel Number Various
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 4, 2001
❑ 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 Le I-
I Date 10/3 016 (
Agency apear
EXHIBIT
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave, Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax i
Kit6
Weld County Referral
' C October 23, /2001
RE!s � r�taVED
COLORADO OCT 2 2001
WELD COUN'i
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for revieW..B' °' c-PT
Applicant Reynolds &Woods Case Number County Code 2001-XX
Properties
Please Reply By November 13, 2001 Planner Robert Anderson
Project Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of Unincorporated
Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26
(Mixed Use Development Plan).
Legal E2 of Section 23, T3N, R68W and the N2 and the SW4 of Section 24, T3N,
R68W and the NE4 of the SE4 and the E2 of the NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R67W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 66, and Y2 mile east of I-25.
Parcel Number Various
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 4, 2001
❑ 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 Date
n -al
l 1O7_
Agency (u b(;G V.J ort' 5
4Weld County Planning Dept. 41555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 ❖(970)304-6498 fax
,4 MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert Anderson, Planning DATE: February 11, 2002
Cn ,
FROM: Drew Scheltinga, P.E., Engineering Manager Lys
•
COLORADO SUBJECT: County Code 2001-XX, MUD Inclusion
Reynolds & Woods Properties
The Public Works Department has reviewed the application materials for the inclusion of the
Reynolds and Woods properties into the Mixed Use Development Area, and have the following
comments:
In two letters dated January 7, 2002, and January 10, 2002, Eugene G. Cappola, P.E., made
preliminary estimates of the traffic that will be generated from the two different sites. The western
site will generate approximately 14,600 trips per day and the eastern site will generate 1,400. Mr.
Cappola's preliminary traffic studies do not provide information on the impact to the roadway
systems that serve the area.
Traffic that will be generated by development of these properties will have a significant impact on
the I-25 Interchange, State Highway 66, and County Roads 32, 9 1\2, and 13. Some of the
necessary roadway improvements will be additional lanes,turning lanes,intersection improvements
and traffic signals.
In the application materials, under the section entitled Roads, the last sentence reads, "As
development occurs, impact fees will be assessed by the County to provide adequate funding to
design and construct the necessary roadway improvements." We wish to make it clear, impact fees
were created strictly for capacity improvements to the overall roadway system. Any improvements
necessary to facilitate access to a development are the responsibility of that development. At the
time a site is developed, detailed traffic studies will be required identifying traffic impacts of that
development and the roadway improvements needed to facilitate access to the development.
The Public Works Department has no objections to including these properties into the Mixed Use
Development Area.
M:\W PFIEES\DREW\Planning\mud-2001-xx.wpd
EXHIBIT
Robert R. Anderson - CC2001XX, Reynole—Wood Inclusion into the MUD Page 1
From: Robert R. Anderson
To: Scheltinga, DREW
Date: 2/7/02 10:41 AM
Subject: CC2001XX, Reynolds/Wood Inclusion into the MUD
Drew, This case goes to the PC on 02/19/02, has been continued twice and the Applicant will vehemently
oppose another continuance (legal and money issues). Need your referral comments to incorporate into
package. Must receive them by close of business on Monday, 12/11/02 so I can add them to the PC
packages or you will need to add them at the PC hearing. Questions or Comments? Robert
I ts kGo J� St. Vram Valley
School District
Ci
November 5, 2001 v
Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Reynolds—Woods Petition for Inclusion into the 125 MUD{Part of the E''%of Section 23, and the N''%and the SW'%of
Section 24,T3N, R68W and the NE Y of the SE'%and the E1/2 of the NE%of Section 30,T3N, R67W}
Dear Robert:
Thank you for referring the Reynolds—Woods Petition for Inclusion into the 125 MUD to the School District.The
application indicates that residential development will occur as part of this development, but does not specify the
number and type of units, which is needed for the District to estimate the student impact of the development.
Please forward this information as soon as it becomes available. Students from this development will attend Mead
Elementary School, Mead Middle School, and Skyline High School under the present school boundaries, however,due to
potential growth in these schools,this development could be placed in another attendance area in the future. Bus
transportation most likely will be provided.
This Proposed Development Cumulative Impact of this Development
Estimated Plus all Final Development Plans 1997-00
Building Oct. 01 Student Projected '34 of Capacity Proj.Stdnts w/proposed Capacity
Capacity Enrollment Impact Enrollment 2005 development 2005
Elementary 504 426 426 84.52% 870 1296 257.14%
Middle 342 456 456 133.33% 435 891 260.53%
High 1323 1480 1480 111.87% 518 1998 151.02%
1823
The Board of Education has asked the District planning staff to now review all development referrals in terms of the ability of
the schools to handle enrollment above the 125%benchmark capacity. If proposed developments would exceed this capacity
benchmark the recommendation from the District would be for denial or postponement until capacity is available within the
applicable feeder system. This does represent a departure from past responses; however,the Board believes it is a
necessary response to help alleviate overcrowding in the schools.
This particular development would add students to the capacity of Mead Elementary, Mead Middle School and Skyline High
School under the current attendance boundaries, and would contribute to the 125% benchmark capacity being exceeded in all
three buildings within the next few years. Therefore,the District will oppose the approval of plats within this development
proposal until there is capacity available in these schools or there are new schools available to serve this area. Should this
proposal be considered for approval by the County, the District's land dedication and cash-in-lieu requirements would still need
to be satisfied. This requirement involves a dedication of land with the adjacent infrastructure or payment of an equivalent
cash-in-lieu fee based on the student yield of the development(see attached chart). Please let me know of any further
questions.
Sincerely,
len ,AIC
Planning Specialist
ST:jkr
ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT.395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY,LONGMOT
SCOTT TOILLION, MANAGER.PHONE 303-682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344.
1 �
V zi, C
C c m
O O t
7 U d
2 v a
0 d c
✓
O C
3 CO
a
y
v
O
C
T
a)
tZ a C
d O
C .0 in
in
D
.C CO
O S 0
C o S a
V
v
CL• d O 0 0 O
O c = 0 o o o
Ti tura
J J M M in
in
0 V3 EA S 63
C
w O
O v 7
N• C d cr0 N.
c-
U J r O o a r
a
O
C a C m N v V
H
d m O LL = -0 2 O N O
CL 'O A J d C V A-- N cn
c0 d w Q
a c v J y y
.c .O. C c
O U - Hi
• r
N LL N
.i...i.. 0
d C
..• v
d
d v d et) (19 d' 0 y
.O } a O T O `- v
0. d
Po 9 c
E � .. o O o d
c o a a .o
= = r r
T u)
T
o E
u. 2 J Co
ULL
d o d cm d
rn E c m
C d
fp W M 2 F en
Q
r
a
r 0
x N
w
o,eld County Planning Dept.
i:9V 0 'I 2001
RECEIVED
- kirWeld County Referral
wilipOctober 23, 2001
c
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Reynolds & Woods Case Number County Code 2001-XX
Properties •
Please Reply By November 13, 2001 Planner Robert Anderson
Project Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of Unincorporated
Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26
(Mixed Use Development Plan).
Legal E2 of Section 23, T3N, R68W and the N2 and the SW4 of Section 24, T3N,
R68W and the NE4 of the SE4 and the E2 of the NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R67W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 66, and 1/2 mile east of 1-25.
Parcel Number Various
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 4, 2001
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ W�have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
nee attached letter.
Comments:
r f
Signature -- S___ Date VO I L‘ \of
Agency -C\ \-\ , l..):e,--- A--:. -\ S f c c-
EXHIBIT
:Weld County Planning Dept. C-1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO. 80631 :•(970)353-6100 ext.3540 :•(970)304-649 ■. r
• gpuN7grN MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
�+ a Administrative Office:
ti1d�;l s 9119 County Line Road• Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710• FAX (303) 651-7702
VIEW
October 30, 2001
Mr. Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Anderson:
T have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the inclusion of the Reynolds & Woods
property, located north of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east and adjacent to Weld County Road
9.5 (Case Number: County Code 2001-)O ), into the Weld County Mixed Use Development Area.
The Fire District has no objection to the proposed inclusion.
When development occurs, plans for such development must be submitted to the Fire District for
review and approval; and, all applicable codes as they pertain to water supply, fire hydrant
locations, fire department access, street designs and building construction must be met.
We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please
contact me at(303) 772-0710.
Sincerely,
C). \'
LuAnn Penfold
Fire Marshal
LMP/lp
cc: project file
file
Iplo11.O1
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7
9119 Cnty Line Rd. 10971 WCR 13 P.O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Dobbin Run P.O.Box 666 P.O.Box 40
Longmont,CO Longmont,CO 299 Palmer Ave. 8500 Niwot Road Lafayette,CO 600 Briggs 100 So.Forest St.
80501 80504 Mead,CO 80542 Niwot.CO 80544 80026 Ede,CO 80516 Dacono,CO 80514
Dec. 19 . 2001 1 : 24PM WHE,EIER L0NGM0NT . No . 1363 P . 1/1
Town of Mead
e a d P.O. Box 626
441 Third Street
Mead-"A Lade Tens Mead,Colorado 80542-0626
With a&g Future"
(970)535-4477
* * * MEMORANDUM * * *
TO: Robert Anderson, Planner via fax 970-304-6498 A ,�
FROM: Michael B. McDonough, AICP, Consulting Town Planner d/�e�C
DATE: December 19, 2001
SUB': Reynolds & Woods Property Proposed Inclusion in the Weld County Mixed Use
Development Area
We apologize for the tardiness of this letter but sincerely do appreciate the opportunity to work with
Weld County toward the mutual goal of the betterment of the built environment.
The Town of Mead understands the concerns of farm property owners with regard to potential state
wide growth limitation legislation or initiatives. Our Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the
County includes an Urban Growth Area map which encompasses this property. We also understand
that entry into the Mixed Use Development area does not constitute a development proposal.
The only concern to be expressed by the Town of Mead regarding the above captioned land use
proposal is that any actual development that is proposed to be adjacent to or capable of being
adjacent to a Mead town boundary be sent to Mead for consideration of annexation before the
County grants any entitlements to the land owners. (For example, we believe that the Douthit
property south of State Highway 66 and west of WCR 13 was permitted entry to the MUD Area but
was also referred to the Town of Mead for consideration of annexation which was subsequently
successful.) This is our understanding of the Intergovernmental Agreement we have with Weld
County. If this is not the case, please advise.
Additionally, we anxiously await initial annexation discussions with proponents of any other
developments that are proposed adjacent to a Town Boundary such as the potential commercial
development proposed at the southeast corner of 1-25 and State Highway 66.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment on this and other land use proposals. If our Planning
Commission has additional concerns, we will send them to you under separate cover.
EXHIBIT
13
T � Notice of Inquiry
Will C Development within an Intergovernmental Agreement
Urban Growth Boundary
COLORADO
Date of Inquiry: 9/24/01 Planner: ABJ/RA
Town Referred to: MEAD Ordinance #:
715
Name of Person Inquiring: Legal Description: PT SEC 23/24
SHARYN FRAZER/ AGPRO Legal Parcel#: & 30 T3N, R68W
Property Owner REYNOLDS & WOODS Major Crossroads: ST HWY 66 E I-25
Type of Inquiry:
INCLUSION INTO MUD
The above person inquired about developing a parcel of land inside your designated intergovernmental agreement
urban growth boundary. This person has been referred to your community by Weld County Planning to discuss
development options on this site.
Weld County Comments: ,00 ores e .l.c-�4w Agb c,,,,.-.,,,_,_a. �—
Town/City Comments:
o Platteville, Dacono, Firestone and Frederick Intergovernmental Agreement: If the person applies to Weld County
to develop the parcel, the Town/City of desires to have Weld County require a binding
annexation agreement between the person and the Town/City of , which requires the person to
annex the parcel to the Town/City upon the terms and conditions stated in the agreement.
Mead, Kersey, Milliken, LaSalle, Fort Lupton, and Dacono/Erie Intergovernmental Agreements: Has the person
pe tioned for the parcel to be annexed to the Town/City of 44C-'-#=1-10 ? If so, what is the status of the '
petition? If not, does the Town/City of ni c-r-4-0 desire to have the '
person petition for annexation, or may the person apply to Weld County to develop the parcel without first petitioning
to the Town/City of ,flC-A 0 for annexation? Comments:
Signature of Weld Count/Planner Signature of Town/City Representative
White copy:Applicant; Yellow copy: Town/City;Pink Copy: Weld County
It is the applicant's responsibility to return the completed form to Weld County.
•weld County Planning Department 41555 N. 17th Avenue. Greeley,CO 80631 + (970)353-6100, Ext. 3540) •.• (970)304-6498 Fax
FROM : AgPRO ENV SVCS FAX NO. : 9705359854 Oct. 18 2001 07:54AM P1
4311 Highway 66, Suite 4
Longmont, CO 80504
Office(970) 535-9318
Fax(970) 535-9854
• F-',;
p �iy
To: Robert Anderson Fax: 304-6498
From: Sharyn Frazer Date: 10-18-01
Re: Reynolds/Woods 1-25 MUD Pages: 2, incl cover
CC:
O Urgent O For Review O Please O Please O Please
y__ �# Comment Reply Recycle
• ft •
..
+ s the letter regarding the situation with the Town of Mead. Please review
7€4a 7 s:now if this is what we need for the file.
E: ti* allow-up with Firestone's letter tomorrow.
FROM : AgPRO ENV SVCS ^^ FAX NO. : 9705359854 ^1 Oct. 18 2001 07:55AM P2
4311 Highway 66, Suite 4
Longmont, CO 80504
Office (970) 535-9318
Fax: (970) 535-9854
F ty.._r., .n h' ,�,ad { ���wi '�� tau�, r,:::::::::7131!
t"r�e r�f5 .. r, _,. ..
II
Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department October 17, 2001
1555 N. 17'"Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Reynolds/Woods 1-25 MUD
At the suggestion of Anne Best-Johnson, previous Long Range Planner, I spoke
with Mike McDonough, Mead Town Planner regarding the possibility of properties
located in the E2 of Section 23, and the N2 SW4 of Section 24, T3N, R68W of the
'h P.M., Weld County, Colorado, being annexed at an unspecified date in the future
a"e Town of Mead.
,o, en previously in contact with the Town of Mead based on the
-;:t/it*"r .. '` t 24 scenario, at which time Mr. Reynolds submitted a basic application
'a r .,_,; "' for annexation. This application was not processed by the Town and
t fte A endment 24 was voted down, the application remained on file.
tlj 3'onough seemed confused about my request and seemed to think we were
s G' ng ahead of the normal procedure. He stated that he would review the referral
; eld County upon receipt and make his comments at that time.
' rSsponded back to Anne Best-Johnson regarding Mr. McDonough's reply and she
recommended that I submit a letter to Weld County delineating our conversation.
If you should have further questions, please contact me at the above phone
number.
Sincerely,
L—P3If ii" '
Sharyn Frazer
Project Manager
`r< e '� w , r 3 y.,-,�,�,• St 'i y�.f4 '�4', w\ett'd
;. kTg s1 1,4 yM `,ry, --c iut ,!--, n rM.. �T ,- a
'1 I2_L t l O► 0-i'r`.
1 l5pilla. O6h0lavIn ie - rc:
w , ,rh.h, Ka). r�/vtud I
Whin 1)-A/tiff\ Mat I
jv� Wie `�v�m b �nnf thio I
VS ct, C/W r,°"
TIC t) ilk �YU V� ON
r'1Ufa-' Ue;- . ( 7 / c ) , I
Aliti -
1
iii-hinut 1 . ti1'vt
S III
nic27/b/ enter-ta .tsG ri-to t '.'- .d c - r,-L
"le S C+'1'r "tn.t e e,- cc., y r-o ,-awn o,c 'Inc.*.i Gv $tree, /ir,,a4 Pt
4311 Highway 66, Suite 4
Longmont, CO 80504
Weld County Planning Dept.
Office (970) 535-9318
Fax: (970) 535-9854
PIM2001
RECEIVED
Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department November 12, 2001
1555 N. 17"'Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: MUD Application— Reynolds/Woods
I spoke with Bruce Nickerson, Firestone Town Planner, regarding the
application for inclusion into the MUD Area Map for Reynolds/Woods. He
stated that he had no issues with the application and would hope that we
would petition for annexation into Mead at a future date.
He also stated that he would call and speak with you.
If you should have any questions, please contact me at the above phone
number.
Sincerely,
Sharyn Frazer
Project Manager
4 County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
JAN `L 9 2002
Interoffice Memo RECEIVED
•'
) To: Robert Anderson, Department of Planning
J
'e n � +n From: Ken Poncelow
co ---3 Date: January 21, 2002
Subject: County Code 2001-fl,Applicant- Reynolds Woods
Properties
The Sheriffs Office has no comment in reference to this project, but it reserves the right
to make comments in particular housing development and land use development plans are
submitted.
The Sheriffs Office lacks the ability to absorb any additional service demand without the
resources recommended in the multi-year plan provided to the Board of County Commissioners
or as indicated by growth not considered at the time the plan was developed. I have no other
comments on this proposal.
EJWIBIT
f
Hello