HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021656.tiff MouNrgrH
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
a Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road• Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710• FAX (303)651-7702
vt w Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
FEB 14 2002
February I1, 2002 RECEIVED
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
i 555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
I have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the change in zoning for the RiverDance
PUD/Mike Siegrist, located east of and adjacent to 1-25; south of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 28. (Case Number CZ-602). The Fire District does not object to the request for Change in
Zoning provided the development meets the requirements of the Fire District. All applicable
codes as they pertain to water supply, fire hydrant locations, fire department access, and street
designs must be met.
Fire hydrant locations will need to be approved before the final plat is approved. Construction
plans for the utilities showing the location of fire hydrants, the size of water mains and available
fire flows must be submitted to the Fire District for review and approval prior to beginning
construction of the subdivision. The submittal must include a water supply analysis indicating
the available fire flow at the most demanding point in the water system.
We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please
contact me at 772-0710.
Sincerely,
Lon D. Miller
Fire Prevention Officer
LDM/Im
cc: Mike Siegrist, Siegrist Companies, 875 West 64th Avenue, Denver, CO 80221
project file
file
EXHIBIT
�-�m02.o2.0? 2002-1656 al
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 Erie,CO 80516 Dacono.CO 80514
W4a Gou ii anninf D�gnent
GREELEY OFFICE
d FEB 2 U 2002
Fa ;02'
rat
Weld County ReRii'SrEiVED
February 5, 2002
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Mike Siegrist, Riverdance Case Number CZ-602
Development Company
Please Reply By February 25, 2002 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Change of Zone from A (Agricultural)to PUD with Residential Uses (R-1, R-2, R-
3, & R-4) for six hundred eighteen (618) Residential Lots, thirty-one (31) Lots with
Commercial/Industrial (C-1, C-2 & I-1) Uses and 239 acres of Common Open
Space including a Community Clubhouse in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Part of Section 35, the SW4, NW4 and the NW4, SW4 of Section 36, T3N, R68W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to WCR 28 and east of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage
Road.
Parcel Number 1207 35 000038, 39, 51, 57 and 1207 36 000025, 31 1
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) April 16, 2002
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments: •
CLOT hn5 na corYtY tfji 1(o r�t�o wlo change �`_ 2�]
H3 Vq1- ua advise abt klAc oos5;b►2 - (?)
f \1O2_ °N._ Pte, c-nati oust_ o e u.5 in a t
Signature Od,,,,•" N.in- Date 2/ 15 /dl
Agency l/J AGC_ess CLOT
A o-ns. + EXHIlIT
+Weld County Planning Dept. :•1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO.80631 •:-(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax 3
Interoffice Memo
I tat AI
• • To: Kim Ogle
~�o eoo , From: Ken Poncelow
coy Date: February 24, 2002
Subject: Case#CZ602, Applicant-Mark Siegrist, Riverdance
Development Company
The access from County Roads 28 and 9 1/2 need to be prominently marked with signage
which enables emergency responders to quickly identify all addresses located within the
subdivision from the county road intersection. Ideally, signage would be in graphical form
representing address placement referenced from the county road access. Individual
corresponding addresses need to be prominently displayed at the entrances of residences. All
addressing should be clearly visible during hours of darkness. The signage needs to be
maintained in perpetuity and there should be a plan to accomplish that.
The Sheriffs Office is very supportive of Homeowner's Associations that require annual
fees in order to maintain the development and enforce covenants. We are also better able to
address neighborhood issues that may develop with an existing neighborhood governing body.
There is an gas and oil operations area within this development. This area needs to be
fenced off in order to mitigate the potential for tampering. These facilities are known the create
an attractive nuisance for young people. Tampering not only crates a significant danger to the
safety, but also environmental damage with extensive litigation and cleanup costs.
If school bus pick-up and mail delivery is not conducted within the subdivision and an
area should be designated at the entrances to the subdivision. These areas should include
mailbox banks and shelter for students waiting to get on their school bus. Additionally, this area
should not force residents or children to cross a county road to either pick-up their mail or wait
for their bus.
The Sheriffs Office lacks the ability to absorb any additional service demand without the
resources recommended in a multi-year plan provided by to the Board of Weld County
Commissioners or as indicated in growth not considered at the time the plan was developed. It
appears that this developer has a plan to subsidize county resources being used through this
development. I have no other comments on this proposal.
IIEXHIBIT
The Sheriffs Office lacks the ability to absorb any additional service demand without the
resources recommended in a multi-year plan provided by to the Board of Weld County
Commissioners or as indicated in growth not considered at the time the plan was developed. I
have no other comments on this proposal.
r—�
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICALlogy SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources W2Coloi
'K A,
Denver,Sherman
80203 Room 7lWeld County Planning Department II
Phone:(303)866-2611 GREELEY OFFICE
FAX:(303)866-2461 DEPARTMENT OF
February 25, 2002 MAR X 1 2002 NATURAL
rCrD RESOURCES
Kim Ogle REl/^� IVC Bill Owens
Weld County Department of Planning ervic Governor
1555 N. 17th Avenue Greg E.Watcher
Executive Director
Greeley, CO 80631
Michael B.Long
Subject: Review of Riverdance Change of Zone Division Director
Case No. CZ-602,Weld County, CO; CGS Unique No. WE-02-0050 Vicki Cowart
Stale Geologist
and Director
Dear Mr. Ogle:
Colorado Geological Survey has completed its review of the above-referenced zone change from agricultural
to PUD with Residential Uses. We reviewed this site for Weld County in 1999 when a previous zone
change from agricultural to PUD was requested, and again in 2001. My comments were presented in a letter
dated August 1, 2001.
With this referral, I received a Change of Zone Application (Siegrist, undated) and a Subsurface Exploration
Report(Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc., January 26, 1999). The developer states on page 10 of the
Change of Zone Application that the Colorado Geological Survey"commented on this location in 1999.
Their letter of August 1, 2001 states that the developer has addressed their concerns." This is not entirely
accurate. The submitted documents do not include any new information regarding how residents will be
protected from hazards and nuisances associated with the ongoing, active oil and gas operations. In fact, an
8.5-acre pocket park/open space area is shown in an active "gas and oil operations area" on the Land Use
Map (Drawing C-1.1, January 28, 2002). The Landscape Plan(Drawing C-5.1, January 28, 2002) shows
tank batteries and wells to remain, albeit fenced, within this pocket park. I question the wisdom of locating
a park within such an area, considering the potential for hazards associated with potentially tainted soils and
moving machinery such as wells and pumps.
According to EEC's Subsurface Exploration Report, engineering properties of the site soils and bedrock,
including clay content, swell potential and soil thickness, vary across this property. Unfortunately, no site
plan showing boring locations was included with our referral documents. I agree with EEC's
recommendation for careful observations of soil and bedrock conditions during site grading to evaluate all
foundation bearing soils. Adjustments may need to be made to individual foundation designs accordingly.
Overexcavation and placement of structural fill may be required in areas of soft, loose soils, especially near
wetlands. EEC's report (pages 5 and 9) includes observations of very shallow groundwater and recommends
individual foundation perimeter drains. On page 11, EEC notes a 30-foot high slope in the southeast portion
of the site, and recommends cut slopes of 3H:1 V or shallower, and slope protection to reduce erosion
potential. These are prudent recommendations that should be followed.
If you have questions or need clarification of issues identified during this review, please call me at(303)
894-2173, or e-mail jill.carlson@state.co.us.
Sincerely,
J Carlson, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
C:\Carlson LURs\Weld Riverdance 2_Zone Change.doc
02/26/02,4:54 PM
, liiu oink— River Dance Review Tasks and Budget.mlm Page 1
•
From: "Chris.Fasching"<Chris.Fasching@FHUENG.COM>
To: 'FRANK Hempen'"<FHEMPEN@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 2/27/02 12:02PM
Subject: River Dance Review Tasks and Budget
Frank,
Drew and I have been able to exchange voice-mails on the River Dance review.
I have better sense of what you are looking for relative to our review. As
such, I am submitting this informal proposal for your consideration.
Tasks.
1. Review the Metro District traffic study for completeness,technical
content,and whether improvement recommendations are appropriate. We will
provide a separate letter of comments on this particular study. We will
indicate whether an updated study is required or if the recommended lane
geometry,shown in this particular study,is appropriate(if the technical
comments are minor).
2. Review the traffic study specific to River Dance. We will ensure
that the two studies are consistent relative to roadway plans and traffic
forecasts. As with the Metro District traffic study,we will review the
River Dance study for completeness,technical content,and whether
improvement recommendations are commensurate with the development proposal
(and suggest others if appropriate). A separate letter with our comments
will be provided with a determination of whether an updated traffic study is
needed or not.
3. We will review the roadway alignment plans for general conformity
with County and AASHTO standards. We will also make sure that roadway
alignments are reasonable at the intersections. We will not necessarily
check all of the;detail pertaining to horizontal and vertical curves, but we
will determine if grades,K-values, curvature degrees shown,etc. are in
conformance with proper roadway design. Our comments on the roadway
alignment will be included in the same letter containing our traffic study
review comments.
As such,there is a review of three items with comments being made in two
letters,although the review of one traffic study will allow for easier
review of the second one. Given this effort,we can complete the review for
a maximum budget of$1850.00.
Let me know if this is acceptable.
Thanks
Chris
4
d EXHIBIT
Q DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION
Weld County Administrative Offices
1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540
Fax (970) 304-6498
C.
COLORADO
February 25, 2002
Mike Siegrist, Riverdance Development Company
Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD with Residential Uses (R-1, R-2, R-3 & R-4) for
six hundred eighteen (618) Residential Lots, Thirty-one (31) Lots with Commercial/Industrial (C-
1, C-2, & I-1) Uses and 239 acres of Common Open Space including a Community Clubhouse
in the Agricultural Zone District
CZ-602
1. Building permits shall be obtained prior to any construction. A separate permit will be
,-. required for each structure. Structures shall be separated from each other in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 5 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
2. A plan review will be required for each building. Two complete sets of plans are required
when applying for the permit.
3. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the 1997 UBC, 1998 IMC, 1997 IPC, 1999
NEC and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
4. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered
foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer.
5. Building height shall be limited to the maximum height allowed per UBC Table 5-B. Wall and
opening protection and limitations shall be in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. Separation of
buildings of mixed occupancy classifications shall be in accordance with UBC Table 3-B and
Chapter 3. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code.
6. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code for
the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the
Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements.
Offset and setbacks are measured from the farthest projection from the building. An ILC
(Improvement Lot Certificate) will be required for each building showing the building height as
measured according to Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code as well as the offset and setback
distances to property lines. The ILC, bearing the stamp of a Colorado registered engineer or
the certification of a Colorado registered surveyor, will be required prior to the frame inspection.
X
Service,Teamwork, Integrity,Quality '`
Page 2
7. A Flood Hazard Development Permit shall be submitted for buildings constructed within the
100-year flood plain.
Please contact me for any further information regarding this project.
Sincerely,
JffReeif `
Building Official
r
Service,Teamwork, Integrity,Quality
Memorandum
TO: Kim Ogle, W.C. Planning
9
DATE: March 18, 2002
O • FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Department of Puli(ic
COLORADO Health and Environment ��
CASE NO.: Z-602 NAME: Mike Siegrist/RiverDance
The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal. The applicant proposes a PUD with 618
residential lots and 31 commercial/industrial lots and 239 acres of open space. A community clubhouse, picnic
sites and water related activities are proposed near the sites'two lakes.
The application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water service. Water will be
provided by Little Thompson Water District. A will serve letter from Little Thompson Water District, dated May
30, 2001 was provided in the application materials.
The application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to sewer service. St. Vrain
Sanitation District will provide sewer service. A commitment letter from St. Vrain Sanitation District, dated May
2, 2001 was provided in the application materials.
The initial impact plan submitted in the application materials appears to address all the environmental impacts of
Section 27-6-40.
The commercial and industrial uses in the development will be subject to the Site Plan Review process once
they are identified. The Department will conduct additional reviews of those uses at that time. Additionally,
each commercial development must comply with all applicable Weld County, Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, and/or Oil and Gas regulations. Contact the
appropriate agency for site-specific requirements.
The application materials included an undated Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for the Equestrian
Center. The RiverDance development guide and site maps do not reference the equestrian center.
The application states that the open space will have varied opportunities for recreational activities. A proposed
clubhouse is positioned between the lakes and between the residential and commercial uses. Restroom
facilities will be available in the clubhouse. However, the clubhouse, at the closest point, is approximately 1300
feet (by the scale provided)from the river-side trail where spotted picnic areas are proposed. The lakes will
provide for motorized and non-motorized activities (fishing, swimming, picnicking, sailing, etc.). The location of
the boat ramp(s), swim beaches, etc. have not been depicted on the maps. Because of the distance to the
clubhouse restrooms, the Department is recommending permanent restroom and handwashing facilities be
provided along the urban trail easily accessible to the public gathering areas. In the event the development
sells memberships to non-residents and/or non-employees, the recreational uses on the lakes and the
clubhouse pool will require compliance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations.
The Department recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Water service shall be obtained from the Little Thompson Water District.
{ EXHIBIT
2. Sewer service shall be obtained from the St. Vrain Sanitation District. ) 19 —
NAME: Mike Siegrist/RiverDance
CASE NO.: Z-602
Page 2
3. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within easy access of the public
gathering areas.
4. In the event the development sells memberships to non-residents and/or non-employees the
recreational uses on the lakes and clubhouse pool will require compliance with the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations.
5. If required,the applicant shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the Water Quality Control
Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. Silt fences shall be
maintained on the down gradient portion of the site during all parts of the construction phase of the
project.
6. During development of the site, all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance
conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions,at the request of the Weld
County Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted.
7. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any
development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and practical
methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust
emissions.
8. If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6 months in
duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan, submit an air pollution
emissions notice, and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment.
9. "Weld County's Right to Farm" as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall be
placed on any recorded plat.
O:\PAM\PLANNING\CHZO N E\Z602.RTF
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
St. Vram Valley MAR 2 2 2002
School District
March 18,2002 RECEIVED
Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17m Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Recommendation to oppose the Riverdance Change of Zone{Part of Section 35 and the SW%of the
NW%and the NW%of the SW'/ of Section 36}
Dear Kim:
Thank you for referring the Riverdance Change of Zone to the School District. The District has reviewed the
development proposal in terms of future student impacts and available school capacity and has the following
RECOMMENDATION: the District is OPPOSED to the approval of this application due to this development's
impact on already overcrowded school facilities.
The Board of Education has established a District-wide policy of opposing new developments that add to the
student enrollment of schools projected to be at or above 125% of their capacity. This particular application,
which is currently located in the Mead Elementary, Mead Middle and Skyline High School Feeder,will add 416
new single-family dwelling units and 202 town-homes with a potential impact of 333 additional students in this
feeder. The District opposes this development because, as indicated in the chart below, Mead Elementary,
Mead Middle and Skyline High schools will exceed 125% of their capacity with the addition of students from
this development. The District has discussed school capacities with the applicants, who propose their own
mitigation structure in a letter to the district attached as Exhibit 8 in the referral packet. The School Board is
currently evaluating several voluntary mitigation packages which are based on providing additional classroom
capacity to the District, however each of these packages involve a higher contribution than those proposed by
the applicants.
Building Oct 01 Stdnts. Enrollnentw, New Proi.Stdnt w/proposed Capacity
Capacity Enrollment Irroact Development Capacity 2005 development 2005
Elementary 504 426 172 598 119% 548 720 143%
Middle School 342 454 83 534 156% 598 678 190%
High School 1323 1442 81 1523 1150/ 1644 1725 ]30"l
Total 2)69 333 279() 3123
The recommendation of the District noted above applies to the attendance boundaries current as of the date of
this letter. Residential growth and new school facilities could affect the project's attendance area in the future,
however, there are no anticipated boundary changes or facility expansions at this time. Bus transportation
would most likely be provided under the current attendance boundaries.
Should the County decide to recommend approval of this development proposal, the School District's cash-in-
lieu and/or land dedication requirements would still need to be satisfied. This requirement involves the
dedication of land with the adjacent infrastructure or payment of an equivalent cash-in-lieu fee based on the
student yield of the development. .Although cash-in-lieu fees are insufficient to help provide for construction of
schools and resolving capacity shortages, it does assist in the purchase of land for future school sites. Since
this property is not a likely future school site, the fee would be assessed per the attached chart. Please let me
know of any further questions.
Sincerely,
////�� 'ARUMGle�e,AICP I
Planning Specialist
GS:jkr
ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT.395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY, LONGMONT,
CO 80501.SCOTT TOILLION,MANAGER.PHONE 303-682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344.
Z.J C C
E
cai0 Cu
v To 0
if) O)
> C
> c
c
co
a
• c
co O
to co
c
t •- W N 1-
to 69 a
A• o 63
a V
9
o O O O O
o.O c 7 CD 0 OO OO 0
To m m
> J > in
M Lc;P] M
Go E9 V3 M 69
C
O
O -o
y C .O 0 N' Vtil
tj a J ea C O O O
C• c O a
N
C < c 0O N
r• 03 m O LL N q N
a 6. 0 C i O N o
C O N c0
_ • C
O C V J CO fq
✓ y V To c .. P.
0 c b A O O
- v o
O •V C co N N
CO tL « N- a>
y
h
v .. '-
- V m 9 C9 N .- N N- to V
N 9 d O O N
Oco
y } a N a N oi
O t C
0. a)
d
m
d w c N N N a
J 7 7 O O O N
O Z O
L O
C L
0 Z` >ii 0 3
O
t J C
C J
C
O N N In O
c E
U W a m 2 I I- U
'—' 4
w
32 N
L rn
W M
o 3. C
7 c o
a = E
o
o t
U m
LI 0 d
d O
ET
> C
2 .c
CD
a
• C
00 0 n
c
"
•7v
0
40 a C CO CO CD
U
'O
CD O O O O
0c 7 O O OO. 0
d m A id
> J > M M M W.c')
0 *f3 CO EA ER
O
w O
H 'O 7
C W m 1�O
V al J .l. N r N t-
C
Q
C• c O V N
Ca c 4u. CO
Li co en
d .- A c 9 Or N 0 C C.)
V J
o to c ., yam
N y • � 0) O
• O
U' o
- 'O O
r C0O C0,- U) r--N In 4-
CO LL y
'O w co
w 0 •O to co V C N N CO
m -O ti) N d
N M 7 u)
d o co N
I 5-
to u)
E _ Eo co m 4)
4)
> ≥ v v v 3
z u)
> T
E z > o 'E
LLco J L 07 O) O LL
01 N a 0)
cn
c o a_ a o_ C
V) W 2 Z FO- (n
,e, Q
Y
.Q N
O
L O)
W r)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
a BUILDING INSPECTION
l� PHONE (970) 353-6100, E04-6490
FAX (970) 304-6498
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
WIIDc 1555 0 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
March 25, 2002
TO: Kim Ogle, Planner
FROM: Lin Dodge & Peggy Gregory, Building Techs
RE: Comments of Riverdance CZ-602
1. Need lot & block designations to complete addressing. We suggest addressing blocks of like
building types with identifying prefixes, e.g. suburban area, 12800s, large suburban areas,
12700s, patio home area, 12600s, townhome areas, 12500s. etc. We think this can be worked
out very well.
2. Would like applicant's description/definition/limitations of town home, patio home, large
suburban, suburban.
3. Will there be any approved accesses off Riverdance Parkway or CR 9.5? Looks like clubhouse
would have to be accessed/addressed off CR 9.5.
4. Drawing C-11 - it appears the cul-de-sacs and North/South street on the side running parallel to
CR 9.5 are not named.
5. Building Bulk Requirements:
a. Are entire structures (including overhangs, fascia, porches, window wells, etc. to be totally
within building envelopes?
b. Page 8 of narrative - maximum lot coverage for all except employment center is 60% -the
building envelopes do not reflect that %.
c. Are these setbacks/offsets intended to be standard, regardless of height, since maximum
height is listed as 45'?
EXHhSIT
Apr 01 02 09: 25a Mike Babler 303-776-6663 p. 1
41( Weld County Referral
February 5, 2002
D
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Mike Siegrist, Riverdance Case Number CZ-602
Development Company
Please Reply By February 25, 2002 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Residential Uses (R-1, R-2, R-
3, & R-4)for six hundred eighteen (618) Residential Lots,thirty-one (31) Lots with
Commercial/Industrial (C-1, C-2 & I-1) Uses and 239 acres of Common Open
Space including a Community Clubhouse in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Part of Section 35, the SW4, NW4 and the NW4, SW4 of Section 36, T3N, R68W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to WCR 28 and east of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage
Road.
Parcel Number 1207 35 000038, 39, 51, 57 and 1207 36 000025, 31
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) April 16, 2002
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
ki See attached letter/Nvre
Comments:
S.t.4PQJ.7 .wear sTif}r GL "rear pe//GOL/ir`r p.PvJ't inzei 71-1/49— 41.O ,a•00701i 2
c..Pn-T /3a- /a«Outlet v,v .1046"", Oi r744eThe.04•rr, /Str>••-AnC sr� igt� c,Pcnsrtzi
/4/ 17-/!T tH/.rt' S'f t✓/L.O4/Ayr .flcoc41a'E, ,Ve nA44 •0- n /t/O r4'4/LS ,3l
Cl9N-S�.Pt-1CTl-� t.�/iN •1-NO Ci oat? orw yoo /-r- F-wor i T7,r M oe:
Signature �I� C�.�C•.� .es- Date 'y 1 pa-
Agency COLS-0. /D/[/. 4.4-1/&OS bar 0.09kA21)
EXHIBIT
•t•Weld County Planning Dept. .01555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO.80631 0•(970)353-6100 ext.3540 :-(970)304-6498 fa �'
Weld Co _ D ' rtment(Stit: MEMORANDUM44.4
Adz RECEIVED
TO: Kim Ogle, Planning DATE: April 10, 2002
• FROM: Drew Scheltinga, P. E., Engineering Division Manager
COLORADO
SUBJECT: CZ-602, Riverdance
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this zone change request. Comments
made during this phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may
arise during the remaining application and review process.
COMMENTS:
Roadways:
Traffic studies for the proposed Metropolitan District and the Riverdance site, as well as
preliminary road plans, have been submitted by the applicant and were reviewed by Weld
Counties consultant, Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). Attached is a letter from FHU dated
March 25, 2002, by Christopher J. Fasching, P. E., containing extensive review comments.
None of the issues raised in FHU's review are major concerns that should affect zoning
approval. The applicant should be required to address FHU's review prior to final plat approval.
The construction of WCR 91/2 from Riverdance north to SH 66 is crucial for future traffic
circulation for both Riverdance and potential development properties to the north. An effort is
underway to form a Metropolitan District to finance the construction WCR 9'h. A method to
address the construction of WCR 9'h north of Riverdance or other roadway improvements that
will provide adequate traffic circulation should be required prior to final plat approval.
In the application materials, references were made to the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. We
wish to clarify that the applicant will be required to construct roadway improvements necessary
to facilitate access to the proposed Riverdance development and that traffic impact fees were
created strictly for future capacity improvements to the overall roadway system. The applicant
may apply for credits based on construction beyond that required to serve the Riverdance
development.
Page 1
EXHIBIT
Page 2
4/10/20
CZ-602
Drainage:
A Preliminary Drainage Report dated January 17, 2002, was submitted by Pickett Engineering,
Inc. This report is acceptable. Approval of a final drainage report and plans should be required
prior to final plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend approval of the Change of Zone application. The following conditions should
be required prior to final plat approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1. Issues in FHU's review of March 25, 2002 be addressed.
2. A method addressing construction of WCR 9'h or other adequate access.
3. Approval of final roadway plans.
4. Approval of a final drainage report.
5. Approval of final grading and drainage plans.
PC: File CZ-602
Michael Siegrist(FAX)
Vern Nelson(FAX)
M:\W PFILES\DRE W\P honing\z-602.wpd
MAR 26 '02 10:52 FR FHU 303 721 0632 TO 19703046497 P.02/06
r 1 FELSBURG
(/ HOLT &
ULLEVIG
engineering paths to transportation solutions
March 25, 2002
Mr. Frank Hempen, P.E.
Weld County Director of Public Works
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632-257
RE: RiverDance; Traffic Engineering Review
FHU Project Number 02-054
Dear Mr. Hempen:
We have completed our review of the material associated with the RiverDance development
proposal located on the east side of 1-25 along WCR 28. This letter is structured to address the
three review items that were in your package including the St.Vrain/66 Metro District Traffic
Study, the RiverDance Traffic Study (both prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.),
and the development roadway alignment plans. The St.Vrain/66 study addresses 4.735 million
square feet of business park use and 2,682 residential units. The RiverDance traffic study
addresses 675,000 square feet of business park and 591 residential units.
St. Vrain/66 Metro District Traffic Study Comments
1. The traffic study does not show existing traffic conditions within the study area. The
RiverDance study does show existing traffic, and this information should also be
incorporated into the St Vraln/66 Metro District Traffic Study.
2. Peak hour traffic projections should also be incorporated into the background traffic
projections. The report should further elaborate on the nature of adjustments made to
the NFR Minute model to develop the background traffic forecasts.
3. The site trip distribution assumptions shown in the report indicate that 35 percent of the
District's trips would remain internal to the District. This internal percentage may be high,
although it would not be unreasonable to assume that 35 percent of the District's
residential trips (25,700 trips total) are internal. This would suggest that 15 to 20 percent
of the Business Park trips (60,400) would be internal, thus resulting in an overall internal
percentage of 20 to 25 percent. In other words, the internal trip percentage shown in the
study may be over estimated. Further, the trip distribution assignment to WCR 13 north
and WCR 9.5 north also seems low.
303.721.1440
fax 303.721,0832
fhuefhueng.com
Greenwood Corporate Plaza
7951 E.Maplewood Ave.Ste.200
Greenwood Village,CO 80111
MAR 26 '02 10:53 FR FH0 303 721 0832 TO 19703046497 P.03/06
March 25, 2002
Mr. Frank Hempen, P.E.
Page 2
4. It is not clear whether the site-generated traffic presented in the report includes internal
trips. While internal trips will not impact roadways outside of the study area, these trips
will impact the roadway segments within the study area and should be included in the
site-generated traffic numbers. Also, the site-generated traffic should include peak hour
traffic projections.
5. The total traffic projections shown in the report need to be adjusted given the previous
comments. Also, the PM peak hour traffic projections shown indicate that directional
oritentations are exactly equal. The site uses, and the peak hour trip generation thereof,
are of the nature that there will be directionality in traffic flow at the peak times. This
should be taken into account in estimating long term peak hour traffic levels.
6. The improvement recommendations include the need to provide four through lanes along
SH 66, WCR 13, WCR 9.5, and WCR 28 (between WCR's 9.5 and 13). Also, all major
roadways should be planned with center turn lanes at the cross-streets, and the major
cross-streets should be signalized. We concur with these findings barring significant
changes in the traffic numbers as a result of the above comments. The study should
also identify the roadway classification that should be planned for each of the roadways
under study.
It should be noted that the I-25/SH 66 Interchange was not addressed in this study; traffic
volumes shown adjacent to the interchange indicate that its current configuration will not
adequately serve future peak traffic demands. Expansion of this interchange may be
necessary, and the County may want this interchange studied now in conjunction with
the other planning taking place in the area.
7 The levels of service shown at the unsignalized intersections may be overly-optimistic as
they represent the average delay of all traffic passing through the intersection including
the free-flowing traffic. Side-street movements will experience some delay, particularly
left turn movements onto busy streets. We suggest that the report show the LOS for
these left turn movements rather than incorporating the zero-delay for through traffic in
an overall average intersection result.
8. The southemmost intersection shown on WCR 9.5 should be re-configured. The report
shows the frontage road as being continuous and that trips to/from WCR 9.5 would need
to turn onto/off of an angled side street. We suggest that the south leg of the frontage
road be made continuous with WCR 9.5 and that the north leg of the Frontage Road be
configured to"tee" into the WCR 9.5 roadway.
9. The appendix of the report is titled "Traffix Output? However, the analytical information
presented is the LOS calculations from Synchro. If Traffix was used, the output showing
distribution/assignment calculations would have been helpful.
MAR 26 '02 10:53 FR FHU 303 721 0832 TO 19703046497 P.04/06
March 25, 2002
Mr. Frank Hempen, P.E.
.-. Page 3
Summary of St. Vrain/66 Metro District Traffic Study Review
1. A new traffic study should be submitted to address the above comments.
2. The County should consider the need to include the I-25/SH 66 interchange in a
new study, or whether a separate study should be undertaken to consider its
upgrade.
RiverDance Traffic Study Review Comments
1. Relative comments presented in conjunction with the St. Vrain/66 Metro District Traffic
Study should also be addressed in the RiverDance traffic study as appropriate.
2. A roundabout Intersection is shown in the center of the development, but the study does
not address its operation. Based on the traffic projections shown for this intersection, our
initial assessment is that a one-lane roundabout would function adequately during peak
times provided that the roundabout is properly designed.
3. Year 2010 background traffic along the Frontage Road Is low. The 2010 traffic
projections are only 10 percent of the 20-year growth between existing conditions and
2020. The study should reassess the 2010 background traffic volumes. Annual growth
rates will likely be much higher than the two to five percent quoted in the text since the
traffic volumes are relatively light today.
4. The trip distribution percentages should be re-evlauted in light of the comments made for
the St. Vrain/66 Traffic study. A five percent internal percentage for the RiverDance
development is reasonable, but the assignment of 30 percent to/from the developments
north of WCR 28 seems high, especially for the RiverDance business park trips.
5. The study recommends WCR 9.5 be completed from the 1-25 Frontage Road (at the
southwest corner of the RiverDance development) up to SH 66. The County will need to
ensure that proper obligations are made to ensure its construction to SH 66. We
suggest that the means of how and when this roadway (and the signal at SH 66) is
constructed should be in place prior to the issuance of any building permits.
6. There is an inconsistency between the two traffic studies relative to the traffic control at
the WCR9.5/RiverDance Parkway intersection. The traffic forecasts suggest that this
intersection should be signalized; the St. Vrain/66 traffic study recommends
signalization, but the RiverDance study does not.
MAR 26 '02 10:53 FR FHU 303 721 0832 TO 19703046497 P.05/06
March 25, 2002
Mr. Frank Hempen, P.E.
Page 4
Summary of RiverDance Traffic Study Review
1. A new traffic study should be submitted to address the above comments as well
as the applicable comments for the St. Vrain/66 Metro District Traffic Study.
2. The means of constructing WCR 9.5 as far north as SH 66 should be formalized in
conjunction with this development.
RiverDance Street Design Review Comments
Our review of the roadway alignment plans was conducted in light of the soon-to-be-adopted
Weld County Classification Plan. Items such as general grade, grade at intersection
approaches, horizontal alignment, and driver sight distance were among the considerations of
the review. The following comments summarize our review.
1. The right-of-way width for WCR 9.5 is shown at 100 feet_ The new County standards
require 140 feet for major arterial roads within developing areas (per the Weld County
Classification Plan).
2. Some of the local streets shown on the plan do not meet the 35 MPH design speed
standards (per the Weld County Classification Plan) relative to radius of curves.
According to AASHTO standards, a 35 MPH design speed requires a 420-foot radius
(given a 4 percent super elevation). Less than 420-foot radii are shown for Shadow
Hawk Drive, Fire Walk Drive, Storm Eagle Drive, River Song Drive, Star Gazer Lane,
Morning Sun Circle, Spirit Mist Lane, Soaring Hawk Lane, and Moon Dancer Lane.
3. The arterial roadway of WCR 9.5 is shown with radii that are less than that needed to
maintain a 50 MPH design speed (930 feet with a 4 percent super elevation)as being
considered in the Weld County Classification Plan. Also, WCR 9.5 is shown with a 5
percent grade. The new standards identify arterial roads as having a grade no steeper
than 4 percent.
4. The intersection of WCR 9.5 and RiverDance Parkway is shown with a 5 percent grade
along its south leg. The traffic study indicates that this will ultimately be a signalized
intersection. As such, a gentler-sloped approach along the south leg in the vicinity of this
intersection would be prudent. Also, the sight distance for the WCR 9.5 vertical curve
does not provide enough driver stopping sight distance at the River Dance Parkway
intersection; a 50 MPH design speed requires 425 feet of stopping sight distance.
5. The Storm Eagle Drive approach to Feather Run Drive is on a 5.5 percent slope. It
would be highly desirable to establish a slope of less than 3 percent in close proximity
(75 feet or so) of Feather Run Drive since all traffic approaching this roadway will be
subject to a stop sign.
MAR 26 '02 10:54 FR FHU 303 721 0832 TO 19703046497 P.06/06
March 25, 2002
Mr. Frank Hempen, P.E.
Page 5
6. Feather Run Drive contains a vertical curve that Is just short of maintaining the 35 MPH
design speed sight distance of 250 feet (near the Storm Eagle Drive intersection).
7. River Song Drive has segments that are at 8 percent grade. The Weld County
Classification Plan would limit maximum grade on local streets to 6 percent. The
stopping sight distance at the vertical curve (south of RiverDance Parkway) is also less
than that needed to maintain the 35 MPH design speed along this roadway.
8. Star Gazer Lane contains a fairly significant grade break at its intersection with River
Song Drive. This is acceptable as long as the Star Gazer Lane approach traffic will be
required to stop. The same situation occurs along Morning Sun circle at Prairie Storm
Lane. Again, this may be acceptable pending the orientation of the intersection stop
signs.
If the County requires that these plans meet the standards outlined in the Weld County
Classification Plan, then there are fairly significant revisions required. Even without the new
standards, some changes are necessary to meet County standards.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HOLT& ULLEV1G
U17444- Ickp
Christopher J. FaschingrP
Principal
eaN
** TOTAL PAGE.06 **
Hello