HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041974.tiff St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group
8724 I-25 Frontage Rd.E
Longmont,CO 80504
Phone - (303) 776-4449
E-Mail-aelmquist@juao.com
May 17, 2004
Weld County Planning Commission
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Subject: Adler PUD Plan
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of the St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group, I would like to express some concerns with
the proposed Adler PUD Plan. This is a proposed high density development in the I-25 MUD area
that should not be approved by the county. Given the current status of the negotiations to revamp
the IGA between the Town of Mead and Weld County, development proposals like the Adler PUD
Plan should not be heard by the county. This 1200 unit housing development will create many
additional problems in the area that simply cannot easily be dealt with at this time.
It is critical that you consider the following issues:
1. A new IGA between the Town of Mead and the county must be approved so all new
development plans north of the St.Vrain River can be referred to the Town of Mead
first. By doing so developers will not be able to easily circumvent Mead's
development requirements that maybe more restrictive than those of the county. This
will ultimately lead to higher quality developments.
2. Once the IGA is in place,the Adler PUD plan should then be referred to the Town of
Mead where it will require approval by the Town of Mead's voters. Given the
proposed density of this development and the concerns by other citizens living in the
area with other large development plans(.i.e the LifeBridge PUD Plan);allowing this
development plan to go to a vote of the people will insure that the true impacts of this
development will be weighed by the voters not just the elected officials.
3. Given the fact Mead voters gave approval to the annexation of a new middle/high
school site purchased by St. Vrain Valley School District which is adjacent to the
Adler property, it would seem logical that the Town of Mead and its voters should
also have a voice in what happens to land adjacent to the school site.
4. The Town of Mead is currently assessing a school impact fee on all new homes built
in the town. It would only be logical that the county refer this development proposal
to the Town of Mead so the same impact fee can be assessed if the voters grant
approval of this development plan.
5. This development plan brings with it a number of impacts to the surrounding area that
g. EXHIBIT
2004-1974 ( ,
neither the county of the Town of Mead may be able to adequately address at this
time. The roads in the area are insufficient. To accommodate the traffic generated
by this development, WCR 7, 5 & 28 as well as Colorado State Highway 66(CSH
66)would need significant upgrades.
At the present time there are no funding mechanisms in place that can adequately
generate enough money to make all of the necessary road improvements in the area.
Mead voters granted approval of the school site and Frederickson Farm(WCR 7 &
CSH 66) with the understanding that WCR 7 would remain a two land road. How
could WCR 7 remain a two lane road south of CSH 66 with the school traffic and all
of the traffic generated by the Frederickson and Adler subdivisions.
While the St. Vrain Sanitation District may be able to service this development, the
question remains as to how the Longs Peak Water District can service a development
of this size. The water district relies heavily on Big-T water. During the recent
drought, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has been able to
adequately meet the needs of its urban users,but the ability to continue to do so in the
future is in jeopardy. The State of Colorado may be required to release more water
down the Colorado River to refill Lake Powell. To do so, the NCWCD may be
forced to supply some of the water necessary to fill Lake Powell. Given the number
of housing units in Northern Colorado already dependant on NCWCD water and yet
to be built, it would seem prudent for all governing bodies in Northern Colorado to
delay the approval of large development proposals until the drought issues subside.
Law enforcement continues to be an issue in this part of the county despite the new
Weld County Sheriff's Office substation at Del Camino. The Town of Mead has yet
to have its own police department. So the burden of law enforcement in the Mead
area is placed on the county. How does the county plan to deal with the increased
law enforcement demands without the ability to easily secure additional funding for
more officers?
The Mountain View Fire Protection District was unable to get voter approval for a
mill levy increase. While the district may try again ask for another mill levy increase
soon,the are no guarantees that such a request will be approved by the voters. It is
doubtful the additional fire district funding generated by the Adler PUD plan would
be enough to cover the additional resources required by the district to service this
development and the rest of the area.
These are just a few of the difficult issues that surround this high density development plan. I hope
the Planning Commission will take these into consideration before voting on the Adler PUD plan.
Very truly yours,
lV' a.
Artie Elmquist, Representative
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group
CC: Monica Daniels Mika Send to: MMika@co.weld.co.us
Mead Urban Growth Boundary
u 19 - established pursuant to 20
-`° Weld County Comprehensive Plan
30 29 28 2/ lb LU 3u 29
WCR 40
31 m 32 'n 33 N- 35 r 36 e.2 31 r 32
EE U ix ce et
6 K � Ud. U U U U
U U U y rj `Nj }T
3 3y }
WC 38
l;
6 5 4 2 6 5
a� 11 12 7 8 t
7 8
MICR 34
;' I r0►:
18 17 14 13 18 17
WC 32 r'l
-
19 20 i 21 22 24 -,..:::;(432/
L ra .
WCR 30 ^ """
I�;0 29 2S 27�- 26 25 30 - 29
RICH 78 I _
;1 ! 32 33 b • 35 36 31 32
I-1 Mead 2004 UGB
WCR 26-
IGA's
i i _ % q_/ Q FIRESTONE
3 a Q LONGMONT
Ni —‘6,5)
) /// MEAD
la =
g5erviees
t1E XX I B I T I Date: M arch 4,2004
Hello