HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032827.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: ACCEPT 1-25 PARALLEL ARTERIAL STUDY TO BE USED BY WELD COUNTY FOR
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS,transportation plans along the 1-25 corridor have consistently identified a need
for planning parallel roadways to provide local alternatives to assist in easing congestion on 1-25,and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously commissioned a study to
determine the feasibility of parallel arterials along 1-25, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has recommended to the Board of County
Commissioners acceptance of the I-25 Parallel Arterial Study prepared by Felsburg,Holt and Ullevig,
dated September,2003,which identifies and recommends two arterials,one on either side of 1-25,
extending north from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50, and
WHEREAS,acceptance of the study and its recommendations will allow Weld County and
affected municipalities to preserve needed rights-of-way for the recommended arterials to allow
construction as they are needed, and allow for implementation in an orderly fashion with the goal
of minimizing impacts to adjacent properties in the future.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 30th day of September,2003,to receive input
regarding the 1-25 corridor, and the Board now deems it advisable to approve said study,a copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado,that the 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study prepared by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig,and
the parallel arterial corridor alignments recommended therein be, and hereby are, accepted.
2003-2827
EG0049
C� P-A)
1-25 PARALLEL ARTERIAL STUDY
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was,on motion duly made and seconded,adopted by
the following vote on the 8th day of October, A.D., 2003.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/7 ���� WEL`�UNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: ate4, '!/// D vid E. Lo , Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
Robert D. den, Pro-Tem
. •�' rk to the Board
t legp M. J. eile
,r. •mil" D 0 • /
William H. Jerke
county Att y „I ,a.a��
�/ Glenn Vaad
Date of signature: /1/703
2003-2827
EG0049
i -c • , ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHAPTER
' 1536 Wynkoop St, Suite 4C
Denver CO 80202
S I E RRA Kirk Cunningham, Conservation and
Water Quality Chair
C LU B 1842 Canyon Blvd. #204
Boulder CO 80302
FOUNDED 1892 303-939-8519 / kmcunnin@juno.com
TO: Weld County Commissioners
REGARDING: Docket 2003-71
DATE: 9/24/03
Gentlemen;
The Sierra Club is an environmental conservation organization with approximately 200
members in Weld County, 500 members in the Boulder County portion of Longmont, and
20,000 members in Colorado.
It is my understanding that one agenda item that you will be discussing at your meeting on
Tuesday, September 30th is Weld County's plans to augment the traffic carrying capacity
of I-25. Regrettably, it is unlikely that I can attend this meeting to represent the Sierra
Club, so here are some comments for my organization.
The Sierra Club has some general concerns about this project from the aspect of
transportation planning and its effects on sprawl, but in this communication, 1 would like
to dwell on the impacts of what appears likely be the project's preferred alternative on the
St. Vrain River and St. Vrain State Park, in the segment of Weld County Road 7 between
State Highway 119 and the town of Mead.
Extending and widening WCR 7 from its present configuration of two lanes to the size
equivalent of seven concreted lanes would have substantial impacts on the St. Vrain State
Park and on the recently - acquired St. Vrain Greenway corridor.
Two years ago, Weld County and Colorado State Parks, with the support of Longmont,
applied for and received a $12 million grant from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) to
purchase property and easements along the St. Vrain River from Longmont's Sandstone
Ranch Open Space east to the then Barbour Ponds State Park. Weld County actually
�`6e
contributed $850,000 as its part of the matching grant. The grant money has been used to
purchase the land, and citizens in the area have been awaiting the opening of this river
corridor to the public.
Under on alternative prepared by your consultants, the particular segment between the
Town of Mead and SH 119 would consist of a four-lane highway (seven lanes wide
altogether) over the St. Vrain River, with considerable impacts to wetlands and riparian
zones in the river and to the State's largest blue heron rookery less than a mile west of the
crossing point. Since part of the GOCO grant expanded the boundaries of the St. Vrain
State Park west to include the heron rookery, this situation represents, as far as we know,
a first for Colorado - building a four-lane highway through a State Park! We also
understand that the County's easement over the St. Vrain River is only 60 feet wide, i.e.
wide enough only for a two-lane road.
The State Parks Dept. has declared its opposition in April and again in August of this year
to this road segment. We understand that at least one of the presumed beneficiaries of the
new highway segment, the Town of Mead, has stated that it neither needs nor wants such
increased access to and through its downtown and will not likely participate in any IGA
with the County for that purpose.
By going forward with this project, Weld County would be wasting part of the $850,000
matching money it spent on obtaining the grant to protect the St. Vrain corridor, and will
impact citizens in Longmont and areas neighboring Weld County who value use of this
corridor (as demonstrated by recent sales tax increases for Longmont open space,
especially along the St. Vrain River).
The Sierra Club urges The Weld County Commissioners to seek another route for the
project, and perhaps also rethink the project itself and its impacts on urbanization along
the I-25 corridor.
Thank you for your consideration of these opinions
Sincerely,
Colorado State Parks
HIGH PLAINS REGION
1313 Sherman St Room 618,Denver,Colorado 80203•Phone(303)866-3437•FAX(303)868-3206•www.parks.state_co.us
August 15, 2003
Weld County Board of Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80634
Dear Board of Commissioners:
I am writing this letter in regard to Weld County's I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study(study).
As I understand it, the Board of Commissioners(BOC) is planning to make a decision on a
preferred alternative near the end of August. I would like to discuss the proposed alignment of
County Road 7 at St. Vrain State Park.
In 2002 Colorado State Parks, Weld County, the City of Longmont, Great Outdoors Colorado
and other partners entered into the St. Vrain Open Lands and Trails Legacy Project. One of the
visions central to this partnership is the"protection of important river corridors and wildlife
habitats". With the continuation of growth along the Front Range of Colorado,the importance of
maintaining river corridors and wildlife habitat in an undisturbed condition remains critical to the
protection and enhancement of the flora and fauna that live there, and to the quality of life of the
citizens of and visitors to Colorado and Weld County.
As partners in this Legacy Project and leaders in our State, Weld County and Colorado State
Parks have the responsibility to make educated, well-informed decisions concerning impacts to
the natural resources under our control, and impacts to generations of Coloradoans not yet born
who will be required to live with decisions made today.
Colorado State Parks strongly believes that BOC acceptance of a preferred alternative showing a
four-lane, major arterial roadway carrying large volumes of traffic through the St. Vrain River
corridor adjacent to and through St. Vrain State Park will irreversibly harm the natural resources
of the corridor and impact the quality of life for future generations of Coloradoans.
While I applaud Weld County for performing transportation planning prior to growth, I believe
there are other alternatives for arterial roadways along the Hwy 119 corridor.
Colorado State Parks remains strongly opposed to Weld County Road 7 being designated as a
"preferred alignment" in your transportation study.
STATE OF COLORADO•COLORADO STATE PARKS
Bill Owens,Govemor•Greg E.Welcher,Executive Director,Department of Natural Resources•Lyle Laverty,Director,Colorado State Parks
Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation: Doug Cole,Chair•Dr.Tom Ready,Secretary,Natural Areas Representative•
Wade Hassle.GOCO Representative•Tom Glass,Member•Edward C.Callaway,Member
Weld County Board of Commissioners
August 15, 2003
Page 2 of 2
I would like to make myself available to attend any BOC work sessions or public meetings
relating to this issue.
Sincerely,
David Giger
High Plains Regional Manager, Colorado State Parks
Cc:
Lyle Laverty, Director, Colorado State Parks
Dan Wolford, Director, Longmont Open Space
Tim Pollard, Deputy Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Representative Dale Hall
Bob Finch, Park Manager, St. Vrain State Park
Frank Hempen , Director, Weld County Public Works Department
Wayne Howard, Project Manager, Weld County Public Works Department
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Weld County Department of Planning Services
0929/2003 14:59 CITY OF DRCONO 4 19703520242 NO.047 1701
''t'rit`.- City of Dacono
512 Cherry Street • Post Office Box 186
Dacono, Colorado 80514
try;•`: (303) 833-2317 • (303) 833-2319• (303) 833-5562
sir (303) 833-4058 • Fax (303) 833-5528
September 29, 2003
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
1111 H Street
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Deer Commissioners:
Because of a conflicting meeting, we will not be able to send a representative to the hearing on
the I-25 Parallel Arterial Study. We would, however, like to provide the City of Dacono's
concerns about this project.
While we understand the long-term interest in preserving right-of-way for future congestion relief
for I-25, we are very concerned about the impact of another major arterial adjacent to residential
areas, through the middle of the community. We have recently completed a Transportation
Master Plan,which classifies WCR 11 (the preferred Study alternative in Dacono) as a minor
arterial. As contemplated by our Comprehensive Plan, and confirmed by the Transportation
Master Plan, and as implemented with several platted subdivisions. 120' of right-of-way is being
required. This amount of right-of-way is adequate for a major arterial, but the City of Dacono
much prefers the use of WCR 13/Colorado Blvd. as the major arterial in this area.
We have tried to be forward-thinking in our transportation planning, but we do not support the
designation of two major arterials within one mile of each other. and only one mile from I-25 and
its frontage road. "Increasing"the classification of WCR 11 from minor to major arterial seems
relatively insignificant, but it conflicts with our land use planning, and our vision for our
community and its neighborhoods. There is certainly the potential for increasing street
maintenance costs, law enforcement costs, and other related expenses. An elementary school
site located in Pinnacle Farms on the west side of WCR 11 would be more isolated from the
neighborhoods it serves.
We are actively working with representatives of Weld County, the Town of
Frederick, CDOT, and local developers on the design of WCR 13/Colorado Blvd., and look
forward to its improvement, and its role as a major transportation corridor for our community and
for the region. We are not supportive of a similar role for WCR 11.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,je ,/ -
Wade Carlson
Mayor
CAROL Harding - comments on 1-25 Arterial Study Page 1
From: "Tammy Bality" <tbality@hotmail.com>
To: <charding@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 9/26/03 8:02AM
Subject: comments on 1-25 Arterial Study
My family and I reside at County Road 7 and Rd 18 on a farm that has been in
my family since 1875 (when Colorado was still Arapahoe Territory and not a
state). Our son is the 6th generation to live on the family farm and we had
hoped to keep it in the family for future generations. Our house was built
in the early 1900/Es and is fairly close to the road, as are many of our
neighbor/Es houses. We enjoy an agricultural/rural lifestyle.
The people who have recently moved to our area did so because they too,
wanted a rural lifestyle and don/Et want to live bin towno. I understand
growth can/Et be stopped, but it is alarming to see the rapid urban sprawl
eating up the farm fields. I fear the Front Range is going to become just
like the West Coast/LA area if we don/Et try and preserve some of the
agricultural identity and heritage of Colorado.
I understand the need to relieve traffic on 1-25 and the need to get local
traffic off the interstate. I always thought that was the purpose of the
frontage roads which are in existence from Brighton to Fort Collins and
beyond. The frontage roads have fewer residential homes close to them and
more commercial frontage (in fact, commercial businesses would probably
welcome more traffic).
I also believe the frontage roads are more likely to relieve 1-25 traffic
congestion then a 4 lane would when it is located 1 mile East and/or West of
the interstate and may require a person to odouble backo in order to get to
their destination if they use those roads.
Why are we sacrificing our agricultural roots in order to get more people
down the road and infringe on the lifestyles of so many people who are
already living there when there is an alternative? How are people supposed
to move their cattle or sheep from field to field on a 4 lane? On occasion
that still occurs today, but will be next to impossible to do with 4 lanes
of traffic.
My family and I oppose the four lane proposal to widen Road 7. We would
support the concept of widening the frontage roads.
Sincerely,
Tammy Bality
7884 County Road 7
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail
Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
CAROL Harding - 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Page 1
From: <LEVINBEAN@aol.com>
To: <charding@co.weld.co.us.>
Date: 9/23/03 5:17PM
Subject: 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study
September 23, 2003
i u
To whom it may concern,
I would like this letter to be included as part of"the record."
I cannot even begin to express my opposition for the proposed development of
WCR 7 as a four lane roadway. I have not been able to review the latest
draft, but if WCR 7 is still in the running, you are making a grave mistake, and I
do not choose that word lightly, as your plan would involve a high speed
roadway passing by three schools and passing through a wildlife preserve. Whether
or not you choose to admit it, life would be lost.
I also have a concern with using WCR 5 or a newly constructed WCR 5 1/2. All
three of the above mentioned would ruin the town of Mead. Mead is a great
town. We are not opposed to responsible growth, but we are opposed to
destruction. To our misfortune as residents of Mead, we have Glenn Vaad claiming to
represent us. I have an incredibly hard time believing that Commissioner Vaad
has spent much time, if any, speaking with residents of Mead regarding this
matter. I spoke with him briefly at one viewing for this project. At that time,
it was apparent that he had not spent time with Mead residents. I do believe
that he sees dollar signs with each blink of the eye. His response to one
question was that he does not only represent the people of Mead, but that his
jurisdiction includes the area south of Greeley. Well, lucky for him, because I
do not see a reelection in his future from the folks here in Mead, a town of
which he calls home no less.
The optimal suggestion for your arterial seems clear to those of us who live
in the area, use CR 1. This is a road that has planned on becoming a four
lane roadway for years and years. The residents along this roadway have been
prepared for the development of more lanes. This road also already extends to
the surrounding towns that you wish to connect. Mind you, that is your wish.
It also goes without saying that the State and Weld County powers that be
should be working a bit more closely to improve and widen the portion of 1-25 that
extends through Weld County.
The town of Mead should not be a thoroughfare to lessen the congestion on
1-25. The town of Mead has never had, nor does it currently have the desire to
be a hub of commercialism. As residents choosing to live in this town, we
enjoy small town America. We are not delusional, nor are we stupid, we understand
that development will happen, but we do not need the scale of development
that you are hoping for with this arterial.
Thank you for your time in this matter. I hope to see the current draft, and
issue another email of record prior to your deadline.
I am also sure that by now you have realized that September 30, is a Tuesday.
Could you please clarify the day and date of your meeting? Could you also
publish the corrected day and date, and nature of the meeting in the Longmont
Daily Times Call?
CAROL Harding - 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Page 2
Thank you.
Susan Levine.
Concerned resident of Mead.
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to inquire about an issue that I think is very important and imperative to the
residents of Frederick, Firestone and Weld County Colorado with regards to the arterial
roadway plans. With all of the (very easy) zoning approvals, associated fees, building
permit fees and tax dollars generated to the 2 towns with the new development and
subsequent urban sprawl - it seems that nothing is being done or talked about with
regards to the influx of traffic, traffic conditions or noise abatement of this traffic that
comes with allowing new development everywhere in Frederick and Firestone areas,
especially effecting the residents whose property is adjacent to main through fares such
as WCR 13, also known as Colorado Boulevard.
WCR 13 (referred to as 1-13 by a Town of Firestone contract employee) is a very
dangerous and noisy road - in some locations the road is elevated higher than the top of
adjacent property fence lines, there is no shoulder/traffic control/engine brake
restrictions on this 45 mph road or an area of recovery for an out of control vehicle. I
know of at least 2 incidents where vehicles have been in resident's back yards from the
traffic on WCR 13. Does WCR 13 meet any national highway standards? Embankments
directly adjacent to the road are very steep, property lines are less than 50' away and
dwellings are less than 80' away from the edge of pavement. The traffic has increased
by leaps and bounds due to several new residential, commercial, recreational and
industrial developments—the towns reap the benefits, from their various tax and
development fee requirements, produced by these developments but without concern of
the safety, quiet enjoyment and declining property values of existing and new residents. I
have not utilized or enjoyed my backyard for over 2 years now due to the influx of traffic,
noise and safety considerations. I am in fear of the day that a vehicle leaves WCR 13
and comes in contact with my home. I hope that this is not the plan for the new arterial
improvements and some thought is put into the planning and development of it, if it
actually goes thru. Should Weld County, Firestone and Frederick take care of their
existing serious roadway problems prior to starting any new ones?
I have tried to speak with several town and county employees, contractors, officers and
attend/speak at public hearings only to get no where. It seems that the decisions to allow
new development are based on new income to the towns. Never mind the parking count
ratios, landscape or drainage plan, color or make up of a building —development is
approved without any planning foresight, just financial foresight. Will the growth continue
at this rate without the appropriate planning or concern of the effects?
Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated in regards to this matter.
Best Regards,
Jim Gold
5910 East Conservation Drive
Frederick, Colorado 80504
e1
as ztF £ ,
g e a9Ii;� a bev
�kad at s s 3, Re,
" iesion+et. Clen21:1 .. � . �.
„$ 9.-
38'YIX'N' -1,,-
8 Weld�wsty Ro , s r �� a
n b' 3.:.'-'., r�iy"'� x
d, Co ,542 z; ,�
,y
P ,name x '.. .a �,,- d I am writ e you..coza4:erninng 'the pla mac' con'truction
r.
o a ro rn ti 4i � 'to be locaih reey r y *onee. n 8aztborn '.'.eaervoir.
It is *t, � 'vt`t •& at this is a` t,g d 4 14,10, highway '.I have objections to
v3£y tt+ t� v
this Cons x..4F .'' ,following �e
5
t +i 6 b +ned road wep li t tfrough the, best. fielis used for,farm—
in j$=? ` - es^entiellyt�E �1is e f ti in two, z~u it for f�# .
fanny yy�j N
J.'r.�+..Fj k� tCpAG '
; 2 —w It rxot �dso Limit rever4l � tither i.possible lanty
#3 ' - `here would ne continuous 4t4icp a 41 id the o oak' pausing
ii'y
':y SOire , air and 11--ht nollSt •,t .; ,°
„
;; l --- There t::*ould be ab olutely no n r ,c; P°.-'?
or le n• 1 y ys as € ^ '
,.. t virtrzal Pz" r .1n� thr own homc. � '- .. .
,, ,-,5 --- Lar.,t, but leas`!, brcr„re of tr.e close-e nrozitfl ty «+ ,
Ass
a honey thesis tie reel. - o^sib lity of car aecicrr±S ' afl , . t rt,r
':� k F4mage .ana worse, personal, 1# • b.
k � y,Fl�n f� x
14.0.4,4211.:9'
t >" v f. '''.1' iV e^e s � ' � .
��, � to ask some k` ' t : w ,r if I may?
' ff� :- Z 44,,H.„-t4:-.1.14, , s made, to diva P nfi, .'id the road in this lgcat:::::;,1,4!
Y a # ; stir 6`,z `
�g , * time Pt a bs -, sr2-�z oast oohs ruot5ozi � 1y
-;::Por 143 � c. F t ' .Z S x59p$5e 6 -.,S {; �i .,k•:: a' .'
fir• a l l Asiai arb. er£1 > k', £ £� s a j^''u �e pp •e e • ',v e
f4; { . t `� 3 °A k if � t, V 5�'1 No.,�� YSi 1'4" P A • .
ghat kigt ', ,
fi
! 1p
�1`� ld q
� t �, S s ��,� � 4 3 t ; tit eta �,° , . .
.lo residents? i �" a t °s , ,
x, and h i R 6 , ) t Y +:'
;>t., o �r bt to Cy Fn a :k { z t r
;3�, . #3 Would yg7.1, Tir. d, , . t ° t,, � '
any further nuestion* xa .3 Z12_ t i
4
S y� 'x44g V9 N,tr4i 0
gggg Qar0
—44,0 i';,, '6 A A:41 8, t, •C'1' 1T ;�:;• �d j:
E; 2 •.� � :,8 •-,,,a cif , �,q �.3, u:��"�
EI f`� x,,Fi:' gt� a#t' (
4 I
i�� s�a; a y; � 33 Weld Goy Road � �
Y� s'f b , ,
n £J s�',14:6'::@?` yxe ,ifi 11�wv �(,� n t '.F �'Y ,y,y�,Y ?:4;'4.7' -' :.'dg t �1a �" �V7i�1s� '��, �#� t $r' rt"s41s $t� �r a• " �a°4 �
ryry� t } 7' ��gd { 4 fr .1 'Y° t 1 t 3 Y 1
"J� y6i,1; �?::i 4 �����1 � 'd ii', d 1, � �r d ! 1 gpt,tt S k e • ! �. f YMt G. ! t ;
��'}} 1 �h P d, � � As r £ ' �, .1;' s;-' yr§ rw',t� a �#3 1: £4 ,fix t ,1 .t � h t
08/25/2003 13:56 9705350831 TOWN OF MEAD PAGE 03
Sylvia J.Posge
210 Eagle Avenue
Mead,CO 80542
August 25,2003
Mks Oeil
Bill Jerk
Weld County Commissioner
Dear Mr.Gel and Mr. Jak,
I would like to express my concerns about end opposition to the proposed use of Weld
County Road 7 for the mitigation of traffic on I-25.
While I am a homeowner in the area and I am very worried about increased traffic on a
road that children use for bicycling,skateboarding, and roller-blading(I am not a parent
myself but I drive this road daly and I am constantly surprised at how children seem so
unaware of safety issues when it comes to playing in the road!).I ant more concerned
about the environmental costs of this project. Specifically,
• Widening and extending Weld County Road 7 across the St Vain river would
disrupt the environment of the recently protected river corridor and create the
precedent of building a large highway through a state park.
• By going forward with the project,Weld County would be wasting part of the
$850,000 matching money that it spent on obtaining the grant to protect the St.Vrain
corridor_
• Even if it is considered useful to increase the traffic carrying capacity of the 1-25
corridor by enlarging county roads to either side of the freeway,it is probable that a
county road east of I-25 would carry as much traffic and have fewer social and
environmental impacts.
Than don't do this. I am aware of the traffic problems on I.25 because 1 use the freeway
to commute to Deaver,but I would rather be delayed than see this solution implemented.
I understand that there is no place that we can bid alternative routes that will not impact
to createthe environment and the people in the area,but please stick with your plan
protected Open Space along the St.Vain Greettway condor.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
r.Poage. 4---
John L Coleman
Ann M.Finland
208 7th St.
Dacono,Weld County,CO
303 833 5201
Weld County Commissioners
Glenn Vaad(District 2)
Mike Geile(At-Large)
Bill Jerke(At-Large)
915 Tenth St
P.O.Box 458,Greehy,CO 80632
Fax:970-352-0242
August 23,2003
Be:Weld County Road 7 Expansion Project
Distinguished Commissioners,
We were disturbed to learn about the planned expansion of the WCR 7 between
Berthoud and Broomfield. The expansion appears to pave right over the newly created St.Vrain
State Park before many of the Weld County residents who paid for part of the river corridors land,
even have a chance to use it !
Having already been on some of the portions of the park currently open,we can testify to
their value and we look forward to further segments begin opened.We believe that Weld County
funding part of the Greenway was a good investment that future generations will appreciate,
provided we don't pave over what we just paid to protect.
While I certainly understand that the projects may have been planned in different and
discrete organizations,the conflict has now become clear and we respectfully suggest that it is
time for the Weld County Commissioners to chart a new course for the road building,one which
does not pave over a newly created park.
It may be that a more comprehensive analysis will yield other areas in Weld County for
road expansion.We live a few miles east of I-25 and submit that the east side may offer a number
of roads suitable for expansion that do not disrupt the newly created St.Vrain River Conidor so
significantly. We look forward to your judicious decision.
S' y,
Jo L. Coleman Ann M Finland
MS.,Doctoral Candidate MA.,CCC-SLP
Applied Statistics and Research Methods Speech-Language Pathologist
University of Northern Colorado Adams 12 School District
CC:Deputy Director Lyle Laverty,Colorado State Parks Department
Governor Bill Owens
I 'd @8T :OT co ca 9r"s
July 11, 2003
Robert W. Felsburg, President
Felsburg Holt& Ullevig
7951 E. Maplewood Ave., Ste. 200
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
RE: Weld County I-2d'Parallel Arterials Study
De a is
I am a Colorado Certified General Appraiser am required to state that this is not an appraisal
or feasibility study. I am commenting on the above referenced project as a private citizen.
I live in the Town of Mead. My concerns pertain to the West Arterial in Segment 6 of the map
dated July 9, 2003. Enclosed is an enlarged copy for your convenience. I will comment on the
three alternatives which bypass the Town of Mead and are predominantly blue in color known
as: A6; E6; and, F6. All connect to green colored Alternative B7 to the North and A5 to the
South.
A6 connects B7 in the Northwest to A5 in the Southeast by merging onto Weld County Road 7
just north of Colorado Highway 66 and just south of a school bus stop. WCR-7 also has a large
functioning ditch along the East side of the road. In my opinion this is the most unsafe and least
desirable of the three alternatives. The corner of Highway 66 and WCR-7 is the crossing of two
section lines and is already scheduled for partial development which includes single family
homes. These homes will be a part of Mead and alternative A6 would then not bypass Mead. It
will further divide the Town. This appears to be a short term solution to what is a long term
situation. An additional school bus stop may be needed at or near this corner when the homes
are built and occupied. I believe implementing alternative A6 will cause significant traffic
congestion, accidents, and other problems at the Highway 66 and County Road 7 corner. The
safety issue alone indicates alternative A6 is not acceptable.
Alternatives E6 and F6 both merge back into Weld County Road 7 south of Highway 66. E6
may be preferable to F6 because E6 runs along a midsection line and traditionally development
occurs along section line and midsection line roads. When the safety issue is considered both are
far superior to alternative A6.
I have added a suggestion of my own colored in red. This overlaps parts of alternatives E6 and
F6 and connects both by continuing E6 along the midsection line and connecting it to F6. You
may want to consider this option.
f -
Robert W. Felsburg, President
Felsburg Holt& Ullevig
July 11, 2003
Page Two
At the July 9th Open House Weld County Commissioner Glenn Vaad brought up the possibility
of renaming this road, which is a bypass around Mead, as County Road 7 with signs or other
methods to continue the flow of traffic onto this bypass at both the North and the South where
this separates from WCR-7 thus preventing traffic from continuing on what will be the old two
lane road through Mead. This makes good sense to me.
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider the opinions I have expressed. If you have
any questions feel free to contact me on my wireless phone: (303) 775-5262.
Sincerely,
•
di
26 unters Cove Drive
Mead, CO 80542-9661
Enclosure
cc: Add County Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Frank B. Hempen, Jr., Director of Public Works
ol:
`i'• /� ' i-\ ]�,7^ LTI`�._ � r' 1:: Ir.:
,t :d:4. . ,�'�:�E L'.4141 a l ",37
I 7N { • -0-0ii Z
h` !1 :let A .5....,,,,,•
pP
I i , i :u1
Y'i e•2 ! t g' A{a r' 171-4 A . AA ''' 2
O Tr 1r* ▪ • '' " V•t ', a � W
cr 4'..
c! M \ 4
E . \ .ask tom , y
i ^iv aS81� 1�y qEr o -7.^,,9 �,. ' r ,
ii, Nitii s ye,
,E'iy®S are—r4 f#6- i ..
Y ;' gSiiia r. °1▪ eitidaW m v . aM�t y�..'1.P� f1'� •
'�c; •,."
Ywr a m.r®\ &"1
fi o Ti,►F A •rr, 0r glee Iitt ?
0 4 e`a® I Aa, .
t
' -� $yr I ...,Ytt o n' 117... s //�
+ �mk'A+ 1131 M�,T+ila,x frtt .' zr"�" r r/
8 -;. ' ' 4, a 1{Il� :r 4 (�
V Y F
y I,. W pA1,I. • t.am , ��`ows s '!
,
r
1 . gilt tiy li. ≥ •I' b�' 4C±f Y \6.
lialliIL 11 u' ss & ,
Er..T.�'I. 1/4 17 .t icr{ ]�,HIGH
�..,
1 'a6; s L '1... 'i '., 1 ` - err N1RM',1 V; IA
* 4 a 1 e I I i x,—�.��;"� }S : -:#1?-"In ffp,fi s!� L k7 0 J_ �" I
w rr,/ • r WL el.
., i i�;`,a , Er i .rr frxr� rtie oat En kr I'yn
Mair- i �� ti " � `� " P"
L f 4 «YY Z "ts,�T` v._, n^•t ' a d ! ,, !� f •�r
ta-^ 6. ` -,L,. , .. � ,. t �'. I. 1 ..,
.e .• ) 111,2 rA l�; I) a
‘,..c,..,,,...,,,,,,,, I:> . A.
+`y"O'tia.1' i. ' i v7.. + `, t �t w EtjE�{` fA
oY� 0/ ♦A t U+_,e.lh' x�.+l" ,'kICL','41 p :J $1A
Yax Y►t tll.1. _'4 .- -. mom# ' . .,,, t era j V 1 # I `' l 4' r".y�„ , 9th -.
^ . . ,nia' A rt,Et
JJ
j
ead Town of Mead
P.O. Box 626
441 Third Street
Mead-"A Little Town Mead,Colorado 80542-0626
With a Big Futate"
(970)535-4477
•
September 26, 2003
Mr. David Long, Chair and
Weld County Board of Commissioners
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Sirs:
This letter is a follow-up to the meeting that was held on July 17, 2003 concerning the CDOT
Frontage Road east of I-25 south of SH 66 and the future planning of the widening of the
interstate as it would affect roadway decisions in the area. At that meeting, Commissioners
Vaad, Geile, and Madsen were in attendance in addition to CDOT personnel, various
landowners, and other technical and municipal representatives.
To recap the most salient points of that discussion, some background is necessary. Some of the
following you may already be aware of The centerline of the I-25 widening project south of SH
66 has already been established, which drives the entire issue, including the engineering that is
underway. It moves the interstate pavement farther to the east, and the centerline cannot now be
changed. The new paving would extend sufficiently to the east that the existing frontage road
would have to be removed.
Normally, CDOT would build a new frontage road along the interstate, and to that end has for
years had 80-foot to 90-foot"reservations"with adjacent property owners to preserve strips of
land that CDOT would eventually buy for additional right-of-way to accommodate a wider
interstate. A new frontage road would go in the "reservation" area because the existing right-of-
way would be largely consumed with just the interstate portion.
It is the Town's understanding that with the Weld County 9 %z plan having been in the works in
the vicinity of SH 66, discussions were initiated between the County and CDOT that would
result in an agreement that CDOT would "erase"the frontage road, and pay the money to the
County that they would have otherwise spent to acquire the reservations and build a new
frontage road, in order to put those funds towards the construction of WCR 9 %z instead, which
would act as the equivalent of a frontage road in that area.
Part of the issue also relates to the fact that there is unsafe adjacency of the frontage road
intersection with SH 66 next to the exit ramp from northbound I-25 onto SH 66, and thus the
frontage road has to change in some respects, anyway.
Mr. Long and Commissioners
September 26, 2003
Page 2
The Town understands that CDOT has tentatively worked out an agreement with the owner of
the proposed Lyons 66-Pacific Business Park at the southeast corner of SH 66 and I-25 to
"undulate"the frontage road around the southern edge of the parcel, thence northbound to line up
with Mead Street,whereupon it would be cul-de-sac'ed just south of the business park to
accommodate access to two homes there, commonly known as the Rademacher parcel.
In effect, this would not really be a"frontage"road any longer,but a means of providing
different access to a limited portion of that corner. The frontage road would leave that trajectory
once it crossed over the St. Vrain River, undulating to the east to line up with the future proposed
WCR 9 'h. Motorists who desired to continue traveling north on the frontage road would then
have to work their way back east via SH 66 or other area roadways.
Please note the enclosed drawing, which was prepared by Jim Mountain, a planner from
Longmont, who represents the Sanborn and St. Acacius developments in Mead, who compiled
together site plans from the two unincorporated projects -- Lyons-66 Pacific and the Benjamin
Court (a.k.a. Adrian or California Homes) Business Park also lying along the frontage road.
(The Rademacher parcel lying south of Lyons-66 Pacific and north of Sanborn is also in Mead,
but is presently unplatted.) Finally, RiverDance, also unincorporated, to the south of St. Acacius,
has been given tentative approval of a plan which would have "T'd" the frontage road into the
new WCR 9 %z, all as shown. The drawing does not depict all known"reservations,"which
appear as dark lines on the western border of Sanborn and St. Acacius, but it is the Town's
understanding that there are continuous reservations for all parcels in this area.
None of the property owners in Mead are in favor of having the frontage road eliminated. After
discussion by the Mead Town Board, it is also not in favor of the frontage road elimination. The
area is prime commercial property that would benefit from a maximized local street network,
with better accessibility and visibility, and thus be a good tax base for all units of government.
We do not believe that a summary elimination of the frontage road by CDOT without
consultation with the Town of Mead and the affected property owners is fair because it
economically injures their property and our land use planning.
The Town also believes that the Mountain View Fire Protection District would be in favor of
maintaining as much possible frontage road network, or its equivalent, as possible, to help
address accessibility for emergency vehicles for incidents on the Interstate, and would oppose a
summary elimination of the frontage road in this area.
The Town would like to propose to the County a solution that would address various issues.
This solution would be to create a"local" collector street within the reservation area that would
act as a replacement frontage road, i.e. not owned or maintained by CDOT, and not allow the
property owners to plat those strips back into their own site plans. This is amplified upon below.
Mr. Long and Commissioners
September 26, 2003
Page 3
First, we understand the concerns of CDOT that frontage roads were never intended to be
arterials,but rather to function as"service drives" for local property, and that they would not be
allowed to have multiple"curb cuts" which would damage their efficiency. The Town is not at
odds with CDOT's philosophy about frontage roads in this respect. The situation should not be
changed under this new scenario. The site plans in place could be easily made to function where
the Town and the County would prohibit curb cuts onto the collector street as well, forcing
traffic in the various developments to be channeled to various collectors, such as WCR 28 and
other collector streets shown on the drawing, which would then connect to the new local
collector. Such a street could be fitted in the available 80 to 90 foot width of the reservations.
Second, the new local collector may be linked to the above-mentioned Lyons-66 Pacific
reworked street network, which would enhance that property. As it stands right now, that plan
has limited utility to Lyons-66 Pacific, and certainly the two homes on the Rademacher parcel,
which while today they may have sentimental value to their residents, are in the long-term on too
valuable a commercial location to remain, and thus it is somewhat illogical to provide a cul-de-
sac only to them that doesn't address the commercial viability of the remainder. The Town will
support the Lyons-66 Pacific street plan in this respect,because we believe that it enhances the
ability to obtain a traffic signal at the intersection of SH 66 and Mead Street, which is injured by
high traffic volumes, multiple turning movements, and geometries that could be made safer.
Third, if the County would agree to the new local collector street idea, the Town would support
the proposed agreement with CDOT that would in effect create WCR 9 V2 as the new frontage
road. We would further propose that, in consultation with our engineers or traffic consulting
firms, the funds that CDOT would put towards WCR 9 %z would be proportionately allocated by
agreement between Mead and the County to those developers who would otherwise be obligated
in some measure to construct portions of WCR 9 V2 as a condition of their project approval.
This would require the County to revisit the subdivision and site plan discussions or approvals
that may have been made with the unincorporated projects to make sure that the possibility of a
new local collector street has not been negated. The only way this idea will work is if there is an
agreement between the Town and the County to make the project happen such that there is a
continuous stretch of pavement. The Town anticipates that the developers would have to pay for
the construction of such as part of their development costs, not the Town or the County.
We would be happy to meet with your staff to go over in more detail the subdivision and site
plan assumptions about traffic movements, lot layout, and so forth that have been set forth for the
developments in Mead, and to talk about the same issues for the developments in the County.
In summary, then, the Town requests that the County consider an agreement with the Town
along the above-mentioned points. It is in the best interests of all parties to provide as rational a
Mr. Long and Commissioners
September 26, 2003
Page 4
street network possible wherever possible to disperse traffic and facilitate the development of
commercial property to add to tax bases in order to help pay for needed services.
Would you therefore please place this item on an upcoming Board agenda for discussion.
We will be happy to be present for such a discussion or to furnish further information as may be
desired or necessary.
Sincerely,
A & F.(4;4.)
(
Michael D. Friesen
Town Administrator
On behalf of the Town Board
cc.: Monica Daniels-Mika, Planning Department
Frank Hempen,Public Works Department
John Devlin, Chief, Mountain View Fire Protection District
Jim Wright, JR Engineering
Miles Silverman, representing the Sanborn Subdivision
Francisco Martinez, representing the St. Acacius Subdivision
Cheryl Melichar, representing the Rademacher parcel
Karla Harding, CDOT
i
HWY 66 _Ju
M -
LYo S :8-PH CIF-IC
lb _ I - EXIS ING B INESS PARK
i -•
, --.. , .
......, ,
,.....! ..
in 0 „., N
„.
RADEMACHER
1►ESTRIAN
.'7
G,
/ �\ 10411111111111 mummer
-��r-
-!
Mill
r .
SEMI
_m_i III__Ing_11_,..._i___
iti,...1,.... .1 iiii
_,_
- ...„ of um
' Illatiom
it ♦U�
/ i � , /----- 1 - vtt• /41,
i ,, , .�.
el In _ ga
` _ 1 =
;■■■fin ar
.% ( WCR _ T.
ilI IliiiL!bi
RIVER DANCE
SIAT MEI VI'S '
for
1 Wit 3 M. II li I iiii
'4: - /AP 14,kt**,%4 in ii, N
, i 41: 1
F !CAM '••.•)••■.■■1■ - a
u �-: U El w �;;1 .E•.♦a��1�� �■■■■ it ! I
. , . . ACACIUS SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL 41--/L--- RIVER DANC _
PROPS NMI WEI mry
i
1-.---'
1/2'
i
IMP .s r...._
RIVER DANCE
EAST SIDE I-25 / HIGHWAY 66 TO ST. VRAIN CREEK AREA
CAROL Harding - 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Page 1
From: Scott Tempel <STempel@co.adams.co.us>
To: "'charding@co.weld.co.us"' <charding@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 9/30/03 3:03PM
Subject: 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study
I would like to have these comments placed in the public record for this
project, per the Notice of Public Hearing. Please note that this Notice
gave the wrong day for the hearing.
First, the Future Plans section of this study failed to reflect the future
land use designations in both the Town of Erie and Town of Dacono
Comprehensive Plans. It did however show land use for the Town of Frederick
for the area south of Hwy 52 and west of 1-25, which is in the Erie planning =
area.
Second, the preferred alignment for Segment 2, West Alternative A2, seemed
to have been taken from a "plan" made by a consultant for a developer,
namely CDG and the plan for the Erie Corporate Center. This plan has not
yet been adopted by the Town of Erie. The Future Plans Section did reflect
the Town of Erie Transportation Plan, which does not show this alignment for
Road 7. From an economic development perspective, the preferable alignment
for Segment 2 would be West Alternative A3 through the center of the
section, which would be more convenient to 1-25 and allow direct access to
the Glacier Business Park in Frederick and other existing and future
businesses along 1-25. From the perspective of a current resident, it would
be preferable to have traffic resulting from new development directed to new
roads servicing those new developments and not dumped onto existing roads,
namely Road 7, where it will significantly diminish our property values and
quality of life.
Third, Segment 2, West Alternative A2, the preferred alignment is shown
going directly through my home. I have been trying to get this alignment
moved or modified for years between the developer and the Town of Erie. My
home is currently for sale and I have already lost potential buyers and have
had to lower the price of my home, without success, due directly to the
publication of this road alignment on the Weld County website. I am utterly
dismayed by either the lack of empathy for property owners or the sloppy
research that lead to my family's home being blotted out by your green line!
Scott Tempel
5454 WCR 7
Erie, CO 80516
September 30, 2003
CAROL Harding - parallel study
Page 1
From: <LEVINBEAN@aol.com>
To: <charding@co.weld.co.us.>
Date: 9/30/03 2:49PM
Subject: parallel study
Tuesday, September 30,
2003
To whom it may concern, _-
Please include the following in "the record"for the 1-25 arterial study.
I do believe that your meeting is tonight? The article in the Longmont Daily
Times Call mentioned that the meeting is tonight, Tuesday, although,
conveniently for you, the time was not documented.
The article in the Times Call interviewed Wayne Howard. How sad a life it
must be for him. Howard, a man who sees no"other options" than to run a •
highway through a state park. Well, Mr. Howard, to those of us who reside in the
area, which you are trying to destroy, there are other options. For whatever
reasons, commercialism and dollars I would imagine, you refuse to look at County
Road 1, a road that already connects the local towns. A road in which you
could improve so that we, locals, could get from "McDonald's to Safeway"without
"impacting
1-25."
Widening 1-25 should also be in your plans. According to the "Frequently
Asked Questions" sheet you handed out, it was written that"1-25 will be widened
someday." "Someday"!!! The widening of 1-25 should be on your timeline.
"Someday" should not be your answer.
You also mention that you have met with members of the St. Vrain school
district, and that they"want"the roadway to run "in front of"the new high
school. This statement was made at the last open house I attended. Well, I am not
sure to whom you spoke, but I have spoken with teachers and parents of the St.
Vrain Valley school district, and they do not"want" to see your four lane,
45 mph roadway"in front of'the new high school. Perhaps you should start
revealing the names of whom you choose to speak.
My objections to using WCR 7 or WCR 5 or 5 1/2 cannot be expressed strongly
enough, other than to make it clear that I VOTE NO!!!
I am distressed by the fact that I will be unable to attend tonight's
meeting. I can only hope that others will be there to share my sentiment. Tonight,
I have to go to work. A job that does not involve plotting to destroy what
others have worked so hard to achieve. A job that does not involve destroying
wildlife preserves. Ajob that I can feel good about, knowing that I have
tried to help others in my community and the surrounding communities.
Susan Levine &family.
Residents of Mead, CO 80542
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor GotO�O
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AREA 2 `�
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 4207 W. COUNTY ROAD 16E 3 '
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4)/ Al
V
LOVELAND CO 80537 goy v4
Russell George,Director OF
6060 Broadway 970-461-4000
Denver,Colorado 80216 Fay 97O-461-4nmR For Wild life-
Telephone:(303)297-1192 For People
October 7, 2003
Weld County Commissioners Office
915 10th St.
Greeley, CO 80634
Dear Board of Weld County Commissioners:
The Division of Wildlife is writing this letter in response to Weld County's 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial
Study and proposals for road alignments. The County Road 7 preferred alignment and 2 alternative
alignments west of 1-25 propose a section of the road to cross the St. Vrain Creek. The Division of
Wildlife has strong concerns regarding these proposed road alignments.
The St. Vrain Creek forms a significant riparian corridor for wildlife and fisheries from Lyons to St. Vrain
State Park and eastwards to the South Platte River. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)
has given this riparian corridor the designation of Potential Conservation Area of High Significance from
Lyons to the confluence with Boulder Creek (immediately west of the park) (Wildlife Assessment,
Carron Meaney, 10/2003). Through significant efforts by Boulder County Open Space, City of
Longmont, Weld County and Colorado State Parks, almost continuous protection has been obtained for
the St. Vrain Creek from Lyons to the east end of the St. Vrain State Park. Recent purchase of lands
authorized and supported by Great Outdoors Colorado as a Legacy grant further indicates commitment
to preserve these areas of valuable wildlife resources. The St. Vrain Creek has the potential to be one
of the longer stretches of protected creek in the Front Range, providing significant habitat for an
abundance of wildlife species. Currently the length of the St. Vrain Creek from 1-25 to Highway 119 is
2.45 miles (3.94 kilometers). The preferred alignment of County Road 7 would virtually cut the section
of contiguous river corridor in half. This could negatively impact several species of wildlife.
The St. Vrain Creek Corridor provides winter range and winter foraging areas for bald eagles. A bald
eagle roosting area exists near the confluence of the St. Vrain and Boulder Creek. Jerry Craig, raptor
biologist for the Colorado Division of Wildlife stated "very likely (the proposed road) is going to disturb
bald eagles in the area". There is an active prairie dog colony in the area between State Park lands and
the St. Vrain Creek that would be impacted by the preferred WCR 7 extension. Bald eagles depend on
prairie dog colonies such as this in the area for an important winter food source. Jerry Craig further
stated "the road will contribute to further and further constriction of feeding and further impact to an
undisturbed area." Jerry Craig also stated there is possible intermittent roosting and very likely a roost
in the area between Highway 119 and 1-25. Further survey work needs to be done to determine
whether bald eagles are roosting in the area. (from personal communication with Jerry Craig, May
2003) Buffer distances suggested for bald eagle roosting areas are generally .25-.5 mile (402-804
meters) (Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptor nests, Gerald R.
Craig, CDOW, 1996)
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Greg E.Welcher,Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Rick Enstrom,Chair•Robert Shoemaker,Vice-Chair•Marianna Raftopoulos,Secretary
Members,Bernard Black•Tom Burke•Jeffrey Crawford•Philip James•Brad Phelps •Olive Valdez
Ex-Officio Members,Greg E.Welcher and Don Ament
Jeff Peterson with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends surveys for bald eagle nests and/or
roost sites in the area prior to any construction along the St. Vrain Creek Corridor. If eagles are to be
disturbed, a formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is recommended. This
disturbance may include any disruption of feeding patterns, breeding, resting and other behavior as
defined in the Endangered Species Act (personal communication with Jeff Peterson, October 2003),
The largest heronry in Colorado is located along the St. Vrain corridor on the west edge of the newly
designated St. Vrain State Park (according to 2002 statewide colonial nesting bird inventory compiled by
Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.) The rookery is a nest site for great blue herons, great egrets and
black-crowned night herons. According to Janet George, biologist for the Colorado Division of Wildlife,
the rookery contained at least 112 great blue heron nests last year and 136 this year. Great egrets
have nested here consistently since 2000 and it is the only site where they are known to nest
consistently in the entire state, though a few nests have been seen intermittently in past years at
reservoirs nearby. Janet George believes that both herons and egrets have shifted from the Boulder
Creek heronry to this site in recent years. There are also black-crowned night herons nesting at the St.
Vrain heronry. A count of potential nests is below in table 1, though the count may have been under-
estimated due to dense foliage obscuring their counts during their later nesting period.
Heronry at St. Vrain State Park. Counts made by Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Number of Nests Counted
Great Great Black-Crowned
Blue
YEAR Heron Egret Night-Heron Total
2000 40 2 4 46
2001 94 11 3 108
2002 112 14 12 138
2003 136 11 9 156
Janet George also reported that all of these species have high ecological, as well as, wildlife viewing
values. She stated that CDOW generally recommends minimum buffer zones of 328-820 feet (100-
250m)for colonial nesting wading birds, but that this depends upon many site-dependent factors. That
distance may require adjustment because many variables contribute to the impact of human
disturbance on rookeries such as habituation of individual birds and the frequency and type of
disturbance. Janet George also stresses that heronries are somewhat ephemeral, and they may move
over time for many different reasons.
The Preble's meadow jumping mouse has been federally listed as a threatened species since 1998 and
is protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is a violation of the ESA to "take" a Preble's
without an appropriate permit. "Take" is defined by the Endangered Species Act as "to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.
"Harm" is further defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species. "Harass" is defined by FWS
as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The
FWS recommends that sites in or near stream channels, riparian habitats, floodplains, wetlands
including wet meadows, vegetated ditches, or moist hayfields be considered potential Preble's habitat.
Weld County is listed as a county where Preble's is likely to be found in suitable habitat. Ideal habitat of
Preble's consists of well-developed riparian vegetation with a variety of grasses, forbs, and thick shrubs,
and a water source in close proximity. Where a population is present in a drainage, it may also use
adjacent upland habitats. The FWS recommends that sites in or near stream channels, riparian
habitats, floodplains, wetlands including wet meadows, vegetated ditches, or wet hayfields be
considered potential Preble's habitat. Projects in vegetated areas within 300 feet of 100-year
floodplains associated with rivers and creeks (and projects that may have secondary impact to these
areas) should be assessed for their potential impacts to Preble's and its habitat.
Avoidance of impacts to Preble's and its habitat is the strategy recommended by the FWS. If the
Preble's meadow jumping mouse or potential habitat is to be disturbed, formal consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is recommended.
The St. Vrain Creek provides habitat for a myriad of other species of wildlife including deer, beaver,
coyote, fox, raccoon, squirrels, gophers, skunk, bats, turkey, pelicans, geese, ducks, shorebirds,
raptors, songbirds, herptofauna, fish, etc. There are many effects of roads on wildlife. (Refer to The
Effects of Roads on Wildlife: Bibliography, U.S. Roads, Prepared for U.S. Forest Service by Clifford G.
Nietvelt, M.Sc., Montane Wildlife Consulting, October 30, 2002) A great concern in wildlife
management is protection of habitat for all wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation and its effect on
species richness and diversity is also a great concern. In the legislative declaration of the State of
Colorado, it is stated that it is the policy of the State of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment
are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the
people of this state and its visitors. Further, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, as outlined in our strategic
plan, will strive to maintain, create and manage habitat to support the broadest-sustainable wildlife
population in Colorado. It is with these points in mind that the Division of Wildlife cannot support the
extension of County Road 7 across the St. Vrain Creek and the possible fragmentation and loss of
habitat to an area rich in wildlife species and diversity.
Just as the Colorado Division of Wildlife is concerned about wildlife in the State of Colorado, the
transportation departments across the state also have a mission to provide roads and safe
transportation. It has been stated that one of the goals in establishing arterial roads is to keep these
roads continuous, to the extent possible. It has further been stated that the development of these roads
is being driven by market and development. As the St. Vrain State Park develops and expands, there
may be little development that occurs south of Weld County Road 26 and north of Highway 119 in the
vicinity of County Road 7. To achieve both missions of protecting a valuable wildlife habitat and
providing safe transportation, the Division encourages Weld County to consider other alternative roads
for development (such as county road 28 and County Road 1). Thus, safe roads and transportation
may be provided while leaving a legacy for Coloradoans and future generations of residents and visitors
of a State rich with wildlife resources. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact District Wildlife Manager Suzanne Kloster at 303-903-9661.
Sincerely,
glionsIL
— for —
Scott Hoover
Northeast Region Manager
fat 6, Frequently Asked Questions
I-25 Parallel Arterials Study
wine
COLORADO
1. What is the purpose of this study?
As southwest Weld County continues to grow, the need to coordinate a plan for future roadways is
critical. A successful transportation plan, in balance with the land use plans anticipated in the area,
can only be achieved through the joint efforts of all of the communities. Recognizing that it is prudent
and responsible for government to plan for the future, Weld County has taken the lead to bring all the
local municipalities together to work on a key element of the transportation plan.
The purpose of this study is to establish preferred alignments for parallel north-south arterials on both
sides of 1-25, extending from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 and connecting to
roadway systems in adjacent counties. These parallel arterials will improve local connectivity through
the project corridor, thereby lessening the demand for traffic to use 1-25 for local travel. By identifying
these routes at this time, this study will serve as a guide for Weld County and the municipalities within
the project corridor to preserve rights-of-way for the arterials so that they may be constructed as
needed. Planning for these roads will allow them to be implemented in an orderly fashion and will
allow for minimized impacts in the future.
2. Why are parallel arterials necessary? Why not just widen 1-25 and/or use the frontage roads?
Because of the visibility and the accessibility that the interstate offers, significant growth has occurred
in recent years along the I-25 corridor in southwest Weld County. The comprehensive plans of all of
the communities in the corridor indicate that the higher density land uses will occur in the 1-25
corridor, and this trend is expected to continue. This growth will bring substantial demands on 1-25
and on the local road system. Congestion is currently experienced on I-25 and on the east-west
roads providing access to 1-25 because no other reasonable choices for travel exist in the area. 1-25
will be widened someday, but previous studies of the corridor have suggested that, even with
widening, 1-25 will continue to be congested in the future.
In the current low density, rural setting, the frontage roads have been able to function reasonably
well. However, as the area continues to develop, the frontage roads are not a viable solution to
handling higher traffic volumes. Their proximity to the interchanges at major cross streets creates
safety and capacity problems that significantly affect traffic operations at the interchanges and on the
interstate.
The concept for the parallel arterial roads is based on two principles. First, with a majority of the
intense development expected within a mile of 1-25, arterials likewise located within a mile of I-25
could best serve the traffic demands associated with the growth. Secondly, if these arterials are
continuous, they would be an appealing alternative to using 1-25 for relatively short distance trips
within the corridor, thereby allowing 1-25 to better serve its intended purpose of interregional travel.
3. How were the "preferred"arterial routes identified?
The study began with an extensive data collection effort to better understand the opportunities and
the constraints presented by the study area. Comprehensive plans and transportation plans from the
communities in the corridor were compiled and reviewed; parcel ownership information was collected;
known development plans were assembled; environmental data compiled by the County were
mapped; and other relevant information was also assessed. With this information and with input from
the public and from representatives of the local entities, a number of alternative routes were identified
in each segment of the corridor. These alternatives were then evaluated based on a number of
factors including: transportation effectiveness, roadway geometry, impacts to the community, future
land use consequences, existing development consequences, environmental impacts, safety,
construction and construction costs. The results of this evaluation process were then discussed with
representatives of the local entities, and "preferred" routes on each side of 1-25 were preliminarily
identified. The"preferred" routes were presented to the public for comment, and they were further
refined.
4. How have the local entities and the public been involved in this project?
Local entities, including the Town of Berthoud, the City of Dacono, the Town of Erie, the Town of
Firestone, the Town of Frederick, the Town of Johnstown, the City of Longmont, the Town of Mead,
the City of Northglenn, the City of Thornton, Larimer County, Adams County, and the City and County
of Broomfield, have been actively involved with this planning process since its beginning. A Local
Agency Advisory Group, comprised of representatives of these local governments and other
agencies, has met three times throughout the study to provide input on data needs, the identification
of alternatives, and the evaluation of those alternatives. In addition to these meetings, County staff
and the consultant team have conducted five additional meetings with other affected groups such as
Colorado State Parks, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado, and the St. Vrain
Valley School District. Input from all of these entities has been important in the selection of the
"preferred" routes.
The public has also been an integral part of this process. An initial open house for the project was
conducted to receive input from the public on concerns, issues, and opportunities for potential routes
through the project area. Numerous phone calls and letters have also been received from the public
on this study. In order to ensure maximum public involvement in this round of two open houses,
notification has been sent to all of the property owners adjacent to the preferred routes (over 1000
mailers), advertisements have been placed in three local papers, and a notice has been posted on
the County's web site.
5. When will these arterials be constructed?How will right-of-way be obtained for these
arterials? Who will fund the construction of these arterials?
At this point in time, there is no specific schedule for the construction of these arterials. The
construction schedule for the arterial routes will be highly dependent on the growth and development
that occurs in the area. Weld County and the municipalities within the project corridor will use this
study as a basis to obtain rights-of-way for the arterials from developers as development in the area
occurs. Rights-of-way not obtained through the development process will be purchased as needed.
Furthermore, as development occurs, it is anticipated that developments adjacent to the arterials will
be responsible for the construction required to mitigate their impacts. The County and municipalities
in the corridor will be responsible for those portions not funded by developments.
6. What is the relationship of the Weld County Road 13 improvement project to this study?
Weld County is currently pursuing a project to improve Weld County Road 13 throughout the study
area. It has been identified by the County as a Strategic Roadway which will function as a high
volume arterial carrying traffic from State Highway 7 to State Highway 14. This is a function sorely
missed in this part of the county. However, it is believed that it is too far removed from 1-25 to serve
the same function as the parallel arterials. Hence, it will remain a separate, but complementary,
project to the parallel arterials.
7. What are the next steps?
When the study is complete, it is the intent of Weld County staff to present the findings of the study to
the Board of County Commissioners for consideration in a public hearing (tonight). If accepted, the
next step would be to develop Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)with the local municipalities to
ensure that the alignments are preserved for future implementation.
Additional information on this study can be found on Weld County's web site at:
http://www.co.weld.co.us/departments/public_works/pub licworks_study.htm I
Hello