HomeMy WebLinkAbout992223 ‘4SCetu \ MEMORANDUM
WI TO: Board of County Commissioners
COLORADO FROM: Ben Patton, Planner
SUBJECT: Z-528; Riverdance PUD
The applicant for case number Z-528 is requesting that this case be continued so that water, sewer,
and traffic suitability may be addressed. The applicant is requesting that this case be heard on the
October 27, 1999 Board hearing. Thank you for your consideration.
ggx,243
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY.QUALITY
j. EXHIBIT
1 E
OOZ*52`2?
Punt By: TUTTLE APPLEGATE INC U;3034522759203152361 ;Sep-22-99 8:23; Pace 2 U
September 22, 1999
Mr. Ben Patton
Weld County Planning Department
1.550 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
RE: RiverDance PUD PUD Change of Zone: Tabling of BOCC Hearing
Dear Ben:
On behalf of the applicant (Siegrist Companies),we wish to table case number Z-528
(RiverDance PUD - Change of Zone) to October 27th 1999.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC.
Molly Orkild-Larson, AICP
cc: Mike Sicgrist, File 99-122
440( MEMORANDUM
'ilk TO: Board of County Commissioners NoveribIii 1b?1999
P
COLORADO From: Julie A. Chester, Lead Planner
SUBJECT: Continuance for Z-528
The Department of Planning Services'staff is recommending a continuance of the above referenced
Change of Zone Application until January 26, 2000 for the following reason:
The applicant is requesting the continuance, due to the revision of their traffic study, as indicated
in their attached letter dated November 9, 1999.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
i J EXHIBIT
F
taorta43
Mae
a= Ora
71 ittleApplegate,lnc.
Consultants for Land, Mineral and Water
November 9, 1999
Mr. Ben Patton
Weld County Planning Department
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
RE: RiverDance PUD—PUD Change of Zone: Tabling of BOCC Hearing
Dear Ben:
We are presently revising the traffic report for the above project and do not anticipate County
comments until January 2000. Therefore, on behalf of the applicant (Siegrist Companies),
we wish to table case number Z-528 (RiverDance PUD - Change of Zone)to January 26th,
2000.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC.
)11/W if 1 O, -t- 1- (et-C4'}Z
Molly Orkild-Larson,AICP
cc: Mike Siegrist,Weld County Clerk to the Board,
File 99-122
e'ri Cou:iy L gip.
i\l„,,1 10 1999
rt rr 9r1
v _
11990 Grant St. • Suite 304 • Denver, CO 80233 5441 Boeing Drive. • Suite 200 • Loveland, CO 80536-8855
(303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-2759 (970) 461-9884 • Fax (970) 613-1177
Artie Elmquist
8724 I-25 Frontage Rd. E
Longmont, CO 80504 •
Phone - (303) 776-4449
E-Mail- aelmquist@netscape.net n
November 15, 1999
Board of Weld County Commissioners
915 10th St
PO Box 768
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioners:
At the November 4, 1999 meeting of the Weld County Agricultural Advisory Committee, a letter
from the St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group was presented to the committee. This letter
expressed some concerns regarding the proposed Riverdance development proposal near WCR
11 and 28. While I understand why your board recommended that the Agricultural Advisory
Committee not take a position on this specific PUD, I as an individual and resident of Weld
County feel it is very important to express my own concerns about this proposed development
and others in this county.
Given that the Agricultural Advisory Committee will be making a recommendation to your board
next year, there are a number of reasons why this and other proposed developments of this
density in the unincorporated parts of the county should not be approved at this time. The Weld
County Agricultural Advisory Committee was given the mandate to explore ways to enhance,
preserve and maintain agricultural operations in Weld County. Given the fact there are several
large agricultural operations surrounding this development, approval of this PUD plan should be
denied at this time even though the property is located within the 1-25 MUD area. The future
viability of these operations to exist would be severely impacted by the high density of this
development.
Before you make your decision on the proposed Riverdance PUD plan for, the following
questions must be asked.
Are you as a commissioner willing to state to the would-be residents of this development
that the following issues are irrelevant?
A. There are significant odors and dust from nearby livestock operations.
B. Aerial and ground applied pesticides are used on nearby fields.
C. Law enforcement is inadequate in the area given present growth rates.
D. The St. Vrain Valley area schools are already at or near capacity.
E. Within the next five years, there will not be significant increases in property tax
mill levies or fees to support the increasing amount of services that all
governmental entities and special districts of the I-25 MUD area will be required
to provide.
EXHIBIT
�7
Cot #,52
Are you as a commissioner willing to state to the developer that the following issues are
irrelevant?
A. Within the next five years, there will not be significant increases in property tax
mill levies or fees to support the increasing amount of services that all
governmental entities and special districts of the I-25 MUD area will be required
to provide.
B. The developer/water district will not have a problem securing the raw water
needed to service the domestic water taps.
C. The St. Vrain Valley School District will not ask your board for a moratorium on
new building permits in the next couple of years until another bond issue is passed
to provide for the construction of more schools to service the Weld County area of
the district.
D. The new road impact fees are adequate and that some of the bond money will be
used to improve county roads surrounding the Riverdance development within the
next couple of years (i.e. WCR 13 & WCR 28).
E. The St. Vrain Sanitation District will be able to obtain all necessary approvals to
complete the expansion of its facilities (i.e. additional lagoons) in a timely manor.
While the resolution of many of these issues is not possible by your board alone, you as a board
cannot deny that these are legitimate concerns that must be addressed. As always, the private
property right of the owner/developer to develop this property must be factored in. However,
given the tremendous strain being placed on the infrastructure in this part of the county at the
present time, wouldn*t it be appropriate to deny the change of zoning request until the
infrastructure issues are satisfactorily dealt with? How can the impacts on surrounding farming
operations be ignored?
While it is much too early to determine what recommendations will come the Agricultural
Advisory Committee, dealing with urban sprawl (i.e. non-contiguous development to the central
urban area) will rank high on the list. I would hope our committee can recommend some growth
management tools which the county can use to work with the local cities and towns to insure
growth is more contiguous.
Therefore, given the location of the Riverdance proposal and the many concerns created by this
high density development, I would ask that you deny the request of zoning change, pending the
resolution of the issues discussed above.
Sincerely,
Artie Elmquist
Err&knit, 'As
y,....
r..
t
' 1(10 ICY S2Y1Pir\et
--5-a ' Cia1/..
4 EXHIBIT
N
January 6, 1999
Board of Weld County Commissioners , ; ?I q: CI
915 10th St.
P.O.Box 768 11
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: Docket 99-62 PL1023 - Riverdance
Dear Weld County Commissioners:
Would you please attach this letter (and attached letter from Mr. Elmquist) to your
information packet for the scheduled January 26th hearing for the above mentioned
project.
As a group of concerned citizens in SW Weld who are concerned about the influx
of growth in an area where several municipalities overlap their urban growth boundaries
with that of the MUD area(thus encompassing a humungus area) --with no land
preservation policies in place from any of the municipalities except Frederick, we are
concerned with the above mentioned proposal taking such a toll on the agricultural
community if it were passed.
This development sits between two of our largest dairies and two of our largest
feedlots in this area. A development this magnitude would certainly have an impact on
these operations. Please refer to the attached letter from Mr. Artie Elmquist in this
regard. Mr. Elmquist sits on your Agricultural Advisory Committee -- and is well aware
of the above concerns.
Not only from a agricultural standpoint, there are concerns with the St. Vrain
School district not having the capacity to serve this development; there are concerns with
the water availability; there are concerns that this development is not near an municipality
and thus cannot provide services a community of this magnitude would require (Ex:
medical, recreational, shopping, etc). Why has the county not referred this to Firestone, as
it has done with other development proposals?
I urge you to really think of the ENTIRE SW Weld area when making this
decision. It does not comply with your comprehensive plan in many aspects of keeping
agricultural alive and well in all areas (See A Goal 1).
I request that this letter(and the attached letter from Mr. Elmquist)be read at the
January 26th hearing, and also be made part of the record , as I will be out-of town.
"you 1
0Q. c
�Virginia(Gin ) S aw
1435 WCR 16-1/2
Ph: (303) 772-1297 Longmont, CO 80504
EXHIBIT
CO 2 #.5,:n
Artie Linguist
87241-25 Frontage M. E
Longmont, Go 80504
mane - (303) 776-444q
E-Mail - aelmquiss@netscare.net
November 15, 1999
Board of Weld County Commissioners
915 10th St
PO Box 768
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioners:
At the November 4, 1999 meeting of the Weld County Agricultural Advisory Committee, a letter
from the St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group was presented to the committee. This letter
expressed some concerns regarding the proposed Riverdance development proposal near WCR
11 and 28. While I understand why your board recommended that the Agricultural Advisory
Committee not take a position on this specific PUD, I as an individual and resident of Weld
County feel it is very important to express my own concerns about this proposed development
and others in this county.
Given that the Agricultural Advisory Committee will be making a recommendation to your
board next year, there are a number of reasons why this and other proposed developments of this
density in the unincorporated parts of the county should not be approved at this time. The Weld
County Agricultural Advisory Committee was given the mandate to explore ways to enhance
preserve and maintain agricultural operations in Weld County. Given the fact there are several
large agricultural operations surrounding this development, approval of this PUD plan should be
denied at this time even though the property is located within the I-25 MUD area. The future
viability of these operations to exist would be severely impacted by the high density of this
development.
Before you make your decision on the proposed Riverdance PUD plan for, the following
questions must be asked.
Are you as a commissioner willing to state to the would-be residents of this development
that the following issues are irrelevant?
A. There are significant odors and dust from nearby livestock operations.
B. Aerial and ground applied pesticides are used on nearby fields.
C. Law enforcement is inadequate in the area given present growth rates.
D. The St. Vrain Valley area schools are already at or near capacity.
E. Within the next five years, there will not be significant increases in property tax
mill levies or fees to support the increasing amount of services that all
governmental entities and special districts of the 1-25 MUD area will be required
to provide. EXHIBIT
802452g
Are you as a commissioner willing to state to the developer that the following issues are
irrelevant?
A. Within the next five years, there will not be significant increases in property tax
mill levies or fees to support the increasing amount of services that all
governmental entities and special districts of the I-25 MUD area will be required
to provide.
B. The developer/water district will not have a problem securing the raw water
needed to service the domestic water taps.
C. The St. Vrain Valley School District will not ask your board for a moratorium on
new building permits in the next couple of years until another bond issue is passed
to provide for the construction of more schools to service the Weld County area of
the district.
D. The new road impact fees are adequate and that some of the bond money will be
used to improve county roads surrounding the Riverdance development within the
next couple of years (i.e. WCR 13 &WCR 28).
E. The St. Vrain Sanitation District will be able to obtain all necessary approvals to
complete the expansion of its facilities (i.e. additional lagoons) in a timely manor.
While the resolution of many of these issues is not possible by your board alone, you as a board
cannot deny that these are legitimate concerns that must be addressed. As always, the private
property right of the owner/developer to develop this property must be factored in. However,
given the tremendous strain being placed on the infrastructure in this part of the county at the
present time, wouldn't it be appropriate to deny the change of zoning request until the
infrastructure issues are satisfactorily dealt with? How can the impacts on surrounding farming
operations be ignored?
While it is much too early to determine what recommendations will come the Agricultural
Adtisory Committee, dealing with urban sprawl (i.e. non-contiguous development to the central
urban area) will rank high on the list. I would hope our committee can recommend some growth
management tools which the county can use to work with the local cities and towns to insure
growth is more contiguous.
Therefore, given the location of the Riverdance proposal and the many concerns created by this
high density development, I would ask that you deny the request of zoning change, pending the
resolution of the issues discussed above.
Sincerely,
Artie Elmquist
•
copy
IHOLT
a FELSBURG&
ULLEVIG
engineering paths to transportation solutions
January 5, 2000
Mr. Frank Hempen Jr. .
Director, Weld County Public Works Department
P.Q. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758
Re: Riverdance P.U.D. Traffic Engineering Review
FHU Reference No. 98-257
Mr. Hempen:
We have completed our traffic engineering review of the traffic Impact analysis for the
Riverdance P.U.D. which is planned to be located east of the 1-25 eastern frontage road, west
of WCR 11, and south of WCR 28. The study was prepared by Eugene Coppola for
TuttleApplegate, inc., submitted December 1999:
In general,the traffic study prepared for the Riverdance P.U.D. is complete and was prepared
using the most recent trip generation and intersection capacity techniques. We offer the
following comments:
1. Trip generation information for the development, shown on page 11 of the study, is .
approximately 15 percent lower when compared with our calculations. For the office
and shopping center uses, appropriate ITE Land Use Codes were used from the'6th
Edition Trip Generation. However, average rates, instead of equations, were used to
estimate projected daily and peak hour traffic volumes. The equations yield higher
traffic volume estimates. The study analysis is conservative in that no reductions for
internal trips (between office/shopping center/residential) were considered. It is likely
that the trip generation estimates are still slightly low, even considering some reduction
for internal trips- However, the conclusions of the study are still considered valid and
a new analysis is not needed.
2. If unsignalized, the critical movements at the intersection of the Frontage Road and the
site Access Road are expected to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours,
with the exception of the westbound left-turn from the site Access Road, which is
expected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The analyses assume refuge
for one vehicle In a center two-way left-turn lane south of the intersection; this allows
the westbound left-turn movement to be made in two stages.
301.72 I.1440
fax 301.721.0831 .
thueflwcng.com
Greenwood Corporate Rua
7951 E.l,laplLwood Ave.Ste.!00
Englewood,CO 880111
EXHIBIT
czI#5a
January 5, 2000
Mr. Frank Hempen Jr.
Page 2
However,peak hour signal warrants were analyzed for this Intersection under long-term
(year 2020) total traffic conditions. The peak hour signal warrant for a major street
with a posted speed limit above 40 mph is projected to be met during both AM and PM
peak hours. Additionally,the standard peak hour signal warrant ;with no reductions for
population or speed limit) is projected to be met during the PM peak hour. Therefore,
the County may want to consider requesting a financial contribution from the applicant
toward a future signal installation.
3. The unsignalized intersection of the Frontage Road and WCR 28 is also expected to
operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours with one exception, the westbound
left-turn from WCR 28 is expected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The
analyses at this intersection also assume a center two-way left-turn lane refuge for one
vehicle. However,this intersection will be unable to function this way since it is a four-
way intersection.
Without the center two-way left-turn lane, the critical movements are projected to
operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours, with the same exception of the
westbound left-turn from WCR 28 which is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM
peak hour.
However, if the intersection of the Frontage Road and the site Access Road is •
signalized, this will create gaps in Frontage Road traffic at the intersection of the
Frontage Road and WCR 28, allowing some of the left-turns to be made during these
gaps in traffic. Therefore, it is expected that this intersection will operate adequately
with some delay to the left-turn traffic. No revisions to the study are necessary.
4. In the study, the Frontage Road is assumed to be widened to four lanes based upon
Map 2.2 of the Weld County Mixed Use Development Standards (February 1997). The
County may want to consider requesting a financial contribution from the applicant
toward the widening in proportion to the property's frontage of the roadway.
5. The following off-site intersection improvements are included in the traffic analysis as
improvements expected to be completed apart from the proposed Riverdance
development. Additionally, at each of the locations we have estimated the percent of
traffic that Is a result of the Kiverdance development.
January 5, 2000
Mr. Frank Hempen Jr.
Page 3 •
'•,•.: -r:..•�.....':.. _:I:e-'.:r.r:..:..:r"v'l,r..b:',';r' .:P,:':J^��, lllti:• ;d!h. °11fRG`. ••N:•!: 'NF,;�:..frL^'S.'y` •Gr - '" _ ..�..
y,,w.l,.t�lu u...,,;1w��.. r vJ,•lfl '.I ..w�Gt.'.�... .�1. ':T 1 �..�.. .,.V..d��t�lr• -�A.G'1^h.��„�,�:��. �:4.
i,:.:.•r::.�.i,:'.�:1:"::.:......i�M..t�;,wv'),.•M,i.�.rlt t�� .r1'•r. ili(1,h. >: �F': :��.'�
<!'''•.w1 ';,, 1' r>'^;' , - ;,•• ��P9CCiBF74f�Q��l � 1'4r>a�'1�1''6���'8'r��.,l.��")..�.
•
1 l p TLR•1r �'
.r.. r.,.r..,......1.. ....a a. r r rr f _1�:...:.•, - ::j:;.�:'I..,r At
I1.. ... r........�...... .• .n r. , .r......n.... � ...:. .�� .. G�rrpp''
Frontage Road at Sli 119 10%
second NB left-turn lane 094
SH 119 at Frontage Road 10%
second EB left-turn lane 40%
additional EB thru lane 0%
one additional WB thru lane / 0%
convert WB exclusive right-turn to thrulright-turn lane
• Frontage Road at WCR 28 15%
provide NB left-turn lane minimal
provide S8 left-turn lane 10%
Frontage Road at SH 66 auxiliary lanes 5%
provide NB left-turn lane 20%
provide NB right-turn lane 5%
provide EB right-turn lane 20%
provide WB left-turn lane 10%
New 4-lane roadway (Varna development} minimal
Widen Frontage Road (SH 119 to SH 66)
north of site Access Road 20%
south of site Access Road 45%
----—1
Improvements to CR 28 both sides of 1-25
east of I-25, intersection improvements 5%
Relocation of Frontage Road Intersection 5%
Widen SH 119 to 6-lane arterial
east of Frontage Road minimal
west of Frontage Road 15°.6
January 5, 2000
Mr. Frank Hempen Jr.
Page 4
6. The study recommends that CR 28 be paved as a two-lane collector roadway from the
east site access to the Frontage Road. However, traffic volumes related to the
Riverdance development are estimated to comprise approximately 10 percent of total
daily traffic volumes (by the year 2020) adjacent to the site and approximately 5
percent of daily volumes closer to the Frontage Road. Therefore, it may be reasonable
for the County to request a financial contribution from the applicant toward the paving
of CR 2B in proportion to the developments traffic volumes on the roadway,
if you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HALT & ULLEV1G
Debra L. Nelson, E.I. Christopher J. Fasching, P.E.
Transportation Engineer Associate
cc: Mr. Don Carroll
** TOTAL PAGE.05 **
LON
At di;MAN
O
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION ��iiQR to'
Center Complex/Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 651-8330/Fax# (303) 651-8696
E-mail: lonRmontplanning@ctlongmontco.us
Web site: hnp://www.ci.longmont.co.us
August 11, 1999
Ben Patton, Planner
Weld County Planning Department
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: CASE NUMBER Z-528 RIVERDANCE PUD
Dear Ben,
Thank you for sending the referral concerning the RiverDance PUD change of zone application
to the City of Longmont for our review and comment. The proposed PUD is located north and
adjacent to the Saint Vrain Creek and one mile north of the intersection of Interstate 25 (1-25)
and State Highway 119. This application proposes rezoning 486.75 acres from A (Agriculture)
to PUD (Residential and Commercial) to provide a range of residential densities and a
commercial area. The residential lot sizes range from 5,500 sq. ft. (patio homes) to 12,000 sq. ft.
(lakefront estate lots). Townhomes are proposed on 11 acres at a density of 8 dwelling units per
acre. The proposed commercial site is 20.07 acres. A total of 227 acres (47%) of the site is
designated as open space.
This proposed development will include; two lakes for water sports and fishing, a club house.
riding stable, swimming pool, pocket parks, wildlife viewing areas and, several miles of hiking,
biking, and equestrian trails. The application indicates that all common open space is to be
maintained by the homeowners association. The plat map shows a trail system north of the St.
Vrain Creek and encircling the development. However, the plat map does not show the
easement or right-of-way dedication along the St. Vrain Creek. To promote pedestrian
movement, the City of Longmont would suggest that Weld County request public access and
trail development along the St. Vrain Creek. As the St. Vrain River has not been studied in detail
and as this plan does not show the edge of the riparian areas, Weld County may wish to evaluate
the need to locate a trail on either side of the creek to minimize environmental impact on the
riparian areas. For your information, the City of Longmont standards and specification for trail
width and thickness are 10' wide and 6" thick.
4 ; EXHIBIT
Although pedestrian path connections from the development to the trail system are mentioned in
the applicant narrative, there is no landscaped plan attached to this referral that show these
connections. Longmont is concerned that as development is approved and built in the I-25 Mixed
Use Development (MUD) Area, Weld County provides the types and levels of services necessary
for urban development. Many of these services will need to be at levels that urban residents
expect, rather that at level currently provided to rural residents in unincorporated Weld County.
The City of Longmont has planned to provide the full range of urban services for the buildout of
the Longmont Planning Area. We have not planned on providing such services to the
development in the I-25 Mixed Use Development (MUD) Area. Given the amount and density
of residential development that is occurring and proposed in the 1-25 Mixed Use Development
(MUD) Area, the City encourages that Weld County to begin this transition and provide the
urban services that development in the 1-25 Mixed Use Development (MUD) Area requires.
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on this referral. If you have any questions
please call me at 303-651-8828 or send e-mail to philip.etiwe@ci.longmont.co.us.
Sincerely,
Philip Etiwe
Planner
cc: Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director
Cal Youngberg, Water Quality Director, Water/Wastewater Department
Steve Ransweiler, Assistant Project Manager, Parks and Recreation
Brad Schol, Planning Director
Froda Greenberg, Principal Planner
File #2051-35a
- tsi‘13C\t' ll MEMORANDUM
TO: Juli ester, Lead Planner DATE: December 30, 1999
FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator 194-III
III C SUBJECT: Z-528; River Dance PUD / Mike Siegrist
COLORADO
peps.
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal. Th s ptallik� ilianly
under the purview of the Weld County Mixed Use DevelopmentSkgef' CU) Planned Unit
Development Standards. Our comments and requirements are as follows: 30 12 2000
COMMENTS: RECEIVED
The two major transportation items to be addressed in the change of zone are a traffic impact
analysis and storm water drainage. A new traffic impact analysis for the River Dance Subdivision
was included and has new been forwarded to our traffic analysis consultant, Felsburg, Holt, and
Ullevig, for their comments and review. A Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality
Management Plan has been prepared by Tuttle Applegate. This has been reviewed, and I have
no conflict with this report. All drainage plans shall be stamped and signed by a professional
engineer.
REQUIREMENTS:
WCR 28: WCR 28 is identified on the Mixed Use Development Structural Transportation Network
Map 2.2 as a Collector status/two-lane road with a painted median. The current right-of-way is 60
feet. The developer is required to dedicate an additional 10 feet or right-of-way, which will
represent one-half of the ultimate width requirements. A Road Improvement Agreement to
construct one-half of WCR 28 adjacent to the PUD shall be completed.
An additional 10 feet of dedicated right-of-way adjacent to WCR 28 shall be placed on the plat.
A typical cross section shall reflect a Collector/two-lane road with a painted median on WCR 28,
local residential, and collector cross section with the PUD as per Figure 2.10 (MUD).
Bridge 28/9A: This bridge spans Rural Ditch#3. The applicant shall share the cost to widen this
bridge to accommodate the typical cross section identified for WCR 28. This shall be included in •
the Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement(Off Site), along with the upgrading of WCR
28. The owner of the adjacent St. Acacias Subdivision shall share the cost of this project.
Utilities: The applicant shall coordinate with Weld County and the appropriate utility companies
for relocation of any existing utilities that conflict with the widening of WCR 28.
ADA Requirement: All new development in Weld County must meet ADA requirements. These
will include, but are not limited to, sidewalk ramps at all intersections, sidewalk rest areas for streets
with grades over 5 percent, accessible parking at all public buildings, crosswalks with a maximum
1. EXHIBIT
m
i C.OZ 44 5z`7
Z-528; River Dance PUD / Mike Siegrist
December 30, 1999
vertical deflection of one-quarter inch. Please provide details of how you will address these issues
Traffic Calming: Weld County encourages the use of traffic calming features through residential
neighborhoods. Please provide an estimate of the internal traffic expected to use the roundabout
and reference the standards used to determine the radii.
Raised Median: The standard for a two-lane Collector in the Mixed Use Development zone does
not have a raised median. Your landscaping plan shows trees at the west entrance. Please
indicate where the raised median will end in your final submittal.
Traffic Impact Analysis: Felsburg, Holt&Ullevig have completed the review of the Traffic Impact
Study. With the increase in development in this area the nearby State Highways and frontage
roads will require several improvements. Please verify that CDOT does not require any financial
contribution to mitigate this developments proportional costs for these improvements.
If you have any questions, please contact Diane Houghtaling, Civil Engineer, at(970)356-4000 Ext.
3750.
pc: Z-528
z-528.cor.wpd
1 .ts6\( .440 MEMORANDUM
TO: Ben Patton, Planner DATE: September 16, 1999
FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator W
it
SUBJECT: Z-528; River Dance PUD/Mike Siegrist
COLORADO
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal. This project falls primarily under the
purview of the Weld County mixed Use Development Area (MUD) Planned Unit Development Standards. Our
comments and requirements are as follows:
COMMENTS:
the two major transportation items to be addressed in the change of zone are a traffic impact analysis and storm
water drainage. A new traffic impact analysis for the River Dance Subdivision was included and has now been
forwarded to our traffic analysis consultant, Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig for their comments and review. A
Preliminary Drainage Report and Water quality Management Plan has been prepared by Tuttle Applegate. This
has been reviewed and I have no conflict with this report. All drainage plans shall be stamped and signed by a
professional engineer.
REQUIREMENTS:
WCR 28: WCR 28 is identified on the Mixed Use Development Structural Transportation Network Map 2.2 as a
collector status/two-lane road with painted median. Current right-of-way is 60 feet. The developer is required to
dedicate an additional 10 feet or right-of-way which will represent one half of the ultimate width requirements. A
Road Improvements Agreement to construct one half of WCR 28 adjacent to the PUD shall be completed.
An additional 10 feet of dedicated right-of-way adjacent to WCR 28 shall be placed on the plat.
A typical cross section shall reflect a collector/two-lane road with painted median on WCR 28, local residential and
collector cross section within the PUD as per Figure 2.10 (MUD).
Bridge 28/9A: This bridge spans Rural Ditch #3. The applicant shall share the cost to widen this bridge to
accommodate the typical cross section identified for WCR 28. This shall be included in the Road Maintenance and
Improvements Agreement (Off Site), along with the upgrading of WCR 28. The owner of the adjacent St. Acacias
Subdivision shall share the cost of this project.
Utilities: The applicant shall coordinate with Weld County and the appropriate utility companies for relocation of
any existing utilities that conflict with the widening of WCR 28.
Traffic Impact Analysis: Weld County Public Works still has concerns that have not been addressed within the
new traffic study.
cc: Z-528
plain = EXHIBIT
t '
t
Cez #5Z3
Hello