HomeMy WebLinkAbout992433.tiff From: jmfolsom <jmfolsom@ecentral.com>
To: CENTDOMAIN.CENTPOST(GVAAD)
Date: 9/25/99 4:38pm
Subject: Del Camino Junction Business Park
Glen:One wonders why County government spent time and money on this
project when it was obvious that it should have been referred to
Firestone government under the IGA. Did Bruce or Lee advise that the r>
site still fell under the pre-parole negotiations'? John ITI c�.,' ; r ,i
ST. VRAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS w 1
7050 Loma Linda Ct., Longmont CO 80504 303 833 2992
September 24, 1999
Board of Trustees & Rick Patterson, Mayor o?
Town of Firestone NO •
150 Buchanon
Firestone CO 80520
Subject: Del Camino Junction Business Park
Ladies and gentlemen:
We have the following comments relating to the above project:
The project is in that area covered by the Uniform Baseline Standards
Agreement between the Town and Weld County. We would hope that town
government will strictly enforce the terms of this Agreement. There were
variances from these Standards proposed when this project was being
considered by Weld government. If this Agreement is to be given any
credence in the future, its provisions should be followed. Particular
attention should be paid to enforcement of the set back regulations for
the lots on the west side of the frontage road. County government*s the
excuse for permitting a variance from the Agreement set backs was that
since the site had been zoned [for the preparole prison] before the
above Agreement that lesser set backs could be grandfathered.
In the application to the County it was stated that the applicant
proposes to: *encourage a high quality architectural style of
development*. We hope this will be realized in designs similar to those
along the east frontage road south of WCR22 rather than a repetition of
the tasteless *design* of some of the structures on the south side of
SH119 and in the area of the intersection of 1-25 and SH66. There is an
opportunity to develop the east side of the Del Camino interchange in a
manner that will not repeat the mistakes made on the west side. Already,
unfortunately, there have been proposed the usual gas station and fast
food uses in this area.
State law [CRS34-1-301]requires that there be no development on sites
containing commercial mineral deposits that would interfere with their
extraction. It should be determined whether such deposits exist at the
site. The Subsurface Exploration Report and the Sand, Gravel and Quarry
Aggregate Resources Colorado Front Range Counties, Colorado Geological
Survey ---indicate that commercial grade sand and gravel deposits lie on
the property. We can find no analysis in the application materials
J \
�� 992433
submitted to the County determining that mining is not economically
feasible. In addition, a letter from Candace L. Jocham of 1/11/89
states: *It is therefore not clear what Empire*s conclusions were
regarding the economic feasibility of mining on this site*. And a letter
of 12/22/98 from Celia Greenman questions the lack of proof in the EEC
report that the deposits are not economic to mine [see also
CRS30-28-101, required geologic studies]. As mining takes priority over
any other use [CRS34-1-301], this matter should be resolved by
impartial, expert opinion.
Computability of this project with the proposed regional park to the
north and the legacy trail project should be required with respect to
aesthetic considerations and integration with the proposed legacy trail
system.
Signage should be strictly restricted to identification of building
occupants from the frontage and commercial park roads and not from the
interstate.
Although access permits have been obtained from CDOT, Firestone
government still has the power to limit access to the properties to the
which is appropriate and reasonable. Five accesses from the frontage
road within 1600 feet is excessive, particularly considering [1] the
future use of the frontage road will be more as a rural arterial than as
a road solely providing access to adjacent properties, and [2] the
proximity of CR24-1/2 and the future Del Camino Parkway. It would be
more in keeping with the intent of the State Highway Access Code, given
the road*s Category R-B rural highway function [3.9], to access the
development from CR 24-1/2 on the north and the future Del Camino
Parkway toward the south. This would avoid any direct accesses to the
development from the east side of the frontage road. One access to the 3
lots on the west side of the frontage road would be sufficient to access
those lots. In addition, ROW dedicated by the developer should be
adequate for the future 4 laning of the Del Camino Parkway arterial.
Future traffic volumes and uses of the frontage road must be considered
at this time. Once an access is granted it cannot be taken away.
The above comments are based on the application materials submitted to
the County.
We hope these comments will be considered as positive input and assist
you in reviewing the subject application. We are pleased that the
development of the site will be as part of the urban development of a
municipality as required by statute. It is unfortunate that it took the
filing of a lawsuit to prevent the County from developing the site in
contradiction to agreements it had entered into and adding to urban
sprawl it is creating by approving development under its MUD plan.
Very truly yours,
St.Vrain Concerned Citizens
John S. Folsom
EC: Board of County Commissioners
Please make this letter part of record at the hearings for the Del Camino Business Park
Hello