HomeMy WebLinkAbout971738.tiffzt"\-
Town of Firestone
150 Buchanan • P.O. Box 100 • Firestone, CO • 80520-0100 • (303) 833-3291
June 17, 1997
Mayor Edward Tagliente
Board of Trustees
Town of Frederick
P.O. Box 435
Frederick, CO 80530
Re: Proposed Hamilton Noname Creek Estates Annexation No..1
and Annexation No. 2 to the Town of Frederick
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Town of Firestone respectfully objects to the proposed Hamilton
Noname Creek Estates Annexation No. 1 and Annexation No. 2 to the
Town of Frederick, which are again before the Town Board tonight
for an annexation hearing. The Town's objections, many of which we
have voiced previously, include the following:
1. The parcels to be annexed are within the Town of Firestone's
municipal service area and primary growth area.
2. Annexations by Frederick of properties north of Road 20
represents poor regional planning. These annexations are at
odds with the Town of Firestone's position --and County
Commissioners previously expressed views --that Road 20 is a
natural dividing line between the two municipalities. Also,
these annexations to Frederick do not foster the objectives of
the Interim Coordinated Planning Agreement, including the
objective to "achieve maximum efficiency and economy in the
process of development." They also violate Frederick's policy
of encouraging infill development, as stated in Policy 1.2 of
its Comprehensive Plan.
3. The parcels to be annexed are adjacent to Road 20 and Road 13,
which the County Commissioners by voluntary petition annexed
to Firestone. Given that these are Firestone streets, the
proposed annexations and the Frederick boundary are not
"reasonably contiguous in fact" as contemplated by the Interim
Coordinated Planning Agreement. Further, the owners and
Frederick have not adequately considered the impacts of
proposed development on the Town of Firestone road system.
4. Despite some additional efforts since the prior public
hearing, Frederick has not yet adequately addressed the
��ii technical and financial aspects of providing utilities and
l.2/,aelle:d other services, such as potable water supply, fire flows,
,%'/'7i) '/d.5//7
971738
Mayor and Trustees
Town of Frederick
June 17, 1997
Page 2
sanitary sewer service (including any necessary lift
stations), stormwater drainage, road improvements, and police
protection. For example, the Annexation Impact Reports state
"the financing of all utility extensions will be the
responsibility of the developer." The reports fail to state
that the proposed water service for the property will be
financed with an initial $50,000 contribution from the Town,
with the Town being last in line for recovery of its
contribution. Such a water service arrangement is not
economical and is in direct conflict with statements in the
Comprehensive Plan concerning public improvements.
5. As a second example, it appears sewer service issues are not
yet adequately addressed. The parcels are not yet within any
sanitation district. The Tri-Area District has stated that
service to it would require a lift station. It is still not
clear whether this District would allow lift stations if the
parcels were included in this District, and further, whether
the state would grant site approval for such a facility.
6. As a final example, it remains uncertain whether all utility
and service providers are aware of, or have made service
commitments in light of, the densities stated in the
Annexation Impact Reports. As stated in our last letter, an
early mailing by the cwner to certain districts and utility
providers included a map showing only four parcels to be
created. This is a far lesser density than that proposed in
the Annexation Impact Reports. However, the comment letters
of the Carbon Valley Recreation District and the School
District suggest they may not yet be aware of the densities
the Town is apparently supporting.
7. The land uses proposed in the Annexation Impact Reports appear
to violate the Town of Frederick's Comprehensive Plan. The
Plan's Land Use and Public Facilities Map (October 11, 1996)
identifies the parcels for siting of a high school, middle
school and elementary school. The Impact Reports make nc
mention of school use=_.
8. The Annexation Impact Reports still do not contain an draft of
the annexation agreement.
9. It does not appear than there exists an annexation plan which
contains all information required by C.R.S. §31-12-105(1)(e).
In addition to the objections listed above, the Town reserves the
right to raise additional objections at the hearing, and to object
to matters raised or made known at or after the hearing. The Town
Mayor and Trustees
Town of Frederick
June 17, 1997
Page 3
requests that this letter be made a part of the record for the
public hearing on these annexations.
At a most basic level, the Town of Frederick should ask whether
these proposed annexations conform to its own Comprehensive Plan
and benefit the citizens of Frederick. Frederick's admitted
strategy is to only annex properties that meet these criteria. We
believe Frederick's annexation of these parcels will not meet these
criteria and will only generate undesirable impacts and the
inefficient provision of utilities and services.
The Town of Firestone respectfully requests the Town of Frederick
deny the requests for annexation or, at a minimum, delay action on
the petitions until additional issues concerning services and land
use issues can be discussed and resolved among the interested
parties. The Town of Firestone strongly believes such an effort
would foster stronger intergovernmental relationships and lead to
smart, coordinated responses to the burgeoning growth in our area.
Sincerely,
Rick Paterson
Mayor
cc: Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Donald Sandoval, Division of Local Government
Hello