HomeMy WebLinkAbout980547.tiff DEL CatMINO EAST
1998 77 24 ;1 9. 37
February 19, 1998 CLERK
Mr. Rick Patterson
TO THE Eat. :. -
Mayor, Town of Firestone
Firestone Town Hall
P.O. Box 100
Firestone, Colorado 80520
Re: Annexation of Del Camino East
Dear Rick:
As a result of the meeting that we had last night, I thought it might be useful to summarize the
major issues facing the possible annexation of our property to the town of Firestone.
1. The land uses as zoned in the county would stay substantially the same. We agreed that we
might offer you some alternatives to the RV use, possibly home occupation single family.
We can discuss this further if the larger issue of water service can be resolved so we can
proceed.
2. The Del Camino Parkway as shown on the approved plat would be subject to change, in the
event that the town of Frederick does not require the land owners to the south to continue the
road as an arterial. I understand that on Wednesday night, the Mayor of Frederick confirmed
that the road will not go through. This would mean that it will likely serve as a minor
collector giving us more access to the road, and with less right of way. These changes would
be reflected on the preliminary plat that we present to the town.
3. It appears to be a fact now that the Del Camino Parkway will not go forward as an arterial
and that we would be allowed sufficient access to it, therefore, we would be able to reduce
the number of driveways shown on the approved plat.
4. Finally, we discussed the issue of water service. It is true that the city of Firestone does not
have a water moratorium in place at this time. It is also true that you have confirmed with us
that an agreement exists between the town and Central Weld Water which could limit the
additional water service to the town to the equivalent of 50—55 residential taps per year. As
you are aware, this agreement does not affect land in the county.
By annexing to the town we would be compelled to share a small portion of the 50—55 taps with
all of the other developers presently in the town starting projects. Of course,this would make it
impossible for us to sell or develop the property; nor will any lenders finance our property with
such restrictions on water. In addition,those fortunate developers in our area that are not
annexed, would be able to develop without restraint, giving them a wholly unfair advantage over
anyone compelled to annex to the town.
Post offic" &Bow3466 • Boulder• Colorado-. 80307
(719) 495-1800 • law(719) 495-3248
i c, /ov/4e' do: "Li' L./) 980547
l
In conclusion, I reaffirm that I will make a good faith effort to annex to the city. I believe we
agree on all the main issues,and that it would be in our best interest to develop in the city. I also
believe that the town council and the planning staff have been very cooperative with us.
The only issue that will make annexation impossible is the inability of the city to give us a firm
guarantee that we will be able to have water available to us in sufficient quantity to develop our
property in a consistent and competitive fashion. I am sure that you understand that we cannot be
party to an annexation agreement that does not guarantee us continuous water service or contains
any provisions which make us a party to rationing of water taps.
I hope that the city will be able to respond to this issue promptly, and with a plan for resolution of
the water iss .
Sin ere
Rus Green
Del Camino East
RG/al
Cc: Barb Brunk, Rocky Mountain Consultants
Michael Giddings, Sun Communities
Weld County—Board of County Commissioners
Shani Eastin, Weld County
Monica Daniels Mika, Weld County Planning Director
Larry Keuter, Atty.
Drew Shelton, Weld County Department of Transportation
Laura Motley
Hello