HomeMy WebLinkAbout991348.tiff ST. VRAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
February 24, 1999
Ms Monica Daniels-Mika, Director
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 North 17th Avenue Weld County Planning Dept.
Greeley CO 80631
FEB 2 6 1999
Subject: Lighthouse Cove request for PUD change of zone
Dear Ms Daniels-Mika: RECEIVED
We have the following comments on the subject application:
1. In the PUD Change of Zone Application form under OVERLAY DISTRICTS there is
no mention of the property being in a flood plain overlay zone. The application should be
subject to all requirements for inclusion in such a zone [see below].
2. The referral response from the fire district should be scrutinized closely as there is only
one road projected to give access to the proposed residences. The road around the lake is
not specified as being of construction necessary for use by fire equipment and does not
provide additional access from a public highway. Additionally, it should be confirmed that
the 50 foot radius of the cul d'sac is sufficient for use by fire equipment.
3. The appropriateness of the proposed use of the lake for water skiing is questionable.
The craft towing the skiers typically is of a type that generates high noise levels that would
be offensive to surrounding property owners and destructive to habitat, the preservation of
which the applicant features prominently in the proposal. There should be commitments as
to maximum noise levels permitted, a study of wave and similar affects on habitat and
provision for periodic monitoring actual conditions in the future.
4. A statement is made in the submission that "the proposed development is consistent
with the definition of Limiting Site Factors". The definition of Limiting Site Factors is
contained in 2.2.5 of the MUD Plan Development Standards. It does not include
residential development as being an approved use. Even the usual `escape' provision in the
paragraph does not apply, as residential use would `damage or be damaged by the
constraining site factors' [flooding and habitat damage, for instance]. Developers
consistently attempt to defeat the intent of Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision
ordinances in order to maximize the amount of profit to be extracted from the land. We
would hope that the County administration would protect its citizens by adhering to the
intents and language of these ordinances.
5. The additional right of way along WCR7 dedicated by the applicant should be such that
an 120 foot wide right of way would be available when the anticipated widening of this
road to four lanes for an arterial with additional acceleration and turning lanes materializes
without necessitating the expense of future condemnation.
6. The developer should be required to provide construction of turning and acceleration
lanes at the access road to the property.
EXHIBIT
991348
7. It is stated in the application that water pollution will not occur. This is questionable,
with the use of motorized boats on the lake.
8. The required report should be obtained from a study by the Army Corps of Engineers
as to the effects of this development on wetlands.
9. A study should be submitted as to ability of the lake to provide for water runoff from
the developed properties and road, rather than accepting the anecdotal estimate by the
applicant.
10. The statement that the existing lake will remain a wildlife habitat with its use by
motorized boats is questionable.
11. The developer should be required as a condition of approval to meet the requirements
of the St. Vrain Valley School District for land or cash in lieu to partially defray the costs
of additional student load resulting from residential construction at the site.
12. The statement that law enforcement will be provided by the County sheriff's dept.
only brings to one's attention that the said dept. is not now staffed adequately to meet the
current needs of serving the area.
13. Provision should be made to enforce the maintenance of the private road on the
property to county standards.
14. If permitted, the use of boats and water recreation should be limited, as an approval
condition, to the residents of the subdivision.
15. The use of motor boats is not consistent with the intent, accessory uses or uses by
special review of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance [section 32, Residential Districts].
16. The use of motor boats is not compatible with existing or future area land uses.
17. The applicant should meet all the requirements of section 53 of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to construction in a flood plain including obtaining a Flood Hazard Overlay
District Development Permit. The applicant should be required to provide information to
revise the FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Weld County maps that the effects of this
development will produce. Any changes in topography of the flood plain resulting from
this development will affect the validity of the FEMA study in respect to its limits and flow
characteristics. Of itself this development will probably not have significant effect on the
FEMA studies. However, taken with the number of other applications being received
proposing to alter flood plain land, flooding characteristics could be crucially altered.
18. There is no mention in the proposal of raising the elevation of building lots above that
of the estimated 100 year flood elevation. The typical increase to one foot above the 100
year flood elevation does not provide adequate assurance of protection against flooding.
19. The applicant should be required to state what safety provisions will be made relating
to the use of the proposed dock and recreational lake.
20. Specific terms of the homeowners association maintenance of the open space should
be stated by the applicant.
We submit these comments in the expectancy that they may assist you in evaluating the
subject application. We appreciate being given the opportunity to review new proposals
for changes in our area.
Very truly yours,
St. Vr,in Cc ern$ Citiz
/et//V yJ
(/Jf// sr,. , /1-‘,./✓P�./ .0/
(a. 7 / /.
i
Weid County Planning Dept.
_r. I
FEB 19 1999
RECEIVED 973
cny�7nh,go d*/
I
. , lam. X63 / IIII
A7-7. Sae-14- 1'aa.eks+actt, eitt.n..v4i,• .
:
4ma,cw,41 LA):c is c D..-4.-b if l 499
,, --1',R.u..< <.w t-k '1 Z- 62.2.
r-_ I . 'MR loock.� \:LA Qv,.-et 2 Ckat,,,t t -N a1-
,•-• Lo (a-v... lb_of.nrt'a d LA'1 1.1O_ c�-L4& b.ua t
oin.e-wnei ak 00 ��
•._ , •=.7. *1/4' '3"-d-.D (101 S - n/a„rk. ,
1
. 00
ca , s v mn TLx .- on .� llio aicza, n11 to `t4 a. 7,i2rn¢c
` ..'.9 k . 1),)o1.x� ScNn` ca\-1 ..p C0.i,FVz ft-Lcs Cwta.Q ?
-- 4. 341.0..,,, tel,x k s a %4 U).1-
bus2 .3 c-a.n _ 6`L Ca-a.v,
S: Ji loot) C.2.4.-44-0-- _ �.-,.-�-.- tik-a e <. , -Q1.,..a�
-- -A Lua 2�, O...A..).)".„ fitA,aiu,, - C., Want). /Jdw -
`' ate. 3O cJ „ ai.e -Ln)
. r
G. >nq :<, floe 7 C.o 0- rnoj , ph- J.,- -1
• `2 3-Oe
r
ah. Ut.4 o 3-to&A ..Lu u96--v—,I
t./ D4 le a/ (2e9-7e—"e e�
7 r
ett-1 c.s te:-.7:154 ii(g;2:4)
1'
-T` 9913417
4
,...H.)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
I PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
(970) 352-6312
CFAX
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
March 1, 1999
Carl & Mary Jo Reuth
9735 WCR 7
Longmont, Colorado 80504
RE: Z-522 Lighthouse Cove
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Reuth:
Thank you for your letter received February 19, 1999. Your letter raises several concerns which
are generally, and more appropriately, addressed through staff's review and recommendation to
the Planning Commission. However, since I am still waiting for referral agencies to comment, I
do not have my recommendation completed at this time.
Thank you for your comments and please call me if you have any questions. The Planning
Commission hearing date has been scheduled for April 6, 1999 at 1:30 p.m.
Additionally, Shani Eastin, the applicant's representative, has also indicated that you may
contact her if you have questions for the applicant. She can be reached at the address or phone
number below.
Sincerely,
Cred
Scott Ballstadt
Planner
cc: Don LaFaver
Shani Eastin, TuttleApplegate, Inc.
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304
Denver, Colorado 80233
(303)452-6611
EXHIBIT
I aS
Hello