HomeMy WebLinkAbout990422.tiff WELD COUNTY
ST. VRAIN CONCE ;1 CITWENS
7050 Lama Linda C[.
Longmont CO 80504 ii
303 833 2992 CLERK
1 - , February 24, 1999
Ms Monica Daniels-Mika
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley CO 80631
Subject: Ademar Construction batch plant USR
Dear Ms Daniels-Mika:
We would like to make the following comments relating to the above application:
Information should be obtained as to the nature of the equipment and structures necessary
and the quantities involved for the recycling of wastes into road base as stated in the
"Answers to USR application". This is a noisy, dust generating operation if on a large
scale.
Acceleration and turn lanes should be provided by applicant on 1-25 frontage road given
the anticipated volume of slow moving trucks that will be using the site. CDOT should be
alerted to any improvements that might be within the needed right of ways for the
improvements scheduled in the near future for I-25 in this area.
The applicant should provide information as to the length of time the "portable" batch
plant will be in operation at the site.
The applicant should provide information as to the amount of water necessary for
operation of the plant as the Little Thompson water district letter implies that additional
capacity is not readily available.
The site lies within the MUD structural land use category of "Employment. Center"
defined as "Any use of research, repairing, manufacturing, fabricating, processing,
assembling, or storage nature as long as the use is conducted entirely within enclosed
buildings"[italics and underlining for emphasis]. Confirm that the batch plant and other
operations applied for would meet this requirement of the MUD Development Standards.
Thank you for providing this information for our review.
Very truly yours,
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens
hn S. Folsom
�,- BOCC. )
k
i PS:'tlease make this letter part of the record of any hearing relating to this USR
application.
o1
k.. AA-9y 990422
WELD COUNTY
fly-it 4,
John S. Folsom f°`. " rr? 29 AM 9: 13
PC: BOCC
Post Script to the County Commissioners: CLERK
Based on our previous experience relating to the Wfirties of'the Board of County
Commissioners, it is probable this project will be approved. Our objections to this project
are essentially two fold. It is inappropriate to permit the use of high speed motorized boats
at this site, which will constitute a public nuisance to area residents. Permitting residential
development in the flood plain by the County government consents to the establishment of
an unnecessary danger to public safety. There is more than adequate land outside the flood
plain for development. The rights of property owners to develop their land for its highest
and most profitable use should not extend to uses for which the land is not suitable.
JSF
Please make this letter part of the record of any subsequent hearings relating to the subject
project
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
Greeley CO 80631
Subject: Lighthouse Cove request for PUD change of zone
Dear Ms Daniels-Mika:
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.
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. Vrain Concerned Citizens
Hello