HomeMy WebLinkAbout992489.tiff LEEBURG & ASSOCIATES
707 Hawthorn Avenue 0 Suite 207 0 Boulder,'CO 80304 0(303) 442-2428
September 29, 1999
Mr. Donald Carroll
Engineering Administrator
Weld County Public Works Department
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632-0758
Re: The Peaks @ Mtn View PUD
Dear Don:
Thank you for providing a draft Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement for the The
Peaks @ Mtn View PUD.
On September 15, 1999, The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a Change of Zone
hearing relative to the subject property. In that proceeding, driven largely by public input, the
issues of traffic and dust generation incident to construction activities arose.
Based on my recollection of the BOCC hearing, conversations with adjacent property owners,
discussions with yourself, and Mr. Eric Jerman and the review of the draft Road Maintenance and
Improvements Agreement, it is my understanding the following ISSUES prevail:
• Access to the proposed 5 lot PUD/Estate, The Peaks @ Mtn View, would be through
Carmacar Ranchette subdivision on unpaved roadways (Mountain View Street, Spruce
Drive, and Fir Avenue).
• The foregoing roads are county maintained and have not historically had any dust
abatement treatment applied either by the County or privately by Carmacar residents.
• It is unknown by the undersigned whether dust complaints have arisen in the past, but one
property owner and complainant, Mr. Charles Ballard, 1865 Mountain View Street, has
expressed concerns about present dust in both the Planning Commission and BOCC
hearings. To my knowledge, no other Carmacar residents have raised the issue.
• In the BOCC proceeding, Ms. Barbara Kirkmeyer, Commissioner, asked numerous
questions regarding construction dust.
ConSent 1 %V99 R�/
(� 992489
Q �� � 3a3
Mr. Donald Carroll
Engineering Administrator
Weld County Public Works Department
September 29, 1999
Page 2
• The undersigned, as agent for the property owner, expressed a willingness to address the
alleged dust issues, if a fair and equitable arrangement could be structured.
• Review of the draft Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement prepared by Public
Works shows the following suggested provisions:
- Dust suppression chemical application would be required not less than twice per
year on Spruce Avenue and the portion of Fir Avenue south of the proposed Peak
Lane (approximately 2,225 linear feet x 24 foot width of driven roadway)
Application would be required for an indeterminant period until the foregoing
roads are paved!!! In other words forever??
The draft agreement is expressly between Weld County and the PUD Owner.
Upon review of the ISSUES, as I understand them, the following CONCERNS are brought forth
for Public Works, Planning Service, and Board of County Commissioners consideration:
• I respectfully question whether a dust problem truly exists now and whether the 5 lot PUD
will create an untenable situation.
- For example, I am unaware that dust complaints have been tendered in the past
relative to Carmacar's roadways.
No initiative by incumbent Carmacar Ranchettes owners has been undertaken
relative to dust suppression and little or no interest exists now to create a local
improvement district to allow Carmacar owners the means to apply dust
suppression at their cost.
- Conversations with certain Fir Avenue property owners indicate they like the
current rural character of Carmacar and specifically desire the subdivision retain
non-paved roadways. Further, conversations indicate neighborhood comfort with
and support for a non-paved roadway into The Peaks @ Mtn View PUD (Peak
Lane) as opposed to paved access.
• The impact of the low density (5 lot) PUD on Carmacar Ranchettes is in my opinion,
minimal given its relationship to the level of traffic generated currently by the owners of
the 71 lots within Carmacar. An additional 5 lots represents an incremental increase of
6% plus attendant construction traffic to build Peak Lane, install the necessary water,
Mr. Donald Carroll
Engineering Administrator
Weld County Public Works Department
September 29, 1999
Page 3
natural gas, electric, and telecommunications infrastructure and construction incident to
building on the 5 lots.
• I respectfully question whether The Peaks @ Mtn View PUD represents any net increase
in fugitive dust as contrasted with dust currently generated by farming the 40 acre parcel.
Agricultural processes (plowing, discing, chiseling, harrowing, drilling, harvesting, and
hauling) are all significant dust generators. The PUD would eliminate most of the farm
operations and could represent, in fact, a net decrease!!!
• Only one person has expressed concerns about potential dust generated from the proposed
PUD.
• Diverting all construction traffic to Spruce Drive and the portion of Fir Avenue south of
Peak Lane certainly would mitigate dust issues on Mountain View, but this approach
hardly seems equitable. Why wouldn't Spruce and Fir residents oppose all traffic being
concentrated in front of their homes?? It seems more logical to split the traffic as much as
possible, thereby diluting the impact. In addition, the Spruce route is slightly longer than
the Mountain View route. Construction traffic can probably be mandated to one route or
the other, but I seriously doubt residents will pick any route, but that most convenient for
their own purposes.
• Construction traffic during the initial development of the infrastructure will inherently
generate minimal dust as that work is planned for late Fall/Winter, 1999 and early Spring,
2000. Given any sort of"normal Fall/Winter/Spring season, the moisture content of the
existing road base due to snow, snow melt, and rain, should mitigate dust generation.
• Further construction traffic incidental to building on the 5 lots in all likelihood will be
greatly diffused over many months and in all probability over years, as new owners will
build at their own pace.
• Given the minimal impact of the 5 lots (6%) on total Carmacar traffic generated by the
existing 71 lots, new dust management initiatives may be a less desirable approach than no
dust management. It is my understanding that the County regularly blades the Carmacar
road now and at least until significant chemical saturation occurs, every blading lessens or
destroys the chemical treatment. The dilemma, therefore, being if dust chemicals are
applied, the roads may not be maintained as regularly, resulting in potholes, washboard,
etc. or the parties paying for the treatment may experience unreasonable costs.
The foregoing are not brought forth to create an adversarial relationship between Weld County,
Carmacar owners and the PUD owner, but to sincerely express CONCERN.
Mr. Donald Carroll
Engineering Administrator
Weld County Public Works Department
September 29, 1999
Page 4
• Is there really going to be a problem?
• Is dust treatment the solution if there is a problem?
• Is the suggested solution fair and equitable?
The following are, therefore, respectfully PROPOSED:
• The developer/owner in any contract documents will encourage contractors to respect the
20 mile per hour speed limits in Carmacar and to minimize as much as possible,
ingress/egress traffic to and from the PUD site.
• Similarly, the contractors will be encouraged to split traffic between Mountain View and
Spruce.
• Under a Road Maintenance and Improvement Agreement, at the direction of Weld County
Public Works, if necessary and reasonable, due to dry roadway conditions during the
initial construction period (roadways and utility construction), the owner/developer will
apply dust suppression chemicals on Mountain View or Spruce and that portion of Fir
accessing either Spruce or Mountain View as required for the period from construction
start until the roadway and utility infrastructure has been completed and accepted by the
appropriate entity and/or in or ready to be placed in service.
• The owner/developer is most willing to contribute and share fairly, equitably and
proportionally in any dust suppression initiatives undertaken by Weld County and/or
Carmacar property owners. Said commitment will be included in The Peaks @ Mtn View
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) under which the Homeowners
Association and future residence must operate and abide.
Don, thank you for your consideration of these thoughts and ideas. I am available to respond to
questions and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Linn T. Leeburg
cc: Karen Libin
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning Services
/�Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, BOCC
Hello