The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutTBP 1996-11-01 . . TOWN OF FRASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726.5491 FAX Line: (970) 726-5518 TOWN BOARD AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1996,3:00 p.m. 1. Roll Call 2. Open Forum 3. Maryvale FPDP 4. Board Choice. MEETING SCHEDULE REMINDER November 6th: Town Board regular meeting November 13th: Planning Commission regular meeting November 20th: Town Board regular meeting ýÿ . . TOWN OF FRASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Line: (970) 726-5518 Manager's Briefing: October 30,.1996 Jeffhas requested a special meeting Friday, November 1, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. Others have requested that the meeting last no longer than one and one-half hours. This packet contains both confidential and open documents (the confidential items are marked), but the meeting has not been identified as "executive session." Rod McGowan will be present and if the Board deems it appropriate to go into executive session, you may do so to confer with your attorney. See you Friday! ýÿ OCT-23-1996 09: 12 FRON Be.!'l TO. 7265518 P.02 . , i (;/.'/rIUII .;,II.i,,"J LLC .s .m" l""Ulg o . ~(f.J.r;;:tOOf7)i!~ 170!l Brlj"du,i.l (;rlll,',h Mal:oI,~tn""/1 ( "1 ..,",; " I, ,,, . r'~J I t Suile 400 111,11'0/-'-1 ,\'IoI/)'Ji,1 Denur, ell/,midl! S0190 Nta/ Bft",~ eMIII/litl!; tr OCT 2 2 1996 Iii 30HHO, 2890 lippr./hil/ F..x JU3,860,/809 L..,..~_~_ .,.' _.. ....., --'_"..,..' "----./' tH. "'" L. ',';.1 ~'. .1."~I~ ......:.' . ,. .. '", ~. .. ,'.. .-.....,...... .. " C L A R I 0 N October 21, 1996 Rod McGowan, Esq, VIA TEI~ECOPY Attorney for the Town of Fraser Box 500 SUBJECT TO Granby J CO 80446 A TTORNEY~CLIENT PRIVILEGE Dear Mr. McGowan: This letter is in response to Mayor Johnson's letter of October 16 requesting that Clarion Associates review the MaryVale FPDP filing as to its completeness vis-a-vis the October 15 filing deadline stipulated in the Annexation Agreement for the MaryVale Property. We have now reviewed the binder of submission items for Planning Area 28 as a whole, and our comments on the completeness of that filing are set forth in this letter, Our comments will be organized into two sections: (1) compliance with the requirements of the Annexation Agreement ("AA"); (2) compliance with the list of filings required by the PD Ordinance ("PDQ"), and (3) additional considerations, In each case, we have focused on the completeness of the filing -- not the quality or substance of the materials included, In addition, we have not focused on items that were supposed to be submitted in written fonn but were instead submitted in graphic form, or vice versa. We have tried to focus on the question of whether the FPDP submission, taken as a whole, includes all of the required elements, We also re-emphasize that we are not presenting this letter as a legal opinion to the Town of Fraser. Clarion Associates is a consulting firm and is not engaged in the practice of law in the state of Colorado, and our comments are presented to assist you in evaluatirig the sufficiency of the filings, We understand that you will be reviewing these comments and passing them on to the Fraser Town Council. 1. Compliance with the tefllls of the Annexation Agreement. a, Section 4.03 of the AA requires the owner to submit preliminary design drawings and documents for the water system for the Property (which is defined as all of the land covered by the AA) in adequate detail for Fraser to evaluate adequacy and confonnity to the Water Plan, prior to filing the FPDP, It is clear that this requirement is not satisfied by the original Water Plan itself, that it does not depend on wheth~r the owner has requested water service from the Town, and that it must covc:r the whol~ MaryVale development. While the FPDP submission does include a layout map from the 1995 Water Plan and certain maps from the 1996 Water System Analysis, these may not be adequate to constitute "preliminary design drawings" for the entire Property. We recommend that , you contact a water system engineer to discuss whether the submitted drawings meet that standard. Attorney-Client Privilege Page 1 Chhil,gu :\JiillillL (~iJi...:: ~.) E.,1iI ILd.r IJt;" 5/,/1; I (l,ll; ('l.i"lgQ, III;'",,, (,06')/ H) i~rJ, " ýÿ 00-23-1996 139: 13 FROH 8CI'1 TO. 7265518 P,C13 . . . , If they do not, and if the owner has not submitted such drawings and documents previously, this would be a significant gap in required filings. b, Section 5.03 of the AA requires the owner to submit similar preliminary design drawings and documents for the sanitary sewer system for the entire r-,.1aryVale development. The comments in subsection a, above apply here as well, and we suggest that you contact a sanitation system engineer to discuss whether the submitted drawings meet the required standard. c, Section 4.04 of the AA requires that, concurrently with the FPDP filing, the owner must submit substantially complete design drawings and docwnents for the water system required to serve Planning Area 28, a development schedule, probable water flow requirements, cost estimates tor the system and connection to the existing Fraser system, and hydraulic and functional analyses of the combined systems, 'Joe documents contained in the FPOP show centerline geometry, probable water flow requirements, and hydraulic and functional analyses of the combined systems, However, they these items may not be adequate to constitute "substantially complete design drawings" and do not appear to include a development schedule for the water improvements. We recommend that you contact a water system engineer to discuss whether the submitted drawings meet that standard, If they do not, and if the owner has not submitted such drawings and documents previously, this would be a significant gap in required filings. Finally, the Water System Analysis prepared by P.R Fletcher Associates states that in order to preserve a 3,500 gpm fire flow to the storage units, certain tanks, booster pumps, larger pipes, or other improvements would have to be installed. It is not clear whether substantially complete design drawings for those elements have been submitted. d, Section 5.04 of the AA requires the owner to submit similar "substantially complete design drawings and documents" for the sanitary sewer system ti.)r Planning Area 28. The comments in subsection c. above apply here as well, and we suggest that you contact a sanitation system engineer to discuss whether the submitted drawings meet the required standard. 2. Compliance with lhe tenns of the PD Ord~. OIbe PD~ states that the FPDP filing must include all of the information required in the POP in its finalized, detailed form. Since we do not have the full text of the POP available to us, we asswne that Fraser is satisfied that finalized, detailed versions of all those documents have now been submitted as they relate to Planning Area 28. Similarly, Section 13-3-12(7)(c)(ii)(f) of the PDO requires that the Owner submit "any new items not submitted with the Preliminary Development Plan". Since the FPDP does not include any such submission (except for references to materials concerning the new annexation and Ordinance 225), we assume that the Owner feels there are no new items to submit, and that Fraser agrees with that point. You may want to review any actions taken regarding the property during the last 10 years and consider whether there are any new items that should have been submitted for either the original property or the newly annexed property. a, Section 13-3-12(7)(c)(ii)(b) of the PDO requires that the Owner submit information about the total amount of public and private open space and a separate calculation of usable open space, The FPDP submission states that there will be no dedicated public open space, that private open space includes all those areas not covered by buildings, and that the open space shall not include ball fields, etc., but does not include any calculation of what portion is "usable" open space. Attorney-Client Privilege Page 2 OCT -23-19'36 09: 15 FRO/') Bel') TO. '7265518 P,04 . . ., . b. Section 13-3-12(7)(c)(ii)(d) of the PDO requires that the Owner submit physiographic and environmental studies regarding groundwater conditions, and we were not able to find such information in the studies submitted. If the owner has not submitted such drawings and documents previously, this would be a significant gap in required filings. c, Section 13-3-12(7)(c)(ii)(I) of the PDO requires that the Owm~r submit a statement that integrates pertinent elements of any pre-annexation and development agreements, contracts, etc., previously negotiated with the town. No such statemcnt has been presentcd -- merely a statement that such documents exist. The purpose of this requirement was probably to facilitate the evaluation of all development requirements of the POP regardless of which document they originated in, The applicant's failure to integrate key provisions of the AA -- particularly sections 4,03, 4.04,5.03,5.04, 7.02, and Article XI among others -- makes evaluation of the FPDP more difficult and constitutes a failure to meet submission requirements, d. Section 13-3-12(7)(c)(ii)(j) of the PDO requires that the Owner submit a plan that estimates the number of employees needed to serve all or portions of the development and how they will be provided housing. The FPDP submission states that both the storage units and residential units will be managed through existing private firms, rather than on-site employees, and that no on-site housing will be needed. 11lis submission appears to be incomplete, since the addition of 41 residential units to the area housing base will almost certainly require some hiring of additional personnel by existing management companies, it is possible to apply industry ratios to determine how many additional employees those companies will need, and those employees will need housing somewhere. The submission requirement was apparently intended to assist the Town in predicting and managing demand for support housing for new development, and the failure of the FPDP submission to include any calculations and to consider off-site housing demand makes this submission incomplete, e. Section 13-3-12(7)(c)(iii)(g) of the PDO requires that the Owner describe the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the planned development. The FPDP submission mentions treatment of the western and southern edge. but does not address the northeastern edge along the railroad right of way, Elsewhere in the materials, the Owner presumes the retention of a mesh fence along that boundary, but that may not qualifY as a .'treatment" under Fraser's standards. The failure of this submission to address all of the perimeter makes it incomplete. f. Section 13-3-12(7)(c)(Hi)(h) of the PDO requires that the Owner submit quantitative data for all "previously agreed upon design standard negotiable items". Section 13-3-12(8)(a) indicates that density is a design standard negotiable item to be expressed in terms of residential or commercial residential units per acre (gross) on an entire site and/or on individual development parcels or as floor to area ratios for commercial office, and industrial uses. The FPDP submission includes both the commercial site area and commercial square footage, but does not appear to contain a calculation of the floor-to-area ratio. g, Section 13-3-12(7)(c)(iii)(k) of the PDO requires that the Owner submit final engineering plans for private roads and for points of access and designs for intersections with and modifications of existing public rights of way. TIle FPDP submittals include centerline geometry for the private roads in the development and CR 72 adjacent to it, but do not include information on grades, Attorney-Client Privilege Page 3 OCT-2.3-1996 09: 1E. FR. BCI'I TO. 7265~,18 P,05 . ~ materials,drainage crossings, or other materials often included in final engineering plans. The level of information included on this topic appears to be incomplete. 3. Additional Considerations a, Article X of the Annexation Agreement states that 4' , , ,any application for FPDP approval shall comply with Articles IV, V, VI, VII, VIU, and IX of this Agreement, the Subdivision Regulations, and the PD Ordinance," Article VI (regarding Other Utilities) also states that the Owner shall comply with the subdivision regulations for any Planning Area or portion thereof. TIlis raises the question of whether the FPDP submission must include the information required for a subdivision filing even when no subdivision of the land is expected in the near future, Interestingly, Article X of the AA also provides tor legal division of the MaryVale Property into the various Planning Areas through a subdivision exemption plat process rather than a formal subdivision. This opens up the possibility that the FPDP could omit filing information necessary for a subdivision of the land, that the property could then be sold through the exemption process, and that the resulting development would never be further subdivided, Under this scenario, no subdivision filing information would ever be required, which might create a conflict with the above requirement that all PO developments comply with both the PDO and the subdivision regulations, Should Fraser decide that Article X requires FPDP submissions to include information required for subdivision filings, there will be additional areas where the MaryVal~ application is incomplete. For example, Sections 3.6.2 and 6.8.5 requires that condominiums, townhomes, and apartments have a location for the storage and placement of trash on the site, and that such storage areas be completely screened from public view and readily accessible for pick-up. No such area is shown in the FPDP submission materials, In addition, Article VI of the subdivision regulations require that sites be designed pursuant to certain standards related to steep slopes, geological hazards, public ways, public phones, erosion controls, fire hydrants, and other items, Many of these items are not shown or discussed in the FPDP filings, b. All of the above information should be read in light of Fraser's normal patterns of accepting and processing development applications, If any of the shortcomings in the FPDP submission discussed above are items that Fraser would not require of another developer in the same circumstances, then it should not require them of MaryVale, On the other hand, if Fraser usually requires those items to be submitted before treating a development application as complete, then the same should be true for MaryVale. If some of the items above are routinely required by Fraser, and those items were not submitted prior to October 15, then the FPDP was incomplete as of that date, Please do not hesitate to call us about the infOJmation contained in this letter and let us know if we can do anything else to assist you. Sincerely, O~t. ~~ Donald L. Elliott, Vice President cc: Mayor Jeff Johnson Attorney-Client Privilege Page 4 ýÿ 1 .I, , . . BAKER, CAZIER AND McGOWAN rCJ4 ~ ~ vt; ~ alP- admJtd ~ Of I'Ron.sSION!\L CORPORATIONS li2,1!I5 U,S, JIIGIIWAY ,10 EAST BOX 500 JOliN L. BAKt:R. P.C, GRAN BY. COLORADO 80446 STANLEY W, CAZIER. P.C, TELEPIIONE (1170) 887,3371; ROIlNEY R. ~"(;llWAN. I'.C. October 23, 1996 FAX (1170) RH7-!"':IO Mr. Jeff Johnston, Mayor Town of Fraser I P.O. Box 29 Granby, CO 80446 CONFIDENTIAL Re: Maryvale FPDP Submittal Dear Jeff: I understand that you received a copy of the October 21, 1996 letter from Don Elliott of Clarion Associates, regarding his review of Maryvale's FPDP submittal for Planning Area 28, That letter identifies several areas where Mr. Elliott believes that the submittal is or may be incomplctc, leaving open the question whether the Board of Trustees might treat the Maryvale POD Plan as having expired as a consequence of the developer's failure to file a complete FPDP application by the October 15, 1996, deadline. While Mr. Elliott's letter is addressed to me, as Town Attomey, and he suggests that I review his comments and pass them along to the Town Council (sic), I do not believe that is the appropriate approach in this instance. As was discussed at the October 16 Board meeting, it is probably best that I not be involved in the Board's further deliberations conceming the sufficiency of the FPDP submittal. My ability to act as legal advisor to the Board on this matter ha's been compromised as result of those October 16 proceedings and the public comments that were made by mysclf and other Town staff involved in the review of the application, that we considered the filing to be substantially complete. As you know, those public comments were based on the discussions during the executive session prec@ding the regular meeting and the consensus that was reached, or which we thought had been reached, that the Board intended to accept the submittal as being sufficient to meet the filing requirement. Had I known that the Board would later decide to defer the matter and seek a second opinion regarding the sufficiency of the application, I would have recommended that there not be any public discussion of the Town's official position regarding the application until after such further review was completed. Plcase do not misinterprct my comments as "sour grapes" over the Board's decision to request a second opinion from an outside consultant. I fully support the Trustees' desire to obtain as much professional advice as feasible conceming this very important and politically volatile issue with which the Board is faced. However, I am very concerned that the manner in c: \WP\LETTERS\J2J06A23 ,WPD ýÿ .{ } " . . Mr. Jeff Johnston October 23, 1996 Page 2 which such advice has bcen pursued here may jeopardizc thc Town's position in future dealings with the Maryvalc devclopers. As far as my role is concerned, I am sure you can understand that I cannot act as a crcdiblc advocatc for the Town in challenging thc sufficicncy of the FPDP filing, after having publicly taken a position that the filing was sufficient. I think it is critical that the Board obtain a independent legal opinion from a competent attorney, who would be willing to represent the Town in any litigation with the developer, before making a final decision regarding the sufficiency of the FPDP filing. As noted in Mr. Elliott's letter, he and the other staff of Clarion Associates are not practicing attorneys and are not in position to provide such a legal opinion or representation. Accordingly, my recommendation to the Board is to obtain the services of alternatc legal counscl to review the FPOP submittal and Mr. Elliott's recommendations and to advise the Board regarding its decision. Obviously, this should be done as soon as possible, since the Town cannot put off the developers indefinitely and the longer the process takes, the more it will appear that the Town is indeed searching for a "loophole" to declare the POD void. Rodney R. McGowan, P.C. RRM:sw pc: Mr. Chuck Reid, Town Manager . . TOWN OF FRASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Line: (970) 726-5518 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM To; Mayor Jeff Johnston and Fraser Board Members From: Chuck Reid, Town Manage~ Date: October 28, 1996 Subject: Staffs observations about Clarion's October 21, 1996 letter I felt it important that staff review and respond to the issues raised by Don Elliott in Clarion's letter dated 10/21/96 relative to the Maryvale FPDP filing on PA 28. Referring to Clarion's letter as you read this memo will be beneficial. We still believe the filing to be substantially complete and offer the following specifics relative to Clarion's letter. Compliance with the Annexation Agreement l.a. In 1995, Fraser engaged McLaughlin Water Engineers to design a master water and sewer plan for the Town of Fraser, including the Maryvale property. At that time, the. Board determined that the Town, and not the developer, should take the lead role in designing the Town's "wholesale" utility system. A majority of this work was paid-for by Maryvale, LLC as they will be a primary beneficiary of the master plan. The plan completed by the Town's Water Engineer is the "preliminary design drawings" required by the Annexation Agreement. l.b. Same as l.a., except for sewer. l.c. A review ofthe FPDP clearly shows design drawings, statistical, financial, and technical information for P A 28s anticipated water system which assumes service by Fraser. Recognizing that the Town may not serve this property, the Board could require a second set of design drawings showing P A 28s connection with the water system that Maryvale is required to construct per the Annexation Agreement. Staff did not pursue this option as we are simultaneously going through a public process whereby Maryvale is requesting "cost saving" measures in an effort to decrease densities. ýÿ . . Page Two Staffs observations about Clarion's 10/21/96 letter Requiring Maryvale to build "their" water system is antithetical to the Board's effort to reduce costs and densities. Be that as it may and anticipating the Board's direction, staff requested a separate analysis by McLaughlin Engineers to address the Clarion's technical questions. I expect a response by McLaughlin by Friday, November 1, 1996. 1.d. Same as 1.c. except for sewer. Planned District Development Ordinance 2.a. Staff raised this issue in our letter to Maryvale dated 9/11/96 relative to the FPDP filing. Maryvale addressed this requirement in revised and supplemental infonnation sent to the town on 9/23/96. 2.b. The PDD is unclear of whether this refers to potable groundwater conditions or structural engineering groundwater conditions. Staff assumes that Maryvale filed the FPDP based on the assumption that it related to potable groundwater conditions -- a condition made mute by the master water plan and Maryvale's request for "town" wat~r. 2.c. The requirement integrating pertinent contractual information is vague (as identified by staff in our 9/11/96 letter to Maryvale and the matrix provided to the Board on 10/16/96). However, speculating as to why this requirement is included in the PDD ordinance is unnecessary, and Clarion's supposition (that the town is looking for assistance to "facilitate the evaluation. . .") is not a denial strategy staff would recommend that the Board pursue. 2.d. I'm confused by Clarion's stance on this issue. At the county-wide elected officials growth implementation meeting held on October 21 st, Chris Duerkson stated that tyin~ employee ratios to residential developments is extremely difficult. Instead, Chris recommended identifYing the "linkage" between commercial development and employees. Maryvale has stated that the housing planned for this parcel is intended to serve the "employee housing" market -- a goal being pursued by Fraser. In any case, staff believes that Maryvale addressed this requirement in their FPDP narrative. . 2.e. Clarion makes an assumption here: that the perimeter of an FPDP area must be "treated." Fraser does not require perimeter screening in residential zones -- we are not a community with cloistered developments. Maryvale spent an admirable amount of time discussing treatment of the southern perimeter of this property (adjacent to the Cemettiry) and staff believes their perimeter mesh fence meets this requirement. The Board could require a statement that no perimeter treatment is planned where none is planned. . . Page Three Staff's observations about Clarion's 10/21/96 letter 2.r This submission requirement was met by the adoption of Ordinance 225, which sets the quantitative maximum development rights. If the floor to area ratio is missing in the narrative and graphic documents of the FPDP, we missed this requirement. 2.g. Ed Opitz, Fraser's town engineer, has reviewed the FPDP. He also believes that while the filing is not in a form that allows him to recommend approval, the road designs and ancillary information are adequate for initial review. Additional Considerations 3.a. Clarion has pointed-out one of the regulatory contradictions staffhas identified as we reviewed the FPDP submission based on the Maryvale Annexation Agreement, PDD Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, the Maryvale zoning application, and other applicable information. While Section X of the Annexation Agreement does state that subdivision regulations must be complied with, the POD Ordinance indicates that these submissions aren't required at FPDP filing if the development isn't scheduled to begin for more than one year. Since the developer isn't planning on building until the 1998 construction season, subdivision regulation requirements are not required at this point in time. This fact also addresses Clarion's third paragraph under 3.a. Clarion continues with another contradiction staffhas discussed -- a contradiction staff would recommend that the Board change in the planned amendments to many of our regulatory documents. We'd like to move forward with these planned amendments as soon as our workloads provide the opportunity. 3.b. This is the first time the PDD Ordinance has been employed and I believe that staff has done an outstanding job reviewing the application. Our review has not been arbitrary or capricious and is based on a professional review of Fraser's regulations and the FPDP submitted by Maryvale. Again and still, staff believes the FPDP filed by Maryvale, LLC on Planning Area 28 is substantially complete. i . . I 'L .. .,UrSCH, SPJI.LA~E & REUTZEL.C. ,;w,~,..~.., 't''''''' " "" - 'IIH F.-'H ~f..N ON AVC;,'.'!' SUIT 200 DfSVEll, COI RAnO &~~H r"LErHOI'E fJI ~?q9B2 f[LI,r^~ (J l)~?4'l'll HAR \'E Y I( Dll:T~r:H IOIIN lit SPn.L^~;E I lACK E. Il.EtiTZEL I I I I FUIRA~~MJSSIO~ I I I I I DATE: OCTOBER 28,1996 I r i TO: CHUCK REm I 1 (970) 726-5518 RODNEY McGaW AN~ ESQ. , 1(970) 887-9430 RICHARD NIPERT 837-]951 RICK WATROUS 989-6506 ffiFF KIRKENDALL 791-4948 JACK E. REUTZEL I FROM: I I NUMBER OF PAGES BEING SENT, INCLUDING "IHIS PAGE 3 I I I A hard copy will follow by: US MAIL I I lfyou do not receive all the above pages, please call (303) r94-1982 ! The information contained in thiti facsimile ml':Ss~c is 3ltomey-privileged and cont1dential infonnation. intended only for the use of the individual or enli 'named above. If you have received this conmlunication in error, please notify us ilnmedialelY by telephone and return the original message to us at the aho..e address via the U.S. Post<11 Selvice. Th\ nk you. I Message: i I I ! I I Billing lnfonnation: , I i I , i I I i I I / . . 'A. If ' ", " , ^ , , .. I ~ . .TSCH, SPILLAN~ & REUTZEL.. '.. ATTORNl!YS ANJ)CD~SE1l0RS AT lAW 914S EAST KB-l'I,ON A\'ENl,J1! surmg Of),'VER, COtO DO JCI2J1 T!.LErHO/'lE (J 11694-19P: 1l!l..EFAX pO 169~IUI HA1\ Vf;Y E. DEUTSCH JOHN M SPILLANt lACK 2. IUlUTZIll. October 28, 1996 I I Rodney McGowan, Esq. P.O. Box 500 Granby, CO 80446 I I RE: MARYVALE PROJECT i Dear Mr, McGowan, This flnn has been retained by Maryvale LLC, the owner of the above subject property, in connection with the FPDP apPliction filed by Maryvale, LLC for Pl~ming Area 28 filed in August of this year. We wer initially engaged to provide a legal opinion as to the sufficiency ofthe FPDP app~ication as it relates to the PD Ordinance and specific provisions of the 1986 armexation agJjeement between the Town and Regis- Mal)'Vale, Inc. i I Our conclusion as to tile sufl1ciency or!the application is in accord witll Ole conclusion you and the Town stafThave appcu!ently reached; that is, the application has met all relevant criteria under the PD ordinan4e, As an aside, notwithstanding Ole fact that the application was filed, I do not believe[that the failure to apply within a date certain would have resulted in the automatic Irss of the underlying zoning. I The purpose of this letter is to address ~ome of the cormnents made and action taken by the Town Trustees when this project:was discussed at a public meeting on October 16, 1996. If the notes I have reviewf from tile meeting are accurate, I have grave concern about the due process being af orded my client and Ole apparent willingness of some members of the Board t4engage in conduct tllal may require recusal at the time this matter comes before the Boar , . i Code Section 13-3-12(7)(v)(a) [Page 1 ~-57] of the Town of Fraser Planned Development Ordinance directs the adminiShrive staff of the Town with the task of accepting a FPDP application, TIle TO\vn stat and your ofnce has already made this determination, This initial detennination is n~t legislative or quasi-judicial requiring Trustee involvement, as I believe you indicated at the October 16 meeting. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I have been a~vised that the Town Trustees have eJected to make this initial determination, This devia~ion from established procedure is I I i I - . " . ...., ., .'. ^ ,.. ýÿ ... .. i . .. DEUTSCH, SPILLANe REUTZEL, P.C. i . : Rodney McGowan, Esq. October 28, 1996 Page Two I unnecessary and demonstrates a breach of m)l clients due process rights. It is apparent to me that the purpose of this intended deviatio~ is to thwart my clients right to make application for an FPDP in accord wi~1 ~Ie P~DP and Ihe controlling annexation agreement. lbe result of such act.ion demons rates a disregard for my clienCs due process rights, bad faith in dealing with my client an1 constitutes an action in excess of the Board's jurisdiction, . ! i Through its early and substantive invotvement in the FPDP process at this time, and the comments from SOme of the Tmstee'~ urging staff "to ftnd a loophole," I believe some oHhe Trustees are engaging in conduct!that will prevent them from sitting as an objective member of the quasi-judicial body tp hear the application at the public hearing, and may further subject them to legal action, ,nc1uding hut not limited to damages related to a taking of my clients property. i ! My client has always enjoyed a good a/nd productive relationship with the Town, The cunent proposal of ~Ie overa \I devel opm~nt 0 f ~Ie property results in a considerable reduction in density and other significant imp ovements from the approved PPDP, However, if the Trustees continue to openly t ' to thwart my client's rights to process the applications my client will be forced to recon~ider the direction of the project and will investigate all legal means of recourse for theiTmstee'S actions. i ve1 tmly yours, DEt :SCH, SP~ By: I ; ack E. eutzel I I JERlji cc: Richard Nipert Rick WatrolJs Jeff Kirkendall Chuck Reid, Town Manager I I I i 1 (' I" I 'I I -, ,., ,., ., . . ... . CX\ / q \0 - - l'A C~ \ k -e d - / -<, TOWN OF FRASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Line: (970) 726-5518 September 11, 1996 Mr. Rick Watrous Maryvale LLC. 3609 S. Wadsworth Blvd., Suite 210 Lakewood, Colorado 80235 Dear Rick: The Town of Fraser is in receipt of the Final Planned Development Plan (FPDP) that Maryvale LLC. and Ozaukee Land and Financial Corporation have filed for Maryvale Planning Area #28. Staff has conducted an initial review to determine if the submittal is substantially complete. Please he advised that this initial re\'iew is preliminary and relates to only the filing requirement. A more extensive review for the FPDP allllrovalllrocess will he conducted after all missing documentation has been submitted. StafThas determined that the following items have not yet been submitted in reference to the FPDP for Planning Area #28: PD Ordinance, Section /3-3-/2 (7) (c) m slates that the P]>D]> shall include all oflhe infimnation required in the Preliminwy Development Plan in its finalized, detailed form. 711e submittal items that were determined to be missing according to Section J 3-3- J 2 (7) (c) (i) are specified in No. J -6 below, 1. PD Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (b) (ii) (g) requires that a statement of the applicant's intention with respect to the nature of future sales and/or leases and subdivision of all portions of the Planned Development he submitted. The development schedule that you have submitted is vague and inconclusive. 2. PD Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (b) (ii) (h) requires that quantitative data be submitted for each land use, Please submit the proposed lot coverage ratios of buildings and structures for each land use; parcel sizes; proposed commercial densities; and total amount of non-residential construction, Please submit, in written and graphic format, the footprint sizes for all proposed buildings. ýÿ , . . '" '" . Page 2 Rick Watrous Maryvale LLC, 3. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (b) (ii) (m) requires that a letter must be submitted from the appropriate utility districts, boards, etc. stating their intentions relating to their ability to serve the development with water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telephone service. 4. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (b) (iii) (e) requires that the applicant must show the location and size jn acres or square feet of areas to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved as common and private open spaces, public open spaces or parks, recreational areas, school sites and similar public and quasi public uses. 5. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (b) (iii) (i) requires that the applicant must show the ofT-site connection methods for utility service including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water, electric, gas, and telephone. 6. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (b) (iii) (j) requires a finalized grading plan to be submitted. 7. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (c) (ii) (a), and Section 13-3-12 (7) (d) require that the applicant must submit a detailed development schedule indicating when construction of the development can be expected to begin and to be completed, including public and private improvements. 8. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (c) (ii) (b) requires that the applicant list the total amount of open space for each land use, including a sepllrate/igurefor usable open space which can be used for recreational activities. 9. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (c) (ii) (c) requires that any restrictions to be imposed upon the land must be specified, Ordinance No. 225, codifying the Town Board's and Maryvale's discussion relative to Planning Area 28, must be identified. In addition, the proposed covenants submitted with the FPOP application for the storage tract actually relate to the multi-family residential tract. Any proposed covenants for the storage tract need to be submitted. 10. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (c) (ii) (i) requires that the applicant must submit a statement that integrates pertinent elements of any preannexation and development agreements, contracts, etc. previously negotiated with the Town. Specifically, Sections 4.04, 4.05, 5.04, 5.05 ofthe Annexation Agreement need to be addressed. ýÿ . - . . " . ~, Page 3 Rick Watrous Maryvale LLC. 11. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (c) (iii) U) requires that if the development is planned to begin within one year, any preliminary and final subdivision plats are required to be submitted, Due to the inconclusive nature of the development schedule and the lack of preliminary and final subdivision plats, we are assuming that the applicant does not plan on developing this site until the construction season of 1998. 12. PD Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (c) (iii) (I) requires a site map that depicts the development, phases thereof, sites and building footprints sizes and locations as outlined in the development schedule. As stated above, the proposed development schedule must be clarified, and any development phasing should be reflected on site maps. 13. PD Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (c) (iii) (m) requires the submittal of engineering schematic plans that depict general line sizes and proposed points of connection to existing utility systems, both on and ofT site. The plan submitted does not address off-site connections. 14. PD Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (8) (e) (i) (d) requires that a dust control plan is to be included in the FPDP documents and implemented during construction. 15 PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (8) (e) (i) (d) also requires that private streets , ! shall be dedicated to the Town as utility easements where said easements are necessary. PO Ordinance, Section 13-3-12 (7) (c) (ii) (c), and (e) require that proposed easements and dedication documentation be submitted. Please call for clarification on any of the above referenced items. Sincerely, Catherine E. Skelton Town Planner c: Rich Nipert 1l ........~ NOV-01'-86 11,36 FRON,NC L 1 N IJATER ENGRS ID'30.08766 PAGE 2/q . - - -- .-.~.....-..- - . - . . - McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. - - . - . - - ~ - - - .- - ~IJ r "W" rT....'lIlWfijf IYnJ ~jr"lrl ,-- MEMORANDUM November 1, 1996 TO: Town of Fraser % Chuck Reid, Manager FROM: Ron Mclaughlin, Rob Anderson Mclaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. RE: MaryVale Tract 28 Review of FPDP Submittals - Water and Sewer Utilities Following are our review comments for tbe subject development. Reference is made to the review by Clarion (letter to Rod McGowan dated October 21. 1996), This review focuses on adequacy (degree of completion) of the submittal, Tather than whether or not the planned facilities are in the best interests of Fraser precisely as proposed, 1. COMPLIANCE WITII TERMS OF THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT a. Section 4.03 - Preliminary Design Drawings (water) I Water System for Tract 28. The predesign drawings for Tract 28 are complete and adequate. Water System Master Plan for MaryVale. The Master Plan prepared by MWE, dated November 1995, is adequate as a master plan (preliminary design) basis for the entire MaryVale property. This plan was paid for by MaryVale. Review comment re water system design: we believe the buildings in Tract 28 must be sprinkled, or incorporate other architectural treatment to limit fire demands to about 1750 g.p.m. OtheIWise large investment in additional storage tanks and pipelines will be requited for this development. (In general, we concur with the P.R. Fletcher recommendation as stated on page 4 of the Recommendation of the Water System Analysis Report, however, we question whetber a 3.500 gpm fire flow is justified for the mini storage facility.) . ~..._- ., NOV-01'-86 11: 37 FROM: MC.L 1 N WATER ENGRS ID:30.08766 PAGE 3/q b. Section 5.03 - Preliminary Design Dnnvings (sewer) Sewer System Tract 28. The Predesign drawings for Tract 28 are complete and adequate, MaryVale Sewer Master Plan. As with the water utility. the Master Plan is adequate, c. Section 4.04 & 5.04 - Final Design Drawings and Docmoents.. WateJ:' and Sewer. Finished fmal design documents generally means "'ready to bid or to construct." The submitted documents are in final design format, however, are judged to be only about 75% complete, Pipeline protl1es, details, and specifications were not submitted. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Generally development/utility planning of this nature is accomplished in three phases. i.e.: 1. Conceptual or "sketch plan" 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat The utility design material provided to date are: 1. Acceptable for the sketch plan phase 2, Acceptable for the preliminary design or preliminary plat phase 3. Are at a stage suitable for initial Town Engineer review for the Final Plat phase, They are not complete as should be required for approval of a fmal plat. The following are additional comments pertaining to two leners written to Chuck Reid from MaryVale, Re: Cost Recovery Agreements (letter to Chuck Reid from Rick Watrous, dated July 5, 1996) We agree that rebate provisions should be negotiated with MaryVaJe for the offsite line e~1ensions. To the extent that such lines would serve a required ("wholesale") function, the costs could be recoverable from system development fees. Some recovery should also be from inteIVening property owners. We strongly recommend that the Town and Sanitation District establish comprehensive rational extension policies before development starts. 2 ... --, NOV-01-S6 11.38 FROM'MC~GLIN WATER ENGRS . ID.303tl80S766 PAGE tl/tl Re: FinanciDg Fraser Improvements (Jetter to Chuck Reid from Rick Watrous dated August 7, 1996) Without concurring with all of the points of the Jetter, it is required that the proposed Fraser improvements at the water treatment facility be completed prior to service to Tract 28 (so that system pressure can be raised as needed and that additional well supplies are available). Prepayment of MaryVaJe fees should be required to help finance this project. Further, we should set a system development fee for the storage tract - which will receive fire protection service, but have no actual usage tap. . RCM;C$/9>OlZ,OOOIRCM-4 3 ýÿ