The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20082865.tiff Attachment C:' ,.•••••• ...-:::- .. Public Comments .::-,:ii.,.:. . ,: . ., :::::: .:: Public Open House .. .- . .. . *: . .-- -: ' ''':1::.::- Coitiments Weld County Comp Plan Update Public Open House Meetings (September 2008) September 18, Greeley Planning Offices (4:00 -8:00 pm) September 22, Southwest Weld Service Center Public Comments • Handing out flyers to people that are looking at buying in rural areas is a very good idea and plan, because a lot of people or new homeowners don't understand the farming, cattle, feedlots. So giving flyers to them about farming areas is a great idea. • Please do your part to keep farming ground farmed and not develop it. We need to preserve farm land. Weld County Comp Plan Update Public Open House Workshops (February/March 2008) General Comments from Attendees (All Workshops) Ideas from Flip Chart Questions Agriculture - Should the County promote preservation of agriculture land over residential development, or vice versa? If neither, then what other options would you advocate? • Both — needs of the current owner-user are paramount • Comp plan and IGA's should promote orderly residential development • The County should work to prevent leapfrog development—suburban islands in the middle of farmland. Development— Has "too much" water been converted from agriculture to municipal uses? At what point (if any) would it be? • Yes—too much [9 people replied] • No — not too much [5 people replied] • Both need better conservation measures: • No flood irrigation • Reuse for landscaping • Increased xeriscaping • Lined ditaches • Flood irrigation replenishes the aquifer Economic Development-Should industrial and commercial growth be county- wide, or targeted for certain locations? Or, are the other alternatives? • Target growth Transportation: What is the best way to pay for future increasing road demands? • Have a Transportation Master Plan • Keep tax $$ in the state • Gas tax— keep local and only to roads • Have % of property tax go to local area/district — not to a big pot • Have a frontage road along Highway 85 for businesses, with central accesses • More $$ from gravel companies for road upkeep • No increase to registration/plate renewal fee ($100 increase recently proposed) • Increase road impact fees • Increase gas use = more tax $$ • Have an RTD-I-25 link to Denver • Have trail systems • Have developers include trails in plans • Work with towns and State for connections • Have a % of property taxes go to local area/district: trails, light rail, open space • Light rail pay for itself— developer bonds for future demand • Connect to DIA—work with counties and cities • Have 5285 trail group • Have developer impact fees • Have fire department impact fees • Toll roads 2 Weld County Comp Plan Update Public Open House Workshops (February/March 2008) Greeley Workshop March 6, 2008 (4:30 - 7:30 pm) Weld County Planning Services — Greeley Office General Comments from Attendees Agriculture • What is the best way to prioritize agriculture versus development? -- Maybe focus policies around the irrigation infrastructure. Development (General) • "Consolidate growth in municipalities." • "Include special districts in infrastructure planning (libraries, schools, rec, etc.)." • We need to encourage the creation of neighborhoods, not just buildings. As a realtor, I need to sell neighborhoods as the "wow" factor. • Encourage homes above shops and green building standards. • Encourage development in the existing towns. • How are changes in demographics— particularly the aging — being accommodated? Consider such items as appropriate housing, elder care, walkability standards, transportation accommodations, etc. A housing study would be valuable. • I value connectivity between uses • Please have Weld join DRCOG, so that public transportation is available for patrons to use the library and the resources it offers, specifically in the Erie area. There there is a new library, but with no access except by motor vehicle. • Large scale developments should occur within the municipality • Cluster development, especially residential development — that way it still preserves the farmland • Urban type of developments should only happen in the cities • Have discussion with Greeley on how to develop around the airport. • Require Use by Special Review permits for commercial business only when there are new'buildings/structures requiring building permits. Economic Development • Work to attract the growing elderly population, by accommodating their specific needs. Development requirements should tap into this demographic's latent income. • Would like less land use restrictions • Partner with all municipalities and do more IGA's. There is not good communication between the towns and county. Need a have a coordinated plan & Strategy between towns & county to make it easier for business to develop. Transportation • "Join DRCOG — or provide some mechanism for public transportation — don't rely on municipalities for public transportation —take a regional approach." • "As transportation TAC begins to work — efforts to include and consider plans and impacts of the Greeley-Weld County Airport should be included." • We need to preserve right-of-way for transit, and identify transit/train corridors, even if it is more than 20 years before.there is a need. • It would be nice if there was more of a vision for pedestrian uses —this saves gas, promotes healthy lifestyles, etc. • Weld is urban and urbanizing, yet there is no public transit? • County Road 7 alignment is a mess— need to connect (Frederick area) • Regarding the Strategic Roadway Plan —expand roads to exclude development and urban conditions, so that traffic moves freely 2 • Establish new north-south roads— consider CR 19 from CR 2 north, and CR 37 from CR 2 north • Why does State Highway 66 "die" in Platteville? Should it not extend to CR 49? • Roads are an issue — better circulation and flow is needed • Greeley-Weld Airport should be considered more specifically in the comp plan • Put together a plan to encourage development along Hwy 85 corridor. • Encourage public transit Processing & General County Business • I think that these Public Workshops have been very well publicized — I saw information in both the Farmer & Miner and the Greeley Tribune. • I would like to see a Guiding Principle to balance the existing one for property rights, one that would recognize the common good, respecting community values and the good of the majority. • Planning should include a regional perspective, beyond Weld's borders. For example, some of the standard maps should include some of the areas beyond the county line. • It is very important to have communication between the towns and the County, so that you can give and get ideas. • The plan should incorporate the needs of the library district into the comp plan. • Towns better at regulating more urban developments. • Encourage wise uses to benefit the most people. Natural Resources • The Plan needs to consider the wildlife habitat along the river corridors. The County should try and protect wildlife. 3 Weld County Comp Plan Update Public Open House Workshops (February/March 2008) Firestone/Longmont Workshop February 25, 2008 (4:30 - 7:30 pm) Southwest Weld Service Center General Comments from Attendees Agriculture • The County needs to attract and retain agriculturally-based industries Development (General) • "Dacono is one of the participants for Positive Weld County Partnerships. We endorse the attached "WC Comp Plan Proposed Guiding Principles" and the spirit of cooperation that they imply. Please incorporate these principles wherever possible and/or appropriately into the Comp Plan. Dacono supports all these guiding principles, but especially "channel growth to existing municipalities, etc." Please share our views with ALL comp plan members." • 1-25 MUD should also take into consideration the number of schools • There should be sub-area plans around the county because it's a very diverse County • The County should have a set of development standards • Eminent domain needs to be better defined • How do we promote open space between different developments? • Why is Firestone trying to steal the Lifebridge development? • Increase xeriscaping requirements in subdivisions and other developments • The existing MUD standards are not well implemented, especially in regards to trail corridors and open space • We need to take a regional approach to open space planning • Need an open space program to preserve the quality of life in SW County and the 1-25 corridor. If people are willing to tax themselves to purchase open space, why not? • We heard that there are 70,000 lots approved by Dacono, and we're concerned Economic Development • We need to target enterprise zones to promote specific business that the County deems necessary (1-76 and CR 81) Transportation • Is an interchange proposed at CR 4 and CR 6 (CDOT)? • Regional transportation needs to work with people's property rights Processing & General County Business • "Under Article I, Division 2 — General Provisions [Section 22-1-50.C.2.b], regarding 'coordination' -- Develop the Coordination Plan you already have in place. The word 'coordination' under Section 1712 of Title 43 of the United States Code was defined by Congress to provide for the involvement of local authority in every federal land use statue passed over the past 35 years. In addition, the Colorado State Constitution gives this same power to the local government. Let's use these powers in Weld County to protect our citizens from the State & Federal Governments!! I have given Brad Mueller a written summary of how the 'coordination plan' works and also a part of Modoc [County], California's plan as a model." • We appreciate how the TAC has encouraged public input at these meetings • All municipalities have joined DRCOG, the County should also join • There should more flexibility with IGA's • Encourage better coordination with the towns • IGA's should be abolished • Municipal Boundary should be defined by a county's financial limitations and infrastructure 2 • DRCOG needs to be abolished • Fire districts need to be more a part of the planning process because of water flow issues • People outside of towns end up without representation • Should have a simpler overall plan, plus more specific regional plans • Incorporate the Preamble of the County Charter into the Comp Plan • Take a simpler approach, then provide separate sub-area plans • Current Plan does not spend enough time on SW Weld and the area east of Fort Lupton • When the Fed government makes a claim, we don't feel like they are really cooperating with the County like they should • County can require more input into Fed decisions by identifying resources in a coordination plan, showing the historical, economic, and social importance of resources (examples: fossils, water) • We advocate a development coordination plan with the BLM and other Feds; see examples from Owyhee County, Idaho, and Modoc County, California • Add the ideas from the County Charter Preamble to the Comp Plan • Re-address/update/create sub-area plans more frequently— unlike the overall comp plan (with a time horizon of 20 years), sub-area plans should have a shelf life of 5 — 10 years • I support the idea of the county-wide plan being adequate in slow-changing areas like the northeast plains— and we should devote more County energy and money over the years along the growth corridor(where there's more need) • Address individual areas' needs, before it is too late • Longmont is currently a stand-alone community—we Longmont citizens have concerns with the land use decisions for the areas around Longmont 3 Natural Resources • "Weld County needs to initiate an open space funding plan much like Boulder County." • "I was sadly disappointed that the County has still not embraced a land preservation program — especially in the SW Weld area (or higher populated areas). While I realize it's not needed in the entire county, the SW part of the county is rapidly losing its aesthetical value. Your term of 'respecting agricultural tradition' is not enough for this area. Please give some time and thought to different types of preservation programs —there are many possibilities that will give the farmer or rancher wanting to sell another alternative than to sell to a developer. (This needs to be worked in conjunction with the municipalities.) We are truly blessed with beautiful land — and we need to protect it. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you." • "Even though a tax or mill levy might need to be implemented [for a land preservation program], long range it could even lower taxes, as less tax will be required to school districts, fire districts, etc. Land preservation actually enhances property rights theory, with giving a willing seller two options to sell (rather than just to the developer). Please think about it." • Water will drive development, therefore it should be its own section in the comp plan • The riparian areas of Union Reservoir need to be protected • Increase attention to conservation measures of open space • Increase attention to landscaping regulations to conserve water • Water is private property— it's no one's business what a person does with their water • Better utilize existing reservoirs along the Front Range • Supplement the building of new reservoirs • We let too much water get to Nebraska • There is more available water under the South Platte Resources; 10 million acre-feet are going to Nebraska • We would like to develop an open space program around Union Reservoir • There is a group —SWAP — looking at possibilities for open space funding in the south part of the county 4 • Weld County should have some sort of open space program, but it should be more accessible than Boulder County's 5 Weld County Comp Plan Update Public Open House Workshops (February/March 2008) Fort Lupton Meeting February 21, 2008 (4:30 - 7:30 pm) Fort Lupton Recreation Center General Comments from Attendees Agriculture • "Unused" ag land should be supported for more utilization • Need to have a balance of ag & commercial (including commercial uses in ag areas) —example of 1999 processing along the Highway 85 corridor • What is the role of agriculture road stands? — need to accommodate "ma and pa" businesses • Regulations should consider food security (i.e., support food growth in the U.S.) • County should respect both side of the ag /development issue • Could the County get involved in helping ag with irrigation systems (e.g. drip systems) Development (General) • County should limit growth and residential development • Not in support of developments like Pioneer [10,000 unit development by 1-76] • Not in favor of Domino Theory; (i.e., don't rezone simply because zoned industrial is already adjacent— look to more transitional industrial, light industrial, commercial, residential) • Explore commercial development/truck stops on Hwy 76 east of Keenesburg • Status of the railroad and future zoning of Centennial Farm (CR 4, 65 acres)? — it's in the Ft. Lupton Comp Plan Economic Development • Plan for the expansion of AIMS Community College [1-25 & CR 44, Berthoud] • Look to developing Hwy 52 around Fort Lupton, like Parker Road developed in Parker. (Maybe an equestrian /dirt bike facility) • Emphasize light industrial / high-tech development in SW Weld (Highway 52) = (Business) • Make it easier to develop along Highway 85 (commercial / industrial) • County needs to give first, in order to get development • County needs to be more active with business grants / loans • Not conducive to mom and pop business— "'you are not wanted here' is the impression that the regulations are giving small business owners" • Keep tax money in the state • Recognize the connection to the airport [DIA] & work with other counties Transportation • Would like the County to fix the potholes in CR 8 that has been annexed by the Town of Fort Lupton • Where is CR 24 intersection going to be located? • Prairie Falcon Expressway ("Super Slab")— concern about impacts on towns, not feasible for commercial trucking (they won't pay the tolls) • What is the status of CR 4 between Fort Lupton and Brighton due to the previous idea that Union Pacific was coming? • What is the status of CR 31 south of Highway 52? • CR 10 east of CR 31 needs grading • Work with the municipalities and interconnect a trail system • Gravel and paving -- what are the criteria to upgrade? • Support train activity along Highway 85 and 1-25 2 • Frontage road along Fort Lupton business access — need to consolidate the number of accesses • Fort Lupton does not maintain their roads • Seek donations for trails • Use property taxes for trails • The need for light rail • Support tax increases for light rail • Support public transit (esp. North Denver to Ft. Collins) • Road counts along CR 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, between CR 37 and Highway 85 — are they increasing? Processing & General County Business • The county should be more cooperative with its citizens • County website not user-friendly to get planning agendas and minutes • Loosen land use restrictions • Designate areas where junkyards are allowed • Home business should require a sign-off from neighbors • The land use process should be more flexible for small business • "A minor language adjustment to the current comp plan, concerning cooperation with all county residents, not just applicants!" [Reference to Section 22-1-50.C.2.e: "The County will cooperate with the applicant in evaluating the objectives of the applicant(*nand the options available to the applicant while ensuring the health, safety and welfare of County residents." — with the note: "Are individuals, persons, or residents not offered the aforementioned cooperation, unless they apply (applicant)?"] • "I remain skeptical about the effort to develop a sound comp plan — if it is to be ignored or distorted by subsequent implementation. Betrayal of the language or intent of the comp plan could certainly validate the disenchantment of non-participates, who suggest these efforts are futile." 3 • "What value does the TAC place on freedom or individual liberty?" • "Update (regulations) and don't let companies dictate or ask to have less stringent regulations." • "Toughen or tighten regulations for incoming industries." Natural Resources • Should protect against the Impacts of uranium mining on water quality • Oil and gas storage / support should be in the Industrial Zone District, not in the Agricultural Zone District • Weld County needs to keep its water in the County • Protection of Platte River corridor from industrial / heavy industrial use (look at Denver to Pueblo for examples of what not to do) • Have a plan/goal in place of how to preserve drainage for Platte River = parkland • Concerns of industry polluting acquirers a water sources - mining • Protect Open Space • Water protection • Create standards for maximum grass allowed, to manage water usage • Concern with water in places like Aristocrat subdivision — had to ration water for years • Concern with wells being shut down — increased the cost of hay • Concern for high cost of water taps • Need to protect the Platte River corridor— are industrial uses along here really appropriate? • Preserve water quality • Create a series of parklands along the Platte River to protect it 4 • Weld County involvement in water court issues • Who reviews water districts' pipeline plans, and how do they review it? • County' knowledge of the water district south of Ft. Lupton — NCWCD • Protect ground and surface water • County should ensure ground cover • Spray county roadsides for weeds • Brighton is dumping trees, etc., on their open space land and should not be • The water should be used for the farmers and not development • "Protect water in the County" • "Protect our resources— some like water are not renewable." 5 Weld County Comp Plan Update Public Open House Workshops (February/March 2008) New Raymer Workshop February 12, 2008 (4:30 - 7:30 pm) New Raymer Community Building General Comments from Attendees Agriculture • County should support food security concept • Emphasize the importance of ag as a primary industry • We are turning back into an arid place, which can be OK if managed • There are 2 elements to Ag in the County: 1) conservation, and 2) efficiency Development (General) • Property rights — person should be able to develop even if there's an impact to the mineral rights owner, but then the burden should be on the property owner • This should be Weld's Vision: "Weld County should be the poster child for development, balancing land resource conservation and efficiency." (examples — improving the ditch system, etc.) • Concerns with the cost of re-developing existing facilities (ex. gas station along Highway 85) Economic Development • Emphasize the importance of entrepreneurship in the U.S. and County • Don't let Weld County become just a bedroom community, which would be bad for the local economy— get primary jobs Transportation • There should be a cost accounting of roads, etc. Processing & General County Business • There is a process if some entity outside of the County challenges the County's regulatory powers — "any outside entity should approach the County to find mutual agreement" • Don't let the County get regulated to death by outside entities (Fed, etc.) • Big fear: regulation from outside, to the point of losing individual rights • County should set up committees to implement the Comp Plan Goals — example for Pawnee Grassland leases • Dislike unfunded mandates to the school boards • Need to look at the character and culture of specific ideas -- one size may not fit all parts of the County • "Section 22-1-50 gives the County the ability to ensure cooperation from outside regulation —there is a requirement in the current comp plan to make the federal government come to the County to discuss their regulations — wouldn't it be nice to exercise that kind of control?" • There is a federal mandate, requiring the federal government to come to the County to discuss their regulations — examples are in Idaho and Hawaii —the Constitution says that final authority rest with the County Sheriff Natural Resources • Emphasize the importance of the mineral extraction industry as a primary industry • County should investigate rights under Colorado Water Law (2003?) — "if there's a loss in ag revenue from Thornton buying water on farms, then they are required to pay the difference — a 30-year payment" • Importance of stormwater management 2 2007 Weld County Comp Plan Update "Kick-Off' Meetings February 27 & March 1, 2007 General Comments from Attendees • Need education programs for the city people, so they understand what farms are • County (or someone?) needs to regularly conduct a water audit (river audit), to better account for usage and violations • Look at potential policies for fallowed land —what about migratory dust? • Committees' members need to have alternates appointed so they can participate/vote if the primary person is absent • Interested in knowing whether the plan may profuse any land compatibility restrictions around existing public facilities • Red lights at CR 5— bad area for accidents • Road Tax • Meeting was great • Dust • Weed Control • Ag Industry • Xeric • Water for Ag • Pioneer Communities and its progress • The possibility of exits between Lochbuie and Hudson • The possibility of expanding Kersey Road south past Hwy 76 • Does Weld County have a similar program of Adams County"Transfer of Development Right"to spur development in some areas and preserve agriculture in others? • Please give some thought and consideration to land preservation. The County needs to work with Municipalities in this regard. Taxes and money would be saved in the long run if this could be achieved — plus adding to Southwest Weld's quality of life. • Transportation — Public Transportation to alleviate traffic • Four Lane existing roads (Examples—CR 1 and Hwy 66) 1 • Concern over residential growth in the county when this should be directed to the towns/urban areas • Questions about how, when, by who, the strategic roads will be constructed • County needs better roads—why development in an area does not result in improved road conditions (more frequent grading etc.) • Oil and Gas Companies put a lot of wear and do a lot of damage to the County Roads with their large, heavy equipment and trucks as well as daily trips to wellheads—why don't they contribute more to road maintenance— mentioned road impact fee for Oil and Gas operations. • Concern over the feasibility of farming in the county in the future—development pressures, removal of water from lands, residential development in the rural areas. • Collaboration between the County and Cities • Expressed that Mead needed more representation on the TAC • Weld County Road 49 Corridor—The WCR 49 Corridor Study was competed several years ago. As the Greeley-Weld County Airport continues to move towards undertaking new development on the east side of the airport, primary access to the new development area will be from WCR 47, which is included as part of the alignment of the WCR 49 corridor project. Additional traffic generated from this airport project will impact the roadways included in the corridor, and, likewise, upgrades to the corridor have the ability to impact the marketability and access to the airport. Although there is presently no known timeline for this project, it is suggested that Weld County consider these issues, and potentially establish a more definitive schedule for this project. • SH 263 Widening—The widening of SH 263 from U.S. 34 to a point east of the Greeley- Weld County Airport has been contained in the CDOT 2020, 2025, and now the 2030 transportation plans. Weld County has since become responsible for a portion of this roadway. The widening to 4 or 5 lanes of this section of roadway is eventually considered necessary to accommodate heavier traffic use as a result of future development at the Greeley-Weld County Airport, and due to its intersecting with WCR 47, at the point where it will connect up with WCR 49 as part of the corridor study noted above. It is suggested that Weld County offer some level of consideration to this in its project. • Land Use Surrounding the Greeley-Weld County Airport—the Greeley-Weld County Airport adopted a new Airport Master Plan in 2004, which was partially funded by Weld County. The Airport Master Plan provides a variety of maps and narrative sections concerning land use surrounding the airport, which was required under the Federal Aviation Regulations. A controlling jurisdiction typically adopts the land use maps and restrictions contained in this plan, in order to ensure land use compatibility around a federally funded airport facility. This is a typical requirement of the Federal Grant Assurances the local communities execute as a condition of the receipt of grant funds for the airport, and Weld County has executed these documents. However, Weld County 2 has stopped short of adopting the Airport Master Plan, and specifically the land use maps and recommendations for restrictions around the airport, in order to maintain flexibility as it related to individual land owner rights. While Weld County still retains the right to reject certain land development proposals, the failure to adopt the Airport master Plan and the land use maps within it, pose a potential threat to the airport. Incompatible land development is permitted within those areas identified as being impacted by the airport. Subsequently, incompatible land development that may be permitted by Weld County within these areas, have the potential to negatively impact the airport and its operations. This can potentially lead to violations of the Federal Grant Assurances which have jointly been executed by Weld County, and the City of Greeley, on behalf of the airport. • Suggested that as part of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan project, that Weld County re-consider the issue over incompatible land use surrounding the Greeley-Weld County Airport, and whether there are any alternatives to protect the airport from such uses, while recognizing certain land owner rights. • Please give thought to the NW Weld County/ Larimer County border in the vicinity of Fort Collins, Timnath, Severance Windsor, hwy 14, harmony Rd, US Hwy 257 corridors. This area is undergoing tremendous change at a very rapid rate and county planning; preferably with intergovernmental/joint/cooperative governmental efforts (with Larimer County and municipalities identified above) should help shake this region. • How will plan interface with Regional Transportation Planning and Funding. CR 49, Hwy 52, 1-76 Interchange improvements, etc? Please consider meetings at the Southeast Weld Building • I believe that while property rights have been "King"for Weld County, it has been at the expense of the beauty of the county and the safety of its citizens. The problem is companies go to the Commissioners, get their project approved after promising to do whatever, then they have no accountability. An example of this is WCR 27 from WCR 4 to Fort Lupton. Coparts for example, certainly didn't tell the Commissioners that not only would their prison-style fence encroach on road right-of-1way; but also they would be loading cars all hours of the night by the side of the road. • No uranium mining • Please see the city's (Longmont's)comment on the aborted update to the 1-25 MUD plan. 3 ..:.,:..::-:...-..:,: i:„..:..: :.: :. : :. .. : .i .96.0:.,0t0..1...:....:.:.publ...j:c..:,..:,:,L:::.:,.:.::,... ....:-:..::,.....::: '.: -.:. ;:.::.:.::::::::::i.:'..:;'. .Comments -:'''''''' '... ...•:':.:..-- Brad Mueller From: VVebmaMer@comeld.co.us Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:16 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Stephanie Last Name: Faucher Haenny Email: stephanieh@lrmconcrete.com Phone: 9706672680 Comments: The Comp Plan refers to a map showing locations of aggregate resources, where is map showing locations for natural resources, is current map being reviewed and revised along with revision to Comp Plan? 1 Page 1 of 1 Brad Mueller From: Thomas Honn Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:46 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: FW: Draft Comp Plan . ... ................ From: Barbara Koelzer [mailto:bkoelzer@ires-net.com] Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:36 PM To: Thomas Honn Subject: Draft Comp Plan Hi Tom, I've just completed my review of the Draft Comp Plan. I think it's really good; especially the addition of strategies to support the goals and policies. I do have one question. What is the significance of deleting the PUD section? I realize PUDs are still one way to develop a piece of property but it seems that there is certainly less emphasis on this type of development tool. Perhaps it is better to have the details in the Land Use Code versus the Comp Plan? Best, Barbara Koelzer Regional Government Affairs Director 303.886.5675 "Information is the currency of democracy." Thomas Jefferson 09/17/2008 Ra rrasi South O CO 108!4 Wes' pl.TM-40/ Ai " OSSOla aripireanetian September 15,2008 To Whom It May Concern, My name is Artie Elmquist, I am the chair of a group nonprofit group called SWAP (Southwest Alliance for Preservation). SWAP is a growing nonpartisan, nonprofit and grass-roots alliance of landowners, businesses, local governments, other organizations, and residents that are concerned about the effects of poorly planned growth on the rural small-town character, agricultural economy and quality of life in Southwest Weld County, Colorado. SWAP has a goal of being the catalyst to help local municipalities create a "Regional Growth Plan" that will address some of the negative impacts related to the current growth policies in Southwest Weld County. One of the goals of this "Regional Growth Plan" is to create a land preservation program that will give large property owners in the area an alternative to selling their land for development. SWAP hopes to convince the public and various elected officials that a land preservation program will help"Enhance the Quality of Life" for all residents in area by creating community separators, expanding outdoor recreation areas, preserving wildlife and unblocked vistas, and maintaining clean water and air. SWAP would like to commend the Weld County Technical Advisory Committee for it's hard work on developing a draft of the new Weld County Comprehensive Plan that guide the county with its growth policies during then 5 -10 years. SWAP applauds the committee for recognizing the importance of need to the county and municipalities to work more closely on future growth policies. I was pleased to serve on the Weld County Agricultural Advisory Committee back in 1999 and much of the work done by that committee to study ways to enhance, preserve and maintain farming operations in Weld County is still very relevant today. The knowledge I obtained while serving on that committee has been very useful as I presently serve as the chair of SWAP. I commend your committee for referencing the work of the Ag Advisory Committee in the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan In reviewing the draft of the Comprehensive Plan, SWAP believes the text of Section 22-2-60 relating to Agricultural Goals and Policies provides the necessary language that will allow SWAP to move forward with its plan to help bring the municipalities and the county together to create a true"regional" growth plan. An important component to making a regional growth plan work must involve a purchase of development rights program. SWAP supports private property rights and does believe that property owners wishing to sell their development rights should only do so on a voluntary basis. SWAP looks forward to new leadership on the Weld County Board of Commissioners that may be able to bring all necessary parties to the table to make a purchase of development rights program possible and in turn help create a regional growth plan that will truly"Enhance the Quality of Life"for all residents in Southwest Weld County. Sincerely, Artie Elmquist Chair of SWAP 21 (17 PIC -f _::_ • C • cv V-tAp L_„ t, ;d-c-f`-1 iiJec - - -f. Z P !w-c• ,nom/ 4 4-few 7 - -- . s C s Cc a e(�c U pG;�• b i . a SlJ tNhiol tr. 6l I f C1 J OJ - f V Q /Y �- J . . Th4,T.t. - t <,e'- - ,ttit,"‘. r@,L, c <t — pre- 0-4,1-4— AYFk.1.-.tsZ. — :h;, <..a<-- r r,.:4�.�.�..L.k t0--6z�--- -�-/ (,A�-K C'o. 44, ,_ . . — J,..„ . a ,tom,,,, „a, . . c.e a C.w. ...c.Q c , (4 , `Cti , s rt /�:_c.a-ert-o- -4G-..4 ;LA/6 t \ - c 0-vv-,,,a -4<' <^ _,61-t.F6t. ,4A,, -1 1-_-) CIA,,, ,,rte . . • i l i)--2 CrV-1-ti C.A2.vy_ A,.; l A-;.- ---rte - O L=Ict, `(c c. i S_x:_.{< ?,f . ,— ? I141.t.r a Oe. 4 • cc: 4- _At Y1y. 06 J °J Gi . C . _, 'Ivo co .--- A.4,, Cv Lis- T• 7,ter From: Jim Piraino [mailto:jimp@Ipbroadband.net] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:50 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Weld County Master Plan Our Indianhead subdivision has been recently informed of a plan by Lafarge Corp to build a batch plant just south of us on CR15. This community vehemently opposes this project and will do whatever is necessary to stop it. That said, it brings to light the bigger picture. One that your committee has power to change. It is our belief that this area on the western fringe of Weld County should be best utilized as agricultural, residential and light industrial use. Our subdivision currently has homes with values of$400,000 to $1,000,000. Yesterday I toured "the Parade of Homes"4 miles west of us and just inside Larimer County. These homes have values of over $2,000,000. Given the growth and traffic of the 125/34 interchange, it would seem logical to limit land use to the aforementioned residential and light industrial. Several of my neighbors and I request a meeting with your to review your current and intended land use for our area. Thank you for your time. Jim Piraino 27660 Hopi Trail 970 300 1000 jimp(a≥lpbroadband.net Original Message From: Donna Sapienza User [mailto:dsap(cilearthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:53 PM To: Brad Mueller; Stan Everitt; pam.shaddock(a areelevoov.com Subject: Op-ed response comments Brad and Stan, This comment was posted by a reader in response to my article: I really enjoyed this article! Thanks, it's great to see a thoughtful report from someone who is interested in the growth and policies we should be looking at. I just read a report that we need to up our capacity by 50% to provide enough food in the world by 2030. It makes NO sense to me to see once valuable agricultural land being wasted on McMansions that cost more to send services to than to plan responsibly, sustainably, and with an eye looking at the immediate and future costs, financial AND moral. Nicely written! Donna Original Message rom: Donna Sapienza User [mailto:dsapearthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:55 PM To: Brad Mueller; Stan Everitt; pam.shaddock(&greelevoov.com Subject: Smart Growth Dear Brad, Stan and Pam, I continue to follow your progress with the Comp Plan. I hope this article gives you opportunity for thought. I still serve as your public. Lately, I have traveled around the county talking to many residents. I have learned of many who feel they are not listened to. I am traveling in rural areas. I will soon be talking to urban dwellers. Too often, I meet people who have had issues with county planning who feel the Comp Plan is ignored at the department level, the county planning commission level, and the county commissioner level. This saddens me. Too many people have spent too much time on this document to allow this trend to continue in the future. This article was published in the June 5, 2008 op-ed section of the Greeley Tribune. I hope you will read and think about development which allows us to live within our means. Donna (Greeley Tribune Article, June 5, 2008) We plan. We plan to bring order into our lives and give a sense of security and clarity to ourselves. For more than a year I have followed the development of the new Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the work of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)charged to give the county a focus and a big picture view of our community in the future. During this time I observed much debate and learning on the part of committee members. TAC is still meeting, and discussions are in progress. This plan contains many guideposts for the future of all people of Weld. It cites the need for mixed-use developments and the development of practical transportation design. It addresses density in residential areas, calls for meaningful intergovernmental agreements between the county and municipalities that lie within, and suggests that conflicts between urban residential development and rural land uses can be mitigated. In my opinion the most important sentence in the entire document is found in Section 22-2-70, part F. and states, "Growth should pay for itself, in terms of initial costs and in the long term, through good design and functional efficiency."This guidepost is the most important part because it will demand that we live within our means in Weld County. We must plan for an affordable future for all. Currently, municipalities provide a large revenue stream to support services in the unincorporated county. We need development and development can be sustained. Development provides a broader tax base and opportunity for employment and an increase in local business. To accomplish a solid, reliable plan we must understand that residential development anywhere has not fully paid its way. Residential development costs more to sustain because of services needed to support it. Some of these services are schools, water, sanitation, roads, bridges, libraries, and police and fire protection. Our county budget speaks of providing for the costs of new development. What does that look like?What does this mean to all county residents?What are the costs and benefits of new development? To be smart and sustainable the plan for growth can include requirements for consistent application of fiscal impact analysis. As current residents of Weld, we must know as much as we can in regard to new development to insure that we build successful neighborhoods. A fiscal impact analysis would look at the number of commercial and residential areas in existence, measure the total of increase in lots, measure the acreage involved, report the number of on-site septic systems, show a reliable source for water, weigh the impact of increased traffic, review the rising per capita property taxes and review the loss of agricultural land in acres. By such consistent fiscal analysis of new development we can show that Weld County is a place worth investment. We are capable of planning a Community of Weld that is home to a successful economy that affords opportunity for all. Bio: Donna Sapienza is a retired teacher who lives in the Cranford Historic Neighborhood of Greeley. From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us) Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:47 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Ginny Last Name: Shaw Email: shawranches@msn.com Phone: 303-772-1297 Comments: As mentioned in an earlier letter to Brad Mueller, PLEASE consider the possibility of a land preservation program the county could put into work with local municipalities. (Note -- not the same as the "right to farm"quote currently in the comp plan). A program like this would be most beneficial to SW Weld where there are already"boundary concerns"with Longmont& Firestone. We need not only think of the present, but what the future will be like for our children and grandchildren and must plan accordingly. There are ways to give the farmer or rancher another alternative than to sell to the developer. Thank you, Ginny Shaw From: Danna Ortiz [mailto:Danna@CivilResources.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:26 PM To: Kristine Ranslem Subject: RE: WELD COMP PLAN: New Topics, New Goals Hello Kristine. Thank you for the notice. I was reviewing the Natural Resources, Open Places and Parks element of the Comprehensive Plan and I noticed that this section is still from the original Open Space Plan. I'm sure you're likely aware of many if not all of the items that I'm going to mention below, but I thought it was better to bring it up then to regret it later. For example, it states that Milliken has not prepared a formal comprehensive plan or a formal plan for parks, trail and open space. It has relatively similar language for Johnstown as well. Johnstown and Milliken partnered in 2003 to prepare and adopt the Johnstown/Milliken Parks, Trails, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, which has very detailed information on existing and proposed parks, trails and open lands. This plan can be found on either communities' website. In addition, Dacono also adopted the Dacono Parks, Trails and Outdoor Recreation Plan last month. This plan has updated park and trail locations, I think the open space information that you have is relatively unchanged. You can access their plan at www.civilresources.com and then click on Dacono Microsite/Progress Reports (I don't think Dacono's had a chance to get it on their website yet). The document also does not address Erie's Parks, Trails, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, which was adopted in 1997 and has been updated since then. They also should have a newly adopted Natural Resources Inventory, which would likely be helpful to the County. Fort Lupton also has a Parks and Open Space Master Plan and they recently updated their comprehensive plan which also includes a revised trail system and more park information. Their plan is available on their website. Brighton, Fort Lupton, Dacono, Frederick and Firestone have also partnered with Colorado State Parks to create the 52-85 Master Plan, which is a plan for the Colorado Front Range Trail and portions of the St. Vrain Legacy Trail. I believe that each community has an electronic copy of this plan that they could share with you. I appreciate all of the hard work that the County and the dedicated Steering Committee have put into this plan. I think it would be extremely beneficial to all of the municipalities and Weld County if the County's Comprehensive Plan included all of the major regional trails that run through the County and its communities, as well as important natural areas and agricultural lands. Do you anticipate that it will? Will the County also require large developments to include neighborhood and community parks and trails? Thank you again for all of your hard work. Sincerely, Danna Ortiz Danna Ortiz, LEED AP Civil Resources, LLC 323 5th Street P.O. Box 680 Frederick, CO 80530 303.833.1416 x 203(office phone) 303.884.4850 (cell phone) 303.833.2850 (fax) www.civilresources.com Comment submitted April 3, 2008 in Greeley Planning Offices: Urban growth should be directed to local municipalities, commercial development in/near residential communities should provide services and products to the residents, rather than regional customers. Existing policies to mitigate commercial development on neighboring landowners are not being enforced. Enforce existing policies of public participation, disclosure- planning staff should never restrict public comment allowed by law and policy. If Weld County wishes to allow urban scale development outside of cities, then it should update its codes (noise ordinances, etc.)to match urban development issues. Existing Comp Plan talks about quality design -why not start enforcing existing policies? Private property rights include the rights of neighbors to protect their investment from threats to property values. Anonymous From: WesternElegance2@aol.com (mailto:WesternElegance2@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:53 PM To: Brad Mueller; William Garcia; Bill Jerke; Dave Long; Rob Masden; Michelle Martin; Douglas Rademacher Subject: Economic Report-States that are booming Good Morning! I thought you might be interested in this report from ABC News that was released today. An excerpt from it follows in red. I am including the entire article for your consideration. I hope that Weld County will continue to promote and support agriculture. There is less and less of it now and when there is less of something that is needed, the demand and value is even greater. Weld County has been awarded the Governor's Smart Growth and Development Award in the past(signs posted throughout the county) let's stay on that same path. Thank you for your consideration. Ellen Seavey Fort Lupton CO States Booming Economically Not all the states have as tenuous economic times as Nevada, Florida, California and Michigan. There are areas that are growing. They include Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Indiana and North Dakota. The common link here is agriculture, an industry which has benefited from the rising prices of corn, soybean and wheat. Additionally, those states hit hardest by hurricane Katrina, including Louisiana and Alabama, are also flourishing. Recovery efforts have created jobs, and tax incentives have brought businesses back to these regions abc NEWS Find Out Which States Fare Better, Worse Economically Mellody Hobson Gives You the Lowdown on Who's Booming Economically March 26, 2008— Recession fears have rattled international markets and consumers, and it turns out some states are feeling the economic pinch more than others. But while five states have officially entered a recession, others have bucked the trend and have booming economies. "Good Morning America"financial contributor Mellody Hobson tells you which states are struggling, which are booming and what it all has to do with the housing market. States Feeling the Pinch Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Nevada were already in the midst of a recession at the start of the year, and these five states alone account for 25 percent of the nation's total economic output. Another 15 states I which collectively represent another 25 percent of economic output for the U.S. I are at risk of sliding into a recession, and many of these states are in the Midwest, including Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Ohio. So, all told, you essentially have nearly half of the U.S. facing tough times. Common Link As you would expect, the housing market plays a big role. During the housing boom, home prices soared in many parts of the country, and homeowners tapped into their home equity to support their expanding lifestyles, pumping more money into their local economies. The bust of the housing market has had a similar impact ; albeit a negative one L on the same local economies. Take, for example, Nevada, California and Florida. These states saw skyrocketing home prices during the housing boom, and in the month of February, they had the highest rates of foreclosure in the country. States Booming Economically Not all the states have as tenuous economic times as Nevada, Florida, California and Michigan. There are areas that are growing. They include Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Indiana and North Dakota. The common link here is agriculture, an industry which has benefited from the rising prices of corn, soybean and wheat. Additionally, those states hit hardest by hurricane Katrina, including Louisiana and Alabama, are also flourishing. Recovery efforts have created jobs, and tax incentives have brought businesses back to these regions. Swelling oil prices have also contributed to growth, particularly in Louisiana, which is the top crude oil producing state in the country. And while gas prices slipped a bit lower earlier this week from their all-time high of$3.28 a gallon on March 16, they are still incredibly high at an average of$3.25 a gallon. The Deal With the Housing Market As they say in real estate, location is everything I and whether the news is good or bad depends on where you live. Overall, prices are down. The median price of a home is now$195,900, which is 8.2 percent lower than a year ago. However, there are still pockets of the country where home values are stable or even rising. For example, home values rose 9.3 percent in Utah last year, while North Dakota saw a gain of 7.9 percent, and Montana a gain of 6.9 percent. So, whether or not it is a good time to sell depends upon where you live. For home buyers, the same is true I location is everything. The upside of declining prices, as well as the surplus of foreclosed homes, is that many would-be buyers who may have been priced out of the market during the boom times are now able to get in. All this said, the full impact of rising foreclosures is yet to be felt, and I think the housing situation will deteriorate more before it starts to improve. Remember, clusters of foreclosed homes undercut property values for existing homeowners and can also create problems for lenders if their books become too overwhelmed with foreclosed homes selling at fire-sale prices. Copyright©2008 ABC News Internet Ventures Comment submitted March 24 in Greeley Planning Offices: Thanks for an interesting meeting in Longmont February 25. I live in Ranch Eggs Subdivision on 5 acres zoned Ag. Some of my problems can only be fixed by Weld County 1. It is legal for some of my neighbors to have a noncommercial junk yard. 2. I have had a neighbor who has a pet goat and it likes my shrubs and trees. It is my responsibility to fence it out. 3. I have another neighbor who rents part of his place to a person who raises dogs for sale. people come out of the metro-area (Adams County) because restrictions in Weld County are less. 4. I have had difficulty dealing with Weld County Planning when it comes to subdividing my 5 acres. 5. Regulations that get Pit Bulls out of the metro area cause some to move to Weld County. Weld County will never be proud of this area, unless some changes are made at the County level. Call if I can be of any help. Bill Beisner From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 2:19 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: TMSM-Spam: Comp Questions Brad and fellow subcommittee members; Due to the snail-pace of my computer system I shall address my questions by my identifying notes. 1)What's the penalty for a town/city that takes in a development outside the 1/2 or 1/4 mile from the the sewer line? Can the County impose any kind of penalty? Example: Firestone going West and other towns. 2) Regard to 3.4J "would strive to set development fee within the UGB areas". Would this be classified as an Impact Fee?Who would administrate it?Would you use the nearby towns rate? 3) Regard to 3.4 "with growth paying for itself and the future". The towns down south have all collected Impact Fees and after these fees are "gotten and quickly gone"they need to expand territorial developments to continue their administrative ways. Federal changes are not the main reason. Examples of this is Lyons (see Times Call 3/22), and Firestone versus Longmont(Times Call 3/22). 4) If the Land grabbing continues then how will Weld deal with having mostly farms, and agriculture under it's jurisdiction instead of urban sites as all the 1-25 corridor will be governed by big towns in the future. This then leads to the question of the businesses which are in Weld county and have already established themselves along the l- 25 corridor. The towns will want them but the businesses will not want them. Example: Furniture Row, Lexar, Honda, Del Camenio area stores, etc are all outside townships and therefore have a lower tax rate whereas Sears Grand, Costco etc have been flappoled by Northglenn and have almost a .09 cent tax. Will your Comprehensive Plan deal with this conflict of businesses wanting to stay within Weld versus being consumed by a town?Will these businesses have any legal rights? I shall keep this commentary short but would like to know the answer to number 1. Thank you for your time and consideration. Myrna Folsom From: WesternElegance2@aol.com [mailto:WesternElegance2@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:09 AM To: Brad Mueller Cc: Michelle Martin Subject: Comprehensive Plans Dear Mr. Mueller: Thank you so much for having the recent open houses. We appreciate your outreach to the community! This is a time of change for the entire country. Hopefully, we can make the right decisions so that we can prosper and still maintain quality of life! I hope that Weld County retains it's reputation as being a great agricultural county. We are very proud of that fact. My concern is for the future of our youth and our land. The 4-H, FFA and youth livestock programs are very strong in this county and I hope that we encourage that to continue. Farmers and ag producers don't really get the respect that they deserve but we can't live without them. People in Weld also enjoy the rural lifestyle and again are proud to live here. I would like to suggest the following: 1) To preserve agricultural heritage. 2) To encourage urban development within the current municipalities. 3) The area between Brighton and Fort Lupton is prime agricultural land. Many of us farm here and enjoy the agricultural and rural lifestyle. Growth is going to happen but please either create a buffer zone or complimentary growth. 4) Any residential developments in rural areas should be country estates with a minimum of 10 acres. 5) Please keep the current recorded exemption restrictions. 6) Please be concerned about our water supply ... it isn't endless and cannot support huge development. 7) Paul Harvey wrote a piece about quality of life on a dirt road ... it is true. Please preserve our dirt roads. Our dirt Road 6, east of Road 27, is a piece of Americana that we cherish. Plus, dirt roads fits the needs and uses in agricultural/rural areas. 8) Once the land is gone it will NEVER come back so please remember this as you go forward. 9) No heavy industrial or major pollution sources within 1.5 miles of the Platte River. 10) The Platte River needs to be preserved via open space and parks. 11) No Union Pacific Rail yards or similar developments in heavily populated areas or near valuable agricultural ground. Short term gain will lead to long term problems. Carefully, locate these types of businesses on land and in areas that will be less impacted. "Weld County is a right to farm county" (from a sign posted on Colorado Blvd, north of Hwy 7). I hope that this will remain true. Thank you for your time. Ellen Oman 14510 County Road 6 Fort Lupton CO 80621 From: dbsecord@juno.com [mailto:dbsecord@juno.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:55 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Re: FW: Complan Feedback The main thing that I would like to see is the response from the county to the questions and suggestions. This way the public will see what will be done or is being done. On an EIS there is normally a response to each written question. But sometimes the answer is very vague so I am hopping that the county at lest make a good effort to answer the questions and a response to the suggestions. Thanks Dean From: dbsecord@juno.com [mailto:dbsecord@juno.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:55 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Re: FW: Complan Feedback The main thing that I would like to see is the response from the county to the questions and suggestions. This way the public will see what will be done or is being done. On an EIS there is normally a response to each written question. But sometimes the answer is very vague so I am hopping that the county at lest make a good effort to answer the questions and a response to the suggestions. Thanks Dean From: Opatril, Joella [mailto:Joella.Opatril@yellowcorp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:52 AM To: Brad Mueller; Michelle Martin Subject: FW: Weld County Future Plans Good Evening! It is absolutely critical that you contact the following people(at the very end of this email)with your ideas about the future of Weld County and Fort Lupton. They are working on the comprehensive plan and they want to hear from us. Please be sure that your neighbors respond, too. Please contact me if you have any thoughts or suggestions for our group. You may also visit the Weld comprehensive plan web sit at: www.co.weld.us/compplan Thank you. Your comments are very important to our future. Ellen [Responses from Joella follow the questions] Some questions to consider but not limited to ... 1) Should the county promote preservation of ag land over residential development? Absolutely preserve the ag land. There is plenty of residential development to the south of Brighton. 2) Should Weld County preserve it's agricultural heritage and encourage development to occur within the municipalities (Fort Lupton or Brighton city limits)? Brighton and Ft. Lupton areas have been known for a long time as agricultural areas and I do believe and hope everyone else does too, that this is so important to the future. 3) Should Weld County be promoting growth or finding growth that we can live with? If so, where? What kind? We need to find and promote the kind of growth that keeps the area the way it always has been, which is the reason why we all live here. Agricultural, good clean country living. 4) Are you concerned about water to support new developments? Are you concerned about your wells? Yes! Very much so. Look what happened to the Platteville farmers. I think the agricultural areas should have first priority when it comes to water supply. We need to grow crops and keep the agricultural livelihood thriving. It hurts me to see good water running down a city street. No one seems to care about that. True country people have respect for the water, the land and clean air. Everyone needs that to survive. 5) Are you concerned with pollution standards? Traffic? Contamination of the Platte River? Parks & Recreation? If we don't pay attention to our natural resources and protect them, we won't have them for long. No water, no good air to breath, NO LIFE! 5) Do you still want to promote larger acreage properties in the area as opposed to small lots and multi family homes? Absolutely promote larger acreages. There is plenty of room to build in the areas that are already being taken over by commercial and residential growth. 6) What do you see as the future of the area from Hwy 85 to 1-76 between Fort Lupton and Brighton? Hopefully preservation of the open areas, more water access. Here are 2 of the people who should receive your responses: Brad Mueller Long Range Planner 918 10th Street Greeley CO 80631 bmuellerco.weld.co.us (970) 353-6100 ext 3572 Fax: (970) 304-6498 and Michelle Martin Planner II Southwest Weld County Planning Offices 4209 CR 24.5 Longmont CO 80504 mmartinco.weld.co.us (720)652-4210 Ext 8730 Fax(720)652-4211 From: Fichter Farm [mailto:nancy@frii.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:43 PM To: Brad Mueller Cc: mmartin@do.weld.co.us Subject: Re: Weld County Future Plans Good Morning!! It is absolutely critical that you contact the following people with your ideas about the future of Weld County and Fort Lupton. They are working on the comprehensive plan and they want to hear from us. Please be sure that your neighbors respond, too. Please contact us if you have any thoughts or suggestions on how we should be approaching this new comp plan. Thank you. Ellen [Responses from nancy@frii.com follow the question] Some questions to consider but not limited to ... 1) Should the county promote preservation of ag land over residential development?////YES 2) Should Weld County preserve it's agricultural heritage and encourage development to occur within the municipalities (Fort Lupton or Brighton city limits)?///YES 3) Should Weld County be promoting growth or finding growth that we can live with? If so, where? What kind///Growth is not necessary for survival. It should certainly be what we can live with. I would not want to live with many kinds of so-called growth. 4) Are you concerned about water to support new developments? Are you concerned about your wells?//ABSOLUTELY x2 5) Are you concerned with pollution standards? Traffic? Contamination of the Platte River? Parks & Recreation?//YES to all 6) Do you still want to promote larger acreage properties in the area as opposed to small lots and multi family homes? //YES 7) What do you see as the future of the area between 76 & 85 between Fort Lupton and Brighton?///Looks like more houses but who knows? It all depends on who the landowner sells to - private property rights Here are 2 of the people who should receive your responses: Brad Mueller Long Range Planner 918 10th Street Greeley CO 80631 bmueller@co.weld.co.us (970) 353-6100 ext 3572 Fax: (970) 304-6498 and Michelle Martin Planner II Southwest Weld County Planning Offices 4209 CR 24.5 Longmont CO 80504 mmartin@co.weld.co.us (720)652-4210 Ext 8730 Fax (720)652-4211 From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 1:24 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: dean Last Name: secord Email: dbsecordiuno.com Phone: Comments: Please start posting questions, comments, suggestions from the public starting now. This will spur more input from the public. Also post responses to the questions, comments, and suggestions as is done in an EIS. From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster(aw)co.weld.co.usl Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:59 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Phillip Last Name: Willis Email: phil(a osageelectric.com Phone: 303 480 0110 Comments: Thank you for being so aware of private property owners rights. Keep up the fight for that cause as you have in the past. Don't be influenced by the "Boulder Mentality". Keep the open space in the Peoples Republic of Boulder County. We already have 4000 sq miles. From: Kathy Boerema [mailto:starsandfarm@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:36 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Press release House bill 1161 Brad, Thank you holding the open forum and allowing us to give input into what and how we'd like to see develop in this large and diverse county. The road counts will be helpful to us down here. I'm sure by some of the comments you received last night the Union Pacific Rail Yard has left bad feelings for not only Weld County but also Fort Lupton in how this was handled. Dean Secord and others of NoUPRR wanted to work with in the system and I think we did. When I moved to this area from Denver I was told back in 1982 that Fort Lupton area was going to the northern Parker...I think that this area could be that and could also become a technology mecca. Conoco-Phillips just purchased the Storage Tech property and will make it a training center due to open 2012....let's not let Boulder County have all technology companies over there. Now that House Bill 1161 has passed I think that the county needs to step up to plate and develop standards and regulations that will protect our natural resources for generations to come Thank you again for allowing us to give input for the Comprehensive Plan for Weld County. I hope before the plan is totally finalized that you again hold these meetings to see if anything was missed or could be better. Kathy Boerema Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:23 PM Subject: [mining] RELEASE: Glowing victory to protect environment from unsafe uranium mining PRESS RELEASE For immediate release: February 20th, 2008 Contact: Matt Garrington, Environment Colorado (303) 929-8702 Glowing victory to protect environment from unsafe uranium mining Bill to protect Colorado's wild lands and water from unsafe uranium mining projects passes House committee overwhelmingly by an 11-to-2 margin Denver—With overwhelming bipartisan support, the House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee passed a bill to protect Colorado's environment and waters from unsafe uranium mining by an 11-to-2 vote. "The uranium rush could trample our open spaces and poison our waters," said Pam Kiely, legislative program director of Environment Colorado. "This is a glowing victory to protect our environment from radioactive uranium mining." House Bill 1161 would require all uranium mines in Colorado to meet strong environmental and public health protections as a"designated mining operation"and require mining companies to restore groundwater quality of injection or"in-situ" uranium mining projects to its original, pre- condition. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins), Rep. Randy Fischer(D- Fort Collins), and Sen. Steve Johnson. "Today's vote is an important step forward to protect our waters and wild lands," continued Kiely. "We must protect our lands and our waters from the radioactive and toxic pollution of uranium mining." Open pit and underground uranium mining can mar landscapes and contaminate the environment. These uranium mines can leak toxic and radioactive pollution such as aluminum, lead, selenium, uranium, and zinc, posing threats to human health and wildlife. The Dolores River Canyon, a citizen proposed wilderness area on Colorado's West Slope, is littered with hundreds of uranium claims that threaten the natural beauty of this area. Newly proposed in-situ or injection uranium mines have been projects are being explored in wild lands such as Troublesome Creek, west of Rocky Mountain National Park, and on farm and ranch lands in Weld County. "We're one step closer to protecting our water from radioactive uranium mining," said Jeff Parsons, attorney of the Western Mining Action Project. "There's no second chances with the new uranium boom. If we want to protect communities, uranium mining companies need to do it right the first time around." The in-situ leach mining process involves injecting chemicals into aquifers to force out or leach radioactive uranium ore through the aquifer.This uranium mining can release toxic metals such as arsenic, selenium, and uranium, poisoning the groundwater and surrounding landscape. The bill comes as a response to landowners and others close to the proposed Weld County uranium mine who have been fighting the uranium industry for months out of concern that mining will jeopardize their health, drinking water and property. A broad range of groups support the bill such as Colorado Counties Inc., the Colorado Environmental Coalition, the Colorado Medical Society, Environment Colorado, Information Network for Responsible Mining, the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, and citizen groups such as Citizens Against Resource Destruction, Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste, and Alliance for Responsible Mining. Kathy Boerema starsandfarm(@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmasterat7co.weld.co.usj Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:47 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Kathleen Last Name: Neiley Email: kcneiley(a�aol.com Phone: Comments: I attach the link to a current article in Atlantic Monthly regarding the fate of suburban developments in other parts of the country and the trend toward LESS suburban development and more urban development. Colorado's own Belmar area in Littleton is cited as an example of successful development. It would be nice to get off the sprawl bandwagon and begin developing livable, walkable urban communities. The costs associated with suburban development and living are likely to make the current trends in Weld County non-sustainable before they are even finished. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/suborime From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:45 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Elaine Last Name: Stuart Email: estuart@intrado.com Phone: 7208645054 Comments: Home phone 3038570412 Home email rockin-smsn.com Revision to the USR process The USR process, while it may fill the needs of many applications, must be revised and modified to more adequately address more specific areas. This modification and revision must create avenues more correctly applicable to the needs of specific homeowners who desire to better their properties and lifestyles within Weld County. The current requirements are excessive, expensive, and unwieldy, in part unfair, for the treatment of those issues that are not large scale, commercially intended, or which may not impact the county and its communities in a major way. This modification should also better regulate those demands within various county departments that may be unreasonable and unfair, as a result of the USR filing, as it relates to those smaller- size projects. From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:24 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Elaine Last Name: Stuart Email: estuart@intrado.com Phone: 7208645054 Comments: Home phone 3038570412 Home email rockin-smsn.com Weed Control within subdivisions There needs to be better qualification of, rather than merely noxious weeds, what constitutes an infraction of regulation relative to weed allowance and control within those agriculturally zoned subdivisions of one to five acres within Weld County. Home owners with complaints against excessive weeds and excessive weed growth, other than noxious weeds, only have the option to file complaint with the Fire Marshall. There is no progressive action that can be taken within the bounds of the Code that more adequately addresses those needs for weed control other than from a fire hazard perspective. Excessive weed accumulation often detracts from the value of nearby properties and creates hardship to other home owners where they are trying to control weed growth on their property. This all must be reasonable and nonexcessive for all concerned rather meet the needs objectively of existing home owners and those of the County as it deals with its growth within the area. From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:09 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Elaine Last Name: Stuart Email: estuart@intrado.com Phone: 7208645054 Comments: Home telephone 3038570412 Home email rockin-smsn.com There needs to be study of and revision to the 4 percent rule as adopted in 1981 relative to those Agriculturally zoned subdivisions of one to five acres. The present ruling creates undue hardship on those homeowners with livestock who need to manage and adequately provide for their care. This ruling must be further be quantified and aligned to more reasonably fulfill the needs of and create balance between the homeowners and the County relating to both existing homes and structures and anticipated growth. From: Jim O'Marajimomara@comcast.net [mailto:jimomara@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:23 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: FW: Email from contact form directed to Planning Hi Brad, I'm sorry that I didn't get back to you earlier, and I'm tied up today and I'm unsure if I'll be able to attend tonight's meeting of the TAC so I wanted to pass along my biggest point of interest. In discussing where the TAC concluded the last session, and I believe we referenced it in our exchange below, is it possible that you could introduce one topic to the Goal that was being discussed? I suggest the following for discussion: "Goal C A. Goal 3. The extraction of minerals and oil and gas resources should conserve the land AND GROUND AND SURFACE WATERS and minimize the impact on agricultural land AND GROUND AND SURFACE WATERS." Bold Text Added. I believe that this would be a crucial and absolutely necessary inclusion to the land use goal for Weld County, and I hope that you can raise this suggestion to the TAC for discussion tonight so that at a minimum this issue of water quality and quantity can be discussed in regard to the growing potential impacts from the extraction industries. I will do me best to make it tonight and I hope to hear more about this very critical issue from the TAC. Regards, Jim O'Mara Windsor Resident From: Gene Stille [mailto:gene@gongloffgroup.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:21 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: Dear Weld County"Your Town"Workshop Participant Brad, Thank you for the email. Yes, I would like to participate in a 2008"Your Town" Workshop. Though I can't remember his name, the speaker that discussed future development, transportation, and infrastructure was excellent. In addition to the Comp Plan, the following might be interesting topics for concern. Present concerns for the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Uranium mining as it pertains to health & safety, regulation, and personal property rights. Consider air quality regs. How close to the nearest residence/town? 2. Water storage regulation, encouragement, affect on farming and recreation. 3. Mining aggregate to uranium and drilling for oil &gas and the affect on right-to-farm or property rights. 4. Dairies— light pollution to water pollution. 5. High and medium security facilities, e.g. the potential prison in Ault. 6. The minimum 80-acre rule: irrigated vs. non-irrigated (that is water available to land that can be irrigated vs. dry land that can not be accessed w/water). If the infrastructure is available and the land is dry land (range land vs. farm land), the 80- acre rule should not apply. Enhance the RE process for dry land. Thoughts for now. Thanks, Gene Stille Cell -970-405-7980 Office-970-356-LIST (5478) Fax#-970-797-1003 e-mail -aene(Uklongloffgroup.com From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:00 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Rosalie Last Name: Everson Email: flchamber@frii.com Phone: Comments: Hello Brad, I'm going to try to email comments again, as I told you at the South Weld meeting. My major concern is that agriculture is seen only as a pass-through on the way to something"better". What's better than a good meal?Other concern is that there needs to be something that addresses gravel pits and the impact they have on the landscape. Nobody ever comes to Colorado to look at the gravel pits.There needs to be considerable value placed on the esthetics that brought people to Colorado to live and brings people to visit. From:Jim O'Mara jimomara@comcast.net[mailto:jimomara@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:30 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: FW: Email from contact form directed to Planning Hello Brad, I've been to the last two TAC meetings in Nunn and in Windsor, and I've found it to be quite interesting.Thank you for your encouragement to attend. I have a question about the last meeting. It seemed to me that when the TAC discussed "Goal C A. Goal 3. The extraction of minerals and oil and gas resources should conserve the land and minimize the impact on agricultural land."that the goal was overly broad and that there is perhaps room for additional refinement and/or policies to what was presented in the handout? For example, I believe that the farming couple from Mead mentioned uranium mining as a topic that isn't addressed here. What about hard-rock mining as an input to this goal? I have a few thoughts that I would like to submit once I get a chance to refine them. Would you welcome such input? My hope is that I can add something to the next meeting and perhaps add to the TAC's discussion with my submission. Just a thought. Have a great Thanksgiving and I will see you on the 6th. Jim O'Mara Windsor From:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us[mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:08 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Regina Last Name: Quinn Email: reginaquinn@comcast.net Phone: Comments: I was disappointed but not suprised to see weld county did not buy up the land next to st vrain st park. Your county makes very little effort to help with parks and open space. From: Donna Sapienza User[mailto:dsap@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:53 PM To: Stan Everitt Subject: Rural plan Dear Stan, I like your plan because it stresses the key issue of transportation. With growth there is such a need. I am wondering if you could play around with the map and try to take an approach to where these plans would fit as Weld looks now and then in 5, then 10 years? How far out from services could these possibly go?What are the projected carrying capacities?Would these look like Pioneer eventually? I am also wondering what kind of commerce and industry Weld could attract in the future.There is a planning tool in the office of economic development in Greeley. I wonder if playing around with that would help? I am meeting on Monday with a Weld architect to listen and learn about the climate for growth and development in Greeley and Weld. I am interested in trying to think openly about smart regional planning. One thing your plan does is push the group to think and imagine Donna From: Donna Sapienza User Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:44 PM To: Brad Mueller; Stan Everitt Subject:This is not a confidential correspondence Dear TAC, It is a pleasure to watch such tremendous depth of thinking. I am privileged to be present and learn so much from you. Thank you, Donna Sapienza City of Greeley Planning Commissioner(Ward II) From: Donna Sapienza User[mailto:dsap@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:09 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Upstate Colorado info Dear Brad, I have copies of the Demographic Profile of Weld County from Upstate Colorado. Do you have copies of these for the TAC? If you don't I can bring my copies to the next meeting on Thursday night. There are two full pages back-to-back; that's four pages of info which could help give your TAC a quick form of reference on county demographics. Are you interested? Also, so interesting information online as to rural character. Go to: http://www.mrsc.orgisubjects/planning/ruralictedrural.aspx for more information. See you soon. Donna First Name: Cynthia Last Name: Burkhart Email: burkhart80526@msn.com Phone: 970-897-3195 Comments: One thing that absolutely should be added to this is language that restricts in-situ and open pit uranium mining in Weld County. This type of mining activity will decrease state revenue through property devaluation, property abandonment, loss of agricutural businesses, loss of rural business, and loss of population. In addition, this type of mining will threaten the quality of our air supply, further deplete our water table and increase the risks of cancer. From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 11:48 AM To: Michelle Martin; Brad Mueller Subject: highest and best use Brad & Michelle: Fred Walker brought up the issue of"highest and best use" proposing that property owners had the right to utilize their property for its highest and best use. My position is that the use of property should be decided and limited by the foremost and primary consideration for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens in determining its highest and best use, by their elected representatives with guidance from their professional staff. Therefore, it should be made clear that the highest and best use for the landowners must be subordinate to that of the citizenry [if reference to the term highest and best use is made at all} Brad, your comment is well taken, that it is basically a real estate term [and therefore not appropriate for use in the Comp. Plan] See below. John Highest and best use From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Highest and best use is a concept in Real estate appraisal. It states that the value of a property is directly related to the use of that property; the highest and best use is the reasonably probable use that produces the highest property value. This use, the Highest and Best Use, may or may not be the current use of the property. Contents [hide] • 1 Test of Highest and Best Use o 1.1 Legally allowable o 1.2 Physically possible o 1.3 Financial Feasibility o 1.4 Maximally Productive Use • 2 Vacant and improved • 3 Economic theory • 4 References [edit]Test of Highest and Best Use In order to be considered as the Highest and Best Use of a property, any potential use must pass as series of tests. The exact definition of Highest and Best Use varies, but generally the use must be: • legally allowable • physically possible • financially feasible • maximally productive [edit] Legally allowable Only those uses that are or may be allowed can be considered as a potential Highest and Best Use. This may exclude uses that are not now and can not be expected to be allowed by zoning, uses forbidden by government regulations, and uses prohibited by deed restrictions or covenants. For example, a property that is in an area that is zoned only for single family residential houses could not legally be used for a commercial or industrial facility. Properties with a use that predates existing zoning regulations may be legally nonconforming. Legally nonconforming uses, also called grandfathered uses, are generally considered to be legal uses of the property even though they do not meet existing zoning regulations. Since their use predates the zoning regulations that would have made them illegal, they are "grandfathered in". However, some such uses may not be reproduced if the legally nonconforming improvement is destroyed or damaged beyond a certain point. [edit] Physically possible Any potential use must be physically possible given the size, shape, topography, and other characteristics of the site. For example a 40,000 square foot single story warehouse would not fit on a 10,000 square foot site, therefore that use would fail the physical possibility test. [edit] Financial Feasibility The highest and best use of a property must be financially feasible. This means that the proposed use of a property must generate adequate revenue to justify the costs of construction plus a profit for the developer. In the case of an improved property, with obvious remaining economic life, the question of financial feasibility is somewhat irrelevant. In the case of an improved property with limited remaining economic life, the question of financial feasibility becomes a question of the maximally productive use of the site. If the value of the land As Vacant exceeds the value of the property As Improved, then redevelopment of the site becomes the maximally productive use of the property and continued use of the existing improvements that do not represent the highest net value of the site is considered to be financially unfeasible. [edit] Maximally Productive Use Finally the use must generate the highest net return (profit)to the developer. A property that could hypothetically be developed with residential, commercial or industrial development might only have one of those uses as its highest and best use. These three hypothetical development scenarios follow to illustrate the test of maximally productive use. Price of Site: $100,000 (remains unchanged in all three examples) Cost to construct 10,000 SF industrial warehouse: $750,000 Market Value of 10,000 SF industrial warehouse: $910,000 Profit for industrial development: 7% Cost to construct 10,000 SF retail strip center: $1,500,000 Market Value of 10,000 SF retail strip center: $1,840,000 Profit for retail development: 15% Cost to construct 10,000 SF of residential condominiums: $1,200,000 Market Value of 10,000 SF of residential condominiums: $1,534,000 Profit for residential development: 18% As the examples illustrate, even though the retail development results in the overall highest market value for the development, the residential development scenario results in the highest net return to the developer and this makes it the maximally productive use. [edit]Vacant and improved The Test of Highest and Best Use is applied to an improved properties both as improved and as if vacant. Vacant properties are generally only given the as vacant test. The Highest and Best Use as vacant may be the same or different as the Highest and Best use as improved. For example, "House A" in a residentially zoned area may have a highest and best use as vacant and a highest and best use as improved that are both residential. A similar"House B" in a commercially zoned area may have a highest and best use as vacant as a commercial lot and highest and best use as improved as a single family residence. If the value of the commercial lot as vacant in "House B" exceeds the value of house as a residence as improved plus demolition costs, the overall highest and best use of this property would be the as vacant value of the commercial lot. For example, assume that"House B" has a value as a house of$200,000, and a site value as a commercial lot of$250,000 with a cost to demolish the house and prepare the site at$25,000. The Highest and Best Use of the site is to demolish the house and sell the site as a commercial lot. The market value would be $225,000 ($250,000 site value minus $25,000 demolition cost). However if the demolition costs rose to $55,000, the Highest and Best Use would be the existing residential use, because the value as a commercial lot(now$195,000)would not exceed the existing value as a residence. This would be the Highest and Best Use of the property, even though it is contrary to what actually exists. Even if the house is not razed and the site sold as a commercial lot, the Highest and Best Use is the commercial lot use. The market value of the property is driven by this hypothetical conversion, even if it never takes place due to the utility that this potential conversion would bring to a purchaser. [edit] Economic theory The economic concepts of utility and substitution drive the highest and best use analysis. The highest and best use of a property determines its utility to a potential purchaser. The purchaser of such a property would pay no more than a competing property with the same utility while a seller would accept no less that a seller of a comparable property. That is true to the neighbourhood. [edit] References • The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th Edition, by the Appraisal Institute Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.orq/wiki/Highest and best use" Category: Real estate Views • Article • Discussion • Edit this page • History Personal tools • Sign in /create account Navigation • Main page • Contents • Featured content • Current events From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 11:57 AM To: Michelle Martin; Brad Mueller Subject: urban development Brad & Michelle: The question came up at the last TAC meeting as to the definition of"urban development". The references to it in Section 22-2-70 are not specific regarding density, spelling out only its general characteristics. However, Section 24-1-40 provides a defiinition for both urban scale and nonurban scale development[which see]. Basically it states that developments that exceed nine residential lots are urban scale developments that must have provisions for listed services and locations. Below is additional information relating to what is densitywise considered to be urban areas. John Urban area From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search tvi ' fps " Cities with atleast a million inhabitants in 2006 An urban area is an area with an increased density of human-created structures in comparison to the areas surrounding it. This term is at one end of the spectrum of suburban and rural areas. An urban area is more frequently called a city or town. Urban areas are created and further developed by the process of urbanization. Measuring the extent of an urbanized area helps in analyzing population density and urban sprawl, and in determining urban and rural populations. Unlike an urban area, a metropolitan area includes not only the urban area, but also satellite cities plus intervening rural land that is socio-economically connected to the urban core city, typically by employment ties through commuting, with the urban core city being the primary labor market. This makes metropolitan areas a less relevant statistic for determining per capita land usage and densities. Contents [hide] • 1 Definitions o 1.1 Canada o 1.2 France o 1.3 United States • 2 See also • 3 References • 4 External links [edit] Definitions Definitions vary somewhat amongst different nations. The minimum density requirement is generally 400 persons per square kilomete 1cltat1°"needed! In Australia, urban areas are referred to as "urban centres"and are defined as population clusters of 1000 or more people, with a minimum density of 200 people per square kilometer al. In Japan urbanized areas are defined as contiguous areas of densely inhabited districts (DIDs) using census enumeration districts as units with a density requirement of 4,000 people per square kilometer. European countries define urbanized areas on the basis of urban-type land use, not allowing any gaps of typically more than 200 meters, and use satellite photos instead of census blocks to determine the boundaries of the urban area. In less developed countries, in addition to land use and density requirements, a requirement that a large majority of the population, typically 75%, is not engaged in agriculture and/or fishing is sometimes used. Statistics New Zealand defines New Zealand urban areas for statistical purposes as a settlement with a population of a thousand people or more. The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. [edit] Canada In Canada, an urban area is an area that has more than 400 people per square kilometre and has more than 1,000 people v. If two or more urban areas are within two kilometres of each other, they are merged into a single urban area. U The boundaries of an urban area are not influenced by municipal or even provincial boundaries. ll [edit] France In France, an urban area is a zone (afire urbaine)englobing an area of built-up growth (a unite urbaine-close in definition to the North American urban area) and its commuter belt(couronne periurbaine). Although the official INSEE translation of aire urbaine is "urban area 21, most North Americans would find the same as being similar in definition to their metropolitan area. [edit] United States In the United States there are two categories of urban area. The term urbanized area denotes an urban area of 50,000 or more people. Urban areas under 50,000 people are called urban clusters. Urbanized areas were first delineated in the United States in the 1950 census, while urban clusters were added in the 2000 census. There are 1371 United States Urban Areas & Urban Clusters with more than 10,000 people. The US Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)." The concept of Urbanized Areas as defined by the US Census Bureau are often used as a more accurate gauge of the size of a city, since in different cities and states the lines between city borders and the urbanized area of that city are often not the same. For example, the city of Greenville, South Carolina has a city population under 60,000 but an urbanized area over 300,000, while nearby Winston-Salem, North Carolina has a city population of 180,000, making it appear to be much larger than Greenville, but once the urbanized area is considered, the population is about 270,000 meaning that Greenville is actually a "larger" city for all intents and purposes. [edit] See also • Ranked list of New Zealand main urban areas • Largest urban areas of the European Union • Largest urban areas of the United States • List of the 100 largest urban areas in Canada by population • Urban culture [edit] References 1. A a°Q Statistics Canada Dictionary 2. A(French) Nomenclatures Definitions- Methodes -Aire urbaine(HTML). Retrieved on 2007-07-07. [edit] External links • World Urban Areas All From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 7:47 AM To: michelle morgan; Brad Mueller Subject: property rights Michelle and Brad: The following citations are taken from annotations to Article II, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution. These citations, the suggested Weld County Comprehensive Plan change and comment are directed to TAC members as public input. In view of these citations related to the limitation of property rights, it is suggested that section 22-1-120[A] Private Property Rights, of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan be deleted and changed to the following: "The U. S. and Colorado Constitutions recognize the inalienable right to possess property. However, the use of property is subject to regulation by the police powers of government to protect the public's health, safety and welfare." Comment: The current wording in this section fails to define the relationship of private property rights to the prevailing power of government to regulate them for the purpose of protecting the public's health, safety and welfare. It is not a "balance" between private property rights and health, safety and welfare as presently stated in the section. Health, safety and welfare is of primary, priority importance on which government's power to regulate private property rights [here, land use] is founded. John Folsom Citations: Limitations may be placed upon an inalienable or inherent right if the limitation is based upon proper exercise of the police power. People v. Brown, 174 Cob. 513, 485 P.2d 500 [1971]. Constitutionally protected rights in property are subject to regulation by a proper exercise of the police power of the state. Cob. Anti-Discrimination Comm'n V. Case, 151 Cob. 235, 380 P2d 34 [1962]. An individual's right to use the public highway of this state is an adjunct of the constitutional right to acquire, possess and protect property, yet such a right maybe limited by a proper exercise of the police power of the state based on a reasonable relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. People vs. Brown, 174 Colo. 513, 485 P.2d 500 [1971]. [Italics, mine] From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:43 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: comp plan suggestions Brad: Below, as you suggested, I am submitting my suggestions to the TAC members for changes to the Comprehensive Plan for only those sections and divisions that will be discussed by the Committee at the June 14, 2007 meeting according to the agenda. . There are substantial additions and explanations to the previous suggestions that I submitted. Section 22-2-220 is an exception. It is included as it provides the rationale for some proposed change recommendations for parts of Article I [Sections 22-1-10-22-1-170, Divisions 1 through 3. Please forward them to the TAC members. Thanks, John The following are suggestions for changes to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, Sections 22- 1-10 through 22-1-170 that are listed on the agenda to be discussed at the June 14, 2007 meeting. Submitted by John Folsom Weld County Land Use Regulations, Weld County Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 22, Article 1, General Provisions 20-1-10 Introduction 20-1-10[C] Comment: The role of the county commissioners is unique in government in that they have legislative, executive, appeal and judicial powers. To protect the interests of Weld County residents from arbitrary actions, it is important, that, at minimum, the county commissioners are required to abide by the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances and requirements, subdivision procedures, goals and policies, etc. Therefore, the TAC might consider introducing wording into this section to assure that the county commissioners' decisions are bound, rather than just guided, by these various documents. 20-1-10[C] Delete the word growth, add the word land use to the sentence, which will then read: "The Comprehensive Plan is a document...all of which combine to make the framework used by County government to manage land use in the County". 20-1-50 Introduction 20-1-50[C][2][b] Add the words in italics: "The County will encourage and promote coordination and cooperation between the County and federal, state and local government entities charged with making decisions which significantly affect land uses in unincorporated Weld County as well as in incorporated Weld County'. 20-1-50[C][2][d] Add words in italics: "The County will consider recommendations from referral agencies, professionals and citizens in making recommendations on land use applications". Comment: Citizen input is important, as it is the citizens who have to live with County government decisions, which, hopefully, are for their benefit. 20-1-50[D]Article II LAND USE CATEGORIES Delete"The 1-25 Mixed Use Development area [MUD] is also addressed in this Article with goals and policies specific to this area included"; subject to implementing the recommendation in section 22-2-220 below. 20-1-50[D][2][a]Add the words in italics: "Urban growth will occur where it is appropriate, that is, in municipalities". Comment: This is supported overwhelmingly by planners, by legislative regulation and even by the recent"Your Town" County sponsored workshop which addressed urban development in towns and cities, non-urban rural development, but not urban development in the unincorporated County. 20-1-50[D][2][b] Delete, in its entirety and reletter. 20-1-50[D][3][a][1] Delete in its entirety and reletter. 20-1-50[D][3][b] Delete words underlined, add those in italics: "Industrial development, other than utilities and mining_that is not directly related to agriculture is intended to be located inside municipalities or in areas that can support the activity with adequate services and facilities. 20-1-50[D][3][c] Delete: "Urban commercial uses will be encouraged when located within urban areas or where support for such uses is currently available or reasonably obtainable", and add: "Commercial development is intended to be located within municipalities." 20-1-50[D][3][d][1] Delete from the first sentence: "inside urban growth boundary areas, or in areas where appropriate services and facilities are currently available or reasonably obtainable" and add: "Urban scale residential development is intended to be located within municipalities." 20-1-50[D][3][e] Mixed Use. Delete in its entirety and reletter, subject to implementing the recommendation in section 22-2-220 below.. 20-1-50[D][4][b] Delete: "Urbanization occurring in and around the cities and towns within the County." and change to: "Urbanization occurring in municipalities". 22-1-110[A] Delete reference to chapter 26; subject to implementing the suggestion in 22-2-220 below. 22-1-110[G] Delete the words "Mixed Use Development" and the reference to Chapter 26, subject to implementing the recommendation in Section 22-2-220 below. 20-1-120 Comprehensive Plan guiding principles Add introductory sentence: "The Comprehensive Plan provides the guiding principles for land use decisions that will best serve the health, safety, economic and social welfare, and quality of life of all the residents of Weld County." Delete existing sentences. Rationale: This section should be introduced with a general definition as to the comprehensive plan guiding principles, and then go on to stating specific guiding principles. The present introduction, beginning: "The Comprehensive Plan was originally written..." is irrelevant. 22-1-120[A] Private Property Rights: Delete existing sentences. Change to: "It is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property in such manner as permitted by law. Legislation and court decisions regulate private property rights. They are not unlimited rights but rather rights that do not conflict with the primary responsibility, in the case of the comprehensive plan, for the protection community health, safety, welfare and quality of life. It is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to express the needs, a vision, the regulations and procedures for future changes in land use, which will protect those rights reserved for property owners." Rationale: As now stated in this paragraph of the comprehensive plan, the "right to own and utilize their property" is not specifically addressed as a "basic principle" in either the U. S. or State Constitutions. The only reference to private property in the U. S. Constitution is the provision for compensation if property is seized under eminent domain. 22-1-120[C] Fairness in the Land Use Change Procedure: [5] Change"educated"to"informed". [6] "This process must be fair and equitable to all parties in the following ways. It has an established appeal process." Comment: As far as I know the only recourse from the county commissioners land use decisions is through an appeal to the courts. 22-1-120[D] Recognition of the County's Diversity: Add words in italics: "It is also important to weigh the cumulative impacts that specific land use changes will have on the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the local community and throughout the County." 22-1-120[E] Regulations Addressing Land Use Changes: Eliminate and reletter: Repeats what is stated in [A]. 22-1-120[F] Economic Prosperity: Add the sentence: "The County recognizes that the proper planning location for urban scale and density development, not related to agriculture, is within municipalities." Reletter: [C] to [A] and [A] to[C]. [C] is more specifically essential to the accomplishment of the introductory sentence. 22-1-140 Planning process Change title of the section to Sec. "22-1-140 Planning land use application process". 22-1-140[A][C] & [D] Remove references to Chapter 26 subject to implementing recommendation in Section 22-2-220 below. 22-1-140[E][2]: Add words in italics to sentence: "The County will encourage and promote coordination and cooperation between the County and federal, state and local government entities charged with making decisions which significantly affect land uses in incorporated and unincorporated Weld county." Add the sentences: "The County is aware that it is the role of municipalities to plan for and control urban scale and density development. To insure that the planning process is compatible with the goals and policies of the incorporated parts of the County, the planning process shall include County coordination and cooperation with the plans of municipalities in making decisions, which affect land uses in those parts of the County. 22-1-140[E][4]: Add the words in italics to sentence: "The county will rely, in part, upon the recommendations from referral agencies, citizens and professionals in making recommendations on land use applications." 22-1-140[B][4] & [7]Amendment to I-25 Mixed Use Development area Map. Delete in its entirety subject to implementing the recommendation for Section 22-2-220 below. 22-1-160 Location: Bring information up to date where necessary. 22-1-170 County population: Bring information up to date where necessary and available. 22-2-220 1-25 Mixed Use Development area and urban development nodes. There are several references to the Mixed Use Development area [MUD] in chapter 22 and other articles and sections of the Comprehensive Plan. Permit me to give you a little history of how the MUD came about, its irrelevance in today's land use picture and the damage it is doing to planning and living in the MUD area. Over the years, County government had permitted several businesses and a mobile home park to operate at the 1-25 "Del Camino" [mile 240] interchange. At the time, no municipality was in a position to annex into the Del Camino area. There were ongoing problems with the individual waste treatment facilities at the site. The County in concert with some local investors and property owners came up with the idea of forming a sanitation district having facilities to eliminate the problem. Because of the large investment necessary to construct the necessary waste treatment facilities, it was decided to create the MUD, which would permit development throughout an area sizable enough to financially support the operation of the sanitation district's facilities. Permitting development in the MUD on unincorporated County land was a direct reversal of existing policy for the rest of County. Today, the situation is entirely changed. Area municipalities have annexed contiguous to and within the MUD area. Their comprehensive plans include the MUD area. They are entirely capable of and seek to develop under their jurisdiction in the MUD area. It is acknowledged by the state constitution, legislation and planning authorities that urban density and scale is the proper role of municipalities. In short, there is no purpose today for the existence of the MUD. The sanitation district is now profitable and the municipalities can properly develop the area under their comprehensive plans. Meanwhile, continued approval of expansion of the MUD area and of new urban density and scale development by the Weld County Commissioners is creating interspersed municipal and County developments, scattered County developments, disruption of, and additional costs for, providing of infrastructure and services, disrupting any sense of community, varying standards within the area, unearned financial benefits to developers resulting from competition between municipalities and the County, traffic problems resulting from different road standards, regulations and permitted improvements, and the resulting reduction in quality of life for the residents in the MUD area. Based on the above line of reasoning, may I suggest that the TAC members consider recommending elimination of all references to the 1-25 MUD in chapter 22, revocation of Chapter 26 in its entirety and all references to it in other sections of the Weld County Code. From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f2000@yahoo.com] A Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 6:14 M_ To: Brad Mueller Subject: 22-1-120 revisions Brad: Below are suggested revisions to 22-1-120. I hope they can be forwarded to the TAC members before next Thursday's Meeting for reasons previously given. Thank you, John The following are suggested changes to section 22-1-120 of the Weld County Code. [At the last meeting, it was propoosed that this section be discussed at the next meeting on Thursday.] Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles Add introductory sentence: "The Comprehensive Plan provides the guiding principles for land use decisions that will best serve the health, safety, economic and social welfare, and quality of life of all the residents of Weld County." Delete existing sentences. Rationale: This section should be introduced with a general definition as to the comprehensive plan guiding principles, and then go on to stating specific guiding principles. The present introduction, beginning: "The Comprehensive Plan was originally written..." is irrelevant. 22-1-120[A] Private Property Rights: Change to: "Legislation regulates private property rights. They are not unlimited rights but rather rights that do not conflict with the primary responsibility of the comprehensive plan for the protection community health, safety, welfare and quality of life. It is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to express the needs, a vision, the regulations and procedures for future changes in land use, which will protect those rights reserved for property owners." Delete existing sentences. Rationale: As now stated in this paragraph of the comprehensive plan, the "right to own and utilize their property" is not specifically addressed as a "basic principle" in either the U. S. or State Constitutions. The only reference to private property in the U. S. Constitution is the provision for compensation if property is seized under eminent domain. 22-1-120[C] Fairness in the Land Use Change Procedure: [5] Change "educated" to "informed". [6] As far as I know the only recourse from the county commissioners land use decisions is through an appeal to the courts. 22-1-120[D] Recognition of the County's Diversity: Add to the last sentence: "on the health, safety, welfare and quality of life on the local community and throughout the County." 22-1-120[E] Regulations Addressing Land Use Changes: Eliminate and reletter: Repeats what is stated in [A]. 22-1-120[F] Economic Prosperity: Add the sentence: "The County recognizes that the proper planning location for urban scale and density development, not related to agriculture, is within municipalities." Reletter: [C] to [A] and [A] to[C]. [C] is more specifically essential to the accomplishment of the introductory sentence. From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 5:56 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: public input to the TAC Brad: I appreciate your listening to my suggestions for making public input to the TAC most effective in their deliberations, and confirm them, as follows; I think it's important that the TAC members receive the public input regarding topics included on the next agenda as early as possible. My experience on the planning commission was that if the public comments were received with the case packet beforehand, they were reviewed by the commissioners along with the other material. If the public input was handed out to the commissioners at the time the case came up at the meeting they had little opportunity to consider them. Therefore, might I suggest that those of the public signed up to receive TAC proceedings information be emailed upcoming agendas or they be posted on the County website as soon as possible so that the public would have the earliest opportunity to send input-and that input be provided to the TAC members as received rather than at the meeting. On another matter, at the previous comp plan update in 2002, the facilitator, Robert Anderson, of the dept. of planning services, conducted the meetings [I don't recall if there was even a chairman of the update committee]. Robert had a set up whereby he projected on a screen the specific section of the comp. plan that was under consideration. He would alter the wording as change suggestions were made and immediately finalize them on the screen as they were approved by the update committee vote. This kept all members on the same page about what was being discussed and presented it graphically instead of just conversationally which moved things along expeditiously and smoothly in an orderly fashion. Maybe some of the software for such a presentation is still around. Staff that was there at the time might know. Just a suggestion. As far as the role of the staff member conducting their deliberations, he provided information as to what was considered by the planning community to be appropriate to a comprehensive plan. Thanks, John From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:04 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: Theodore A. Last Name: Rademacher Email: TRadem_1648@msn.com Phone: 30833-4287 Comments: Making road 9.5 a exit off 1-25 is one the most stupid ideas i have ever heard! It only benefits a few land owners and is a bad plan From: Webmaster@co.weld.co.us [mailto:Webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:10 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Complan Feedback First Name: John Last Name: Folsom Email: myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com Phone: 303 833 2992 Comments:What follows are suggestions for updating and revising the Weld County comprehensive plan, chapter 22 of the Weld County Code. It should be apparent from the changes suggested below that they basically address County involvement in urban scale and density development. These changes in no way indicate a negative attitude towards growth in the County. They represent a viewpoint addressing from whence urban scale and density development should come, that is, municipalities. The last time the comprehensive plan was revised saw an emphasis on County involvement in such development. The committee members who proposed the changes, a few years ago, appointed by the county commissioners, were predominantly involved in professions and businesses that would personally benefit them from urban scale and density development. Not surprisingly, they made recommendations for changes that advanced their interests, even if in violation of the accepted tenets of high-quality planning for the benefit of all the residents of Weld County. Not surprisingly, the then, county commissioners accepted the committee's recommendations, as they were compatible with their goals. Through legislation, the state legislature has provided ample opportunities for municipalities to develop urban scale and density industrial, commercial development within their borders with the objective of concentrating such development in municipalities and under their control.To prevent scattered, isolated, ill or expensively serviced development, the legislature passed the three mile per year annexation rule that permitted municipal to annex anywhere within three miles of its current borders, using the process of flagpoling if necessary to achieve contiguity. In the Municipal Annexation Act, the legislature also established rules for the processes leading to development. As indicated by the lack of similar legislation affecting counties, the legislature obviously did not anticipate circumvention of this policy by County government permitting such development anywhere in the county. The suggestions, taken from the comprehensive plan, chapter 22, of the Weld county Code: 22-1-10 Introduction 22-1-10[C] Comment: The role of the county commissioners is unique in government in that they have legislative, executive and judicial powers. To protect the interests of Weld County residents from arbitrary actions, it is important, that, at minimum, the county commissioners be required to abide by the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances and requirements, subdivision procedures and policies, etc. Therefore, the TAC might consider introducing wording into this section to assure that the county commissioners' decisions are bound, rather than just guided, by these various documents. Change: "to manage growth in the County" to "to manage land use in the County" 22-1-140 [E][2] Comment: To date, the county commissioners have been ineffective in fulfilling the goals of this paragraph. In effect, the IGAs with municipalities have resulted in restrictions on municipalities' growth by imposing urban growth boundaries while not restricting urban scale and density growth on lands in the unincorporated County. 1. Consider changing the paragraph to state: "The County will encourage and promote coordination and cooperation between the County and federal, state, municipal and other governmental entities 2. Add language to state that the County is aware that it is the role of municipalities to plan for and control urban scale and density development. Comment: As stated above, it is the purpose of these suggested changes to the comprehensive plan to put a stop to urban scale and density development in the unincorporated County. There are many procedural references in comprehensive plan required for proceeding with such developments. There is the option of leaving them in the plan as County recommended guidelines for processing developments within municipalities, as an element in producing developments that are compatible to both the future of the municipality and the County. Otherwise, they would be irrelevant as they pertained to urban scale and density development, and should be deleted. 22-1-150[4][b] Comment: New urban scale and density residential developments impose impacts on all agencies affected by providing services to it. These impacts are one time costs for service augmentation to increase capacity, and continuous operating costs. The latter are primarily covered by fees and/or property taxes. It is suggested that the former be addressed in this section by requiring the applicant to provide professional estimates of these costs and proposing their mitigation by contributions by the applicant so that they do not fall on the general public. Amongst other things, they would include roads, schools, utilities and amenities such as libraries, recreation centers, parks, trails and open space. It is suggested that all references within the comprehensive plan to the "1-25 MUD", urban development nodes or where adequate services are available or reasonably obtainable, and the entire Chapter 26 be deleted. As now stated in the comprehensive plan, this permits urban scale and density development on unincorporated lands anywhere in, at least, the southwestern part of the County. Failing the latter, it is encouraged that the TAC recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the elimination of that chapter from the Weld County Code. Create a new 22-1-150[7][f] "The Planning Staff will recommend denial if the amendment area to the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area Map is not contiguous to the existing map" [There is at least one instance of the county commissioners ignoring this requirement in the past]. Create a new 22-1-150[9][C] "The Planning Commission will recommend denial if the amendment area to the 1-25 Mixed Use Development are Map is not contiguous to the existing map." 22-2-10[A] Add the following: "In the interest of good planning and for the welfare of the residents of Weld County, County government will seek to concentrate future development within these trade centers under the control of the municipal governments which therein exist. 22-2-10[B]Add the following to: "Future growth will require continued urban land area expansion exclusively within municipal urban growth areas, as well as limited, low density amounts of rural area development" 22-2-10[C]Add the following to the paragraph: "As well, in the unincorporated areas of the County, some small lot, urban density developments have been permitted which are of controversial planning merit and potential negative consequence. 22-2-20[D] Eliminate the first sentence: "It is expected that the pattern of growth will continue as described in section 22-2-10, Foundation of existing land uses."And substitute: "The comprehensive plan has as one of its objectives to direct the future pattern of growth to that which reflects high-quality planning that will promote the best interests of the residents of the County." 22-2-20[E] Add the following to: "...however, other lands in the County's jurisdiction may be suitable for, but restricted exclusively to, less intensive, non urban density, development." 22-2-20[E][2] Add a second sentence: "These agreements and boundaries should be sufficiently flexible so as to not restrict the growth of municipalities as conditions warrant and assure that urban scale and density development occurs only within their boundaries." 22-2-20[E][3] Strike this section in its entirety. Comment: Urban density development as stated here violates the intent of IGAs where they exist, constitutes a violation of the rights and abilities of all municipalities to grow in a harmonious manner for the benefit of all residents in the county and is an egregious example of what is universally not acceptable as high quality planning. 22-2-20[E][4]Add: "Encourage and actively, materially assist and implement the conservation of agricultural land ....". 22-2-20[F][1] Change to: "Urban growth occurring where it is appropriate, that is, urban growth areas annexed by municipalities." 22-2-20[F][3] Add: "Agriculture will be supported, provided with the means to actively promote it and continue to be a mainstay of the County." 22-2-60[A][2] A.Policy 1.2 Add: The County should support and actively assist in the development of agricultural policies to conserve agricultural land, including preservation techniques, prioritizing incentives and conservation easements. 22-2-60[B]A Goal 2: Strike in its entirety. Comment: Its goal and its policies conflict with those of section 22-2-60[A] and puts the County in competition for exercising the role that proper planning reserves for municipalities. 22-2-60[C]A.Goal 3: Delete "Urban-scale residential, commercial and industrial development will be discouraged in areas where adequate services and infrastructure are not currently available or reasonably obtainable."Add: "County urban scale and density development shall not be permitted, except that associated with agriculture." 22-2-[C][2] A.Policy 3.2: Change "determine the intensity of development allowed" to"determine if any development is allowed". Section 22-2-70 Urban Development: Add: "The County recognizes that urban scale and density development is the proper role of municipalities and will refer applications for them to the appropriate municipality. Municipalities have the ability to coordinate the provision of adequate urban facilities and services under the powers granted by state statutes and the Constitution. The adopted urban growth boundary areas are the most logical areas for urban development to occur. Municipalities are designed to accommodate concentrations of development and are in a position to plan the expansion of existing facilities and services, as well as to coordinate the development of new facilities and services" {The latter sentence is included in the current comprehensive plan at section 22-3-10 [E]!} Section 22-2-80 Concerns of Development: Add a new A as follows and reletter. "Recognizing that urban scale and density development properly takes place in municipalities, the County shall cooperate with municipalities to insure that urban scale and density growth within them is made as compatible as possible with land uses in the County and the processes conducted by the municipalities achieves this." Section 22-2-100 Urban Growth [A]: Strike in its entirety and reletter. [F]: If it is accepted that urban scale and density development should properly take place within lands annexed to municipalities, these paragraphs should be deleted. Furthermore, steps should be taken to delete Chapter 26 and portions of other chapters that refer to urban scale and density development on unincorporated County lands. Section 22-2-70 Urban development [A]: Change : "where urban services exist or can be provided"to"where urban services exist and can be provided". Add the sentences: "The accepted conventions for high-quality planning prescribe that urbanization be located in municipalities, which are created and intended for this purpose and function. Therefore, the County will direct that inquiries for such development be referred to appropriate municipal governments." Section 22-2-80 Concerns of development [A] Strike reference to chapter 26. Add, following "27 of this code"this wording: "for those developments that are appropriate for inclusion in the unincorporated, defined else where in chapter 22." Section 22-2-90 Benefits of urban development [B] Add the following sentence: "These areas should be annexed to appropriate municipalities for development." 22-2-100 Urban growth [A] Change the second sentence to read: "Efficient development in the area surrounding municipalities requires this type of coordination which is achieved by referral of any urban development proposals to the appropriate municipality and cooperation between the County, municipality and developer to insure that the best results are achieved by all concerned including, and in particular, the general public." [B] After: "urban-type development take place in or adjacent to existing municipalities" add the wording"under the jurisdiction of municipalities." Strike: "or where adequate infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable" [F] Strike in its entirety. Section 22-2-110 Urban growth boundaries goals and policies Add to the introductory paragraph: "Urban growth boundaries are established to promote appropriate development under the jurisdiction of municipalities. They should in no way restrict the ability of municipalities to develop or provide an alternative for urban development to occur under County jurisdiction. They are created solely for the purpose of promoting and coordinating cooperation between the County, municipalities and developers to achieve the realization of the most beneficial land use for all concerned including the general public. The policies delineated within this section as they affect municipalities are meant to be advisory." [B][2]: strike: "and the I-25 MUD". Section 22-2-140 Industrial development In the introductory paragraph eliminate the wording: "1-25 Mixed Use Development area, urban development nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable". Add to the sentence: "Land zoned for industrial use is found in almost every municipality in the County" the words: "and such zoning should be confined to lands under municipal jurisdiction." Add: "This section delineates County recommended policy, goals, criteria and requirements for processing applications for industrial development by municipalities." Section 22-2-150 Industrial development goals and policies Add an introductory paragraph: "All goals and policies contained in this section are for the purpose of promoting the benefits of high quality planned industrial development under the jurisdiction of municipalities." Section 22-2-160 Commercial development In the introductory paragraph eliminate the wording: "I-25 Mixed Use Development area, urban development nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable". Add: "Commercial development should be confined to lands under municipal jurisdiction. This section delineates County recommended policies, goals, criteria and requirements for processing applications for commercial development by municipalities." Section 22-2-170 Commercial development goals and policies Add an introductory paragraph: "All goals and policies contained in this section are for the purpose of promoting the benefits of high quality planned commercial development under the jurisdiction of municipalities." [A] C Goal 1: Eliminate the wording: "1-25 Mixed Use Development area, urban development nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable". [C][1] Strike"27". Section 22-2-180 Residential development Add an introductory paragraph: "Urban density development should be confined to municipalities. This section delineates County recommended policies, goals, criteria and requirements for processing applications for residential development by municipalities and County standards and requirements for non-urban development in the County." Section 22-2-190 Residential development goals and policies Add introductory paragraph: "Urban density development should be confined to municipalities. This section delineates County recommended policies, goals, criteria and requirements for processing applications for residential development by municipalities and County goals and policies for non-urban development in the County." [A][1] R.Policy 1.1:Delete: "The land use application shall demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners"and add: "The land use application shall provide for' [C][1] Add to: ...by directing urban residential growth "to municipalities having"those areas where... [C][2] Delete: "1-25 Mixed Use Development area, urban development nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable". Section 22-2-220 I-25 Mixed Use Development area and urban development nodes Delete in its entirety. In general: Strike all references within the comprehensive plan to the "1-25 MUD", urban development nodes and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable where they refer to permitting County urban scale and density development. Again, it is encouraged that the TAC recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the elimination of this chapter from the Weld County Code. I'm certain that this list of changes does not include all that should be made to get the County out of the"urban scale and density business" to paraphrase one of our late county commissioners and restrict it to one of the roles that properly fall to municipalities as indicated by the Constitution, legislation and even at section 22-3-10[E] of the current comprehensive plan. Thank you, John Folsom From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:56 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: more comp plan change suggestions Brad: Here are some more comp plan changes that the TAC members might consider. Again, please forward them to them. Thanks, John Folsom TAC members: Please consider the following suggestions for changes to the comprehensive plan; 22-2-60.A.2: As far as I know, the commissioners have done nothing to implement A.Policy 1.2. In fact, the Board has rejected donations of land under conservation easements to the County, basically, with the excuse that there was no funding available to maintain them. It would be instructive to learn of any supporting of "the development of creative policies to conserve agricultural land, including preservation techniques and prioritizing incentives" made by the Board since the last update of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, to make this policy effective, language should be developed in the Code designating specifically how and when the Board will support [better: implement] the objectives of this policy. To clarify, I have been addressing the use of conservation easements wherein the property owner retains restricted title to his land. The following cited sections, basically, involve open space wherein title is acquired by a governmental entity. 22-5-40E Basically addresses municipal responsibility for providing open space within their UGBs. Language should be added to include the County in providing designated open space. 22-5-40F Here, it is admitted that the County is not involved in acquisition of land [by easement or deed]for open space. To my knowledge no county wide open space plan has been developed by the County. Language should be added stating that in consultation with the municipalities, development of an open space plan, with specifics of descriptions, locations, land interest acquisition and funding, shall be immediately be undertaken with a target date for completion. What is needed in the Code is the requirement that the Board actively and immediately [not just a goal] implement a land use process that through land acquisition or easements protects certain lands for agricultural use, buffering, and maintaining and enhancing the public's quality of life. It should be embarrassing to the Board that Boulder, Douglas, Larimer and other counties and some municipalities have planned,funded and preserved lands for the above benefits to their residents. Thank you, John Folsom From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:42 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: comp plan Brad: Some time ago I emailed to you some comments related to changes that might be considered by TAC for the comprehensive plan. Communicating them to TAC members can be done on the website through an interest sheet and General Comment Sheet. Unfortunately, since they are on Adobe I cannot copy the comments into the message. I would appreciate your having my comments, which follow, given to the TAC members. Thank you, John Folsom As you are probably aware, there have been some contentious disagreements between some Weld County municipal governments and the Board of County Commissioners relating to the latter's program of approving county controlled urban density developments, rather than following the accepted planning principle and implied constitutional and statutory provisions for municipalities to be the site of such developments, through the statutory enumerated processes of annexation and coordination with their growth and zoning plans. The commissioners have defended their actions based on their view that property owners have the right to utilize their property and have property rights, not further defined in the Comprehensive Plan. In effect, the commissioners have approved development in such manner that it produces maximum profit to the owner. They have shown little concern for the public interest in the manner in which property is developed. This, particularly with respect to land that is in or contiguous to the designated urban growth areas of municipalities. Basically, this is addressed in section 22-1-120[A] of the Weld County Code. It states in part: "One [1] of the basic principles upon which the United States was founded and continues to preserve is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property". As to being a basic principle, this is an argumentable assumption of the Code. It is not stated specifically in either the U.S. or Colorado Constitutions, even though supported by subsequent legislation and case law. The debatable word here is "utilize". The Code section goes on to mention a balance with the public interest. The commissioners have largely ignored the public interest by permitting urban density developments in the MUD area violating the MUD uses permitted by the 2.1 Structural Land Use Map and section 26-2-30D of the Code. This situation might be addressed in the comprehensive plan revisions by specific terminology and regulations describing the uses permitted, coordination with municipal growth plans and requiring adherence to and by making amendments of provisions of section 26 of the Code. From: Myrna Folsom [mailto:myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:20 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: comprehensive plan update Brad: Thank your for the references as to where conservation easements are addressed in the present comprehensive plan. Please consider the following; 22-2-60.A.2: As far as I know, the commissioners have done nothing to implement A.Policy 1.2. In fact, the Board has rejected donations of land under conservation easements to the County, basically, with the excuse that there was no funding available to maintain them. It would be instructive to learn of any supporting of "the development of creative policies to conserve agricultural land, including preservation techniques and prioritizing incentives" made by the Board since the last update of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, to make this policy effective, language should be developed in the Code designating specifically how and when the Board will support[better: implement] the objectives of this policy. To clarify, I have been addressing the use of conservation easements wherein the property owner retains restricted title to his land. The following cited sections, basically, involve open space wherein title is acquired by a governmental entity. 22-5-40E Basically addresses municipal responsibility for providing open space within their UGBs. Language should be added to include the County in providing designated open space. 22-5-40F Here, it is admitted that the County is not involved in acquisition of land [by easement or deed] for open space. To my knowledge no county wide open space plan has been developed by the County. Language should be added stating that in consultation with the municipalities, development of an open space plan, with specifics of descriptions, locations, land interest acquisition and funding, shall be immediately be undertaken with a target date for completion. What is needed in the Code is the requirement that the Board actively and immediately [not just a goal] implement a land use process that through land acquisition or easements protects certain lands for agricultural use, buffering, and maintaining and enhancing the public's quality of life. It should be embarrassing to the Board that Boulder, Douglas, Larimer and other counties and some municipalities have planned, funded and preserved lands for the above benefits to their residents. John Hello