HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020803.tiff CAROL Harding. WCCWRMUD. df Page 1
St.Vrain ConcerneeitizensGrap
8724 I-25 Fronta¢dd. E ..
Longront,CD 80504
Phors-(303)776-4449
Fax -(954)212-996 RAO ......
E-MEI -stvrainccahotrnal.com
sa
March 25,2002
Weld County Board Corn missioners
P.O. Box 758
Greele y,CO 80632
Subject: Case No. 2002-4,Amend Code Chapters 22&26 for inclusion of additional land in the MUD
district
Dear Conuni ssioners:
We wo uld like to make the following comment s relating to the subject proposal:
The land in t his application is within the IGA urban growth bou ndary area of t he town of Me ad. The
applicant's request constitutes a proposal for development under the terms ofthe IGA between Weld
County and the T own o f Me ad,as inclusion in the MUD district would permit urban scale development
to take place. Alt hough,technically,this case may not requ est specific development,the application
materials make clear the intent for futur e urban density development at the site. Under section 3.3a of
ordinance 215,this request should be referred to the Town of Mead requiring a petition of annexation by
the applicant as a step towards obtaining permission for development under the regulations of that town.
Even though,in the past,the Board of County Commissioners has seen fit,for reasons which are unclear,
to add several rural parcels to the MUD district that would be btte r wry ed by annexation to a municipality,
under the circumstances of this case, there is the additional prosp ect of county violat ion o f an agreement
[the IGA] entered with the town of Mead if County gove mment approves the addition of this land to the
MUD district
Further:
1. The Co mprehensive P Ian Amendment Pr ocedure[se ction 2 2-1-50] re quires P lanning
Commission con sideration of wh ether the existing Comprehensive Plan is in need of
revision as proposed [9a]. These lands are, and are surrounded by,agricultural lands an
exception is Grand View Estates, north of Highway 66 at WCR13 that was fag-poled into
Mead, which is 4 miles away,which,incident ally, was one of the reasons that town citizens
elected to vote on future annexations.
2. This proposal is not consistent with exist ing and fit tore go als policies and nee ds o£the
County[9b]. It conflicts with the County's goal to support the agriculture industry and to
preserve prime far inland. I t has no t been s ubstantiated t hat the amend ments t o the
Comprehensive and MUD plans for these properties are consistent with the goals,policies
[26-1-50/60/70;P,T and C goals and policies]and the needs of the County.
3. This proposal will place a burden upon existing or planned service capabilities [MUD7b].
Specific reformation has not been provided to guarantee that there will not be unsupportable
burdens placed on schools and other s ervices,utility and transportation infrastructure.
(1/7 2002-0803
CAROL Hardin WCCWRMUD. df Pa e 2
4. There has been no specific information provided that community social/cultural amenities
will be provided[M UD7c].
5. No speci fic needs i n the pub lic interest are demo nstrated fo r t he amend ment by t he
Department of Planning Services or the applicants except that the amendment would be in
the applicants individual intere sts[].
Less than 5% of the MUD Area land has been developed to date. The balance should be in-filled before
considering adding more land to the MIA Area. This goal E conformance with the accepted smart growth
principles as promulgated by the American Planning Association. There are no growth pressures on these
parcels to warrant their inclusion in the MUD Area. Any pressures can easily be absorbed by vacant areas
already in the existi ng MUD area or preferably[ref: CRS Municipal Annexation Code] by surrou nding
municipalities. The only pressures on the se lands are from the des ire for profits from develo pment by the
owners. The MUD Area has already been recently increased with the inclusion of the D outhit,Ham lin,J
Bar B,Rademacher, etal and R&M land properties. Is the MUD Area to be contiruously increased based
solely on the desire of landowners rather than any need for their development, further reducing the amount
of available farmland?
One of the reasons,unstated in chapter 26,for creation of the original MUD Area was to make it feasible
for the formation of a sewer district so that the businesses at De 1 Camino would not have to rely on
individual septic systems to handle waste.As servicing the existing Del Camino businesses alone would not
support a central sewer service additional lands were included.No w,the St.Vrain Sanitation District is
having to hcrease is capacity to serve area growth. Today,inclusion of additional lands in the MUD Area
is not nece ssary to make the sewer district economically sustainable. As a result,the rationale for the MUD
district no longer exists,much less an increase in its size. As mentioned above, previous amendments to
the MUD plan have added the Do uthit,Hamlin, J Bar B. Rademache r,etal and R&M propert ies,. When
will these ill-planned increases in the MUD district stop? Should a property own er have the right to
develop his land as he wishes? While these property owners should be applauded for trying to protect the
value of their properties, we must remembers we live in a society where rules are established for the public
good as well as that of the individual.Ultimately,the rights of own ership of land are granted by society,
through legislat ion that is constitutional, enacted by its elected representat ives. Finally,there is no reason
to have a planning department if there are no restrictions on land use,and the ordinances controlling land
use are not enforced.
We hope the Board will take this into consideration when the case comes before it Given the present rate
of growth in Weld County,we hope this case further illustrates the reed for Weld County to create its own
land preservati on program to co mpensate proper[y owners for the developmen t value of their land. By
preserving "prime" farmland,the burden on ifrastructure in the county such as shoots, sanitation districts,
water and drainage districts,and of course county services can be significantly reduced;while at the same
provid ing property owners with the compensat ion they deserve for their property's potential development
value.
Sincerely,
r
Artie Elmquist,Representative
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group
cc: Monica Daniels Mika, Robert Ander son[planner],Weld County Planning Dep artment
Hello