The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20021694.tiff n -� St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group ©v1> 8724 I-25 Frontage Rd. E *o1 Longmont, CO 80504 Phone - (303) 776-4449 Fax - (954) 212-7996 E-Mail- stvrainccg@hotmail.com February 18, 2002 Weld County Planning Commission 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: Case No. 2001-XX: Amend Code Chapters 22 &26 Dear Commissioners: We would like to make the following comments relating to the subject proposal: The land in this application is within the IGA urban growth boundary area of the town of Mead. The applicants request constitutes a proposal for development under the terms of the IGA, as inclusion in the MUD district would permit urban scale development to take place.Although,technically,this case may not request specific development,the application materials make clear the intent for future 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 better served by annexation to a municipality, under the circumstances of this case, there is the additional prospect of county violation of an agreement entered with the town of Mead if county government approves the addition of this land to the MUD district. Further: 1. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure[section 22-1-50]requires Planning Commission consideration of whether the existing Comprehensive Plan is in need of revision as proposed [7a]. These lands are, and are surrounded by, agricultural lands.An exception is Grand View Estates,north of Highway 66 at WCR13 that was flagpoled into Mead, which is 4 miles away, which, incidentally, was one of the reasons that town citizens elected to vote on future annexations. 2. This proposal is not consistent with existing and future goals policies and needs of the County[7b].It conflicts with the County's goal to support the agriculture industry and to preserve prime farmland. It has not been substantiated that the amendments to the Comprehensive and MUD plans for these properties are consistent with the goals, policies [MUD 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 capabilitie [MUD7b]. Specific information has not been provided to guarantee that there wil not be unsupportable burdens placed on schools and other services, utility any transportation infrastructure. 2002-1694 4. There has been no specific information provided that community social/ cultural amenities will be provided [MUD7c]. 5. No specific needs in the public interest are demonstrated for the amendment by planning services or the applicants except that the amendment would be in the applicants individual interests []. Less than 5% of the MUD Area land has been developed to date. The balance should be infilled before considering adding more land to the MUD Area. There are no growth pressures on these parcels to warrant their being included in the MUD Area. Any pressures can easily be absorbed by vacant areas already in the existing MUD area or preferably [ref: Municipal Annexation Code] by surrounding municipalities. The only pressures on these lands are from the desire for profits from development by the owners. The MUD Area has already been recently increased with the inclusion of the Douthit, Hamlin, J Bar B, Rademacher, etal. and R &M Land properties. Is the MUD Area to be continuously 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 Del 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. Now, the St. Vrain Sanitation District is having to increase its capacity to serve area growth.Today,inclusion of additional lands in the MUD Area is not necessary 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 Douthit,Hamlin,J Bar B. Rademacher, etal and R & M properties,. When will these ill-planned increases in the MUD district stop? Should a property owner have the right to develop his land as he wishes? We do live in a society where rules are established for the public good as well as that of the individual. 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 Planning Commission will take this into consideration when the case comes before it. Very� truly yours, /Q ; o l Artie Elmquist, Representative St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group CC: Monica Daniels Mika, Robert Anderson [planner] Send to: MMika@co.weld.co.us RRAnderson@co.weld.co.us Hello