HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051276.tiff Page 1 of 2
Carol Harding
From: Myrna Folsom [myrna_f2000@yahpci.corpj., i : i II: i!
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 10:18 AM r "
To: Carol Harding RFC, -'
Cc: Kim Ogle; Monica Mika
Subject: 75 miles of MUD
April 17. 2005
To: the Weld Board of County Commissioners:
What follows, are comments on a Daily Times-Call article published on April 8, 2005 relating to
the Weld Board of County Commissioners' plans for 75 square miles of land in southwest Weld County.
The article states that the commissioners want to quell fears that they are planning to convert all
the land in a 75 square mile section of southwest Weld county into a sea of homes. We should hope not.
However, the article goes on to state: " Weld county officials say they are focusing on how to provide
services to future residents along Interstate 25 in the southwest part of their jurisdiction". This would
imply that the future residents would be living in urban scale developments within only the county's
jurisdiction. It would be more efficient to coordinate with services provided by municipalities.
The article goes on to state that county officials do not have any intentions of expanding the
MUD to 75 square miles now. The troubling word is NOW, since up to now, the Board has approved
any landowner or developer's application to amend the MUD map, which permits urban scale
development in the unincorporated County, increasing its size. The implication is that the Board would
be receptive to landowner and developer driven increases in size of the MUD district.
Commissioner Vaad is quoted as saying; "We're trying to represent the people who live in
unincorporated Weld County who don't have a voice otherwise". These people, up until this time, have
not been given a voice in what the Board is proposing, except relating to roads. I don't recall any public
meetings being held or questionnaires being distributed so that this voice could be heard. I would hazard
a guess that the vast majority of unincorporated southwest Weld would oppose urbanization of the area
with the exception of the few developers and large landowners within the MUD or adjacent to it who
would profit from urbanization. This voice would be best heard in response to a ballot question to
determine the desires of all of the voters in the area.
What is needed is a clear statement by the Weld County commissioners of what their attentions
are, not piece meal statements and responses to questions that conceal more than they reveal. If the
proposed study were to include a comprehensive plan, responsive to public input, and agreed to by the
municipal governments affected, that provided for the availability, provision and funding of services
including those provided by special districts and other agencies, that requiremed that all County urban
scale development be contiguous to existing urban scale development and to municipal urban growth
boundaries whether the latter are incorporated in an IGA or not, that required giving the municipalities
the opportunity to annex such developments, to have agreed to municipal-county uniform baseline
design standards for urban scale projects developed in the county, and to develop a zoning plan
describing land use and densities for all unincorporated land within the 75 square mile area including
open space, buffering and other amenities, acceptable to the municipalities, it might have the merits of
good planning. Then there might be more confidence that the Board was interested in a Smart Growth
plan beneficial for all of the residents in southwest Weld county
The communication above relies on the information presented in the TC article.
MUD expansion study. Let the residents in unincorporated southwest Weld County hope that the article
does not accurately state the Board's intentions or that I have misinterpreted the meaning of statements
reported in the article.
John Folsom
2005-1276
4/18/2005
Hello