HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050669.tiff f 1.
Htry ($RR i I
�}. 60 F q r r
`44
Hwy 256=- ---�_ -
I /
1
I
I i I
I I I
/ n .
.
- _ - -
i 1
a ffIW r , . l
..*,,,,,..4 ,r...]-4
13
P$ t
1
1 I 1
CR 40 r _ _. ! I
i 3 j I
I I l I i
CR 38 r` I
i
r■�a I I
,p
b4 I
1 a 1
a 1 / i
f p I
R
h
b '4.1.444.-47
41.44- -fir•7 .I �'� ��1
) i`u� 1 �It '� '� Ys4i" 'i�i 3 ak- `F+ ,p..�
4._tick9 r 'YM. A
1 a. Svc
:.dry ' T xA 'tr �. 6 -%
.rIA
gam $ k " t fe
; Y XI.J
n i •
tAf It 'i Any,,
a .' • 4F "t ' mss*,
•.{i '" + k` ` ' / It n
'•y.} c -.( 4�, 4444 �i pY —
t
It
�". e
*SC #t' eft,.. C i'fir ae'w ,t\ t !+ •
jj
,:"yam, ! - 11{. r 4 ..• ' a a � .. g i A f -'x si!* - '+,Y ;-
,l ,L.R \ �..,..-- 4....111
_Sr Ott'. .x=
�y
� P„ Rr 1 1 $ . lr k w•..w
• J ♦.. yt 1f .0tJ i•
Pin
+ '^.. yam, t t fc s rfyc!•x .rle
it. A! y � { J f�spy_..� �i
'3 J f111 \ �`FxMe4,y .&' .)w�, dt �' _
y� '"1¢Y. Hn'
L +?tiq r Y 0 k 1 l
F yam x4iii °h ..sx Ya 3 : " ♦ t +
'a* 44,
«Y ' 3 x ` R k
dA`
e # a
toi
St 4 A ` x.°-Pr .s. £.. r:: • e P.F
a-r •' e
la
a • 99217121 a • • 7121 . a • a • n a • oea • • ea n Tali n Ta . • • a . . • waa w a m MI ii.m a , a
la
in te,.
411 85
85 a
a M
a a
aIt/l
1
'' Qt
•
C CI
Eli
aa a w a w m uma 91 as m a w vv as 211 a a w a as av
aV5i.ijf
'� 85 '? Urban Development Nodes 1/4 mi. rad.
F�7 �. X71 UGB Boundary
�`34�. : FkLI. •
IGA Boundary
AUT
&ksit:. ' a DACONO
F31 r..: NV x W
EATON
,[L 1 ERIE-DACONO
- FIRESTONE
FORT LUPTON Weld County rtamw g services
FREDERICK Date:November,2004
&I ' r
21
e }m e CI HUDSON
lWel,
a KEENESBURG
. KERSEY wc....,2a9m,e...9a..
• •
LA SALLE mgy. °",ae9°�i7a w
a LONGMONT .�.,.a�,.�,,..a.emm*
e• euuix.wamwcwruree tizeI g c MEAD ....aa.a..•m..aaa....a...�
ab- •L'' yE 52 PLATTEVILLE
1. j MUD Boundary
Iii 0 , ,. a au . 219`I'S'f e'.�f8'• 41 a a 4 . 11 '
•
Town of Gilcrest Sewer Improvement Timeline - 2003 Comprehensive Plan
I FORCE
MAINS
UPGRADES
SEWER lin'
HI FACILITIES
LINES STATIONS As
eIAN Development FUND
r Requires RAISING CONSIROCFIO
NEW
As tIPCI2AL)ES EXPANSION TI AN
Dev piremsrnt PLAN
Development SUBMITTED r �fl8eining i EXISTING
Requires E}paaseoa/Ne EACITLITY
w Constvaioa ar Relocation ill 1 LieeTn
11 turissa fimainwir ral.
Projected Growth 60 SPE/PosstUe Growth 91 S'E Projected Crumb 90 S"E
i 1J J
2003 2008 STATIONS 2013
WWTP 60°f® FORCE WWTP 80% WWTP 95%
MAINS Capacity SEWER LINES UPGRADES Capacity
Capacity
UPGRADES Development
As NEW Requires
Development As
Requires Developmenet
Requires
I
I
i
Draft Town of Gilcrest Sewer Improvement Timeline - 2005-2010 Plan
FORCE
MAINS
UPGRADES
SEWER LIFT As
LINES 201 STATIONS/ Development
FACIL1l us SEWER CONSTRUCTION Requires
NEW PLAN LINES/MAINS
As
Development UPGRADES EXISTING
Requires EXPANSION FACILITY
PLAN Asor Relocation
i DEVELOPED Development
Requires
I \ 11. 7m Al .7.m . 1 Il
Possible Growth 180 3'E
jLii /Iiim / v / J
2003 2005 PREDGAISA�oN 2006 srnnoxs 2010
WWTP 60% UNIVERSAL Construction
Capacity DRAINAGE SECURE SEWER LINKS UPGRADES Complete
I PIA ING Funding
Development
and
Implementation NEW -Requires
As
Development
Requires
-
To: Weld County Commissioners
From: Jack R. McClellan
13965 WCR 42
RE: Town of Gilcrest Proposed IGA
Last time I was here I talked about the development options the
proposed IGA takes away from the land owners within its boundaries,
mainly minor subdivisions, and how that puts them at a disadvantage
to their neighbors. I also discussed briefly how the IGA places the
decisions about development with the trustees of Gilcrest, which is a
government group over which the landowners in the IGA have no
influence or control. There was also discussion about the overall size
of the proposed IGA and the capability of Gilcrest to provide services
to urban development.
I have since had a chance to review Gilcrest's Comprehensive Plan
and believe now more than ever that the proposed IGA overly
restricts development options for landowners. It also makes the
authority without accountability issue even more onerous.
According to the Comprehensive Plan (2003), Gilcrest city limits
encompass 448 acres (maybe a little bigger now). With 225 acres of
zoned residential area and 110 acres of land being farmed. The
proposed IGA has an area of 7 sections or 4480 acres, a 10-fold
increase in area and an almost 20 times increase in residential area.
That's not in and of itself bad but Gilcrest can't even begin to provide
services to their existing area and apparently has no plan.
The plan says Gilcrest currently has 339 single-family equivalent
units using the existing wastewater treatment plant (600SFE capacity
estimated). With an addition of 91 SFE's the WWTP would be at
85% capacity thereby triggering the need to prepare an upgrade plan
and with another 90 SFE's after that the plant would be at 95%
capacity and any future growth would require expansion and new
construction. From these figures Gilcrest cannot even meet the
requirements of their existing city limits. It has been inferred that
there is some room for expansion of the current WWTP but the
Comprehensive Plan makes no mention of that option. What the plan
II EXHIBIT
a5'-off
2005-0669
Ord
does discuss are two options for a new WWTP. In my mind they are
not engineered options but simply proposed sites for possible study.
In the Comprehensive plan, the existing site is not considered as an
option for growth because it is deemed prime commercial space.
Ironically one of the option sites is now deemed prime commercial
space on the IGA plat.
The plan also addresses growth within the City. Their forecast is that
the +90 SFE's threshold that would trigger a study of alternate
WWTP options would take almost 5 years to meet and that the +180
SFE's threshold requiring new facilities would take 10 years.
Given the apparent lack of services to meet even the needs for
development within their existing city limits, the lengthily forecast of
growth within their current boundaries, and in consideration of the
concern of authority without accountability I would ask that at least
the language of this proposed IGA be adjusted to not so restrict
development options and/or perhaps even consider restricting the
IGA to the old guidelines of '% mile from existing services. This would
be about Rd 29 on the West and the football field on the North. At
such time as Gilcrest generates a plan to extend services then the
IGA boundaries could be reconsidered. These changes would not
detract from reasonable growth in the future because the County and
you Commissioners would still have influence over future proposals.
Sincerely,
Jack R.McClellan
Hello