HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050450.tiff To: Sheri Lockman
From: Jack McClellan 970-737-2379
Sheri,
Here are some rough notes on my concerns with the Gilcrest Proposed
Coordinated Planning Agreement. I am not in disagreement with the proposal in
principal but I am concerned the proposal erodes certain development options
currently available to the affected landowners and; in general, puts a part of the
decision making regarding those lands into the hands of a government entity
over which we have no control.
Summary of Concerns
Gilcrest Proposed Coordinated Planning Agreement
-Agreement signed by Gilcrest mayor prior to any public hearing.
-Does Gilcrest have the resources to conduct all their requirements under the
proposed agreement? How does Gilcrest propose to meet their obligations for
such things as planning (short and long term), engineering, etc.? (See section
19-4-70 of the Keenesburg agreement.)
-The agreement does not address development fees which, given Gilcrest's track
record, fees could become onerous. Earlier such agreements did address this
issue (Platteville and Dacona, Firestone, Fredrick).
-Oil and Gas development. Only one previous agreement specifically addressed
Oil and Gas Development (Dacona and Erie). There is significant oil and gas
activity in the proposed UGA. How will that be governed in the future?
-General erosion of development opportunities that currently exist for lands within
the proposed Urban Growth Area. By changing the definition of "Non-Urban
Development" and rewriting the section controlling action by the County on Non-
Urban Development, this Agreement seems to have eliminated consideration of
recorded exemption or subdivision exemption as a means of developing lands
within the UGA. All of the previous agreements with the exception of Ault and
Longmont seem to have addressed this issue relatively consistently and with a
broader consideration for recorded exemptions and subdivision exemptions. All
of the surrounding towns (Platteville, Milliken, Evans, and LaSalle) have the
broader language. Also, in the consideration of Urban development the proposal
allows the County to proceed with approval if the City denies a request but this
does not seem to be the case for Non-Urban development.
Looking forward to seeing you the week of the 22nd
Jack
EXHIBIT
2005-0450 1
Hello