HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011157.tiff CAROL Harding - WCPDNEMUD_wed _ Page 1
111 it'l
< ,as
2(
Rcr
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group
Cif Z4 1-43 rtontage Ka. t
Longmont, CO 80504
Phone - (303) 776-4449
Fax - (954) 212-7996
E-Mail -stvrainceg@hotmail.com
April 23,2001
Ms Monica Daniels-Mika,Director
Weld County Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley,CO 80631
Subject:Amend Code Chapters 22&26;Northeast I-25 MUD Amendment
Dear Ms Daniels-Mika:
This letter is being sent to bring forward the concerns of the St. Vrain Concerned Citizens regarding the subject proposal. The position
of the St. Vrain Concerned Citizens is not to deny the subject landowners the right to achieve the true development value of the
property by a change of zoning,but rather to use their request for inclusion in the 1-25 MUD as justification of the need to create and
preserve agricultural buffers between municipalities in Weld County. Creating a buffer in this area would allow these property
owners a means of achieving the same personal goal of recovering the development value of their property.
After studying the application for inclusion in the I-25 MUD we would like to make the following comments:
1. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure requires Planning staff consideration of whether the existing
Comprehensive Plan is in need of revision as proposed [El]. These lands are, and are surrounded by, agricultural lands
remote from development. Permitting these lands to be developed will only result in more urban sprawl. An exception
is Grandview Estates, north of Highway 66 that was flagpoled into Mead, 4 miles away, which was one of the reasons
NJ that town citizens elected to vote on future annexations. Oak Meadows, two miles to the south at CRS 13 & 24 was
flag-poled into Firestone 3 miles away. The County shouldn't add to this sprawl by permitting development of this land.
Permitting this land to be developed would interfere with the efforts of Firestone, Mead and Platteville to create
Cn
CAROL Harding -WCPDNEMUD.wpd ss, . Page 2
agricultural buffers between those towns [including these lands] to reduce sprawl and retain their local identities. In
summary, there is no need for the public good of this MUD amendment. In fact, there is a need not to revise it as
proposed. It merely is a device to serve the private financial goals of the applicants.
2. This proposal is not consistent with existing and future goals policies and needs of the County[E2]. It conflicts with the
County's goal to support the agriculture industry and to preserve prime farm land.
3. This proposal will place a burden upon existing or planned service capabilities [E2b]. Specific information has not been
provided to guarantee that there will not be unsupportable burdens placed on schools and other services, utility and
transportation infrastructure. This concern is supported by the County rejection of the nearby Riverdance proposal, the
intensity and size of which was determined to be such as to overwhelm available services.
4. There has been no specific information provided that community social/cultural amenities will be provided [E2c].
5. No specific needs in the public interest are demonstrated for the amendment by planning or applicants except that the
amendment would be in the applicants individual interests [G1].
6. It has not been substantiated that the amendments for these properties are consistent with the goals,policies [MUD P,T
and C goals and policies] and the needs of the County[G2].
7. These lands lie within an area designated in the Firestone Comprehensive Plan Growth Boundaries, Tier 2, as being
reserved for open space, agriculture and conservation use. Firestone, Mead and Platteville are currently studying
creating agricultural buffers between those towns [including these lands] to reduce sprawl and retain their identities.
Ordinance 191 Section 1.1 referring to the intent of the MUD area states: The presence of an interstate highway and state highway
system and the external growth pressures from the Longmont Metropolitan area have added to interest in land development and
population growth in the area . One fallacy in this intent is that, based on Weld County's dedication to the preservation of its
agricultural lands and economy,County urbanization should only be tolerated based on need,not land owners or developers interest in
development or population growth.
Another fallacy is that these parcels are not subject to Longmont growth pressures [6 miles away] or from I-25 [2 miles away]. 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
MUD Area. There are no growth pressures on these parcels to warrant there 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 and R&M Land properties. Is the MUD Area to be continuously
1
CAROL Hardin-WCPDNEMUD wpd Page 3
• increased based solely on the desire of land owners rather than any need for their development and further reducing the amount of
available farm land? One of the reasons, unstated in Ordinance 191, 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.
Presentations as to the intended type of development are not formal proposals for change of zone, etc. We draw your attention to an
example of how these proposals change from the alleged intent at time of request for inclusion in MUD Area to subsequent
applications to the County for actual development. Glen Douthit was reported in the Times Call as stating that inclusion of his
property in the MUD Area would be for the benefit of his heirs developing the property. He is now in the process of seeking County
approval for development. Additionally, the present plan is for a more intense use of the land than was originally proposed. Previous
amendments to the MUD plan have added the Douthit,Hamlin,J Bar B and R& M properties, as mentioned above. When will these
ill-planned increases in the MUD stop? Should a property owner have the right to develop his land when he wishes? We do live in a
society where rules are established for the public good. 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.
In an effort to maintain Weld County's dedication to the preservation of prime agricultural lands, farm economy and to allow the
property owners to be compensated for the development value of their property; Weld County needs a purchase of development rights
(PDR) program. With a PDR program landowners in potential buffer areas would be able to receive the compensation they deserve
for the development value of their land. While the voters of Weld County rejected last year's Land Preservation Tax, this issue must
be revisited. In other counties in Colorado land preservation programs have not be approved the first time the issue was presented to
the voters.
Based on the recommendations of the Weld County Agricultural Advisory Board,the St. Vrain Concerned Citizens request that Weld
County begin a dialogue with all municipalities in the southwest Weld County area on creating buffers between municipalities.
Funding mechanisms such as development impact fees,local and county-wide sales taxes, the use of bonding, and obtaining matching
funds from various sources should be explored to generate the funding needed to purchase development rights(PDR).
With a PDR program in place, the subject property owners might consider offers for their development rights. However, the St. Vrain
Concerned Citizens request that any PDR program be established with the ability of each property to have control in the determination
of a fair value of their property.
Therefore, the St. Vrain Concerned Citizens, believe the true benefits of creating a buffer with the subject properties far outweigh the
impacts the proposed high density development would create in Southwest Weld County.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this MUD revision.
CAROL Hardin....WCPDNEMUD.wpd. . ,n Page 4
Sincerely,
Artie Elmquist, Representative
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens Group
cc: Weld County Board of Commissioners
Hello