HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011102.tiff WELD COLIUTy
April 16, 2001 CO ". " ;,-
77! APR 17 Pl 11: 24
To: Board of Weld County Commissioners
Subject: IGA with City of Longmont
Gentlemen:
The Daily Times Call had an article, recently, stating that there were
ongoing discussions between Weld County officials and those of Longmont for
the purpose of coordinating development in Weld County east of Longmont,
perhaps leading to an IGA. I have written to you previously relating to the 1GA
that Longmont and Boulder County have in effect to promote the use of transfer
of development rights [TDRs] to promote rural land preservation. Although this
feature has not been a part of IGAs that Weld County has entered into with Weld
municipalities, inclusion of provision for TDRs would seem to be appropriate. As
you are aware TDRs also serve the function of reducing urban sprawl and
concentrating the need for, and reducing the capital costs and operating
expenses of, services of all description. These features of TDRs reflect the intent
of state statutes and the goals of intelligent planning.
Enclosed is a copy of a Longmont City Council communication giving
particulars of one of the current TDRs being processed by that city's government.
I urge the Board to seriously consider, if not being done so already,
inclusion of this feature in any agreement with the City of Longmont and any
id unty nicipality for that matter.
John olsom
(iej-)vjtaj-
2001-1102
WA
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION •
Er MOP" ra
Meeting Date March 27.2001 Item Number R5-6J Cs
L Subject Blne Mountain Vista TDR-PUD Sketch Plan0�
(#2007-2041)
Type of Item: Resolution That for Presentation: N/A—consent agenda
R-2001-18
Presented By: Brien Schumacher,Principal Planner,303-65t-8764�> 1S 1°5
brien.schwmac*er®cL/ongmoatco.us (�i�(i
Suggested Aides: Approve a resolution for conditional approval of the Bine Mountain Vista TDR-PUD
sketch plan
Proposal deseriptien
This proposal is a transfer of development rights(TDR)paatated unit development(PUD)of 22 residential lots
on 56 acres in Boulder County north of Highway 66 and west of 95'Street(Hover Street extension). Highway
66 and 95'Street are designated arterial streets on the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan(LACP).
The intergovernmental agreement(IQA)between the City and Boulder County requires joint approval of TDR
projects within or adjacent to the Longmont Planting Area(IPA). This property is adjacent to the LPA.The
sketch plan has been reviewed by Boulder County.
This property is designated as a receiving site on the Longmont TDR Area amp. The development rights will
come from TDR sending sites within the Longmont TDR Area. Approximately 250 to 375 saes of land within
the Longmont TDR sending an could be preserved with conservation easements through the transfer of 22
development rights to the property.
Adjacent existing uses include rural residential and/or agriculture in the County to the earth,east and west,acrd
the Westlake Manor subdivision in the City to the south. Street access is proposed to 95' Street with an
emergency access through the Anhawa Manor subdivision to the west.
The applicant is requesting that the City provide sewer service and that water service come from Longs Peak
Water District.The City has determined there is adequate capacity to serve this development with sewer,if the
request for service is granted.The developer will be responsible for extending sewer lines to serve this property.
Process
Attached is a resolution for Council's consideration of the Blue Mountain Vista TDR-PUD sketch plan.This TDR
project will require several mote steps before development cat occur. These include preliminary plan and final
plat review and approval by Boulder County,review and approval by the City of construction elan few".a.,...
improvements. and City Council arn+mvsl .r - a-.M•._
obligations.
The applicant has tequewed des Cmauri!consider not requiring this development to participate in(inure staid
street hnprovanems for 95'"Street.The requirement for participation,as stipulated in the attached resolution,was
based on previous policy d maths fawn Council and the 1GA concerning ttansfened developineoc rights(dal
Cutrardy the MA specifies that Council may waive or reduce City development fees(such at transportation end
public buildings community inventions fees,ptk fees,etc.)that arc due at building permit but does not allow
waiver of other requirements, such as participation in street improvements. If Council decides to waive
participation in fugue 95a Sued improvements for this development,the tl)R-10A will need to be amended to
provide Council the option to waive this particular requirement on a case by case basis.
Connell Options
The following options are presented for Council comidaa ion of the Blue Mouman Vita TDR•PUD slat*plan.
1. Approve the resolution finding the Blue Mountain Vista TDR PUD*etch plat in compliance with the
LACP and the IGA bawden the City and Boulder Casty concerning transferred development rights.
2. Approve an amended resolution finding the Blue Mountain Vista TDR-PUD sketch plan is compliance
with the LACP and the 10A between the City and Boulder County contenting transferred development
rights,with modifications to the conditions as determined by Council.
3. Deny the etiolation the Blue Mountain Vista TDR-PUD sketch plan not in compliance with the
LACP and the 1GA between the City and Boulder County concerning transferred development rights
Recema ateladen
Staff recommends that City Council approve the resolution finding the Blue Mountain Vista TDR-PUD sketch
plan in compliance with the LAO and the 10A between the City and Boulder County concerning transferred
red
development
Atiadanteets
1. Resolution
2. Vicinity map
3. Blue Mountain Visa TDR-PUD sketch plea
Hello