HomeMy WebLinkAbout941373.tiff VELD COUNTY
CIT " ,17-710,77
PT! SEP -6 Al 10: 20
Greg Shaw
CLERK 1435 WCR 16 1 / 2
TO THE BOARD Longmont , Colo .
80504
Dear Commissioner ,
I would like to know some reasoning behind your ruling of
case # 94-57 on August 24 , 1994 . You approved the rezoning of
this area from agriculture to residential . Did you review this
case at all before the hearing ? I doubt it ; if you did , you
would have noticed that the planning commission had rejected this
same proposal twice , the last time being just two months ago . If
you did ;do research on this case (maybe least five minutes of
reading before the hearing ) , I would like to know why you decided
to overturn the planning commissions ruling , and why Weld County
even exerts the time , effort , and money for a planning
commission , when they just get shot down by the commissioners
anyway . This is not an isolated case (please see NEW PRISON, DEL
- CAMINO) .
Was it the fancy colored charts and diagrams that the paid
attorneys of the developers presented at the hearing that
influenced you? I bet it looked really neat on paper . Or is
just because the county is full of hungry politician wanna-be ' s
who just want to make some bucks for Weld county . Anyone who
lives in Colorado ( for more then two years ) could tell you the
answer (excluding developers ) .
I would really like to hear your answer . However , I ' m not •
really anticipating a response now that this is past history ,
Weld County has it ' s money and everyone is happy . Nor do I feel
you can answer these questions , without some dubious rhetorical
statement such as , "What would you do with this land? " There are
a ton of agriculture uses for it as a single piece of property ,
and the five current owners should have had a little more insight
before they were so ,free with their money .
Sin - rely ,
•
G eg� w
•
P. S . I would also like some clarification on this article
that appeared in the Farmer & Miner on the same day as the
hearing (August 24 , 1994 ) . I understood this article as Weld
County Commissioners wanting to establish "urban growth
boundaries " with WCR 7 being the boundary to the west . However ,
this same subdivision is 3 miles further west then road 7 . Is
this false reporting ? Or did the Commissioners not adhere to the
1sn-fl, plan? Or is this some kind of special POD-in- the-country-don ' t
rr ,,vv` �0 need to follow any rules type area?
/9- 131,0966
137-O & 41.- a • 80etC ) 941373
Frederick Tiants county I _
to respect growth plans 63 o A cP
� Yu; • 1
EDco mum
+L'-_
-: a
x 00`.. r a_-. G V.
*CD Vtil
} 4 m
.-' . t, k co =
--i
O
i •
Weld County Commissioners Dale Hall and Barbara Kirkmeyer p = •
recently met with the Frederick Town Board to explain how the county -t
wants to cooperate with municipalities in planning and growth. O
Lo
By Michael Neilson 0' TM
Editor the two). E a li
"We've adhered to that plan," D
Weld County Commission- Tagliente told the commissioners. r ^11
ers have said they want to work "We can serve this area with utili- r t-
with the county's cities and towns ties."The mayor said the criteria for . . -�
in the development of mutually a municipality claiming an area G] ro n
acceptable "urban growth bound- should not be based on the mere n • .n •
{ aries." desire to have it, but the ability'to m 2 o •
Commissioners Barbara : service it. Hi m �.
•
Kirkmeyer and Dale Hall met with Tagliente also suggested that kc o i—
the Frederick Town Board recently any developer locating within a - x ail—
(Thursday,August 11)to announce town's planning area "ought to be n - n
that the Weld County Comprehen- encouraged to annex into that town," o o o
sive Plan is being reviewed, and rather than letting the county con- 0 d+ rNr s
that plans can be developed that trol that development. CD
incorporate the growth interests of Commissioner Kirkmeyer re- o hi
n n
each city and town in the county. sponded,"We can encourage it,but c, o
Commissioner Hall said this we can't require it."Kirkmeyer ad- N B g
cooperation is favored rather than mitted that sometimes "developers i- w
the formation of a three-mile or pit the towns against the county"in m n' ` �
half-mile sphere of influence be- promoting their developments. D-
iii
ing formed around each munici- In stressing that the Town of
pality. Even if a town isn't able to Frederick wants control of what hap- n
annex a specific area immediately, pens within its urban growth bound- w f„
but does have a future interest in it, ary, Tagliente said, "We could get s , -.,
the county could direct develop- 30,000 people in that area, and I A ,
ment in that area with a sense of don't think any of us sitting around 5-1.4.
T 4T'
continuity, Hall indicated. this table want 30,000 people there." I
Frederick mayor EdTaFliente Kirkmeyer and Hall have so .--I K ,
referred the visiting commission- far taken the county's proposal to i „' i i r
ers to the Frederick Comprehen- about 16 of the 31 towns and cities , �. &A
sive Plan,which has been in effect of Weld.The follow-up process for " t-'fit ' o
since 1986.That urban growth area each municipality includes a work-
for Frederick is bordered by Weld shop session to hammer out an in- ' ,t r°)
County Road 7 on the west, Road tergovernmental agreement be-
26 on the north, State Highway 52 tween the town and the county.
on the south,and Roads 13 and 17 Tagliente said Frederick is anxious /
on the east(with Road 16 making to proceed to that step as soon as
the dog-leg connection between possible.
Hello