HomeMy WebLinkAbout952656.tiffRationale: According to the 1992 Census of Agriculture, over one third of the county's
farmers list farming as their secondary occupation. These "Weekend Farmers" have a
role in the county's food and farm system. These operators make a large contribution
to the county's economy.
Therefore: Rural Residents for nthat the
following additions be made to Weld County's Long Range Growth Plan
A.Goal 10
Smaller acreage and rural communities
contribute to the economy of Weld
County, and steps should be taken
minimize the impact of development
on the livelihood and lifestyle of
smaller farms and acreages in
unincorporated areas.
U.C.Goal 2
Maintain the rural character on these
settlements.
Policy 2.1
The use of buffer zones to separate development
from existing agriculture and rural areas should
be used. This could include but is not limited to
roads, natural drainage areas, and native
plantings.
Policy 2.2
Whenever possible open space with in a
development should be connected to existing
open space. This would create a system in
which farming can be preformed, wildlife can
move through, and visual qualities can be
maintained.
T.Goal 5
Traffic as a result of development in the
Urban Growth Boundry should be directed
on to city streets instead of county roads
which are not designed to handle the increased
volume.
952656
EXHIBIT
\ -1i� pcs
AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE
The State of Colorado is one of the most
agriculturally productive states in the nation. Weld
County is one of the most productive agricultural
counties in Colorado, and accounts for 18% of the
states' three million acres of irrigated farmland.
The soil, topography, and irrigation system support
this extensive agricultural industry. Weld County's
significant amount of irrigated and non -irrigated
farmland produces a wide variety of crops.
Crops produced in Weld County are onions, sugar
beets, pinto beans, potatoes, corn, alfalfa, wheat,
carrots barley and sorghum, in addition to other
speciality crops. Many of the feed crops are
utilized locally itt by the hng, livestock industry.
For example, most of the corn grown in the area,
both silage and grain, is used for feed at
commercial feedlots, farm feedlots, and dairies.
Significant numbers of sheep, swine and turkeys
also use the feed crops from the area. A summer
fallowing rotation program is practiced on the non -
irrigated farmland. Summer fallowing is necessary
to store enough moisture for sustained high yields.
Water is delivered to farmland through some of the
largest and most complex reservoir and irrigation
ditch systems in the world. The primary system is
the Colorado Big Thompson project which makes
water available from Colorado's Western Slope. In
addition, shallow and deep wells made possible by
the existence of deep broad aquifers are productive
sources of irrigation water. The development of
these resources and features has madeagriculture
an important industry in Weld County since the
founding of the Greeley Union Colony in 1870.
UNDERSTANDING THE AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY AND ITS BENEFITS
The agricultural industry in Weld County is a
complete farm and food system. This system
begins with growing and raising farm produce and
ends as a product ready for purchase byconsumers
after it has-been processed and transported to the
market place.
The following areas have a role in the County's
farm and food system:
1. There are approximately 3,100 operators of
livestock, poultry, vegetable, fruit, nursery,
and grain farms located in the County.
2'.
2-1
The more than nne third of the County's
farmers who' listed farming as their
secondary occupation in the 1992 Census
of Agriculture!
3. Those who offer farm related products and
services. Examples of these local
industries are fertilizer and chemical
product companies, suppliers of feed
(grain, livestock, and poultry) implement
dealers, energy and petroleum product
companies, well, pump and irrigation
companies, veterinarians, -aerial crop
sprayers, farm laborers, commercial
lending institutions, insurance and
transportation industries.
Those who purchase products grown and
raised on farms for manufacturing,
processing, and distribution. Examples of
these local industries are meat, egg, dairy
and vegetable processing and distributing
facilities, and bakeries.
Grocery stores and other food retailers.
Restaurant and other food catering
businesses.
Palming The agricultural industry is an important
element in the Weld County economy. The market
value of agricultural products and the chain of
purchases related to agricultural production
contributes significantly to the County's economy.
Every dollar that the farmer spends to increase
agricultural production creates additional dollars
spent on activities -related to production. For
example, activities such as livestock processing
will require purchases of feeder cattle, breeding
stock, feed, water, machinery, fuel, labor,
transportation, government services, and capital
952656
RECENT PROPOSAL TO THE WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Rural Residents for Smart Growth
September 7, 1995
The existing goals and policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan are in normal text.
The proposals from the Rural Residents for Smart Growth are redlined.
A.Goal 1.
Preserve prime farmland for agricultural purposes which foster the economic health and
continuance of agriculture.
A.Policy 1.
Agricultural zoning will he established and maintained to protect and promote the County's
agricultural industry. Agricultural zoning is intended to preserve prime agricultural land and
to provide areas for agricultural activities and uses dependent upon agriculture without the
interference of incompatible residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The
availability of a consistent supply of clean water must exist in order to have prime farmland.
Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics
for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses
(the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land, but not urban
built-up land or water). It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed
to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including
water management, according to acceptable farming methods. In general, prime farmlands
have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable
temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium
content, and few or no rocks. Prime farmlands are permeable to water and air. Prime
farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and
they either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding (U.S. Department of
Agricultural, Soil Conservation Services (Special Series 17). January 1980; additional
supplements.
A.Goal 7
Protect agricultural land from encroachment by those urban uses which hinder the
operational efficiency and productivity of the agricultural uses.
Proposal I
Smaller acreage and run
County. Therefore, steps
livelihood and lifestyle of sms
tribute to the eeon
imize the irnpac
unincozpora
cell. being
elopment
easy
UGB.Goal 3
The County and municipalities should coordinate land use planning in urban growth
boundary areas, including development policies and standards, zoning, street and highway
construction, open space, public infrastructure and other matters affecting orderly
development.
952656
O.Goal 8
Open space should be promoted as a buffer zone as a means for protecting from development
those areas which have significant environmental scenic, or cultural value.
Proposal II
`he use;
should
native<t
e use
lantings
er zoues to separate develoflmen
This could include but is not fix
ram existing:
ed to roads, natur€
A.Policy 1.1
The County should consider various methods of agricultural land preservation techniques.
Proposal III
Whenever possible, open space withiYl a development should he.corm:
space ! ilzis would create a system in which fanning can be implemen
through, and visual qualities can maintained.
wildlife
R. Policy 5
New residential development should demonstrate compatibility with existing surrounding
land -use in terms of: general use, building height, scale, density, traffic, dust, and noise.
PUD.Goal 2
Encourage creative approaches to land development which will result in environments of
distinct identity and character.
PUD.Policy 4.2
An planned unit development which includes a residential use should provide common open -
space free of buildings, streets, driveways or parking areas. The common open -space should
be designed and located to be easily accessible to all the residents of the project and usable for
open -space and recreation. Some planned unit developments may not require common open-
space depending on their type, style, and density.
PUD.Policy 4.4
Conservation of natural site features, such as topography, vegetation, and water courses
should be considered in the project design; and
MUD.Goal 4
To maintain and improve the existing natural state of the environment.
MUD.Policy 6.4
The clustering concept of residential units should be encouraged to reduce development and
maintenance costs, preserve natural features, and maximize open space.
W.Goal 2
Traditional wildlife uses such as hunting, trapping, and fishing in agricultural and
nondeveloped portions of Weld County are beneficial. Weld County supports the
maintenance of these wildlife uses.
952656
W.Policy 2.1
Conflicts with fish and wildlife habitats and migration routes shall be considered in land
development. Developments adjacent to rivers and streams, waterfowl areas, and important
or critical wildlife areas should incorporate reduced densities, adequate setbacks and buffered
areas a prescribed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
W.Policy 3.1
The integrity of movement in wildlife corridors should be preserved.
O.Goal 3
Land use activity proposed for areas designated as open lands, or for visually prominent areas,
should preserve, enhance and maintain significant or unique natural land features, including
streams, lakes, ridges, valley, meadows, large tree clusters, rock outcroppings, and drainage.
O.Goal 4
Development improvements should minimize visual scarring from grading, road cuts, and
other site disturbances and should integrate new landscaping with the existing natural
landscape. In addition, stabilization and landscaping of final landforms and continuous
maintenance of new landscaping should be assured.
O.Policy 5.3
Drainage channels should be designed to incorporate natural vegetation and be constructed
to conform to the natural landscape; channelization of natural drainageways is strongly
discouraged.
T.Policy 4
Provide a balanced approach to transportation system development giving due consideration
to all modes of travel.
I.Goal 6
All new industrial development should pay its own way.
I.Goal 3
Ensure that adequate and cost effective services and facilities are available.
I.Policy 4
Proposed industrial development or expansion of existing industrial uses should meet federal,
state, and local environmental standards. In addition, the criteria for evaluation will include,
but not be limited to, the effect the industry would have on:
I.Policy 4.1
The natural environment, including air, water quality, natural drainage ways, soil properties
and other physical characteristics of the land.
C.Goal 7
All new commercial development should pay its own way.
R,Goal 4
All new residential development should pay its own way.
PUD.Goal 5
All new planned unit development should pay its own way
MUD.Goal 7
All new development in the Mixed Use Development area should pay its own way.
952656
P.Goal 1
Promote efficient and cost effective delivery of public facilities and services.
Proposal IV
Traffic as a result of development in the Urban Growth Boundary should be directed onto
city streets instead of country roads which are not designed to handle the increased volurne.
The Department of Planning Services recommends that the Rural Residents for Smart Growths
proposal
henever passible, open space witbin,a development should be connected to existin open
space. This would create a system it which fanning can be implemented, wildlife can move
through, and visual qualities can be maintained
be included in the Urban Growth Boundary and Open Space sections of the weld County
Comprehensive Plan.
The Department of Planning Services further recommends that the following be included as Item
2 on page 2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan:
The more than one-third of the County's farmers wlo listed farming as their secondary
occupation in the 1992 Census of Agriculture.
comps.sei
952656
r) r ._ .
August 30, 1995
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
, 1000 10TH STREET, GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 (303) 350-9780
Dale Hall
Chairman, Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley CO 80631
Dear Chairman Hall:
The Greeley Planning Commission appreciated the opportunity to comment on the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The City agrees .with and strongly supports a
fundamental philosophy of the plan that urban growth should be directed to
municipalities and discourages growth in predominantly rural agricultural areas.
The City of Greeley looks forward to the adoption of an urban growth boundary
agreement with Weld County as part of the comprehensive planning effort in the
Greeley area. Greeley appreciates and supports the proposed Weld County
Comprehensive Plan principal that "when a municipality and County enter into an
urban growth boundary agreement, the County agrees to abide by the municipality's
vision for future development in the area."
As part of Greeley's vision for future development, the Planning Commission would
like the Weld County Commission to consider the following points in the
development and adoption of its plan:
1. Address how Weld County will deal with conflicting municipal interests where
there are overlapping municipal boundaries. For example, this would include
the overlapping Greeley/Evans/LaSalle urban growth boundaries and the
Greeley/Windsor urban growth boundaries.
2. In both the PUD and MUD sections, the City would suggest that transfer of
development rights (TDR) be considered. An equitable transfer of development
rights process with good guidelines could facilitate both development and
conservation projects in a way that is currently seldom considered and is often
difficult to accomplish when there are multiple owners and tracts of land. Such
a process could better protect both the County's and City's interests, protect
single and multiple property owners' interests and, hopefully, avoid state
preemption on the issue.
952656
Dale Hall
August 30, 1995
Page Two
3. Junkyards were only discussed in MUD Policy 6.5. Does this mean that they
will only be allowed in the MUD district? Also, MUD Policy 6.5 encourages
junkyards to locate where they can be visually screened. Because it is virtually
impossible to fully screen large junkyards, the Greeley Planning Commission
would like to suggest that junkyards not be located adjacent to highways, arterial
roadways, major municipal entryways, and activity areas or urban residential
developments.
4. Address how Weld County will deal with billboards in non -MUD areas.
Billboards are only discussed in MUD Policy 6.8, yet billboards can be located
throughout the County. Under current Weld County ordinances and the
standards proposed in Policy 6.8, over 600 billboards could be legally located in
the Greeley Urban Growth Boundary even though the City of Greeley has a ban
on billboards inside the city limits. The billboards are not presently being built
because of a lack of traffic on the applicable county roads, but the County is
growing.
Again, the Greeley Planning Commission wants to congratulate the County for the
Governor's award and the good work done to date. The Greeley Planning
Commission looks forward to working with Weld County and its new Comprehensive
Plan.
Sincerely,
El- 61015
Jerry Wones
Chairman, Greeley Planning Commission
kb
cc: Weld County Planning Commission
952656.
Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C.
C
Attorneys at Law
1775 Sherman Street
Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado
80203
Telephone 303-830-2500
Facsimile 303-832-2366
September 1, 1995
Via Telefax and Hand Delivery
Members of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
915 Tenth Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Proposed Weld County Comprehensive Plan
Oil and Gas Mineral Resources Section
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As you are aware, this law firm represents the Colorado Oil and Gas Association
("COGA") with respect to comments that COGA submitted to you for the Oil and Gas
Mineral Resources section of the proposed Weld County Comprehensive Plan ("Plan").
On behalf of COGA and its member companies, we want to thank the Board, Mr.
John Donnelly, Chair of the Weld County Comprehensive Task Force, and Ms. Monica
Daniels -Mika, land use planner for Weld County, for addressing the comments that we
submitted to the Board.
John F. Welborn
Stephen J. Sullivan
John F. Meck
Keith D. Tooley
Kendor P. Jones
Molly Sommerville
Karen Ostrander -Krug
Marla E. Valdez
Brian S. Tooley
Scott L. Sells
Tamara Barnes
Of Counsel
Robert F. Welborn
Mr. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney for Weld County, recently provided us
with a copy of the Plan as it was passed by the Board at the second reading. We also
discussed with Mr. Morrison whether or not he anticipated additional comments for the Oil
and Gas Mineral Resources section of the Plan. We understand from Mr. Morrison that he
is only aware of one comment that might come up on third reading with respect to the
language in the section and indicated that Mr. Dennis Hoshiko has requested the deletion of
the word "mineral" throughout the text of the section on Oil and Gas Mineral Resources.
We believe that the word "mineral" should remain in the text as drafted because the
State of Colorado has historically and consistently recognized that oil and gas is a mineral
resource. We believe that Mr. Hoshiko is urging the Board to delete references to the word
"mineral" solely for some perceived tactical reason related to pending litigation involving
Hoshiko and title to minerals on Hoshiko lands. Proceedings before the Board concerning
the Weld County Comprehensive Plan are not an appropriate forum for litigation posturing.
(5)
Special Counsel
Hugh V. Schaefer
92656
pnnted on recycled paper
Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C.
September 1, 1995
Page 2
We thank you again for your thoughtful consideration of our comments.
Very truly yours,
WELBORN SULLIVAN MECK & TOOLEY,
John F. Welborn
Molly Sommerville
MS/jc
952656
MEMORANDUM
To: Shelly Miller, Clerk to Board/Roger-Windsor Beacon
From: Sharyn Frazer, Office Manager, Department of Planning Services
Subject: Final Draft - Weld County Comprehensive Plan
The Plan has been copied to disc and provided in paper copy. It has been broken down into
chapters as follows:
COVER PAGE
INTRO -
AGRI
0GB -
TRANS -
ENVIRON
NATRES -
APPENDIX -
Introduction -Chapter 1
Agriculture - Chapter 2
Urban Growth Boundary /MUD/ PUD/ Industrial/ Commercial/
Unincorporated Communities/Public Facilities - Chapter 3
Transportation - Chapter 4
Existing Environmental (no changes) - Chapter 5.
Natural Resources - Chapter 6
Right to Farm Covenant/Transportation Definitions
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
952656
Memorandum
To: Board of County Commissioners
CC: Pat Persichino, Director General Services, Bruce Barker, Assistant County Attorney
From: Monica Daniels -Mika, AICP Long Range Planne
Date: August 21, 1995
Subject: Comp Plan
Attached are the most recent changes to the Comprehensive Plan. These changes were proposed by
the Commissioners at the last hearing (August 14, 1995). For ease of reading, new changes are
delineated in redline, while deleted items are lined out.
The third and final reading of the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for September 6, 1995. At this
hearing, the Commissioners will vote to accept the Plan and to send the Plan back to the Planning
Commissioners for their concurrence at the September 19, 1995, Planning Commission Hearing.
As always, all Commissioners are invited and encouraged to attend the September 19, 1995,
Planning Commission luncheon to discuss the changes to the Plan with the Planning
Commissioners.
Should you have any questions, call Monica.
952656
PUBLIC FACILITIES
must conform to the recommendations of the
Weld County Public Works Department and
the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Dedication and improvement of roads and
frontage roads may be required as a
condition of development;
MUD.Policy 6.12
All new development should comply with
the mineral resource section of this plan.
This includes locations determined to
contain commercial mineral deposits and
mineral extraction operations and
reclamation plans;
MUD.Policy 6.13
Development should be restricted or
required to mitigate adverse effects in areas
characterized by floodplains and geologic
hazards;
MUD.Policy 6.14
New development should preserve identified
aquifer recharge areas. Where feasible,
drainageways should be maintained in their
natural state to ensure optimal re -charge;
MUD.Policy 6.15
New development should minimize impacts
to air quality;
MUD.Policy 6.16
Fugitive dust should be controlled by
practices acceptable to the responsible
government agency;
MUD.Policy 6.17
Natural vegetation should be retained on -site
to the greatest degree possible;
MUD.Policy 6.18
Disturbed areas should be revegetated
immediately following construction. In
order to minimize wind and soil erosion,
temporary stabilization measures shall be
established on all such areas;
MUD.Policy 6.19
New developments should be encouraged to
select native species for revegetation;
MUD.Policy 6.20
State Park and Recreation areas should not
be tilt.,n.d by MAN d,,,'el„ pment negatively
influenced by new development;
MUD.Policy 6.21
The coordination of other municipal, county,
regional, and state growth policies and
programs which include this area should be
evaluated in order to minimize
discrepancies, promote a better
understanding of growth dynamics in the
area, avoid duplication of services and to
provide economics of scale;
MUD.Policy 6.22
Each land -use application within the Mixed
Use Development area should include a
formal "Planning Area Profile". The profile
should contain public facilities and services
data, socioeconomic data, natural
environmental resources, and visual and
cultural resources. The purpose of this
information would be to provide the user
the existing conditions, opportunities, and
constraints within the 1-25 Mixed Use
Development area. In addition, the
information could also be used to update
goals, policies, and programs in the future;
MU 1L Goa17
All new development in the M aedL1se
Development area will should pay: its uwn
3-14
way
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The effective and efficient delivery of adequate
public services is one of the primary purposes and
benefits of effective land -use planning. Since the
adoption of the Home Rule Charter, rising County
expenditures have created substantial public
interest in how to cut cost and increase efficiency of
providing public services and facilities.
952656
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public services are government services such as
police and fire protection, health services and
welfare, and educational services and programs.
Public facilities are physical structures and
infrastructure such as schools, libraries, roads,
maintenance facilities, water distribution systems,
and sewage treatment facilities. Municipal
governments, county governments, special districts,
and private companies are capable of providing
such services and facilities.
Because of the expense and limited available
funding, proper allocation of public facilities and
services is important. Revenue to support public
services and facilities in unincorporated Weld
County is usually generated by levying property
taxes and user fees.
The type, intensity, and location of a land -use
proposal are factors that determine the type and
level of services and facilities required. Effective
and efficient delivery of services and facilities can
be promoted by assessing the needs and impacts of
a land -use proposal, along with the existing and
planned capabilities of the service and facility
providers at that location.
One basic objective of Weld County is to plan and
coordinate a timely, orderly, and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services. to
In
accomplishing this objective, municipalities are
considered to be the principal provider of services
and facilities for urban uses.
Municipalities have the ability to coordinate the
provision of adequate urban facilities and services
under powers granted by state statutes and the
constitution. The adopted town urban growth
boundary areas are the most logical areas for urban
development to occur. Municipalities are designed
to accommodate concentrations of development and
are in a position to plan the expansion of existing
facilities and services as well as to coordinate the
development of new facilities and services.
Alternative facilities and service systems may be
used for urban type development within the 1-25
Mixed Use Development area and urban growth
boundary areas, with certain restrictions. The
alternative facility and service systems must
comply with the standards set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. Systems that are proposed to be
located within a municipality's urban growth
boundary area may be required to develop in such
a manner that they are compatible with the
standards of the municipality most likely to phase
services into the area. They also may be required to
meet state regulations and standards.
In determining service and facility adequacy for a
land use proposal, it is the policy of the County to
consider any evidence submitted by the
representative of an entity responsible for providing
such services or facilities. In addition, the
following minimum service and facility standards
must be met in determining if public services and
facilities are adequate for residential, commercial,
and industrial development.
Fire Protection
Fire Protection is a basic provision required for
development activities in Weld County- While
Weld County encourages that where and when Poss highest lefire service providers should utilize the
available ', equipment, standards and
services.= Weld County realizes that often fire
protection providers are volunteer rural fire
districts ; with limited service abilities and
personnel. Therefore, the fallowing standards
have bee developed for adequate fire protection
which will be considered as minimum unless
mare strigent standards such as fixed fire
protection are required to meet the specific
demands of individual land uses.
3-15
952656
PUBLIC FACILITIES
A rural water system must have sufficient
volume each day of the year, to control and
extinguish any and all potential fires at the
proposed development site or zone district.
-,12411 attt ly
2 Roads serving the development must have a
surface that is sufficient to travel every day
of the year for the purpose of controlling and
extinguishing any and all potential fires at
the proposed development site or zone
district
th-.Llk,p ue,d tee, vcd Ly a f .v d..partme= t
that enforces a fire code such code shall
at,pl,f
The water supply system serving the
proposed development site or zone district
must deliver a minimum of 500 gallons per
minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual
pressure for 30 minutes. Iffthe- a of ti=
department that enforces a fire code such
code shall apply:
The initial travel time to arrival at location
of a fire or emergency should be less than 15
minutes from the time a call is received from
the dispatch center providing service_ If a
V
Any proposed development or zone district
for the purpose of development should be
located within a five mile radius of a rural
fire protectionstation.If the'de�j.lvfr..e„(t' i3
net lyV.ttL(1 YY=111r=.. Fl fFY V LF11Y 1flµ.UJ F)f 4 fii,
6. The entity providing fire protection should
have the ability to respond with a minimum
of two firefighters per pumper. If -a
on a pumper, then fixed
lion shall
Fire protection should be provided 24 hours
a day. If 24 hours a d..y rot wtfe,."
systems must be installed throughout all
nciv construction.
NOTE:
The intention of this section of the Comprehensive Plan is to
provide a minimum level of protection against the
destruction of life and property from fire. However, the local
jurisdiction having authority to enforce fire code and has
such adopted such code actively enforces such code may
have additional requirements that are not listed.
Law Enforcement
3 - 1 6
Law enforcement should include those acts
and duties of the Weld County Sheriff by
Colorado Statutes and the Weld County
Home Rule Charter. These include, but are
not limited to, the following:
a. Keeper of the County jail and
prisoners therein;
b. Service and execution of all process,
writs, percepts, and other orders
issued or made by lawful authority
directed to the Sheriff;
e. Apprehending and securing any
person for violation of Colorado
Statutes and, when directed by the
Sheriff, Weld County Ordinances.
2 Law enforcement should include the
provision of acts and duties required by the
Sheriff when requested by a citizen.
Request for police protection require an
action by the Sheriff. An action may include
telephone, mail or walk-in reporting to a
deputy sheriff where physical response to
another location is not required; or, response
by appointment; or, proximity response; or,
first received, first serviced; or, immediate
emergency scene response.
952656
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Law enforcement should provide emergency
response time be less than or equal to the
average emergency response time for the
county as a whole under normal conditions. P.
Emergency response time is defined as the
elapse time from when a request for service
is received to the time a deputy arrives at the
service location as determined through the
Department of Communications.
The following services and facilities must be
determined adequate and in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances prior to the
zoning of a parcel for development or the
development of an industrial, commercial,
residential, or planned unit development
subdivision:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
availability of an adequate water system;
availability of an adequate sewer system;
availability of an adequate transportation
system;
availability of adequate fire protection;
availability of adequate law enforcement;
availability of adequate school facilities; and
availability of adequate parks and open
space.
Public Facility and Service Goals and Policies
P.Goal l
Promote efficient and cost effective
delivery of public facilities and services.
P.Policy 1
Consolidation of internal' Weld County
facilities or services should! be encouraged
to avoid duplication of costs and promote
efficiency;
P.Goal 2
Require adequate facilities and services to
assure the health, safety, and general
welfare of the present and future residents
of Weld County.
Policy 2
Development that requires urban services
and facility should be encouraged to locate
within a municipality, urban growth
boundary area, or 1-25 Mixed Use
Development area and Urban Development
Nodes.
P.Policy 2.1
Development will be required to pay its
proportional share of the local costs of
infrastructure improvements, including
ongoing operating and maintenance costs
required to service such development;
P.Policy 2.2
In evaluating a land use application, Weld
County will consider both its physical and
fiscal impact on the local school and fire
district. If it is found that the district
involved will, as a result of the proposed
development require additional facilities or
incur costs requiring additional local
revenues, the land use project will be
required to contribute funds to the district
for the costs directly attributable to the
project in accordance with the taw;
P.Policy 2.3
The County will encourage the development
of a balanced and cost effective
transportation and circulation system by
promoting higher density cluster uses in the
around existing municipalities and mixed
use development areas and activity centers.
This will help to ensure that maximum
efficiency and use are derived from
investment in existing public facilities;
3-17
P.Policy 2.4
Multijurisdictional regionalization of
services and facilities shall -be -apposed -if -it
9.52€356
PUBLIC FACILITIES
compatible with other Weld County
Comprehensive Plan Coals and policies'
s ttl be eucouragcd unless it will lead to
devettrprnrr •that!: is n • ot c npatible with
other Weld fvtrunty goats andi polleies
P.l\d:ey 2.5
tilt/1t1I1VJ V�JV1 YleeJ JrlV ll�u U's YAndUYi
to avoid duplication of costs and promote
efficiency;
P.Policy 2765
Any proposal for development or the
creation of a zone district for the purpose of
development must not produce an undue
burden on existing Weld County facilities
and services;
3-18
952656
NATURAL RESOURCES
areas should incorporate reduced
densities, adequate setbacks and buffered
areas as prescribed by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife;
W.Policy 2.1
The County will identify and strive to
protect critical or unique habitat areas of
high public value, such as habitats of
endangered or unique species, significant
viewing areas, and breeding and spawning
areas.
W.Goal 3
Traditional wildlife uses such as
hunting, trapping, and fishing in
agricultural and nondeveloped portions
of Weld County are beneficial. Weld
County supports the maintenance of
these wildlife uses.
W.Policy 3
The effect of proposed development upon
wildlife and habitat should be evaluated.
Loss of critical habitat should be
mitigated. Weld County will maintain
maps of known significant wildlife
habitats.
W.Policy 3.1
The integrity of movement in wildlife
corridors should be preserved.
W.Policy 4
Destruction of wetlands or riparian areas
will be strongly discouraged. Deshac€.,.=
should be irritigatcd on a ntuumurn;acre
for,.eitbusia=
Open Space Parks and Recreation
Open space is any outdoor land or water area. This
includes such areas as agricultural land, State
wildlife areas, city parks, and your own backyard.
Open space is desirable because it performs many
natural functions and satisfies many human needs.
Open space is used for the production of crops and
raising of livestock. Open space is used for
outdoor recreational activities and other leisure
time pursuits which promote the health and
welfare of people. Open space functions as
airsheds which reduce the effects of air pollution.
Open space functions as watersheds and storm
drainage collecting water for streams and aquifers
and absorbing water of intense rainfall or
snowmelt. Open space also supports wildlife
which in turn provides enjoyment for Weld
citizens.
6-2
Park facilities and recreational programs in the
County are planned and operated by the State
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
municipalities, schools, and recreational districts.
Weld County currently operates one small regional
park near the City of Greeley and is actively
developing other open space opportunities
throughout Weld County.
Weld County contracts with the City of Greeley to
manage the Island Grove Regional Park which is
composed of several 4-H buildings, an exhibition
building, the Weld County Fair Grounds and
Stadium, and other supplemental buildings. These
facilities are located partly within the City of
Greeley and unincorporated Weld County. In
addition to these facilities, the County currently
owns and operates separate sand and gravel pits.
These mine sites vary in size from 56.6 to 105.7
acres. One of these sites, located in the 1-25 Mixed
Use Development area, currently is in the process
of being developed into a regional park for the
benefit of the residents of southwest Weld County.
Special attention has been directed toward
encouraging parks, trails, and recreational facilities
of varying size and function along rivers, creeks,
and streambeds. Currently, Weld County is
working with the City of Greeley and the Town of
Windsor to develop the Cache La Poudre Trail.
The Cache La Poudre Trail follows the Cache La
Poudre River from Island Grove Regional Park
westwardly to the Larimer County line. It is the
goal of the Cache La Poudre Trail Advisory Board
to provide a multi -modal transit system for the
northern region of Weld.
952656 '
NATURAL RESOURCES
O.Policy 5.1
Significant stands of vegetation shall be
identified during the land review process.
Identified stands will be preserved
whenever possible. Improvements should
be located to minimize the removal of
vegetation.
shrubsrempved asnicsult of constmction
O.Policy 5.2
Attractive, drought -tolerant landscaping
should be strongly encouraged in all land
use documents; and
O.Policy 5.3
Drainage channels should be designed to
incorporate natural vegetation and be
constructed to conform to the natural
landscape; channelization of natural
drainageways is strongly discouraged.
O.Goal 6
Provision should be made for open
space to meet human needs throughout
the County in order to protect and
enhance the quality of life and
enjoyment of the environment.
O.Goal 7
Adequate parks and recreation facilities
should be encouraged throughout the
County and should be integrated
whenever suitable.
O.Goa18
Open space should be promoted as a
buffer zone as a means for protecting
from development those areas which
have significant environmental, scenic,
or cultural value.
O.Policy 8
When alternatives are not available the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan,
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
should encourage mitigation as a tool for
decreasing negative impacts to natural
resources.
O.Goal 9
6-4
The private sector, non -county agencies,
and other governmental jurisdictions
should be encouraged to participate in
open space preservation and trails
development in Weld County.
GENERAL RESOURCES
This section has been developed in conformance
with Title 34, Article 1, Section 304, CRS. The
Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide
appropriate goals and policies to utilize the
County's mineral resources ensuring that adverse
environmental effects resulting from surface
mining operations are minimized. Weld County
recognizes that mineral resource extraction is an
essential industry. The availability and cost of
materials such as sand and gravel has an economic
affect on the general construction and highway
construction industry.
In some instances, sites containing significant
quantities of mineral deposits are located in areas
characterized by other land -uses and natural
resources. Because the uncontrolled operation of
a mine site has the potential for adversely affecting
surrounding land -uses, roads, residents, and the
environment, a specialized use permit is required
in accordance with the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance.
As of 1987, the mineral resources known to be
located in Weld County include sand and gravel,
coal, and uranium. The maps at the end of this
document illustrate the wide distribution of
minerals within the County. These mineral
deposits vary greatly in quantity and quality.
Most of the high quality sand and gravel deposits
in Weld County are found along major drainage,
either under the floodplains or in adjacent stream
terraces. Some lower quality deposits are found in
952656 '
NATURAL RESOURCES
CM.Policy 5.5
The final reclamation of the mine site
should return the land to a form and
productivity that is in conformance with
the established comprehensive plan for the
area;
CM.Policy 5.6
The operator will maintain the reclaimed
mine site until it has been stabilized and
vegetation is re-established; and
CM.Policy 5.7
Trucking operations dealing exclusively
in the transport of mined materials may be
permitted on the mine site when
incorporated in the operational plan for
the mining operation.
Oil and Gas Deposits
Oil and gas development in Weld County is an
integral part of the Weld County economy and has
a substantial direct and indirect impact on current
and future land use. Oil and gas development is
cyclical but the economics of drilling has caused
extensive drilling activities in Weld County. The
area of the most intensive recent drilling activities
coincides, to a large part, with prime irrigated
famiground. Recent developments in case law and
statute have made it clear that counties have some
land use authority over oil and gas development
despite a partial Preemption by the State acting
through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission, 110 court has actually heard
evidence and reviewed aset of local regulations to
determine exactly where conflicts arise between
the State statutory purposes and local regulations
and there is still debate as to what standard the
Court should actually apply in determining
conflicts: especially in the Wattenberg Field of
da.;as tl.., early 1990's. Sputi..g orders e.d.,rcd by
6-7
Recent judicial and statutory developments have
clarified that local counties have some role,
L eau c� E pa.aal pre,...ptiev by the State, hi
nsfllat;..g e;l and gaa drilling i., the ahs.,..,,,, .,f u.,
irreconcilable conflict between state and county
,s,.l..t;.,..s, hat that in no ;..atm.cc ...ay the lu al
regulation go so far as to directly prohibit drilling.
Support facilities which do not depend on geology
for locational decisions are subject to the
unattcntuated land use authority of the County.
Oil and Gas Mineral Goals and Policies.
0G.Goal 1
Allow Oil and gas exploration and
production -to should occur in a manner
which minimizes the impact to
agricultural uses and the environment
and reduces the conflicts between
mineral development and current and
future surface uses.
0G.Policy 1
Weld County should encourage
cooperation, and coordination and
...ate lull .c communication between
the surface owner and the mineral
owner/operators with respect to any
developments of either the surface or the
mineral estate;
0G.Policy L1
New planned unit developments or
subdivisions should be planned to
aa...v.a,...,d at,, take into account current
and future oil and gas drilling activity to
the extent oil and gas development can
reasonably be anticipated;
0G Policy 1.2
Oil and gas drilling activities should be
planned to a,.w.m..vduL take into account
current and future satiate -lend -uses -unless
su i, a.tee.aan,dat;e.. Vt,uld prohibit
t,,.,du,Aiu.,. The pe.3;Li1 1y of oil a.id gas
to delay
t„W u,.LLv.ro,.va,u av
9?,6 55
NATURAL RESOURCES
ace planned unit
development and; subdivision activities to
the extent such development can
reasonably be anticipated.
0G.Policy 1.3
Weld County will seek the imposition of
protective measures through available
state, county, and federal regulations to
ensure that the mineral operator conducts
operations in a manner which will avoid -
minimize current and future
environmental impacts;
0G.Policy 1.4
al and gas 3uyport
'Yrm.,t. afv .Iva . y (.711 gw,vg
ttl..,aawaa Situ!! L..�ubyw&..ttt. a..V wvJ lit
w.wrdffiaee vtttii t11c apprupruttc settler'. f
......................... ................... .
and —Oil and gas support
. ................
facilities decisions which do not rely on
geology for locations I :,t ,c shall be
subjected to review in accordance with the
appropriate section of this Plan; and
•
0G.Policy 1.5
Oil and gas exploration and production
should be conducted in a manner which
minimizes interference with existing
surface use and mitigates the impact on
future land uses. Well sites should be
reclaimed and closed by techniques which
ensure that the future use of the property
is not impaired because of environmental
or safety problems or the existence of
improperly abandoned or unlocated
equipment, such as wellheads or
flowlines. Thv eonteatted presence of
unreasonable
liuuauawat, any lanes {ylueh aft. flit
removed should be recorded and located
for future reference.
6-8
952656
August 11, 1995
Weld County Commissioners
c/o Ms. Barbara Kirkmeyer
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Weld County Commissioners:
It is regrettable that we have been unable to meet recently to discuss ongoing
efforts to resolve issues regarding the ever-expanding 1-25 Mixed Use
Development Area. Although Weld County has publicly stated its intentions to
cooperate with Longmont in the effort of updating its comprehensive plan, as well
as to consider Longmont's comments on development applications along the 119
Corridor, recent actions do not support this intention. This is especially troubling
in view of your recent "Smart Growth" award given by the Governor regarding
your comprehensive planning efforts which states that your goal for the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan is "to support and implement strategies that allow
communities within the county to maintain their identities and clearly demarcate
boundaries using agricultural land for buffers as a means to maintain community
separation".
Since Longmont's planning area includes portions of Weld County, we encourage
you not to convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. We are concerned
about the recent referral from your staff regarding the Mcadowvalc Farm PUD
requesting a change of zone for 155 acres of agricultural area to develop 89
single family lots. We believe that this does not reflect what is clearly a stated
goal of the Governor's office in terms of ensuring that agricultural land is not
prematurely converted for residential uses, especially in a rural county that is not
equipped to provide urban level services.
As we've discussed, our request to meet with you is for the purpose of pursuing
an Intergovernmental Agreement. The City of Longmont wants to work with
Weld County to plan and manage growth. However, we are concerned that your
recent decisions do not demonstrate a commitment to preserving agricultural land
or ensuring buffers between communities.
Your stated goal is to have growth occur within municipal boundaries in Weld
County communities. Why is this policy being followed in other Weld County
localities, but not in the 119 MUD?
While we are inclined to apologize for the direct tone of this letter, we need to
clearly demonstrate how frustrating it has been since our elected bodies met two
Mayor
Leona Stoecker
Mayor Pro Tern
Councilman - Ward 2
John Caldwell
Councilman - Ward 1
Eric Doering
Councilman - Ward 3
James Foster
Councilmen at Large
Tom McCoy
Arthur Clarke
Fred Wilson
Offices:
350 Kimbark Street
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 651-8601
FAX: (303) 651-8590
Meetings:
Tuesday Evenings
7:00 p.m.
do 6Lrc i PL) het.' CA? $52656
years ago, and we received strong commitments from the Commissioners to work
cooperatively to address our concerns. Why, then, has nothing substantive
resulted?
We certainly respect every local government's right to determine its own destiny. However, we are
concerned by the decisions made regarding the 1-25 MUD. We, too, are continually confronted by property
owners interested in developing their property so we understand the pressures you face. We also recognize
that the county seat's physical separation from these issues and concerns in the I-25/119 corridor probably
distance you from feeling their effects.
If your intention is to increase revenue for the County, we have concerns that the County may be unable to
provide needed urban level services. You may be forced to raise taxes or resort to other means that will
prove problematic for the residents and the future elected officials. Moreover, it forces other governmental
units such as Longmont to accept defacto responsibility to deliver services (e.g., library, parks, roads)
without any direct compensation from those residents.
Longmont realizes that Weld County has received two grants for planning efforts: one focussed on open
space and one focussed on the I-25 Mixed Used Development Area. Longmont, in fact, has committed to
assisting you by providing matching funds for the open space grant. The City looks forward to working with
Weld County on these efforts that can help us achieve a consistent vision. We would urge you to delay any
changes in the 1-25/119 area until these studies are final.
We are attaching all of our prior comments regarding the comprehensive plan as well as other projects in
the I-25 MUD so that you have those for the record. We also would like to know if you think there is any
way we can put together a meaningful Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The IGA would ask that Weld
County delay approving future applications for rezoning of agricultural land in the 1-25 MUD area until we
can cooperatively reach agreement on land use issues in this area. Furthermore, we'd like to see Weld
County work with the City to use techniques such as the transfer of development rights or conservation
easements. This effort would provide the physical separation between our community and Del Camino as
was referenced in your Smart Growth Award.
The City of Longmont would very much like to work cooperatively with you to plan and manage growth.
We sincerely appreciated working with you, your staff, and the communities within the I-25 corridor. 1
believe this joint effort resulted in a new understanding of our desires to have separate identities. I believe
we can work together effectively again. We would like to plan a meeting in order to reach a meaningful
IGA. Please let us know at your earliest convenience so that we can begin that process.
Sincerely,
Leona Stoecker
Mayor
cc: Longmont City Council
Gordon Pedrow, City Manager
Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director
Larry Kallenberger
Don Sandoval
John Caldwell
Mayor Pro-Tem
952656
/4vy
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 651-8330 / FAX # (303) 651-8696
July 19, 1995
Ms. Monica Daniels -Mika, Long Range Planner
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Final draft copy of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
Dear Monica:
Thank you very much for sending the final draft copy of the proposed revisions to the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan to the City of Longmont for our review and comment. I understand
that this draft has won a Smart Growth Award. Congratulations!
The text of the draft Weld County Comprehensive Plan includes many goals and policies that the
City supports. Some are in fact similar to ones in the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan. The
City particularly supports the intent of the urban development chapter of the draft Weld County
Comprehensive Plan.
The urban development goals and policies are designed to plan for this anticipated
growth by directing urban uses to where urban services exist or can more easily
be provided, i.e., to existing municipalities and the 1-25 Mixed Use Development
area. The County recognizes that it is appropriate for its municipalities to plan
for growth at their current boundaries and in the surrounding areas. To
accomplish this the County and the municipalities should cooperate in joint
planning efforts to achieve a consistent vision.
Weld County and the City of Longmont have not yet achieved this consistent vision for the area
east of Longmont. Longmont has provided comments during the process for updating the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan. The gist of these comments involve three themes:
ensuring there will be separation between Longmont and the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area so each community can retain its separate identity
ensuring there are adequate public facilities and services within the I-25 Mixed
Use Development Area so it is a self-sustaining community
952656
ensuring coordinated land uses and development standards
As your transmittal letter indicates, the maps that are part of the draft Weld County
Comprehensive Plan were not sent along with this referral. The City previously has expressed
its concerns about the map of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. The City has requested
that Weld County designate the western boundary at WCR7 and has opposed the recent
expansion of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area west to WCR1. The City still is concerned
about the impacts of the development of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area on the City of
Longmont.
The City hopes that both Longmont and Weld County will continue to work towards a consistent
vision, as expressed in the draft Weld County Comprehensive Plan, for the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area: one that is in the best interests of both our communities. Longmont realizes
that Weld County has received two grants for planning efforts: one focussed on open space and
one focussed on the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. The City looks forward to working with
Weld County on these efforts that can help us achieve this consistent vision.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
If you have any questions about this referral response, please call Froda Greenberg at 651-8330.
Sincerely,
Brad Schol
Planning Director
xc: Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director
Brien Schumacher, Planner II
File: #1049
2
952656
Statement to Weld County Commissioners - May 8, 1995
I want to thank the Board for inviting Longmont to participate in meetings with you, the County
planning staff, and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
Like the process Weld County is currently undertaking, Longmont recently updated its
comprehensive plan. One of the goals outlined in the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan is to
maintain the City's separate identity by working with other jurisdictions to preserve open space
buffers where both Longmont and other communities will benefit.
We appreciate the County's interest to pursue a State grant for an open space study for the
County with emphasis on the southern 1-25 corridor, and Longmont is willing to participate in that
study.
However, because the proposed amendments to the Mixed -Use Development Area would make
the western boundary of the Mixed -Use Development Area adjacent to the Longmont's planning
area boundary, Longmont opposes the proposed amendments. If approved, the amendments
may preclude the opportunity to preserve a separate community identity for both Longmont and
the Mixed -Use Development Area.
In order to facilitate future discussions on the issue of urban growth boundaries and the general
concept of future planning in the 1-25 corridor and surrounding areas, Longmont would like to see
the comprehensive planning update process for the Mixed -Use Development Area precede the
consideration of amendments to the Mixed -Use Development Area.
If the Board is inclined to approve the proposed amendments, Longmont respectfully requests that
the Board table action on these amendments until the Weld County Comprehensive Plan update
process has been completed, and the County has had an opportunity to assess the service
implications for these amendments and the entire Mixed Use Development Area.
Thank you for considering our request.
952656
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
350 KIMBARK, CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX, LONGMONT COLORADO 80501
PHONE: 572-0719(METRO); (303)651-8602 FACSIMILE: 572-0719(METRO); (303)651-8590
March 24, 1995
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Office of the Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Re: The Southern Weld County I-25 Corridor and Amendments to the I-25 Mixed -Use
Development Area
Dear County Commissioners:
I want to thank you for inviting Longmont to participate in recent meetings regarding the
Southern Weld County I-25 corridor. The meetings held thus far in Mead, Longmont, and
Dacono have been beneficial in initiating dialogue among the various municipalities and Weld
County concerning future planning along the I-25 corridor and surrounding areas. Longmont is
interested in continuing these discussions to perhaps reach agreement among the entities involved
on how this area should be planned.
At the most recent meeting in Dacono, the municipal and Weld County representatives discussed
the issue of urban growth boundaries. Maps provided by Don Sandoval from the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs indicated that there is considerable overlap of the planning or
service areas (hereafter referred to as urban growth boundaries) of the various municipalities and
the County I-25 Mixed -Use Development Area. Representatives at the meeting appeared to be
in general agreement that the municipalities and Weld County need to work toward resolving
areas where urban growth boundaries overlap. In addition, there was consensus among the
representatives that preserving community identity is important to the municipalities and Weld
County.
Future meetings are scheduled in April among the various entities to discuss options and/or
possible solutions for reaching agreement on urban growth boundaries. We look forward to
participating in these meetings.
Longmont is concerned, however, that amendments being proposed for inclusion into the I-25
Mixed -Use Development Area, if approved by the Board, would preclude the opportunity to
preserve a separate community identity for both Longmont and the Mixed -Use Development
Area. In order to facilitate future discussions on the issue of urban growth boundaries and the
general concept of future planning in the I-25 corridor and surrounding areas, we believe that the
planning process for the Southern Weld County I-25 corridor and surrounding areas now under
way should precede consideration of amendments to the I-25 Mixed -Use Development Area.
Therefore, Longmont respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners table any
amendment requests for inclusion into the I-25 Mixed -Use Development Area until such time as
the municipalities and Weld County have concluded discussions regarding urban growth
boundaries in the Southern Weld County I-25 corridor meetings.
Thank you for considering our request. Please contact me or our City Manager, Mr. Gordon
Pedrow, at 651-8602 if you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Leona Stoecker, Mayor
City of Longmont
xc: Mayors of Mead, Dacono, Frederick, Firestone, Erie, Broomfield, and Thornton
City Council, City of Longmont
Gordon Pedrow, City Manager, City of Longmont
Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director, City of Longmont
Brad Schol, Planning Director, City of Longmont
Lee Lawson, St. Vrain Sanitation District
File #1049 - Weld County Comprehensive Plan Update
Attachment:
1. Comments from Longmont (dated December 14, 1994 and February 22, 1995) on
proposed amendments to the I-25 Mixed -Use Development Area
2
952836
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 651-8330 / FAX # (303) 6514696
February 22, 1995
Ms. Monica Daniels -Mika, Long Range Planner
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: CASE NUMBER: COMPAMEND 1-1995
Dear Monica:
Thank you very much for sending the proposed Mayeda Farms comprehensive plan amendment
to the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area to the City of Longmont for our review and comment.
The 139 acre± parcel is located at the southeast corner of SH119 and WCR1. The applicants
propose low density residential land use. The City of Longmont's sewer interceptor G crosses
a portion of this property.
In December the City provided comments to you about six proposed comprehensive plan
amendments. I understand that Weld County has not completed its review of these amendments.
The City's comments on the proposed Mayeda Farms comprehensive plan amendment are the
same as many of our comments on the other amendments and on the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan update itself. The Mayeda Farms comprehensive plan amendment (139
acres, together with the six other comprehensive plan amendments that Weld County is
considering (1,453 acres, will add 1,592 acres± to the 7,000 acre+ I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area.
After reviewing the application materials, the City does not believe that the application has
demonstrated that it complies with Weld County's criteria for amending the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. Particularly, the City does not believe the applicants have demonstrated
that the amendments "will not place a burden upon existing or planned service capabilities."
Consequently, the City of Longmont requests that Weld County deny this application.
Buffers
The City of Longmont is very interested in preserving a buffer of agriculturally zoned property
between Longmont and the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area. This buffer would provide for
9 at�.4
the physical separation between the City and the urban development within unincorporated Weld
County. Consequently, the City of Longmont previously commented that we would not want to
see this area enlarged: particularly along the SH119 corridor. The City prefers that Weld County
reduce the size of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. The proposed expansion to the I-25
Mixed Use Development Area abuts the existing City limits north of SH119. There would be
no buffer. The City of Longmont again requests that Weld County consider actually reducing
the size of the adopted I-25 Mixed Use Development Area to east of the St. Vrain River and
Boulder Creek confluence (while honoring existing development approvals) rather than expanding
it further to the west.
Self-sustaining community
Longmont would like to see the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area develop as a self-sustaining
community with a balance of residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses and with
the ability to provide a full range of urban services to future residents. Having the I-25 Mixed
Use Development Area be a self-sustaining community would reduce the impact development
in this area may have on other communities' facilities. Longmont is concerned that if the 1-25
Development Area develops without a full range of urban services that Longmont's facilities will
be burdened.
As part of the comprehensive plan update, Weld County is beginning to estimate future
population (32,800) and quantify some of the demands for serving the existing 7,000 acre -t- I-25
Mixed Use Development Area (for example, the need for 18 new schools). The City appreciates
and supports Weld County's further efforts at determining the levels of service necessary to
support urban development within the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area and how Weld County
intends to provide those levels of service. The buildout of the adopted area will create a separate
urban community. The adopted I-25 Mixed Use Development Area does not yet locate basic
public facilities such as collector streets, schools, or parks. Without knowing the location of
these facilities to serve the adopted I-25 Mixed Use Development Area, it is difficult to determine
the burden the proposed amendment will have on existing and planned service capabilities.
Without planning an arterial and collector street system to serve the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area, Weld County will not be in a position to ensure that developers make the
necessary street dedications, connections, and improvements so that the planned transportation
system will be able to accommodate the planned land use. The Longmont Area Comprehensive
Plan designates WCR1 as an arterial requiring 120 ft. of right-of-way.
The application states that as the area develops the St. Vrain Valley School District may decide
to build additional schools. There will need to be 18 school sites within the adopted I-25 Mixed
Use Development Area to serve future students. Therefore, it is important to plan and locate
school sites (elementary, middle, and high) to serve the adopted I-25 Mixed Use Development
Area. Without knowing the location of these future schools, it is difficult to determine the
burden the proposed amendment will place upon existing or planned service capabilities.
2
952856
I
The application states that generous open space is provided in this planned development, but the
application provides no details about the open space. While there is considerable open space
designated within the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area, there are no designated parks for more
active recreation: parks that will provide lighted ball fields for example. Residents of urban
areas expect facilities for more active recreation such as league softball. Longmont plans its
parks facilities to handle the buildout of the Longmont Planning Area. We have not planned our
parks facilities to accommodate the estimated 32,800 people who will live in the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area. Again, it is difficult to quantify the burden this proposed amendment will
add without first locating these facilities.
Many communities (including Longmont) attempt to co -locate elementary schools and
neighborhood parks on collector streets. Many communities also try to locate high schools and
community parks (parks with lighted ballfields capable of handling league sports) on arterials and
at the edge of residential neighborhoods rather than in the middle of residential neighborhoods.
Without planning and locating school and park sites within the I-25 Mixed Use Development
Area, Weld County will not be in a position to ensure that developers make the necessary
dedications or payments -in -lieu so that the planned school and park sites are located to serve the
planned land use.
Other Services
It is important to analyze the impacts that the buildout of the adopted I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area may have on the type and demand for other services. For example, fire
fighting equipment and techniques for urban development can be different than those for rural
development. The Mountain View Fire Protection District serves this area. It is important to
determine what changes it may need to make to its operations, its need for additional and/or
different equipment (both fire and EMS), and its need for additional fire stations to serve an
urban community: particularly an urban community where response times from existing facilities
will be quite different than what they may be today.
A similar evaluation may be useful for Weld County to undertake for the services it directly
provides. For example public safety and general governmental services. It may be that the urban
densities within the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area will require a different level of service
than the Weld County Sheriff provides for the more rural areas of Weld County. With an
estimated population of 32,800, it's quite possible that Weld County will need to establish a
satellite office facility to provide better service to the residents of the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area. The application does not discuss these burdens either.
Special Districts
It does not appear that the Mayeda Farms comprehensive plan amendment is located within the
St. Vrain Sanitation District. The City believes it is inappropriate to expand the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area (with planned urban densities) to include properties not currently within this
district. Such action promotes urban sprawl.
3
952656
Scenic Entry Corridors
The City of Longmont has designated a scenic entrance corridor along SH119 into the City.
Components of these corridors include increased setbacks, access control, landscaping, signage,
lighting, screening, and fencing. Developing and maintaining an improved visual image along
a major transportation corridor for both the City and the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area is
a benefit to both. This application includes frontage along SH119 and does not incorporate this
scenic entrance corridor.
Compact Urban Form
Development in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area does not first require annexation to a
municipality, and consequently does not need to meet the 1/6th contiguity requirement for
annexation. Since contiguity is not a requirement for development in unincorporated areas,
development in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area has a greater likelihood of occurring in
scattered pockets resulting in inefficient service delivery. The larger the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area becomes, the greater the probability for scattered development. In order to
avoid the inefficient delivery of services, Weld County likely will need to develop other
development phasing techniques to promote a compact urban form and an efficient service
delivery system.
In conclusion, the City requests that Weld County deny the proposed request for expansion of
the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. This expansion eliminates any buffer between the City
of Longmont and urban development within unincorporated Weld County: a critical concern to
the City. The application also has not demonstrated that it will not place an additional burden
upon existing or planned service capabilities (including services that the City of Longmont
provides): one of the three review criteria for approving a comprehensive plan amendment.
If you have any questions about this referral response, please call Brien Schumacher at 651-8330.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on these applications.
Brad Schol
Planning Director
xc: Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director
Brien Schumacher, Planner 11
File: #2049-2h
4
952656
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 651-8330 / FAX # (303) 651-8696
December 14, 1994
Ms. Monica Daniels -Mika, Long Range Planner
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: CASE NUMBERS: COMPAMEND 1-1994, 2-1994, 3-1994, 4-1994, 5-1994, 6-1994
Dear Monica:
Thank you very much for sending the six proposed comprehensive plan amendments to the I-25
Mixed Use Development Area to the City of Longmont for our review and comment. The City
will comment on these applications as a group since many of our comments relate to more than
one application. Also. the applications indicate that "through their consultants, the landowners
have coordinated the planning effort in terms of the road network and compatible land uses."
These six applications will add 1,453 acres+ to the approximately 7,000 acre I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area. They expand this area to the south and west. The proposed expansion goes
west to County Line Road south of the St. Vrain River and goes west to the City limits north of
SH119 (See attached map). The proposed land uses are Low Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, and Open Space. The applications do not provide a breakdown of the
proposed acreage by land use category.
The applications indicate that the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee did
discuss these proposed expansions "...but declined to take any action because the committee did
not wish to entertain requests from individual property owners." The City of Longmont concurs
with the action of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. We do not
believe that the applications have demonstrated they comply with Weld County's criteria for
amending the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Particularly, the City does not believe they
have demonstrated that the amendments "will not place a burden upon existing or planned service
capabilities." Consequently, the City of Longmont requests that Weld County deny these
applications. You will note that many of the City's comments on these applications follow
closely to our comments on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan update itself.
952656
Buffers
The City of Longmont is very interested in preserving a buffer of agriculturally zoned pi
between Longmont and the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. This buffer would provide for
the physical separation between the City and the urban development within unincorporated Weld
County. Consequently, the City of Longmont previously commented that we would not want to
see this area enlarged: particularly along the SH119 corridor. The City prefers that Weld County
reduce the size of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. The proposed expansion to the I-25
Mixed Use Development Area abuts the existing City limits north of SH119. There would be
no buffer.
Again the City of Longmont requests that Weld County consider actually reducing the size of
the adopted I-25 Mixed Use Development Area to east of the St. Vrain River and Boulder Creek
confluence (while honoring existing development approvals) rather than expanding it further to
the west.
Self-sustaining community
Longmont would like to see the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area develop as a self-sustaining
community with a balance of residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses and with
the ability to provide a full range of urban services to future residents. Having the I-25 Mixed
Use Development Area be a self-sustaining community would reduce the impact development
in this area may have on other communities' facilities. Longmont is concerned that if the I-25
Development Area develops without a full range of urban services that Longmont's facilities will
be burdened.
Previously we shared with you some rough estimates of population (28,330) that Weld County
may see if the adopted 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area builds out We also shared with you
some of the transportation impacts that we see occurring. The buildout of the adopted area will
create a separate urban community. Yet the adopted 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area does
not locate basic public facilities such as collector streets, schools, or parks. The proposed
amendments do not locate these facilities either.
Without planning an arterial and collector street system to serve the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area, Weld County will not be in a position to ensure that developers make the
necessary street dedications, connections, and improvements so that the planned transportation
system will be able to accommodate the planned land use.
The applications state that the St. Vrain Valley School District provides education in this area
and has schools located in Mead and the Tri-Towns. As the area grows, the District may decide
to also build schools in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. The existing schools in Mead
and the Tri-towns will not be able to accommodate the students that the adopted I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area will generate. There will need to be school sites within this area to handle
these students. Therefore, it is important to plan and locate school sites (elementary, middle, and
2
952656
high) to serve the adopted I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. The proposed expansion only will
increase this burden.
There is considerable Open Space designated within the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area.
However, there are no designated parks for more active recreation: parks that will provide
lighted ball fields for example. Residents of urban areas expect facilities for more active
recreation such as league softball. Longmont plans its parks facilities to handle the buildout of
the Longmont Planning Area We have not planned our parks facilities to accommodate the
estimated 28,330 people who will live in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. Again, the
proposed amendments will add to this burden.
Many communities (including Longmont) attempt to co -locate elementary schools and
neighborhood parks on collector streets. Many communities also try to locate high schools and
community parks (parks with lighted ballfields capable of handling league sports) onarterials and
at the edge of residential neighborhoods rather than in the middle of residential neighborhoods.
Without planning and locating school and park sites within the I-25 Mixed Use Development
Area, Weld County will not be in a position to ensure that developers make the necessary
dedications or payments -in -lieu so that the planned school and park sites are located to serve the
planned land use.
Other Services
It is important to analyze the impacts that the buildout of the adopted I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area may have on the type and demand for other services. For example, fire
fighting equipment and techniques for urban development can be different than those for rural
development. The Mountain View Fire Protection District serves this area. It is important to
determine what changes it may need to make to its operations, its need for additional and/or
different equipment (both fire and EMS), and its need for additional fire stations to serve an
urban community: particularly an urban community where response times from existing facilities
will be quite different than what they may be today.
A similar evaluation may be useful for Weld County to undertake for the services it directly
provides. For example public safety and general governmental services. It may be that the urban
densities within the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area will require a different level of service
than the Weld County Sheriff provides for the more rural areas of Weld County. With an
estimated population of 28,330, it's quite possible that Weld County will need to establish a
satellite office facility to provide better service to the residents of the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area. The applications do not discuss these burdens either.
Special Districts
It does not appear that all the areas of proposed expansion are located within the St. Vrain
Sanitation District and the Left Hand Water District. The City believes it is in appropriate to
3
952€56
expand the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area (with planned urban densities) to include
properties not currently within both these districts. Such action just promotes urban sprawl.
Scenic Entry Corridors
The City of Longmont has designated a scenic entrance corridor along SH119 into the City.
Components of these corridors include increased setbacks, access control, landscaping, signage,
lighting, screening, and fencing. Developing and maintaining an improved visual image along
a major transportation corridor for both the City and the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area is
a benefit to both. Several of the proposed applications include frontage along SH119 and do not
incorporate these scenic entrance corridors.
Primary Greenways/Trails
The City of Longmont is developing a primary greenway trail and park system along the St.
Vrain for the enjoyment of area residents. In our comments to Weld County as part of the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan update, the City supported the open space designation along St.
Vrain Creek and Boulder Creek so that there can be extensions of the open space planning of
both our jurisdictions. Coordinated planning can ensure consistency in terms of wail alignment,
public access, and corridor facilities such as parking and other trailhead facilities. The City of
Longmont's planning for the St. Vrain Greenway indicates that the main trail will be on the south
side of the St. Vrain west of WCR1.
The City of Longmont also has designated Spring Gulch as a primary greenway. We request that
Weld County continue this designation within unincorporated Weld County. A primary greenway
along Spring Gulch can provide an important link between the St. Vrain River and Union
Reservoir Recreation Area.
The draft Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan does include a strategy to "explore the use of
abandoned railroad rights -of -way for opportunities to serve alterative modes of transportation."
The abandoned railroad right-of-way that goes between Boulder Creek and the St. Vrain also
could provide an important link between these two trails. The City of Longmont respectfully
suggests that Weld County evaluate having a trail along this abandoned right-of-way as well.
Union Reservoir
Previously, the City has requested that Weld County ensure that any development planned near
Union Reservoir be compatible with the recreation facilities the City is developing there: taking
into consideration public access and buffering between development and the recreational facilities
near the reservoir. One of the proposed expansions includes 143 acres of Medium Density
Residential just east of McLane/Westem and south of Union Reservoir. The City reiterates this
concern. The City also is concerned about the location of this proposed expansion to the dam's
breach flood area. The applications provide no information on these items.
4
952656 '
In conclusion, the City requests that Weld County deny the proposed requests for expansion of
the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. This expansion elirninnr"s any buffer between the City
of Longmont and urban development within unincorporated Weld County: a critical concern to
the City. The applications also have not demonstrated that they will not place an additional
burden upon existing or planned service capabilities (including services that the City of
Longmont provides): one of the three review criteria for approving a comprehensive plan
amendment.
If you have any questions about this referral response, please call Brien Schumacher at 651-8330.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on these applications.
Sincerely,
Brad Schol
Planning Director
xc: Phil Del Vecchio, Community Development Director
Brien Schumacher, Planner II
File: #2049-2b, #2049-2c, #2049-2d, #2049-2e, #2049-2f, #2049-2g
5
952656
•—eL.r .neI' L/ — %us, .r— V *ad& .w.;. It w n f ..gel
CO' ^,tr'TUAL LAND SE PLAN
4000 2000
L&NO CT1VIfY
LDR—Lew Density RaldeMial
MDR —Medium Density Residential
MDR —Mien Derwity Residenflnl
MM —Mobile Mena
C —Commercial
0 —Off Me
I —industrial
RT —Roe. Track
OS —Open Spate
FizaeW Fcg-
I,J0.UC,tO1J
0
4000
eMIC w err
I MDR 'MDR'
WCR 24
r—) WCR 22
952656
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 651-8330 / Fax # (303) 651-8696
October 14, 1994
Monica Daniels -Mika, Long Range Planner
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administrative Offices
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area
Dear Monica:
This letter is in response to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Update regarding the 1-25
Mixed -Use Development Area. Thank you for allowing the City of Longmont the opportunity
to be involved in the Plan update, since growth and development in the I-25 Development Area
will likely impact Longmont. The Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this
issue in July and the City Council has reviewed it three times since late August. The Longmont
City Council reviewed the 1-25 Development Area most recently at a meeting on October 11th
and provided the following recommendations and comments for review by the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee:
I. Longmont would like to see the 1-25 Development Area develop as a self-sustaining
community with a balance of residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses and
with the ability to provide a full range of urban services to future residents. Having the
1-25 Development Area be a self-sustaining community would reduce the impact
development in this area may have on other communities' facilities. Longmont is
concerned that if the I-25 Development Area develops without a full range of urban
services that Longmont's facilities will be adversely impacted.
Weld County may want to review the land use mix and locate urban level facilities and
services in the 1-25 Development Area, and then analyze the impacts of.buildout for Weld
County and other service providers. Longmont agrees with the land use changes proposed
along the I-25 corridor by the St. Vrain Sanitation District to change the existing race
track designation and provide industrial land uses between I-25 and residential land uses.
2. Weld County may want to consider requiring development within the 1-25 Development
Area to occur in a compact manner rather than in scattered pockets throughout the
Development Area to provide efficient and cost-effective delivery of public facilities d
952•,)
services. While it's appropriate to plan in advance of future development, advance
planning without a mechanism for controlling the location of development may result in
an inefficient delivery of services (such as water, sanitation and electric utilities, fire and
sheriff protection, schools, parks, etc.). Having the I-25 Development Area grow in a
logical manner would be consistent with Goal 3 of the I-25 Mixed -Use Development Area
"to provide efficient and cost-effective delivery of adequate public facilities and
services...".
The City believes that the basis of logical urban growth is to provide for the most
efficient delivery of public services to a developing area. This minimizes the cost to the
existing taxpayers who will share the responsibility of paying for short and long term
services and maintenance of infrastructure for the developing area. One way of achieving
a compact growth form would be to add anew policy that would require new
developments to be contiguous to existing developments, similar to the state statutes
regarding annexation contiguity with municipal city limits.
3. Longmont supports maintaining the open space designations along the St. Vrain River and
Boulder Creek and around the Barbour Ponds area. Preserving the open space
designations will permit coordinated planning between Longmont and Weld County along
the St. Vrain River corridor to maintain consistency in the corridor in terms of trail
alignment and public access, and address issues related to mineral extraction and
reclamation along the corridor.
4. Longmont would like Weld County to consider including an open space entrance corridor
in the 1-25 Development Area plan for the Highway 119 corridor between the western
edge of the 1-25 Development Area and the I-25 interchange. Components that the City
would like to see incorporated into a scenic entrance corridor along Highway 119 include
setbacks, access control, landscaping, signage, lighting, screening and fencing.
5. Longmont would like to work with Weld County in coordinating development standards
for land use proposals and capital improvements near Longmont so that proposed uses,
facilities and services are compatible.
6. Longmont requests that any development planned near Union Reservoir be compatible
with future plans for the reservoir, taking into consideration public access and buffering
between development and the reservoir.
7 Weld County may want to review the potential impact of buildout of the I-25
Development Area on area wide transportation networks as part of the update, and
consider including a transportation network plan into the I-25 Development Area plan.
Longmont would be willing to assist Weld County in reviewing these transportation
impacts.
8. Longmont would prefer that the I-25 Development Area not be enlarged, particularly
along the Highway 119 corridor west of the St. Vrain River, as proposed by both the St.
Vrain Sanitation District and C&M Companies. Rather than enlarging, Longmont would
like Weld County to consider reducing the size of the I-25 Development Area to east of
952656
the confluence of the St. Vrain River and Boulder Creek (see attached map). The City
acknowledges that certain properties along the Highway 119 corridor have been approved
for development by Weld County and that the St. Vrain Sanitation District has committed
to serve these properties.
Longmont is very interested in preserving a buffer of agricultural zoned property between
Longmont and the I-25 Development Area to provide for the physical separation of
development along the Highway 119 corridor. Scaling back the I-25 Development Area
would preserve much of the area between County Line Road and the St. Vrain River as
a buffer between Longmont and the I-25 Development Area for the near future, and
would also provide some flexibility as a future planning area for Weld County and
Longmont.
9. Longmont would like to continue to work with Weld County in future planning efforts.
Longmont and Weld County may wish to pursue an intergovernmental agreement to
facilitate cooperation between the two jurisdictions and to better achieve coordinated and
mutually compatible development within the corridor. Attached is the Intergovernmental
Agreement between Longmont and Boulder County. This may serve as a starting point
for discussion between Longmont and Weld County.
Thank you for considering our recommendations
meeting of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
the Committee may have. Please contact me at
further.
Sincerely,
Brien Schumacher, Planner II
City of Longmont Planning Division
and comments. I will be attending the next
Advisory Committee to answer any questions
651-8330 if you wish to discuss this matter
xc: Board of County Commissioners, Weld County
City Council, City of Longmont
Gordon Pedrow, City Manager, City of Longmont
Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director, City of Longmont
Brad Schol, Planning Director, City of Longmont
Lee Lawson, St. Vrain Sanitation District
File #1049 - Weld County Comprehensive Plan Update
Attachments: 1-25 Mixed -Use Development Area Map
Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Longmont and Boulder
County
952855
I-25 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA MAP #2
1-25 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA
WO] 265
RE5
RN
ti
/VCR 26
ti 9
RE5
MUD BOUNDARY D
RESIDENTIAL
MOBILE HOMES
COMMERCIAL
\� FLOOD LINE (100 YEAR)
MULLIGAN
RESERVOIR
SANBORN
RESERVOIR
2CR 28
OS _
_D\D
RN
RE5
r
1
I
j
NORTH
CR 24
P - 806 22
NCR 20
6
UNDESIGNATED LAND USE
OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL
PARKS AND RECREATION
OPEN SPACE
TOWN OF NBAU
EXISTING HUD BOUNDARY
DATE 7-n-95
952656
I-25 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA MAP #2 B
P
CR 283
H
I-25 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA
PEA
Li
ti
MUD BOUNDARY
RESIDENTIAL
MOBILE HOMES
COMMERCIAL
FLOOD LINE (COD YEAR)
MULL/GAN
RESERVOIR
HWY / 66
/ SANBDRN
RESERVOIR
404 28
i
LECEND
PEA
UNDESIGNATED LAND USE
OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL
PARKS AND RECREATION
OPEN SPACE
NORTH
WOE 2s
VICR 20
TOWN OF MEAD
DUSTING MUD BOUNDARY
DATE 7-27-05
952656
I-25 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA MAP #2 C
1-25 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA
H
1 --
PBS
ti
MULLIGAN
RESERVOIR
66
/ SANBORN
) RESERVOIR
I NCR aB Ct
21628 26
MUD BOUNDARY L EG
RESIDENTIAL
MOBILE HOMES
COMMERCIAL
FLOOD LINE (10U YEAR)
ND
i
RES
PC
UNDESICNATED LAND USE
OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL
PARKS AND RECREATION
OPEN SPACE
ffl
L-
NORTH
6CR 26
CR
WCR 20
TORN OF MEAD
EXISTING MUD BOUNDARY
DATE 7-27-95
952656
Tax Limitations and Planning Considerations
The County mill levy has been lowered consistently since the adoption of the Weld County Home
Rule Charter in 1975. The mill levy was 25.82 in 1975. The mill levy in 1995 is 22.038. The growth
of the County's property tax revenue has been effectively limited by Section 14-7 of the Home Rule
Charter. This section of the charter limits the growth of property tax collections to no more than 5%
of the previous year's levy unless more is authorized by voter approval.
In addition to the charter limitation the two state constitutional limits, the TABOR Amendment and
Gallagher Amendment, work together to limit local government's ability to raise sufficient revenue
to pay for the increased costs of government services due to inflation and influx of new residents into
Weld County.
Prior to 1982, the share of residential property assessed value as a percentage of total statewide
assessed value had been steadily creeping upward. The Gallagher Amendment passed in 1982
was to stabilize the share of residential assessed value in the total statewide property tax base at
approximately 45%. By stabilizing the share of residential assessed value at 45% the share of
property tax revenue collected from residential property owners was also stabilized.
In essence, since 1983 about 45% of the total state property tax revenue each year has been
collected from residential property owners in Colorado. However, by fixing the -residential share of
property tax revenue collections at 45%, the tax burden has been shifted to all nonresidential
property owners in the state. In thirteen years since the passage of the Gallagher Amendment , the
tax bill for residential property owners in Colorado was lowered more than $250 million in 1995 than
it would have been had the original Gallagher provisions (which assessed residential property at a
21% rate) remained unchanged since 1983- From 1987 through 1994, the cumulative reduction is
over one billion dollars. In Weld County alone the residential property owners' share of just county
property taxes would be over 77% higher or nearly $6 million in 1995 without the Gallagher
Amendment in effect.
Prior to the adoption of the TABOR Amendment in 1992, local governments were able to increase
mill levies to generate the same amount of revenues from the prior year. Many units of local
government would periodically adjust mill levies as a result, in large part to compensate for declining
assessed values attributable to the Gallagher Amendment. Under the TABOR Amendment there
are now two critical issues faced by local governments dependent on property taxes. 1) Local
governments cannot raise mill levies without a vote, even when the increased mill levy generates
the same amount of revenue. 2) The Gallagher residential assessed ratio cannot be increased
without a vote.
Because of these factors property tax growth simply will not keep pace with a government's inflation
adjusted spending limit that is also part of the TABOR Amendment. The ability of governments to
adjust the property tax rate (the mill levy) to generate the revenue needed to pay for the increased
costs of government services was eliminated with the passage of TABOR Amendment in 1992.
The net effect of the Gallagher Amendment is areas having high proportions of residential assessed
952e ;6
value as a percent of their total property tax base will have large assessed value declines, if the
average increase in actual residential values does not keep pace with the decline in the residential
assessment ratio. For example, as the statewide residential assessment ratio declined from 12.86%
to 10.36 % in 1995, a school district or county had to experience an average 24% increase in actual
residential values (all else remaining equal) in order for total assessed value and therefore revenue,
to remain unchanged.
The background information presented on the Home Rule Charter and its tax levy limitation and the
state TABOR and Gallagher Amendments helps to explain the critically important relationship
between the charter, state tax limitations, the comprehensive plan, and growth in Weld County.
Weld County's ability to provide services under the existing budget limitations is significantly
decreased by the combined effects of inflation, growth, and budget reductions at the federal and
state levels. The current economic, political , and growth conditions are not conducive to meeting
all the needs and demands being placed upon local government when the combined rate of inflation
and growth are greater than the Home Rule Charter's 5% tax limitation or limits allowed by the
TABOR Amendment. As long as Weld County is responsible for the delivery of human services,
law enforcement ,and the maintenance of the county's extensive road and bridge program, the cost
of Weld County government will continue to increase.
However, due to the above economic and legal constraints, county representatives should make
consistent decisions minimizing the cost of providing county services by directing new growth to
areas where county and municipal services exist or can be developed efficiently. Weld County still
intends to help support and promote a diversified and stable economy.
In summary given the facts about Weld County's limitations to generate revenue for providing
facilities and services to new development, growth cannot pay for itself to the extent it does in other
Colorado counties, especially residential growth.
952656
Memorandum
To: Board of County Commissioners
CC: Pat Persichino and Bruce Barker
From: Monica Daniels -Mika, Long Range Planner and Lee D.
Morrison, Weld County Assistant Attorney
Date: August 11, 1995
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Draft Recommendation revised
The Department of Planning Services staff and the County Attorney's Office staff have
reviewed the proposed draft of the Comprehensive Plan and concur with the most recent
changes to this document. A redraft of the Oil and Gas section is included in the text of
the attached draft.
While incorporating recent suggestions into this draft there were several side notes
pertaining to the origin of some of the goals and policies. If a goal or policy remains
unchanged, then its development most probably was the outcome of a prior plan revision
or amendment. Recent changes to the plan can be attributed to the Advisory Board,
Planning Commission, staff, referral agencies, and citizens.
While we believe that the changes to this Plan are positive, we acknowledge that in order
to carry out these changes corresponding modifications will need to occur in the regulatory
documents.
1
952656
SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Introduction: Section 1 p. 1-1/1-15
Ia. Staff would like to see the inclusion of the demographic information which was proposed for
deletion in the Plan (page 1-7). This information was taken from a report developed by the State
Demographers Office, and this information provides some of the only reference in the Plan to the
ethnic composition of Weld County residents.
l b. Staff would like to see the inclusion of the statement" however, only 37.9% of the County land area
was considered by census definition to be agricultural in 1990. " (page 1-9) This statement is
significant because it demonstrates that although Weld County is a highly agriculturally
orientated county we are rapidly becoming urbanized.
lc. Staff recommends approval of the Tax Incentive section as rewritten.
Agricultural: Section 2 p.2-1/2-6
2a. Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes:
A Policy 3
A Policy 4.1.5
A Policy 7
A Policy 8
A Goal 9
A Policy 9
Body of Text: Section 3 p. 3-1/3-17
Urban Growth Boundaries: p. 3-1/3-3
Unincorporated Communities p. 3-3/3-4
Industrial Development p. 3-4/3-5
Commercial p. 3-5/3-7
Residential p. 3-7/3-8
Planned Unit Development p. 3-8/3-10
Mixed Use Development p. 3-10/3-14
Public Facilities p.3-14/3-17
3a. Staff recommends approval of the following proposed changes:
UGB Policy 2
UGB Goal 3
UGB Policy 3.3
UGB Policy 3.4
I Policy 4.3 C. Goal 7
I Policy 5.1
I Goal 6 R Policy 2.1
I Goal 6.2 R Goal 4
2
PUD Policy 4
PUD Goal 5
P Policy 2.2
MUD Policy 6.3
MUD Policy 6.20
MUD Goal 7
952656
Specific Changes Continue.
3.b. Public Facilities-- There was a concern stated by a Commissioner that the Public Facility section
may not be needed in the Plan. Staff believes this section has merit due to the fact that it does
provide direction for service providers. Staff recognizes that some of the proposed language may
necessitate an increase in standards which the Commissioners may chose to change. This is
particularly true in regard to fixed fire protection standards. (page 3-16).
3c. Staff recommends the acceptance of Map C which includes the original northern portion of the
MUD area with the exclusion of those parcels in the jurisdiction of the town of Mead.
Transportation: Section 4 p. 4-1/4-6
4a. Staff recommends approval of this section as proposed.
Environmental: Section 5
p. 5-1/5-6
5a. Staff recommends that the existing document remained unchanged as currently proposed.
Natural Resources: Section 6 p. 6-1/6-8
6a. Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes:
W. Goal 2
W. Policy 1.1
O Goal 2
CM 4.9
6b. Staff recommends the adoption of the Oil and Gas Resources Section as revised by the Weld
County Attorney's Office:
Appendix: Section 7 p.7-1/7-3
7a. Staff recommends inclusion of this section as proposed.
complan/recc
3
952656
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The effective and efficient delivery of adequate public services is one
of the primary purposes and benefits of effective land -use planning. Since
the adoption of the home rule charter, rising county expenditures have
created substantial public interest in how to cut cost and increase
efficiency of providing public services and facilities.
Public services are government services such as police and fire
protection, health services and welfare, and educational services and
programs. Public facilities are physical structures and infrastructure such
as schools, libraries, roads, maintenance facilities, water distribution
systems, and sewage treatment facilities. Municipal governments, county
governments, special districts, and private
providing such services and facilities.
Because of the expense and limited available funding,
companies
are capable of
proper allocation
of public facilities and services is important. Revenue to support public
services and facilities in unincorporated Weld County is usually generated
by levying property taxes and user fees.
The type, intensity, and location of a land -use proposal are factors
that determine the type and level of services and facilities required.
Effective and efficient delivery of services and facilities can be promoted
by assessing the needs and impacts of a land -use proposal, along with the
existing and planned capabilities of the service and facility providers at
that location.
One basic objective of Weld County is to plan and coordinate a timely,
orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to
serve as a framework for rural and urban development. In accomplishing
this objective, municipalities are considered to be the principal provider
of services and facilities for urban uses.
Municipalities have the ability to coordinate the provision of adequate
urban facilities and services under powers granted by state statues and the
constitution. The adopted town growth boundary areas are the most logical
areas for urban development to occur. Municipalities are designed to
accommodate concentrations of development and are in a position to plan the
expansion of existing facilities and services as well as to coordinate the
development of new facilities and services.
Alternative facilities and service systems may be used for urban type
development within the I-25 mixed use development corridor and urban growth
952656
boundary areas, with certain restrictions. The alternative facility and
service systems must comply with the standards set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. Systems
that are proposed to be located within a municipality's urban growth
boundary area may be required to develop in such a manner that they are
compatible with the standards of the municipality most likely to phase
services into the area. They also may be required to meet state regulations
and standards.
In determining service and facility adequacy for a land use proposal,
it is the policy of the County to consider any evidence submitted by the
representative of an entity responsible for providing such services or
facilities. In addition, the following minimum service and facility
standards must be met in determining if public services and facilities are
adequate for residential, commercial, and industrial development.
FIRE PROTECTION
The standards listed below for adequate fire protection shall be considered
minimum unless more stringent standards are established by the
representative normally responsible for fire protection, the zoning
ordinance, or the subdivision regulations.
1. A rural water system must have sufficient volume each
day of the year, to control and extinguish any and all
potential fires at the proposed development site or zone
district.
2. Roads serving the development must have a surface that
is sufficient to travel every day of the year for the
purpose of controlling and extinguishing any and all
potential fires at the proposed development site or zone
district.
3. The water supply system serving the proposed development
site or zone district must deliver a minimum of 500
gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual
pressure for 30 minutes.
4. The initial travel time to arrival at location of fire
or emergency must be less than 15 minutes from the time
a call is received from the dispatch center providing
service.
952656
54
5. Any proposed development or zone district for the
purpose of development must be located within a 5 mile
radius of a rural fire protection station.
6. The entity providing fire protection must have the
ability to respond with a minimum of 2 fire fighters per
pumper.
7. Fire protection must be provided 24 hours a day.
POLICE PROTECTION
The standards listed below for adequate police protection shall be
considered minimum unless more stringent standards are established by the
representative normally responsible for police protection, the zoning
ordinance, or the subdivision regulations.
1. Police protection shall provide for call response, crime
suppression, initial and secondary investigation to
apprehend perpetrators through overt and covert means,
service of orders of the court, enforcement of
applicable County ordinances, and the performance of
activities necessary to preserve the public peace and
safety 24 hours a day with trained personnel.
2. Police protection shall provide that the initial travel
time to arrival at location of an emergency be normally
less than 18 minutes and 30 seconds from the time a call
is received from the dispatch center.
3. Police protection shall include routine patrol of
residential, business, and industrial areas.
4. Police protection shall include enforcement of local and
state criminal and traffic codes by means of warnings,
citation, or arrest.
5. In the event a law enforcement authority is proposed, it
must be formed according to state statues and should
make provisions to meet the minimum standards listed
above for police protection.
952656
Memorandum
To:
CC:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Board of County Commissioners
Pat Persichino
Monica Daniels -Mika, Long Range Planner and Lee D.
Morrison, Weld County Assistant Attorney
August 7, 1995
Comprehensive Plan Draft Recommendation
The Departments of Planning Services and the County Attorney's Office have
reviewed the proposed draft of the Comprehensive Plan and concur with the
most recent changes to this document. A redraft of the Oil and Gas section is
included in the text of the attached draft.
While incorporating recent suggestions into this draft there were several side
notes pertaining to the origin of some of the goals and policies. If a goal or
policy remains unchanged, then its development most probably was the
outcome of a prior plan revision or amendment. Recent changes to the plan can
be attributed to the Advisory Board, Planning Commission, staff, referral
agencies, and or citizens.
While we believe that the changes to this Plan are positive, we acknowledge that
in order to carry out these changes corresponding modifications will need to
occur in the regulatory documents.
complan.recc
952656
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A.Policy 3
A.Policy 4.1.5
A.Policy 7
A.Policy 8
A. Goal 9
A.Policy 9
UGB.Policy 2
UGB Goal 3
UGB.Policy 3.3
UGB.Policy 3.4
I.Policy 4.3
I.Policy 5.1
I.Goal 6
I. Policy 6.2
C.Goal 7
R.Policy 2.1
R.Goal 4
PUD.Policy 4
PUD.Goal 5
MUD.Policy 6.3
MUD.Policy 6.20
MUD Goal 7
P.Policy 2.2
W.Goal 2
W.Policy 1.1
OGoal 2
CM.Policy 4.9
OG.Goal 1
OG.Policy 1
OG. Policy 1.1
OG.Policy 1.2
OG.Policy 1.4
952656
ADVISORY MEMBER RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE
Oil and Gas Mnaaai Resources Deposits
Oil and gas development in Weld County is an
integral part of the Weld County economy and has a
substantial direct and indirect impact on current and
future land use. Oil and gas development is cyclical
but the economics of drilling has caused extensive
drilling activities in Weld County. The area ofthe
most intensive recent drilling activities coincides, tr
a large pate, wvidt?prime.irrigated farmground. Recent
developments in ease law;and statute have made it
clearthat countieshave some land use. authority aver
oil anel gas des elnpmortt despite a partial preemption
by the State acting through the Colorado Oil and Gras
Conservation Commission. No court has actually
heard; evidence; and reviewved a set of local!
regulations to determinecxaetly where conflicts arise
buttwen the State statutory purposes and local
regulations and: there is ;still debate as to what
standard the Court should actually apply; in
determining con;fliets; especially in the Wattenberg
Field of west and south central portions of the
Cotnrt�, daril.g�lle arly 1990's. Spa,,:ns oltL1
entered by the state of Colorado have allowed a much
greater density of drilling in this area which in large
part coincides with irrigated farmlands in the County.
Re.,cnt judikial and 3tuh,tely d 1 111 ,1ts have
clarified that local counties have some role, because
of a partial pr elnyt;en by the State, h1.egulatnag oil
6 di illi11g;,. tl.,, ubJ.,11,A of an :., laL1
conflict between state and county regulations, but
that in no instance may the local regulation go so far
as to directly prohibit drilling. Support facilities
which do not depend on geology for lecutiel.al
.,1.J U1.. JULj....L IU L11..�a11an..uluut...1 lw..l UJ..
uutl..,rity of the County.
Oil and Gas Mineral IL,ourc
�s Goals and
Policies.
OG.Goal 1
Allow Oil and gas exploration and
production to- should occur in a manner
which minimizes the impact to
agricultural uses and the environment and
reduces the conflicts between mineral
development...al tint c1.t and farm c and
other surface uses.
OG.Policy 1
Weld County should encourage cooperation,
and coordination and a u.1 11 datiu.l
communication between the surface owner
and the mineral owner/operators with respect
to any
developments of either the surface or the
mineral estate;
OG.Policy 1.1
New planned unit or subdivisions should be
planned to ..,,,u1.,11..,dat„ consider current
and future oil and gas drilling activity to the
extent development can reasonably be
anticipated;
OG.Policy 1.2
Oil and gas drilling activities should be
planned to accommodate current and future
las
a.a.uulatNuataul. vv LILL r,a ILL1L t,. .lu..rlu1L
The p.,s.,ibil:ty of oil and gaa Y1 da ti 11
.,11uU1d "ut Le all„wt,d to delay d„s .lepme.a
ale-theblew oil and gas drillin
activities should tae planning for current and
future planned unit subd is •isiort activities •
. . . to
the extent development can reasonably be
anticipated:
OG.Policy 1.3
Weld County will seek the imposition of
protective measures through available state,
county, and federal regulations to ensure that
the mineral operator conducts operations in
a manner which will aie Lad &ninth e current
and future environmental impacts;
OG.Policy 1.4
Oil and gas support facilities, decisions
which do not rely on geology for locations
decision, shall be subjected to review in
accordance with the appropriate section of
this Plan; and
952656
0G.Policy 1.5
Oil and gas exploration and production
should be conducted in a manner which
minimizes interference with existing surface
use and mitigates the impact on future land
uses. Well sites should be reclaimed and
closed by techniques which ensure that the
future use of the property is not impaired
because of environmental or safety problems
or the existence of improperly abandoned or
unlocated equipment, such as wellheads or
flowlines. The continued presence of
pipelines and flowlines, after production has
ceased, without provision to site or relocate
the lines as to not interfere with future uses
is an unreasonable interference with the use
of the land. At a minimum, any lines which
are not removed should be recorded and
located for future reference.
952656
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
Final Draft - August 7, 1995
952656
INTRODUCTION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEFINITION
The Weld County Comprehensive Plan is the
document intended to fulfill the master plan
requirement pursuant to Colorado State Law and, in
part, to set land -use policy pursuant to the Weld
County Home Rule Charter. The Comprehensive
Plan document is intended to be used for the
general purpose of guiding and accomplishing the
coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious
development of Weld County. The Plan includes
all geographic areas of the County. It establishes
policy guidelines for existing and future land -use
decisions. The Comprehensive Plan was originally
developed in 1974, revised in 1987 and 1992, and
later amended in 1992 and 1995.
RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING
DOCUMENTS
The Comprehensive Plan identifies specific land -
use goals and policies which arc intended to
provide guidance and direction for existing and
future land use. The basic documents used by Weld
County to carry out the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan are the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances.
The Zoning Ordinance is a regulatory document. It
defines land -use application procedures,
responsibilities, alse defines standards and
regulations pertaining to zone districts, overlay
districts, non-conformance, enforcement, and the
Board of Adjustment.
The Subdivision Ordinance is the regulatory
document defining regulations and minimum
standards for subdivision development, including
design standards for facilities, utilities, and other
improvements. The Subdivision Ordinance also
explains the procedures for subdividing a parcel of
land.
The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are
intended to implement and carry out the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
1-1
PRINCIPLE PLAN COMPONENTS
Goals and policies are the two principle
components of the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan. The goals are expressed as written statements
and represent the direction Weld County citizens
have selected for the future. Goals were developed
and adopted with input from the public, civic
organizations, municipalities, and agencies of the
State of Colorado and the federal government. The
adopted goals of the Comprehensive Plan provide
public officials and private citizens with criteria for
making planning decisions.
The Comprehensive Plan policies are expressed as
written statements and maps. The written policy
statements are specific guidelines for public and
tniv utv, o .tvf ...nib -decisions. The policy maps
(located in the back inside cover) graphically
identify important wildlife areas, mineral resources,
and existing and future general land -use
classifications. The policy statements and maps
provide additional background and clarification to
the County goal statements.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING PROCESS
The Weld County planning process is designed to
provide a consistent review of individual land use
matters. The Department of Planning Services
staff, Board of Adjustment, Weld County Planning
Commission, and Board of County Commissioners
are the four groups responsible for making planning
decisions in Weld County. The Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are the
essential documents describing the Weld County
Planning review and decision making process.
These documents are adopted as ordinances in
accordance with the Weld County Ordinance
Procedure set forth in Article III, Section 3-14 of
the Home Rule Charter.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services
welcomes the opportunity to discuss the planning
process with interested persons. Most initial
discussions and inquiries about the Weld County
planning process, including land -use applications,
952656
INTRODUCTION
site plan review procedures and the zone district
classifications, begin with the Department of
Planning Services.
When the Department of Planning Services receives
a land -use application, it is processed and reviewed
for compliance with the appropriate sections of the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. The type of land -use application
determines the administrative body responsible for
review and decision making. For example, a Use
by Special Review Application is initially
processed by the Department of Planning Services.
The planning staff prepares a written
recommendation for the applicant and presents that
recommendation to the Weld County Planning
Commission in a public meeting. The Weld
County Planning Commission reviews the
information presented, evaluates any public
testimony and formulates a recommendation
regarding the land -use application. The Planning
Commission's recommendation is then forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners. In a public
meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
reviews the Planning Commission's
recommendation, evaluates any public testimony
and makes a decision regarding the Use by Special
Review Application.
The Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances enable the public to examine the
relationship between general land -use planning
goals and specific policies and regulations and to
participate in the decision making process. The
Weld County planning process combines the
interaction of elected officials, and the support
staff from the Department of Planning Services and
outer County departments.
In order to ensure joint cooperation between
citizens and professionals, Weld County will rely
upon the following three principles:
1. The County will encourage citizen
participation in the n.ukal5
1/4,1,1
1-2
r Ll and 9uaai puLI: L 1i l.i h
s:bnifi..a1ltly aff.,et citizens, planning
proctga
The County will encourage and promote
coordination and cooperation between
federal, state and local governmental
entities charged with making decisions
which significantly affect land uses in
=incorporated Weld County; and
Air, water and n isc p llution:
inappropriate development in natural
11(1[.Wd Ult,(M4, and itumindital
d.,srudatiu11 s11.,uld b, r du d u ...,11...5
possible or eliminated in order to prevent
potential harm to life, health, and properly.
The County will discourage inappropriate
development in natural hazard areas and
reduceenviromental degradnilon as much
as possible:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
PROCEDURE
Evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan is necessary
to provide an accurate statement of county land -use
goals and policies based on current data and the
needs of Weld County citizens. Therefore, when
changes in the social, physical, or economic
conditions of Weld County occur, it becomes
necessary to re-evaluate and change land -use goals
and policies. The following procedures have been
established to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
1. An overall review and update will be
conducted at least every ten years or earlier
as directed by the Board of County
Commissioners. The update should include
an evaluation of the entire Comprehensive
Plan. The procedure involved in the update
shall include an opportunity for the general
public, Department of Planning Services,
municipal, state, and federal agencies to
submit proposed changes and to review and
952656
INTRODUCTION
comment on any amendments being
considered by the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Individuals may submit a proposal to amend
the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with
the following procedure:
A. Comprehensive plan amendment
proposals shall be considered bi-
annually with a public hearing
process beginning in November -and
or May of each year;
B. The petitioner shall pay for the cost
of legal publication of the proposed
amendment and all land use
application fees;
C. A typewritten original and eleven
(11) copies of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment
must be submitted to the Department
of Planning Services no later than
October 1 and or April 1 of each year
to be considered for review and
public hearings. The following items
shall be submitted as part of the
proposed amendment:
(1) a statement describing why
the comprehensive plan is in
need of revision;
(2) a statement describing how
the proposed amendment will
be consistent with existing
and future goals, policies, and
needs of the County;
In the case of an amendment to the I-
25 Mixed Use Development Area
Map the proposed amendment must:
a. demonstrate the proposed
amendment is adjacent to and
contiguous with the existing
I-25 Mixed Use Development
Area Map, and
1-3
b. describe how the proposed
amendment will not place a
burden upon existing or
planned service capabilities.
This statement shall include
how emergency services will
be provided to the proposed
area; and
c. delineate the number of
people who will reside in the
proposed area. This statement
shall include the number of
school -aged children and
address the cultural and social
service provision needs of the
proposed population.
The Department of Planning Services
shall upon submission of a request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan:
(1) ensure that all application
submittal requirements are
met prior to initiating any
official action;
(2) set a Planning Commission
hearing date;
arrange for legal notice of said
hearing to be published one
time in the newspaper
designated by the Board of
Commissioners for
publication of notices. The
date of publication shall be at
least ten (10) days prior to the
hearing;
(4) arrange for a press release
regarding the proposed
amendment in order to inform
as many Weld citizens and
interested parties as possible;
and
prepare a recommendation for
consideration by the Planning
Commission.
E. The Planning staffs recommendation
shall consider whether:
(3)
(5)
95265E
INTRODUCTION
the existing Comprehensive
Plan is in need of revision as
proposed; and
the proposed amendment will
be consistent with existing
and future goals, policies, and
needs of the County;
In the case of an amendment to the I-
25 Mixed Use Development Area
Map:
a. the proposed amendment is
adjacent to the existing I-25
Mixed Use Development Area
Map; and
b. the proposed amendment will
not place a burden upon
existing or planned service
capabilities including, but not
limited to all utilities
infrastructure and
transportation systems; and
c. the proposed number of new
residents will be adequately
served by the social/cultural
amenities of the community.
The Weld County Planning
Commission shall hold a public
hearing to consider the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan text and maps. The Planning
Commission shall recommend
approval or denial of the proposed
amendment to the Board of
Commissioners.
G. The Planning Commission shall
consider the proposed amendment,
the Department of Planning Service's
recommendation, and any public
testimony and determine whether:
(1) the existing Comprehensive
Plan is in need of revision as
proposed; and
1-4
(2) the proposed amendment will
be consistent with existing
and future goals, policies, and
needs of the County;
In the case of an amendment
to the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area Map:
a. the proposed
amendment is adjacent
to the existing I-25
Mixed Use
Development Area
Map; and
b. the proposed
amendment will not
place a burden upon
existing or planned
service capabilities
including, but not
limited to all utilities,
infrastructure and
transportation systems;
d
c. the proposed number
of new residents will
be adequately served
by the social and
cultural amenities of
the community.
H. The Board of County Commissioners
shall receive the Planning
Commission recommendation and
Planning staff recommendation at a
public meeting. Receipt of the
recommendation shall constitute the
first reading of the Comprehensive
Plan Ordinance. The second reading
of the Ordinance shall take place not
more than sixty (60) days after
receipt of the Planning Commission's
recommendation. The Board of
County Commissioners may then
proceed to a third and final hearing of
952656
INTRODUCTION
levy) to generate the revenue needed to pay for the
higher cost of government services was eliminated
with the passage of 1992's Amendment 1.
In order to comply with the Gallagher Amendment
provisions of the 1982 Amendment 1, each
reassessment year the legislature must establish an
assessment rate for residential property that will be
used by taxing entities statewide. The rate for the
1994 tax year was 12.86%, down from 21% prior to
the passage of Gallagher.
The net effect of Gallagher is areas having high
proportions of residential assessed value as a
percent of their total property tax base will have
large assessed value declines if the average increase
in actual residential values does not keep pace with
the decline in the residential assessment ratio. For
example, as the statewide residential assessment
ratio declined from 14.34% to 12.86% in 1992, a
school district or county had to experience an
average 11.5% increase in actual residential values
(all else remaining equal) in order for total assessed
value, and therefore revenue, to remain unchanged.
The background information presented on the
Home Rule Charter and its tax levy limitation and
the state TABOR and Gallagher Amendments helps
to explain the critically important relationship
between the charter, state tax limitations, the
comprehensive plan, and growth in Weld County.
The County's ability to provide services under the
existing budget limitations is significantly
decreased by the combined effects of inflation,
growth, and budget reductions at the federal and
state levels. The only safety valve available to
counties under TABOR is to end subsidies to
mandated programs, such as Social Services to
provide some property tax relief from social
programs growing at a rate greater than inflation.
The current economic, legislative, and growth
conditions are not conducive to meeting all the
needs and demands being placed upon local
government when the combined rate of inflation
and growth are greater than the Home Rule
Charter's 5% tax limitation or limits allowed by
TABOR. As long as Weld County is responsible
for the delivery of human services, including law
enforcement and the maintenance of the extensive
road and bridge program, the cost of county
government will continue to increase.
Because of the above economic and legislative
factors, county representatives should make
consistent decisions minimizing the cost of
providing public services directing new growth to
areas where county services exist or can be
developed efficiently. The County still intends to
help support and promote a diversified and stable
economy. Given the facts about the County's
limitations to generate revenue for providing
facilities and services to new development, growth
cannot pay for itself to the extent it does in other
counties, especially residential growth.
LOCATION
Weld County contains approximately 4,004 square
miles and is the third largest county in the State of
Colorado. Weld County is bounded on the west by
Larimer and Boulder Counties, on the east by
Morgan and Logan Counties, on the south by
Adams County and on the north by Wyoming and
Nebraska. The largest municipality in Weld
County is the City of Greeley, with a 1990
population of 60,454 people.
Y hi nla The' transportation in the region County
is provided by Interstate I-25 and Highway 85 for
north and south transit, Highway 14 and Highway
52 for east and west transit, Interstate 76 for more
easterly travel, and the several Colorado highways
which traverse the region as well as 3,274.5 miles
of publicly maintained County roads.
1-6
952656
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1. Locational Map
0-2
Weld County is located in the northeastern portion
of the state, in the Great Plains area, approximately
40 miles east of the Continental Divide. The
County has elevations ranging from 4,400 feet
above sea level at the egress of the Pawnee Creek to
highs of approximately 6,200 feet above sea level
in the northwestern portion of Weld. Weld County
,111..111, his. a number of valuable streams and
rivers including; the South Platte, the Cache La
Poudre River, St. Vrain Creek, Crow Creek,
Thompson River, and Kiowa Creek. The larger
reservoirs in Weld include: Empire, Riverside,
Milton, New Windsor, Lower Latham, and Black
Hollow reservoirs. Located in the interior of the
North American Continent, Weld County
experiences wide temperature changes from season
to season and rapid weather changes due to stones
traveling from west to east throughout the region.
The annual average mean temperature in Ce11tr..1
Weld is 48.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The average
rainfall amount to 11.96 inches and the average
annual snow fall is 32.3 inches. The average
growing season in Weld County is 142 days.
COUNTY POPULATION
The growth rate of approximately 25 percent per
decade is molt than triple the national average of 8
y.,n,.,111.v:111110 t Y;.,bably d.,.,r.,u�., sl:bl.tky i
1-7
coming years Beaus the growls rate has been
approximately 25 percent per decade, which is
mare than triple the national average, it twill be
difficult to sustain this type of growth ►ttdetii itelyr..
Approximately 85 percent of the population is
located in an 800 square mile area in the
southwestern part of the County. The 1990
population density for this area is approximately
149 people per squaze mile.
In 1990, 131,821 people lived in Weld County
which represented 4% of the total state population
in 1990. The median age of Weld County residents
in 1990 was 30.5 years compared with the state
median age of 32.5 years. The sex distribution
ration was similar for both Weld County and the
state for this time frame (Table 1). The overall
dispersion of Weld County's population resembles
the state population with the exception of Weld
County having proportionally a younger work
force.
Table 1. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Weld County and the State of Colorado
1990
WELD COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO
MALE 65,089 49.4%
FEMALE 66,732 50.6%
UNDER 5 10,389 7.9%
5-17 26,624 20.2%
18-64 81,354 61.7%
65+ 13,454 10.2%
TOTAL 131,821
16,295
1,663,099
252,893
608,373
2,103,685
329,443
49.5%
50.5%
7.7%
18.5%
63.9%
10.0%
3,294,394
Median Age 30.5
Total Households 47,470
Persons per Household 2.69
32.5
1,282,489
2.51
The Weld County 1990 population was mostly
homogeneous with 77% of the Weld population
as-W1.it.,, 21% IIistn,,.k and 2% Blaek.
IL, w at a 1.1..,,11 fn3t 1 tat
952656
INTRODUCTION
than the majority population. While the White
population grew at an annual rate of 7.9%, the
I31u k pepuhdn,a g..,.. 35% ......ncdly, tln, I
population grew at an annual rate of 11.7%, the
Native American population grew 29.1% annually,
s.J tl.,, A,:c,✓Pacifrc I3lan.ki papttla iei - eevc at a
12.2% an..aal .at.,.
Among all 63 counties in Colorado, Weld County
ranks ninth in total population and population
density. The County is classified as an urban
county by the Demographic Section of the
Colorado Division of Local Government.
The significance of the County's population growth
is its magnitude and distribution. Between 1980
and 1990 the State of Colorado grew at a rate of
14%. For this same period of time Weld County
grew by 6.8% During this time all but two
municipalities within Weld County increased in
population. Most of the present growth in Weld
County is occurring in the historically populated
areas of the County. From 1980 to 1990 Weld
County grew from the 10th to the 9th most
populated county in the state.
Population growth in Weld County is projected to
average a compounded growth rate of 1.9 percent a
year through 2010. This growth rate is slightly
higher than the annual compounded growth rate of
1.65 percent projected for the State.
A review of the historical and future projections of
the population growth in Weld County reveals a
steady increase in the total population every decade
from 1900 to 2010, except 1930 to 1940. The
population density per square mile increased from
4 people in 1900 to 32 people in 1990 and is
projected by Colorado Division of Local
Government to increase to over 42 people per
square mile by 2010.
Figure 2. Population Distribution
Percentage Based
1-8
The Weld County median household income
decreased from $26,236 in 1980 to $25,642 in
1990. (The Census defines a family as two or more
related people living together by blood, marriage or
adoption. A household can consist of a single
individual. Families have more earners, on
average, than households). The median family
income for 1990 increased for the state by (1.7%)
to $35,930 however, for Weld County it decreased
by (1%) to $30,800. Lower educational attainment
levels coupled with a surplus of lower skilled,
younger workers may explain the disparity between
the state and Weld County 1990 family income
figures.
Just as the median household size for the State of
Colorado has declined over the past two decades.
952658
INTRODUCTION
The median household size in Weld County
decreased from 3.0 to 2.8 between 1970 and 1980.
In 1980 the Weld County median household size of
2.7 followed state trends. The Weld County 1990
overall median household size of 2.8 grew slightly,
however the owner -household size decreased to a
median household size of 2.5 persons.
Historically, Weld County has been considered an
agricultural county. ; heweser, only 37.9% of tl...
County land arca waa considcred by census
d f...iG .. th, Le agekultural :.. 1990. Weld County
has been classified by Colorado State University
and the Colorado Department of Agriculture as one
of the 11 farm important counties in the state, that
is, 10 to 20 percent of the 1987 labor and proprietor
income was derived from farming. While Weld
County has a diversified economic base, the core
economic activity continues to be agriculture. The
base is further enhanced by major employers
et.eies. The private sector maintains 82.98% of
the total employment, and Weld County hosted had
a 1993 unemployment rate of 4-156%.
1-9
952656 '
INTRODUCTION
THE WELD COUNTY ECONOMY
The Weld County economy is passing through two
major changes now, and these changes will set the
foundation for our future economy. One of these
changes is a change in our economic base away
from agriculture and natural resource extraction
toward an economy based more on manufacturing
and services. The second major change deals with
our national change from an economy based on
inflation to one based on deflation. No doubt,
inflation will return in the future, but in the past few
years, new presently, and for a short time in the
future deflation was, is, and will be the problem.
Selected Economic Indicators
Population, employment, unemployment, personal
income, and earning by industry can be used to
show where our economy has come from, where it
is, and where it could be headed.
County Residential Population
1970 1980 1990
89,797 123,438 131,821
As the population increases the number of available
workers also expands. Between 1986 through 1993
Weld County has seen a noticeable increase in
selected employment categories:
Mining
Manufacturing
Trade
Fire
Services
Government
Despite the increase in population growth and new
IJnJy
141 %AO, a ULVl.y UI
assistance, environment assistants, service workers,
farm workers, and construction industry workers.
In 1987, the Weld County unemployment rate was
more than 10%, and since this time there has been
a steady decrease in unemployment rates. In 1993
the Weld County labor force was composed of
70,570 workers of these 5.6% were unemployed.
However, in 1994 the number of workers jumped to
77,380 workers while the unemployment rate fell to
5.0% . (Source: Colorado Department of Labor
and Employment, 1994).
In 1990 the labor force in Weld County was
divided between different industries as follows:
(Figures 3 and 4)
Manufacturing
Wholesale and retail
Professional and related services
Agricultural and mining
Government
Self-employed
(Source: Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment, 1994).
Figure 3. Employment by Section 1994
Services 10,997
Manufacturing 9,943
Government 8,830
Retail Trade 8,445
Wholesale Trade 3,229
Construction 2,978
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 2,191
Transportation 2,045
Misc. Agricultural Services 1,525
Mining (includes oil and gas) 1 061
*************************************
Total Non -Farming
Farming
All Industries Total
46,595
6.286
52,881
1-13
952656
INTRODUCTION
During the last decade, gains in personal income in
Colorado and Weld County have been above the
national average. According to the U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis, per capita income increased by
10.9 percent. Leading sources of household income
included agriculture, manufacturing, small
manufacturing, and education. The wage gap
between Weld County and the state appears to be
decreasing somewhat. In 1992, the average annual
wage for Coloradans in the all industries category
was $25,041, for this same time Weld County's All
Industry rate was $22,170. The 1992 wage gap was
87.09% however in 1993 this rate fell to 86.36%
representing $25,681 and $22,179 respectively.
EXISTING LAND USE
Deleted Figure 4 and Figure 5.
The way land is presently used is one of the most
important considerations in land -use planning.
Most existing development continues into the
future and has a strong influence on the pattern of
development and land use in the County. The
existing land -use pattern has been created through
the process of early settlement and economic
development. From the beginning of settlement in
Weld County, economic activities have centered on
agriculture. Trade centers were established to
provide goods and services to those engaged in
farming activities. Transportation routes and
facilities were developed to move goods and
people, and to facilitate economic development.
Increases in urban type uses will bring about
decreases in the land area dedicated for farmland.
The percentage of urban type land use is not as
significant as the pattern of use. A dispersed
pattern of urban type land uses make large scale
agricultural operations difficult.
Throughout the history of Weld County, population
and economic growth required the development of
previously undeveloped land. Future growth will
require continued urban land area expansion within
municipal urban growth boundary areas as well as
small amounts of rural area development. Much of
this expansion will, as it has in the past, require the
conversion of land categorized as farmland to urban
uses. The intent of efficient land use planning in
Weld County is to, when possible, minimize the
impact of development on agricultural lands.
FUTURE LAND USE
Through the comprehensive planning process, all
types of costs associated with development
(including economic and environmental) can be
reviewed. An urbanization pattern created without
knowledge of future surrounding land uses is likely
to lack some essential ingredients of long term
desirability. Without preparation for future land
use patterns, it is difficult to anticipate locations for
schools, parks, and traffic circulation systems that
will not require additional improvements each time
someone w;11r.........H...AI decides to develop. The
costs of such additional improvements and the
limitations of existing improvements lessen the
development opportunities for adjacent landowners.
To achieve the desired objective of urban
cpt..a.., , The Comprehensive Plan promotes
controlled or orderly urban expansion in relation to
the existing and future land use patterns and
establishes minimum guidelines for urban type
growth within the County.
1-14
Urban sprawl develops when an orderly pattern for
growth and development cannot be achieved.
Higher costs are incurred both initially and
ultimately in providing public services to a sprawl
growth area. Often, scattered development requires
the extension of services through vacant
undeveloped areas. Extension of services through
these o..cm.t undeveloped areas creates an under
utilization of services, which contributes to higher
service costs for all Weld County citizens. In
addition to the economic considerations associated
with urban development patterns, there is also the
952656
AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE
The State of Colorado is one of the most
agriculturally productive states in the nation. Weld
County is one of the most productive agricultural
counties in Colorado, and accounts for 18% of the
states' three million acres of irrigated farmland.
The soil, topography, and irrigation system support
this extensive agricultural industry. Weld County's
significant amount of irrigated and non -irrigated
farmland produces a wide variety of crops.
Crops produced in Weld County are onions, sugar
beets, pinto beans, potatoes, corn, alfalfa, wheat,
carrots barley and sorghum, in addition to other
speciality crops. Many of the feed crops are
utilized locally is by the larb., livestock industry.
For example, most of the corn grown in the area,
both silage and grain, is used for feed at
commercial feedlots, farm feedlots, and dairies.
Significant numbers of sheep, swine and turkeys
also use the feed crops from the area. A summer
fallowing rotation program is practiced on the non -
irrigated farmland. Summer fallowing is necessary
to store enough moisture for sustained high yields.
Water is delivered to farmland through some of the
largest and most complex reservoir and irrigation
ditch systems in the world. The primary system is
the Colorado Big Thompson project which makes
water available from Colorado's Western Slope. In
addition, shallow and deep wells made possible by
the existence of deep broad aquifers are productive
sources of irrigation water. The development of
these resources and features has made agriculture
an important industry in Weld County since the
founding of the Greeley Union Colony in 1870.
UNDERSTANDING THE AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY AND ITS BENEFITS
The agricultural industry in Weld County is a
complete farm and food system. This system
begins with growing and raising farm produce and
ends as a product ready for purchase by consumers
after it has been processed and transported to the
market place.
The following areas have a role in the County's
farm and food system:
2-1
There are approximately 3,100 operators of
livestock, poultry, vegetable, fruit, nursery,
and grain farms located in the County.
2. Those who offer farm related products and
services. Examples of these local
industries are fertilizer and chemical
product companies, suppliers of feed
(grain, livestock, and poultry) implement
dealers, energy and petroleum product
companies, well, pump and irrigation
companies, veterinarians, aerial crop
sprayers, farm laborers, commercial
lending institutions, insurance and
transportation industries.
3. Those who purchase products grown and
raised on farms for manufacturing,
processing, and distribution. Examples of
these local industries are meat, egg, dairy
and vegetable processing and distributing
facilities, and bakeries.
4. Grocery stores and other food retailers.
5. Restaurant and other food catering
businesses.
Calming The agricultural industry is an important
element in the Weld County economy. The market
value of agricultural products and the chain of
purchases related to agricultural production
contributes significantly to the County's economy.
Every dollar that the farmer spends to increase
agricultural production creates additional dollars
spent on activities related to production. For
example, activities such as livestock processing
will require purchases of feeder cattle, breeding
stock, feed, water, machinery, fuel, labor,
transportation, government services, and capital
(banks and savings and loans).
Food processing and related products contribute
significantly to the manufacturing economy of
Weld County. There are additional impacts to other
952656
AGRICULTURE
areas of the economy such as retail and wholesale
trade and transportation services.
Croplands in the agricultural district also provide
natural open -space areas. A principal benefit
derived from open space is relief from more intense
urban uses conducted in a municipality. Open -
space buffers help maintain a sense of rural identity
and diversity. These buffers also allow
communities to maintain separate identities, while
preserving productive farmland.
As a secondary benefit, farmland preservation helps
to maintain natural systems and natural processes.
These include the preservation of wetlands, small
watersheds, aquifer recharge areas, flood plains,
and special wildlife habitats. While farming has the
potential to damage sensitive natural areas and
processes, farming can and should be a completely
compatible use. Most farming operations are
sensitive to these natural systems and processes and
may even enhance them.
Concerns of Farming as an Industry
Most of the County's first citizens were engaged in
farming activities. During this time it was
necessary for farming operations and the
community to be in close proximity. Because of
these settlement patterns of the County's first
citizens, and because these areas have proven
attractive as sites for expanding communities, some
of the most highly productive agricultural land
borders urban population centers. As municipalities
continue to grow, their expansion encroaches on
farm operations. According to (1994) statistics
provided by the state demographer, the population
in Weld County is expected to grow 15.7 percent
from 1990 to 2000 indicating that the competition
for land will continue.
The pressure to use land for other than agricultural
purposes is the result of complex private and public
decisions. Residential and commercial
development, and location of highway and
infrastructure are examples of uses which have a
powerful impact on whether or not agricultural land
will be converted to other uses.
Tension between farming and nonfarming uses is
occurring from restrictions on normal farming
practices in areas encroached upon by residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. Many of the
problems stem from unrealistic expectations of
those seeking a rural lifestyle.
It is important that Weld County representatives
and officials recognize their role in reducing the
conflicts between agricultural uses and residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. Farmers and
developers depend upon the consistent
interpretation and administration of the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Subdivision
Ordinances. Using these documents to make
consistent land -use decisions reinforce the
usefulness as an information and decision making
tool on land -use decisions made by private parties
as well as public officials.
z - z
Weld County Agriculture
Weld County Prime Farmland Definition
The availability of a consistent supply of clean
water must exist in order to have prime farmland.
Prime and prime if irrigated lands fall into upper
capability classes as defined by the Soil
Conservation Service and Colorado State
University Cooperative Extension Service and
should be protected equally if irrigation water is
available and they are located within a reasonable
distance of water delivery structures.
Weld County Non -Prime Farmland Definition
Non -prime farmland is low capability land that is
not considered important land for food production.
It may be composed of poorer soils prone to erosion
or may have topographical limitations such as
slopes or gullies.
952656
AGRICULTURE
municipality's comprehensive plan area,
urban growth boundary area, or I-25 Mixed
Use Development area and urban
development nodes. This policy is intended
to promote conversion of agricultural land
in an orderly manner which is in harmony
with the phased growth plans of a
municipality and the County. It is further
intended to minimize the incompatibilities
that occur between uses in the agricultural
district and districts that allow urban -type
uses. In addition, this policy is expected to
contribute to minimizing the costs to Weld
County taxpayers by of j, providing
additional public services in rural areas for
uses that require services on an urban level.
A.Policy 3.1
If it is determined that a public facility,
service improvements or maintenance are
required by a development, the developer
will be required to pay for the costs of the
public facility and service improvements
and maintenance. The methodology for
compensation should be determined during
the land use application review process.
The developer shall submit all of the
following:
A.Policy 3.1.1
Information which accurately identifies all
users of the infrastructure improvements
and maintenance;
A.Policy 3.1.2
A proposal which equitably distributes the
costs of infrastructure improvements and
maintenance by user share;
A.Policy 3.1.3
A proposal that identifies the appropriate
time that infrastructure improvements and
maintenance charges should be applied;
and
A.Policy 3.2
A municipality's adopted comprehensive
plan goals and policies will be considered
when an agricultural business is proposed
to be located within an urban growth
boundary area.
2-4
A.Goal 4.
Provide a mechanism for the division of
land which is agriculturally zoned. The
intent of this goal should be to maintain
and enhance the highest level of
agricultural productivity in Weld
County.
A.Policy 4.
Applications for the division of land which
is zoned agricultural shall be reviewed in
accordance with all potential impacts of the
division on the agricultural community.
The criterian shall include but not be
limited to:
A.Policy 4.1
Soil Classifications;
A.Policy 4.1.2
Agricultural productiveness of the site;
A.Policy 4.1.3
Availability of existing infrastructure and
utilities;
A.Policy 4.1.4
The level of development associated with
the site;
A.Policy 4.1.5
Utilization of existing housing meek;
A.Policy 4.1.6
Feasibility for continued farm production
on the site;
A.Policy 4.1.7
The fiscal impacts on Weld County; and
952656
AGRICULTURE
A.Policy 4.1.8
Utilize techniques such as easements,
clusters, building envelopes and setbacks
to minimize the impacts on surrounding
agricultural land when conversion to
another use occurs.
A.Goal 5.
The extraction of mineral and oil and
gas resources should preserve or
minimize the impact on prime
agricultural land.
A.Policy 5
Weld County encourages oil and gas
drilling activities to be coordinated with
seasonal production schedules; and
A.Policy 5.1
When feasible, existing service roads
should be utilized to provide access for oil
and gas activities.
A.Goal 6.
Public facilities and services such as
sewer, water, roads, schools, and fire and
police protection must be provided and
developed in a timely, orderly, and
efficient manner to support the
transition of agricultural land to urban
development. The expansion of public
facilities and services into
predominantly rural agricultural areas,
when the expansion conflicts with other
existing goals and policies, will be
discouraged. In evaluating a land -use
application, Weld County
representatives and the applicant will
consider the public facilities and services
goals and policies.
A.Policy 6.
Weld County will encourage developers
and utility providers to deliver urban
services prior to development.
A.Goal 7.
Protect agricultural land from
encroachment by those urban uses which
hinder the operational efficiency and
productivity of the agricultural uses.
2-5
A.Policy 7.
Weld County recognizes the "right to
far". In order to validate this recognition
Weld County has established an example
covenant which should be incorporated on
all pertinent land use plats. (A copyafthis
covenant is lactated in the Appendix)
A.Goal 8.
Water currently associated with a farm
or rural unit of land should be retained
for agricultural uses.
A.Policy 8.
1 el:e: s Regtilationslwhich discourage the
out of basin transfer of water will be
incorporated into Weld County
Ordinances.
A.Coal 9.
when located outside of a municipal
urban growth boundary, or the I 25
Mixed Use D.,veh,in...,..t alta a.Rl
sp ;fi 1 U. La,. D..v.,l.,pn.,r.t Nodes. If
V..• a.Iupmw pr upua..0
areas the developer will demonstrate
l.o.. the Eli ' g ag.ieultnral landfill
hot Le aff.,eted.
A.P0hcy 9.
These provisions are intended to
discourage the development of prime
agricultural land and allow for orderly
growth within cstablish.d growth
boundaries, -
95265g
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Population and economic growth will create a
demand for conversion of land to urban uses. The
urban development goals and policies are designed
to plan for this anticipated growth by directing
urban uses to where urban services exist or can
more easily be provided, i.e., to existing
municipalities and the I-25 Mixed Use
Development area. The County recognizes that it is
appropriate for its municipalities to plan for growth
at their current boundaries and in the surrounding
areas. To accomplish this the County and the
municipalities should cooperate in joint planning
efforts to achieve a consistent vision. The urban
development section addresses the preservation of
agricultural land by encouraging efficient
development and discouraging urban sprawl. These
goals and policies reflect a basic commitment to
conserving natural and managed resources while
directing growth and enhancing economic
development through efficient use of infrastructure.
Urban Growth Boundaries
Efficient and orderly land development and the
preservation of agricultural land require that urban
type development take place in or adjacent to
existing municipalities. Development is
encouraged within municipal boundaries where
public services such as water, sewer and fire
protection are available.
Development adjacent to municipalities is
appropriate if municipal services can be extended to
serve the area, and if the town municipality wants
to expand in that location and manner. Orderly
development in the area surrounding a municipality
requires coordination between the County and the
municipality. This coordination is achieved by
three methods: the three mile referral,
intergovernmental urban growth boundary
agreements, and the standard 1/2 mile urban growth
boundary.
.........................
Weld County in ��.0 , try„ accoidancd with state
statutes refers land use proposals for review and
comment to any jurisdiction within three miles of
the site of the proposed change. The municipality
is given an opportunity to comment, and the
comments are considered by the Planning
Commission and the County Commissioners when
they vote on the proposed land use change.
Regardless of any other agreements between a
municipality and the County for growth and service
areas, the County will continue to ln..lti the three
mile referrals.
3-1
The intergovernmental urban growth boundary
agreement is by far the best tool for coordinating
development at the municipality/county interface.
In the spring of 1994, County Commissioners
began contacting each municipality and challenged
them to establish their own tailor-made growth
areas. Believing each community can and should
direct its own growth, the Commissioners imparted
three criteria to guide the municipalities:
Growth should pay for itself in terms of
initial costs, and in the long range, through
good design and functional efficiency.
2. Annexation patterns should directly
correlate with municipal service areas.
3. Infill of communities is a far more efficient
use of land than urban sprawl.
When growth at the municipality/county level is
not coordinated, some of the problems that can
occur include roads that do not tie into each other,
inconsistent engineering standards, the provision of
municipal services by a hodge-podge of special
districts, and the most obvious problem of
incompatible adjacent land ;uses. Besides
addressing these problems, the urban growth
boundary agreement can be used to preserve open
space corridors between towns municipalities or to
protect important wildlife habitat, natural and
scenic areas.
952656
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES
When a municipality and the County enter into an
urban growth boundary agreement, the County
agrees to abide by the municipality's vision for
future development in the area. Likewise, the
municipality agrees to limit its expansion to the
defined areas where it plans to provide municipal
services. It is understood that urban growth is an
ongoing process and urban growth boundary
agreements will be subject to revision as needed.
In the absence of an urban growth boundary
agreement, the County recognizes a standard urban
growth boundary. This is a one-half mile perimeter
from the existing public sanitary sewer facilities.
The definition of facilities is limited to public sewer
lines in place at the time of adoption of this
Ordinance. The perimeter will be modified if it is
apparent that physical boundaries prevent the
extension of sewer service. Inside the municipal
service area boundary, urban type uses and services
are planned and annexation is encouraged.
Urban Growth Boundaries Goals and Policies
UGB.Goal 1
Weld County will encourage and assist
each municipality in establishing an
intergovernmental urban growth
boundary agreement.
UGB.Policy 1
Weld County recognizes that
municipalities can and should plan their
own futures in terms of the nature and rate
of growth;
UGB.Policy 1.1
Revise intergovernmental agreements as
required by changing conditions.
UGB.Goal 2
Concentrate urban development in or
adjacent to existing municipalities or the
I-25 Mixed Use Development area and
maintain urban growth boundary areas
that provide an official designation
between future urban and non -urban
uses.
UGB.Policy 2
Land use development proposals within an
urban growth boundary area will be
determined according to the procedure set
forth in an intergovernmental agreement
between the County and the municipality.
In the absence of an intergovernmental
agreement, land use proposals in urban
growth boundary areas shall be encouraged
if they
3-2
l.vu,Yrila..,�o,va. Ylu„ ,,, Vy .,� ,wiu ,..,.,
d...,isie,,,aukingbody adhere to the intent
of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
and the referral responses received.
UGB.Policy 2.1
Individuals making initial contact with the
County regarding land use development
should be informed of the policy of
directing growth to, or adjacent to,
municipalities and the 1-25 MUD; and
UGB.Policy 2.2
Until intergovernmental agreements are in
place, urban growth boundaries will be
defined as a one half mile perimeter around
the existing public sanitary sewer facilities.
UGB.Goal 3
The County and municipalities should
coordinate land use planning of in urban
growth boundary areas, including
development policies and standards,
zoning, street and highway construction,
open space, public infrastructure and
other matters affecting orderly
development.
UGB.Policy 3
The County may consider approving a land
use development within an urban growth
boundary area, in the absence of an
intergovernmental agreement, if all of the
following criteria are met:
952656
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES
UGB.Policy 3.1
The adjacent municipality does not consent
to annex the property or annexation is not
legally possible;
UGB.Policy 3.2
The proposed use, including public facility
and service impacts, is compatible with the
County's Comprehensive Plan and with
other urban type uses;
UGB.Policy 3.3
The proposed use is eonsistent compatible
with the adjacent municipality's
comprehensive plan;
UCB.P hey 3.4
The finding of the land use decision
making body and the town board or
wu,..,il dn.0 ;
favorable toward ilk, pr.,p.,s.,d use,
UGB.Policy 3.4
Public services are provided to the
proposed site with maximum efficiency
and economy. The applicant must submit
financial data and analysis on direct and
indirect public service impacts, including
those on roads, schools and public safety.
Data on public costs and potential revenue,
demonstrate that the proposed use is
economically neutral or beneficial to the
County; and
UGB.Policy 3.5
If public facility or service improvements
are required by a development, and will not
be provided by the adjacent municipality,
the developer will pay these costs initially.
A method of reimbursement for these costs
will be determined in the land use
application review process. The method of
reimbursement will depend upon the
following information, which the
developer must supply;
a. Identification of all current and
future users of the public facilities
or services;
b. A proposal to equitably share
these costs among users; and
c. A time schedule for apportionment
of the charges among users and
reimbursement to the developer.
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
Weld County's rural areas contain a number of
small unincorporated residential communities that
are surrounded by agricultural districts and
agricultural uses. These communities provide
housing for those employed in agricultural and
other industries. The communities also serve as
small commercial centers for surrounding farm
areas.
With few exceptions, these settlements have had
little or no growth since their inception. Substantial
population growth is not anticipated in these
communities due to the lack of community water
and/or sewer facilities and because of their remote
locations. These settlements will probably continue
to function as small rural centers serving the needs
of the surrounding rural population.
3-3
Unincorporated Community Goals and Policies
UC.Goal 1
Assure proper location and operation of
compatible land uses by maintaining
land -use regulations within
unincorporated communities.
UC.Policy 1
Expansion of existing unincorporated
communities will be based on the
following criteria:
UC.Policy 1.1
Urban growth boundary goals and policies
should apply in reviewing land -use
applications which are adjacent to or
propose to expand existing unincorporated
communities; and
952656
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
UC.Policy 1.2
Additionally, any goals and policies
adopted for a particular type of
development will also be used for review
and evaluation. For example, the planned
unit development goals and policies would
also apply when reviewing a planned unit
development application adjacent to an
unincorporated community.
UC.Goal 2
Maintain the rural character of these
settlements.
UC.Goal 3
Accommodate new development
primarily through infill of existing
vacant platted lots.
UC.Goal 4
Maintain urban growth boundary areas
that provide an official definition
between future urban and agricultural
land uses.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Industrial development is typically oriented toward
transportation facilities and is located where traffic,
noise, air and visual pollution conflicts with
residential, commercial, and agricultural uses are
minimal. It is the County's intent to accommodate
industrial development proposals in accordance
with the urban growth boundary and I-25 mixed -
use development and urban development nodes
goals and policies defined in the lulixed Use
De*i****4*ti4WitthiW.Patt. Land zoned
for industrial use is found in almost every
municipality in the County. This dispersed pattern
allows for local job opportunities.
Industrial Goals and Policies
I.Goal 1
Encourage the expansion and
diversification of the industrial economic
base.
I.Goal 2
Accommodate new industrial
development within planned industrial
areas.
I.Goal 3
Ensure that adequate and cost effective
services and facilities are available.
I.Goal 4
Promote industrial /development that is
appropriately located in relation to
surrounding land uses, and that meets
necessary environmental standards.
I.Policy 4
3-4
Proposed industrial development or
expansion of existing industrial uses
should meet federal, state, and local
environmental standards. In addition, the
criteria for evaluation will include, but not
be limited to, the effect the industry would
have on:
I.Policy 4.1
The natural environment, including air,
water quality, natural drainage ways, soil
properties and other physical
characteristics of the land;
I.Policy 4.2
The compatibility with surrounding land -
use in terms of: general use, building
height, scale, density, traffic, dust, and
noise;
I.Policy 4.3
The access between public roads and the
proposed industrial development or
district. The land -use applicant will
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Board of County Commissioners, that the
street or highway facilities providing
access to the property are adequate in size
and quality to meet the requirements of the
proposed district or development. Internal
road circulation, off-street parking,
952655
INDUSTRIAL
acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes,
common access collection points,
signalization, and other traffic
improvements should be required wherever
necessary to mitigate traffic impacts
caused by the development. Ap1,he..tiu11J
for industrial development shall also be
Weld County Ce 11pr 1n 1tJ;. e Pl. C.1J
..111 Polici.,s;
I.Policy 4.4
Encourage development that is sensitive to
natural patterns and suitabilities of the
land; and
I.Policy 4.5
Visual and sound barrier landscaping
should be required to screen open storage
areas from residential uses or public roads.
I.Goal 5
Achieve a well balanced, diversified
industrial base in order to provide a
stable tax base and to provide a variety
of job opportunities for Weld County
citizens.
I.Policy 5
An application for industrial development
within a municipality's urban growth
boundary area should be reviewed in
accordance with the urban growth
boundary and industrial goals and policies.
l.Policy 5.]
A good working; relationship between the
public! and private sectors is essential_''
County should continue its suppoj
organizations ! which fos•�-
relationahip, and
I.Goal 6
New industrial development should pay
its own way.
I.Policy 6
An application for industrial development
within or adjoining an unincorporated
community should be reviewed in
accordance with the unincorporated
community and industrial goals and
policies;
I.Policy 6.1
An application for industrial development
within an area designated for agricultural
use and located outside of an area as an
Urban Growth Boundary area should be
reviewed in accordance with the
agricultural and industrial goals and
policies;
3-5
I.Rliy6.2
A get.d wurki.ig--fclatit,nJl.ip L..t,,.,.,11 tin,
tJQLIIY N..1 k/ 1.,
County should continue its support of
Visulil,.utiv..9
D vclopment Action Partnership (EDAP)
to forta this rclationJhip.
I.Policy 6.3
Provide mechanisms whereby new
development pays for the additional costs
associated with those services demanded
by new growth. These services may
include but are not limited to law
enforcement and fire protection, school
site acquisition, increased road
maintenance, road construction or
expansion, emergency services, the
extension of utilities, and the increased
demand or need for open space and other
services provided by local governments.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The urban growth boundaries and the I-25 Mixed
Use Development areas are the areas intended to
accommodate commercial development.
Commercial development will occur in the urban
growth boundary as a result of municipal growth
952656
RESIDENTIAL
C.Policy 4
Require environmentally sensitive designs
for development that preserves desirable
natural features, create favorable space for
wildlife, and minimize pollution;
C.Policy 4.1
Promote efficient utilization of water
resources;
C.Goal 5
Ensure maintenance of a quality
commercial environment which is free of
unsightly materials including inoperable
vehicles, unscreened outdoor storage of
items, refuse and litter.
C.Policy 5
Commercial developments should be
designed in a manner which minimizes
pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, negative
visual impacts, and creates an awareness of
the natural environment.
C.Goal 6
Encourage the infill of existing
commercial developments and provide
an environment which supports growth
for existing business.
C.Goal 7
MI commercial development will pay its
awn way.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The urban growth boundaries and the I-25 Mixed
Use Development area are intended to
accommodate residential development. The Zoning
Ordinance identifies low, medium, and high density
residential uses. These three designations recognize
differences among residential environments. The
intent is to establish residential areas which reflect
particular life style choices, including dwelling unit
type, density, environmental setting, and
convenience levels.
Supporting utilities and public services and related
facilities are essential to any residential
development. Recognition of this has led the
public sector to require that residential
development be accompanied by provisions for
adequate facilities and services. The fiscal
constraints upon Weld County government will not
permit indiscriminate development with no regard
for how such services and facilities will be
provided.
Residential Goals and Policies
R.Goal 1
Promote the development of affordable,
quality housing for all Weld County
residents.
R.Policy I
Opportunities for multiple -family and
manufactured home developments should
be provided to encourage lower -cost renter
and owner occupied housing;
R.Policy 1.1
Affordable housing developments should
be located within a reasonable walking
distance to shopping, schools, and parks,
or have access to public transportation;
3-7
R.Policy 1.2
Affordable housing developments for
senior citizens should locate within a
reasonable distance of community centers,
parks, and shopping areas, or where
transportation services can be provided to
enable access to these activity areas; and
R.Policy 1.3
Affordable housing developments should
not be located in undesirable places such as
near railroad lines, industrial uses, or other
potential nuisance areas unless design
factors are included to buffer the
development from incompatible uses.
952656
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
R.Goal 2
Ensure that adequate public services and
facilities are available to serve the
residential development or district.
R.Policy 2
The land -use applicant will demonstrate, to
the Board of County Commissioners, that
adequate sanitary sewer and public water
systems are available to all residential
development, and that the street or
highway facilities providing access to the
property are adequate in width,
classification, and structural capacity to
meet the requirements of the proposed
district or development. Access between
public roads and the proposed residential
development or district should be granted
only after consideration is given to the land
uses and traffic patterns in the area of
development and the specific site. Internal
road circulation, off-street parking,
acceleration and deceleration lanes,
common access collection points,
signalization, and traffic improvements
shall be required wherever necessary to
mitigate traffic impacts caused by the
development;
R.Policy 2.1
Applications for residential development
should be reviewed in accordance with all
applicable Weld County Comprehensive
Plan Label Use policies and god's-
R.Goal 3
Promote efficient and cost-effective
delivery of public facilities and services
to residential development or districts.
R.Policy 3
Weld County should encourage a compact
form of urban development by directing
residential growth to urban growth
boundary areas and to those areas where
urban services are already available before
committing alternate areas to residential
use.
R.Policy 4
All residential development proposals
should be reviewed in accordance with all
state and federal standards including but
not limited to the requirements of the
Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
R.Policy 5
New residential development should
demonstrate compatibility with existing
surrounding land -use in terms of: general
use, building height, scale, density, traffic,
dust, and noise.
R.Policy 6
Conservation of natural site features, such
as topography, vegetation, and water
courses should be considered in the project
design.
R.Goal 4
New residential development will pay
own way.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is intended
as an alternative means for development by
allowing a departure from the standard land -use
regulations. When development is planned as a
unified and integrated whole it is not intended to be
used to circumvent or distort the goals, policies, or
requirements of the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The
objective of the Planned Unit Development is to
encourage flexibility and variety in development.
Planned Unit Developments can benefit Weld
County citizens by promoting more efficient use of
land, greater provision of open -space, and
improved aesthetics.
Planned Unit Development Goals and Policies
PUD.Goal 1
Maintain land -use regulations that allow
county officials to review development
proposals which combine uses by right
in two or more zone districts, or which in
3-8
952656
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
some manner qualify as a planned unit
development according to the definition
on Page 7 in the Weld County
Subdivision Ordinance.
"A zoning district which includes an area
of land, controlled by one or more
landowners, to be developed under unified
control or unified plan of development for
a number of dwelling units, commercial,
educational, recreational, or industrial
uses, or any combination of the foregoing,
the plan for which may not correspond in
lot size, bulk, or type of use, density, lot
coverage, open space, or other restriction
to the existing land -use regulations"
(Subdivision Ordinance, Page 7, 1995).
PUD.Policy 1
An application for a planned unit
development within a municipality's urban
growth boundary area should be reviewed
in accordance with the urban growth
boundary and planned unit development
goals and policies;
PUD.Policy 1.1
An application for a planned unit
development within or adjoining an
unincorporated community should be
reviewed in accordance with the
unincorporated community and planned
unit development goals and policies; and
PUD.Policy 1.2
An application for a planned unit
development in areas designated for
agricultural use should be reviewed
according with the agricultural and planned
unit development goals and policies.
PUD.Goal 2
Encourage creative approaches to land
development which will result in
environments of distinct identity and
character.
PUD.Goal 3
Ensure that adequate public services and
facilities are available to serve the
Planned Unit Development or district.
PUD.Goal 4
Promote efficient and cost-effective
delivery of public facilities and services
to in the planned unit development or
district.
PUD.Policy 4
A proposed planned unit development or
expansion of an existing planned unit
development should be subject to the
following provisions or other adopted
regulations by the Board of County
Commissioners;
PUD.Policy 4.1
The design of a planned unit development
should ensure compatibility and harmony
with existing and planned uses on adjacent
properties and within the planned unit
development. Design elements to be
considered include, but are not limited to:
general use, scale, density, architecture,
distance between buildings, building
setbacks, building height, street design,
traffic impacts, off-street parking, open -
space, privacy, signage, screening, and
landscaping;
PUD.Policy 4.2
A planned unit development which
includes a residential use should provide
common open -space free of buildings,
streets, driveways or parking areas. The
common open -space should be designed
and located to be easily accessible to all
the residents of the project and usable for
open -space and recreation. Some planned
unit developments may not require
common open -space depending on their
type, style, and density;
3-9
952656
MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT
PUDGOAL 5
Now planned unit development wil
own way.
PUD.Policy 4.3
The developer should provide for perpetual
maintenance of all commonly shared land
and facilities. Weld County should not
bear the expense or responsibility of
maintenance for any commonly shared
land or facilities within the planned unit
development;
PUD.Policy 4.4
Conservation of natural site features, such
as topography, vegetation, and water
courses should be considered in the project
design; and
PUD.Policy 4.5
All new development should comply with
the Transportation Section of this Plan.
Access to properties should preserve the
existing or future function of roads and
highways affected by the proposed
development. All development circulation
systems should be designed so that it does
not disrupt highway travel. Traffic to be
generated by the proposed development
must conform to the recommendations of
the Weld County Public Works
Department and the Colorado Department
of Transportation. Dedication and
improvement of roads and frontage roads
may be required as a condition of
development.
THE I-25 MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AREA
(I-25 MUD) AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
NODE
The presence of an interstate and state highway
system and the external growth pressures from the
Longmont Metropolitan Area have created an
interest in land speculation, development, and
population growth in the I-25 Mixed Use
Development area. Interest in the area has already
led to the creation of facilities and utilities which
attract development. The infrastructure in the area
exists at varying stages of development, service
capacity, and efficiency.
The 1-25 Mixed -Use Development area provides a
unique and challenging opportunity for the
establishment of an on -going planning process in
an area which is experiencing increased growth and
development. This district is intended to be an area
which will accommodate most of the development
which may occur as a result of the planned
infrastructure and services existing and developing
in the area. The distriet Area allows residential,
commercial, industrial, and institutional uses to
occur after they have been reviewed and approved
according to the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
application process. The Planned Unit
Development process is an approach which
promotes freedom, flexibility, and creativity. The
increased flexibility allows the landowner to work
with site constraints and land -use compatibility
problems with abutting properties.
Development in the I-25 Mixed Use Development
area requires an extensive system of services and
facilities in order to maintain a quality working and
living environment. It also requires careful
consideration of surrounding land uses and affected
municipal and county comprehensive plans in order
to promote desirable land uses while protecting
natural areas, and water quality.
3-10
Historically, the lack of an adequate sanitation
sewer system was a deterrent for development in
the area because the individual sewer systems
operating were not available for purposes of
expansion, and they had poor performance records
according to the Colorado Department of Health.
Furthermore, based on soil types and ground water
it is possible that the numerous septic tank and
leach field systems have contributed to the ground
water degradation and potential pollution in this
area. However, with the intervention of the St.
Vrain Sanitation System, a totally supported
sanitation system now allows a high quantity of
growth to exist and expand.
952656
MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THE I-
25 MIXED -'USE DEVELOPMENT AREA.
Domestic Water: Left Hand Water Supply
Company, Little Thompson Valley Water
District, Longs Peak Water Association,
and Central Weld County Water District;
Sanitation: The St. Vrain Sanitation
District;
Gas: Public Service Company of
Colorado;
Telephone: Mountain Bell;
Electric; Union Rural Electric Association;
School. St. Vrain (RE -1J);
Law Enforcement: Weld County Sheriffs
Department;
Fire Mountain View Fire Protection
District;
Ambulance: - Tri-Town and Longmont;
and
Highway and Roads: - Colorado
Department of Transportation and Weld
County Public Works.
An Urban Development Node is defined as:
A site location of concentrated urban
development located along or adjacent to
the intersection of two or more roads in the
state highway system, or;
2. An Urban Development Node is a major
concentration of development that requires
appropriate infrastructure, well designed
and managed road access and high
visibility. The boundaries of these areas
are identified as being located within a 1/4
mile radius of two or more roads in the
state highway system. The development
standards in these areas are based upon the
impacts which urban development will
have on the landform, requiring the
application of urban use standards which
are located in the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance. The Urban Development
Nodes are delineated on the Urban Growth
Boundaries Map located in the back cover
of this plan.
MUD.Goal 1
To plan and to manage growth within
the I-25 Mixed Use Development area
and Urban Development Nodes so as to
balance relevant fiscal, environmental,
aesthetic, and economic components of
the area.
MUD.Policy 1
An I-25 Mixed Use Development area and
Urban Development Nodes should be
established and delineated on the Weld
County Conceptual Land -Use Map.
MUD.Goal 2
To assure a well -integrated, balanced,
transportation system which meets the
public need with maximum efficiency,
comfort, safety, and economy.
MUD.Policy 2
All proposals for commercial, industrial,
and residential development within the I-
25 Mixed Use Development area and
Urban Development Node overlay district
should use the Planned Unit Development
(P.U.D) application process and
regulations. The Planned Unit
Development process will allow
developers flexibility and variety needed to
offer a range of products, services, and
uses. It will also give the developer an
opportunity to explain the development
plans to surrounding land owners and the
County so that important information
about land use compatibility and about any
services, facilities, or utilities needed to
serve the proposal are determined to be
adequate.
3-11
952656
PUBLIC FACILITIES
must conform to the recommendations of the
Weld County Public Works Department and
the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Dedication and improvement of roads and
frontage roads may be required as a
condition of development;
MUD.Policy 6.12
All new development should comply with
the mineral resource section of this plan.
This includes locations determined to
contain commercial mineral deposits and
mineral extraction operations and
reclamation plans;
MUD.Policy 6.13
Development should be restricted or
required to mitigate adverse effects in areas
characterized by floodplains and geologic
hazards;
MUD.Policy 6.14
New development should preserve identified
aquifer recharge areas. Where feasible,
drainageways should be maintained in their
natural state to ensure optimal re -charge;
MUD.Policy 6.15
New development should minimize impacts
to air quality;
MUD.Policy 6.16
Fugitive dust should be controlled by
practices acceptable to the responsible
government agency;
MUD.Policy 6.17
Natural vegetation should be retained on -site
to the greatest degree possible;
MUD.Policy 6.18
Disturbed areas should be revegetated
immediately following construction. In
order to minimize wind and soil erosion,
temporary stabilization measures shall be
established on all such areas;
3-14
MUD.Policy 6.19
New developments should be encouraged to
select native species for revegetation;
MUD.Policy 6.20
State Park and Recreation areas should not
be altered by ..ew d.,velepmei.t negatively
101906644W0O60O***;
new developmnnt;
MUD.Policy 6.21
The coordination of other municipal, county,
regional, and state growth policies and
programs which include this area should be
evaluated in order to minimize
discrepancies, promote a better
understanding of growth dynamics in the
area, avoid duplication of services and to
provide economies of scale;
MUD.Policy 6.22
Each land -use application within the Mixed
Use Development area should include a
formal "Planning Area Profile". The profile
should contain public facilities and services
data, socioeconomic data, natural
environmental resources, and visual and
cultural resources. The purpose of this
information would be to provide the user
the existing conditions, opportunities, and
constraints within the I-25 Mixed Use
Development area. In addition, the
information could also be used to update
goals, policies, and programs in the future;
MUD.Gaal7
New development in the MixedUse
Development area will pay itts owtway
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The effective and efficient delivery of adequate
public services is one of the primary purposes and
benefits of effective land -use planning. Since the
adoption of the Home Rule Charter, rising County
expenditures have created substantial public
interest in how to cut cost and increase efficiency of
providing public services and facilities.
952656
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public facilities are physical structures and
infrastructure such as schools, libraries, roads,
maintenance facilities, water distribution systems,
and sewage treatment facilities. Municipal
governments, county governments, special districts,
and private companies are capable of providing
such services and facilities.
Because of the expense and limited available
funding, proper allocation of public facilities and
services is important. Revenue to support public
services and facilities in unincorporated Weld
County is usually generated by levying property
taxes and user fees.
The type, intensity, and location of a land -use
proposal are factors that determine the type and
level of services and facilities required. Effective
and efficient delivery of services and facilities can
be promoted by assessing the needs and impacts of
a land -use proposal, along with the existing and
planned capabilities of the service and facility
providers at that location.
One basic objective of Weld County is to plan and
coordinate a timely, orderly, and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services. to
3uyp.at and u1ban clopme..t. In
accomplishing this objective, municipalities are
considered to be the principal provider of services
and facilities for urban uses.
Municipalities have the ability to coordinate the
provision of adequate urban facilities and services
under powers granted by state statues and the
constitution. The adopted town urban growth
boundary areas are the most logical areas for urban
development to occur. Municipalities are designed
to accommodate concentrations of development and
are in a position to plan the expansion of existing
facilities and services as well as to coordinate the
development of new facilities and services.
Alternative facilities and service systems may be
used for urban type development within the 1-25
Mixed Use Development area and urban growth
3-15
boundary areas, with certain restrictions. The
alternative facility and service systems must
comply with the standards set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. Systems that are proposed to be
located within a municipality's urban growth
boundary area may be required to develop in such
a manner that they are compatible with the
standards of the municipality most likely to phase
services into the area. They also may be required to
meet state regulations and standards.
In determining service and facility adequacy for a
land use proposal, it is the policy of the County to
consider any evidence submitted by the
representative of an entity responsible for providing
such services or facilities. In addition, the
following minimum service and facility standards
must be met in determining if public services and
facilities are adequate for residential, commercial,
and industrial development.
Fire Protection
The standards listed below for adequate fire
protection shall be considered minimum unless
more stringent standards are established by the
representative normally responsible for fire
protection,the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
1. A rural water system must have sufficient
volume each day of the year, to control and
extinguish any and all potential fires at the
proposed development site or zone district.
If the area of the proposed development, site
or zone district is served by a fire
department that enforces a fire code such
code shall apply.
2. Roads serving the development must have a
surface that is sufficient to travel every day
of the year for the purpose of controlling and
extinguishing any and all potential fires at
the proposed development site or zone
district. If the area of the proposed
development is served by a fire department
.14.3 'vat's) Y
PUBLIC FACILITIES
service location as determined through the
Department of Communications.
The following services and facilities must be
determined adequate and in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances prior to the
zoning of a parcel for development or the
development of an industrial, commercial,
residential, or planned unit development
subdivision:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
availability of an adequate water system;
availability of an adequate sewer system;
availability of an adequate transportation
system;
availability of adequate fire protection;
availability of adequate law enforcement;
availability of adequate school facilities; and
availability of adequate parks and open
space.
Public Facility and Service Goals and Policies
P.Goal 1
Promote efficient and cost effective
delivery of public facilities and services.
P.Goal 2
Require adequate facilities and services to
assure the health, safety, and general
welfare of the present and future residents
of Weld County.
P.Policy 2
Development that requires urban services
and facility should be encouraged to locate
within a municipality, urban growth
boundary area, or I-25 Mixed Use
Development area and Urban Development
Nodes.
P.Policy 2.1
Development will be required to pay its
proportional share of the local costs of
infrastructure improvements, including
3-17
ongoing operating and maintenance costs
required to service such development;
P.Policy 2.2
In evaluating a land use application, Weld
County will consider both its physical and
fiscal impact on the local school and fire
district. If it is found that the district
involved will, as a result of the proposed
development require additional facilities or
incur costs requiring additional local
revenues, the land use project will be
required to contribute funds to the district
for the costs directly attributable to the
project in accordance with the law;
P.Policy 2.3
The County will encourage the development
of a balanced and cost effective
transportation and circulation system by
promoting higher density cluster uses in the
around existing municipalities and mixed
use development areas and activity centers.
This will help to ensure that maximum
efficiency and use are derived from
investment in existing public facilities;
P.Policy 2.4
Multijurisdictional regionalization of
services and facilities shall be opposed if it
will lead to development that is not
compatible with other Weld County
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies;
P.Policy 2.5
Consolidation of internal Weld County
facilities or services should be encouraged
to avoid duplication of costs and promote
efficiency;
P.Policy 2.6
Any proposal for development or the
creation of a zone district for the purpose of
development must not produce an undue
burden on existing Weld County facilities
and services;
952656
NATURAL RESOURCES
NATURAL RESOURCES
Because natural resources are limited it is critical
that a balance be obtained between increased
growth and the natural areas within our County.
Each land -use change often has an unanticipated
effect on the environment which may produce
undesirable results. Erosion sedimentation,
reduced water quality, loss of productive farmland,
and reduced fish and wildlife habitats are a few of
the problems which are facing Weld citizens.
Natural resources are both limited and
interdependent. The misuse, degradation, or
destruction of any natural resource alters the
usefulness and availability of others. In order to
meet the goals and policies identified in this
section, officials of the County, as well as each
citizen must take an active role in conserving and
preserving natural resources and the environment.
The primary elements which follow should be
evaluated in the review of County land -use
applications. However, this does not mean that
these are the only environmental quality and
natural resource problems in the County. Rather,
the following sections have been dealt with in
depth because of the importance they have on the
natural environment. These sections do not
attempt to encompass every natural issue, instead
they attempt to address the major current areas of
importance: Wildlife; Open Space Park and
Recreation; General Resources Commercial and
Mineral Deposit Resources; Oil and Gas
Resources.
Wildlife
The abundance of wildlife in Weld County is an
important contributor to the economic health and
quality of life in Weld County. The acquisition of
properties to provide public hunting and fishing
opportunities has long been an important part of
the Colorado Division of Wildlife's management
program. As an added emphasis on the importance
of these lands, private groups also lease several of
these sites for recreational activities such as
6-1
fishing, hunting, and boating. Maintaining
wildlife habitats in sufficient supply is necessary
to encourage the social and economic benefit we
receive from this resource. Map 5, Wilfilifd•Areas
Existing, located in the back cover pocket, shows
most of the important wildlife habitat areas in the
County. It should be noted that the important
wildlife areas are often closely associated with
important water supply and aquifer recharge areas.
Wildlife Goals and Policies
W.Goal 1
New developments should be located
and designed to preserve critical
ecosystems components, including
wetlands, significant wildlife habitats,
and migration corridors. Significant
wildlife habitat is defined as a
geographical area containing a
combination of the essential elements of
food, water, cover, and space and in
quantities sufficient to support a
species.
W.Policy 1
Development and design of land uses
which require drainage, excessive removal
of riparian vegetation and alterations of
river or stream banks shall be discouraged
in order to protect river or stream quality
and to protect water fowl areas.
W. Coal 2
New developments should be designed
to p. ese. ✓e er:t:eal ee,.ap.....,.1� .rf
:..eludh.e s.cfxem.t
..
n.IJh l, habitat, wetlands, and ft;h1l;f,
W.Policy4 1.1.
Conflicts with fish and wildlife habitats
and migration routes shall be considered
in land development. Developments
adjacent to rivers and streams, waterfowl
areas, and important or critical wildlife
952656
NATURAL RESOURCES
including storage of equipment,
stockpiled soils and materials from public
view;
CM.Policy 4.3
Requiring that access roads to and within
the site be located in a manner which
minimize traffic impacts on surrounding
land uses;
CM.Policy 4.4
Requiring the land -use applicant to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Board of Commissioners that the street or
highway facilities providing access to the
mining activity are adequate in functional
classification, width, and structural
capacity to meet the requirements of the
proposed mining activity. Internal road
circulation, off street parking, dust
abatement, acceleration lanes, deceleration
lanes, common access collection points,
signalization, and other traffic
improvements shall be required wherever
necessary to mitigate traffic impacts
caused by the mining activity.
Applications for mining should also be
reviewed in accordance with the
transportation goals and policies;
CM.Policy 4.5
Requiring, where possible, that batch
plants and processing equipment be
buffered from adjacent uses.
CM. Policy 4.6
Requiring that security fencing be erected
and maintained around extraction sites, as
necessary, to minimize the attractive
nuisance hazards inherent in operations
located near urban uses;
CM. Policy 4.7
Requiring mining operations to use
warning signs, fences, guards, lighting,
and other means to warn and protect
people from mine site hazards such as
6-6
steep slopes, holes, ponds, and heavy
equipment;
CM.Policy 4.8
Ensuring that all mining operations
conform to federal, state, and local
environmental standards; and
CM.Policy 4.9
L.13uring that all •
at .u<a a
« 1 1Kxs u..d ..11,41,.“-nat.... n ay a.
5 ups' utu..J
CM.Goal 5
Provide for timely reclamation and re-
use of mining sites in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision
and Zoning Ordinances.
CM.Policy 5
The County should consider the
potentially adverse environmental effects
of mining operations and generally
require:
CM.Policy 5.1
Disturbance of vegetation and overburden
in advance of mining activities should be
minimized;
CM. Policy 5.2
Topsoil should be saved and utilized in
site reclamation;
CM.Policy 5.3
All reasonable and practical measures
should be taken to protect the habitat of
fish and wildlife;
CM.Policy 5.4
The operation should comply with County
flood hazard and geological hazard
regulations;
952656
NATURAL RESOURCES
CM.Policy 5.5
The final reclamation of the mine site
should return the land to a form and
productivity that is in conformance with
the established comprehensive plan for the
area;
CM.Policy 5.6
The operator will maintain the reclaimed
mine site until it has been stabilized and
vegetation is re-established; and
CM.Policy 5.7
Trucking operations dealing exclusively
in the transport of mined materials may be
permitted on the mine site when
incorporated in the operational plan for
the mining operation.
Oil and Gas Mineral Deposits
Oil and gas development in Weld County is an
integral part of the Weld County economy and has
a substantial direct and indirect impact on current
and future land use. Oil and gas development is
cyclical but the economics of drilling has caused
extensive drilling activities in Weld County. The
areaoldremost intensive recent drilling activities
coincides, to a'large part. wlth pxl ue irrigated
farnrgmnnd, Recentdevelopments in case law artd
statutehave made it clear that counties have soft
laud use authority over oil and gas development
dettifte]it &tilt preemption by the State acting
through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservatit
Commission. Ito court has actually heard
evidence and reviewed a sego£ local regulations to
deternn{tne eaaetiy where co ntliets arise between
the State statutory purposes and local regulations
and there is still debate as to what s€andard the
Court should actually apply in determining
conflicts: wpeeially in the Watte.d,erg Feld of
west and south central portions of the County,
thing the early 1990's. Spacing &Ak,i s ei.tered by
tit, state of Cel.,rad k.av e anoned a much great...
density of drilling in this area which in large part
coincides with irrigated farmlands in the County.
6-7
Recent judicial and statutory developments have
clarified that local counties have some role,
because of a partial preemption by the State, in
ies,.l..t:..s nil mid-ga, l:lli..s :n the aba nee of a.t
irreconcilable conflict between state and county
regulations, but that in no instance may the local
regulation go so far as to directly prohibit drilling.
Support facilities which do not depend on geology
for locational decisions are subject to the
unattentuatcd land use authority of the County.
Oil and Gas Mineral Goals and Policies.
0G.Goal 1
Allo.. Oil and gas exploration and
production -to should occur in a manner
which minimizes the impact to
agricultural uses and the environment
and reduces the conflicts between
mineral development and current and
future surface uses.
0G.Policy 1
Weld County should encourage
cooperation, and coordination and
,,...modati0.r communication between
.....................................
the surface owner and the mineral
owner/operators with respect to any
developments of either the surface or the
mineral estate;
0G.Policy 1.1
New planned unit or subdivisions should
be planned to ac .,...... ,l to take into
account current and future oil and gas
drilling activity to the extent oil and gas.
development can reasonably be
anticipated;
0G.Policy 1.2
Oil and gas drilling activities should be
planned to .,ec”..u..0dat., take into account
current and future s,
such accommodation would prohibit
1,..,.met..,... rr.e Ywo.L.l.ty vt la mid Sm
1. h 4.• l .. ,1. 11..ot be all n to delay
952656
NATURAL RESOURCES
development of the surface planned unit
development and subdivision activities to
the extent such development :can
reasonably he ,icipatcd.
0G.Policy 1.3
Weld County will seek the imposition of
protective measures through available
state, county, and federal regulations to
ensure that the mineral operator conducts
operations in a manner which will avoid
minimize current and future
environmental impacts;
0G.Policy 1.4
Oil abed gas suppe.t facilities, d viaivi.J
which do not i.dy vii 5Wlv5y fvi locat; , r
•
u'n.ialvn, ��.�.Li.0 Lil1 Vii. yr lit
accordance with the appropriate section of
this Plaii; and Oil and; gas support
facilities, decisions xvhich do not rely on
geology for locations decision, shat be
subjected to roview in accordance with the
appropriate section ofthis Plan, and
0G.Policy 1.5
Oil and gas exploration and production
should be conducted in a manner which
minimizes interference with existing
surface use and mitigates the impact on
future land uses. Well sites should be
reclaimed and closed by techniques which
ensure that the future use of the property
is not impaired because of environmental
or safety problems or the existence of
improperly abandoned or unlocated
equipment, such as wellheads or
flowlines. The continued presence of
pipelines and flowlines, after production
has ceased, without provision to site or
relocate the lines as to not interfere with
future uses, is an unreasonable
interference with the use of the land. At a
minimum, any lines which are not
removed should be recorded and located
for future reference.
6-8
952656
RIGHT TO FARM COVENANT
Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in the United States. The rural areas of Weld
County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural
area must recognize there are drawbacks, including conflicts with longstanding agricultural practices and a
lower level of services than in town.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices
to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well run agricultural activities will generate
off -site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; dust from animal pens, field work, harvest, and
dirt gravel roads; odor from animal confinement, silage, and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and
mosquitoes; the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. Ditches and
reservoirs cannot simply be moved "out of the way" of residential development without threatening the
efficient delivery of irrigation to fields which is essential to farm production.
Weld County covers a land area of over 4,000 square miles in size (twice the size of the State of Delaware)
with more than 3,700 miles of state and county roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the
area to be served stretches available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more
than on patrols of the county and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency responses,
including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by volunteers who must
leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. county gravel roads, no matter how often they are
bladed, will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal priorities mean
that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days -after a major snowstorm. Snow
removal for roads within subdivisions are of the lowest priority for public works or may be the private
responsibility of the homeowners. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal
services.
Children are exposed to different hazards in the county than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm equipment
and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical power for pumps and center pivot operations,
high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs, and livestock present real threats to
children. Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of
the farmer's livelihood.
l. rents meed or m
ust) be respoastMe for their ehtidr
7-2
952656
Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C.
C i_
July 28, 1995
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
915 Tenth Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Proposed Weld County Comprehensive Plan
Oil and Gas Resources Section
Ladies and Gentlemen:
r,- C, O
[-J
Attorneys at Law
1775 Sherman Street
Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado
80203
Telephone 303-830-2500
Facsimile 303-832-2366
John F. Welborn
Stephen J. Sullivan
John.F. Meek
Keith D. Tooley
*Kendor P. Jones
Molly Sommerville
Karen Ostrander -Krug
Marla E. Valdez
Brian S. Tooley
Scott L. Sells
Tamara Barnes
Of Counsel
Robert F. Welborn
Special Counsel
Hugh V Schaefer
*Admitted in New York
and Texas Only
This letter is to inform you that members of the oil and gas industry met with
representatives from the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Task Force on Thursday, July 20,
to discuss the concerns of the industry with respect to portions of the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan that cover oil and gas resources.
John Donnelly, Chair of the Weld County Comprehensive Task Force, and Monica
Daniels -Mika, land use planner for Weld County, attended the meeting to discuss comments
which the Colorado Oil and Gas Association ("COGA") submitted to the Board. We feel we
made substantial progress and that the majority of our concerns have been identified and
addressed in the new draft of the Oil and Gas Resources section of the Plan that we received
from Ms. Daniels -Mika by telefax on July 27th and which we understand the Task Force will
submit to the Board for its consideration at a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on July 31.
We have a few additional comments for the new draft of the Oil and Gas Resources
section of the Plan as follows:
1. OG. Policy 1: The word "and" in the second line should be deleted.
2. OG. Policy .5: The statement in the second to the last sentence provides that the
presence of pipelines and flow lines amounts to "an unreasonable interference with the use of
the land" after production has ceased. The sentence is objectionable because it appears to create
a legal conclusion which is not correct, and we ask that the sentence be deleted. In addition,
the last sentence suggests that pipelines and flow lines be recorded and located for future
reference. We believe that the issue of identifying the future location of pipelines and flowlines
et? ; Fit.; CA -
952656
g�0 printed on recycled paper
Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C.
Weld County Commission
July 28, 1995
Page 2
would be more appropriately handled in regulations that the County would adopt.
We thank the Board, John Donnelly, and the members of his Task Force for their
attention and willingness to address the issues that COGA has raised, and we urge the Board to
adopt the changes that the Task Force proposes.
Very truly yours,
WELBORN SULLIVAN MECK & TOOLEY, P.C.
John F. Welborn
JFW/jc
952656
Proposed changes to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan - Oil and Gas Meeting of July 20, 1995
Oil and Gas Mutt Resources Depea:ta
Oil and gas development in Weld County is an integral
part of the Weld County economy and has a substantial
direct and indirect impact on current and future land use.
Oil and gas development is cyclical but the economics of
drilling has caused extensive drilling activities in Weld
County, ;The area of the most: intensive recent drilling
activities; coincides lto alargepart, with prime irrigated
farmground. Recent developments in:case law 'and
statute have made if clear tltat'counties have some land
use authority over oil and gas development despite a
partial preemption by the State acting through the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.. No
court ltas actually heard evidence and reviewed a set of
local regulations to determine exactly where conflicts
arise between the :State statutory purposes and local
regulations and there is still debate as to what standard
the Court!should actually apply, in determining conflicts&
especially in the Wattenberg Field of west and south
central portions of the County, during the early 1990's.
Spacing orders entered by the state of Colorado have
ssnhlrbt
b
n h1,.11 mlurg,.Ywl 111‘,1 V3 \V I1 11116(1 iu1111 WAuaw
the County. Recent judieial and statutory developments
regulations, but that in no instance may the local
Oil and Gas M:..er.l R Soa. a Goals and Policies.
OG.Goal 1
Allow Oil and gas exploration and production
to- should occur in a manner which minimizes
the impact to agricultural uses and the
environment and reduces -the conflicts
between mineral development. and Lut
....d f.,tur,, and surface uses.
OG.Policy 1
Weld County should encourage cooperation,
and coordination and accommodation
communication: between the surface owner and
the mineral owner/operators with respect -to any
developments of either the surface or the
mineral estate;
OG.Policy 1.1
New planned unit or subdivisions should be
planned to ac 1.1111 dut consider current and
future oil and gas drilling activity to the extent
development can reasonably be anticipated;
OG.Policy 1.2
Oil and sas drilling, aet:v iticsAleuld Lepla....,,d
to accommodate current and future surface land
uses unless such accommodation would prohibit
yn,lukli,,,.. TI1 Yw.,:L:l:ly f .,:l and 5,43
production should not be allowed to delay
development of the surface; blew till and gas
drilling activities should lie planned to consider
current and future planned unit subdivision
activitiesI to the extent developmment can
reasonably be anticipated.
OG.Policy 1.3
Weld County will seek the imposition of
protective measures through available state,
county, and federal regulations to ensurethat
the mineral operator conducts operations in a
manner which will -avoid minimize current and
future environmental impacts;
OG.Policy 1.4
Oil and gas support facilities, decisions which
do not rely on geology for locations decision,
shall be subjected to review in accordance with
the appropriate section of this Plan; and
iti
OG.Policy 1.5
Oil and gas exploration and production should
be conducted in a manner which minimizes
interference with existing surface use and
mitigates the impact on future land uses. Well
sites should be reclaimed and closed by
techniques which ensure that the future use of
the property is not impaired because of
environmental or safety problems or the
existence of improperly abandoned or unlocated
equipment, such as wellheads or flowlines. The
continued presence of pipelines and flowlines,
after production has ceased, without provision
to site or relocate the lines as to not interfere
with future uses is an unreasonable interference
with the use of the land. At a minimum, any
lines which are not removed should be recorded
and located for future reference.
952656
Listing A. Goal 5.
The extraction of mineral resources must
preserve or minimize the impact on prime
agricultural land.
Proposed A.Goal 5.
The extraction of minerals and oil .and gas
resources should preserve or minimize the
impact on prime agricultural land.
Definitional changes throughout the proposed document:
- Minerals was substituted with Minerals and Oil and Gas
952656
Southwest Weld County
Economic Development Croup
••••• • •
July 13, 1995
Ms. Monica Daniels -Mika
Weld County Administrative Offices
Department of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Ms. Daniels -Mika:
The Southwest Weld County Economic Development Group would like
to affirm our support of maintaining the existing boundaries of
the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area.
Specifically, the area north of Weld County Road #28 and east of
Interstate 25 should not be eliminated from the Development Area.
This portion of Weld County has been included in the Mixed Use
Corridor since its' inception, over ten years ago. The area is
well -served by both the Highway 66 and Highway 119 interchanges
with I-25. The east I-25 Frontage Road provides the necessary
access for development.
The St. Vrain Sanitation District will provide sewer service to
this area. Electric, water and telephone lines are also avail-
able.
In summary, all utilities required for properly planned develop-
ment are available to this sector. As the demand for this type
of property increases, Weld County will have an excellent oppor-
tunity to design an attractive and high quality development.
I encourage you to meet the challenge and preserve the opportuni-
ty to establish quality development in Southwest Weld County.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
SOUTHWEST WELD COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP
6eze_
Bill Meier
Chairman
WFLD COUNTY PLANNING
JUL 1 7 1995 `ro
ECG 7r
952656
528 North Main Street • Longmont, Colorado 80501 • (303) 776-5295
FRONT RANGE
LAND AND MINERAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION
1001 "O" STREET - GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 - (303) 356-7090
a chartered chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners (N.A.R.O.)
July 27, 1995
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Commissioners,
The Board of Directors of our organization and myself wish to
commend the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board for their dedication
and diligence in updating Weld County's Comprehensive Plan.
After careful review, we wholeheartedly endorse the board's
recommendations, especially those dealing with agriculture and oil
and gas development.
Of particular concern to us however, is a suggestion to you from
the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (C.O.G.A.) that Weld County
adopt policies and regulations requiring landowners and developers
to make special provisions for the future exploration and
development of oil and gas.
As you are keenly aware, future land development and oil and gas
development are highly uncertain and speculative ventures which
are subject to inevitable and constant change. Requiring land
owners and developers to make special provisions for future oil
and gas operations would be an impossible burden for them to bear
and would stifle most land use plans and future developments.
While the development of Weld County's oil and gas resources is
important, so is the use and development of the land resources
that overly them. The majority of our organization's 1,200
members own interests in both resources, and don't want either to
be developed at the expense of the other. Instead, they want both
resources to be developed in harmony with each other and encourage
the expanded use of directional drilling techniques which allow
oil and gas wells to be drilled beneath farms, feedlots,
developments and towns.
952656
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
July 27, 1995
Page 2
Therefore, we strongly urge you to adopt the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board as they've been submitted to
you, and to reject C.O.G.A.'s suggestion that special provisions
be made for future oil and gas operations.
Sincerely,
Fred 0. Gibbs
President
cc: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board
952656
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 651-8330 / FAX # (303) 651-8696
July 19, 1995
Ms. Monica Daniels -Mika, Long Range Planner
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Final draft copy of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
Dear Monica:
Thank you very much for sending the final draft copy of the proposed revisions to the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan to the City of Longmont for our review and comment. I understand
that this draft has won a Smart Growth Award. Congratulations!
The text of the draft Weld County Comprehensive Plan includes many goals and policies that the
City supports. Some are in fact similar to ones in the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan. The
City particularly supports the intent of the urban development chapter of the draft Weld County
Comprehensive Plan.
The urban development goals and policies are designed to plan for this anticipated
growth by directing urban uses to where urban services exist or can more easily
be provided, i.e., to existing municipalities and the I-25 Mixed Use Development
area. The County recognizes that it is appropriate for its municipalities to plan
for growth at their current boundaries and in the surrounding areas. To
accomplish this the County and the municipalities should cooperate in joint
planning efforts to achieve a consistent vision.
Weld County and the City of Longmont have not yet achieved this consistent vision for the area
east of Longmont. Longmont has provided comments during the process for updating the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan. The gist of these comments involve three themes:
ensuring there will be separation between Longmont and the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area so each community can retain its separate identity
ensuring there are adequate public facilities and services within the I-25 Mixed
Use Development Area so it is a self-sustaining community
952656
ensuring coordinated land uses and development standards
As your transmittal letter indicates, the maps that are part of the draft Weld County
Comprehensive Plan were not sent along with this referral. The City previously has expressed
its concerns about the map of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. The City has requested
that Weld County designate the western boundary at WCR7 and has opposed the recent
expansion of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area west to WCR1. The City still is concerned
about the impacts of the development of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area on the City of
Longmont.
The City hopes that both Longmont and Weld County will continue to work towards a consistent
vision, as expressed in the draft Weld County Comprehensive Plan, for the I-25 Mixed Use
Development Area: one that is in the best interests of both our communities. Longmont realizes
that Weld County has received two grants for planning efforts: one focussed on open space and
one focussed on the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. The City looks forward to working with
Weld County on these efforts that can help us achieve this consistent vision.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
If you have any questions about this referral response, please call Froda Greenberg at 651-8330.
Sincerely,
Brad Schol
Planning Director
xc: Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director
Brien Schumacher, Planner II
File: #1049
2
952656
NATURAL RESOURCE NOTES 1
Mineral Law
■
Accommodation Between Surface
Development and Oil and Gas Drilling
by J. Michael Morgan and Glen Droegemueller
Much has been written con-
cerning the rights of miner-
al owners and lessees to use
the surface to explore for
and produce oil and gas.' As long as oil
and gas drilling occurred on agricultural
surface, the primary question has been
the amount payable to surface owners
for damages caused by oil and gas devel-
opment. The circumstances in which
such payments are required in Colorado
were defined to some extent by the sem-
inal case of Frankfort Oil Company v.
Abrams,' which continues to control.
A recent increase in oil and gas drilling
in Colorado, together with surface devel-
opment spawned by rapid population
growth, has given rise to two new and
more difficult questions. The new ques-
tions involve the extent to which the min-
eral owner's surface use must accommo-
date development by the surface owner,
and the surface owner's development must
accommodate surface use by the mineral
owner. This article explores these two
questions.
Respective Rights to
Surface Use
Before exploring the reciprocal obliga-
tions of surface and mineral owners, it is
Column Eds.: W. Bruce Thompson
afShepard's/McGraw-Hill (Envi-
ronmental), Colo. Springs —(719)
481.7475; Kip I. Plankinton ofClan-
1'an, Tanner, Downingand Knowl-
ton, P.C. (Mineral), Denver —(303)
830-9111; Michael F. Browning of
Holme Roberts & Owen (Water),
Boulder_ (303) 4445955
important to understand the separate
rights that each holds in the proverbial
"bundle of sticks."3 A fee simple owner
holds the greatest estate one can have
in real property" It owns the surface and,
subject to the flight of aircraft, the space
above the surfaces It also owns the un-
derlying minerals and the right to explore
for and produce them.6
The fee owner may create a separate
mineral estate by granting to another,
or reserving to itself, all or certain of the
minerals.? Whether created by grantor
reservation, the mineral estate implied-
ly carries with it a right to use "so much of
the surface as may be reasonably neces-
sary for operation."' This surface right of
the mineral owner has been character-
ized as an easement or a "right of access.""
Other than ownership of the minerals and
rights of surface access for their extrac-
tion, the fee owner retains all other rights
in the property.'"
The mineral or fee simple owner also
may retain ownership of the minerals
but lease to another the exclusive right
to explore for and produce them. In that
case, the oil and gas lessee will acquire
the rights of surface access expressly set
forth in or reasonably implied by the
lease. Unless distinction is required, this
article refers to both mineral owners and
lessees as "mineral owners."
Because rights of surface access for the
mineral owner are in the nature of an
easement, they are considered "domi-
nant," and the rights of the surface own-
er are considered "servient." The rights
of surface access of the mineral owner
will actually be superior to those of the
surface owner in the event of irreconcil-
able conflict." Absent unreasonable or
negligent use, requirements of a lease or
agreement, or statutory provision, no
payment is due the surface owner for
damages resulting from the mineral
owner's exercise of its right of access.12
Obligation to Give
"Due Regard"
Although its easement for surface ac-
cess is considered to be dominant in Col-
orado, the mineral owner must take into
consideration the surface owner's uses
of the surface. This consideration is (1)
usually required by the terms of the
lease, (2) mandated by regulation and
(3) inherent in the common law relation-
ship between the parties."
Oil and gas leases typically provide at
least some protection for surface owners.
Leases must be carefully scrutinized as
a first step in determining the surface
rights of the parties. A common form re-
quires that wells be set back from the
house and barn "now on" the property
and that flow lines be buried below plow
depth upon request. 14 Leases of the Colo-
rado State Land Board may be more
stringent in requiring setbacks from any
buildings or `improvements,"15 and noti-
fication of surface owners prior to entry.
Where the surface owner is also the les-
sor, it is not uncommon for leases to con-
tain negotiated riders setting forth unique
limitations on surface access and use.'6
This column is prepared by the CBA
Environmental Law, Water Law and
Mineral Law Sections. This month's
article was written by J. Michael Mor-
gan, Denver, a shareholder of Lohf,
Shaiman & Jacobs, P.C., (303) 753-
9000, and Glen Droegemueller, a sole
practitioner in Greeley, (970) 353-9599.
THE COLORADO LAWYER / JUNE 1995 / VOL. 24, No. 6 / 1323
952656
1J
I.324
NATURAL RESOURCE NOTES
June
In recent years, the Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission ("Com-
mission") has enacted rules to protect the
interests of surface owners. Where the
surface owner is not a party to the oil
and gas lease, a bond to protect it from
unreasonable crop losses or land dam-
ages must be posted." Setbacks for wells
and tank batteries from occupied struc-
tures, roads and surface property lines
have been established.'8 Surface owners
may apply to the Commission for desig-
nation of "high density areas" in which
increased setbacks will be required. I°
Field -specific rules for portions of the
Denver-Julesburg Basin require good
faith negotiation with surface owners
and the giving of notice prior to entry20
Through their zoning powers, many
local governments in Colorado also reg-
ulate surface use by oil and gas develop-
ers. The form of these ordinances and
resolutions varies widely between juris-
dictions and must be carefully scruti-
nized. Reliance on local regulations to
force accommodation by mineral owners
is not without risk because local regula-
tions that conflict in operation with Com-
mission rules are preempted and inval-
id.s'
Although leases and regulations re-
quire setbacks, notice and even consul-
tation, they do not otherwise require "ac-
commodation" of surface interests. Colo-
rado courts have not been called on to de-
termine expressly whether, and the ex-
tent to which, the very relationship be-
tween the mineral and surface estates
requires such accommodation.22 They
have only held that the amount of land
used,23 and perhaps the manner of use,
must be "reasonable."24
Even though Colorado courts have not
expressly embraced the concept of ac-
commodation between surface and min-
eral owners, it would appear to be an in-
herent part of their legal relationship.
In Chartiers Block Coal Co. v. Mellon,
one of the earliest surface rights cases, a
Pennsylvania court held that the miner-
al owner's reasonable right of access to
the surface must be "exercised with due
regard to the owners of the surface."25
Another early surface damage case went
so far as to impose a duty on the miner-
al owner to use the surface "in the man-
ner least injurious to his grantor ... al-
though it was not the most convenient "26
These cases suggest that the concept
of "due regard" for the interests of the
surface owner has long been a part of U.S.
jurisprudence. An examination of modern
1324 /THE COLORADO LAWYER /JUNE 1995 /Va. 24, No. 6
surface rights cases reveals that this ac-
commodation principle is adopted far more
often than it is rejected 27
Nonetheless, the clearest articulations
of the principle are often viewed as a cu-
riosity and characterized as a new and
separate "doctrine" of accommodation,
due regard or alternative means.26 States
are often grouped as to whether or not
they have adopted the doctrine.29 How-
ever, if accommodation is an inherent
part of surface -mineral owner relation-
ship, the relevant inquiry is not whether
a state has or has not adopted the doc-
trine, but the extent to which its courts
will require accommodation under the
circumstances.
"The mineral estate impliedly
carries with it a right to use
`so much of the surface as
may be reasonably
necessary for operation.'"
States that enunciate the concept of
"due regard" usually do perceive it as an
integral part of the general rule that the
mineral owner may use the surface only
as "reasonably necessary" to access its
mineral estate. If the mineral owner has
failed to give due regard to surface uses,
then the character of its use of the sur-
face is considered to be beyond that which
is reasonably necessary." The extent to
which accommodation must be afforded
appears to vary, depending on the na-
ture of the surface owner's use and cus-
tomary practices in the industry, includ-
ing the availability of alternative means
of accessing the minerals.'"
Courts that have considered the con-
cept of due regard are careful to empha-
size that the mineral estate remains dom-
inant. The duty to accommodate extends
only to those situations in which reason-
able -alternative means are available to
the mineral owner. The burden of proof
is on the surface owner to show damage
to its interest and the existence of a rea-
sonable alternative for the mineral own-
er. Where no alternative means are avail-
able, a conflict arises, and the owner of
the dominant mineral estate will be enti-
tled to proceed with its proposed use of
the surface.32
A review of the law of easements sug-
gests that if Colorado courts are pre-
sented with the question, they may well
join "accommodation states" in requiring
mineral owners to give due regard to the
interests of the surface owner. The rights
of easement holders are generally de.
fined by the "nature and purpose" of the
easement." The surface easement of the
mineral owner appears to be in the na-
ture of an "unlocated right of way," in
that it burdens the entire surface, but
no particular part of the surface.
The law of unlocated rights of way is
fairly consistent. It holds that if the ser-
vient owner does not designate a reason-
able way, the dominant owner "may se-
lect a suitable route, having regard for
the interest and convenience of the servi-
ent estate.*34 The rule also has been ex-
pressed in slightly firmer terms: that an
unlocated right of way must be exer-
cised "with as little burden as possible to
the fee owner of the land."35 Colorado
courts have not considered the precise
question, but have similarly held that
the location of unlocated rights of way
may be fixed by the route "acquiesced in
by the grantor?"
Applying these general easement prin-
ciples to oil and gas surface access rights
would result in a close approximation of
the accommodation doctrine. As long as
the dominant mineral estate had a rea-
sonable means of access to the mineral
estate, it would need to consider and not
unduly harm the servient surface estate.
These easement principles -are not in-
consistent with the Colorado rule that
the dominant mineral owner is entitled
to use whatever part of the surface is rea-
sonably necessary for mineral develop-
ment. They merely clarify that in so do-
ing, due regard must be given to the in-
terests of the surface owner. As long as a
part of the surface may reasonably be
used for the mineral development con-
templated, the mineral easement would
appear to be fully useable and not di-
minished.
Preservation of Oil and
Gas Access
A surface owner may not "unreason-
ably interfere" with the mineral owner's
access to the surface.3' Surface owners
who deny or block such access for oil and
gas development are subject to injunc-
tion and may be required to pay dam-
ages.38 These principles appear to be well
established.
What is less clear is the extent to which
a surface owner may exercise its own
952656
1995
NATURAL RESOURCE NOTES
1325
rights to develop the surface when the
natural result of that development will
be to make drilling more expensive or to
foreclose it altogether. Although this sit-
uation presents itself with increasing
frequency, there is not yet a reported Col-
orado decision answering the question.
Guidance must be sought in the law of
other states and in applicable principles
of easement law.
Under the law of easements, the own-
er of the servient estate continues to en-
joy all the rights and benefits of surface
ownership, "consistent with theburden
of the easement."39 In accord with this
principle,40 the right of the mineral own-
er to use the surface is not exclusive. The
surface owner retains the right to use
the surface in common with the mineral
owner" for all purposes other than min-
eral exploration or development.42 The
difficulty lies in determining what sur-
face development is consistent with the
mineral owner's rights of access and what
is not.
Several early cases discounted the ef-
fect of the surface owner's development
because the dominant mineral estate
could later use the surface in any event.
The surface owner simply proceeded
with development at its peril, and with
knowledge of the fact that the mineral
owner could later drill in the middle of
its surface development 43 One court held
that the mineral owner could not com-
plain of -surface development unless it
proved that "it needs the surface at the
time and place then being used" by the
surface owner."
These holdings have little application
to the modern environment where, by
application of regulatory setbacks from
structures, roadways and property lines,
surface development may preclude the
mineral owner's access, despite its com-
mon law dominance.45 In this setting, the
more applicable cases appear to be those
that apply accommodation principles
against surface owners. Those cases have
permitted surface development as long
as it did not unreasonably interfere with
mineral development.46 The Texas Su-
preme Court articulated this principle of
reciprocal -accommodation in Tarrant
County Water Control and Improvement
District v. Haupt 47 There, the court held
that surface development of a -reservoir
could proceed as long as a reasonable
means of access was left for the mineral
developer. The trial court found that di-
rectional drilling under the reservoir was
a reasonable means of access under the
circumstances. The Supreme Court up-
held the finding.
Colorado practitioners can only specu-
late as to whether Colorado courts will
follow those of Texas in holding that sur-
face development which precludes verti-
cal drilling is not necessarily an unrea-
sonable interference with mineral access
rights. The fact that the Commission
specifies "well locations" for various for-
mations may not in itself decide the is-
sue. These relate to the "down hole" lo-
cation of the well bore as it intersects the
oil and gas bearing formation, and do not
necessarily relate to the -location of sur-
face facilities.48 An operator may utilize
a different surface location by giving no-
tice and obtaining routineadministra-
tive approval for directional drilling.49
At least in instances where oil and
gas development is actually proposed,5°
it appears that surface developers will
be required to assure that some reason-
able alternative means of access remains
available to the mineral owner. The bur-
den of proof will likely be on the servient
surface owner to show that reasonable
alternative access remains for the min -
• Match your firm to policy
• All policies are different
• Access to most LPL carriers
• Specializing in firms of 5 or
more attorneys
THE COLORADO LAWYER / JUNE 1995 / Vo4. 24, No. 6 / 1325
952656
1326
NATURAL RESOURCE NOTES
June
eral owner. Where no such alternative
means are available, the proposed sur-
face use will likely be required to yield,
and the owner of the dominant mineral
estate will be entitled to proceed with its
proposed use of the surfaces'
Balancing Competing
Interests
Counsel for mineral and surface de-
velopers in Colorado can be certain of
only two basic principles: (1) the miner-
al owner may use the surface only as is
"reasonably necessary" to access_the min-
eral estate, and (2) the owner of severed
surface may use that surface as long as
it does not unreasonably interfere with
access rights of the mineral owner.
The manner in which Colorado courts
will apply or expand on these principles
is unknown. When accommodation of the
surface estate has been required in oth-
er states, it has occurred because the sur-
face owner has introduced sufficient evi-
dence to show damage to the surface es-
tate and the.existence of reasonable al-
ternatives to the site or method of drilling
proposed by the mineral estate owner.
Conversely, when accommodation of the
surface estate has not been required in
other states, it has been because the sur-
face owner fails to meet the burden of
proving damage to the surface estate or
the existence of reasonable alternatives
to the proposed drilling.
Although accommodation has not
been expressly articulated in Colorado,
it would be prudent for mineral owners
to assume that they will be required to
give "due regard" to the interests of sur-
face owners. Responsible oil and gas op-
erators in Colorado have long made this
a practice. Such operators typically con-
fer with surface owners regarding the
location of surface facilities and the tim-
ing of drilling operations so as to mini-
mize surface disruption.
Surface developers must understand
that while they may develop the surface
so as to preclude mineral uses of portions
thereof, they may be constrained from de-
veloping the surface such that there re -
maths no reasonable right of access for
proposed mineral development. They, and
perhaps the government entity that ap-
proves their development and precludes
later mineral development through reg-
ulatory setbacks, may be liable for dam-
ages caused by denial of access 52
Whether reasonable access to mineral
development is precluded will be a ques-
1326 /THe CoLOnano LAWYER /JUNE 1995/VOL. 24, 140.6
tion of fact. However, it is not unreason-
able to assume that industry practice
and custom will be factors in determin-
ing reasonableness of mineral access. If
the surface owner can prove that direc-
tional drilling is reasonably available
and is necessary to give "due regard" to
existing or contemplated surface uses,
the courts may well require the mineral
developer to drill the well directionallyss
In the alternative, to the extent the sur-
face owner fails to prove that directional
drilling is a reasonable alternative, at-
tempts to limit access completely or al-
lows for no alternative drilling sites, the
drilling will most likely occur at the
point designated by the mineral devel-
oper.
Conclusion
Counsel representing surface or min-
eral owners in Colorado are presented
with a difficult task. Uncertainty exists
regarding the extent to which accommo-
dation between the parties will be re-
quired, and there are multiple and di-
verse fact patterns involving conflicting
surface uses. In addressing this difficul-
ty, reflection should be given to the Col-
orado Court of Appeal's opinion in Osborn
& Caywood Ditch Co. v. Green, which, in
describing the interplay between the
dominant and servient estate in an
easement setting, noted:
There is a dichotomy of interests, both
of which must be respected, and
which must be kept, as nearly as pos-
sible, in balance 54
The challenge for practitioners and the
courts of Colorado will be to define that
balance in a manner that promotes the
reasonable use of both the surface and
mineral estates without undue econom-
ic hardship to either.
NOTES
1. See Lowe,"The Easement of the Min-
eral Estate for Surface Use: An Analysis of
its Rationale, Status and Prospects," 39
Rocky Mt: Min. L. Inst. 4-1 (1993); Gray, "A
New Appraisal of the Rights of Lessees Un-
der Oil and Gas Leases to Use and Occupy
the Surface," 20 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 227
(1975); Hultin, "Recent Development in Statu-
tory and Judicial Accommodation Between
Surface and Mineral Owners," 28 Rocky Mt.
Min. L. Inst. 1021 (1982); Lacy, "Conflicting
Surface Interests: Shotgun Diplomacy Revis-
ited," 22 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 731 (1976);
Patton, "Recent Changes In the Correlative
Rights of Surface and Mineral Owners," 18
Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 19 (1972).
2. 413 P.2d 190, 195 (Colo. 1966). The
Frankfort court held that absent unreason.
able surface use, lease requirements, statute
or negligence, "no payment is due the surface
owner for damage due to exploration or
drilling." Damages may be recovered for ex.
cessive land actually used, and not (absent
negligence or nuisance) for the depreciated
value of surrounding land. The measure of
damages for excessive surface use is "the dif.
ference in the market value of the land be-
fore and after impairment." Id. at 196.
3. For a general overview of Colorado oil
and gas law, see Dufford, "Oil and Gas Prac-
tice in Colorado," in Krendl, 1 Colorado Meth.
ods of Practice 3rd, 383 (1988).
4. In re Sullivan's Estate, 218 P.2d 1064,
1067 (Colo. 1950).
5. CRS § 41-1-107; Bergen Ditch & Reser.
voir Company v. Barnes, 683 P.2d 365, 367
(Colo.App. 1984).
6. Radke v. Union Pacific Railroad Corn.
pany, 334 P.2d 1077, 1088 (Colo. 1959).
7. Severance of the mineral and surface
estates must be by clear and distinct wording
in the conveyance. Absent such clear lan-
guage, a mere license may be created to ex-
plore for and produce minerals. Radke, .supra,
note 6 at 1088. Though often an academic
distinction, in Colorado the mineral owner
owns oil and gas in place, rather than a mere
right to explore and produce. See Burford,
supra, note 3 at 389.
8. Chartiers Block Coal Co. v. Mellon, 152
Pa. 286, 25 A. 597 (1893); Frankfort Oil Com-
pany, supra, note 2.
9. Davis v. Cramer, 793 P.2d 605, 608
(Colo. App. 1990); Williams and Meyers, I Oil
and Gas Law, § 210.2 at 119 (1970) 'mineral
estate owner only has "certain easements in
the surface"); Gulf Production Co. v. Conti-
nental Oil Inc., 132 S.W.2d 553, 561 (Tex.
1939) (interest of oil and gas lessee in the
surface "was in the nature of an easement");
38 Am.Jur2d, Gas and Oil, § 117 at 583.
10. See, e.g., Grubstake Inv. Ass'n v. Coyle,
269 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.Civ.App. 1925); State v.
Kortge, 733 P.2d 466 (Ore.App. 1987).
11, Frankfort Oil Company, supra, note 2
at 195.
12. Id.
13. A good overview of factors bearing on
the relationship between surface and miner-
al users is provided in Welborn, "New Rights
of Surface Owners: Changes in the Domi-
nant/Servient Relationship Between the
Mineral and Surface Estates," 40 Rocky Mt.
Min. L. Inst. 22-1(1994).
14. See, e.g., Producer's 88-FMcB, Paid Up,
Rev. 1986.
15. What constitutes "improvements" with-
in the meaning of the state lease is not de-
fined. It might include fences, concrete irri-
gation works and roads, whether or not ex-
isting atthe time of lease entry.
16. However, once a lease is executed, it
vests surface access rights in the lessee, who
may not thereafter be required to execute a
952656
NATURAL RESOURCE NOTES
separate surface access or damage agree-
ment as a condition of entry. See Mingo Oil
producers v. Kamp Cattle Co., 776 P.2d 736
(Wyo. 1989).
17. CRS § 34-60-106(3.5).
18. 2 C.C.R 401-1, Rules 603(a) and 604(a).
19. 2 C.C.R. 401-1, Rule 603(bX1)-(7).
20. 2 C.C.R. 401-1, Rules 1001-1005.
21. Voss v. Lundvall Brothers Inc., 830 P2d
1061 (Colo. 1992); Board of County Commis-
sioners u. Bowen /Edwards Associates, 830
p.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992); see also Morgan and
Check, "Local Regulation of Oil and Gas Op-
erations in Colorado," 22 The Colorado Law-
yer 751 (April 1993).
22. An oral ruling of Judge Althoff of the
Weld County District Court has been cited
for the proposition that the accommodation
doctrine does not exist in Colorado. See Ger-
rity Oil & Gas Corporation v. Magness, Case
No. 92 -CV -808 (1994). The case probably
stands only for the proposition that a party
will not prevail if it fails to present evidence
that the operator's use of the surface was un-
reasonable or negligent.
23. Frankfort Oil Company, supra, note 2
at 194.
24. Davis v. Cramer, supra, note 9 at 608.
25. Supra, note 8.
26. Martin v. Dale, 21 S.W.2d 428, 429
(Ark. 1929); see also Diamond Shamrock
Corporation v. Phillips, 511 S.W.2d 160, 163
(Ark. 1974); Gulf Production Company u.
Continental Oil Co., supra, note 9 at 562
(surface access right to be "... reasonably ex-
ercised with due regard to the rights of the
owner of the surface"); Humble Oil & Refin-
ing Co. u. L & G Oil Co., 259 S.W. 2d 933, 938
(Tex.App. 1953) (mineral right "is to be rea-
sonably -exercised with due regard to the
rights of the owners of the surface").
27. The accommodation doctrine has actu-
ally been applied in cases of record in only a
few instances. More often, courts have recog-
nized the principle of accommodation, but
found that it did not apply or that the surface
owner failed to sustain its burden of proving
that the mineral owner's surface use was un-
reasonable. See, e.g., Smith v. Linmar Ener-
gy Corporation, 790 P.2d 1222, 1224 (surface
owner failed to establish that selection of
well site was unreasonable); Hunt Oil Co. u.
Kerbaugh, 283 N.W.2d 131, 137 (surface own-
er failed to establish that proposed seismic
exploration was unreasonable); Amoco Pro-
duction Co. v. Carter Farms Company, 703
P.2d 894, 897 (oil company's proposed method
of leveling pits and removing debris was rea-
sonable); Mingo Oil Producers, supra, note
16 (surface damage agreement not necessary
prior to entry by mineral operator). The only
case located in which accommodation has
been expressly rejected is Gulf Oil Corpora-
tion v. Walton, 317 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.Civ.App.
1958). The highest court of that state subse-
quently adopted the principle in Getty Oil
Co. v. Jones, 470 S.W.2d 618 (Thx. 1971).
28. Haupt v. 7brrent County Water Control,
870 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Ct.App. 1994); Getty Oil
Co. v. Jones, supra, note 27; Flying Diamond
Corp. v. Rust, 551 P.2d 509 (Utah 1976) (min-
eral owner may exercise rights "... consis-
tent with allowing the fee owner the greatest
possible use of his property consistent there-
with"); Diamond Shamrock Corp., supra,
note 26; Amoco Oil Co. u. Carter Farms Co.,
703 P.2d 894 (N.M. 1985); Hunt Oil Co.,
supra, note 27.
29. See, e.g., Welborn, supra, note 13; Bas-
sett and Keefe, "Regulation of Surface Use
by Mineral Developers," Land & Permitting
1-1 (Rocky Mt. Min. L. Fdn. 1994).
30. See, e.g., Hunt Oil Co., supra, note 27
at 136; Smith, supra, note 27.
31. Getty Oil Co., supra, note 27.
32. In -any event, accommodation is only
required at the time surface uses are initiat-
ed. Once established, the easement for sur-
face access of the mineral estate is fixed and
determined. It need not be relocated despite
changes in the surface owner's need for or
use of the surface. See, e.g., Minard Run Oil
Company v. Pennzoil Company, 214 P.2d 234
(Pa. 1965).
33. Barnard u. Gaunur, 361 P.2d 778, 780
(Colo. 1961); Bijou Irrigation District u. Em-
pire Club, 804 P.2d 175, 183 (Cob. 1991).
34. LaFleur u. Zelenko, 141 A. 603, 606 (Vt.
1928); Clearwater Realty Co. u. Bouchard,
505 A.2d 1189, 1190 (Vt. 1985); Fulcher v.
Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., 261 S.W. 645, 648
(Ark. 1924); Shedd V American Maize Prod-
ucts Co., 108 N.E. 610, 614 (Ind. App. 1915);
Cozby v. Armstrong, 205 S.W.2d 403, 407
(Tex.App. 1947); 28 C.J.S., Easements, § 80
at 760; 80 A.L.R.2d 769.
35. Unuerzagt v. Miller, 10 N.W.2d 849,
851(Mich. 1943); 25 Am.Jur.2d, Easements
and Licenses, § 74, at page 480.
36. Pickens u. Kemper, 847 P.2d 648, 650
(Colo.App. 1993); Isenberg v. Woitchek, 356
P.2d 904, 907 (Colo. 1960). Similar principles
have been enunciated as to easements gener-
ally. Osborn & Caywood Ditch Co. v. Green,
673 P.2d 380, 383 (Colo.App. 1983); see also
7brtoi-se Island Communities, Inc. u. Roberts,
394 So.2d 568 (Fla.App. 1993) (easements to
be used "so that each party may reasonably
enjoy his respective property rights").
37. Davis, supra, note 9 at 608. C`... a sur-
face owner who unreasonably interferes with
a mineral lessee's right to enter the property
is liable for such damages as are the natural
and probable result of such interference").
38. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. V Wimberly,
181 S.W.2d 942 ( Tex.App. 1944); Davis, supra,
note 9 at 608; Lewis u. Ada Oil Company,
279 So.2d 622 (Miss. 1973).
39. Barnard, supra, note 33; Bijou Irriga-
tion District u. Empire Club, 804 E2d 175,
183 (Colo. 1991); Restatement of Property,
§ 486 (1944); Humble Oil & Refining Co. u.
Wood, 202 S.W. 200, 203 (Tex. App. 1927).
These principles were perhaps best stated in
Wall v. Shell Oil Company, 25 Cal. Rept. 908,
915 (Cal.App. 1963), where the court stated:
The owner of oil rights has the right to de-
velop them, and the owner of surface area
has a right to develop that. Society has an
interest in both such development. Though
the right of the owner of land subject to a
prior oil and mineral estate is subordinate
thereto, yet he may exercise and develop
his rights of ownership to the surface, even
though this exercise may in some degree
affect the rights of the oil and mineral own-
er, so long as they do not prevent his enjoy-
ment of his prior rights or unreasonably
interfere therewith.
40. Skidmore v. First Bank of Minneapolis,
773 P.2d 587 (Colo.App. 1988); Bergen Ditch
& Reservoir Co. v. Barnes, 683 P2d 365 (Cob.
App. 1984).
41. Gulf Production Company, supra, note
26 at 562. After mineral severance or lease,
the estate remaining in the surface owner is
"one in fee simple, and includes the rights of
possession, powers of control, occupancy, use
and alienation."
42. Williams and Meyers, 1 Law of Oil &
Gas, § 218.6 (1970).
43. Conway u. Skelly Oil Co., 54 F.2d 11, 15
(10th Cir. 1931); Cosden Oil & Gas Co. u.
Hickman, 243 P. 226 (Okla. 1926).
44. Atlantic Refining Company u. Bright &
Schiff, 321 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Tex.App. 1950).
45. It may be important to note that impo-
sition of these regulatory setbacks will not
themselves be actionable as long as they do
not deny landowners all economically viable
TRADEMARK
& COPYRIGHT SEARCHES
TRADEMARK- Supply word and/or
design plus goods or services.
SEARCH FEES:
COMBINED SEARCH - $220•
TRADEMARK OFFICE - $80'
STATE TRADEMARK - S85
COMMON LAW - $75
EXPANDED COMMON LAW - SI 25•
DESIGNS - S105• per class minimum
COPYRIGHT - $115
plus photo copy cost.
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING
DOCUMENT PREPARATION
(for attorneys only - applications, Section 8
& 15, Assignments, renewals.)
RESEARCH -(SEC - 10K's, ICC, FCC,
COURT RECORDS, CONGRESS.)
APPROVED - Our services meet
standards set for us by a D.C Court
of Appeals Committee.
Over 100 years total staff experience - not
connected with the Federal Government.
GOVERNMENT LIAISON SERVICES, INC.
3030 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 209
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: (703) 524-8200
FAX: (703) 525-8451
Mayor credit cards accepted.
TOLL FREE: 800-642-6564
Since 1957
THE COLORADO LAWYER / JUNE 1995 / Von.. 24, No. 6 / 1327
MOW A
1328
NATURAL RESOURCE NOTES
June
uses of the mineral estate. Sellon v. City of
Manitou Springs, 745 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1987);
Reale Investments, Inc. v. City of Colorado
Springs, 856 P.2d 91 (Colo.App. 1993).
46. Humble. Oil, supra, note 26 at 938;
Grubstake Inv. Assoc., supra, note 10 at 855:
Getty Oil Company v. Royal, 422 S.W.2d 591,
593 ('1hx.App. 1968).
47.854 S.W.2d 909 ('Ibx. 1993).
48. The Commission may specify the loca-
tion of wells and provide for exception loca-
tions. CRS § 34-60-116(3). Pursuant to this
authority, the Commission adopted Rule 316,
which specifies minimum distances from lease
lines and other wells. In addition, the Com-
mission has promulgated numerous orders
that establish spacing for various formations
and provide authorized well locations for each
(e.g., orders under Cause 407 provide a loca-
tion for Codell and Niobrara well of within 200
feet of the center of each 40 acre tract).
49. See 2 C.C.R. 401-1, Rule 319.
50. There are undoubtedly many instances
in Colorado where high density surface de-
velopment has long existed on lands having
a severed mineral estate. Whether a mineral
owner may have a cause of action for denial
of access with respect to such established de-
velopment is beyond the scope of this column.
51. If the surface owner is also the lessor
under the oil and gas lease, it may have addi-
tional obligations to the lessee to refrain
from surface development that interferes
with the exercise of leasehold rights. The ex-
tent of such express or implied obligations, if
any, is beyond the scope of this column.
52. Tarrant County Water Control, supra
note 47 at 913.
53. It would appear that if directional drd,
ling represents a reasonably available method
of access under the circumstances, the sun
face owner need not bear or participate in ad.
ditional costs associated with such drilling
Conversely, if it is determined that surface
development precludes vertical drilling, and
directional drilling is not reasonable under
the circumstances, it logically follows that
the surface developer will be liable for such
additional costs.
54. Supra, note 36 at 383.
Justice Information Center Provides Help for People in Justice System
The Justice Information Center ("JIC") in Denver works to ensure that people of all cultures, ethnic backgrounds and socio-
economic levels receive the protection, -rights and services provided under U.S. law. There are no eligibility requirements, and
the services are available to anyone within the state of Colorado.
The JIC's services include interpretation and translation in more than sixty languages (interpreters and translators are court
certified or professionally tested by JIC staff); informational and referrals services for clients; victim's assistance and advocacy;
and immigration services. For more information, call the JIC at (303) 623-5750.
Think Sedgwick for
all your insurance needs
/ Professional Liability ✓ Disability ✓ Health (Choose from 4 plans)
✓ Term Life ✓ AD&D ✓ Dental (Indemnity or Prepaid)
NEW - ✓ WORKERS' COMPENSATION - GROUP DIVIDEND PLAN
Ask for our information packet which explains the various group benefit plans and
rates available to Colorado law firms. These coverages are sponsored and endorsed by
the Colorado Bar Association.
When calling about any of the above coverages, ask for that department (Professional
Liability, Health, etc.) by name.
w, Sedgwick
(303) 691-1300
1-800-666-5263
Sedgwick James of Colorado, Inc.
2000 South Colorado Blvd., Suite 5000, Denver, Colorado 80222
I d •
1328 /THE COLoRAoo LAWYER / JUNE 19951 VOL. 24, No.6
Hello