HomeMy WebLinkAbout980949.tiff I: =':_D CCU;
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
! c Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
May 8, 1998
Board of Weld County Co14hiissioners
P O Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Open Space, Again!
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Northern Colorado Business Report [May, 1998], in its article by Beth Potter, quotes one
of the Weld County commissioners as stating; "We don't have the resources to go and buy land,
and we're certainly not going to tell somebody out there we're going to zone land [against
development]....I'm not saying we shouldn't have a buffer. I'm saying we can't pay for it." The
only thing standing between the commissioners and a program for acquiring and funding regional
open space, apparently, is still a lack of imagination and desire. Almost every day there are reports
in newspapers of new land acquisitions, conservation easements, TDRs, etc. to preserve land for
open space by the smallest of towns to counties. The contention that a land owner has a right to
develop his land in the most profitable manner is not defensible. There are a multitude of ways to
compensate a land owner for alienate use of his land, his "rights" must be weighed against the
more important good of the community and to follow this premise to its illogical conclusion -
zoning should be eliminated so the landowner can reap maximum benefits.
At a meeting in Longmont recently, it was somewhat encouraging to hear one Weld
commissioner state, in response to a presentation by a representative of the American Farmland
Trust, that Weld and Lorimer County governments were having joint discussions regarding land
use that would preserve some open space and land in agriculture. Even though the crying need for
open space is in the MUD-Del Camino-Tri-Town area, a report that the topic was even being
discussed by Weld County government was heartening.
Rather than repeat the many ways that regional open space can be acquired and financed,
enclosed is a letter to the editor dated January 29, 1998 stating some of them. Reference might
also be made to American Farmland Trust's: 21 Ways Counties Pay For Preservation of [open
space]. Besides the overriding tragedy of County government's permitting development to
irrevocably usurp potential open space land, is the embarrassment of residing in the one
government entity that continues, with a head in the sand attitude, to ignore what sensible
development dictates and is occurring all about them.
Ve truly ours,
1/ . ...�r�'�/�ie
o S. olsom Enclosures opnspac4.doc
PC: Monica Daniels-Mika, Weld County Attorney, Weld County Council
PS to Weld County Council: Here is a candidate performance by the commissioners for one of
your proposed merit increase program. JSF
%
, ;
980949
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
[Weld County]
303 833 2992
January 29, 1998
To the Editor:
Commissioners: the Open Space problem is all in your minds
Weld County government looks north and east and sees nothing but the open spaces of
farms, ranches and prairie. If they would look the other way they would see an invasion of
new construction in houses, commercial and industrial buildings. All the counties and
municipalities in the region are having the foresight to retain some of the rural character of
the area by providing for open spaces to give some relief from the crush of urban
development. All except Weld County, that is. It is embarrassing to read a headline in the
Rocky Mountain News : "Weld County snubs free open space".
County officials protest that they are not in a position to buy or maintain open space. They
don't know where to get the funding, that property owners and developers will resist
having their land designated open space and that they have provided for open space in the
new developments in the growing Del Camino area. This "open space" consists of any land
on a building lot that is not occupied by a building, parking space or streets. Even medians
in roadways could be interpreted as being open space. County government seems to be
confused as to what the term open space denotes in accepted planning parlance.
Not knowing how to pay for and maintain open space cannot be accepted as a valid reason
for County government's attitude. Let's look at a few methods being used by more
forward looking counties and municipalities.
1. Conservation easements are one way. The developer agrees to set aside, say, 85% of
the land in return for the right to build on the rest of it. There are over 280,000 acres in
Colorado protected by conservation easements.
2. A second form of conservation easement involves the land owner agreeing to keep his
land agricultural in return for being compensated by the difference between the agricultural
and development value of the land. The funding is from one of several private sources
dedicated to this purpose [Land Trust Alliance, American Farmland Trust, Colorado Open
Lands, Weld Land Trust, Colo. Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust, etc.].
3. TDRs: Traded Development Rights to land in rural areas are exchanged for permission
to build on land adjacent to existing urban areas. Weld County government continues to
contribute to urban sprawl in its MUD district. It permits isolated developments not
adjacent to municipalities as called for by State law.
4. A minimal sales tax can provide much funding. Consider that paying one cent tax on a
ten dollar purchase will pay for Coors Field and the new Bronco stadium.
5. Increase the commercial and industrial business use tax for funding.
6. A positive vote on tax increase that would permit raising the mil levy on commercial and
industrial businesses would provide funds.
7. An open space impact fee charged to new developments could provide funding..
8. The Great Outdoors Colorado Program funds open space projects through grants from
lottery proceeds. {Colorado Constitution, Art.XXVII, sections 1[c][d]).
9. And the list goes on, only restricted by a lack of imagination or interest in preserving
open space.
For the edification of the County Commissioners lets take a look at what other counties
and municipalities have been doing recently to preserve open space.
Boulder County: 1/4% sales tax and bond issue, Long Bow farm-conservation easement,
Hamm property-purchase, and others too numerous to list, Longmont: Sandstone project-
purchase, Erie: TDRs, Lafayette: White Hawk Ranch-TDR, Golden: Bear Tooth Ranch-
conservation easement, Larimer County: Ludwick farm-conservation easement, Parker:
Bayou Gulch-conservation easement, Douglas County: Cherry Creek trails-conservation
easement, Adams County: proposed sales tax for open space acquisitions, and numerous
others. In fact, the Commissioners only have to look out their windows and see what
others are doing to preserve open space. The people of the City of Greeley are backing a
quarter percent sales tax to fund open space conservation.
There was a newspaper article, in regard to Weld County government, some time ago
headlined: "Open space, closed checkbooks", to which I responded in a letter, kindly
published, headlined: "Open space, Closed minds". At this time, I see no reason to change
that appraisal.
When I look out my window to the west, I can see out across the fields to a broad vista of
the mountains. Looking at all this open space, it seems impossible that some day it could be
the site of houses, businesses, factories and traffic congestion. Unreal that someday one
would have to travel miles see a similar scene. Then, I remember when I was a kid, living
on the outskirts of a city back east. I could walk a couple of blocks and be in open fields
and farmed land. There was no vista of mountains. Instead, there were the broad waters of
Long Island Sound. When I came to Colorado, thirty years ago, where I had lived there
were no longer any open fields or farm land or vistas. There was only urban congestion. If
you wanted to see vistas you had to pack a lunch and drive for miles through urban
congestion. If we don't have better planning, it will happen here, too. Maybe not next year
or the year after, but it will happen!
John S. Folsom
If using the letter, please advise of any changes to copy or headline.
Delete last paragraph if necessary because of space limitations.
opnspace.doc
I.
-_n r.. . `;
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
CLEIii; 303 833 2992
Board of Weld County Conmi o &rs - May 12, 1998
P O Box 758
Greeley CO 80504
Subject: Proposed Dacono-Firestone-Frederick-Erie-Weld County IGA
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The proposed IGA includes only referral and enforcement procedures for, and establishment
of, Uniform Baseline Design Standards, which is only a part of the original intent of the
negotiations for an IGA for the Southwest Weld County Planning Area.
Not included are:
1] as stated in the Interim Coordinated IGA-Land Use Plan 3.0, a comprehensive
development plan authorized by C.R.S. 29-20-105 'for the purposes of planning and
regulating the development of land, including but not limited to the joint exercise of ialinng,
zoning subdivision, building, and related regulations.";
2] as stated in 3.2, "It is anticipated that land use regulations....will include...each party's own
comprehensive plan, and each parties regulations addressing the phasing of development,
zoning and subdivision, environmental and landscaping controls, development impact fees....";
3] as stated in Revised Development Standards draft of 3/26/96, "These baseline standards
are intended to help implement the following goals:...purchase of property or conservation
easements to preserve unique natural features or maintain agricultural production in certain
areas....Provision for an open space and trail networks...Identification and preservation of key
view corridors along the roadways.";
4] The proposed IGA has eliminated all reference to OPEN SPACE from the original list of
Development Standards to be considered. Even as originally proposed for consideration,
"open space' consisted of only land in developments not occupied by buildings, roadways and
parking space, etc.,not in its true definition as indicated in 3] above.
5] Although not specifically indicated, a implicit purpose of the IGA negotiations, and
fundamental to its success, is the resolution of conflicts in urban growth boundaries of some
of the participants in the negotiations
It is to be hoped that: 1] the true scope of the IGA project is not forgotten, and that this
agreement is only another step in an continuing process, and 2] that before approving this IGA
it is amended to include a declaration of the participants' determination to complete the
process by an agreement on the above objectives.
In considering the important provision for open space, in its accurate context as being lands
retained in their natural state or agricultural uses, please take into consideration the following
fL+ goals from the Weld County Comprehensive Plan:
ty J
rAT / r Qa)`il
"A.Goal 1. Preserve prime farmland for agricultural purposes....
A. Policy 1. Agricultural zoning will be established and maintained to protect and
promote the County's agricultural industry
A. Policy 1.1 The County should consider various methods of agricultural land
preservation techniques." Cerf American Farmland Trust-21 Ways Counties
Can Pay For a Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement Program And
An Agricultural Economic Development Program- for inspiration.
Very truly yours,
John- . Folsom
PC: Monica Daniels- Mica, Weld County Attorney, Weld County Council
PS to Weld County Council: Conditional on the ultimate completion of this project, here is
another candidate for one of your commissioner merit pay raises.
IGA4.doc
St. "train ,lure( Jmpart ,e15trict
7050 Zorn rtinda 6.
£ Copp t, CO 80504
Phone- (303) 833-2992
@ecnt&necam
May 18, 1998
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley CO 80631
Subject: Weld Co. Referral: Case No. S-460
Idaho Creek PUD
Dear Ms Daniels Mika:
One of the objectives of the St. Vrain Rural Impact District is the retention of some of the
agricultural and natural features of the MUD area. The proposed Idaho Creek PUD conforms
with this goal in the percentage of regional type open space incorporated in the design of the
development. We recognize that this is the result of the nature of the land and its being in a flood
plain that was instrumental in its dedication to an open space rather than other use. However, we
would prefer to see a less dense residential use of the land, even though the project is adjacent to
a mobile home park and commercial uses. This less dense use would begin the transition to lower
intensity uses to the south.
In addition, we make the following general comments relevant to this project that you might wish
to keep in mind:
1. I. General Concept B: Check that the allegation that the property is approved for residential
development in the MUD plan where some of the houses are to be built. A portion of the land
along the easterly irrigation ditch appears to be classified for "Limiting Site Factors" according to
MUD map 2.1. In addition there is no regional trail along the ditch as required on MUD map 2.1.
2. VII. Traffic Circulation: Mention that CR7-1/2 will be extended to CR22 in the near future
would indicate that there is an intention to build CR22 which does not presently exist in this area.
3. DC. Soils: Would recommend soil tests be required, as soil conditions can suddenly change.
The Soil Survey of Weld County, Colorado, southern part [USDA Soil Conservation Service]
indicates there might be aquolls and aquepts in the area which are poor draining. And we are all
aware of the presence of expansive soils all along the front range.
4. XI. Minerals: Would check that referral has been sent to correct holder of mineral rights as new
wells are being drilled in the area. [Firestone's St. Vrain Ranch only discovered that new wells
were to be drilled after street plans had been submitted for final approval.]
5. XV. Service Impact A: Some consideration should be made of the inadequacy of County police
protection in this entire area. It puts the residents at risk and is a tremendous burden on the
resources of surrounding police depts. responding to calls for assistance in the area.
� \j
. >DC. ��X9519
6. XV. Service Impact B: It is hoped that the County will insist on impact fees [ land or cash in
lieu] being provided by the developer to the St. Vrain school district. There is no indication of
land set aside in the plat submitted. It is unfortunate that the County is so reluctant to enact an
IGA with the school district, which is so important for providing school facilities for the youth of
the area.
7. XIII Landscaping: Do the landscaping [and street standards etc.]proposals of the developer
conform with the requirements of the impending IGA Uniform Baseline Design Standards for the
area?
We hope these comments will assist in the evaluation of this application and that Weld County
government will keep in mind the preservation of the character and heritage of this area in the face
of the pressures for development when making that evaluation.
Very truly yours,
St. Vrain Rural Impact Group
John S. Folsom
PC: BOCC, Weld County Planning Commission, Weld County Attorney
idaho.doc
IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS LETTER BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD OF ANY
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CASE S-460.
61 (D917
n r
, n 55
CLER;i
TO THE ;
S. 'Wain glum( Jmpact ;District
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont, CO 80504
11iione-(303)833-2992
rErnai!-jmfo(som@ecentraIcorn
May 16, 1998
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley CO 80631
Attention: Mr. Scott Ballstadt, Current Planner
Reference: Hamlin Proposal: to enlarge MUD area, Case No. Ordinances 147-O, 191-C
Application has been made to include a parcel of land in the NW quarter of section 36, T3N,
R68W in the Mixed Use Development district. One of the basic objectives of the St. Vrain Rural
Impact District is the retention of some of the agricultural and natural features of this area as
development progresses. It seeks a balance between inevitable urbanizing development and
preservation of the agricultural and natural heritage of the St. Vrain-Boulder Creeks drainage area
east of Longmont. Therefor, the District would appreciate Weld County government considering
the following issues relating to the subject proposal:
Specifically:
I. In the case that Weld County government is favorable to the proposal, that approval be
irrevocably conditional on fulfillment of the application representations as to open space, natural
wetlands, recreational corridor and trail system, preservation of habitats, etc.
2. That alternative agricultural/open space uses for all this land, which reimburse the land owner
for the differential between present use value and that of potential higher uses, be investigated, as
outlined below.
3. That the Dept. of Planning Services undertake a study of agricultural and natural open space
environmental and ecological impacts in this case and in all cases as a standard part of a procedure
to be followed in applications for changes of land use.
In General:
1. That the present Weld County government reflect on the long standing policy, objective and
tradition of Weld County governments for retaining the agricultural character of the County. That
urbanization should proceed only through growth adjacent to municipalities as required by States
statues.
2. That Weld County government actively pursue a program of[a] investigating procedures for
retaining land in its agricultural use or natural state in order to establish a balance between
t
J J q
development and the agricultural/natural character of the area, [b] establish criteria for this
balance, and [c] formally provide for implementation of these procedures. In brief, some of these
procedures might involve conservation easements, TDRs, outright County land purchases
financed by impact fees, LOCO or other grants, sales tax, property tax special district mil levy,
etc.
We appreciate the referrals to the St. Vrain Rural Impact District of applications to Weld
County Planning Services for land use changes and development. We hope the Board , the
Planning Commission and the Dept. of Planning Services will consider the proposals in
this letter in determining the merits of this application for revision of the MUD area,
subsequent development of that additional area if the revision is approved and future
development of other land in the MUD district.
Very truly yours,
St. Vrain Rural Impact District
John S. Folsom
PS: IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS LETTER BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
OF ANY PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCES
147-O AND 191-C.
PC: BOCC, Weld County Planning Commission, Monica Daniels-Mika, SVRIG members
STVRGRUP.DOC
Hello