HomeMy WebLinkAbout980257.tiff t'21.1) G�"!'`x i r
To the Editor January 18, 199,
27 9: 02
Watch Out! The MUD Is Spreading! C[ ER,1
TO T H ''?i'. , `",
This month of January is named after Janus, the Roman god of beginnings and endings
which is why he is depicted as being two faced. It is fitting that in this month Weld County
government is again acting in manner to ensure that development along the I-25 corridor is
accomplished in an ill conceived, chaotic manner. The latest monkey wrench in the
planning machinery is the County Planning Commission's approval of increasing the
boundaries of the Mixed Use Development Plan [MUD] area to SH66 and WCR11
adjacent to Mead annexations and within Mead's Planning Area. Why is this action
inappropriate? Consider the following:
1. In the mid-1980s there was a need for sewage facilities to service the businesses in the
Del Camino area. As there was not sufficient usage to pay for a sewage treatment plant,
Weld County government created the Mixed Use District [MUD] plan which included
urban oriented land uses and development requirements to encourage future growth to pay
for the operations of new treatment plant. This plan was lobbied by local land owners and
developers in anticipation of increasing the value of land in the area.
2. At the time there were no municipalities in the area that were able or interested in
annexing into the area. State law requires that municipalities be adjacent to land to be
annexed. In addition, the towns were not in the growth mode they are today as a result of
our booming economy.
3. Since then, the municipalities of Longmont, Firestone, Frederick and Mead have
annexed into the MUD area, and demonstrate every indication that they will continue to do
so. State law, in the Municipal Annexation Act, explicitly mandates that urban growth be
from existing municipalities to insure planned development, orderly extension and
distribution of the costs of municipal services, facilities and regulations, and simplifying
government structure. At the same time Weld County government continues to approve
developments under its own administration intermixed with developments under municipal
jurisdiction. A case in point is the County's current consideration of approval for
commercial and residential construction of over 1600 residences in Sherwood Villages at
County Line Road and WCR20 1/2. Each governmental entity has its own different
regulations and standards for roads, traffic regulations, land use, building size, height,
materials, set backs, lot size, etc.. Already, along one short stretch of road, you are
traveling through three jurisdictions.
4. Pressured by the State Dept. of Local Affairs, discussions have been going on for several
years between Weld County and the TriTown governments with the professed purpose of
assenting to common land use and development standards. These negotiations give some
credence to the Governor's "Smart Growth" program and maintain the flow of money that
comes through the Dept. of Local Affairs, etc. to the municipalities. At this time, even with
the expenditure of State grant money to hire a private consultant no final agreement is in
sight. As the TriTowns haven't been able to agree on any substantial matters in almost one
hundred years the outlook is not encouraging.
5. Several times County officials have stated that the MUD was something they had
inherited from a previous administration. Apparently, it hasn't occurred to them that what
$d 192 02//91( en : it- 980257
was enacted can be repealed. With the withdrawal of the County there would be one less
player in confusing the development of the area and growth could proceed in accordance
with the intentions of the State statute.
6. Now, instead of withdrawing from negatively complicating the development of the
MUD area, the Weld County Planning Commission has approved increasing its size into
land in Mead's Planning Area.
Let us hope that when this proposal comes before the Board of Weld County
Commissioners that instead of presenting two faces they will drop the face turned
backward on the expansion of the MUD and interfering in the growth of the area and face
forward eliminating the MUD, the need for which has past.
John S. Folsom
7050 Loma Linda Court
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
If using letter, please advise me of any changes in copy or headline.
r7
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. Art.XXVII, sections l[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.
Hello