HomeMy WebLinkAbout951283.tiff1435 WCR 16 1/2
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 772-1297
0DQDO
eek
C?" RANCH CI5
7710 WCR 5
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 651-1857
CLERK
TO THE
May 17, 1995
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th St.
Greeley, Colo. 80631
Dear Commissioners;
Today is the final hearing on development of a piece of property
that has been turned down twice by the Weld County Planning Commis-
sion, and twice by the Tri-Area Planning Commission. While it is
now presented in the form of a PUD (Planned Unit Development), it
is still the same property, and will have the same effects on the
surrounding areas. We still have many questions that might not fall
under the PUD's guidelines, but we feel they are legitimate and
should be considered regarding this property. We would appreciate
your utmost attention.
I
lines, IS itereally gwithin the lUrban Growth icant has lBoundarieseoflowed proprPWelduide
County? —(See Exhibit A notes from the Tri-Area Planning Commission
dated June 7, 1994 addressed to the Weld County Planning Commission),
it is not. It will be stated from you that now this has no effect
on the issue because it is a PUD application. Shouldn't the guide-
lines for a PUD applicant take into consideration the growth
concerns of other adjacent municipalities? (See Exhibit B - which
is a copy of the August 24, 1994 Farmer & Miner stating the urban
growth boundaries of Frederick not wishing to go futher west than
Weld County Road'►). Commissioners Hall & Kirkmeyer were present
at that meeting. Also see Exhibit C which is an article from the
Longmont Daily Times Call dated April 27, 1995 on the concerns of
the Del Camino Mixed Use Development plan which is just approximately
one mile south of this area's proposed development.
Also, refer to Exhibit D, which was on Page 2 of the September
21, 1993 report from the Planning Service's Staff that this proposal
be denied. This paragraph reads as follows: "It is the opinion of
the Department of Planning Services that the approval of this request
will encourage "leapfrog" or noncontiguous development and, futher,
that the applicant has not demonstrated that the rezoning proposal
conforms with the goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan." Even though this was stated prior to the PUD request, the
issue of "leapfrog" is very much a concern. We feel that once the
951.29,3
1435 WCR 16 1/2
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 772-1297
PDC\ MO
oak
RANCH
7710 WCR 5
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 651-1857
Page 2
gravel pit to the south of this development is done, the applicant
or owners will be most anxious to develop it as well.
II. Which brings on another question, does the county have
any plans to preserve and protect any types of agricultural operations
in S.W. Weld County? While the development in question is not prime
agriculture land, it would be good ranch land. What if every property
owner in this area were to propose a PUD development? Would they
all be accepted if they followed proper guidelines? The PUD process
should take this into consideration. Farming & ranching operations
cannot remain effective when chopped up into many diverse parcels.
III. This particular PUD states that it will accept agriculture
operations that now exist with current surrounding property owners.
It is our desires to establish a larger cattle -feeding operation,
but it is several years away in doing so. (See Exhibit E - which is
a picture showing the proximity of our corrals in lower part of
picture to that of the lake where the houses are going). In order
for us to establish a larger cattle feeding operation, we would need
to extend the existing corrals to the West, or the South -- which
would be directly across road 34 from the development. If the
exisiting property owners of this PUD are gone at the time we wish
to do this, what protection do we have that will enable us to
expand our operation?
Also, while raising or feeding cattle is our ultimate goal,
but if it never becomes feasible to do so, would we still be able
to work other types of agriculture endeavors -- such as a sheep or
hog operation?
IV.
Is the
ssue of Wildlife. While the
that theyhavework dwiththeeof
DepartmentofhWildlife,
I have also visited with Mr. Mark Cousins, Manager of Department of
Wildlife in this area. He states to me that their plan was put into
effect only if houses HAD to come into the area. The better option
for preserving wildlife in the area would be to no houses at all.
(See Exhibit F. This shows how the ducks & geese now use the land
as well as the lake. Once houses are on this land, will the ducks &
geese remember to use the corridors provided between houses as
access to the lake? (Also see Exhibit G). This is a picture of
a sandhill crane taken on the lake this past month. These birds are
very sensitive to humans and noise. Will they continue to come
to this lake?
951283
1435 WCR 16 1/2
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 772-1297
rOnNCD
Desk
v RANCH Ch5
7710 WCR 5
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 651-1857
Page 3
V. Last, but by no means least, is the question of floods.
(See Exhibit H). This is a picture taken by Doris & Inez Sawdy of
the exact parcel (looking south off of the then exisiting bridge),
when the property was flooded in June of 1965. Also, see Exhibit I,
which was an article in the Longmont Times Call just this past
May 9th, stating that the snow -pack and moisture are very similar
to that of 1894 when they had the big flood. While this PUD allows
building in a flood plain as long as it meets certain criteria,
does it really make sense to do so? See Exhibit J, from Judy
Yamaguchi when she visited the sight for the Planning Commission
in 1993. Her comments were that the soil seems somewhat swampy.
What happens to the evapotranspiration septic systems when it
floods?
These are the concerns we feel that the Commissioners should
still consider in addition to the PUD restrictions. We would
appreciate our concerns addressed as well even though you contend
they might not apply.
As the governing board of the county, we urge you to take
issue -- and work with municipalties, MUD's, and whatever other
terms you might want to give to development proposals. There are
too many avenues and directions for developers to contend with.
(If one does not work, try another until one does get an approval).
There needs to be some way to protect some agriculture endeavors
in S.W. Weld County. It needs to be done before it's too late.
Again, we thank you for your time.
Si
arte✓
Ihael`S Shaw
Virginia N. Shaw
Jeffrey C. Shaw
Gregory N. Shaw
Enclosures
951.253
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Jack Olberding, Bill Bedell, John Widerquist, and Terry Henze
Z-488
In correspondence dated June 7, 1994, the Tri-Area Planning Commission
recommended denial of the PUD change of zone request. Concerns expressed were:
1. "Mini -subdivision" outside of an urban growth boundary area;
2. Septic system impacts on the fluctuating water table at this location; and
3. Incompatibility with surrounding agricultural land uses.
The subject parcel is located less than 3 miles from a recent annexation by the
Town of Frederick, necessitating referral consideration by the Tri-Area Planning
Commission. The Frederick property is presently undeveloped and lies west of
Interstate 25. The Town of Frederick proper and remaining Tri-Area community is
more than 3 miles from the subject parcel. According to the Weld County Urban
Growth Boundary Map, this parcel is not located in a Urban Growth Boundary area.
951283
Volume 69 Number 34
Your hometown newspaper
Frederick wants county
to respect growth plans
Weld County Commissioners ��g,��Dale Hall and Barbara Kirkmeyer
aFYMraorwaq�tha,F deric Town Bo rd to explain ow the : u
wants to co a PlV1sh drat hire, �
By Michael Neilson
Editor the two).
"We'v
Weld County Commission- Taglieni'B''R`5
ers have said they want to work "We can serve this area with utili
with the county's cities and towns ties." The mayor said thecriteriafor
.
in the development of mutually a municipals. °'c
acceptable "urban growth bound- ¶ sOide
aries."
Commissioners Barbara
Kirkmeyer and Dale Hall met with "' Taglientealso suggested that
>theFrederick Town Board recently any developer locating within a
(Thursday, August 11) to announce town's planning area "ought to be
that the Weld County Comprehen- encouraged to annex intothat town,
sive Plan is being reviewed, and rather than letting the ,county cons
that plans can be developed that trol that development."'
incorporate the growth interests of Commissioner Kirkmeyer re -
each city and town in the county. sponded, "We can encourage it, but
Commissioner Hall said this we can't require it." Kirkmeyer ad -
cooperation is favored rather than mitted that sometimes "developers.
the formation of a three-mile or pit the towns against the county". in
half -mile sphere of influence be- promoting their developments.
ing formed around each munici- In stressing that the Town of
pality. Even if a town isn't able to Frederick wantscontrol of whathap-
annex a specific area immediately, pens within itsurban growth bound -
but does have a future interest in it, ary, Tagliente said, "We could get
the county could direct develop- 30,000 people in that area, and I.
ment in that area with a sense of don't think any of us sitting around
continuity, Hall indicated. this tablewant30,000people there ."
Frederick mayor Ed Tagliente Kirkmeyer and Hall have so
referred the visiting commission-.. far taken the county's proposal to
ers to the Frederick Comprehen- about 16 of the 31 towns and cities
sive Plan, which has been in effect of Weld. The follow-up process for
since 1986. Thaturbingrowtifeilla each municipality includes a work -
for Frederick fstnderedbrAirl shop session to hammer out an m
"County Roed?oe'the wear, .Roeder tergovernmental agreement be
26 on the north, State ligAwa rs2"' tween the town and the county.
onthesoutib'end Roads 13 sad 17t Tagliente said Frederick is anxious
on *east ('with Road I6 making, to proceed to that step as soon as
lb&dog-leg -connection between possible.
since 1930
Local school
C
F
F
L
H
a
c
d
tE
h
t,
tl
V
C
'Back To School
Night' is Sept. 9
at Frederick High
eward it
The reward has been increased ' I
to $250 for information leading to I
the arrest and.coeviction of the -1
person or persons responsible for I
the'damage done to die s Frederick
police'patrol!car during the early
morning hours of Friday, August
At cording' to Frederick Po 1
951.283
THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1995
DAILY TIMES -CALL
'9 '1E"g S_S >°,w f oar
G+ m
p W L C
Y S p N
p 4 O% i• O g iv a g E' m 00t i s OD
�_. On !0'� a:7 a nA(�:7 .':
rmi
t.
Itoe�E 5d
47 2 4SM $- 50
g h
9Qo9Begss r2.t
t s s
m 41;
o
•Mme
i ooautocia ea
DATE: September 21, 1993
I
CASE NUMBER: Z-482
NAME: Martha A. Williams
ADDRESS: 8876 Rogers Road, Longmont, CO 80503
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 2 3/4 miles west of the Town of Frederick, south of Weld
County Road 16 1/2 and west of Weld County Road 5.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
This proposal is not consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan's goals and policies. This property is located in the A
(Agricultural) zone district and is evaluated under the Agricultural
and Urban Growth Boundary Goals and Policies.
Agricultural goal #4 encourages residential development to locate
adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities and in accordance
with the municipalities' adopted comprehensive plan .goals and
policies. This parcel of ground is located 2.3 miles from the most
recent western annexation to the Town of Frederick. The annexation is
undeveloped, and the actual core area of Frederick is approximately
three miles from the proposed site of rezoning. The Frederick is
approximately three miles from the proposed site of rezoning. The
Frederick Planning Commission indicated that they have no conflict
with the request. However, Jacque Barnett of the Town of Frederick
stated that the proposal does not lie within their town growth
boundary nor is it included in their comprehensive plan area. The
Weld County Urban Growth Boundary map illustrates that the property is
not located within any urban growth boundary.
Urban Growth Boundary Policy #1 states that land use development
proposals within an Urban Growth Boundary shall be encouraged so long
�as they conform to the desires of the municipality as exuxess?d in 'its
comprehens ze ^tan or by its land use decision -making body and if the
municipality has agreed to provide services. The Town of Frederick
provides no public services to this site. Left Hand Water District
can make water available, and the applicant proposes on -site septic
systems for the acreages. Mountain View Fire Protection District
(located in Longmont) and Weld County would provide fire protection,
road maintenance and police protection, respectively. A change of
zone to Estate will increase the demand for urban -type services to
this very rural location.
951283
.COMMENDATION, Z-482
Martha A. Williams
Page 2
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the uses
which would be allowed on the subject property by granting the change
of zone will not be compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Neighboring parcels contain a gravel mining operation, and asphalt and
gravel facility, oil and gas related equipment and vacant agricultural
ground. The surrounding area is very agricultural in nature with only
one residence located within 1/4 mile of the site. Rural homeowners
do not have certainty about future character of the agricultural
districts and are expected to live with those uses allowed by right
and by Special Review in the Agricultural district, according to the
Comprehensive Plan.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the
approval of this request will encourage "leapfrog" or noncontiguous
development and, further, that the applicant has not demonstrated that
the rezoning proposal conforms with the goals and policies of the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan.
951253
O
5
U
A
1'' 4.2 a� .S U O m 2: a,
y flhJ1IP!Ih
`li6 Lqp�, '1 d-OC
3 $ d uo ���gy oo� m mF
i-iScum 4o. mE!0... OJ R`�..m.tate+ tOum
623
3 0
3a .. yn
a
C
O
J
U.
W .gyp •ONod m d C
CI., aoi v wa'•r7>�'p ��.+u ��tee.� .C>c
'D Q.CZ dd'7'mL�o. •'a .�Ew ET:
�y .Sac
''J_O 7.>'i $ d..G. M20
h� U U �x M W C
V L
a mp ; A am m �$C d emS
2s. --
/His 3E,�3mESo�d m d•••w�o�
s c c y • C W �y �'. a�.' rte. ^J 2i m U o0 .� sue' U Y G
Va_4� AW aU.. W..w a+N R
�• g 0_sP°II�s° ra.ut ads'° .s
A.a$ ��actig a ° E�`°" •o4? X000
a d Qtgi •
w4 00 w d �m�+e S $� va a2 gds o�
22M ;4001511g. iwootitai6v->Ig-5 *5-
�e•��a S�s�as m eU��Y�' �a Ears
951283
05-10-1995 10:32AM MILLER GROUP LASALLE
•
1435 WCR 101/2
Longmont, Cps 80504
(303) 772-12,7
0DQao
itek
v RANCH
Weld County Commissioners
9l51 10th St.
Gretley, Colo.
Dear Sirs: •
1 4153589530 P.01
771QWR5
Longmont,•CQ 8 504
4303j 651- 857
MayJ10, 1995, i
•I
We wish to inform you that we would like to'have a couttj
reporter present at the May 17th heating for a Site Development
Plan and Planned Unit Development for Continental View Ponds.
We have checked with your reporter, and they quoted price
of ,$25.Q0/per hr, of which we are willing to assume costs. *
nkk ou,
iclaelS. $haw
Virginia N. Shaw
*Itlis our understanding that we do not have to take the transdri ti;
if We do not want it after the hearing.
Lb -40u NA-pkvfm:
MAY 10 '95 11:44 )
cykdb,I f C- ce : ice
(LLD)
1 -4153569530
951283
Hello