HomeMy WebLinkAbout980630.tiff 7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
March 18, 1998
Weld Board of County Commissioners
'
P O Box 738 ' ;
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Mixed Use Development Plan
Ladies and Gentlemen:
From various sources, there has been criticism of the land uses proposed in the above Plan as
described on Map 2.1. The land use designations in the Mixed Use Development Plan,
Development Standards are very general, nowhere defining what specific uses, in the case of
residential districts, and densities are to be permitted. The terms higher, medium, lower and
lowest intensity are not definite. In addition, the multi-use PUD zoning designation, typically
used in the planning process, adds to this lack of future land use specifics. All this gives much
latitude to the developer and the County, but does not give much information or reassurance
to the residents of the area as to whether development will materialize in an appropriate
manner.
To provide a positive, constructive approach to what would be appropriate, specific uses and
standards for the MUD district, please consider the following:
1. The most obvious and positive action County government could take would be to eliminate
the MUD Plan. The surrounding municipalities have the intention, capability, required
contiguity and statutory mandate to conduct the urbanization of the MUD area through
annexation and zoning. County government should limit its involvement to that of a mediator
and facilitator to coordinate the actions of the municipalities involved for the benefit of the
residents of the area. This would also provide the substantial benefit to the children in the St.
Vrain Valley School District in the area that there would be funding for their schools under
the IGAs the District has with Firestone, Frederick, Mead and Longmont. A type of
agreement that County government has been reluctant to provide for some unfathomable
reason.
In the case that County government insists on continuance of the, now, unneeded MUD
Plan:
2. The Mixed Use Development Plan, Development Standards states on page 15; "Residential
districts within the MUD area are encouraged to be cohesive, identifiable and diverse, while
retaining the agrarian lifestyle of residents in the area. " [emphasis added]. To accomplish
this:
a. Undeveloped buffers should be provided between agricultural properties and more highly
developed residential and commercial or industrial properties..
b. There should be emphasis on transitional densities and occupancies permitted from the
lowest to highest uses.
c. There should be no structures or occupancies permitted in the FEMA flood plain. As
examples of the potential dangers, all we have to do is look at the damage done to life and
j� U • Pt 980630
IIYYQQ y
property in the floods at Fort Collins, Big Thompson Canyon, the South Platte and Cherry
Creek in 1965 and the Mississippi River flooding to realize that prudence demands no
construction in a flood plain. Although the Plan does not support it, the County has permitted
residences to be constructed in what apparently is flood plain land in the vicinity of WCR16
1/2 and WCR5. Raising the level of land and installation of rip-rap is no assurance of
protection against flood waters. The FEMA studies are estimates, not commandments to
Nature. Note should be made of this by the County, also, in decisions regarding the
Sherwood project, observing that embankments [levees], apparently, had been erected on the
south side of St. Vrain Creek to forestall flooding of portions of the property.
d] Enclosed is overlay of Map 2.1 indicating more specific and appropriate land use and
zoning for the MUD area.
All this is not to say that there is not a preponderance of good design features in the Mixed
Use Development Plan - Development Standards. One hopes that these suggestions are taken
in the positive manner in which they are intended.
Ve truly ours.,
John S. Folsom
Enclosure
PCs: Weld County Attorney, Director of Planning Services, Weld County Council
mudplan.doc
9 o 3D
tl y
b t..
ftf1J
• 1 .Th ICI U (' a�1
472
• Uvb` Cn 1tI \ ''"����_ C
i L'
i _ 19 20 1,‘, Je1 1 24 19
p; s
r-'� SIN
p, f iris mat has
w S►� ? 911Stilir
30
p 1 r lrY / C� fdq,'�ca3 30
\-i
_ /J
Nail)---7' : - i t
faic
_Y— in
__ I__C R InP, Kk
irt, so
t
• CalnThs r. k. JJ , e /'~ SI
_
I J'!G RPS Ki=. /
•,� �\ _ S r ICS 11241
� # 4$ €"E`� IGR fYA6
atig at ue31°I'zt} f 8
S
r SS IIf
� R Cl ",_
' --CI ' ' ' Lits.ocutattajiLli //,` fe/I'' ^, % ', 1/4y-' i
0 wit (� • l lF 4 ,,,, �l� L \
Sri ' _ ;
t__ >waft In
d el ./ ,\ y I3]
F \ �' I Y!,.'. , r,ltss' `� fI.CJC /fU
1' + /` *INN
d v r rJfrfv • I-Lrn
�• i 0 1500 3000 Foot
Legend
1-D NIIU N.n fa.Mvr 1':':.:'': '1 limning Sit. Factors - Lownt Mt..aer \\\\\\ To«/atr Mnaalbn. N
C --* Emal>nr t Cellar - H y MbMkY IS
, „ Regional Pak — — Canty Bounds"
�+ errand
Cammwcbl - medium bitumen,' ,:(CP) CamnnkY Pak -_ Exist" Rood„/ -- Propa..0 RooO
I`�_MR.i�hla��C.ntw - Lower Intensity pl �,� Pak R.gbnd Trill 5).tan w - E
k_, NAM
OMw CamnnkY Trot A r. Yf:
R«Mntbl Ci Transit falter _ _-_ Section lkb
* Ht.tark/Canitr Cwt.' 8
1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan
2 -9-f�t�,,t Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map
``llII Si9iri C• !i S R_ i ;��
NN 6-:/76-4e7:,-&-f...-‘)i--/tr
.:,—&- n.-/Y--/t r V i /\ -� .P-,3 C 1 Ic--It November 1&1997
1�/s�C.hrc !r OT
A zoiii.v ^ �r� ��t C 2, /_; ,,� ,. A., Li-FOy ,/.9�YG e- 39 -/ 4/
Hello