HomeMy WebLinkAbout980549.tiff VI L_[) CoUt?i1
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
LQ rrn p „L Longmont CO 80504
February 14, 1998
Weld Board of County CommissionertLf 1�
Box 738 T
Greeley CO 80632
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a Letter to the Editor entitled "The Governor's `Smart Growth' Turns to
MUD". Please consider said letter, in addition, a communication to the Weld Board of
County Commissioners and distribute it as such.
Very truly yours,
yo Ism
Enclosure
007 980549
Uf (le : r�'L Cf�
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
[Weld County]
303 833 2992
February 13, 1998
To The Editor:
The Governor's "Smart Growth" turns to MUD
The sun rises in the east, but it is, apparently, not shining on the proposed development,
Del Camino East, at this time. Unfortunately for the developer, it is situated in the spheres
of influence and contention of Firestone, Frederick and Weld County. It is not surprising
that it has become the site of exposure of the lack of planning that permeates the
development of the MUD-Del Camino area.
1. The Del Camino East site is located on both sides of WCR22 between the 1-25 frontage
road and WCR11 within the urban growth boundaries of Firestone, Frederick and in Weld
County's Mixed Use Development district. Some time ago, Weld County government
petitioned Firestone to annex WCR22 for no announced reason. The perception was that
this annexation, and that of WCR20, were futile attempts to prevent Frederick from
annexing to the north. Of course, the statutory purpose of municipal annexations is to
promote orderly urban growth, not to serve political ends. The County ignored the fact
that an impact report, required by statute, was not submitted as part of the annexation
process. The impact is now here.
2. The developer proposed to the develop the land, partially in a flood plain, with an
inappropriate jumble of commercial/industrial construction, high density housing, an RV
park, camping and storage in a rural area.
3. The developer had a choice of petitioning Firestone or Frederick for annexation or
applying to the County, so that the land could be zoned and platted for development. The
County was selected, which immediately brought a response from Firestone government.
The land could be developed in County jurisdiction, but getting access to it from a road,
now in Firestone's jurisdiction, was going to be another matter.
4. The third piece in this puzzle is the Interim Coordinated Planning Agreement between
Weld County and the TriTowns in which the County, in effect, agreed to rezone for
development only if the developer signed an agreement to annex to an eligible municipality
[Section 4.1]. On February 11, 1998, The Weld Board of County Commissioners met to
act on the developers application to develop the site apparently oblivious that the
provisions of the above agreement had not been met.
Now, it is obvious that there is a great impact from the County government's injudiciously
permitting Firestone government to annex the WCR22 and not complying with the terms of
the ICP Agreement.
There can be given here only a small indication of the various machinations and stratagems
that have been involved in the `planning" for this general area in which we all live; even,
inaptly, winning the Governor's Smart Plan Award. Two results, hopefully, might result
from this debacle: [1] the County government will finally realize it must remove itself from
development of the area and permit the municipalities to facilitate urbanization as required
by the Municipal Annexation Act and [2] that if this land is annexed into Firestone, it will
be developed in an manner appropriate to its surroundings.
John S. Folsom
Please advise me of any changes in copy or headline.
delcamea.doc
Hello