HomeMy WebLinkAbout990577 EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case: Ordinance 201
Exhibit Submitted by: Exhibit Description
A Virginia Shaw Letter of concern - Open Space z"i1 R4
B 1 JROu..) ryu, lit6c,al a vnee l
C �v>xanus�,� qn1.frlid .Sib /4 lt& Au,4 ) c ,an,.a)
/h)anurt.,//}`"fib and Rdg
an/ atra O " Lc,L d RtAcksAcifivki
F --
^
YQ uu2� 1(J./I tA,J Qle L1 J 61 ULLu
H
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
w
X
Y
990577
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 3
CASE: Ordinance
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement between Weld County, City of Dacono, Town of Erie, Town
of Firestone, Town of Frederick, and Design Standards
LOCATION: All lands in an area bounded by State Highway 52 on the North, Weld County Road 8 on the
South and a distance of one mile from the centerline of 1-25 to the East and West of 1-25,
except for those parcels of land currently annexed to the Town of Frederick in an area
approximately 6 square miles. Also a land area approximately 10 square miles west of 1-25,
and 40 square miles east of 1-25, bounded by Weld County Road 26 on the north, and
approximately Weld County Road 119 on the east.
The ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission by Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of the Weld
County Planning Department. As part of the Weld County, City of Dacono, Town of Firestone, Town of
Frederick Intergovernmental Agreement a comprehensive design plan was required. The information
presented today is intended to carry out this plan requirement.
The proposed ordinance is divided into two components. The first component sets Design Standards and the
second deals with Implementation Issues. The Design (Baseline) Standards are intended to address the
urban design activities within the Intergovernmental Agreement. These standards are not retro-active and
are applicable only to new or changed urban type development within the proposed area. These standards
will not apply to those uses listed as exemptions in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Recorded exemptions
and subdivision exemptions are excellent examples of uses where these standards would not apply.
These standards are directly correlated to the primary and secondary roadway corridors. The existing primary
roadway corridors in the Intergovernmental Agreement area are 1-25, State Highway 7, State Highway 52,
Weld County Road 8,Weld County Road 13, Weld County Road 24 and Del Camino Parkway. The existing
secondary roadway corridors include Weld County Road 11, Weld County Road 15, Weld County Road 16
and Weld County Road 20 and are only applicable in the Intergovernmental Agreement Area.
The design standards are divided into six components. Those components include landscaping; followed
by, setbacks; building height, orientation and design; signs; street standards; and lighting and utilities. A
citizen group, along with representatives from the Intergovernmental Agreement area participated in
formulating these standards. Monica Daniels-Mika indicated that a list of members was included in the
. •.'»• 0.4
Pa al:,thstrFb tti 4''td'trf idFil' . /117IT11JSI ~wm�/._.r^...w v�,,: .v+�xv*.:e..rve:wFn—' ..•.«5w 'Get 4.-w' n•
,r<rm*r-•..ear
The second component of the plan addresses the implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement. The
first section establishes time frames for referrals. The second, third and forth sections describe requirements
for intergovernmental responses to comments. The fifth section of the implementation component establishes
effective dates for approval and the sixth section addresses enforcement of the Intergovernmental Agreement.
The sixth section includes an appeal process to the Board of Appeals. The appeals board will be comprised
of five members, one from each participating community and one from Weld County. The Board of Appeals
is limited to determining whether an appeal is or is not consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement.
The appeals process enables a participating entity to comment on a standard employed by the referring body.
The entity may present this comment to the decision making body, who may or may not concur with their
concern. At this point the concerned entity can call for an appeal to the Board of Appeals. The Board of
Appeals will hear the concern and present a finding. A four-fifth majority vote is needed to carry a decision.
The Board of Appeals can remand a decision back to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
The Board of County Commissioners has ultimate authority to accept this standard or to amend it based on
the action of the Appeals Board. The Board of County Commissioners can make a decision that is contrary
to the standards of the agreement. If the decision is not objected to within 14 days, the standard will go into
effect. Monica Daniels-Mika indicated that citizen letters regarding this issue were included in the packets
distributed to the Planning Board.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 4
Glenn Vaad, Chairman requested that the six components of the Design (Baseline) Standards be reviewed
on an individual basis. Monica Daniels-Mika explained each component and addressed questions from the
board pertaining to each.
Landscaping
Arlan Marrs inquired whether or not the minimum percent of landscaped area standard of 20% included the
area of a building on the site. Glenn Vaad asked if existing parking area along 1-25 would have to adhere to
the standards established in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Monica Daniels-Mika replied that those
existing lots would not need to comply unless they had a change in use. Monica Daniels-Mika also addressed
questions concerning special landscaping and berming along this section of 1-25. She indicated that the
landscaping requirements were compatible with the Mixed Use Development Plan.
Setbacks
Monica Daniels-Mika explained to those present that the setback requirements were developed through a
combination of input from all parties involved in this process. Colorado Department of Transportation
standards and requirements were also taken into consideration during the decision making process. The
proposed setbacks do differ from the setbacks outlined in the current Zoning Ordinance.
Arlan Marrs asked Monica Daniels-Mika if State Highway 7 should be included in this area. Monica replied
that it was included at the request of the Town of Erie. Glenn Vaad questioned sign placement within
landscaped setbacks. Monica Daniels-Mika indicated that this was intended as a baseline to discourage
straight line construction along the roadway corridors.
Building Height. Orientation and Design
Monica Daniels-Mika stated that this issue was heavily debated by the participating members. Standards in
the Uniform Building Code and the fire districts ability to provide services were taken into consideration while
developing height restrictions. Building heights around the 1-25 interchange were divided into three different
zones. The minimum design standards reflected general standards that were intended to give the area a
welcoming effect. Glenn Vaad expressed concerns about obscuring surrounding property owners view of
the mountains.
Sians
Monica�D�aniells--Miiik�a. explained that the iign`te�Intt�anndd�heii�g�ht requirements of signs in this` area
^would
-bee similar
r:'YpY imw. R.VY t WrIlAtj l'nl Xao4uz r} WYMPatadiOa.iiwEec.�iala 'yiSigrtMRJgJI IpOltante
due to the major impact signs have on the visual appearance of an area. A new standard that states the total
square footage of wall signs cannot exceed 8%of that wall, and the one sign per development aspects of the
standards was also discussed.
Street Standards
The street standards are based on the standards set forth in the Mixed Use Development Ordinance. Arlan
Marrs questioned the designation of Weld County Road 20 as a boundary. It was his opinion that the correct
designation was Weld County Road 19. Monica Daniels-Mika determined that the boundary was indeed Weld
County Road 20.
Lighting and Utilities
The intent of this component is to provide uniform underground utility easements for new construction. It does
not effect existing construction. Glenn Vaad recommend eliminating the recommended lighting levels table
to avoid correction when engineered guidelines change. Fred Walker indicated that the table was appropriate
and should stay in the proposed ordinance.
Monica Daniels-Mika outlined the time frames of the referral and enforcement procedures for the Planning
Commission.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 5
Fred Walker proposed that the Board of Appeals be increased from a 5 to a 6 member board. He felt that a
representative of the property owners in the area should be present. Lee Morrison, County Attorney explained
that property owners would be represented by the board member from Weld County.
Arlan Marrs was concerned that an additional unnecessary level of government will be created with the Board
of Appeals. Lee Morrison responded that the goal of the board would be to minimize conflict and to resolve
issues without going into a court of law. Glenn Vaad concurred with Mr. Morrison.
Arlan Marrs and Jack Epple were concerned about term and substitute limitations for the Board of Appeals.
There was discussion about a standing committee verses formation of a committee as needed.
Arlan Marrs and Glenn Vaad proposed that Sections 6 and 7 be removed from the agreement due to the
potential for abuse by members.
•
Arlan Marrs moved that Sections 6 and 7 be removed from the Intergovernmental Agreement. Fred Walker
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, no; Arlan Marrs, yes; Christie Nicklas, no; Stephan Mokray, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Jack Epple, no;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion failed.
Arlan Man-s asked if any member could cancel membership in the agreement with a one year notice. Monica
Daniels-Mika confirmed by referencing Section 8.4 of intent to participate within the IGA.
Arlan Marrs and Glenn Vaad proposed that the wording in Section 7.3 be amended to replace the word
"member" with "government entity" in the first sentence. The sentence would read as follows: If a member
of the IGA Joint Board of Appeals is not able to attend a meeting of the Board to review an appeal, the
government entity shall be authorized to designate in writing a substitute to attend and take all actions that
the member would be authorized to perform if the member were present.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application.
Ginny Shaw spoke on behalf of John Folsom who could not attend the meeting. She stated that the
,., n,..• •y ••m„ *lititelogtvevnaifentariAg si5 €hrh dtfeekj'8'Crti gtnlri"wgt/IS"Cj5gfYspy.`d rffir lygrarftWitjtitftr`ItMr '
included in the original draft, but were excluded from this draft. Ms. Shaw felt that the property owners in the
area had no vote concerning the open space issue, and was concerned about urban growth.
Glenn Vaad responded that representatives of three of the towns involved chose to eliminate open space on
the basis of their proposed needs.
Monica Daniels-Mika said that the towns were comfortable with open space as addressed in the present
format.
Christie Nicklas stated that no plans to finance open space were proposed.
Pat Kelley, Frederick, CO, was a member of the Issues Group. Mr. Kelley stated that he felt the views of the
group were not considered in regard to open space, and that the citizens not involved with the issues group
were not properly informed about meeting dates and issues. He sees a need for greater community
participation and feels that the county should make more of an effort to get the community involved.
Arlan Marrs asked Pat Kelley for his definition of open space. Mr. Kelley had no clear definition.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 6
Christie Nicklas asked Mr. Kelley how the county could better inform the citizens of upcoming meeting dates
and issues. She stated it is the responsibility of the citizens to be aware of these issues and that legal
notices are printed in the county newspaper. Mr. Kelley responded that letters should be sent out to all action
groups and ads be placed in all area newspapers.
Glen Vaad asked Monica Daniels-Mika about communication between the policy group and the issues group.
She indicated that the issues group made recommendations to the policy group, but the policy group made
the final decisions. The towns are still deliberating, and have not yet approved the Intergovernmental
Agreement standards. The agreement was brought to Weld County first because the agreement needs to
be put into a ordinance format.
The Chairman closed the meeting to public discussion.
Jack Epple moved that the Ordinance for the Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Weld,
Town of Erie, City of Dacono, Town of Firestone, Town of Frederick, and Design Standards, be forwarded
along with the changes, to the Board of County Commissioners along with the with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Christie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, no; Christie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 147-0 &Ordinance 191-C
APPLICANT: Gerald and Kathryn Hamlin
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
REQUEST: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Mixed Use Development, Map 2.1, Structural
Land Use Map.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1140 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 28; approximately 'A mile west of Weld County
Road 13.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented.Ordinance 147-0 and Ordinance 191-C. Scott
explained the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Mixed Use Development Structural Land Use Map
asNis41901t.**-**NablOGnaditiOnelaCrinagetAZW4t2thansnfiladakthetrecaPanifindatiCalifikilitheeinetISITheQepe*ieRt-of san s t a-ai
Services is recommending approval of the application, with a condition that USR-639, which is located on the
south half of the and property and appears to remain active, and Scott explained that he needs to review the
file for USR-639 to determine if the USR is active. The applicants will need to amend the USR and vacate
that portion, prior to recording the plat.
Bruce asked the amount of time frame to get the file. Scott explained within a few days, and if found that the
USR is inactive, this would resolve the Condition of Approval, but if active, they will need to amend the USR,
unless both owners of the property under the USR agree to vacate.
Gerald and Kathryn Hamlin, applicants, explained the reason for their application. Mrs. Hamlin explained that
they have been asked to participate in a sewer line for St. Vrain Sanitation District, which runs through the
Hamlin property. Now that sewer service is available to the site, the Hamlins wish to include their property
in the MUD area for possible future development.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked the Hamlins if St. Vrain has dedicated any sewer taps to their property Mr. and Mrs.
Hamlin explained that ten property owners involved in the project have been guaranteed a tap if they
participate.
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Jack Epple that the following resolution, along with the changes to Section 7.3, replacing the
wording "member" with "government entity", be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the following Intergovernmental
Agreement and Design Standards for
Adoption of an Intergovernmental Agreement and Design Standards between the County of Weld, City of
Dacono, Town of Erie, Town of Firestone and Town of Frederick.
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement and Design Standards between the County of Weld, City of
Dacono, Town of Erie, Town of Firestone and Town of Frederick.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached map
LOCATION: All lands in an area bounded by State Highway 52 on the North, Weld County Road 8 on the
South and a distance of one mile from the centerline of 1-25 to the East and West of 1-25,
except for those parcels of land currently annexed to the Town of Frederick in an area
approximately 6 square miles. Also a land area approximately 10 square miles west of I-
25, and 40 square miles east of 1-25, bounded by Weld County Road 8 on the South, and
Weld County Road 26 on the north, and, at its furthest extent, Weld County Road 3 on the
West, and Weld County Road 21 on the east.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
According to 3.1 of the IGA the plan would contain three issues:
1. Specific land use standards for each municipality's urban growth boundary area,
2. Procedures for county coordination with each municipality in the review and approval process for
proposed development and,
3. Procedures and guidelines relating to the annexation of lands,.. All for the achievement of the
purposes stated in the IGA(section one).
Motion seconded by Christie Nicklas.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Glenn Vaad Arlan Marrs
Jack Epple Fred Walker
Christie Nicklas
Bruce Fitzgerald
Stephen Mokray
The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of
this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Sharon Marquez, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on June
2, 1998.
Dated the 2nd of June, 1998
Sharon Marquez
Secretary
aCC'
J ily 28, 1998
TO: Board of Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
SUBJECT: Reading of Proposed IGA with Frederick, Firestone, Dacono, Erie &
Weld County on August 3, 1998
As a member of the Issues group who worked with the above mentioned IGA, I
am concerned that the only issues addressed in the final document was for that of baseline
standards on building criteria.
The outline for study given out at our original meeting included a section for Open
Space. This issue was discussed at each and every meeting, with the concern being that
open space should be more than just the developmental open space of 20-25% put into
each development parcel. (It should be true open space that could be kept in agricultural
production, and serve as buffers between these communities).
The final document, however, deletes the Open Space considerations altogether.
With an area encompassing over 100 sq. miles of urban growth boundaries, and with none
of the municipalities or the MUD area working for any type of agricultural preservation, I
find this not compatible with adjacent communities of Longmont to the West (who is
keeping their growth boundaries at 22.6 sq. miles), and Boulder to the SW(who is
keeping their growth boundary at 25 sq. miles.)
The area of Open Space/Agricultural Preservation is just as important as that of
height of Street Signs and Landscaping. It should not be overlooked.
I will be out-of-town at your reading of this IGA on August 3rd, but I would
appreciate my above concerns read out-loud at this hearing, and made part of the record.
Th k you,
r r �Yl
V
cazi
Virginia Shaw
1435 Weld County Rd. 16-1/2
Longmont, Colorado 80504
PH: (303) 772-1297
EXHIBIT
nr
�: "-• 1 O R 0 aal
July 28, 1998
TO: Board of Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
SUBJECT: Reading of Proposed IGA with Frederick, Firestone, Dacono, Erie&
Weld County on August 3, 1998
As a member of the Issues group who worked with the above mentioned IGA, I
am concerned that the only issues addressed in the final document was for that of baseline
standards on building criteria.
The outline for study given out at our original meeting included a section for Open
Space. This issue was discussed at each and every meeting, with the concern being that
open space should be more than just the developmental open space of 20-25% put into
each development parcel. (It should be true open space that could be kept in agricultural
production, and serve as buffers between these communities).
The final document, however, deletes the Open Space considerations altoget
With an area encompassing over 100 sq. miles of urban growth boundaries, and with
of the municipalities or the MUD area working for any type of agricultural preservatio
find this not compatible with adjacent communities of Longmont to the West (who is
keeping their growth boundaries at 22.6 sq. miles), and Boulder to the SW (who is
keeping their growth boundary at 25 sq. miles.)
The area of Open Space/Agricultural Preservation is just as important as that of
height of Street Signs and Landscaping. It should not be overlooked.
I will be out-of-town at your reading of this IGA on August 3rd, but I would
appreciate my above concerns read out-loud at this hearing, and made part of the record.
Thank you,
W7O,teCe
Weld County Planning Dept. Virginia Shaw
1435 Weld County Rd. 16-1/2
JUL 2 8 1998 Longmont, Colorado 80504
RECEIVED PH: (303) 772-1297
extlian
Community Matters, Inc.
Planning and Community Development Consultants
2329 West Main Street
Suite 201
g- Littleton, Colorado 80120
Weld County Planning Dept.
JUL 2 01998
July 15, 1998
RECEIVED
Ms. Monica Mika
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: SW Weld County Design Guidelines
Dear Monica:
Thank you for your e-mail updating me on the process. I have the various dates marked
in my calendar.
I have attached a set of illustrations that can accompany the baseline design standards.
Each jurisdiction may wish to use them in different ways. Let me know if you want me to
distribute originals to the others communities.
Sincere)
Stev
End.
1*0 314
1
fax 303.798.3566 phone 303.730.0397
tt MEMORANDUM
WITO: Board of County Commissioners August 24, 1998
COLORADO FROM: Monica Daniels-Mika Director
SUBJECT: Third reading Ordinance 201
Based on the final review of this ordinance staff recommends the following changes:
1. Renumbering of the following section references
In 8.6.2 substitute section 4a for subsection 8.6.1
In 8.6.3 substitute section 4a for subsection 8.6.1
In 8.7.2 substitute section 7 for subsection 8.9
In 8.7.3 substitute section 6 and section 7 for subsection 8.8
In 8.8.4 substitute section 7 for subsection 8.9
In 8.9.4 substitute section 6a for subsection 8.8
2. Substitute the word "member" for governmental entity as per Weld County Planning
Commission recommendation. Page 19 ( pi 5)
EXHIBIT
WHEREAS,the development standards referred to within the agreement are intended to
be a baseline for development within such areas, but are also intended to accommodate plans by
persons who propose developments for such areas having standards for landscaping; setbacks;
building height, orientation, and design; signs; streets, and lighting and utilities, which are
considered to be stricter than those set forth in the agreement, and
g EXHIBIT
2JV • e ■ � 111111KJ w • m �ywti
zom N < .em ey Pm , w tsl rJ
DRCOG cannot do anything aclM, ,,„ na n> o-".•m e 1
■ Continued from Page Al about rapid growth in Weld or �m o n y x
couraget counties these areas to work to- {than tfien- c ~ 0 w E'o a •*off 9r a w 1 3 'DP _
cil,which is one of the 10 to ten _ m o y° o D "
tatively'agree in principle to a ''Ward ore dense development. l .a'w v.E m in'• 0 E m m o y °3 ' 1
new urban growth boundary, He said Longmont could, if it [ 'o w a,n o m m o m o a -I
would give up 9.13 square miles chose,annex land in Weld Coun- I: - '«.❑ -.m m R' ''" c a o
that otherwise would be part of ty and permit any kind of C:o o w o^ o C o•0 d ' 2
its planning area and thus even- growth that it chose without af- ' co •y w c" o w �•y 0 e
tually available for develop- fecting the urban growth bound- 1 m o c 0 'a 0 o y
ment. w. » a a 5' C
ary.
Longmont's current planning For communities within • ,n y e C�°a� g•m]•ou 5•
area includes 30.78 square DRCOG; any additions to an w -C w m o- o...0-3 a-a a to ao
miles; the Vision 2020 target for urban growth area must be ac- 0 m y 0.g 'g s m w o c'-
Longmont is 21.65 square miles, companied by an equal reduc- N c ,P. ,c 01 c m E'e
a 30 percent reduc-, tion in the area a o -• co,is c. m n r' w �'('�
tion. In 1995, the someplace else. - ^D ay v19, '-�' ca m o w 2orh cr v w V`�1
community included II�ETROVISION The procedure for D 0 ~o ab. E "y $•Z " y v
13.6 square miles of altering the urban ' o » w ti CtDt 0 w o 0 b
urban development. growth boundary �? ry°••°' E o w " -t-wi 2 m 4.
Longmont's city • has raised concerns 'e a mrray o c y
charter requires that about loss of local n m m g,ti a 0 c w y
changes to the mas- control in Long- 2 r•y., ap r .8-o
ter plan boundaries Ally, mont. = „Dq m y ii o w` °a•
be approved by or- The Vision 2020 Cril
dinance, not council plan permits com- -
Growth, and the tore
,'ter future
v a »a
resolution, Mugler munities to make Q o 3 v'O , 1-d l
said. Ordinance unilateral changes 0 a,- = . "_ " lam/
'adoption requires public hear- in the boundary as long as addi- "'Cr< a 3, '° -" x <g Et a CD O
ings.Because of those hearings, tions are offset by deletions and A a f „ -co' A A-" m o , \
DRCOG is identifying potential as long as the changes do not af- \ n o= g g '= 2 "'g 2 m 9 IN)
problems and working to ad- fect another community, re- 7, " a c o m » 2 2 a 3 e
CD
dress them. gional open space, or any of the ' N n�; a' n a " w " »3 Among the problems are Ian- regional transportation or clean ' N 2 >D. i g 3 H 2 S` o(,
gunge in annexation agree- water plans. Regional review or 'r :- ' A» 9 a o .- ° e 0 C
ments and the potential for un- ' DRCOG board action would be ' i; ''2,g » a _' A n k h• •
natural growth in neighboring required if regional effects re- <, p0 '2 a ' 8 _ = s N.f g,2
areas not covered by the agree- suited from the local change,he 3 ' a a 0,3 3 a 7,
mint,Mugler said. said. a S= g = 0 The intent of Vision 2020 is to The Vision 2020 plan is, at z 5 v
control urbanization of the present, voluntary. As an incen- '' w a• . ' 9. ' A.0 ""
eight-county Denver metropoli- tive, communities might see
—
tanareabyestablishingnewde- their local transportation ,
velopment boundaries.The plan projects rise on the priority list
calls for no more than 700 for federal dollars if they com- a (
square miles of urban develop- ply with the plan and if the ad- o
ment by the year 2020.About 500 ditional five points earned - - � , `' 1i�o ,• y'
square miles of urban develop- moves them ahead of another m c w �1
ment existed in 1990. Without community's project. All fed- m 3 o r 0 n
adherence to the plan, the re- eral transportation money for a w 3 3 2
gion would see at least 750 local projects flows through w o c xo° ." C
square miles of urban develop- DRCOG. m ° y
ment at the current rate of Mugler said the regional air
growth,Mugler said. quality council has asked o 0 ; 9' mac CVO
Because population is as- DRCOG to require implemen in rn c°'n ;:e not ' y,
sumed in the plan to increase tation of the plan in order to ;
unabated,future urban develop- help meet clean air goals. Also, t ,d _ a -o 73 ^"
ment will be more compact. legislative efforts by the Amer- na co Stc 11 m 3 m a
DRCOG expects density to in- ican Planning Association could •
al rn • o y Lito•
crease about 10 ercent across affect whether the plan is volun- �' . o1 a z a "" m e •
the region. • P tary or mandatory. , '�.' ID 'CD22
Mugler .said areas not in John Gaddis, a Longmont at- S t -.. C
cluded in the plan,such as Weld torney, said that Longmont his- o w p. m
and Elbert counties, could grow, torically has allowed develop- w 3 -
faster than they would oth ment to occur as long as devel- o •• o °' •th 13:' ° ta . _ N a
,erwise if communities within opers paid 100 percent of the p ^ ,
DRCOG;reach'their growth lim- . cost. The..Vision 2020 plan e-u '.
its before 2020. If that were to . changes that. "If we are going w ``w m o �,
I occur it Weld County, increas-• to change, are the assumptions o `o s o \ ,„. 7, I = a
ling numbers of people living '(in the city's existing com- • ra a , a.
there might use Longmont" prehensive•plan)" correct? Do t c ......
t streets'itand services butt:'pay; ;we need to adjust the mix of res- .c ro i„ =2,_. ?
taxes touWeld County.i They idential, commercial' and in- o o w • w N c c)co 445 y
might 1 drive to jobs m Long t dustrial property?" ' '. ni ' w, ;:n = ' ' w
mont4.,, afayette or_Boul'der„d})I.,Gaddi•s,said'thet community .,,. a -� ^* -N!.-w
thus contributing to air pollution needs to discuss how the Vision
problems. ' t , = IN 2020 document-changes the fu-
GRIFFITHS, TANOUE & LIGHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BLAKE STREET TERRACE TEL. (303)298-1601
1860 BLAKE STREET, SUITE 550 FAX(303)298-1627
DENVER, COLORADO 80202 E-MAIL sjlighi@ecentral.com
SAMUEL J.LIGHT
September 28, 1998 ,<< ) Cr
SEP 1 0 1998
Lee D. Morrison, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
Weld County Attorney' s Office
P.O. Box 1948
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Town of Firestone/South Weld County Land Use Plan IGA
Dear Lee:
The Firestone Town Board last Thursday approved the South Weld
County Land Use Plan IGA. For you reference, I am forwarding a
copy of the Board Resolution approving the IGA, and four original
signature pages for the Town.
Our office can obtain and provide to you original signature pages
for Dacono, upon its approval of the IGA. Perhaps your office
could obtain and distribute signature pages for Weld County, Erie
and Frederick as each of those entities approves the IGA.
If you have any questions, please contact me .
Sincerely,
GRIFFI S, TANOUE & LIGHT, P.C.
By:
Sa uel J. Ligh
SJL: \
cc: Trudy Peterson, Town Clerk/Administrator, w/o enc .
Bruce Nickerson, Town Planner, w/enc .
092599/1111[sjllc:Fireston\We1dIGA.ltr
4 ` Mov, ActMEMORANDUM
III TO: Weld County Planning Commission May 26, 1998
COLORADO From: Monica Daniels-Mika Director
SUBJECT: Southern Weld Area Land Use Plan
In December of 1996 the Weld County Commissioners, in conjunction with mayors from
Dacono, Firestone and Frederick, signed an interim intergovernmental land use agreement. As
part of this agreement each community committed itself to the development of a Southern Weld
Area Land Use Plan.
According to 3.1 of the IGA the plan would contain three issues:
1. Specific land use standards for each municipality's urban growth boundary area,
2. Procedures for county coordination with each municipality in the review and
approval process for proposed development and,
3. Procedures and guidelines relating to the annexation of lands,.. All for the
achievement of the purposes stated in the IGA (section one).
The Department of Planning Services' staff has reviewed this plan and finds that it does meet
the intent of Section 3.1 of the IGA.
igaplan
Dacono❖ Firestone ❖ Frederick ❖ Weld County
Intergovernmental Agreement Issues Group
1) GINNY BUCZEK Firestone
P.O. Box 154
Firestone, Co. 80520
(303) 833-4366
FAX: (303) 833-4863
2) CHARLIE KLARICH At large
P.O. Box 929
Brighton, Co. 80601
(303) 637-1202
3) JOHN FOLSOM Weld County
7050 Loma Linda Court
Longmont, Co. 80504
(303) 833-2992
FAX: (303) 833-2992
4) MARY GAVIN Dacono
1216 MacJames Court
Dacono,Co. 80514
(303) 833-2781
FAX: (303) 572-7527
5) PAT KELLEY Frederick
P.O. Box 10
Frederick, Co. 80530
(303) 833-3790
6) KEN ONORATO Firestone
P.O. Box 205
Firestone, Co. 80520
(303) 833-2535
7) IVA RENNER Dacono
P.O. Box 115
Dacono, Co. 80514
(303) 833-3835
8) ERNIE ROWE Frederick
8430 Rowe Place
Longmont, Co. 80504
(303)776-6173
FAX: (303) 776-6173
9) VIRGINIA(GINNY) SHAW Weld County
1435 Weld County Road 16 Y:
Longmont, Co. 80504
(303) 772-1297
FAX: (303) 833-2992
Dacono❖ Firestone Frederick ❖ Weld County
POLICY GROUP
RICK PATTERSON LINDA STEIPEN ED TAGLIENTE
Mayor of Firestone Mayor of Dacono Mayor of Frederick
Town Hall City Hall Town Hall
(303) 833-3291 (303) 833-2317 (303) 833-2388
BARBARA KIRKMEYER MONICA DANIELS-MIKA SHANI EASTIN
County Commissioner Director of Planning Current Planner
Weld County Weld County Weld County
(970) 356-4000 ext. 4200 (970) 353-6100 ext. 3540 (970)353-6100 3540
DON SANDOVAL
Department of Local Affairs
State of Colorado
(970) 679-4501
Consultants:
COMMUNITY MATTERS, INC /CLARION ASSOCIATES
Steve Hebert and Stephanie Bakken
2329 West Main Street, Suite 201
Littleton, Co. 80120
(303) 730-0397
May 11, 1998
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DACONO-FIRESTONE-FREDERICK-ERIE-
WELD COUNTY IGA
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:
I] as stated in the Interim Coordinated 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 planning, 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 the true scope of the IGA project is not forgotten, and that
this agreement is only another step in an continuing process.
John S. Folsom
IGA3.doc
o IC__
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
May 5, 1998
Monica Daniels-Mica
Director, Weld County Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley CO 80631
Subject: IGA standards open house
I am in receipt of your memorandum of 4/28/98 advising of an open house to
discuss the standards proposed for the Weld-Tri-Town IGA. I assume that IGA
Issues Committee members will be provided with a draft of these standards in
advance of the meeting for study. Only in this way may there be an intelligent,
fruitful discussion and positive input into evaluation of the proposals.
Verrtruly uursy
o `Folsom
PC: Weld County Council
Weld ounty Pan •
ning Dept.
0!
MAY 1998
a"
Weld County Planning Dept.
MAY 1 91998
RECEIVED May 15, 1998
Ms.Monica Daniels-Mika
Director, Department of Planning
1400 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Monica:
I want to take this time to thank you for selecting me to be a member of the Issues
group for the IGA group in the Tri-Town area. While I enjoyed working on the
committee and found it very educational, I did find some concerns. I have enclosed a
copy of a letter sent to the Farmer& Miner Newspaper regarding my thoughts of the new
IGA document. I hope you will include it with the presentation of this document before
the Planning Commission and Commissioners.
I hope you will try to understand why I have these concerns.
Thank ou,
7X
• Virginia "Ginn" Shaw
1435 Weld County Rd. 16-1/2
Longmont, Colorado 80504
Ph: (303) 772-1297
May 15, 1998
Mr. Michael Nielsen
do Farmer& Miner
204 Oak
Frederick, Colorado 80530
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
RE: LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Last Tuesday, May 12, the final draft of the IGA(Intergovernmental Agreement)
between Dacono, Firestone, Frederick, Erie and Weld County was presented in its final
form at the Frederick Administration Building.
This agreement was the result of a six month study which was set up by the
County with the help of a hired consultant to: (1) derive a set of consistent baseline
standards and regulations among the communities in the area to ensure quality
development and (2) establish greater coordination within the unincorporated areas
surrounding these municipalities.
There were two committees: (1) being the Issue group, made up of two appointed
delegates from each of the communities, plus two appointees from unincorporated Weld
County and a member-at-large, and (2) a Policy committee made up of elected officials
plus from the municipalities, plus a Weld County Commissioner, and members of the
Planning Department. With the exception of the introductory meeting, each group met
separately.
Being a delegate from the issues group (for the unincorporated part), we did bring
the concerns from the unincorporated areas at each meeting. One of our concerns from
the unincorporated part was that of a desire to see the municipalities work with the
County on establishing areas of open space which could be kept in true agricultural
production as buffers between our municipalities. We brought forth suggestions on how
this could be accomplished, such as purchase of development rights, discouraging flagpole
annexations, working with lottery monies and organizations such as American Farmland
Trust.
With the completion of the final document, however, the first issue of establishing
a set of baseline standards was done and presented quite well. However, in the 2nd part
of the mission statement -- in that of working with the County's unincoporated areas, we
feel our concerns were not addressed in this document.
Why, then did they want delegates on this Issue group from the County if they
were not going to address their concerns?
With the boundaries of these municipalities & MUD Area around 100 sq. miles in
size (not including Longmont to the West, and Erie to the South), are we to sit here and
watch our agricultural ground be swallowed up with development and not try to do
anything about it? If we do not start programs soon, it will be too late to do so.
I agree with Mr. John Folsom (who also sat on this committee as a member from
the unicorporated part of the County), that we need to re-read the goals from the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan:
"Section 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 history....
A. Policy 1.1 The County should consider various methods of agricultural
land preservation techniques...."
Let's review this document, and ask if we should include revision that reflect a true
section of this part of the County, not just the municipalities. We CAN find ways to
preserve and protect our agricultural heritage, and give that farmer or rancher who needs
to sell another alternative to that of development -- and keep the compensation for that
ground equal to that of development.
Thank you,
Virginia"Ginny" Shaw
1435 Weld County Rd. 16-1/2
Longmont, Colorado 80504
cc: Monica Daniels-Mica, Weld County Planning Department
Weld County PlanniflwE Ptma Linda ct.
Longmont CO 80504
�� 1 ]Q9303 833 2992
May 8, 1998
Board of Weld County Commissioners
P O Box 758 REC
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 alternate 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 Larimer 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 my letter of January 28, 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.
Very truly yours,
John S. Folsom 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
Neld County PlanningDept.
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
MAY 1 9 ?°98 Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
_ ay 12, 1998
Board of Weld County Commissioners
P 0 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: /y
1] as stated in the Interim Coordinated Lan Use Plan 3.0, a comprehensive development
plan authorized by C.RS. 29-20-105 `Tor the purposes of planning and regulating the
development of land, including but not limited to the joint exercise of planning, 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
goals from the Weld County Comprehensive Plan:
"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 S. 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
WELD COUNTY
To the Editor; Farmer& Miner 10/10/97
1597 DEC -2 MI 9: LI2
COMMENTS ON WELD COUNTY'S ag., IN THE FREDERICK Weld County Planning Dept.
{
ANNEXATIONS ALONG 1-25 ANip( ff2 r.RD
The October 8, 1997 edition of the Farmer&Miner had an article entitled"Weld DECi
comments on Frederick annexations". What follows are some comments on these 3 1997
• comments, relying for their content on the newspaper report.
1. The contiguous properties with a lot size smaller than what the county requires for a
building permit [one must infer they mean to build a dwelling] only have to annex the
property to Frederick with proper zoning and this difficulty is overcome.
2. The problem is not so much that both Firestone and Frederick have annexed land
along WCR20 as that the county arbitrarily petitioned to annex WCR20 to Firestone
while most of the land along the road had not been annexed to either town. Without this
interference that portion of the road contiguous to land as it was annexed,to say
Frederick, would also have been annexed to Frederick at that time. The road would have
been improved to, and access permitted by,Frederick standards without the possible
hostility of another town that controls the road complicating this process.
The County's concern about the availability of water to the area seems unfounded in that
there exist, as of November 1996, an 18"main that extends to WCR22 and I-25 with an
interconnect to another water district's mains across I-25,and another main to the
junction of WCRs20 and 15 of at least that size. Sanitary sewer facilities can provided by
either the St. Vrain or Weld Co. Tri Area Sanitation Districts whose treatment plants are
not at capacity, with the former already having mains to WCR22 and a proposed main
past WCR20. Water shares needed for development can be provided by dedicating shares
already owned by the landowners to the town or district or by purchase of needed shares
on the open market.
4. The County's advise to point out to new property owners in developments that they are
moving into an agricultural area to avoid future odor, dust, herbicide, insecticide
complaints and litigation is pretty much standard procedure now.
5. It is interesting that the County is now so concerned with"adequacy of the [annexation
impact] report when in previous annexations to another municipality a report that fell far
short of meeting statutory requirements was not commented on by the county until this
was brought to their attention by a citizen and the county has permitted annexation of its
own land without any timely impact report at all being submitted or the County issuing a
waiver of same.
6. The statement was made according to the newspaper article that"several of the
annexed properties are located inside the Weld County Mixed Use Development[MUD]
area, and will need to conform to MUD development standards and land use
designations". According to the county's structural land use map 2.1 and Frederick's
Land Use&Public Facilities map 1996 substantially the same areas are designated for
commercial/industrial and residential zoning on both'maps.Regarding the use of word
"need"above, if used in the sense of "must", my understanding is that the county's input
into a municipality's development standards is advisory and there is no"need"for the
municipality to conform to the MUD standards.
7. The proposed four lane road mentioned will be in a flood plain as delineated on county
map 4.7 so that its alignment whenever, and if constructed is in doubt. Wetland and
other issues will have to be addressed to determine where the road can actually be built.
iatr>g MEMORANDUM
Igoe To:
: IGA Committee Members April 28, 1998
COLORADO From: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Department of Planning Services
Subject: IGA Standards
There will be an open house to discuss the standards for the IGA, on Tuesday, May 12, 1998.
The meeting will be held at the Frederick Town Hall from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
If you have any questions, please call Monica at 970-353-6100, Ext. 3540.
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
W �. TO: Weld County Planning Commission May 26, 1998
COLORADO From: Monica Daniels-Mika Director
SUBJECT: Southern Weld Area Land Use Plan
In December of 1996 the Weld County Commissioners, in conjunction with mayors from
Dacono, Firestone and Frederick, signed an interim intergovernmental land use agreement. As
part of this agreement each community committed itself to the development of a Southern Weld
Area Land Use Plan.
According to 3.1 of the IGA the plan would contain three issues:
1. Specific land use standards for each municipality's urban growth boundary area,
2. Procedures for county coordination with each municipality in the review and
approval process for proposed development and,
3. Procedures and guidelines relating to the annexation of lands,.. All for the
achievement of the purposes stated in the IGA (section one).
The Department of Planning Services' staff has reviewed this plan and finds that it does meet
the intent of Section 3.1 of the IGA.
igaplan
1 , -
-- nn .*4 - : .r=
1 ' " •• 1 "T"
.94111ZrA97 d ‘li g ".
. .,
1 drtt„ Iiihr.ite _„tiphili r I, vi g , or,' • .t: , ^ "th- „t,.,.., c, s,
•
it. -•I- --;
1:111.. t" ll' I ' lel !lint717? .,, , LI.. , * r' 1 1 I
- z ;•,:i R 1 - -- i.---1 - i ' --or: .1---- ,----r---- -
in I A
et i
1.. I c1'‘‘ is. //c', : V 1 .„,,J." v —.......4— -7r-s -' v..
I . 41/4, -, v :‘. Li-, •,:.,.'\'' \N,;\ /1% / % 't -,N , , , ''
--1,?, --.. fr ,_ ti, ) :, 1\'‘‘,..>\\>„.. it".%''i;.;\\c‘N‘l"\`k, : %,..%/2:7"'"; `A,'N‘k,\\• t 7:1 i r" I.:. '
., I -,- A g i - , ,i1 :` ..'1,r;,a ; In „4 It.
, - 4( . m gii, :z,.., p ...N
— Te0 r90 ,
/Thi4 0. e ', .,- y. - ,,,'
ID-- %Ate&re,re rr r tjir 0 (2. S'' 7,*11.cit, %‘PI •1 1',C) . I ,,.1-1 Y W' L. ' , #4L t 17. , •11 A
" •
,roCerc-, ';,..4„.: 157/40:0111., If. C 6 )ti,, .... , ;,..,i t •I I a e i ,-Iti yrieddrir ?' O.
,_ i, , I - 2 , 4e , *-5 , ‘..,4 ' 0`. 4 111'
' It ilt" ,r• ‘e,.A47 '•h** d,reeiA,,,, ,•i.'11..,„?.; ,
.j-r41
f I a, t. 1r .=i . 4" f
I , _,, • , ,. ;4,1 „, , zese.,0 ,,- , - , L.
, •
._.
lit
- < i 14 - Lag 11 0 a n- 1 ' r- A Ft I '
g "I r> = i r, z e = -4 k
ft
i— — — — — —
Hello