Dry Creek decision gets continuation until February

By Steve Smith
Posted 8/31/10

    GREELEY – The Weld County comprehensive plan won’t be changing its looks any time soon.    The Weld County board of commissioners voted to continue the Dry …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Don't have an ID?

Print subscribers

If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.


Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.

If you made a voluntary contribution in 2022-2023 of $50 or more, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access includes access to all websites and online content.

Our print publications are advertiser supported. For those wishing to access our content online, we have implemented a small charge so we may continue to provide our valued readers and community with unique, high quality local content. Thank you for supporting your local newspaper.

Dry Creek decision gets continuation until February


    GREELEY – The Weld County comprehensive plan won’t be changing its looks any time soon.

   The Weld County board of commissioners voted to continue the Dry Creek regional urbanization area case until Feb. 23. The decision came after an eight-hour hearing Aug. 23.

    The deputy clerk to the board, Esther Gesick, said the commissioners wanted to wait for the outcome of some issues on the November ballot. That may require the applicant, Todd Creek Metropolitan District, to redesign the plan. It originally called for the redesign of more than 2,000 acres and construction of almost 6,600 homes. The district also runs the Todd Creek North development west of Brighton.

    Gesick also said the extra time would allow the district additional time to work on some terms of the various intergovernmental agreements “and work to involve more of the property owners in the process.”

    “I suggested the six months’ continuation for the Dry Creek RUA,” Weld County Commissioner Doug Rademacher said. “I thought it would be fair to give the applicant time to address the concerns brought at the last hearing. They have spent a considerable amount of time and money to get to this point. It’s not often we consider this type of land use change. It deserves a through vetting.”

    Commissioner Sean Conway said one area of concern for him was conflicting testimony from members of the Fort Lupton City Council. Fort Lupton was to provide sewer service to the project, according to the application. However, the majority of city council is opposed to the plans.

    The council pointed out the existence of three intergovernmental agreements. One is in place between the city and Weld County. One is with the developer to handle wastewater. One is with the city of Brighton that restricts the city’s ability to annex land south of Weld County Road 6.

   “I do not believe the RUA proposal before you meets the spirit or the intent of any of the IGAs the city has in place,” said copies of the letter signed by Councilpersons David Norcross, Deborah Yates, Bob McWilliams and Shannon Crespin. “I do not believe the RUA will be in the best interest of the city of Fort Lupton. I also believe that the RUA will have a negative impact on future economic development within Fort Lupton.”

    Mayor Tommy Holton is in favor of the plan. Councilman Chris Cross prefers the “wait-and-see” approach.”

    “I don’t have all the information,” Cross said. “I didn’t participate in that letter. I’m not sure what information they have. They can speak for themselves. Hopefully, we can work something out to have a (sewer) line up there. Then if they want to annex, they can with that line.”

    Councilperson Zo Hubbard was not available for comment.

    “We are pleased that the Weld County commissioners extended the Dry Creek RUA matter for six months,” Brighton Mayor Dick McLean said. “Our main concern is that we do not have an IGA with them as we do have with Todd Creek. Hopefully in the next six months, we can work with them to get a mutually satisfactory agreement.”

    The RUA case almost wasn’t continued. Three of the five commissioners – Conway, Barbara Kirkmeyer and Doug Rademacher – were ready to vote the proposal down during a preliminary poll. Before the marathon hearing, Kirkmeyer said the plan was “nothing but a residential development, and residential growth does not pay its own way.”

    However, Commissioner David Long made the motion to continue the case. Four of the five commissioners approved.


Our Papers

Ad blocker detected

We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.

The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.