The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20083154.tiff EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case - O STREET ARTERIAL CORRIDOR STUDY Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description A. Joe and Helen Lohnes Letter of Concern, dated 09/17/2008 B. Judy Firestien E-mail of Concern, dated 11/06/2008 C. Judy Firestien E-mail of Concern, dated 11/06/2008 D. Gail Coleman Letter of Support, dated 11/06/2008 E. John Revard E-mail of Support, dated 11/07/2008 F. Gayle and George Doering E-mail of Opposition, dated 11/07/2008 G. Ken and Kathy Schraeder E-mail of Opposition, dated 11/07/2008 H. Judy Firestien Letter, dated 11/10/2008, and accompanying photos, articles, website comments, and correspondence I. Teresa Brunner Letter of Opposition, dated 11/09/2008 J. George and Joyce Tooley Letter of Opposition, dated 11/06/2008 K. Cheryl Stimson E-mail of Opposition, dated 11/13/2008 L. Judy Firestien Letter, dated 11/13/2008 M. Kathy Moore E-mail of Concern, dated 11/14/2008 N. Beverlee Allison Letter of Concern, dated 11/13/2008 O. David Frye E-mail of Concern, dated 11/16/2008 P. Attorney Melvin Dinner Map of Recorded Exemption #2802 Q. Attorney Melvin Dinner Map of Subdivision Exemption #833 R. Attorney Melvin Dinner Photos of the Firestien's residences S. Attorney Melvin Dinner Map of Alignment Alternatives for intersection of 83rd Ave and O Street T. Attorney Melvin Dinner Map of Corridor Alternatives U. Attorney Melvin Dinner Map of Draft Preferred Alternative V. Attorney Melvin Dinner Intersection Evaluation Rankings for 83rd Ave W. Attorney Melvin Dinner Corridor Evaluation Rankings X. Vecchi and Associates Large Vicinity Map for Parsons mining project Y. Pam Frye Map depicting service line for Sharkstooth Pipeline Z. Judy Firestien Petition of Opposition dated 09/04/08 and signatures from 2005 M. Public Works Staff Copy of PowerPoint Presentation BB. Curtis and Kathy Rickart Letter of Concern, dated 11/17/2008 CC. Wilbert and Viola Gebhardt Letter of Concern, dated 11/10/2008 DD. Lisa Antuna Letter of Concern, dated 11/05/2008 EE. Andrea Vitullo E-mail of Opposition, dated 12/01/2008 FF. Doreen Warrender E-mail of Opposition, dated 12/01/2008 GG. Dewayne Dill E-mail of Opposition, dated 12/01/2008 HH. Judy Firestien E-mail Letter from Michelle Podtburg, dated 11/30/2008 I I. Judy Firestien Greeley Tribune Article, dated 11/18/2008 JJ. Leisa Todd E-mail of Opposition, dated 12/05/2008 KK. Judy Stevens and Regan Romero E-mail of Opposition, dated 12/06/2008 LL. Pamela ? E-mail of Opposition, dated 12/07/2008 MM. Judy Firestien Petition of Opposition, dated 12/05/2008 NN. OO. PP. QQ. Esther Ges[ck From: Joe and Helen Lohnes [bacachr@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:03 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Dear egesick: If you don't have a copy of this letter, please add it to the file. Many thanks! Joe & Helen Lohnes ################################################################################# September 17, 2008 Dear Commissioner Long: Thank you for the opportunity to contact you. We live on "O" Street, just 7/10 of a mile east of 83rd Avenue, on the south side. I think we are the only place on "O" Street where the barrow pit is planted with perennials, sprayed for weeds, mowed and maintained by the adjacent owner (me) . The pending `improvement' (widening) of "O" Street scares us and all of our neighbors! We have attended the hearing and heard the spiels and pitches; it seems that the planners already had their minds made up. When we bought our property, we had no idea that aggregate mining, traffic and the resulting "O" Street `study' would lead to a highly-likely outcome. Likewise, when we bought our property, our plans were to live there and enjoy the property until it became too much (maintenance) to keep up with; then we would sell the property and move to something smaller. In essence, our home/property was an investment that would help provide for our retirement years. A realtor friend has told us that the "O Street improvement" will reduce/impact the sale and sale price of our property by as much as 1/3 to 1/2. Please put yourself into our shoes. How would you feel if you and your property were facing the same situation? Would you be pleased and excited or scared and apprehensive? I would like to believe that elected officials listen to the voices and concerns of their constituents, but I am not convinced that they do. Before this plans goes forward, we and the other folks on "O" Street need specific, written assurances, addressing our concerns and affirming that we will be treated fairly, and honestly -- the same things that you would want if you were living here. Please give this considerable thought and do some serious soul searching. After that, please discuss this issue with your fellow commissioners. Please feel free to respond by email, letter or phone. EXHIBITRespectfully, 2008-3154 11.17jt---- Joe and Helen Lohnes /y 1 13804 WCR #64 ("O" St) Greeley, CO 80631 970.352.3591 2 Esther Gesick From: Esther Gesick Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:30 PM To: 'Judy.Firestien@slbbi.com' Cc: Wayne Howard Subject: FW: "O"Street Extention Ms. Firestien, Your e-mail has been received and will be added to the Commissioners' file as an Exhibit for consideration at the public input hearing scheduled for Monday, November 17, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970)356-4000 X4226 (970)352-0242 (fax) Original Message From: Wayne Howard Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:08 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: "G" Street Extention Wayne Howard, P.E. County Engineer - CIP P.O. Box 758, Greeley, CO 80632 Tele - 970.304.6496, 3788 Fax - 970.304.6497 Original Message From: Judy Firestien [mailto:Judy.Firestien@slbbi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:25 AM To: gene@what-wire.com Cc: Dave Long; County Council; Wayne Howard Subject: RE: "O" Street Extention Dear Councilman Stille, Thank you for your response to my letter to the Weld County Council. I am very appreciative of the time you took to respond. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I have sent numerous email messages to the Weld County Commissioners and have never received a response from any of the members; not even an automated message merely telling me the email was received. I am glad to hear that you talked with Wayne Howard. I'm sure you received much of the same information we have been given or have collected through the open house processes. If I could ask you two additional questions, I would be very interested in knowing what the current answers are to the following: 1. What are the time constraints? During the time period between April and October of this year, we have received time estimates for the beginning of the project which vary from 1-2 years to 5, 10, 15 and even 20-25 years in the future. I would be very interested, especially at this point in time, to understand what the current time frame is for this project. As you might imagine, it is difficult, and rather unfair to us in trying to plan our lives, not knowing when this project might actually impact us and our property. As I was writing this letter, I received notice of the public MAXIM" hearing before the Commissioners. I imagine this question might be answered by the study, but I would like to know what information you were given. y � r 1 3k 2. Who are these entities and what are their concerns? I would like to know more about the concerns of these entities. We were initially told the lead agency on the project was Weld County. In April, Wayne Howard told us he would do all he could to not take our homes. The next information we were presented with was the "preferred route" which travels directly through our homes; destroying both of them. In wayne's defense, he was the only representative from Weld County on the evaluation panel. Four of the seven members of the panel were from Greeley. This seems to be a very unbalanced evaluation panel. We would like to know who is really driving this project; it seems to be the City of Greeley. In relation to this, what are the concerns of Greeley, Weld County and Windsor? We would like to know why Greeley thinks this road is so important. In September, Commissioner Dave Long was interviewed by Channel 7 News and made the statement that the alignment that was to be presented to the Commissioners had changed and that Public Works would be presenting the southern route for the Commissioners' approval. Again, as I was writing this letter to you, the study report became available for review on the Weld County website. I was quite surprised and disappointed to see that the recommendation of the study is the straight alignment that would destroy both of our homes. The southern route receives mention that "it should not be entirely dismissed" . This is hardly the recommendation for the southern route that I would have expected. I have requested an explanation from Commissioner Long of the discrepancy between his statement and the information that now appears in the O Street study report. I would appreciate any assistance you might be able to provide with regard to this. I agree with your statement that "we all need to work together to ensure this great county of Weld is well managed where we can raise our families with the quality of life we enjoy" . I am not against progress. I just feel it needs to be well managed, as you said. It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many others, that the O Street extension is not being managed well and represents poor planning with regard to the impacts on the Poudre River corridor and private property owners. I strongly urge you to encourage the Commissioners to consider other alternatives. Once again, Councilman Stille, I appreciate your time. You had my vote for re-election to the County Council. I was disappointed to see you were not re-elected. Thank you for the efforts you have given to the Council thus far and for your efforts throughout the rest of this year. Best wishes with your endeavors beyond the Council. Best regards, Judy Firestien Original Message From: gene@what-wire.com [mailto:gene@what-wire.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:15 AM To: judy.firestien@slbbi.com Cc: dlong@co.weld.co.us; countycouncil@co.weld.co.us; whoward@co.weld.co.us Subject: "O" Street Extention To: Judy Firestien From: Gene Stille Weld County Council Thank you for your recent correspondence to the council regarding the "O" Street Extention. And as you indicated in your letter, you have communicated these concerns to the Weld County Commissioners. The Weld County Council is charged with the reviewing of all aspects of the county government. And we certainly do invite you to inform the council of your concerns. 2 You have very succintly explained your position on the Extention of "O" Street past 83rd Avenue. I have discussed this concern with the county engineer, Mr. Wayne Howard, of whom you are familiar, to get a feel for this entire project and how the county will/has address/ed the issues that you stated. Such as: *The Weld County Comprehensive Plan; ag related, *Historisity of the area, *American Rivers, *Department of Wildlife, *Poudre Learning Center, and *The Poudre Trai Corridor. Whenever an opportunity arises, the Engineering office of Public Works must address "Purpose and Need" such as the "O" Street Extention. You may view this plan on the County website at www.co.weld.co.us Public Works Engineering and click on the report "Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. " You also have a good web site at www.stopostreet.com with a considerable amount of information. In addition to my discussion with Mr. Howard, I went to these sites for information. I did have some questions for Mr. Howard of which they were answered to my satisfaction. For example: *What are the alternatives? *What are the alternate routes? *What are the costs to the above? *What are the time constraints (e.g. when to fund, when to start, time frames for other entities) ? *Who are these entities and what are their concerns (Windsor, Greely, & Weld County) ? *Projected traffic counts? *Property owner's concerns? and *What are other issues, such as aggregate mining, power lines, and residential and commercial development? Since the council has no vote in approving or not approving the "O" Street Extention, it is important that we understand the issues and make known where we stand at the proper time which may be 5 to 25 years from now. I sincerely believe the Weld County Commissioners, Public Works, and the Engineering department will make every effert to make the best decisions. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns to the council. We all need to work together to ensure this great county of Weld is well managed where we can raise our families with the quality of life we enjoy. Sincerely, Gene Stille Councilman, District 1 Weld County Council 3 Esther Gesick From: Esther Gesick Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:34 PM To: 'Judy.Firestien@slbbi.com' Cc: Wayne Howard Subject: FW: O Street Alignment Study Ms. Firestien, Your e-mail has been received and will be added to the Commissioners' file as an Exhibit for consideration at the public input hearing scheduled for Monday, November 17, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970)356-4000 X4226 (970)352-0242 (fax) Original Message From: Wayne Howard Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:09 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: O Street Alignment Study Wayne Howard, P.E. County Engineer - CIP P.O. Box 758, Greeley, CO 80632 Tele - 970.304.6496, 3788 Fax - 970.304.6497 From: Judy Firestien [mailto:Judy.Firestien@slbbi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:10 AM To: Dave Long Cc: Wayne Howard; Jeff.Dankenbring@FHUENG.COM Subject: O Street Alignment Study Gentlemen, I have reviewed the O Street Alignment Study as posted on the Weld County website. I was quite surprised to find that the "recommendation" , that I assume will be presented to the Weld County Commissioners, is the straight alignment (yellow alignment) that destroys both of the Firestien homes at the intersection of O Street and 83rd Avenue. The southern route (blue alignment) receives mention that it "should not be entirely dismissed" . This is hardly the recommendation for the southern route that I expected. Commissioner Long, you stated in an interview with Channel 7 News in September that, "the southern route is the recommendation that Public Works is going to put forward to us" . In addition, you also said in a recent article in the Greeley Tribune that "public comments are still being taken and more public hearings will be conducted before the proposal comes before commissioners" . A few days after the Tribune article appeared, we received notice the hearing had been scheduled. Commissioner Long, I would certainly appreciate an explanation of the discrepancies between your statements and the information that appears in the O Street Study Report. I would also appreciate an update on exactly what will be presented at the public hearing on November 17 for approval by the Commissioners. EXHIBIT I look forward to your prompt response. Thank you. y, 1 "0" Sincerely, Judy Firestien Link to Channel 7 News coverage: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/17499940/ chttp://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?rCSmkTXzD4PoOapfQfwp- dyuMxV_bUpAxZsh7c6zAQsCzBy-6XZuXPPbX3PypKVIhrgbsXafQDbUOGxVOxbBPPEVopvdEFFLCzAQsEI9FCQS3oo d4ONef_cQg2 lYyc5vxcQg34 SQ2NKvxYY1NJ4 Syrppj vKehhdBG5C> 2 1 EXHIBIT /` / "U 41' St SG,d ..� � ,7L C-/ t-h CY /, "✓ eV/ 6 '�sl rl 043'c3 ccr- 7" r - C-�nc-//. A.0,-57, C7,1cY en Yd 17 Qh e r (icy /GGk// - s'it ✓ ... re—d bCe D sr,.rey S/4.dy., _L , e//eUc )tll c °est CL(/-err rclt 71-4 b"e r~i d/S�.4'4 h e r /✓( 'ei nrn es�/c C5 .jlric c/F et/AA Eefely arc/ SS int( et/16 Li 2- milivt4-7 ... IA., / r f/' c /Jts/ _!/P�hc-Yr c z "V C° ccru r G_V 13 rJ've n.z> .neLticr 'iGw sit& hr /( b4 ce s /y tssc-t-e hcc « 7� r cur /l erlc fc�c lly �� ce Sir✓ /to AA cam` 7us ... /471-er -a rGn - Zcq l4 on C ,sc7rci A7 re,/ J e't / h anci et be c_ /4 S1/20 s� e�J ��s45 r / tit tic(a n c� Cc �Cur/N r ti-c /In`-rt S e e;,,/j 7%< 45 4/- e t J`"�i4 rt., c ron ?tA �� F3 re) Gar/( adb-c casezz I-er5iet- al. 2 le/Li—s )-cp / //G/1-A ie Sec-tk 74 is i it t'r-r's click. cit.gr S c e /4 ec:-s c'-n-- /4 c g ea.- dtztA l 2e.ak Cd c ec2`re4 . 4 90 c /r z .$eeA`ran v, /l `✓c 7k. h est. 7C- S� y es c/��{ as ‘V.1 /5 c r,oo:n a d acs sdsc �y r fk-ert[elitc 'c / a cS -c t4 j 7 -9L t -yrese..-Ate,es G/ /be c pzn koc xQ 71-6 A/ is rf�ert t n c /et -C,etd- r den. at 771-€ (c1, ‘.4'a / f3 /9-,jt ,5-(.7c54-c 1y /7/74c-etcc r-u 0 c-. e„ '/77e _e Jeri 64 ,' er'tL SrCL--1CA erc's rig ae f'3 Qc c wr < r i( roe d frc.rfk (/pert,. (d 4, a/bin t /mpo5'si h/e .4, ,7Llri.c.S i'/l'� one-ni) anal / d r- i(7 4 c A95.- (�-ac eciitk LF-3 4o.< he,2 y/an, $ 0 S7 c.t /5-eelie , /4n- , , 7-0( e 4�/�� It/ 1--ilc ✓ net 4Jl Nt 77 �/r c %/l C/o /,✓v eAi nv r©4 l5 mss' Pie Fie ccsj n5 e✓r/( Aetc,-c 7 do if they CPf-c /16,x... L[ / r--c y e, ¢ 5-4 0✓so n o �ClJz ✓ i` L' C'/lf�,-,c�R �t / /az / '� r �Grn 5 c�. rGe�� c! G ✓ enroc/ 717 c /1Q—) �Gc'c /an , Dry 74-e, p/f.e-r,97- du / O c n ert6 cf © S t e. it in rx-e de-4 /tit S``ta,uYs,e.. F ✓ktK iG� f c/jet 7 e' 61 e i�u•7- an PM-15 et- ;// (lede7,4,_ 776 - 3OP/- 4FS'3,z_ /.2‘f2 s i %Ai E04-J 6«••"-cx Ca/U (5d63/ Esther Gesick From: john@rockyrecordsco.com Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:23 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: O Street Study I live on 'O' street and am in favor of the study and eventual extension of 'O' street. John Revard 31099 cr 41 Greeley, CO 80631 EXHIBIT E ,'d., sb , 1 Esther Gesick From: ggdoering@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 4:42 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Concerning "O"Street My husband, George, and I would like to voice our opposition to the plan that takes "O" Street through the homes of the Firestiens. I think people could just as easily drive a couple of miles to the north (Colorado 392) or to the south (US 34 Business) . It seems it would be cost effective to make a straight shot of 83rd Avenue and save the aforementioned homes as well as to avoid impacting the Poudre River Trail and the wildlife near the river. Thank you for considering our opinion. Gayle and George Doering Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse with the Games Toolbar - Download Now! <http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/? b3bdXZHCZASOOO_ssUCr0lHhXpCaDXO- bhGHmNVn4rTLuZNPUuyCyCgerIfTK7EFTKYyYCNvdGuizW4ED00VRGugSfrk_BY8WHZcgGowvnkelNa5F87uGuoZKy 5j4bTLuZXI6XZuXOUttcttwTSSh8E1-cE4g1Jj- ndITuudEFFK8Thpo7644joBm5Lz2k29Ewd4god4hEw69N_VCV-7PNo pgdECQj rbarZNOa9IsbC> EXHIBIT I F ,,, 1 Esther Gesick From: Ken and Kathy Schraeder[kenkathy@slbbi.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 7:15 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: O Street extension I would like to express my opinion on this O Street expansion idea. First I believe it is un-needed with highway 34 to the south and highway 392 to the north. O street would displace families from their homes and destroy wildlife habitat along the Poudre river. It would also take away from the beauty and quiet of the poudre corridor including the trail. It would be better to use the money to widen highway 392 and make turn off lanes to make that highway safer. O street is not a major road and it dead ends on the east at highway 85. Please consider improving the roads we already have instead of taking so much away from people and wildlife. Ken & Kathy Schraeder 31552 WCR 27 Greeley Co. 80631 (970) 674-9283 $a EXHIBIT �,ya . ' Sl 1 Judy Firestien 30951 Weld County Road 27 Greeley, Colorado 80631 970 686 2338 November 10, 2008 Esther Gesick Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street i Greeley, Colorado 80631 O ;r3 Re: O Street Arterial Corridor Study -(;) W '—i Dear Ms. Geisick, v lJ I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the O Street Arterial Corridor Study. In response to this notice, I would like to submit several items to be added to the Commissioners' file as an Exhibit for consideration at the public input hearing. Please find attached the following: Photos, Newspaper Articles, Television Coverage: 1. Photos of our homes with "Save our Homes" and "Stop O Street" signs posted. 2. "Residents Oppose O Street Expansion - Group Tries to Put Brakes on Road Plan". Greeley Tribune article written by Bill Jackson, dated 10/24/2008. 3. "O Street Opposition Gaining Support". Greeley Tribune Opinion Column by Judy Firestien, dated 10/9/2008. 4. "O Street expansion lacks good planning; hurting the environment". Letter to the Editor of the Greeley Tribune from Tad Stout, dated 9/19/2008. 5. "Family tries to save farm from highway". Link to the Channel 7 News coverage regarding the O Street extension which aired on 9/17/08: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/17499940/ 6. "Money for O Street Study Misspent". Letter to the Editor of the Greeley Tribune from David Frye, dated 9/17/2008. 7. "Residents working to address O Street expansion". Greeley Tribune Opinion Column by Ruth Firestien, dated 9/13/2008. EXHIBIT Page 1 of 3 Comments from Online Petitions: 8. Comments from the online petition regarding the O Street extension 9. Comments from the online petition regarding the Widening of O Street east of 83`d Avenue Correspondence to County Commissioners, County Council, County Engineer, and Consultant: 10. Email to Commissioner David Long, dated 11/6/08 regarding discrepancy between his statement and the study report recommendation. 11. Email to Wayne Howard and Jeff Dankenbring regarding study concerns, dated 11/9/08. 12. Email exchanges with County Councilman Gene Stille, 10/28 - 11/09/08. 13. Letter to Weld County Commissioners from Ruth Firestien, dated 9/29/2008. 14. Letter to Rob Masden, copy to Weld County Commissioners, from Judy Firestien, dated 7/17/2008. Articles which appeared in the Greeley Tribune in the summer of 2005 regarding the O Street extension: 15. "O Street plan: Warning Signals Ahead" 16. "O Street Woes: Progress means pain for farm family" 17. "County Roads are worth saving" 18. "All the memories that are a part of O Street should be considered" 19. "O Street extension plan is a bad idea" 20. "Highway plan will destroy precious farmland" Petition Signatures: I am still working to compile the written signatures. I will present the following signatures at the public hearing on November 17: 21. List of signatures from the online petition regarding the O Street extension 22. List of signatures from the online petition regarding the Widening of O Street east of 83`d Avenue 23. List of signatures from the written petition regarding the O Street extension 24. List of signatures from the written petition as gathered in 2005 when the O Street extension was first announced Page 2 of 3 Website: www.StopOStreet.com 25. A sampling of pages from the website. There has been quite a bit of interest as over 1,200 people have visited the site. Thank you for your time and attention to these items. Sincere Judy F restien cc: Commissioner David Long Commissioner Douglas Rademacher Commissioner Rob Masden Commissioner William Jerke Commissioner Bill Garcia Page 3 of 3 M et,.'„,::�` I, - e per- f '✓ r; f gg n pl.; ' • " . iti � < I • `f I. I it Ilk { f ti ry4 ,>_q. Ss mow• lr _ 1 :-.7,"44f..47- 1 2 T d.1//tli� y t; 1 f b. d - • ya.t. t . �V ��° ii :-. 4t: T . �� D 1( W R ' v T- }` fir. . " - .� • fPr, e 3 � rt { W ,-- ,,,,,,,,,,,„..!.;•",,*" � 1W' !%• �' yy i d 'C ' . , . te' ."4`'c . g.4--/ ��, V� ' i it" ) 9 I� 1�/ J 1 f'2M ' lai •^ Ij -ate t -.t ry. ' 1.. tz, i 3 i 1 " ems. ' , , ` :tRd .. V 4. S w • � ( � 'p ,l�.. 3, ac t 4S S7 . , • aij > Ys rtigg,, A.' .*mow '4` ^ 'D..,. -,.- '-,..R% ' 2-,j✓ y ,- a tt i Y 3 «RESIDENTS oppose 0 Street expansion GROUP r 1 11-�IES TO PElT BRAKES ON. ROAD PLA2 More than 200 people AJUD NC RUT have signed petition FIRE 577E By Bill Jackson stanc front bjackson@greeleytrtbane.com their S teve Heinle and several of his home t)01:11 on O neighbors northwest ofGrSey are Stree having a hard time figuring it out0 and E "Why should they bull through some- Avert'thing new when it would be cheaper to in we expand existing roads?"Heinike asked. Greer "This doesn't seem like a wise use of tax- when payer money." propc He is among a group of residents who road oppose a plan to extend O Street west ex par 83rd Avenue,to the southern part s-:-^ ,.. ,.,,"-a-",,...,...„...,/ J on r of Water Valley where it would connect could to Crossroads Boulevard. That expan- right Sion would provide another east-west throe route from Greeley to Interstate 25. W W.. tweet atoll their ! But Heinike and several others — proPe more than 2OO people have signed a :._...._..__.._._.. petition — question the need for the _...._.. ____ ___ _-,� JIM expansion. expansion. ' - ' ' RVnBq Colo.392,they point out,is just a mile t -i - iradewni or so north of the 5 'I tribungreeleY proposal.That high # MWnec way runs from U.S. ' � ."-4.--,i A. ' nj4'�, 85 through Windsor Information to I-25, while the and the U.S. 34 business Petition t t .a.r' route, slightly more expan nSthe s "�,.. .. than a mile to the a tweet is°f 4' , ' south, is being O5teeta j `" available at r ;.t,. expanded to four wwwstopo lanes and goes streetsom. directly from Gree . h , ley toI-25. ';s ni a� The expansion studybegan this sluing „• e & as ajoint effort between Greeley,Wind- _ y / ✓*--4l- sor and Weld County Two open houses 4 were conducted to get public comment. / 11 - a� k Weld County Commissioner Dave r Long said no decision has been made on .."! the expansion proposal.But because the - - area is in unincorporated Weld, it will come before the commissioners for a final decision.A date for the commissioners to hear the proposal has yet to be set, Long said,who added public comments are still being taken and more public Ruth Firestien has lived in her home tivi"'' ' z. "i" '3,= i+ hearings will be conducted before the for 56 years,while her daughter,Judy � � proposal comes before commissioners. recently returned to the home that has The 0 Sheet expansion woukl run through some Weld homes on os way to Crossroads Boulevard 0 Se Residents,he said,will be notified of been in the family for more than 7O wwend at83rdAvenue those public hearings. years. '51 "Another reality of this is that whatev- The proposal would expand the street ...`.-. - er is decided is not set in stone,"Long two lanes with the passibility of making - -- _ said. "We're looking at something at it four lanes.Either,however,will be dif • - buildout that might be five,10,15 or 2O ficult,said Ken Tigges,who farms just Fort years in the future. There are just so west of the Firestien homes. CS ' many variables,and future boards can- "They're going to have to go down to _ not be held to past actions." shale to build a road to handle that kind !_ That doesn't ease the concerns of Ruth of traffic. That's going to cost a lot of --- zs '° ®i and Judy Firestien,who live at the inter- money,"Tigges said.But for the past 1O i I _ _ _ p_5�'�..ti section of O Street and 83rd Avenue. years, Tigges, along with Tad Stout of l .g on the options presented,the Severance,who has a expansion could go made to their r biology tlottygy,degree from en Colorado ol orad S ping a wildlife ) ( r, 4 north or south of their homes. area,which the road would also dissect ,-_ "We understand the preferred route is r tt. s ,►gh through our homes on a straight line, or what we call the`Yellow Brick N CONTINUED - r-- — Road,'"Judy Firestien said. Ax O Street SANDRA MACHUCNsmachuses,lbuneA .� 2 ))#n ) r• e �a • . g'i- l2ew - * ./)\))$ NQ 2j$§ / oa%f § §]&e = i • b )i) ) .1•g {} Po ai ti* i Ehoo n 4" © )]5 �2 �- @ 2 ? - |«7) §« E®_%= 4 � t •r /| )/) § §)72 h I 421 b 2 ) / (\ ~j± ff ] a, 2 }-r �k /./\ g 4't• s),y4, a � 7 ? gr.e ^ "" 3 & 6\o\ ® °® \ N\ � °\ \\ \ �\�4 N.,'. .N.°^, N O O O' cu v .0ro -C y^O� Q ,.N"-a 0 w b• > N +� 2 N (ad Y W V] O rd N .2 11i ,7 L2 : U 5 yV� 0 Q ° y-g--1 R1 0 �! + t4 V �+i y� .N. u 0 O.b O 53,FW,i . p ,11 >, C a by o a +a w O .a'�N ti R-5 5 3c o g N cd 'W o 5 +°Na ^c ° ag^� 8 g gx 8 w."" i.C et ob'C rr- O° b E o w °o `V C O. �'C A,4- .`h C C O E.� N 0q. OyC °oi+ F0 `6.2 2E-I.- rs7O E•°' ° a-is cg' u -ate°)"' 3 m 571 a °.c o g o gig, � ai �a a ° Nw u v �8 O�a a° .o 00 8- .mow E u.° coLI) 8ao23-4b ,b "� � p.c doYoa ° $ wti [2 CL) WI ho , E0 „ Yv)ao 2a3 �� sa ° g4o' >w > N.°ca, o.E�4 o'�'O.��SCS o'�°U ea' ri -o a 4) Ea'rip v °. -R u u 5''' '�' '$ • N 3aarooaY'tg .� ▪ o $ o yd° �° O y N w .-� >,b ¢1�.' T d q b ad n ' G ® 'i+�d.1sm ° 0 Vii �+ ' a F o g °�❑ '3 0 0 8 d hp o ° • Y V apx E a� a i ° .`4 N cdW a .°. II tg ed mew ❑ tobam o�Y g SC..N. Ob9i+-- 3 W OcQy G C4 �''d y U a .. t) 2n No r0 0.2A ub °° r. oa ° v a ° o Nrc .ctlN �V daoib3 x " 8 IlULIl ° 8Z ❑g ›zoo ov ' N + arrr�� • Ey'°�A o5 I E c m rL8m ° q 'c acu � a , . Ciao J03 n«"I0cob.9o ° ° e °17)14 >) id I "ga8 d tc'izv u3 i a orn Y',� bAf", ° „ °'+, No `� Fo .c m HOC ] WC (c a, �+'a) td Vi a)a v ,c c pp a) N.I C C U m Y + • � bb aC'e� o-y ▪ CaH � 'rc ,bO Qy8 . a�VUaNi � v � OCnu O � y N C o O O Y% O U C X,'C „turf) (4 ad >,ai_. it [','� +, C C '+al N a, bu° a ° m $ ° ° �ONNW .4.. „1-, ° o UEv)-om mm 3 ® gt° ° #e a °Nom ° Y aU� ° + 8'� a ° oaf > oa N3s_ v0iYuSLec in a m-0 3 N p ti 3 p a N O bq a rr O Er_ 0 ++ N D'p V.� °y � o c ch pow a¢� a �Q '- 0 > nm v0E < ° a�H °A'2 0 o c�> v o 8^ ❑ ° q a O m o o 8 ar o ,, 0 c.,./8 Or y r�-I H Y b� H. >a ria..-�b A td 'N 3 lllj N'J o f,L' N Y U D n C 2 N 8± Y O C...>.. 3 51.5 a'Z a>>, g d E� a) i �' , .. w g i a) a� p TS m ° 5bo° ° 3} C N 0° a o08 Co." H 19 10 ON r ;. tv°� YI z fiuu N V• C. oo ' ' . 'y aFi p,� h-I ;113.-- • Y O 2 ' N .•21....= o 4° 8 � °x a tai aFdabp °: v-134 ax`° EA'^�.c o'er >u•^ '� a'abo'b�h � i. 2.-'. .' 4 O Y M W COY Y ed 'J a .ay a�7 . 814' °'LZ N.C _ I Y Y m U MCC v]1--.,G m ad .b O 1.7 C 14 ° C y � Co ^ �� d ab°p-oodda> $ � ° rdma.� � o'Cgoo W 0CWCgG1.,4Cat clod bbaia.i3 ° 0 'sO ,cg r''G Ga A, b U.d.'G ° oho 5 › m "''° °°gyp!.+' �`Y' C • cn 4C' O ta'd ,p •/� Y� wit ,..-'. 4 Y �' u) b-0,4 aNd c).- c a Y N ~N Y++ a c 'boob a C"a m r. Y O td Y .Lj N V 4"'.d N _0;2 �' ','0) C" �,. y ci of 2taa° ulE° �^°,. m:aO°° o >o CD JiiiaI * Hjtfl4dilUff !fl I--. + ° y o..,U N a a1 d .4 4:10'71..44) >'. -+ c Y Y 0 Street expansion lacks good planning; huffing the environment The Poudre River holds a special place in my heart. It's the place I captured many things; crayfish, minnows,frogs,insects and cherished irreplaceable memories of childhood summer days well-spent.M a native Coloradan, an avid outdoorsman, I've traced this river as it chiseled its character into the hardest rock of our mountains all the way to its peaceful re-birth into the murky South Platte. For most people the Poudre is"just a river",but for me it was an inspiration. I chose a career in wildlife and fisheries management with the idea that I could help save or improve special places like the Cache La Poudre River for future generations; something that becomes evermore urgent as I look into my own infant son's eyes. Over the last decade the river has become especially threatened as cities and towns creep ever-closer to swallowing up this serpentine beauty. Expansive riparian bottomlands and healthy cottonwood stands have been replaced by weedy,willow-choked zones fueled by nutrient-rich runoff from developments.This checkerboard of trails, roads,homes and pollutants have effectively prohibited wildlife migrations through the Poudre River corridor., What's much worse is that the last relatively undisturbed(endangered)parcel of the Poudre River(the portion south and east of Kodak, and west of 83rd Avenue) is the proposed site for the 0 Street extension.The proposed 4-lane extension cuts through lands specially managed to restore the historical qualities of the Poudre River and its wild inhabitants including a matrix of created and native wetlands and ponds. The most dreadful day has arrived; the day when seemingly intelligent governments ignore basic senses in planning and growth at the expense of our environment. Please contact your elected officials and visit vww.stopostreet.com. TAD STOUT, Windsor • 222 Money for 0 Street study misspent -17 A study was commissioned and funded by Weld County, Greeley and Windsor to determine the best way to connect 0 Street in Greeley to Crossroads Boulevard in Larimer County. After collecting pub- lic opinion, which would have routed traffic to the south of the homes located at the intersection of 0 Street and 83rd Avenue, the planning group chose the route that would demolish the two homes at that intersection. One of the reasons was that it was the least costly alternative. After challenging the cost figures provided, the planning group agreed that it wasn't the least costly after all. In spite of this they still choose the route that bisects the farm and demolishes the homes. Evidently the planners have their minds made up about what they want to do, and the impact to residents and taxpayers are not considerations. Another thing that doesn't seem to warrant consideration is the impact to the Poudre River cor- ridor. For those of you who haven't seen the Poudre Trail yet, you are missing an opportunity to see nature at its best. If you have been meaning to see what the Poudre Trail is all about, you need to do it quickly before a four-lane highway runs along it. • Since none of these issues seem to matter to our commissioners and planners, why did we spend the money to hire an outside firm to study it? If they are going to spend our taxpayer money to fund public projects, I demand that they provide a full and accurate accounting for the money and that they spend it based on public input. Finally, I want my money back for the obviously worthless study that they already completed. DAVID FRYE, Greeley Residents workthg to address 0 street expansion ____,__"'-'',7"''''"""'"'"''" Remember the 0 Street extension proposed in 2005? new road. Do you think the , There was a great deal of opposition from property price tag would be consid- Akkrcc , ,-- owners, and it seemed to disappear. Did you know erably less if the existing Learn more about the 0 Street extension is active again?I didn't think road were used? Would citizen effortsto the so.It seems the city of Greeley and there be less property and O Street Weld County want to keep their r ,, �, environmental damage expansion at www. plans a secret. 4'., I'. ,` using the existing road? I StopOStreet.com. That's why we've started a Web think so. site, www.StopOStreet.com, to "I₹ Think about the impact of inform the community of the 0 1 this plan.The proposed road runs along and through Street plan. the Cache la Poudre National Heritage Area, estab- My daughter and I live in the lished by Congress in 1996, and within a quarter- t Street at 83rd Aenue of O mile third-most endangered ed river laces, a river declared this et and study undede. This b American Rivers. summer, a study funded by the Ruth year by city of Greeley, Weld County and Firestien Think about the impact of this road on the Poudre the town of Windsor was conduct- GUEST River Trail and the wetlands and wildlife habitat of ed by a consulting group from COLUMNIST the Poudre River. Centennial. Think about the impact on property owners such Many of us in the neighborhood as our neighbors who have been working for the last attended the first open house in June where we were 10 years to establish an aquaculture facility and presented with four road alternatives that crossed wildlife habitat area—a plan approved by the coun- our property.Three of the alternatives went around ty commissioners who now want to put a road our houses, either to the south or to the north. A through the property. fourth alternative went directly through both of our Think about the impact on our property. Weld houses. County's:Comprehensive Plan talks about preserving The community voted on these alternatives and rural character. chose the southern route as the "preferred align- How about applying this to our property?This has ment."Then the seven-member evaluation panel did been a productive farm for more than 90 years.Final- its analysis and presented its"preferred alignment"at ly,think about the impact on your wallet as a taxpay- the final open house in August. Apparently public er.Should you really have to pay for a road that is so input doesn't mean anything to this panel, because unnecessary? they ignored the fact that the community preferred The Firestien family has persevered on this proper- the southern route and presented their "preferred ty since 1917.We've fared the challenges of hailstorms alignment" as the route that goes directly through again nst hie elements,It but insteadagainst the power of ks like our next challenge won't be both of our houses. There are at least three other alternatives for this eminent domain. brand new road that will cost more than $50 mil- Please help us.Visit the Web site and sign the peti- lion to build.Did I mention the fourth alternative? tion.Help us stop this senseless plan. That would be using the existing road a half-mile to the north. I'm sure you readers, as taxpayers, would be Ruth Firestien is a native of Weld County and has interested to know that when your dollars could be lived in the same farmhouse for more than 50 years. used to improve an existing road,the proposal is to Her husband was born on thefarm 80 years ago. instead use these dollars to destroy a farm and slice She is an active member of St.John's United Church through the last undisturbed piece of the Poudre of Christ in Greeley and of the community in which River riparian corridor in order to build a brand- she lives. Stop 0 Street Published by Judy Firestien on Sep 04, 2008 Petition History and Background: The noise and pollution caused by the construction and use of the O Street extension and alignment will severely impact the ecosystem of the Cache la Poudre River riparian corridor. American Rivers has already declared the Cache la Poudre River America?s third most Endangered River. The highway will negatively impact the Cache la Poudre National Heritage Area and the Poudre River Trail Corridor. The Colorado Department of Wildlife opposes the O Street Alignment. There is an abundance of wildlife in this last stretch of undeveloped riparian corridor. Construction of this highway will cause wildlife and recreation areas to be destroyed and open space opportunities to be lost. Homes and farmland will be demolished and rural character and heritage lost. Petition Text: To Weld County Commissioners and representatives and officials of the City of Greeley, Town of Windsor, County of Weld, and State of Colorado: We, the undersigned residents of Northern Colorado, are deeply concerned about the plan for the extension and alignment of O Street(County Road 64) between Weld County Road 27 and Weld County Road 23. We urge our representatives and public officials to: Consider other alternatives to the O Street extension such as improvement and widening of US Hwy 34 and State Hwy 392 and use of the existing Weld County Road 64.5. If an alternative for O Street must be approved, we urge our representatives and public officials to: Approve the blue alignment alternative which travels south of the intersection of O Street and 83rd Avenue. (The blue alignment would be less destructive than the currently preferred yellow alternative which travels straight through the intersection and destroys two homes and the associated farm buildings. Alignment alternative information provided per the study completed by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig.) Total signatures 271 (Signature comments can be viewed in the Appendix of this document) # FirstName Surname Town/City S/C/P Comment Date 271 Karen Lock Windsor CO N/G Nov 10,2008 270 Dewayne and Ruby Dill Greeley Co. View Nov 08,2008 269 Grace Euresti Greeley Colorado N/G Nov 07,2008 268 Adelina Lopez Evans CO View Nov 06,2008 267 Virginia Lightsey-Ceehorne Greeley CO View Nov 06,2008 266 erich hoffmann windsor colorado N/G Nov 05,2008 265 Michele Geisick Wiggins CO N/G Nov 04,2008 264 Patrick Pyfrom Eaton Colorado View Nov 04,2008 263 CJ Rutner Ft Collins CO N/G Nov 04,2008 262 Kari Romanoski Windsor Co N/G Nov 04,2008 261 Rex Rhoads Greeley CO N/G Nov 03,2008 260 Leslie Lang Greeley Colorado N/G Nov 03,2008 PETITION:Stop O Street Page 1 Powered by§oPeinion Appendix: All signatures comments 270 Back to signature list There is no reason for spending money to put a road there, because its not a busy road,we have other roads close by to use. It is a waste of peoples homes and land and money. There has to be something there for someones personal gain. I say NO to the road. 268 Back to signature list People have the right to keep there homes. 267 Back to signature list There are plenty of other options for traffic. To extend O street through these existing homes is not needed and would be morally irresponsible. 264 Back to signature list I strongly suggest routing O street not to destroy these houses. 251 Back to signature list INSTEAD OF WASTING MONEY ON A STUDY TO BUILD ANOTHER ROAD,WHICH IS GOING TO DESTROY SOMEONES PROPERTY, THAT MONEY WOULD BE BETTER USED TO IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN OUR EXISTING NET WORK OF ROADS. WHY NOT IMPROVE AND WIDEN HWY 257 NORTH FROM HWY 34. THERE ARE A LOT FEWER HOMES ALONG THAT ROUTE. TO ME IT JUST SEEMS LIKE ANOTHER WASTE OF TAX PAYERS MONEY THAT COULD BE PUT TO BETTER USE. 249 Back to signature list Do not destroy peoples long standing homes when there are alternatives. 247 Back to signature list 64.5 is only about a half mile north and it doesn't make sense to build another road parallel to it. and 34 and 392 aren't that far away either.There is definately not a strong enough need here to justify taking private property. 246 Back to signature list Expand 392 instead 244 Back to signature list Just what we need, more development when other roads and areas are seriously neglected. No thank you. 243 Back to signature list This is wrong they refused to sell. So you can't do this to their property. They have a wonderful house and a good farm. They live their. I would understand if it was just fields but this is a house with people who live in it. Please don't tear down their house. Please just don't. 240 Back to signature list PETITION:Stop 0 Street Page 8 Powered by GOPe,l,wn Alternatives to the proposal need to be carefully considered. If 392 and 34 are insufficient for existing and anticipated traffic needs, improving either and/or both highways is preferable to carving a new thoroughfare. The commissioners need to present a more powerful argument than, eg, "a faster route to Centerra ," before displacing current private property owners. 239 Back to signature list Take care of the existing roads. The links to 125 are enough for the Greeley area. I sense that someone is thinking on making money on the deal. 236 Back to signature list These homes have been in our family for many years. Was our grandfathers home and our dads home. They do not need to be taken away for a road. This would be so sad for our family's. 235 Back to signature list This area does not need expansion. This area needs preserved. Just stop! 234 Back to signature list We don't need to have our tax dollers wasted on a road we don't need.Displaceing people that have lived in the area for decades doesn,t make any sense. 230 Back to signature list Build 47 Avenue all the way through!!! 229 Back to signature list If you need to build a raod, how about finishing 47th Avenue through Arrowhead. That is REALLY needed. 227 Back to signature list Any alternative is better than tearing two families out of their homes. I would rather it stay as it is and let those who want to drive 55-65 mph use 392 or 34.Why do we always have to destroy farmlands and wildlife habitats for our own convenience . .just so we can get somewhere faster? Let us keep some of the tranquility of living in and around farmlands and driving those cool curvy roads.They are disappearing fast enough as it is! 225 Back to signature list Let them keep their homes! 224 Back to signature list This is not needed, HWY 34 and 392 are with in a few miles. 215 Back to signature list Government needs to understand that taking a man's land is unamerican and a slap in the face to the hard workers of this country. Approach landowners that are willing to sell to expand the roadway, even if it means added roadway. Using a heavy hand to get what government thinks is for the"greater good", is not right. Have a conscience. PETITION:Stop 0 Street Page 9 Powered by GoPewron 211 Back to signature list Not necessary! 197 Back to signature list Please do not tear down this family's homes. please try to go around the property. 196 Back to signature list An uncalled for route that is invasive and thievery to give"Fair Market Value"for ANY house at this time 190 Back to signature list No need for a new 4 lane highway so close to the other one. A waste of tax payers money!!! 189 Back to signature list Ridiculous! The county needs to take care of the current roads instead of building new ones. There is a new 4 lane on 83rd Ave which is only 2 miles away!!!Stop wasting tax payers money!! 173 Back to signature list As a US Marine, I've commited myself to the protection of the average citizen, I am not interested in supporting a wealthy developer at the expense of someone's three generation home. Pelican Lakes doesn't need their own road! 171 Back to signature list Puffing Weld County Road 66 through would make a lot more sense than "O" Street. Only one mile needs built, three miles need paved, and it actually goes into a Town instead of a residential area. 170 Back to signature list I don't know why you are building a road that goes nowhere, and considering tearing down peoples homes to do it. 169 Back to signature list Please find an alternative route! 167 Back to signature list the destrution of two homes for the extention of a road is a thoughtless and cruel attack on the livelyhood of the families that live in those homes in a time when our homes and land are all we have that is real and secure. 165 Back to signature list The homeowner has the rights to the property. If the government wants the property, it is free to make an offer. This country is a capitalist country, not Socialist. That is why we are the most powerful. 164 Back to signature list It is absolutely unneccessary to continue this road through these farms!! There is already an existing road that winds around them, which is done is several other towns in this area. Furthermore, nobody wants the peace and quiet of the PETITION:Stop O Street Page 10 Powered by OstvS Poudre River Trail to be loud, smelly, and congested by a road right next to it. Do not use eminent domain for a bad policy!! 163 Back to signature list There isn't enough traffic on O St continuing west into Windsor to warrant a 4 lane highway. US34 bypass is 4 lanes, US34 business route(10th St)and CO392 will soon be 4 lanes. These major road systems are enough to handle current and future vehicle traffic. These government entities can’t manage their current road system. If Weld County, City’s of Greeley and Windsor have so much money for this silly project, then add bike lanes the entire length for the safety of cyclists and motorists. 160 Back to signature list I am appalled that the city would consider destroying these peoples home&property for convenience sake! STOP O Street. 159 Back to signature list Why do we always have to destroy establised residence to build streets. roads, etc. What do you plan on doing with the gravel pit just west of the homes. Think again. There is already an existing road. Fix it up, straighten out the curves a little. Be practical. 158 Back to signature list I urge the commisioners to take an approach that studies wide alternatives and preserves the rural flavor that makes Colorado a jewel among these United States of America. 155 Back to signature list A flashing red light would save a lot of our money,homes,land,wildlife,traf Ic etc. 144 Back to signature list I have hunted and fished on the Stout's property for the past 6 years and have found it to be one of the best wildlife habitat developments in Northern Colorado. They have spent many long hours and considerable amount of money developing the property for wildlife and fisheries. I truly would hate to see it destroyed just to put in another highway. There are alternatives and I urge you take them and leave this property as is. Steve Hall 143 Back to signature list I do not see any meed for this proposed extension. 142 Back to signature list I do not see any need for this proposed extension. 141 Back to signature list There is an alternative available to preserve these people's historic homes and some of Colorado's beautiful natural habitat. This shouldn't be an issue! PETITION:Stop 0 Street Page 11 Powered by GoPewion 138 Back to signature list I don't think at this time we should spend any money for a project under the economic conditions. I think the eco system should be left as is too. We just got the poudre river trail and it does not need the destruction of a highway! Since the Firestiens have lived on and at this farm for generations it should not be allowed to kick them out of their heritage home. 134 Back to signature list Why go directly thorugh these homes when there are acceptable alternatives! 127 Back to signature list We only have so many places left like the Poudre River corridor left and we're planning on destroying it for what? A road that has several, much less disasterous alternatives. Stop this nonsense and stop 0 street. 121 Back to signature list Just continue to use the road 1/2 mile to the north and save the money for something much more important for the county. Don't abuse imminent domain in this case! 120 Back to signature list There are better routes that cause less disruption to private property.To the commissioners, please re-consider your motives and the alternatives. 119 Back to signature list Please choose to not destroy homes and property when you have another choice. Make us proud of our local government! 118 Back to signature list Leave well enough alone!!!! To the commissioners: How can you sleep at night? 117 Back to signature list please save the homes 105 Back to signature list Please--the Firesteins have given so much to the county and the community. Please save their homes. 104 Back to signature list This habitat is too important to destroy with a road! 93 Back to signature list please find a different way instead going through the houses. 92 Back to signature list I don't feel that 0 street should be allowed to go through this property, this family has been on this farm for many PETITION.Stop 0 Street Page 12 Powered by GoPeti,on generations. There alot of different alternatives to diveriting this road rather than right down inbetween these two homes, Please preserve this family farm show some compassion for what Greeley is known for the family farm. Thank You, Bob Papish 89 Back to signature list It is wrong to destroy long-standing homes, farms, and wildlife preserves in order to maintain a straight line on a road when there are acceptable and supported alternatives. 87 Back to signature list I thought Americans were known for leaving a better place for the next generation. I am finally old enough to appreciate the heritage and wildlife of the Poudre corridor and now I see attempts to destroy it. What am I supposed to tell my children when they ask what I did to make things better? PLEASE do not destroy what is left of this area. 86 Back to signature list Why did Greeley and Weld County waste time and money for a study when their minds were already made up?We were presented with flawed spreadsheets showing the chosen route to be the most cost effective.We were told that they"would get back with us"on anything that would have made their decision less atrtactive, which they never did. Our elected officials obviously have NO concern for those that they represent. This isn't about 2 little homes, it is about the American way of life. Vote NO 84 Back to signature list Please do not proceed with this expansion before you have a complete understanding. There were a number of SERIOUS concerns not addressed by the study, not the least of which is the negative national publicity sure to follow if the proposed (yellow)route is chosen 82 Back to signature list This is another time when the City and County has pushed ahead with their plans without considering the community. They plan on spending more money than necessary and push people out of their homes at the same time. I would like to know the real reason they insist on destorying these people lives and over spend taxs payers money. 81 Back to signature list This road is not nessassary, i drive by it everyday its only a waste of time and money. plus you can get where you need to go just take the roads that are already made. 75 Back to signature list I can't believe after all of the destruction near these communities this year, people would seriously try to ruin someone elses home and heritage! 74 Back to signature list One alternative is to leave things as they are. The Poudre Trail and Poudre Learning Center could be integrated more with this area, creating an open space community buffer and preserving the river corridor, wildlife habitat and rural character for future generations to enjoy. If you are going to create something for the public good, give the public a chance to enjoy open space rather than asphalt! Please preserve and protect this area rather than destroy it with a four PETITION:Stop 0 Street Page 13 Powered by goPrlulan lane highway! 72 Back to signature list There are better options than ruining the lives and property of the land owners 71 Back to signature list I sure think it's funny that the republicans advertise about eminent domain being a bad thing, but all the county commissioners are republicans. I think they're all a bunch of hypocrits. Save the farm! 67 Back to signature list Displacing people from their homes and destruction of wildlife areas is not justifiable for a new street. Respect the people who live there and the historical use of the land. There are plenty of good roads in the area and traffic certainly isn't a critical issue. 63 Back to signature list The government should respect the land owner's rights and not be a bully and just take what they want. Remember we vote in these people. If they don't do what we want, pay them back on election day. 62 Back to signature list This piece of property MUST NOT be intruded upon by this road. THere are other alternatives that will not destroy tons of riperian habitat, other wildlife refugia and HOMES/LIVES. 58 Back to signature list This property is a jewel of wildlife habitat that should not be destroyed. Please reconsider other alternatives to the destruction of these delicate and precious riparian areas. 57 Back to signature list I have watched the area of concern be developed into a Premier recreational spot for hunting and fishing. Your plan would destroy it. It's obvious you have no concern for those who live there and those who have given so much to society and made so much available to the community. 55 Back to signature list keep working toward consensus alternative routes that protect private property and protect habitat. 54 Back to signature list This proposal is unacceptable. There are many alternatives to be expolored that pose far less loss to this community. 52 Back to signature list Wildlife habitats are endangered epecially the migratory and resident bird populations that this area of the State is know for. 51 Back to signature list PETITION:Stop 0 Street Page 14 Pwrered by Q4?3of^_ There is no reason to extend 0 street and destroy people's homes. The existing routes are more than enough. 50 Back to signature list There are other alternatives besides destroying the Firestien property. The heritage that their family farm displays fits nicely with the theme of the Poudre River/Trail/Schoolhouse, and can easily be chronicled for educational purposes. 48 Back to signature list I am opposed to this destruction of riparian environment and critical waterfowl flyway. I also oppose the proposed removal of private dwellings and an owners property rights. 44 Back to signature list I am sure officials can curve the road around the houses. 43 Back to signature list Don't allow the road please. Spare the Poudre and all the people's lives that are affected. 42 Back to signature list The community's approved route is much more reasonable and preserves homes and valuable habitat. 35 Back to signature list I oppose the proposed routing 32 Back to signature list How can a route that causes so much personal property damage or loss be the best route and/or the cheapest? 30 Back to signature list This is very unfair to take this route through these homes when other options are available and acceptable. Why does this need to be changed anyway? I travel this road everyday and see no reason to change the street. The river is another thing that would be damaged by the change.Why disturb all of this and on top of it, take someone's estate that has been in their family for generations? I guarantee, no one that has presented this as an option would like this to happen to them. 29 Back to signature list I find it reprehensible that given alternate solutions that have been voted on already,the local government has taken it upon themselves to not only go against the communities decision, but to destroy someone's home as well as the environment. Government is supposed to be for the people, by the people....not for the government. 26 Back to signature list I can't believe the County and powers-that-be would sacrifice people's homes when the preferred route would SAVE them. 20 Back to signature list PETITION:Stop 0 Street Page 15 Powered by QoPema I would hope that the commissioners would respect private property rights and agree to either NOT extend street or agree to use a different route other than through the Firestien's houses. This is a ridiculous idea. Before you spend money on this sort of thing, FIX THE BAD ROADS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE COUNTY. 19 Back to signature list The fact that these property owners and the citizens of Northern Colorado have to go to these lengths to save their properties is ridiculous. There are already alternative routes which will clearly disrupt fewer properties and minimize the harm to our ecosystem. Why would the cities choose the MOST harmful route for all? It is time that EVERYONE protect what little land we have left, instead of bulldozing ahead with little consideration to those that have helped to settle our county. STOP NOW 16 Back to signature list there should be lots of resonable options for this. stealing someone's property and destroying their homes is NOT a reasonable option. Shame on you greeley. 15 Back to signature list I was born and raised in Greeley, CO. I am saddened to see our agricultural history being destroyed by"progress"daily. It's time to preserve our history and stop the growth. It makes much more sense to widen highway 392 and west 10th street in Greeley. These roads are much more traveled, and extending O street only destroys the lives of the farmers, and our agricultural history. Please DO NOT extend O street! Thank you. 13 Back to signature list I have attended some of the meetings held for this proposal: I am concerned that the comments made by the people- truly effected by this proposal- are not being considered. Please contact every one that you can with your concerns- Judy and Ruth do not need to lose their homes. 9 Back to signature list As a resident of the area, I would like to know that the planning for expansion and improvements in the area are well thought through and balanced with regards to the impact to the residents,the environment, and the future requirements of the city and county. It appears that the planning board has taken the"easiest"solution with respect to the level of planning efforts at the expense of the individual property owners. 5 Back to signature list When the government has an opportunity to save a person's private property i.e.there are alternatives, then government should do so. This is such a case. 2 Back to signature list This has been my home for 56 years and I am very opposed to the O Street plan. It would destroy the Firestien home place, historic buildings, and property. 1 Back to signature list This will destroy a way of life for all people in it's path. I urge the county comissioners to re-consider this project. Please take a different approach! PETITION:Stop 0 Street Page 16 Pmnred by goPen,lm, Stop the Widening of 0 Street Petition Published by Judy Firestien on Sep 10, 2008 Petition History and Background: Many home owners along O Street will be negatively impacted by the widening of O Street, causing some homes to be deemed uninhabitable and destroying others. Homes and farmland will be ruined and rural character and heritage lost. Petition Text: To Weld County Commissioners and representatives and officials of the City of Greeley, Town of Windsor, County of Weld and State of Colorado: We, the undersigned residents of Northern Colorado, are deeply concerned about the plan for the widening of O Street between 83rd Avenue(County Road 27)and Hwy 85. We urge our representatives and public officials to: Consider other alternatives to the widening of O Street such as improvement and widening of US Hwy 34 and State Hwy 392 to alleviate projected traffic flow. Total signatures 28(Signature comments can be viewed in the Appendix of this document) # FirstName Surname Town/City S/C/P Comment Date 28 Peggy Cowan Loveland Colorado N/G Nov 10,2008 27 Scott Chvatal Atwood KS N/G Nov 09,2008 26 Sadie M Schraeder Windsor Co N/G Nov 02,2008 25 Jennifer Beilman Greeley CO N/G Oct 19,2008 24 Brooke Delisle-Bettmann Greeley CO N/G Oct 14,2008 23 Phyllis Schultz Greeley CO View Oct 09,2008 22 George Doering Greeley CO N/G Oct 09,2008 21 Gayle Doering Greeley CO N/G Oct 09,2008 20 Jan Meyer Windsor CO N/G Sep 23,2008 19 Dana Wagenhoffer Milliken CO View Sep 22,2008 18 Jane Miller Eaton CO View Sep 21,2008 17 Lorraine Seger Ault CO View Sep 20,2008 16 Lisa Wolfe Windsor CO N/G Sep 17,2008 15 Shirley J Stroberg Eaton CO View Sep 14,2008 14 Zachery Marshall Ault Colorado N/G Sep 14,2008 13 George&Joann Firestien Ault Colorado N/G Sep 14,2008 12 Chuck&Delores Ehrlich Casper Wyoming N/G Sep 14,2008 11 Wilbert&Viola Gebhardt Windsor Colorado N/G Sep 14,2008 10 Dawn Stein Greeley CO View Sep 13,2008 9 Freddy&Gloria Keil Greeley Colorado View Sep 13,2008 8 Richard Moore Greeley CO View Sep 13,2008 7 Sharon M. Cropper (Schmidt) Greeley Co. View Sep 13,2008 6 Mike Brehon Greeley Co. View Sep 13,2008 5 Ramona Valdez Windsor Co. View Sep 11,2008 4 Glen Sanders Severance Co View Sep 11,2008 3 Cathy Thomas Littleton Co N/G Sep 11,2008 i PETITION:Stop the Widening of O Street Petition Page 1 Powered by OPn,l,lon r # FirstName Surname Town/City S/C/P Comment Date 2 Elizabeth Ponce Greeley CO View Sep 10,2008 1 Wendy Kruger Fort Collins Colorado, N/G Sep 10,2008 Weld N/C-field not collected by the author 'N/G-not given by the signer •S/C/P-State,County or Province View-view comment PETITION:Stop the Widening of O Street Petition Page 2 Powered by goPctd on • Appendix: All signatures comments Y3 Back to signature list I understand your position and surely stand on your side of this concern. My years of living in peace in the country were wonderful and I want you to live there without damage to your property. Good Luck! 19 Back to signature list Don't destroy another persons property just to straighten a road.These people have spent there lives paying for their farms and homes and citizens of Greeley, Weld County and Windsor have NO right to take these peoples homes-just to straighten a road.As my representative I request that you VOTE NO!!!! 18 Back to signature list Good luck, Ruth. Keep fighting, 17 Back to signature list Once again, the Weld County Commissioners have made a decision that has damaging effects on our environment and public recreation. This group continues to respond to a few"squeaky wheels"and disregard options that benefit the greater good of the community. 15 Back to signature list I feel this is taking our freedom away. A committe should not be allowed to take postion of proporty when there is another way around it. 10 Back to signature list Use the existing road, save taxpayers money and save these folks homes! If it was a city council member who lived in any of the properties affected it's guaranteed they would use any alternative route! 9 Back to signature list We suggest that the County Commissioners and Representatives reconsider other alternatives to help alleviate the future traffic flow and problems and not destroy the pristine farms and land that has been in the families livlihood for years. Why do we have to use this idea---- I'm sure we can come up with a better plan for all individuals concerned! Kindest regards, Gloria, Freddy&family 8 Back to signature list It makes no sense to run a road through choice farmland when a road 1/2 mile north of O Street and 83rd Ave could be used!! 7 Back to signature list Just like you indicated Save the tax payers money and use and make the road that is present improved. How dare the city goverment try destroying productive land which has been protected for decades,plus it being very fertile land. 6 Back to signature list we're against the road. There are better alternatives! PETITION'.Stop the Widening of 0 Street Petition Page 3 Powered by GQFppnsn 5 Back to signature list There are always other alternatives to look at then to take away what doesn't belong to you! I suggest you work on I-25 and Hwy 392 which needs huge relief. Why is it that contractors with money get their way? What about the pioneesrs who settled and the hard working people, don't we count? 4 Back to signature list This road widening should never happen. There are other alternatives then taking a property and destroying it. The people that live there(whom I know)count on that property for their livelihood. Look in the mirror and ask yourself if you would like it to be kicked out of your home, something you have spent your entire life building. (Do you like what you see in looking back at you?)Come on, do the right thing. Do NOT kick these people out. 2 Back to signature list This farm has been in the family for generations. It should not be stolen from the family for the sake of"progress". There are other alternatives. PETITION:Stop the Widening of 0 Street Petition Page 4 Po,e,ed by yoPo uo0 Judy Firestien From: Judy Firestien [Judy.Firestien@slbbi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:10 AM To: 'dlong@co.weld.co.us' Cc: 'Wayne Howard'; 'Jeff.Dankenbring@FHUENG.COM' Subject: O Street Alignment Study Gentlemen, I have reviewed the O Street Alignment Study as posted on the Weld County website. I was quite surprised to find that the "recommendation", that I assume will be presented to the Weld County Commissioners, is the straight alignment (yellow alignment) that destroys both of the Firestien homes at the intersection of O Street and 83rd Avenue. The southern route (blue alignment) receives mention that it "should not be entirely dismissed". This is hardly the recommendation for the southern route that I expected. Commissioner Long, you stated in an interview with Channel 7 News in September that, "the southern route is the recommendation that Public Works is going to put forward to us". In addition, you also said in a recent article in the Greeley Tribune that "public comments are still being taken and more public hearings will be conducted before the proposal comes before commissioners". A few days after the Tribune article appeared, we received notice the hearing had been scheduled. Commissioner Long, I would certainly appreciate an explanation of the discrepancies between your statements and the information that appears in the O Street Study Report. I would also appreciate an update on exactly what will be presented at the public hearing on November 17 for approval by the Commissioners. I look forward to your prompt response. Thank you. Sincerely, Judy Firestien Link to Channel 7 News coverage: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/17499940/ 1 • • Judy Firestien From: Judy Firestien [Judy.Firestien@sIbbi.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 7:43 PM To: 'Wayne Howard'; 'Jeff.Dankenbring@FHUENG.COM' Cc: 'Esther Gesick' Subject: O Street Study Report Wayne and Jeff, Please find following my comments regarding the O Street study report. Don't worry about responding, I will provide a copy to the Clerk to the Board to be included in the information for the Commissioners to review. Esther, Don't worry about printing this. I will provide a hard copy with the information I drop by to you in the next day or so. Thank you. Judy Firestien To: Wayne Howard, Jeff Dankenbring Re: Comments regarding the study report Gentlemen, I have reviewed the O Street Alignment Corridor Study and want to make several comments: Preferred Alternative - I have already brought to your attention the discrepancy between the statement made by David Long and the study recommendation for the preferred alternative. I will repeat this concern here so that it may be included with my other comments. Commissioner Long stated on September 17, 2008 that Public Works was "revamping" their recommendation and would be presenting the southern route (blue route) rather than the straight route (yellow route). Section V of the study, "Recommendations", page 13, states, "...the local agency committee settled on a preferred alternative that included maintaining a straight alignment along O Street heading west from 83rd Avenue." The recommendation goes on to say, "However, the notion of realigning O Street to the south at 83rd Avenue (Alternative D) to avoid several homes just west of 83rd Avenue should not be entirely dismissed." In my opinion, this is not a recommendation for the southern route as Commissioner Long had stated. Despite Commissioner Long's statement and all the public input, is the straight alternative still the alternative that will be presented to the Commissioners? Corridor Alternative Rankings between Alternative 1 — Straight/Yellow Alignment and Alignment 2 — County Road 64.5/Purple Alignment—The information found in the appendix indicates the committee members assigned a rating for the purple alignment with regard to "General Public Opinion of Alternative". Generally, these ratings were not favorable and ranged from 3 to 5, while the ratings for the yellow alignment ranged from 1 to 3. The fact that there is a public opinion rating associated with the purple alternative is completely inaccurate! This alternative was not i presented at the first open house, so there was no opportunity to gain public opinion on the alternative. The study information also makes it sound as if these two alternatives were presented at the first open house along with the four sub alternatives. The purple alternative was added and was only presented at the final open house. At this point in time, the Corridor Alternative Ranking for the two alternatives was also presented. The preferred alternative had already been chosen when these alternatives were presented together at the final open house. There was no public input gathered before these were presented. There is no mention of votes received at the public open house because it was not presented for public input! If public input would have been gathered on this alternative, I am almost certain the public would have picked the purple alternative over the yellow alternative. I know I have suggested numerous times to both Wayne and Jeff that the existing County Road 64.5 should be used. I know that many other people in the community have made the same suggestion. This alternative was only included after many of us suggested it should be considered. Gentlemen, you know there was no public input from the open house on this alternative — how can you possibly include this in the study, not to mention rating the alternative so low? How could committee members possibly rate this alternative when they knew there was no public input on the alternative that could be used to derive a rating? Public Input - The Public Input Section states the following: • "Notification was sent to all of the property owners within the study area (approximately 300 total notices were mailed)." I find it very hard to believe that 300 notices were sent out. I would like to request a copy of the mailing list. • "Press releases were issued by the City of Greeley" — ONE, very small press release appeared twice in the Greeley Tribune for the first, rescheduled open house. There was no press release for the first open house scheduled for May 22 and no press release for the final open house, even after I requested there be notification in the paper. The idea that "maximum public input" was involved would only have been possible if the general public had actually been informed of these open houses through press releases and other communication. "Primary Environmental Consideration" - On page 3 under "Collected Data Information", our homes are said to be "the primary environmental consideration" in this study. However, under the evaluation of alternatives, page 11, for alternative C it says, "does not have any known environmental impacts". If our houses are considered a "primary environmental consideration", how is it possible there are no environmental impacts with alternative C? The study contradicts itself. Widening of 0 Street- The study clearly states, "East of 83rd Avenue, O Street is planned to be improved and widened to four lanes when traffic volumes warrant additional lanes." This is a critical statement that has not been given much attention. The residents east of 83rd Avenue have a right to know more about what is planned for the roadway they live adjacent to. I know people asked this question at the open house and it was essentially ignored. This study should not have just focused 2 on the two mile corridor when there are other aspects of O Street that should be given attention and communicated to people. Field Observations — The aerial photography used for the study is not accurate and is out of date. I don't recall seeing the Whitney Irrigation Ditch indicated on the maps. The location of the ditch would need to be taken into account when building the road. There is also no indication of the location of the Shark's tooth Pipeline. Construction of the road would cover one of the main access points for this private domestic water line that serves 11 homes and businesses. How will potential relocation or discontinued service of this pipeline be addressed? Water taps and associated costs to add North Weld Water currently run about $25,000. The cost for 11 families at this rate will add up very quickly. You cannot expect residents who have purchased their homes with water included to incur the additional cost of a new tap. Construction Costs — I notice the costs for each alternative have decreased from the information we were provided in August. In fact, costs have decreased by 10-15% depending on the alternative. I would be interested to know why there has been a decrease. It seems costs rarely decrease when construction is involved. What changed? Fair market value of property? Price of asphalt? In addition, I still have a very difficult time understanding how building two brand new miles of roadway is less expensive than using several miles of existing roadway. "Tier 1 Roadway" - The reference to O Street being identified as "a Tier 1 roadway within the US Highway 34 corridor" seems a bit misleading. My perception of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan is that the NRFMPO actually lists the Highway 34 Corridor as Tier 1. Additional corridors included in the Tier 1 classification are 1-25 and Hwy 287. Within each corridor, additional roadways are listed making O Street/Crossroads part of the corridor. Also included in the Hwy 34 Corridor is Hwy 402/County Road 54/37th Street (Evans). Although part of the US 34 corridor, O Street/Crossroads Boulevard does not have the priority ranking that improvement of US 34 has with US 34 listed at the top of the Prioritized Highway Capacity Projects for the current widening from Hwy 257 to 47th Avenue . I realize I may be splitting hairs here, but the average person might read the study and think O Street has the same priority as 1-25 or Hwy 287 when described as a "Tier 1 roadway". This certainly is not the case. Evaluation of Alternatives — • Alternative B — Red Alignment — "Does not require relocation of any residences". How is it possible this alternative would not require relocation of my mother's home with the "close proximity to northern Ruth Firestien residence"? It would not be possible for her to continue living in this home! • Alternative C — Yellow Alignment— I've already commented on the lack of "known environmental impacts" with this alignment. "Adversely impacts both Ruth Firestien's residences". Why not just use the word "destroys"! 3 • Alternative A — Green Alignment - "Impacts the existing residence of Beverlee Allison with headlight glare" —Are you serious? You really believe "headlight glare" is a concern when compared with the complete destruction of two homes? Thank you once again for your time and attention. Sincerely, Judy Firestien 4 Judy Firestien From: Judy Firestien [Judy.Firestien@slbbi.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:55 PM To: 'Gene Stille' Subject: RE: "O" Street Extension Councilman Stille, Thank you again for your response to my email. You have been most gracious to take the time to answer my emails already and I don't want to take up too much of your time. However, I feel I must comment on several of the points we have been discussing. 1. "What are the time constraints?" I can understand there are many variables involved with this project. It just seems we have been given a lot of conflicting and potentially untrue information. To be told 0 Street would be happening in 1-2 years and that Governor Ritter was behind the project seems like a scare tactic. 2. "Who are these entities and what are their concerns?" Again we have received a lot of conflicting information regarding the different entities. We were told Weld County was the lead on the project, yet Greeley has four representatives on the evaluation panel. We were also told Weld County wouldn't take our homes, but the City of Greeley would...within 5 years. 3. I understand that you and the Council will not make the decision on this project. I would appreciate it if you would emphasize the concerns of my family, our neighbors, and the community to the Commissioners. I think you should know that you are the ONLY person associated with Weld County government who has given me an answer on this project this week and the ONLY Weld County representative, other than Wayne Howard, who has ever responded to me. I'm sorry to belabor this point. I'm sure Commissioner Long has found my letters and emails to be quite irritating by now. My family and I and our neighbors, as property owners and home owners, have found the 0 Street project to be quite irritating and of great concern. As I mentioned in my previous email to you, this past week, after the election, I asked Commissioner Long for an explanation of the discrepancy between his statement to Channel 7 News and the recommendation in the study report. I received no response from him. In fact, in my opinion, I was ignored and dismissed. This is a very important issue to us and as a taxpayer and voter in Weld County I thought I would be granted the courtesy of a response. It could have even been something as simple as, "Commissioner Long is taking a few days off after the election and he will respond to your letter next week." Instead I received a message from the Clerk to the Board that my letter would be included as an exhibit in the information the Commissioners would be reviewing. This is appropriate. However, I am extremely disappointed with the lack of communication and complete disregard of this issue which involves the potential loss of people's homes, family businesses and private property. The fact that a discrepancy exists between Commissioner Long's statement and the study report is quite disturbing. It seems the best place to voice our views and engage in actual communication will be at the public hearing. I'm sure we will receive clarification of the preferred route at that time. Whether it is the route the community prefers, is the question. Once again, thank you very much for taking the time to respond and for your well wishes. I hope that you will consider running for Councilman again. You will certainly have my vote. Best regards, Judy Firestien t From: Gene Stille [mailto:gene@gongloffgroup.com] Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:24 PM To: Judy.Firestien@slbbi.com Cc: 'Karla Ford'; whoward@co.weld.co.us; dlong@co.weld.co.us Subject: "O" Street Extension Dear Judy, I will try to answer your questions from a Councilman's perspective: 1. "What are the time constraints?" I was not given any more information than what you already are aware. There are so many aspects that affect this project such as the economy,the election, priority, workload, etc. that it is hard to put a time as to when the project will be funded, when it will be started, let alone when it will be completed. I appreciate your position of not knowing how to plan, but that is the nature of these engineering projects. Unless a project is on the fast track, and I don't see that happening for the "O" Street Extension, the time frame is going to be ambiguous. 2. "Who are these entities and what are their concerns?" Since this project is in the county,the county has a big interest. Greeley would be concerned just for people movement in and out of town with less congestion. Other towns, e.g. Windsor,Timnath, Loveland, want to make their towns accessible for their own economy(shopping, jobs, restaurants)with ease of movement. Hopefully,your questions will be answered satisfactorily at the hearings. 3. I will be having dialogue with the commissioners in regards to the "O" Street Extension and will ask them to carefully consider your perspective. As I've indicated, I (nor the council) don't have a decision in the approval/disapproval of these projects, but we can inform the commissioners of our constituent's concerns. Thank you for your kind words for my reelection to the council. Since it is nonpartisan with no party affiliation indicated, the top line generally wins. I have enjoyed being on the council and look forward to the possibility of running again in the future. All the best to you and yours, Gene From: Judy Firestien [mailto:Judy.Firestien@slbbi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:25 AM To: gene@what-wire.com Cc: Dave Long; County Council; Wayne Howard Subject: RE: "0" Street Extention Dear Councilman Stille, Thank you for your response to my letter to the Weld County Council. I am very appreciative of the time you took to respond. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I have sent numerous email messages to the Weld County Commissioners and have never received a response from any of the members; not even an automated message merely telling me the email was received. I am glad to hear that you talked with Wayne Howard. I'm sure you received much of the same information we have been given or have collected through the open house processes. If I could ask you two additional questions, I would be very interested in knowing what the current answers are to the following: 2 1. What are the time constraints? During the time period between April and October of this year, we have received time estimates for the beginning of the project which vary from 1-2 years to 5, 10, 15 and even 20-25 years in the future. I would be very interested, especially at this point in time, to understand what the current time frame is for this project. As you might imagine, it is difficult, and rather unfair to us in trying to plan our lives, not knowing when this project might actually impact us and our property. As I was writing this letter, I received notice of the public hearing before the Commissioners. I imagine this question might be answered by the study, but I would like to know what information you were given. 2. Who are these entities and what are their concerns? I would like to know more about the concerns of these entities. We were initially told the lead agency on the project was Weld County. In April, Wayne Howard told us he would do all he could to not take our homes. The next information we were presented with was the "preferred route" which travels directly through our homes; destroying both of them. In Wayne's defense, he was the only representative from Weld County on the evaluation panel. Four of the seven members of the panel were from Greeley. This seems to be a very unbalanced evaluation panel. We would like to know who is really driving this project; it seems to be the City of Greeley. In relation to this, what are the concerns of Greeley, Weld County and Windsor? We would like to know why Greeley thinks this road is so important. In September, Commissioner Dave Long was interviewed by Channel 7 News and made the statement that the alignment that was to be presented to the Commissioners had changed and that Public Works would be presenting the southern route for the Commissioners' approval. Again, as I was writing this letter to you, the study report became available for review on the Weld County website. I was quite surprised and disappointed to see that the recommendation of the study is the straight alignment that would destroy both of our homes. The southern route receives mention that "it should not be entirely dismissed". This is hardly the recommendation for the southern route that I would have expected. I have requested an explanation from Commissioner Long of the discrepancy between his statement and the information that now appears in the 0 Street study report. I would appreciate any assistance you might be able to provide with regard to this. I agree with your statement that "we all need to work together to ensure this great county of Weld is well managed where we can raise our families with the quality of life we enjoy". I am not against progress. I just feel it needs to be well managed, as you said. It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many others, that the 0 Street extension is not being managed well and represents poor planning with regard to the impacts on the Poudre River corridor and private property owners. I strongly urge you to encourage the Commissioners to consider other alternatives. Once again, Councilman Stille, I appreciate your time. You had my vote for re-election to the County Council. I was disappointed to see you were not re-elected. Thank you for the efforts you have given to the Council thus far and for your efforts throughout the rest of this year. Best wishes with your endeavors beyond the Council. Best regards, Judy Firestien 3 Judy Firestien From: gene@what-wire.com Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:15 AM To: judy.firestien@slbbi.com Cc: dlong@co.weld.co.us; countycouncil@co.weld.co.us; whoward@co.weld.co.us Subject: "O" Street Extention To: Judy Firestien From: Gene Stille Weld County Council Thank you for your recent correspondence to the council regarding the "0" Street Extention. And as you indicated in your letter, you have communicated these concerns to the Weld County Commissioners. The Weld County Council is charged with the reviewing of all aspects of the county government. And we certainly do invite you to inform the council of your concerns. You have very succintly explained your position on the Extention of "0" Street past 83rd Avenue. I have discussed this concern with the county engineer, Mr. Wayne Howard, of whom you are familiar, to get a feel for this entire project and how the county will/has address/ed the issues that you stated. Such as: *The Weld County Comprehensive Plan; ag related, *Historisity of the area, *American Rivers, *Department of Wildlife, *Poudre Learning Center, and *The Poudre Trai Corridor. Whenever an opportunity arises, the Engineering office of Public Works must address "Purpose and Need" such as the "0" Street Extention. You may view this plan on the County website at www.co.weld.co.us Public Works Engineering and click on the report "Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan." You also have a good web site at www.stopostreet.com with a considerable amount of information. In addition to my discussion with Mr. Howard, I went to these sites for information. I did have some questions for Mr. Howard of which they were answered to my satisfaction. For example: *What are the alternatives? *What are the alternate routes? *What are the costs to the above? *What are the time constraints (e.g. when to fund, when to start, time frames for other entities)? *Who are these entities and what are their concerns (Windsor, Greely, & Weld County)? *Projected traffic counts? *Property owner's concerns? and *What are other issues, such as aggregate mining, power lines, and residential and commercial development? Since the council has no vote in approving or not approving the "0" Street Extention, it is important that we understand the issues and make known where we stand at the proper time which may be 5 to 25 years from now. I sincerely believe the Weld County Commissioners, Public Works, and the Engineering department will make every effert to make the best decisions. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns to the council. We all need to work together to ensure this great county of Weld is well managed where we can raise our families with the quality of life we enjoy. 1 Sincerely, Gene Stille Councilman, District 1 Weld County Council 2 Ruth Firestien 30953 Weld County Road 27 Greeley, Colorado 80631 970 686 2671 September 29, 2008 Mr. David Long Weld County Commissioner 915 Tenth Street P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Commissioner Long, Thank you for the comment that you made on Channel 7 News on September 17. We were pleased to hear that there could be a change to the O Street route. I am writing you as a very concerned, upset, and angry woman. The idea that I might lose my home and my daughter's home is a terrible "pill to swallow". This subject has caused me many sleepless and tearful nights. This has been the Firestien family home place since at least 1917. My husband was born here in 1928 and was raised here along with five siblings. We have lived in the white house since 1952 and we planned to live here until we couldn't take care of it any more. I still plan to live here as long as I can. My husband was killed in 2004 on O Street just east of 47th Avenue because of a careless driver going too fast around the curves. This was the worst day of my life. This is where taxpayer money should be used—to improve our existing roads, not for roads that we don't need. Our place adds to the "rural character" of Weld County. All the farm buildings are still intact and being used. We have a big barn, granaries (wood and tin), sheds and a milk house as well as a WPA privy! Why destroy all of this? This is a part of history. I think you get the idea about our homes, now I'd like to remind you of the Poudre River corridor that lies near our property. This is one of the last undisturbed parts of the river. Putting a road through this area would be a very big mistake. We are losing so much land to development today already and we would like to see this corridor left as open space for future generations to enjoy. We would be happy to give you a tour of the area to help you appreciate its special beauty. Page 1 of 2 Another thing that concerns me and my neighbors is our domestic water line, the Shark's tooth Pipeline, which serves eleven families. If we are forced to move our homes or change to another water provider, will Weld County pay for the water taps for our homes? Do the math—eleven homes times $25,000 per tap. Tax payers won't like that! I would hope that you would put yourself in our shoes and think about how you would feel if this were happening to you. I feel since I am (1) a woman, (2) elderly, and (3) a widow, that I am being taken advantage of. I am even starting to feel harassed. I never dreamed that I would have to fight like this to save my home! AND WE LIVE IN AMERICA!! We feel this project has been handled in a very secretive manner by the City of Greeley/Weld Public Works/consultants. This is why we had to let the people of Weld County know about how our tax money is being spent. The public open houses were kept very quiet. Some people who should have been notified were not. Had it not been for my daughter insisting that a notice of the meeting be put in the Tribune the SMALL notice of the first open house wouldn't have happened—there was NO notice of the second open house in the Tribune, even though we did request something be published. It seems to me that Greeley and Weld County are more concerned about building unnecessary roads than they are about leaving some open space, and leaving people in their homes. Everyone we talk to thinks this road idea should be eliminated completely. We don't need it! I implore you to reconsider this whole O Street expansion idea and look at other alternatives. Leave our houses alone and leave the river corridor as it is so future generations have some open space to enjoy. If you continue to pave over everything, these precious areas of history and natural beauty will be lost forever. Sincerely, Ruth Firestien cc: Commissioner Douglas Rademacher Commissioner Rob Masden Commissioner William Jerke Commissioner Bill Garcia Page 2 of 2 July 17, 2008 Rob Masden Weld County Commissioner 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Commissioner Masden, I read with interest your recent column in the Greeley Tribune entitled, "Toll road process protects residents". You stated in your column that you "have taken a strong stance against the proposed 'Super Slab' and the assault and power of condemnation on private property rights and decrease in property land values that it has created on the citizens of Weld County". You seem to have a genuine concern for property owners with regard to eminent domain and the "adverse impacts" that proposed roadways could potentially have on land owners. I want to express concern to you over another proposed roadway; the O Street/Crossroads Boulevard Alignment. Although not a toll road, this proposed roadway has also met with a great deal of opposition; both in 2005 when it was first introduced and again this summer. My mother and I live in the two homes at the intersection of O Street and 83rd Avenue. I want to express concern on behalf of my family and my neighbors over the scope of the current study being conducted regarding this proposed roadway as well as over the proposed roadway itself. (I will also copy David Long on this email as he is the representative for our district.) O Street Alignment Study -As you are aware, the Weld County Commissioners recently approved an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor for a study to look at different alignments of O Street between County Road 23 and County Road 27 (831d Avenue). The first open house was held in June and alignments were presented. Representatives from Weld County spoke with us and proposed several routes around our homes. We are quite appreciative that they are proposing to go around our homes, rather than straight through them. However, I have the following concerns about the scope of the study: 1. Limited Alignment Alternatives - It is my understanding from the "Scope of Work" that the study is to "define the preferred alignment for O Street between County Road 23 and 83`d Avenue". This is a two mile area that is to be considered, however, the study only seems to concentrate on the intersection of O Street and 83`d Avenue when proposing alternatives. This is only a very small segment of the study area. How can this even be considered a study when there are no other alternatives shown for the additional 1.5 miles included in the study area as the proposed road travels west from the intersection? I would think that the three entities that are paying for this study would feel that they are not getting their money's worth as the scope of this study seems to be much too small and only focuses on a quarter of the area that should be analyzed (see attached maps). 2. Consideration of Existing County Road 64.5- There is no consideration of County Road 64.5 as an alternative. It seems to me that the use of an existing road would be much less expensive than building a new road. 1 3. Flawed Proposed Alignments - The alignments proposed all have large obstacles such as high voltage power lines, oil wells, ponds, etc. Shouldn't these obstacles have been identified before the alignments were proposed? Even if an alignment is chosen as "preferred" it seems it will need to be altered to avoid these obstacles. 4. 0 Street East of 83rd Avenue - I realize that this study only focuses on alignments for the area between County Road 23 and 83rd Avenue, but there are many people living to the east of 83`d Avenue who are very concerned about any future widening of 0 Street as this will greatly affect their homes. Many of these neighbors feel the 0 Street study should also take a look at this area and how the roadway will affect these property owners. I have voiced these concerns to Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig and to Weld County Public Works and am awaiting a response. I urge you to contact Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig regarding the study before the final open house on July 31. I would even suggest you require them to increase the scope of the study in order to ensure the analysis will give the Weld County Commissioners a balanced assessment of the 0 Street alignment. O Street Extension - My second concern is the road itself. A great many of us living in the area of 0 Street/83`d Avenue, who will be affected by this proposed road, question the need for it. There is an existing road, County Road 64.5, a mere half mile to the north which would be duplicated by the 0 Street extension. Even one of the officials at the open house didn't see a problem with using the existing County Road 64.5. In addition, nearby Hwy 392 and Hwy 34 could be improved and widened to accommodate the projected traffic increase. I understand these are state and US highways, but it seems this needs to be taken into account when considering the 0 Street extension. Existing roads should be improved before new ones are built. Extending 0 Street from 83`d Avenue west as proposed will adversely affect the Poudre River Corridor: • The proposed road runs right through the flood plain and the Cache La Poudre National Heritage Area (see attached maps). The Cache la Poudre was also just declared one of America's most endangered rivers. We should be protecting the river corridor, not slicing a road through it. • The proposed road runs very near the Poudre River Trail Corridor and Poudre Learning Center. The City of Greeley has worked many years to create the trail. Running a road right next to it will have a very negative effect on the trail. Residents use the trail to enjoy nature, not to see cars racing by at 55 mph. • Our neighbors to the west, the Tigges family, gained approval from the Weld County Commissioners several years ago for establishment of a recreation area. They have many ponds in place for fishing and already host groups such as the Boy Scouts. How can the County Commissioners give approval for such an area and then allow a road to cut right through this property? Have the plans for their property been taken into consideration by the study? 2 The area between County Roads 27 and 23 is the last stretch of the Poudre River Corridor that has not been developed. Colorado Department of Wildlife officials have voiced their opposition to the O Street extension both in 2005 and this summer. There is a great wealth of wildlife, wetlands, and open space in this area; there is even an active bald eagle's nest. Agriculture and rural life is of great significance to Weld County and there is also some farmland left in this area that could be preserved as open space. Recent statistics indicate every minute of every day we lose two acres of farmland to development resulting in 1.2 million acres lost annually. Weld County should work to keep this area as open space and as a future community buffer between Windsor and Greeley. I have voiced these concerns and suggested several road alternatives both to Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig and to Weld County Public Works. When the O Street study is presented to you as County Commissioner this August, I urge you to please consider the impact this roadway will have on the Poudre River Corridor. I strongly urge you to consider other alternatives for the O Street/Crossroads Boulevard extension; alternatives that will protect the Poudre River Corridor as open space and allow what little farmland is left in this area to also be preserved for future generations to enjoy. Thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome your feedback on this issue. Best regards, Judy Firestien 30951 Weld County Road 27 Greeley, CO 80631 970 686 2338 Email: judy.firestien(c�slbbi.com or firestieni(a.aol.com CC: Commissioner David Long Attachments: Map of Alignments at 83rd Avenue/O Street Map of Alignments from 83rd Avenue to Hwy 257 Map of GIS information 3 U) t6 y N V O w to h''''lV r0 na N a, d y ja C.°+ Q O �. a a ° : "0 a a 5 o v a e.o 4, 0-.. w.. m a.. '� S'A vii`" O vi..0. w m m a A N y w W zN A'N O .d.. A _� 7 •V'O d U'�j w u .O TA t6 O.`n > a,co et RT.NS'ne, nr,"° ,1, • 218 U ihd 7 O uO CO Ly'.Wty8 0ua y lie .4.1-5 ,tP. ao N owNc3v c °.N - °1Ea ,�.VaT7 24 ar "=� o;; oro . C-4-5-044,'" 4, 04.2 = O•'_ v 3 cs t] . 0 . .0 .• bo '06S • 3[�,cOd �' tEOai a, 511 .9e-,.. v-a0.-0.CA ▪ ° a �o aa3 ° om o ^ CD - R 3?+ T f-. u v ° ao•� -48 -gH R m 30o e) v piam y c`ai v > a v a iI! i 0-0 RG--ikfl 0-4 N ') °- w v t e°a.4 .g v°�•. h vv A v.v O Cli �•�Tgm.5aaa QoNe>a.C,`°a d >Thro� � � 3o ,�va ra.io � p.sit •atbgo'bc?� ar-� a - aqua. •� �/1 oen w°s�v-L'• C.h 0.C�•.'1 W•6 (3 ,9•71.•58-0. -8•1'g PNIi ,� .,. c N N C .vC �'. 'anya5ll f. � u� ❑ � v o bil) la.) 2 : .12• afj u . 6. m 3 t1 a dP� r. g � ph 3 imam iii, `. CJ •. p ti x >• �� Q) it ( IszNam " '4.;-@ o.0 c •c 3 i cs Z 4....e In i O �V EZ PfaM v •9_'- a ? 3 ki 4.'41 i.R 0 otill • S' o iy "' Pill' of Y I I I .t W y.6 'Y'O 2 Q oR'oetnF'v vu N vc L. v v: O �, = ..,ax � 2btiv ,i{ ";;)11. n v 4'U wJ C ' o N 1144 v°'-.�'ry .0 •,4 v o 3) Q I. S�fI1 F` --: Nora aGp cc� W LI PPM • j, . •. s�q d `� o N Etc..N x a,.a till CZ -S CI V DO .�R h.Tf e y ,v O u '0 0 i-.""1:," :n ' -° oR °. as `° o vv.- c ' o. ,- ,^y ; C/D -r„ roc ° ° " 8 Co n "0 t. d ? 9 o..�ir 'O+ a INENI C) 7:8933 q °�;yeo ;ro ov � N . .9 ° N,.. ,.�. F. N [j p yg 1°.. �y y y {>y' Nom.,. 00 0 q O rJ 6!v ¢�?'b Q Q. a ,A1 -a•N'`o'! °G,. Dcu V o g e2 O a, N C.' -12.,. 0-or, P. OC'd v N u y',egg a > 6 v P. cad -E Y. in °moo-0„-a ,.., pbv" uebv oo2.5%-. v tlIJ iv g vN v PO F � uy u wa.., oCc > v av E8 •� �. 3 id � u .. N guao C�c:+ vo'5 � u • I). III ≥ ocA kiwi ir' vt 10 v• N 0 a,„2. O v CV g y Q r.,O-0 ,,,� v v`"�J ° 3 °y;3• ON 0,Ew a,v1 eft♦ ocr) a CJapp06 ��• ..`° O4 0 u �r• + li (� L SO-c) u.4a C w o >, ,� gr�" vav-• "oNo� >.OL.), ci,.s � y3i •v yo 5. m w�' y- V 74 � ro = L i0 ^pv9grog ▪,Ts . ° a°, ati Nd �� >1 .2.P1227131; paI 'L' v01.e aaeo. 4A. ., 'i �j. c 4 07:7517, 17 U N AO 0 O r' �O m > W O O 0 vC m o 0 v v 1i m.E 4 ,0....w8 3 N..v, 3�U en N3ON4''B3•50L.P.57, 0•5-5 9° « _ �yc « e?n '�t > fl C≤ N H 0 2✓ d ,L J > N V N w ° C O O b N N 9 L y C C M a'O c W : F w�m----Ana.. o > co..c.. a. a) e N N C • 4. O ta ° a CI) 7,111 O o v �N O) o�v � � m«� a (�1 °og B °T .card .Svo.ca° a !ray{ 1 w a ':'-4-• •cl to o) U o O = / � B > 7L' NN 'Ow M W 'tt. Z �Jl 3 u,°d:a.c y ° o o 5 > v °3 w cer) aMiymym•,,, mo v 1.4 v°vw,dp ° v n, z xvv0,°1S rx )v�vro�.vv 2 Quil m 04 4;3A°. z3: d.> mAI ° w mA gig w A^,,.. Svc ,n VLI tili '." tI M XO �' w w �A • • • M L ?6 vcg N N -,t4, �* • L 3a3 �/ a. 5 �V. v OC c UcA W Om co S " o.x V. 3 y v c m'�O ,C'"' i •-• 00 F4 pp v�aa 4 � ? c'.ov3 . o.S U3.n C3v'fl 2 .5,b0 N ^ p{ ',jib U b 3.^ .. O 4y t ,a 8 �� a: •C � >.O P 4 v vv- � v , ° Nam_,-QW ` 4v � " U `a`«g:;:^ o !� G v y%, S w,3 v .`A 3 y U y '3 V q N pp v [C °°n O 1 ,, t,,,244:4 .s o 7 u w > m• ..1 «..� WL T in O '' 'C N c0 Saturday, July 23, 2005 O Street expansion is to relieve traffic on U.S. 34 POINTS NORTH after development occurs, FROM PAGE Al Andrews said. Ultimately,the chosen path In April,Judy moved back would be fine-tuned to mini- to the farm from Fort Collins mize effects to landowners to be close to her 74-year-old and wildlife habitat,Andrews mother.She's occupying the said.The final plan would tan-colored home that was need to be approved by Gree- built in 1926 for Grandpa Con- ley,Windsor and Weld County. rad,"a German immigrant. But Ruth sees no need for the corridor that would cost Now,mother and daughter, $50 million to build. still recovering from the sud- den 'We've got 392 and 34 just death of their husband and father,are confronting two miles on either side of another am. us,"Ruth said."Why do they m want to put a road here?" "I just moved back,and I While three routes are pro- want to keep my house,"Judy, 38, said."I don't want to have posed—one that sends O a highway through my living Street north and another to the south—the central alter- room:"The Firestiens are collect- native,which would bisect the ing signatures from residents Firestiens'50-acre property; is who oppose the plan to thus far the preferred route by extend O Street from 83rd Greeley officials due to cost, Avenue,where it currently fewest curves and fewest ends,to Colo.257 in Windsor. homes affected. Bill Andrews,a city of Gree- Any of the routes would ley traffic planner,presented O affect many landowners and Street plans to Windsor town wildlife habitat,the Firestiens officials Monday night.The say. Firestiens and about a dozen "The question is,when is other frustrated residents all this development going to attended the meeting. stop?"Judy said."A certain "I don't want to move,but I amount is fine,but we're don't want a four-lane high- going to run out of water." way up to my door,either," She doesn't plan to ever said Bev Allison,who lives in move again.Neither does a Victorian home just east of Ruth. the Firestiens. "It may not happen for 20 Andrews explained the O years,"Ruth said of the road Street corridor is part of a extension."But still,you don't long-term 2030 plan.He said want to look forward to some- extending and widening the thing like this?' two-lane road would provide Chuck,considered"the a needed connector from humor guy"in the family, Greeley to.Interstate 25, would not have been tickled reduce traffic on U.S.34 and by the O Street proposal,the Colo.392,and improve safety Firestiens say.The farm meant on the other east-west corri- everything to him. dors. "He would not be laughing Securing the five-mile cor- at this,"Judy said. "He would ridor now is important get very red in the face.You'd because it will be too late know he was mad?' rarewart1sav1�• � OLll� th� hO��C S (_,) HE 0 STREET extension plan T is anything but the"right � , ' ` r road,"or in the best interests EXCUSE ME LADY, _ ( of Weld County. '• V�ALT1fY I 1.7::.•:: ' i In the Tribune Opinion article on D{rEr, RWArT - + +' June lo.it was expressed that a new 1UWV:ALam{ .- r .w cif r , thoroughfare from U,S.85 to Mhll R16fff IN c f ,-,.,6).110;IT r'"` ¢t� , - J.' Interstate 25 was needed and that ?,'-t;j ti all ---�. ,.ti -i<• ..._.'s:1 . "the need will become clearer." OE P161. ' J,l' n; ', f when the new regional mall opens - '•' .rU �� ` ,i ;�! ,,,E• � 'ice :.:-°� Albert along 1-25. �_-- rv, _ • •[ 'Stub' Right.Let's take people's land _ Stub and homes away,just so the rest►►t Gia, -y r",;-:, N �f' %' us can get to the mall quicker. Aral •-"•••:. li i q '-_ Allison v' is in the hest interest _f ` ``' by the at}',it t > - ..MAIN , �. . of the city told county that you get :r, - + 1 - N1175;;'," 4 i. Guest to that mall as quickly as possible. :t - ---- columnist Let me get this straight.We need J I It'sz'' �' ' ' another highway a than we t t�� i an r gh more - ll l-a`'s - .:•,',61,� �, `' need to deal with the.already exist- :` •`".: �G'1f._ '1 ';, ,e P. .1 l lint;routes that are terrible?If arty- e<.� 's�� W.,'' f�-� j �. ...÷-”�.�� one who drives West 10th Street/ r`:'' ;.t r �/t [� U.S.34-Business to I-25 or colic.392 '" �' • . ' • kite . y .� lJ+' •::yip;, i • to 1-25 is happy with those thor- % - • eughfares as they are now,I would be surprised. The article on lune 10,"O Street other businesses have made that room,and the other through your plan:Warning signals ahead,"inti- route a bottleneck.!low about a kitchen.People whose family has mates"that developers would likely U.S.34-Business route that held on to land for nearly 100 years build a two-lane road./linking C) bypassed that area,or possibly a should be rewarded,not handed Street from 83rd Avenue to Colo. totally new route to these business- their hat. 257 and then the state or federal es?And make U.S.34-Business four And just in ea SC you have read government would probably pay to lanes all the way,instead of four all this,and you are wondering why widen the road."Hmmm,you think lanes going down to two?With four you should care,let me put it to we could just scrap the whole idea lanes all the way,you could really you this way.Ever use the Poudre and get the state or federal govern- get to that mall fast! River Trail?Nice,huh?So peaceful ment to deal with the already exist- The Tribune also expressed the and tranquil.A little patch of nature ing mutes?Besides.don't"would idea that sometimes growth is hard, we can all enjoy.[Want to give that likely"and"would probably" make and that landowners are upset by a up for a faster mall route?This new you as nervous as me? new route"possibly bisecting their route would nut only bisect it.but Cola.392 could easily be property,which is mainly farmland run along side it.No more fun or widened to four lanes and the now"The 20-plus homeowners tranquility. Ever had a good time impact on property owners would along the route who do not farm walking on or riding your hike on a be significantly less than the pro- must wonder if anyone represent- highway?Hmmm,me neither. posed U Street route.Colo.392 is ing the Tribune has really seen the basically a straight shot and I would area,not to mention,there are two Albert`Stub"Allison liar been be surprised if Windsor was not all homes that are right in the pro- an O Street resident for all his 32 for it. posed path."Possibly bisecting"is years and is a daily commuter to As to West 10thIU.S.34-Business, not an issue when one lane of the Denver utilizing the West 10th/U.S. the development by State Farm and new road goes through your living 3.1-Business-to-Interstate-2-5 route. �f -- 7- 05— All the memories that are part of O Street should be considered The pros and cons of the 0 Street exten- sion have been reviewed without the inclu- sion of one vital fact. Perhaps to many it does not matter; to me it matters much. I have a vivid memory of Wally Firestein and his two cousins in the farm yard dis- cussing their dilemma of going off to war that was far from the fields of Bracewell and the only home they had ever known. To this day, when I pass the Firestein farm- stead at 0 Street and 83rd Avenue, I think of Firestein, Boltz, Comin and Monfort. Four young men from our community paid the ultimate price to preserve and pro- tect our priceless privileges. Ironic isn't it that Wally went half way around the world to die for our freedom that was in jeopardy and now that freedom is threatened again, not on the blood beaches of Iwo Jima, but in the calloused "courts" of our county. Consider him and his family, please! H. BUD KLAUS Greeley - g-e..5 D Street extension plan is a bad idea for Greeley corridor After having lived on Weld County Road 64 (O Street) for 33 years, it is with great concern that I now address this issue. Not only was I not notified about the June 9 meeting regarding extending O Street, but the majority of my neighbors were not either. In the Greeley Tribune June 16 editorial it was stated that the O Street area is main- ly just farmland right now. This is not entirely accurate at all. The Tribune fails to mention that there are more private residences on O Street now than ever before; actually, a higher number than the people who are still farm- ing. What this means is that it is actually a beautiful area with well-kept private homes and the serenity of nature surrounding it, which is an added bonus. Any improvements to create a better "Greeley to Colo. 257" or "Greeley to Interstate 25" corridor should be made to U.S. 34 and/or Colo. 392, which has been a necessity for a very long time, besides being the most logical routes. Do we really need yet another highway? BEVERLEE A. ALLISON Greeley Highway plan will destroy precious farmland THE TRIBUNE OPINION piece in the not to mention family farms and homes. June 16 edition,"City,Weld officials Improving U.S.34 and Colo.392 make on right road,"has concerned and much more sense than destroying the angered many of us living in the path of Ruth precious natural resources that the O the O Street extension. _ Street extension would. This extension will go through pre- •,� Firestien Considering all the opposition that :ions farmland and through people's '*' occurred at the June 9 meeting,I can't homes.My neighbors, family and I want \ Guest begin to understand the Tribune's point to emphasize that before the Tribune columnist of view. prints an opinion of this nature,it needs My neighbors and I hope the Weld to get all of the facts.It is obvious the County commissioners study this very Tribune did not! been many more people in attendance, closely before making any decisions,and My daughter and I live in the two and many more objections. notify the property owners in a reason- houses;t the intersection of O Street and Additionally,the transportation able amount of time so they can attend 83rd Avenue(which is also Weld County department did not have the correct these meetings. roads 64 and 27).This proposed exten- information as to who the property own- By notifying people so late of the past Sion would go right through our homes ers are.Isn't that what county records are meeting,it certainly looks like the trans- and our family farm.This farm has been for? portation department and the county in our family for nearly 100 years. My neighbors and I seriously question commissioners are trying to sneak some- We feel that the transportation depart- the need for this new road.U.S.34 and thing through.Is that what is really going ment was extremely negligent in notify- Coln.392 run parallel on both sides of O on? inn the affected Weld County residents Street(Weld 64).Both of these estab- about the June 9 meeting that was con- lished highways are only two miles away Ruth Firestien is a native of Weld ducted on this plan.Some of my neigh- from O Street. County and has lived in the same farm- hors received notices but many others We realize Greeley and Windsor are house for more than 50 years.Tier hus- did not,including me.I heard about the growing,but we see no reason to put band was born on the farm 76 years ago. meeting from a neighbor,not from the more concrete through this beautiful, She is an active member of St.John's transportation department!Had more scenic open area that is home to native United Church of Christ in Greeley and people been notified there would have plants,grasses,lakes and the bald eagle, of the community in which she lives. Page 1 of 1 / \ STOP O STREET Enter Site Last updated November 10,2008 Copyright©Stop O Street. All rights reserved. http://www.stopostreet.com/ 11/10/2008 Save Our Homes Page 1 of 1 STOP SAVE OUR HOMES ! Public Hearing Date Set for Monday, November 17, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners. Click here to read notice. Home Click here to read the Update for November 6, 2008!! How to Help • SIGN THE Click here to read the O Street Alignment Study Report. PETITION We created this website because we feel the community needs to know about • Contact the the proposed O Street Alignment. Aside from one small notice, there has been Commissioners no information published in the local newspapers on this proposed roadway. • Contact Lawmakers Here's what you need to know: This past spring, the City of Greeley, Weld County • Contact the Media and Town of Windsor agreed to pay for a study to "define a preferred alignment for "O" Street west of the intersection of"O" Street and 83rd Avenue". UPDATES • Update The first Open House for the study, held on June 10, 2008 presented FOUR different 10/09 alternatives for extending O Street west of 83rd Avenue. • 7 News Coverage Community input at this first open house determined the "preferred alignment"to be a route that travels south of the Firestien's homes and across the southern edge of the Opinions • NEW! Firestien's property. (Click here to see blue route on the map of alternatives.) Tribune Articles Despite the community acceptance of the southern route, the Evaluation Panel • Study Flaws for the study determined in August 2008 that the "preferred alignment" is the route that goes DIRECTLY THROUGH BOTH of the homes on the Firestien's Background property. Information: • 2005 We refuse to stand by while these• ? n: 2008 agencies make plans to destroy • Maps & Info our property, most likely through Why O Street the use of condemnation and is a Bad Idea eminent domain. • Environmental .n a _, tee I Concerns We need your help! Please • Property contact the Weld County Commissioners before the public hearing Co ner terns on November 17 to help save our homes! More Petitions Please see the links on the left for background information, contact and Info information for the Weld County Commissioners and other representatives and a link to sign our petition. Farm History Contact Us Thank you for visiting the Stop O Street website! b i You are visitor number K http://www.stopostreet.com/Save%20Our%20Homes.htm 11/10/2008 2005 Background Information Page 1 of 1 STOP 2005 0 STREET O Street/Crossroads Boulevard Alignment / We first learned of the O Street/Crossroads Boulevard Extension plan in the summer of 2005. There were several articles in the Greeley Tribune. (Please click the links Home below to read the articles. Use the back arrow in your browser to return to the How to Help webpage.) • SIGN THE The first article was entitled, "Official offers plan to extend O Street to Hwy 257". PETITION • Contact the Commissioners The follow up article to this first article was entitled, "O Street Plan: Warning Signals • Contact Ahead". This article talks about the opposition to the O Street extension plan by lawmakers landowners in the area and concern over the impact of a road on the Poudre River Trail • Contact and riparian corridor. This article also talks about the recreation area that the Tigges the Media family has planned for their property; a plan that was approved by the Weld County UPDATES Commissioners some years ago. Which raises the question, "How can the County Update approve this plan and later decide to put a road through their property?" • 10/09 • 7 News Another article appeared in the Greeley Tribune during the summer of 2005. This one Coverage was entitled, "O Street woes: Progress means pain for farm family". This article talks about the Firestien family, our opposition to O Street and opposition from other Opinions neighbors. • NEW! Tribune In 2005, there were also numerous columns that appeared in the Greeley Tribune as Articles listed below: • Study Flaws Background Country roads are worth saving Information: • 2005 All the memories that are part of O Street should be considered • 2008 • Maps & Info O Street extension plan is a bad idea for Greeley corridor Why O Street Highway plan will destroy precious farmland is a Bad Idea • Environmental After all this opposition was expressed, the O Street extension plan seemed to die. Concerns As recent as the spring of 2007, I received a response to an inquiry from a • Property P 9 P q rY Owner representative of Weld County who said, "there has apparently not been much Concerns forward progress on the plans since the last public meeting where much opposition was heard from nearby residents". More Petitions and Info It was quiet until the spring of 2008, when the O Street extension became active Farm History again Go to Background Information for 2008. Contact Us More info: Newspaper clippings of articles above(includes maps and pictures): Warning Signals Ahead 0 Street Woes: Progress means pain for farm family Highway plan will destroy Country roads are worth saving All the memories http://www.stopostreet.com/2005%20Background.htm 11/10/2008 2008 Background Information Page 1 of 1 STOP 2008 O Street/Crossroads Boulevard Alignment O STREET We attended a Windsor Town Board meeting in March and learned of the "Intergovernmental Agreement between and among the City of Greeley, County of Home Weld, and Town of Windsor for participation in a study pertaining to the Alignment of"O" Street between Weld County Road 23 and Weld County Road 27". The study How to Help to be conducted by the Centennial, Colorado consulting firm of Felsburg, Holt • SIGN THE and Ullevig (FHU)was described, in the Scope of Work, as being a study to"define PETITION Contact the the preferred alignment for"O" Street between County Road 23 and 83rd Avenue". • We were next approached by representatives from Weld County who wanted to talk Commissioners • Contact with us and alert us that the O Street Alignment was active again. Lawmakers • Contact We next learned of the Open House to be held on May 22, 2008. This was later the Media rescheduled due to the Tornado and was held on June 10, 2008. Please note there was no announcement of the first Open House in the Greeley Tribune. After a request UPDATES was made that there be some form of announcement in the local paper, a small notice • update appeared in the Tribune before the June 10th Open House entitled, "Open house set 10/09 • 7 News for O Street Alignment project". Coverage Four different alignments were presented at this first Open House. The community opinions input voted the southern route (blue route) which travels across the south edge of the • NEW! Firestien property as the "preferred alignment" (see map of alternatives). Tribune Articles A great deal of opposition was expressed towards several of the alternatives as well • Study Flaws as against the idea of the extension of O Street, in general. See the links under Why O Street is a Bad Idea -for details. Background Information: • 2005 An Evaluation Panel of seven members, made up of engineers and planners, analyzed • 2008 the four alternatives. The consultants from FHU gathered input from the Open House • Maps & Info and participated in the analysis also. Why O Street The Final Open House was held on August 19, 2008. At this time the "preferred is a Bad Idea alternative"was presented which was not the blue route the community had preferred, • Environmental but was instead the yellow route which travels directly through BOTH of the Firestien's Concerns homes. • Property Owner Concerns The next step is for the study to be completed by FHU and for it to be presented to the Board of Weld County Commissioners for approval in September or October. More Petitions and Info Here's where we need your help! Please voice your opposition to the O Street Alignment to the Weld County Commissioners before or at the hearing in Farm History September! Contact Us http://www.stopostreet.com/2008%20Background.htm 11/10/2008 O Street is a Bad Idea Page 1 of 1 STOP Why O Street is a Bad Idea WRW°P `; Environmental Concerns o STREET - _ The extension of O Street west at 83rd Avenue will have a severe impact on the Cache la Poudre River Corridor and its wildlife and wetlands. This proposed four lane highway Home will devastate the delicate ecosystem of the Cache La Poudre River corridor. How to Help The proposed highway runs within a quarter of a mile of the river in some areas. The • SIGN THE road also runs along the edge of the flood plain and through the flood plain in some PETITION locations. The flood plain of the Cache la Poudre River was designated a National • Contact the Heritage Area in 1996 by Congress. Commissioners g g • Contact Lawmakers In addition, earlier this year, the national organization, American Rivers, declared the • Contact Cache la Poudre River America's Third Most Endangered River. the Media The Department of Wildlife has expressed their opposition to the extension of O Street UPDATES Update both in 2005 and again in 2008. This area is one of the last undeveloped stretches of • 10/09 the Poudre River Corridor. There is an abundance of wildlife in the area, and it is even • 7 News home to a Bald Eagle. Coverage With the Cache la Poudre River designated a National Heritage Area, American Opinions Rivers declaring it an endangered river, and the Department of Wildlife • NEW! expressing their concern, shouldn't we be working to PROTECT the river Tribune corridor and its wildlife habitat, rather than planning to slash a highway next Articles to it? • Study Flaws Background The Poudre Learning Center and Poudre River Trail Corridor are also located along the Information: river and will be negatively impacted by the proposed road. The City of Greeley has • 2005 spent a lot of time and effort building the trail. To quote the trail website, "the Poudre • 2008 Trail allows people to experience the beauty of the river, while also preserving the • Maps & Info river's edge and the habitat of wildlife species that live near the river". After putting so much effort into building the trail, why would the City now choose to put a four-lane Why O Street highway so near it? is a Bad Idea • Environmental Concerns • Property Owner Concerns For more information: Cache la Poudre National Heritage Area More Petitions http://www.fortnet.org/PRHerCor/index.htm and Info Status of the Cache la Poudre River as one of America's Most Farm History Endangered Rivers: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/americanrivers/endangered rivers/index.php?sta rtid=24 Contact Us Poudre River Trail Corridor: www.poudretrail.org Poudre Learning Center: http://plc.greeleyschools.org/home.asp http://www.stopostreet.com/Environmental%20Concerns.htm 11/10/2008 O Street is a Bad Idea Page 1 of 1 Why 0 Street is a Bad Idea �v+R° G OP Property Owner Concerns o sr •\ W . The extension of O Street west at 83rd Avenue will severely impact property owners. The roadway will: Home How to Help • Demolish at least two homes and the associated farm buildings as well as cut • SIGN THE through excellent farmland on the Firestien's property. PETITION • Destroy the Tigges family hunting, fishing and recreation area. The Tigges family's • Contact the plan for their recreation area was approved by the Weld County Commissioners Commissioners • contact some years ago. Now they want to put a road through the property? Lawmakers • Contact If O Street is eventually widened to the east of the intersection of O Street and 83rd the Media Avenue, many more property owners will be impacted as the widening of the road would destroy many homes or make them uninhabitable. There are at least 17 homes UPDATES Update between 59th Avenue and 83rd Avenue that would be impacted. The settlement of • 10/09 Farmers' Spur(located near the railroad tracks between County Roads 31 and 29) • 7 News would be annihilated. Coverage The Weld County Comprehensive Plan states, "The importance of agriculture in the Opinions County is recognized, and supporting agriculture is an important objective of the • NEW! County". Current statistics state that every minute of every day, we lose two acres of Tribune agricultural land to development. Articles • Study Flaws Also in its Comprehensive Plan, Weld County talks about"preserving rural character". Background The settlements of Bracewell and Farmers' Spur were important in the agricultural Information: community in the early days of Weld County. Many of the homes and farms along O • 2005 Street are at least 100 years old or older. This heritage and culture should be • 2008 respected and preserved. • Maps & Info Why O Street is a Bad Idea • Environmental Concerns • Property For more information on preserving farmland: Owner Concerns From American Farmland Trust: More Petitions and Info Fact Sheet: Why Save Farmland? Farm History The Apple as Planet Earth Demonstration: http://www.farmland.org/images/flash/apple.swf Contact Us http://www.stopostreet.com/Property%20Owner%20Concerns.htm 11/10/2008 Farm History Page 1 of 1 /Th History of the Firestien Farm STOP 0 STREET The Firestien family has farmed and lived on this property for over 90 years. Records indicate Peter and Sophia Firestien were living on the property in the settlement of Bracewell in 1917. It is possible they were living on the property as early as 1911. Home The brown stucco home was built in 1926 by the How to Help Von Trotha Brothers— Bode and Claude Von • SIGN THE Trotha. The Brothers were prominent cattle PETITION feeders and farmers in the Greeley area and Wit",. • Contact the owned several farms in the Bracewell area. Commissioners • Contact Conrad and Mabel Firestien lived in the stucco Lawmakers house, farmed the land for the Von Trotha • Contact Brothers, and raised six children. The eldest son, the Media Wallace E. Firestien served his country in World War II and made the ultimate sacrifice UPDATES when he was killed in action on Okinawa in 1945. • Update 10/09 In 1952, the second eldest son Wilbert W. "Chuck" Firestien married Ruth Brug. • 7 News Conrad told the Von Trotha Brothers he "needed a house for Chuck because he was Coverage getting married" and Claude and Bode moved the white house to the current location from another farm. This house was built in 1900 and once was located in Windsor. Opinions • NEW! Tribune This photo from the 1980's shows O Street was not Articles always a T intersection headed straight for the x • Study Flaws houses. There had always been a big curve in front .10 of the houses until the 1990's when the road was >— Background modified. Information: • 2005 • 2008 .`''N. . .. \V. • Maps & Info Early History One of the earliest owners of the property was Sharon Why O Street Atkinson. He came to Colorado from England and is a Bad Idea was one of the original pioneers of the Union Colony. • Environmental He also served as Weld County Clerk and Record in the early 1900's. Concerns • Property Owner Mary Bracewell purchased the farm from Sharon Atkinson in 1885. It was quite Concerns unusual for a woman to purchase property on her own in those days. Mary and her More Petitions husband, Christopher Bracewell, came to Colorado from England around 1885 with and Info their son Christopher William or "C.W". The settlement of Bracewell was later named after C.W. Bracewell. Farm History The Bracewell family owned the property until 1902, when it was sold to Scott Contact Us Getchell. In 1907, Mr. Getchell sold the property to Philip Krieger. In 1916, it was purchased by the Von Trotha Brothers and was later purchased by Conrad and Mabel Firestien. http://www.stopostreet.com/Farm%20History.htm 11/10/2008 Update 081009 Page 1 of 1 STOP 0 Street Update October 9, 2008 0 STREET We would again like to thank everyone who has visited the website, signed the petition, put a "Stop O Street" sign in their front yard, contacted local television stations and Home written letters to the Weld County Commissioners and Colorado lawmakers. Thank you so much for your support! We appreciate it greatly!- The Firestien Family How to Help •SIGN THE The website has been up for a month now and we would like to give everyone an PETITION Ipdate: •Contact the Commissioners • Contact • We have not yet been notified of a date for the public hearing before the Weld County Lawmakers Commissioners to approve the O Street Alignment Study. In August, we were told • Contact this would occur in September or October. the Media UPDATES • If you saw the Channel 7 News coverage on September 17, you heard Weld • Update Commissioner David long state that Public Works was revamping their 10/09 recommendation and would be presenting the southern route (blue route) rather than • 7 News the straight route (yellow route). We are hopeful that the Commissioners will follow Coverage through on this recommendation by approving it and sparing our homes. Opinions • NEW! • We have received many, many comments from people with regard to the O Street Tribune extension project either verbally or via the online petition. Many people seem to have Articles the same opinion on the project. They feel the road is unnecessary and the existing • Study Flaws roads, including the current widening of Highway 34, are sufficient for existing and future traffic. The common statement is "leave it alone!" Background Information: • 2005 After listening to people's comments and views, it seems clear this road is completely • 2008 unnecessary. If the proposed road were to be placed to the south of our homes, it • Maps & Info would save our homes and we would be quite appreciative. However, this does not solve the problem. Extending O Street west would still destroy our neighbor's why o street is a Bad Idea recreation area and the wildlife and wetlands of the Poudre River riparian corridor. • Environmental The proposed widening of O Street to the east of 83rd Avenue and O Street would Concerns destroy many more homes, rural culture and history. • Property Owner WE'VE GOT TO STOP Concerns THE EXTENSION AND WIDENING OF O STREET! More Petitions and Info PLEASE CONTINUE TO TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW ABOUT THE PROJECT. ENCOURAGE THEM Farm History TO VISIT THE WEBSITE AND SIGN THE PETITION! Contact Us SAVE THE POUDRE! SAVE OUR HOMES! STOP 0 STREET! http://www.stopostreet.com/Update%20081009.htm 11/10/2008 7 News Coverage Page 1 of 1 Channel 7 News Coverage STOP O STREET Click here for the link to Channel 7 News Coverage: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/17499940/ Home How to Help Some of you saw the news coverage on Channel 7 on Wednesday, September 17, •SIGN THE regarding the O Street extension. It looks like we may have made some progress as PETITION Weld County Commissioner David Long stated Public Works will be revamping the • Contact the recommendation put forward to the County Commissioners and will be presenting the Commissioners southern (blue) route as the preferred alternative for O Street. • Contact Lawmakers • Contact Let's hope that the other commissioners follow through and support Commissioner the Media Long's commitment. UPDATES This is promising news, but our work is not done. There is still the problem of the • Update 10/09 proposed road traveling through the Poudre River Corridor and the destruction it will • 7 News cause to wildlife, the Poudre River Trail, our neighbors fishing and recreation area, Coverage and the last stretch of undeveloped riparian area along the Poudre River. opinions Please keep spreading the word and encourage others to sign the petition. • NEW! Help us continue to work to ensure our homes are safe and to protect the Tribune Articles Poudre River from the O Street extension. • Study Flaws Background Information: Please help us to "Stop O Street." Thank you! • 2005 • 2008 • Maps & Info Why O Street is a Bad Idea • Environmental Concerns • Property Owner Concerns More Petitions and Info Farm History Contact Us http://www.stopostreet.com/7%20News%20Coverage.htm 11/10/2008 Teresa Brunner 12234 WCR 66 Greeley CO 80631 (970) 397-1099 November 9, 2008 To The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Re: O Street Arterial Corridor Study My family and I would like to apologize for being unable to attend in person. We are meeting in California to celebrate our son's return from his second tour in Iraq. I am sending this letter on behalf of myself and my family. We are strongly against the expansion of O Street through the Firestein's homes and property. We would like to urge you to decide against it. This corridor could actually benefit my family since we own property adjacent to the proposed new road, which could ultimately increase the value of that property. And despite that fact, we are still strongly opposed to the addition of this corridor. I can understand Weld County's interest in opening up another artery between Windsor and Greeley. However, I would like to encourage you to consider improving the already existing County Road 66 that runs one mile North of O Street instead. We live on Weld County Road 66 and we have no objections to improving the road and increasing traffic thereon. Improving Weld County Road 66 would require building only one mile of new road through Owen Illinois property, moving their small power station, and paving three miles of road including the addition. Weld County Road 66 is already built, improving it won't mean displacing families, or wildlife, and the eminent domain property that would be required to be claimed isn't being used by the facility other than a small area where the power plant is located. The time and expense would be phenomenally less than extending O street through two homes, a gravel pit, building a bridge across the Poudre River, and building and paving over four miles of new road across a flood plane. The best part of this alternative(if you don't think the money you'd save is the best part), is Weld County Road 66 actually goes directly into the Town of Windsor. The O Street corridor would simply end in a residential neighborhood. That fact alone makes me wonder how to justify this project. Why build a road that doesn't go anywhere? Along with displacing two homes, this proposal intrudes on river bottom land thou_, wildlife depend upon for safe haven and survival. Since I've spent almost folly yeai° o growing up along this specific area of the Poudre River I can attest to the fac that the are deer, wild turkey, porcupine, a Snowy Owl, and golden eagles that live gnty in this -,6 particular area. We will loose the privilege of their company if this corridor Ts-built. > c:1 9P co vim 7XHIBIT My point being,there are cheaper,more practical, and more humane alternatives to the 0 Street Arterial Corridor, and I urge you to abandon this proposal and investigate alternatives such as the one suggested herein. Sincerely; Teresa Brunner November 6, 2008 Clerk of the Board P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Co. 80632 We are definitely against the 0 Street Corridor going through property where homes are situated when we can go around the homes and use the alternate road. Sincere y,) 4tri i :'George A. Tooley � 1.\tjag--""+— Joyce M. Tooley 701 River View Drive Greeley, Co. 80634 G. A. Tooley Joyce Tooley P.O. Box 336806 Grimy. CO 80633 .2 '72,-1- f '.o. o trri C. -c r, r; -N J)o r T rr _C 1, _DC C) m 2 EXHIBI w IZ Esther Gesick From: Cheryl Stimson [cstimson@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:34 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Stop O Street Why in the world would the commissioners choose to built a road through a family's property and homes, when there is perfectly acceptable alternative. Please, please, stop 0 street! ! ! ! Do the right thing. Sincerely, Cheryl Stimson EXHIBIT 1 November 13, 2007 Esther Gesick Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Ms. Gesick, I would like to ask that you include this letter, describing the following two items, in the exhibits for the Weld County Commissioners to review before the O Street Corridor Study public hearing on Monday: 1. Fox News Coverage Link to Fox 31 News coverage entitled, "Nightmare on "O" Street": http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/Home/Deta it?contentld=7852997&version= 1&locale=EN-US&IayoutCode=VSTY&pageld=1.1.1 2. "Stop O Street" Petition Signatures The total of"Stop O Street" petition signatures as of 11:00 a.m. today is 608. I will present these signatures with the associated comments, at the Public Hearing on Monday, November 17. Any additional signatures collected before Monday will be included in the presentation. I will also present the 762 signatures that were collected in 2005 when the O Street project was first introduced. Thank you for your time and attention to these items. Sincerely, Judy Firestien V n Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:47 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: O Street Original Message From: Kathy Moore [mailto:kathemo®mac.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:12 AM To: Bill Jerke Subject: O Street Mr. Jerke, I find it hard to believe that you and your friends would vote to put people out of their homes and destroy such a beautiful and valuable part of our country. I grew up in that area and believe that it is a treasure to safeguard. Please reconsider an alternative to O Street. Kathy Moore 4163 S. Syracuse Street Denver, CO 80237 EXHIBrr "0" St 1 fi ti z, "CZ " /C L<-e�. (12, y.:t_----tH/ �- e t.e�L-ec t L f�\ . .---77 1. /7 /1Ce---1"/ --1-e-2 <_- �.--e--nom.- .-.e,-Z_. - � .�. . �� -1 __ t (14 .: ) -c_, . r rte`" �` 6/ 7_,-x_, d_c_d_z„Le_4_,, -,7_,__,, ky,k; 77...4...„___,, . -t_c_ _ , (_c_4._e_c_, )_z_re.e_e__,_...., / 7tiZi1 n / ,_Z.�. 4„..? l/ 6-_,,,___, -7...j,1-`.l-C. / '4R7 ,_ LJ S G�Gtk'.. (L"y ' p C.�f` tc7t "Salt a-74----r.t w L.-.-•-..-`--yyt,�/ry��'L.-cry- //4-��J J _�-1.X , I.�CC�C,1—t.,41_ ,f' �� 4_,,j/ 01 CNr -ce-15 crf-en_r - 1—a CD 7 i C.-..) _ — CEittl-ti- ( / `"cam 69- L_.., /3/es- il� 2/ , ,/ - i1 -(-c,E, .L,,,,, -r 7.a4 3/- 3/ = EXHIBIT F ri0 Esther Gesick From: Frye, David [David.Frye@kaiseral.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 7:37 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: O Street Mr. David Frye 13648 County Road 64 Greeley, Co. 80631 I would appreciate having my thoughts considered when deciding on the path for the 0 Street expansion. I moved to Weld County 9 years ago, from Larimer County, because the change in demographics and expansion caused it to feel more like California than Colorado. I no longer venture West of I-25 unless absolutely necessary. Greeley and rural Weld county felt more like a place that I could feel a part of. The government offices were run with compassion, understanding, and a mission to actually help residents and taxpayers. I have always been happy to pay any fee levied by a Weld county office. I happen to live on 0 Street approximately '3 mile East of the intersection with 83rd Ave. Once I became aware of the proposed expansions I have tried in earnest to engage in the activity, understand it, and provide reasonable and unemotional input into the process. I feel that, despite my attempts to communicate and attendance at public meetings (which were not well published) the public input means absolutely nothing. I carefully analyzed the corridor study and found many omissions and flaws. When I tried to get answers or have flaws corrected I was ignored. I still don't understand the reasoning for the recommended route that leads straight West through the Firestien' s and Tigges' properties. They seem to do the maximum damage with very little return. This is no longer the county I moved to 9 years ago. The impression that I now have is that the county will do what the county wants to do with little regard for it' s citizens. If I am mistaken please show me where I am wrong. I not, please at least be honest with the citizens so we can choose where to live next. Regards, David Frye 4i I 0 V w?q 1 11326 1/1 I . s ib •. j 1� �§ 6� Ogg! `!i I 'i W y-a it p I iii st t . .01 1 EI !! ` 3� it t E ! t = E t i, r Ia 6 !I §g"" • %Rai'll `� Rt i NE 501 ii! g . r"- el It r r" t3 tl ir3il1 it ii:g: / _ A t . 1 ll i' R4 i 2 i3 1 - f9 aH k r jis = s f r1I� .. . i I •`. _.ci -a s R` . ci I L R! II 1 4i :i iI Bi °I LO !I!iI • —• 7 1 != ! i3 1 V r r s rf i a i s t3 I !.! _"_ s i i y Cl}a y gx i , t !VIVA III 7. ,s; W iji1I ftliiyt ai!!'ttt ' liii! ''I ! li i' fl P. _ ;:I =; ii� ;��;� i� i= ftfi �ll ;I iii a 3! t,j#t, iri x1 i l :I lfiE 1 i,:�tt(1I �� j ��i s f' !tb ijlt !1iiIi 1110It{t ' 1' t i . i J t II1t ! iifa , 1;sl I14th gills rill;Ii pl, i i i °� 111111 � 1F� I€¢y . llt ] ll i tIi II= 1 i. a,. f r `it = 11 4 111, 1.;1;11, !Jill! 1 llI � RI! ,ii}t t 4184 Iii , iIllf 11111J1'1i11 � Et i'i�` fj�1l! 1 ! fi jr [ {� � 1� f A �3�I �IF i 1 .. 1111 ! ' 1 _ t qi rzt J : A R t v . Li' tit *: i E ci! ]1 I =4i ;1 .AN i c .N1 1`O, 'lk� .Lam ` ha I _ na<ra►ios \,`.--, �V�I fc�oa��i L2�2171'r�j -.._ —T��.- 7w:Y .ccrta __ __ r c •s !., -4 Jii i • Vi i.7""`,.n.rocT - `•yl"� y I 1 I • ., y a�i Y �� -1,i,,, e ` � i� =G i I ar.sr a..rrrra" .wcv 7.+C�f,'Fy� l g 1 t / asW• i'p h A in g !PEI. • A J1 °1 )1 d` Xg s � 4` 20 - 5 �� ., 1413 kipt j y ijrd iiii a bb : ill . _= I s . 7 ' j - L..r. tr -- .. �Y` •-a-Y kg AJN i £ e3:j;h s' t IY A•41 7.S a i ' — ----.a`'m�„nv.—__ D. _. � ''rs'R9t'A7p.+ C ' ` :>♦_ ill, i Y i n - 4 •-..‘.4•-..‘.4 .1.. s c _ `�' ir.: •.,I €3 r3 P I 8 _ it i i i 9� ar : a a „ a 4x £ as E o¢ � s aP eN a iI r32xga � F. P 4 ' _ " �a " 477 a 'p2 e - am -F a " " ' N'il '� al ¢A CO 5k .. , , n w ,7i, � Jr ' , " o ii tJ s`s -(,:'*:' , !g4 � sa e d � $ ,°g ;7a ₹ € 3 •� �' ` E g- ,-, ''. .WN9°+ " 'a g s f: ^- xsa g RI Sao � s5gxa 4 x s w_ 3`g a (] eavGe739 :' as $ 3 \ ₹ as �.,ciaN 4950" ' aE3o2 8 §! € .9 d H !'! i 't',A3a a a §09 a r lV� 'sa : 3aax ?!t'a A A. € f€ ..sa§ €ac -a . _ ar lea a gvc � ce 2. �N 0 Q Q. 44 20 iii g 1 : e hi 9I y y� �"qR pipa€ E s ; III' tide 8 s a 3V 4$a 5 4t § STs W el U� L S a 8 I1! 1iiiii :1 D a tag rt 8 1tl 5 7a I e s t ifa 6i °� ppgg° pp Y §.. ,� s 8� Y� e 4 s" t a. a a g i2 S' Ia.al e oILI't . .. aS :fb6 ': ,g 707 L>/�.,6,2 l'nro a.a ".X q L2 7YI 4 �I A l th i" �;4 8t8 ,6,. _ _ — ______ Si -___ _--so� v _ . du g — — 3 3 .76 y3d: nR7 .44,k Rim t wF _ 1 a m !$3 i £ .1 1V0II pa3 ' d y'�,a ! .(4,3A a N to Y.� v #S $ r : N : ba ' 5 E-; G WE 3.9bAb.Kin Aq e � �'5Ra x 'a -7 _ o a " C S3 F ;;; o2 fly I, • ' `^ 4i • r , I t --S.' -- '': i%Il i ,..i %,"' " ' it Lti.""'. a ' ") ....• r • : eb 1 ..:1 a s. " 4•' 7•i �i' 1 1 .�• p i. . I. J .0 ' . ZS ; y g Q+ — j. \..;• ,I`'tl _ , �. 'N' •. 1, j r 1 v -t•-•,...,..?YE1 1 • .� 'V;,.• .D 1.7tv., • iT A ,r • -.1'1,1.•: I. • I. -5 '1' r � r ,' 1 1..� t f i - ' •i - •.�:Q� 3' : ,:, : ' -.1 11-:;I IN y. ♦ r+': ;ft-1•%'•;y , . V..yi�1� G r-�.s-a J i s i ?.it , . f , ,• ., , , le( :q -y{1 -. •1s,�''`✓'r ••' .• •• r`" v �. it- - ,. _^.3�_ !., _1... I• - fL 1,jr. �G. {(4 ,•� ., -Y'•�lAV' >')41r// 11 hl \� -Lh 1 I •r t'� 11 .. ., '>"�r.��':.✓fl ll: ': i �!• - `, `..+ r i ��' f - ./` tit �1...At-- '., 't +•am-4f,r.'.`f4.: r V' I.•• • •:Vl:�t- r - •�S.' I:I _ .�. �•"7'.#' ; • •414-Ft 1•t . 1' illa t.. .- toy-AD/ / •' '•‘1•• • •�'� r�▪ R.X r r -4‘. :•,,`„,V�-• • •y•,Y y ' �`T� + . J /�l •r'�'41 `� �r t ''-it•i is • 't.•r > 1• '' iA F I' 1 iz • 1 + 1•> ,\,.rJi * < ` I,l� ., � ' , rr ...` el, ::; '.kcir .• G. I X11 , l,,J '•Ni`. f-iit + { .+•.R+. p isfc, -11'd i',„;,,i;4„ '...,•• A d s e +Y;�, , y '.� y `_�F 3 I .Y'• f• l 1 ~ ~ S ' `� ' 1.Cle1/ �.- •. l 1 li - ‘, I/ • ••7•t I • ._ `'- . , •.h ' `:�. , '�; Ill �i - ti. 1 $ ' ,.0....••..._•, > a. f ,`\ _ _ -- '.. ? 1 "J. I .' 0 �,.4 '\\':;q:F' M:i • F � � �d l' r•I X r iirt _fled It -, ,....m• is._ -,ezeigapet Iiiiit^ • '' '��1 ` �,•J�,,.r•_ � ',• ' �t- 1 >" Q�_' t�•�4:ILI:2114 _ G. O 1i , •A ,iras it • Lt441,,.. i .. 743/41.4)111. ft''Vali, ,41sitts Ct.•>�� `*`'f.':•h��• �t��isl��Nl tt N- • i '�, 1 f ' •>;'(rl. '1 `tt - '5 , -+� r !! rT;'t,.-''"��a ?�SI►stoi�—'� - G.. u,1 l i __- ,V Illlyk„ sw' > 0 f _ ID '4.a•-;,l,. .,;1> -'. .1_• l '�.k♦ ..-11 1! I �.� Jr, • . - i rr / .7•14144. •\�` '. -+ • b 1 . .(113PICr 2 ',.''AI' .1".•-t. , . . .4. • ' . . - •-.4 - • - • 4.'s' . r "Vts' .i�� , i' f }`*. Who: •-' •, 7•i•. .• ��1 ,a/ -^I II.. `� - .I r` 'C ... -_____ .�I'y] tl L • y ill, '' ••• -', ilt\e\tilli 1 V` tat p dirar•al a I 'crA • P •. 1 i ; f'r. ,hlid-t z ' �l j 4+ "�. . P.; ,su 'w r 4 V :. -i,•.L'/ •�, IUD -;' `--• ' }1 1 ...sty ��•,,•"' - -'•' _ _'r..�lr - ( ' f� .. - ..f ' . 1 :.r •• qt, i • li•LR b... • II �f• '. ' ', ._1 ♦•,� / ,-•.' .' I ' A a /Y _ -' 1 ,' t�,• ti ;' 0:6:31'!•�:i ..i .1• r a1 r • • ›,) • J I J ,.. � l ,, 4 y{ � fi v I ) Q o p /� Y / I'I W yam^El 1! G t 2 WJ ail, ,/\ it{\A ++ l s L. inigqin > I 1 1 i 18 1 �\ 4 ,r'c`,i 1 \ _ -! it \0 f�{ r ti, Att. 1�. . r a - -N. .. iel F• in p 1 y2 a �. I 77j. RI I / ,' C I I 1; , % 'X 1 h 1 Q �_'� ' r,'m L i I t h i,rte , L• , etIL #l' I " ii I \ t . r I , I w We � . f: . . I I i N • ICI 1 ; v r I I ' , 1 1 \ si I ` i R ! \ \ 1 � r 1 I ti��` .� \ 1 \!1rw. / / v ti . (:1 ' / Q 1 / l//f / J d fl 61 - 1 +�* � e is la Jg 9 1 i.. . { 14;;Ili::::::.........'"*."lidfrlrfrit-l: :1411 il: VqO , � . 'p_ . , c 1w • . CA .. : • iiiittb4:11 . .,_ citi 41, CP1 el i;-1 i t.Uf: . . - - ..1,7 4IS0 .14 t it l" U N I. s g .I i• I X 1 E ,ett 1 W tee. 11 44 r t,• , , ,,, .53,9q. " •... , .„ Iti t C ...: i_•T l�' a , . ; a -t'i\, i `e a J.- UP") . , l�uno-; ;f — - i; i. •. �I. I I � ,- w S" lii ) 1 tmt \\\ X 4 a - /1 i '; • lb M • # _ _tom, ' U C. . v , s . • ' �I. i / . • - Iii l .h _ •. ` 1, 4 A` i� ..r .T. I. 7 1.1 llit r I.ar 9 I I I 07 1 .t I .. 1 1 � � I _ / i � —� i c R • w a —� `, ,;� , p E 8 r- i9 in R in CD i y . .Cs V • „,fa etCache Le fil.;J ..1•0 ` �- , cc = o m r" J Q imil • •=• 0E � . f it /J ! t118jys.i lil `1,,�1J� �� 1. ~' T ` 7 7 •— W / y tlllnn ,�.•► ;��_ � H y � E E — ._- - , OA ei�� ►> �7i� / i�,� 1 'turn/ • q�1 tin/ 1 L 2 _ _ V LI IS II4 I 1 .r1 •1. • •K I i. 1 egia n•r 1,l .. •� ��I�- t e,. t lc �il I 1 .-.tit •�s� 'am i • • • • of �I c A. • - 4. I i-/: J a wI \7.4 . CD i 1 Ill _ � II t•11 _sirr. f � 4' `. �b r � @Ib 1 ma 41� i.n �'\ m } .�1QJ ` ti. � . Ir. Qe i 1 r90 1.• � ≥ i � - . tie \ er .4 ) .• 1 ft a c 'I c 6 ` ,W a) gr. c Jail r ii El it" 4,1 a imi . ••, 1 (7 j , .i � y •. • Qlin r. ' ' F C) W d r I t� ^ i W �� . ( J'•-r ms II le _ O A}r.- c I I C.. iii r 10. all sr ' • �L. Z . 1 All. i y • H y ^ Z . . v m « io I i II , 1 Q F ~ r o ,I . •4. f0 in\ `iaa. • �w1 t .. t� g ft r/ C R = •tom • (4 C 0 R C r+ , r r:a Oj f0 at a - 3 C . . H F E a CP z : i 0 u a C v • • . I t N A r C C l i • • 4 0C � it DOW. C C = C0 or, ≥ c O --,-, �' _ O ct .� r- N N > > C E N N a00 S m ,O � DC a °° x � �� is W = coC � U ro 9 a) O Q ≥ .altitlet 6 + a ' o N r- r- co D i. > O v c p p Sc®0 6. 0 � -' J 4� O L - � ✓ �7 n u ZD - o Iles W 0W at a s O 4, ` C =I ,. , - V m ED C > E • 41,. O O _ .� CO CO CO N N N CO M V� L < N J a 2ircj • , � .6 < wE > c cu d' �' N CO 't Cr M� C (15c ` J QL (4: k ':I (it r=------:-. �°, r— N CO ict LO CD N k % % It % It It It l5) a) t_ a) a) CD L. 4) 0.1 _ lI a) a) a) a) a) a) a) . �z a) a) a) a) a) a) To it s C C C C C C C ec CZs � R� a ) cg c c c c c c c (C L4 o o o o a o 0 Cr' II5 Ili 4c-so Ct Ct Id c✓ C C C C C C Q � COcucj CO CO (t (13 (13 CC > > > > > > > o W W W W W W W 0 • a InC `% q O Q' 13 OT C O ® O w at >i— x �W C eb- Ala ` O z C O � ,c w 2 V O O � � O - v t- .sa144� O ® Is. X D .O 144 at . O Oll ^ ile V N 0) > C m O 0 2 � N N N N N N N O N N f Q E5 r7 O > V o 2 r r r r r r r I d m � a a �� g 1 d C Q ° Q J ire 311118 I It It It % It It It IOI CB a) a) a) a) a) (ll a) a) a) a) a) a) a) •_ an a) a) a) a) a) a) a) M O C C C C C C C ZC� ,-; to co co to co co CO l ' C a_ Os Os a_ a_ a. Os to C C C C C C C co 2 c O O O a a a O LI Q (4-ii to co to to co co c v C C C C C D C Qc a' C6 Ca CO (o (s (II (a > > > > > > > o W W W W W L1J LL1 • • EG0058 O STREET ARTERIAL CORRIDOR STUDY EXHIBIT X Oversized Map Located in Back of Original File Not Scanned • • lm4 '',UP.' I X )- Z W 44.salqqn a) a U O t5 Z C a) a) Cll 4-1 the E D a) o (a O C (1) . uoisua�xa TaaaTS 0 —) . _ i 1aaa 1S 0 a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IL ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ °i \ E , a � .° a) o 03 u) c Q) Q � co a) -ac a) co L V L o > .°—N t 6 0 cn c6 c > o a) a > a) N cn ca ca X � a c > c ) _c c a) ca c .0 co Q N um a 5 c w . a) -71 c6 CD =N Uc )N J U) > = Hello