HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071355.tiff Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
Weld County Planning Services
North Office FEB 1 2 2007
918 10TH
Greeley, CEIVED
COC CO 80631
February 8, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is regarding Case#PZ-1120; the Weld County Sunset Development
PUD Proposal.
As a property owner in the Willow Springs Estates subdivision adjoining the
proposed development, we are sending this letter to express a few of our
concerns and opinions.
We are not opposed to changing the zoning plan from agricultural to residential
lots, as it would compliment our current neighborhood. We are however
adamantly opposed to the proposed development of a Commercial lot for C-2
uses.
We are concerned about the amount of traffic, which would come in to and out of
the proposed development. We have lived here for 13 years and witnessed
many times the aftermath of auto accidents occurring at the intersection of Hwy
392 and CR23N/Stagecoach Road. In addition, with the volume of traffic, there
are concerns about parking and overflow into our subdivision.
Currently, as is understood per our covenants and conversations with County
officials, the Willow Springs Estates Homeowners Association and its members
are responsible for all maintenance and related improvements to Stagecoach
Road; located S of Hwy 392 and including the bridge crossing Greeley#2 Canal.
Stagecoach Road is our subdivisions only ingress and egress to and from Hwy
392. We are very concerned about the increased volume of traffic to and from
the proposed Commercial Lot, which would rapidly deteriorate the existing road
and bridge.
We enjoy living a nice, quiet neighborhood and are also concerned about excess
noise (i.e. loud music, noise after dark, etc.) related to an event center, banquet
facility or other such building.
Another major concern pertains to the drainage issue. Our lot backs up directly
to the proposed development. Current natural runoff and previous irrigation
EXHIBIT
5
2007-1355
flooding has flooded the back 1/3 of our lot repeatedly. We believe without
serious engineering, excess runoff from the proposed development would impact
the current flow patterns throughout our neighborhood. This excess runoff could
also seriously impact the wetlands located in the SW corner of our subdivision.
We look forward to an improvement to our drainage issues and not a worsening
of the situation.
In closing, we are not opposed to the development of residential lots but strongly
oppose the inclusion of the zoning change for one Commercial lot for C-2 uses.
The said Commercial lot development proposal does not belong in this area.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Les & Chris Godlevsky
32791 Stagecoach Rd.
Windsor, CO 80550
Q
February 2007
Walter& Betty Anderson Weld County Planning Department
11141 Ponderosa Trail GREELEY OFFICE
Windsor, CO. 80550
FEB. 1 5 2007
Weld County Planning Services North Office RECEIVED
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Weld County Sunset Development PUD Proposal
Case Number: PZ-1120
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We live in the Willow Springs Estates, and we are writing this letter to you with concerns about
the development of the land to the west of our subdivision, namely, the Sunset Development
PUD Proposal.
First, we are in somewhat of a conflict over the ownership of the road/easement to the proposed
development. In the past years and still continuing, our road into our subdivision is repaired and
maintained through our Home Owners Association dues. We are still trying to determine with
Weld County as to who "owns"the road and has responsibility to the south of the bridge crossing
the Greeley No. 2 canal. In our original covenants, the road is stated as belonging to the
subdivision, but this will need to be clarified with Weld Co. Planning. At any rate, we are
concerned that the road into our subdivision would , from State Highway 392, have much more
wear and tear on it, and would this proposed development help with upkeep and maintenance.
(Please find enclosed a copy from our covenants pertaining to our streets.)
Second, we are concerned with the drainage of this proposed development into Willow Springs
HOA common area.. Most of us who live here have had some experience with flooding
problems as the result of groundwater and snowmelt. Our most recent experience was two and
half years ago when our entire basement was flooded, and we had to rip everything out and start
over. This is a major concern for us. I do hope the County Planning Services will thoroughly
take a very critical study of the drainage problems that we have before any proposed development
will be cleared with your offices.
Third,we really do not have a problem with the proposed home sites that this developer has
proposed, but we are strongly opposed to this "event center"that he wants to put in next to us.
It is again a question of the wear and tear on our roads, the amount of traffic this could generate
coming into our subdivision, the safety issue of coming off and onto Highway 392, and we feel
that this event center would not fit in with the environment of this area..
EXHIBIT
55
Finally,while we know that we cannot stop growth and progress in our communities and
surrounding areas, we hope that the Planning Services of Weld County will study this Sunset
Development Proposal carefully before making a final decision for them to proceed. As stated
above, we are concerned about the amount of traffic into our subdivision, the maintenance and
upkeep of our road,the drainage problems this proposed development could have in our
subdivision, and the event center which would not fit into the environment of this area.
Sincerely,
Vaal/2 Vet ‘'17/26 644 1 -
Walter and Betty Anderson
(enclosure)
Section 7. Maintenance of Easement Area on Lots: Any above ground improvements
related to any common irrigation system and located within an easement on any Lot shall be
maintained by the Association as a Common Expense. Other than such improvements,the
Owner is responsible for all maintenance within any easement on his Lot. No Owner shall cause
or permit any improvements or landscaping to be located,or place any trash,rubbish,waste,
clippings, or any other material within such easement which would interfere with the ability of
the Association to access, operate, and maintain any existing or future irrigation system.
ARTICLE VIII
PERIMETER FENCES
Section 1. Perimeter Fences -Repair and Maintenance. The Declarant, as a part of the
development of the Properties, or the Association at any time, shall have the right but not the
obligation, to construct Perimeter Fences within the Common Area. If the Declarant or the
Association constructs any Perimeter Fences,the Association shall be responsible for repairing,
maintaining, and replacing such Perimeter Fences and the cost thereof shall be a Common
Expense.
Section 2. Negligent or Willful Acts.Nothwithstanding any other provisions of this
Article VIII, any Owner who, by his, his agent's, invitee's,or permitee's negligence or willful
acts or omissions, as determined by the Board, causes any portion of any Perimeter Fence to be
damaged or destroyed, shall bear the whole cost of repair or replacement of such portion of the
Perimeter Fence. Such cost shall constitute a personal obligation of such Owner as provided in
Article XII..
ARTICLE IX
STREETS
Section 1. Streets. Unless and until the County assumes responsibility therefor,the
Association shall be responsible for maintaining all streets and related improvements within the
Properties and providing ingress and egress to and from the Properties. The Orig nal Declarant
will improve all such streets to meet Weld County standards. Such streets and related
-21-
• J
improvements shall thereafter be maintained in good condition by the Association at all times for
the benefit of all Owners and all costs related thereto shall be a Common Expense.
Section 2. Weld County Requirements. Pursuant to the requirements of Weld County,
Colorado, in the event the Association should for any reason fail to perform its duties to maintain
Common Areas,streets, and similar facilities on the Properties, Weld County may, in accordance
with the provisions of any applicable ordinance or resolution, after notice as may be provided
therein, undertake to maintain such facilities and the cost of such maintenance is required to be
paid by the Owners within the Properties that have right to enjoyment or use of common
facilities;collectible by assessment through the Weld County Treasurer in the manner provided
by law for collection, enforcement, and remittance of general property taxes.
Section 3. Damage Done to Streets. Nothwithstanding any other provisions of this
Article IX, any Owner who, by his, his agent's, invitee's, or permitee's negligence or willful acts
or omissions, as determined by the Board, causes any portion of any Street to be damaged or
destroyed, shall bear the whole cost of repair or replacement of such portion of the Street. Such
cost shall constitute a personal obligation of such Owner as provided in Article XII..
ARTICLE X
INSURANCE
Section 1. Property Insurance on Insurable Common Area. The Association shall keep
all insurable improvements and fixtures of the Common Area insured against loss or damage by
fire for the full insurance replacement cost thereof,and may obtain insurance against such other
hazards and casualties as the Board may deem desirable. The Association may also insure any
other property,whether real or personal, owned by the Association, against loss or damage by
fire and such other hazards as the Board may deem desirable. The Association shall be the
Owner and beneficiary of any such insurance and any proceeds thereof shall be payable to the
Association.
Section 2. Replacement or Repair of Common Area.. Any Common Area for which
insurance is required under this Article which is damaged or destroyed must be repaired or
-22
•
•
"THE PROPERTIES"
r--
OFvCRIC CH
A PARCEL OF LANG LCCATW IN ScC:7ON 24. TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH. RANGE 67
WFS OF THE S-ri PAL. WE.2 COUNTY. CL.ORADO HONG WORE PARTICULARLY
OESCRISED AS FOLLCWS:
CCLIIJCCNC.NC AT NE ES? QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24 AND
CONSOE ING THE WET LINE or THE NORTHWEST QUART TO BEAR NORTH
Wry!r EAST ATM ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEWN RELATIVE
THERE:Et SAID PCNT EKING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE
ALONG THE WC UNE OF THE talR1149=7 QUARTER OF STUD SECTION 24. •
NORTH 00.12.1)• EAST. 2145.46 FET TO A POINT FIFTY FEET SOUTH AS
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE GRELc'Y #2 CANAL;
THENCE PARALLC. AND SO' SOUTH OF SAID CENTERL'NE THE FOLLOWING 19
CCu10E:
1. THENCE SOUTH 7747'05 EAST, 114.16 FWT: •
2. THENCE 129.10 FET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RA09JS OF
1710 FEE AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4T0T4?, WHOSE
RADIUS POINT 8EAR5 NORTH 1218.55 EAST;
3. THENCE NORTH 59'11'06' EAST. 67.93 FEET:
4. THENCE 84.57 FET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
61.98 FEE AND A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF 59'4T1C, WHOSE RAOIJS
POINT BEARS SOUTH 30.48.55 EAST:
5. THENCE SOUTH 51'41.4Y ay. 81.21 FEET:
6. THENCE 19011 FEY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
21419 FUT AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5071.25, WHOSE RADIUS
PC'YT BEARS tam =writ EAST:
7. THENCE NORTH 68'06'4Q' EAST. MSG FEET:
& THENCE 29029 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
431.08 FEE AND A CENTRAL MN.ZE OF 38'39'ST, WHOSE RADIUS
POINT BEMS SOUTH 21'53:Y EAST:
9. THENCE SOUTH 7513'19• EAST 146.03 FEET:
10. THENCE 84:45 FE' ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
42x.51 FET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11$12'. MHOS. RADIUS _
POINT BEARS NORTH 18'ad'41' EAST; •
11. THENCE 501114 61'450? EAST. 23.17 FEET: + ;a:::.
12. THENCE. 18835 FE' ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
139.29 FEET ANO A CENTRAL AM= OF 7740'5?. WHOSE RADIUS
POINT WAS NORTH 26'16'53' FAST:'
13. THENCE NORTH 40•'35'35 EAST. 10432 FEEL
14. THENCE NORTH J6'00'SS EAST. 9630 FEET:
15. THENCE 102.98 FTsT ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS
OF 59.05 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE Of 99'54.19'. WHOSE
RAO= POINT WAS SOUTH 5559'43' FAST:
16. THENCE SOUTH 44'OS'2S ay. 11819 FEET:
17. THENCE 187_5 Fill ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS
OF 588.22 FET ANS A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2749'24, WHOSE
RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 4.754'34' EAST
18. THENCE SOUTH 7754'5? EAST. 126.45 FEET:
19. THENCE SOUTH 6249'54' EAST, 231.51 FEET 15 AN EXISTING
FENCE LINE THeC ALONG SLID FENCE .NE. SOUTH 0n it EAST.
2006.78 Fa-r TO THE SOUTH ISLE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 24: THENCE ALONG SUM LINE. SOUTH 5734?d' WEST.
2211.45 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAM PACE. CONTAINS 109.01 ACRES
EXHIBIT "A"
�p
6.
-Co." N e St, Inn +M MOO
04OT" m AWN' IIA�w INISO 131.07 NIS II IW 4��. ,�
:�, mu Ear: y1 1a
watt. FINAL PLAT tq
ria . "">8 i.
armor 2.2.2.2 INN INN 17.33 47,74
b ;mg: ,r„Ian ,..,,Ian .4+,NAN re, m': WILLOW SPRINGS e
ignal ANCNIN
^° am »mins ayn: SUBDIVISION „; e�:;,O; ,..m r:;, LI. man onace
MINION 11.11 11..+ ,m n.:w 22.2; "':0Ann NSt bvr`NIIN 1.0.03
2117 'a""noof0 s
,r+r 0*m NN ,'v:s; no 20 LOTS ZONED ESTATE = 87.2295 ACRES
N NG 45
n y44 , •em3NNAr ON, ..,.N31 ..^ r,. •rl.wr. 1 ^,..+. r.e i 3 OUTLOTS W = 14.9958 ACRES NOG ;04r,„0‘.,...,�m � 8
X77 ROAD ROW = 4.2958 ACRES � ` =ew sia
xn. ��ez o,�
TOTAL PLATTED AREA 109.0126 ACRES ;„•^pd NANTES/ .e31.nw m� I .Er,,.«E+ INI r7.4=[,uwf STATE HWY 392 ( 4
IIJI - - - pa'
_ - - - - - - - - _— — - - - -
-�,._ma
�- -L,,
SC Kw
^w.aemm �m NOT INCLUDED IN
I THIS SUBDIVISION
8 I
6�� \,� CENTERLNEvgt\ 735
(M \\` III
p
5L • / oa as ' 2ctina\ .�H Ii`i ` iJ\ J \
aP r Cl., ell 7.,L6 wl.c, . p3 c34 t lc*\\,
, ; OUTLOT 'A' _ y.
: 1,r... 14.0333 ACRES ei�' I v.r. 9J.~I
,nmrE
4
'� IF -I ILOT _ I„IOES
T 20ACRES E Iaii
CRES
:e I IN, ,m ,.n..., ICI ,yv,•,, I
i III r...
!II LOT 17
:I LOT 2 ;'—_ — — _ "_r_` ,n.• PCNOCRosh TRue(60' Raw)R\ •.":` �II 6.6967 ACRES .
211 2.6693 ACRES Imal+f n--- ---1r »•.• \'LIB/-\\_ 'IL s
,»,,,.,
m' 0, i I II' \.
B,^ LOT 14 -I I"
r` . .,6-- 1 '1 3.3116 ACRES . L i who-,- ''--1•41.1--'
^L_,o. 1y, a •
I ^ c ,n.m.PRAWN. 9 I; LOT 15 L
. ..,.. 1 `>,'I'•A 1'
^ 8 ..6.._- __.4 �' „w...ww.A., 6.7112 ACRES
1 !I� L-i___,......... III \ I
l 2.5374T ACRES Ix�a , r \..,cT,".,\ 1 1'11
.\ I x ">.; 1 • 41
�4arlpr .6+mow m,r"tr,t--/ �� '0 1�'1 LOT 16
r Bs r`+cvFS Zep�\ LOT 13 ////\\'•a„ �/ 1\ 11.2961 ACRES
Q RR I -.-,5,..,38• s75 2.9554 ACRES // • v , e
n
as 1 LOT�4 \ ‘ \ ///+4 „ m / � ,, . 1'1 -
LOT 12 e r
2.7587 ACRES i \, , / 2.99;4 ACitES // 111
41 / /A NI
,'i C'.�ro I —
.^ sM ti AIM \, 4 c' »
y )� / \,\
o ^''. LOT 5 .>i\�'°� "\ /// LOT 11 / / • \\ \--
I
1 2.8097 ACRES / ' o�t, \ /// 3.0191 ACRES/ i- \�', I LOT 10 15
y �� �. ,/// ',g oti.`:x;/ ;Y_.i '_. \I 7.5306 ACRES IE
Y . n„
a \ .� .�+a LOT 6 /� Traa / / •\� III T ,m
.i\. ift y 2.6803 ACRES///�\.\\ /// ^ c ,..>.ff. •n_m
,ti/ \ %„awl" ,M� Ids
n \ `/i+` LOT 7 ' ur,
88 1.
a \ / , 2.6810 ACRES /// I/ \ 1 I I
: \ •. • $\ • .,/n //// `'1'O, `;, ! LOT 9 \ \ 1,1 A
• ..v 4 4/ / 8.9535 ACRES \ \ 11
• (gnus, .' + ' \ / //+ LOT 8 \ lea 1• la
- - ' 'a4'C / / 2.8890 ACRES W,C, \ 54,2
/// <i w\\ �B mwl . 615 ;
—»pa x^>•'ef S 89'34'28".W 2211.45' rroG"...../
Fenno/,0e.:,.I,i,i. .w w sans..I o, .E...nasty awns
•
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
MAR 0 2 2007
Willow Spring Homeowners Association
RECEIVED PO Box 42
Windsor, CO 80550
Weld County Planning Services
North Office
918 10th St
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Weld County Sunset Development PUD Proposal
Case Number: PZ-1120
Willows Springs HOA held a meeting on Saturday January 13, 2006 to discuss the development
of the land to the west of the subdivision. There was much discussion of the impact of the
development on our current development. The residents all agree that the development of the
land in large estate lots would fit with the current environment in our area. We have also
contacted the three landowners to the west of the proposed development who have also
expressed interest in providing input because their land borders the proposed development
although it is divided by the Greeley No. 2 canal. Below is an outline of the concerns that were
voiced by all the current homeowners about the proposed development.
1. Ownership of the road/easement to the proposed development: We are currently
working with Weld County planning to determine who owns the road coming into our
current subdivision and where the responsibility lies in terms of maintenance and repair.
It is unclear as to who "owns"the road thus has responsibility to the south of the bridge
crossing the Greeley No. 2 canal. In the filing with the Secretary of State by the original
developer, the road is shown as belonging to the subdivision including the bridge as it
was constructed and paid for by the original development. This needs to be clarified with
Weld County Planning. In addition to this, the subdivision would like to get a copy of
the traffic study done by the developer as most members of the HOA feel that the road
into the subdivision will suffer excess wear and tear with the additional vehicle trips from
the proposed subdivision and inherent dangers at the intersection with State Highway
392.
2. The second item on the agenda was the "request for change of zoning of one (1)
commercial lot for C-2 (Business Commercial) uses (with the exceptions that uses by
right and accessory uses be restricted to theatres, convention halls, private or public
with a seating capacity of not over (1,000) (for a banquet facility) and parking areas
for customers or structures for use by employees and customers) along with 7.55
acres of open space." This part of the proposal negatively impacts the current
surrounding properties to both the west and east. Current zoning of agricultural on the
property and the location of the property does not lend itself to an event center. Since it
is unknown what the capacity of this "event center"would be it is assumed that the
proposed size of 10,000 square feet would indicate that up to1,000 people would attend
events at this location. The number of event attendees could exceed the total population
of our community by more than ten times. The existing community members feel
unequivocally that this DOES NOT fit in with the current environment of the area and
^ that the periodic influx of large numbers of unknown people into our community would
EXHIBIT
5C-
be unwelcome. We recommend to the Weld County Planning that the proposal of the C-2
designation be removed from the proposed development.
3. We are not opposed to the change of zoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD for the 8
residential lots with E (Estate Zone) uses. We offer to work together to welcome the
new residents to our neighborhood and to work with them on the common issues of
access to highway 392 and drainage.
4. Drainage of proposed development into Willow Springs HOA common area:
Currently the lower southwest corner of Willow Springs is a designated wetland by the
original plat of the subdivision. Current drainage into this part of the HOA common land
is problematic at best. Many of the households on this drainage experience some sort of
flooding problem as the result of groundwater and snowmelt. The landowners on this
portion of the subdivision express serious concerns with the proposed development and
the increase in run off from the diversion of surface water through culverts as well as the
addition of water retention ponds that will dump excess water into this area of the HOA
wetlands. Members of the Willow Springs HOA feels that the developer needs to address
this issue to alleviate this problem which will result in excess water above the current
amount with the addition of more surface water outside normal precipitation and
groundwater. Diversion of drainage from soil surfaces to culverts will increase the
amount of water directed into this drainage area.
We would like to summarize as follows.
The current residents of the Willow Springs development and other adjacent properties are
1. enthusiastic to welcome new residents who choose to move into our community to reside
on the eight residential estate lots as proposed
2. willing to work with our new neighbors to resolve the common problems of access to
highway 392, entrance access road maintenance, and drainage.
3. opposed to the part of the proposal to re-zone to allow one C-2 business lot for the
purpose of building and operating an event center.
Members of the Willow Springs HOA will be present at the Tuesday April 3rd meeting to voice
disapproval of the development as proposed.
Gary and Susie Castleman
32723 Stagecoach Rd.
Windsor, CO 8055(�eld County Planning Department
Weld County Planning Services GREELEY OFFICE
North Office
918 10th St MAR 0 6 2007
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Weld County Sunset Development PUD Proposal RECEIVED
Case Number: PZ-1120
We attended the Willows Springs HOA held a meeting on Saturday January 13, 2006 to provide
our inputs on he discussion about the development of the land to the west of the subdivision. We
heard and participated in the discussion of the impact of the new development on our
neighborhood. We agree with our neighbors that the development of the land in large estate lots
would fit with the current environment in our area. We are however very concerned about the
proposal to build and operate a"event center"in our neighborhood.
Following are our detailed inputs:
1. Ownership of the road/easement to the proposed development: We are currently
working with Weld County planning to determine who owns the road coming into our
current subdivision and where the responsibility lies in terms of maintenance and repair.
It is unclear as to who"owns"the road thus has responsibility to the south of the bridge
crossing the Greeley No. 2 canal. In the filing with the Secretary of State by the original
developer,the road is shown as belonging to the subdivision including the bridge as it
was constructed and paid for by the original development. This needs to be clarified with
Weld County Planning. In addition to this,the subdivision would like to get a copy of
the traffic study done by the developer as most members of the HOA feel that the road
into the subdivision will suffer excess wear and tear with the additional vehicle trips from
the proposed subdivision and inherent dangers at the intersection with State Highway
392.
2. The second item on the agenda was the"request for change of zoning of one(1)
commercial lot for C-2 (Business Commercial)uses(with the exceptions that uses by
right and accessory uses be restricted to theatres,convention halls,private or public
with a seating capacity of not over(1,000)(for a banquet facility)and parking areas
for customers or structures for use by employees and customers)along with 7.55
acres of open space." This part of the proposal negatively impacts the current
surrounding properties to both the west and east. Current zoning of agricultural on the
property and the location of the property does not lend itself to an event center. Since it
is unknown what the capacity of this"event center"would be,it is assumed that the
proposed size of 10,000 square feet would indicate that up to1,000 people would attend
events at this location. The number of event attendees could exceed the total population
of our community by more than ten times. The existing community members feel
unequivocally that this DOES NOT fit in with the current environment of the area and
that the periodic influx of large numbers of unknown people into our community would
EXHIBIT
be unwelcome. We recommend to the Weld County Planning that the proposal of the C-2
designation be removed from the proposed development.
3. We are not opposed to the change of zoning from A(Agricultural)to PUD for the 8
residential lots with E(Estate Zone)uses. We offer to work together to welcome the
new residents to our neighborhood and to work with them on the common issues of
access to highway 392 and drainage.
4. Drainage of proposed development into the Willow Springs HOA common area:
Currently the lower southwest corner of Willow Springs is a designated wetland by the
original plat of the subdivision. Current drainage into this part of the HOA common land
is problematic at best. Many of the households on this drainage experience some sort of
flooding problem as the result of groundwater and snowmelt. The landowners on this
portion of the subdivision express serious concerns with the proposed development and
the increase in run off from the diversion of surface water through culverts as wells as the
addition of water retention ponds that will dump excess water into this area of the HOA
wetlands. Members of the Willow Springs HOA feels that the developer neMs to address
this issue to alleviate this problem which will result in excess water above the current
amount with the addition of more surface water outside normal precipitation and
groundwater. Diversion of drainage from soil surfaces to culverts will increase the
amount of water directed into this drainage area
We would like to summarize as follows.
We are:
1. enthusiastic to welcome new residents who choose to move into our community to reside
on the eight residential estate lots as proposed
2. willing to work with our new neighbors to resolve the common problems of access to
highway 392,entrance access mad maintenance, and drainage.
3. opposed to the part of the proposal to re-zone to allow one C-2 business lot for the
purpose of building and operating an event center.
We will be present at the Tuesday April 3`°meeting of the planning commission to voice our
disapproval of the event center.
Respectfully,
ri
An )
,..., c-i... Ly.e..{C.,..t....._
Gary an Susie Castleman
N t Severance
#.!![ j !.wr , ^'t :. Y4 »n ! ty is
N .,4 ie i s a3.• :fit 93. 4 �
{j J dF rt.a II CJ ' (il t ^ A i -.
il
am�� u . IIw it
1 ' „..fi „.::- •-.1 r s ,•, ,:. Y t gatiltikt " a I` ' 's'.7.c t "� tp is :Y k.... '{\'�}',
t ` Willow Springs
+r Subject Property t r •
1-'1111,r
F�' 1 i 'a'',�ht i!1 i�s rt ��F 's'h ..,.
,� 1! ' e ' 4 r. + j. .1: ' r+ .' syiik •••:.1:a '/- yc `F`"r alilfitW 1 -, '4 `; ; yi � Connell Resources iy::.;:l1:-;1!:31,70.;;,:i'.:.:
`r. .„-:„.„„.,...•:..,,..•
' k '.;;;I4 t ck !y'` 4 .,`'" , :, n. t r '4' '-`'fit' s ,
Y iiF t ' " .'. . �.,ba y', a Apr t'` :f;,3:0'r_
j• the : ` -. .". 171tt. p S f• ` P•,"'•fir t'5 a �M' Y �^.;'•N.:
4y *gT 'a¢' :,i, Western ••••,,,,,k,,•• I :'1,4;.:,;, ....•,.:•4'RM 1'`, t , ..,
} i�r]W �K"ts, '•,, 4..'—f If itu?6.I�,. "o-r.- ,tli'-..•�s
�� . ' r � Owens-Illinois
, ," WINDSOR .� "`''t
... i.,„:11''''''`le
ry .., • "`fix '&� ` ,
i s • C R 84 FS i dr ititi,1?"Ar
27a Kodak 26 , 14,1/ t n2 r # T ,a Lit "r T]" 25 W S' ' a s}e
'3 a.E4F S
as t• t"..,1131:,-;;
,;;; ? a.... Hall-Irwin
iil
R '"'� i,, ,, � Vestal Blades
1_ Front Range _ a
:'.,.; •'.7 to Energy • y • , y,i, ; t ter' 4.:'+'.
Wild county.
Colorado , _ ;! H: • •,.,, .'� ��'�;.`J�dy: .
EXHIBIT
Y' \p
t.y
ti
dikif
.•
x � r
*
a -1 nrelk
11 ((
i Ici, iCF �., II 1,, .Co,� Ie_.
Pulntcr 40'_8'30 :0'N I•__ 51'14 C'"V< .2Ie+ 4.7 C 51,5 2111 4 I I 1 1 1C7 - Eve A I :2.4.5411
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of project vicinity.
EXHIBIT
l� C
Figure 2. Looking east across project and toward Willow Springs Estates.
Figure 3. Looking SW. Home moved to adjacent property and is being improved.
•
b a K'"4p ''ro s � ••"� }
xA A'
Figure 4. Looking west from property toward new home under construction.
•
E f I I I _Li_ ,z',
•
Figure 5. Looking west from property toward existing home.
'^ 19 10
�. II 12 7 8 9 10 I LEGEND
r i ) WCILIWS MEM Windsor Corporate Limits
16 15 I4. I 13 g IS 17 6 15 Lakes,Rivers,and Ditches
i 3 _"..o____ „4, „ W.... Community Influence Area
t�� ri g O Growth Management Area
21 22 23 24 site k 2(13 k 21 a. 22
og
10 <29 2 1. T �wcnu 25 3I1 29
28 2] 26'.. 25 a 26
li^a We ,. - - ---
Li
33 4 35 36 1 3' 12 i '3 }(.J34 �,�'. ;�+' 361`i. -��31 32,
1 ir
EJcs� LI• v...._114:6T— / ff�� 1
T 54 5, . 16.1-
Itl g E.uli{ate l �
_ P 3 1N MI ((Vl 6 '
4 2 b�� I 6 5 4 I ■A TTT
yy�p
-41,
y1F0.�f j 1104
1 WCR V--4-4.4411-1� ' }.L 1
*■r ',ice
° R
11 11 12N• f �7 ' R A 9�Noi ir0 ' 1i I FPS 7 3
f o R
i°"`�. Iy I y (AR JJE Ll;_JA •x RRIW .l._a _
174 : mr.° to s_—j$' 14 3 13 1% ' 17
I WW2I, - 1
-Awaili gimp
21 ' 23 a J1 23 24 6 1! - 20 21 22 23 ' 24 19 3 20
A o •*7 1 I _niw` I
A
3 WCRwe i0 tr 29
2% 7 26 25 30 29 .�, R,+S 27 ' Ds,. yZ
tli
p wcxu MER'EWERL Q-1
E 33 31 35 36 31 32 33 34 5 i 36 31
T6 x•..32
t //
ErrJea`1 OC li2"°Wro' WCRJ ., j4.. 11oW
4 2 1 6 - 5 a .4 3\ i 1 6 5
[{ham WCRN ...,C1 _._ 1�, + RWV SS
�a y 0. ! I I
9 �� 11 �i21 Y 7 7, 9 10 LP II 12 7 8
s'
x Stn I
3
16-i-i-i a-s-45 '14 NPIR6ki R6718 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
PIRnminrvPcgecb/mxNConp P1Y Z 810/O'CIPmrIf±W1
I Town of Windsor Colorado W a�E o 3 c
r ' Comprehensive Plan V. m o z d
mom., ;
cowRaon Illustration 2-COMMUNITY INFLUENCE AREA AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA ysa C
Adopted 1/4/07 > 2
N
EXHIBIT
1 Cob
Ptt1ao
Hello