HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040625.tiff Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
FEB 0 2 2004
RECEIVED
To: Weld County Planning Commission
Re: Case#AmPZ-613
Cattail Creek Group
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my opposition to the application for a subdivision on CR 70
between CR31 and CR29. I reside in the immediate vicinity and feel that this application
is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and agricultural community in the area.
The division of this prime farm ground for development would change the area for the
worse and be a detriment to the present residents of the area. We feel that the plan is
poorly designed and will place a burden on the irrigation company and the residents of
the area as well as place adjoining landowners at risk. The County Commissioners
previously voted for denial of this application and no significant changes have been made
that would justify a reversal of the previous decision. Please vote for denial of this
application and help us maintain the community that we value so much.
3369 3 111e-k_
2vute. -, C'D So‘Ol
2004-0625
/- z Jr,
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
To: Weld County Planning Commission FEB 0 2 2004
Re: Case# AmPZ-613
Cattail Creek Group RECEIVED
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my opposition to the application for a subdivision on CR 70
between CR31 and CR29. I reside in the immediate vicinity and feel that this application
is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and agricultural community in the area.
The division of this prime farm ground for development would change the area for the
worse and be a detriment to the present residents of the area. We feel that the plan is
poorly designed and will place a burden on the irrigation company and the residents of
the area as well as place adjoining landowners at risk. The County Commissioners
previously voted for denial of this application and no significant changes have been made
that would justify a reversal of the previous decision. Please vote for denial of this
application and help
^uss maintain the community that we value so much.
v
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
FEB 0 2 2004
January 29, 2004 RECEIVED
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Board of the Weld County Planning Commission
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case#AMPZ-613
Cattail Creek Group
Dear Planning Commission:
In regards to the above case number,we are still greatly opposed as we stated in September of 2002, as
there doesn't seem to be any significant changes or design in the new proposal.
• Not compatible to the area
• Unsafe sewage disposal
• Concern as to irrigation
• Taking away prime farm ground
• Traffic safety on surrounding dirt roads-there is no mention of pavement
• Concern of maintenance of open space
• Many other issues as stated in hearing of 2002
We respect you for taking time to read our concerns and hoping that you will vote for denial of the above
mentioned application number.
Thank you,
Barb Perusek
34024 WCR 29
Greeley, CO 80634
Enc.
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
FEB 0 2 2004
RECEIVED
To: Weld County Planning Commission
Re: Case#AmPZ-613
Cattail Creek Group
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my opposition to the application for a subdivision on CR 70
between CR31 and CR29. I reside in the immediate vicinity and feel that this application
is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and agricultural community in the area.
The division of this prime farm ground for development would change the area for the
worse and be a detriment to the present residents of the area. We feel that the plan is
poorly designed and will place a burden on the irrigation company and the residents of
the area as well as place adjoining landowners at risk. The County Commissioners
previously voted for denial of this application and no significant changes have been made
that would justify a reversal of the previous decision. Please vote for denial of this
application and help us maintain the community that we value so much.
r
0(nCere �
349.43 c.Abcf
C-reel Co
Soo 3i
(grip) ,IS4- 246b
Weld County Planning Dcnrtment
GREELEY OFFICE
JAN 3 0 2004
RECEIVED
To: Weld County Planning Commission
Re: Case#AmPZ-613
Cattail Creek Group
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my opposition to the application for a subdivision on CR 70
between CR31 and CR29. I reside in the immediate vicinity and feel that this application
is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and agricultural community in the area.
The division of this prime farm ground for development would change the area for the
worse and be a detriment to the present residents of the area. We feel that the plan is
poorly designed and will place a burden on the irrigation company and the residents of
the area as well as place adjoining landowners at risk. The County Commissioners
previously voted for denial of this application and no significant changes have been made
that would justify a reversal of the previous decision. Please vote for denial of this
application and help us maintain the community that we value so much.
/ y Att?
3J75/> ‘ti c 3I 135- Wc 3/
CC y866-
gob is-
e:lcet �,,,,t .III
353-2.;� c a /
e Co �S�
Ern
fo
) ) )
— I s..:. AULTj
Vicinity i
•
Map '
ExN,gt
i....4,__________L, -�^ .
EATON
SEI/EFtikNCE ''
P
•
W'CR 70 it - • g
'JR
, G REEL EY
Wad Can ntv.CoSrado _ 1 a QnnC:in
)
S
�'. y r•
.ems�„�. ---711117-,-:7-r5;
Aerial Map µ.r .
t. ....( J - L b yo n f
••' �.I yip [ fi .,
141 „.,.... ,...„, 4,.„4„, . ,_ ::%". ,._ , i„,„,,....
of Vicinity
y .
T;;-:,---,.,
. - '1.1",lik,
pry 4•.'X F
1 Iyk SITE .
di `
. .
` \ r , n -
q
a t '�i i
4 K d1 rt -Y ^i * e ^ :•tt i
,, ,
ts,...._. ; .
4�' .4
v'. ---
- q ya t'3 fr.4m.
. .;; .i..,,:ti.,74,z . -:, ;i,.. .-- . ,-.
-..;.! . .
.... . .., z.
.. Li.„,.... ,...1,, .,., , i...4 p ..,..7.., lit 4 ,tr, ' —1
q
°�— ..II,
— GREELEY
)
CATTAIL. CREEK P. L .D.
. CO.c..6 7Cw\6- • •NC/RRll Mehl- v
Site Design f W=�:M 7Z4c1f7.4- .. OW GI';/T YSf CNN 2.0. !f!..'
Y'."e 9L-7 a r:+t YEi a.m., .:\1 Cr r37:. ?An!K^
• rri//ti. '-iii .
a
7
t.
Nil,
b S,,
-rr -- _• -
� -+� 777 I ..�
.... A,= .r ,c,r. . ..
Wit.
1
Change of Zone Criteria :
Weld County Code Compliance
• 27-1-10 Intent of the PUD
• 27-2-60 Common Open Space
• 27-6-120.6.c Compatibility
• 22-3-50.B. 1 & 22-2-190.D.4 & 22-2-210.E
Availability of Adequate Facilities and Services
• 27-2-10 Performance Standards
• 22-2-60 Center Pivot Irrigation System & Building Envelope
• 22-2-210.D Flexibility, distinct character and identity,
conservation of natural site features
• 23-1-90 Common Open Space, Non Urban Scale Development,
Weld County Prime and Non Prime Farmground
• Consistent with Proposed Zone Districts and Uses
• _ _� - .
1„
F"
S .
. . -
•
/ f
S -
1, �./..
,.
Ir
r.
1 .
.
y*
'''• _ l '
�' `)• .
hilt
{ p 1
r . `
A t• ' ' 1
. , 3 .
M•
•
•
.
q,.
i „
1 �r
m C ] _2.
N 1 +
W
n.s V i 'y s r��, i r 'l xrf !, r• , y \M sR .27. [It (r'•y 4,.
1.
,{ 1 1 ! . pt'' r 1r ,# F 'ter f
<I, k 1' 1 4' xI 3 ex-.3 > : .
rt,� i v a '
x 9i-4ma Yr4,S �.` .j'I•' •
♦ - .il .%l if, \ s ',tftrso,- k I t .
i d9 f s ri .ii a s •• ',1‘y+t T • tfr wa.:� ?Ty4 " 3 s"r' Cit.
y`t i'},.p ff+, ' -; 4 Ye S , , x s;.d r•
f y fSfiris
n � lxR � ql • 1rii' y7. 4ë -4 ;v • .;'
Dot filk
rx° ,#�� "{ "fir 5Y i A ��sy� [ .�, ,�f yfb.^, 'C•,/..:',.
x�j. rs�• ;4 t-'
f w ffif.+ �. i dr ry..9,44 it
ti
•', t jr�
" r > •�♦ r`: i" ,ice : );.1
r ¢"'Y r- J 3' Tip, .;�j
":42,..-,44), J r 1 x�" 1 t x 1: • -.--9,/-- , i�
a °- w' r*`.rit-,.r..> wyh I !fig(rrCSf; ? '
' •
€u
• , 4TMA
; •. c ,„14- % , F ,-/./.-ii'• . �` 1
-'-'`..491: S Yr < r • i_ (Y
., ti y , r4t�'�.' `' ' - i 1 lie
r.111.4
.' Y�
rt
x b r yi { 'xtY > t 1/4',- -� Y f_.d ,r �y s1 s :I
.r ' y',,,'T"t r' r i,Y ; \ L--.. i (` {n1 ., C. , 1r.. "r T -
Y �Pd> A f • • r \ �--
w
�, ,,,.'4•1' -.1'474r \:� ry4�x Yr Ill..9 .p*r r s `f1/4'
y ;
` p f � /,- .#
.I '
Ifs I { }Irk rtr- "'M 1/4*
-'+-� I ! � ,i. � ♦ /
4.e•—•\:"..'''
`-.. . . y
w.
s tt :..t
. Y 'Iv �
ll yew 4 .;".‘t1/4t..;1-.41'.: +r
W / . ♦ . .r« .. - - r �.� p:
• ff
Air
{
£ y
t l j
r"i}a
r ts.
4t-+Y i» q
^ 'i1 Grypo
•
� T y
Yq
tE
✓'
✓ rE ! C '
t
Hello