HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042391 Mar 01 28 08: 04a ._.
P. 1
Loren Kragh
51 Windrose Drive
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
(360)437 0271
nikragh@msn.com
May 24, 2004
FAX Letter(970) 304-6498
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Attention: Monica Daniels Mica
Reference: Letter from Department of Planning Services to "Dear Property Owner" dated
April 27, 2004
Dear Ms Mika:
I represent the five surviving owners of a farm south of Hudson, the west half of section
23. The referenced letter discloses a proposed Coordinated Planning Agreement
("Agreement") between Hudson and Weld County and invites comments/input. This
letter is to provide written comments for the meeting in Hudson on May 26 that I cannot
attend. I do plan to attend the meeting in Longmont on June 15a'.
We the owners have lived our entire lives planning for the eventual sale of the farm as
development property and using the proceeds for our retirement years. The Agreement
between Hudson and Weld County interferes with that plan and we protest.
BACKGROUND- My great-grandfather John Owen, wife Mary and seven sons moved
to the Colorado Territory in 1872. John Owen died in 1876, the year of the Custer
Massacre and Colorado statehood, and left Mary to raise the boys on the frontier. John's
son George became a farmer and owned three farms, two near Longmont and the farm at
Hudson, believed to have been purchased on Armistice Day 1918. George's wife Sadie
inherited the Hudson farm and willed the farm to her daughter Maude. Maude's seven
children purchased the farm to provide Maude with retirement income and for their own
future retirement. Two of the owners have passed away, both were 80, and the remaining
children/owners range in age from 69 to 78. We are all retired and can no longer afford
to be patient.
ISSUES WITH PROPOSED AGREEMENT-
1. The Kragh Farm is contiguous with but is not included within the boundaries of the
proposed Urban Growth Area("UGA"). Exclusion from the UGA will result In large
consequential damages to the development potential and value of the Kragh Farm.
EXHIBIT
.J l ot) 2004-2391
a7 {
Mar 01 28 08: 04a
p. 2
2. The Kragh Farm is within the proposed MUNICIPLE Referral Area. Inclusion within
the MUNICIPLE Referral Area also results in consequential damages. The proposed
Agreement does not accommodate affected landowners within the MUNICIPLE Referral
Area. Quite the opposite! In paragraph 3.2 the Agreement proposes that "To the extent
legally possible the County will disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of
the MUNICIPAL Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area."
3. The proposed UGA does not appear optimum for viable economic development. I
submit that large-scale developers would prefer development south of Hudson with large
tract and view property potential to bifurcated development on the west side of T-76.
Creating a growth plan with sufficient flexibility to attract a large anchor development is
necessary to validate Hudson's growth ambitions and should be a major objective of the
Agreement.
Pleases call if you have questions. Please let me know how to obtain a copy of the record
of the May 26 public meeting to better prepare for the meeting in Longmont.
Loren Kragh
Cc: Paul Kragh
Jim Kragh
Loraine K. Daugherty
Ed Kragh
I ct Ault& 2003
To 10 let Din ; f ma,f Cc/taunt
Ictl.a I Ice) Autnucc n
n (Into o r ad°. (,06 1-k cVti Q I Li opt
+14 t 4iaa-)<I;1 of Ot�r charca.Ui ,n
NE F 14(tctsw . tk.k,
Loa, do hEcallc LDc,
i =-Thtodicdc, our ,a U�ngj annexed
✓1+D Hud Sc/1 _� C� r ,1 e cc
rlo C_� .slrabic 6hi- and cr(f, rc.
,1of -�r�;'r+ 5 .nne. ?+i4�Z .
AnhonL1 a4ict
arerrirse
Aug 18 03 12: 32p Co N+el 30"c-3g-933 p. 1
Michele Kathol Wielde, RN, JD, LL.D, Ph.D
Attorney at Law
22275 Weld County Road 10
Hudson, CO 80642
303-536-9772
August 18, 2003
Ms. Monica Daniels Mika
Planning Director
Department of Planning Services
1555 n. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Per Fax 970-304-6498
Dear Ms. Daniels Mika and Board of County Commissioners:
I am following up with a phone message that I left you this morning. I will be unable to
attend the hearing on August 19 at 1 pm.
I am a resident of the City of Hudson. Our property is approximately 1.5 miles from
town. Our property is not annexed to the City of Hudson.
We are very concerned about the proposed Urban Growth Boundary proposed to the
Board. The amount of area appears to be much too large. Hudson is a small town with I
grocery store, 1 bank, 2 restaurants, and a few miscellaneous businesses. The
geographical area of the town does not allow for much further business growth, unless
the board is considering allowing further commercial industrial areas in. As you know
the members of Hudson were very vocal at opposing a 450 home proposal, and the City
Council listened and it was not approved. Recently, 200 homes were later proposed and
the area was approved for annexation. That hearing was not attended by as many
residents. The few landowners that were present mentioned that they had not received
appropriate notice, but "saw" the sign for the hearing posted on the land. I strongly feel
that annexation would not have been supported either, if it has received the publication
the former hearings had.
In the area that I live in there are over a dozen homes with homes valued at $325,000 to
$1.2 million with acreages from a section to 3 acres. The majority of these homes have
been in the area for over 20 years, and are very agricultural. The landowners raise
horses, cattle, livestock, and crops. We have put a great deal of time and money to keep
our properties in good shape, and are very concerned about the past projects that have
come up, and continue to erode the values of our homes. The power plant that was
allowed near Hudson, and close to farmers of 20 + years caused a general uproar. Very
little to new jobs were created for Hudson residents, and the value of land near by could
be decreased.
Rug 18 03 12: 32p Cor+keL 30"""304933 p. 2
An example of the current planning of Hudson is a formerly nice cul de sac of$300,000
nice homes, and nearby the Hudson Industrial Park was allowed. Our concern is that
Hudson, CO is far enough away from Denver, that it does not attract a large amount of
commuters to Denver. It does attract people who desire small town living at reasonable
values. Thus, it appears that the planning of such a large area may include the desire to
bring in more industrial growth. The distance is close enough to Denver to be attractive
for industrial types of business. However, the planning of such businesses does not keep
in mind the present tax owners who have, and have had for many years agricultural type
of businesses that do not meld well with industrial businesses nearby.
Therefore, we ask that the Board reject the proposed boundaries for Hudson. The area is
to large, and common sense tells you that huge housing developments are not reasonable,
and the previous planning of industrial businesses within areas near town, and close to
current land owners are not appropriate. If an increase is allowed for the Urban Growth,
it is hoped that the current use of nearby residential areas will be respected, and the
planning will include more densely populated single home property use, and not heavy
growth and industrial use that does not honor the current existing usage of the land. Of
course, water usage, school growth, and other growth related issues are a major concern.
Please, don't sell us out. Hudson does not need to increase its boundaries to such a
proportion; it is unreasonable, and not appropriate for the agricultural type of surrounding
areas proposed.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
TxC�
Mic ele Kathol Wielde
caS% r7 dod
w mom < T / CoiQc664/
l4-i mO/ rra G )7J-,S L) 7 0 u 6 7-0
1 1 14c7 Aroo % Be he as c T l-r-
57-2vtUGC Y fJ1s4 Pe c ie7fW 77��
PP-o poiE0 /1-ceOSo o Z G ,Dt div AA/0 tu& &9
Li*d E. 7o Go cto /Of co D ,&r suc7/ 1
Lf G 45 4- 7 7/ f%7 YIP/ Atom_ o viVFree i A
etsy.I ,— o F u ' c. cote 7- suc6EST , V
ru/t2 Eie ,ut7ioCS o, 77,0 tY, --Clia4C/4 A&
AGO o,v w& //s,#5 6.'do Pew, Sc
Ppa i mt4-r 7/95s5 j ssugi E CF Ec77- c44)
V cF 7776/t ohNio00 //J PSPs0ev ..
,vs iERi 04P CoolfA TFD
c 4-lS ilatOie 6 Pu 77arGs 142E, 7 fiS cregE
(-04-&a/ pi-o pti 472E b/ilw6 /a/ a40 le R5 449
7'r I TTCuf 59400/0 .
PII 1303 - X36 9sdd3 4 7
DM FIELDS
�Io u4v7/}Gf Q
AtqaCcr / C°O. 8o 'OOL
Weld County Planning Department
'NERD' WFFICE
:AUG 1 2 2003
RECEIVED
August 10,S003
Department of Planning Services
Monica Daniell Mika:
1555 N 17 Ave.
Greeley,Co. S0631
This letter is concurring the recent development of expanding the growth of my surrounding
neighbor. Which I am totally against.
I have lived here over 13 years now and the main reason my husband and I moved her is for the
peace, quite, non congestion, better health, less stress, and over all beauty of the area.
Which your planning commission might do is rune what the people in this neighbor has saved all
there lives and would not be able to do again,live in such a environment as mention above.
Something's are better left alone and this is one of things.
Ask yourself is you found a place to live that you always dreamed about and found it, suddenly
it was going to change would you just let it.
You can call it what ever you like purpose pi rniinF or not you are trying to invade in our own
little spot on this earth that makes this neighbor special.
I hope many many people speak out against this plamiinr.and I also hone you will listen with
your heart and not your head or pocket book.
Mary Phalen
3141 Western Drive
Hudson, Co 5064:.
i 2�cr j� J ``
74
fetes MEMORANDUM
WI TO: Monica Mika July 28, 2003
COLORADO From: Mr. & Mrs. Green
SUBJECT: Hudson IGA
Ms. Mika received a call from Ken & Alice Green on Friday, July 25, 2003, indicating that they
will not be able to attend the hearing and would like to voice their opposition to the proposed
agreement. They would like to see the area stay the same and nothing change.
Hello