HomeMy WebLinkAbout20033228.tiff November 4, 2003
To Weld County Planning Commission
1555 N 17th Ave
Greeley, CO 80631
Case# SCH-24
I, Cindy Vance, am against adding a mini subdivision on Highway 392 between County
Road 53 and County Road 55. Highway 392 and County Road 55 (also Hwy 37) is
considered a high accident intersection. Most of the traffic is coming or going to
Highway 34. Putting 86 more vehicles at the intersection is asking for more problems. I
would like to see County Road 53 paved if this mini subdivision goes through because it
would take off the high traffic at this intersection. My next concern is about the
emergency response issues. There is not enough funding and manpower to respond to
nine or more houses in this area. Another concern I have is the amount of water that
these houses will be using. We are still in a drought. Putting nine more houses out here
would create a water problem. We already don't have enough water to supply the homes
that are already out here. There are times when I don't have enough water pressure in my
house or at the hydrants.
Thank you, '' ll
et 71:4 fr -nCL.
Cindy Vance
33020 WCR 55
Gill, CO 80624
970-353-9424
EX R
2003-3228
Weld County Planning Commission
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley 80631
Case#SCH-24 10/28/03
To the planning commission,
I object to the development of the 76 acres of land described in case# SCH 24, for the
following reasons:
1. The Weld county sheriff's office has stated in its referral that it lacks the ability to absorb
any more service demand without the resources it recommended in the multi-year plan
given to the county commissioners. If these resources have not been allocated, it would
be irresponsible for the planning commission or the county commissioners to approve
this plan, and it can be expected that the two agencies would be held fully accountable by
the community for any failures in the emergency response system resulting from
increased unmet demand on the system.
2. Although the county comp plan was significantly revised recently, to allow for, it
continues to extol the virtues of preserving farmland and the value of rural living, and it
continues to actively encourage the preservation of agriculture in the county. The right to
farm clause speaks of the many incentives for rural living: open views, spaciousness,
lack of noise and congestion, presence of wildlife, and a rural atmosphere. In fact,
however, randomly plopping a nine-house subdivision 10 miles from a municipality will
violate all of these incentives,and is completely inconsistent with the pattern of
development in our neighborhood up to this point. There will be no more open views
from our windows, no more spaciousness, far less wildlife to view, and increased noise
and congestion from increased traffic and denser population, as well as the end of any
sense of a rural atmosphere. The CDOT estimates that this subdivision will increase the
number of vehicle trips per day by 86, and describes this as insignificant. This increase is
not insignificant to us: this subdivision will be located just beyond the crest of a hill, on a
highway that posts a traffic speed of 65 mph. This includes a high volume of semi-truck
traffic, already significantly increased since the improvements to highway 37. The
pattern of development thus far, in our neighborhood,has been the purchase of small
acreages (usually sprinkler corners),or fair-sized parcels (60 or more acres), with one
house built on it, and the remainder of the parcel fanned. The placement of subdivisions
in this neighborhood is just anomalous: it does not fit, and is not welcome.
3. The county commissioners, based in part on their concern for the adequacy of water to
irrigate the 15 acres of proposed open space, rejected the previous application. In
response,the developer has indeed substantially changed this present application: he has
eliminated the 15 acres of open space,and added two more houses. I argue that the total
acreage remains the same: it's still+/- 76 acres; and, except for the minimal acreage
covered in buildings, will probably require even more water to irrigate(for intensive
landscaping), than 15 acres of native grassland, which was the original proposal for
planting this piece. Also, eliminating the open space is the exact opposite of one of the
principles of smart growth: to cluster buildings and preserve some percentage of open
space on each parcel,thereby at least attempting to preserve views,wildlife habitat, etc.
In this respect,this proposal is contrary to contemporary,cutting-edge growth planning,
and would be rejected by many conscientious and forward-thinking public officials.
4. The applicant states in the proposal that the individuals living in the vicinity of the
property live in an ag area,but are not affected by the maintenance and aesthetic
guidelines typical of a subdivision. Is he joking? Is he saying that we won't be affected
by the quick addition of nine houses in our neighborhood, the ensuing increase in traffic,
the increased population density, and the increased noise? Agriculture and subdivisions
are exact opposites, and I fail to understand the applicant's statement.
I'd like to end by asking that the planning commission and the county commissioners admit
that preserving farmland and developing it cannot occur at the same time: we can't have our cake
and eat it too. It's time to recognize that we either have to commit to embracing agriculture in
this county, and explore alternatives to development to help farmers and ranchers realize a gain
from their property, or we need to abandon agriculture entirely, and throw ourselves wholly into
developing and urbanizing this county. Development and urbanization is what's slowly
happening here, and I am tired of hearing and seeing these contradictions. And the
commissioners should not delude themselves that they can promote suburban growth and insist
that these new suburban neighbors keep quiet about the noise and smell of their ag neighbors: as
development increases, so will complaints against ag neighbors. The county commissioners will
have to mediate these complaints, and be more accountable to constituents who have spent a lot
of money to move to this area, and want the services and amenities they're used to in their old
urban neighborhoods.
Julie Boyle
26414 Hwy. 392
Gill, 80624
x Y fi' yt' ' "
7 ma
,-- EY
5, , TIil, r "
a f'.
will
e k a
Y
artilli 4 .
5t�3
� R4
♦4,0?t. .,T `Ci.P n i*r�'P "� : jf :' r
e q 711
{{
— liar
.,..,
x 5 Y, r 'i !
ik
Nf j ,r sa
:aS '4 s 1S1 ' R
,la .> Ali
w
r a � , RIONES 1, {Y
•— • a nip
, ,, 1.
, •C s, 2
. yV
iivN R w� , t
s
C CI
a CO
> 2
p
EXHIBIT
1n c
Criteria for determining a Substantial
Change has occurred :
Weld County Code Compliance
▪ 2-3-10 Criteria 1: Has the land use application
substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot
size or density, in internal or external roads, or, in the
case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed.)
▪ Minor Subdivision Process
. Nine large lots
▪ Road position and CDOT Access Agreement
▪ North Weld County Water and Galeton Fire Protection Districts
I. Agreement with Petroleum Development Corporation
▪ 2-3-10 Criteria 3: Have the applicable provisions of the
law substantially changed. (e.g., the applicant is
proposing using a different procedure so a different set
of criteria apply of the applicableordinance has been
amended by the Board so the criteria have substantially
changed.)
▪ Minor Subdivision Process allowing 9 Lots
) ) )
S i te Design :
. •
. ..
, .
.........,.....
Previous Change of Zone Proposed Site Design
•
r i
( 'I f l i
I + . I I , ..rte .
.
• rr•11sW011►\ A.
.rte... .. nt-'-.=•L".41=-s_a 4'.J..NM w.. r.1.. ....•
WI 4m
lk
ilaw-At-off ,__,...._
• I '' ""3" . lir•21,S
il ire_of-..: t 1; .
i ...._ . L. Lf.,... .
..,..
...... _ xr •
. ,• „„, ..
Jr
4 _ .
Ow Creek Acres PUD lw=...1 ....i- -=
unq .... . .t ...r. ..
: _
)
)
Surrounding
a s
Property a1,4
Subdivision , ,,,::„
iiiiiiiit History 1 Ise- 30
i ,
, , ,_ ' '''. ''*- :4.9010*' -r. ': V'''. 177: '4',
t'Y•.,...a 4 7 ....,,4,,. "AMP. +za-" ._ . ,_�
. f
. Yk;;;„.. s4 # 3 `W y
1 e. b Ts"�
it
ri
''''H p�
1 b� AE. i &�
ix
y v e
f k.
NOTE: Parcels Highlighted Ci ,-k `' .:-- j , f. : ° - ,
were created through the
RE or SE process according '� '"�
Web .2
to Weld County Merrick
site and Planning records. "� � ,�
)
)
Surrounding ,, ,.
Property
Pew
Subdivisiont. `�
n
n
Historyilk F
a
S
rp .r9n.. _ v9Y4•t
B
ak4 R
�k d �Tk.
,iffir Fes .. ii_., 'rot,
s ::._...1.4.
W.
rf`^c ' ' ...._ ..._. n...�.. .wt ^C..., -
-
�fx -� - � yy� S - .'..
W''/IN: .
i 3
NOTE: Parcels Highlighted M "'
were created through the .' 41 f. "�' ,
y
RE or SE process according ' , � � .,ti*tT „
to Weld County Merrick Web . I °,
site and Planning records. t. x
4
s '
Owl Creek Estates
1 I •
.o, ncr♦
:®®-^+J may_
.-ate', �.
r
rI
'ZIII / II E
_¢.3.-yzz «..__ate. +•-.
LOT al 4.
Pa
"
Ica_9
Owl Creek Acres PUD � i--� t . .� `
Cbngc a'lore Plat ...... .......... -
Before Substantial Change
Todd Hodges Design, LLC
1269 North Cleveland Ave.
Loveland, Colorado 50537
970-6 13-8556
Hello