HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011223.tiff l
Weld County Planning Dept.
?;; 262001
April 25, 2001 RECEIVED
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Weld County Planning Commission
155 North 17"' Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Case#Z-556 Leroy Johnson/Prairie Echoes Estates
I am writing this letter concerning the above proposed zone change;to state our concerns
and to make certain that all the facts are presented. Our property is about Y2 mile from
the proposed development and I have lived here my entire life (60 years), so I feel like I
do know the area. We have been neighbors and friends of the Johnson's for at least 45
years and I know that by making these comments I run the risk of alienating them.
However, I hope that they will respect our right to state our thoughts. I feel that our
future in farming, our quality of life, and our property rights could be threatened if the
development is approved.
DOCUMENTED FACTS:
1. According to the February 10, 2000 report from Terracon,they reported that they
observed groundwater at 3.5 —5 feet below ground surface during a site
investigation on December 29, 1999. This is a period when groundwater will be
low!
2. According to Terracon, "Most of the acreage is prone to flooding."
3. Celia Greenman of CGS suggested in her April 2000 review that subgrade
construction and perimeter drains and sump pumps be installed, if necessary. My
question is "where are they going to pump the water to? Recycle it?"
4. In a memorandum on April 3, 2000 from Pam Smith,Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment, "...the Department requested that the borings be
monitored during the anticipated seasonal high groundwater(September)." This
was never done!
5. In a memorandum on March 3, 2001 from Pam Smith, Weld County Department
of Public Health and Environment, "A review of the change of zone application
finds the application does not include groundwater monitoring as requested." She
goes on to state that the Department will have no choice but to recommend for
denial of the application if there are no alternatives or if the alternatives are not
suitable.
6. On April 10, 2001,the City of Greeley Planning Commission considered the
change of zone request from Leroy Johnsbn/Prairie Echoes. They voted 7-0 to
recommend denial because they found that the PUD does not comply with the
policies and intent of the City of Greeley's Comprehensive Plan and Resolution 7,
1985.
2001-1223
7. In a letter from Charles Dickson, attorney for LaSalle Fire Protection District, he
expresses concerns about using the Johnson irrigation well for fire protection. He
cites instances in the past where these arrangements with irrigation wells have not
worked as planned.
OTHER FACTS:
1. This proposed development is surrounded on all sides by highly productive farm
ground. The intense irrigation on these farms contributes greatly to the high
groundwater table at this site.
2. From mid-July to mid-October, groundwater will be near or at the surface. This is
a fact!
3. I am the tenant farmer on the Weinmeister farm that lies directly north of the
Johnson property. The tailwater from this farm goes into the drainage ditch on
the north side of Weld County Road 54 and travels eat to the Latham Ditch at
Weld County Road 49. This ditch and tailwater contributes to the high water
table.
4. I am also the tenant farmer on the west side of the Johnson property, presently
owned by Lawrence Hertzke (formerly owned by Jim Vetting). The tailwater
from this farm travels east along the entire north side of the Johnson property
(south side of Weld County Road 54)to the Latham Ditch at Weld County Road
49. This tailwater ditch also contributes to the high groundwater at the proposed
�., site.
5. To the best of my knowledge, both of these drainage ditches have established
right of ways for the purpose of carrying the tailwater from the above mention
farms.
6. Even though a"Right to Farm" covenant may be required on the recorded plat for
this site due to the frustration that high groundwater may cause, at some point
homeowners may try to restrict running water along this property or may even try
to curtail or put restrictions on irrigation of farms in the surrounding area.
7. As we have a perimeter drain and sump pumps around our home, I can say from
experience I would never buy a lot for the purpose of building a house if I knew
up front I was going to need them.
8. Because this proposed site (presently pasture)has never been a"producing farm,"
the excuse should not be used that the owners can make more money by selling
the land for development rather than farming it due to low prices for farm
commodities at this time.
OPINION:
I am aware that growth is going to happen and you might comment that I am opposed to
growth. I am opposed to uncontrolled growth. I would classify this as "leapfrog
growth,"in other words, a small subdivision here and there with no thought given to the
surrounding areas and how it impacts them. This PUD will increase traffic in a rural
area, place much greater risk in moving farm machinery, and make farming in this area
more difficult because of"people pollution." Even if there are alternatives (European or
whatever)to conventional mound septic systems, this would be a very bad site to install
an unproven system.
After spending extra money to haul dirt to raise the area, raise and oil the road,build
mound septic systems, install perimeter drains and sump pumps, in addition to the normal
costs of a lot purchase, water tap, etc., how much money are prospective homeowners
going to have to spend on a home? What will a shoddy development do for the
atmosphere and quality of life in this neighborhood and what will it do to our property
values?
Existing within a ''/a mile of the proposed PUD is a dairy farm and a turkey farm; smell
and flies go hand-in-hand with them. What would the Planning Department and PUD
homeowners tell me if I wanted to build a small feedlot on our farm in a year or two?
(This is a possibility if Greeley loses the sugar factory!) This is an agricultural area and I
feel that it should stay that way!
After researching all of the negatives that are in the file concerning this case, in addition
l'0tkidering the facts, comments, and opinion that I have presented, I think that the
Planning Commission can see that the zone change could potentially harm numerous
agricultural businesses in the area. Only the applicant would benefit from it. Therefore, I
would hope that the Planning Commission would vote for denial of the zone change in
Case No. Z-556.
Thank ypu very much for your consideration to this matter. If I can be of further
assistance or provide additional information, my phone number is 970-339-5272.
Sincerely,
agta—
Gary Ages
262$5 Weld County Road 47
Greeley, CO 80631
Cc: Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment
View to ./)e
st
EXHIBIT
Y
f
n
ro
4-31
,
r,0/
00
�— `01
Fea
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue April24,2001
Greeley,CO 80631
Dear Sir:
I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development(Prairie Echoes Estates;Case
No k-5-27),which is located near my residence and farms. My specific objections are as follows:
z -554
1. The leap-frogging of housing tracts into agricultural land is unaesthetic,degrades agricultural and
rural property,needlessly stretches municipal services,and is an illogical way for a municipality to
expand. I am not anti-growth,but splotching rural areas with small housing developments that are not
contiguous with any town or city is unsightly,produces unnecessary traffic congestion and pollution in
rural areas,hampers argicultural operations,and brings housing development residents and farmers into
unnecessary conflict. Urban growth should occur at the periphery of towns and cities,and should not
occur in haphazard patches in rural environments. I do not believe this disorganized manner of municipal
expansion should be compatible with any city's comprehensive growth plan.
2. The City of Greeley Planning Commission has recommended that a fifty foot right of way be
reserved from the center line of WCR 54 to facilitate the development of WCR 54 as a future arterial
roadway to support the increased traffic on WCR 54 this housing development will inevitably produce.
My residence is located on WCR 54, and my property line is less than fifty feet from the centerline of
WCR 54. I will resist any attempts by the county,state,or any agency,to condenm or otherwise
appropriate any of my land to extend the WCR 54 right of way for the sake of accomodating another
person's ill-concieved business venture. My residence is already set near the edge of WCR 54,and any
attempt to widen it would place WCR 54 on my doorstep. In addition,WCR 54 is not an appropriate
roadway for heavy traffic,since it is full of twists and turns as it proceeds east out of Evans,following the
course of an existing irrigation canal; it is already a hazardous roadway,and increasing its traffic will
only make it more so.
3. The land for the proposed housing development has a very high water table. The high water table
is in part due to intense agricultural irrigation conducted on farms in the area,including my own. Not
infrequently,the water table is at the surface,and the land is flooded. A potential conflict between new
homeowners and farmers who have irrigation rights around the area may develop if homeowners perceive
irrigation activities to contribute to the flooding of their property. I strongly question the wisdom of
approving a housing development on a site with such a high flood potential- surely the development of
sewerage or septic systems on this property would be challenging,and public health issues are raised.
Respectfully, 44.�
1jL' /1e2 1 c
Michael J.Boulter
i"_ 22019 WCR 54
Greeley,CO 80631
Phone: (907)330-8251
Hello