HomeMy WebLinkAbout992653.tiff 9-e7-1999 9:56AM FROM P_ 2
EASION AVIATION
9-2-99
To whom it may concern:
We are a company in LaSalle, Colorado known as Easton Aviation.
We have been in the Aerial Spraying business for about 35-40
years, providing aerial application Agriculture products. We
have worked in the Platteview area west of town on Highway 66
and Road 19 for a great number of years. I understand that
there are plans for some new homes that are planned' for new
construction right south of the Turkey Farm on .Road 19 on the
west side and north of Highway 66. We have preformed Aerial
Applications on the East side of 19 and to' thePtorth' from there.
This in my opinion is a poor decision on building;„s'ites, because
we as Aerial Applicators are forced tr tu'in -bv6,r•"that particular
area because of the big steel,.4owee ine and apsoulately do not
dare fly over the Turkey FA,,,
Our business is bec v Y. limited because of the new housing
going up all over We—, tay ,*ple, in general can complain
about airplarl,et, TSe`stalks aank outdoor activities preformed by
„ ,feeyltthe tt anyone tryilr douny. . ,'°The .peasoi<peopj4f move -ut to the /country is to get away from
the' ngi'sse and/pci'tytiesi , They. fi ally get settled and farming
act:t(ities si tAr,t�-'and the;; tzoubie'begin. What everyone in this
country doeS*94 .consi e ,;ik ohere the food comes from and what
S'- is involved,;[ get4Og 'tr"theig*r The Bottom Line is, they are
putting h iliO Cl n,t(.Fi 'w can reaespd are slowly dissolving
agriculture' . '''' = ,'
`k \' j
Sincerely:
Robert Easton
RE:tt
EXHIBIT
Heat x''.10
284-6701 VALLEY AIR FIELD
7.5 miles south east of Greeley,Colorado
FAX 284-5215 23482 Weld County Road 48—LaSalle,Colorado 80645
992653
' 9-27-1999 9:SEAM FROM P. 3
Agland, Incorporated
Al• A�NI
Corporate Office
260 FactoryCo Road P.O. Box 338
rEaton, Colorado 80615
(970)454-3391 CO/WY/NE 1-800433-4688
Fax: (970)454-2144
PROBLEM WITH HOUSING AROUND FARMING
1. Chemical sensitive people
there are some people that are have a allergic reactions to some chemical by contact or by smell
2. Pets
many people have pets,the pets will run around in fields after they have been sprayed
3. Ag_hours
farms, agdealership,air pilots,put in long hours during season from 4:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.
and growers irrigate all times at night
4. Spraying
agdealer ship will make recommendations according to surrounding area,when thiers a housing
development it makes it difficult to put the pesticide on(takes more time)&sometimes they will
not spray it at all,at that point it starts to effect the growers income from that field,or if we are
dealing with fungus and/or insects the nonsprayed area will contaminate the sprayed area which
can hurt the yield in the long run or totally wipe out the field in two to three days
5.Dust
when we put on fertilizer chemical we can cause alot of dust from the tires and so do farmers
during season
6.Noxious weed control
farmer have to deal with noxious weeds that need to be managed constantly and controlled
if the weeds do not get managed correctly it will effect the grower drastically
7- Smell
there are many different kinds of ag chemicals and fertilizers some have a smell to them
we can not control the smell its part of the product
4 EXMIIT
Divisions: • Bean • Crop Production • Farm &Home • Feed • Petroleum • T.E.A.
FILE No.306 10'22 '99 14:31 ID:WELD CTY GOVT FAX:9703520242 PAGE 2
y.
:.BOARI) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
kit } ' /� Q PHONE (070) 668-400.0, Ext. 4200
,hl
�: FAX: (890) 362-0242
GREELEY, COLORADO 80832
�) • 4X+
septbrhbgrr' R, 1908 . ,
J
' • Y y.kL
q '
% ,..1,'0".
r 1(hal, Kenney a�na a wlatea I
'. 341 tYif etPset ' , r`
Lovelan 0ohareda 8053?,
pear IWE $ itY
',tom + , k . `;
The appll tea your CHent�Si ` s r, 4 tZ Ae# 130 f w A� dcuJturel)
Tone D?et 1 E (r}'t�te'}t;A!1� : t'faFr ) k�lafet7 hae Taan
rpt?gmmeh .500 tOlogiw lr#t4g. ' iatfi� lore .sP,r !qa.
4inpi:lNliin, I the esl;lltt• '04 I; k� f Drtiect
Ption:... iltt�otet' rf y_ *It NON lyo et tie'and eli TIM. .,. •
t ; OW
3 r � . r
'float illy 1 t . O } t� t�Meaa r
hint xo dl'q'�� 4m1:' koothrilisrli.itjirkot ', b. : b06, . ". t 'tl isilva 4
l#we net in Aysts1F
/
•Sincerely, ' , :, , , Li..... ,
Bo4ab oe 0*4fl.. ERs ;
NuEG O9Ul+
�`a₹k -'-"%-
Dery K. Het ghrklr
G2l'Mleeq � k , x; J
t o fl qq,'
pX • • ✓ i 44. � ' 1/the..K Abe O n fl �a ' nl di au
Caenrrtiegtonpre tq� otrald+lrt it;q�pnilgtmeb den:
NN ty
- Pal
2 EXHIBIT
Coz
,,. 0 '
November 15, 1999
Weld County Board of Commissioners
Weld County, CO 80631
RE: Docket 99-69
Dear Commissioners,
We farm 480 acres adjacent to and nearby the proposed Minor Subdivision and we believe
you should deny this request.
We do not believe this proposal complies with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for
the following reasons.
Page 2-4 Goal 3
(In Summary) To discourage residential development which is not located
adjacent to existing municipalities.
Page 2-4 Policy 3
(In Summary) To discourage residential development that is located outside of an
IGA, urban growth boundary or the Mixed Use Area. It is intended to minimize
the incompatibilities urban and agricultural.
Page 3-10 Policy 3
(In Summary) To encourage compact urban development by directing growth to
urban growth areas where services are already available.
Page 3-10 Policy 5
(In Summary) That residential development should be compatible with existing
surrounding land uses.
Platteville is the nearest municipality to this proposed development(more than 3 miles
away) and in the recently adopted Platteville Comp Plan it states that agriculture is
important to Platteville and it should be preserved. Plattevilles Plan states that growth
should radiate from the town center to the areas that are served with the necessary
infrastructure.
We understand that personal property use issues are in question here. We believe that
existing zoning regulations should be kept to protect the existing surrounding property
owners and our Right to Farm.
3 EXHIBIT
Al )
4 ;.
Page 2
Weld County Commissioners
November 15, 1999
Land speculation by developers in existing and active agricultural areas should be
restricted and in our opinion the best way to do this is to govern by zoning. If this
property were contiguous with the Platteville city limits, or the MUD it would be time to
develop in the area. This clearly is not the time.
Sincerely,
Ritchie Pyeatt Linda Pyeatt
Plat9826 Hwy 6C L � )
Plat eville, T 806 51rt
9268 WCR 28
Wilson Fanns Platteville,Colorado 80651
II
t .._, O. ?C)
•
Thursday,November 11, 1999
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado
To the Board of County Commissioners:
We are opposed to the Change of Zone request by applicant Daniel Ochsner to be
considered November 24, 1999 in Docket#99-69. The insertion of a"Minor Subdivision"
into the middle of a wholly functional agriculture area is not appropriate at this time.
This location is just outside the Urban Growth Boundaries(UGB's) for Platteville,
Mead, and/or Firestone. Therefore,the location is a natural agricultural buffer for the
tremendous urban development now underway in these three towns. For the County
Commissioners to now permit another"island" of development between these UGB's
would make a mockery of the co-operative planning process(s)between the County&
the towns involved. It would send a clear message to surrounding towns: "You better
expand your Urban Growth Boundaries to protect your territory." There is also a
chilling message to farmers: "The County has little interest in preserving agriculture in
SW Weld county. If surrounding towns don't want to develop it, the County will allow
it."
Several months ago we participated in the planning process in Platteville. We
were encouraged to learn that the town leadership had spent considerable time and
resources in developing a comprehensive growth plan for the future. At the very least,
Platteville informally considered a plan to expand its UGB to include this location for
annexation and eventual development by Mr. Oschner. However,the idea was
determined to be in conflict with the proposed Platteville growth plan. This is still true
today. Despite modification,we believe the proposed development remains inconsistent
with Platteville's Comprehensive Growth Plan. The town leadership has forwarded its
comments and has recommended denial. We urge the County Commissioners to
preserve the integrity and the co-operative nature of the planning process by also
denying this application.
We will be traveling on the date of the hearing and will not be able to attend in
person. Hopefully this letter will serve to fully register our opposition.
Thank You,
cc: Platteville Planning Commission �c`_,,- d 73,4L
;J cc
November 10, 1999
Weld County Board of Commissioners
Weld County, CO
Dear Commissioners,
We,the undersigned, we in opposition to Docket 99-69 that is before you today. Because
of the holiday many of us are unable to attend the hearing in person. Please accept this
letter as a summary of our position. Understand that if we were able to appear in person
we would no doubt have other comments that we can not address in the simple format of
this letter. We ask you to realize that by holding the Public Hearing on a date that many
of us are traveling because of the holiday, along with the fact that only you or the
applicant can ask for a continuance, you are limiting our comments and public input. This,
in our opinion, could be grounds for an appeal should you move to approve this
development.
The following is a summary of our opposition.
1) This plan has been considered and commented on negatively by the Town of
Platteville in their referral. The Planning Commission has forwarded this to
you with a recommendation for denial siting that it does not comply with the
Weld County Comp Plan., it doesn't fit into the surrounding land uses and that
there are safety concerns.
2) This development raises significant Right to Farm issues that come from
development in an agricultural area. This proposed development is directly
across the road from an existing family owned Potato/Onion processing plant.
At various times of the year different activities are taking place there with less
than 3 months without activity.
3) The nearest housing of any density is more than three miles away from this
proposal. This land is squarely centered in an agricultural area.
4) We disapprove of the double standard that is in place for farmers/ranchers
versus developers. This developer is wanting to build 5 homes that would
take a farmer 50 years to build using the county standards placed on them.
g EXHIBIT
1O 30
Page 2
November 10, 1999
Weld County Commissioners
5) The irrigation ditch that would bisect the five proposed lots is an historical
drain used to drain 30 acres of Mayer Family Farms and is used to irrigate
(according to the developer at the Planning Hearing) approximately 35 acres
of prime agricultural property to the west of the ditch.
6) There is an easement for the historical drain that would bisect the new
lots. Once that irrigation ditch is on the new owners property there would
not be access for a farmer to use that ditch to irrigate crops to the west.
Then of course there could be problems with"sharing"that ditch if that were
to be presented as a solution.
7) There is an problem with the increasing traffic on Highway 66. There is a
problem with the increased population to the RE-1 School District and
The Platteville Fire District.
Developers purchase agricultural property assuming they can rezone and develop, but
there is an old saying that goes like this "in the right place, at the right time". Dan
Oschner does not own property on WCR 19 that is in the right place in that the property
is not contiguous to any municipality. In fact, the area is being pursued as an agricultural
buffer for both Platteville and Firestone. The right time to develop this property would be
years from now when orderly growth has reached this area. This Minor Subdivision
would be the first such development in the neighborhood. Three and one half miles from
Platteville, eight miles from Firestone, twelve miles from Longmont.
Page 3
November 10, 1999
Weld County Commissioners.
In closing, we respectfully request that you deny this Minor Subdivision proposal.
Sincerely,
eflAya
(Y1/ hl -7t
Pity ct•wfi 4fr - pzikt4
•
7
117 a e- /a //� --`747
o � ( jA,( e /96 #e v, l
Page 4
Weld County Commissioners
6.4-1,0_, y C:Vit - (CZ/4_6/W;
,991
/4)7 ,(54_,c,c(s2—
kocit--- P44144diu
af>e, t,
1c2ceivue4,--ic 11-1 V/ 96; 7
~ � I 22O710-4 /CO
59✓V
GRIP
GROW RESPONSIBLY IN PLATTEVILLE
LET'S GET A GRIP ON GROWTH
MISSION STATEMENT
Encourage preservation of the agricultural infrastructure to sustain
farms and farm supported businesses in Platteville and surrounding
area.
Support the creation of agricultural buffer zones to maintain
Platteville's quality of life and cultural identity.
Encourage contiguous growth from Platteville's existing city limits by
opposing rural"flagpole" annexations.
Require Weld County officials to enforce existing planning guidelines
which maintain the right to farm and control unchecked urban sprawl
as stated in the county comprehensive growth plan.
Protect Colorado's diminishing water supply and other natural resources.
Mayer Family Testamentary Trust
9704 State Highway 66 c c
Platteville, Colorado 80651
November 22, 1999
Weld County Board of Commissioners
Weld County, CO 80631
Re: Docket 99-69, Objection of Rezoning
Dear Commissioners:
Please let this letter serve as my objection to Applicant's request for rezoning for Minor
Subdivision on the subject property. It is clear that this matter was scheduled before the
entire Board of Commissioners on a date calculated to restrict appearance and objection
by many parties who appeared before the Planning Commission. I would have preferred
to personally appear and speak, but like many others, had to choose between family
obligations and speaking personally.
The Mayer Family Trust holds title to farmland within one-half mile of the lands subject
to this application, for the benefit of the family of Walter Mayer, who was raised on, and
farmed and lived on the land for his entire life. The beneficiaries of the Trust are
dedicated to protection and preservation of the land which was, and is still their home.
The Trust, and the beneficiaries under the Trust have three major objections to this
Application:
1. Applicant's plan was considered and rejected by the Planning Commission on
an 8-1 vote. Applicant had every opportunity to make a record for rezoning
and failed to carry the governmental entity charged with making this decision.
Having been present at the Planning hearing, I believe the evidence
presented, and the rational given by individual Planning Commission
members for their respective votes should be honored by the Board of
Commissioners. Absent belief that the decision of the Planning Commission
was arbitrary or without reasonable basis, the Board of Commissioners should
not reverse the Planning Commission.
4 'EXHIBIT
COZ
Weld County Commissioners
November 22, 1999
Page 2
2. As was evident at the Planning Commission Hearing, the requested zoning
change is not appropriate for the area. This plan is the remnant of a more
elaborate development plan to create a major subdivision via flagpole
annexation some three and one half miles from the nearest municipal housing
development, and place it squarely in the middle of prime agricultural land.
When that failed, the next choice was for a Minor Subdivision from the
County. While this plan resulted in less development than Applicant desires,
it is still inappropriate for the area, as the Planning Commission concluded.
3. Finally, this Commission must consider what its duties are to the affected
parties. Applicant bought a farm, and now desires to turn that farm into a
development. Zoning, and by extension, the right of any governmental
agency to regulate, calls for a balance between individual property rights and
reasonable societal goals. Few people would object to reasonable
development if it occurs adjacent to municipal growth. Here, Applicant
wants to drop a Minor Subdivision into the middle of an agricultural area, an
area where highway and other critical infrastructure are below standard, all in
the name of individual property rights. I would submit that it is the duty of
the Commission to conclude, as did the Planning Commission, that such a
resolution is inappropriate.
It seems that the Board of Commissioners has a simple decision to make here. It should
affirm the denial of Applicants request by the Planning Board. In this way, it can take a
stand for rational and planned growth in Weld County, and against the expectations of
those who buy a farm, but envision a metroplex. That expectation and vision should not,
need not, and is not the expectation and vision of the people of Weld County.
Mayer amily Testamentary Trust
Dale Mayer
Trustee
From: "Lila Mayer" <LMAYER@bannerhealth.com>
To: <egesick@coweld.co.us>
Date: 11/23/99 2:47pm
Subject: Correspondence
Attached is my correspondence into the case file, Docket 99-69. Please
include this for tomorrow's public hearing. THANKS!
RXNtSiT
November 23, 1999
Weld County Board of Commissioners
Weld County, Colorado 80631
RE: Docket 99-69
Change of Agricultural Zone to Estate Zone
Dear Commissioners,
As our Weld County, elected officials, please vote NO on this proposed zone change.
Keep our farm from being a nuisance. Allow us to continue "THE RIGHT TO FARM."
Vote NO to allow 5 estates to be placed in an agricultural area. Please don't allow a
breakdown of the present agricultural infrastructure in this area.
Support the town of Platteville's rejection to this zone change and the rejection of the
Planning Commission on a 8-1 vote. Affirm the rejections by the Planning Commission.
Support Platteville and Weld County's Comprehensive Growth plan by minimizing the
impact of development on agricultural lands and the surrounding agricultural areas.
Support our schools, by not expanding enrollments when schools are already at capacity.
Platteville Elementary school in the fall of 1998 had an enrollment of 415 students. The
current capacity is 450 with little room for expansion on site. The current student/teacher
ratio is between 16 & 18 on average. Platteville's town board has approved an
annexation of 175 homes. This annexation could bring 123 additional students. This
proposal for 5 estates does make a difference and it's negative.
Support duties of the office:
That the proposal is consistent with the policies of the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan
This proposal is NOT consistent:
WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A. Goal 7. Protect
agricultural land from encroachment by those urban uses which hinder the
operational efficiency and productivity of the agricultural uses.
That the USES which would be allowed on the subject property by
granting the change of zone will be compatible with the surrounding land
USES.
This proposal is NOT compatible with the surrounding land USES, it's
totally agricultural!!
That adequate water and sewer service can be made available to serve the
site.
This proposal is NOT supported by Sheble McConnellogue, Health
Department, as the septic system needs to be a 100 feet from the ditch.
That STREET or highway facilities providing access to the property are
adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed zone district.
This proposal is NOT adequate, as the access runs parallel to county road
#19, this will create a very dangerous county road.
People involved in agriculture make up only 1.4% of the population in the state of
Colorado. Our numbers are small, but our passion is great, to hold on and preserve the
agricultural communities left in our beautiful state.
Every minute two acres of land is taken from agriculture to roads or development across
the United States.
Please support those agricultural communities left by voting NO on this proposed zone
change.
Sincerely,
Lila Mayer
‘0;:r. MEMORANDUM
WiigeTO: Board of County Commissioners
COLORADO FROM: Eric Jerman, Planner
£'Ae it-53c)
SUBJECTCtS'R=4246-
November 24, 1999
Z-530
Located: west of and adjacent to WCR 19 and approx. 1/2 mile north of Hwy 66
At the request of Mr. Daniel Ochsner, applicant for case number Z-530, the Department of
Planning Services requests that case #Z-530 be continued indefinitely. The applicant has sent
a request to continue the case to allow them time to consider options for their application.
On September 7, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this case. Mr.
Ochsner is presently considering a redesign of the proposed subdivision.
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
tiIX Hit IT
DENVER CANADIAN. INC.
Daniel L. Ochsner, President 18905 WCR 394
La Salle, CO 80645
(970) 330-3839
November 22, 1999
Eric Jerman FAXED & HAND-DELIVERED
Planner CORRESPONDENCE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
Weld County Administrative Offices
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Public Hearing -- Minor Subdivision - Ivy Crest
Dear Eric Jerman:
Denver Canadian, Inc. would like to request an indefinite postponement of the
public hearing dated November 24, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.
A request in writing will be made for scheduling at a future date.
Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience that this may have
caused.
Sincerely,GAtuale OcLACLAY
Daniel L. Ochsner
President
DO/seb
J 1EXHISIT
IF
53
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE
et
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS: NO3 m1/46er /4 , 19 91 N . THE SIGN SHALL BE
POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE
EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A
PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL
POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN
AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE
PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S HEARING FOR
H@Rr l 53 . THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY:
Ei?lc- A jef2b'APA)
NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN 31--(' °SIGNATURE FOR PER POSTING SIGN
STATE OF COLORADO)
)ss.
COUNTY OF WELD )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS , ?DAY OF l 1 OK-CM-1 t , 19:Lt.
Lt
%hafCX-) K V) )w «a_2
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Do? - 0.3 0)OO 3
THIS FORM SHALL BE PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE FILE FOR THE ABOVE CASE,
4 EXHIBIT
DENVER CANADIAN,._INC.
Daniel L. Ochsner, President" 2 •. 11%91/5 WCR 394
La Salle, CO 80645
(940) 330-3839
November 24, 1999
Dale K. Hall FAX & MAIL
Chairman CORRESPONDENCE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Weld County
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: Previous scheduled Public Hearing November 24, 1999
Minor Subdivision -- Ivy Crest
Dear Mr. Dale K. Hall:
The Weld County Planner kindly informed DENVER CANADIAN, INC. of the
'emotions' within the Board of County Commissioners meeting today, November 24,
1999.
Daniel L. Ochsner, President, was unable to attend this public hearing as scheduled
on November 24, 1999. The Weld County Planner, Eric Jerman, notified DENVER
CANADIAN, INC. that the 'indefinite postponement' letter dated November 22, 1999,
was received and reread to the Board of County Commissioners today, as the policy
required.
DENVER CANADIAN, INC., would like to reconfirm to the Board of County
Commissioners, that all attempts and procedures were researched and followed as to the
correct policy of rescheduling a public hearing. Correct verbiage was also requested, by
DENVER CANADIAN, INC. to the Weld County Planner Eric Jerman, for the 'indefinite
postponement' letter to be properly written and addressed to the Department of Planning
Services.
For the records of the Board of County Commissioners, please note that initial
request for rescheduling the public hearing was made by Daniel L. Ochsner the week of
November 15, 1999. Three additional calls were made by DENVER CANADIAN, INC.
on November 22, 1999, to verify policy and to fax related notice. Personal delivery of the
'indefinite postponement' was made to the Department of Planning Services, by Daniel L.
Ochsner on November 23, 1999.
EXHIBIT
PAGE 2 -- Board of County Commissioners November 24, 1999
DENVER CANADIAN, INC. would also like to take this opportunity to express
great appreciation to the Weld County Planner, Eric Jerman, for informing the Board of
County Commissioners that Eric Jerman did take full responsibility, "blame", for the
misunderstandings that the Board of County Commissioners had during the meeting today,
November 24, 1999.
Should any further questions or concerns arise regarding this rescheduling issue,
please feel free to contact DENVER CANADIAN, INC. Otherwise, we look forward in
being present on the December 22, 1999 meeting, as was requested by the Board of
County Commissioners today. As the Weld County Planner Eric Jerman informed us, this
scheduled meeting on December 22, 1999, will be to set the future public hearing date.
Sincerest appreciation to the Board of County Commissioners for their time in
reviewing this letter.
Sincerely yours,
940.
usan E. Barrett
Vice President
SEB/db
xc: Daniel L. Ochsner
TO: WELD COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO
(970) 356-4000 X 4200
FAX: (970) 352-0242
ATTN: DALE K. HALL
FROM: DANIEL L. OCHSNER
DENVER CANADIAN, INC.
18905 WCR 394
LASALLE, COLORADO 80645
Phone #(970) 330-3839
FAX - #(970) 330-3839 call first to verify fax is on!
RE: Board of County Commissioners meeting November 24, 1999
Copies sent: 3 includes cover 11/24/99
COMMENTS
Please call if you did not receive the above fax.
1e0 a9 V, L
ll_ . )6
`\,
717/0C S`RcW(A%/91
Daniel L. Ochsner
18905 WCR 394
LaSalle, Co 80645
i L (970) 330-3839
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS December 13, 1999
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
RE: Ivy Crest HAND DELIVERY
Dear Commissioners:
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize. Apologize to the Weld County
Commissioners as well as to those who inconvenienced themselves to attend the
November 24th hearing of my proposed IVY CREST minor subdivision.
It was apparent that I would need the time to finish changes responding to the
comments from reviewers of the plan. I thought I was handling the deferral correctly. I
am looking forward in meeting you during the rescheduling of the hearing.
This letter here is informational and contains no request for action. I feel it is
important to let all involved know of my intentions and to learn what I am doing about
the concerns.
I am responding to all the actions required by reviewers. These include changing
the entrance, changing the road right-of-way to reflect 40 feet, and generating a weed
control and erosion plan. Also included will be assuring that each house will have
engineered foundations, assuring that the subdivision covenants include the Right to
Farm Covenant (from the Comprehensive Plan Appendix 7.1), and assuring that septic
systems conform to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
Following are responses to other concerns and objections. (I have omitted a
repeat of the objections in order to shorten these notes.)
I am applying ONLY for a minor subdivision (5 lots). I sincerely wish for
this approval. I have tried very hard to not only meet the letter of the law
but the intent as well. I CLEARLY understand, if approved, that approval
applies ONLY to this minor subdivision. I understand there is not the
slightest hint of approval for any future plan.
The irrigation ditch is a common field ditch. It is similar to ones that flow
through residential districts in Boulder, Loveland, Fort Collins and
Greeley. There are many developments that border rivers and lakes,
significantly more dangerous than a small field ditch. The Right to Farm
Covenant in the Comprehensive Plan states in bold print, "Parents are
responsible for their children". A great principle.
��Ililt�N
PAGE 2 -WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Most of the subdivision is not prime farmland. Yes, quality of the land
could be improved, although previous owners chose not to do so. Should I
really spend more money to convert sloping poor ground into more prime
crop land? Even when the prime crop ground makes little if any money
each year? Wouldn't you agree that there is a possible view that this land
is far better used to provide for 5 tasteful homes? Especially for people
who obviously appreciate the farm atmosphere? While not a big deal, this
turns a tax of a few dollars into many thousands for the county general
fund. These funds would also help pay for those school expansions that
are obviously required with or without this minor subdivision.
The intersection of WCR 19 and HWY 66 (according to the State Patrol)
had 1 fatality 6 years ago. All traffic accidents in the past 5 years have
been alcohol related. Of course, any accident is too many. Hard to see
how IVY CREST minor subdivision will significantly contribute to the
problem.
There are no mineral deposits under this site. The engineers bored 5 holes
and only found fine sand. There is no evidence of gravel under these 15
acres.
Urban Sprawl. Many people appreciate life in towns or cities. Some
people including my neighbors and I prefer the wide-open spaces. Surely,
this is the whole purpose and intent of the minor subdivision provisions of
the comprehensive plan. To rigidly control these small cluster of homes is
right and proper. To say that we should "shut the door" to ANY use of
small amounts of land to accommodate farm loving people seems unfair
particularly when marginal farm land will be used for this purpose.
A personal note. Somehow, I have managed to alienate most everyone with an
interest in this minor subdivision. I grew up on a farm and appreciate the sentiment
related to farming. Instead of emotion and animosity, I would welcome suggestions for
making IVY CREST minor subdivision more in tune with the agriculture environment.
Once more, well, sick, or otherwise, I WILL be there at the rescheduled hearing
of my plan. Thank you for reading these comments. I hope the intentions of clarifying
my views were accomplished.
Respectfully,
AiLQ9i V A �,
Daniel Ochsner
ti4;:lillill
/ � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
Win
t PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
(970) 352-6312
INISTRATIVE OFFICES
C. FAX
WELD COUNTYGREEL, 1400 N. 17TH AVENU
YI COLORADO 80631E
COLORADO
January 27, 2000
Daniel Ochsner do Denver Canadian Inc.
18905 WCR 394
LaSalle, CO 80645
Dear Mr. Ochsner,
This letter is in response to your request on January 25, 2000 for written verification of Planning
Staffs recommendation to the Weld County Planning Commission. If you had chosen to proceed
to the Planning Commission hearing with the substantial changes in design submitted, Planning
Staff would have recommended that Z-530 be returned to the Sketch Plan phase.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. I can be contacted at the
abov address or call (970) 353-6100 ext. 3540.
Zev C %j7
Sheri Lockman
Planner
i EXHIBIT
T
Goz 4e'3O
a ie,t('f DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
I PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 352-6312
C. WELD COUNTY 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO E 631
COLORADO
January 21, 2000
Daniel Ochsner c/o Denver Canadian Inc.
18905 WCR 394
LaSalle, CO 80645
Dear Mr. Ochsner,
This letter is intended to clarify your options regarding the Ivy Crest Minor Subdivision Change of
Zone. Your first option is to continue with your original application. If you choose to do this, a
date for a Board of County Commissioners hearing will be scheduled. Your second option is to
have the Weld County Planning Commission determine if the reconfigured lots are a substantial
change to the information previously presented. If the Planning Commission determines the
changes are not a substantial change a new date will be set for the Planning Commission to
hear the evidence. Planning Commission will then forwarded a new recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners.
At our meeting on January 17th you voiced concerns regarding processing time for your
applications. After checking submittal dates and approval dates we found your Recorded
Exemption was processed in 48 days, only 3 days over the normal 45 days. The Sketch Plan
was processed in 62 days. Planning Staff tries to finish this step in 45 days, but 62 days is not
unreasonable. After Staff approval of your Recorded Exemption, the Plat was not submitted for 5
months. Also after Staff comments were sent out for the Sketch Plan, the Change of Zone was
not submitted for 5 Y: months.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed with your Change of Zone case. I can be
contacted at the above address or call (970) 353-6100 ext. 3540.
� 7i t -zA///aE'
Sheri Lockman
Planner
Weld County Planning Dept.
January 3, 2000
JAN 05 2000
Ms. Sheri Lockman
Department of Planning Services RECEIVED
Weld County
1555 N 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: #Z-530 Daniel Oschner
Dear Ms. Lockman,
Last week I spoke with Eric Jerman who informed me that you will again be
handling the Daniel Oschner Minor Subdivision as it goes back to the
Planning Commission on the 15th of February.
As you are well aware, the neighbors in the area of the proposal are against
such a zone change and made enough of an argument to encourage the
Planning Commission to forward the plan to the Commissioners with a
recommendation for denial in September. The Commissioners hearing on
November 24th was handled poorly by all parties which allowed the plan to
be continued and ultimately allowed Daniel Oschner to revise plans without
having to start the entire process again.
Many people wrote letters to Planning and to the Commissioners and I
would like to have a commitment from your office that those letters,
actually the entire file, be presented again at the Planning Commission
Hearing on February 15th.
According to the minutes of the September 7th, 1999 meeting at Planning,
there were three reasons sited for recommendation to deny. 1) the drainage
ditch that would bisect the lots, 2) the development is incompatible with
existing land use in the area, and 3)that it did not comply with the Weld
County Comprehensive Growth Plan.
Page 2
Sheri Lockman
Dept. of Planning
1 contend that, even as the revised plans have addressed the drainage ditch
issue, the plan still does not deserve consideration for the following reasons.
1) Nothing in the area has changed in the past 4 months that could be
construed to say that the area had changed and that the development
would be compatible with existing land uses. All the farms and
businesses are intact and they will operate again this year and
for years to come. The Con Agra Turkey Farm is still
to the north, the Mayer Produce business and an active farm are
still to the east, a horse ranch business is to the west, and farming
is actively taking place to the south.
2) I still contend that the development would not comply with the
Growth Plan per the following sections of that plan.
Page 2- 4 Goal 3 and Policy 3
Page 3-10 Policy 3 and Policy 5
Simply decreasing the number of lots from five to four and keeping the lots
out of the currently producing farm land is not reason enough for Oschner
Plan to meet any criteria for approval. The Oschner Minor Subdivision should
still be denied by the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Linda Pyeatt
Pyeatt Farms
9826 Hwy 66
Platteville,Co. 886&1
970-785-6203
MEMORANDUM
Wi`Pe. TO: Referral Agencies for Z-530 December 29, 1999
COLORADO From: Eric Jerman, Current Planner
SUBJECT: Amendment to original application for Change of Zone
Background:
Applicant: Dan Ochsner, Denver Canadian
Planning Commission Hearing: September 7, 1999
Action taken by Planning Commission: Denied
Board of County Commissioners Hearing: December 22, 1999
Action taken by Board: Return case to Planning Commission
On December 22, 1999, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners held a
hearing to discuss case # Z-530. At this hearing the Board directed the applicant, Mr. Dan
Ochsner, to present his application, along with his proposed changes, to the Weld County
Planning Commission.
The changes that Mr. Ochnser is proposing include: decreasing the size of the lots,
decreasing the number of lots from five to four, and relocating and reconfiguring the access
point for the proposed subdivision. Note that as a result of the proposed lot line changes, the
ditch which ran through the lots on the previous application submittal no longer will be included
in the proposed subdivision. The western lot line will lie just east of the ditch.
Role of the referral agencies:
The Department of Planning Services requests that the referral agencies who had
concerns with the original application take the time to review this new proposal. The hearing
date for the Planning Commission will be February 15, 2000. Please respond to this request for
a referral comment to the Department of Planning Services by: February 1, 2000.
Thank you,
" C"
Eric A. Jerman
Current Planner
March 27,2000
Dear Ester, _.
Please insure the enclosed documents are included in the complete case file for case#530.
Thanks for your time...
Sincerely,
Lila J. Mayer
14534 WCR#19
Platteville.Co 8065 t
EXHIBIT
v
dig 4530
March 1, 2000
Weld County Board of Commissioners
Weld County, CO
Dear commissioners,
I feel sad to see all of that land turn into a
city. I get to see the mountains if you say no!
We will be on the bus longer and in danger.
My school will need to be bigger more buses
more teachers hope my letter will help you
say no.Thank you.
Sincerely,
ICA,Itnrh
March 27, 2000
Weld County Commissioners,
Enclosed is a letter from our Certified Public Accountant regarding the adverse impact of the economic
impact residential development in our area,could have on the valuation of our farm.
Please consider the many impacts this proposed growth would have in the farming community.
THANKS!
j341/4t &
Lila Mayer
14534 WCR#I9
Platteville,Colo 80651
g EXHIBIT
W
COz, "6aa
SIEBERT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Office (970) 353-3750
Fax (970)353-3752
Certified Public Accountants
bsiebert@ctos.com
3535 West 12th Street,Suite E
Greeley, Colorado 80634 William I Siebert, CPA
March 22, 2000
•
Mr. Ken Mayer
14534 WCR 19
Platteville, CO 80651-9113
Dear Mr. Mayer
In accordance with our recent discussion regarding estate planning, you need to be
cognizant of the economic impact residential development in your immediate area
could have on the valuation of your estate.
Your agriculture real estate and related agribusiness would currently be valued for
estate tax purposes for agriculture use. As such, significant lower alternative valuation
methods are available to determine estate taxes.
However, should your property be valued based on comparables for residential or
commercial development, such property could require an increase in the valuation of
your Estate requiring significant estate taxes.
In summary, as we understand your situation, any residential development in your
immediate area could have a significant adverse impact on the valuation of your estate
with no guarantee that your estate or beneficiaries would realize such value.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
SIEBERT &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a
William J. Siebert, CPA
March 30, 2000
Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Re: Approval of Change to Zone for IVY CREST Minor Subdivision
Dear Ms. Kirkmeyer;
I am writing to urge that you and the other County Commissioners approve
the Change of Zone regarding the IVY CREST minor subdivision. As a private
citizen and a REALTOR, I have followed the various Growth questions in our
area and State for some time. I totally believe that all control needs to be left
with the Counties and Cities affected rather than be controlled by the State. As
you may be aware, the Colorado Association of REALTORS worked hard for
the passage of the Growth bill ( HB 1223 ) in the Legislature that went down
to defeat. Outside of the Environmentalist, one of the main reasons for the
defeat was the Home Builders Association. Builders and Developers spend
countless time and dollars following the established guidelines established by
the Cities and Counties only to find out that are then turned down by the
various Councils and Commissioners. Why, when some one wants to create a
minor subdivision and follows all the necessary County mandates, does the
Board of Commissioners deny them an approval?
I have studied the petition that the farming neighbors submitted and find that
most of their fears would not occur. Their concerns seem to based upon a
major subdivision of some 500 homes, not five homes. Also, they point to a
double standard, which I do not understand as they can also do the same thing
_ regarding the time periods for selling off portions of their lands. I, also,
firmly believe that those who decide to live in the country should then not
gi EXHIBIT
ea #530
complain about the farming and ranching in the rural areas. This subdivision
has in their covenants that the new owners cannot bring suit against any
existing agriculture activities, even though there are State laws preventing this.
Increased traffic from five homes. At the most, the increase would be maybe
10 additional automobiles. Impact to schools. More tax dollars and based upon
statistics, maybe 8 additional students. If my understanding is correct the
ditch is private and serves only the farm presently owned and used by the
existing owners for their own crops, not the use of many farmers to the West.
Also, many cities and communities throughout the County and State have
major ditches running through neighborhoods without harm to children.
Apparently, the only justification to this petition is that the owner of the land
just across the County Road does not want any neighbors.
As someone who strongly believes in Private Property rights, and as a
REALTOR, I am in full support of this minor subdivision.
Thank you,
Billy D. Miller
Member Greeley Area REALTOR Association Board of Directors
•
Member of Colorado Association of REALTORS Board of Directors
Chairman, Legislative Committee GARA
Member of State Legislative Committee CAR
Member Congressional Committee NAR
`1/`? /Steel
147-Lail,> -13 , 92"64
Gary & Judy Harkless
20126 Jubilee Way
LaSalle, CO 80645
( 970) 330-4190
April 1 , 2000
Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
Chairman
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Weld County
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: APPROVAL of Change of Zone for IVY CREST Minor Subdivision
Dear Ms . Barbara Kirkmeyer:
I have recently purchased S acres of property in a minor
subdivision known as Jubilee Acres located off County Rd. 44
and will soon be moving to this location.
As an existing resident of Greeley, I have for quite some
time been looking for a small parcel to build a residence on.
Unfortunately, folks, there are not that many two to five acre
parcels available. As a result the few that are available are
priced in such a manner as to reflect an extreme point of
inflation.
Small minor subdivisions, like the IVY CREST Minor
Subdivision, are in high demand and in the long run these small
acreages actually help to slow down growth out of control , for
they are low density in nature.
I am both a resident of Weld County as well as a local
contractor which has reviewed the plans for the IVY CREST
Subdivision. To the best of my knowledge this plan not only
meets but in some ways exceeds the criteria of Weld County for
a minor subdivision. This plan exceeds it more than some other
minor subdivisions approved by this Board of Commissions.
In my opinion anyone with good common sense and an
understanding of what is going on in Weld County (and the
surrounding counties) as far as growth is concerned, must come
to the conclusion that the overall long term benefits to the
IVY CREST Subdivision far exceeds some individuals short term
concerns.
I am therefore, as a resident of and landowner in held
County am in high favor of approval of change of zone for the
IVY CREST Minor Subdivision.
Sincerely,
Gary Harkless
= EXl7fIBIT
60Z *530
APR. 3.2000 7:43AM L0NGMNT PKGNG CENTER N0.358 P.2
Weld County Commissioners ` April 1,2000
Weld County Planning Commissioners
I.:
RE: Ivy Crest Minor Subdivision
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to request that the Weld County Commissioner's approve a zoning change
request for the above captioned subdivision.
We live at 110 Grand View Circle,Grandview Estates. This subdivision,although,
larger,is similar to the proposed Ivy Crest Minor Subdivision. We consider ourselves
fortunate to be able to enjoy the kind of country and farm setting lifestyle that we desire.
We,like many other people,wish to move away from the congestion,crime and noise of
the more suburban settings such as Longmont, Boulder and Port Collins and the type of
subdivisions like Ivy Crest and Grandview afford these types of opportunities. The
demand for an estate type neighborhood where people could raise their children to
participate in 41!activities,have pets and room to enjoy living can be most coveted by
families wishing to live outside towns and cities.
When we were looking to purchase our home in Grandview,the realtor pointed out the
trot that a large dairy operation was just down the street. This fact never deterred our
decision to seek a home in a rural setting. There is a small irrigation ditch that runs
through the middle of the subdivision. Everyone is aware of it and they have taken the
appropriate responsibility of explaining ft to their children.
Being an airline pilot,I have many friends who would give their right arms to be able to
come home to quite rural living such as we enjoy.
We believe that Ivy Crest is absolutely compatible with their surroundings! Thank you
Weld County and your Comprehensive Plan to allow such Estate Lots. We look forward
hi sharing the country lifestyle similar to our wonderful family-fanning neighbors.
Thank you yo time and approving Ivy Crest's Minor Subdivision Change of Zone.
Sincerely, •
David Sabo
110 Grand View Circle
Mead,Colorado 80542
4 EXHIBIT
z irs3o
James & Missy Libengood
14533 1/2 WCR 19
Platteville, CO 80651
(970) 785-0457
March 5, 2000
Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
Chairman
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Weld County
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: APPROVAL of Change of Zone for IVY CREST Minor Subdivision
Dear Ms. Barbara Kirkmeyer:
As a resident at the above address, located just north of the proposed minor
subdivision IVY CREST, we would like to express our sincere interest for the Board of
Weld County Commissioners to approve the Change of Zone.
Growth in Colorado is a serious issue and if stopped, many of us individuals will
not have the freedom to choose where we wish to live. We have chosen this location for
our desire to live out of the town/cities for the lifestyle of the country. We enjoy this
location, our neighbors and truly understand why future families and residents will be
following our path.
Without growth, similar to areas of Boulder and Longmont, we could not possibly
afford housing. Where there is manageable growth similar to other minor subdivisions in
Weld County and IVY CREST, housing prices only rise at minimal rates.
It should be our choice where to live and at an affordable price!
IVY CREST is absolutely compatible with their surroundings! Thank you Weld
County and your Comprehensive Plan to allow such Estate Lots. We look forward in
sharing the country lifestyle similar to our wonderful family farming neighbors.
Thank you for your time and APPROVING IVY CREST's Minor Subdivision
Change of Zone.
Respectfully,
-:,14/11(
&Missy
Jame Libengdod
R EXHIBIT
IAA
Coz *s3D
April 3 , 2000
Weld County Board of Commissioners
Weld County , CO 80631 _
RE : Ivy Crest Minor Subdivision - APPROVAL of Rezoning
Dear Commissioners :
We live at 14151 WCR 19 , Platteville ; adjacent and south of
the future Ivy Crest minor subdivision . YES , we would like
the Weld County Board of Commissioners to APPROVE the
rezoning .
Because of our working schedule, we are unable to attend the
hearing in person . Please let this letter enforce our
belief for the Change of Zone to Estate Lots . If time
allowed we would no doubt go into detail , other comments
that we can not simply address in this brief letter .
We do not understand the Planning Commissions negative
recommendation for the Change of Zone . Why, may we ask? On
what basis? Do the Planning Commission wish for another non
growth county like Boulder and soon -to-be same with Fort
Collins?
It is our choice to live away from cities like Fort Collins ,
Longmont and Boulder . Due to affordability and the freedom
of living in the country/farm lands . Why would the many
other families , who are presently searching for that
Colorado dream, not feel the same way? Like children , you
can not stop growth . Your plan for the county works , what
is the difference with Ivy Crest ' s simple 5 lots? Please do
not weigh your decision of the emotions of the neighbors
that do not want change or do not want obstruction of their
views ! ! Those kinds of people are everywhere . . .
Thank you for your professionalism in doing the right thing .
It is extremely important that the APPROVAL , for this Change
of Zone to allow the 5 Estate Lots , is passed .
Sincerely,
Robert & Bernadette Nielsen
/:--2
EXHIBIT
LIZ .530
Larue Hauf
3200 Baldwin Avenue
Evans, Colorado 80620
Via a phone conversation at 8:20 a.m., April 5, 2000, Ms. Hauf stated she believes in the rights
of individual property owners. She stated the proposed use will be compatible with the
surrounding area and existing uses and she supports Change of Zone #530 for Daniel Ochsner
for Ivy Crest Subdivision.
4 •XHISIT
Ralph Nix Produce Inc
16959 Rd. 44
Gilcrest Co 80623
Phone (970 284-60881 Fax(970 284-7714)
To whom it may concern:
Ralph Nix Produce Inc. owns the property directly south of the proposed subdivision
planed by Dan Ochsner on his farm west of Platteville Co.
We have reviewed the planned subdivision and see no reason why it should not be
developed.
We believe that the growth of the country can be benifited by such a development surd
that it would not interfer with the present use of the farm.
If you have any questions please till free to call us at 970 381-6243
Thank you , . ` /
,
/� l
f
Ralph Nix
( i EXHISIT
n
4o *530
4 Apr il , gncn
As a reri 'ent and farmer- in Weld Counts/ for
the nanH '2 y^ a , :rive soon towns crow to tfo ro`nl
wi 1 t.l1 ch l S on , 1OV n5, in; m5 is n4 fTh
0r c t out r er5 of r,ter eatt ir.-r -, cr rce of hymnt- rr
- ,o c man try.
'JsveIoroent of the towns have prrverfod thane' f:: -
11,los 1 om '?ni,.;/' n(? tits pl e Sure : T re1] '-: -. .i - .
r1 '. ' i curl t: fee r:,rreunrif nor rsrms to ;urn n to -
crme rit at acre. neP., , however , In t' e 4 rn,a, ar,,rs
m,. , the 4,n41.1 noro, Ic. as ; r, ves to „ n sd vain c 'r
eVPrvene0 71 t 7 r1:.( ,mcrenc9 ii there chum e to. ..9 1 v441(2
farm ' n to m417 '.crc.7ni 5 , r iv j ri-1 1 nmh. Iy s ch.- rm. a
54r41 any cotsatra 1 tatc. , I am. prove.
`7. . Hurt
1 '. 77
o44 , co.
7.0/ 464-17-CC-._
174 EXHIBIT
EE
6oz #sa0
Add as condition of approval 3.D :
Appropriate documentation must be provided that indicates not only
that taps are available, but that assurance of these connections has
been made. The style of assurance may take several forms, however
pre-purchase of taps, line extension agreements, tap service
agreements, or another form of "participation agreement" will be
acceptable. The agreements shall be approved by the Weld County
Attorney's Office prior to recording the Change of Zone plat.
Delete condition of approval 3.E.6.
Add as condition of approval 3.E:
Section 31.5.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance states "No
BUILDING or STRUCTURE as defined and limited to those
occupancies listed as Groups A, B, E, H, I, M and R in Table 3-A of the
1997 Uniform Building Code, shall be constructed within a 200-foot
radius of any tank battery or 150-foot radius of any wellhead." The plat
shall delineate the area that falls within this setback as a non-
buildable area.
Renumber remaining conditions.
(J. EXHIBIT
F'F
QDz *550
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
I liD
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT. :3540
FAX (970) 304-6498 INISTRATIVE Co WELD C0UNTYGREEILEY5C0L0RAD0 N.
OFFICES8 UE
COLORADO
February 29, 2000
Daniel Ochsner do Denver Canadian Inc.
18905 WCR 394
LaSalle, CO 80645
Dear Mr. Ochsner,
This letter is in response to your request for clarification as to why Weld County Planning Staff
considered your changes to the plat for Ivy Crest Minor Subdivision to be substantial and thus in
need of a new Sketch Plan. The new layout creates concerns that have not been adequately
addressed through the Sketch Plan Process. These concerns include, but are not limited to:
1) A flag lot
2) Inadequate access
3) Lot shape
4) Inadequate screening of the access parallel to WCR 19
5) A lot being split by an existing access
These concerns were found without spending the time necessary to do a thorough examination
of an application. Further concerns would be discovered during a Sketch Plan and the applicant
would have the chance to address them prior to the Change of Zone.
If you have further question, I can be contacted at the above address or call (970) 353-6100 ext.
354 ..,
•
GGfge21 Criff eZ),
Sheri Lockman
Planner II
II= EXHIBIT
toz*53O
I
¢, : s4
, tiJ0 9/r/17)
EXHIBIT
N
ace. 4K530
y in
c
F
..,Lk, ct i
I ,___a,________________ii
I
II
w
I i i
I .1r[ _ ,� _____ pit
,
i
It
I�
`i ' II1
1,r.,-S7,,
II it4 jf)
'k
q
I!
"" ."— _ I'll
�4 .'
\. ?i::
rl,L ar: .it/ 1 f
1.6 4 ~ `
•
- •91'9^ V F
illif .
IT -4. jRW
' -
,AC $. I::
WCR 19-North- (Ivy Crest left side-Mayer Farm ri_ht side
Ivy in
-southern directi
on
d�
<�.texte
Qtet9
- ims
aye`
Drainage Ditch
6
8132 WCR 28 - Drainage Ditch
9800 +/- WCR 66 - Drainage Ditch
r
•1
i u tt kiq WCR 19 & HWY66 - West
WCR 28 & WCR 19 - intersection area of 9 residents
WCR 19 - 2 miles south - 5+ residents
I
SH 66
0 SH 66
'r .A inffirtilangle 'T Ny ' '. . z � ` N N
I V n N a t U 25 m U 9° .r V * ifs a w fat: rr V a IX a
2 3 0 3 e3 _ 3 3 3 3
m to o i
WCR28 _ ................ u-'__.M F.......:._. J .__i_........................_.._....._......................WCR 28.....
I i cvnwmrer
Weld County i t) sin r
x a as 3,
32 ss x ; x x
Mixed Use
District Glee* `:,.
1 ri.mranv
I WCR 28 eAu Zinnia Avenue WCR 26
._..__..........._..._,.:tea,, ......__._..............._._._.._.........
R-L
R-L R-L R-L
9 5 3 2 1
R-L
R-M R-M
i SH 119 Firestone Boulevard WCR 24
I
R-M R-M I I!)WCR 22 R-L R-L Sable Avenue WCR 22
RM
R-M Spremr
R-M
x 13 1. R-L 12 le H 34 n
R-L R-L
WCR 20 FREDERICK
Pine Cone Avenue WCR 20
Cook n
R-L
6 }9 a ...It 21 n 3J 24
WCR Olt > Grant Avenue WCR 18
FREDERICK R-L R-L a a
r a McClure Avenue
27 a 39 ea
Tier l Area Tier 2 Area:
WCR 16 WCR 16
FREDERICK
IY x % Aig. a JJ Ct 3Yre
as N ./ i\
NORTH�+
N 3 3 3 3 3 3 ^1'
SH 52 WCR 14
0 Existing .........
Interchange / DACONO
...,/
/ Legend
Firestone Oanmerex1and
■ ReexeMlal High!knotty Firestone
_ ® Commerciag ::':::
Mixed Use R-M Comprehensive Plan
Mufti
R-L Map Amendment
Firestone Agricultural/
Town Limhe AG Conserwaeonl
Open space Adopted
FireMhhN O Paendal _„rq : July 22,1999
2908 Nelgh0orl1o0n
\ Pune
\ commercial �`�r
\ /
g EXHIBIT
M9l
= Firestone
A Community
In Motion
\H0P
February 29, 2000
Cynthia Parker
8234 Weld County Road 28
Platteville, CO 80651
Dear Cynthia:
This letter is in reference to your request for the Town of Firestone's
position relative to "urban type development" in Firestone's Tier 2
Community Separator area or generally in areas between Firestone and
other urban areas such as Platteville, Mead, Fort Lupton, etc. The Town of
Firestone continues to support farming, ranching and open space land
uses in such areas. The Town of Firestone Comprehensive Plan
specifically designates a 34 square mile Tier 2 area, which surrounds the
Town's urban Tier 1 area, with this farming, ranching and open space
"Community Separator" designation.
The primary reason the Town of Firestone has been so successful in
planning for both urban and agricultural Community Separator areas is the
ongoing cooperative planning effort the Town has had with the Weld
County Commissioners over the years. The intergovernmental agreement
between the Town and Weld County, et al represents a tremendous
accomplishment in controlling urban sprawl, while providing a positive
direction for urban development, which will yield a higher quality of life for
its citizens. We also believe that much of the success Firestone has had in
this effort can be attributed to the positive, constructive input provided by
you and your neighbors in our recent Comprehensive Plan public hearing.
150 Buchanan P.O. Box 100 Firestone, Colorado 80520
Y EXHIBIT
(303) 833-3291 Fax (303) 833-4863 KK
eoT_ 4/-1/45,3c,
Cynthia Parker
February 29, 2000
Page 2
As you know, we have been in contact with all our urban neighbors, such
as Platteville, Mead, Fort Lupton, etc. to obtain their projections of their
planned growth areas, in order to further clarify and map areas specifically
capable of being identified as Community Separators. Once our mapping
effort is complete, we intend to contact Weld County to provide them with
the results of our efforts and to further strategize a collective and
cooperative implementation plan.
Please contact me if you have any further questions. Also, thank you and
your associates for your continued efforts to preserve agricultural
Community Separators in southwest Weld County.
Sincerely,
coo PY
Rick Patterson
Mayor
cc: Weld County Commissioners
Monica Daniels-Mika, Weld County Planning Director
Ps: »C,. §
; k \ a
2\ ] )
%
. < __.
G« »
6
{
I y\ .
{ '
It
L
\ i
\ }
y
ri t / . \
» i
? \\ 4,§ \ k
t \ E \ � % !
\ . / \ % }
I H . »< . \> \
. \ 77. r
I d
\ \ ° §
\/ ?\
\ ; \
� ��.
\ . . /.
• \ ,
f
. { yy
' /
,f \
$ I
�/
} $
2 ,
\ \
.
\ I.
-4-. ,
P \
.„ . » , 2 «
yy
?.,\ \
• \
i . ?d«<
\
\ '
\
}��
\/ t
< :
I
1
]
. t !
1
\ 4
. . \ I
.
+
` $
: \ «
\ \
«)
f9 w:
��
\
\ \}
1 t :
4
` .. . ^,— - "t " e l may* .; -'.,.. .« . -
•
nn
.r `x
-ry ..
a
..... :,.,,,; 'v,t._.. �` ..'e `. �. ..'�•.'Lei,„.,
.p.
. — M `
i v
,< F rap's
"� •
4 y
r 1 r
ulna OEM bJ•ii\iwm
r'Ib Ci
I'XHHIT
.s'
Hello