The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About951848.tiffD COUI TY r. rs:! —8 MI 9: 35 CLERK O E cnr_,TD 8202 Eastman Park Drive Windsor, CO 80550 June 5, 1995 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Docket 95-42 Clifford Morgan Site Plan June 21,1995 Dear Ladies / Gentlemen: As landowners and residents of Weld County we are concerned about the above site plan under consideration. 47th Street already needs to be paved and widened to handle the current traffic. In addition, the entire site plan under consideration is within the typical right-of-way being requested on the 34 Bypass for interchanges per the attached platted area. I don't believe that it is prudent to allow a property which will need to be acquired by the county or CDOT to be improved and expanded upon. This only means that the cost to the public will be higher when this widening area is needed. Although the use is not a problem, please re-evaluate the site plan under the above considerations. Sincerely, Todd R. Bruteig &&h /h( 1-e &t : 6occ) o9 • AlL; PL L51a4d G 11 1! # � ) ( � Is ©® awls £ G vet \ k 43# satatia §/ \ $ 6 t1 III I®§ : q/\ ! 2 Li —B 951848 « TO: BOARD OF WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: BONNIE CARWIN 3435 47TH AVENUE GREELEY, CO 80634 Re: CLIFFORD MORGAN and PATRICIA MAHONEY Request for a Special Review Permit/Boarding Kennel for Dogs/Cats DATE: JUNE 19, 1995 My preference would be NOT to have a boarding kennel for sixty dogs and fifteen cats directly across the road from my house. I realize that this may not be a choice; therefore, I would like to make reference to a couple of areas and incorporate these into the plan. These will be noted and cross-referenced by A, B, C, and D on the Plot Plan. A. The plot plan shows 40 trees that are not presently there. I would like these trees to be put in as this will help in the camouflage and buffering of noise of the kennel. B. I would like the existing driveway to be used and not allow a new opening or widening of the present driveway to 47TH Avenue. There is a current problem of flooding when heavy rains occur with culverts and ditches handling the amount of water.. The water comes gushing out of the driveways and runs across the road; and, since I'm downhill from all of this my property tends to get large amounts of water. C. The applicants have stated that the kennel will have shrubs and trees around it; however, that is not noted in the plot plan. I would like to have the area, as stated before, camouflaged as much as possible to help buffer the noise. D. I would like to propose moving the building, parking, and chain link runs for the kennel to the Northeast corner of the property (X). Planting of tall shrubs and trees on the South Side of the building and parking would then help to control the level of noise. The other concern I have that can not be addressed on the plot plan is the additional amount of traffic that will be in the area. If dust should become a problem, a paved driveway would be desirable. The area has been and is a quiet and peaceful area to live and I would like to see it kept that way. Thank you for your time. EXHIBIT C 1 i 951848 0 N N N N 03 N 0 0 M 3.,0b,8c.00 5 00'001 3„09,8£.00 S I 0000 00u O 000 0000 0000 O 000 O 000 0000 /7/ /,/ ,,, ,,, ,,, 00'00? Mu04,8£.00 N Z 0 0 J Q v 3(1 951848 Bonnie Carwin 3435 47th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 May 12, 1995 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Members of the Planning Services and County Commissioners: I own property within 500 feet of the Morgan -Property (Lot A of RE-435,part of the SW4 of Section 23, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado) and would like to voice my objection to the plan and permitsequest to build a boarding kennel for dogs/cats. There are two main reasons for my objections to this proposal. The first reason is thefact that I purchased the property about 18 1/2 years ago because I wanted to live somewhere where there was peace and quiet and away from the noise. I truly believe that allowing a kennel to be in the neighborhood would be a nuisance to the area. It would allow for increased traffic in the area, as well as increased noise. I don't think that a boarding kennel can contain the noise level of the animals to where it is not bothersome for people and other animals in the area. I'm not sure of the size of this proposed kennel; but, if there are 25 animals brought out and each have a length of stay of one week there will be approximately an additional 220 moving cars per month in the area. I don't believe that you would like to have that type of increase in traffic in your neighborhood. The second reason for the objection is that it devalues the property and doesn't make it an attractive piece of property to sell. If I were looking to purchase property, I definitely would not purchase property that was next to an animal boarding kennel. I don't think that it is fair to assume that I want to take less for my property or lose an attractive opportunity to sell because of a boarding kennel. Sincerely Objecting to the Animal Kennel, acitucii.d C-(10-955 -k Bonnie Carwin X91848 res with Drmance ritation, higher, ;es. Oc ury and d work,. 2ctures ital and :cessive tistrator iered.to me and ',manly (Sound, pealed high; ,Con ,.max sional. . y. more toms ictory ,le, lme ben Sources Cartier deck, jet et operation music ,..let -takeoff (200 ft) Discotheque Rock band (10 ft) `Auto horn (3 ft) loud _Riveting machine let takeoff (2000 ft) Garbage truck, snowmobile •ower lawn mower (operator) ?Jew, York subway station Heavy truck (50 ft) Food blender Pneumatic drill (50 ft) Diesel truck, 40 mph (50 ft) Dishwasher Alarm clock Garbage collection Freeway traffic (50 ft) Vacuum cleaner ormal speech irconditioning unit (20 ft) fight auto traffic (100 ft) Living room room library ft whisper (15 ft) roadcasting studio Breathing 140 130 120 115 115 110 110 110 100 95 90 90 90 85 85 80 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 40 40 35 30 20 10 Painfully loud Limits amplified speech` Maximum vocal effect, Very quiet Just audible 0 Threshold of hearing e . � Sound Levels and Human Responses, and MMWR, March 1986, P nses, Office of Planning Management, M p. 185. 8 U.S. EPA, July 1973,., efts, and possible accidents, inefficiency, and absenteeism; and increased budding; coastmction costs. ci, •urces of Noise , ofnoiransportation, industrial, urban, and commercial activities am the major sources jorse, plus the contributions made by household appliances and sources of transportation noise are motor vehicles Melding buses and raft, motorcycles, and snowmobiles. �1utPment The dustrial, urban g Gucks,` , and commercial noises emanate from' factories,. ing commercial establishments, and construction ac equipmen[°i uvitie . ConstmcGon equip-i MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR WELD COUNTY We are -Dorothy and Arvel Stewart who own the land at 3220 47th Ave. We object to the proposed plan for establishing a 68 -dog boarding kennel at 3240 47th Ave. 'Nineteen years ago, nine years after we moved from a farm at Ault, we managed to start buying this 2 -acre piece of land in the country. It has been the borne of our oldest son, his wife, and their two sons and will be their inheritance. We have gradually added improvements to make it a more comfortable and attractive home. We have increase the value of the property and have paid taxes for nineteen years on this increased evaluation. vest As a working couple, we have not accumulated much wealth other than our own home and this property as an estate for all our children. We did buy this land hoping that its value would increase so that Paul and Jeanette Stewart could sell it if they needed the money for themselves or their children. When the major land owner Harry Wiedeman planned to divide some of his farm land into 5 -acre lots with the possibility of dealing with a developer, we knew our two acres would increase in value also. But with the threat of a kennel, I'm sure Wiedeman's plan with the developer will die. Common sense supports the idea that a 66 -dog boarding kennel will not enhance the desirability of the neighborhood or increase the value of the adjoin- ing property. I have contacted two real estate agents who seemed surprised that anyone would doubt that a kennel would decrease the value of property in the area. They felt that not only would the value drop but also any future sale would be almost impossible. We cannot understand why anyone, especially a newcomer to the area, would be given permission to destroy the quality of life as well as the value of property for three individual families who have made this their homes for nineteen plus years. ARVEL STEWART DOROTHY EWART 6/21/95 EXE 951845 Hello