HomeMy WebLinkAbout972492.tiffFRANK LESTER BOULTER
20491 WCR 44
LA SALLE, CO 80645-8824
Weld County Commissioner George Baxter
PO Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
September 30, 1997
REGARDING CASE Z-508 - Public Hearing Tuesday, October 7, 1997 1:30 p.m.
Legal Description: Lot B of RE -789, E2 of the E2 of the NW4 of Section 21, T4N, R65W of
the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Baxter and Department of Planning Services Members:
We write in OPPOSITION to the proposed Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E
(Estate) for the 5 lot Minor Subdivision of Merle D. and Karla L. Greiser. Our objections
center mostly around the violation of the present Weld County Comprehensive Plan and
the potential effects of such a change upon the existing surrounding agricultural
community.
We object for these reasons:
1. As adjacent property owners operating farm business, we believe our
agricultural interests would be adversely impacted by a) increased traffic making it more
difficult than it already is to move farm machinery on WCR 44 and access roads on the
property in question, b) probable pets such as dogs and horses creating problems with our
livestock in corrals across WCR 44, and c) urban -like attitudes of potential property owners
in such a Minor Subdivision when it comes to respect of long-established access road use
by farmers.
2. The land of present adjacent property owners is presently in active wheat
production. Allowing a Minor Subdivision in the center of such agricultural activity does not
make sense. Furthermore, the property in question is potentially usable farmland - dryland
which could show at least the minimum profit of $1000./year as suggested in the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan. The fact that Greisers have not chosen to farm this land
during their occupancy does not change its potential use; in fact, the precedent that could
be set here, i.e. that owners let land lie unused in preparation for developmental resale, is
very disturbing!
3. This property is clearly outside the boundaries suggested for urban
development in the Comprehensive Plan and on the accompanying map. The following
quotes from page 3-1 are relevant:
"The urban development section addresses the preservation of
agricultural land by encouraging efficient develpment and discouraging urban sprawl."
"Urban Growth Boundaries" - "Develpment is encouraged within
municipal boundaries where public services such as water, sewer and fire protection are
PL)NL; ua
872492
available."
Water pressure from the "city" line has already been a problem due to
development east (south of Kersey); sewer lines are not available here; this property is
either right at the 5 miles fire protection limit or just outside it.
Potential Minor Subdivision property owners can very easily come with
attitudes which conflict with those of surrounding farmers in spite of the Right to Farm
Covenant Appendix which you have given us.
4. Traffic volume and speed on WCR 44 especially on this hill is already a
huge concern. Farm traffic, oil traffic, turkey livestock trucks plus commuters produce the
high volume, and the speeds that many travel are excessive in view of the non -visibility of
oncoming traffic as one approaches this hill going either east or west. Two lives were lost
in September 1991. The prospect of an additional 8 vehicles going and coming each day
from such a Minor Subdivision brings the spectre of compounding the problem area.
5. Finally, we believe the burden of responsibility should be on the Greisers
to show the benefit of such a rezoning change to the present agricutural community. This
commission sent a Soil Conservation representative to examine the dryland on this
property for potential impact of 4-5 horses per potential lot, yet no one has come around to
ask adjacent property owners about the social impact of such a zoning change.
The Weld County Commissioners wisely turned down a similar request by Merle and
Karla Greiser in 1992. We hope they'll continue their consideration of the surrounding
landowners who have their land in production.
Sincerely yours,
_rte Cat," .e�c.,,,
David S. Boulter Frank L. Boulter
Ila J. Lem - wife
Landowners
November 6, 1997
I
ELD CP,;„T
• C
Weld County Commissioners
915 - 10th St.
Greeley, Colorado 80631
CLEP
TO TH_
Iti
Re: Proposed Grieser Minor Subdivision
Dear Commissioner:
Weld County Planning Dept.
NOV 0 61997
RECEIVED
Following are some concerns that we want to clarify prior to the hearing on Nov. 12'. We
purchased sixty acres from Beulah Bolender in 1985. The original 80 acre parcel Mrs. Bohlender
owned was surveyed into four 20 acre parcels, but in checking the records prior to purchase, that
was never recorded; consequently, there was never a legal division of that sort. Our purchase
was contingent on being able to divide off a 20 acre parcel for sale which we did through the RE
process.
As a condition of that division, a legal access was given to the 20 acre lot on our west drive
to create one access for the two lots. When we sold the lot (#055), the buyer in turn disregarded
that access and constructed his drive on a right of way west of the Kelley property (#047), not
using the designated drive as the access. That created a double access to the present Earhart
property, and left an unnecessary and mostly unused legal access on our west drive that prevents
closure of that access.
There is an east access used by HS Resources to service a gas/oil tank battery. We originally
proposed using it for access onto the property as it is situated at the very top of the hill and has a
totally unobstructed view in both directions. It was our preference; however, it would have
created a double access for our property, since Mr. Earhart indicated that he wants to keep the
extra access. Also, Petersons objected to a drive being very close to their house which we under-
stood. In conferring with Mr. Carroll and the planners, it was recommended, and we agreed, to
change the proposed access to the west drive as it also meets safety requirements. The west
access will service the property safely and will separate residents' vehicles from gas production
vehicles as well.
We also share concerns over safety. Hazards could be minimized by reducing the speed to 45
MPH over the hill to the east if the County deems that appropriate; however, we have lived there
over eleven years and have used the west access as our driveway all that time. It is safer than
some accesses already on road 44, and certainly no more dangerous than many other accesses
that exist in the county. Extra caution must be exercised when entering the road to go west,
making sure that there is no oncoming traffic, so that if someone does come flying over the hill
at excessive speed there is room for him to pass on around the entering vehicle. The view to the
west is unobstructed. Since school buses would typically load on the south side of the road, the
opposite side from traffic coming over the hill, no children would be crossing the road to get on
972492
IIEXHIBIT
i
the bus. We intend to construct a pullover area where a school bus and mail carriers can get off
the road when stopping, also, the school bus would have the option of turning around on the cul-
de-sac further in on our property. Mr. Carroll also indicates these things as good options.
It is our understanding that Adolph Bohlender and Frank "Les" Boulter tore up the native soil
and planted wheat on our land for a couple of years approximately 25-30 years ago. This is more
than the time reported in the minutes from the Planning Commission hearing. It had been 15-20
years prior to our purchase of the land in 1985. If it had been productive or profitable, they
would have continued to farm it more than two years. It has not been farmed since, but as a
result of destroying the native grasses, it grows mostly volunteer rye, weeds and rocks. We hope
to see dryland grass back on it eventually.
In 1992, we did not understand why the County decided that we were, in fact, trying to evade
subdivision regulations when they denied our application for an additional recorded exemption.
Through working with the minor subdivision process, we have come to a greater understanding
and appreciation of all that is entailed in growth. It's our desire to comply with the Planners and
the County and do what is necessary to have this proposed subdivision done the right way. We
are also doing what we can to address the concerns of adjacent property owners. As we intend to
stay on the land and build a home on the lot farthest south - a location from where we will see
every lot and building that is erected - it is also to our best interests to make this subdivision as
acceptable as possible.
We wish to commend the Planning Department, Shani Eastin and Todd Hodges for their hard
work, helpfulness and impartiality in preparing this submittal. In addition to our attitudes
changing, the Department has a much more positive atmosphere than in the past, and a real
commitment for service to Weld County residents.
Finally, we wish to state that we too were raised on farms and understand agricultural
concerns, but we also realize that there is a need for this type of development. Others who have
grown up on farms, but were unable to stay there still desire to live on a small, rural acreage,
even if they cannot make a living there, rather than being forced to live in town. The Petersons,
Bakers, Kelleys, Van den Hovens and Earharts, along with us, all seem to fit that mold, and we
all seem to have adjusted to life with odors, farm machinery, dust from dryland farming, and
bawling calves. Most of us are willing to sacrifice convenience for the benefits of country life.
Why should we deny others the same opportunity? We cannot isolate ourselves on 2.3, 3+, 7+ or
40+ acres. Hopefully, one hidden benefit of this division will be neighbors learning to get along
with new residents that share the love of rural life.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We respect and accept your authority and
decision in this proposed subdivision.
Respectfully submitted,
Merle & Karla Grieser
37 s''. 2
N
v
I
$;C!9 j cliicoof2*/
972.192
Hello