The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About972490.tiffSURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR SURFACE ESTATE/INTEREST OWNERS Merle D. And Karla L. Greiser Z-508 John Earhart 20256 Weld County Road 44 La Salle, CO 80645 David and Frank Boulter 20491 Weld County Road 44 La Salle, CO 80645 Max Ulrich 19401 Weld County Road 33 La Salle, CO 80645 Louise Kelley P.O. Box 329 Greeley, CO 80632 JR-2 LLC 12115 Weld County Road 36 Platteville, CO 80651 Donald and Becky Ann Baker 20494 Weld County Road 44 La Salle, CO 80645 Colin and Bonnie Kelley 20350 Weld County Road 44 La Salle, CO 80645 Carl Jepsen 20121 Weld County Road 42 La Salle, CO 80645 Herman and Connie Peterson 20492 Weld County Road 44 La Salle, CO 80645 David Boulter 20491 Weld County Road 44 La Salle, CO 80645 Union Pacific Land Resource Corp. P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, CO 80020 Amoco Production Company 1670 Broadway Denver, CO 80222 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I have placed a true and correct copy of the surrounding property owners and owners and lessees of minerals in accordance with the notification requirements of Weld County in Case Number Z-508 for Merle and Karla Greiser in the United States Mail, postage prepaid First Class Mail by letter as addressed on the attached list. t 13th day of August, 1997. 972490 IXf1tBIT' tin z-50 i‘Ot WE�Yc COLORADO August 6, 1997 TO: SURROUNDING PROPERTY/MINERAL OWNERS CASE NUMBER: Z-508 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540 FAX (970) 352-6312 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 There will be a Public Hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 7, 1997, at 1:30 p.m., in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado concerning the request of: NAME: Merle D. And Karla L. Greiser FOR: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate) for a 5 lot Minor Subdivision. 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. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 44; approximately 1/2 mile west of Weld County Road 43. Your property is within five -hundred (500) feet of the property on which this request has been made or you may have an interest in the minerals located under the property. For additional information write or telephone Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631, on or before the date of public hearing. 972490 THE GRIESER PROPERTY FOR INTERMILL LAND SURV BY APO OF COLORADO 1055-21-0-00-055 JOHN EARHART 20256 WELD COUNTY RD 44 LASALLE, CO 80645 1055-21-0-00-008 DAVID & FRANK BOULTER 20491 WELD COUNTY RD 44 LASALLE, CO 80645 1055-21-0-00-039 MAX ULRICH 19401 WELD COUNTY RD 33 LASALLE, CO 80645 1055-21-0-00-047 LOUISE KELLEY PO BOX 329 GREELEY, CO 80632 1055-21-0-00-054 JR-2 LLC 12115 WELD COUNTY RD 36 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651 1055-21-0-00-037 DONALD/BECKY ANN BAKER 20494 WELD COUNTY RD 44 LASALLE, CO 80645 1055-16-0-00-003 DAVID & FRANK BOULTER 20491 WELD COUNTY RD 44 LASALLE, CO 80645 1055-21-0-00-046 COLIN & BONNIE KELLEY 20350 WELD COUNTY RD 44 LASALLE, CO 80645 1055-21-0-00-007 CARL JEPSEN 20121 WELD COUNTY RD 42 LASALLE, CO 80645 1055-21-0-00-038 HERMAN/CONNIE PETERSON 20492 WELD COUNTY RD 44 LASALLE, CO 80645 1055-16-0-00-034 DAVID BOULTER 20491 WELD COUNTY RD 44 LASALLE, CO 80645 972490 RECORDED EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property: The East 1 of the East 1 of the North West 34 of Section 21, Township 4 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P,,Mj„ AKA Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 1055-21-2 RE 789, Weld County, Colorado. STATE OF COLORADO SS COUNTY OF WELD THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land under as their names appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office or from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney. The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of . 19 WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 972490 NAMES OF MINERAL OWNERS AND LESSEES OF MINERALS Please print or type Address, Town/City, State and Zip Code Mineral Owner Union Pacific Land Resource Corp. P. O. Box 2500 Broomfield, Colorado 80020 Lessee: Amoco Production Company 1670 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80222 972490 APO of Coloraao 1520 E. Douglas Rd. #6 Ft. Collins, CO 80524 (303) 224-3643 Mark 8c Diana Wolenetz The attached list. of "Affected Property Owners" was prepared by our office for the Special Review No. 670 Ron Thomas. To the best of our knowledge this list is a current and accurate representation of the owners of record and their respective addresses as recorded for tax notices at the Larimer County Court House, in the State of Colorado, as of June 18, 1997. The area of "Affected Property Owners" was determined by our offices using a reference plat for the project provided by Intermill Land Surveying. APO of Colorado expressly disclaims any responsibilities for errors, omissions or inaccuracies that may arise as a result of the reference plat provided by the Larimer County Assessor's Office. Respectfully submitted, )-yt Mark L Wolenetz President APO of Colorado 972,190 Weld Count`) Planning Dept, SEP 2 61997 iVED Weld County Department of Manning 11,00 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: 1C25 pm 1? Lc ar.r, Co September 25, 1997 We live approximately one-half mile west of the proposed minor subdivision. We have farmed here for 21 years and do most heartily object to five more homes in the areal This is in regard t0 Case # Z-508, Merle D. and Karla L. Greiser. I have already voiced my water concerns to Weld Central Water as our pressure continues to diminish. This year alone there have already been too many new homes built along the Peckham Oil. Farming has always been a difficult occupation when it comes to making ends meet, and we certainly don't need any mare stress. It has been our personal experience that when these city people move into our neighborhood, land values decrease. Then we are subjected to absent owners during the daytime hours while their dogs, horses, & etc. run loose & unattended. Last & most important of all, the farmers become a minority listening to these same people complain about moisy, bawling calves at weaning time, the flies and stench of manure, or tractors running all night. Just recently in the Greeley Tribune a farmer in Windsor we know had been baling hay all night and finished about 7:30 in the morning. There were se many people late for work that before he could get his baler into his farmyard, someone rear ended it. Too many people in tee big a hurry with absolutely no compassion for the farmer. We also lost an entire herd of milk nannies to neighbors who were born, bred, and raised 3n 7lerver. Trey broiag*t with them their Abci.,a dogs to kill one of our steers, rabbits, and geese. Karla Greiser said she would let me see the covenants, but we haven't been given any yet. if idle Greisers want more people out here, why don't they just rauve back to They have been offered a re:rA- '.a.t1c price for their land. They have already taken advaitage of a recorded exemption, but even that didn't ease their financial prohlepis. 972.90 EXHIBIT 2 -- Sot' -2 - that I know will ocurr five times over. °lease help save the few farmers left: Sincerely, Jane11 M. Walker Harold walker 21325 WCR 41 LaSalle, Co 80641 2814-6688 972490 WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1400 N. 17th AVENUE GREELEY CO. 80631 SEPTEMBER 20, 1997 IN REFERENCE TO, CASE # Z-508 Merle and Karla Greiser request for a change of zone for a 5 lot Minor Subdivision. There are many reasons against a change of zone or a minor subdivision in this area! First of all the property is surrounded by irrigated farmland with dryland wheat that borders it. This land has raised wheat before and it could be farmed now if the owners were so inclined. A subdivision would be out of place and put a strain on the area farmers ability to do their job. In the Weld County Comprehensive Plan it states under Agricultural Goals and Policies-(A.GOAL 3. Discourage residential, commercial and indrustrial development which is not located adjacent to existing incorporated municipalites.) This property is clearly out of the urban grouth boundary area. ( A.GOAL 7. Protect agricultural land from encroachment by those urban uses which hinder the operational efficiency and productivity of the agricultural uses.) It is already very difficult and dangerous to move farm equipment on Weld County Rd 44 due to the high volume of East-West traffic and the hill that causes vision to be obstructed in both directions, without having more traffic that will come with four more homes. The family, friends and deliveries that are associated with them. Small acreages attract people with horses and pets, with one horse allowed per acre it won't take long to turn the unirrigated dryland grass to dust, creating wind and water erosion, with possible damage to neighboring land! Even Griiser's horse has been loose and in our yard'. Loose dogs and cats cause problems with sourrounding farm animals and wildlife! There are already 6 homes in 1/2 mile square, 4 more will make a definite change in the way we enjoy the solitude and quite of this agricultural area. Our home will be very close to the houses in the subdivision because of the close proximity to the property line. We don't want to be that close to a subdivision! WE will have more unwanted noise and people. WE will probably have our unobstructed West veiw blocked by houses. We enjoy the cotton tail rabbits, phesants and the owl that hunts in Grieser's open field. How can a subdivision with 4 more houses benefit the surrounding neighbors? How many more sprinkler corners will have houses built on them? The County needs to slow down the urban sprawl of non urban areas. On January 1992 Greiser's were denied a recorded exemption. On October 7 1997 we hope that the County will follow their own guidlines from the Comprehenive Plan and do what is best for our agricultural community. Do not change the zone from Agriculture and do not approve a minor subdivision. We want to stay in the country and not right next to a subdivision! Thank. You. /1.`e X (/35 t/ -)o7-•,_ Herman L. Peterson and Connie R. Peterson 20492 WC Rd 44 LaSalle Co. 80645 972490 EXHIBIT 7 �J FRANK LESTER BOULTER 20491 WCR 44 LA SALLE, CO 80645-8824 September 15, 1997 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 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 To 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 972,190 EXHIBIT I LI Z- Sot( 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, David S. Boulter Frank L. Boulter Landowners Ila J. L vy - wife 9724190 September 1997 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO. 80631 REGARDING CASE Z-508 - Public Hearing Tuesday, October 7, 1997 1:30 PM. Legal Description: Lot B of RE -789, E2 of the E2 of the NW4 of Section 21, T4N, R65@ of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES MEMBERS: I am writing this letter on OPPOSITION to the proposed zoning change from A to E for the 5 lot minor subdivision of Merle D. and Karla L. Greiser. This change would NOT be consistent with the present Weld County Comprehensive Plan. I am worried that if it is this easy to change zoning, and we set a precedence by changing the zoning on this property, the county would not be able to deny me or any other property owner zoned A the right to have it rezoned. By changing this zoning we would destroy agriculture as we know it now in Weld County. This property is located where the access would be at the top or just below a steep hill on Weld County Road 44. This hill is extremely dangerous all ready, and 2 lives have been lost at this site. I farm the property just to the east of this proposed zoning change and I know how dangerous it is to either enter or exit Road 44 . We have areas in Weld County that are now zoned E. I am sure that the only person in the area who would benefit from this change will be the property owners, Merle and Karla Greiser. Again, I think you need to be very cautious not to set a precedence by changing the zoning of AGRICULTURE land, because by doing so, you won't be able to deny similar requests in the future. This change will then produce small 5, 10, and 20 acre lots mixed throughout our agriculture lands. Thank you -ggCL-1(6 ca -41 Rodnick E. Ulrich 19217 Weld County Road 44 LaSalle, CO. 80645 OCT 3 1997 972.90 LL's, ..fig ?.loll. SEP 3 01997 Kevin & Cindy Walker 20426 WCR 50 LaSalle, CO 80645 Sept. 17, 1997 Dear Weld County Department ofPlanning Services, We are writing in reference to the request of Merle & Karla Greiser to build a subdivision on Weld County Road 44 in LaSalle, Colorado (case #: Z-508). We feel this is not a good location for a subdivision due to tile traffic and that this is primarily an area of Agriculture. Weld County Road 44, which would be the main access road used by this subdivision is a heavily traveled road already, with farm equipment, semi trucks and oil well traffic added to the regular traffic The access for which this subdivision would use to enter on to Weld County Road 44 is also in a location of pour visibility. The subdivision would be located between to bridges that cross irrigation ditches (which become icy in the winter months, and two hills making it hard for people entering on to Weld County Road 44 from the subdivision to see and equally hard for people already on the 44 to see traffic entering. In the winter the intersection of Weld County Roads 44 and 39 are graveled ever storm because they become so icy and dangerous. Having the experience from both of us having lived on Weld County Road 44, and still traveling the road daily. This area is primarily an Agriculture area, and I believe the type of people_that will be attracted to this subdivision are going to be non-agricultural related which brings many new concerns. Many farmers in the area like us, have farms in more than one location which means moving tractors and equipment all around. With the already busy roads this can be quite challenging . Thave'hdtpeh my'husband on many occasion move egtiipment'from place to place and I am always suprised how people just speed on around this big equipment, not waiting to get waved on by, not knowing if we are turning or what is in front of us, what is coming in the other lane, or if they can even fit around us. Some of the farm equipment now a days is so large that it takes almost the whole road to fit. Most farmers will, as soon as able to, wave cars on by, so they are not having to wait behind and also to try and prevent vehicles from going on around and put themselves, others or the farmer himself in danger. Non-agricultural people don't understand that, and everyone seems to be in such a hurry these days. Cattle, bring up another concern, there are several farms in the area.dithe'subdivision that raise cattle" -What is going to happen at weaning time when the cows and calves are bawling all day and all night for about a week? Are the residents of the subdivision going to be able to handle that or are there going to be complaints made. There is also a feedlot, Timmerman Feeders, about 4 miles east on Weld County Road 44 and a'dairy Bruntii)airy, on'the corner of-Weld-t:ou my Rtoad'44 arid'43. 'Are'there going to be complaints about those places. Just recently, a farmer that we know, dug a silage pit (very nice looking) on some land he owns and farms just down the road from our farm. The land and farm ground surround a house with 1 acre land, this is owned by someone else. The silage pit sits behind the house a little ways and the homeowners are outraged to have this silage pit behind their home. They feel that it will drop their property value, thus another type of problem trying to mix non-agricultural people with agriculture. There use to be corrals where the silage pit is now _ personally it looks much nicer with the silage pit. I 972190 EXHIBIT 2_0 z - sot 1 Ke'fin D We believe this are some concerns that need to be thought about before approval is allowed on this subdivision. This is a major impact on the people moving into the subdivision and for the people already living in and around the area of the subdivision, none of this people have been asked thgir opinion. We would like and hope to see that some time is taken to look into the concerns of the people in the area of the 'subdivision: `fake time and go to the area of the subdivison see what we mean about location and traffic. It is to bad nothing is being done to protect agriculture and farm land, because we need to keep it alive and growing. There is plenty of new growth of towns and cities going on else where, please don't allow someone to come in and build a subdivision in the middle of an agricultural community, and once you allow one in how are you going to stop more from be built in this area_ This area can't handle much more development. Since ely, 1JO.J., er . W Cynthia L. Walker 972190 Sirs: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed change in zoning of the Greiser farm . My brother and I are Personal Representatives of the Carl Jepsen Estate which has property joining the Grieser property in T4 R65 S21. We would like to express our opposition and extreme displeasure over this proposed zoning change. Our opposition is based on the following reasons: We move farm machinery down Rd44 to another farm -6 row planters, cultivators,balestackers, 14 ' windrower 15' mulcher as examples. Drivers of other vehickles usually are going very fast and are not to tolerant of slow speed farm equipment. I have seen cars pass other cars and farm equipment on small hills or rises where no driver can see over the hill. There are few places where equipment can pull over off the edge of the road far enough to let others pass. We thought a couple of years ago the county adopted a new ordinance limiting the number of times a Ag zoned property could sell off a acerage to once every ten years. This change would be 5 splits in one year? This property is to far from any towns area of service to supply sanitary sewer lines. We do not need more sources of Nitrate contamination for our underground waters. We have a Cow -Calf operation and also feed some of our yearlings to a higher weight. We are concerned about losing baby calves to stray dogs. This has already happened to us. It is tough enough raising livestock without having to argue with someone about their pet "Fido". There are several large daries in a 2 mile radius, one large feedlot about 5 miles east and a 2000 head dairy about 4 miles away.They could lose alot of production with stray dogs chasing cattle as could we. Who would pay to mitigate this type of damage? Recently in the Greeley Tribune there was a story and photo about a lady picking a Sunflower from a farmers field along highway 85. A week or ten days later there was another story about theft from farmers fields of vegetables and other crops by Bill Jackson. My personal reaction was that Mr. Jackson had the problem figured out only about halfway. My bigest complaint and worry is something unsaid in his story. That is Farmers use Pesticides and Herbicides on their crops. No one can tell from the picture or the story or being in any field when a chemical application was made to any crop. You can put up all the signs you want and people will still say"Does that mean me?" or "I did not see it". What kinds of liabilitys do we gain with new homes— people and children that love to wander and explore? When do they start limiting our ability to control pests in our crops by limiiting our spraying near property lines? Agriculture is a highly Capitai intensive business. Farms are operated to make a profit. Just as a business in town can not let people move freely through their production areas and back rooms— no responsible farmer can allow people into farms at their will. There are risks of 972190 dangerous cattle, exposure to chemicals dusts, farm machinery and other things that farmers try to minimize for their families and themselves, but can't control for uninvited adults or children. Recently I read that in the next 50 years we will have to tripple the worlds food production to feed an ever expanding population. How will we do this when we keep letting more developments happen on good productive lands outside of a cities growth pattern. As visionary people did decades ago developing and preserving Northern Colorados water systems for Agriculture and drinking water for people —We should and must have the same vision to preserve Northern Colorados agricultural food production base for future generations. We can not always expect science to save us from ourselves. Just as we protect the National Forests, National Rangelands and many other State and National properties we must protect another treasure in Weld County that is our productive Farms and Ranches. We seem to operate in this county, state, and country on the idea that there will always be another area we can go to and develop new farms —A kind of "Manifest Destiny" arguement for development that is very outdated in our modem world where we see finite resources of all types that need to be cared for husbanded and respected. Sincerely' / t isono/ JC (p eSenT#r be ddc/A icygen E7 T 972490 OCT 0 G 1997 Colin R. and Bonnie L. Kelley 20350 WCR 44 LaSalle, CO 80645 Ph.# 284-5371 RE: Case /I Z-508 September 29, 1997 Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 This letter of protest is in response to Merle and Karla Greiser's request for a change of zone from agriculture to estate for a 5 lot Minor Subdivision. A change in zoning appears to be inconsistent with several of the policies and goals outlined in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan dated October 22,1996. Agriculture: A.Goal 3. and A. Policy 3. Page 2-4: The discouragement of residential development not located adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities. This area is between 4 and 5 miles from LaSalle using existing roads. Urban Growth Boundaries: This chapter encourages efficient development and discourages urban sprawl. It would appear that a "Minor Subdivision" constitutes urban sprawl. Residential: R. Goal 2 and R. Policy 2. Page 3-9: Because of the hill just above the entrance of this planned subdivision and with four new families entering and exiting Road 44, it would be a good idea to make highway improvements for safety or reduce the speed limit to no more than 40 or 45 miles per hour along this section of road (and enforce it). Will the County pay for this? This is also not the most ideal location for a school bus stop, for safety purposes. Under this same section, policies 3, 4, and 5 are also pertinent. The road into this proposed new subdivision is so close to our property that it is already a dust and noise problem. Multiply that by 5 Based on the fire protection section under Public Facilities, pages 3-22 and 3-23, the water system more than likely will need to be upgraded to meet the gallons per minute requirements. Does the developer pay for this, or does it cost us all in the long run? 9'72490 Several other factors such as groundwater, wildlife habitat, etc., are covered in the plan. A subdivision will not enhance any of these. We moved to the country for peace, quiet, and privacy. A "Minor Subdivision" adjacent to us will certainly end all of that Based on the County's Comprehensive plan, it appears a more suitable place for subdivisions and expansion would be adjacent to a town. We don't believe a subdivision in the country is in compliance with the overall plans and policies of the County. Respectfully yours. 97219 October 6, 1997 Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Ave. Greley, Colorado 80631 Re: Case #-508 This letter is a protest to the request for rezoning by Merle and Karla Greaser from Agriculture to estate for a 5 lot sub- division of their forty acres which is adjacent to my own acreage. I believe a subdivision will destroy the ambiance of existing homes in the area. There are many reasons to reject this request. Notably it does not fit into the Weld County Comprehensive Plan dated October 22, 1996, such as: Agriculture: A.Goal 3 and A. Policy 3. Page 2-4:The discouragement of residential development not located adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities. The nearest such is LaSalle, some 4 miles away. This is not in walking distance and not even in biking distance for some. R.Policy 3 Growth should be near urban growth boundary areas where urban services are already available. R. Policy 4 What about the federal water and clean air acts? What will septic systems do to these? R.Policy 5 Compatibility with existing surrounding land use- -Height, density, TRAFFIC, DUST and NOISE. R. Goal 4 Will it pay its own way? Will there be a limit to the number of people --adults and children? Will there be adequate police and fire protection? and at what cost? What ABOUT SAFETY, with a big hill so near obstructing the view, Granting this request may be setting a bad precedent; I think I cannot do the same thing because I,m adjacent, but there are plenty who aren't. Also Isn't that discriminating against such land owners as I? Respectfully Louise L. Kelley 1''o Rax 3.L% (9rc EftgCo , Y6632 OCT 0 G 19S7 972490 IEXHIBIT 2 Z. -60g October 2, 1997 Don and Becky Baker 20494 WCR 44 aSalle CO 80645 RE: Proposed minor subdi ision of Merle and Karla Grieser, at 20390 WCR 44, LaSalle, CO 80645. Jeari4±j ID -7 -'fl) We strongly oppose the proposed subdivision for numerous reasons. Our property adjoins the Grieser property to the east at 20494 WCR 44. Our quality of life, and our "country living" would strongly be affected should this proposal be approved. Currently there are six homes in the immediate vicinity. This is agricultural land, and we must put a stop to urban sprawl and urban development in an agriculture area. If zoning is changed to accommodate this subdivision from agricultural to residential, could this be a precedent for upcoming decisions made? Weld County's mainstay is agriculture, and I strongly feel we should support our farmers and not impose or generate problems for them, such as: 1. Weld County Road 44's agriculture traffic, i.e. tractors, combines, etc. is heavy now, and with the combined traffic from four new homes would only increase that volume. Safety is not in numbers. 2. Passing this zoning change and allowing this subdivision to be built would greatly endanger the agricultural mainstay of weld county. 3. Urban growth does diminish agricultural land. Damage to current wildlife must be considered. Rabbits, an occasional deer, 'nd even coyotes, would be affected due to increase of domestic pets, and ,pulation. The access road to proposed subdivision is a dangerous hill, that barely passed the required recommendations. Increase traffic (an average of 2 cars per family), not considering recreational vehicles, increases the risk for serious injury. As neighbors of the Grieser's who currently enjoy an unobstructed view of the front range, and enjoy the peace and tranquility of a life we have invested heavily in, we have strong concerns of increased traffic, noise, domestic pets, trash, and dust from increased number of vehicles. With the increase of the above, we will receive a decrease in our quality of life and living, our view, our privacy, and our "dream". We strongly feel that the Weld County Commissioners should once again vote against this proposal. The Grieser's proposal of just dividing their land off for only one split was voted down a few years ago. That is the precedent that should be received and a vote to maintain an agricultural zoning standard and to maintain the agricultural mainstay of Weld County. Thank you, `U ';.) r(5_17i 972490 October 7, 1997 TO: Weld County Dept. of Planning Services & Weld County Commissioners RE: Case Number Z-508 To Whom it May Concern: I am opposed to the proposed change of zoning to allow a five lot minor subdivision. I feel the change would bring about the following: 1) Change my country style of living by creating an adjacent neighborhood. I moved to the country to avoid this. 2) Obviously, this would increase traffic on WCR #44 along with the associated road noise & congestion (school buses, etc.), road hazards, neighborhood noise (i.e., people, pets & livestock.) 3) I've already lost water pressure, from two new houses near by, and I feel this will cause the problem to become worse with the additional new homes. Who will pay for the larger taps to regain water pressure? 4) With the addition of this neighborhood, I feel the property tax cost for fire, police & school services via taxes or other means would definitely affect me. 5) This proposed change also precludes any adjacent property owner(s) from any changes on their property. Thank You, John Earhart 9724190 June 17, 1997 Mr. Todd Hodges, Manner Weld -County Planr.ing Dept. 1400 No. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Rig: Grieser Minor Subdivision Application .:.ity PIa7_:70 Dept. JUN 2 4 1997 E Dear Mr. Hodges, W1e have been property owners at our current1ocation for over 50 years. Merle and Karla Grieser have asked us for ou • support of their planned subdivision of their current property. As you probably know, their land is dry, non-irrigatable, rocky ground, and not suitable for farming. We support their right to subdivide their property so long aS they do so within the guidelines of Weld County for development. The proposed subdivision is in keeping with surrounding land use in that the estate zoning will be consistent with the other adjacent homes on small acreages while also maintaining open space that will blend in with the adjacent farming ground. The Griesers have our support to subdivide their land. Sincerely, Ed & Helen Bruntz 21206 WCR #41 LaSalle, CO 80645 284-6489 cc: Merle and Karla Grieser 972490 Hello