HomeMy WebLinkAbout981434.tiff WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
1400 N. 17th AVENUE
GREELEY CO . 80631 APRIL 13, 1998
IN REFERENCE TO: CASE # S-448
Merle and Karla Greiser request for Minor Subdivision
There are several good reasons to oppose A subdivision in
this area ! The original 60 acres that the Greisers purchased
are completely surrounded by farmland , 20 acres were split shortly
after the purchase. This is A farming area regardless if Greisers
farm their land or not . A subdivision would be as out of place
here as A farm in downtown Greeley ! This would put added strain
on area farmers ability to do their job by adding traffic and
people to the area . It is already very difficult and dangerous
to move farm equipment. on Weld County Rd 44 due to the high volune
of East-West traffic and the hill that causes vision to be
obstructed from both directions, without adding more traffic that
will come with four more homes . Small acreages attract people
with horses and pets , with one horse allowed per acre , it won ' t
take long to turn the unirrigated and very thin dryland grass to
Just , creating wind and water erosion , with possible damage to
neighboring land ' II this is passed we would like to see A
restriction of the number of allowed animals or make the owners
follow strict grazing rules . Also dogs and cats allowed to roam
cause problems with sourrounding farm animals and wildlife '.
In the Weld County Comprehensive Plan it. states under
Agricultural Goals and Pollcies- ( A.GOAL. 3 . Discourage residential ,
r:ommercial and andrusti..al development which is not located
adjacent: to existing incorporated munisipalites . ) This land is
clearly nut of the urban gr-outh boundary area set by the county !
Also- ( A.GOAL 7 . Protect agricultural land from encroachment by
those uban uses whinder the operational efficiency and
productivity or the agricultural uses . )
Their are already 7 homes in 1/2 square mile , 3 of which were
built within the last 13 years . 2 of the homes are on land from
the Greisers original purchase . We don ' t want or need 4 more
homes on this property '. This property is to the West of our
home , the property line is only 60 feet from our front door , as
our house faces the West with an unobstructed view of the Front
Range . We don ' t want to be included in this subdivision ! We don ' t
want our view to the West blocked by houses '
What good will 4 more houses Jo for this agricultural area?
Who will beni.fit ether than the Greisers" Their are many more
area people against this than for it. Their is other property
in this same area for sale . On January 1992 Greisers were denied
A recorded exemption ' Do we as neighbors have to suffer at the
Greisers profit? We enjoy the quite and solitude of this
agricultural are . We hope the County follows it' s own quidlines
from their Comprehenive Plan and does what is better for this area
and vote no for this subdivision !
Herman L . Peterson & Connie R . Peterson
•;fin( t°�r r'' t 20492 WC Rd 44
i' ) LaSalle Co . 80645
EIGNEn
APR 1 4 1993 � '�� n�_.
Corn y-ce 1l1n 1
r' •.' f.'s
981434
•
(
•
FRANK LESTER BOULTER
20491 WCR 44
LA SALLE, CO 80645-8824
April 10, 1998
Shani L. Eastin
Weld County Dept. of Planning & Services
1400 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Ms. Eastin & Weld County Planning Commission:
This letter concerns the request of Merle and Karla Grieser, Case 5-448, for Minor
Subcivision Final Plat (5 Estate Lots) - Jubilee Acres. Lot B of RE-789 E2E2NW4 of Section
21, T4N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
We and many other neighbors still oppose additional housing in this area. We fail to see
how this proposal can be a positive one. Our reasons for this continued opposition are as
follows:
1) Even a minor subdivision is inconsistent with all the surrounding farms and their
activities. Horses and domestic pets can raise havoc with cattle on our property. Crop dusting
and tractor action can be disruptive to those potential residents.
2) The only entrance to this subdivison will be off WCR 44 which is already heavily
burdened with auto and truck traffic. It is already very difficult to drive farm machinery on
this road to get to the fields.
3) It is a known fact that ingress and egress will be a problem. The reason is the
dangerous hilltop about a block or two away from their proposed access road.
4) Domestic water supply could be a problem in a relatively short time. Well water
here is very deep and rusty.
Any planning commission member or commissioner should think seriously about any
repurcussions should a traffic accident or fatality occur in this area of Rd. 44. School children
and others from such a proposed housing development could be at risk - as we are.
Please consider these points before you vote on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Ila J. Leavy, wife Frank L. Boulter, property owner
aj") Weld County Planning Dept
U APR 1 4 Cj 219 3 Li
soon
tth! �
WELD COU TY
Cohn R. and Bonnie L. Kelley
20350 WCR 44
T.n2 17 n. 52 LaSalle, CO 80645
RE: Case# Z-50S
Cl_EI i; April 15, 1998
Ms. Barbara Kirkmeyer, County Commissioner
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
When the County Commissioners approved the zoning change for the Greiser minor
subdivision, we thought the issue was settled. Now we find there are more meetings and
issues. We still protest the minor subdivision. As our elected Commissioner, is there
anything you can do?
If the issue isn't settled, why is the phone company out here setting up service for the
Greiser subdivision? Someone must have told them it's a done deal. If it isn't a done deal,
why are more meetings scheduled? Why the waste of everybody's time and money. This
is confusing to us.
We still protest on the grounds that it doesn't fit into the County's Comprehensive plan.
Please review the enclosed copy of our previous letter of protest to Planning Services.
The only people to benefit from this development are the Greisers and of course the
County by way of an increase in revenues. All this development does for us is raise our
taxes and insurance(already out of control) and utterly destroy our privacy. The handful
of people who are for this development, besides the Greisers, aren't directly affected.
Most of the families living in the area are against it. It appears that the will of the majority
doesn't apply in this case. Why not?
Another item of interest. The County planners keep referring to this subdivision as 3 miles
from LaSalle. It's 4 1/2 miles from the LaSalle fire department and/or the post office.
From the city limit it has to be at least 4 miles. We would like an explanation of the 3
miles.
We stated before that we moved to the country for the peace, quiet, and privacy. This
new subdivision upsets the current local conditions and will have a life-long negative
impact on us and our affected neighbors.
Respectfully,
-
cc: Weld County Dept. of Planning Services y ¢
enclosure:
EXHIBIT
WELD COLL TY
Colin R. and Bonnie L. Kelley
17 `.1 n: 53 20350 WCR 44
LaSalle, CO 80645
C,LFR!<, Ph.# 284-5371
-
RE: Case #Z-508
September 29, 1997
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
MOO 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?
9g ► �I2Li
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,
� K ) 93L
Hello