Citizens opposed to the rezoning of Range View Estates (Mead, CO)
14 Comments
M
Marge Pszenny
10 years ago
That's a large increase in population. Can the infrastructure handle it?
C
Colleen Whiteford
10 years ago
Well, it looks like history does repeat itself! We've been through this rodeo once before a few years back with this particular piece of property. The last time the owner was residing in Boulder, of course, just a nice piece of investment property they wanted to get rid of and put a bunch of APARTMENTS AND SMALL HOMES ON. That would have fit in real nice with the 1-4 acre two story homes along County Rd. 7 (3rd St).Thankfully that idea got squelched. We live at 14614 County Rd 7 - for the past 19 years. We worked hard for what we have, paid it off and are now retired. I sit here some days watching a few cars now and then driving towards the Town of Mead - north - at maybe 90 miles an hour! I can't even guess what this street would be like if it were widened - up to our front fence, I'm sure. We've already had one drunk run off the road and into our yard a few years back. THE LEADERS OF THE TOWN OF MEAD NEED TO REALIZE IT IS A TOWN NOT A METROPOLIS! OVER 400 HOMES ON THAT LAND IS INSANE. ARE OUR LEADERS TOO????
D
Diane Weis
10 years ago
Opposed
J
Jim Bledsoe
10 years ago
I'm opposed to the RSF-4 high density housing. Please keep the R-1 zoning as was previously agreed upon.
C
Carol Bledsoe
10 years ago
R-1 zoning was agreed upon. We are definitely opposed to RSF-4 zoning.
L
Linda Schaefer
10 years ago
Keep larger lots compatible with acreage lots in Mulligan Lake. Enough small R-4 lots exist already in Mead for a ten year build out.
R
Ron Schaefer
10 years ago
Featured
R-1 zoning is fair and has previously been agreed upon. Enough R-4 zoning exists in Mead already. Better sites for R-4 exist in more compatible environment than next to larger lots in Single Tree, Mulligan Lake and Hunters Cove / Ridge.
G
Gary Clauson
10 years ago
RSF-4 high density housing will add large burdens to traffic, noise, crime, and schools. The current zoning is compatible with the surrounding subdivisions and will support adjacent property values, not devalue properties like mis-matched, high density zoning will do.
R
Richard Woolf
10 years ago
Please keep the zoning to RSF-1 We are opposed to the increased density of RSF-4. Our property values will suffer.Not to mention the increased demands on roads and utilities. The Schells should have thought of this before purchasing the property.
J
Joan Woolf
10 years ago
keep the current zoning!!
P
Paul Hoffman
10 years ago
please keep new developments consistent with adjacent existing zoning. R4 zoning is extremely out of charecter in this area
G
Gayle Altobellis
10 years ago
Featured
I agree wholeheartedly with this Petition. We live on 109 Silo Ct., Mead, CO. 80542 - in Mulligan Lake Estates. The loss of view, the noise, the nighttime light pollution, the expense and the stress on our water, gas and other utilities, the addition of perhaps hundreds of children in the schools would be very oppressive to us. We just moved here in June and were told this was to be low-density housing, like ours, not high-density housing. We would not have bought this house if we had thought this would have changed. Please keep to the first plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Gayle Altobellis
R
Richard Altobellis
10 years ago
This re-zoning would destroy the character of the neighborhood to which we just moved as well as negatively affecting property values.
G
Gary Hamor
10 years ago
I live at 313 Adams Ave, and I am opposed to changing the zoning on the Range View Estates Subdivision.
That's a large increase in population. Can the infrastructure handle it?
Well, it looks like history does repeat itself! We've been through this rodeo once before a few years back with this particular piece of property. The last time the owner was residing in Boulder, of course, just a nice piece of investment property they wanted to get rid of and put a bunch of APARTMENTS AND SMALL HOMES ON. That would have fit in real nice with the 1-4 acre two story homes along County Rd. 7 (3rd St).Thankfully that idea got squelched. We live at 14614 County Rd 7 - for the past 19 years. We worked hard for what we have, paid it off and are now retired. I sit here some days watching a few cars now and then driving towards the Town of Mead - north - at maybe 90 miles an hour! I can't even guess what this street would be like if it were widened - up to our front fence, I'm sure. We've already had one drunk run off the road and into our yard a few years back. THE LEADERS OF THE TOWN OF MEAD NEED TO REALIZE IT IS A TOWN NOT A METROPOLIS! OVER 400 HOMES ON THAT LAND IS INSANE. ARE OUR LEADERS TOO????
Opposed
I'm opposed to the RSF-4 high density housing. Please keep the R-1 zoning as was previously agreed upon.
R-1 zoning was agreed upon. We are definitely opposed to RSF-4 zoning.
Keep larger lots compatible with acreage lots in Mulligan Lake. Enough small R-4 lots exist already in Mead for a ten year build out.
R-1 zoning is fair and has previously been agreed upon. Enough R-4 zoning exists in Mead already. Better sites for R-4 exist in more compatible environment than next to larger lots in Single Tree, Mulligan Lake and Hunters Cove / Ridge.
RSF-4 high density housing will add large burdens to traffic, noise, crime, and schools. The current zoning is compatible with the surrounding subdivisions and will support adjacent property values, not devalue properties like mis-matched, high density zoning will do.
Please keep the zoning to RSF-1 We are opposed to the increased density of RSF-4. Our property values will suffer.Not to mention the increased demands on roads and utilities. The Schells should have thought of this before purchasing the property.
keep the current zoning!!
please keep new developments consistent with adjacent existing zoning. R4 zoning is extremely out of charecter in this area
I agree wholeheartedly with this Petition. We live on 109 Silo Ct., Mead, CO. 80542 - in Mulligan Lake Estates. The loss of view, the noise, the nighttime light pollution, the expense and the stress on our water, gas and other utilities, the addition of perhaps hundreds of children in the schools would be very oppressive to us. We just moved here in June and were told this was to be low-density housing, like ours, not high-density housing. We would not have bought this house if we had thought this would have changed. Please keep to the first plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Gayle Altobellis
This re-zoning would destroy the character of the neighborhood to which we just moved as well as negatively affecting property values.
I live at 313 Adams Ave, and I am opposed to changing the zoning on the Range View Estates Subdivision.