HomeMy WebLinkAbout830041.tiff AR1946o61
(NO
oU
O
ri 0 RESOLUTION
RE: GRANT CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT)
a
TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - BARBARA J. JOHNSON
WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
o Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home k.ox Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the
affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
ch WHEREAS , a public hearing was held on the 24th day of August,
m U
0 H 1983 , at 2 : 00 o' clock p.m. for the purpose of hearing the
w
application of Barbara. J. Johnson, 6617 Apache Court, Longmont,
Colorado 80501 , requesting a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural
tw
1.O G.
Z District) to a Planned Unit Development, for the following des-
rn z
cribed parcel of land, to wit :
>4
ua
aw A portion of land situated in the SW; -of Section 5
Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P . M. ,
o
Cn Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described
N as follows:
N
PAW Beginning at a point on the -North line of said Southwest
o from which the West o corner of said Section 5 bears
South 89°46 ' West a distance of 1255 . 28 feet; thence
continuing along said North line 89°46 ' East a distance
of 1396 . 38 feet to the center of said Section 5; thence
South 00°22 ' East along the east line of the said South-
west 4 a distance of 2408 . 62 feet to a point on the North
right-of-way line of State Highway No. 119 ; thence along
said right-of-way, South 69° 00 ' West a distance of 110 . 75
feet; thence South 86 °31 ' 30" West a distance of 1310. 81
feet; thence North parallel to the West line of the said
Southwest i and leaving said right-of-way at this point,
a distance of 2522 . 03 feet more or less to the point of
beginning, all bearings used herein relative to the West
line of the Southwest 4 being North , and subject to any
existing easements or rights-of-way.
WHEREAS , Section 21 . 6 . 2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance
provides standards for review of such a Change of Zone, and
WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners heard all the
testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request
of the applicant and the recommendation of the Weld County
Planning Commission , and having been fully informed finds
that the proposal is inconsistant with the Comprehensive Plan as it
now exists. That the Comprehensive Plan, however, written in 1973 ,
does not take into consideration recent activities and pressures for
development in the area east of Longmont. The Board therefore finds
3Sle
830041
Al - i ? 7
?age 2
No
-RE: COZ - BARBARA J. JOHNSON
co
N b that changing conditions in the area warrant a Change of Zone from
O
fl 1-4 A (Agricultural District) to a Planned Unit Development.
0
CD C4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com-
o> W
• missioners of Weld County, Colorado that the application of Barbara
a J. Johnson, for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural District) to a
rn
-• � Planned Unit Development on the above referenced parcel of land be,
x
M and hereby is, granted.
rn
coo
° Z The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly
H
ry F made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 24th day of
x
w August, A. D. , 1983 .
VD cal
1O G" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1/40
Z WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
0
C.) x Abstained
Chuck Carlson, Chairman
CV H
▪ CA 2/2,1;17;47 Yea
o N ff iZ . Martin, Pro-Tem
w w 621
Yea
Gene R. Brantner n�
Yea
Norman �C�arrl�son
l� _ o son `�xrY„ Nay
Jo que e Jo son
ATTEST• �J.r'I u
r jvl
Weld Count-y Clerk and Recorder
and Clerk to the Board-
BY: /1
AM /�O
/ -Dep ty County Cl c
APP ED AS TO FORM:
County Attorney
DAY FILE: AUGUST 29 , 1983
FILED IN
DISTRICT COURT
WILD CO, COLO.
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO • APR 2 01984
Case No. 83 CV 668 Division II
CLLR[
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
RICHARD E. HAMM; THE GREAT WESTERN
SUGAR CO. , -a Delaware Corporation,
MAYEDA FARMS, a Partnership; and
CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO a E1 1< < ,
—�
Municipal Corporation, } �? ' ,f I
plaintiffs, iv APR2 �i I9u4 ' l �i 1
VS.
VV
I U„F F D ri' ... _
-THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO;
and BARBARA J. JOHNSON,
Defendants,
THIS MATTER, coming on before this Court, pursuant to
COLO. R. CIV. PROC. , -Mule 106, on March 8 , 1984 , at which time
the Court heard oral argument regarding its Order to Show cause .
At the hearing, plaintiffs -Richard E. Hamm, and Mayeda Farms,
mere present and represented by attorneys of record, HOPP ,
CARLSON & BECKMANN, P.C. , by Walter J. Hopp and Jeffrey D. Larson.
_Plaintiff City of Longmont was represented by attorney of record,
Ralph Josephsohn, City Attorney for the City of Longmont. The
defendant Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld was
represented by attorney of record, Thomas David, Weld County
Attorney. Defendant Barbara Johnson was present and represented
-by attorney of record, William S. Finger.
The Court after having carefully examined the record and
heard the statements of counsel , makes the following findings :
/
/ Approximately March 29 , 1983, Mrs. Johnson applied to Weld
County for change ofzone from A (Agricultural District) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) , for the development of an eighty acre
mobile home park on her property. The plaintiffs are owners of
property located either immediately adjacent or in close proximity
to the subject property. The plaintiffs ' properties , as well as
the subject property, are presently prime irrigated farm land and
zoned A (Agriculture) . The City of Longmont, whose landfill is
operated pursuant to a valid certificate of designation for solid
waste disposal sites, uses its property in accordance with
allowable uses within Agricultural Districts. In addition, the
future Weld County land use map shows that the subject property
is located in an area intended for agricultural type uses.
Subsequent to the acceptance of Mrs. Uohnson' s application
for rezoning by the Department of Planning Services for Weld
County, the department, pursuant to Weld County zoning Ordinance
No. 89 (September, 1982) , referred the application and proposal
to the appropriate agencies, -commissions and governing bodies for
their review and comment. Two letters sent from the Department
of Health, Water Quality Control Division, expressed concerns of
the State regarding the proposal. In the correspondence , it was
pointed out that the proposed waste water treatment facility was
not consistent with the Larimer-Weld Water Quality Management
Plan which identified no waste water treatment facility needs for
the area. In addition, the proximity to the -Longmont Urban
Services area placed the proposal in conflict with the Division' s.
Policy of regionalized treatment facilities. The Longmont Soil
2
Conservation District sent two letters in opposition to the
particular proposal . The Longmont Department of Community
Development, in a memo dated June 21 , 1983 , expressed its concerns
about the proposal, and emphasized, inter alia, that the proposal
was in conflict with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, the memo pointed out that both the City of Longmont
Long Range Planning Commission and the City of Longmont Planning
and Zoning Commission had passed -motions strongly urging Weld
County to -deny the proposal. A letter from the Water Resources
Projects manager for the Larimer-Weld -Regional Council of Govern-
ments advised the department that "the future availability and
costs of sewer service in this area are uncertain at this time.
Availability of sewer service should not be considered a favor-
able factor in this particular proposal and rezoning request. "
Thereafter, the Weld County Department of Planning Services '
staff, on July 5, 1983, recommended to the Weld County Planning
Commission that the _request for change of zone be denied. The
denial was recommended for the following reasons : The change of
zone request was not consistent with agricultural policies of the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan; the proposed request was not
compatible with the surrounding land uses , the majority of which
are farming activities ; the change of zone request was not consist-
ent with the residential ipolicies of the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan; the applicant proposed a high density urban residential use
for the existing irrigated crop land, in an area which is not
targeted for future urban activities ; and the impact of the
vehicular trips generated by this proposal would change the
3
character of Colorado State Highway 119 and effect the highway' s
ability to perform as an expressway.
On July 5, 1983 , after public hearing and consideration of
the evidence presented and _recommendations made , the Weld County
Planning Commission, by resolution, voted unanimously to recommend
the -proposal unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners.
The reasons for its decision are exactly those set out by the
Department of Planning Services ' staff, and thereafter adopted
and incorporated into its resolution by the Weld County Planning
Commission.
On august 2-4 , 1983 , the Board of County Commissioners held
a public hearing to consider the proposed rezoning of the subject
property and to take final action thereon_ After introductory
remarks by the Assistant Weld County Attorney, as well as the
reading into the record of the resolution of the Weld County
Planning Commission, Mr. Vern Nelson, engineering representative
for the applicant, summarized the applicant's presentation. He
stated -that there was a real need for this type of low cost
housing it the area, that they would show that the proposed
housing was of high quality construction, that the project was
well planned, and that it would be a credit -to the surrounding
community.
Mr. Gary Tuttle, the land planning consultant for the
applicant, then stated why the site qualified for rezoning,
described how the proposal would be suited to the area, and
outlined the changes that have happened and will happen din the
area in question. The consultant then defined the boundaries of
4
the area as being Interstate I-25 to the east, U.S. Highway 287
running through downtown Longmont to the west, State Highway 66
to the north and Colorado State Highway 119 to the south. Referring
to an area northeast of the -Longmont City limits , Mr. Tuttle then
stated that Hewlett Packard plans to build a major facility in
the vicinity. Projections as to size of the plant, number of
employees and number of homes to be built were then testified to
by the consultant. Mr. Tuttle described the development at Del
Camino which is property near Interstate I-25, zoned mainly
commercial . He then described lend located at State Highway 65
as property presently zoned for PUD, commercial and business type
development. -He also mentioned a "major proposal " for a horse
racing facility, but the record floes not disclose the exact
location of the proposal . A larger residential development
proposed near Mead was then mentioned by the consultant. In
addressing the concerns that had been raised during the review
process with the Weld County Department of Planning Services '
staff, Mr. Tuttle indicated that at the present time , the proposed
use of the land would not be compatible with the surrounding land
uses.
Mr. Don Johnson, the husband of the defendant property
owner, stated that his wife had owned the land in question for
twenty-two years and due to the inability to economically farm
eighty acres and the acute need for this type of housing in the
area, he felt that the mobile home community would be the best
use of the land. Mr. Jim Ricketts, general manager and corporate
counsel of Neata Homes, Incorporated, spoke to the Board in his
5
capacity as representative of the Colorado Mobile Home Associa-
tion, and commented on the lack of space and need for manufactured
homes in northern Colorado.
Plaintiffs Hamm and Mayeda, through representatives
appearing before the Board, presented their opposition to the
proposed rezoning. Cordell Richardson, a neighboring property
owner, stated that it was a good location for a mobile home park,
and had no objections to the project. It was subsequently learned
that Mr. Riohardson' s property was for sale at the time of the
hearing. LaDonna Swanson testified that she and her husband
operate a farm near another mobile home park south of Longmont,
and they have had no problems. Ramona Hilton, adjacent property
owner, stated she had no objections to the proposal and that she
thought it was time that they did something within the County
without Longmont dictating to them.
Mike McDonough, Deputy City Manager for Community Develop-
ment for the City of Longmont, speaking in opposition to the
proposal, told the Board that both the Longmont Planning and
Zoning Commission and the Long Range Planning Commission unanimously
urged the Board to deny the application. He also pointed out
that a new city ordinance presently allows for mobile home parks
within the city limits. He then addressed the Hewlett Packard
development, stating that construction would not commence on the
facility until at least 1987 .
Mr. Ray £dmonston, operator of Aerial Sprayers in Longmont,
stated that his company serves the farming area around the proposed
development. He then discussed his concerns with safely dispensing
6
r
esticides that close to a high density residential development
nd still being able to serve the surrounding farms .
In response to a question from the Board concerning the
conomic feasibility of the on-site sewage system, Mr. Nelson
point no feasibility studies with respect to
Mated that at this
:he sewage facilities had been conducted. Mr. Tuttle admitted,
in an exchange with the Assistant County Attorney, that the 4�
proposal was not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
After reading portions of the letters from the Colorado tr
Department of Health and the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of y
Governments , the Current Planner for Weld County emphasized to
the Board that he felt that the letters indicated that the govern-
mental entities were not willing to approve any package treatment
plan for this site. A
,: _ _;&-_l- - ,c-
In summation, Mr. Nelson stated, among other things that
"I think this map shows leap frog development. I 'm not testifying :_; i_l
that that' s right or wrong, but the fact is we have it. It has
occurred, it is occurring and probably will continue to occur. "
The Assistant Connty Attorney then charged the Board with the 0,,,,,viiiike/
specific criteria to review the change of zone .
The public hearing was then closed and the motion was made
by Commissioner Brantner to approve the change of zone. His
reasons, among others, for approval were as follows : That it
would serve the future growth pattern that the applicants have
going to develop anyway; that
demonstrated; that the area is g g
e of housing for retired people ; that x ham..:
there is a need for this -type -
the land is good agricultural land but Longmont has demonstrated ..
7 -,j .F f z
that it is sometimes necessary to use the land; that although
there is a concern about the sewage, the Board would have to rely
on the State Health Department to make sure that it is adequate;
and that the comprehensive plan needs to be updated. The motion
was then seconded by Commissioner Carlson. Commissioner Johnson,
in voting against the proposal , stated that she was relying on
the recommendations of both the planning staff and the Planning
Commission; that by the applicant' s own admission, the proposal
was not consistent with the comprehensive plan and that it is
important to adhere to the plan; that she was not convinced that
the evidence satisfied the criteria; that there was no evidence
presented that the zoning was faulty; that the evidence of changing
conditions was not very strong; that she was not convinced that
the adequate water and sewer would be available; and that she was
not convinced that the proposal would be compatible with the
surrounding land uses. The motion was then passed, three voting
yes, one voting no, and one member abstaining.
The written findings of the Board indicate that the proposal
is inconsistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, but that
"changing conditions in the area warrant a change of zone" . In
spite of the charge given to the Board by the Assistant County
Attorney, no mention is made in the written findings regarding
the proposal ' s compatibility with the surrounding land uses, nor
the availiability of adequate sewer service for the site.
It is from this decision by the Board that the plaintiffs
bring their Rule 106 action.
The Weld County Zoning Ordinance , No. 89 (September, 1982)
8
set forth the specific procedures and standards against which the
Board must review any change of zone. The Ordinance mandates
that the Board shall consider the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, the facts presented at the public hearing, and the
information contained in the official record, which includes the
Department of Planning Services case file. The applicant has the
burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of the
relevant sections of the ordinance are met. The applicant shall
demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive
plan and if it is not, the applicant must show that the zoning of
the property is either faulty, or that changing conditions in the
area warrant a change of zone. In addition, the applicant must
show that the uses which will be allowed by the proposal will be
compatible with the surrounding land uses. The applicant must
also show that adequate sewer service can be made available to
serve the site.
In review of a rezoning decision pursuant to C.R.C.P . ,
Rule 106, the issue is whether the inferior tribunal, in exercising
its quasi-judicial functions, either exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion. The issues involved in a rezoning case
focus on the reasonableness of the Board' s application of the
statutory criteria to the evidence presented. Snyder v. City of
Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421, 542 P. 2d 371 (1975) . Furthermore, in
determining whether the Board exceeded its jurisdicition or
abused its discretion, the reviewing court is not only strictly
limited to a review of the record, but "The court must uphold the
decision unless there is no competent evidence to support it. "
9
Kings Mill Homeowners Association v. City of Westminster,
192 Colo. 305, 557 P. 2d 1186, 1190 (1976) .
While "competent evidence" is a broad term, such evidence
must be factual in character, as opposed to sentiments and emotions .
Corper v. Denver, 552 P. 2d 13 (1976) . Speculation and opinion do
not qualify as competent evidence. Simple generalizations and
conclusions, without statements of fact' upon which they are
based, must be regarded as insufficient.
In carefully reviewing the record, it was admitted that
the proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and
there was no evidence in the record to indicate that the zoning
of the property was faulty. The "changing conditions in the
area" relied upon by the applicant and ultimately by the Board,
were merely projections, speculation and potential for an area
significantly larger than that contemplated by the statutory
criteria. (It appears the area bounded by Colorado State Highway
119 on south, Interstate I-25 on east, State Highway 66 on north
and U. S. Highway 287 on west in approximately 18 square miles. )
Interpretation of the ordinance must reflect the legislative
intent to promulgate regulations and criteria for land use and
planning. It is in this light that the term "area" must be
defined. The applicant has failed in her burden to show by
competent evidence that the changing conditions in the area
warrant a change of zone.
Assuming arguendo, that there were changing conditions in
the area, the evidence presented in the record shows that the
proposed use would be incompatible with the surrounding land
10
uses. The proposal was for high density urban residential use in
an area presently agricultural and Projected to remain as such.
The irrigation and crop dusting problems are but some of the
areas of conflict between the established farming operations and
the proposed residential community. In addition, the incompati-
bility with the surrounding lands uses is admitted by Mr. Tuttle,
the applicant' s land planning consultant.
There is no evidence in the record to reflect that adequate
cfjs
sewer service can be made available to serve the site. To the
contrary, no feasibility studies for the sewage facilities had
been conducted, even though the applicant was well aware of the
problems in obtaining site approval for independent sewage treat-
ment facilities. In addition, Mr. Allison, the Current Planner
for the County, in summarizing the letters from the Colorado
Department of Health and Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Govern-
ments, stated that the entities were not willing to approve any _
package treatment plant for the site .
The Board, in approving the proposed rezoning, abused its
discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction. In exercising its
power to rezone, the Board did not reasonably apply the statutory
criteria of its own ordinance to the evidence presented in the
record. In conclusion, this court finds no competent evidence in
the record to support the Board' s decision for each of the criteria
enunciated by its own ordinance.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case be remanded to the
Board of County Commissioners for the County of Weld, for action
on the subject property, the legal description of which is attached
11
•
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" , in compliance with
the decision of this court; and further orders that the zoning of
the subject property be reinstated to A (Agrigultural ) .
DONE IN CHAMBERS this (/i_ _1 day of April , 1984 .
BY THE COURT:
jam/
J H J . ALTH F !/
IS RICT CO RT JUDGE
12 .
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A survey of all that part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, T.2 N, R.68 W,
of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, described as follows; beginning at
a point on the North line of the said Southwest 1/4 from which the West 1/4
•
corner of said Section 5 gars South 89°46' West a distance of 1255.28
feet; thence continuing along said North line 89°46' East a distance of
1396.38 feet to the center of said Section 5; thence South 00°22' East along
• the east lire of the said Southwest 1/4 a distance of 2408.62 feet to a
point on the North right-of-way line of State Highway No. 119; thence along
said right-of-way, South 69°00' West a distance of 110.75 feet; thence South
86°31'30" West a distance of 1310.81 feet; thence North parallel to the
West line of the said Southwest 1/4 and leaving said right-of-way at this
point, a distance of 2522.03 feet more or less to the point of beginning,
all bearings used herein relative to the West lire of the Southwest 1/4
being North, and subject to any existing easements or rights-of-way.
HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET #83-43
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE, FROM A (AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT) TO P.U.D. (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT), BARBARA J. JOHNSON
•
A public nearing was conducted on August 24 1983 at 2:00 P. M. , with
the following present:
Chuck Carlson Chairman - Excused (Arrived later in hearing)
John Martin Pro Tem
Gene Brantner Commissioner
Norman Carlson Commissioner
Jacqueline Johnson Commissioner
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Tommie Antuna
Assistant County Attorney, R. Russell Anson
Planning Department Representative, Rod Allison
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 20, 1983, and duly
published July 21 and August 11, 1983, in the La Salle Leader, a public hearing
was held for the purpose of considering a Change of Zone, from A (Agricultural
District) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for Barbara J. Johnson. Russ
Anson, Assistant County Attorney, read this request for Change of Zone into
the record. Mr. Anson stated the criteria=this proposal must meet is: -the
proposed Change of Zone be consistent with the policies of the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan, if not consistent with said policies, then the zoning
of the property under consideration is either faulty or that changing con-
ditions in the area warrant such Change of Zone and, further, that the
uses which would be allowed on the subject property, by granting a Change
of Zone, would be cu mpatible with the surrounding land uses. Rod Allison,
Planning Department representative, read the recommendation for denial, from
the Planning Commission, into the record. Mr. Allison also read the reasons
for such unfavorable recommendation into the record. Mr. Vern Nelson, engin-
eering representative of the applicant, came forward and gave a short presenta-
tion. Mr. Nelson said there is a need for housing in this area and this proposal
is a prime opportunity to satisfy this need. Mr. Gary Tuttle, a land planner
consultant, also gave a presentation in support of this proposal. Mr. Tuttle
used a map and showed the Board a master plan of the proposed site. Also giving
testimony in favor of this proposal was Jim Ricketts, representing Colorado
Mobile Homes Association. Mr. Don Johnson came forward and stated some of
the reasons he and his wife wish to develop a mobile home park in this area.
Vincent Porreca, representing an adjacent property owner, voiced opposition
to this proposal. Mr. Porreca said that he felt that the proposal conflicts
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He said this would he a high
density urban development in an agricultural use area. Mr. Porreca said
this land should remain open and agricultural. He said that this community,
if approved and developed, would be number 20, in terms of population, in
Weld County. Mr. Tom Connell, representing J.C.K. -Farms, came forward and
stated that his clients strongly oppose the approval of this application.
Mr. Connell stated the reasons for such opposition. Cordell Richardson,
Ramona Hilton and Tanonna Swanson, neighboring landowners, came forward
and said they had no objections to this proposal. Mike McDunn, Deputy City
Manager from the City of Longmont for Community Development, gave a short
presentation stating reasons for Longmont's opposition to this proposal.
Mr. McDunn said the Longmont City Council had adopted and brought about a
1,700 acre parcel of land into the Longmont planning area. He said this
area had more than adequate land for the development of mobile home parks
and subdivisions. He said the concept that establishes predictability
should be adhered to. Ray Edmonton, operator of aerial sprayers, voiced
his opposition to this proposal. He said he had concerns about spraying
in an area of a mobile home park.
TAPE #83-90 and #83-91
DOCKET #83-43
LHR 2187
Page 2
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - COZ, BARBARA JOHNSON
Commissioner Brantner asked Mr. Tuttle about police protection. Mr. Tuttle
said they are looking into the possiblity of entering into a contract with
the Weld County Sheriff's Department. In response to a question by Commis-
sioner Brantner, Mr. Nelson said that they have not accomplished any feasi-
bility studies in respect to sewage facilities at this point. He said they
are cognizant of the fact that there are problems in obtaining site approvals
for sewage treatment works and various possibilities have been discussed.
(Let the record reflect that the Chairman, C. Carlson, is now present.)
Commissioner Johnson asked about the traffic impact on these roadways. Mr.
Nelson said this matter has been discussed with the Colorado Highway Depart-
ment and he feels that they can meet their requirements for the increase in
traffic. Mr. Allison submitted copies of letters from Tom Bennett, senior
planner of the Water Quality Control Division and a referral letter to Tarimer/
Weld Regional Council of Governments Water Quality Advisory Committee. He
read highlighted portions from these letters into the record. In the letter
from Mr. Bennett, it was stated that the proposed wastewater treatment facility
is not consistent with the rarim:er/Weld Water Quality Management Plan. He
said that the referral letter said that availability of sewer service should
not be considered a favorable factor in this proposal. Mr. Vern Nelson then
presented his summary on behalf of Mrs. Barbara Johnson. After further dis-
cussion, Mr. Anson again reviewed the criteria necessary for a Change of
Zone. Commissioner Brantner moved to approve the Change of Zone, from Tr
Agriculture to P.U.D.- Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Brantner then
stated his reasons. Commissioner N. Carlson seconded the motion. He also
stated his reasons. Commissioner Johnson said she will vote against this
notion and she gave her reasons for doing so. The Chairman Pro-Tem asked
for a roll call vote. Commissioner Brantner - Yes; Commissioner N. Carlson -
Yes; Commissioner Martin - Yes; Commissioner Johnson - No. The Chairman,
C. Carlson, abstained because he was not here for the entire hearing. The
notion carried.
APPROVED:
A'PPLST: L,,--LL,,--LL . yewit,2t-, 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
G`
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Weld County Clerk and Recorder ABSTAINED
and Clerk to the Board -� Chuck Carlson, Chairman
.t_i,L. A,.2/ �itAA �� 7-- ���., (AYE)
puty County Clerk Martin,� P
(/ e 1 (AYE)
Gene R. Brantner /�
&-D-Z- ..._ (AYE) •
Norman Carlson
rY\ v (NAY)
J elfin Johns
(Before this hearing commenced, the Chairman Pro-Tem announced that there were
only four Commissioners present for this hearing and the applicant could request
-a continuance until all five Commissioners are present. The applicant chose
to have this request heard at this time.)
DAY FILE: August 29, 1983
ATTENDANCE RECORD
TODAY ' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS :
DOCKET # S'i 17/9 - - '
DOCKET # 13 - 3-1-1 : PI cr
DOCKET # 83 "13 - O
"paht Y 3 tic).- - L0 t„,L, _
PLEASE write or Print legibly your name , address and the DOC 4 (as listed
above) or the rlicants name of the hearing you are attending.
NAME ADDRESS N ATTENDING
- HEARING �_ .�.I
tidal ifid .C..<7S iS le 7.9: Ofriiir(eat
OM
Q u.. i l��lj1ir4 113 3 / _5/-. AAgsh 0e, 200 3G s, 7 -s',z
'� l i5A /'73/ �4/c h,o0o- 4 /c ote& �, 7?-57
'i __ . ..... /?9 ,I/ /a H f<nee • _. .2 i'i/ cr
lam - t FBAs /6 t4,,e-- apes i 3- S.
T ... e(7 tt/ '. 654 ` ece ra. Yea 15 —(4-5
C
e. il IC Le G Cc 4 er
G4 C'/ �� hot k3T OY/C�c? L/ i1+t / "
eitz 4
Ata...._ 21 3 ( S , GAS
Affidavit of Publication
STATE CF COLORADO,
County of Weld. 1 as
i
I. _ (7•“—gi''.1777,.-71 7j-4y of
the following propped Change of
said County of Wela. being duly'sworn, say that.—
Zone are requested to attend and .
may be heard. I a publisher of
BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text
and maps so certified by the County ����'���
Planning Commission may be ex• that t e same is a weekly newspaper of general
'mined in the Office of the Clerk to circulation p�
the Board of County Commission. \ �r4ted and published in the
ers, located in the Weld County town of \�- -- /A I Centennial Center, 915 10th Street,
in said county and state; that the notice Cr=Ivor•
Third Floor,Greeley, Colorado.
APPLICANT tisemenn of which the annexed is a true copy.
has been published in said weekly newspaper
-DOCKET NO.13-43
Barbara J.Johnson for �iL ronsecltive
ffV Apache Court weeks: that the notice was published in the
Longmont,Colorado e0501 regular and entire issue of every number of said
DATE: August 2f, 1912
TIME: 2:00 2 newspaper during the period and time ct publi.
P.REQUEST: Change of Zone,from cation of said notice A(Agricultural District)to P.U.O. and in the n, spaper
the
(Planned Unit Development Die- • proper and not in a auPPls:nem thereat: that the
first publication al said notice was contained in
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: " the issue of said .vs
Part of the SW1A, Section S, TSN, � � Pa Per b=anns date. iha
NOTICE #NW of the fth P.M.,Weld County, ✓_Lid i o p��
Colorado. ay a! A D O.
to the toning BOAR D OF COUNTY and the last Pubi(amiert merest. in the issue of
rig laws el the COMMISSIONERS said se
_State of Colorado aid the Weld WELD COUNTY,COLORADO Paper bearing date, the // day id
aunty Zoning Ordinance,a public By:MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN L p�hearing will be held In the Chant- f t I9 Vs{ that the said
COUNTY CLERK AND
tiers of the Board of County RECORDER AND CLERK
Cemmissteners of Weld
Charade, Weld County Centennial -- " • TO THE BOARD �,�
Ginter, 915 10th Street, Greeley, BV:Mary Reiff,Deputy ,_
Colorado,at the time specified.All DATED:Published in the La Salle Leader edly 20, 1983 i d been published period fuat le and uninterrupt.
con-
MsonsIn any manner interested in Thursdays,July 21,August 11,1912. ve the of at least tissue to con•
aecuttve weeks next prior to the first issue thereof
containing send notice or advertisement above
referred to; and that said newspaper was at the
._ .. time of each of the publications of said notice
duly quclilfed for that purpose within the mean.
inq of an act, entitled. "An Act Concerning Legei
Notices, Advertisements and Publications, and
the Fees of Printers and Publishers thereof. and
to Repeal all Acts and Parts cf Acts in Conflict
with the Provisions of this Act.-approved April 7,
1921, and all amendments thereof, and partial.
larly as amended by an act approved. March 30.
1923. and an act approved May 19, 1931.
Subscribed end s• ern to before me this ._.> Q
e w
f
My commission expires �/_7"Q a
Notary Public
ELIZABETH MASSEY ,
22019 W.C.RD, 54 .
/1/ ,j f GREELEY, CO 80631
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
LONGMONT DAILY TIMES-CALL
State of Colorado )
County of Boulder ) ss
l Roger L. Morris do
solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY TIMES-CALL is a
daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in
the City of Longmont, County of Boulder, State of Colorado,
and which has general circulation therein and in parts of Boulder
and Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously
and uninterruptedly published for a period of more than six months
next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice
of advertisement, that said newspaper has been admitted to the
United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions
of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and
that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishingNOTICE
Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State
of Colorado arta the Weld County Zoning
legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws ordmence a public hewingwdl be held
fin the Cntoe res or el a oun o.County
of the State of Colorado; that copies of each number of said o.Weld County
pt Went coon .Center.Weld County Centennial center.915
newspaper, in which said notice or advertisement was published, 10th Street Greeley Colorado at the
une specified A0persons in any manner
interested in me following proposed I
were transmitted by mail or carrier to each of the subscribers I
Change of Zone are requested to attend .
of said newspaper, according to the accustomed mode of business and may are heard
BE rt ALSO KNOWN roar the text and
in this office. maps so certified by the county Planning
Commission may be examined in the Of-
fice
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published t Commissiorkners r°t"°e°ed the Weld
County Centennial
located in the Weld
. Cdlyloor l eley.Cr 9ra15 Ellin
DOCK Third Floor.Greeley
in the regular and entire editions of said daily newspaper oxoexeaoh DOCKET I
APPLICANT BarpaApaJohnson I
5617 Collar de 805 1
Longmont Colorado 90591
week x>x xlrexsama*Kixofmitohmeebt for the period of 1 TgTE obp Mzalsea
TIME:2.00 .M.
REQUEST 0 P Change P Zone from A Unit
culturDevelopment Di to P.U.O.(Planned Unit
consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice Development DESCRIPTION
LEGAL TheSCNIPTI ec:
Part 5th
The SW e.Section y 5.T2N d odW 01
0e A R.M_Weld County
was in the issue of said newspaper dated August 12 ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELDMARY
FEUERSTEIN
NY. CLERK AND N RECORDER
'. •.OOONTYCCLERKTTHE RD
19....$,3.., and that the last publication of said notice was in AND CLERK TO
etfl DeBOputy
BY'.T,m sea.OLont-
mont.Codt in Aug. 14.19Daily TimesAll.Long-
mOnl.Coto. up1�i981 '__
the issue of said newspaper dated A.uEu.s.t...12x, 19 8.3.
t Gear ,. 6ka, ;,v
Assistant Business Manager
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12 t h day of
August 19 83
My Commission Expires
vekreta
UTA
FEE $ 9. 61 R� F\ MY C 5f.MI55MN EXPIRES
OCTUHI_H h. t985
•
717 - 4th AVL.NLIE
Yf Q LUNGilONT
F' tieuC O COLORADO 80501
1-1300-02
N OTICE
Pursuant to Lhe aonin-g laws of the State of Colorado and the
Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held
in the Chambers of the Board of County Comnissioners of Weld
County , Colorado , Weld County Centennial Center , 915 10th
Street , Greeley , Colorado , at the time specified . All persons
in any manner interested in the following proposed Change of
Zone are requested to attend and may be heard .
BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the
County Planning Commission may be examined in the Office of
the Clerk to the Board of the County Commissioners , located
in the Weld County Centennial Center , 915 10th Street , Third
Floor , Greeley , Colorado .
APPLICANT
DOCKET NO. 83-43 Barbara J. ,Johnson
6617 Apache Court
Longmont, Colorado 80501
DATE : August 24, 1983
TIME: 2 : 00 P.M.
REQUEST : Change of Zone , from A (Agricultural District) to
B.U.D. (Planned Unit Development District)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Part of the SW4, Section 5 , T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. ,
Weld County, Colorado.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY: Mary Reiff, Deputy
DATED: July 20, 1983
PUBLISHED: July 21, 1983 and August 11, 1983 in the LaSalle Leader
LHR 2187
_.. . Jn '_y 20 , i923
i'0: The Board of County Commissioners
Weld County, Colorado
ROM: Clerk to the Board Office
commissioners:
If you have no objections , we have tentatively set the
following hearings for the 24th day of August, 1983
Docket No. 83-42 - Freda L. Dreiling, COZ-A (Agricultural District)
to I-1 (Industrial One District)
Docket No. 83-43 - Barbara J. Johnson, COZ-A (Agricultural District)
•
to P.U. D (Planned Unit Development District)
OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY: /«7� , Vg- .�� Deputy
The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled
on the agenda as stated above.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
7-"n4.
(1/ /�7 AnA /.ltl
•
.C/'/ /t7
a -,7"..;90 ' in !\)/ R;) a (;OUiN `r' C )1 i,11'..>iONFR..,
PHONE (3031 3564000 EXT.200
` ,� '3 („ 1 P.C. BOX 758
n 70
V GREELEY,COLOR ADO 80631
`1 5u� 1 /
;" iq. • v
Y
•
July 11, 1983
Barbara J. Johnson
6617 Apache Court
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Your application for a Change of Zone fran A (Agricultural District) to
a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development District) has been recommended
unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Cammdssion.
The legal description of the property involved is described as a part of
the SW4, Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P. M. , Weld
County, Colorado.
If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Camussioners, it will be
necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this
letter and returning it to this office. Regular hearing procedures will
then be followed. This includes publishing a Notice of Hearing in the
legal newspaper, an expense to be paid by you.
In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by
July 25, 1983. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date,
the matter will be considered closed.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
/di
CARLSON, C AIRMANJI
1 wish to have a hearing on this matter brought before the Bnard of County
Commissioners. I agree to pay for the legal advertising expenses.
Z 2/II:td/2 //r%e
CC/js
I
F
r _• '__ r OFFICE OF BOARD OF CairnY C .. MiMISSHNH
4--,.r--.-I PHONE (3031 3564000 ExT.20
_ r I
P0.BOX 75
r ' II GREELEY,COLORADO 8063
�
�: , r np el
c .., .. ...— ..)__�,
July 11, 1983
Barbara J. Johnson
6617 Apache Court
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Your application fora Change of Zone from A (Agricultural District) to
a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development District) has been recorrnended
unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission.
The legal description of the property involved is described as a part of
the SWa, Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P. M. , Weld
County, Colorado.
If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be
necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this
letter and returning it to this office. Regular hearing procedures will
then be followed. This includes publishing a Notice of Hearing in the
legal newspaper, an expense to be paid by you.
In order to pioc.ccd as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by
July 25, 1983. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date,
the matter will be considered closed.
Sincerely,
TrARD OF COUNTY CCM6'II
es-4
ILui , �"' N `cn m. ofY z a 0 0• 3 • 71
L.) o w r4 I'D ° U c .≥ e H u L u m a H1 ! hhi
/�� O w? n a0 E a ent ,ii fob cr U1i. LJj
¢ WCC go W o1g
ii
r _ r.-„,... ., o NN
PS Form 3811.July 1982 RETURN RECEIPT 8
BEFORE THV .ELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING L 1tMISSION -
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY Wt�b AA'iAf' nUµ)�S��yER5
Date July 5, 1983 Case No. Z# Z-390:83:
L []
APPLICATION OF Barbara J. Johnson 8 1983
n m
ADDRESS 6617 Apache Court, Longmont, Colorado 80501 GREELEY, COLD.
Moved by Jack Holman that the following resolution -be introduced -
for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission:
Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the appli-
cation for rezoning from "A" ( Agricultural District) to
"P.U.D." (Planned Unit Developmen2istrict) covering the following described
property in Weld County, Colorado, to-wit:
Part of the SW1, Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County,
-Colorado
be recommend (fig) (unfavorably) to the Board of County Commissioners
for the following reasons:
I. The Change of Zone request is not consistent with the Agricultural
Policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Weld County
Comprehensive Plan Agricultural Policies are as follows:
A. Agriculture is considered a valuable resource in Weld County
which must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from
uncontrolled and undirected business, industrial and residential
growth. In order to maintain and promote this important segment
of the county's economy, the cultural and human values associated
with farm life and the overall benefits of an agricultural
" • environment, any uses of prime irrigated farmland for uses other
than agricultural will be critically reviewed to insure the
proposed development will not adversely impact the agricultural
Motion seconded by: Ed Reichert
Vote: For Passage Ed Reichert Against Passage
Bob Ehrlich
Jack Holman q;'
Bill Diehl '
Jerry Kiefer r
O ...2.," $l- 4t i4,
The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered thatacertified copy be fora„
warded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further '°
proceedings. , ,;:
; t.
E ' - CERTIFICATION OF COPY r
I, Bobbie Good ,' , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning
, Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true
copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted
, ' on July 5, 1983 and recorded in Book No. VIII
�• of the proceedings of
fT4, the said Planning Commission. "
,t
Dated the 6th day of July , 19 83
.Y ly '1;‘,/f4-1 r14- Yt ]+1 J 'r 3,
�' i'+K.4 ? t ti.
`o�a
4 Secretary
" rbit,,,-..„1y . , } k 4-4 Fs . + 4 S r l_a ,,, 1 _z 1,Itt %
f , • 1" ?,� .� .• M ty���(�! t i ,I w-,r AP s4•::.;,4,.4.W-.'
�� A '.1 " - an. T
, > „yo- C � Yk'/ + 'laic V l xa.," ,d sM},f. Ti8 re
-.';'•,(;1:2,1,4..„-. ++ ,44 !,� t 9l+ Lrz ''" '`c}x 'i4 xt�' `.' s c e ,''' t «�f uJ'
?" . (" tl} AS�fi li�l , LytR, F,r bYl" N Y ry pr`yF, fe t
�"; ' V ry h 02 "„-,="5„..t.' ,4:7..-2...
i 4:7 z 24% r+ r `'fk. :34 f+- . rtA ,,r4 a
0-050 {804-8 y a e ' s jsy at': f�' fs,�a, n`,,4J�,��+�';•. }*i <, x ,��µY�f+ *14.,..,:. - G ''+ '.'� )�, ?..
ir
Z-390:83:5
Barbara J. Johnson
A Change of Zone from "A" (Agricultural) to "P.U.D." (Planned Unit Development)
for a mobile -home park
Part of the SWZ, Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
July 5, 1983
Page 2
''
interests of the county and that the development will positively
contribute to the overall economy, environment and tax base of
the county.
B. In order to promote the agricultural economy and to enhance and
maintain the quality of life and environment in Weld County,
developments that utilize nonproductive rural land and water
surpluses will be encouraged, particularly where productive
irrigated farmland can be preserved as agricultural greenbelts
and open space.
C. In order to minimize conflicing land uses and minimize the cost
of new facilities and services to the taxpayer, industrial,
commercial business and residential development will be encouraged
to locate adjacent to the existing twenty-seven (27) incorporated
towns and in accordance with the comprehensive plans.
II. The applicant is proposing a Change of Zone on an eighty (80) acre
parcel of land in order to develop a park for approximately five-
hundred-seventy-five (575) mobile home units. The subject site is
prime irrigated farmland. Prime agricultural is the capability class
of the soil surrounding this site. All of the uses of the soil
surrounding this site are agricultural type uses. The future Weld
County land Use Map shows that this proposal is located in an area
intended for agricultural type uses."
The proposed request is not -compatible with the surrounding land
uses. the majority of parcels in this area are used for farming
activities. Farm operators have a right to be increasingly concerned
about the intermixing of urban residences and farming, especially
outside of town growth plans. Farmers face problems with dogs, _
children and vandalisim, while people in the residential areas complain
about smells, noise, pesticide spraying and slow moving farm vehicles.
Given these physical facts about the subject site and the land surrounding y '
the site, this proposal conflicts with the agricultural policies of y+y V the Comprehensive Plan, as listed in I. A. , B. , and C. of this paper. .,
M
III. The Change of Zone request is not consistent with the residential aey � .
'`�- policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 'The Weld County ,,
� .,' , i ,,il
Comprehensive Plan Residential growth policies are as follows: 3/„,' . ,I,..
44 A. New residential developments which are not closely connected to ' •:; 5`.4`
- and served by municipal utilities and services shall be discouraged. ,
B. Proposals for new residential development adjoining existing
municipalities shall be encouraged, so long as they conform to
the desires of the towns as expressed xpressed in their comprehensive
plans.
C. Existing municipalities are the best and most efficient sources
` ofpublic goods and services which are necessary to serve new '
rt residential developments. These municipalities will be encouraged
' to improve their ability to serve new developments and will be
':' looked to for service of all new developments within their
l�e`g corporate areas, in annexable areas immediately adjacent to the
town and even those areas not immediately available for annexation,
' but within a reasonable service distance from the municipality
rots c
33 Ifs, ,ice y h-C a c rc rti G Y °"u E� �+� "* "✓ ri ^YX
C r 3 3 e , >r r e P a W egirAt to ”"" #i cm 1/4";s. 7✓..r'.4 b c, J k� rgt:
rf 'n a + # 4 41,P.'
0 s 1 sc `Vee `ak' `'mr PP ", 3 7.4`3' '.336,04,X.AA rt''
, , s t ,� } a r 7. % %„il Ater h a, r a t rA �1t ` ✓' 1 ad,' r f'at? a 'SY 4*
e •' ✓ . ,k % f d7 t e § , e o t ,)4-,,,,,,} ,, ""s r
� a A4 .,
a C
Z-390:83:5
Barbara J. Johnson
A Change of Zone from "A" (Agricultural) to "P.U.D." (Planned Unit Development)
for a mobile home park
Part of the SWk, Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
July 5, 1983
Page 3
IV. The applicant is proposing a high density urban residential use for
the existing irrigated cropland. The factor used by the U. S. Census
for average household size in unincorporated areas is 3.12. This
factor multiplied by the proposed 575 mobile home units equals 1,794
people. This population estimate is greater than the 1980 census for
the town of Platteville or greater than twenty (20) of the twenty-
seven (27) incorporated towns in Weld County.
A. As indicated earlier, the location of this proposal is not in an
area targeted for future urban activities. The city of Longmont's
Long-Range Planning Commission and the Planning and Zoning
Commission both passed motions recommending denial of this
proposal. Their major concerns are as follows:
1. Longmont's committed city service area ends approximately
one and a quarter (1%) miles west of the subject site at
County Line Road. The subject site is located in the St.
Vrain Valley Planning Area and is designated for agricultural
uses. Therefore, the urban nature of this proposal conflicts
with the city of Longmont's Long-Range plans.
s' - . 2. The area east of the Rough and Ready Ditch and west of
County Line Road is located in the city's committed service
area. This area will not develop until sewer service is
provided to the area. At the present time, the placement
of a sewer line is tied to an agreement between Longmont
and Hewlett-Packard and is not scheduled to occur before
1987. This fact indicates there will be no municipal sewer
service, as well as municipal police protection and road
maintenance within a mile and a quarter (114) of this urban
residential proposal for several years.
Given the facts about the nearest municipality to the
subject site, the municipalities future growth plans and
µ4, the proposed urban uses, the proposed Change of Zone conflicts
with the Comprehensive Plan residential growth policies, as a.
listed in III. A. , B. , and C.
V. Colorado State Highway 119 is the southern boundary of the proposed ,Change of Zone. This highway is an expressway and listed as such on ';.'G s,, t
• the Weld County Thoroughfare Plan. The major point of ingress and fi
rx' egress for this proposal is Weld County Road 31 to Colorado State
' Highway 119. The impact of vehicular trips
would change the character of the highway ping this aarea band haffect is pthe l '
k' highway's ability to perform as an expressway.
i x
i -4,#;,..--:.-„,,,9 y?- ,'n. r . 3ti Y'
w r y�, d Six 4. *1,4 { ..t a F t qc'`H, r 44)45 x‘ r I :,.s
+ .i Vet:
.,. ktr .
C '1' �� 1S‘b4 � I Y1 ^Vin't‘t �j� J rA w :, $�I" 9yll"t '.•}.L.''yit.,". E3 -1
� a 6t s �� yG � ; } 5�� tl � T � n � l* - S� s x �� � E'k 4� .�}yf 4 ,�.
Date: 1v 5, 1983
CASE NUMBER: Z-390:83:15
NAME: "arbara J. Johnson
REQUEST: A Change of 7one from "A" (Agriculture) to "P.U.D." (Planned Unit Development)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW! , Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.
LOCATION: Approximately two (2) miles east of Longmont on Highway 119; west of NCR 3';
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICE'S STAFF RECO:24ENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE
DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
I. The Change of Zone request is not consistent with the Agricultural
Policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Weld County
Comprehensive Plan Agricultural Policies are as follows:
A. Agriculture is considered a valuable resource in Weld County
which must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from
uncontrolled and undirected business , industrial and residential
growth. In order to maintain and promote this important segment
of the county's economy, the cultural and human values associated
with farm life and the overall benefits of an agricultural
environment, any uses of prime irrigated farmland for uses other
than agricultural will be critically reviewed to insure the proposed development will not adversely impact the agricultural
interests of the county and that the development will positively
contribute to the overall economy,environment and tax base of
the county.
B. In order to promote the agricultural economy and to enhance and
maintain the quality of life and environment in Weld County,
developments that utilize nonproductive rural land and water
surpluses will be encouraged, particularly where productive
irrigated farmland can be preserved as agricultural greenbelts
and open space.
C. In order to minimize conflicing land uses and minimize the cost
of new facilities and services to the taxpayer, industrial,
commercial business and residential development will be encour-
aged to locate adjacent to the existing twenty-seven (27) incorporated
towns and in accordance with the comprehensive plans.
II. The applicant is proposing a Change of Zone on an eighty (80) acre
parcel of land in order to develop a park for approximately five-
hundred-seventy-five (575) mobile home units. The subject site is
prime irrigated farmland. Prime agricultural is the capability class
of the soil surrounding this site. All of the uses of the soil
surrounding this site are agricultural type uses. The future Weld
County Land Use Map shows that this proposal is located in an area
intended for agricultural type uses.
The proposed request is not compatible with the surrounding land
uses, the majority of parcels in this area are used for farming
activities. Farm operators have a right to be increasingly concerned
about the intermixing of urban residences and farming, especially
outside of town growth plans. Farmers face problems with dogs,
children and vandalisim, while people in the residential areas complain
about smells, noise, pesticide spraying and slow moving farm vehicles.
Given these physical facts about the subject site and the land surrounding
the site, this proposal conflicts with the agricultural policies of
the Comprehensive Plan, as listed in I. A. , B. , and C. of this paper.
III. The Change of Zone request is not consistent with the residential
policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Weld County
Comprehensive Plan Residential growth policies are as follows:
2-390:83:5
Barbara J. Johnson
A Change of Zone from "A" (Agriculture) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development)
for a mobile home part
Part of the SW!4, Section 5 , T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
July 5, 1983
Page 2
A. New residential developments which are not closely connected tD
and served by municipal utilities and services shall be discouraged.
B. Proposals for new residential development adjoining existing
municipalities shall be encouraged, so long as they conform to
the desires of the towns as expressed in their comprehensive
Mans.
C. Existing municipalities are the best and most efficient sources
of public goods and services which are necessary to serve new
residential developments. These municipalities will be encour-
aged to improve their ability to serve new developments and will
be looked to for service of all new developments within their
corporate areas, in annexable areas immediately adjacent to the
town and even those areas not immediately available for annexation,
but within a reasonable service distance from the municipality.
IV. The applicant is proposing a high density urban residential use for
the existing irrigated cropland. The factor used by the U. S. Census
for average household size in unincorporated areas is 3.12. This
factor multiplied by the proposed 575 mobile home units equals 1, 794
people. This population estimate is greater than the 1980 census for
the town of Platteville or greater than twenty (20) of the twenty-
seven (27) incorporated towns in Weld County.
A. As indicated earlier, the location of this proposal is not in an
area targeted for future urban activities. The _city of Longmont's
Long-Range Planning Commission and the Planning and Zoning
Commission both passed motions recommending denial of this
proposal. Their major concerns are as follows:
1. Longmont's committed city service area ends approximately
ene and a quarter (11 ) miles west of the subject site at
County Line Road. The subject site is located in the St.
Vrain Valley Planning Area and is designated for agricultural
uses. Therefore, the urban nature of this proposal conflicts
with the city of Longmont's Long-Range plans.
2. The area east of the Rough and Ready Ditch and west of
County Line Road is located in the city's committed service •
area. This area will not develop until sewer service is
provided to the area. At the present time, the placement
of a sewer line is tied to an agreement between Longmont
and Hewlett-Packard and is not scheduled to occur before
1987. This _fact indicates there will be no municipal sewer
service, as well as municipal police protection and road
maintenance within a mile and a quarter (14) of this urban
residential proposal for several years.
Given the facts about the nearest municipality to the
subject site, the municipalities future growth plans and
the proposed urban uses, the proposed Change of Zone conflicts
with the Comprehensive Plan residential growth policies, as
listed in III. A. , -B. , and C.
V. Colorado State Highway 119 is the southern boundary of the proposed
Change of Zone. This highway is an expressway and listed as such on
the Weld County Thoroughfare Plan. The major point of ingress and
egress for this proposal is Weld County Road 3!1 to Colorado State
Highway 119. The impact of vehicular trips generated by this proposal
would change the character of the highway in this area and affect the
highway's ability to perform as an expressway.
RA.rg
ADDITIONAL COI21ENTS
Z-390:&3:5
Barbara J. Johnson
The Department of Planning Services staff has received phone calls and a
letter objecting to this proposal from surrounding -property owners.
RA:rg
FIELD CHLCK
FILING NUMBER: Z=390:83:5 DAVE OF INSPECTION:
June 30, 1983
NAME: Barbara J. Johnson
REQUFST: A Change of Zone from "A" (Agricultural) to "P.U.D." (Planned Unit Development)
for a mobile home park
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW/, Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.
•
LAND US-E: N Agricultual production, pasture and hay
E Weld County Road 3' and agricultural production
S Colorado State Highway 119, corn crops, agricultural production,
farm residence and improvements
W Irrigated cropland, corn crops
ZONING: N Agricultural
LOCATION: Approximately two (2) miles east
E Agricultural
of Longmont onHighway 119; west of Weld County S
Agricultural
Road 31/2
W Agricultural
COMMENTS:
The subject site is irrigated land presently growing a crop of corn. The site slopes
and drains slightly to the south. A drainage ditch runs from the west to the east,
parallel with Colorado State Highway 11-9. a drainage ditch runs from the north to
the south -parallel to Weld County Road 31/2. -A drainage ditch runs east to west along
the -northern border of the site. There is an irrigaten ditch running through the
center of the property. -Boulder Creek is approximately one (1) mile east of the
site.
' L ' G
Rod Allison, Current Planner I7
RA:rg
CASE SUMMARY SHEET
Case Number: Z-39018_3:5
Size of -Parcel: 80 acres, more or less
Request : A Change of Zone from "A" (Agricultural) to "P.U.D." (Planned
Unit Development) for a mobile home park
Staff Member to Contact: Rod Allison
Possible Issues Summarized from Application Materials:
It is the Planning staff's opinion that this proposal is not in accord with
the Weld -County Comprehensive Plan and Longmont-s Long Mange Plan and is an
example of "spot zoning." The Planning staff has received one phone call,
one visitor and one letter from property owners in the area objecting to
this proposal. The subj-ect site contains Class I and _II irrigated soils
and is prime farmland. In 1963, Section 30, -north of Union Reservoir was
rezoned for residential development (refer to enclosed zoning map) . To
mate not one proposal in Section 30 has completed the final plat subdivi-
sion -procedure. The area does not have any means of properly disposing
of sewage these kind of developments generate.. -The applicant is proposing
a private domestive wastewater treatment facility since _public sewer is
not available to serve this site. Ultimately, the State. Health Department,
Water -Quality Control Division, either approves or denies the requests
for wastewater treatment facilities. -The State -health Department has been
reluctant to approve private package treatment _plants in this area because
the facilities are not consistent -with the Latimer-Weld Water -Quality
Management Plan. The {plan attempts to consolidate wastewater treatment
_facilities. Individual package treatment plants are prone to violate
minimum health standards and are usuallyunder-manned and undersized.
Further, there are serious 'concerns a-bout on-going maintenance and system
failure.
(See reverse side)
Case Number Z-390:83:5
A Change of Zone from "A" (Agricultural) to "P.U.D." (Planned Unit
Development) for a mobile home park
Included in this packet are the following referral entity responses, each
of which address issues related to this proposal:
1. City of Longmont
2. Colorado Department of Health
3. Weld County Health Department
4. St. Vrain Valley Public Schools
5. Longmont Soil Conservation District
6. Weld County Extension Service
7. State Highway Department
RA:rg
• _ l II 34 i SS 111/0. : a 3, il., '/ 1 : • . ..r.I4 ---.
•
•/ ' : • 1'" - d • gcrr • �• - asi• • •
•11 • .,• • I: • ( ! •
.v • •
'
r• l • • • ,l ,a i
I3N. . Y.r ft $ti
1 ••1 %1° ...• pi SIm Jv l• •
.a`2/n t N, ' ..r ▪ � . ' .❑ '� 13,LrowrcviLLE \ -
• • t• • 1�,�•I `�•iiPhSter L' ° • o ::o"..'0 r J .�w:C.o. • . . .q •�. • t T • _ • 'Y1i1lf i 53 j._-_._
C BSo » • •tp � q, yp • • o F:
o!IBdRBOUA OVA ' ', ' " 3 3. -1L,„,.C .'
- _ •
-, • A.
.AEC I I. S,- • V n n ,. .4.._:::.,
.�. 1 ...ii
• r 3I
H it C _• : , A•a rYl •� C
'' � _
U •- I° .,. -- .pc.° - �.� ( , ` i n 4I w..".. 'e ▪ •'¢ r
•• •• 1 - u • • ▪ +t - -•
- - - -•
.
0
T a °' 1 " • .1. ) li
•
•
•
• P I. j • _ ._.L [\ • -vriEOEA a`•b --: ':- ••_— _._ -_•
• it ,! L•i7 si,ti •�,. . •m,• 1 - r r.III Aytl=°o;3s: q J y J
� '.J i �; 2 ld M •.. ,,I� •/"j cr••C�5 >"V�/�•.r��•�▪°•"""'"l
E. .. I +-•.}, car.':
(-u
4/ '1 I Y , 444 i< r. O.14�• ` :L_ ..ii •
itti •71 N.Sy,"o .,aw kI ^,f ; / 0A1� � �• �•-- I • ;r � 1 ICI I '.SVP • "I'i
° � 1' 7p r 'r • ' I l
�, to a u " . d• "•• t ! J ° •V:•_7_,..*, i•+' • : ",,, Ia. d'' R VS-p • -Na�\-/C• /' - • I. ..•••• rr.,eEGc " •°cl Q
I.
pir'
1/..\._ .. " I _ p� Qie •O,1 1 v *. + /' • 1 S\:1 t._.::' .;� Ilr•
1 •
• r » »
- j! �S yd� M1 • �• v.
III i 19 /R.6&w / ��A �] I e „A..1 j,' .. .;. N ,��-y•-� - -.. ,•4..•� 1%1 :I:°'gf •
,•...�. .'%: A ON A M .67 R "W. �t / Y ?/e ` f. R.65'
''.1,�,y, ;t4.•- Tat. ,#^._Y / L e+^ .#< y.,� }�'f,F ..\(�.-� r.° '44;"'''L
.e}Y rv• - R.
t 0- ��"may' +` • • ,t ,y
u _-,� •-,f s q s • eta* yt 44 4 y< ry.....- t.;_cit.vi - d ` ' r : i-t"T•• wt+` °' >�.4
•• � � "Fx"i'�+5�L ->i r •L x iK J� w -.E+ �'y�9
eau ...rya .i, U: 5,L- ""-.1 P i t : # � 5 `"
•15 C.i1 ▪ . tom,, t 6- r s,'"+t,,,§, 1'; *-F'n L
-..,, St'• 3 '$3?4\ i i. Y> 4i;� t j} � .n l • y>,*Mi -'.
x ! ' !-'
t- , '. `, 1 '.•.-.t k+ 1. ,-_,!.4--; •q o-
� .. I by ti}fit t it � � aRt�P� � �A �� � yp, :2,..z.44,-;.-. 2.
F i �♦...14.•,." 4-4.,•-‘41474-. Y' ,�,a� ;tit. % ,v �! µ s �.,r • ,,Y .1a
'rr"'<'..'.4 r 5 !•d•1c'f .2� a wE t<tti- . { •'Gk y� ?. r c r:ii.
{ S" ' ` t i ergQ X67 r t t
a
M `
r- -
■ ; 7 ',; ,t_,,,„,
..<x } Y i /sue:,. S, +r+�✓�(� +: r'1€R, f.,' 5
\}:. .. "a!-:,,./,,„,-:-•--
JI- x ^. .sp., ,},t 'Y r: Yy ( s• ,e, /'+�. ,_ a:jL '
� • : A 'C � 'iS '1 A -{ i •r` , t .- . a.`r.y yi ≥ i 1�
.4•—••-• Y • ` ,d ` •\ Y s.1., •
^`. ? , t a s s • �i z � s p+v
•. x� ..� a �z ��..: �•-_-+. •ter. "? r *+ " S-50/v
\.,..\1/4,
1 w N 4 2 rt �L.s ' , * a'.144,
t, „9.
r
* pl t, aa. .jc•�y ay. -,r„*,74't+•Us�/ * y. <
• A( 5/1"7.� h.a "h ;I fft •
.rte • . - t 'S" Y .-
„£, 1:•,,, • •"° ,'� f`.4-;".
,,,,,f-,,, 4., i. 5u ? 4r .4 a.''F Li ` li.4.,tilt:
A # i
/.J AJ ` r�' aal1 "A {r �" I<<x k 1 �. t/ a' a _
4.
�` Q sA ar• • � Le k ..
pyy��,
•
ti. I le G rx` Y. ••-K"S� • .z L ♦rq. c.! ` = .Y r���weY/r- ��` '
�i-x:nt rte. - x � ' r4.».. !t • " s" �� ..S! 1 .-t L ��-47 r7-•T ��a- 2'At'y6" � Y t ? . • • t k .£ iS k�a� - "^ .> t a3
Jiv'kd`ik"tkd' i+.,;7 r. - +ifs." •- 1 .�/ y s 't �..+ .�a.` Sr ,.! # ! •*.
• a+�- '"ti i, a rig 51,4•7,44_
z. .per it
-• f Yr . �� M" t a 't ' itS���sd � �t �ItAA-P� V B 1{ Zittk
�{ • atS l ; • [ ' . ' rtc
� • a • fig i t �, ;p r I tPR- _ ,;-;1,1., { ,,,,t4.19: ,,-4. .r;.,..
t • ,. • r. l a.
g 3'
E r. #' n r oc a,3 x ,_ t 'i t,t tcgt: y, .04:._.t., r•tb ;, ,�, l� iS.<ka •+Il�,. „ttJ�'v aka fis -�<. 4 _ ' e.. S
• V; f .t ng, .#913 s•f 4, / .t -4,t,„ r' ' ,/4 1 4 00 i rl. t it x. rqr
s 'T4 V- .M1'^ .; ,1 y :��'-.₹J/J//4.�f, 'S Y`. �. /. r , t r
3 4�X .`ar ,L faaa kr• � +}'. ;'Iiii z•.. d s ii ii , { l ' �' t y�
.te-..c 1 c• g;tat,> �• tsc•,-1 4 Or;SIr• 411 tJ >/ ! 1 I s
4YY - •? _ 'i>C14vynS x.-t7.. Mete �. -'r3 ri./ Liit-, .-• / ' .fy
��f .. -. y A ,.F .,zS It e.
.•'+� ++�w44 �"�' l�.b' i� !§'7 " y A _I i�`+FP/s ii it-i A .r �J. �; li T,7� 'S�s�
F .t,-.- .r r 4 � ,�r N y ;S� 3P' 2 %J I§. v eli * '0 t • pL A y
- t �l>• ',iM r?T-:, , ,iic•i� "t} '�'d" 1. ��• F ''{'�l j'/' viii,Its 'ter I t �
544-al
•
-fit„,-,;', ,.S x, ' �., 4 { ,..,4-4,-""ry ' tile, S +r . !farts li K d '� ' {/� . It rw"
-f tfr. F t,•
f ir r',•✓ .i::',0• .. .-s-b.-.1,:r„:„...)..•..:.:.
r '3 �G r 4 .u`. iy �, t y��.�y.. ! - t' t.;
f pMlJd.._.�; I� . qtr' •6 �l't _' `�+. r ♦ • /' •r by
` Ww- , I. , r,i'4;.....-","
t 'r fi '�b/r1 a a". f it t !+s f�^^
/i ` t�X a•
▪ v ', t ♦F4 I '++/�� 4 it • ' '7' . ' • '' • . '•1
'64 , der,�� l d k. , • . L i ° ,t i
r t .�,'.4".'"",�s•,."'.'.r.e�'N. . t�tK '£ � rw �'�fi"d r���,`s � ,A.;��/t r� :../.14.7041. -.;'--4C-..., !Pk ..•"'•-•� t,•
I
•aw •• .q v•❑ q °\U ap• v .FAS 11Y 0t T • • i � .✓— ��y a r y�1
•• �••�°
I° •< •°/ 4.0 AS I• u a a • • N--- • 7_0...----VOM
•'c a
�'�011 • I'6�
T 1 a
I 19 •,° 200 c 21 I ° L , F----23 1 1 241 19 �° . 21 •v 22 Wildcat
•/ v 12 I - II I Mound
'° • v • Lill i •I1 F I . v Li •° 4.7 -.-
• 111
° ° �tia-..�� �--•. °-- •2r --/ •ate—• Elli • �� • I�u u•a ry a. ---- CIa °x�� a l•• /rfil
a30 • 27 :: i= i
` p f ° 128 ° 2r
_
/ , , 0G-7,_1(14
°
%
° U 1 • 32 I 33 I 34 35 j*-----;,,36 ° 31 ti° • ° 33 I 34 d I 33
1 , 1 WALKER • • • 1
la 1
1 \;:_e•
/1 //y • Kray • { /�'� ,° • ° •WILDCAT 1• 1 2 I 1
6 3 AIr• 'HIGHLAND 3 • 2 or/ p 6 1• 5 1 1 l � '- 2
o aO
• /l a • • • , a \\\�\ 9\N \ O
1 .��✓ :b.�°E - -o Lv• /yv i.•p . °• ----�� ,\\Q\\N� \�,Ily
•
,/ r \ e o:'-k,• GREAT „ I z ° .,.8 a®. ,1R \\USA t, i II
I cm 1
aT•vT• • • i MEAD �p •I• v ° •1 a.;
o I� • -_t,' °°• /��
�/ tip 1'1 . j , (\
17 • 16. MULE MOON
IS 14 I 13 ; IB IT I6 l , O% 13 1
�• • 07, . I c' al
•
O • R ,
a• l 2 27 � LIBERl1Y �� 23 �� 24 aI o f/is
• 22 II-) 23
1 . C3 / T i• -ice, 4- i\ • -• I
66 • ' a FAS . 1 • • �a N C. a • v ra 2 G v °I. 4.2 66 • i Itt../)° 1 S
_ - `C//']'H. • •°F45 • 1.11.
1 iR-I v.l •I 1661 / -3 j . /� . / GOWAND4 I H
3ff..........., 29 Ip 28 I 1 26 25 • G 1[i`F i.�E :I I• bI /�i 30 29�[\ �✓ 28�: 27/ 26
,��,1 ,' zr 1 -
g- �� • F • j- I• ° y�._ . • �... ra�Z . • • . • • �1.
'Union 1
I KIRKLANO • ���•--I 1
�Reserv0/, ° �/
/ 32 33 34 • a3 0 ® 31 ° I J.:9 I 33 34
IaQ BARBOUR •ONOS_ Sl A via'1 �•
a all • STATE -REC. 1 • ti
1 i • I AREA. a • _ell • -. • • • • •
�sT_ VJ�i •1�r • - • •. �° . ° • • a o ■ • • • •
i-.! arat e I F
v I 1 - ti I6 { 13 i • 7
•
• 119 l• ° •v v FAS -se u •• ._•
• ■ 3 ° I I Su//twin
'Y 7 8 9 U a • X10 IL'1 12 7 I. _I 8 1 10
;17. 6e \ Ail T� . HARNEY I !I Qc
i /
(,� I-3 • Off•. 71 . • �i 1 >iaa
a JESSUM • 1 p In O
• rin
/ a v
. a• ■ v • C mega oast • •1• .1• • 1 1
p `•` • .a 14 I 13 �( ` IB 17 16 15 14
- ----. 7a• .•° RINK a p I fr ,
0 I. ' 1
�` Gl� pa "r• ���pv •. . . IS • Mk
. pli„fp .r 2
II
•
•"`
a '9 \a8 0 �••O21 • 2" a .• 23. °I
00 Or 24 /1 20 II 21 22 23
• r, v I CREEK • 1 v ti 'A '
. jI' II
erj ]\/
---.-_` `� Ir;
; T 27 v261ESTONE y - 29I• ° °■•
IN /c p ` EVANSTON I�• , " I 27 26
v b a i a Ti1 °��V0:054
Ra ':.i: a. •• I• •p • y •
1
• ���� °1 °a • .' I FREDERICK 1, , 6
PLUMB�} . 32 ° ti ).
34 0, • 35; 1 '\ la : 34 •
° IWRITAN° a �� ••t
�i % • j221"I •'� _I . C
MPr7• 1• °.IIe 13.7 •Iy * 1 •a 1 • • ]ICSI t; 1 • \I. 1
0 l • . I C-3 I DACONO,t to ' �_,1 G 1 �
• i TRACY
a. 6 [1 3 Ip '23 2 I ` .:., IL S2 53 I1 • •v
1 I. 1 I x .- 1
`
3 I Jr �. ��1, '� I
r' \ %yam
•
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �UlJ l n. ^" '�1 1`'
Civic Center Complex `�'" "" ` v / r:Longmont, Colorado -80501 {\lij l, \\ O
303-776 6050, Ext. 3 Pt 20 M E 0 ail 2 'j Z•"3 r O�Oit A9
Weld Co. Planning CummissiOrl
TO: Weld County Department of Planning Services
FROM: Department -of Community Development �j Q/�
Office of Planning and Development °
DATE: June 21 , 1983
RE: Johnson Rezoning (Case Number 2-390)
-Relative to the proposed rezoning, the City of Longmont submits the following
comments. In -general , we view the proposal as a very serious item of considera-
tion - one that does not meet the wishes -and desires of the City of _Longmont nor
the policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
The Weld County Comprehensive Plan states the following (underlining added) :
"Agricultural Policy #1 - Agriculture is considered a valuable resource in
Weld County which must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from
uncontrolled and undirected business, industrial and residential -growth.
"Agricultural Policy -#3 - In order to minimize conflicting land uses and
minimize the cost of new facilities and services to the taxpayer -
industrial , commercial , business and residential development will be encouraged
to locate adjacent to the existing 27 incorporated towns and in accordance
with the comprehensive iplans and stated wishes of each community.
"Residential Policy #1 - New residential developments which are not closely
connected to and served by municipal utilities and services shall be
discouraged.
"Residential Policy #2 - Proposals for new residential development adjoining
existing muncipalities shall be encouraged so long as they conform to the
desires of the towns as expressed in their -comprehensive -plans. "
We do not believe that the proposal is in conformance with the above stated -guide-
lines for Weld County. T-he proposal is an urban type of development taking
place in the County in an area not designated for future town growth. With the
granting of such a proposal runs the great possibility of additional similar
requests for the surrounding area further deteriorating -the agricultural base of
this portion of Weld County. Once one change has been -granted, the ability to deny
any additional change is greatly diminished.
From a planning standpoint of the City of Longmont, we have the following comments:
Weld County Department of Planning Services
June 21 , 1983
Page 2
1 . Relative to the St. Vrain Valley Plan, subject property is on the edge of the
St. Vrain Valley Planning Area, an area in which the City wishes to be informed
regarding activities and make comments pertaining to those activities. The
City' s Committed Service Area currently ends at County Line Road. The
area between the Committed Service Area and the St. Vrain Valley Planning
Area is designated for agricultural uses. Hence, the urban nature of the
proposal does not meet desires of Longmont' s long range plans;
2. The area east of the Rough and Ready Ditch and west of County Line Road that
is in the City's Committed Service Area will not develop until sewer service
is provided to the area. The placement of the sewer line is tied to the
agreement between the City and Hewlett-Packard and is not scheduled to occur
before 1987. Hence, there will be no physical change in the area for several
years;
3. State Highway 119 between I-25 and the City is a major entrance to Longmont
and hence, its character is of concern. The City does not wish to see any
type of urban sprawl and uncontrolled growth which does not meet the wishes
of either the City's nor Weld County's Comprehensive Plans occurring along
the highway;
4. Finally, a comfort-able relationship between a municipality and a county is
one that is predictable. The document that sets up the expections that one
may have of the other is the comprehensive plan. In general , the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan sets the concept of low intensity uses in the agricultural
areas of the County. Urban type land uses shall occur as part of the growth
of the incorporated municipalities. Upon the development of such urban
uses, the municipality has the responsibility of providing a full range of
urban services to the land and people. The approval of such a proposal
will bring to doubt the validity of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
The future land use pattern east of County Line Road will be very unpre-
dictable and it will not conform _So any currently stated goal or policy of
Weld County.
At their meeting of June 9, 1983, the City of Longmont Long Range Planning
Commission passed a motion strongly urging Weld County to deny the proposal .
At their meeting of June 15, 1983, the City of Longmont Planning and Zoning
Commission passed a motion strongly urging Weld County to deny the proposal .
In summary, we do not view this proposal as meeting any known concept of proper
land use planning and orderly growth.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
DHH/gp
• r REr ED JUN 81983
Case Nunber Z-390
'
EDP Kta. i DEPARTMENT OF Cc
t/R
PHONE 13031 156000 EXT <0.:
hlr,^ 91510T+1STREET
LtJH315i
Ua; � 1 GEELEY,CO0RADO 808831
June 6, 1983
COLORADO Weld Co. Planning Commission
REFERPAL
TO WHO.•1 IT MAY COMCEIi:
Enclosed is an application from Barbara Johnson
for a Change of Zone from Agricultural to P.U.D.
The parcel of land is described as Part of the Southwest 1/4, Section 5,
Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted
is approximately two (2) miles East of Longmont on Highway 119; West of
Weld County Road 3-1/2
This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any
comments or recommendati-ons you consi-der relevant to this request would ba ap-
preciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the pro-
posal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response
from your office is not received within 21 days of mailing from our office, it
may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. If you are unable to respond
within 21 days (but wish to do so at a later date) please notify our office to
that effect.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return -to our address listed above. Please
reply by June 23. 1983 so that we may give full consideration
to your recommencation.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request (does/
does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan but we feel this request (is/
is not) compatible with the interests of Sur town for the following seasons:
3. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you
prior to
4. ✓ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Signed Agency P(an�,r Rate 6/7 43
Thank you very much for your help and co-operation in this matter.
4,) a:gm:
Rod Allison, Planner II
Cr
m cDRAn 'Du `•
To Greg Oxenfeld, Current Planner Date April 6, 1983
COLORADO From Ron Stow, Environmental Health
Subject. Sketch Plan/Five Villages M. H. Co unity S-224:83:5
Our comments are as follows:
1. Sewage - will have to go through the Site Application process. From our
standpoint, this involves submittal to our division for review, then a
recommendation is made to the Board of Health for their decision.
During the Site Application process, it will have to be determined plant
type, expected gallonage per day flow effluent discharge point, etc.
2. Convenience Store - our division must -review plans - esp. food service,
for the store before building commences.
3. Pool - our division must review pool plans before construction commences.
4. Item: the existing Longmont Landfill is to the south and south-east of
this proposed M. H. Community. Longmont must close their existing opera-
tion but will, in all likelihood, request to initiate a new operation
either to the west or north - which will put it even closer to the pro-
posed M. H. Park.
Is the 11. H. Park representative aware of this?
RS/gm
l L+
,)(- 1513
\%.
,` •
iss+on
ikonComm
(6Thc
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Richard D.Lammp"ur
Frank A.Traylor, M.D.
Governor 1876 Executive Director
April 19, 1983
Weld County /. p.� Th.. ; -,�
Department of Planning Services j /,G�
915 10th Street /144 niyeGreeley, Colorado 80631
4e P,
ATTN: Mr. Greg Oxenfeld C6411/jf9i0p�
Dear Greg;
The Water Quality Control Division has reviewed the sketch plan for the
proposed Five Villages Mobile Home Community and notes two major
concerns: first, the proposed wastewater treatment facility is not
consistent with the Larimer—Weld Water Quality Management Plan, which
identifies no wastewater treatment facility needs for the area; second,
proximity to the Longmont Urban Service Area places the proposal in
conflict with the Division's policy of regionalized treatment facilities.
The proposed facility will require application for site approval as per
the Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Works. Pending receipt of a complete application, an evaluation of the
adequacy of the proposed facility would be premature. The material
submitted states that the on—site sewage treatment plant "will be approved
by the state and county health boards". This could be better stated as
"construction of the plant will require the approval of state and county
health agencies". This Division is not, as yet, committed to the approval
of this facility.
Si�n-ceeJy�ly, 'y/
Thomas L. Bennett
Senior Planner
Planning and Standards Section
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
TLB/dkg
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333
SAINT VRAIN '1L1t-"ir `'`
. /---- -- -- Dr. F. Keith Blue
V ALLEY Superintendent of Schools
I ',I .Ji (.J i7 103
YAPUBLIC SCHOOLS -1�
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. RE 1J A
395 S.PRATT PARKV.AY LONGMONT COLORADO 80501 Weld Co. Planning CommissionJune 16, 1983
Weld County Department of Planning Services
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Five Villages Mobile Home Development
Dear Mr. Allison: ..
We have reviewed the proposed Five Villages preliminary plat and have
determined the student impact upon the St. Vrain Valley Schools, based
upon the development of 575 mobile homes. Students living in this
subdivision will be attending Mead Elementary, Mead Junior, and Skyline
High School. Following is a chart showing the current and the planned
enrollment status in the schools which will serve Five Villages:Space y
School Capacity Enrollment Available Approved Develop.
Mead El. 409 371 38 86
Mead Jr. 397 215 182 44
Skyline 1188 881 307 65
According to our mobile home pupil yield ratio, Five Villages will yield
178 elementary students and 110 7th-12th grade students. With previously
approved developments, Mead Elementary School will be over capacity and
will not be able to accommodate 178 additional students from Five Villages.
There is sufficient capacity at Mead Junior and Skyline High to accommo-
date the students anticipated from Five Villages.
If this development is approved, the district recommends that a sheltered
bus stop be provided near the designated playfield. It will also be ne-
cessary to have a bus turn-around area in that same location.
Because of the long-term need to provide educational space for students
generated by subdivision developments, the district has a policy request-
ing developers to contribute their fair share to the future acquisition of
school sites.
According to the district formula _for this purpose, the developers of Five
Villages should donate to the district a total of 8.57 acres. In our long-
range planning we have identified an elementary school site west of County
Line Road between Hwy 119 and 9th Avenue. This site has been located on
the St. Vrain Valley Land Use Plan for the City of Longmont. We don't an-
ticipate building a school on this site for a number of years. However,
the district's newly adopted site acquisition policy provides for each
development paying for its proportionate share of site acquisition costs
in the attendance area which will be impacted by the development.
Enclosed is a copy of this policy and I would like to meet with you at your
convenience to consider a cooperative approach for implementing this policy
with this development.
Sincerely,
4-04/0_e, w �L v
Dorothy Ho s
Director of Planning, Evaluation and Communications
Enclosure: _Site Acquisition Policy
cc: Longmont Department of Planning and Development
3282
TEE
SITE ACQUISITION
•1. St. Vrain Valley School Board recognizes that the District is affected
by each residential development within its boundaries. During the last
years of the 1970's and the first years of the 1980's , the District has
experienced very fast growth at times, changing pupil yield ratios , and
rising land costs.
2. Criteria for the location of sites are that school sites will be centrally
located within the service area for a school , will be centrally located
within neighborhood areas, and will be located, whenever appropriate,
within the corporate limits of a municipality.
3. When procedures for public dedication of school sites do not exist,
options for school sites will be obtained at the time real property
is annexed to a municipality or at the initial approval stage in the
planning process for land development in the county. Such options
shall set forth the purchase price for the real property.
4. The cost of school sites will be borne by any development which will
create the need for the school sites. Such cost will be fairly dis-
tributed among all developers in the service area for a school .
5. The obligation for the school site cost by development will be met
at the District's election, by a contribution from every developer
in the service area of land, cash, or a combination thereof. The
contribution will be based upon all relevant factors , including but
not limited to, established school site size, school building size,
pupil yield ratio, and land costs.
•
6. The District and administration will monitor pupil yield ratios (pyr)
(number of children per dwelling structure) and the costs of land,
and will continually review site and facility sizes. The District
will maintain standards in School Board procedures for the purpose
of Establishing the cash or land contribution by developers.
7. The St. Vrain Valley School board believes the location of school
sites adjacent to public parks, with consideration for joint use and
efficient use of public land, is desirable.
8. The Board of Education desires to and intends to cooperate with all
involved governmental units to preplan school sites and to fulfill
this policy and the supporting procedure.
9. When a governmental unit has developed procedures for the public
dedication of school sites , the School Board will desire to achieve
a binding agreement with that governmental unit for the purpose of
obtaining title to school sites.
3282
FEE-R
SITE ACQUISITION
I . For the purpose of implementing the site acquisition policy of the Board
of Education, Board Policy FEE, and for the purpose of reviewing, main-
taining, and updating the necessary information for such Policy, the ad-
ministration will undertake the following:
1. The administration will maintain pupil yield ratio information and
will calculate the pupil yield ratios for elementary, junior high, and
senior high levels in existing neighborhoods and will update these ratios
at least every six months. The administration will also evaluate demo-
graphic trends within the District, the State of Colorado, and the United
States.
2. The administration will maintain school site size standards. Those
standards at this time are as follows :
Site without park Site adjacent to a park
Elementary School 10 acres 8 acres
Junior High School 20 acres 12 acres
Senior High School 30 acres 22.5 acres
3. The administration will maintain facility size standards. At the
present time these standards, calculated as a program capacity which is
85% of a maximum capacity figure, are as follows:
Elementary School 450 students
Junior High School 1100 students
Senior High School 1200 students
4. The administration will maintain information about the sales of
county land to developers who are planning residential development. The
calculation of price in an option will be based upon the first sale of any
land to a developer in any legal form (as an individual , as a partnership,
a joint venture, or a corporation) .
5. The administration will maintain information about school site loca-
tions. Without limiting the factors to be considered, the decision con-
cerning the location of the school site shall take into account topography,
ground water, soil and drainage concerns, the cost of utility extensions
to a school site, transportation, safety of the site, consideration of
natural and man-made hazards, participation upon the land proposed as
the school site, proximity of the school site to other attendance areas ,
and adjacent land use.
•
1of2
3282
FEE-R
2 of 2
II . Application of all of the above information to establish the share
of cash or land to be donated by residential developers for elemen-
tary and secondary sites is calculated as follows: The administra-
tion will determine the pupil yield ratio (pyr) for a given service
area based upon the pupil yield in an existing comparable neighbor-
hood. The resulting pupil yield ratio will be multiplied by the
number of residential units to be built by a developer, which will
then be divided by the facility size standard and multiplied by the
required acreage. This will determine the developer's prorated
share for cash or land donation.
For example:
Assuming that the elementary pupil yield ratio in an existing compar-
able neighborhood is 0.31, times 265 units planned by the developer
in the service area, divided by the elementary school facility standard
of 450 students, times the required acreage for an elementary site of
10 acres , the developer's share for cash or land contribution would
be 1.83 acres which equals 18.3% of 10 acres of the proposed school
acreage.
0.31 (pyr) X 265 units 450 (facility standard) X
10 acres (site size standard) = 1.83 acres
Approved by the Board of Education
April , 1983
Longmont Soil Conservation District
9595 Nelson Road,Box D - Longmont, Colorado 80501
April 19, 1983
Mr. Greg Oxenfeld, Planner
Weld County Department of Planning Services
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case Number S-224 :83:5
Dear Mr. Oxenfeld, Planner Barbara Johnson
The above noted tract is presently farmed in vegetables . It is
prime farmland.
The area is not adjacent to any development of any kind.
It has been a priority of the district to support the retention of
prime farmland in agricultural production. Because of this policy,
it is the position of the Longmont Soil Conservation District to
oppose this Planned Unit Development.
Sincerely,
) 2vr-L(,^ :,e1it.rIr
Orville Sadar
President
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT
LDngmDnt SoilConservation District
9595 Nelson Road, Box D - Longmont,Colorado 80501
June 20 , 1983
\ Sf
y P 'iam!\• ?..�
Mr. Rod Allison, Planner II
Weld County Department of Planning Services 0�fo
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Fe : Case Number Z-390 - Barbara Johnson
Dear Mr. Allison:
We would like to refer to our letter of April 19th
in which the board is not against redevelopment for
this type of program, but feels that another location,
not on prime farmland would be more compatible with
their priorities and programs .
_Sincerely,
V
� DEtc{ (lc
/ h
Robert Schlagel
President
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT
AGENDA ' un fE July 5, 1983
NA ME Barbara Johnson ADDRESS
LOC A T I 0 N approximately two miles east of Longmont on Highway 119; west of WCR 31
LEGAL L E SCR IPTI 0 N Part of the southwest 1/4, Section 3, T2N, R68W
TYPE OPERATIO N Planned Unit Development (Mobile Home Park)
COMMENTS: Vhy,
' A AA
--/YA2 T Ai 1/
•
,-1
.12,---1-77.7// .lam 2/ oot
WELD COumTy EXTENSIOU SERVICE:
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. Box 850
Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850 ri.,n8
(303) 353-1232
�
June 17, 1983
Weld County
SH 119
� jl/ Johnson Zone
Lap, �— I!t • Change
? (File: Five
N7e9c3 Villages Mobile
110 Home PUD)
R/ann/
NW Mr. Rod Allison �C�mmis • Co.Corner
31 &
Department of Planning Services SH 119
Weld County
915 Tenth Street DOH FILE 45100
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Allison:
We have reviewed the Barbara Johnson application for a change of zone,
and we refer you to the enclosed copy of our previous comments on this develop-
ment proposal . We re-affirm those comments and note that the "Rezoning
Application" does address our concerns with regard to access and drainage.
This development should also take into account the recommendations on noise
abatement.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application.
Very truly yours,
ALBERT CHOTVACS
-- _ ACTING DISTRICT ENGINEER
Doug as Rames
District Preconstruction Engineer
DDR:da
Enclosure
cc: A. Chotvacs
D. Yost
Area Foreman
File: Crier-Jacobson
w/encl .
-April 20, 1983
Weld County
SH 119
Five Villages
Mobile Home PUD
Mr. Greg Oxenfeld 2.5 Mi. W. of
Department of Planning Services If25 on H. Side
of 119
Weld County
915 Tenth Street DOH FILE 45100
_Greeley, Colorado 80531
Dear Mr. 0xenfeld:
We have reviewed the Five Villages Mobile Home Community P.U.D. Sketch Plan,
and we ask for your consideration of the following comments.
1 . Access to this development from State Highway 119 at County Road 3i is
consistent with the State Highway Access Code. No other direct access
to the highway can be permitted.
Due to the size and location of this site, it is apparent that there will
be a significant traffic impact at the intersection of County Road 3} and
S.H. 119. Our traffic analysis indicates that substantial improvements
to this intersection will be warranted. We recommend that a median left-
turn lane and right-turn deceleration and acceleration lanes be provided
by this developer on S.H. 119. The design and construction of these turn
lanes should be coordinated with the District IV office at the above address.
2. A computer noise analysis was run to determine the potential impact of
highway traffic noise on those mobile home units along S.H. 119. Without
any noise abatement measures along the south side of this development,
a 145-foot setback from the center of the highway median would need to
be provided to achieve the residential design noise level of 67 decibels.
However, we strongly support use of the 30-foot-wide "Landscape Buffer"
strip for mitigation of highway traffic noise. We recommend that an
eight-foot-high berm or berm/wall combination be provided within the
buffer area. This eight-foot height is measured above the level of the
highway. This berm or wall should be wrapped around the west end of the
developi;,ent to provide adequate protection for the units at the southwest
property corner.
3. It appears that surface runoff from this property may flow toward S.H. 119.
_In order to prevent any adverse impact on the highway, we ask that on-site
measures be taken to ensure that the historical runoff rate will not be
exceeded.
\)fr jj
/
KR. GREG OXENFELD
April 20, 933 Five Villages
Pace Two
DOH TILE 45100
Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan.
Very truly yours,
ALBERT CHOTVACS
ACTING DISTRICT ENGINEER
Douglas Rames
District Preconstruction Engineer
DDR:da0:aj)
cc: A. Chotvacs
D. Yost
Area Foreman
File_—Cr rx ilw.ga n.
w/encl .
'< ->': 16 Dos Rios
��rd Greeley, Colorado
`7 80634
/116: p,�� � June 10, 1983
amss��
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Mr. Rod Allison
91-5 Tenth Street
Greeley, Colorado, 80631
Dear Mr. Allison,
I appreciate having had the opportunity to talk with you on the phone
earlier this week. As we discussed at that time, I am very much oppossed
to the proposed development at Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3 1/2.
The trailer court, Country Village, is proposed to be built on what is
prime agricultural land. The land is zoned accordingly and is part of
the Weld Master Plan as such. While this land is among the best agricultural
land in Weld County, it is poor residential property because it is miles
from the services needed by a village of people.
Schools are a good distance away in Mead, Colorado. Contrary to
the misleading statements of the developers, any kind of shopping other
than wht the developers build themselves, is between four and five miles
away. I don't have the answers on police protection, but I should
think the expense to the county would exceed the dollars now appropriated or
available at a later date through taxation of such a village.
My primary concern, however, is that I am an owner of the farm
immediately adjacent to the east. My experience has been that a village
in the country works poorly for surrounding farms and farmers. For
one thing, the irrigation problems include difficulty with the increased
run off water, children's play and sometimes out and out vandalism and
theft. Fields and farm equipment become targets for vandalism, too.
The residents of a densely populated village located out among the fields
soon feel their needs should take precedence over those of farms and
farmers. These people then want to control such things as crop dusting.
In truth, Longmont city limits are 1 3/4 miles west, not growing out
to engulf this property. Hewlett Packard, which espouses a sort of
"open space industrialization" is a similar distance north. There is an
abundance of far more appropriate, less agriculturaly productive, and I
dare say already correctly zoned property available at much greater
proximity to both Longmont and Hewlett Packard.
I do regret that I will be out of state at the time of the July fifth
hearing.
Yours truly,
•
Katharine H. Fenton
MAILING LIST
COZ 390
Mayeda Farms
11140 Weld County Road 1
Longmont, CO 80501
Susan Jane Ringsby
c/o Susan Ringsby Pietrzak
1476 Weld County Road 26
Longmont, CO 80501
Katherine C. Hamm
Carolyn Alice Hamm
c/o Richard Hamm
1239 3rd Avenue
Longmont, CO 80501
Richard E. Hamm
Fenton Katharine Hamm
1239 3rd Avenue
Longmont, CO 80501
Great Western Sugar Co.
c/o Robert Munroe
P.O. Box 5308 TA
Denver, CO 80217
C.P. Richardson
c/o Dick Moorlag and John H. VanZanten
SECOR REALTY
P.O. Box 717
Longmont, CO 80501
REZONING APPLICATION Case # : Z-37Q.19:5—
Dept. of Planning Services App . Chid By : Date Rec 'd : ? ` e
915 10th Street App . Fee : ; i r _c Receipt # :
Greeley, Colorado 80631 Record. Fee : Receipt # :
Phone : 356-4000, Ext . 400
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. Please print or type , except for necessary
signature.
I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request hearings before the Weld County
Planning Commission and the Weld County Board of County Commissioners
concerning the proposed rezoning of the following described unincorporated
area of Weld County, Colorado : LEGAL DESCRIPTION :
See Attached Exhibit A.
(If additional space is required, attach an additional sheet)
Property Address (if available) : Colorado Highway 119 & Weld County Road 3-1/2
PRESENT ZONE Agricultural PROPOSED ZONE PUD TOTAL ACREAGE 80. 0
OVERLAY ZONES None
SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONING :
Name: Barbara J. Johnson Home Telephone # : 652-2477
Address : 6617 Apache Ct. Bus . Telephone # : 776-8500
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Name : Home Telephone Jf:
Address : Bus . Telephone # :
Name : Home Telephone #:
Address : Bus . Telephone # :
Applicant or Authorized Agent (if different than above) :
Name : Home Telephone # :
Address : Bus . Telephone #:
Owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject
properties of record in the Weld County Assessor ' s Office :
Name : Barbara J. Johnson
Address : 6617 Apache Ct. - Longmont , Colorado 80501
Name:
Address :
Name:
Address :
I hereby depose and state under the penalities of perjury that all state-
ments, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this
application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
COUNTY OF WELD )
STATE OF COLORADO )
ignature: Owne or horized Agent
Subscribed and sworn to before me this lc day of nm rvA c_(1,1 ,
SFAL
Cr iv,0
NOTARY PUBLIC Try . 5?
My commission eNpires : _(_ t; A.‘ ,, 1 j "i P. �' Cr_ lac
/ r.
JOHNSDN ZONE CHANGE
Z -
From Agricultural District to PUD (Mobile Home Park) District
w.a L'or
Sec.5
TZ,1J 6BW ,_____/,____. Al 59'46'£ /396.38' I_
6.71/2 RM. /2.55.26 ,t/orth c.i,e sWj Scc. 5 -7J/ _
II Ceq/er-
i la
I I Sec. 5
I i I r2.t/, R6,5 tV
III 0th t7 M.
II
I I
it
I'-I"tOUrl ty Road
11
• I
NI I
\I
V) `0 03I I I I .Scale: /"= 500
Q
0 0ri
6' 6as Like h i1
rry h h �i I LEGAL DESCRIPTION
q
Yp �______ 80.0 Acres NI I A survey of all that part of the
N NI I Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, T.2 N,
h
k k o I R.68 W, of the 6th P.M. , Weld County
t i
tt C o Colorado, described as follows ;
o 0 h1 beginning at a point on the North
1. 30,-1.1-3o line of the said Southwest 1/4 from
h I which the West 1/4 corner of said
Z' 1 I Section 5 bears South 89°46' West
II
a distance of 1255.28 feet; thence
I I continuing along said North line
569 oa'W 1 I 89°46' East a distance of 1396. 38
/10.75' I I feet to the center of said Section
1,.. 5 86.13/3a"W /3/0.5 I I 5; thence South 00°22 ' East along
hRoWL.I%leSI. Hf/ 'K'Y ,t/o /�9the east line of the said South-
west 1/4 a distance of 2408.62 feet
sW Corp Sou,'-i� G.he sw Sec, 5 to a point on the North right-of-
Sec. 5 way line of State Highway No. 119;
Tg,v, rz6ew thence along said right-of-way,
6,-th ,,,Ai. South 69°00' West a distance of 110.75 feet; thence South 86°31 ' 30" West a
distance of 1310.81 feet; thence North parallel to the West line of the said
Southwest 1/4 and leaving said right-of-way at this point, a distance of 2522.03 feet more
or less to the point of beginning, all bearings used herein relative to the West line of
the Southwest 1/4 being North, and subject to any existing easements or right;;1 -wpx�
4144 C. NF•.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify that this plat was prepared under 04444115* 4842;and that the same is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. v y;
�� ig , o a
2683 z`, I
L ern C. Nelson, P.E . & L. glo. RLS Ng 3$83
PROPERTY OWNER' S APPROVAL: I , Barbara J. Johnson •s /fle/ 0 0 •
being*. 3S9v1 ar(s)
in fee of the above described property, do hereby request the zoning as shown" Lttt'gt{ached
-map.
ta.-/-42--L-4.--/"A•42477-1.--2
The foregoing certification was acknowledged before me this ln'� day of 0-,i0,0
9 9 9
A. D. , 1983. Witness my hand and seal .
My commission expires: (�ri i1.et1 : '( '1i, 2��.Q!\ vi 'Lk �1''QAO
Notary PublidRltD kilin Cy
P. 0. Bor ns
PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION: This is to certify that the Weld Co&rEF 317pc0 j ommis-
sion does hereby recommend to the Board of Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado for their
confirmation, approval and adoption of this Zone Change and described hereon this day
of , 1983.
Chairman, Planning Commission
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CERTIFICATION: This is to certify that the Board of County
Commissioners , Weld County, Colorado do hereby confirm, approve and adopt this Zone Change
as shown and descirbed hereon this day of , 1983-
ATTEST:
County Clerk Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
RECORDED:
Deputy DATE :
44- +
ft co
N
-
a 7 L _
u yy rye N
. 3_1 a6 c.
c E € qGf � I a11917� A
iff iii [ 9 � ' ��1 II
:. ifs : -s� ill hhW 11 : k �
S- I _ 11IA%IRO tal 1-S _k
1 0 / dd-Y_ gg, `' r� N yGr. � 1 ii' a Yo,l it °" iin
h 11r
q a
1 3® KO Ni = 5' 4 1 II H r I c i I �M
gg I da r - m I I� 1 � Iy 103A3I la C ! als � — I
h I 1 l = i ' 45 gel . & lig
Lac iE _ i : K� - -, ' 't
. \, -I 1
CI 1
11 it igi e/
,1 )51/..5 I 13 O� �Y
- et -1- `;i ._,I I .3.-' ii ig
lk, t I ` l W _� n�i �\ 4g
hi :- I ..�a ig8 is
g! i a
a €; ~ % ti I !I S2 ! I i iii 3l laic m 1 1 :I I('
JAMES GONYOU
_Dr:RECTOR
OR
%di ',cultural
Research
1
Center
June 20, 1983
Weld County Planning Dept.
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Sirs:
The Great Western Sugar -Company is the owner of a tract
of farm land in parts of Sections 5 and 8, Township 2 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. in Weld County, Colorado.
This land is irrigated through an underground siphon
tube running from the Oligarchy Ditch North of Colorado
Highway 119, under the highway, continuing to the head ditch
on the South side of our property. From time to time, exca-
vations must be made over this line to perform maintenance
on it.
I have heard that an application for re-zoning has been
made for this area. I wish to protest the proposed re-
zoning because I feel this area should remain as farm land
and the proposed new use could cause a hardship in maintain-
ing the irrigation water supply to our farm land.
Very truly yours,
Jame F. Gonyou
Director
JFG/bc
11939 SUGAR MILL ROAD • LONGMONT,COLORADO 80501 •(303)776-1802
Y
`city considUFs parcel
•
for new landfill site
By RAY ALVAREZ purchase was recommended based on
Times-Call Staff Writer evaluations of subsurface conditions,
exposure nds,aesthetics and other
A 55-acre parcel of property in Weld considerations.County is a city consultant's first choice
for an expansion of the_Longmont Mu- The north 80-acre site, he said, is in
nicipal Landfill, Neal Renfroe, public plain view" o[ Colorado 119, has per- �.
works director, told the City Council rneable soils and would require more
Tuesday night. lining than the S5-acre parcel. 9.q)
•
The existing landfill, located three The council will consider authorizing
miles east of Longmont, south of Colo- advertisement of a possible lease of an Y,• rado 119 in Weld County,is near capaci- 80-acre, city-owned property, located 0-
. The site recommended by M. Fox south of the existing landfill. The site and Associates of Wheat Ridge,is lo- potentially could bring$150,000 per year cated west of the current landfill. - over a-five-year period from gravel ,„)
Authorization to begin negotiations mining and could possibly pay the full will be considered at the council's regu- $500,000 cost of the landfill expansion. r 1
lar meeting next Tuesday. The pur-.• In addition to land cost, the landfill S'
chase price could run as high as will also accrue expenditures for P,$200,000. ground water monitoring devices, $88,-
If approved by the city, the landfill 700 in consulting fees and other costs.expansion also would require a special Renfroe said several mining compa- G
use permit from the Weld County Corn- nies are interested in the 80-acre site, 3.
missioners, since the area is zoned for which is located in a floodplain and is
agricultural uses. _unsuitable as a landfill site: An adja-
T-wo sites were evaluated, Renfroe cent site labeled as "excess land" is
said. An 80-acre parcel also was also being eyed for a future sewage '
viewed, but Renfroe said the 55-acre plant site.
' M.H.P. l V
�b..a st+e :
,m V
Cnlbr.n.Horn. Iet Propo..d 10 Acre 4 !
• Hw 119" Landfill ExpansionState' j
Biainp IC Acts I
Landfill Sib .r
L •
gF4C_F;,r-.
e.comm.nd.d 55 Act. -.V
• Landfill Expansion Creek
Sl. Vraln � ../ [C
-. - Propo..d LO Acts Gran] t( ,
Extraction Sib J
s • ,.a
o 0 •I
cr -
o o U
0 /I
ti
U /•
I ml r .
4Ac.P.rci4Ru.n. j
For Polbq Walls 00.. = /
Water Trulm.nl
Plant Si!.
Na slene Patterson map l
Co.Road 1015
•
di• C Oz
•
, F
O
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
-Richard D. Lamm '"r rv'"
Governor . Frank A.Traylor, M.D.
18 76 Executive Director
OL I— l 2 ry r.r _
qq
MEMORANDUM
JUN 29 1983
TO: Rad Allison, Planner II
Weld County Department of Planning Services Weld CO. Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Bennett, Senior Planner
Water Quality Control Division
DATE: June 24, 1983
SUBJECT: Application for Zone Change, #Z-390, from Barbara Johnson
As indicated in the Division ' s comments on the sketch plan for the
proposed Five Villages Mobile Home Community, two major concerns
exist; first, the proposed wastewater treatment facility is not
consistent with the Larimer Weld Water Quality Management Plan and
second, the site is proximate to the Longmont Urban Service Area.
The policy of the Water Quality Control Division is to deny site
applications which are not consistent with water quality management
plans and which are in conflict with the Division' s directive of
encouraging the consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities
whenever feasible.
•
TB:meg
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333
Gaq LARIMER - WELD REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
�/, PHONE(303)532.4480
., ROOM 201
201 EAST 4TH STREET
.-! 7.^,R7c-T 1_r‘ LOVELAND.COLORADO 80537
June 27, 1583 �r 1,/ r�
'i JUN 29 i9E3
Mr. Rod Allison
Weld County Department Weld Co. Planning Cammissian
of Planning Services
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Referral of Five Villages Mobile Home Park PUD Proposal and
Rezoning Request for Johnson Property (Section 5, 72N, R68W)
Dear Rod:
You have requested that the Larimer - Weld Regional Council of
_Governments comment on concerns related to wastewater treatment service
for the above referenced development proposal . -This matter was
considered by the LWRCOG Water Quality Advisory Committee at its regular
monthly meeting on June 23, 1983. The Committee has instructed the staff
to advise Weld County that the future availability and costs of sewer
service for this area are uncertain at this time. Availability of sewer
service should not be considered a favorable factor in this particular
proposal and rezoning request. There are a number of factors which
contribute to this conclusion.
•
As you are undoubtedly aware, several development proposals and rezoning
inquiries and requests have been made for this general part of the St.
Vrain Creek drainage in recent months. Each proposal has addressed its
individual wastewater treatment needs independent of other proposals or
treatment service needs in the general area. If all proposed
developments are constructed, the result could be a number of small
wastewater discharges to the St. Vrain Creek. These new discharges
combined with existing discharges, and expansions of the existing
discharges on St. Vrain Creek and its tributaries (Boulder Creek, Coal
Creek) will result in substantial wasteloads which may not be able to
achieve recently adopted State of Colorado stream standards with
secondary treatment of effluents. Ammonia discharges may be a problem.
With respect to the Five Villages proposal , the January 3, 1983 letter to
Land Design Consulting from Mr. James H. Martinsen of Falcon Supply
Company, which discussed wastewater treatment costs, does not contain
very complete information on a proposed plant site, capital construction
_costs, operation and maintenance costs, or treatment level requirements
to meet stream standards. It is, therefore,' very hard to comment on the
reasonableness of the cost estimates. Other information in the rezoning
packet infers that the State approval of the site for construction of a
waste treatment facility is almost a perfunctory procedure. I assure you
that it is not.
, • j
•
Letter to Rod Allison
June 27, 1983
Page 2
The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission has policies which -discourage
the proliferation of small wastewater treatment facilities. The history of
small plants in Colorado is fraught with frequent discharge permit violations
and poor plant operations, which have lead the Commission to adopt such
policies. The Water Quality Commission and Water Quality Division are
particularly critical of predesigned-field erected, "package" waste treatment
facilities, because of their poor track record of operations in Colorado.
I believe that the Water Quality Division and other reviewing agencies
including the State Division of Parks and Recreation would give extra
attention to the site application for the proposal due to a probable location
of the discharge, approximately 4 miles upstream of the Barbour Ponds State
Recreation Area. (Water from the St. Vrain Creek is diverted at the Last
Chance Ditch, and supplies one or more of these heavily used fishing ponds. )
Additionally, we have recently reviewed an application for treatment plant
site approval for Mountain Shores PUD, which would involve a treated discharge
to the Union Reservoir Ditch to the west, and most likely up-stream, of the
Five Villages development. The Union Reservoir Ditch discharges to the St.
Vrain Creek.
Therefore, in Weld County's review of this rezoning request and development
proposal , it should not be concluded with any high level of certainty that
sewer service is or will be available in the near future.
If you have additional questions or concerns please feel free to call me.
Si ncer ,
Terrence L. Trembly
Water Resources Projects Manager
cc: Dwight Holter, Chairman, LWRC0G Water Quality Advisory Committee
Lee Lawson, City of Longmont, Water and Sewer Utility
Gary Broetzman, Director, Colorado Water Quality Control Division
Bob Morris, Regional Director, Colorado Division of Parks and Recreation,
Fort Collins
rT/r- xr
AR19462U9 349.5 JOHNSON ZONE CHANGE
Z - 320: 83: 5
vvircar F-om Agricultural District to PUD (Mobile Horn., Park) District �
Sec. 5
•
N,c68W 9'46.S /396.38' I
a#h RM. isz35.re. ,t/o•#h eh Line 5L4/14Sec. 5 ---
CC>J/ci
Sec. 5
" 0 I i r,2N, $46.5W
I
- U I I OM? P,M.
U I
w I'— County -Road
S I '
() W I Pi
1 '
al v
rx
m ryo
W r
.4.
Gt/ 5 ScaleQ / 500a 0 h 6:Goy Line h�i %
„ ,a nj h b 1�� _LEGAL DESCRIPTION
� y `v
x 7 ___ 80.0 Acres hl I A survey of all that part of the
w h y NI I Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, 7.2 N,
4 1 k 0o1 I R.68 W, of the 6th P .M. , Weld Coun•
et C k y1I Colorado, described as follows ;
H * 0 1 beginning at a point on the North
w so'-1, r3o line of the said Southwest 1/4 frc
4A 0
W if I I which the West 1/4 corner of said
w * I I Section 5 bears South 89°46' West
" I I a distance of 1255.28 feet; thence
w I I I continuing Along said North line
89°46' East a distance of 1396. 38
•r z -569bd'W I I
, z //0.75 ' I I feet to the center of said Section
y
11 5; thence South 00°22 ' East along
sea•ziestriv 43/0.,e/
a; /o./ 9 the east line of the said South-
4i v.r�h 'mom". L,nC � //yhY west 1/4 a distance of 2408.62 fee'
sWCor South Gine sin/4 Sec. 5 to a point on the North right-of-
, Sec 5 way line of State Highway No. 119;
-3rn r2M, n6BW thence along said right-of-way,
' '-1 4.'/r R M. South 69°00' West a distance of 110.75 feet; thence South 86°31 ' 30" West a
. G. distance of 1310.81 feet; thence North parallel to the West line of the said
, Southwest 1/4 an-d leaving said right-of-way at this point, a distance of 2522.03 feet more
or less to the point of beginning, all -bearings used herein relative to the West line of
the Southwest 1/4 being North, and subject to any existing easements or right-cfila .
4‘,1 O. Nibs
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE : I hereby certify that this plat was prepared under% 014T64y' Sea;
and that the same is correct to the best of my knowl dge and beelllieef/. �� 2d
2683 z t_
$78
L ern C. Nelson, P.E . 6 L.S (:- ''Olo. RLS Nct'
�, owe„ s., O .
PROPERTY OWNER' S APPROVAL: I , Barbara J. Johnson , being* 41°1911 A er(s'
in fee of the above described property, do hereby request the zoning as shown* rt$t ache
map. Vitt�G-lLu4-, jf --
The foregoing certification was acknowledged before me this 19, day of \SI.,\02u:Ai
A. D. , 1983. Witness my hand and seal . .
-My commission expires: UCLA-v.) Ia. lwp •-s—iN h �r,,�2 ) �K4'"'�--
1 Notary 0PMIRINDWI
P. a BOX TM
PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION: This is to certify that the Weld Co0R SAYMCD'I )2Commis-
sion does hereby recommend to the Board of Commissioners , W Id ounty, for do or heir
denial this Zone Change an , deer' d eo - th's rj4 day
of ...1.N t� ti ' , 1983. 1 nI
Chair an, Planning Commission
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CERTIFICATION: This is to certify that the B
Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado A0 hereby confirm, approve and adopt t 1
as shown and described hereon this rwe day of , 1983. ,' " '
ATTEST: ii`` ski at e% "J i'
County Jelerk ^ Cha -, ar o i S' i hers
real)
RECORDED:
e utJ ` _— DATE :
Z/I /f7
C ! i- J
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF WELD
STATE OF COLORADO
- /
No.
RICHARD E. HAMM; THE GREAT WESTERN i
SUGAR CO. , a Delaware Corporation; ) it
1- i __
MAYEIIA FARMS, a Partnership; and )
Pi S' '
CITY OF IONGM0NT, COLORADO, a
� � 933
Municipal Corporation, , �
)
uJ
) ��Y, G,JLO.
Plaintiffs, ) ORDER '10 SHOT CAUSE
vs. )
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )
OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF )
COLORADO; and BARBARA J. JOHNSON, )
)
Defendants.
THIS MATTER having come before the court upon plaintiffs' complaint
for relief pursuant to Rule 106, COLA, R. CIV, PROC. , and upon affidavit of
Richard F. Hann, and this court being duly advised;
TT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Board of Count
County of Weld, State of Colorado certify to the Clerk of
County Commissioners of the
later than /; . , ; this Court no
"r "_{ , 1983, a record of the transcript and
proceedings pertaining to the application filed by Barbara J. Johnson on or
about March 29, 1983, for rezoning of that certain parcel of real property
located in the County of Weld, State of Colorado and more particularly
described as set forth in Exhibit A to this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board of County Commissioners of the
County of Weld, State of Colorado, appear before this court on the ,7;_
day of 2:-____,__ - ,,, ,/,(,-2.2,' 19B3, at the hour of and show cause why the relief re o'clock
shall not guested by the plaintiffs in their action
be allowed.
u
DONE mils . . ,..2 day of , � ,
, 1983.
BY THE COURT:
a c •
7 r/ !_✓Y 11_r(3
(1' 2.-" DISTRICT CotrRT�JUDGE -
/J/-'- J / 4' ,nl:�,.L or ✓-hzd Z/i,e -9 ft
_, :/' _79/r7
-
( (
•
VS
it 1 I I
a � s
t) I
" v
JhIi o vii $ i . _.. \- U1 -OTsl n
q...L. J 4c• V = v o • .' C • CO O e 5
.t j I I q$ ..era r, - g a q }og 9 0 +-I 0 i2 '' .G to-
In
J 9¢ 0 in O ,9 IL
9 1 o WC a A & hp U U I u m '•• . V'7 I k la
u 40
s 1
/L "� .C +� � li Ev A = -ud �� L ro CLC w 'c;
: i� U�> .-r• -�°' - J
c .a IOUO u°<": .5$ ? oa c � EC O Z o �p ^.lu C
r"r— •
NU ` e ,. °30 �' BI' .0N ° ° .• � 0 g •r
N.- : .� u a et c g ` 4 u� g „-I .-i C a �' a L w w w
`op � �.¢ 17 U . ≥ ._ is, w h w acc v, 10 lD O D Q c Q
Cr) roOC 8 ? n N ❑❑ 0 Pa a Imo ? i '. o a° 3
s Sa < O x 0 8 • N N¢ - w
. — ID m a — 2 I v Id 3
J .A « aForm 7511, Lm.1978 RETURN RECEIPT,REGISTER • INSURED AN ER TIP IED MAIL
�I r-I C a (2C nrazg
ro co O j a U a
_Pa c.O a
II I I I _ _ a a≤ F
•
ill I I s
in o
Lai 2 ri Oo I a E S u a 0 C H O I Cr) .o ,
n•6° ..:: m .. v q 1
(`1) s I a r • >: 9 O.S O ' .- 2i
Cr. ? < eta H d e C'o x o C
N + 0100 II I _ a ra ab ? 4 � u to U0 p � 1 3
Pro
i t > V F. U ≥\
1 �
•
N. O tiff_ G.I N17 • a ," jJflj
W 41404"cl< rC 0m - • Nd' CS« m f }ri >~ r ti Q
W Z co r-1 O O m y c. •
u re r-I O Q 0 < O 3
0. _
PSPS Fo�S11,Jan.lJan.1979 RETURN RECEIPT,REGISTERED,INSURED AN ERTIFIED MAIL
t f
CD I
`CrI
N
ct O )-1 ' Ill
LO Z t-, \o O a I. 2]....
_ �� IC
w o' p.r CA In E �
°¢.' N W o c° ,> X o c
�' W C IS r W q O ; 1 ro w i f.'. ` r
C /
O 5r?I: C ? a 8 mLL N 3 1r ` �?:. 8
w: -H .0 LL 30 o y N r 6 ,
C.1 i ai CP U O 8 i m e ° ° • Z JJ ri I .(� ••
t o m • '?+ N to O 1 t 0
cc w- N C > ≥ D ti m m D ,Y1 -� N Lf1 y LC •
LL 4 u ro ai '--I J-1 3 - D • e m Q ° o CP oo O `lam$ Ti `a ,\ r
Cr) A w5 � 3 g m $ 8 ¢ o ¢ 'mac � m C .0
a so \—)a a6 • 31
W oUJ _• C N coLT « °; d r E �' N O O « a o a w
V ', t m
N 7 1� C wo l) y ¢ ¢ « ¢ o I- A I E U U ! w w J2 Sa m
CC C O1 O t86I 'PA'008E Luio3 Sd C r1 t : G __-"s 5 a e,w l m
maw a eo 0
•aa•e ., 'ks; a5s 7z 0 . z . ., o 1 g o
tC its -E o o> 0 w ,0 a W
LO i _._ 't co co Cr, c q 8 a \ cc
w J
J !N C � C W ; - r �i.' oo mmg
I }C to c 0 w ¢ `o 1 < 3
LIT (n do e-1 a W D
p 52 0 O H w p SIN IA ¢ - " •i d ee
W ¢ Cp G I7
d a l RETURN RECEIPT,REGISTERED,INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL
CrIT z ftl �j- O
yLi
Lug '.7". ro N Y c° r wZ N '.4' C =≥ ° iW \ 'a 8ciVr _O • p . 0 LL 3• a L 4 b c M V< j
in
Cr) F ¢L G4421 -P E • 0 o ae L a 71 rl 0 aim So
t '8a C;�r{ ICI
a h c •r♦ C U $4 C w m et ii 8 <' ° c S-I 0 co c w 3 8 Th.,�S
iri U z 'a r'1 0 • 3 n ° 2 ¢ m a Y ral 1N 0 <
a' w i � O rn to ! '-- a ` `3 3 0 E 'U U r-I a 513
3 1J N O c"1 c (
CO ID \N 0 a° U cn ¢ ¢ « ¢ o Li V Ua ETURN R CEIPT,REGISTERED,INSURED AND RTIF ED MAIL
Z86I 'gad'008E uuog Sd e-tpyj/� ,'I
W
I n y b , 1
'
I r. w 1
I ° ! I , ',
O ri o o i,
z 8 v it rl i • , �- 3
J -- I ti -o , a Lfl m 'o •
-Cr) 1! 2— Lfl ` Thil411 flL u r T u L f in ,i7 La- . :I- ...rt :-.. ',3 .":: ' E (I) CO 0 .0\ 1 7,I., 1 • 1) 1 ili,,
is
�` g v � 7 --, yW -0 � M • � � X16 � ) m , A s' ) S1-., 2
t.,..i• -
'�-I ,] a , ,'� "e a fl ' -V cs,c\� ,F r u �W s. 7
N. :X U ' ( ..,. 3 3 !,� s 3 1 I S~ f"'1 O a o .a m u43
o w rt) 3 3h 3E. 3 J-1d1 "b1 +a i1cTTT
• ' J - w _u _ M >~ S� � � ' T .6 :4ar.n cri, •,-1 NN O [y c a �o i0 4
�'? TIC
▪ ' tj r`l i ^ i - ; L I er �vitix I: s`� i co ea
' I
• (Ni O I'S Fora 3611,Jun.1379 RETURN RrCEIPT,RFCwIST k O.!t4SUlacD AND CERTIFt D MAIL
- r a
•
-.-.-... - ''',.nt. i,1:0.f. cd
X I 3rJ y w
I .J O i 1f M 2 �, s' Y e < m
Y CO
L Z O ..
°.'n O - H_ L
•
— ,4 a.
a.
1 0 � � ^ d ° ° fI {x
o U] S I H C`l RS Co a
LJ :"�,., O • , 1 ` ~�' v LEI N „TI [ D 1,3 \� ° • O S
\f/ :L V! M U _ .° ', 7 :.; 87
"� M M ,G, O ~ \'1� q V \ L' us
2 - Sl O ' •• ! - oo.1 'Y E -Ea Ea E +1 in v 'N 5. -. v w Al
C7 U C+1 a o �, -6 y CC WI ad a a) • › to• 3' ` ti Ir r.i
m
J r•. I.
Z. 12 �-I \ • 1) Cr7 G
.0 S7 UWI� s 2N <
7 d • m
Fa Form 4311,Jan,1979 RETURN RECEIPT,REL`,IST£RED,INSURED NO CERTIFIED MAIL
fir:<<
x 1' ' E
a o N s �tr ,�2
(\I T▪ b ,4r o f " a �j • .aii )
i dil :LLI Z W O 2 \v-r ti
`L U C Q ,. - - s a a > -, > 7,-,, ur bn o 7:. ry r Uu
; -; „sir.;, i oo
a.- y �• \ 1 1 •,,,
( IV - 3 3 :u j Q 0 (� i J m y d J g C=y u 5i I.. '. Li f
V Uc!) W �1 yea '° c o ' ou c tea-' 9C � , ° o ;o v o
s Ix U O s; 1 ° ,�
3373 .� W (��• JW W 1O -.- a >v
R.
r` • (`�+ L U •• ; <
r U () ma J-i K - &I-
; I - ,a 1M : d d
Ps form 3811,144.1319 RETURN RF"CEwT,REGtSTERWD.INSURED AN CERTIFIED MAIL
Hello