The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About830575.tiff BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DOCKET NO. 83-43 IN RE: APPLICATION OF BARBARA J. JOHNSON, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE , A (AGRICULTURAL) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AUGUST 24, 1983 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: CHUCK CARLSON, CHAIRMAN, EXCUSED JOHN T. MARTIN, PRO-TEM GENE R. BRANTNER NORMAN CARLSON JACQUELINE JOHNSON CHAIRMAN CARLSON ARRIVED DURING THE HEARING BUT ABSTAINED FROM VOTING ALSO PRESENT: APPLICANT, BARBARA J. JOHNSON VERN NELSON, CONSULTING ENGINEER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT R. RUSSELL ANSON, ASSISTANT WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY TOMMIE ANTUNA, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD ROD ALLISON, CURRENT PLANNER, REPRESENTING THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PL0386 830575 COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Docket No. 83-43 Barbara J. Johnson. RUSS ANSON: Okay, this is Docket No. 83-43 , which is an application for Barbara J. Johnson, 6617 Apache Court, Longmont, Colorado, for a Change of Zone from A-Agricultural District to PUD-Planned Unit Development-District on a parcel of land described as part of the SW 1/4 , Section 5 , Township 2 North, Range 68 of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Notice of this hearing has been published on July 21 , 1983 , and August 11 , 1983 , in the LaSalle Leader. In order to satisfy the Board of County Commissioners that the Change of Zone should be approved, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and if not, that the zoning of the property under consideration is either faulty or that changing conditions in the area warrant a Change of Zone. Further, that the uses which would be allowed on the subject property by granting the Change of Zone will be compatible with the surrounding land uses . ROD ALLISON: It was 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 application for rezoning from the Agricultural District to a Planned Unit Development for a mobile home park be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons : -2- 1 . 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 interest 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 the 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 -3- agricultural greenbelts and open space. C. 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 twenty-seven incorporated towns and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plans. 2 . The applicant is proposing a Change of Zone on an eighty acre parcel of land in which to develop a park for approximately five hundred seventy-five 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 the parcels in this area are used for farming activities. Farm operators have a right to be increasingly concerned about intermixing of urban residences and farming, especially outside of town growth plans. Farmers face problems with dogs, children, and vandalism, while people in the -4- 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 1 . A. , B. , and C. of this paper. 3 . 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: A. New residential developments which are not closely connected to 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 town as expressed in their Comprehensive Plans . C. Existing municipalities are best and most efficient sources of public goods and services which are necessary to serve new 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 -5- 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. 4 . 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 per household. This factor multiplied by the proposed five hundred seventy-five mobile home unit equals a population of one thousand seven hundred ninety-four. This population estimate is greater than the 1980 census for the town of Platteville or greater than twenty of the twenty-seven incorporated towns in Weld County. A. As indicted 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 : -6- 1 . Longmont' s committed city service area ends approximately one and a quarter 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 the 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 the sewer line is tied to an agreement between Longmont and Hewlett-Packard and is not scheduled to occur before 1987 . This fact indicates that there will be no municipal sewer services, as well as, municipal police protection and road maintenance within a mile and a quarter of this urban residential proposal for several years. Given the facts about the nearest municipality to the subject site, the municipality' s future growth plans and the proposed urban uses, the proposed Change of -7- Zone conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan Residential Growth Policies, as listed in 3 A. , B. , and C. 5 . 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 1/2 to Colorado State Highway 119. The impact of the 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. This motion was seconded by Ed Reichert and the vote to deny was unanimous , and representatives of the applicant are here if the Board has questions. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: The applicant like to come forward? and the representative. VERN NELSON: I 'm Vern Nelson. I 'm the engineering representative for the applicant. The applicant is here today and I would like to introduce Don and Barbara Johnson to you as the owners of the property. They' re right here, and the developer of the property is Carl McCoy. He is here as well. Mr. Chairman, we do have a presentation that we wish to make to you people. We have a lot of information we 're going to try to condense as best we can, but we do have a lot of facts that we -8- need to bring before this hearing. So with that, we ' ll get right on with the presentation. As you know, this is a request for Change of Zone to PUD Development for Single Family Dwellings , and it' s the belief of the applicant that there' s a real need for this type of low cost housing in the area. We have some experts here today to present evidence in favor of our request. Yes , we have read all of the comments of your staff; we ' re fully aware of the actions of the Planning Commission and we believe that we can satisfy the basic concerns of these people as far as public health, safety and welfare of the future citizens of the area are concerned. The need that we see must be satisfied in the general area and we believe that this site is a prime opportunity to do just that. We think that the concern about taking prime agricultural land is not so significant when you consider it for development when it ' s obvious that it takes the same amount of land for the same amount of housing whether adjacent to a municipality or apart therefrom. Most lands adjacent to the City of Longmont on the north, south, and east, are prime agricultural land and these lands undoubtedly will be developed eventually. In addition, a good part of the developable land adjacent to many of the municipalities in Weld County are also prime agricultural land. We 're going to talk a little bit about tax base and I understand that Rod Allison has some very up-to-date figures with respect to tax base and tax revenues from this proposed development. The current tax revenue off of this particular site -9- is about six hundred dollars a year. Our proposed developed value will be somewhere in the neighborhood of eight million dollars. Today through our presentation we wish to show need; we wish to show the proposed housing as quality construction; that our project is well planned for the benefit of the users; and that it can be a credit to the surrounding community. Now the first presentation that we would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is Gary Tuttle. Gary is a land planner consultant from the Longmont area. He has developed some planning information for us. He ' s going to describe the master plan and some thinking that went into the development and some general comments about planning in the area. So with that, I will turn it now to Gary Tuttle, who will make the presentation, and then I have others when he finishes. GARY TUTTLE: Good afternoon, my name is Gary Tuttle. My company is Land Design Consulting, 637 Florida, Longmont, Colorado. Today I 'd like to talk about two topics with you. First one--about why our site qualifies for rezoning. I 'd like to talk about the area in general; how our proposal is suited to the area; and the kinds of changes that have happened, and will happen, in that east Longmont area; and then lastly, I 'd like to talk about our master plan and show you how we think it' s going to provide a good living environment and fulfill a need. Let me just take a moment and bring the map forward for you. This is a map of our general area where our proposal is located. Just to -10- orient you--north is up, you see I-25 , this is Route 287 , downtown Longmont, the eastern side of Longmont, here is the Weld-Boulder County Line, Route 66 on the north, and then Route 119 coming out toward the east. The City of Longmont, the city limit-s, are located in this gray line. The line is pretty much filled in, commercial - industrial , in the center of town, and residential mainly on the eastern side of town. There are a couple of subdivisions which are platted and not developed at this time. Then there is an area between the city limits of Longmont and the County Line Road. This line here is the committed service area which encloses that area, and this is an area that has been designated for annexation by the city in the future and which the city is committed to serve when they do annex. There is then a greater area around the committed service area called the planning area, and this is the area of concern for Longmont. Our specific site, our eighty acres, is on the edge of this planning area. The line kinda clips it. These planning lines sometimes are kind of approximate, it' s hard to tell exactly if it ' s in or out, but I think it ' s fair to say that we are on the edge of the Longmont Planning Area. Now let' s take a look at this property. Before we go--the City of Longmont has said that at this time , they do not have plans to annex with Weld County. Just as a matter of fact. This particular north-east neighborhood, this section right here between the County Line Road and the city limits, this area contains about two thousand -11- seven hundred acres of property that has been planned by the city, and land uses have been designated. Of this two thousand seven hundred acres, sixty-three percent of it is designated as industrial or commercial property. This is approximately one thousand seven hundred acres. The largest user in this area will be Hewlett-Packard, right under the HP. They have bought three hundred and twenty acres, and they plan to build a major facility there. In fact, when it is completed, there will be seventeen buildings and a total of sixteen thousand employees at that facility. If you subtract Hewlett-Packard' s three hundred twenty acres of property, you are left with about thirteen hundred fifty acres of other land which has been designated as industrial or commercial. North of it is a whole section, the other half section to the south of Hewlett-Packard, a major business center, and then between 119 and the river, there is also an area designated for industry. If you apply a standard of forty employees per acre of industrial or commercial, you come up with a potential of fifty four thousand workers. Add that to Hewlett-Packard' s sixteen thousand and we have here the potential for seventy thousand workers. In this northeast neighborhood, there is acres designated for residential property, and the densities that have been applied to it amount to about seven thousand homes. So we ' re talking about a ten percent of these workers would be able to live within this designated planning area. Now generally speaking, in this type of industry which -12- Longmont is looking for (inaudible) and that type of thing, you can expect forty percent of the employees to be management, sales, professional. You could expect the other sixty percent to be office, clerical, and some high skilled workers. And these are exactly the type of people that our proposal, our housing development, is aiming at. So that' s the situation on the west side of the County Line. Let ' s go over into Weld County and take a look at this property. Much has happened in here and, in fact, much has changed even in the year that we have been working on our proposal. At the Del Camino Development, two hundred forty acres of property was zoned mainly commercial. There is a mobile home development located in here. You can see by the colors--brown is industrial , the red is commercial, and the yellow is residential . You can see some of the smatterings of commercial and industrial development. The Longmont Land Fill is south of us . There is a forty acre piece owned by the city which has been noted as a possible waste water treatment facility south of the land fill. Longmont has expressed an interest in developing a park around Union Reservoir, kind of a community wide park. We have the State Park here by the pond. Again, up at Route 66 there is over a hundred, probably a hundred and fifty, acres of property now zoned for PUD, commercial, and business type development, Sekich and Rademeyer property. There also is here a major proposal that has come up for a horse racing facility by the Jockey Club of Colorado. Three hundred and -13- twenty acres altogether--track, stables, training grounds , condominiums, a high tech center for businesses to come in. We 're talking about five hundred employees, not counting the high tech center. Mead--some industrial , some residential, again they are now entertaining a proposal that' s called Mead Village East, mainly with a large residential development. So you can kind of see the potential that is happened here and, is going to happen, in Weld County along the I-25 border. If we have the two hundred and forty acres plus the hundred and fifty, do our multiplication times forty employees per acre, and again we 're talking about a major employment center. And when we studied this area, it occurred to us that we have a lot of employment out here, thousands of workers, but really no place for these people to live. Longmont has quite a lot of plans for taking in neighborhoods , but they all are on the south and mainly on the west. In looking at the area, it' s logical and reasonable to plan for this area to accommodate some of the residential demand that is going to be evident. You see that this area lies within a triangle, if you will, of major employment centers for that part of southwest Weld County. So that' s why we are presenting this proposal to you. These are the conditions that are occurring in the area, and the conditions that will occur in the area that we think change the complexion of this southwest part of Weld County and make it suitable for residential development that we are proposing. There are some other planning issues that -14- have come up during our review process with the staff. I ' ll go through them briefly. One is spot zoning. One of the big fears and concerns about spot zoning is that development will occur in outlying areas, and it will just sit there for twenty to thirty years, no other development would occur around it. We don' t believe that this is the case. You can see the type of appointment that is happening and will occur in this area, and we believe that there will be other proposals; you will see other proposals in this area asking for shelter and housing to accommodate these workers . The first one has been Mountain Shores, which was approved, we are the second and we think there will be more. Comment about not being compatible with surrounding land uses . Well, at the present time, we 're not. But again, with the type of things that are occurring, we believe this area will fill in. Also, the comment about being premature with our proposal at this time. What we are attempting to do, is analyze the situation; project a need; and then fulfill that need for housing. We think that our proposal is very much on schedule. What' s occurred here and at Del Camino and on the east side of Longmont. Obviously, our development is not going to occur in one year. It' s going to take years in order for us to build it out, and we think that we will be in sync with the type of employment which will occur in this area. Prime agriculture ground, Vern has talked about that. A valid question, but, I think, one is a question which nationally we have not resolved. -15- I 'd like also to go over quickly with you of the quality of our utility services. There ' s been some comment about municipal services cannot be provided. We are not requesting any municipal services from Longmont at all. Let me go over what we' re going to use. We have for water supply, Left Hand Water Company. They're a large company, they serve all the way into this area; they serve Del Camino on down into Niwot and the Gun Barrel Area of north Boulder. I believe they 've been in business about twenty years and have a very good record. We are using Union REA for our electricity. They again serve this area all the way down to Brighton and are very capable of supplying us with electrical power. We are also within the Longmont Fire Protection District. This is a District, it is not a city fire protection. The nearest fire station is located here approximately two-two and a half road miles from us. Public Service for gas , Bell for telephone. The only service that we are requesting from the County is police protection, and we, at the Planning Commission meeting, had discussed the concept of the contract which you have with some other small communities that don' t have a police force. So this is the situation in our area, and why we believe this total area warrants another look at and why we think our proposal is in line with what is occurring and what will occur. Let me move on to the second point. ROD ALLISON: Excuse me. What are you going to be using for sewage? I didn' t hear (inaudible) . -16- GARY TUTTLE: Our sewage will be handled by on-site sewage treatment plant. Let' s take a look at our master plan since this is a PUD rezoning, that is also of a concern to you how exactly the property will be designed and developed. When we first started talking this over, Don and Carl, Vern, and I , we wanted to apply some contemporary design principles to manufactured housing development. We wanted to provide a neighborhood identity for the people that live here. We wanted to make a organized layout of the development that was easy to follow and good to live in. We also wanted to provide a focal point for the entire development so the people could not only identify with a smaller neighborhood, but also their entire area. And this is how the concept of Five Villages and the name evolved. We have, indeed, five separate neighborhoods within this development. Each of these areas has their own street system which is separate from the adjacent village. This gives our development a smaller scale, people can identify with their part of the development. It also allows us to respond to some buyer preferences, such as; retired people, or people with families, or adults only type of community. We think we can provide them with the kind of living that they most desire. We intend to have very strict covenants. There will be a Homeowners ' Association. The Homeowners ' Association will manage the grounds and the streets. They will also have an Architectural Committee which will govern the types of units which can be in, the types of storage facilities on the -17- lot, and these types of things . So people will pretty much govern their own housing area. Within each village, there is a park area, a neighborhood park if you will, within each village. We tried to create short sections of straight street and a lot of curvilinear streets, as you can see. The curvilinear streets feed into this main access drive which loops through the development and accesses on to County Road 3 1/2 . We intend to pave County Road 3 1/2 . In the middle of the development there is a community facility. This includes a building which we want to have meeting rooms and a kitchen, swimming pool, and a play field. Under that we will have a mini-storage area for people to store large articles. Also we have an RV area for boats and trailers. There will be no on-street parking. There is, for every three units, there is , throughout the area, one guest parking space so people who come and visit park in a designated area and don' t park on the street. The Highway Department has asked for improvements with our intersection 119 , which we have agreed to make. So we have attempted to apply some PUD type concepts to this project. It is , in effect, a condominium project where people own their homes and have a common interest in the entire land and govern their own development with a Homeowners ' Association. We believe it' s well suited, and we believe it ' s a good plan for the area and a good way to start off development in this area which we feel is suited for it. Thank you very much. -18- RUSS ANSON: Is this property within the Longmont Planning Area? GARY TUTTLE: Well, we interpreted--it ' s kind of a hard call . But, when I studied the map, I believe that their line nicks the edge of our property. These lines were rather wide and are difficult really to say exactly where they are, but as I stated, I think it ' s fair to say that it' s on the edge of the Longmont Planning Area. RUSS ANSON: What does Longmont designate that area for? GARY TUTTLE: They have designated it as open. RUSS ANSON: As open? And what does open mean for (Inaudible) GARY TUTTLE: Agricultural uses , predominantly. RUSS ANSON: In between the city limits and the edge of the Longmont Planning Area, is that the only area to the north of the Union Reservoir that is designated for residential? GARY TUTTLE: You're speaking of this section here? RUSS ANSON: That ' s right. Is there any other section that is designated for a residential development? GARY TUTTLE: No, this zoned R-1 . This section is zoned R-1 in Weld County. RUSS ANSON: And is the rest of it open zoning or what? GARY TUTTLE: The rest of it is Agricultural Zoning, Weld County Agricultural Zoning. Any other questions at this time? -19- VERN NELSON: At this time I 'd like to call on Don Johnson to make a couple of comments regarding his reasons for wanting to develop. DON JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, lady, and gentlemen. I ' ll just take a short length of time. My name is Don Johnson. The land in question is owned by my wife, and has been for twenty-two years, and due to the inability to economically farm eighty acres, which is a small parcel, and the acute need for this type of housing in the area, we feel that this is the best use of the land, hence we 've done this type of work. We 've noted changes of character of the neighborhood with development that is going on in the surrounding area in the past few years, and basically with the growth historically going along the corridor to the I-25 corridor, which is a transportation corridor, which is one of fine necessities for any type of development. And we would like to ask you, Commissioners, for a favorable consideration for this. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. VERN NELSON: I ' d like to have Mr. Jim Ricketts now make a short presentation. Mr. Ricketts is the general manager of Neata Homes here in Greeley. He ' s also the corporate attorney for Neata Homes, Incorporated. He ' s very active in the Colorado Mobile Home Association, and as his presentation today he is in fact representing the Colorado Mobile Home Association. Jim. -20- JIM RICKETTS : I 'm Jim Ricketts , Neata Homes down in Evans. I , yeah, I am representing the Colorado Manufactured Housing Association, now. Warren Brown, the executive director, is on the Western Slope with a previous engagement and he asked me to step into his place. The CMHA is made up of lenders, dealers , manufacturers and parks here in Colorado. I 'm addressing you for that organization today because of the vacancy rate of manufactured homes in this area. Northern Colorado, or rather, no parks have been built in Northern Colorado for quite a while. Greeley, Platteville, Fort Lupton, is at or near a hundred percent occupancy right now. Colorado, a few years back, had a high of thirty-five thousand units sold into this state. Now that' s thirty-five thousand that were built, manufactured, delivered, sold and taxed into this area. We ' re gonna be lucky if we get two thousand units sold in this state this year. One of the reasons is because of the lack of space. There is a big need for this type of housing. There ' s a demand for that type of life style. Young couples can grow with the manufactured houses . You probably well know if you read any type of paper at all, ninety-five percent of the families in the U.S. cannot afford a conventional home. This is probably an alternative life style solution for these families. It' s gonna require two, three thousand dollar down payment, much less than a conventional home. Another reason is that manufactured homes do appreciate in value and they can roll that equity, should they -21- sell the home, into a conventional home, which is often the case. Manufactured homes are built to a national code. That ' s HUD, Housing and Urban Development. They' re federally inspected. They' re energy efficient. As matter of fact you'd probably be impressed with some of the energy audits that are being done on new manufactured homes. They' re well insulated, which means the housing costs, traditional living cost every month is gonna be lower. The Federal and State Governments, as you well know, don' t have the money, the manpower, the desire, to take care of these type of housing problems. The counties have to take care of their own people , and I believe manufactured housing is one solution to this problem. Manufactured housing, houses are safe, they' re energy efficient, they're affordable, and they're warm. The Colorado Manufactured Housing Association asks you for a favorable decision on this park zoning. I 'd be happy to ask, answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. VERN NELSON: Incidentally, Jim has with him a twelve minute slide presentation that describes the virtues of manufactured home living should any of you wish to see that as part of our presentation, but in order to keep down on the time that we ' re taking, we ' re not going to show that unless you request it specifically. Now, this nearly concludes our presentation, except I want you to know that Bill Bear is here. Bill is the vice-president of Central Homes here in Greeley. If any of you have any specific questions about housing quality, construction -22- details or the financing capability of these units, Bill could give us some specific answers to any of those questions . I want to simply repeat a couple of things now that you already are aware of, but simply mainly to conclude our part of the presentation at this point anyway. Our application covers many more details than we have taken time to present here verbally. We have reviewed many of these subjects with your Planning staff. We have made every effort to resolve any of the concerns that have come up. Gary Tuttle described to you the utilities and the services that would be required and how they basically would be satisfied. We don ' t think that we ' re asking the County to support any part of this activity. We want to be a self-supporting entity within Weld County. With that I would be available for any questions that you have and would ask that we have a right to rebut should anybody have any objections to this application. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Does anybody have any questions? DON JOHNSON: There may be others here, excuse me, there may be others here who wish to speak in favor too, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to come forward and speak? Would you like to come forward and (FROM AUDIENCE) : Just a point of clarification. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Would you come up to the mike? Give your name and -23- VINCENT PORRECA: My name is Vincent Porreca and I 'm here on behalf of one of the adjacent property owners. I 'm just, my question was, is this the appropriate time for those objecting to the proposal to speak or not? COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I think it would be appropriate to say whatever you'd like to right now. VINCENT PORRECA: Fine. I ' ll do that. For the record, my name is Vincent Porreca, firm is Porreca and Associates , Incorporated of Boulder, Colorado, here today on behalf of John Mayeda, who is an adjacent property owner to this site, and we have several comments , many of which were generated out of the testimony that we 've just heard today. Mr. Mayeda is also present, his family has, excuse me, has farmed the area adjacent, and the area of this site also, for some fifty years. As you well know, and as your Planning Commission and staff have advised through their recommendations, this is prime agricultural land. The area as proposed, or the application as proposed here, would conflict with many of the policies identified in that plan, and those policies , I think, have been well enumerated and substantiated by decisions of this Board and previous Boards in dealing with the areas adjacent or near existing municipalities. The issue that was addressed here today by the applicants , in my opinion, has ignored the zoning issue that' s before you. Let' s not be dissuaded from this plan that you have enforced over the -24- years and sought to implement by your decision by discussing the type of residential units that are proposed. We are talking about a high density urban development in an area of agricultural uses, an area that should remain in agricultural uses, an area that your plan seeks to remain in agricultural uses. The issue of whether or not this is in the Longmont Planning Area, or on the border of it, I think was addressed by the applicant. If it is in the area, and I believe Longmont will address that today, the applicant has stated he believes it ' s projected to be open. Mr. Mayeda feels his land is open and agricultural and should remain so. The applicants have really sought to ignore, as I see it, the comments from the Colorado Department of Health and the Water Quality Control Division, talking about the availability of water services. COG in the area has recommended that this not be provided approval . You look at the issues of public utilities. The applicants say, we wish to be self-sufficient. The fact is, that it' s not gonna be very possible for them to be self-sufficient in the areas of fire and police protection, perhaps not even in the area of water and sewer. The Weld County Water Quality Plan, as cited by the referrals that you received, this would be in conflict with that. Proliferation of small packet treatment plants does not seem to be something that the State, nor the Counties have encouraged. I think too, that we have to look at a couple of other issues here. The applicants have sought by their map, to my left, to demonstrate some changes -25- in the area. There certainly have been some changes in the area, but what is the area and what is the neighborhood? Longmont has sought to preserve agricultural land in this area through it ' s planning process and the St. Vrain Valley Plan. The County has sought to do that. The cooperate effort between the County and the municipalities that either are adjacent to it or within the County is one that goes far back in the County' s history now. We're talking about, as I understand it, in talking to your Planning staff, a piece of property that would support one residential unit by the existing zoning. This proposal would put five hundred and fifty or so on this site. This proposal would trigger other rezoning requests. If there ' s truly a need for additional residential units, I believe the City of Longmont would be the most appropriate agency to address that need, since they do provide services and facilities for their growth, and much of the justification that the applicant has presented is based on Longmont' s growth. I submit to this Board that this proposal is diametrically opposed to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. It' s not in conformance with the Longmont Planning Area, St. Vrain Valley Plan, and we strongly urge you to uphold the unanimous recommendation of your Planning Commission to deny this request and that of your Planning staff. This application actually harkens back to the kinds of applications we have seen in the past prior to the plan that exists here in Weld County of -26- leap-frog development, not justifiable in terms of need, not justifiable in determining that the existing zoning cannot be used, and not justifiable in terms of the urban services that are needed to support such a use. Again, we are emphasizing, we 're talking about an urban setting, we ' re talking about what your staff has projected to be, if this were to be approved and developed, a community that'd be number twenty in all of Weld County in terms of population. That' s a rather startling factor to learn. We're talking about a good number of people placed in the heart of an agricultural area and we would strongly, again, urge that you deny the request. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Like to come forward? THOMAS CONNELL: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Thomas A. Connell . I 'm an attorney here in Greeley. I represent JCK Farms , consisting of Richard Hamm, Katherine Hamm Fenton and her sister. My clients own approximately four hundred and eighty acres east of the petitioner' s property, a quarter section immediately east right across County Road 3 1/2 . They strongly oppose the approval of this application. We would, in the interest of time, agree totally with the findings of the Planning staff and their recommendations, the recommendation of the Planning Commission itself to this Board. I would also concur totally with the gentleman that just appeared. I would note, just very briefly, that it' s our position that this application is diametrically -27- opposed to our Comprehensive Plan. I think, number one, we have a lot of Longmont and Boulder County involved with this. Our plan deals with Weld County and the preservation and the care of Weld County property. I think it is obvious from the presentation that the primary changes that they are trying to refer to, and here again it primarily is potential, lie in Boulder County with the possible advent of Hewlett-Packard and this job market, asking us to supply a bedroom community by spot zoning that will be spending it' s primary dollars in Larimer County and Longmont and in the Boulder area. The services, I think the Planning staff has some figures, that in relation to any tax base and tax assessment that this division might have, I cannot imagine that it will provide for the inspection services , the police protection, various county services that are necessary to any benefit to Weld County. They have not dealt with any of the requirements in the Zoning Resolution to obtain a Change of Zone other than the attempted allusion of changing circumstances here, most of which are potential changing circumstances . Here again I agree, a definition of the immediate area, or the community that would be served. This area is high density agricultural farming. In many instances vegetable farming. To have a development of this size immediately across the road from my client, for example, we can anticipate many problems with the standard practice of aerial spraying, other spraying of crops with this density of population in eighty acres immediately next -28- to us. It ' s my clients ' position that the area could very well develop some serious drainage problems . We have two existing tiles, drainage tiles, one six inch, one eight inch. The six inch originates just to the west of this property. The Highway 119 has a ditch in the borrow pit maintained by the State of Colorado that is primarily geared, it' s my understanding, to excessive rain drainage, some seepage, and to crop irrigation drainage and overflow. I would once again reiterate that we agree totally with the position of the Weld County Planning Commission--the gentleman that was here before us , I find it interesting that on a development this size that the applicant, and all of those speaking in favor, have a vested economic interest in this development. I would be surprised if there are any of the adjacent, or even nearby, property owners here in support of this project. We strongly urge your denial of this application. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Would you like to step forward? CORDELL RICHARDSON: I am Cordell Richardson. I live in Longmont, Colorado. I have forty-three acres right catercorner across Highway 119 from this property. And I think that this is a good location between Highways 25 and 287 for a mobile home project, especially one that is well organized like this one is. I have no objection, as far as a neighboring landowner. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Thank you. Would you like to come forward? This lady here. -29- LaDONNA SWANSON: My Name is LaDonna Swanson. My husband and I operate and live on an irrigated farm near Countryside Village and we have no problem operating our irrigated farm near a mobile home park. The other thing is we do own property, another farm, in Weld County and we feel this would be a tremendous tax advantage to the taxpayers of Weld County, with this development. ROD ALLISON: Would you excuse me, what mobile home park do you operate a farm by? LaDONNA SWANSON: Near Countryside Village, south of Longmont. ROD ALLISON: South of, how many mobile home units are in that park? LaDONNA SWANSON: I 'm not sure. (IN BACKGROUND) Three hundred twenty, LaDONNA SWANSON: Three hundred and twenty. ROD ALLISON: Three hundred twenty. Okay. Thank you. LaDONNA SWANSON: And we 've had no problems. COMMISSIONER MARTIN, Yes, would you like to come forward? RAMONA HILTON: Gentlemen, I am Ramona Hilton. I own a hundred and forty-three acres adjacent to the property to the west, half a mile east of the County Line Road. I have no objections to this plan. I think it' s time that we do something within the County, you know, without Longmont dictating to us. I -30- think it' s a great plan. I think that you should approve it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do you farm? RAMONA HILTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Yeah. Okay. Would you like to come forward? MIKE McDUNN: My name ' s Mike McDunn and I 'm the Deputy City Manager from the City of Longmont for Community Development. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission, I 'd just like to briefly update you on some of the actions that have recently been taken by Longmont, as well as to make a couple of statements about the City' s feeling about this plan. First of all, I believe you have a memo in your packet in the, Planning staff read to you that I don' t necessarily want to go over that, but there is a statement in there that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the long-range Planning Commission unanimously urge that you deny this proposal. Just last night at the City Council meeting, and we brought some maps if you have questions , the City Council adopted and brought about a seventeen hundred acre parcel of land into the Longmont Planning Area. As Mr. Tuttle stated, it is on the southwest side of town, however. But within that area there is more than adequate land for the development of mobile home parks in subdivisions, and as noted in our memo to the Planning Commissions of Weld County, the City is in such support of that type of development in Longmont that they have recently passed an -31- ordinance which, for the first time since 1970 , I believe ' 68 , allows mobile home parks and subdivisions within the city limits, and I believe we have one or two of those actually under consideration at this time. Third thing is with rezoning, which is what this is a question of, we've found that when a spot of zoning is permitted, it becomes very difficult to refuse others who are adjacent. There is a very strong precedent in your decision regarding this piece of zoning. It' s our feeling that if you' re going to create a new town in this area, we feel that you should incorporate it into a comprehensive planning process and do it right, and bring it in with your plan, rather than maybe piecemeal it and allow it to happen to you. Finally, planning is a tool that governments use to create a certain level of predictability. It' s interesting that we' re here today in Weld County, just last week we discussed with the Boulder County Commissioners the concept of an inter-governmental agreement whereby such stability would be, and predictability would be, even further implemented in terms of each body' s understanding of the other ' s actions . But we do believe in the urban service area concept of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. It' s used in Boulder County, it ' s used in Weld County, it' s used all over the state and all over the country as far as we know, and that is the concept that establishes the predictability. Now, to stray from this approach will basically destroy -32- previously established predictability for not only government agencies within and near Weld County, but also private citizens and developers who have relied on that plan. Now the economy of scale issue is fairly easy to understand, which is the basis of the urban service area concept, being that many people can maintain roads and build roads and can be connected to other roads . Electric lines can be run uphill, water lines can be run all over the place, but when it gets to gravity flow sewer, it makes an awful lot of sense to have development occur where there is a large sewer treatment plant that can take care of the needs, rather than having small sewage treatment plants all over the place. So we would respectfully request that you consider and deny this proposal, and I 'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. As I mentioned, we brought maps and, hopefully, can address any of your questions. RUSS ANSON: Are there presently any mobile home subdivisions in the city limits at all? MIKE McDUNN: Not subdivisions--parks. RUSS ANSON: Parks. MIKE McDUNN: That' s the significance of the ordinance that was adopted. Before, the code which was, I believe, adopted in ' 67 , only allowed parks, and a few of the people in the Countryside Mobile Home Park, which the lady mentioned earlier, although I really can' t point it out on this map, I think it ' s right here, had come in about two years ago and the manufactured -33- housing people came in and prevailed on the council, as well as the Planning staff, to create an ordinance that would allow people that have mobile homes to get out from this rent situation, because at the time the real question that the people were asking the City Council to approach was rent control . It seems that as the prices on the land and the rentals went up, the people were stuck. They didn 't really have anywhere to go, and so they had to pay the rent, and they were coming to the City Council to request some form of relief. Now, what the City Council did, was said, 'We don't want to play with rent control, but what we will do is create an ordinance that will allow a person to buy a piece of ground and subdivide it and locate mobile homes or modular homes on it. ' So that is a significant, we feel, a significant step in facilitating mobile home developments within the city. RUSS ANSON: Okay, in the Longmont planning area, between the city limits and the outer range of the planning area, are there any areas that are designated for future residential development? Designated by the Comprehensive Plan? MIKE McDUNN: Any? RUSS ANSON: Yes. MIKE McDUNN: In the planning area? RUSS ANSON: In the plan area between the city limits and the outer range of the planning area. MIKE McDUNN: Now, you say between this line and this line? -34- RUSS ANSON: That' s right. MIKE McDUNN: No. RUSS ANSON: Is it all open? MIKE McDUNN: It ' s designated for open and agricultural uses . RUSS ANSON: Okay. What if, is that the same all the way around the city limits? MIKE McDUNN: That ' s correct, except for the fact that the city is currently, we 've just recently adopted a sort of a, and I don ' t want to take all your time, I ' ll try to be brief, but it' s a new urban service area concept where it' s a three tier approach. As Mr. Tuttle said, we have the committed service area, which is the area within which, over time, we will annex and provide services . It is in fact that of an area within which we are committed to provide services. We have the larger area which is starting to become the subject of the intergovernmental agreement I mentioned with Boulder County, and it goes substantially into Boulder County and it goes over into the Weld County area, and that is the area that, at least we feel that actions within that area affect us and actions that we take within that area affect that surrounding area. So we typically will receive referrals from the County Planning staff for any action that takes place in this area and also from the Boulder County Planning staff from this, this other area. But what I haven ' t mentioned is this second tier, and that' s what the -35- Council did last night. Bryan, could you bring that map, please? This is our Comprehensive Plan. (Tape change 83-91) (Inaudible) what we 're doing is planning this second tier of neighborhoods. Now it ' s based on a level of commitment, but, in fact, the city is currently at a position inside of its committed service area where the sewer lines are at or near capacity, so being somewhat pro-growth, but orderly growth in nature, Longmont is planning these neighborhoods outside to ultimately add to the committed service area. Now the areas that you see in red here, although designated by land use category, not zoning, are areas that would facilitate the development of mobile home parks and subdivisions within the City' s planning area. RUSS ANSON: Did I understand you correctly when you said that your present sewer capacity is at the limit? MIKE McDUNN: No. No, that, what I said is the sewer line capacity is at or nearing its limit such that right now the City is studying installation on a parallel sewer line right here to serve the area within the committed service area. The City is currently installing about a fifty-four inch trunk interceptor main right in this area to open up a bottleneck for the area that' s served by sewer lines in this area. RUSS ANSON: I guess what I 'm wondering about is if, do you plan on outside the city limits , of designating any areas for -36- future residential development, and if so, do you have the capability of serving that area within your water and sewer? MIKE McDUNN: Well, there are quite a few areas within the main service area right now that would facilitate that type of development. But what I 'm saying is this new tier of neighborhoods is being created, the three that I mentioned that the City Council brought into the Longmont Planning Area last night are the Airport, Clover Basin and Schlagel neighborhoods. This is STC, right here, and so that this area now could, can be brought into the committed service area and provided sewer, water, electric, police, fire, parks and so on. ROD ALLISON: So, in a sense, that tier area is in your future residential growth area then? MIKE McDUNN: That ' s what it is designed to be. ROD ALLISON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: This is the main downtown area? MIKE McDUNN: Yes, that ' s the central business district. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: This is the dike? MIKE McDUNN: Right. This is STC coming into town, this is the central business district, Civic Center and then the HP parcel is right here. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: This is the County line? MIKE McDUNN: Right. It' s, as I mentioned, sort of ironic that we ' re all sort of getting to be more and more interdependent and it' s sort of been an opportunity to get to know the Planning -37- staff a little bit better and find out a little hit more about what happens in Weld County since we all seem to get a little parochial every once in a while. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Is there, Mr. McDunn, is there a reason why there is no planning as far as the City of Longmont? Does the County line have anything to do with this, because I 'm kind of familiar with the land around Longmont. I think total surrounding Longmont is prime agricultural land, that to the north, south, or no matter which way you go from Longmont, it' s all prime land, but all of the, it appears to me that all of your planning, your everything is going in three directions, with the exception to the east. Does the County line have anything to do with this? MIKE McDUNN: Well , back when the City was planning this area, ultimately by contract with Hewlett Packard there was a question about sewer service into the Weld County area and there were a substantial number of homeowners along here, we had two, at least two, separate hearings on that, and at the time we had designated a big chunk of land right in here as open space, as a sort of a buffer, and the landowners in here came in and said well, we've reconsidered, we don't want to be open space, we'd rather be industrial. But the people from Weld County came in at one of the meetings and said, hey we want to be included in this. We want to be brought into this area so that we can ultimately develop out here and get onto that sewer line that you're gonna -38- be running up here for HP. Then at the second meeting, another group of people came in and said, hey, we don ' t want to have any part of Longmont, you just stay out of here, you put open space right there and leave us alone, and so what the Planning Commissions ultimately wound up doing was just drawing that line right there. So it was sort of a mixed feeling. Some people wanted to come in and be able to develop. They didn' t necessarily want to annex, but they wanted on the sewer. The next time a whole different group came in and said we don' t want to have anything to do with Longmont, so. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So I guess it ' s really hard to say that, if that line was two or three miles further east, then you would be developing that way then, but I guess that would be an unfair question? MIKE McDUNN: Well, to sort of respond to what I think you ' re getting at, as, the sewer question is a big question. It ' s not the plant capacity so much as it is the line capacity that is giving Longmont fits right now. We ' re spending quite a substantial amount of money right in this area from the sewer plant to the west, which is ultimately a portion of the blink of the interceptor sewer that will serve those Clover Basin neighborhoods. But the reason it ' s a problem right now is this whole side of town drains to a thirty-six inch line which is a bottleneck, so they had to go in there and put in a bigger line to open up that area. The area up in the northwest, and also in -39- the eastern part of town, is on a line which has been shown by study to be at a hundred and seventy-five percent of capacity. Now basically that sounds like, and I 'm not an engineer, so I 'm quoting what engineers say, but what that basically means is that the bottlenecks are surcharging the manholes, such that there ' s a pressure being built up greater than gravity and if at some point during a peak period that occurs it' s liable to pop manholes and so on and so forth and maybe go into people ' s floor drains. So the City Council now has authorized the design and construction of another interceptor line in this direction. Now how does this all tie in? Basically what' s gonna happen in Longmont is gonna be dictated by where the next major piece of sewer line goes, and that' s the reason I make the statement about economy of scale. Wherever the sewer line goes is where development goes . The water follows it, the electric follows it, the police and fire and everything else follow it, and so wherever the decision is made whether to run this line out here to serve Hewlett Packard and, therefore, size large enough to serve a larger basin, or the one that comes out over here. That will be the key decision, everything else will sort of follow behind that, but that is a very good reason why, that' s the, I think, one of the basic reasons for the urban service area concept is package treatment plants, as far as we know, have not had a great record of success over time and maintenance and the urban service area concept, I -40- think, above and beyond water and electric and that, is to take advantage of the economy of scale of having a large sewer plant. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Do you have any timetable on Hewlett Packard? MIKE McDUNN: The most recent official notification we 've got from them says that they don 't consider that they will be doing anything until 1987 . COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now, if they come there and said hey, we 're ready to build in 1987 , you would be willing or obligated, whatever, to service them with sewer then, is that correct? MIKE McDUNN: Obligated. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Obligated. Then the people in Weld County, the houses that, you know, said they'd like to come on and some of them said they wouldn't and everything else, will you be giving those people along the County line then an opportunity to come onto the line , or are you going to say, no, this is gonna serve strictly our area and that ' s it? MIKE McDUNN: One of the interesting things about this dilemma that we 're in is, that whenever you run one of these lines, it is an incredible expense. In 1981 dollars we estimated that this line, just to serve Hewlett Packard, from Seventeenth Avenue down to the sewer plant, was 3 . 8 million dollars . Now that, what' s also gonna happen as a result of the installation of one of these sewer lines is , depending upon who front ends that -41- cost, that entity, whether it be the city, a district, or something like that, is gonna want to make darn sure that as much development as possible that can occur and tap onto that line so they recover their money and minimize their carrying costs. So that will be the case when they run that line out there to Hewlett Packard. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So then they would actually go out and encourage people to hook onto it then, whether they're in Weld County or Boulder County, is that correct? MIKE McDUNN: I 'm sure that would be given consideration. That was part of the staff ' s comment when the developments came in up in this area, was that these guys were going on package treatment plants and we thought that it was a little premature in that when that line goes out there, there would be a possibility of having them serviced by City of Longmont sewer. To us that makes a lot more sense with the capabilities we 've got. We 're just driving out here, out 66 , on the way up here, and there ' s a, it used to be in Longmont, a sort of a joke, that there ' s a dairy farm out here I think. It ' s the city sewer plant which starts smelling, and the Utilities Director at the time would always blame that dairy farm out there. Well , we 've got a new operator at the sewer plant and it hasn ' t smelled much anymore so we don' t need to use that as an excuse any longer for where those terrible odors are coming from. But it does make a lot of sense when you've got an operator and a big plant to hook people onto that. -42- RUSS ANSON: Mr. Tuttle seemed to be indicating that even if this proposed development didn' t fit within the Comprehensive Plan, there was sufficient changing conditions in that area to justify rezoning. Do you agree or do you disagree with that? MIKE McDUNN: Well, the only change, you know, this is a large scale map, and when you talk about change in the character of the neighborhood, that' s always been sort of ambiguous to me. Is this the neighborhood, is this the neighborhood, is this the neighborhood? But the only thing I 've noticed out there is a bunch of oil derricks and pumping operations. Other than that I haven' t noticed any changes for ten years. That, in, in that certain area. RUSS ANSON: So your area of consideration is somewhat narrower than Mr. Tuttle ' s? He ' s including this proposal for a horse racing facility and Del Camino. MIKE McDUNN: Well, this map doesn' t have section lines, but I think that this is a substantial large area. I think it may be three or four miles out to Del Camino from here. So if you're taking the neighborhood as being considered a six or eight, maybe ten square mile area, then sure. You know, the County Commissioners, I believe, gave the Sekiches permission to expand their operation up here. Mead, for example, I believe has approved an industrial development and is considering a residential development, but at some point you know, each individual makes a decision like this has to define for himself, -43- I guess, what that area is that' s called a neighborhood, and as far as we 're concerned, I don' t think anything is , what I 'm considering the neighborhood, except for the Calkins Lake stuff up in here , I don' t think anything' s changed for ten, twenty years up there. COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Well , that map is not quite correct because Barbour Ponds is on the south side of the St. Vrain, and the horse racing facility would be moved further north about two miles. At least that' s the plans at this point in time. MIKE McDUNN: Well , we just kind of basically, what we ' re in summary saying is that the planning thing is a predictability tool, and if you 're gonna change that we'd like to see, we 'd like to know what it' s gonna change to be. And on the other hand, if you do feel that this is an appropriate development maybe we ought to plan a larger area rather than back into it by doing it one at a time, and, not only that, the City of Longmont has gone on record as stating that they will support mobile home subdivisions and parks within the city. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That was the question I wanted to ask you. Within your committed service area at this point you would allow that kind of zoning? MIKE McDUNN: That ' s correct. They've encouraged it. That was the intent of the ordinance. The Council, as I said, didn' t want to deal with rent control. That' s sort of a dirty word the -44- somebody over in New York said something about a long time ago. But in order to facilitate these people ' s problem, they did adopt that ordinance which allows subdivision, which is the answer to their problems , so that they could buy the land and put their mobile home on it, or even a modular home on it, and, therefore, they wouldn 't be subject to these fluctuating rent changes. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Are there places identified at all for that sort of thing or is that just kind of up to whether the developer chooses to come in and propose it? MIKE McDUNN: There, as I mentioned before, these are upside down, no, that our plan is a land use plan, and so the areas that the Planning staff has marked out on these maps are areas where there is a density designated, either one to six, six to twelve, or greater than twelve. there is no zoning implied, such that if anywhere where, I believe, a mobile home park, I don ' t want to, I 'm not an expert on that, but in any of the areas that are marked in here, zoning could afford a mobile home park or subdivision. Now the reality of this situation is that areas that are currently surrounded by single family residential are not going to support mobile home parks. They' ll never get through the zoning process, but there ' s plenty of land in the new neighborhoods where that is a great potential. RUSS ANSON: Are you presently serving any water and sewer outside the city limits? MIKE McDUNN: Yes. -45- RUSS ANSON: What areas are you serving outside the city limits? MIKE McDUNN: Well, Hygiene, for example, has our water, they're on sanitary sewer, they've got our electric. We also have some , well, we 're very wary of the Robinson decision and have a moratorium right now on outside sewer and water taps. RUSS ANSON: Okay, so these areas down here, do you propose to annex there, or are you going to MIKE McDUNN: Right, right. Once they' re in the Longmont, the second tier, they are eligible to annex and come into the committed service area. RUSS ANSON: Okay. MIKE McDUNN: The key being annexation and a one-six parental continuity to an existing city boundary, so that everything occurs as it can be supported but in an orderly fashion. I 'd be happy to answer any questions that come up later on if you have any. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Anyone else? (Inaudible comments in audience) Vern? VERN NELSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well, let' s wait a minute, Vern. If anybody else would like to speak, and then we might have some questions and then we ' ll get into that. We ' ll give you a chance to do that. Is anybody else here like to come forward and speak to this thing? -46- RAY EDMONSTON: I 'm Ray Edmonston. I operate Aerial Sprayers in Longmont. My company serves the farming area around this proposed development. I don ' t think this would be very, this would get along very well with all the spraying activity that we do in the area. We operate under the FAA rules, Part 137, and that allows you to dispense pesticides within five hundred feet of a residence , and provided you do it in a safe manner. The people on the surface, and with this much density in the area, I don' t think that we would be able to serve the surrounding farms . I urge you to deny the approval. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Anyone else? I ' ll be sure to give everybody a chance that would like to speak to this. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions if there ' s no other people from the audience. I guess I held my questions off until we heard all of our comments and everything else with Gary Tuttle. Gary, I 've got a series of questions you might answer for me if you would please. You mentioned earlier about police protection, that you were contemplating maybe approaching the Sheriff' s Office with a contract similar to like we have with Gilcrest or, I believe it' s Pierce. Could you elaborate a little more on that? GARY TUTTLE: I ' ll try. When we were discussing the various services that we have with the Planning Commission, that concept was brought up, the fact that the County has contracts with the Sheriff' s Department to serve other communities and that might be -47- appropriate for this , for our development also to enter into a contract and pay a fee and we said we would be agreeable to that. So COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: It' s just in the GARY TUTTLE: Yeah, we don' t have COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: investigation point at this time. You don' t know whether you would rely upon just a normal response from them or you might go into a contractural agreement with them, but it' s in the planning stage. GARY TUTTLE: Right. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You' re just looking GARY TUTTLE: Right, we ' d be open to discuss it and if that ' s the policy that the Sheriff' s Office has, then we would obviously comply. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: One other, not one other, but another question--the sewage , on-site, would this be economically feasible or cost-wise if, say in 1987 , Hewlett Packard came out here and they said, yeah, we can serve you and you have in the meantime built an elaborate sewage system, would it be cost feasible then to abandon your sewage system and go on with that? Have you got any comments? GARY TUTTLE: Well , can I , I 'd like to defer that to Mr. Nelson, our engineer. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Sure. GARY TUTTLE: Okay. -48- VERN NELSON: We have not accomplished any feasibility studies with respect to sewage facilities at this point, but we' re certainly cognizant of the fact that there are problems in developing or obtaining site approvals for sewage treatment works. We have discussed various possibilities; an on-site sewage facility until there is such other facilities available as you might suggest by the city for example. The other one is that we have talked seriously about the creation of a sanitation district for this area as it develops, starting with our site as a nucleus. I wish to point out that the City of Longmont has acquired a right to a site south and a little bit east of our site for future development of sewage treatment facilities. In looking at the USGS quadrangle maps, the topography is such that it would be no problem for us to flow by gravity into that site should that occur. So that' s another possibility that' s down the road as far as sewage treatment facilities is concerned. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well , you or Gary, either one, the size of the lots. These lots will be sold, a person would come in, he ' ll buy the lot, put his mobile home on it. Could you give us some idea how much space there ' ll be between mobile homes and that sort of thing? GARY TUTTLE: Okay. We have planned our development to accommodate a single unit and the basic modular we' re using is fourteen feet by seventy feet. We would like to use some flexibility that your PUD ordinance allows. You can see a -49- varying set-back, you can see a zero lot line placement of units so that people can have use of a greater amount of side yard. The units are, answer your question specifically about distance apart, the units are twenty-five, thirty feet apart at least. Twenty-five feet apart I ' ll say, between units , side set-back, twenty-five feet. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: If I come to you and said I want to put a double-wide on, do I buy two lots then? GARY TUTTLE: We have some lots that are designed to accommodate a double-wide unit. We also have some lots that are designed to accommodate a longer unit, that is possibly one that ' s eighty feet long. We have discussed the fact that possibly as we get in, and over the years as we build through this, that we may have to change some things and request a larger lots and lower density, if there is that demand for the larger unit. We would like to be flexible in that regard. ROD ALLISON: Also, Mr. Brantner, we should point out that we ' re reviewing a mobile home park, which is different from a subdivision. These will be rental spaces, you will not be purchasing lots. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: These will be rental spaces? GARY TUTTLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay. GARY TUTTLE: Yes. -50- COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Gary, I had a question for you, I , and I just didn' t get the figure written down. You were talking a figure, number of employees per acre I think. You were talk, are GARY TUTTLE: Uh huh. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: What was that figure? GARY TUTTLE: I used forty employees per acre on industrial and commercial. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And what was the basis? Is that some standard that GARY TUTTLE: Well , yes. I looked in some reference books and those reference books have thirty to thirty-five employees per acre. They are rather outdated that as they were written in the sixties. The Hewlett Packard site has fifty employees per acre of its three hundred and twenty acres. Industrial land is used more efficiently now that it was in the sixties. I used forty per acre. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Would that be fairly heavy industrial, I mean it, rather than GARY TUTTLE: That, that is a type of industry, light industry, high tech industry, assembly industry. That is not heavy industry. This, I used it, based, that' s the type of industry that Longmont would like to encourage in that area, is the industrial park, light industry, high tech type. -51- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You through? Are you, do, at this time do you have any standards for mobile homes? If I come in with a 1969 model, kind of ragged looking, that sort of thing, do you have any year or size or construction type, have you set up any of those standards to maintain quality? GARY TUTTLE: Yeah. We will set up a Home Owner' s Association and people who are in the park will run an Architectural Control Committee, and they will approve units as they come in. We will set up general guidelines such as; pitched roof, shingles on the roof, a wood or wood plywood composite type siding, no metal siding. We will set up earthtone colors , the type of colors we want, and the home owners will take over the Architectural Control Committee and take it from there and anybody that comes in with a pink and white metal-sided unit with a round roof, that ' s not the kind of development we ' re looking for. We' re looking for a high quality type, and they will also run outdoors, have rules on outdoor storage, landscaping, RV vehicles, and that sort of thing. RUSS ANSON: Do you feel that this development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? GARY TUTTLE: With the Comprehensive Plan as you have it, no, it is not consistent. RUSS ANSON: Okay. So if the Board were to approve this development, then they would have to find that there are changing conditions sufficient to justify that rezoning? -52- GARY TUTTLE: That is correct. And that is the facts and the information that we have given you, we hope informs you of the changing conditions in the area. We 've talked about the neighborhood for instance. That' s a very difficult concept to define . We have, and our thinking has been, what is our area of influence, where are, where is the employment, what types of shelter will that employment require. And, I think our map pretty much outlines what, how, what we think influences us and what we think affects our property and what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Rod, how old is our Comprehensive Plan? COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: 1973 . COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Ten years . COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Vern, do you want to summarize now? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I had a couple of questions for COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Did you have some more? Okay. COMMISSIONER Johnson: Yeah, I did, in our packet of information there was some comment about the, I think it' s the Longmont Landfill and the possibility of that being relocated directly across, am I correct, from the proposed site--or a little to the GARY TUTTLE: The City of Longmont is considering expanding their landfill. And they are considering it, considering an adjacent expansion to it. Now this is all very preliminary. They have only several years left at their present landfill. The -53- landfill is here, it ' s eighty acres of property. Longmont is looking at an expansion to the west or an expansion to the north. There has been no land purchases, land options. Okay, but they do need to solve a problem. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Is the land for the future development zoned for that use, or would that also have to be rezoned and everything? VERN NELSON: It would come under Special Use Permit, I suspect. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I drove by the area. I 've been by it before, but I drove by last night and I noticed there was property for sale. It was at, Mr. Richardson ' s property, yours is for sale? CORDELL RICHARDSON: Right across the road there, on 119 . COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Are you contemplating that same kind of development for your, for sale? CORDELL RICHARDSON: No, I have no plans . COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I guess the other question that came to my mind, when you start talking about five hundred seventy-five homes, had to do with the traffic impact and I haven' t heard, I heard you mention paving 3 1/2 , the distance of the development. What about the impact of something like that on 119 , which is VERN NELSON: Well -54- COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I presume it would carry a good deal of the traffic. VERN NELSON: Surely, any time that you have any development along that roadway there, it will have a traffic impact. We have discussed this matter with the Colorado Highway Department and we believe that we can meet their requirements for handling the increase in traffic. For example, they would ask for acceleration, deceleration lanes along 119 at Road 3 1/2 . We would have no access directly from this property to Colorado 119 . All of our access would be from Road 3 1/2 , County Road 3 1/2 . COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Are there some other requirements with regard to noise and that sort of thing as far as set-backs and so forth? VERN NELSON: Well, there is a barrier along Colorado 119 . I don' t remember the width of that now. I think it' s thirty feet. GARY TUTTLE: We will construct a thirty foot wide berm landscape buffer along 119 and also along 3 1/2 . (Inaudible) and you can see the green area, so I , where we have front along the road we intend to have that landscape buffer area. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Vern, have you given us any time projections at all? If this were approved, how soon you'd start construction? Would you do one pod at a time, one neighborhood or whatever it might be, one village, or are you planning on -55- developing all five hundred plus spaces? Could you kinda tell us how long it might take to develop this over a period of time? VERN NELSON: Well, I 'm not sure I have the number, the length of time, but it would be phased, and that' s what the red numbers here represent, the one, two, three, four, five. It is a phased development. We would do phase one, then we would expand into phase two. As sales occur, and as the demand is there, it would be developed on that basis. Yes , we 're prepared to begin construction as soon as we can get the necessary approvals. We recognize that this is only one of many approvals that we must get before we can begin construction. We 've been working on this for nearly a year, so I can' t say that, well I know we wouldn 't start next month. I would hope that within six or eight months we could be started. We are ready to begin as soon as we get approvals. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So it won' t be five hundred trailers tomorrow or the first of the year, it would be a phase, gradual VERN NELSON: Oh, definite, definitely. It would be phased and probably three to five years would be a safe bet. Maybe even a little longer. From the time we start. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Right. VERN NELSON: And that' s quite a span of time when you consider all of the other potential industrial commercial development in the general vicinity. -56- COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Any other questions? Did you want to say something before Vern summarizes his? THOMAS CONNELL: I don ' t believe so. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. THOMAS CONNELL: Maybe just briefly one comment. COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: (whispered) Never seen a lawyer yet THOMAS CONNELL: I guess I 'd just like to express a concern that this is a Change of Zone hearing and a lot of the questions and the testimony that I hear actually goes to their application for a Planned Unit Development rather than being considered as a part of the Change of Zone application itself. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I think there' s a lot of soul searching going on up here and I think that ' s gonna contribute to the decision that comes out. Vern? ROD ALLISON: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of issues also that I 'd like to bring out. Mr. Nelson is welcome to go ahead and summarize his proposal if he ' d like. So, if you want, Vern, go ahead, and then there ' s two other issues besides the Planning Commission' s recommendation that I ' d like to discuss . COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Go ahead and express them. ROD ALLISON: Okay, fine . Okay, the first issue I 'd like to discuss in a little bit more in detail is the proposed sewage system. In order for a package treatment facility to be feasible on this project it would require a site application approval of -57- the Waste Management Division of the State Health Department, and on the last page of that handout I want to refer you to a letter addressed to me from Tom Bennett, senior planner of the Water Quality Control Division dated June 29th in review of this project. You know, I 've highlighted their position, and their position is the proposed waste water treatment facility is not consistent with the Larimer-Weld Water Quality Management Plan, and second, the site is proximate to 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 waste water treatment facilities whenever feasible. The next letter that I want to direct your attention to is the letter dated June 27th. This was a referral to the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments Water Quality Advisory Committee, who would be reviewing the site application and making a recommendation to the State Health Department, and again, I 've highlighted comments. In their letter they've indicated that availability of sewer service should not be considered a favorable factor in this particular proposal and rezoning request. Another statement out of this letter, 'New discharges combined with existing discharges and expansions of the existing discharges on St. Vrain Creek and its tributaries, Boulder Creek and Coal Creek, will result in substantial waste loads which may not be able to achieve recently -58- adopted State of Colorado Stream Standards with secondary treatment of effluents. Ammonia discharges may be a problem. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission has policies which discourage the proliferation of small waste water treatment facilities. The Water Quality Commission and Water Quality Division are particularly critical of Pre-designed field-erected package waste treatment facilities because of their poor track record of operations in Colorado, and, 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. ' And then, the other letter, this was an issue of concern throughout working with these gentlemen, and even in the sketch plan phase, which is a staff review, we discussed this problem. It was brought to everyone ' s attention as early as May 5th of 1983 , which is the front page of this letter. If there ' s any other questions about that, I 'd be happy to answer. This, the basis of discussing that was to make it clear to every body that, you know, sewage, adequate sewage for this proposal is suspect at this time, and it may never be available through a package treatment proposal, and it' s beyond the control of this County to approve that package treatment facility. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Who approves that, State Health? ROD ALLISON: That' s correct. -59- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: But, Don, don' t they set down pretty strict standards and everything else? So they won' t let them put in a half-way sewage system would they, and don' t they control that and monitor that? ROD ALLISON: Well, I think they' re indicating in these letters that they 're not willing to approve any package treatment plant on this site, from the information that we 've gathered from sending them referrals on this proposal . COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: But then, even if we approve the zoning change and they did not approve the sewage system, they couldn 't build then, could they? ROD ALLISON: That ' s correct. But do we again want to send out a false signal for saying that this land is ready to develop when in fact, there' s no sewage available? The other issue is, you know, it hasn ' t been highlighted as much as it was in the Planning Commission hearing, but the subject of property taxes did come up, and I prepared a model that' s based on the historical assessment process, what Weld County assessors have been doing today. So, if you like, we could review that. It does indicate, it' s not favorable in terms of the applicant' s proposal. It does indicate that the cost of public services would not be deferred by the property taxes they will be paying--the revenue generated off this mobile home park. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: What services are you referring to? What do we provide that -60- ROD ALLISON: Sheriff protection, Health Department services and road maintenance. If you want we could review that. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Well, I think it' s germane to the discussion because the, part of the basis of the Comprehensive Plan, as I understand it, has to do with that, that ' s the rationale for developing continguous to an existing ROD ALLISON: Well, that' s correct. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: municipality, so I think it' s germane information. I would like to see it. ROD ALLISON: Okay. This model is based on a mobile home park which is the one referred to in the presentation by the representatives of the applicant. It' s this mobile home park right here, Del Camino. What we 've done is, we looked at the 1983 assessed value of this park and also, another reason why we selected this park as a model is because it is almost identical in terms of the mill levy that would be used for this proposed mobile home park. The only, all of the school district, fire district and the water district are similar except for the St. Vrain Water District would include another half-mill in this proposed park. What we did was, we developed, from the assessed value we divided the number of mobile home spaces available at the Del Camino Mobile Home Park, which is two hundred and ten, by the assessed valuation to come up with the total assessed value per space, which you can see is six hundred and seven dollars, then went ahead and multiplied that by the number of spaces to -61- come up with the approximate assessed value of this proposed mobile home park, which is approximately three hundred and fifty thousand dollars assessed value. Then we multiplied these out times the mill levy and broke out the school district, water district, fire district and also the County' s mill levy of . 17172 to identify the approximate amount of tax revenue that this park would generate , and we ' re looking at a figure of a little under six thousand dollars, what the County would receive in tax revenues based upon that 1983 assessment of the Valley Village Mobile Home Park at Del Camino. So what I wanted to indicate to you is, once the actual amount of the property tax that the County will receive is broken out from the amounts of the other districts , the County' s property tax charge will not defer the cost of public services and from a property tax standpoint this proposal is a losing proposition for the citizens of Weld County. The cost to maintain Sheriff protection, streets , Health Department services at the present County level is far greater than the amount of tax revenue that could be expected from this proposal. For example, cost of maintaining Sheriff patrol in Weld County at the present level of service and provide the same level of service to the proposed park could cost the County approximately forty-four thousand dollars a year. This is based upon the present, for the Weld County population estimate as of June 1st, the unincorporated area, which is thirty-eight thousand six hundred and seventy-three divided by the number of law -62- enforcement personnel that are responsible for patrolling the unincorporated areas of Weld County, which is forty-five. The ratio of law enforcement patrol to the County population equals one patrolman to every eight hundred and fifty-nine residents in the unincorporated Weld County. What we've done from there then is identified the number of people that this mobile home park is expected to generate and divided that by the ratio of patrolmen to population and we come out with the number of 2 . 1 additional patrolmen would be needed to maintain the same level of service presently provided to the Weld County residents, or then we would have to decrease the service if these patrolmen weren ' t added by a 2 . 1 figure to the rest of the County. What I 've done then was, or what the Planning staff has done, is figured the average cost of a Step C Deputy Sheriff, including fringe benefits , which is a little under twenty-one thousand dollars and multiplied that times the ratio of needed policemen and we come up with a figure of a little under forty-four thousand dollars. And these calculations do not include technicians and clerks , the civilian support staff that the Sheriff' s Department would also need to add as part of the ratio, so that' s one major expense we'd like to highlight for you. Another is maintenance and upkeep of roads. The Five Villages Mobile Home Park design presented at the sketch plan phase and which was the same drawing that was presented today, approximately has 2 . 6 miles of internal asphalt streets. If these streets meet County standards and become -63- dedicated, then maintenance and upkeep could become an expensive proposition. The optimum life of the asphalt street is approximately twenty to twenty-five years , providing it is properly maintained through those years. Minimum maintenance would include seal coating the streets within the first five years of life, and then every five to ten years it would require an additional seal coat depending upon wear and tear. An example of this kind of cost, the County just recently contracted to have three miles of subdivision seal coated at a cost to the County of ten thousand dollars. The other item of maintenance and upkeep is snow removal within subdivisions. It is the policy of Weld County to remove snow from rural expressways and arterials first. However, after County roads have been cleared, snow removal service can be provided to subdivisions. Snow removal equipment presently costs twenty-five dollars per hour. Removing snow from a Planned Unit Development subdivision is designed, such as the one presented in the sketch plan, could take up to half a day or longer depending on the amount of snow and traffic parked along the edge of the streets. The other item of public service that the County would be responsible for is the Weld County Health Department, who commonly receives and responds to the following complaints from residents in mobile home parks and subdivisions. Those are dog bites, open burning of trash, zoonosis calls, monitoring of waste water and sewer problems and illegal dumping of trash. -64- Information is not available to approximate the cost of these services . However, it is important to point out that Health Department in Weld County does receive a greater volume of complaint calls from areas of higher residential density. So, in summary, the statistics comparing tax revenue to cost of public services casts some doubt on this proposal making a positive contribution to the tax base of Weld County. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Rod, couple of questions. Did you take into account the taxes , or do we receive taxes from mobile homes themselves--the physical mobile home? ROD ALLISON: No, we would be assessing the mobile home park itself. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: We don't receive any monies from a mobile home? COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Yes we do. ROD ALLISON: I don' t know, well COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Yes we do. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I 'm paying taxes. I 've got one for my son and I 'm paying taxes and I 'm wondering if (Remarks in background) COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah. ROD ALLISON: Yeah, I did not take into account property tax that the mobile home would, on basically assessing them, the taxes that the mobile home park would pay in as tax revenues. -65- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I 'm sure that you'd find that there 'd be some dollars there for the County from the mobile homes, if you got five hundred and ROD ALLISON: Seventy-five. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Seventy-five mobile homes sitting there, I 'm sure that we would receive some dollars from them. Do you know what we get from the Town of Gilcrest for a law enforcement contract for their, how much we get a year? ROD ALLISON: I do not know COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Do you remember, Chuck? COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: So much an hour. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: On the Town of Gilcrest for law enforcement, thirteen thousand I think it is. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Thirteen thousand dollars a year and they're providing police protection for them for thirteen thousand, so, you know I ' d question your forty-four thousand, Would those roads within the park, since this is a rental park, I don' t know of any rental park that we 're maintaining roads in now. COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: That' s true. ROD ALLISON: That' s true. But if they are brought up to the subdivision standards they could ask that they be dedicated. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: In a rental park? COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: We could deny that. In a rental park. -66- COMMISSIONER MARTIN. This is a PUD. We could require them to maintain their own roads in a PUD. COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: In a rental park. ROD ALLISON: Well , if you feel you could deny that, then that ' s fine. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: And, I think they mentioned earlier, now I 'm not sure this is an asset to the County or not, but it would appear to me to be that, they said that they would pave Road 3 1/2 . ROAD ALLISON: Uh huh. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I 'm sure that that would have to be done and done to our specifications, would that not be an asset to us or not, do you think it would be a liability in the long run? ROD ALLISON: The paving of Weld County Road 3 1/2? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah. Yeah. ROD ALLISON: You know, an asset or a liability in terms of paving, no response, you know I COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well, I don' t know either, but they did say they would do that. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay, Vern. VERN NELSON: I know this is getting very long, but I do want to make some comments . I want to summarize in behalf of my applicant if I may. We 've covered a lot of subjects here and I 'm just gonna hit some high points as we go through. I think that -67- we've proved a point, that we need some place for people to live if in fact all of the development is going to occur out in this area and we do need to get started on that project at this time. I don ' t think we can wait until all of the needs for these houses are there and people are standing in line or living in streets, living in the streets or in parking lots, before we can provide a place for 'em to live . So we've got to get out ahead of the game. I think Jim Ricketts testified to the need. He said that there is less than a one percent vacancy in mobile home parks along the Front Range. They're full. People want them, they are full . We heard from some adjacent property owners who are in favor of this project. You have just heard a dissertation by Mr. Allison about taxes. We think that this information is not complete. It is inadequate. I want to tell you that, for example, the roads will be maintained by the owner. There is no intent whatsoever in a private park that the County would maintain the roads. we have said that we want to contract with the County for police protection. Those are all items that of cost that he has indicated here. Snow removal within the subdivision, well if they're private roads certainly the County is not removing snow, so this is not a proper analysis of what the true costs are . We 're not gonna have any open burning of trash. We told you that we will have a covenant and these are going to be rather stringent covenants. They' re not any more different than a set of ordinances that a municipality might -68- have. We're not asking for any particular benefits. Again, I say we want to be self-sufficient. There was a question about the fact that we've ignored the Council of Governments ' comments with regard to sewage. We think that, yes, the Council of Governments is recommending against us, as is the State Health Department, but that doesn' t mean that you can' t have sewage facilities . Sewage treatment facilities are a necessity for any type of growth and they have to occur. Now, we believe that through proper planning and design you can mitigate these problems and solve those kinds of problems. Again, which comes first, sewage treatment and sewage facilities availability, or the development, and it requires development to pay for these facilities , so we can' t have them until there is some organized development that is occurring commensurate with that need. We talked some about leap frog development. I think this map shows leap frog development. I 'm not testifying 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. We've talked a little bit about some drainage problems. Sure, any kind of development you have drainage problems. I don' t know of more than about three farmers out here on irrigated farms who can get along, even without development, without having drainage problems. I have those come across my desk all the time. Those kinds of problems can be solved. They're physical, they are solvable. No, we don' t have 'em all solved. Aerial spraying -69- will probably occur two to three times per year. I 'm concerned about the fact that the City of Longmont, to my knowledge, has turned down three applications for mobile home parks during the last year. I think the fact that we 've had those applications testifies again to need for this type of housing in the area. I think the fact that the requests have been denied shows that that need is not being met by the City of Longmont. According to our contacts of mobile home park owners there are no vacancies in the existing parks in Longmont. I want to mention too, that in our review of the comments of the Longmont Planning and Zoning meeting, it was stated categorically that the City of Longmont will never provide any services east of County Line Road. Now that came from the Planning and Zoning meeting. I don' t think that' s official action of the City Council of Longmont, but nonetheless, that ' s the sort of thing that concerns us . Again, I say that we want to be a self-supporting unit. We are going to create a Homeowners ' Association requiring dues, that money to be used to pay for these sorts of services that we talk about that might be tax-supported by the County. These dues will do much the same as payments for services and the tax revenues that municipalities now collect. We believe that there must be a place for people to live, if the jobs created in the area do in fact occur, and we believe that growth will continue in the area. We ask your approval of our application. Thank you very much. -70- COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Vern, has there been any conversation between you and the school districts over there that would be impacted? VERN NELSON: Has there been? Have you, were you talking to the school district? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: There ' s a letter in the packet. GARY TUTTLE: I have not talked to the school district. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I believe there was something in here. ROD ALLISON: Yeah, there ' s a letter in your packet. VERN NELSON: Yes. Jeff? JEFF LeDOUX: It said in the app COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Would you come up to the mike, please? JEFF LeDOUX: My name is Jeff LeDoux. I 'm an engineer with Nelson Engineers and I have contacted, I believe her name is Dorthy Hores, with the school district and they, or she told me that they have no problem at all with their higher education levels of high school and senior high. They' re running into problems in their elementary level, but they said they can support right now a hundred and fifty families at their elementary level , which is approximately the percentage that a mobile home would produce for families, I guess. So they say they have above the capacity for the elementary level, then there ' s no problem at their upper levels. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay, thank you. -71- JEFF LeDOUX: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: According to the material in our packet ROD ALLISON: Yeah COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: that I have from the St. Vrain Valley Public Schools, signed by Dorothy Hores ROD ALLISON: Yes COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: she indicates that Mead Elementary School will be over capacity and will not be able to accommodate additional students from Five Villages and, additionally, that according to the district formula for providing educational space, the developers should donate to the district a total of 8 . 57 acres. That' s the information that I think is germane in that letter. (Indistinguishable remarks) COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That was dated June 16th. I don' t know JEFF LeDOUX: Well , I talked to her after that letter was sent. I wrote something in the application. In my discussion I wrote, the proposed mobile home park is located in the Mead attendance area of the St. Vrain School District. The number of families with children located within a mobile home park is generally low, around twenty-five to thirty-five percent. In discussion with Dorothy Hores, of the St. Vrain School District, the school district has the capacity to handle about a hundred -72- and fifty families within the mobile home park, which is about twenty-six percent, so they're right at capacity if we develop this mobile home park. And due the capacity of this elementary level , there ' s no capacity problem at the upper levels of the school district, and during development the school district and developer can work together to see these unforeseen capacity problems. ROD ALLISON: There ' s just one other issue. I don ' t want to belabor this point, but Vern' s statement about this tax revenue model being inaccurate is an incorrect statement. I think what he ' s saying is that he ' s acknowledging that there are public costs associated with this mobile home park, and that he is going on record as to saying that they're willing to take care of those public costs. Thank you. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Russ, would you review for us once more the criteria upon which we should base our decision? RUSS ANSON: Okay. For a Change of Zone the Board should be, I guess, satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal they have for a Change of Zone is either consistent with the policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and if not, then that the zoning of the property under consideration is either faulty or that changing conditions in the area warrant a Change of Zone, and further, that the uses which would be allowed on the subject property by granting the Change of Zone will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and an additional -73- requirement here that has had some discussion, is that adequate water and sewer service can be made available to serve the site. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You ready for a motion? COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Yeah, we 're ready for a motion, it' s a COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we approve the Change of Zone from A-Agricultural to PUD-Planned Unit Development filing number Z390 : 83 : 5 , for the following reasons: I believe that it would serve for the future growth of the pattern that they've demonstrated. I think this area is going to develop, whether it' s with a mobile home park or commercial industrial, and it' s probably gonna be a combination of everything and I think it' s gonna develop anyway and I think the best thing we can do is control it with quality units, such as I think that they have demonstrated today. I think that it will serve to provide affordable housing to people that need this type of thing. I think it' ll be probably an area for retirement. I think there ' s a need for that type of housing for retiring people to where they are close to assistance when they need maybe some help or something. They have demonstrated that they're willing to look into having their own police protection and I believe that they will find that that would be a good selling point on their renting of the spaces to provide maybe in-house police protection, possibly contracting with the Sheriff ' s Office. Concerning the agricultural land, I realize that that is probably as good a agricultural land as we can find anywhere, but -74- I think the town of Longmont has demonstrated that it' s necessary to sometimes use this land. I think it' s better here than stuck out, say in eastern or mid-Weld County in dryland to where they are close to the fire department. They are closer to some of the facilities as far as shopping centers and everything else, and I guess that we have to sacrifice this agricultural land, and I guess it' s unfortunate that our forefathers, when they did settle these towns, they settled around the best land so that they could have the farm close to towns and water, and I guess that' s one of the sacrifices of agricultural land. I think that as far as the sewage is concerned, I do have concerns about their sewage facilities, they' re proposed, but I guess we 're going to have to rely upon the State Health Department to make sure that this is adequate, that it is well maintained, and does not pollute, that it serves the purposes of the park. I think that eventually that Longmont is coming out that way. They stated there is a possibility of that, there ' s a possibility of forming a sewage district, and I do think that the sewage needs can be met through that. I think that our Comprehensive Plan is, needs to be re-looked at, it' s over ten years old, so I 'm not real sure that we can deny this upon our Comprehensive Plan that I think that needs to be redone. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do you want to include the Development Standards in your motion? -75- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yes , I do wish to include the Development Standards as COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: There is no Standards, is there? There is no Development Standards. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well, it'd be the COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: This is merely a Change of Zone, yeah, this is merely a Change of Zone. (Others talking in background. ) COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: I 'm gonna second that motion. It ' s very definitely a need for mobile homes. Economically, we 've had, I think, anywhere from two to three mobile home applications either for a principal use or a principal dwelling for our Aristocrat Ranchettes, and I think there ' s a need for this type of housing, just economically, and I would second that motion for the same reasons that Gene gave, except I don't think our Comprehensive Plan needs changing, it maybe needs, maybe bringing up to date, but I don ' t think we need to change it that much. Let' s revise it and update it. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Motion been made by Gene, seconded by Norm, that we approve Docket No. 83-43 . Any discussion? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Is -76- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Do I have to amend my motion? Do, when I talk about the changes in that zoning, I meant what Norm said. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well , I thought you was using that as an explanation of your motion. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah, so that, no problem with that? RUSS ANSON: I think what you need to do, what you' re saying, no, that ' s not part of your motion, but your explanational, how you made your decision, your findings that COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Right COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Discussion? COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Discussion. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, I 'm going to vote against the motion and I want to give my reasons for doing so. Mr. Nelson knows I have high regard for him and know that he will do the things he says he does and it' s no way a personal doubting of that in any case. But I think a Change of Zone is a very serious matter for this Board to consider, and as I 've listened to the evidence and judged the criteria by which we are to make our decision, I feel first of all that we have had recommendation, both from our Planning staff and from our own Planning Commission, to deny this request, and if they have heard the same evidence that we have heard and come to that conclusion, I believe, additionally, that the plan, by the admission of the applicants, that their proposal is not consistent with the - 77- Comprehensive Plan of Weld County, and I have said on more than one occasion here that as long as we have that plan I believe we should adhere to it, and if we wish to change it we should do so, so that we have some consistency to what we do. I think it is difficult to have a plan and waiver from it as frequently as I feel that we do, and have seen us do in the short time I 've sat here. I am not convinced that the evidence that has been submitted satisfies the criteria. The plan, the proposal is not, clearly, is not consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. There was no evidence submitted that the zoning was faulty. The evidence concerning changing conditions, it seems to me, is plausible, but not necessarily strong evidence in my thinking, and I do believe that Longmont, having addressed the issue of growth within Longmont has provided for meeting the needs, the housing needs of that growth through its own plan and its development is in a different direction than this would be. Additionally, I am not satisfied that adequate water and sewer sources will be made available, nor do I feel that the changes proposed would be compatible with the surrounding land use, so those are the reasons that I will vote in the negative on this proposal. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Further discussion? Any further discussion? I 'm gonna call for a roll call vote. TOMMIE ANTUNA: Gene Brantner. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yes -78- TOMMIE ANTUNA: Norm Carlson. COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Yes . TOMMIE ANTUNA: Jackie Johnson. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: No. TOMMIE ANTUNA: John Martin. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Yes . COMMISSIONER MARTIN: You got one more. TOMMIE ANTUNA: No. SEVERAL VOICES : No. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, I have to abstain, John. I wasn ' t here for the whole hearing. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. All right. The motion passed with, was it three ayes and one no, and one abstained. VERN NELSON: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Yes. VINCENT PORRECA: How do we obtain a transcript of this hearing? COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Sir? VINCENT PORRECA: How do we obtain a transcript of this hearing? RUSS ANSON: Make a request of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. VINCENT PORRECA: To the Clerk to the Board? RUSS ANSON: Yes . VINCENT PORRECA: Okay, thank you very much. -79- COMMISSIONER MARTIN: We ' re gonna call for a five minute recess, then we ' ll consider one more item. -80- ',it > ;.' > OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER DEPARTMENT OF CLERK TO BOARD It \\ Ir4141 n- mrin PHONE 1303) 356-4000 EXT. 223 O P.O. BOX 459 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 • COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO) ) ss COUNTY OF WELD ) RE: Transcript of Hearing concerning Application of Barbara J. Johnson, for a Change of Zone, A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) I , Mary Ann Feuerstein, County Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Transcript is truly transcribed from Tapes #83-90 and #83-91 from the Hearing concerning the application of Barbara J. Johnson conducted August 24 , 1983 , said tapes being in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said County, at Greeley, Colorado, this 29th day of September, A.D. , 1983 . w11- a COUNTY CLERK ) / 1 BY-:_Thi 67122-11-t. z/ ( y, -t*—„L ee✓ Deputy County Clerk / SEAL C /l 1 mEmoRAnDum To Board Date September 28 , 1983 COLORADO From Tommie - Clerk to the Board' s Office subject: Transcript re: Barbara Johnson - COZ For your information I have attached a copy of the transcript regarding the Change of Zone for Barbara Johnson which was requested by the City of Longmont. r7) 1• l c:- \t Hello