HomeMy WebLinkAbout870422.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD REGARDING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION OF BARBARA JOHNSON
WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home
Rule Charter , is vested with the authority of administering the
affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public
hearing on the 27th day of May, 1987, at the hour of 2 : 00 p.m. in
the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of considering whether
or not there has been substantial change in the facts and
circumstances regarding the application , or that there is newly
discovered evidence for a Change of Zone for Barbara Johnson , 1715
Harvard Street , Longmont, Colorado 80501 , which was reinstated to
an A (Agricultural) Zone District by the Board of County
Commissioners on August 15 , 1984 , and
WHEREAS , said hearing concerned the application for a Change
of Zone on the following described real estate , to-wit:
Part of the E1/2 SW4 of Section 5 , Township 2
North , Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado
WHEREAS, said hearing was conducted according to the Board' s
policy concerning applications for land-use for property
previously denied, said policy having been adopted on May 21 ,
1986 , and
WHEREAS, the applicant was represented by Vern Nelson, of
Nelson Engineers , and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all of the
testimony and statements of those present , has studied the request
of the applicant and the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this
matter and, having been fully informed, finds that the request for
a rehearing concerning this matter shall be approved for the
following reasons:
1 . It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners
that the applicant , in her letter dated March 26, 1987 ,
has demonstrated that substantial changes in the facts
and circumstances have occurred.
1O1,0 32(
870422
Page 2
RE: SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE - JOHNSON
2 . The Weld County District Court , Division II, in Case
83CV668 , Review of Change of Zone Case #Z-390 : 83 :5 , has
identified that . . . "There is no evidence in the record
to reflect that adequate sewer services can be made
available to serve the site. " On February 24 , 1986 ,
District Court, in Case 85CV116 approved the formation
of the St. Vrain Sanitation District. The location of
the proposal is located within the boundaries of the St.
Vrain Sanitation District.
3 . The Board of County Commissioners , on January 13 , 1987 ,
approved a new Comprehensive Plan that was not available
when the original Change of Zone #390 : 83 : 5 was reviewed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that there has been
substantial change in the facts and circumstances regarding the
application of Barbara Johnson for a Change of Zone.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the request for a
rehearing regarding a Change of Zone on the above described parcel
of land be, and hereby is , granted.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made
and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 27th day of
May, A.D. , 1987 .
� J� 4- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�.ry�y�ATTEST: 1 '�'fd,tllti2'U:I- WELD COUNT LORADO
Weld County C `erk and Recorder
7C/
and Clerk to the Board Go . c airman
BY: 0LtLLL O6 e_ C. ICirb , Pro
Deputy Court/filer. / $
!li
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gene R. Brantner
EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING - AYE
i Jar) Johnso
1LGu�. ( : �'�_--a�_�
.1"--;; .County Attorney
Frank Yamaguchi
870422
HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 87-25
RE: SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CONCERNING CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION - BARBARA
JOHNSON
A public hearing was conducted on May 27, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. , with the
following present:
'Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman
Commissioner C.W. Kirby, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Gene Brantner
Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson
Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Mary Reiff
County Attorney, Thomas 0. David
Planning Department representative, Lanell Swanson
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 11, 1987, and duly
published May 14, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze, a public hearing was
conducted to consider whether or not there has been substantial change
concerning the application of Barbara Johnson for a Change of Zone.
County Attorney Tom David made this matter of record, and Planning
Department representative Lanell Swanson read the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record. Vern
Nelson, of Nelson Engineers, came forward to represent Ms. Johnson. He
listed the following changes: the St. Vrain Sanitation District will
be able to provide sewer services; the newly-adopted Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as being mixed-use; and rezoning and other changes
have occurred in this general area since the Change of Zone was
reinstated on August 15, 1984. No public comment was offered
concerning this request. Commissioner Brantner moved to find that
there has been substantial change concerning the request of Barbara
Johnson for a Change of Zone. Seconded by Commissioner Kirby, the
motion carried unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 1st day of June, 1987.
APPROVED:
�� �� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: 'Ina ( dy,,TA ekatt^. .ri WELD COU RAD
Weld County Clerk and Recorder
and Clerk to the
Bo_ard�, Gor . cy�,/Cha n
By: �w�t
eputy County C erk C.W Kirby,/Pr"o-Teg(
Kat
ene R. Brantner --
EXCUSED DATE
�hOnFSAPPROVAL
Jac
�^ o .
Frank Yamaguchi
TAPE #87-38
DOCKET #87-25
PL0386 (1-4 ?
K-kJ A0
C , 1)
FILED ID
DISTRICT COURT
W[LULO, COLO.
DISTRICT _COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO APR2 0 )g84
Case No. 83 CV 668 Division II
• YL[RR
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
RICHARD E . •HAMM; 'THE GREAT WESTERN
SUGAR CO. , a Delaware Corporation,
MAYEDA FARMS , a Partnership; and
CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO a i � ^ 1( /of �` -�;
1 7
_Municipal Corporation, 1,
tj !!
Plaintiffs ' i „oAPR_2 41384 !; R
_ k
-v-s. '
TUE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ` `` F "'" n
e
THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO;
and BARBARA J . JOHNSON,
Defendants ,
•
THIS MATTER, coming on before this Court, pursuant to
COLO. R. CIV. PROC . , Rule 106 , on March 8 , 1934 , at which time
the Court heard oral argument regarding its Order to Show cause .
At the hearing, plaintiffs Richard E. Hamm, and Mayeda Farms ,
were present and represented by attorneys of record, HOPP,
CARLSON & BECKMANN, P .C. , by Walter J. Hopp and Jeffrey D. Larson.
_Plaintiff City of Longmont was represented by attorney of record,
Ralph Josephsohn, City Attorney for the City of Longmont. The
defendant Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld was
represented by attorney of record, Thomas David, Weld County w
Attorney. Defendant Barbara Johnson was present and represented
by attorney of record, William S. Finger .
The Court after having carefully examined the record and
heard the statements of counsel , makes the following findings :
870422
ApproximaLely March 29, 1983, Mrs. Johnson applied to Weld
/ County for change of zone from -A (Agricultural District) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) , for the development of an eighty acre
mobile home park on her property. The plaintiffs are owners of
property located either immediately adjacent or in close proximity
to the subject property. The plaintiffs ' properties , as well as
the subject property, are presently prime irrigated farm land and
zoned A (Agriculture) . The City of Longmont, whose landfill is
operated pursuant to a valid certificate of designation for solid
waste disposal sites, uses its property in accordance with
allowable uses within Agricultural Districts . In addition, the
future Weld County land use map shows that the subject property
is located in an area intended for agricultural type uses.
Subsequent to the acceptance of Mrs . Uohnson ' s application
for rezoning by the Department of planning Services for Weld
County, the department, pursuant to Weld County zoning Ordinance
No. 89 (September, 1982) , referred the application and proposal
to the appropriate agencies, commissions and governing bodies for
their review and comment. Two letters sent from the Department
of -Health, Water Quality Control Division, expressed concerns of
the State regarding the proposal . In the correspondence , it was
pointed out that the proposed waste water treatment facility was
not consistent with the Larimer-Weld Water Quality Management
Plan which identified no waste water treatment facility needs for
the area. In addition, the proximity to the Longmont Urban
Services area placed the proposal in conflict with the Division ' s.
Policy of regionalized treatment facilities. -The Longmont Soil
2
1370422 .
_.
/ •
Conservation District sent two letters in opposition to the
particular proposal . The Longmont Department of Community
Development, in a memo dated June 21 , 1983 , expressed its concerns
about the proposal , and -emphasized, inter alia , that the proposal
was in conflict with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, the memo pointed out that both the City of Longmont
Long Range Planning Commission -and the City of Longmont _Planning
and Zoning Commission had passed motions strongly urging Weld
County to deny the proposal . A letter from the Water Resources
Projects manager for the Larimer-Weld -Regional Council of Govern-
ments advised the department that "the future availability and
costs of sower service in this area are uncertain at this time.
Availability of sewer service should not be considered a favor-
able factor in this particular proposal and _rezoning r-equest. "
Thereafter, the Weld County Department of Planning Cervic-es '
staff, on July 5 , 1983 , recommended to the Weld County Planning
Commission that the request far change of zone be denied . The
denial was recommended for the following reasons : The change of
zone request was not consistent with agricultural policies of the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan; the proposed request was not
compatible with the surrounding land uses , the majority of which
are farming activiti-es; the change of zone request was not consist-
ent with the residential polici-es of the Weld County Comprehensive
_Plan; the applicant proposed a high density urban residential use
for the existing irrigated crop land, in -an area which is not
targeted for future urban activities ; and the impact of the
vehicular trips generated by this proposal would change the
s 870422
character of Colorado State Highway 119 and effect the -highway' s
ability to perform as an expressway.
On July 5, 1983 , after public hearing and consideration of
the evidence presented and recommend-ations made , the Weld County
Planning Commission, by resolution, voted unanimously to recommend
the proposal unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners .
The reasons for its decision are exactly those set out -by the
Department of Planning -Services ' staff, and thereafter adopted
and incorporated into its resolution by the Weld County Planning
Commission.
On August 24 , 1983 , the Board of County Commissioners held
a -public hearing to consider the proposed rezoning of the subject
property and to take final action thereon_ After introductory
remarks by the Assistant Weld County ?,ttorney, as well as the
reading into the record of the resolution of the Weld _County
Planning Commission, Mr. Vern Nelson, engineering representative
for the applicant, summarized the applicant's presentation. He
stated that there was a real need for this type of low cost
housing in the area, that they would show that the proposed
housing was of high quality construction, that the project was
well planned, and that it would be a credit to the surrounding
community.
Mr. Gary Tuttle, the land planning consultant for the
applicant, then stated why the site qualified for rezoning ,
desrrib d how the proposal would be suited to the area, and
outlined the changes that have happened and will happen in the
area in question. The consultant then defined the boundaries of
4 870422
the area as being Interstate I-25 to the east, U. S . Highway 287
running through downtown Longmont to the west, State Highway 66
to the north and Colorado State Highway 119 to the south . Referring
to an area northeast of the Longmont City limits , Mr. Tuttle then
stated that Hewlett iPackard P-ackard plans to build a., major facility in
the vicinity. Projections as to size of the plant, number of
employees and number of homes to be built were then testified to
by the consultant. Mr. Tuttle described the development at Del
Camino which is property near Interstate I-25 , zoned mainly
commercial . He then described land located at -State Highway 66
as property presently zoned for PUD, commercial and business type
development. He also mentioned a "major proposal " for a horse
racing facility, but the record does not disclose the exact
location of the proposal . A larger residential development
proposed near Mead was then -mentioned by the consultant. In
addressing the concerns that tad _been raised during the review
process with the Weld County Department of Planning Services '
staff, Mr. Tuttle indicated that at the present time , the proposed
use of the land would mot be compatible with the surrounding land
uses.
Mr. Don Johnson, the husband of the defendant property
w
owner, stated that his wife had owned the land in question for
twenty-two years and due to the inability to economically farm
eighty acres and the acute -need for this type of housing in the
area, he felt that the mobile home community would be the best
use of the land. Mr. Jim Ricketts , general manager and corporate
counsel of Neata Homes , Incorporated, spoke to the Board in his
870422
5
capacity as representative of the Colorado Mobile Home Associa-
tion, and commented on the lack of space and need for manufactured
homes in northern Colorado.
Plaintiffs Hamm and Mayeda, ,through representatives
appearing before the Board, presented their opposition to the
proposed rezoning. Cordell Richardson, a neighboring property
owner, stated that it was a good location for a mobile tome park,
and had no objections to the project. It was subsequently learned
that Mr. Richardson' s property was for sale at the time of the
hearing. LaDonna Swanson testified that she and her husband
operate a farm near another mobile home -park south of Longmont ,
and they have had no problems . Ramona Hilton, adjacent property
owner, stated she had no objections to the proposal and that she
thought it was time that they did something within the County
without Longmont `dictating to them.
Mike McDonough, Deputy City Manager for Community Develop-
ment for the City of Longmont, speaking in opposition to the
proposal, told the Board that both the Longmont Planning and
Zoning Commission and the Long Range Planning Commission unanimously
urged the Board to deny the application. He also pointed out
that a new city ordinance presently allows for mobile home parks
within the city limits. He then addressed the Hewlett Packard
development, stating that construction would not commence on the
facility until at least 1987 .
Mr. Ray Edmonston, operator of Aerial Sprayers in Longmont,
stated that his company serves the farming area around the proposed
development. He then discussed his concerns with safely _dispensing
6 870422
esticides that close to a high density residential development
nd still being able to serve the surrounding farms .
In response to a question from the Board concerning the
conomic feasibility of the on-site sewage system, Mr. Nelson
stated that at this point no _feasibility studies with respect to
:he sewage facilities had bean conducted. Mr. Tuttle admitted,
Ln an exchange with the Assistant County Attorney , that the
proposal was not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
After reading portions of the letters from the Colorado tt,.
Department of Health and the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of
Governments , the Current Planner for Weld County emphasized to
the Board that he felt that the letters indicated that the govern-
mental entities were not willing to approve any package treatment
lan for this site.
In summation, Mr. Nelson stated, among other things that
"I think this map shows leap frog development. I 'm not testifying
--,7---/---:.-_.•4
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 . "
ie
The Assistant County Attorney then charged the Board with the " ' ^
specific criteria to review the change of zone . Y `
The public hearing was then closed and the motion was made
t
by Commissioner Brantner to approve the change of Zone. His
reasons, among others, for approval were as follows : That it
would serve the future growth pattern that the applicants have
demonstrated; that the area is going to develop anyway ; that
there is a need for this type of housing for retired people ; that
the land is goad agricultural land but Longmont has demonstrated
=.i
7 8 704 :-
//
/ that it is sometimes necessary to use the land; that although
there is a concern about the sewage, the Board would have to rely
on the State Health Department to make sure that it is adequate;
and that the comprehensive plan needs to be updated . The motion
was then seconded by Commissioner Carlson. Commissi'oner `Johnson,
in voting against the proposal , stated that she was relying on
the recommendations of both the planning staff and the Planning
Commission; that by the applicant' s own admission, the proposal
was not consistent with the comprehensive plan and that it is
important to adhere to the plan; that she was not convinced that
the evidence satisfied the criteria; that there was no evidence
presented that the zoning was faulty; that the evidence of changing
conditions was not very strong ; that she was not convinced that
the adequate water and sewer would be available ; and that she was
not convinced that the proposal would be compatible with the
surroundin-g land uses . The motion was then passed, three voting
yes, one voting no, and one member abstaining.
The written findings of the Board indicate that the proposal
is inconsistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, but that
"changing conditions in the area warrant a change of zone" . In
spite of the charge given to the Board by the Assistant County
Attorney, no mention is made in the written findings regarding
the proposal ' s compatibility with the surrounding land uses , nor
the availiability of adequate sewer service for the site.
It is from this decision by the Board that the plaintiffs
bring their Rule 106 action.
The Weld County Zoning Ordinance , No. 89 (September, 1982)
8 8'70422
set forth the specific procedures and standards against which the
Board must review any change of zone. The Ordinance mandates
that the Board shall consider the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, the facts presented at the public hearing, and the
information contained in the official record, which includes the
Department of Planning Services case ₹ile . The applicant has the
burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of the
relevant sections of the ordinance are met. The applicant shall
demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive
plan and if it is not, the applicant must show that the zoning of
the property is either faulty, or that changing conditions in the
area warrant a change of zone. In addition, the applicant must
show that the uses which will be allowed by the proposal will be
compatible with the surrounding land uses . The applicant must
also show that adequate sewer service can be made available to
serve the site.
In review of a rezoning decision pursuant to C. R.C .P . ,
Rule 106 , the is-sue is whether the inferior tribunal , in exercising
its quasi-judicial functions, either exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion. The issues involved in a rezoning case
focus on the reasonableness of the Board' s application of the
statutory criteria to the evidence presented. Snyder v. City of
Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421, 542 P. 2d 371 (1975) . Furthermore , in
determining whether the Board exceeded its jurisdicition or
abused its discretion, the reviewing court is not only strictly
limited to a review of the record, but "The court must uphold the
decision unless there is no competent evidence to support it. "
9
870422
Kings Mill Homeowners Association v. City of Westminster,
192 Colo. 305 , 557 P. 2d 1186 , 1190 (1976) .
While "competent evidence" is a broad term, such evidence
must be factual in character, as opposed to sentiments and emotions .
Corper v. Denver,'- 552 P. 2d 13 '(1976) . Speculation and opinion do
not qualify as competent evidence . Simple generalizations and
conclusions, without statements of fact ' upon which they are
based, must be regarded as insufficient.
In carefully reviewing the record, it was admitted that
the proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and
there was no evidence in the record to indicate that the zoning
of the property was faulty. The "changing conditions in the
area" relied upon by the applicant and ultimately by the Board,
were merely projections , speculation and potential for an area
significantly larger than that contemplated by the statutory
criteria. (It appears the area bounded by Colorado State Highway
119 on south, Interstate I-25 on east, State Highway 66 on north
and U. S. Highway 287 on west in approximately 18 -square miles . )
Interpretation of the ordinance must reflect the legislative
intent to promulgate regulations and criteria for land use and
planning. It is in this light that the term "area" must be
defined. The applicant has failed in her burden to show by
competent evidence that the changing conditions in the area
warrant a change of zone.
Assuming arguendo , that there were changing conditions in
the area, the evidence presented in the record shows that the
proposed use would be incompatible with the surrounding land
870422
10
i
uses. The proposal was for high density urban residential use in
an area presently agricultural and projected to remain as such.
The irrigation and crop dusting problems are but some of the
areas of conflict between the established farming operations and
the proposed residential community. In addition, the incompati-
bility with the surrounding lands uses is admitted by Mr . Tuttle ,
the applicant' s land planning consultant.
There is no evidence in the record to reflect that adequate
sewer service can be made available to serve the site . To the
contrary, no feasibility studies for the sewage facilities had
been conducted, even though the applicant was well aware of the
problems in obtaining site approval for independent sewage treat-
ment facilities . In addition, Mr. Allison, the Current Planner
for the County, in summarizing the letters from the Colorado
Department of Health and Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Govern-
ments, stated that the entities were not willing to approve any
package treatment plant for the site .
The Board, in approving the proposed rezoning, abused its
discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction. In exercising its
power to rezone, the Board did not reasonably apply the statutory
criteria of its own ordinance to the evidence presented in the
.record. In conclusion, this court finds no competent evidence in
the record to support the Board' s decision for each of the criteria
enunciated by its own ordinance .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case be remanded to the
Board of County Commissioners for the County of Weld, for action
on the subject property, the legal description of which is attached
11 • 8704t$-
•
/ and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" , in compliance with
heretop
the decision of this court; and further orders that the zoning of
the subject property be reinstated to A (Agrigultural) .
DONE IN CHAMBERS this ,20 day of April , 1984 .
BY THE COURT:
J H ' J . ALTI F
IS RICT CO RT JUDGE
r
:. 12 . . . .
•
LEGAL DESCRIFTICti
•
A survey of all that part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, T.2 N, R.68 W,
of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, described as fol1a,'s; beginning at
a point on the North line of the said Southwest 1/4 from which the West 1/4
corner of said Section 5 bears South 89°46' West a distance of 1255,28
feet; thence continuing along said North Line 89°46' East a distance of
1396.38 feet to the center of said Section 5; thence South 00°22' Fast along
the east line of the said Southwest 1/4 a distance of 2408.62 feet to a
point on the North right-of-way line of State' Highway 'No. -119; thence along
said right-of-way,. South 69°00' West a distance of 110.75 feet; thence South
86°31'30" West a distance of 1310.81 feet; thence North parallel to the
West lire of the said Soutar est 1/4 and leaving said right-of-way at this
point, a distance of 2522.03 feet more or less to the point of beginning,
all bearings used herein relative to the West line of the Southwest 1/4
being North, and subject to any existing easements or rights-of-way.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
870422
ATTENDANCE RECORD
PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the name of the applicant
or Docket 4 for the hearing you are attending.
TODAY' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: May 27, 1987
DOCKET #87-22 - USE, Livestock confinement operation - Jack Dinis
DOCKET #87-23 - Amend USR, Open-cut mining pit on additional 9 acres - Weld
County Corporation
DOCKET #87-24 - USR, Home business (beauty shop) - Eva Jean Sheets
DOCKET *87-25 - Substantial change in COZ application - Barbara Johnson
DOCKET #87-19 - USR, Livestock confinement operation - Gary Bragdon
NAME- ADDRESS 4-; q// 7/,. / / HEARING` 7( ATTENDING
A� .'/�
�VyL ZG;Y-^'/ 1 A 14 �) r 74 1/4/ WC„ L, Li e C//i7 W�-�-� S2 7-11
(rAny L 1wm�rsr�� P.C�i9 Lc C i �r w�vasc&. Docker "87-19
Aare ix 1QdIIrili uisoIn Wail voe0.0 le,r rise r Dire* (r - i7
FR4 Ad(
17IA /76 .o1 WCR li COI -Y, Lsot' D,90kri rtf� 2j
- /
able-qvV y 7/1: >/germgert "rOdlj e it tz/, .L- 'rfejivelo Pee,p1107—/7
/A vv., RI iyye-SR- ?s,Lc4 Pri1.M at-, ) 1f337 (,n.C- , 'SP 7�j3iii,Jr'I4ecr1 / Jioc/ke3ftol - 1ci
WA L42. le.-4n-vm-E , ,,,,,,,,-.> a a r5' a 7 W (3 i / -.4f1LttA 4 -ka 0 / -I
/tin/ ( c2L,.,ru )_ Q gaol- (.4) 0 /7 13 Win/9oy- Doc hiag"7 - f9
tS1 -)A;ier
<Seh QI iX al" 7.0tictd/S- &j cis-or Doe/et Y9— / 9
4lrnit ve in r� A(IiirP 2 o ror1e 0+.� ) )r. n(7 W Riess 1 JnrPe/ f7 -19
/, n ` / 111 74/7-4
la LLL�L ii5-�� An ry f G //,"N' / 7, /,i 17-
6 .
-, Wild
N j h f r.C7tr.Lt 26-9 /n/
-e -n S &, 978 Gfl k Lo n ocd P7-
91‘• -Au ieL / a /a -b AO (s-u, (K J), 17 - 7z
\,s w. . C.-zG- c,7rs a (c,60 . .- ,Loui Eta Ck, ileb g'7- /9
kAaAKzs . 4¢,ickAMU 11 33-5 Ka \1 lick tl L Qr _it t 8`7 - Ig
24,If:co �/ 1,9--/ �?2ti--�793S 117/Z 7r/ . 1/9"6"/ ./ 4d4',/erce . (gesecfae- 8�'''ly Cr g11c PAs "76 0 k2CR 60 1`! el (het Mk,/ 157 - /2
l om 5c4�rlleitie 776-4 Wc1 W (VIt,As,�,- f7.- 19
Cxlitti �� r1, r �. rUtiQn , k� p., ,l , — ( r C rf' " g(212 ///) - 7 v Al— ?de)21'3 7- /i
l>1.., .7 64, _ e//jG —At 1-.S7. �ree-e� er;todV f-7'eft
Da vt, Ptki LI e4., coC C4erI 1 Qr./ 1--� (.'/ Co s7S'' 8'!(14x2 $
ATSENDANCE RECORD
PLEASE write or print legibly your name , address -and the name of the applicant
or Docket # for the hearing you are att-ending.
TODAY' S HEARINGS A-RE AS FOLLOWS: May 27 , 198-7
DOCKET #87-22 - USR, Livestock confinement operation - Jack Dinis
DOCKET #87-23 - Amend U-SR , Open-cut mining pit on additional 9 acr-es - Weld
County Corporation
IDDCKET #87-24 - USR, Home business (beauty shop) - Eva Jean Sheets
DOCKET #87-25 - Substantial change in COZ application - Barbara Johnson
DOCKET #87-19 - USR, Livestock confinement -operation — Gary Bragdon
NAME ADDRESS HEARRII/NG ATTENDING
p-144thriCit)
icir,,, •--- El-1 1TN s7; w A f►-�J Lk) y c'7 -e
sir-; i .. '�r �( • •72.1
971 % { � ��i r Cam( 'l -l 7
1 hecc a a,*..._ c tq 7Th`_ Cr. , elan nGE-y 317 - tc)
in,/{e, 71` ,0i e ( /?o e-1�� 11e-• (cr. /T'�`"ge4 (2 19 . } —
rr ,,._ 1P.- ; t...cf 1116 tR 1- ek 1„6'.�14d. 11— 19
1 14�L'I4�FAJt9 L/2,2./i..iy 7 , , (ru-n
1
/
' l
4,,--- i
ZA Ar � ( e:17 Co �1-t-t.cr-4704-K62t LvJ,a-6.9 c7- nz , - I
J., t. \ ? \.,� i ,1 'y_I _ 1c. i " .: ''' 7 -7y Z:
/ /��'sI / �• J r�'/1 tee. 'cam L.
,—L�F_ NN /./iLL /,l'�� %Vrw `j (Ai P G6 SkQ /eia n. 9,,, „,y p+- rA
2
8t / Gtr2 - t / I - - • r -
•
R •41:s n•-4-42--- -
•- 4: / , /I, , 4 O../.1 y of 2-, %-i-t-r -e- 2 7- Al
i 1,,,n }t c32 a tOi3 �S t'�r4-2'>.... t_@ � '
visv 2 S7 — ' 3
/ may
/n%^i,ia; (2. . , �'':/-roc_ (71 7 -
1 !/-@ . .r if: - , :
„ ' _,T
% n ),JFi ',LE IQ 1n Y/ WrR1 /7, wi'ivnf6R 27 — / 4
.. 3 t LS1_L„. cA,e- . - dri, - ,r7 - /7
( 0
64/ i.0 o R J 7 GCJ v. 17 ) 0/
• 870422
NOTICE
Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board
of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial
Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time
specified. All persons in any manner interested in the following matter are
requested to attend and may be heard.
Should the applicant or any interested party desire the presence of a court
reporter to make a record of the proceedings, in addition to the taped
record which will be kept during the hearing, the Clerk to the Board's
Office can be contacted for a list of certified court reporters in the area.
If a court reporter is obtained, the Clerk to the Board's Office shall be
advised in writing of such action at least five days prior to the hearing.
The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting
party.
BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County
Planning Commission may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915
10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado.
APPLICANT
DOCKET NO. 87-25 Barbara Johnson
1715 Harvard Street
Longmont, Colorado 80501
DATE: May 27, 1987
TIME: 2:00 P.M.
ISSUES: Whether or not there has been substantial change in the facts and
circumstances regarding the application, or that there is newly
discovered evidence for a Change of Zone which was reinstated to
an A (Agricultural) Zone District by the Board of County
Commissioners on August 15, 1984.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E} SWI of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles east of Longmont; north of State Highway 119
and west of Weld County Road 3}
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY: Mary Reiff, Deputy
DATED: May 11, 1987
PUBLISHED: May 14, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze
870422
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Mitten THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZ-E
Paeauant to 4o,+ of • T
-STATE OF COLORADONSTOW 1
the State _at -aa� iM 1 55
Weld County - OMkra:
' .-Public • - be held in COUNTY OI' WELn 1
the Chamber;'af'Ms-Beard of I, Clyde Briggs, do solemnly swear that I
County,Centennial a •- County •Wald-Weld
am publisher of The .lohnstown Itr_eeze:
uban, ens-Greeley
that the same is a weekly newspaper
Street, First Greeley,
Colorado, at epeolnner printed, in whole or in part, and published
Ail Persons•. i, manner
are
reged m r ,,.and may ar in the County of Weld, State of Colorado,
• •are rogue ^-n•i. and has a general circulation therein: that
be heard
Should the r.t . nt or any said newspaper has been published
interested desire thecontinuously and uninterruptedly in said
presence r a court o- _County of Weld for a period of more than
make • rh�wilt a the pro fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the
recordnw6cri the il - leeork taped first publication of the annexed legal notice
the hearing, l -Clerk to the
Boards Office-can tie oeetacted or advertisement; that said newspaper has
for a list Fa If court been admitted to the United States mails as
reporter in the�prea If•Clerk
to
reporter r obtald Ic the all to second-class matter under the provisions of
the writing
c4 shall action be
advised t in wr8lays such e the Act of March S, 1-879, or any
heariat least Thee days p„ngagi the amendments thereof, and that said'
court reporter, The coat of e borne e
court .hell . borne by newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly
the regALsting.Party.
BE IT ALSO KNOWN tli6f the qualified for publishing legal notices and
text and maps so certified by the advertisements within the meaning of the.
Weld County Planning mis- laws of the State of Colorado.
Bolii°e may t be
oard of That the annexed legal notice or advertise-
County Commissioners;:tcnted • marst was published in the regular and
in the Weld Countyto Centennial
_Center, 915 10th-Street :Tetra mote issue of every number of said weekly Floor,OC Greeley, 1-25 newspaper for the period of ../.. consecu•
DOCKET NO. 87-2S live insertions; and that the first
APPLICANT
. Barbara Johnson publication of said nnliR•c aas�i�ny the issut n_
1715 Harvard 0591 said newspaper date•d4Y / A.D. a...,
Longmont Colorado 80591ion of said
DATE: May27, 1987 • w1 s d tin thehat ne issue last of lsaidtnewspaper Idated
TIME: 2:00 P.M. A.D. IJ
ISSUES: Whether or not-there In witness whereof I have hereunto y}� set
has facts
substantial l circumstances se in my hand this .......1.4 day of ¢"
the and application,
rtht
re the epplkatdis or that A.D. 19.57
Mere b newly discovered
evidence for a Change to an Zone the �4
�w�Ahgk;h was reinsZone led District an A
Board of Co my Zone
bners
�n August 15, 198.. Publisher
_LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of
the E14 SWW of Section 5,
Township 2 North, Range 88
West of the 8th P.M, Weld Subscribed and sworn to before me, a
_LOCATION:
Colorado ,Public in and for the County of.
10es east: Apgmon nor 3 Notary
-miles of Longmont north of WTI State of Colorado.y this ...1..4�.. day of
State Highway 119 and west of •
,, .. A.D. 19.�/....
Weld County Road 314
BOARD OF COUNTY`,,,,,,/,,,[///,/'//`��,��
COMMISSIONERS It's„(�:: !^'/'`�•••
WELD COUNTY,D Notary Public.
-BY: MARY ANN
[pR ,
-RECOCORDER AA�„•CLERK My commission expires
TO THE BOARD
BY: Mary-Red! Deputy
VATED: May 11, 1987 .
PLBLISHED in the JWmeaun
Breeze May 14, 1957
•
• $'70422
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of Colorado
County ofBoulder
J. R. Hu fmann NOTICE
1, do Forwent to the zoning laws of the State of Colo-
rado aim the field County Zoning73rdinance,a
public hearing still belheld in the Chambers of the
solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY TIMES CALL is a Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915
daily newspaper printed, in whole_or in part, and published in 10th Street, irst Floor,Greeley,Colorado,at the
time specified.-All persons in any manner Inter-
the City of Longmont, County of Boulder,State of Colorado, and ested In The amendment to the Use by Special
Rwhich has general circulation therein and in parts of Boulder and heard.a r are requested to attend and may be
Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously and 5hnuld ther applicant or any Interested makee-
+eef the
prw of a court addition rp make ea
unlnterru uninterruptedly published for a recordOf heproceedings,in to the taped
p y _period of more than six months record which will be kept during the hearing,the
next prior to the firstpublication of the annexed legal notice of clerko to the Board's repo terin contacted ther for a
g e certified o reporters s bethe area. If a
advertisement, that said newspaper has been admitted to the court is obtained, the writing i the
oar reporter rte sll beain d, In e to such
United States mails as second-class matter under the actin at least five days prior to the hearing.The
provisions cost of engaging_a court reporter shall be borne
of the Act of March 3, 1879, oral) amendments thereof, and that by the ALSO reqSOs KNOWN
Y BE i i that the test i and maps is-
said newspaper is a daily -newspaper unified by the examined nld In County office Planning Clerk to
duly qualified for sion Board
may ofCounty
hu to Commissioners,of to acted in
publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning the w ld County n Cent Centennial 915 1¢10th
of the laws of the State of Colorado; that a copy of each number of Street,Third�loor,Greeley,Colorado.
APPLICANT
DOCKET NO.87.25 Barbara Johnson newspaper, in which said notice of advertisement was 1715 Harvard Street
published, was transmitted by mail or carrier to each of the DATE: May 27,1987 Longmont,Colorado 80501
subscribers _of said newspaper, according to the .accustomed ISSUES:Whether or not there has been substan-
mode of business in this office. tial change In the facts and circum-•
stances regarding the application, or
that there Is newly4llscovered evidence
for a_Change of_Zone which was re-
T-hat the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published Instated to an A (Agricultural)Zone
District by the Board of County Com-
in the regular and entire edition of said daily newspaper once; LEGAL missioners on August 15,1981. -
DESCRIPTION; Part of the-E1/2 SW" of Section
and that one publication-of said notice was in the issue of said 5,West
of t hip 2 North, Range n-
- yae 6th P.M.Weld oun-
ty,Colorado
newspaper dated May 16 , 1987. ..LOCATION:Approximately 3 miles east of Loná-
mont; north of State Highway 119
`- and west of Weld Countyl9oad 3'/a
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY,COLORADO
BY:MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
•
AND CLEE� AR
BV:.R MarKTOy Re1H,TH Deputy
�f� ®j'/ye/l DATED: May 11,1987
`/ry Published in the Daily Times Call, Longmont,
ColO.Mey Is,1987
General Manager
Subscribedand sworn to before me this 1b th
day of May ,19 87
c//l d''
Notary,*blic
eaTARP My tommSS on Will
October B, 19
717 • 4th Avenue
FEE$ 2 9. 50 9r �URI lc Longmont
Colorado 83501
87-0422
DATE: May 11 , 19-87
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
Wald County, Colorado
FROM: Clerk to the Board Office
Commissienars:
If you have no objections, we have tentatively set the
following hearing for the 27th day of May, 1987 , at 2: 00 B.M.
Docket No. 87-25 - Substantial change in COZ application -
Barbara Johnson
OFFICE OF THE lI.E TO THE BOARD
BY: / //IanyTh Deputy
The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled
on the agenda as stated above .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
.
J
�
esaisit
870422
,c x/„n,7 7)
Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987
Page 18
MOTION:
Louis Rademacher moved Case Number Amended USR-199:73: 14 for Double Eight
Land Corporation for an amended Use by Special Review permit to increase the
capacity of a Livestock Confinement Operation from 2, 100 head to 3,000 head
of cattle. Motion seconded by Lydia Dunbar.
The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Planning
Commission. There was no further discussion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to Toll the members of the Planning
Commission for their decision. Paulette Weaver - Yes; Louis
Rademacher - Yes; LeAnn Reid - Yes; Lynn Brown — Yes; Lydia Dunbar - Yes;
Ann Garrison - Yes; Jack Holman - Yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: SCH-3:87:2
APPLICANT: Barbara Johnson
REQUEST: -Substantial change hearing.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E} -SW} mf Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North side of State Highway 119 and west side of Weld County Road
3-1/2.
APPEARANCE:
LaVern Nel-son, Y.E. , Nelson -Engineers, -represented the applicant. This is a
request for a Substantial Change Hearing. In 1983 this property was rezoned
from Agricultural to -Planned Unit Development. The District Court reversed
this decision to return the property to agricultural primarily because there
were no adequate sanitary facilities. Since that time the County has
adopted a new Comprehensive Plan with allows an I-25 Mixed Use Development
area and the property will be within the St. Vrain Sanitation District.
Tape 281 - Side 1
He discussed changes in the area. These changes have created a lot of new
jobs and these workers now need convenient living quarters.
Lee Morrison asked the members of the Planning Commission to confine their
discussion the -merits of whether there have been substantial changes in the
facts or the law to warrant a new hearing. The Johnsnns will need to put
into the record what they feel their changes are. Not everything has to
change in order to hear this request again. It appears changes to correct
what the judge found lacking would be reason for a rehearing. This is not
actually a rehearing, but an opportunity to resubmit the application.
87-0422
r C1< X/t/R/7
Summary of She Weld County Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987
Page 19
The Chairman called for discussion from the -members of the audience. There
was none.
The Chairman asked Lanell Swanson to read the recommendation of the
Department ofPlanning Services' staff into the record.
MOTION:
Louis Rademacher moved Case Number SCH-3:87:2 for Barbara Johnson for a
Substantial Change hearing be forwarded to the -Board of County Commissioners
with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval based upon the
recommendation of the Department of Planning Services' staff and the
testimony heard by the members of the Planning Commission. Motion seconded
ty Lynn Brown.
The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the audience.
_Discussion followed concerning what constituted a substantial change.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning
Commission for their decision. Paulette Weaver - No, the only significant
change she sees is the future availability of the St. Vrain Sanitation
District and she is making the judgement that this is not a substantial
change and does not warrant a new application. Louis Rademacher - Yes;
LeAnn Reid — Yes; Lynn Brown - Yes; Lydia Dunbar - Yes; Ann _Garrison - Yes;
,Tack Holman - Yes, primarily to hear the change. He realizes there are some
things here that really don't change at all as far as some of the facts, and
some of the Planning Commission's recommendations for denial at the time of
the -first hearing, tut he does want to allow the applicants a new hearing.
Motion carried with six voting for the motion and one voting against the
motion.
CASE NUMBER: USR-790:87:15
APPLICANT: Roggen Telephone Cooperative
REQUEST: A Use by Special Review permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE NWi of Section 6, 12N, R67W of the 6th
P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. -Lots 2, 3, 4, and 3, Block
1, -Roggen, Colorado.
LOCATION: 519 Front Street, Roggen, Colorado.
APPEARANCE:
Elizabeth Hyde represented the -Roggen Telephone Company. They want to add
on an office area to the building that has been used by the phone company
since F959. This will be a thirty-four by twenty-lour addition. The -phone
company currently employees three people and they do not anticipate any
changes.
870422 -
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
El! f t)'�t ptTi!n
CASE NUMBER: SCH-3:87:2 7.
NAME: Barbara Johnson I MAY 71987
-ADDRESS: 1715 Harvard Street, Longmont, CO 80501
awee<ar. cato.
-REQUEST: Substantial Change Hearing
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E} SW} of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles east of Longmont; north side of State
Highway 119 and the west side of Weld County Road 3-1/2
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the
following reasons:
It is the opinion of the Weld County Planning Commission that the applicant,
in her letter dated March 26, 1987, has demonstrated that substantial
changes in the facts and circumstances have occurred.
The Weld County District Court, Division II, in Case #83 cv 668 Review of
Change of Zone Case #Z-390:83:5, has identified that. . ."There is no evidence
in the record to reflect that adequate sewer services can be made available
to serve the site." On February 24, 1986, District Court in Case #85 cv 116
approved the formation of the St. Vrain Sanitation District. The location
of the proposal is located within the boundaries of the St. Vrain Sanitation
District.
The Board of County Commissioners, on January 13, 1987, approved a new
comprehensive plan that was not available when the original Change of Zone
#390:83:5 was reviewed.
The formation of the St. Vrain Sanitation District will be a substantial
change in the proposed land—use application and the adoption of the new Weld
-County Comprehensive Plan is a substantial change in the applicable
provision of the law.
Motion seconded by Lynn Brown.
VOTE:
For Passage Against -Passage
Louis Rademacher Paulette Weaver
LeAnn Reid
Lynn Brown
Lydia Dunbar
Ann Garrison
Jack Holman
870422
SCH-3:87:2
Barbara Johnson
page 2
The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a _certified
copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County
Commission-eta for further -proceedings.
CERTIFICATION Of _COPY
I, Bobbie Good, Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of
the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, _Colorado, -adopted
on May 5th, 187, and recorded in Book No. XI of the proceedings of the said
Planning Commission.
Dated the 6th day of May, 1987.
Coo)
Bobbie _Good
Secretary
870422
Il ENTCRY OF ITEMS EUFMIT:TED FOR CO:;SIDEP?.TICN
Case Number secs 2:2 Submitted or Premixed
Prior
to Hearing At Hearing
1. Application 3 Pages
2. Application plat(s) page(s)
3. DPS Referral Surmary Sheet
4. DPS Recommendation !/
5. DPS Surrounding Propery Owner Railing List
6. DPS Mineral -Owners Mailing _List
7. 1.. DPS Yaps Prepared by Planning Technician v�
8. DPS Notice of Hearing
9. DPS Case Summary Sheet
10. DPS Field Check p 11. tram/1y
"'" r mi wafter/us !czar k—
new12. ��f� �P T I✓!F D1 /!"
13.gas/
{J/p am„hot. reN SQtt/ n I`
14.£r'S I Well Atintra ?/ PAW,sc/M'k /AV
15. Aelbr fro/7J Lo mo,vf P/eW'Eiry DW'T''vai/J
#OR/I 1% /t rrn
16. Leler 40112 lb! Sig? 11P7 PEW"Pigtdpari
i74,i. A/63 th Dike. 1(0,4412'14 a +'11J,/9eJ 4-a"
18 al/ 100
tiMML 1.3 /9 t9
19.L#//"- DOA 9 62 M/n7 Fein /o vf,i em vt /�
€ONS,Ei(amt D,.Ytn'Gf
20.felei61&8y�4s O&4*e be, att+/
I hereby certify that the`9 items identified herein were submitted to the
Department of -Planning Services at or prier to the sxhaduled Planning Commission
hearing. I farther certif that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the
Board's office -on /,q�� 9' 19a
urrent Planner
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF WELD )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS l- DAY OF `nn� 19-t1 ,
SEAL
\Aux.1.�Q. C\o o A
NO ARY PUBLIC
enha%r 870422
f. 7 : - 2, 1'22
'4' CO.'MTSSION EXPIRFS__
d / EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case -2_°°Gc2e� CyCl ji
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
•!j/A. r-L.71 .E��lLisvta--atc4yJtcicr4'
d y
B. etiyr�y,�� CI7��//?'[�.e<.u�+- r.A�i lYr /�O✓�i1�.i�.�"�c2.7crn
4 ( 2
C. '? �i 191c�ucm �.� J�� fy
D. `"?/ 2-#26-4/ ")`L/f/'i�'Gx t� M,,./i./'.e,-6
E. (24.14.&%-% /424% 7 CPS� c.e.Q2L
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
R.
L.
M.
N.
0.
870422
Date: Olvic57014WromMIS
CASE NUMBER: SCH-3:87:2 _l�
NAME: Barbara Johnson '' MAY /�e 1987.
�i f/tt,X92.
ADDRESS: 1715 Harvard Street, Longmont, CO 80501
REQUEST: Substantial Change Hearing
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E} SW} of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles east of Longmont; north side of State
Highway 119 and the west side of Weld County Road 3-1/2
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE
APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that
the applicant, in her letter dated March 26, 1987, has demonstrated
that substantial changes in the facts and circumstances have occurred.
The Weld County District Court, Division II, in Case #83 cv 668 Review
of Change of Zone Case #Z-390:83:5, has identified that. . ."There is no
evidence in the record to reflect that adequate sewer services can be
made available to serve the site." On February 24, 1986, District
Court in Case #85 cv 116 approved the formation of the St. Vrain
Sanitation District. The location of the proposal is located within
the boundaries of the St. Vrain Sanitation District.
The Board of County Commissioners, on January 13, 1987, approved a new
comprehensive plan that was not available when the original Change of
Zone #390:83:5 was reviewed.
The formation of the St. Vrain Sanitation District will be a
substantial change in the proposed land-use application and the
adoption of the new Weld County Comprehensive Plan is a substantial
change in the applicable provision of the law.
870422
J,AND-USE APPLICATION
SUMMARY SHEET
-Late: April 28, 1987
CASE NUMBER: SCH-3:87:2
NAME: Barbara Johnson
ADDRESS: 1715 Harvard Street, Longmont, CO 80501
REQUEST: Substantial change hearing.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E} SW} of Section 3, T2N, R64W of the 6th
P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 3 miles east of Longmont, north side of Highway 119,
and west of Weld County Road 3}.
SIZE OF PARCEL: _80 Acres ±
POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS:
The applicant is requesting to submit a new Land-Use application on this
property. The original application (Z-429:86:4) request for a change of
zone from A (Agricultural) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) , R-5 (mobile
home residential) was considered by the Planning Commission on June 20,
1983. The Board of County Commissioners considered this request on August
24, 1983, and approved the request. District Court, Division III, on April
20, 1984, in Case #83:CV:668, reinstated the zoning of the property to A
(Agricultural) .
The Planning Commission will consider 'whether the applicant has demonstrated
that a substantial change in the facts of circumstances have occurred
subsequent to the District Court action or that there was newly discovered
evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort
at the time of the original application. The Planning Commission will
forward a written recommendation of its findings to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Attached are copies of the applicant's letter requesting permission to file
a new -Land—Use Application and a copy of the criteria for the Substantial
Change Hearing.
B70422
,
DEPAR -NT OF PLANNING SERVICES
A Ili
PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400
49
915 10th STREET
fRI r j ap--7GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
N `
•
•
COLORADO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Weld County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Nay 5,
1987, at 1:30 p.m. to review a request for approval of a substantial change
hearing on former Case Number Z-390:83:3 Five Villages Planned Unit
Development from Barbara Johnson the parcel of lard is _described as the E}
SW} of Section 5, TIN, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado,
containing 80 -acres, more or less. The property is located north of State
Highway 119 and west of Weld County Road 3-1/2.
The public hearing to be held by the Weld County Planning Commission for the
consideration of the above referenced request will be conducted in the Weld
County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial
Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related
to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Room 342, Greeley,
Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing
Mn May 3, 1987.
Copies of the application are available for public inspection in the
Department of Planning Services, Room 342, Weld County Centennial Center,
'915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado, - phone - 356-4000, Extension 4400.
Jack -Holman, Chairman
Weld County Planning Commission
To be _published in the Johnstown Breeze
To be published one (1) time by April 24, 1987
Received by:
Date:
870422
j I i
i.• 30 29 / t 2 28
1 on
_497,4 -= i SIllMnr S4
Rea
/ M
• a95�
II
'f`
.
r,4959. -i • `
4982 . I /
�f - - - hlrkland
\...< ,
CALKINS LAKE a " o ; \
•�-
----,:----;n (UNION RESERVOIR) 32 3
\
�V I 9 4955 -�'-- .fin
I
<9W . 1 1
lI ' I /
it I
965 -_ — — /fi l
222 9
u , 3 x•
DI'�M I!
i � `*� C k°• 9
7 � 4978An ' - r
• meI I49 f -+3�+Se ' 1
/ I- •
I �
1 /I
7 ' . S -ryl
__ -��"� Grf�e1P[ T v'Ita -� I YU
CIF �'\ $ s I /" 9 g L.- n. _/ , �� V p
7
a
o� 7
68681 /J
9;)-! / A _ _
i.:, 7,
, .,„f
A-O ;i
= T
yt c w.[a a £ s s r r y » .4 •---. ...
1`r'� s'!+a tr- ,• X4.4d);. 14. : 1 r.,-
- +g F sycs4'T" ..1 �g.. .rky fw '). --•y„ >4. } zp -L fiF'-r 3 )w 4].'r 4,1
:::-Se:“..t..-16"�'� ,f ` a 5.55 rt- !.f "3 A it r s r y.,y T " 15 '•'''''1-..-r$6,.. � & ,., , ' A
,5+x S .!' 2 't gtt,i .yam .. rk>K �*�J ..S 1� >
Z� " �+ .'i5 �' ," 'Bs t � z'` t 1S an y5., tr .-- If, I.
.tC.
' . .�. + in¢� s» ., r �-kC. 'h fY'cu j '.:5,17-% "" 4 & p K
Weis met p -o, ...tit.:54.- 4 ( x r V„r a 1 i,'�n•u' r
..+I-Wk.'
r-x -". .." art'
-.13.4� �,,.yyy}� r "_y�4 • £•. '4. f �r le . -.4 c`P t'.'VIII"'
AP i$Yfe a v.::
n Y£
* gX"- �ate. k° +rr ? -''� % •
I'tklaur . _�4_- .
r � .r 1. . t./ 1
F 4I4`R^ .Q?p Rha iM -• `.
N L
�y _�� r< ,5. {
'ia '�+ `� f .:'R 4 k z .,y ua Y iI ., ; %.z—,.I .a a' .�-.31 '
i- .c- r°_ yzA'a 'y _ r xS r h k t*' �}'�
Y p
`� �L..1q..�/�} � t t ' 'd4 4
- 6 t 'ij: 'y.'3- i fi ? ��3�-, 5[ 4 `
yy� .�c�q - i • it z r "4' Fx3 .4 . X
w'A'L•d C *�i�e—'y i ars»4`/,1.;:'« �/� ' s.i " ... ' u : F bit,0......
✓ _ ei
,,"^ '. :/' pBr.�"t ..vr�- re.>..._—ar ;V'!'� rc "'sS %' dam' Y +F',r ':.
T• . .., n ma; - ,e e, f w. 1.*C' :-m ..zc .. s >�� a f , .3 ie A., ..0,;;.6;, :',.,.:4"-;:-,;";3 ;3"-...._ n 9 t0a'_ .*1 a-zs ₹i..,7 ;+t i ' =1
R x \ �'. Fpm ;<. �"./ s..i . 5 `. � ?y #T - � �' C 'c.
E1Kr_1;.a+. . f r: air -er" 3"; y f'4 ,a slay ) : 1.-"'Xill ` , t5 �-r'.
F r lip', 3 / fi e-' : ' 1 ..r.,...--; - } ..r , ,f S� ... .---,,,:,.....,,,,----,t4�
. • to . s. ' $ i € x s� xpt, , st
.-., _ '4-' T ( " 'F . ry i 4. v - e fr �' ...
i. 3ro1` w...2...,-.. .a..-4A -
Y. 0g 6,-tt-, 't`r Kr 4r .t I. a * .•' j'kz 3' .
x tt
'i -' is.-?,4t,;,
n• t y P.y -.'. .�. F 1-3` I � '! .r ' .... 1 L - " t- zt.�
� r} s {" * " �x n`x t�. -'sT + ;' .X. -.t-,..._,-„,...„.„--i .r. i F I a �.{ ''r iy:ta.',{
1/2
x J i;. ? w j •! :� ri 1. tf - ,., .� , i. ' x"^ ti.
..
r. &..�H 'F "-- x tire.: z. r '# F - p'''''3 ,i' d
. m � a • f~zt ,t-',7;7:‘,%-, L. r tv - 's ,r .r t- 1 23, f '� ,-.
��fctry ` qt. -1-.:T. :\,,,r,
s .n bd, } y .4 L-> ° 3 �� z� �*."a..•-.`�'."q.".?"'Cg
'I ';;-11:11°''":41.
.y ' cN }s ..[. 4
34...._ ! Rax. f s a• i.* Y C,,. ;c„ x':., a a .'"-t;.--5*�yy'��.•::!1'.,4:4;:1::r trir. p� y-41
;��nn'>? 'v y" + b:. e k-z`' •1 ��y err �' . X33 ALT; r
Fkny,r �f . .;r ef, a' $`? r 1 -
,,..,„,„,,,„: ....„,,,,,L.
161 M P � c
F
M 3ey x', .i..� 7!".''''''''''''''
.y' •ih K �� jjl� ,r L d' Y 3
t r. r „SC*<a.r� r u :,. _i. 3' 3ai -eF 'r. + k ; fi
! n �� r L'd I I ;€I4
n X ; �`J '•'- , k. ...�.,a T�� u...�� a.r.v.
TG sr
1 a, r y f.. R-�.,.Ey'!
R' �� ' --t
uk s a I. -.;n e. was .4.,.... .v`''fr
Barbara J. Johnson
1715 Harvard Street
Longmont, Colorado 80501
March 26, 1987
•
Charles Cunliffe, Director
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Services Building
915 Tenth Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Request for a substantial change tearing on a
parcel of land described as the E 1/2 of the SW 1/4
Section 5, Township .2 North, Range 68 West -of the
6th P.M. , former Case:No. S-256 : 86 :1 Five Villages
P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Cunliffe:
I, Barbara J. Johnson , hereby request a hearing to allow the
filing of a land use application for a R.U.D. for mobile home park
use on the subject property. This -parcel was previously submitted
to Weld County in March, 1983 for rezoning -from agricultural to
P.U.D. The Board of Commissioners of Weld County approved the re-
zoning request at that time. Upon contest of that decision, the
issue was heard in District Court. In 1984, the District Court,
by decision of Judge John Althoff, reversed the decision of the
Board of Commissioners and ordered the zoning of the subject
Property be reinstated to agricultural. This IDistrict Court
action was based primarily, as we understand, on the following
three conditions:
1. Adequate sanitary sewer service was not available to the
subject site.
2. Changing conditions in the area were not sufficient to
warrant a sone change.
3. A zone change would not be compatible with surrounding
land uses.
Since the filing and hearing of the 1983 application and the
District Court decision of 1984, there have been significant
changes affecting the subject property and the surrounding area.
These principal changes are as follows:
870422
� 1
Charles Cunliffe, Director
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Services Building
March 26 , 1987
Page Two
1. A new comprehensive plan has been adopted by Weld
County on January 13 , 1987 , which among other matters ,
designates certain areas as I-25 Mixed Use Development
Area. The subject parcel is included in that M.U.D. area
and is designated as Mobile Home (MH) .
2. The St. Vrain Sanitation District, created to provide
public sewage collection and treatment facilities for
properties within its boundaries and service area, has
been formed and has, by election of its electors authorized
the expenditure of up to $4 , 750 , 000 through issuance of
bonds therefore. The subject property is included with-
in the initial boundaries of the District. As of this
writing, the District is calling for construction bids
for the designed collection sewers , and the site for the
sewage treatment plant has been approved by the Colorado
Department of Health. The subject site will have avail-
able operational public sewerage facilities prior to the
time construction of the mobile home park can be completed
and ready for occupancy.
3. There are changing conditions in the area due to rezoning
of a parcel of land adjoining the subject property on the
southeast. That parcel known as the Baldri-dge-Richardson
tract has recently teen rezoned to P.U.D. for commercial
and industrial uses. There are other rezoning requests
pending or in the process within the M.U.D. area.
4. In addition to changes adjacent to the subject site that
are in conformance with the changed Weld County Compre-
hensive Plan, substantial changes have and are occuring
within the Del Camino area itself near the intersection
of I--25 and Colorado Highway 119. The major changes that
have taken place since the zoning request of 1983 are as
follows :
a. Approval of the "New Creation Church Ministries" .
b. A new major Texaco auto and truck service facility
with a convenience store.
c. A new McDonalds food outlet.
d . A new Super 8 Motel.
e. A new Burger King food outlet.
f. A new turck washing facility (pending) .
g. a new Waffle House and Taco Bell food outlets
(pending) .
870422
C
Charles Cunliffe, Director
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Services Building
March 26 , 1987
Page Three
5. The newly adopted Weld County Comprehensive Plan _provides
a conceptual land use plan for the I-25 Mixed Use Develop-
ment Area, which encompasses the subject property site.
That conceptual plan suggests allowing zone changes in
the immediate vicinity of the subject site, since the
1-25 M.U.D. area is subject to significant growth and
development. With the development of the new sanitary
sewerage system, all basic infrastructure is in place.
The numerous new outlets, commercial and otherwise, in the
I-25 M.U.D. area create many new jobs and a resultant need for
living quarters that are convenient to the Del Camino area. The
subject site can help to satisfy that need.
I believe that the changes described herein and the creation
of the sewerage system by the St. Vrain Sanitation District justify
a rehearing of this zoning matter. Please inform me of your action
regarding this request as soon as possible. Be -assured that my re-
presentatives and I are available to meet with you to answer
questions .
Respectfully,
(i i
Barbara J. Johnson
BJJ/gc
cc: Richard N. Lyons, Grant, Bernard & Lyons
LaVern C. Nelson, Nelson Engineers
If !PAR 30 1987
Weld Co- Planning nmmissine
870422
APPLICATIONS FOR LAND-USE FOR PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY DENIED
1. Neither an applicant nor his successors in interest in property for
which a land-use application was denied within the preceding five (5)
years may submit a land-use application or -request a rehearing on a
previously submitted application for any portion of the property
contained in the original application unless the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that, based upon a showing by the
applicant, there has been a substantial change in the facts and
circumstances regarding the application or that there is newly
discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with
diligent effort at the time of the original application.
2. "Substantial change in facts and circumstances" shall mean a
substantial change in the land-use application, in the surrounding
land-uses or in applicable provisions of the law.
3. A petition requesting rehearing on an application or permission to file
another application for property previously denied a land-use permit
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services for
processing. The Department shall schedule a substantial change hearing
before the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners.
Land-use applications originally heard by only the Board of County
Commissioners shall be scheduled before the Board only. The Planning
Commission shall r.onsider the rehearing petition only if it considered
the original land-use application. It shall review the petition and
any supporting information. The Planning Commission shall consider
whether the applicant has demonstrated that a substantial change in the
facts or circumstances have occurred subsequent to the -Board's decision
or that there was newly discovered evidence that the applicant could
not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original
application. The -Planning Commission shall make a written
recommendation of its findings to the Board of County _Commissioners.
4. Legal notice of a substantial change hearing shall be published once in
the newspaper designated by the Board of County Commissioners for
publication of notices. The date of publication -shall be at least ten
(10) days prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
5. Notice of the substantial change hearing and the public hearing date
shall be provided to owners of property located within five hundred
(500) feet of the parcel under consideration and owners and lessees of
the mineral estate on or under the parcel under consideration. The
notification shall be -mailed, first class, not less than ten (10) days
before the scheduled public hearing. Similar notice shall also be
provided any agency, body, or group who received a referral request
from the Department of Planning services on the original application.
6. The Board of County Commissioners shall hold a substantial change
hearing after the legal notice and notices to property owner, mineral
owners and lessees, and referral agencies identified in 4 and 5 have
been completed. The legal notice and notification shall be done at
least ten (10) days prior to the Board's hearing.
6
870422
7. The Board of County Commissioners may grant such a petition when it
determines that the applicant has demonstrated that a substantial
change in the facts or circumstances have occurred subsequent to the
Board's decision or that there was newly discovered evidence not
available to the applicant at the time the Board considered the
application. The Board may deny the petition solely upon the contents
of the petition or when deemed advisable by the Board that the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that a substantial change in the
facts or circumstances have occurred subsequent to the Board's decision
or that there was newly discovered evidence that the applicant could
not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original
application. The Board shall consider the applicant's rehearing
petition, the Planning Commission's recommendation, oral testimony at
the public hearings, written related information, and any other
relevant material in making its decision.
8. When the Board of County Commissioners grants a rehearing petition, the
applicant may file a new application with the Department of Planning
Services. The application shall be processed in accordance with the
requirements of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance or Weld County
Subdivision Regulations.
9. No petition for rehearing may be granted where the decision of the
Board of County Commissioners on a land-use application has been
appealed or contested in any court of law, Auring the pendency of the
court action.
870422
7
l
REFERRAL LIST
APPLICANT: Barbara J. Johnson CASE NUMBER: SCH-3:87:2
SENT REFERRALS OUT: April 1, 1987 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: April 17, 1987
NO SR NR NO SR NR
Y ____ County Attorney V X Longmont Soil Conservation
District
X Weld County Health Dept. P.O. Box D
v Longmont, CO 80501R
X Engineering Department
St. Vrain School District
X Colorado Geological Survey RE1J
1313 Sherman Street 395 South Pratt Parkway
Room 715 Longmont, CO 80501
Denver, CO 80203 /
/ X Louis Rademacher
[/ X Left Hand Water Supply P.C. Member
P.O. Box D 13184 Weld County Road 13
Niwot, CO 80544 Longmont, CO 80501
X Union Reservoir Company
P.O. Box 449
Greeley, CO 80632
X Longmont Planning Department
Attn: Brian Miller
Civic Center Complex
/ Longmont, CO 80501
'/ X State Highway Department
!l/��� 1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO 80631
X Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East 11th Avenue
/ Denver, CO 80220
!// X Colorado Division of Wildlife
Attn: Larry Rogstad
1528 28th Avenue Court
Greeley, CO 80631
/ R Longmont Fire Protection District
Attn: Bill Emerson, Fire Marshal
9119 County Line Road
Longmont, CO 80501
NO=No Objection
SR=Specific Recommendations 870^Y 22
NR=No Response C7
'- - - "_.> �o Kuhl
i •
`®r- DEPAR' ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
M l" PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400
, ,
915 10th STREET
le
��� GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
RECEIVED
1 SANITATION DIVISION
'�- ® APR C3 1987
COLORADO MID COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. CASE NUMBER SCH-3:87:2
April 1, 1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed is an application from Barbara J. Johnson for a substantial change
hearing on Case Number Z-390:83:5 Five Villages _Planned Unit Development.
The parcel of land is described as the E} SWI of Section 5, T1N, R68W of the
6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for
which this application has been -submitted is north of State Highway 119 and
west of Weld County Road 3-1/2.
This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations.
Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would
be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of
the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations.
Please reply by April 17, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to
your recommendation. Please call Keith Schuett if you have any questions
about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this
matter.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request
(does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this
request (is/is not) compatible with the interests
of our town for the following reasons:
3. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our
interests.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be
submitted to you prior to: �y
5. Plea e to the enclosed letter. o� ��� �.
/
Signed: / V em Agency: e , '
Li
Date: r—,� / f� — ._JLu
T
Weld Co. Pluming Gamma
870422
G NAA\ �.4. }t
DEPAR ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
sio 1 iffill
`` O i " PHONE(303)3564000 EXT.4400
915OL RthO 803T
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
T% l
Z 4 •
'A { y'
;iefiti
9 $
O
CASE NUMBER SCH-3:87:2
COLORADO
April 1, 1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed is an application from Barbara J. Johnson for a substantial change
hearing on Case Number Z-390:83:5 Five Villages Planned Unit Development.
The parcel of land is described as the E} SWI of Section 5, TIN, R68W of the
6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for
which this application has been submitted is north of State Highway 119 and
west of Weld County Road 3-1/2.
This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations.
Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would
be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of
the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations.
Please reply by April 17, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to
your recommendation. Please call Keith Schuett if you have any questions
about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this
matter.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request
(does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
0
CD
D
9
q 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this
request (is/is not) compatible with the interests
aL.,--L1 of our town for the following reasons:
CO i�
co Lj
ii
3. X We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our
interests.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be
submitted to you prior to:
5./� 'N a refer to the enclosed letter.
signed.:,(] ;L4 ;-7. Agency: L17-,,, f- ' i
Date: a - /(
870422
�r� tt 11C,,t tt,
¢ oY O.p `AIM) WE-87-0021
Roy R. Romer �� moo;
L8 7o
GOV JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
6 X876
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING-1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE(303)866-2611
April 23, 1987
Mr. Keith Schwett
Dept. of Planning Services
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Schwett:
RE: CASE NO. SCH-3:87:2
FIVE VILLAGES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
E2, SW4, S5, T2N, R68W
Geologic conditions at this site appears from information on file and our
knowledge of the area to be suitable for most types of development.
The only conditions that could affect construction is possible swelling soils,
and possible high ground water levels influenced by Union Reservoir, Oligarchy
ditch and/or other local irrigation ditches.
This site is not underlain by any sand and/or gravel resource as recorded by
previous Colorado Geological Survey work.
Radon gas could be a possible problem. We recommend that a gamma survey be
carried out. If this survey does not indicate any "hot spots" but normal
background, then possible radon infiltration should be handled at the design
and construction stage.
If you have any questions, please call .
Sincerely,
L. R. Ladwig, Chief
Minerals Fuels Section
bjj:LRL-87-172
3410/16 0 rat iff
APR 27 1987
`
GEOLOGY Weld Co. Planning Commission
STORY OF THE PAST. . .KEY TO THE FUTURE 870422
DEPAR TENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
•(77e 11 .-7%)
s PHONE(303)3564000 EXT.4400
•- 915 10th STREET
ler 1 AVM GREELEY,COLORADO 60631
■� � O
CASE NUMBER SCH-3:87:2
COLORADO
April 1, 1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed is an application from Barbara J. Johnson for a substantial change
hearing on Case Number Z-390:83:5 Five Villages Planned Unit Development.
The parcel of land is described as the E} SW} of Section 5, TIN, R68W of the
6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for
which this application has been submitted is north of State Highway 119 and
.west of Weld County Road 3-1/2.
This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations.
Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would
be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of
the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations.
Please reply by April 17, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to
your recommendation. Please call Keith Schuett if you have any questions
about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this
matter.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request
(does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
a n 11-21
s
,..S
00 2 We do not have a Comprehensivew-
�� Plan, but we feel this
co request (is/is not) compatible with the interests
a m � of our town for the following reasons:
.{�I 1
3. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our
interests.
4. ,% A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be
submitted to you prior to:ncoc. Ace. ,4"c 1,,A, t t._ X,eve•eec,
4uq. k6Lr Pt, ,1 La.u: %c, thvA<s . s't.r5?itit'TRC Line ,S
5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Dave,
Signed:� „.1. • Agency: 2.,441-t/, 25,C
Date: '1.777/.77
870422
1
, AreMM vi
\ +.
e5Ir = -. . at OF L
Aa y
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION * #
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 O O
(303) 651-8330
OLORA9
April 14, 1987
Mr. Keith Schuett
Weld County Planning Department
915 10th Street, Room 342
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: FIVE VILLAGES PUD SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE HEARING
Dear Mr. Schuett:
As you are aware, the City of Longmont commented upon the previous application
for the rezoning of this property and was a plaintiff in the suit which
overturned the rezoning. We raised several important issues at that time, some
of them having been resolved. However, we still have the following concerns :
1) Although this property is included in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area,
as designated on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, we believe that the
rezoning and development of this project is premature. The actual
development activity that has occurred in the vicinity has been
concentrated around the SH119 intersection of I-26, which is over two
mils away. Leapfrog development at the subject property could be
detrimental to the development concentrated at the intersection, as well
as the City of Longmont, and require the inefficient provision of
services.
2) We have commented previously about our concern for the character of SH119,
from the perspective of both its traffic carrying characteristics and its
aesthetics as a principal entrance into our community. Our concern is
that this project will adversely impact the highway from both of these
perspectives.
3) As with the Bay Shores proposal , much of this proposed project is below
the Union Reservoir dam. Development for residential purposes would
change the rating of the dam to high hazard status, which would greatly
increase the standards of maintenance. It could also increase liability
APR 1. 7 1987
870422 Weld Co. Planning Cnmmissioo
Mr. Keith Schuett
April 14, 1987
Page 2
to the owners of the dam, the developers , and the County. Most impor-
tantly, however, is that residential development as envisioned would put
many lives at risk.
We respectfully urge Weld County to consider these concerns. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide this input.
Sincerely,
Brian J. Miller, AICP
BJM/kmh
#2050-9
870422
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ` N
gcENt OF
P.O. Box 850 f/ /
. olt t
Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850T o
(303) 353-1232 c':„\\,;_;_;_.,-- o,
---
�',. `o ff
April 15, 1987 Weld Co. , S.H. 119
Johnson Change Hearing
File: Five Villages PUD
NW Cor. C.R. 31 and SH 11
Mr. Keith Schuett _DOH File 45100
_Department of Planning Services
Weld County
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Schuett:
We have reviewed the application from Barbara Johnson for a substantial
change hearing for Five Villages P.U.D. , and we have no objections to this
request. However, we would like to reemphasize our previous concern about
the traffic impact of this development and Bay Shores P.U.D. on the State
Highway 119/County Road 31/2 intersection.
Construction of these developments would have a significant impact on
this intersection. Turn lanes on S.H. 119 and potentially, a traffic
signal would be warranted by either of these developments. Since a traffic
impact study is to be provided in conjunction with the Bay Shores P.U.D.
re—application request, the projected impact of Five Villages P.U.D. should
also be identified, preferably through a combined trafffic study. A joint
traffic study should lead to an equitable plans for these developments to
share the cost of improving this intersection.
Tlease refer future plans for this development to us as they become
available so that we can address other issues of concern in relation to
S.H. 119. Contact Wally Jacobson if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
ALBERT CHOTVACS
DISTRICT ENGINE1R
2 _/7)7
John K. Crier
District Planning/Environmental Manager
JKC:mbc(WJ)
cc: File: Crier-Jacobson via Chotvacs
APR 2 01987
870422 Weld Co- Planning Commission
$$ N DEPAR ANT OF PLANNING SERVICES
.t (s PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400
- 5 10th STREET
r�"� 1` ! • GREELEY,COLORADO 60631
. K
Ii
Et*iO
M1rt'
• CASE NUMBER SCH-3:87:2
COLORADO
April 1, 1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Inclosed is an application from Barbara J. Johnson for a substantial change
hearing on Case Number Z-390:83:5 Five Villages Planned Unit Development.
The parcel of land is described as the E} SW} of Section 5, TIN, R68W of the
6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for
which this application has been submitted is north of State Highway 119 and
west of Weld County Road 3-1/2.
This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations.
Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would
be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of
the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations.
Please reply by April 17, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to
your recommendation. Please call Keith Schuett if you have any questions
about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this
matter.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request
o (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons.
I
C SLl
s
0.
v
_, 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this
m request (is/is not) compatible with the interests
5 G� of our town for the following reasons:
a LI
G
3. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our
interests.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be
submitted to you prior to:
5. ((Please refer to the enclosed letter. `\ r
Signed: p\`2S Agency: O,V. oX trJ 11dIi'te
Date: IA\n\ $1
870422
DEPAR ;ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
♦• ft/ PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400
915 10th STREET
•f• t Avizq GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
/PR 1987
LQ"t^u;RI7 E
PrW I ECTI0N
0�STC7FIf1
A A s LONt MONT CO.
O
CASE NUMBER SCH-3:87:2
COLORADO
April 1, 1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed is an application from Barbara 1. Johnson for a substantial change
hearing on Case Number Z-390:83:5 Five Villages -Planned Unit Development.
The parcel of land is described as the E} SW} of Section 5, TIN, R68W of the
-6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for
which this application has been submitted is north of State Highway 119 and
-rest of Weld County Road 3-1/2.
This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations.
Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would
be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of
the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations.
Please reply by April 17, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to
your recommendation. Please call Keith Schuett if you have any questions
about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this
matter.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request
o (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan
t r1 for the following reasons.
.
n ) 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this
request (is/is not) compatible with the interests
co of our town for the following reasons:
a
(-Tr C� 3. XXX We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our
interests.However the PUD shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard 501A — 1982 Ed
"Fire Safety Criteria for MOBILE HOME INSTALLATIONS, SITES and COMMUNITIES.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be
submitted to you prior to:
5. Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Signed: ,,d —a4-i (»r - r^i Agency: Longmont Fire Protection District
William R. Emerson - Fire Marshal
Date: 13 April 1987
870422
Longmont Soil Conservation District
9595 Nelson Road,Box 0 - Longmont, Colorado 80501
April 16, 1987
Mr. Keith Schuett
Weld County Department of Planning Services
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Keith:
The soils on _this parcel are considered to be prime agricultural
land of national importance.
When used for development, the limitations are severe if septic
tanks are used due to slow percolation rates, and some soils have
moderate limitations due to seepage or slope if used for sewage
lagoon areas. These soils also have moderate to severe limitations
due to a high shrink-swell potential and low strength.
If development occurs on this property, an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan should be submitted. These soils are subject to severe
wind and water erosion if not properly protected. Offsite damage
due to wind blown soil is possible.
Sincerely,
G)
Luther Stromquist
President
LS:rah
870422
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT SELF-GOVERNMENT
FIELD CHECK
FILING NUMBER: SCH-3:87:2 DATE OF INSPECTION: 7- 7 -17
NAME: Barbara Johnson
REQUEST: Substantial Change Hearing Z-390:85:5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Eli SW1/4 of Section 5, TIN, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
LAND USE: N A1u�•
E @t r
E CC C( --
et Ci
ZONING: N gr ,.cC.
LOCATION: North of State Highway 119 and E Qy A�,,Cq Ck
west of Weld County Road 3-1/2 SC" v(-`y }yK,,,
W
COMMENTS: r/
APR 91987 BYc�-tc pec ocet
Weld Co. Planning i;ommission 870422
DEPAR ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
Jilt
SHONE(303)356.4000 EXT.4400
APR
915 10th STREET
f Awl
HPR 9 1987 GREELEY,COLORADO80631
Weld Co. Planning Codmisaloe
'I
COLORADO CASE NUMBER SCH-3:87:2
April 1, 1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Tnciosed is an application from Barbara J. Johnson for a substantial change
hearing on Case Number Z-390:83:5 Five Villages Planned Unit Development.
The parcel of land is described as the E} SW} of Section 5, T1N, R68W of the
6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for
which this application has been submitted is north of State Highway 119 and
west of Weld County Road 3-1/2.
This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations.
Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would
be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of
the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations.
Please reply by April 17, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to
your recommendation. Please call Keith Schuett if you have any questions
about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this
matter.
Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above.
1. f/ We have reviewed this request and find that the request
(does/dee2 mot) comply with our omprchensive Plan
for the following reasons. -.ice. A, LQ 2.-11
oit .u. at
2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this
request (is/is not) compatible with the interests
of our town for the following reasons:
3. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our
interests.
4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be
submitted to you prior to:
3. Please refer to the enclosed letter.
signed--110a& !A_n_ %e
Date: (1- j- 2 7 V�
870422
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
SCR-3:87:2
Barbra Johnson
Barbra J. Johnson
6170 West 24th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
JKC Limited
1239 3rd Avenue
Longmont, CO 80501
CRS Investment, Incorporated
1333 West 120th Avenue
Denver, CO 80234
George I. and Sumiye Mayeda
John Y. and Betty Mayeda
10702 Weld County Road 1
Longmont, CO 80501
Betty Jo Secor and C.P. Richardson
13113 Mountain View Avenue
Longmont, CO 80501
870422
5/15/87 COPY OF NOTICE MAILED FIRST CLASS TO:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY COLORADO
P. 0. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
LaVERN NELSON
NELSON ENGINEERS
520 GREELEY NATIONAL BANK PLAZA
GREELEY, CO 80631
w
870422
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
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 . Wherefore, 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-
fr __---
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 1-25 , 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
limits, 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 Zine
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. .`his 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 TEA
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) .
—1-6-
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 local 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 Porr-eca 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 2t 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. Z 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
sight 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 seal 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, Z ' 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
-3b-
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 Echlagel 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 S 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 bit more about
what happens in Weld County since we all seem to get a little
parochial every once in a while.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: 1s 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 end get onto that sewer line that you' re gonna
-3-8-
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 nut 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 Lonymont 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 font 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
an 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 end
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. 1 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, 1 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 lee 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 POD 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-
COMMISSIONE-R 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 19-69 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 Bt. 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 sign-al 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 boon 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 knew, an asset or a liability in terms of
paving, no response, you know I
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Wall, 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. 1 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. Z think this nap shows
leap frog development. I 'm not testifying that that' s sight 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
service-s 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 ERANTNER: I believe there was something in
here.
ROD ALLISON: Yeah, there ' s a letter in your packet.
VERN NELSON: Yes. Jeff?
JEFF LeDOSJX: 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. Vrai-n 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 tRANTNER: 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. 1 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. 1 think that our Comprehensive Plan is, needs to be
re-looked at, it' s over ten years old, so 1 'm not real sure that
we can deny this upon cur 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 a 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. z 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 iongmont, 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: Bow 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—
Inventory of items sent to Courts re: Barbara Johnson Zone Change
Johnson Zone Change-copy of plat, signed
Receipts for Notices sent certified mail
Letter from Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments
Memo from Colorado Department of Health
Newspaper Clipping - Longmont Times-Call
Letter from Agricultural Research Center
Vicinity map
Johnson Zone Change-copy of plat
Re-zoning Application
Mailing List
Letter from Katharine H. Fenton
Letters from Douglas Rames, District Preconstruction Engineer
dated 4/20/83 and 6/17/83
Report from Gene Inloes , Weld County Extension Service
Letters from Longmont Soil Conservation District
dated 4/19/83 and 6/20/83
Letter and site acquisition policy - St. Vrain Valley Public Schools
Letter from Colorado Department of Health
_Memo from Ron Stow
Letter from Longmont Planning with referral form
Larger vicinity maps
Case Summary Sheet
Field Check
Recommedation of Planning staff
Resolution of recommendation from Planning Commission
Letter sent to Barbara Johnson
Approval of hearing date
Notice of hearing
Affidavits of publication - LaSalle Leader & Zongmont Times-Call
Attendance record
Certification of hearing
Resolution granting Change of Zone
Vicinity and Land Use Map
Transcript of hearing conducted August 24 , 1983
Hello