HomeMy WebLinkAbout931381.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant: The Villa at Greeley Case Number: S-344
Submitted or Prepared
Prior
to Hearing At Hearing
1. Application 161 pages X
2. 8 Application plat 8 page X
3. DPS referral summary sheet and letter X
4. DPS letter to applicant X
5. DPS Recommendation X
6. DPS Surrounding Property Owner/Mineral Owner
Mailing list, letter and certificate. X
7. 3 DPS Maps Prepared by Planning Technician X
8. DPS Notice of Hearing X
9. DPS Case File Summary Sheet X
10. DPS Field Check X
11. Planning Commission Member field check X
12. Referral response dated September 21, 1993, from
The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission X
13. Letter dated September 20, 1993, from Jeffery
Hynes, Colorado Geological Survey X
14. Letter dated September 20, 1993, from Timothy
T. Carey, Army Corps of Engineers X
15. Letter dated September 17, 1993, from Teresa
G. Jones, State Highway Department X
16. Letter dated September 15, 1993, from Brad Schol,
City of Longmont X
17. Letter dated September 20, 1993, from Jay M.
Curtis, Tri-Area Planning X
18. Referral response dated September 14, 1993, from
Louis Rademacher, Longmont Soil Conservation X
19. Referral response dated from Charles Boyes,
Mountain View Fire Protection District X
20. Letter dated September 13, 1993 from Charles
Boyes, Mountain View Fire Protection District X
21. Memo dated September 13, 1993, from Don Carrol,
Weld County Engineering X
22. Memo dated September 10, 1993, from Jeffery L.
Stoll, Weld County Health Department X
23. Referral response dated September 7 , 1993, from
Ed Jordan, Weld County Sheriff's Office X
24. Memo dated September 3, 1993, from Ed Stoner,
Weld County Building Inspection Department X
25. Letter dated September 3, 1993, from Keith A.
Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning X
26. Letter dated September 8, 1993, from Edwin Kahn,
surrounding property owners X
931381
27 . Letter dated September 21, 1993, from Ray M.
Annis X 931249
EX///J21 /- g
INVENTORY OF ITEMS
The Villa at Greeley
S-344
Page 2
28. Letter dated September 21, 1993, from Terry and
Jane Sprouse. X
29. Letter dated August 18, 1993, from L.O. Oram X
30. Letter dated August 17, 1993, from Mary and Alvin
Mengel %
31. Letter dated August 8, 1993, from Robert and
Vivian Konkle X
32. Letter dated August 9, 1993, from Paul and Tammy
Thompson X
33. Letter dated August 1, 1993, from M.D. Hopper,
S.K. Hopper, Michael Haggerty, Virginia R.
Haggerty, Lois Hemker, Bruce Hemker, et al. X
34. Letter dated June 11, 1993, from Dave Koehler X
35. Letter dated June 16, 1993, from Frank Cancpa X
—36. Petition Received June 16, 1993, with 39 pages
(two sided) X
37. Sign posting certificate received September 28,
1993 X
38. Letter dated September 30, 1993, from Doris and
James Swadley, et al. X
39. Summary of a phone call from Lucy Stromquist X
40. Letter dated September 27, 1993 from Gerald Dahl X
41. Letter dated September 21, 1993, from Kathy OliverX
42. Letter dated June 25, 1993, from Clyde and Georgia
Dougherty X
43. Letter dated September 29, 1993, from Hubert
Hayworth X
44. A 34 page addendum to the application, dated
September 30, 1993 X
45. A 3 page addendum to the application, dated
September 30, 1993 X
46. A 5 page addendum to the application, dated October
4, 1993 X
47. October 5, 1993, letter of Gerald Dahl X
48. C.R.S. 17-25.103, from Frank Campa X
49. Letter to Barbara Kirkmeyer from Frank Campa X
50. Communities Response from Frank Campa X
51. McCall letter from Bud Hoper X
52. House Bill 90-1327 from Mrs. Gordon X
53. Loren Building - change guard information X
54. Notice of publication from Windsor Beacon
AFTER HEARING
55. Letter to Barbara Kirkmeyer dated September 26,
1993, from Roy Spitzer AFTER HEARING
9°1249
INVENTORY OF ITEMS
The Villa at Greeley
S-344
Page 3
56. Letter to Weld County Commissioners dated
September 23, 1993, from Thomas Trostel
AFTER HEARING
57. Letter to Weld County Commissioners dated
September 23, 1993, from Beverly Trostel
AFTER HEARING
58. Letter to Connie Harbert dated September 24,
1993, from the Baudendistels AFTER HEARING
I hereby certify that the 58 items identified herein were submitted to the
Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning
Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to
the Clerk to the Board's office on October 8, 1993.
flanner
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF WELD
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS c..day of Odita 19"13.
SEAL
NOT PUBLIC
My Commission Expires iblgu t 1 ' (1R51
931249
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case S-344 The Villa at Greeley c/o John Coppom
Exhibit Exhibit Description
59. Notice of informational meeting
60. Welcome and time schedule for informational meeting
61. Newspaper clipping
62. Newspaper clipping
63. Newspaper clipping
64. Letter from Department of Transportation
65. Letter to Chuck Cunliffe from Cathy Diesing
I hereby certify the the above list of exhibits were submitted by the
Planning Department and not listed on the Inventory of Items Submitted.
Ii7"th K/V../.././.2hL
Ki berlee A. Schuett
Deputy Clerk to the Board
AFFIDAVIT
The Affiant, Kimberlee A. Schuett, states as follows:
1. That I am a Deputy Clerk to the Board of Weld County Commissioners.
2. That the inventory of items submitted for consideration by the
Planning Department (Exhibit A) contained an error.
3. That exhibits numbered 29 through 33 contain the wrong date. While
reviewing the file, I found that the correct dates are as follows:
#29. Letter dated June 18, 1993, from L. 0. Dram
#30. Letter dated June 17, 1993, from Mary and Alvin Mengel
#31. Letter dated June 8, 1993, from Robert and Vivian Konkle
#32. Letter dated June 9, 1993, from Paul and Tammy Thompson
#33. Letter dated June 1, 1993, from M.D. Hopper, S. K. Hopper,
Michael Haggerty, Virginia R. Haggerty, Lois Hemker, Bruce
Hemker, et al.
4. That the exhibits listed above are the correct letters as received by
the Planning Staff.
Further, the Affiant sayeth naught. //
4/1/,e,A721/
Ki erlee A. Schuett
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this CF"ti- day of
F� u° 19
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
MY COMMISSION EXP'RES JUNE 8, 1994
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Richard Kimmel 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:
CASE NUMBER: S-344
NAME: The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
ADDRESS: 1750 6th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Planned Unit Development
Plan.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 2, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24-1/2 and east of and
adjacent to the east I-25 Frontage Road.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following
reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application
requirements of Sections 28.9 and 28.11.1 of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan application is in conformance with
Section 28.13 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows:
The proposed PUD plan is located within the I-25 Mixed-Use
Development Area. The uses proposed for the PUD plan are consistent
with the uses described in the I-25 Mixed-Use Development Area and
Activity Center Section of the Comprehensive Plan;
The PUD plan conforms to the PUD district and PUD District plat
notes. The Planned Unit Development District specifically allows
for C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and I-1 uses as listed in the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance;
The application materials demonstrate that the uses allowed under
the proposed PUD plan can be made compatible with existing and
future development of the surrounding area and also with the future
development as projected by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed PUD plan will conform with the performance standards of
Section 35. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
The PUD plan is located in the Planned Unit Development overlay
district. No other districts affect this site; and
f xh,he f L3 931249
RESOLUTION, S-344
The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
Page 2
The Utility Coordinating Advisory Committee reviewed and approved
the utility plan map at its September 23, meeting.
These determinations are based, in part, upon a review of the information
submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding this request,
and responses of referral entities reviewing the request.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the
following:
1. Prior to recording the PUD plan plat:
a. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners. The security for the agreement shall
be tendered to and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners for
the subdivision improvements agreements.
b. The required 80 foot right-of-way dedication for I-25 Frontage Road
realignment shall be made by the property owner to the State Highway
Department and shown on the Planned Unit Development plan plat.
2. The following notes shall be placed on the PUD plan plat prior to
recording:
The uses permitted within the PUD plan shall be limited to a 386
inmate pre-release facility as described in the application
materials. Any and all expansion or change in uses shall require an
amendment to the approved PUD plan.
Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to
Section 90 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Should a complete application for residential development be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services for processing on
property within 500 feet of this PUD Plan, a new landscaping and
screening plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services for review and approval to mitigate any visual impacts.
The approved landscaping and screening plan shall be completed
within the next planting season.
All streets within the PUD plan, except the future East I-25
Frontage Road and Weld County Road 24-1/2, are private and shall be
built and maintained by the owner of the PUD district.
The requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation, as
outlined in its letter dated September 17, 1993, shall be complied
with.
931249
RESOLUTION, S-344
The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
Page 3
Sewer service shall be provided by the St. Vrain Sanitation
District.
Central Weld County Water District shall provide domestic water to
the Area within the PUD plan.
Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 10 of the Weld
County Subdivision Ordinance.
A site plan review is required in accordance with Section 35.4 of
the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
All liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final
disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater
contamination.
No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site.
The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the Industrial
limit of 80 dB(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado
Revised Statutes.
A plan review for all food preparation areas shall be submitted to
and approved by the Weld County Health Department. A Colorado
license to operate a Food Service Establishment shall be obtained
from the Weld County Health Department prior to the use of any Food
Service Establishments on site.
The facility shall be provided with handicap accessibility as
provided in Chapter 31 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code.
Exterior fenced enclosures into which exits from a building
terminate, shall be provided with a safe dispersal area located a
minimum of 50 feet from the building. Dispersal areas shall be
based upon no less than 3 square feet per occupant. A gate shall be
provided from this dispersal area to allow for necessary relocation.
Structures shall not exceed 50 feet in height.
The property owner shall participate with the State Highway
Department and construct or guarantee construction of continuous
right turn lanes and or declaration lanes should it be required by
the State Highway Department.
Culverts for access locations, shall be a minimum of 30 inches in
diameter and shall be CMP or CSP, rather than concrete.
Landscaping of the PUD Plan area within public rights-of-way shall
be maintained by the applicant/property owners.
931243
RESOLUTION, S-344
The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
Page 3
New utility lines or connections which occur within the State
Highway right-of-way shall require a utility permit issued by the
State Highway Department.
Bill O'Hare seconded the motion.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Juliette Kroekel Richard Kimmel
Bill O'Hare
Shirley Camenisch
Marie Koolstra
Bud Clemons
Judy Yamaguchi
The Chairperson declared that the motion for approval was denied and ordered that
a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded with the file of this case to
the Board of County Commissions for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Sharyn Ruff, Recording Secretary for 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
October 5, 1993.
Dated the 5t ct r, 1993.
Sharyn F. Ruff
Secretary
931249
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The Villa at Greeley, c/o John T. Coppom
S-344
The Tri-Area Planning Commission voted to recommend that this application be
rejected.
The City of Longmont Planning Department did not object to this land use
application. Concerns expressed will be addressed through the Site Plan
application process.
931249
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I ": : �J
Moved by Richard Kimmel that the following resolution be introduced:far passage
by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County
Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: S-344
NAME: The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
ADDRESS: 1750 6th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Planned Unit Development
Plan.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 2, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24-1/2 and east of and
adjacent to the east I-25 Frontage Road.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following
reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application
requirements of Sections 28.9 and 28.11.1 of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan application is in conformance with
Section 28.13 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows:
The proposed PUD plan is located within the I-25 Mixed-Use
Development Area. The uses proposed for the PUD plan are consistent
with the uses described in the I-25 Mixed-Use Development Area and
Activity Center Section of the Comprehensive Plan;
The PUD plan conforms to the PUD district and PUD District plat
notes. The Planned Unit Development District specifically allows
for C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and I-1 uses as listed in the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance;
The application materials demonstrate that the uses allowed under
the proposed PUD plan can be made compatible with existing and
future development of the surrounding area and also with the future
development as projected by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed PUD plan will conform with the performance standards of
Section 35. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
The PUD plan is located in the Planned Unit Development overlay
district. No other districts affect this site; and
931249
'�Ctcc (-/z /3
RESOLUTION, S-344
The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
Page 2
- The Utility Coordinating Advisory Committee reviewed and approved
the utility plan map at its September 23, meeting.
These determinations are based, in part, upon a review of the information
submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding this request,
and responses of referral entities reviewing the request.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the
following:
1. Prior to recording the PUD plan plat:
a. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners. The security for the agreement shall
be tendered to and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners for
the subdivision improvements agreements.
b. The required 80 foot right-of-way dedication for I-25 Frontage Road
realignment shall be made by the property owner to the State Highway
Department and shown on the Planned Unit Development plan plat.
2. The following notes shall be placed on the PUD plan plat prior to
recording:
- The uses permitted within the PUD plan shall be limited to a 386
inmate pre-release facility as described in the application
materials. Any and all expansion or change in uses shall require an
amendment to the approved PUD plan.
- Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to
Section 90 of the Zoning Ordinance.
- Should a complete application for residential development be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services for processing on
property within 500 feet of this PUD Plan, a new landscaping and
screening plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services for review and approval to mitigate any visual impacts.
The approved landscaping and screening plan shall be completed
within the next planting season.
All streets within the PUD plan, except the future East I-25
Frontage Road and Weld County Road 24-1/2, are private and shall be
built and maintained by the owner of the PUD district.
The requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation, as
outlined in its letter dated September 17, 1993, shall be complied
with.
931249
RESOLUTION, S-344
The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
Page 3
Sewer service shall be provided by the St. Vrain Sanitation
District.
Central Weld County Water District shall provide domestic water to
the Area within the PUD plan.
Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 10 of the Weld
County Subdivision Ordinance.
A site plan review is required in accordance with Section 35.4 of
the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
All liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final
disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater
contamination.
No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site.
The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the Industrial
limit of 80 dB(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado
Revised Statutes.
A plan review for all food preparation areas shall be submitted to
and approved by the Weld County Health Department. A Colorado
license to operate a Food Service Establishment shall be obtained
from the Weld County Health Department prior to the use of any Food
Service Establishments on site.
The facility shall be provided with handicap accessibility as
provided in Chapter 31 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code.
Exterior fenced enclosures into which exits from a building
terminate, shall be provided with a safe dispersal area located a
minimum of 50 feet from the building. Dispersal areas shall be
based upon no less than 3 square feet per occupant. A gate shall be
provided from this dispersal area to allow for necessary relocation.
Structures shall not exceed 50 feet in height.
The property owner shall participate with the State Highway
Department and construct or guarantee construction of continuous
right turn lanes and or declaration lanes should it be required by
the State Highway Department.
Culverts for access locations, shall be a minimum of 30 inches in
diameter and shall be CMP or CSP, rather than concrete.
Landscaping of the PUD Plan area within public rights-of-way shall
be maintained by the applicant/property owners.
931249
RESOLUTION, S-344
The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
Page 3
- New utility lines or connections which occur within the State
Highway right-of-way shall require a utility permit issued by the
State Highway Department.
Bill O'Hare seconded the motion.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Juliette Kroekel Richard Kimmel
Bill O'Hare
Shirley Camenisch
Marie Koolstra
Bud Clemons
Judy Yamaguchi
The Chairperson declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy
be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissions for
further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Sharyn Ruff, Recording Secretary for 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
October 5, 1993.
Dated the 5th of Octobe 1993.
i
Sharyn F. uff
Secretary
931249
1
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The Villa at Greeley, c/o John T. Coppom
S-344
The Tri-Area Planning Commission voted to recommend that this application be
rejected.
The City of Longmont Planning Department did not object to this land use
application. Concerns expressed will be addressed through the Site Plan
application process.
931249
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 5, 1993
Page 6
CASE NUMBER: S-345
APPLICANT: Gene Habrock
REQUEST: Subdivision Preliminary Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 NW4 and part of the E2 NW4 of Section 24,
T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1-3/4 miles east of the Town of Windsor; south of
State Highway 392 and east of Weld County Road 23.
Gene Habrock, applicant, explained this will be Estate zoning of 20 lots south
of the #/2 ditch. The Sketch Plan and Change of Zone has already been approved.
The Chairperson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for
or against this application.
Lee Guter, District President, Storm Lake Drainage, was concerned about the
impact the subdivision might have on the drainage district. He wants to ensure
the subdivision will have only one vote, not fourteen. Discussion followed.
Tim Stutzman, surrounding property owner, expressed concerns about water running
onto his property. Ric Picard, an Engineer representing the applicant, said
there is no reason why they can' t adhere to their request. A detention pond will
be built.
The Chairperson asked the applicant if he had any concerns regarding the
Department of Planning Services' staff recommendation. Gene Habrock said no.
Bud Clemons moved Case Number S-345, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioner's with the Planning Commission' s recommendation for approval.
Motion seconded by Shirley Camenisch.
The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning
Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Ron Sommer - yes; Juliette
Kroekel - yes; Bill O'Hare - yes; Shirley Camenisch - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes;
Bud Clemons - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: S-344
APPLICANT: The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , c/o John T. Coppom
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Planned Unit Development Plan
(Ft. Junction, First Filing) .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 2, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. ,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24-1/2 and east of and
adjacent to the east I-25 Frontage Road.
931249
"x-111 6 a
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 5, 1993
Page 7
Michael Brand, Corrections Official, for The Villa at Greeley, Inc. , introduced
John Coppom, Administrator, John Houtchins, Attorney, and Vern Nelson, Engineer,
and Lauren Blye, architect, all representing The Villa.
Mike Brand explained this will be a pre-parole facility approximately 1/2 mile
north of Highway 119. The PUD Plan will be in an already approved PUD District
on 54.6 acres (22 acres will be the actual building site) . Mike stated there
would be no detrimental effects to the surrounding property owners. There are
adequate utilities to the property. He explained this is a pre-release training
facility for parolees. It is an intense program to prepare them for their
release. The facility will be a 386 bed unit and employ 110 people. There are
medical and dental treatment facilities, a law library, and a gym on-site. This
will not be a work release building, no one will be allowed to leave the
facility. Mike explained the type of offenders that would be housed at this
facility. The inmates will be transferred to and from the facility, no one will
be releases out the front door.
The program activity center will focus on programs to establish community
linkages for continued treatment. There will be six classroom hours per weeks,
every day of the week. The average stay of an inmate will be 90 days.
Lauren Blye explained he has 20 years of correctional experience. He read
various studies that eliminated concerns regarding escape risks, visitors to the
facility, increased crime in the area, and the devaluation of properties in the
area. He also compared a facility of this size to various other facilities and
communities across the United States.
Vern Nelson, Engineer, gave a detailed technical presentation regarding the site.
The Chairperson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for
or against this application.
Gerald Dahl, Attorney, representative, for southwest Weld County citizens (Frank
Canepa, Frank Bigelow, Susan Halkin, Mike Halleck, Wendy Hoffman, Jo An Lasley,
Diane Aites, Stan Olson, Larry Abbott, and Bud Hopper) , handed out exhibits and
explained the burden of proof is on the applicant. Gerald Dahl stated he
believes the applicant hasn' t met the burden of proof. He requested the Planning
Commission recommend denial until the Planned Unit Development has been amended
to include prisons. Prison uses are not allowed under these guidelines and this
application should go back for rezoning. He felt that under the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance, this district has been abandoned. It is irrelevant whether or
not the County has followed this before, it is a law. Prison uses were not
931249
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 5, 1993
Page 8
contemplated when the Planned Unit Development was approved. The Board of County
Commissioners Resolution in 1989 approved the zone change and grants rezoning
from A (Agricultural) to PUD which includes C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and I-1 uses as
listed. If you go to the list for that time period (Weld County Zoning
Ordinance) , pre-parole facility is not included. He stated the applicant argues
this is a rehabilitation facility, but it is a stretch of the imagination to
assume a pre-parole/prison facility can be considered a rehabilitation facility.
The Chairperson asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to
speak for or against this application.
Bonnie Shields, Rochelle Wahlert, Jimmie Joan Angelo, Kathy Oliver, Cathy
Diesing, Larry Abbott, June Gordon, Doris Huffaker, Sandy Ingram, Jerome M. Kulm,
and Virginia Scheel all had similar concerns. They are all opposed to this
application because police/fire protection is already inadequate in this area,
possible abandonment if financial support is withdrawn, child/grandchild safety
concerns, escape fears, high powered lights on at night, increased traffic, and
concern about possible expansion onto the remaining acreage in the future.
Mike Brand recapped his original presentation.
The Chairperson asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Department of
Planning Services staff recommendation. Mike Brand said yes.
Keith Schuett read the recommendation into the record.
Richard Kimmel moved Case Number S-344, The Villa at Greeley, be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission' s recommendation for
approval. Bill O'Hare seconded the motion.
The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning
Commission for their decision. Juliette Kroekel - yes; Richard Kimmel - no; Bill
O'Hare - no; Shirley Camenisch - no; Marie Koolstra - no; Bud Clemons - no; Judy
Yamaguchi - no. Motion for approval denied.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully ubmitte ,
Sharyn F. Ruff
Secretary
931249
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE(303)356-4000, EXT.4200
FAX(303)352-0242
P.O. BOX 758
OGREELEY, COLORADO 80632
COLORADO
October 11, 1993
The Villa at Greeley, Inc.
c/o John T. Coppom
1750 6th Avenue
GLeeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Coppom:
Your application for a Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit
Development Plan (PUD) , 1st Filing, Fort Junction PUD, has been recommended
unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The
legal description of the property involved is shown as part of the SWt' of Section
2, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be
necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this letter
and returning it to this office. Regular hearing procedures will then be
followed. This includes publishing a Notice of Hearing in the legal newspaper,
an expense to be paid by you.
In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by
November 12, 1993. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date, the
matter will be considered closed.
Sincerely,
THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /2(
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO IIM
(kel�,,z. ,Zi' JOHN T. COPPOM, Ph.D.
Administrator
Constance L. Harbert, Chairman 17506th Avenue
353-9263 Greeley,Colorado 80631
CH:ld
"Self-Care Residential Living with Full Nutritional and Recreational Programs
cc: Weld County Department of Planning Services
I/we, -, / do hereby request the Board of
County ro• issioners review the above mentioned application.
fLb,,4 d i° —a I -93
eAkea glint, 931249
_
i {
/_ 93
td ��
Z2s2c.4 veyzi
z
% zap
---7429 42,e_24149-4_,`-Zifur —
ie Z�i-e. i -�/1/•(�LQ-Ldic;7'/ L4��C"t,^^'Y.i
�.
A -
LIA
C�«mil c- 4,7,2?_6—
„e ierJ.C �' c 7i4—
S1
931249
&- : /c z `cam
14 c.c.),.-1,1--) - al- M
Gif
a ` z4/2„ 04
„43oc:„ _
i .� -
„e_e_
r ; -.O..m
„oculetitc, -7-garalL ,t-t)
t-e-nsnc tiv a
fr
&Amy icy
7 � & g33 - 3.7e)c)
931249
25 June 93
County Commissioners Office
Attn: Ms . Constance Harbert, Chairman r'.
P . O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Ms . Harbert :
As a resident of Southwestern Weld County I have had the opportunity
to evaluate all of the issues concerning the location of a pre-parole
facility in our community.
One of the significant issues that may have been overlooked in all of
these discussions is the fact that this facility is being promoted by
individuals who live outside our community. Their motivations are
not consistent with the community as exhibited by the petitions signed
by over 1, 100 individuals opposing this project .
Upon careful thought and consideration, I must state my opposition to
this facility. I am aware that nine different communities along the
front range have rejected similar proposals upon evaluation. I do not
believe that it is in the best long term interests of the area to
encourage or promote this type of development--regardless of its
compatibility with the zoning regulations . This community is not
prepared to serve as an experimental site to prove or disprove this
business concept . The risks associated with this effort significantly
outweigh any anticipated or perceived rewards; and the financial
benefit for very few individuals should not take precedence over the
wishes of a significant majority.
As our representative on the Board of Commissioners, I am asking you to
represent your constituents and oppose any and all efforts to locate
this facility in unincorporated Southwest Weld County.
Sincerely, Lic-�6 e. ,27Ae._, w ��.4 y
Address:
City/ZIP: L;&9_4,7) 4-,,,,,,t,4 /(l o , Q ) S U
Telephone: e/ 74-2 6 C 7 7
c=2 f 931249
LC /l` £ «_
- -t ol, y93 N9) () _4,bta*, ,-6,S Seel
JAC /Mid Co y, Tiw :roc ,
4;i44, QS�C4�� ��C��rt,�Ge U Gci : PL,
_4 -4_exe_ -- , rt n>
o- aytea
. - detit -te;et/i>, t
Vcrga-rttoste,e„a/ccetc,,x, --Zati Co-ee-4, -e?
931249
txh bd- l�
r
'-'4f€S pfzirnet c.
x CO SOb L
_
0MAA. e gr tz-ac
Co 10631
stkti- .tea
Styox„,,,2
931249
lJd, man P -213, M' aiate/XettiateL
4761- ` ILIAli /X , Aka. C tid&c„z; . ttut3..,
!Cahn/C., o wt 9t n;ni'ti, Qmd. U LO-e� ,gin
31-Wet � Z I , \) aim 4.G-&-0.t
G L J`w
c x..
U cJ ket_ta,.
tivtu ��u �enc, -L/2L ihto
�ecat e r.�e ,rev Accot ighh e_e,
C comdzoLet eit m f, yiLL olli .
C� pin e nLTAL, Rut lot)) ,,tom, , i eikt )02/AL
6L011 CMActuvri, ,I00/2, 4461,0 aairc, to-e_
mot .max ,titan
C�v � d aitatt t ? 4 WC
L paX i o-C't C ' fax as 6ruic.
c;n eta4i9ek , Oil ji co-ekf(ct St
wtk z , Lic;n a, a/net curc ,
,kuidni& tL .fiu_k.( iz V td eC Je (1 eic
,,lix- a .J/Ltahlbtebt , 171.b aintotatib ilyinzwi
c1/4a to-itak xi/Lb
alma, ho
.��/Ll& ,CCU ADO O �2�
� jib .��2 ID 6111_ lam. �����,
/19111/329, �
. t Joit
oti 7SJ4 ,ake-itlet
Phasic. PALA,
keilily
aarn.k . tic,
1621 WCQz
I.on9 tat , Cu ?05D4
sz azta
a
County Commissioners Office September 21, 1993
P.O. Box 758
Greely, Colorado 80632
Attn: C; . . .
George Baxtor, Constance Harbert, Dale Hill, i arb Kirkmeyer, Bill Webster
RE: Proposed Del Camino Pre-Parole Prison Facility
Dear Commissioners,
This letter is in regards to plans of The Villa Company of Greely to place a "pre-parole"
(prison) facility in south west Weld county in the vicinity of Del Camino. We are two of
the approximately 1,400 people described by John Coppmon of The Villa as "hysterical",
"contentious", and "outspoken", members of the public who have signed a petition
opposing the location of this prison in our community.
In June, we attended a meeting sponsored by the Concerned Citizens Group of Del
Camino regarding the planned prison facility and were pleased to see that attendance
at this meeting left standing room only. Following the meeting at Rinn Church, we have
read several newspaper articles which have depicted this facility as a harmless job
generating facility that will only house "non-violent" offenders. As more people have
began to investigate this facility it has become clear that some of the people housed in
the facility will in fact be repeat offenders of violent crimes. However, regardless of the
placement of violent or non-violent offenders in this facility, what might go on inside the
controlled facility does appear to be the major concern of people. A greater concern was
voiced regarding changes expected outside the facility due to the visitation rights granted
to prisoners friends and family. This is an extremely valid issue in our opinion and it
appeared to be an issue for many of the families gathered at Rinn Church during the
meeting in June. As one father asked during the meeting, "who is going to watch out
for my children waiting for the school bus at the end of a long lane on a day which
happens to correspond with prisoner visitation days ?". Any one who tries to tell us that
the all of the people who will come to visit the prisoners are just like you and me is not
facing reality.
At a time when small communities all along the front range are trying to fight off the very
real threat of gang infiltration, it appears that Weld County officials may endorse a plan
which will assist in introducing drug dealers, gang members and their friends and
families to our rural communities. We realize that police protection in Weld County is
limited by the sheer size of the county and by financial constraints and do not believe
that the Sheriffs Department will be able to provide the increased enforcement that will
be required by persons "outside" the facility.
It is our opinion that the south-west portion of Weld County, if properly managed, will
continue to attract businesses and organizations which will yield both a positive image
and economic benefit to Weld County while still maintaining the rural character of this
area.
4.11/b/h/ « : PL licCC 9.71249
9-,14,49
Although the prison facility may provide a short term economic benefit to the county and
local area, we do not feel that this short term return is worth the potential negative long
term impacts that will be generated by the facility. Given time, local residents and
business may become accustomed to living next to a "pre-parole" facility, however,
newcomers and potential new businesses will view the facility as a prison, plain and
simple! Their first impressions will be identical to the first impressions of the 1,400
people who have signed the petition. Common sense dictates that most families or
businesses, given a choice, would prefer to be in a community that does not have a
prison versus one that does!!!
We do not view ourselves or other members of this community as hysterical, contentious,
or outspoken. We simply agree along with 1,400 other people that a prison is not in the
best interest of Del Camino or any other surrounding communities. It appears that our
only option for preventing this prison facility is to solicit support from elected Weld
County officials who will make the decisions regarding this facility. We would like to
make clear our direct opposition to this prison facility. We do not wish to see this type
of development forced on our community and are ready to extend all necessary efforts
in conjunction with the Concerned Citizens Group of Del Camino to prevent this facility.
We would greatly appreciate your support and understanding in this matter and hope
that you agree that the residents of any community should be allowed to make the
decision on whether or not a prison facility is placed in there community.
Sincerely,
ry &Jan Sprouse
Highland Lake, Colorado
cc: Concerned Citizens Group of Del Camino
9::1249
Z)
T
r. a� `aim:
- 6 - 4--
/2A'�-- S-� e
945 7' ' 'c�
i
f2 � u- � �
____ __:-24---(, -'4t" ,tom he- c.e2:ew
_--7.27z-e- 7----,2(7- •c-6__ 2--Z----. 1-edzi-r-o -4-I-e-Z-L,
--77:) , - /A_c___, (±/:,,,,>(..,,,,,,e,- __ 4 .7zZc-c-
- '-e
i �Xe>L .11 1t
/ /z: --ay -_ , zeeev z---/-(/ 72Ze___
G%-e- ,,,,d;G G°Gcd� u � i/- ce— L !1c
Cc�-car a/ /1e — 4, '✓f '
ZaS (), 7z- S--ViCer 7 7,4e-er-cia-e-f-4 c Z2--e-
77-6 (' :. ae y°�W r 0 rt__-
leac— l z J ' ' ----I-24-44k ‘ ' --
chib,t K & ; ft, eerie 90.1249
,4 d V
_ - £ c
t( ` -r,
,fir,o-c
£ C 4 4 - &jdf.
a. .Y —te5,7
Lyze> At_ zees/
ads r zcz
- tee &
a/2 s J%
)�, , :, v
' i1249
8D 0 XX ' �
S,
2 _ 1(_:,4-A_ -(
a // —atiefPc
K2l`
Vie-ea j t KA G.c�- -�-% V (�:12Aa-c-ee //,-K__o c +e.e7/ r
ge/16,,f_i -1/2/z-ebe -of .eslic5-7/1" /"9/__dA
Z c
/< -1 7- i - X//
�� ' a, ey ad_
.., ` > �, e
h
'7ar- --,
nice 74- At
i,,e-P
,_____ «_-ems/ 6 GCsQ,74-
Ze. c -76-6Y- --(--7/-62--7,1- ,,
/ - ice
�� G4 ti --)
-Q� 'l
G�i G�2yGl� �.c i �� ,�
r
C
---, x7 e 2 Wi t , 6ki(- �Au, 9;71249
, afrat>
15/7
c c2/
91649
/� a3y �3
d.44,--ti6' 1� -,-ate; _:. ,
. --nZt /62 ra.t.c,.-62.e,...., ,
...1 tent- 7C9I Qr - -
&art-.4g-i---/ 6
1 QiL7 vt2/LO ) et-GZ.-L/1 `47-7-3-1....P___ e-re-a _ere Cz, ,/2-06-G:4. �4 L am.
/3L-cC 61!,ca__- _'t-£C.c.c.L4_,-- ...<_ i- ✓_J! -:e.04.---e& ._,
li
C�rYTL- G�.✓i/c-c v�f (/�L � /�'�-dvJ 4-Z__ �+yj/ c.GGcf
tir /1 `� �/ / M / A D
(O-7' C-G� - At e- i,.C--- .L�/.,A_ Lc:1.. LLB C../ dL0vt-•Ly l a. c_sre _"-7 Z-0c-
/
l/G C�i /-t- ,Z� /ZC 2,6• G�Lf/'` / t`f r c c...e, ri -
I /-4,--7,
c vc i:- Z/4 -e-,' 6-1(-1.4-_ .191
i�Gt i1 CGU��._.,
_.c_- N�-'''r V�t 2_.�) eta_.. d._,'1-e � --I.-Let-I-✓mac/{' a._ ��-�.,G 2�-i c/X iw[�ccv�'
UUU /�
4.11-e--- _r__tit-C. a-Li,-L. //a 7-2.vL./p. Cr?wn yr-7�t.e,n� / �Cz o/.��-
a.t,� 7-f G:? .�, � _c c- -74 93 -'_239
_ _ X3- 93
erif2AL,,k
r/c-rze %et
- _� -
_ 9f.Swc.+2 / /rz-
Lt- Adiet-arsw
o I/ eZ s
erne,,_ -o-�-�
o ` -- - _ _ �G-�-�.-ems
Exhibit�'l F
September 20, 1993
Weld County Commissioners Office �S
Attention: Constance Harbert
P.O. Box 758
Greely, CO 80632
Constance,
I will be brief. I am a registered voter, property owner, and citizen of
Weld County. You have been elected to be my voice. I want you to help me
fight the proposed pre-parole prison facility in Weld County.
I am not misinformed, I am not uninformed, I have researched both sides of
the issue and based my decision on the facts. The reasons are many. I will
list only a few.
1. I will beg for more Weld County police protection even though the
planners do not see the need. This will have to be paid for with tax
dollars.
2 . It would no longer be an attractive place for new business of the kind
we would like to see.
3 . It upsets the rural community atmosphere that makes this area so
attractive to new business and development.
4 . When this area was zoned, this community had in mind a church and a
school, not any type of prison facility.
5 . There is no control over the visitors who will be driving down our
country roads. The same country roads where our children stand alone to
wait for their school buses.
6. Good businesses, of the kind we would like to invite, are already moving
in to this area. Houser Chemical, McDonalds, Taco Bell, Specialty
Products, Etc. We don't need this facility to help our economy in any
way. It is beginning to grow just fine without it, why ruin a good
thing.
7 . The builders have admitted to selecting this area because it is easy.
The utilities needed are already there saving them big dollars, the
zoning is set up too easy, the highway is in their front yard. They did
not choose here because they thought it would blend into the community
well.
This section of Weld County has been a dumping ground for projects no one
else wants because we have little representation. We are not recognized as
a part of the Longmont community, and we are far enough away from Greely that
people are not interested. To Denver we are just a spot on the highway.
Again, you are MY voice, please vote this down.
�— I Rita Trostel
9843 Weld Co. Rd. 11
Longmont, CO 80504
94,.14. 19
11'I '25uoc_o, 3ISculnk G6
I0 N t3,
CeiucU i H kr t:
� Q9 °k. n
,
V, 1 ' ,:-a CULL) ri `cam ",ri
/c) tr\r,_4._ srt s1-- 0 igiILA-Cvn cr
c' einr\fynx& y-‘).. N 6-11:49-frA
1
�J f^nQ
Q �
C
6ecc
/u tcJho)77 9 71),2 q- C'ohe-ef
J c�
. �/67d e /7C C /, e /h k.c /C' 01i 'eI. folic"
ye
P{ s • c< 5 t)e/, f• Q- cc- `The- ye )
(1-7; fitde- /JW�i J / FIt I? Dees c>nf Ljb'utJ .S /Os
c ��re C hodE'e'- /h;'S )/ frOPe55, o. , L A?y'e- been
<5 /L/“ ---t; {ecr aic/ e-11-e a ))y S /rl ec < Je 7»,y
e 33:cry l ✓.29 [Vice vs (dl) )5 /),S home 91,0)7, /)c/7)e
U /
n d 2 ,D/,'vea- ofriI chorse /he c-A' 51olt5
lre ),'h'e5 On a ):, i' oY his/he CAC/scs / c
on th Sec ,,cm, heii e fee Is /f7a ,' /narc1,'-c �l�H
4-5 /el he-5 (ra o15e! - 2)72n �/ c✓� / % /rcce/C Shuts) z//
am// v L J I
C),oiJ ii, S na / .Osz) /Iavt h, /'e d / !?Gr k of-s' C'-Ct 7v /✓�-
���7, 5 SICCc[t-/ / / 5/' G)e /-y ����a y1J, U2 2ir �
72 / ,'vC/-s 2n1 //�K Set,e /J_iyJ 501- l�C_
L_ l
S retc 1-/ /72 ,hFvc,_, /7 Ave/ 615rc� /J /„'< CS, 2'e c
S e L Cc r-, /y C 2.-c. erc, Dicy S c )7�cc c �f 572(e-2/ ,,w y c 1- �2
t/1er,`tn, L eU L have 5 )vti`7e J act' // u.c./� S /;ps) (&cieye_
✓/) , TVa F./it //a 4)z/a,/'z5G,)yo . -7--go �x/"%,Z// ) and /iaye-
had
7,�s�/e 7/7a/e w�- r Fen, /e✓/ be/2742, 1 "c J A' n
7's° oh J. one./ e . 5
) c/ll/ 5`;',
[
))7e l// /G / �[K7 S/f�[A i v 777�-/ / ;'�/ /e/� 2H ci _4)Oi5 / a J lei I/w �i , 5 /l.Sen, 5 c/Gies/ 5o Wit Cc>r [ t l 5o/niLl%/`may
v
/r, e s /J56srrze i 'say v er)-/-✓ /' .7)7o,,.e<q 9 5 5.0
hey C vc 4o A- e 7� he,717e
,/'�`�� c.T 7/-c -e t—Cot /C /7 al 2 `1 /Q?i%i^dn
v Cc'/n)7) ul ; l)4 e 'Lh v �/7-es //Lv,4,'c t/ /-S; o cle t aru
%, .✓c 2 'tf{„'G.:L�jh,c )>J'/.'ue. /)'/a /5 )'v fa /scr !7 ,[6 .C
P/1 l��fhy Je r~' . .Nf /-UHis
7712 2��N,[ c �I .icne one knocie/'nN on l/7e,'a C2�
P ( a So). L / /, ny [/, „,,e .h ) /vtd4, Yza //O,) rol- 2ryj (t7,'..y
14-) a54 a// e�'/%!ie z/c%ae_ /s /e / J/4f YO e5 7 -
//7 e Z(--)zld a• (
�G /� c)rn s. 2 //oc� //A 1-').-€ /-2
, ?/-o%- f),7sor, or
2n y fr,,svn /o e7t A:4_,/r ,'v of a /-orer4c /i ci c L7e/ Cen ino
c�h.ed /1e. -e5 ill,/Sca) 4hkt5i 5fr ant/ .Fu. (uir.L jet 55 (,'Y 2.7)
L
.e z/,j�.- a n u /,�t.e a ii lc tree •C v m n
frith I lo;fP 1 S" a 3 57, , .✓.O1A /7,,, it//, ) s b // ,'w /Se 4 OA tit
/-7-e / C=kn,'w o
�� � w K /1 vtw `lu> it: say W7zy
/ / i.- C L 1/49 zh ave e_ c+/S-give
�oso� e T, a
t N /% a / 01,,e c7 a l Win✓ ive .4, 1-cie
5-cc- i,� uccou._l n0 5' 5 /0/7 (7lei >vlit A
� C 55 'II ao1.. lig/ /4'-2,'71{, 2tz rf 62 tv 50 e✓rt Gran):/.,�e,��
le S/0,0 SL-e 2 n'elf, ". .96 2yty Li ,vi ) .
A/ 5 / / /cA. / )7o % /O 5)4 //ia ! 772ei..e.
the p o 9 Seme. L u n y Lei a r, Je c J ) e k a l e[ -v7 J I , '«-e c/3
airs l w-%r �lv,e5 05- /A lye Ivo)0asect vYn2Zs 6� I
/7l£an /CC6�1 , .ti Ytn,-✓I //e £ e C5 1 5 lc',
� Cunc e1 /2,-,•
'UL
411.1-2
9'01249
7 21
421 Crystal Place
Longmont, CO
September 28, 1993
Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Planning and County Commissioners:
I support the Preparole facility The Villa wants to build in the Del Camino
area. I am tired of the opponents' lying and intimidating efforts to defeat
this facility. I have friends who almost had to literally throw the
opposition's "petition passers" off their property! They just would not
take "no" for an answer. Moreover, they belittled and argued with the
people who refused to sign their petition!
I am a professional career woman who has personal experience with family who
have been incarcerated. I hope you can understand how insulted I feel when
I hear that the opponents to this facility are mainly worried about the
visitors who may come to "their area" to see their family or loved ones.
Ha! We're already here.
Please do not be intimidated, and support this much needed program.
Sincerely,
t- s elt1/4
Theresa Alarcon
&f , /x-, (913
g -"tat' - `•°>re-e--9
,(A atop-- e7w,„
/emu [/ -,-�, /~/L-y�Ga _ 1
l ul. d — ,.✓ ✓--
ar,t a-ce
'14 �
`Q—
.}1C-c_e_4
931249
G eon.„4w
/ ( 7 .0G(/ Cr RP(' / (4
/-297 '5?'1/4C't���
C'J
901249
Del Camino Service Plaza
and Truck Wash
10763 Turner Boulevard
Longmont, Colorado 80504 (303) 678-0443
September 28 , 1993
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street .2
Greeley , CO 80631 Li,
Dear County Commissioners :
This letter is in support of the Pre Release Facility being
proposed at the Del Camino area .
I belive only positive aspects will come from this facility .
Thank you for your consideration .
Sincerely
Ronald L . Hiatt
General 1`4n. g -r41
Corporate Offices • G.B.G. 1 Inc. • 6825 E. Tennessee Ave. • Denver, CO • Building 1
ixh/h± ,S ad : A, �occ 9 ^l3
1,
0
attle-t5 finEzt co) 9 (
did New) Q
hte0),` ea4e.l. _21 „Al
-44 zy
aA r al 4 La,
#e, ,,.264.0_ (4,4ee iehsed,Ae _
re° Az. a frk
2 6 86536) - 65"(‘
„tiocc 9:211249
Lift
1)-a_c'zTe I
Z=a.-L'�c- r3'c�G•S
-1, /, / 993
.2/ 7—CC
• —cz — �JG£1� -Z.' „,„ `k,aret?-arm- �C�.- & ¢e,�-c.�
�ll�<C✓f' �r� c�.z_. �t c_- --tit' <c
-c�-K
4-1 ee
() ,' PG, Q
rxhihi f L(
9;21249
,r
it '�d lit ilr>>r fii, 5S.'d),e%VS
' ' XCIA/ Ct 3/Ci32
, Ir • ' ' �, % '1 c' 7.6-.c--l'''' n7�r / c�', Jam/
A7 c.K (14-7/A / la, a,.'o-,t'
j L
//
a7 /4.5 //c,C,e7--e 'z/ 2.5-4.a 44 .s-e
/. --7--
' �/�[✓. i 7 /? t't4 /7 /Fir .e--1>
iC'i/ Fig,VGE7 y 2•koA;> 6c - 'ea" 7i�nt.sr
at>i c'/ -77 C% -1C-‘kt, ,g---go -0 i T4-?"/ ex-5%
2, 7--7,64 7//,'„o, av eV7;e'5- a'AvJe'
�CC - 27 4 ^7..ws.- C." -727e.E' c'�'� C' L'>r 7
' 2% v-7' ' t',¢') Li'- 7,4 vce Cc/ $ i rS5'
.5"'v ee .
3- C'f*A'cA" /a e / r, ti's a,4'.e-' -P24-,/'C�Co/
977OIi'-C et-W../ 7Z'CA'C' %c' At;X47 6'6c E>�
/77Z, �"CP. C//,, / zc!'/Icc?5 f de), 77‘ '
ti�r.e 'JJc )i / Ar/�U -'i t 4 -,7� L''%j'tt;&Aver-
77 /' vf#d / /eock /7i it' 2ii)tSa
-4; 07�P>., T /--4- C,'T"es ac lso%c�
LC st-led 4lie&. z'k'0u-e4<, Qaz✓GC »e%r>C-
517",:c/ /it//ecil€et'50 ,5 -
eXhIbil- V '� X'a /:ee 7447-at ea 7Jlr.e
de.: ft /.QPcr-
5-42/hl,
2)
f>Re J2k'a/tic i c // e t),/ �2,- _ et
/C'4 i2 sc-mod 37raC/ a %1 r) ,gez T
1117ca./� �TF4 47,7241,-0/47,7241,-0//c' Jam,.iJO/�l', C j r
1e- / e [',/3/ a-se l-C.// e/2 g—
11-/te s/t % f//ef - e wee- A-'K tiVe:
-1?-1 a-Lew', ", /_-7 le„
3 ---A.2/;',1- e f1K ,7,- /c /%:r> Aft,'e_
- / `/ p
yi40�/c'�� "%f; '�J C'u_,�� jJ u- 7j cz. �at', ,
71/
ir-77;j .�,#e4P/e ice'»/�,j a--7>�
/ ��le, /-
row/784-c/77 etc -,3,u c'4f�y 777aenee-f
/7- (.79* /12 a eV/[>t-1",,,:e et zr C1d 'Sr/
6 / *� eiV.2'7% and <7; 7n na re 7/ a'Pk.
//fvl>7 -./.T a. p fl^a J.-t f�iCe'JwS.
IC /Czl �/i I- e, g5 .we /J '//
/tames L /je�7 •C ,t/A1>/ A'77"W estX ,/
�:7eJ/JS% i'arTf -r,., .,4-e 7.ey-",-
Ic 5 e Tc
' - , e d1/e ,
7, /c et-.55 7"a 7i-e' fie' c :/ //
5-/,C7-11---on- &'_ 6
921249
(2)
je-e% / A4,1 .L 2/, 7d it/e'»7 i'0. 7�4/
-2,24/ Al �J'7E'l-e 5 f/VA(' .f)t 7,/
-- " SOa-5 )J t�,�..7,-V-/ 4, ,-,c-1a7-_
,--/„.5-tree 7 .CS 7//'c7-K; //lam , 'eeft V
c _r_-
/�/1- S /fre 0r4Pe,c o/ D 4, .
.?7 ( , e% / 'n A% r e -/e
t c c &c/c/ 7-14 ('o,i/ v.4),,i „-"•X b t'
/ Xel$y �•z;C'/�'a sf'cl --(2 -,€ K -e s
•
,(54. 7 /t//✓ &0 , �ic 'cLC /c be' z/17--
yak /la n. C „ira'a Sr>...'S cc ;.,-
c/ /Ti 1t,5:4 1 4 tc.- 4/ isb 4 a i a Z/' 41e77,-„;,----/
M21.,/ te/71-/2/1 7117t, e>7/45s,4C27,
//► ,- / ,,,, o E , t4/�/ i/ 7" `.
/ ` 1, a'ca /al / ' �/,'u c'// 4 r`77t'/C, / a ,,,
...7' , (r /a4' 5- 77d/ ''//nr /47-
-I-A l a,,,,, 6-1,;y /4 f O:C ,, fr/a' C-' -' Q
9 /t GC' /C /-*
L-1,-.'7,7c.' t7"-//y/
4f1/�i war,' — // 7S0 u7(/J etc, /?i i1
A, 5,, 71.7c>,T 0c /a 5eS c/
92.1z 13
Board of County Commissioners
P .O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado
80632
RE: Pre-parole facility
Dear Commissioners ,
Please vote against the proposed "pre-parole facility" near
Del Camino ! Please don' t put a prison in my back yard , I
am opposed to this "Villa at Greeley" . Whatever it is
called , the proposed facility will house " inmates" , persons
convicted of serious crimes .
"The Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the project . "
said the Times-Call paper 10/6/93 . " . . they contended that
the land use was not compatible with the neighborhood. " •
It was also brought to light that if this facility is
built , many businesses and developers already looking to
build in this area, will go else where . A growing family
oriented housing community does not want the risks
involving a prison facility.
Though the Developers seem to sell a pretty picture , none
of them will be raising their families near it , I will !
Please don' t ruin our community !
EASE VOTE NO VRISON CILITY! !
(\
,,,, Vi . n
Thank you for ur support ,
)_ten ‘N) ' (MU COCO'
i
�xh/haft Iii d-(P : /)/, . /iC-C-
' 9.x,1249
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado
80632
RE: Pre-parole facility
Dear Commissioners ,
Please vote against the proposed "pre-parole facility" near
Del Camino ! Please don' t put a prison in my back yard , I
am opposed to this "Villa at Greeley" . Whatever it is
called, the proposed facility will house "inmates" , persons
convicted of serious crimes .
"The Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the project . "
said the Times-Call paper 10/6/93 . " . . they contended that
the land use was not compatible with the neighborhood. "
It was also brought to light that if this facility is
built, many businesses and developers already looking to
build in this area, will go else where. A growing family
oriented housing community does not want the risks
involving a prison facility.
Though the Developers seem to sell a pretty picture , none
of them will be raising their families near it , I will !
Please don' t ruin our community!
PLEASE VOTE NO PRISON FACILITY! !
Thank you for your upport,
Sri!hi x c c /2 , G()c. 9 1% 49
Board of County Commissioners
P.O.Box 758
Greeley, Colorado
80632
RE: Pre-parole facility
Dear Commissioners ,
Please vote against the proposed "pre-parole facility" near
Del Camino ! Please don' t put a prison in my back yard , I
am opposed to this "Villa at Greeley" . Whatever it is
called, the proposed facility will house " inmates" , persons
convicted of serious crimes .
"The Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the project . "
said the Times-Call paper 10/6/93 . " . . they contended that
the land use was not compatible with the neighborhood . "
It was also brought to light that if this facility is
built , many businesses and developers already looking to
build in this area, will go else where. A growing family
oriented housing community does not want the risks
involving a prison facility.
Though the Developers seem to sell a pretty picture , none
of them will be raising their families near it , I will !
Please don' t ruin our community!
PLEASE VOTE NO PRISON FACILITY! !
Thank you for your support ,
xh),lh,f )"/ C' C
901249
.
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado
80632
RE : Pre-parole facility
Dear Commissioners ,
Please vote against the proposed "pre-parole facility" near
Del Camino ! Please don' t put a prison in my back yard, I
am opposed to this "Villa at Greeley" . Whatever it is
called, the proposed facility will house " inmates" , persons
convicted of serious crimes .
"The Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the project . "
said the Times-Call paper 10/6/93 . " . . they contended that
the land use was not compatible with the neighborhood. "
It was also brought to light that if this facility is
built , many businesses and developers already looking to
build in this area, will go else where . A growing family
oriented housing community does not want the risks
involving a prison facility.
Though the Developers seem to sell a pretty picture , none
of them will be raising their families near it , I will !
Please don' t ruin our community!
PLEASE VOTE NO PRISON FACIL Y! !
-At e
hank you for your support ,
,xhib;l
e c .' //, norC 90.1 19
j
Board of County Commissioners
P.O.Box 758
Greeley, Colorado
80632
RE: Pre-parole facility
Dear Commissioners ,
Please vote against the proposed "pre-parole facility" near
Del Camino ! Please don' t put a prison in my back yard, I
am opposed to this "Villa at Greeley" . Whatever it is
called, the proposed facility will house "inmates" , persons
convicted of serious crimes .
"The Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the project . "
said the Times-Call paper 10/6/93 . " . . they contended that
the land use was not compatible with the neighborhood. "
It was also brought to light that if this facility is
built , many businesses and developers already looking to
build in this area, will go else where . A growing family
oriented housing community does not want the risks
involving a prison facility.
Though the Developers seem to sell a pretty picture , none
of them will be raising their families near it , I will !
Please don' t ruin our community!
PLEASE VOTE NO PRISON FACILITY! !
Thank you for your support ,
Board of County Commissioners
P .O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: Pre-parole facility _
Dear Commissioners ,
You will be involved in making a decision on the "Villa" (a pre-parole
facility) located in south west weld county. We are opposed to the "Villa"
and ask you to please vote against the "Villa" .
As defined in Webster ' s New Collegiate dictionary, copyright 1981 :
Villa- 1 . "A country estate" .
2 . "The rural or suburban residence of a wealthy
person.
Prison- 1 . "A state of confinement or captivity.
2 . "A Place of confinement: as a: A building in
which persons are confined for safe custody while
on trial or for punishment after trial and
conviction. b: an institution for the
imprisonment of persons convicted of serious
crimes. "
In light of these definitions , only one can accurately define the developers
true intent . Regardless of what they refer it as ( "VILLA" ) , it is a prison
facility.
The plan is being presented to the county commissioners on the premise that
the facility is a very low safety risk to local residents because only pre-
parole individuals will be housed there. This argument has been shown to be
a ruse, as the developers have already come to an agreement with Larimer
County to house some of their "other than" pre-parole inmates in the
facility ( this was brought up during the planning committee meeting.
Due to property values and development issues in Boulder County, south
western Weld is becoming a prime location for both business and residential
expansion. It was brought to light at the planning commission meeting that
if this facility is built, businesses already planning to build new
facilities will cancel their plans to locate in the area.
The developers have tried at least 8 other time to build this facility
( including Greeley and Evans) , 6 attempts have been rejected by local
residents and two applications have been withdrawn. Regardless what the
developers say, it appears that nobody else agrees that it' s desirable.
Please speak for the people of Weld County and vote against the "PRISON" .
/1474)k- lhj
91312:19
xhibi FL313 eed.' PG, 6Ast:
Board of County Commissioners
P .O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: Pre-parole facility ,
Dear Commissioners ,
You will be involved in making a decision on the "Villa" (a pre-parole
facility) located in south west weld county. We are opposed to the "Villa"
and ask you to please vote against the "Villa" .
As defined in Webster ' s New Collegiate dictionary, copyright 1981 :
Villa- 1 . "A country estate" .
2 . "The rural or suburban residence of a wealthy
person.
Prison- 1 . "A state of confinement or captivity.
2 . "A Place of confinement : as a: A building in
which persons are confined for safe custody while
on trial or for punishment after trial and
conviction. b: an institution for the
imprisonment of persons convicted of serious
crimes . "
In light of these definitions , only one can accurately define the developers
true intent . Regardless of what they refer it as ( "VILLA" ) , it is a prison
facility.
The plan is being presented to the county commissioners on the premise that
the facility is a very low safety risk to local residents because only pre-
parole individuals will be housed there. This argument has been shown to be
a ruse , as the developers have already come to an agreement with Larimer
County to house some of their "other than" pre-parole inmates in the
facility (this was brought up during the planning committee meeting.
Due to property values and development issues in Boulder County, south
western Weld is becoming a prime location for both business and residential
expansion. It was brought to light at the planning commission meeting that
if this facility is built, businesses already planning to build new
facilities will cancel their plans to locate in the area.
The developers have tried at least 8 other time to build this facility
( including Greeley and Evans) , 6 attempts have been rejected by local
residents and two applications have been withdrawn. Regardless what the
developers say, it appears that nobody else agrees that it ' s desirable.
Please speak for the people of Weld County and vote against the "PRISON" .
(Oa" 1 ()V
hl��� CU c,' PG, Ldcc_ 9u1249
tO elk Ca-,,--„ , /2 CI-- 93
G d, Q C2 o63a
BE : e s - 3Y4
Pre - G�—
We a-r2 cn ma i o-rt lJ c urea- /Z cn-vL-dC
X9 oo-t��e+ Z as arts_ 2 tryi
tt tj c® � S y y 7/
ID� &o �
QA. co-rrvn'trz W-K n .cy enw---Q-r rfla
e as= -(-)•4 /97 A
Q4 .mot / 7 9 6 .
�.
c �o _ t4,2 y
yfi . 29- Wort-9-r-
3656 (,Wc Cff, R , 204
n 46 mBn+ ) coto
(1r . AC/ Aar,.
-J)1h,f 1)1)
I
10-13-93
From: Dr. Jerry and Patricia Bohlender
To: Weld County Board of Commissioners
We live at 12566 WCR #1. We would like to take this opportunity to
voice opposition to the proposed prison to be built near I25 and
Hwy 119 in Weld County. We fear for the safety of our family.
Thank you for considering our concern.
O
LL
Jerry J. Bohlender
o I•
12566 W.C.R #1 nC #._ GP )
Longmont, CO 80404
Weld County Board
P.O. Box 758
Greeley,CO 80632
u m IL,LILIldh"dh
iyil/h,t it Cam ; PL, D act 9214 9
ThePrudential ,9i
LTM, REALTORS®
203 S.Main St
Longmont,CO 80501
(303)772-2222
October 18, 1993
Commissioner Connie Herbert
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Commissioner Herbert:
The Prudential LTM Realtors is the marketing agent for the Del
Camino Center Business Park which is located one mile south of the
Highway 119 and I-25 Interchange. The park is home to Specialty
Products, Inc. and Hauser Chemical Research, Inc. and will
hopefully attract other high quality clean industry for Weld County
in the future.
After discussion with the other owners of the park as well as the
Specialty and Hauser management, it is apparent that a Correction
Facility will severely hinder our ability to attract other
comparable users for the park. I ask that you take this into
consideration in your vote for locating the facility in the Del
Camino area.
fly ,
Ed Kanemoto
Broker Associate
LXA/ J 1- Ef ee /'G� ,QdeL
AnIndep 0 tyo ne0an00p as MemberoVTnePrudentlalflee EseeMI etas. nc. 92,1249
Board of County Commissioners
P.O.Box 758
Greeley, Colorado
80632
RE : Pre-parole facility
Dear Commissioners ,
Please vote against the proposed "pre-parole facility" near
Del Camino ! Please don' t put a prison in my back yard , I
am opposed to this "Villa at Greeley" . Whatever it is
called, the proposed facility will house "inmates" , persons
convicted of serious crimes .
"The Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the project . "
said the Times-Call paper 10/6/93 . " . . they contended that
the land use was not compatible with the neighborhood. "
It was also brought to light that if this facility is
built , many businesses and developers already looking to
build in this area, will go else where . A growing family
oriented housing community does not want the risks
involving a prison facility.
Though the Developers seem to sell a pretty picture , none
of them will be raising their families near it , I will !
Please don' t ruin our community!
PLEASE VOTE NO PRISON FACILITY! !
Thank you for your support ,
LC /A. 7L 97.11249
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632 . y4
RE: Pre-parole facility
Dear Commissioners,
You will be involved in making a decision on the "Villa" (a pre-parole
facility) located in south west weld county. We are opposed to the "Villa"
and ask you to please vote against the "Villa" .
As defined in Webster ' s New Collegiate dictionary, copyright 1981 :
Villa- 1 . "A country estate" .
2 . "The rural or suburban residence of a wealthy
person.
Prison- 1 . "A state of confinement or captivity.
2 . "A Place of confinement : as a: A building in
which persons are confined for safe custody while
on trial or for punishment after trial and
conviction. b: an institution for the
imprisonment of persons convicted of serious
crimes . "
In light of these definitions , only one can accurately define the developers
true intent . Regardless of what they refer it as ( "VILLA" ) , it is a prison
facility.
The plan is being presented to the county commissioners on the premise that
the facility is a very low safety risk to local residents because only pre-
parole individuals will be housed there . This argument has been shown to be
a ruse, as the developers have already come to an agreement with Larimer
County to house some of their "other than" pre-parole inmates in the
facility (this was brought up during the planning committee meeting.
Due to property values and development issues in Boulder County, south
western Weld is becoming a prime location for both business and residential
expansion. It was brought to light at the planning commission meeting that
if this facility is built , businesses already planning to build new
facilities will cancel their plans to locate in the area.
The developers have tried at least 8 other time to build this facility
( including Greeley and Evans ) , 6 attempts have been rejected by local
residents and two applications have been withdrawn. Regardless what the
developers say, it appears that nobody else agrees that it ' s desirable .
Please speak for the people of Weld County and vote against the "PRISON" .
c- ;4-
--T c_rvnerckf' L . ' o-ci e e ' /JL DC C._
y
' 9 1 9
�ith�Gi f- ,�1i
Board of County Commissioners
P .O.Box 758
Greeley, Colorado
80632
RE: Pre-parole facility
Dear Commissioners ,
Please vote against the proposed "pre-parole facility" near
Del Camino ! Please don' t put a prison in my back yard, I
am opposed to this "Villa at Greeley" . Whatever it is
called, the proposed facility will house " inmates" , persons
convicted of serious crimes .
"The Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the project . "
said the Times-Call paper 10/6/93 . " . . they contended that
the land use was not compatible with the neighborhood. "
It was also brought to light that if this facility is
built , many businesses and developers already looking to
build in this area, will go else where . A growing family
oriented housing community does not want the risks
involving a prison facility.
Though the Developers seem to sell a pretty picture , none
of them will be raising their families near it , I will !
Please don' t ruin our community!
PLEASE VOTE NO PRISON FACILITY! !
Thank you for your support ,
/, fr
kh4i' IL `c : 7 , l3ztc.c 9'1'13
64. y- / 993
. -
tit
/L 1 K k..,2--- C C.�—vr. .c� j u ck
„ter-4 iity_wtyyl tv_...,..,..Lit.,.. .zi ,,,„... . f' \\_,, 9.„7.,..-1.2,49- , L,, /--c---e ""-- Gt, , -2-O- ,e_rty-,--,--
Tom- c-L-2, 'c ..--,- -,
•
Lee /.--„,_ c i ,th~, , ✓Gzy
(3.4_„..„:„{-#46.27,,,, .. ,,T10- ,--, r-Ezio , , (,:linn-÷ 9—wv- /4-trfr.
t -,• c o !mac c2-3-c- �—f
1- --i,,eg - /---t-v-,/,-;--6e..-,,,
J r, e---,
jL G ":
Exfyl it I cc ; /22, zine:c 9.:1249
Specialty Products Company
- �i 4045 Specialty Place• P O Box 923• Longmont. Colorado 80502-0923 US.A.• (303) 772-2103
Y
October 21, 1993
Ms. Connie Herbert,
Weld County Commissioner
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: DEL CAMINO PRISON FACILITY
Dear Ms. Connie Herbert:
I am writing, as the President of Specialty Products Company, to
express my strong objection to the possible location of a pre-
release prison in the Del Camino area.
My concern centers more on the visitors to the prison rather than
the prisoners themselves. We all know that gang members will be
in this facility and that their friends and fellow gang members
will be coming to visit them. That means we will have a larger
number of these people in our area than we have ever had before.
Our new 40,000 sq. ft. facility is highly visible from I-25. With
Denver cracking down on these individuals, I am certain that our
facility would be a very tempting target as would all the private
homes and businesses in the area. The Denver Police Department
with all of it's assets has not been able to control these people.
We have a good sheriff's department but they have no where near the
resources to deal with the element you would bring into our area.
I support growth. Your enterprise zone is excellent and one of the
reasons we located in the Del Camino Industrial Park. However, if
we had known of the possibility of a prison in the area, we would
have located in a different location. There are too many other
fine locations that would not subject us to the additional risk of
this type of facility.
I suspect that many other C.E.O. 's share my opinion. The approval
of this facility will stunt quality growth in the Del Camino area.
Many of us have made and plan on making additional financial
commitments to southwest Weld County.
Please don't pull the rug out from under our feet. Please reject
the prison application.
Sincerely,
4.4
Marwan K. Kumbarji
President
MICK:b1 q
�r !/b/ F I\� f:� • f)L � L3occ. �:d-.i'.ri-B9
69 (- 30, / x93
42.z-1, �-
J-t
i frit --ro
I
alekai at- - -°-
AIL-Art,
On'a'°-"r
,clt0- -(grefIPASW-C±. n
am MS- -fryt„we,
,frt?tA-frfa--e6 c-e-v-J-424-Hf4 - a--212
Jv/PTta_ca5Sah_,Acttir-c-gf-t-gzr 9 `-yv . --ctindee
4--/nib; I- LL_ tit-ritzle43 CC- ; ,°L, /lode
a-�n , 9 aipt-RtQ,(A;re
71 - J o�.-,�✓`�o-,�.v-a-�-e-�
0.7 -rr-r-r-a-02D `9 41,5
45F-7 �,
/to-- et-r-lerri
gt,ei °cc „ze'.� z
// 7 2-0 W- SC. /I9��Y>/oo'v �,,D , rJ- - 'vs�i �(
zkvict-At 61-741 Ve/C4 yfrit} -
LIZ
12r
Quality Enrichment for Your Child's Early Years
CHILDREN'S HOUSE
of Weld County
MONTESSORI Pre-School and Day Care
3783 Weld Co. Rd. 20 Longmont, CO 80504
(303)651-3215
November 1 , 1993
To All County Commissioners;
It has come to my attention that the Villa of Greeley
is continuing to pursue their interests in the building of
a Pre-parole prison in our community. (Case # S-344-The Villa
at Greeley) As a business owner , land owner, homeowner and
a parent I am totally opposed to this facility being built in
our area .
My business is presently located at 3783 WCR 20 within the
Rinn United Methodist Church. This is only 11/2 miles from the
proposed prison site. We offer Pre-school , Daycare, Kinder-
garten, and Elementary programs for children.
I feel the prison will be a devastating detriment to our
community. Just recently our economy has begun to pick up.
With the building of this facility in our area I feel that the
quality of life, safety of our community and our economic
development will suffer tragically.
When questioning my students (Ages ranging from 3 to 10
years of age) concerning the prison some of their comments
were as follows . "I would be afraid . " "I think it is a bad
idea . " " I would be afraid that a prisoner would get out and
steal guns and kids . " " I would be afraid that they would come
to our school when they escape . " " I would want to move away. "
Not one student had a positive comment to make , all feared
the facility. The students were asked in a very neutral manner
of which no prejudice or presumptions were made prior to
questioning. We only discussed the definition of a prison.
One student stated, "It ' s where you go when you are too bad
to go to jail . "
My husband and I are relocating my business of 14 years
at the Rinn Church to the Indian Peaks Industrial Park. Our
new location will be only one mile south of our present location .
We will serve 75 children ages 21/2 to 12 years of age. We will
have easy access to the I-25 frontage road from Road 18 .
We are greatly concerned of the children ' s and parent ' s safety
should the facility be built so close to the school . Please
do not recommend the building of this facility-it will be the
downfall of our community.
My husband , two children and I reside at 4895 WCR 22 , only
one mile from the proposed facility. We will anticipate selling
our home should the facility be allowed to be built . I am sure
that other homeowners in the area feel the same. There will be
6(h/ /71- M/21 c ; �l, o ce-
no hope for any further economic development or new housing
should the facility be built . Who would like to live next
door or hold their business near a prison holding almost
400 prisoners? Would you? Would you want a prison in your
backyard? Would you allow a prison to be built only 22 miles
from the school that your child attends? Please ask yourself
these questions before making your recommendation. Please
respect the citizens of the southwest Weld County community
in their struggle to stop the building of this facility.
We want to continue to keep the quality of life in our area .
We encourage all types of positive new businesses in our area .
The building of this facility will have a definate negative
impact on our lives , our children, our businesses and our
futures . Please place your vote against the Pre-parole prison
on December 8 . We are counting on you.
Respectfully yours,
2,e2VAA—
Susan Halkin
(Founder and Directress
of the Children ' s
House of Weld County)
9n 1219
Series: 4302
Line List: 406
WYCO-PIPE LINE COMPANY
jT
` �� ^ e ONE MID AMERICA PLAZA
SUITE 300
October 19, 1993 - '- la r OAKBROOK TERRACE,IL 60181
708-990-3738
Mr. Keith Schuett
Weld County Planning Department
1400 N. 17th
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Schuett:
Re: Del Camino Development
Thank you for providing WYCO the opportunity to review development plans for
the referenced sub-division.
Further to a review of those by WYCO's Joan Swenson, following are comments
and conditions for the proposed usage of our right of way area.
1. In an effort to preserve the public safety and environment, WYCO feels it
necessary to replace approximately 150' of our pipeline with heavy walled
pipe at the area of the road crossing. The cost of such will be
reimbursed by the developer.
2. A minimum of 5' of cover shall be placed over our right-of-way by the
developer in the area of the road crossing.
3. Should it be necessary to cross our pipeline with heavy equipment in any
areas, the developer shall provide 5' of cover in these areas prior to
crossing.
4. Both the proposed sewer line and water line shall cross under our pipeline
with at least 2' of separation. Further, the crossings shall be as near
to 90° as possible and not less than 45°. There shall be no parallel with
any facility within our right-of-way area.
5. The developer shall enter into a written agreement with WYCO agreeing to
terms, conditions and provisions as generalized above.
Again, thank you for your concern in this matter, and please advise the
applicant of these provisions.
Very tru y ou s,
e
Micha . n
Se for Agent R/W
cc: D. Shroyer
B. Adams
J. Swenson ��
F. Groat UU T �}E
File ♦ {/
OCT 2 2 1993 11
W®Id County Planning
!iX/ l i // ce'_ : /k, L„ ecc_
.1 4-, R ri
THE
1750 6th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631,(303) 353-9263
John T. Coppom, PhD,._..
Administrator
October 28, 1993
Michael L. Hayden, Senior Agent
WYCO Pipeline Company
One Mid America Plaza
Suite 300
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Reference: WYCO ' s 10/19/93 letter to Weld County Planning
Department, Del Camino Development
Series : 4302 Line List : 406
Dear Mr. Hayden:
As the applicant in the above referenced development, be
advised that The Villa At Greeley, Inc. agrees to the terms,
conditions and provisions generalized by WYCO in their 10/19/93
letter to Weld County Planner, Mr. Keith Schuett, as related to our
Final P.U.D. Plan application S-344 .
' ncerrely,
John T. Copp�D.
Administrator
cc : Keith Schuett
`° EC VE`^
NOV 0 1 1993
c5 _
Weld County Planntgg
15/),4/7"(O cc ; P , /r7, free 921219
ANDERSON - RASMUSSEN - DERR, P.C
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
PREMIERE BUILDING - .
700 FLORIDA AVENUE, SUITE P-203
LONGMONT, COLORADO 80501
STEVEN C. ANDERSON, C.P.A. BUS. [303] 772-0621
LUTHER RASMUSSEN, C.P.A. METRO (303]449-7172
RAYMOND E. DERR, G.P.A. FAX (303) 772-0646
Board of County Commissioners
PO Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Pre-Parole Facility
Dear Commissioners :
Please vote against the proposed "Pre-Parole Facility" near
Del Camino. Please don' t put a prison in my backyard- -I am
opposed to this "Villa at Greeley" . Whatever it is called, the
proposed facility will house inmates, persons convicted of
serious crimes .
"The Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the project" , said the
Daily Times Call newspaper October 6 , 1993 . " . . . they contended
that the land use was not compatible with the neighborhood. " It
was also brought to light that if this facility is built, many
businesses and developers already looking to build in this area
will go elsewhere. A growing family oriented housing community
does not want the risks involving a prison facility.
Though the developers seem to sell a pretty picture, none of them
will be raising their families near it- - I will !
Please don' t ruin our community!
PLEASE VOTE NO PRISON FACILITY! !
Thank ,y�oqu� for your support.
Lu er Rasmuss , CPA
(77 ADmC %r �ou-£ o filett0 1)
�xht tf IF do , 9212 19
November 5,..1,993. r. .,
County Commissioners Office
P. 0. Box 758
Greeley, Co. 8O632
Dear Commissioners:
I have lived in my home almost forty years. I
do not like to see farm land sold for any kind of
development especially a prison. I do not want a
prison built near my home.
What if a prisoner escaped, got a gun and went
into one of the restaurants where a bus load of kids
stopped to eat on their way to a ball game. is
loads of kids stop there to eat all the time during
the school year.
Also the Airporter van stops at the corner to
pick up or leave people going to the airport.
There are lots of tourists who stop to eat or
buy gas. And Mead school isn't that far away.
I would not feel safe at all if you okay a
prison. Would you want a prison close to you?
Sincerely, ,/
Margaret Hill
()45 CAL: mil /.m ce.
Longmont, Colorado
November 7,1993
To: Weld County Commissioners
From: Stanley Olson, Del Camino Resident
This letter is submitted to protest the pre-parole facility being planned for this area.
I and the majority of the residents of Southwest Weld adamantly oppose this facility for
several reasons:
Neighborhood safety, property values, and the effects on potential growth in this area are
my major concerns. Safety isssue stems front the fact that there is a definite risk that this
type of facility entertains. The type of people that visit the inmates, plus the chance of a
escapees endangering the local neighborhood.
The sponsors of this prison quote Ann Garrison's report that property values increased
near prison facilities. This very general statement is very misleading. They also state that
property values increased near the jail located near the Boulder Airport. That is probably
true, however after talking to a Boulder Realtor a few days ago stated that property values
rose, but not because of the jail. That particular area was the only area that was available
for development, due to the no-growth policy of Boulder City government. As one
speaker stated at the planning commission hearing October 5th, she said "that's just
Boulder", meaning that Boulder should not be used as a benchmark to determine policies
in other localities in Colorado. This Realtor also stated that home buyers will pay more
for a lesser house in an upscale area such as Table Mesa rather than locate near a jail. I
interpret that statement to mean property values are negatively affected by a jail rather
than positively as the jail officials would like us all to believe.
Another item of great importance, I believe, is the potential detrimental effect on growth
along the 1-25 corridor. Presently, a sanitation line is being installed from the Del Camino
area down to Colorado 52, and perhaps beyond to Road S. This area will have all the
necessary utilities on-site for commercial and residential development. So far Hauser
Chemical, Specialty Products, Flatiron Structures, and the Colorado National ward have
located here. These are premier type industries, and from my experience, first class
neighbors. It would seem logical to me, that you as commissioners, could see the risk of
future development being negatively affected by this prison. I am aware that the St. Vrain
Sanitation District would like to sell more sewer taps, and United Power more meters.
What would be immediate benefit in the short term could well manifest itself into
permanent damage in the long term. As one member of the Tri-Area planning commission
said at their meeting some time ago to the effect; "the 1-25 corridor is a prime location ,
we can pick and choose who we want". I wholeheartedly agree. Let us flaunt it, not
damage it. We will be sorry later, and then it will be too late.
I urge and implore you, elected Commissioners of Weld County, that you listen to the
pepple, and vote NO on this prison.
lson
Del Camino Resident
STANLEY OLSON
4306 WELD COUNTY RD. 22
LONGMONT, CO. 60604
ce
Nc.383,7
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
60422-07Si,
9012 13
1 HMO r
Lt3 �n�measured long alter to
4895 Weld County Road 22
Longmont, Colorado 80504
(303) 772-2176
November 1 , 1993
To All County Commissioners;
I am a local business person and resident
from
nf the the Del Camino
one
area . We are located approximatelyproposed prison site (Case # S-344 The Villa at Greeley) • Nine years ago
I chose this area to build a home and business . I felt that
this would be a peaceful and safe environment to raise children.
I am strongly opposed to the prison in this area or any other
populated area.
Several months ago the Villa of Greeley stated that if the
people of this area did not want the prison, that it would not be .
I feel that we have strongly expressed over and over again that
we do not want it. The community almost unanimouuslynfeelsvt that
at
this misrepresented proposal will bring nothing
this community. As a business person and most importantly a
concerned family man, I will do everything humanly possible to
prevent this from happening.
Speaking for hundreds of other concerned
citizens
shofwtlithis
community, we are asking that you pleaseconsider
being and quality of our lives . Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul S . Halkin
rx/7//ii ,S_s 9Z1249
November 10, 1993
L.)
Weld County Commissioners
P . O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Commissioners:
I would like to share with you some facts concerning the
emergency response in the area of the proposed pre-parole prison
site at Del Camino - who is responsible, who answers the calls, the
average response time, and why I feel that a NO vote is imperative .
The proposed building site is in the Mountain View Fire
Protection District, which is a Title 32 Special District, under
Colorado State Statue 32-1-1002 Fire Protection Districts.
Mountain View has the additional responsibility beyond fire
protection as stated in paragraph C; "To undertake and to operate
as part of the duties of the Fire Protection District an ambulance
service, an emergency medical service , a rescue unit, and a diving
and grappling service . " Mountain View provides all of the above
services either on its own or through contracts. As one example,
Mt. View contracts with Professional Ambulance and Tri-Area
Ambulance to transport injured parties.
The three stations responding to emergencies in this area are :
Station #2 , WCR 13 and 24 , manned by 11 volunteers; Station #3,
located in the Town of Mead with 11 volunteers; and Station #1 , one
and three-quarter miles south of Highway 119 on County Line Road,
with a two man paid response crew. Both Station #3 and Station #1
are a distance of six miles from the proposed site .
On highways, the State patrol investigates accidents and
issues citations, Mountain View is responsible for the injured
parties, traffic control, and clean up. The Sheriff investigates
criminal action on private property except for arson. Again,
Mountain View is responsible for injuries to persons and property.
Mountain View does its own arson investigation with the help
of the County Sheriff ' s office, when needed.
94nt s9
�K 11../ cc : Spa)')
Weld County Commissioners
November 10, 1993
Page 2 .
The average response time for Mountain View is approximately
eight minutes. For the Sheriff, approximately 35 minutes and the
State Patrol, approximately 45 minutes. As you can see the first
emergency response in this area is the citizen-tax payer
volunteering their time and energy protecting life and property.
There is in fact a Sheriffs ' substation at Station #2, WCR 13
and 24 but, it isn' t manned on a regular basis, maybe on the
average of 2 hours per day. This substation is in fact a political
bag of worms at best. The District provides this substation on a
year to year lease at a cost of $75 . 00 per month to the County.
This cost does not even cover utility costs. There has been some
concern expressed by the tax payers of the District as to why
Mountain View is subsidizing the County Sheriffs ' office , and this
may even have to change .
Since this facility is privately owned, on site life and
property emergencies now become the responsibility of Mountain View
by State Statute .
Mountain View has answered 158 emergency calls in a five mile
radius of the proposed site this year - fifteen structure and
vehicle fires, 10 ag burns, 110 EMS calls which include accidents,
and 23 miscellaneous calls, for example odor/smoke investigations,
assists, and standby.
Mountain View covers 220 square miles, approximately one-half
in Boulder and one-half in Weld Counties. Something else you need
to consider, all of the emergency tones for Mountain View originate
out of Boulder County. All of these calls were answered by one or
both volunteer stations backed up by Station #1 with the two man
paid crew. Total calls for Mountain View this year will be
approximately 1, 400 for the district. As of November 1 , 1993, the
calls total 1, 250.
The local residents of the area have paid their dues. Not
only in tax dollars, but in time spent training and answering
emergency calls, just so we would have some degree of protection of
life and property.
931.213
Weld County Commissioners
November 10, 1993
Page 3.
I realize that growth is the only way to increase budgets for
any and all taxing entities. But, I for one, do not consider this
type of facility in an area with minimal law enforcement and only
volunteer emergency personnel , who are citizens and tax payers of
the community, to protect property and life a smart decision on
anyone ' s part.
I care about my community. I ' ve demonstrated that by spending
8-1/2 years as a fire fighter EMT responding to emergency calls and
14 years as a member of the Board of Directors of Mountain View.
As a Board Member, I also have to provide training and protection
to all of the emergency responders.
I accept my responsibility as an elected official of Mountain
View Fire Protection District. I hope and pray that you, also, as
elected officials of Weld County consider the safety and needs of
this community and vote NO.
I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, 77/L
VJ
fir
Conrad D . Hopp
enc .
9Z1.219
article and all construction, installation, operation, and
maintenance of special district improvements;
(i) To appoint, hire, and retain agents, employees,
engineers, and attorneys;
(j) To fix and from time to time to increase or decrease
fees, rates, tolls, penalties, or charges for services, programs, or
facilities furnished by the special district; except that fire
protection districts may only fix fees and charges as provided in
section 32-1-1002 (1) (e) . The board may pledge such revenue for
the payment of any indebtedness of the special district. Until paid,
all such fees, rates, tolls, penalties, or charges shall constitute
a perpetual lien on and against the property served, and any such
lien may be foreclosed in the same manner as provided by the laws of
this state for the foreclosure of mechanics' liens.
(k) To furnish services and facilities without the boundaries
of the special district and to establish fees, rates, tolls,
penalties, or charges for such services and facilities;
(1 ) To accept, on behalf of the special district, real or
personal property for the use of the special district and to accept
gifts and conveyances made to the special district upon such terms
or conditions as the board may approve;
(m) To adopt, amend, and enforce bylaws and rules and
regulations not in conflict with the constitution and laws of this
state for carrying on the business, objects, and affairs of the
board and of the special district;
(n) To have and exercise all rights and powers necessary or
incidental to or implied from the specific powers granted to special
districts by this article. Such specific powers shall not be
considered as a limitation upon any power necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes and intent of this article.
32-1-1002. Fire protection districts - additional powers and
duties. (1) In addition to the powers specified in section
32-1-1001, the board of any fire protection district has the
following powers for and on behalf of such district:
(a) To acquire, dispose of, or encumber fire stations, fire
protection and fire fighting equipment, and any interest therein,
including leases and easements;
(b) To have and exercise the power of eminent domain and
dominant eminent domain and, in the manner provided by article 1 of
title 38, C.R.S. , to take any property necessary to the exercise of
the powers granted, both within and without the special district;
(c) To undertake and to operate as a part of the duties of
the fire protection district an ambulance service, an emergency
medical service, a rescue unit, and a diving and grappling service;,
(d) To adopt and enforce fire codes, as the board deems
necessary, but no such code shall apply within any municipality or
the unincorporated portion of any county unless the governing body
of the municipality or county, as the case may be, adopts a
resolution stating that such code or specific portions thereof shall
be applicable within the fire protection district's boundaries;
except that nothing in this paragraph (d) shall be construed to
-2-
January 15, 1993 ,
9212 x9
I
MEMORANDUM fi
TO: Conrad Hopp
FROM: Donna Mullison'r
RE: Response Summary for Del Camino Area - 1993
DATE: November 9, 1993
In response to your request for the number and types of calls
the Mountain View Fire Protection District responded to in a
five mile radius of the Del Camino area in 1993, I would
submit the following summary, based on approximate totals
from information received from B.C. Rademacher:
Total Calls 158
CALL
TYPES: Structure/Vehicle Fires 15
Agricultural Burns 10
EMS/Accidents 110
Other: i.e. odor/smoke
investigations, assists,
stand-by, etc. 23
15$
I hope this information is helpful. If you need additional
information, please let me know.
9a1249
Emil! ALPHATEK n .
Manufacturers' Representatives
November 9 , 1993 —!
Weld County Commissioners
Post Office Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Villa of Greeley Pre-Parole Prison Facility
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing to you to express my deep concern over the
location of a pre-parole prison facility in our area. We are
a small (husband and wife) business with our office located
close the proposed site of this facility, and we own a home in
the area in Highland Estates .
My husband has frequent business trips out of town,
leaving me in the office alone. Many times I must come back
after hours and check the mail , or get an important letter out .
Currently I do not worry about going to the office alone at
night . However, if a pre-parole prison facility were to be
located just down the road, I could no longer do this . In my
opinion, the visitors (and I 'm not talking about the moms and
dads) of the residents of this facility would be a threat to
our community . There is no doubt in my mind that some of the
visitors would be former acquaintances or "business partners"
of the residents. Whether it might involve burglary, drugs or
rape is unknown; but I do know that if this facility is built ,
we will undoubtedly have to consider moving our office into
Longmont .
From a personal standpoint , we moved our family from
Arvada 10 years ago to live in a quiet , peaceful community, to
get away from the problems of a large city. Our children have
gone on bike rides around the area, and my teenage son has
camped and fished with his friends at Barbour Ponds State Park.
With the location of the pre-parole prison facility, this would
have to stop. I could not in good conscience allow them near
Barbour Ponds , worrying about "visitors" in the area, and the
bike rides would also stop. What a shame that my family and
the rest of our area residents would no longer be able to enjoy
this wonderful community as we do now.
If the Weld County Sheriff ' s Department states that they
can manage to patrol the area without additional staff , they
K
14010 Mead Street - Longmont, CO 80504 • (303) 535-0203 • FAX (303) 535-0532
� �t
Weld County Commissioners
Page 2
November 9, 1993
are wrong . I have had to call the Sheriff 's Office twice in
the ten years for automobile accidents and it took them 20-30
minutes to respond. Without additional staff , we would
undoubtedly have a longer wait . This facility may also put a
strain on our fire department , which now responds quickly to
emergencies . Will we then have to wait for our emergency
technicians or firemen, who might be on a call at the prison
facility?
I sincerely hope you will consider the ramifications to
our community if this facility is approved by you. You do not
live here, but we do . We will have to do the worrying, you
won' t . We will be putting restrictions on our children, you
won' t . Please remember this is our community, and what is best
for our community is for you to vote against this pre-parole
facility. You should speak for the community, and the
community as a whole is against this facility.
Sincerely,
Donna R. Koehler
912 19
November 9, 1993
Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioners:
As a property owner, taxpayer, and resident of Weld County in the Del Camino
area, we are writing to ask that you give your utmost consideration and vote
"NO" on the final review of application for the Pre Parole Prison being con-
sidered for this area.
Please consider our property values, property taxes, safety in our neighborhood,
strangers frequenting the area, fire and law enforcement protection, quality
of clientele, and drug and gang activity. We certainly do not need in our
area what the Denver Metro area does not want. With all of the open space
in other parts of Weld County that are not residential, why not consider those
spaces rather than right in the middle of a rural residential area.
We would like to think that the elected officials that we as property owners
have elected will consider our interests and concerns and vote NO!
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
;C
}� u £C
Dick Volfe
Shirley A Wolfe
7709 WCR #24
Longmont CO 80504
V VCC �� .; b6C_G( � 9 �
Jr, 9,1041
V�Y 72¢/2.c1i
t7uC1 GV ,G�Q( lam KF c� N-LaNl?. "L+-»I.��/1yaq i yV — Y-7 n, tiv4�
AZ:t....ny i"_ 74fle trjt/'�/� J1-CL-v-Y '
kreuz-n. a-ertn 7� a. h w „�„ a a�Y �J --zt 2
— Lct� �fl.c4�17 l
///iii �/y ( g)�' q
/mac ., �Uyvq��� 4nv 61 (J'�zc� qti .-
r�L74,14 Oita
91265 c..>. C 61 7
v - lie c)
Xkib;+ Mlle! ac : PL; aocc`55
942. 19
Nov. 8 , 1993
Weld County Commissioners ' Office
Greeley, Colorado
Attn : Constance Harbert
We Wish to express our strong objection to the pro-
posed construction of a pre-parole prison facility at the
Del Camino location. The magnitude of feeling against this
institution should be clear if you consider the great num-
ber of signatures on the petitions that have been submitted.
The factors involved in arriving at our objections include ,
but are not limited to, the convicted felons housed so near
a residential area, the traffic in and out of the area of
a new and different type of people, depression of property
values , noise and bright lights at night .
The citizens of this area have been characterized by the
Villa representatives , in news releases , as "hysterical and
uninformed" . We have sat patiently through long repetitive
presentations by the Villa representatives ; surely, there can-
not be much further information to be had than that !
Please, also consider the recent recommendation AGAINST,
by the Weld County Planning Commission .
We strongly urge the Weld County Commissioners to
reject this proposal .
Thank you for your consideration,Mary Margot Mengel I
Alvin E. Mengelt 0-14( , jAU�t/ � 0
Owners and residents of 7056 Maple St .
Enchanted Hills
Longmont, Colorado 80504-9402
Tel . 833 3674
E_KALL -F KX CL : Pt Bocc ('j 9012'19
// / 9/ C 3
/�.i!-�?i Ct�l'u -lL-��Z p , - '
L
2c�-Q, ,U.2 -t9 c,
i- �L-L�.C „ILGCX CLO..G_f.-ea�i 'TLJt-K.C�� `Cf-cU
t LR- pEtxne-x19 C'�->x�u
Li r e ` -r tie-00 2 e-Qe 0 /Lee()
/ J �
a24{..c__LI„c. a i-1 - 2/1-c -6 , ice, i
JC[, ,7 - et t..{ /Lc_r4--e AA-4-7 /
O (J
-Ceili - ?!2( ,tE/ ,[,.,� _, c`-zL�.atv-tZ.: �C.,C.Yt dri)
Lt - Lc/ e24/_f1/
"-*-1--
1
CL
-Lea_
b; f y,` Cc.. PL, Boca (s
ki b'.+ Y Y 9C1; 19
.,_C1'/ {.-�-( _-Ly-L
att-tal -� L.,(J-e,C..L C_c -x L.jt'�z-Lc.,6-�'c� �_ �Lt-F ` L,L.-,c,
„Led?" ._L yL G)Fx7�: i_ CYA-vt -fGlfr-7-L% cC.,
•
.-1 t 2.4 6-7L �L-C'-Z4-L
_t/
�1t-f- G�'.-Q `-JLe��`-
C!_r�-_!- -� P ��„�c-rrc.tL. -Q_, iL�t,4 -Lrf
>i LZ / --1-C _ �-L aL 1-E.�. � ,x<J _
I i
// ; 3 �-ta L 4-e -ems/ �tiL .L�'t /i�� -irZl,
1L2 L CZ�CI (J---z4-1- L.� ��s', c-I 7r/�
7
C.112 ), ��“ ,r � .c _� u - 1a 2-e .67_6-it_-
74
el ;I,I J�-Z eft et-dta-( ,t_2 z-t e ?�_4. t �_ h1 (Q7nt..u:
�, or C.f-Lr',E.c -
Thelma Swans ft
6856 Weld Co. Rd. 26
Longmont,CO 80504
9:11249
Nov. 6 , 1993
Weld County Comnissioners
Subject : Plans for a Pre-Parole Prison in the Del Camino: azea .
As resident of the area , Iwish to express to yougiy -very strong objection
to any plans for building this prison in the Del' Camino area .
My objections have been made even stronger after having carefully listened
to several presentations by the Villa representatives . This type of
business venture certainly doesnot belong in a community where so many
families reside . We have livedin the Enchanted Hills subdivision for
22 years , and are now retired . We can see the Del Camino area from our
acreage . We no doubt would also see theprison lights .
1 . This prison would increase traffic at an already over-crowded
intersection of I-25 and Highway 119 (road 24) .
2 . Fire and Police protection is not adequate for any increased needs :
that would arise .
3 . The peace and quiet of our rural lives would be destroyed by the
arrival of unsavory people . We would no longer feel safe in thiscommunity.
Friends of prisoners , gangs and drugs , are not benificial to any of us here .
Young people--and others--working at the fast-food restaurants in the
Del Camino area would be at risk from such customers coming into this
community. Campers in the nearby State Park would not feel safe-neither
would we as residents of our rural and isolated homes .
4 . There are other businesses that could be attracted to this area that
would be benificial to the county ' s tax needs .
This Prison would bring us nothing but distress and worry.
The Villa representatives seem to suggest that we in this area are
un-informed . We actually are well informed, having, listened to the
Villa presentation several times .
I strongly urge you, as County Commissioners , to deny any plans to
build any Pre-Parole Prison in the Del Camino Area .
Sincerely,
7a4ty)Z7a ;ffZ/nte-e
Mary Margot Mengel (Mrs . Alvin Mengel)
7056 Maple St .
Longmont , Colo . 80504
As you know, Enchanted Hills ruralsubdivision is in south-west Weld
County. Our mailing address is Longmont , but Weld County gets our
taxes and our votes .
ak bvi- 2Z C53 921213
CG: p�. , �ocr ,
Hello