HomeMy WebLinkAbout650008.tiffL
CD
H
784
Recorded
Rec. No.
RESOLUTION
\1/11 ) /Cam'
M�DEC...17197E (.
19061 GM Mary Ann Feuerstein, Recorder
WHEREAS, the proper legal notice was given in the request
of zoning change in the Reed and Gettel matter, and,
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of Weld County held a
public hearing in their office on March 1, 1965 at 2:30 P.M. in
accordance with the published notice as is provided by law, and,
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of Weld County heard the
ten parties present concerning the requested change from Zone A
to Zone E, and,
WHEREAS, the main objections to the change of zone were future
drainage of the area, recognition of established easements, possible
lowering of the water table as a result of additional residences
in the area and loss of privacy, and,
WHEREAS, all of the mentioned views were from parties living
outside the area to be re -zoned.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Weld County that based upon the premise of the best
use of the land involved, that based upon the proper growth pattern
of the area herein involved and that no one has an inherent right
to a fixed zone, that the change of zone from A to E is hereby
granted and that from this date the proper zone for the herein
after described property, to -wit:
A parcel of land, more particularly described as beginning
at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter (SEt) Section
32, Township 1 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado, thence North along the West line of said
Southeast Quarter (SEI) of Section 32, a distance of 1320.00
feet to a point being the Northwest corner of the Southwest
Quarter (SW1) of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32;
thence East 990.0 feet, more or less, parallel to the South
line of the Southeast Quarter (SE*) of said Section 32,
said point being the center of the Fulton Ditch; thence
southerly along the center line of said Fulton Ditch; thence
S 09°03' W, 55 feet; thence S 01°43' E, 490.0 feet; thence
S 08°02' E, 260.0 feet; thence S 32°45' E, 185.0 feet;
thence S 02°53'E, 110.0 feet; thence S 15°26' W, 262,3 feet,
to a point on the South line of Southeast Quarter of said
7
-1-
650008
„pot- 7B4
1W)6168
Section 32; thence West along the South line of said
Southeast Quarter of Section 32, a distance of 1068.23
feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning
shall be zone E, Estate District.
Dated this 1st day of March, 1965.
Board of County Commissioners
Approved
•
County Attorne
JHiNGE OF ZONE AS REQUESTED BY:�
Reed d Gettel
Hearing held March 1, 1965
Mr. Shultz: Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, the Weld
County Planning Commission recommends and certifies to the Board
of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, the approval of
a request for rezoning in the Fort Lupton area from "A" Agricultural
District to "E" Estate District, said parcel of land more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter
(SE4) Section 32, Township 1 North, Range 66 West of the 6th
P. M., Weld County, Colorado: Thence N along the W line of
-said SE4 of Section 32, a distance of 1320.0' to a point being
the NW corner of the SW4SEr of said Section 32; thence E 990.0'
more or less, parallel to the S line of the SE4 of Said Section
32 said point being the center of the Fulton Ditch; thence
Sly along the center line of said Fulton Ditch; thence S 09°
03' W55'; thence S 01°43'E 490.0', thence S 08°02'E260.0';
-thence S 32°45' E 185.0'; thence S 02°53' E 110.0'; thence
S 15°26' W 262.3 feet to a point on the S line of SE4 of said
Section 32; thence W along the S line of said SEt of Section
32, a distance of 1068.25', m/l to the true point of beginning.
-A public hearing will be held in the Office of the Board of County
Commissioners, Weld County Court House, Greeley, Colorado on Monday
March 1, 1965 at 2:30 P. M. Dated this 27th day of January 1965.
The Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, by
Ann Spomer County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board. The
notice was published in the Greeley Booster on January 29 and
February 19, 1965. This is the notice describing the area related
to this hearing. Is there anyone present who would like to say anything
in favor of the change?
Herman Rosenbrock:
My land joins to the west of this, as far as zoning I am neither
in favor of or against it, the only thing 1 want to establish is
that I have two water lines or pipelines going through this 40 acres
This is what -I am concerned in and also there could be a problem there
Roeenbrock (cont) that if it should be all blacktopped there might be a water
problem there for wasting there.
Mr. Shultz: That would be about the only objection you would have.
Rosenbrock: That would be the only objection that I would have
Mr. Shultz: Otherwise you would be in favor of it or neutral or one or the
other.
Rosenbrock: Well, as far as I am concerned it wouldn't bother me otherwise
Mr. -Shultz: Anyone care to say enyting in favor of the proposed change of zone?
Victor Cutler: I don't think it would hurt anyting down there, but I don't know
I think I would vote neutral. I own land just above the ditch
Audience: How many houses does it allow to be built in this erea?
Mr. Shultz: Mr. Palmquist would you answer this man's question.
Mr. Palmquist: Mr. Chairman in the estate area the minimum lot size is 13,000
square feet. thats a little over 3 houses to the acre. There are
28.9 acres in the area.
Audience: Have they established anything to water?
Mr. Shultz: Mr. Palmquist do you have any information on this?
Mr. Palmquist: Mr. Chairman this is a request for a change in zone only. This
gentlemen over here mentioned about flooding . At the time they
bring in their subdivision in their preliminary they have to have
their -topography on two foot intervals so that we can see the
drainage of the land and in looking these over we take this into
consideration at the time the subdivision are set out, and if they
don't look right we have them changed to take care of th-e flooding
in other words we keep them from flooding other people. There have
been no subdivision presented, they can not present the subdivision
until they get this rezoned. At the present status it take a minimum
of 40 thousand square foot for a house in "A" Agricultural zone and
this is why they are asking for the change to Estate, so they can go
down to 13,000 square feet.
Mr. Shultz: Does anyone else have anything to say on behalf of the change of zone?
If not we will hear from those who are opposed to the change.
Earl Kline: My property adjoins this on the east and I definitely do not
want it changed for the simple reason I am afraid these people
are going to have water for these homes and I am afraid it will
impede my wells that I depend upon for my water supply. St will
also take the privacy away from my land , this is the reason I
bought the land to have privacy.
Mr. Shulta: Thank you Mr. Kline. Anyone else in opposition?
Charles Davis: I believe Mr. Kline covered the reasons why we are opposed and
as far as residential, when you get residential you don't get to
have livestock. We have all moved out into the country to have
a little livestock, and it will interfer there and with the water
and will cause a lot of problems
Mr. Shultz: Do you own property? Ss it adjacent to this land
Charles Davis: Yes sir to -the east of Klines.
Mr. Snodgrass: I represent the Monahan Farms. We have property adjacent to the
Rosenbacks to the west . The only objections that we would hav e
if these is any possibility of lowering the water table to where
we depend upon underground water to supply water for our horses
down there. We have a breeding farm and also for our irrigation
We have paddocks that we have to irrigate and if by chance they
anticipate sinking wells with the rezoning thus lowering the water
table we would definitely object to it. Other wise as far as the
houses are concerned the only question I would ask is what are the
restrictions in so far as an exclusive housing in so far as value
is concerned would it be shacks or what is the possibility there.
Mr. Shultz: Possibly Mr. Palmquist could answer your question.
Mr. Palmquist: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any specifications for these houses.
The reason they wanted Estate zoning was to get a better grade
of house, because a persons not going to buy 13,000 square feet
of land to put a ahack on . There was also some talk by Mr. Reed
that they would incorporate deed covenants. This we have to do
with but it is very often done. And certainly they will have to
have finance from someplace Tor the development of this and whoever
finances that will see that they are not putting their money into a
bunch of slums.
Mr. Shut : Thank you Roland. Anyone else in apposition. Now is tho time
to express your opinion -s we have to determine from what you tell
us in the hearing whether to approve what the Planning Commission
recommended or or reverse their decision.
Audience: As it is now they can only build one home per acre - is that right
in agriculture "A"
Mr. Shultz: That is right
Audience: If '_1. is zoned Estate it would be three per acre? That would make
quite a housing project down there wouldn't it. And they have to have
water - so say that would be at least 60 homes.
Mr. Shultz: How deep do you have to go for water there?
Audience: We had to go 320 feet that is for soft water.
Mr. Shultz: Does anyone else have anything to say about the rezoning? Since
there is opposition here - the only thing we can do is to take this
matter under advisement.
Mr. Dunbar: It all seems to boil down to a water problem
Audience: If they put that many houses in there could be a -sewage problem
Mr. Shultz: Is this rather flat land?
Audience: No, it slopes its almost a case of you losing your privacy
you have there now. There are no homes down there in fact there
are only a few farm homes there now. Its down on that County line road
5
There is nothing between there and the highway. It is going to mean
noisE and your privacy is going to be nil . We bought to be out
in the country and thats the way we would like to keep it as far
as I am concerned. We bought out there so we could be out and have
sheep, cows ar chickens or whatever we might want -to havt the area
is still zoned agricultural.
Mr. Shultz: How many acres do you each normally own?
Mr. Kline I have an acre and a half and Mr. Davis has an acre and a half
and tht other gentlemen he has better than two acres. He was not
notified. I can not understand how come these people were not
notified they are adjacent to the same property.
Mr. Shultz: I suppose there were more people adjacent than we were aware of
Quite a list of people were notified.
(Ire -checking the lists 10 persons were notified)
Mr. Richardson: This notification is not required by law however it is done as
a courtesy legally just publication is required
Mr. Shultz: This is true this personal notification is simply a courtesy
on our part. Legally all we have to do is to publish it in the
paper. We send it certified mail to the owner we know are adjacent
However we notified quite a few of you in a small area. Is there
anything else you would rare to bring up?
Mr. Kline: N9w with these pipeline what would happen there? If they should
get this all rezoned and get basements there and stuff. These
pipelines are underground I have two of them through there
I moved over there in 17 and they were there then , how long they
were there before that I don't know.
Do you happen to know if there is an easement where these pipelines
are?
No I don't
Mr. Shultz:
Mr. Kline:
Mr. Shultz:
If there was an easement they would not doubt be protected I don't
Mr. Richardson could you answer this quastion?
Mr. Richardson: Number -one they would be protected he doesn't have an easement but
has ueed it over 1$ years , you have established an easement by
usage so they would not violate these pipelines . Now if they
build a basement over them the pipeline would have to be constructed
so that it would nht have to be entered on that portion they build
over . you would be protected with your pipelines having been in
there this long of time.
Mr. Kline: The trouble is that hne line does not run Straight now the way that
was put in there ( he describedtheway in which the pipeline
reached his property)
Mr. Richardson: It is still alright - they can't violate the established pipeline
that you have . To illustrate if you know the Glemere area here
in Greeley, Colorado, this area -gr-ew up as this one is contemplated
and there i-s many pipelines there that the individual property owner
had and all of those lines have been protected through these many
years and I suppose that has been built up now for some 30 odd years.
But they have to follow the old pipeline that is already there and if
the house falls on top of it that particular line is - a new pipe
is put in to it woun't have to be entered after the basement is
put on so you would be protected.
Audience: tIn this development where they have to have all the septic tanks
and these leach fields wouldn't that be a health hazzard?
Mr. Richardson: Not necessiarly those are approved by the state at the time and
there are mn ny leaching fields and they must come out to those
meaning they
specifications before they can use them. RSxyymxare not -going
to have a seepage that would cause any health problems into your
water supply.
Mr. Palmquist: Along that line I made the statement of 13,000 square feet now
this is a mimimum and we can require percul-ation tests or whatever
6
the health department desires to Rrove that this grAonnd is capable
of handling a leach field of 13,000 sgtirare feet if it is not
then this 13,000 square foot automatically raises to whatever
is necessary. This is in the new regulations.
Audience: Have they had any perculation tests on the two houses that they
built on the property now?
Mr. Palmquist: This is no a subdivimion at the moment . As soon as they start
on the fi_fth one it is then a subdivision.
Audience: In other words they can build four houses in there .
Mr. Shultz: Is there sny more to come up in opposition to the change, if not
we will take the evidence here today under advisement and hope
to come to a decision very soon. Thank you all for coming in
and participating on the hearing today. The people askingfor
the change will get the notice. With that the hearing is closed.
Deputy County Clerk
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CASE NO.
APPLICATION OF E. -N. REED, WALTER GETTEL
ADDRESS -35-North 12th, Brighton, Colorado
Moved by Price Hopkins that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the
Weld County Planning Commission:
Be it Resolved hit the Weld County Planning Commission that the application
for rezoning from "A" Agricultur-al District to "E" (Estate District) of
E. N. Reed and Walter Gettel of the Fort Lupton Area covering the following
described property in Weld County, Colorado, to -wit:
A parcel of land, more particularly described as beginning at the Southwest
corner of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) Section 32, Township 1 North, Range
66 West of the 6th -P. M., Weld County, Colorado, thence North along the West
line of said Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 32, a distance of 1320.00
feet to a point being the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW -1/4)
of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32; thence East 990.0 feet, more of
less, parallel to the south line of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of said
Section 32, said_point being the center of theFulton Ditch; thence southerly
along the center line -of said Fulton Ditch; thence S09°OB'W, 55 feet; thence
S01°43'E, 490.0 feet; thence S08'02'E, 260.0 feet; then*S32°45'E, 185.0 feet;
thence SOZ°53'E, 110.0 feet; thence 45°26'W, 262.3 feet, to a point on the
South line of Southeast Quarter of said Section 32; thence West along the
South line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 32, a distance of 1068.25
feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning,
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by A. A. Tinn.
Vote:
For Passage: A. A. Tinn
John Watsons
Price Hopkins
George Mosier
Against Passage=: None
The Chairman declared the motion passed and ordered that a certified copy of this Reso-
lution be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for
further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Florence Cutler , Recording Secretary of Weld County Plan-
ning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is
a true copy of Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adop-
ted on .., January 4, 1965
, and -recorded in Book No. _...VII , Page No.
, of the proceedings of said Planning Commission.
Dated this 11th day of January
19..65 .
Recording Secretary, Weld County Planning Commission
NOTICE
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, THE WELD
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS AND CERTIFIES TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, THE APPROVAL OF
A REQUEST FOR REZONING IN THE FORT LUPTON AREA FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT TO "E" ESTATE DISTRICT, SAID PARCEL OF LAND MORE PARTICU-
LARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter
(SE) Section 32, Township 1 North, Range 66 West of the 6th
P,M., Weld County, Colorado: Thence N along the W line of said
SE4 of Section 32, a distance of 1320.0' to a point being the
NW corner of the SWkSE4 of said Section 32; thence E 990.0'
more or less, parallel to the S line of the SE -4 of said Section
32, said point being the center of the Fulton Ditch; thence
Sly along the center line of said Fulton Ditch; thence S 09°
03' W 55 '; thence S O1°43' E 490.0'; thence S 08°02' E 260.0';
thence S 32° 45' E 185.0'; thence S 02°53' E 110.0'; thence
S 15°26' W 262.3 fe-et to a point on the S line of SE4 of said
Section 32; thence W along the S line of said SE4 of Section
32, a distance of 1068.25', m/l, to the true point of
beginning:
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY COURT HOUSE, GREELEY, COLORADO ON
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1965 at 2:30 P. M.
DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1965.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY: ANN SPOMER
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Greeley Booster
Jan 29 - Feb 19
,3
r --
co
lead
co
M
M
Cz_
0
N
M
ez
co
O cc
cS
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -21
SENT TO //
STREET AND NO.
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -2',
SENT TO
STREET AND NO.
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -2
SENT TaiWtit
STREET AND NO.
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL—,
SENT TO
STREET AND NO.
/ ,.3 2-- /3
RECEIPT FORCERTIFIEDMAIL—:
SENT Ty ji . l
STREET AND NO.
/72 / S7-, V .. C r
CITY, STATTEEE. ANDZIP CODE
II � -y-osu wsXt a retu�eceipt, check which
L100 shows ❑ 350 shows to whom,
to whom when, and address
and when where delivered
delivered
FEES ADDITIONAL TO 20# FEE
If you `I
delivery
to addr
check M
5061
1 Y[[Q, Clirtu i Et
QShow address where
delivered
wind* triers senior)
er stde.
DE . _mei& tt
address where
yliivereedd < -
nuntitered art➢Ck:detutbed.dn. drher .ride...
Ir Mania (ewe Owns Si IMO In):.
r
I O S Iii .utl( V [�litMV Letts 1.41..,.
address where
ionat'rwwrja0' riVighted fir r units)
ROMS
nugbgq4' sell* eniribed. on.orher side.
e, 2_
&ix
co
N
M
co
zyy
Ln
N
M
O
St
co
z
Cy
M
N
Co
O
oo
C
z
C-�
N
co
O
co
C
z
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -20¢
SENT TO
STREET ANO N0.
/Z.)
CITY. STATE, AND ZIP C9 DE
((you wads return redCpt, check which
I f I00 shows 17350 shows to whom,
I to whom when, and address
and when where delivered
delivered
FEES ADDITIONAL TO 206 FEE
e
If you 'want
delivery only.,,
to addressee;
check here
SO►!M
PROVIDE
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MA1L-20¢
SENT TO
/12 72%s7L,L
STREET AND NO.
2<J
CITY ;55I6TE, AND jIP CODE
if you wanta rat
❑100 shows
to whom
and
when
delivered
FEES ADDITIONAL TO 206 FEE 5061ee
POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVInen—
Le,, mn
receipt, check which If you want
350 shows to whom, delivery only
when, and address to addressee,
where delivered check here
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MA1L-20
SENT TO
STRE .T AND NO. I{
CITY. STATE, AND ZIP CODE �pp
.e- itx, C�'kw--1
if you ant a return receipt, check which
lot shows ❑ 350 shows to whom,
to whom when, and address
and when where delivered
delivered
FEES ADDITIONAL TO900 FEE
If you 'want '.
delivery only ,
to addressee, ill
check here
504 fee i
POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED —
July 1963 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -20¢
SE N 0
STREET AND NO,
CITY. STATE, AND ZIP CODE
If you wa Kt a return receipt, check which If you 'want s
rilot shows ❑ 350 shows to whom, delivery only
to whom when, and address to addressee,
and when where delivered check here
delivered
FEES ADDITIONAL TO 206 FEE O sot 6e
POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED —
July 1963 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -20¢
SENF TO _i, /'pli 4
STREET AND NO.
/ ,yam .--7j /-
CITY. STATE, AND ZIP
fly�M a return receipt, check which
❑100 shows ❑ 350 shows to whom,
to whom when, end address
and when where delivered
delivered
FEES ADDITIONAL TO 200 FEE
If you -want Pi
delivery only
to addressee,
check here
506 fee
POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED —
July 1963 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
C
Hello