The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About680021.tiff;y. +od° 784 Recorded at „) o cl,�. k ...I .-..Nir�'.".^." <' .1 _ 1976 RESOLUTIONec. N170646m a Mary Mn Feuerstein, Recordn 2-, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Wednesday, November 6, 1968, at 2:00 P, M, , in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, for the purpose of hearing the petition of Iris Corporation and George Mosier, Rt. 3, Box 181, Greeley, Colorado, re- questing a change of zone concerning three parcels of land and designated on plat as follows, to -wit: No. 1: TRACT A - from "E" Estate. District to "5" Scientific District; No. 2: TRACT B - from "A" Agricultural District and "E" Estate District to "H" High Density Residential District; No. 3: TRACT C - from "A" Agricultural District to "R" Residen- tial District, and WHEREAS, the petitioners were present and represented by counsel, Ed Venable, and WHEREAS, there was some opposition to the changes of zone, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has studied the request of the petitioners and studied the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission as submitted, and having been fully informed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, that the petitions of Iris Corporation and George Mosier for changes of zone concerning the following three parcels of land, to -wit: No. 1: TRACT A - from "E" Estate District to "5" Scientific District; No. 2: TRACT B - from "A" Agricultural District and "E" Estate District to "H" High Density Residential District; No, 3: TRACT C - from "A" Agricultural District to "R" Residen- tial District; said parcels being more particularly described as follows: TRACT A: A tract of land located in the SWI of Section 10, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner (SWCor) of said Section 10; thence North 88° 08' 30" East, along the South line of said Section 10, 1, 312 feet, more or less, to a point on the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SEkSW4) of said Section 10; thence North 00° 23' 00" West 920 feet, more or less; thence South 89° 18' 00" West, 1, 310 feet, more or less, to a point on the West line of Section 10; thence South 00° 19' 30" East, 920 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning, containing 27.7 acres more or less. TRACT B: A tract of land located in the WI of said Section 10, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest 680021 IOC, G123 4'"" 784 1706466 Corner (SWCor) of said Section 10; thence North 00° 19' 30" West, along the West line of said Section 10, 920 feet, more or less, to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing North 00° 19' 30" West, along the West line of said Section 10, 3, 830 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said West line and the North line of the City of Greeley Water Line Ease- ment; thence Southeasterly, along the Northerly line of said City of Greeley Water Line Easement, 640 feet, more or less, to a point which lies 566 feet East of the West line of said Sec- tion 10; thence South 00° 19' 30" East, along the line which is parallel to and 566 feet as measured at right angles to the West line of said Section 10, 3, 125 feet, more or less, to a point which lies 1, 320 feet North of the South line of the West Half (WI) of the said Section 10; thence East parallel to and 1, 320 feet as measured at right angles to the South line of the West Half (WI) of said Section 10, 2, 060 feet, more or less, to a point on the East line of the West Half (WZ) of said Section 10; thence South, along the East line of the West Half (WD of said Section 10, 400 feet; thence West, 2, 626 feet, more or less, to the True Point of Beginning containing 66.4 acres more or less. TRACT C: A tract of land located in the WZ of said Section 10, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Center Corner of said Section 10; thence South, along the East line of the West Half (WI-) of said Section 10, 1, 275 feet, more or less, to a point which lies 1, 320 feet North of the South Quar- ter Corner (SWCor) of said Section 10; thence West 2, 060 feet, more or less, to a point which lies 566 feet East of the West line of said Section 10; thence North parallel to and 566 feet as measured at right angles to the West line of said Section 10, 2, 130 feet, more or less, to the Southwest Corner (SWCor) of a tract of land owned by the City of Greeley; thence North 89° 50' 40" East, 750 feet; thence South 00° 12' 50" East, 801.86 feet; thence South 89° 50' 50" East, 1, 307. 58 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 74.0 acres, more or less; are hereby granted under the conditions following: 1. That any water and sanitation facilities to be installed shall be ap- proved by the State Health Department. 2. All applicable subdivision regulations and zoning regulations shall be followed and complied with to the satisfaction of the Board of County Com- missioners, Weld County, Colorado. 3. Subject to the Greeley Code of Ordinances, providing that the de- veloper shall comply with all the rules and regulations of the City of Greeley relating to drainage outside the city limits, including the payment of drainage fees. 4. That said changes of zone herein granted are conditional only for a period of twelve months from date hereof, on condition that developer proceed with due diligence to begin development of the areas rezoned and submits plans for such development for approval of the Weld County Planning Commis- sion. -2- ?Pd.' 784 Dated this 11th day of December, 1968. ATTEST: County Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: 17C6466 3-3 /l [1171-f7/ Al-rtier-1/ Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado -3- November 6, 1968 I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated October 2, 1968, duly published October 4 and November 1, 1968, a public hearing was had on a petition for Change of Zone, from "E" Estate District to "S" Scientific District, as submitted by the Iris Corporation and George Mosier, at the time and place specified in said notice. The evidence presented at said hearing was taken under advisement, the decision to be made at a later date. > ATTEST: V"„'; -'' s; v.2.--4—✓ County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado (3tporatbn k e Mosier toe.3: Box 181 Omelet, Colorado Date: NOvestter 6, 1988 'flue: ZOO P.,P1 Regrew** 410e. Of Zone from "rB4tate District to "°S" Scien- Apart of the _W1/2 of $cation 10, S North, Range 86 West Tract A: A tract of land lo- cited in the SW'k of ..said Section 10 being more partial- lady- described as follows: ding at the Southwest Cotter {SWCar) of said Sec- tion .10; Thence North 88' 08' 30" East, along the. South line of said Section 10, 1,312 feet. DOCKET NO. 47 10, to the Ifni City Ease- steely, line o€ Water C,.. more. tgt, whichlies East' of the West line f said Section.: 10; Thence 'Eouth.SO° 19' 30" East along the line which is parallel to and 566 feet as measured at right angles to the West line ct said Section 10, 3,125 feet, more or less, to b po4nt which lies 1,324 feet North of the South line of the West Half (W3i) of the said Section 10;. Thence East parallel to and • IS feet as maridiF00 at right. angles to the S4eu(h,.line of the West Half- 41Y ) ` Of said See - tied 10, 2,060 :feet, More or, to a point on the East of the W"ere$alf (W#) of said Section 10; Thence South, along the plant line of the West Half (W)4) of said Section 10, 410 feet; ..Thence West 2,625 feet more or less,"fs the This Pith*. of .Begimde-containing: 61.4 acres nil.. DOCKET NO. 48 Date: November 6,-1968 Date: November 6,,.1968 Dane: 2:15 P. M. !tamest: Change of Zone from "A" Agriculture District to "E" Este District and "HD" High Density District Tract B:A tract of land lo- cated in the WSi of Said Sec- tion 10, more particularly de- scribed as follows: Commencing at the Southwest Came (SWeor) of said Sec- too 88;. Thence North o0" i5' 3W 1 a aies�{ tits West line •e ASS Et sa Niesentianielleetneellielit Section 10, 1,275 feet, more less, to a point which lies 1,320 feet North of the South Quar- tet Corner (S'.Cor)of .said Section 10; Thence: Wed, 2,060 feet, more or less, to a point which lies 566 (eeriest of the West line of said Section 10; Thence North4.:parallel to and 566 feet as measured at right angles to the West fine of said Section 10, 2,130 feet, more or less, to the Southwest Corner (SWCer) of a tract of land owned by the City of Greeley; fleece North 10° @0' W East, 750 feet; Tffieace.jwatt It 12' Of Earl, 8M:86 ; Terence South 89° 50' 50" Eat. 1,397.58 to the Point of 'Beginning. ainiag 74.0 °a my Colorado. rrr/I Weld Sided: October 2, 1968 THE BOARD OP. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO By: ANN ASIAN* tOUNTif CL'.EIDE.AND RECORDER AND CLERK TD THE BOARD NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing will be held in the Office of The Board Of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Court House, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the following proposed change of zone are requested to attend any may be heard. DOCKET NO 46 DATE: November 6, 1968 TIME: 2:00 P. M. Iris Corporation & George Mosier Route 3 Box 181 Greeley, Colorado REQUEST: Change of Zone From "E" Estate District to "S" Scientific District A part of the W2: Section 10, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. Tract A: A tract of land located in the SW* of said Section 10 being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the SW Corner of said Section 10; Thence North 88° 08' 30" East, along the South line of said Section 10, 1,312 feet, more or less, to a point on the West line of the SEkSWk of said Section 10; Thence North 00° 23' 00" West 920 feet m/1; Thence South 89° 18' 00" West, 1,310 feet m/1 to a point on the West line of said Section 10; Thence South 00° 19' 30" East, 920 feet, m/1 to the Point of Beginning. Containing 27.7 acres m/1 DOCKET NO 47 DATE: November 6, 1968 TIME: 2:15 P. M. REQUEST: Change of Zone From "A" Agriculture District to "E" Estate District and "HD" High Density District Tract B: A tract of land located in the WZ of Said Section 10, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the SW corner of said Section 10; Thence North 00° 19' 30" West, along the West line of said Section 10, 920 feet, m/1, to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing North 00° 19' 30" West, along the West line of said Section 10, 3,830 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said West line and the North line of the City of Greeley Water Line Easement; Thence Southeasterly, along the Northerly line of said City of Greeley Water Line Easement, 640 feet, moreor less, to a point which lies 566 feet East of the West line of said Section 10; Thence South 00° 19' 30" East, along the line which is parallel to and 566 feet as measured at right angles to the West line of said Section 10, 3,125 feet, more or less, to a point which lies 1,320 feet North of the South line of the Wz of the said Section 10; Thence East parallel to and 1,320 feet as measured at right angles to South line of the WZ of said Section 10, 2060 feet, m/1 to a point on the East line of the Wk of said Section 10; Thence South, along the East line of the WZ of said Section 10, 400 feet; Thence West, 2,626 feet, m/1 to the True Point of Beginning containing 66.4 acres m/1. DOCKET NO 48 DATE: TIME: November 6, 1968 2:30 P. M. REQUEST: Change of Zone From "A" Agriculture District to "R" Residential District Tract C: A tract of land located in the Wf of said Section 10, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the center corner of said Section 10; Thence South, along the East line of the W2 of said Section 10, 1,275 feet, m/l, to a point which lies 1,320 feet North of the South Quarter Corner of said Section 10; Thence West, 2,060 feet, m/1 to a point which lies 566 feet East of the West line of said Section 10; Thence north paralled to and 566 feet as measured at right angles to the West line of said Section 10, 2,130 feet, mote or less, to the SW corner of a tract of land owned by the City of Greeley; Thence North 89° 50' 40" East, 750 feet; Thence South 00° 12' 50" East, 801.86 feet; Thence South 89° 50' 50" East, 1,307.58 feet to Point of Beginning, containing 74.0 acres m/1 Weld County, Colorado. DATED: OCTOBER 2, 1968 To Be Published in the Greeley Booster October 6 8 November 1, 1968 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: ANN SPOMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD Harry ,Roth Sec. 4. • V .: t 0, ' O' i b, Western • Slope Gas I,M.Allison ec. 16- _ Geo. Mosier City ,of Greeley Sec. Four —M Corp oration, Inc. . 5 c ale l"m 500 Ownership -Map Orewirdzincaremmaimmtaggirdier,.isior W. 2 0th. S t -.- Roy Lundvall ) C.I.G I . G -- — _ — — — — • i City of Greeley E,A \I Grace Howard Wunsch • Sec.' 10 lT.5Nil' R.66W. filrAMPZIPWillIDAMPOINgrAlrolArialk G.A.t,ft B.O.F,lnc. ro lal J4 2 Z A tea Elmer Lunldvall J C 0 e. Sec.. 45 BEFORE E WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNIK .;MISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS #37 Case No. Z-113 Date "n t. ?h., ia63 APPLICATION OF I j,5..aorpora ion .r^„nd..:t.?ar Address 3, 3ox 131 ,.. �r> �a .,.. olo., Moved by Leonard 3'rteZs that the following resolution be introduced fc::pas -- sage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for rezoning from - ( ,state District to ( Scientific District) of of covering the following described property in Weld County, Coloraao, to -wit: ?'ract "`_" loca :3d in tha So'.zth:.rest z-rb. -) , H,e,Aio l _'en (10), Co,;Lshin rive (5) i•:ortb, itan e Sixty-six (66) ';cyst o`' the 6t,h P. ... cunt? ir,tn? 27.7 acres r:ore or less. See attch?d description. be recommended (favorably) t.6uiti i rt ' it ) to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: To he zoned conditionally for 12 months - no objection at the Public An -)ears to be in line with Mood olanri.n;. Motion seconded by inrold-rd.er son Vote: For Passage: Leonard 'cartels John ':ratcon i r�l:a ;`nderson Against Passage: to rir;r.. The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and cordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. PC -Z-005 CERTIFICATION OF COPY Dorothy Hill , Recording Secretary of Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on . 2., 1903, and recorded in Book No. - , Page No. , of the proceedings of said Planning Commission. PC -Z-006 Dated this 24th day of f 19 63 Recording Secretary, eld County Planning Commission BEFORE .c WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNI] :OMMISSION f ,. RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No. 2-113 Date So t•. o), i9„ -z APPLICATION OF Address iris Corporation and Cearee Mosier fet ft. 3, Box 131, eley, Colo. Moved by Leonard lcrtels that the following resolution be introduced fo::pasa sage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for rezoning from A (A;riculture District to ( iState3 District) and RD (Hivh Density-) ;mix covering the following described property in Weld County, Coloraao, to -wit: Tract "3" location in the Southwest „carter ), Section. yen (10), U -oshiu five (5) Lorth, Tf3 ; e Sixtv--xix (66) ',St of the 6th P. ..., old County, containin; b6J acres .lore or less. See attached description.. be recommended (favorably) (i xf o: fx) to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: To be zoned conditionally for 12 months, the developer to submit plans for the development of the zone for the approval of the Plannin7 Commission. Motion seconded by $arold._Anderson Vote: For Passage: Leonard Bertols Against Passage: -John 'a:t.so-n Jaro ld.. Anderson The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and cordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. PC -Z-005 CERTIFICATION OF COPY Jr'r°''r`'' ill , Recording Secretary of Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on t. ?1t, 1963 e and recorded in Book No. IT, Page No. , of the proceedings of said Planning Commission. Dated this 2uth day of 3)t. , 19 63 <9,Z ),A' Recording Secretar PC -Z-006 Weld County Planning Commission BEFORE IE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNI. COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No. 7-113 Date 9/2h/63 APPLICATION OF Iris GGroorotloheandileorzeedioaLur Address it. 3, Sox 131, Greeley, Jolo. Moved by Leonard ,artels that the following resolution be introduced fo:_pas- sage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for rezoning from A ( A_ricelture District to : ( tosidential District) of of covering the following described property in Weld County, Colorado, to -wit: Frost ":1 ion' hod in too Jo'1t} ..ost ixarter (m {) of ieotLon _en (1)), owr:shis live ('�H) 'iJort-1, 7zn ,e ,sixty - L( ( (66) lesb )-' the 6th M. .L, eld :ounty, J osorodo. oat irLLnf ?t.G acres pore or less. Sec att: ,'ned ie.sorLotion. be recommended (favorably) (ixtylavogca4YEy) to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1'o he zoned conditionally for 12 months - no opposition at the ouolic he.arinz and annears to he in line with 'food elannirs;. Motion seconded by Vote: For Passage: Harold Anderson Leonard E;rtels John '.iatson Harold Anderson Against Passage: The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and cordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. PC -Z-005 CERTIFICATION OF COPY oroth. 'sill , Recording Secretary of Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on ,t. 2U, 1363 and recorded in Book No. I , Page No. , of the proceedings of said Planning Commission. Dated this 24th day of r `)t. , 19 3. Recording Secretary, 4k1d County Planning Commission PC -Z-006 September 17, 1968 - 11. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTED.. Motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Rapp to acce, with regret, the resignation of Mrs. Dorothy Moomaw and to appo,. . Virginia Pettibone. This term expires November, 1969. By voice vote, motion was unanimously approved. 12. DISCUSSION OF EXTENSION OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL CONTRACT WITH MONFORT PACKING COMPANY. Motion by Councilman Hall, seconded by Councilman Rucker to =•uthoriza the City Manager to notify Monfort Packing Company of the term- ination of their present contract and authorize the Public +works Committee and City Administration to meet with Monfort to negotiate a new contract. By voice vote, motion was unanimously approved. 13. MEMO FROM JIM ROBENSTEIN CONCERNING POSSIBLE REVISION Cr SECTION 7-2.11 OF THE GREELEY CODE OF ORDINANCES. This matter was referred to the Public .Yorks Committee to meet with City Administration and report back at the next meeting. 14. PETITION FROM EASTMAN KODAK FOR WATER SUPPLY FROM :HE GREELEY. No action was taken but a special meeting will be held Friday. September 20, 1968 at 7:30 P.M. 15. LETTERS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS NEST OF GREELEY CONCERNING PROTECTION. Motion by Councilman Rapp, seconded by Councilman Hyde to author__ City Administration to proceed to canvas property owners for a fire protection district dest of the city limits between Hig.-iway 3" and Highway 34 Bypass. By voice vote, motion was unanir,ous../ approved. 16. MEMO FROM RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONCERNING NEED FOR FU:,.)S F`F YOUNG AMERICAN FOOTBALL EQUIPMENT. Motion by Councilman Hall,. seconded by Councilman Hyde to appro.,a t:e request for $1125 with the funds to be appropriated at a later date. By voice vote, motion was unanimously approved. 17. PETITION REQUESTING FORMATION OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 322 FOP. CURB, GUTTER AND PAVING ON 19TH AVENUE BETWEEN 2ND AND 4TH STREETS. Motion by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Rucker to i..;. t the petition and authorize City Administration to prepare the necessary ordinance. By voice vote, motion was unanimously approved. /18. REQUEST BY GEORGE MOSIER TO SIGN PETITION CONCERNING ZONING IN HIGHLAND HILLS. Motion by Councilman Hall, seconded by Councilman Rapp to aprove the request and authorize the proper city officials to sign the petition. By voice vote, motion was unanimously approved. HAROLD W. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN JOHNSTOWN EDWARD L. DUNBAR, CHAIRMAN PRO-TEM 1229 29RD AVENUE CT.. GREELEY MARSHALL H. ANDERSON, MEMBER 2412 8TH AVENUE, GREELEY SAMUEL S. TELEP COUNTY ATTORNEY ANN SPOMER, COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF BOARD PHONE 339-2212 EXT. 21 r CO E LID. ON"Ty V WC0L0RAD0 \1 OFFICE of THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS epee Lev, co Lo. October 31, 1968 Max L. Wiseman, President W. B. Livestock Company, Inc. 1513 Meade Street Denver, Colorado 80204 Dear Mr. Wiseman: Re: Pt. SWg': Section 10 Township 5 North Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. Weld County, Colorado In reply to your letter of October 25, 1968, please be advised that the hearing concerning zoning of Mr. George .Aosier's land hereby referred to, in a copy of said notice, will be held on November 6, 1968 at the hour of 2:00 P. M. in the Office of The Board of County Commissioners, County Court House, Greeley, Colorado. You may be present at this hearing if you so desire and voice your objection thereat. SST/wa encl. Sincerely, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO By: K,,L! Chairman October 25, 1968 County Commissioners Court House Greeley, Colorado Weld County Planning Commission Services Building Greeley, Colorado Re: Gentlemen: Hearing on change of zone for Pt. SW/4 Sec. 10 Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County Some time ago Mr. George Mosier, circulating a petition concerning a proposed rezoning of his land, obtained the signature on such petition of Mr. Al Wiseman. This letter is to clarify the position of the undersigned with regard to the above rezoning and the signature of Al Wiseman on the petition for same. In obtaining Mr. Wiseman's signature, Mr. Mosier did not indicate the full extent of the rezoning program which he is attempting to obtain. Certain aspects of that program as it relates to abutting land has now be- come known to us and it is incumbent upon us to advise you that this information was not conveyed to Mr. Wiseman by Mr. Mosier. For this reason, Mr. Wiseman's signature is hereby retracted from any petition which he might have signed for the above rezoning. In addition, one further point must be made. Mr. Wiseman is not the owner of any land abutting on the above referred to real property. He is an officer of the undersigned corporation and, in his individual capacity, County Commissioners and Weld County Planning Commission Page 2 October 25, 1968 has no authority to sign petitions of this type on be- half of the corporation. In conclusion, we would add, that as an abut- ting land owner we do object and hereby formally offer our objection to the proposed rezoning for the real property described above. Very sincerely yours, W. B. LIVESTOCK CO., INC. By: `4/ Max L. mlh iseman, President TRAFTON BEAN & ASSOCIATES 737 29TH STREET, BOULDER, COLORADO, 80302 December 6, 1968 Mr. Sam Telep Weld County Attorney Greeley, Colorado Dear Sam: PLANNING CONSULTANTS 303, 442-6654 Attached you will find an outline concerning typical storm drainage studies as prepared by William McDowell, a civil engineer in Boulder. The content of this should be complete enough for the Weld County Commissioners to include in their resolution regarding the subdivision and zoning of George Mosier's property. Also, as you will realize, this same outline might be followed in other areas of proposed development where information about storm drainage may be needed. The general content of McDowell's outline should be forwarded to engineers representing land developers. The engineers would then respond through their own investigations as to how specific problems of storm drainage are to be handled on a given property, or where certain normal information is not re- quired, the developers' engineers should explain why such data are not applicable to a particular tract. Following this report by the developer's engineer, county officials should then either accept the information submitted by the land owner's engineer as being sufficient and require bonding for certain indicated improvements; or county officials might wish to have their own engineering consultant first review the specific material presented. This procedure by the county for a particular phase of engineering would correspond with present practice regarding planning. The county, with planning advice, establishes various standards and criteria for development. A land owner hires his planner (who may be an engineer) to propose a plan or suggested rezoning for a specific property. To review each proposal, the county then has their own planning consultant react to such proposals and to make recommendations to the county planning commission and board of county commissioners before official action is taken. cc: John Watson, Chairman, Planning Commission William McDowell, Engineer WILLIAM B. McDOWELL & ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers 900 28th Street Suite 5 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Samuel R. Smith and Allen G. Wassenoar, Associates December 6, 1968 Trafton Bean & Associates 737 29th Street Boulder, Colorado Attention: Trafton Bean Gentlemen: Phone 444-3051 We are transmitting with this letter ten (10) copies of the storm drainage design criteria which we recommend. Some of the larger cities and more urban counties have established more detailed requirements and more sophisticated methods are available. We believe that if an engineer is assigned the task of providing satisfactory storm drainage, he must consider all of the requirements outlined and would not consider his work complete if he did less. The Drainage Study report required is a record of the engineer's work. It allows checking, and is a permanent record to be used in connection with other development in the area. If you have any questions concerning the above, please call. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. MCDOWELL & ASSOCIATES WBM:ck Enclosures By fi+.�%e.-!,qtr %S r=f G; ,,.._.LAC. William B. McDowell, P.E. & L.S. STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR URBAN AREAS INTRODUCTION When a change in land use, such as a new subdivision, is contemplated, the development must include provisions for storm water. Consideration must be given to: a. Storm water entering the development area from higher parts of the drainage basin. b. Providing protection for pedestrians, vehicles, property and other uses of the area. c. Proper routing of storm water through the development and into acceptable channels. In the event the development causes additional discharge downstream, special provisions may be necessary to care for the additional quantities or velocities created. In addition to providing vehicular paths, streets also perform the important function of carrying storm water. The street cross section having a crown near the center and a curb and gutter at the edges is designed at least in part to provide driving lanes which are not in- undated during normal rainfall and channelization of water for crossing by pedestrians without inconvenience. The purpose of storm sewers, and minor and major open drainage channels, is to relieve the water concentration in street gutters when it becomes sufficiently inconvenient or hazardous to vehicular or pedes- trian traffic or where property damage may result. In this design Storm Drainage Design Criteria for Urban Areas Page 2 criteria, it is being assumed that complete filling of gutters to full curb height should not occur more frequently than an average of once every two and one-half years. If gutters are not capable of carrying the water from a 2} -year storm, an additional storm drainage system must be provided. STORM DRAINAGE STUDY Any land use change which must be approved by County authorities shall consider the influence of storm water:La:When, in the opinion of the authorities having jurisdiction, a storm drainage study is necessary, the proponents of the development shall provide a storm drainage study and report prepared by a professional, engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The report shall include the following: 1. An area map to a scale not less than one inch equals 2,000 feet showing the entire drainage area involved and the development area. The map shall include the downstream area to a point where the storm water is discharged into natural major drainage channels. A U.S.G.S. quandrangle map is usually suitable for this purpose. 2. A detailed plan of the development proposed showing: a. Location, size, percent slope, direction of slope and runoff factor for land areas within or adjacent to the development contributing to channelized flow as used in the design cal- culations. b. Location and direction of flow of drainage channels. Storm Drainagt riteria for Urban Areas Page 3 c. Slope of drainage channels at strategic locations. d. Location and amount of channelized water entering the development area from upper reaches of the drainage basin. Both present and estimated future flows for a fully developed basin should be included. e. Location of proposed storm sewers, inlets, culverts, bridges, and other drainage structures. 3. Design calculations and verbal description which show that storm water is being cared for according to the following basic criteria. a. Street gutters may be allowed to carry storm water to the full height of the curb. b. Storm water in excess of that which may be carried in curb and gutter channels from the discharge of a 24 -year storm shall be carried in storm sewers or other apjroved drainage channels. c. Drop inlets and other hydraulic structures removing water from curb and gutter channels shall be designed to accommodate the flow from a 5 -year storm. d. Circular and box culverts at locations where ponding or overflow of the roadway section will not endanger life or cause property damage shall be designed for a 5 -year storm. e. Storm sewers shall be designed to carry runoff from a 2} -year storm. f. In areas where inundation or roadway overtopping will create a substantial hazard to pedestrians, vehicles or property, culverts and storm inlets shall be designed for a 10- or 25 -year storm. Storm Drainage Design Criteria for Urban Areas Page 4 g. Large culverts, those carrying 200 to 500 cubic feet per second shall be designed for a 50 -year storm. h. Bridges and culverts carrying an excess of 500 cubic feet per second shall be designed for a 100 -year storm unless special provisions can be made for safe overtopping and/or inundation. i. Curb and gutter sections, together with the street pavement form a triangular or trapezoidal shaped channel. Their carrying capacity shall be computed using Manning's formula or other approved methods. An "n" value of 0.016 shall be utilized unless special conditions exist. Where on -street parking is permitted, an empirical decrease in the channel carrying capacity shall be made by decreasing the channel width on the curb side by 1 foot. j. Where earth -lined drainage channels are contemplated, water velocities shall not exceed those given in the table below for the types of soils involved. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOIL TYPE VELOCITY (FT/SEC) Fine sand or silty fine sand (Non -colloidal) 2.5 Fine sandy silt (Non -colloidal) 3.0 Silts (Non -colloidal) 3.5 - Clayey silts 4.0 Fine gravel, stiff clay, mixtures of silts and cobbles 5.0 Coarse gravel, shales and hard pan 6.0 Storm Drainage Design Criteria for Urban Areas Page 5 k. Runoff shall be calculated on the basis of the Rational formula and method, unless thorough comprehensive study has allowed the development of unit graphs especially prepared for the vicinity. Methods other than the Rational method are subject to the approval of the authorities having jurisdiction. 1. Easements, special setbacks, or dedications shall be provided to enable maintenance and/or future improvement of open channels. The width provided should be based on the estimated requirements for an open channel which can carry runoff from a 25- to 50 -year storm when the entire drainage basin has been developed. 4. The report shall contain information describing the effect storm water being carried through the development has on properties downstream. It must be understood that the Storm Drainage Design Criteria set forth above includes only minimum requirements: The developer and his engineers are encouraged to use good engineering practice and judgment in storm drainage design. Where special conditions exist which might create unusual hazards, the authorities having jurisdiction may require more conservative design standards. TO PETITIONERS FOR CHANGE OF ZONING WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Answers to the following questions must be submitted in writing with your petition re- questing a change of zoning. It is necessary that the planning Commission have these answers to act on your petition. 1. Is it impractical, impossible, or undesirable to develop the land according to its current zoning classification. 2. Would the proposed rezoning benefit the entire County by allowing a type of develop- ment which is needed and cannot locate in other parts of the County. 3. Would the proposed rezoning benefit lands adjoining the area requesting the change. 4. What features apply to the property requesting rezoning which make it logical to re- zone this tract and not to rezone in a similar manner surrounding properties which may have like land use characteristics. 5. Why are other areas in the County already zoned according to the requested classi- fication, unsuitable for the development which is proposed. 6. What proof of evidence is available that the original zoning is faulty or that changing conditions in the area justify rzzoning at this time. 7. Please submit Economic or other evidence that the area covered by the petition, needs additional Commercial or Business in the area. (To be answered on changes requested for Business or Commercial). S. Give some evidence of the proposed business or commercial enterprises that are to locate in the requested area and a tentative sime schedule for construction. (To be answered on Changes requested for Business or Commercial). 9. Signs must be returned to this office in good condition at the time of the Public Hearing. PC - Z-003 EXHIBIT "B" ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REQUESTING CHANGE OF ZONE 1. In 1961 this area was zoned Agriculture in order to keep out any undesirable degrading developments such as junk yards. Today the time has arrived when this land can be put to better use, namely High Density, Scientific, and Residential Development which will enhance the entire area. 2. This would benefit the whole county because all of the necessary utilities such as roads, gas, water, power and sewage systems are affiliated with this property. Property is adjacent to the only presently zoned " S" Greeley area with a business in operation. 3. Yes. See attached exhibit "A". property in the 4. A part of this is waste dry land and is not in production. By the requested change of zone, better land use can be obtained for a portion of this property, and it is justifiable by the progress and development of this area. 5. There are no other areas in the county that have been or are being proposed in a Planned Unit Development. 6. The original zoning was not faulty, but conditions have been changed in the last seven years to justify rezoning. 7. No Business or Commercial requested. 8. No Business or Commercial requested. Mailing Address PETITION SUPPORTING REZONING Board of County Commissioners of -Weld County, Colorado Court House �)� Greeley, Colorado �/ Gentlemen: George Mosier and Iris Investment Inc., Contract Purchase s We, the undersigned owners of property located within 500 feet of the property described in the rezoning application submitted by , hereby petition you to grant this rezoning request and to change the Zoning District Map so that the property involved shall be rezoned from E & A Zoning District to R. H & S Zoning District. Signature ec/t it_e,ke4,417 a-Yee-a/5-kt_ J/ n Vic K fi!-G //J T /r/�/,ms's f�i (_i�.L�t (� Description of Property sii Ai g - 75/ti--66w' .."/4--(/11"--4-11.-6. -- "/4(/V E fLSF1q /2l-3 1.37, 0 ,a.cz PC - 7-002 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PETITION OF GEORGE MOSIER AND IRIS CORPORATION CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST PIN. Wi-: Section 10, Township 5 North Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. Weld County, Colorado APPEARANC ES: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAROLD W. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN EDWARD L. DUNBAR MARSHALL H. ANDERSON SAMUEL S. TEL 'P, COUNTY ATTORNEY APPLICANT GEORGE MOSIER WILLIAM ASPINWALL, IRIS CORPORATION ED VENABLE, ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT JOHN HALEY, PRESIDENT NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON AND QUIRK ENGINEERING FIRM CLARANCE SITZMAN, LANDOWNER GLEN BECHTOLD, OWNER HIGHLAND NURSERY JOE MURPHY, MEMBER AMERICAN LEGION HENRY STENCIL, LANDOWNER PROTESTANT MR. ALBERT WISEMAN MR. MAX WISEMAN MR. KENNETH L. STAR, ATTORNEY FOR PROTESTANT WELD COUNTY PL VNING COMMISSION MR. JOHN WATSON, CHAIRMAN MR. D. S. MOORE, EMPLOYEE Harold Anderson: Mr. Telep: V/e will call this meeting to order. This meeting was called at the request of Mr. George Mosier for the change of zone of certain lands west of the City of Greeley. At This time we will turn the hearing over to the County Attorney who will read the report from the Planning Commission. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let the record show that this matter came on for a hearing on November 6, 1968 at the hour of 2:00 P. M. on the application of Iris Corporation and Mr. George Mosier of Route 3 Box 181, Greeley, Colorado. The request of change of zone on three parcels or tracts of land. Tract "A" being a request to change the zone from " E" Estate District to " S" Scientific District and being describes as a tract of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., and more particularly described in metes and bounds containing 27 acres more or less and as has been published as required by law. A change of zone of Tract B from "A" Agricultural District to "E" Estate District and "HD" High Denisty District and being described as being located in the West Half of Section 10, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. and more particularly described in metes and bounds and containing 66.4 acres more or less and as published as required by law. Tract C requesting a change of zone from "A" Agricultural to "R" Residential District and said Tract "C" beirg a tract of land located in the West Half of Section 10, Township 5 North Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. and more particularly described in metes and bounds, and containing 74.0 acres more or less and as published. Let the record further show that request for the change of these three tracts - A,B, and C as heretofore mentioned. Said publication was published in the Greeley Booster on October 6 and November 1, 1968. Let the record further show that the petitioners, Iris Corporation and George Mosier - George Mosier is present in person and is represented by counsel Mr. Ed Venable. Let the record further show that anyone present at this hearing will have an opportunity to be heard and state to the Board after taking a proper oath, as to why you are in favor or against the granting of these petitions or the trhee parcels that are to be rezoned from the present zone to the zones that are applied for. Mr. Chairman you may start and you may ask the petitioner or his counsel to present their case or make a statement. Harold Anderson: We will at this t ime turn it over to Mr. Mosier who is making a request for this change, or to his representative. Mr. Venable: Thank you Mr. Chairman, gentlemen you have the application of the petitioner before you and of course they have been read by Mr. Telep and I think they are clear and in proper form and having been published properly they need no further explanation. I will tender to the members of the Commission the answers to questions previously submitted to the petitioners. In addition to that I will enter the petitions in support of the application for rezoning. Each of these applies to all parcels as they have been described by Mr. Telep. We will also tender the formal map of this. I would ask the members of the Commission to take note that on this small map attacehd to the main exhibit there is a smaller map of the same area. The red"X's" that are shown on that map represent the location of the residences of the property owners who have signed the petition. Mr. Telep: May I state for the record that these three instruments that you have just presented are entitled: petitioners exhibit "A", now that is for the petition for the change of zone: petitioners exhibit "B" Answers to Question and petitioners exhibit "C" a list of petitioners in favor of the granting of zoning. Mx. Venable: Harold Anderson: Mr. Mosier: Harold Anderson: Mr. Venable: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out amoung the persons who have signed the petition in favor of the change of zone there is included the City of Greeley. It is an adjoining property owner and in addition to that this was approved when it went before the City Council. They gave it unanimous approval. It has also been approved by the City Planning Commission and the Planning Commission for the County of Weld. Mr. Mosier do you have anything to add to this? Not at the present - no. Is there any other one here who represents the affirmative - in favor of this? We have submitted all the exhibits and reports, Mr. Chairman and ask that they be approved. Mr. Star: May we have an opportunity to examine the reports? Mr. Telep: As you will note -- your name for the recc.rd. Mr. Star: Mr. Venable: Mr. Telep: My name for the record is Kenneth L. Star and I am appearing here on behalf of W. B. Livestock Company. The exhibit "A" referred to in exhibit "B" is that available? We will make that available to you in just a moment. Let the record show the exhibit which is to be attached to as part of exhibit "A". Exhibit "B". Mr. Venable: Excuse me exhibit "B" has been tendered - it is a map of the area -- a smaller map. Mr. Haley is present and if any of the members of the Board have any questions concerning this map prepared under his direction he would certainly explain anything that is necessary. Marshall Anderson: I have on - that north and south road - the bottom of that is the west? Mr. Haley: This is a high density area - the homes will be here with green between and around the park area - so that these high density areas will have access to the green belt. A planned unit development is what it is called here. It is a high density zoning. Mr. Venable: We would like to also enter into exhibit petitioners exhibit "E". This is the official zoning map it has been signed by the Planning Commission and if approved by the Board would become the map of record. Mr. Star: I see nothing on petitioner's exhibit "B" on this page as to who is submitting this information - there is no signature. There is no form of information on this Exhibit "B" which indicates who is attesting the correctness of the responses given. Mr. Venable: Mr. Star: Mr. Telep: Mr. Star: Mr. Telep: Par. Venable: Mr. Star: Mr. Telep: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: If it would please counsel we would - we are trying to comply with the requirements of the Board. They submitted exhibit "A" to us for answer. We answered to it in the form we felt fullfilled the requirments to the Board. And I have not heard judgement from them. Mr. Telep has accepted the exhibits as tendered if you desire to have a statement made by the person who prepared it to the effect that it is correct I suppose we would be happy I think the record should indicate that a particular person prepared it and that person's name and that person that typed the information thereon is correct. You have the right to cross examine. But I don't know who to cross examine: Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Chairman, if it pleses the Board, this was prepared by my client, Mr. Mosier, who is present and will answer questions concerning the validity of the statements he has made. If it pleases counsel we will ask Mr. Mosier to sign it since he did prepare it. I would like to inquire of Mr. Mosier. Would you have Mr. Mosier take the oath. (Takes Oath) For the record your name is George Mosier. It is. My address is Route 3 Box 181, Greeley, Colorado. I am the petitioner and the owner of the property. I show you what has been marked petitioners exhibit "B" and ask you if you can identify it. Viill you state for the record what that is? Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: I can. Will you state for the record what that is? May I clarify something for your information first. When a property owner petitions for a change of zone in Weld County there is forms to be filled out. These forms were filled out properly signed and accepted by the Weld County Planning Commission. The Weld County Planning Commission has prepared the questions that you hold in your hand and these are the answers that I attached to the forms when I petitioned for a change of zone with the Weld County Planning Commission. Mr. Star: Are the questions that you referred to - what has been marked petitioners exhibit "A"? Mr. Mosier: Yes. Mr. Star: Were the answers to the questions in petitioners exhibit "A" as they are found in petitioners exhibit "B" prepared by you_? Mr. Mosier: Yes. Mr. Star: And to the best of your knowledge is the information contained in exhibit "B" correct? Mr. Mosier: Yes. Mr. Star: I refer specifically to your response to question number 5 I would like you to take a moment to refresh your recollection of what that question is by looking at exhibit "A". Have you had an opportunity to review that question? I'dlike to read into the record what that question is, "Why are other areas in the County already zoned according to the requested classification, unsuitable for the development which is proposed? And according to exhibit "B", Mr. Mosier, the answer to that question is - "is that no other areas in the county that have been or are being proposed in a Planned Unit Development. It that not 7 your response to that question? Mr. Mosier: Thats correct. Mr. Star: What is a planned unit development? Mr. Mosier: May I have my counsel or a member of his counsel answer that question? Mr. Star: I don't think that would be proper - Mr. Mosier is testifying that these are the responses that were prepared by him and that the information therein is true. If you have to consult in order to answer questions obviously then he has just testified falsely. Mr. Venable : Mr. Chairman we regret the remarks of counsel and the reflections upon our client. This Board should be aware of the fact that when you are involved in the planning of something like this, you certainly rely on the aid of experts to help in this. Mr. Mosier very logically and very properly relied upon Mr. Haley and his staff. The answers were prepared by Mr. Mosier in reliance upon his expert advise - I don't think that - Mr. Star: With all due respects to counsel I don't think that relying on experts necessarily entails advocating the plain knowledge you have about the english language.Inspmeone is using a term and you don't understand it and it is necessary for that term to appear in a answer to a question you obviously can not answer that question with a full understanding of it yourself. If Mr. Mosier can not answer what he has meant by a planned unit development then it seems to me he doesn't know what he is talking about in his answer to number five. n P Mr. Telep: I don't like to get involved in an argument here but counsel I would like you to understand that this is not an absolute judicial hearing. Mr. Star: I realize that. Mr. Telep: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: T'ir. Telep: An administrative hearing and heresay and while we would like to stay away from it can and should be heard because we are trying to get at the meat of this situation. If Mr. Mosier wants something explained because of the fact that he took advise of an expert - a planning consultant or whatever it is I think he should have an opportunity to answer you in that manner, because we are trying to get at the root of what Mr. Mosier is contemplating here. Just why he answered the way he did and I think the Commissioners - - - Well that is exactly what I am trying to inquire about why he answered the way he did. I want to know what he means by a planned unit development. Now if he has a different impression of wht the term means than what the impression of his counsel believes that term to mean then there are obviously are going to be disparities in the meaning attributed to that response. In other words counsel could have one thing in mind and Mr. Mosier another thing in mind. But this is Mr. Mosier's response and I would like to know what he has in mind. This is Mr. Mosier's response and I would like to know what he has in mind when he uses the term in response to the Planning Commissions question. I'll answer that question. May I set on thing straight, Mr. Mosier before you answer? You answer counsel the best you can - based on your own - whatever you did and how you did it and then Mr. Mosier your counsel should and I am sure will want the opportunity to ask you questions in Mr. ioszer: Yes sir. 9 order that you can clarify some of the things that are about to come out. Mr. Venable: Mr. Telep: Harold Anderson: Mr. Mosier: That is fair - with the Boards permission I would like to call Mr. Haley to explain from our standpoint. Fine. Did you want to answer this? Yes, I will be glad to. In the Planning Commission zoning regulations they put in one article in there on planned unit development. That planned unit development is - you take an area of ground - say "X" number of acres maybe twenty and your designing that piece of ground to the best of its ability. You put in for high rise here - apar tments here - condominimum here and a group of houses -residential in this area. When that is submitted to the Planning Commission they okay it that way. And it has to be developed in the manner in which it was presented. They can't go here and change a street or vacate an alley or change a high rise to a residential area. It goes in and is developed as it comes out on the site plan. Mr. Star: Is this a plan that is submitted by someone who proposed Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: to develop. That is correct. And it is submitted to the county. The County County Planning Commission. The County doesn't devise the plan? No sir. The developer devises the plan. Yes sir. 10 Mr. Star: There isn't any individual organization of building and facilities that has to constitute a plan - it can be a variety of different plans. Mr. Mosier Yes sir. But once the plan is submitted it has to go through that way. You can't change it. Mr. Star: What I am getting at - there can be many different kinds of plans. Mr. Mosier: Why sure - there could be many. But a planned unit development is - you design this property to its highest use and carry through on that manner. Mr. Star: But you do agree that the variety of plans which may be proposed is almost unlimited? Mr. Mosier: That would be up to the Planning Commission. Mr. Star: Well not the variety of plans that are accepted but the variety of plans that can be proposed. Mr. Mosier: Well I suppose a number of them could be proposed. Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Now it has been your response to question number five of the Planning Commission which is exhibit "A" that there are no other areas in the county that have been or are being proposed in a planned unit development. What did you mean by that response? Well there isn't any other areas that are being proposed. Well this is the first time that someone has made a planned unit development unit? That is correct. 11 Mr. Star: Would you say that there are no other areas in the county that are currently zoned in the form requested for zoning classification that are suitable for a planned unit development? P'r. Mosier: At the present - no. Mr. Star: Is it your testimony that there is not other spot in the county which has these zone classifications that can be used for the planned unit development? Mr. Mosier: There is none that have all the requirements at the present - Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: no. Now, what are those requirements? Its another one of your answers there. Well do you remember what they are? Yes — utilities mainly and along with it there are no other areas in Weld County zoned scientific outside of a little area of Mountain States Telephone Company over by Mead. There is no other scientific park located in Weld County. Did you circulate the petition which has been labled petitioners exhibit "C" ? Mr. Mosier: I did, Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: I ask you to examine that for a monent. Have you had an opportunity now to examine that? Did you obtain the signature of Al Wiseman on this petition? I did. Was it signed in your presense? It was. 12 Mr. Star: And was it signed in the form in which it was found on this petition? Mr. Mosier: Yes sir. Mr. Star: Was the name W. B. Livestock Company written in by Mr. Wiseman? Mr. Mosier: It was. Mr. Star: And also the word "by" prior to the first name Al was that written in by Mr. Wiseman? Mr. Mosier: It was. Mr. Star: Harold Anderson: Mr. Telep: Based on these exhibits I have no further questions on the exhibits to ask of Mr. Mosier, at this time. Would you at this time like to hear from Mr. John Haley who has prepared the maps. One moment - may I set something straight - Mr. Venable. You a while back momentarily or maybe you meant it I don't know. I didn't know if you rested your case because after all you represent the petitioner. Mr. Venable: Yes sir. Mr. Telep: If you want to put on additional testimony you certainly may because this gentleman has a right to cross examine. So why don't you put on whatever testimony you need to put on having to do with your case in c} -lief and when you rest I would like you to understand that you would have done all you could possibly do for the petitioner. Mr. Venable: Alright - prior to the entry into the discussion of Mr. Star concerning the exhibits we felt they were all self-explanatory and felt there was no need to do anything but to submit them for the Board's consideration. However I do feel at this time that it would be advisable to have Mr. Haley explain in narrative form to the Board anything he feels necessary concerning the answer 13 Mr. Venable: to question number five. I think there are no questions concerning the map, this has been indicated ty the Commissioners that they understand that. Mr. Haley do you have a statement to make? Mr. Haley: (Mr. Haley is sworn) My name is John L. Haley, I am a Consulting Engineer with the firm of Nelson Haley Patterson and Quirk. And I specifically prepared the exhibits in the form of a map. The surveys which led to the preparation of the maps were prepared under my supervision. All of the evidence which has been compiled as for the requirements of the County Planning Commission and the County Commissioners has been prepared by myself or members of may staff. We have worked for the client in assisting with the presentation to the Planning Commission and I think I can best answer the questions counsel may have pertaining to the planned unit construction. This is a technical term of planners and engineers which is meant - I am not speaking for the Planning Commission - but it is generally known that this is the type of solution to the problem. It is meant to cover those areas which are not specifically covered in the Planning Commission's regulations. In other words when they develop a persons proposal - he has a piece of ground he wants to develop it in a way which does not exactly fit any of the other well established zonings or if he has specific plans which falls in the general area of a particular zone but are niique in on form or another either in the architectural treatment or the organizational treatment, the traffic patterns, the utility uses or what not, he can present this information 14 Mr. Haley: to the Planning Commission under the heading of a planned unit presentation. The planned unit construction is a new concept. It has been found by developers of land causing scientific and industrial parks - properties that they can best market their property by customizing it for the particular market that they are talking about. In the case of high density housing which is the planned unit construction here. The developers anticipate developing a plan which would be of apartment type, very attractive architectural treatment, with open space service and park like facilities immediately abating all properties. Yet the units themselves would be very close in proximity to one another. In fact they would be so close they would not - you you drew an alley between them - they would not conform to the normal square footage requirements and dimenesions for the residential lot. This is why they go the route of planned unit development. So when they prepare this pland - prepared in whatever detail the Planning Commission may require all the way up to and including actual construction drawings. So, when they prepare this plan - prepared in whatever detail the Planning Commission may require all the way up to and including actual construction drawings - a layout of the landscaping, the complete service of the facility by utilities and traffic and access roads. This happesn to be an irrigated aprinkler part - these things may be all required. I am not saying that they are all required I say that this is an option of the Planning Commission and the developer working together to develop a particular plan that they collectively - first as a developer thinks is marketable and is the best use of his land and second that the Planning Commission thinks is acceptable and is in keeping with their general over-all zoning and planning 15 Mr. Haley: concept of the area in question. Now this is what planned unit construction is. This is what is proposed in this particular area. There is an awful lot of the land under consideration which will be very conventionally developed, but there are areas (as shown on the map) high density planned unit construction but there are also other areas of scientific zoning. Does this help answer the question? Mr. Star: May I inquire? Harold Anderson: Yes. Mr. Star: In the unit plan which I gather is to be as it is requested, to be zoned "H" is that correct? Mr. Haley: ttHiptt Mr. Star: "HD". What type of buildings are you putting up? Are they multiple family generally? Mr. Haley: I hate to refer to another project by name, Mr. Star, but there are several projects of the type proposed in the Denver - Boulder metropolitan area. These are garden type homes. Mr. Star: Condominimum type homes? Mr. Haley: They may be condominimum type homes - they may be kept as a complete unit and part of the properties rented out. I am not prepared to answer that. The same concept would apply whether it is condominimum or single type ownership. But these would be residence probably one building for both units. P:ir. Star: Several families in one building? Mr. Haley: Yes. Then there may be other where there is a single 16 Mr. Haley: building this again is part of the plan that has to be developed. A single building with a single family unit. There may be a multiple story facilities in here. All of these are to be architecturally developed and positioned and blended in together in accordance with the ideas of the developer and with the approval of the Planning Commission to serve the market which is the condorninimum market or the apartment market or something of this nature. Mr. Star: Has the planning proceeded to the stage where you can give us some idea as to the quality or style of the buildings to be erected in the "HD" area? Mr. Haley: I think that the only answer to that is - is that they have not been developed. Now I will give you an insight to this by testimony of some of the developers - the Iris people who are here - as to what they have done. But I could not testify on that. Mr. Star: Mr. Haley: Mr, Star: Mr. Haley: Mr. Star: Mr. Haley: You could not testify what type of buildings you have? Only in generalities — we have not developed a specific plan. If you have the knowledge is it to be a low income type housing - middle income type housing? Middle to upper class. Middle to upper middle type. This is an engineer's definition not a realtor's definition. Mr. Star: But t is to be a nice place to live. 17 Mr. Haley: Mr. Star: Mr. Haley: A very nice place to live. It has proceeded that far? In the economic analysis of the properties, the procurement of the properties that proceeded this - of which I played some small part - it has been established that they cannot develop on this land any low income or even small project housing. In other words the normal repetitious Twelve to Fifteen Thousand Dollar homes are not appropriate for this area. This would have to be a nice fairly middle to upper middle income homes in order to amortize the investment of which they are talking. Mr. Star: Now when you drew up this unit development plan, did you have this particular tract of land - the tract which has been proposed for "HD" zoning - in mind? Mr. Haley: There are very definite engineering reasons why the zoning - - - Mr. Star: I would like - if you could duect yourself to the specific question before you - I just want to know if when you made your plans for this unit development - were you thinking in terms of this tract? Mr. Venable: I fail to see the revalescence to what we are taking about - the zoning - the use of the land - the effect it will have on the whole area - which apparently, has been the the interest of the Board. I don't think the plans, the ideas or the point at which the ideas became available to the petitioners, the point of which they began to use them are involved in any way. 18 Mr. Star: So then it is your testimony that a specific unit development plan that you have for the area that has been proposed fur "HD" zoning is one by it very definition is aimed at the proposed rezoning tract. That is what you have aimed at. And by definition it is what you have aimed you plan at. Mr. Haley: Mr. Star: Mr. Haley: Are you asking me a question? I ask you whether or not that is true? If I understand what you say - yes. In other words that I think is the substance of my testimony. That the PUD is - the planned unit development is customized to this particular piece of ground. Mr. Star: Now when you were making plans for this piece of ground did you take into consideration the uses to which the adjoining land was being put? Mr. Haley: I will have to ask you to elaborate a little on the question because when you say take into consideration do you mean the physical descriptions and uses of the land or are you talking about the economic uses? Mr. Star: Mr. Haley: No I mean the physical uses. The physical uses - yes - this is part of our service and a part of any of a development of any plan to find out what the effects will be - the drainage for example the utilites that serve this property, the traffic, that is all the adjoining or nearby properties physically how this particular property has to be developed or any other property for that matter. Mr. Star: Would you put this type of development - if I may use that term loosly next to an industrial facility like 19 Mr. Star: Mr. Haley: Gates Rubber Company? Your talking about economic considerations and social conditions and I am not a sociologist. Mr. Star: You weren't taking into consideration whether this was a desirable area in which to put a middle to upper -middle type housing. You weren't thinking in those terms at all. Mr. Haley: Except within the guidelines of what the Planning Commission - where they have already established zoning. And it happens that I know the zoning adjacent to this property on the south. Our advise to the client was that certain zoning should go here and then where should be a buffer on another zone - the high density - and there should be the residential zoning. In other words, those kinds of considerations - we a engineers advise ourselves with. Now as if to whether he should build single family residences or whether he should build scientific zone or what have you - these are economic or other factors and I am not qualified to advise the client upon those subjects. Mr. Star: Did you take into consideration in making this plan, the agricultural use of land in the vicinity of the high density area? Mr. Haley: We took into consideration not only the agricultural uses that were apparent but the golf course which is adjacent to it, the American Legion, all of these things were taken into consideration as they affected this property physically. It is not my area to talk about any other factors. Mr. Star: Thank you. 20 Mr. Venable: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I think it is obvious that this has been very carefully planned by experts, well qualified in their field and we have gone about as far with it as we can go until we get your permission and rezoning. Unless you have a questions of the witnesses who are present here. Clarence Sitzman: Mr. Telep: Mr. Sitzman: Mr. Telep: Mr. Stizman: Mr. Haley: I would like for them to elaborate a little bit more on the drainage going to the south. What facility do you have planned - what can you do with drainage that comes right through me so I was quite concerned. Once 27 to 32 acres get under roof and apvement, what is your proposed drainage facility for the small parcel of land running to the north toward Highway #34? You live adjacent to the lands that are proposed to be rezoned - is that correct? Yes. Mr. Haley, can you answer that question? I would like to add one thing - No. one - I am not opposed to this in any way whatsoever just concerned about this run-off. Well, the Planning Commission requires - if I may I will take a few liberties to lay the background for the answer. When any kind of information information can make a preliminary plat is submitted to them that the maybe furnished on the maps. Contrary information, with regard to topography, drainage, etc., so they determination themselves when they are established as to whether this development in any way adversely effect the adjoining property. This is an area where you spend a considerable time. As you look at it would examine this exhibit 21 Mr. Haley: you would find there are contour lines on it and the drainage from this area - relatively a top of the hill situation. This is the low point - you can't see it - but basically the low point for the property is right in here. The area you are concerned with is this, isn't that right Mr. Sitzman? Yes, Is that running to the north? Mr. Sitzman: Mr. Haley: On the west. You are over here? This is correct you are over in this area - northeast of the property. This line and I am going to use generalities just to answer the question. This line running through here is the Grapevine Lateral. Fundamentally the Grapevine Lateral following along the ridge, as you can see from the contour of this farm. So that the only drainage that would be involved in the property that you are concerned with would be that on this side of the ridge. Now this is scheduled for single family residential development. It is proposed to have curb and guttered streets - paved streets with single family residences on at least the minimum size lot for an R-1 area. Now I have to say this it is my judgement that the amount of water to run off from this property as a developed - with lawns and houses and paved streets and what have you - the amount of water is no different. Mr. Sitzman: Oh yes! Mr. Haley: The accelerated rate at which it runs off is what we are really concerned about. Becaase there is no more water going to fall here because - there is not more water going to run off because you take and put it into a lawn area instead of a plowed field area. It will run off faster and as such we have a problem of handling concentrated water 22 Mr. Haley: which may have run off in little riverlets before they have been concentrated in streets. And they are running off faster because you have paved streets. This is your problem and I want to lay that basis. Mr. Sitzman: I do want to stop you on one point, as to there being no more water running off - the concentration is just different - I disagree with you. Anytime you have a wet lawn, a paved street and a roof you aren't going to have near the soak away. The amount - well just assume and inch of rain at this stage - now and then after housesare in you are going to get twice as much. Because normally your lawns are wet ant they are not going to soak up moisture. Mr. Haley: We are getting into a technical discussion. I am concerned and I am not arguing your point. I know exactly what you are trying to say. The real problem is as the experienced property owner is the fact that the water remaining concentrated in the streets and discharged onto your property at an accelerate rate more than what it has been in previous experiences. Mr. Sitzman: My question is what have you in'plans in the way of tiling through to avoid damage —or possibly a cement ditch - is there anything in the plans that takes care possibly tripling of our doubling up of waste water/and by the way with the Greeley Grapevine running there is land up above the Grapevine, if we are not getting into our company ditch causing adittle more water and that is still going to cause a little more water to come down on me. Mr. Haley: So technically we - I was generalizing but you are correct, however, there is a little more of high ground on this side of the ditch and if this ditch were covered Mlr. Haley: up could get over there and that side. Now to answer your question that normal development of a residential property is that you would curb and gutter and in this particular case the water is going to run down hill so this is the point here where it is going to come out. Right now from here on is the general fall. If this land were not developed to the east and if this land were not developed to the north at the time that this is developed then there would be a discharge in one place and I think it would be required to carry that in some kind of an open ditch to a point where it would flow away without doing damage. When this land is developed to the east and to the north, they too will have curb and gutter paved streets and what have you. That will be carried across your property or adjacent properties overland. Until such time that the water is sufficiently graded, you see when the runoff is sufficiently great then we have to talk about storm sewers. But believe me this is miles from this point. Because we just don't have those kinds of runoff in a residential area. The design storm for a residential development is what we call a two year design storm. This is a one inch rain in a one hour period. Now as high as you are up here on the hill, you would put no piping or underground storm sewer to accomodate that small amount of water. Mr_ Sitzman: You mean to tell me if you increase the flow of water to cause the gulley to wash out through the middle of me which it will, after the increase of more than one house it will increase until we get the whole thing in, that I have no form of protection then. 24 Mr. Haley: I haven't testified to that - I said it would be depending upon where we are in the development stage that if these properties were developed I don't think you would have a problem because the developer of those properties is going to provide for this storm water. If your properties are not developed when this is developed right in here then there would be water dischared here which must be accounted for in some kind of an outlet. Mr. Sitzman; As the future times comes which we all hope develops good - I am not protected in any way? Mr. Telep: I would like to answer that. You certainly don't have the assurance of this Board that you are not going to be washed away. That an answer to your question and I want that in the record too. Remember. Mr. Sitzman: You could always have a law suit for damages if somebody harms you. You can't blame the Board of County Commissioners for something like that. This is something - that should be looked to in the interest of long range planning or something of that nature. You are talking about -- we all know - counsel both of them here know that one person can not throw off water on another. Now if something happesn because of the act of God or things of that nature that is different. But you just can't take water and tl-,row it out on another man's land. But we are getting off in another area now. But I had to answer your - - - Mr. Haley: May I answer his question in a little different way too. The Planning Commission and the County has set up regulations which call for building permits to be issued. Now I think to answer your question you have to have a little faith in the inspection work of the Planning Commission and the staff of the County. They are not going to allow anything to be 25 Mr. Haley: built which is going to damage you without some arrangements being made for accounting within reason. Mr. Telep is right the County has no liability. The liability rests with the man that damages you. But within reason the County and their staff are going to do their best to protect you from having any construction put up that would threaten your property. I think - well you have your planning people here and I think this is the purpose of the inspection permits. The building permits - to try to protect adjacent landowners, as well as insure property cw ners. Mr. ditzman: I want to go on record that if this plan goes by that there has to be adequate drainage - I am asking that now at this time - as the plan develops to take care of such a thing. And other than that I am all for it. Harold Anderson: Mr. Haley: Harold Anderson: I believe all he wants is some assurance that some plan will be made to take care of this runoff in case of flood water. If I were the engineer, and was working with the developer, I am not retained to do that yet, if I were and as I think any competent engineer would do, you would anticipate the problem that is here and would make provisions for it, if it were necessary to develop in this and if there were no provisions on his side to accomodate it. Then I think it is the responsibility of whomever is building this facility to protect their own interest as well as their neighbors. Otherwise they are going to get sued - I think. Do we have any other remarks in regard to the affirmative of this zone change? ivr. Telep: Do you have any qu•.,stions? Mr. Star: Not on the affirmative but I wish to inquire further based on the remarks that were made by Mr. Haley. I believe Mr. Star: that Mr. Haley testified that it was not he who selected this particular park or tracts of land for the proposed plans that it was called into to plan for the tracts. I think at this I would like to inquire of Mr. Mosier on what basis these tracts were selected to undergo this planning. Mr. Venable: Mr. Chairman - Mr. Telep I don't see the revalescence here. Mr. Star: Mr. Telep: I think if is of paramount revelance one of the criteria which is followed in zoning is whether or not the uses which are contemplated for the proposed rezoning area are uses which could have been undertaken in other areas of the county or general locals without the need for rezoning. I would like to answer that - when you get through with your statement or whatever it is. Mr. Star: I am responding to the pending objection. Mr. Telep: I would like to answer that and it is something you have a right to ask and I think it whould be answered. You have to go back in the history of planning and of zoning. Weld County it is quite historical - it was zoned piece by piece - area by area and then it was decided that the whole county ought to be zoned. And at that time we didn't - I shouldn't say we - but at that time there were no areas specifically zoned, be it scientific zone, it was a person who had a farm, or owned alot of land, that maybe something wasn't zoned specifically scientific estate - it was zoned agricultural because that was the least restrictive. From that as time goes on as we have progressed, you can't impede that - there will be rezoning to fit the particular pieces of land Mr. Telep: Mr. Star: and I am sure the reason that Mr. Mosier, I am not talking I am in an advisary position here, and I am sure that perhaps the reason he wants this rezoned is that primarily and basically he owned the land. Well undoubtedly that is true but I don't think that supplies the answer to the area in which I want to make inquiry. Mr. Telep: You may procede. Mr. Star: Mfr. Mosier have you undertaken an investigation of other tracts in the Greeley area or in Weld County which are zoned in a fashion which would coiiply with the proposed development? Mr. Mosier: Would you restate that again? Mir. Star: Have you undertaken an investigation to find out whether or not there are other tracts of land in the Greeley area or in fact in Weld County that are zoned in a fashion suitable for the development you wish to make? Mr. Mosier: I certainly have. Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: What did that investigation consist of? Let me straighten you out first on one thing. Well I would like for you to answer this question. I will answer the question this way. I have been with the Weld County Planning Commission for eight years. I have been drawing up all their maps and I know what areas are zoned, how they are zoned and so forth for the whole county. Now there is no other scientific zone outside the telephone company over by Mead, except this area that is already zoned scientific. Did you purchase the land which is the subject of the request for rezoning at a time when you were participating on the Planning Commission? 2, Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: No, I did not this has been in my family for years, part of this plot here we purchased in 1945. Did you make this development plan yourself? Or did you consult with others to make the plan? It has been consulted with - yes. Mr. Star: And you are making this request to unable you to sell Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier Mr. Star Mr. Mosier: Mr. Start your property - is that no true? Why yes. In one respect and in another respect no. The scientific zone came to me where Dura Business is and they asked for that area to be rezoned scientific so they could put in Dura Business. Dura Business wants more land zoned scientific there so that is why the scientific zone is being asked for and Dura Machines would like a buffer zone between their property and the residential area. So that is why that we are asking for a high density area in there. Why do they want that buffer zone, do you know? Yes sir. What is the reason for that? To keep out children from coming into the plant. Is the land to the immediate east of you, which if I am not mistaken would be straight up on the map, Right adjacent to the scientific zone area. Is it what? Is that land where Mr. Haley is pointing - which is at the top of the map. Is that adjacent to the scientific 29 Mr. Star: zone area? Mr.Mosier: It is. P,Ir. Star: Mr. Venable: Did you investigate whether that area would be more suitable for the proposed development you wish to make? Mr. Telep, I understand your ruling but I would renew my objection to the revelance of this. Mr. Star: I don't believe Mr. Telep has made a ruling. Mr. Telep: I have not but I think you are going to far because when you are talking about other land he doesn't in fact own other lands. This is his land we are talking about. Mr. Star: What I am concerend about specifically is a matter of which I think the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners are concerned with, because question number five is, " Why are other areas in the county already zoned according to the requested classification unsuitable for the development which is proposed?" Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Venable: Mr. Telep: Mr. Star: They are notzoned that a way. You say there is nothing that is zoned that a way. There are no other areas around here that are zoned scienticia. He has testified to that three times. May I interrupt for a minute - if it will help you - we have the Chairman of the Weld County Planning Commission available for you. If you would like to ask him some questions as to - incidentially - I have yet to make an additional - if you care to add to the record you will have that opportunity - alright? Well I appreciate that opportunity. But the reason I make inquiry of Mr. Mosier - is that he is the one who has submitted the answers to the questions which include 30 Mr. Star: Mr. Telep: Mr. Star: question number five. In other words it seems that the procedure here makes it incumbent on somebody either the petitioner or someone representing him to make certain responses to predesignated questions. Mr. Mosier has identified himself as the person who made those responses. I would like to know on what basis he has made the particular response that he has furnished. This is the direction of my inquiry. I thought he answered that but if you want to clarify something that you think has not been clarified you certainly should have that judicial opportunity. It is your testimony tat there are no areas in Weld County that meet the zoning requirements of your proposed changes? Mr. Mosier: No, there is no other scientific zones. Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Mr. Star: Mr. Mosier: Other than the fact of pre-existing zoning is there any quality or attribute to this parcel of land which makes its the most suitable for this development? Yes. What is that attribute or factor? It is a very known fact that the scientific enterprises and electronic developments and so forth like to cluster. They like to be two or three of them in one area. Dura Business ,Machines has come out here and put up their plant on an area that is already zoned scientific and they would like more of the area around there zoned scientific so that they can expand and so that other companies can come in. There is no other place at the present they could do that. 31 Mr. Star: But this line of reasoning applies only to the area you are requesting scientific zoning one. Tear. Mosier: Scientific - yes - they also desire a buffer between that and residential. I don't see why that you question what I want to do with my property. Mr. Star: I think you are questioning the entire system of zoning Mr. Venable: if you make that question to me. We object to counsel arguing with the witness, to the line of questioning and we would also state thatMr. Mosier has not been qualified to some expert - many of the areas in which he was questioned - - Mr. Star: I would concede that he is not an expert in any of the areas in which he has been questioned and for that particular reason his responding to question number five is a response which is an incompetent response. Mr. Telep: Well that is one of the questions there are several other questions that he had to answer. That is just one of them, of course, I am sure that the Board is going to take a good look at this entire matter there is no question about that. I don't think you ought to dwell on that anymore. I think it has been arrived at that the reason Mr. Mosier wants this rezoned is because it is his land, that doesn't necessarily mean that other lands or other areas can not be zoned or rezoned the same way. I am sure the only reason that petitioner feels that way he does is because it is his land. He wants to put it, of course he is prejudiced, that is why he is petitioning. He feels that he can put his land to the highest and best use and this it it. Now lets talk about other factors 32 £ilr. Telep: around perhaps - maybe you represent your client and you are doing a good job - maybe perhaps you feel this is going to be detrimental to your client's land - well lets hear about that too. Mr. Star: I respectfully would like to point out that we will present the case in the manner in which we think is the most impressive and most direct way we can present the case. I thank you for your remarks they are well taken. I don't have anymore questions of Mr. Mosier at this time. Mr. Telep: Mr. Harold Anderson: Mr. Dunbar: Mr. Wiseman: John Watson: Mr. Star: Mr. Telep: One moment. Mr. Dunbar. I would like to bring up one item, now in the matter of adjoining feedlots under non -conforming use I would like for Mr. Watson to explain this avenue, if you would. I think this is of concern to you isn't it Mr. Wiseman? Yes. Watson is my name - Excuse me - before you begin Mr. Watson - I would to put one thing on the record - you use the term feedlot and the term non -conforming use and I believe they are substantially questions as to whether the terms have any applicability to Mr. Wiseman's operation. As long as we have proceded this far, let the record show that John Watson, Chairman of the Weld County Planning Commission was present and Mr. Edward Dunbar one of the County Commissioners has asked him to come forth and give an explanation of questions you have asked. Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson: Your question is how we treat non -conforming uses, commercial feedlots - 33 Mr. Dunbar: Yes, that is the prime concern. Mr. Watson: The Wisemans have been there for a good many years and it just happens to be a coincidence that their operation is in the pattern of growth. Mr. Martin Domeke is in the pattern of growth and this presents problems. These are problems they were non -conforming uses when we zoned the county. We have zoned the county the way we thought we should have zoned it. We zoned "A" around their uses no.one has ever tried to do anything in the way of zoning to hinder the operation of Wisemans or Domeke in any way. But as I said before I would like to - I don't quite understand the approach of your questions here. It looks to me like something has been lost here. Mr. Mosier has a piece of property here - it happens to be a piece of property that an investor has in his demand to buy. We have to look at this picture, this happens to be in the pattern of growth. There is a scientific industry that is already located there before the investor decided this is a piece of property that he wants. He has to look at the investment. Zoning is nothing but a guide to growth. You can not zone business and the persons dollar in the zoning. The investor is going to put the money where he wants to put it. You are only guiding - your zoning and comprehensive plan are nothing more than a guide to growth. Now we have zoned the county - we have tried to zone it in an over-all patternand guide to growth. We are going to have change of zones like this for the next fifty years. Now this happens to be in a pattern of growth that the developer and the investor feels is the potential growth of Greeley. Maybe because Eastman Kodak is going to be in Windsor this is a half -way location. This is going to someday demand the Wiseman's to move out and move somewhere else and get cheap land, and go south to Brush where you have land at ten dollars an acre. They know what I mean. 34 Mr. Star: Demand on what basis? Mr. Watson: Demand on the land values - too expensive to feed cattle on. Mr. Dunbar: I think the question is - Mr. Watson: I understand your question. Mr. Dunbar: As far as Mr. Wiseman is concerned is whether it would crowd his operation out as a result of this rezoning and rebuilding. Mir. Watson: Mr. Venable: Mr. Dunbar: Mr. Star: Mr. Watson: Mr. Star: Mr. Watson: I surmise that is one of the questions you will get to in the opposition but if he is in the pattern of expansion and growth this is the problem. Mr. Dunbar, if I may point out we are not asking for zoning of the property owned by Mr. Wiseman. we are asking for zoning -- One thing I want to bring out here too - he comes under the non -conforming use which won't be effected. Well I wonder where that non -conforming use - where the documentation concerning it is. The definition of non -conforming - No not the definition - Oh certainly I know what you mean but I would like to know where it is - in your records that this is a non -conforming use. Because it was there before it was zoned. Mr. Telep: Vie have a resolution - do you have a book Mr. Star: Yes I have it here, the green book Mr. Telep; It is in there stating what - non conforming use. 35 Mr. Telep: This could or could not - I don't want to get involved This is your case. Mr. Star: Mr. Watson: Mr. Star: A lot of problems could be resolved if this were identified as a non -conforming use. It is a non -conforming use - there present operation is a non conforming use. May I inquire of you one question? If I may, isnit the policy of the Planning Commission to approve zoning changes based on the pressure of investment opportunity on the land? Or is there some pattern beyond that to determine what the zoning will be? Mr. Watson: Our habit is not to be pressured at all - we have to look at the long range pattern of growth Pair. Star: When an investor wants to spend money on developing a scientific zone or high density zone - is that enough. Dees that sway the Planning Corrunission that the zoning should be changed? Mr. Watson: If you have an investor - Dura Corporation comes in here and looks at all the communities and picks this particular site to build a plant on - to me this is an ideal pattern of growth. You have a golf course - you have the town moving this way we know it is moving this way. This is our long range pattern of growth. Mr. Star: But is the next place for the town to develop or isn't there large tracts of land now being used in agricultural fashion,if one were to drive in an easterly direction from the corner - the far left corner of the map to the Town of Greeley - which is approximately 2 miles isn't it true that for at least a mile and a half when one looks to what is the right on the map - one sees farm Mr. Star: land and nothing else except for the leg of the golf course and some part of the county club facilities. There are tons of open land there. Mr. Watson: Mr. Star: Mr. Watson: Mr. Star: Mr. Watson: Mr. Star: Mr. Watson: Mr. Telep: This is true. I don't see where the pressure is to zone this scientific There is no pressure to zone it. I don't see where the desirability is either. Is it for you to say what the investor's desire is? I think the investors desire is irrevelant. It isn't for us to tell as a Planning member to tell the investor where to put his dollar. Lets not get into an argument please. 1'ow with the permission, now Mr. Chairman,'if I have you permission while Mr. Watson is here, I would like to make an addition to the record. I would like the record to reflect that the Board has before it two resolutions all dated September 24, 1968. Wherein these tracts - tract "A" was recommended favorably to be rezoned from "E" Estate to "S" Scientific and for the reasons and I quote, " Tract A to be zoned conditionally for twelve months - no objection at public hearing it appears to be in line with good planning." re - As to Tract "B" the petition to be/zoned from "A" Agriculture to "E" Estates that was recommended favorably for the following reasons, " to be zoned conditionally for twelve months the developer to submit plans for the development of the zone for the approval of the Planning Commission." Tract "C" that was also recommended favorably for the following reasons and I quote, " to be zoned conditionally for twelve months no opposition at the public hearing and appears to be in line with good planning." Now these are the recommendations that 37 Mr. Telep: are before the Board and Mr. Watson is here as the Chairman of the Planning Board. Mr. Dunbar: I want you to note that the Planning Commission meets in conjunction and recommends these in conjunction with the City Planning Commission. Any area within a three mile radius of the limits of Greeley - they coordinate their thinking in their zone requests. I wanted to bring this out and on the back page of the findings for - the last paragraph - you might read that into the record. Mr. Telep: Mr. Commissioner, I don't understand what you are talking about, fir. Dunbar: (Reading from copy of minutes of city planning commission dated September 17, 1968 - Page 87) -'18. Request by George Mosier to sign petition concerning zoning in Highland Hills. Motion by Councilman Hall, seconded by Councilman Rapp to approve the request and authorize the proper city officials to sign the petition. By voice vote, motion was unanimously approved." Harold Anderson; May I make one question clear here. You asked why there was so much open land east of the request. You understand that this land is all privately owned and some people wouldn't sell for love nor money. It is unavailable. Alright a certain industry comes in here and picks a certain site and if the owner of that land wishes to sell it is his priviledge to do so. We tried to conform with the planning regulations, you understand, we can't tell them no you can't buy that land you have to go over here and buy this property. You understand. Mr. Star: Yes, I do. 38 Harold Anderson: If you go down on Highway 34 there is a parcel of land you might say right in the very busy section of town, which last year was in corn. Well a certain party owns that and they didn't want to sell it and that is why it is held up. So you understand why we can't tell an industry coming in - no - you can't buy here you have to go over to this one, to the land closer to town or anything of that kind. Mr. Star: It is not our position that the Board should tell people to sell their land because it is closer into town. That is not our position at all. Harold Anderson: Mr. Star: Harold Anderson: No but you mentioned the fact, that there is open land. Yes. In other places - the reason that there is open land is because it is privately owned. Mr. Star: I am aware that the land is for the most part privately owned and I inquired about it - not because I am urghing some policy of directing those owners to sell but becanuse firtt.of so much land is available it seems that none of it can be purchased for the development. And also since such a vast area of land is located between the proposed rezoning and the town it seems that this is going to be an island of development in a sea of agriculture uses and I don't see where thet is the natural growth. I don't see where there is a natural pattern of expansion. As a matter of fact it seems to be a very helter skelter pattern of growth. 39 Mr. Telep: Mx. Star: Marshall Anderson: May I interrupt, I think you are summing up aren't you. Well the question was put to me about understanding and I thought I would clarify what that was. Mr. Chairman, this is a hearing on - just a minute Ed, this is a hearing on change of zoning - we are not sitting in here a(guing how a Planning Commission should be run. Now what is you objections? Mr. Star: You are saying it is time for me to state my objections. Marshall Anderson: We have argued about the scientific zoning - now what Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Telep: :4r. Wiseman: are your objections? My man told me, this was the day after the first meeting - I am here to object for this reason. My man told me he was over at the American Legion - some fellow talking about - Tell me who this fellow is. Jir. Urich, he has been working with us for a number of years. There was some gentleman sitting at the bar there and they were talking about rezoning and what was going on around there and some fellow was talking he heard this fellow say it was going to be rezoned and houses and apartments being put up there and he remarked and said and I understand he said Mr. Mosier's hog pens are going and the feedlot is going along with it. When I heard this remark Marshall Anderson: Well thats your problem isn't it Al? Mr. Wiseman: Yes it is. Marshall Anderson: That is what we have been wanting to find out. Mr. Wiseman: Thats my problem - thats my living there. Mr. Star: That which may appear in the form of nothing more than a little vineyette or a little story is the key to the 40 Mr. Star: problem as we see it to this whole proposal. It seems to be located in an area which is not the natural growth pattern. There is so much vacant land between the town and this section that it seems unlikely that this is the most suited portion of ground for the proposed development. The proximity of the -proposed scientific rezoning.area to other scientific zone areas applies only to the suitability of that particular piece of ground for the scientific rezoning but has nothing to do with the residential and high density zoning which have been proposed. And it also seems that the high density area the development unit area is going to be sitting right next to quite a number of cattle. The testimony was that it was planned as a middle or upper middle income living facility. I think that this too should be considered as ill conceived. Why when there is so much land in the Greeley area and Greeley is so fortunate to be situated in the midst of an enormus acreage of land suitable for development. Mr. Telept Counsel, may I interrupt, it appears to me that you are summing up - your side of the case. Mr. Star: Well I have been asked to, that is what I am trying to do. Mr. Telep: ep : I think you are doing it prematurely, now if I were not representing - now I am not saying you are doing a good job I would be ending my side of the case with just what you are saying now. In other words you are trying to impress the Commissioners and they are going to make the decision whether they are going to allow it or not. how you are telling them why they shouldn't because of this or that and I am sure 41 Mr. T lep: they are going to take that into consideration. Iv1r. Star: Mr. Telep: Mr. Star: Mr. Telep: Mr. Star: I believe it was requested of my to sum up, I think that Commissioner Anderson, was anxious to get the question on the table so that it could be considered by the Commissioners and in the interest of time I was concluding - Do you have anybody else to testify in your behalf. No we are not going to present any testimony Okay, that is fine you may conclude, I am sorry I interrupted you. If there are other persons who wish to be heard perhaps my concluding is premature but I was responding to Commissioner Anderson and I believe he did request me to get it on the table. Glen Bechtold : I am one of the first ones to sign this thing, I am a registered landscape architect in the State of Colorado and I own Highland Nursery and I own the nearest residence to this situation. Actually on the southeast quarter there I am about five hundred feet off of that scientific zone. I have never been concerned about the cattle or anything else I am concerned in the growth and what I call west Greeley and I have looked at this for a long time. I am not bothered by the feedlots, sometimes it blows over and sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't bother me that much. One of the largest feedlots in the United States is just north of the town. You hear a few people complain about it but I think one of the things that have been left out here, I am also secretary -treasurer of the Highland Hills Sanitation District - there happens to be a grid system right through the middle of this property. This man has prime property to sell for homes. Somebody is missing this. He has a 42 Vir. Bechtold: sewer line through here. Any developer would want to get in here. A water line goes right through it. There isn't another piece of property near Greeley that has as good as water and s?wer facilities today. This is one of the reasons Dura Machines is there. I think this is one of the things that hasn't been said here. With these things available this is going to make the scientific end of it want to be there and to make any developer bringing in -- make new residences - new shopping centers to come in here. Half of the money is in the ground already. Like a quarter million dollars worth of sewer syetem. Harold Anderson: Is there anyone else either for or against? Mr. Venable: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Haley has something he would like to say. Mr. Haley: With your permission Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sitzman asked me to make a statement in behalf of the landowners of the Grapevine Ditch. He is one of tht, stockholders in the Grapevine Ditch - there was another gentleman here but he had to leave. The question that was asked was - will the Grapevine Ditch in any way be involved in the drainage of this property? I have to answer it with this one qualification. I am only the engineer not the developer. I will make this statement and Ed if you will confirm. It is not in the plan and it would certainly not be any good planning procedure for this Grapevine Ditch to be involved as a drainage outlet and it would not be my recommendation that any water be dumped into the ditch from these improvements. Mr. Stizman: And the only final thing that it would be in this record that the Grapevine Lateral, thatis what it is, is opposed to any such using that as sewer drainage. Other than that this is the only thing. 43 Mr. Haley: Mr. Dunbar: This is my recommendation as an engineer. I have one other statement to Mr. Wiseman here I don't think has been answered concretely here. Under the present zoning -- non conforming use - your feedlot would not be involved whatsoever - it won't be dissolved it won't effect it. This is in use and was there before such time as zoning - so it can't be touched under the non -conforming use., in the agriculture zoning - is this not right? Does that answer your question Mr. Wiseman? Marshall Anderson: There are several feedlots that come under this. i,ir. Star: If I may make a very brief conclusion or a remark or two in opposition. First a very procedural oriented point the name of Al Wiseman does appear on the petition supporting rezoning and W. B. Livestock Company is in opposition to the zoning and the signature of fir. Wiseman on it is not in an authorized capacity for W. B. Livestock Company and we have heretofore submitted to the Board of County Commissioners a letter from the president of that company setting forth our position in objection to the rezone. I'd like to turn the Boards attention if I might for a moment to the unit plan. I sure everyone realizes that the unit plan is very close to the area in which the cattle pens are on the W. B. Livestock land are situated. Whether or not some people don't mind what happens when the wind changes I am sure the Board will take note of the fact that this is not a universal rule and many people would find it very undesirable to live next to some many four legged neighbors. I don't think that the Board should make the if rezoning for the high density —/its their impression that the land is not suitable for this type of unit development and we would ask that the Board consider that. We also ask 44 Mr. Star: that the Board review the answers which Mr. Mosier submitted to the questions of the Planning Commission and these are the questions found in Exhibit "A" and the responses are found in Exhibit "B". Particularly the question five and the response to it. We would urge that there has been no testimony as to the particular suitability of this land for the purposes with the possible exception of the scientific zone. And that the answer which is given to question number five deals only with the planned unit development and states that the reason there aren't any other areas in the county that are zoned "HD" that are suitable for the planned unit development is that there are no other planned unit developments. Our expert Mr. Haley, I hope I have his name right, has testified that a planned unit development is tailor made for a particular parcel of ground. So I think it is self evident that development the area is the most suitable for the particular planned unit in which "HD" zoning is requested area, but there is nothing special about the planned unit development except that it is planned for that particular piece of ground. There is nothing to say that other developments could not be in the Greeley vicinity. very desirable planned unit located on other numerous areas And that for these reasons there have been no satisfactory response furnished to the Planning Commissions question number five. The final point that we have is a procedural one in terms of who has the burden here. The petitioner 45 Mr. Star: requesting rezoning has the burden to establish that rezoning is desirable. He has the burden of presenting to the Board evidence indicating the desirability of the proposed rezoning. To do this we have seen today a few exhibits and the map which is hanging on the wall here. I believe Mr. Haley's opening remarks might also fit into the catagory of evidence presented on behalf of the petitioner. But all of the other remarks made here today do not form part of the petitioners case. If the petitioner has not established the desirability of the zoning changes by its own evidence. And that the Board should therefore deny same. Thank you. Mr. Dunbar: ME, ielep: Marshall Anderson: Mr. Mosier: Marshall Anderson: Mr. Mosier. Marshall Anderson: Would we want to hear the rest of the people in the room here that have not already identified themself for the record. It might be a good idea Mr. Chairman. I don't see many other people here. They are with the petitioner. George will you take — you are going to assume the full responsibility of all the excess flood water off of their that runs on the county roads? Yes, it will have to be. The county won't be asked for waste ditches and pipes I want that a matter of record that you will agree to take care of all the excess flood water. We don't want another Hunter Heights out,there. No sir. The developers will be responsible for water. We will start on the top of the hill instead of the bottom of the hill this time. 46 Harold Anderson: If there is anyone here who has not spoken - and would like to express your opinion either in favor or against. Mr. Wiseman. Mr. Wiseman: Is there any way you can make a contract with us saying they will not condemn our feedlot. Answer: No such arrangement can be made. Mr. Telep: Basically, Mr. Wiseman, you are here in protest. Henry Stencil: My address is 2122 Twenty-second Avenue, Greeley. I own some property, Westview Liqours. I am in favor of it. Harold Anderson: Is there anyone else? William Aspinwall: I live at 1150 Euclid, Boulder, Colorado. I am the agent for Iris Investment Company that is currently negotiating with Mr. Mosier. I would be on record for the change. Mr. Star: What is your connection with the property other than your acting as agent for Iris, are you within 500 feet of it as an owner? Mr. Aspinwall: Mr. Chairman, I am new to your ways here, I have to rise to his point of order here? Mr. Telep: Just say his agent, why don't you answer his question - you don't live within 500 feet, do you? You are here as an agent representing Iris Corporation - is that correct? Mr. Aspinwall: Yes. Mr. Telep: Counsel, is that alright? Mr. Harold Anderson: I think it should be understood that they are the developers of this. Right? Mr. Aspinwall: The proposed. 47 Mr. Murphy: I might say I am Joe Murphy amd I am Chairman of the House Committee of the American Legion. It was in the bar out there that this all came about. The American Legion is for this development. The more people we get in that area, the more people we will get into the bar and the restaurant and Mr. Haley: Mr. Chairman, taking off my hat as the engineer, I would like to speak for the record. As President of Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, the property owners immediately abutting this property to the south, we are in favor of this development. Harold Anderson: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to express their opinion? Mr. Moore: I am building inspector for Weld County, and when they prepare these streets, it will be my responsibility to check the grading of streets for drainage to insure that it is an adequate plan. If it is approved, I will be obligated to see that it is fulfilled. Mr. Venable: The statement was made by counsel that the petitioners had not bore their burden of proof. We considered sometime ago - a half hour or forty-five minutes ago - the objection to a lot of testimony on the basis that it should not have been brought before this Board. That the testimony - much of what was sought to be brought out by Mr. Star - if proper discussion with all this proper discussion before the Planning Commission - the matter was submitted as previously stated to the Planning Commission, we presented our evidence in favor at that time. The Planning Commission made their findings. They're the officials upon we know who you rely on and the officials upon whom we rely on - we felt that showing their indication 48 Mr. Venable: and their approval of the project was in itself the best evidence that could be presented. I would also like to say in spite of all the complications we have gotten into it is really a very simple proposal - I am sure the Board understands. Mr. Wiseman's property - his property is not described in any way in our petition. As to conformity or nonconformity that may exist or might arise - it does not exist nor will arise by virtue of our petition or by the decision of the Board on our petition. We think that we have shown that it is a project which has been very carefully studied by very qualified experts, presented to the proper authorities who have approved it unanimously and now we ask that you approve it as well. Thank you. Harold Anderson: Is there anyone else who wishes to express their opinion? Mr. Dunbar: After hearing all the testimony, I would move that the decision of rezoning of this area be taken under advisement pending deliberation of the Board. Marshall Anderson: Seconded. Harold Anderson: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the request for Change of Zone be taken under advisement, I will make it unanimous. Meeting adjourned. yv N M RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30¢ STREET AND NO. o, MI 6434-W t. 3 is/ O., ATE, AND ZIP DE TRA SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES Deliver to Shows to whomm ReaNPI and date Addressee Only ❑ delivered SOO fee 0 100 fee Shows to whom, date, end where delivered 0 350 fee POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — Mar. 1966 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL POSTMARK OR DATE (See other side) Hello