The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About690006.tiffCv 784 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Wednesday, July 23, 1969, at 2:00 P. M. , in the Chambers of the Board of County Commis- sioners of Weld County, Colorado, for the purpose of hearing a petition of the Weld County Planning Commission, requesting a change of zone from "MH" Mobile Home District, to ' A" Agricultural District, of a parcel of land described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SWSE*) of Section Thirty-four (34), Township Two (2) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West of the 6th P. M. , Weld County Colorado, containing 20 acres, more or less, and WHEREAS, the petitioner was present and represented by its inspector, Barney Elgin, and WHEREAS, Mountain Land Realty Company, successor in interest to N. J. McConahay, was present in oposition to the change of zone, and represented by Mr. Ronald Lewis and its counsel, John P. Donley, and WHEREAS, this area was rezoned from "A" Agricultural District to "MH" Mobile Home District, on or about April 17, 1968, by Resolution of the Board of Weld County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, said area was rezoned for a period of twelve months on condition that petitioner, at that time, M. J. McConahay, developed said property as a mobile home park, and WHEREAS, said conditional period of time has passed, and to the present time, there has been no evidence of the development of a mobile home park on this land so rezoned, and WHEREAS, the Weld County Planning Commission, by Resolution of May 26, 1969, has requested and recommended that this area be rezoned Agricultural, as originally zoned, and WHEREAS, the said Board has carefully considered the petition, evidence, testimony and recommendation of the Weld County Planning Commission, and given the same such weight as in its discretion deems proper, and is now fully advised in the premises; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of the Weld County Planning Commission for rezoning of the hereinabove described property, from "MH" Mobile Home District to "A" Agricultural District be granted, and that said area be, and it hereby shall, revert to Agricultural District, as originally zoned. Dated this 17TH day of September, 1969. ATTEST: APP-tROV5D ASC O FORM: ATTORNEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WEL UNT,Y, COLORADO C9' PL0119 690006 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST RONALD M. LEWIS MOUNTAIN LAND REALTY COMPANY APPEARANCES: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Marshall H. Anderson Glenn K. Billings Harold W. Anderson COUNTY ATTORNEY Samuel S. Telep APPLICANT Ronald M. Lewis John Donley, Attorney for Applicant OTHER APPEARANCES: HEARING JULY 23, 1969 Mrs. Dorothy West - Resident Roland Purifoy - Mayor, Town of Fort Lupton Mrs, Edward Cook - Resident Don Cummins - Fort Lupton Planning Commission Everett Hogelin - School Board - Fort Lupton Lawrence Stone - Assistant Superintendent of Schools - Fort Lupton Paul Jacobucci - School Board Member - Fort Lupton B. J. Smith - Resident Mr. Marshall Anderson: Mr. Telep: I will call this hearing to order, docket #16, petitioner M. J. McConahay, Ron Lewis Land Realty Company, Box 969 Evergreen, Colorado, July 23, 1969, 2:00 p.m.. At this time Mr. Telep will you make the record for the Board. Thank you Mr. Chairman, let the record show that this cause came on for hearing this day, July 23, 1969 at 2:00 p.m. as was advertised and required by law in the Greeley Booster on June 20 and July 10, 1969. Let the record further show that this hearing is held concerning the matter of change of zone from "MH" Mobile Home district to "A" Agricultural district of a parcel of land located in the SWW, of the SE4 of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of meridian, Weld County, Colorado, containing 20 the record further show that subject property, the 6th principal acres m/1. Let the land just described was rezoned from "A'" Agricultural district to "MH" Mobile Home district on May 15, 1968 by a resolution passed at that time by the Board of County Commissioners, The change of zone was granted for a period of one year only under certain conditions. The conditions are as follows: (1) The petitioner shall proceed with good diligence to establish a mobile home park to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, (2) Any water and sanitation facilities to be installed shall be approved by the State Health Department, (3) Unapplicable subdivision regulations, zoning regulations, and mobile home and mobile home park regulations shall be followed and complied with to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado. Let the record further show that Mr. Ron Lewis, of Ron Lewis Land Realty Company is present and opposing the change of zone at this time from mobile home to agricultural district, which in fact is a contemplated change of zone for this zoning reverting back to its original status. Let the record further show Mr. Lewis is represented by council, Mr. John P. Donley. (1) Let the record further show that there is on file and of record a letter dated May 9, 1969 with the Board of County Commissioners by Mr. John P. Donley, counsel for Mr. Lewis, stating his grounds why this change of zone should not be made at this time. Let the record further show that the Board has on file a letter dated, May 12, 1969, from the Fort Lupton Fire Protection District, and another letter dated April 30, 1969 from the town of Fort Lupton. Favorable to the Change of zone from "MR" mobile home district to "A" agricultural district. Let the record further show that in effect this hearing is being held and all parties in interest have been notified and that Mr. Lewis who is the purchaser of the property from Mr. N. J. McConahay is here to show cause, if any, he has, why the change of zone should not be granted from "MH" mobile home district to "A" agricultural district, which was the original district in the first instance. Mr. Chairman I think we are ready to proceed. Mr. Anderson: At this time Mr. Donley you may proceed. As this hearing goes on We will be taping the proceedings and if you will please give your name before you start to talk so we have it for a matter of record we would appreciate it. You may proceed Mr. Donley. Mr. Donley: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, Mr. Telep. The object of Mr. Lewis is to demonstrate to the Board that he has complied with their April 17th resolution in that he has proceeded with all due diligence in many respects at the Boards request. Secondly, we will briefly provide locations describing the construction which we hope to begin and the third aspect of our presentation will be to again briefly identify the way in which we interid to operate it providing to the Board the restricted covenants which would be imposed and concluding with some brief remarks about the operations. I would ask that Mr. Ron Lewis be recognized and we will proceed with him. (2) d Mr. Telep: Just for the record Mr. Donley, will you have him please state his name and address, and what capacity he is in. Mr. Donley: Yes, would you state your name and address please? Mr. Lewis: Yes, my name is Ronald Lewis, and my mailing address is Box 237, Evergreen, Colorado, and I am a land developer and contractor. Mr. Donley: Are you familiar with the Boards resolution of April 17, 1968, concerning the plan? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I am. Mr. Donley: Are you familiar with the conditions imposed by the Board in that resolution? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Donley: here you aware that at the time the resolution was passed there was no one present in opposition to that change? Mr. Lewis: No, I was not in attendance at that hearing. Mr. Donley: Alright, when was your interest in that property acquired? Mr. Lewis: I believe that was in February of 1969. Mr. Donley: Alright, the resolution set out three conditions and I will begin with condition No. 1 and will procede with due diligence. I will ask you to describe in considerable detail what you did to comply with the Boards request regarding the development of this project and if you have exhibits to tender those exhibits in the order in which they were originally prepared and identify them clearly. (3) Mr. Lewis: The first thing I did after entering into a contract to buy this property, it was our intent and desire to build a mobile home park on this property and since it was zoned for that we entered into a contract with Mr. McConahay and I scheduled a hearing with the Planning Commission at Greeley so that I migt familiarize myself with their requirements. Mr. Donley: If I might go month by month, Did you do anything in February of 1969? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I wrote to the Planning Commission asking for an oppor- tunity to be heard by them, when I might present some proposed plans and get their feelings on the presentation that we would like to perform there. Mr. Donley: Alright, were you allowed an opportunity to appear before the Weld County Planning Commission? Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: I was. And on what date? On March 6th, I appeared before them and presented some data to them for their approval. Mr. Donley: Do you have copies of those documents with you? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I do. Would you want the plats? Mr. Donley: Yes, the plat plan which you have submitted on March 6, 1969. Mr. Chairman, would you like these marked in a particular order? Mr. Telep: Yes, I think you should, either 1,2,3, or A, B, C. (4) Mr. Donley: All right, if this will be marked as petitioners exhibit "A". What was the Planning Commissions response on March the 6th? Mr. Lewis: At that time they indicated that the plan as proposed would not be acceptable to them, the engineers. Mr. Donley: And you might describe who the engineer was who prepared the plan. Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: This was Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk who did the preliminary work on this. Mr. Trafton Bean indicated that there had been now some modifications and I think so that would not be acceptable Now, throughout this entire time did you use the services of Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk in the preparation of all your exhibits? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I did. Mr. Donley: All right, if you will describe if you can, specifically what did the Planning Commission object to? Mr. Lewis: They indicated that there was some insufficient detail or data on this plat on which they could evaluate the proposal, they sub- sequently sent to me a letter of attached recommendations on March 12th which enumerated or illustrated the problems with the plat. Mr. Donley: May I ask you if that is the letter which you refer to? Mr. Lewis: No, this was not the letter they sent me. In fact the letter was just a cover letter and it said, enclosed please find a punch list with the requirements or conditions they wanted. Mr. Donley: All right, I would ask that this be marked as petitioners exhibit Number 2, exhibit "B". (5) Mr. Telep: Mr. Donley, are you going to refer to that exhibit again or are you going to leave it in passing, because we don't know what the letter is, we don't know the date, or from whom it is or any- thing. Why don't you identify it? Mr. Donley: All right, if you will go into detail and identify that letter Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: All right, this is from Weld County Planning Commission, and it said in a meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission, Thursday, March 6th, your mobile home site plan was tabled for Mountain View Mobile Homes, which is the name it has been identified under. Enclosed is a list of recommendations from Trafton Bean & Associates, consulants for the Planning Commission. If you wish to be on the April agenda please let me know by the 17th of that month. It was signed by Dorothy Hill, Secretary for the Planning Commission. What is affixed to it? This is a punch list of requirements, suggestions, or recommen- dations made which would bring the proposed plan to conformance with the mobile home park regulations by Weld County. In effect what it amounted to was a rejection of the lot size and of the planning data provided in the plot plan, so I went back then to Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk. Mr. Donley: On what day, do you recall? How soon after you received Notification? From the Mr. Lewis: It was four days later, the 16th, March 16th I went back to the engineer who had designed this and I told them, gave them an indication that this was not acceptable and that they must revise the plat for Weld County. Mr. Donley: Was the engineer Mr. Radasch? e Li (6) Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Radasch Paul Radasch. And did you leave Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk with instructions to prepare another draft in compliance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission? Yes, I did do that. Was such a draft prepared? Yes, it was. Do you have a copy of that? May we mark that petitioners exhibit "C"? Mr. Anderson: Put it down below Sam, so we can see what we are looking at. Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Now, we have about three more showings of the progress plans. Did you have occasion to attend the April meeting of the Planning Commission? Yes, I did. Now, would you recite what happened at that meeting. There was criticism of some of the designs incorporated into the second plat and then subsequently it was tabled and subsequently received a second letter from Trafton Bean 8 Associates which set forth the deficiencies in the second plan we had submitted. Now were the drawings and documents that Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk made available to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting? (7) Mr. Lewis: Yes they were. They were sent over by Mr. Radasch from Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk, to my knowledge. Mr. Donley: In essence what was the progression of the criticism now at this stage, what were we to do? Mr. Lewis: Now we had more problems than we had at the first one but we set out to correct those. Mr. Donley: Would you identify those that you have in your hand? Mr. Lewis: Yes, this is a letter from Trafton Bean & Associates on May 9th setting forth the deficiencies in the proposed trailer park. We set out to systematically Mr. Donley: Excuse me Mr. Lewis, would you identify the date, the general content, and who it was signed by? Mr. Lewis: Yes, it was from Trafton Bean & Associates, dated May 9th and Mr. Donley: Does it make specific reference to your April presentation at the Planning Commission meeting? Mr. Lewis: Yes it does. In checking the drawings prepared by Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk dated April 2nd against the adopted mobile home and mobile home park regulations we find the following types of information insufficient. Mr. Donley: I ask that this be marked as petitioners exhibit "D". In that recommendation did the Planning Commission request a cross section diagram of proposed sewer and water connections. Mr. Lewis: Yes, I once again appeared before the Planning Commission and at that time they requested further exhibits of sewer and water data. (g) Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Do you have copies of those? Yes, I have that prepared. With the Chairman's permission, Mr. Lewis would you identify that, and we will mark that. Mr. Lewis: All right, this is from Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk giving certain engineering data concerning the installation of the proposed sewer and water systems, scheduled in phases as to how the engineers projected this might be installed. Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: May this be marked as petitioners exhibit "E". With the Commissioners permission we will deal with the water and sewer issue separately at a later time but we will just pass on to the general structure and development. In your own mind Mr. Lewis, did you diligently set out to comply with each of the nine requests made known to you by that May 9th letter? Yes, I did, I certainly got the information from them. When we -received it from the engineering firm we put out own staff right on it so we resubmitted these items correcting any deficiencies according to the letter submitted to us by Trafton Bean. Now we are approaching the May 15 deadline which is the end of the year originally granted by the Board. At this point, was that the last activity you conducted before May 15 or was there additional activities on your part in an attempt to comply with the Planning Commissions request? Well we assembled items sufficient to meet all questions that they had presented on their punch sheet and mailed those to the Planning Commission and then to the respective authorities prior to that date. (9) Mr. Donley: If I may ask you, on May 13th do you recall sending a letter to the Weld County Planning Commission in care of Trafton Bean which stated that, please find attached additional requested infor- mation as per your letter of May 9, 1969. Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Donley: We would like the record to reflect that the original of that letter is in the Weld County Planning Commission file and is un- available at this time but we do have a verifax copy of that letter that we would like to submit. Mr. Telep: Alright, would you identify it? Mr. Donley: Would you mark this as petitioners exhibit "F"? Would you describe what has been marked as petitioners exhibit "F"? Mr. Lewis: This is a letter that I, Ron Lewis,wrote to the Weld County Planning Commission with the last of the exhibits that they had called for in the last punch sheet I received from Trafton Bean. This had the various circulation data and specific engineering data that they wanted, that they had called for on May ",2nd. Mr. Donley: With that letter did you send any accompanying documents? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I did. Mr. Donley: Has one of those documents been marked as petitioners exhibit "G"? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Donley: Would you describe what that document is? (10) Mr. Lewis: This document which sets forth the proposed service buildings that would be constructed on the property. It shows the type of orientation that we would have for these specific trailer sites themselves and it sets forth the utility service status, how the gas and water connections would be made. It also sets forth the specific road designed criteria as to the grade and drainage and sets forth the garbage collection pickup details and how that would be accomplished and the type of receptables that we anticipate using in the mobile home park itself. Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Did you attend the Weld County Planning Commission meeting of May 5, 1969? Yes sir, I did. Would you recite what occurred at the meeting? Yes, I arrived at the Planning Commission, I arrived after the time I was scheduled to be there. How long? 20 Minutes. Or perhaps 30? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I had been involved in an accident and I was late. As I came in there was a hearing in process and the four times I had been to the Planning Commission prior to the time there had been no one interested in this project, I had been the only one interested in it. So as I came in the room it was filled with interested penders, and I felt that I had either missed the hearing or that I was too early and in my previous presence I had to wait a half hour or so. As this proceeded there was an indication that this was, and I asked where they were on the agenda and on the agenda was this the case that I was interested in. There was a motion being made at that time to recommend to the County Commissioners that the zoning be revoked and the area be changed back to agricultural. Mr. Donley: At any time prior to that, did you receive any notification from the Planning Commission that there would be opposition present? Mr. Lewis: No, I didn't. No, I was quite surprised because I hadn't seen anyone up to that time in the five times I had been there of anyone who was interested in the development or the project and now the room was nearly filled and I did not have an opportunity to present any data or give any defense of the project itself. Mr. Donley: Did you have additional information available? Mr. Lewis: Yes, although the data I hadlhad previously been sent to the Planning Commission so it was there. Mr. Donley: And would you describe what had been previously sent? Mr. Lewis: This was data concerning health, which would be the percolation test, water supply, the portability of the water, and the availability of the water, engineering percolation tests, and then the specific design criteria which had been asked for by the Planning group of Trafton Bean 8 Associates, that had been previously been sent. Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: So that was available at the time of the hearing? Yes At any time were you called upon by any member of the Board to defend yourself? Mr. Lewis: No. (12) Mr. Donley_ And at that time were resolutions passed? Mr. Lewis: Yes, they were passed. Mr. Donify: Were you told to return later that evening? Mr. Lewis: No, I inquired as to what had been taking place and they said you will get a letter concerning this, and I said could you tell me. They said they were too busy, that they were in the middle of another hearing now, we have a busy agenda, and I said I will wait. They said it will be 7:00 before we can talk to you and tell you what proceeded. But one of the, I think the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Watson, indicated that it was all over. I said all over, I don't know what you mean, all over! He said it is all over, your zoning is revoked and just forget about it. Mx. Donley: This was on what date again? May 5, 1969? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Donley: Did you attempt to acquire a building permit? Mr. Lewis: After my discussion, after the brief discussion with the gentlemen, I raid. Mr. Donley: Were you denied? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I went into the building department then asked for a building permit by which I might construct a mobile home park as proposed on the first phase. Gentlemen, if I might interject. I still am quite, I really don't understand what the actual procedure is, I obtained on my first time to Greeley, which was my first hearing, on March 6th, a regulation for a mobile home park, mobile home regulation revised as of 1966. (13) On the third page it reads that a permit shall mean a written permit issued by an administrative official permitting the construction, alteration or operation of a mobile home park under the resolutions and regulations promogated thereunder. So what I was attempting to do and am still intending to do is to obtain a permit for a mobile home park, to allow us to construct this mobile home park realizing it would have to meet with the requirements and resolutions as accepted. I felt that we had provided enough data and information necessary for the Planning Commission, all that they had requested we had provided them with and I still don't know what type of permit this is that I am to have. Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis let me say that that would conclude phase one from February to May 1969, strictly with compliance, your compliance with the Planning Commissions' requests. Now the deadline was May 15, 1969, demonstrating your good faith , have you been in further correspondence with Mr. Trafton Bean and the Planning Commission with regard to further matters? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have. Mr. Donley: Would you identify specifically what subject you had gone into Mr. Lewis: and what length and depth you had gone into them2 Well, I did, and that evening I obtained the services of Mr. Donley after I had left the Planning Commission and we then did go back and meet with the Planning Commission after 7:00 that evening. Since that time I had submitted additional items to Trafton Bean and Associates and to Mr. Glenn Paul, Sanitarian for Weld County. I have also performed, had a driller run some water well tests on an existing well on the property. Mr. Donleya I ask, do you have any documents sent to you after the May 15th deadline? (14) Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a document sent to me by Mr. Trafton Bean indicating that the three items that were yet to be produced. One was the approval of Glen Paul and the other two items were for additional information which he did have. Mr. Donity: Mr. Telep: Mr. Donley: Mr. Telep: May we mark this as What is the date on the notice? May? May 22, 1969. From Trafton Bean? Mr. Donley: Yes. We would ask that this be marked as petitioners exhibit "H" although the date is after the effective deadline week, we would like to proceed and show further completion of the project. Now, what responses did you provide to Mr. Beans' inquiries? Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: I immediately sent him back exhibits complying with his requirements. Do you have any copies of those exhibits? Yes, I do. I immediately sent back to him additional information and then sent those exhibits he requested to Mr. Glen Paul, the sanitarian. Actually that was his only major concern, we had full - filled all of his conditions at that time. His only concern was that we satisfy Mr. Glen Paul. Well, he says that until water supply is tabled, water and sewage facilities are approved by Mr. Glen Paul, so we had complied with all of the provisions other that meeting Mr. Glen Paul's approval, which I think we subsequently have. Mr. Donley: Alright, now I would ask you to identify these two documents. Would you identify what we have marked as petitioners exhibit "I" (15) please and once again for the record we would state that these are only verifax copies, the originals of which are in Mr. Glen Paul's file or in the Planning Commissions file and are available upon proper notice. Mr. Lewis: Gentlemen, this is a letter written by mys elf to Mr. Glen Paul saying that the accompanying exhibits which were sent to him with the additional information that he wanted. I had spoke to him and he requested this additional information in regard to Mountain View Mobile Home Estates, It was a letter from James Drilling Company, regarding the pumping of the existing well on the property and water content. I also sent him a copy of a well permit for the well on the property and a copy of the well logs and history of that well which is located on the property and a copy of a drilling report of which is located on the property. These items were sent to him. Mr. Donley: What date is the letter? Mr. Lewis: June 10th. Mr. Donley: That is petitioners exhibit "I". Mr. Lewis: Yes, "I". Mr. Donley: Now would you identify petitioners exhibit "J" please? Mr. Lewis: Petitioners exhibit "J" is a letter from James Keaton doing business as James Drilling Company located in Arvada, Colorado, stating that he or his men did go out and find a well on did remove the top of that well, cut that casing that well and found that the well was within the this property. They open and did test original limits of the well law permit as filed with the state engineer #29101, which states the level of the static water level, the PH tests that have been made. Mr. Donley: Would you read those items into the record please? (16) Mr. Lewis: Yes, it states we did pump the well located on the property being described and developed by Mountain Land Realty Company as a trailer park otherwise known as the SW4 of the SE- of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.. We found water within said well to be within the original well laws and permit as attached and as filed with the state engineer #29101. Water level was found to be at 20 foot and said water was portable and free of ground bacteria and the PH test used to show that the water was free of iron and usable for domestic purposes without conventional softeners. In all it is our feeling that the well tested would be adequate to service the area to be developed for trailer homes and when additonal water is required for growth we feel that additional wells could be drilled within the limits of said property to supplement the water supply. Mr. Donley: Would you identify the qualifications of that company please? Mr. Lewis: James Drilling Company is a major drilling company located within the state. Mr. Donley: Have you used him in the past? Mr. Lewis: Yes, they drill about one hundred wells a year for us in our land development projects. Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: We would ask that both of these documents be admitted. They have drilled for some 22 years, I guess. Would you identify what has been marked as petitioners exhibit "K" please? This is petitioners exhibit "K". It is a letter that I sent to Mr. Glen Paul on May 12, 1969 prior to the last exhibit at which time I said, "Please find enclosed the following information on Mountain View Mobile Home Parks, an application for a septic tank system which was completed. A percolation test by William McDowell, A.E. which (17) 4 was a registered engineer soil analysis. Percolation tests have been obtained to determine the ability of the soil to receive sewage. Per- colation tests locations, setting forth where it was conducted and the legal description and the recommended septic tank dimension chart which was published by the Colorado State Department of Public Health. A typical camp sewer layout by the Colorado State Department of Public Health which was the exhibit and the intended instructions that we were to comply with. This was the exhibit that we were intending to construct on the property and then the water tests from the existing well was designated by the development diagram. There is a well on this property and the tests were made from the existing well and I submitted this data to Mr. Glen Paul. Then a development diagram which showed the first phase of a sewer program and location of the proposed septic system which is indicated in one of the exhibits. Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Would you refer to that specifically? Yes, this exhibit "E", petitioners exhibit "E" shows the location and nature of the proposed sewage facility as laid out by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk. In petitioners exhibit "K" which you just referred to, you made reference to a percolation test made by William B. McDowell and Assoc. I would like this marked as petitioners exhibit "L" and ask if you will identify that please? Yes, this is a letter which was sent to me by William McDowell and Associates, consulting engineers from Boulder, Colorado. This is a percolation test conducted on the property giving the legal as the SW -4 of the SE4- of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. according according of this parcel of ground. The percolation holes are located to the attached sketch and the tests were conducted to the U. S. Department of Public Health publication #526 Tests results of which were as follows and I found these rates well (18) within the acceptable rates of the state and therefore submitted and sent on to Mr. Glen Paul. Mr. Donley: Would you identify sheet number 2 ? Mr. Lewis: This is an attached sheet showing the percolation tests location, where they actually tested the soil for its percolation test on the proposed Mointain View Mobile Home Estates, where they had made tests to see if the soil would receive. Mr. Donley: Now, I would like to deal with the subject of the water on this property. Will you describe if possible the present water conditions in relation to the present proposed water development and then part two, the availability of additional water if and when the project expands at some further date. Mr. Lewis: When I pruchased the parcel of ground from Mr. McConahay I was given a well law and a drilling report which indicated a permit to drill a well. Mr. Donley: If you will identify those we will mark them. Mr. Lewis: On the basis of the information contained within these I proceeded in trying to meet the requirements of the Weld County Planning Commission because according to the engineers I had this was sufficient water for the first phase as proposed in our unit here. Mr. Donley: Would you identify what has been marked as petitioners exhibit "M" and "N" 2 Mr. Lewis: Exhibit "M" is a permit to construct a well from the State of Colorado which is validated and signed. Exhibit "N" is a water well law of a well drilled by Wesley Runyan and located on this subject property of 250 acres. A assumed that these were valid instruments and proceeded then to submit these instruments to the Planning Commission. (19) Mr. Donley: Would you identify what has been marked as petitioners exhibit "0"? Would you be particular as to the dates stamped thereon? Mr. Lewis: This was a bacteriological water test made on the subject well which is dated November 12, 1968. Mr. Donley: Who conducted this test? Mr. Lewis: This was the previous owner as the previous driller of the well, a N. J. McConahay. Mr. Donley_ What department in the State of Colorado is involved? Mr. Lewis: The Colorado State Department of Public Health and the test made from this was to be returned safe for portability. Mr. Donley: The test which were conducted in 1968 and the tests which you had conducted at your own request and expense show that the water was safe for drinking purposes. Mr. Lewis: In both cases it was portable and fit for human consumption. Mr. Donly: Do you feel that you complied with the Board of County Commissioners' requests to proceed with all due diligence in the analysis and development of a safe and adequate water supply? Mr. Lewis: Yes, we complied with every request that has been given us. Mr. Donley: At any time were you given or informed by any health authority, whether local or state that the water was unfit for human consumption? Mr. Lewis: There has been a great deal of concern over this and that is why I conducted privately my own tests on this. In my discussion (20) fS 1 with Mr. Paul there was some concern that there was no water there. That these documents were not valid and that there was no water there . I therefore hired a private firm to go out and test this well to determine for myself because I had not had the well opened to deter- mine for myself that there was water there and that the water was portable and could be used for the purpose we proposed. Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donleya Now, within the limits of the present proposal you are satisfied with the water. Would you discuss the growth potential and the availability of the water at now only the level which you drilled but at lower levels and upon what information you base your belief? I am not an expert on water especially in the plains area, but I do know that there is water contained within that well out there, and that is the reason he drilled. I do know that the driller who prepared this report said that he felt that additional water cound be obtained on the property in sim iliar types of strata. In addition to this I did obtain from the Colorado Ground Water Resources Department, a study of existing deep wells in that immediate area going on down to the various sands, fox sands, and several other sands did get an opinion as to what our possibility might be in getting larger quantities of water should we exceed the original first phase. All we had proposed to do is to develop 18 mobile home sites as our first phase of development. The water we have at the present time is adequate to conclude this first phase. We would then obtain additional water and if we were not successful this would be the extent of the total development as limited under the require- ments - the subdivision requirements. You are aware are you not that at any time the County Health Engineer can completely shut down the whole operation in the event that you are not providing both sufficient quantities and sufficient quality water for the potential residents in this area. Mr. Lewis: Yes, and it was our intent to develop and actually indicate or be able to demonstrate the available water prior to having any occupancies of this park itself. We want to get a permit so we can construct this and have it inspected and obtain the permission of the Weld County to then move mobile homes into the area. It is not out intent to give anyone residency within this area until all of our improvements that would be water, sewage, and physical construction were actually resident and could be evaluated by the Health Department and the Building Department. Mr. Donley: I believe gentlemen, that this concludes our first phase of our presentation in regard to the development of the issue with due diligence. Mr. Lewis is prepared to answer any questions which any of you or anyone alse might have on this particular subject with due diligence in compliance with the Boards resolution of April 17, 1968. Mr. Telep: Mr. Donley: Mr. Anderson: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Anderson: Mr. Donley, this has nothing to do with the subject matter sub- stance but I would like to make a correction. You refer to the April 17, 1968, that was the date of the hearing, the date of this resolution was May 15, 1968. Thank you, I am sorry. Are you going to have lawns around these trailers? We had anticipated sodding the immediate area. There is a large cluster of trees on the north end of the property which we were going to leave as a natural park area. We have sort of an unnusual arrangement for the trailers, so there would be a limited side area available to the trailer site itself. As near as I can figure out you will need 265 gallons of water for a 24 hour period so you can't have very much lawn. It would take 10,000 gallons of water for 24 hours for everyone. Mr. Legris: I think the requirements call for 150 gallons of water per trailer unit. Mr. Anderson: Are the streets going to be oiled in the area or are they going to be dirt? (22) Mr. Lewis: These will be pena prime which the engineer has now, this will be a soil stabilization process. Are you fellows acceptable to that? The trailer court where we are involved in right now has an asphaltic Mr. Anderson: This oil thats on this plot we've gone through this for the last 4 years. Thats the well down in there by those trees, it isn't even - Did you buy all the 160 acres from Mr.McConahay? Mr. Lewis: No sir, I had an option on the entire 160 acres. I only bought 20 acres moreor less Mr. Anderson: The well isn't on the original plot that you gave us. Do you want the same thing, even though it isn't on the property? Mr. Lewis: No, but I do own the parcel of land that the well resideson now and do have a contract on the well that is there now, it is through outside the proposed 20 acres, it is adjacent to it Mr. Anderson: Are these going to be on a rental basis or privately owned? Mr. Lewis: These will be rental spaces, maintained by ourselves and rented by us. Mr. Billings: The only question I would have would be the restrictions that Coloracb has on wells, is there an assurance that if this well would become inadequate could additional wells be drilled? They sort of frown on more wells in the state. Mr. Lewis: No, we don't have. We would proceed immediately, it is our proposal that in the issuance of a permit to build a trailer park we will drill a well to the fox sand which is 800 feet beneath to obtain a more adequate source of water. This would be done immediately. Mr. Anderson: Mr. Lewis: The permit hasn't been asked for or appli ad for yet has it? Yes sir, it has. I did that on the very first hearing date. 23 Mr. Donley: Mr. Lewis: Mr. Donley: conditions for proceeding No, what I think he means is the permit for the new well. No, it has not but it could be one of the conditions. You mean you wand be prepared to accept, that is if the the are denied by the state for/well. would be denied, then the whole project would fold up2 Mr. Lewis: Well at least up to unit one, and we have enough water now to proceed with our first phase which is a very limited phase. As Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk have indicated this is the first phase for the existing well. Mr. Anderson: Mr. Lewis: The well still isn't on the original plot? No, it isn't , it is on an adjacent plot of land. It could be involved in that parcel of land if it were necessary, or the desire of the Commissioners it couldbe a part of the plot. Mr. Donley: Would you describe to the Commissioners who you made a contract with to construct the unit and what prior experience he has in building mobile home parks? Mr. Lewis: The gentlemen doing the physical constuction would be Mr. Roy Monroe, who is involved with our firm; Mountain Land Realty Company, putting in another trailer court expansion unit at the Trailer Court. Mr. Donley: Where is this court located? Mr. Lewis: It is located in the northern end of Commerce City, next to Moore Equipment Company - catapillar company- it is a very fine trailer park. Mr. Monroe has added some 150 units there in the last year and a half. Mr. Monroe would be the general contractor in the contruction work for us. He is very familiar with this type of program and has a financial interest in the park and would be the general manager for this park. He is presently engaged in this type of work and will be general manager of this park. He is and expert in the field of trailer parks, making his livihood from the construction and would like to manage tnis one personally, he would actually take up a physical residence here and live in this park. 24 Mr. Donley: Do you have any projections in regards to covenants and restrictions placed upon the tenants of this area? Mr. Lewis: Yes, we have submitted to the Planning Commission at a time with these other exhibits, a set of covenants which we would enact on the grounds restricting the use of this ground and the activities limiting the type of person who would use our rental facilities. Mr. Monroe was quite concerned about this and made certain about this and made it part of his condition for building the park itself. Mr. Donley: Would you identify what has been marked as petitioners exhibit "P"? Mr. Lewis: Exhibit "P" is a set of covenants and regulation which would be imposed on Mountain View Mobile Home Estates in Weld County should we be issued a permit to build the facility as per our exhibits and it sets forth the requirements and covenants expected of the renters. Mr. Donley: Correcttmeif I am wrong, Mr. Lewis, but its your position you are prepared to run the financial risk involved of constructing this without letting one tenant move on and then subjecting this project in the first phase of it by close scrunity by anybody at anytime and in anyway whether it be Health Officials, Boards of County Commissioners, anybody who might have a legitimate objection to the construction and the potential maintenance of this area. If it wasn't within the cmmpli ance of the demands that you would repair and make it operable, is that correct? Mr. Lewis: It would have to be some legitimate person, but what our intention what we had anticipated from the beginning was that we would get a permit to build this and at such a time that the first phase was completed and when we had complied with the Health Department and with the building department division then we would be issued a permit to allow renters in. This was our intended procedure from the beginning to build the facility and to demonstrate adequate water prior to having residents in the area. 25 Mr. Anderson: Do you have any more evidence to present? Mr. Donley: No sir, all our documents are in we would again read into the record the availability of all documents presently in the possession of any agency of the Weld County local government, whether it be the Planning Commission or Health Department officials. Mr. Anderson: Is there anyone alse who would like to speak for this application? For or against? If not we will proceed with the fors first. If not we will proceed with those against the proposal. Is there anyone here opposing this petition, you will be heard at this time? Mr. Telep: Excuse me, are you against this? Mrs. Dorothy West: We live in Englewood, 2109 West Vassor, Avenue, but we own property in Aristocrate Acres and the only thing we have against the trailer court is that the people move in and out and you don't know what they are going to do while they are there. They will probably stay a week or two and then they will move on, and you just don't know what is going on. We don't know what kind of people are going to be living there and the people that are living there are residents and are making homes. Thats our objection. Mr. Donley: How far do you live from this location that we are talking about? Mrs. West: We live just right south of it. Mr. Donley: Straight south? How far south? Mrs. West: I don't know how big that square is. We live on the southeast corner. It is about a mile. Mr. Donley: Do you own a trailer or a home in Aristocrate Acres? (26) Mrs. West: No, we don't, not at the present time. When we moved up there we moved six years ago, we had a mobile home. Mr. Telep: Mrs. West: Mr. Telep: Mrs. West: Mr. Telep: Mrs. West: You had a mobile home there? Yes sir. Where is the mobile home now? We sold it. You sold it? Is that a vacant lot now? Yes, but if we would move back there we would live in a mobile home because we are too old to start building houses. As far as the trailer courts are, we figure people move in and out too much and they steal everything they can get their hands on up there as it is. Mr. Tele2: Do you have any questions? Mr. Donley: I don't have any more questions. Roland Purifoy: I am the Mayor of Fort Lupton. We could be for or against this, of course our main interest is what we have run into as far as Aristocrate Acres is concerned. They do not have the water supply out there or the sewer facilities that are adequate. At the present time Fort Lupton is furnishing quite a lot of water, being hauled out in all kinds of containers to Aristocrate Acres, and I personally feel that I am not objecting to Mr. Lewis's plan, provided, that he hs the proper facilities, and that he does prove that he is going to have the water. So it isn't fair that the people of Fort Lupton pay for another tourist court to go in out there and furnish the water to this camp. Now, as far as the existing well, if I understand this right, it won't much more than take care of one mobile home less known the number and size of this project that is supposed to be put in that is expected. I personally would like to see that this well that he speaks of that he could get, is adequate before this is started to take care of his proposed subdivision or mobile home park. Some of the (27) circumstances that we have run into as far as Aristocrate Acres, with no reflection on anyone who lives out there, because they all seem to be real happy, but the water is a problem, there is no water out there to speak of. We have trucks come in, as large as gasoline trucks to load water into them, and if we don't furnish the water they will get the water some way or other. Now I would like to see the sewage facilities taken care of and also know that there is going to be adequate water to operate this facility before it started. Mr. Anderson: Is there anyone else against this? Mrs. Edward Cook: I really don't object to the trailer court except that if it is rezoned, what about all of the trailers that are there now. They talk about going to have to move those trailers parked out there now. I own a house out there. As far as the water supply, if they go deep enough they can get water. We went 695 feet but we got water. But you have to get down there to get it. Mr. Telep: Mrs. Cook: Mr. Telep: Mrs. Cook: Mr. Telep: Mrs. Cook: Mr. Telep: Mrs. Cook: Mr. Telep: Mrs. Cook, do you live out of Fort Lupton? I live right on the south end of Aristocrate Acres. How far do you live from this location that we are talking about? I am not too sure just where he is at. I know it is up on the other end, though, we are right on the southwest end. In other words you have no idea About a mile or better. You don't know actually where this proposed location is? Well, I know where he was drilling his well. Well, I think you know where it is then. (28) Mrs. Cook: Pretty much so, yes. Mr. Billings: What is the capacity of the well that you are talking about? Mrs. Cook: We went down approximately 690 feet and the water level is 400 +. Mr. Billings: Mrs. Cook: Mr. Billings: Mrs Cook: How big of a pipe do you have coming out of there? Approximately how big? Six inch. Six inches. You have about 500 gallons of water then. We have a lot of water pressure, I know that. We had one well that was down only 60 feet but you couldn't drink it or stand the smell of it. There are only three or four of them out there that have wells that deep. But we have good water. Mr. Lewis: I am sympathetic with these people, but it is not our intention to construct something that would become a burden on the city of Fort Lupton, something that would be sub standard. I am not involved in the Aristocrate Ranchettes I don't know what it is I am sure Mr. McConahay was involved in this project. We are not a part of it, we would submit our qualifications as land developers. We have some 33,000 acres in the state of Colorado under development at the present time and I think we do a pretty nice job, we have to in order to stay in business. Out intention would not be to invest some money here in something that would be less that substandard. My problem is though, that we cannot drill a well without first getting per- mission under the statutes as provided, that you gentlemen signed, we cannot construct, maintain, or alter a trailer park without first obtained a mobile home permit for construction, and that is what I would like to do. (29) Everett Hogelin I am Secretary to the Fort Lupton School District REA and Secretary to the Fort Lupton Fire Protection District. Our objections are of a more far reaching effect. There has been no mention made as to assessed the possible population for the valuation of this mobile home park. We, at the schools are concerned with the adequate education for our youngsters. We realize that with the mobile home additional school age children will be involved. It will be the responsibility of the school to be able to provide proper educational facilities for these children. At the present time our School District is regarded as one or the poorer districts in the County, with the assessed valuation that we have. We feel that with the additional burden of the number of proposed home sites that would be added, and no additional amount of revenue to the School District for the support of the children that would be involved in this School District, we therefore take the stand in opposition against this until such adequate renumeration is made by the owners of the mobile home park or the owners of the mobile homes themselves. As you gentlemen are aware, there is not adequate system of taxation on mobile homes, tht they are not taxes as permanent residents. This does work hardships on the school districts, and with the hardships that our School District has now, we feel that this will only add to our hardships. Speaking as a representative of the Fort Lupton Fire Protection District, we receive all of our tax money from the taxpayer. This again would not be any amount of renumeration from this district to share in the proportion to the burden of the support of the entire fire protection district and the fire department in particular. Also it was not stated if any type of fire protection that was to be established in this mobile home park and since this is inside of the fire protection district that it would increase the amount of vigilance;:necessary as far as the fire department is concerned. It would materially increase the amount of traffic, as far as, going to and from the area, since the amount of water available is not adequate to supply 500 or 750 gallons per minute pumper which would be recommended to use. Mr. Anderson: Is there anyone else 30 cJ_ Mr. Donley: May I ask a question? 'Sir are you presently covering and protecting the Aristocrate Ranchette area? Mr. Hogelin; Yes sir. Mr. Donley: How many fires did you have there in 1968? Mr. Hogelin: I don't have the figures on it. I think that possibly forty percent of the fire calls were in Aristocrate Ranchettes. Mr. Donley: Mr. Hogelin: Mr. Hogelin: Were they dwelling fires or grass fires. Fifty percent - twenty-five percent - one or the other? I don't know what the percentage is here. Mr. Donley: In your fire protection district do you have the ability to charge different rates to tax the different individuals on different levels depending upon how far they are from the fire house ? Mr. Hoq.elin: Mr. Donley: Mr. Hogelin: No, This is set by statutue? This is - we have a mill levy upon the property and the valuation of the property prescribes the amount that each property owner will pay in taxation to the fire protection district. Mr. Donley: Mr. Anderson: Don Cummins: I see. Are there any more questions? I represent the Planning Commission from Fort Lupton and I am concerned - we have just recently made a comprehensive plan for Fort Lupton and the surrounding area and we -are quite concerned to see that any development down there has some real tight stringent requirements so that we don't get involved with the same type of development that has been allowed to develop in the Aristocrate Ranchettes. These people were promised that there was lots of water and that there would be paved roads and sewer all of this. This has just not been done or accomplished. As I listen to Mr. Lewis there is already a question is he going to have a new well involved and I have not heard any real - whether 31 if the well meets whatever a well log says it is but I have not heard what this would amount to, whether it would allow for lawns or adequate protection for people as far as fires. This is the type of thing we are concerned with that any development is a good development concerns me as a representative of this Board and as a taxpayer this area is 2.5 miles east of town in an area that has sandy graveled roads. It is difficult after the other development to see this type of development going in there and bring all the things that they should have to be a good development for the community. We are quite concerned that not any rag type things be allowed to be developed in this area. We have problems enough as you are well aware without any additional ones. Mr. Billings: If there was adequate water and fire protection all of this - the point was that if you knew there was adequate water and fire protection Mr. Cummins: and the streets would be paved - that is a good development that would have real stringent requirements - if it is allowed to be developed and there are no exceptions to it. So that it could be closed down immediately and not put off and this type of thing. Mr. Donley paved? Mr. Cummins: Mr. Donley: May I ask a question - is every street in Fort Lupton No, but my point is that people I just asked a question - if every street in Fort Lupton was paved - that is all. Mr. Cummins: Well the reason I say that is because we just recently annexed an area that is not paved. If you had asked me two weeks ago I might have given you a different answer. Mr. Anderson: Lawrence Stone: Would anyone else like to speak? I am the Assistant Superintendent of schools, the Superintendent Elect next year, Mr. Butler is retiring and so forth. I would like to support the points that Mr. Hogelin presented as far as the school district is concerted I think this is really quite a concern. It is not that we do not want to educate all the youngsters 32 that we possibly can in the best possible to the best possible extent that we can educate them. But there is an item of a tax base involved here which can create very serious problems and as Mr. Hogelin mentioned we have a low tax base per pupil that we have in schools currently. My understanding that on this type of development there is not much if tax base here involved - there is more money put into the development in each pad this is the thing - some of the courts in Denver are doing perhaps - and the taxes rise. I think this would possibly make a difference here. Right now this would present a serious financial burden to the school district for the number of youngsters as compared to the tax base it would provide for taxing purposes. Mr. Anderson: Do you have any questions? Mr. Donley: Mr. Anderson: Paul Jacobucci: their testimony. No, no questions. Is there anyone else? I am on the school board in Fort Lupton and I support Mr. Anderson: Is there anyone else? At this time we will have a showing of hands of the people supporting the application. Now we will find out how many are against it. Mr. Telep: There are 13 hands showing not in favor of the request The question from the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners was how many are against? The only way I can clarify that for you benefit is against what Mr. Lewis is proposing, let me put it that way. I will reiterate at this time there would be no question why this hearing is held. This particular area is already zoned mobile home, we want you to know that. We are here, we brought Mr. Lewis here principally to show cause why this should not revert back to the original zoning, because of non-complicance with the conditions that were imposed by the Board by their resolution dated May 15, 1968. His testimony in chief was along that line. He claims that he did comply. The question is did he or didn't he? This is why you good people are here and you are voicing 33 your opinions. The Board certainly wants to get your reaction to all of this. This is why Mr. Lewis was afforded this opportunity to show cause why this should not be done. So that when the Board, whether they decide now, or take it under advisement, so that they could be so sufficiently advised that they would come up with an intelligent judgement in this matter. Does that explain it ? B. J. Smiths I live south of this and I would like to ask two questions: Mobile homes and a mobile park is that under the same heading. Mr. Telep: Mr. Smith: Mr. Telep: Mr. Smith: I think it is the same general type of zoning "MH" Mobile homes and mobile home parks. Its a different type zoning than just plain agricultural One is for a park and one is against a park Mr. Telep: I don't know what you are for, what is your This is a mobile home district. Mr. Smith: Well that is what I mean, the one where we voted for just now is that for the park or not for the park? Mr. Telep: Mr. Smith: Mr. Telep: Mr. Smith: Mr. Telep: Mr. Smith: half acre. You are against it? Yes. Your against it. The park itself — there is trailers out there. Thats right. And I understand that there is only one trailer per Mr. Telep: That is where you own your own land, to bring a trailer in - this particular instance this gentlemen had a plot of ground whereby he will construct slabs, things of that nature and people who have mobile 34 can come in and will rent - rent a plot from him and pay him rent. If they are there 6 months or a year or two years or five years and when they are ready to move they move. If that a true statement Mr. Lewis? Mr. Lewis: Mr. Telep: Yes sir. You know he is responsible for this. He is responsible for all the road that they are in good shape, that the County is not responsible for anything as to roads or anything. I think you can realize and appreciate some of the problems that arise as the result of some of this. Does that explain your question? Mr. Smith: Mr. Telep: Yes. Alright, the only difference is a mobile home park a mobile home area where you have a park where somebody owns the land and rent out a space to you Audience: There can be more than one trailer on a half acre. Mr. Telep: Oh yes, you can put on 2, 3 or 10. But he is responsible for everything. But in Aristocrate Ranchettes I won't talk about that. In that area I think he is selling an acre and putting trailers on there. The area was planned for low cost housing, then he went to trailers. You want a trailer, you buy and acre and you are in. But it is different from what this gentlemen wants. trailer Mr. Billings: The average on this is 6.1/per acre according to the map here there will be 20 acres with 122 trailers. Mr. Anderson: Alright now that everybody is clear, do you understand what you are voting on now? We will start over. Anyone who is favor? of Mr. Lewis' application would you please raise your right hand. Now those who are not in favor of Mr. Lewis' application. For the record we would like to show - those who have not spoken would you please stand up and give your name Mr. Telex: Let the record show that 13 people are against said application. 35 Those standing and giving their names and address are as follows: Alvin Birch - 1021 McKinley - Ft. Lupton - Town Board 8 Planning Commission Mel Busch - Town of Ft. Lupton Clarence West - That was my wife talking Harold Fisher - Town of Ft. Lupton Fred Struck Mr. Anderson: Are there any other questions. Mr. Donley: No, I believe all the exhibits are in, I merely ask to be given the opportunity to construct it and if the Board of County Commissioners, their designated agents in the form of the health officials the building inspectors, the electrical inspectors find something wrong and give us what we need to do to correct it. Mr. Anderson: With that gentlemen, we will call this hearing closed and take it under advisement. c �y/4 i(47-7 v2 Deputy County Clerk 36 Board Decision on Change of Zone 5/15, 1968 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30¢ SENT TO N. J. McConahay STREET AND NO. 4963 Harlan St. R. 0., STATE, AND ZIP CODE Wheatridge, Colo. EXTRA SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RMum RM1a1N Deliver to Shows to whom Shows to whom, Addressee Only and date date, and where del' delivered 0 SOO fee 0 100 fee ❑ 350 lee POSTMARK OR DATE OOecitNIMO 1NMINRIIRAMC[ COVp1Aac tROV10[e— (See other side) Mar. ISM 10? FOR IRTE[MIATIONAL MAIL Change of Zone - KENNETH T. COLWELL ATTORNEY AT LAW 210 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG. GREELEY, COLORADO - 80631 TELEPHONE 353-1986 May 22, 1968 Board of County Commissioners Weld County Courthouse Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: Your request for designation of the specific 20 acres involving the recent re -zoning of property belonging to N. J. McConahay has been received, and you are hereby advised that Mr. McConahay desires the following 20 acres to be re -zoned as "MH" Mobile Home District, to -wit: The North Half (NZ) of the Southwest Quarter (SW+ ) of the Southeast Quarter (SE3'—) of Section Thirty-four (34), Township Two (2) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, containing 20 acres more or less. Very truly yours, TH T, COL LL KTC:ec cc: Weld County Planning Commission TOWN OF FORT LUPTON COUNTY OF WELD 93O PARK AVENUE FORT LUPTON. COLORADO April 30, l':69 Weld County Commissioners Court Houoe Greeley, Color.:l<<o G0631 r?onorable Commissioners: )let JI1`) A... (1';,1 The Fort Lupton Planning Commission is quite con- ce-ned about the pre Dsc d ?railer Court development 2 rules east of Fort Luton. The oro,iosed court is to be located in the TA„ SE': of Sectcn '-�'t�, R, T .6611. �t �. The Metro -Counties have found trailer jevelo Yt :nts to b a cost? burden. Services required of all local ovornmontal i...(:moles are not conlJenss :;ed by the taxes ?.er_vcd. ' County 1.4- .ei d County nccd, no v yc�:refi_l cs to � whore, when, ;nd how mr._2y cour s arc allowed to d '•lelop. Our concern is �,;re^t as, the development to t'?e north of a -:'ca has not met cx. .coed standards. r r restrictions shoulde �e , t'`is uro?losnd Proer 'o ;�.�.n d �r_ � _ aevclo.mert sa t'.is does not become a 1r:abilc slum. port Lu)ton h;: s or_l;; '_ ,centl finished a camprehons:i.ve plan for -he town and we c4:. anxious to see tic Southern Weld develop in an orderly 'rid planned manner. i ef� n ,r • vo-1 n Y. t. y.. t�.L n allord..'d i.•.�.t, oi'e :.I1J L.l;. '_LO.1:' O 1L ,,: Ci}1 as t?.is � c:. , adequate 301'2.-0S of .r.'; r sl:o id hc: roquird for i;hc ent'_. site i''o.n .he c:ci _ir twins- of ;4= unta .n LL.ad - . l.' i' O 7 v • �. LS re t t furur o expansion is 'weir_; con- sidered. "de iu.?t.e :r:..t ,r s'.o.l �.d be re,_,-_�.r d for the fl-ture. Propc" •:cv'1 le 'ment and 1''-clu _ro io.n s for oLnita- t:on be included :in the pro •opal. Trash collec- tion and sor'Vice :::nst be considered as a rec?uir-Jn:n'; for d: vel.opor to meet. Ii, adci?. tie!?, fire ,)fr,tect on f ci_lities is no ded r s 1^.; .cv,•,l r...-.. •� r- v a ' • , n c!.� t..._.:a .,... • _ O;)..t�..tti; will h e .il.-vi. l}��''�?�-_ i;i ;�:.l :.l..riS ..t�. tlb.out for. o1>or 'fir nrot'oction_ facilities the area can onl.: be served by tile rural fire. 1quii.)!rt• nt. This could be inadequate for this many peo.'le. 10 TOWN OF FORT LUPTON COUNTY OF WELD 890 PARK AVENUE FORT LUPTON, COLORADO There e .oilld he c :;7 ehens! ve )la nn _ oo and -_5ocific li t of requirements he not prior to 1 !ll owin this to develop. Based upon the information we have at the i sent, are oo osed to this development. Sincerely, Donald R. Cummins, Socretar- fort Lupton Planning Coms__s.,lon 220 PIRST NATL. BANK 6LDO. OREELEY. COLORADO 60031 PHONE 13031 262-1062 JOHN P. DONLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW May 9, 1969 Mr. Marshall H. Anderson, Chairman Board of County Commissioners District Courthouse Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Anderson: This letter is sent to you on behalf of the Buffalo Park Develop- ment Company of Evergreen, Colorado, requesting an opportunityto be heard on the matter of the application for "Mobile Home" zoning as more fully set out in the Resolution of the Board of County Com- missioners, dated May 15, 1968. The basis for this request stems from arbitrary and unwarranted action taken by the Weld County Planning Commission at their meet- ing held May 5, 1969. Attached is a copy of the above described Resolution, and follow- ing is a brief history of the relationship between the Planning Com- mission and my client. April 17, 1968: Resolution providing for conditional zoning subject to cer- tain enumerated conditions. February 28, 1969: Mr. Ronald Lewis wrote to the Planning Commission in- dicating that he would like the opportunity to appear before them at their March, 1969 meeting. March 6, 1969: Mr. Lewis appeared before the Planning Commission and submitted a plat plan that had been prepared by and for Mr. N. J. McConahay. The Planning Commission voiced opposition to the proposal and requested an entirely new plat which more accurately reflected the configuration of the development and the changed development concept. Objections were raised concerning lack of information on density of trailers within the Mobile Home park, and that there was no indication that state health and sanitation regulations would be complied with. Mr. Lewis agreed to secure services of Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk to prepare a new plat. March 12, 1969: Mr. Lewis received a letter from the Planning Commission with an attached list of specific recommendations. Thereafter Mr. Lewis contacted Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk and requested a new plat prepared according to the specifications outlined by the Planning Commission. March 27, 1969: Notice sent that matter to be heard April 3, 1969. April 3, 1969: Proposal and plat furnished to Planning Commission by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk. Mr. Lewis was pre- sent. Planning Commission again requested more detail, to -wit; a cross section diagram of proposed water and sewer. Thereafter Mr. Lewis again went to Nelson, Haley, Patter- son and Quirk for preparation of adjusted diagrams. May 5, 1969: Mr. Lewis arrived at the Planning Commission hearing late. His proposal was in the process of being discussed. His presence had been noted by the Secretary and presumably other members of the commission were also aware of his presence. Mr. Lewis was denied the opportunity to present his pro- posal and to support the new plat which had been forwarded to the Planning Commission by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk. The Planning Commission acted arbitrarily by denying Mr. Lewis the opportunity to defend his position. The Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners dated April 17, 1968, requested due diligence on the part of the applicant. We -2- respectfully request the opportunity to appear before the Board on May 14, 1969, to demonstrate the facts of our compliance with the April 18, 1968, resolution. Respectfully, John P. Donl€y JPD:nrr Enclosure 6)o4i . ttiata t ovice P4atecIio t Our Objective —"Elimination of Hazards" FORT LUPTON, COLO. 3or:rd of Comrnisioners 1 d County Greeley, Colo. G:^ntlnon: The port Lupton `,ire k_:otectionDictrict Board of Directors reviewed the plans :or mobilo home i:ark to be wle.ced in n.n erect ep rozinstely 1' mile G cr•3t of 1:'t. L:iptor, if nermi.'".>sion •r:.nted by the ': old. County Board. of Comr:isioncrs. The .'ire: District Bor.rd would like tc: mrke mention that no ,21r-ns r -.re includedin the riot and ,)11x to t::.ke core of rny ;n ter supply for fire protection, end since this Free is included in the A. Lupton :_'ill:District, that inclusion of gal: no l'or i r;doqutt© sub.. _ ly of v€_ter end -ire Hydrants sta .getic .11y p1<..ced in the congested area should be, nm.de mr*nde.tory by your boy rd, r s the : ireDistrict ho._ rd h- s no jurisdiction to insist or. thin being token or.ro of by the developers of the prciberty. The i°'ire District board f:lt thet this ection would be necessary that the citizens in the immedi: to tree would be protected from the du n tiers of fire, c -:s it could othervrise be necessary for 1:he "'ire Det r t to cry there min .. for °.r::d in cc'ncentrn ted tree. thi could. JI.ove t.: be n fo,•riidt: bl tires :lu,n 1000 crEl per minute is recui:ed to ho. d1e f: -cod 'sized. fire. thank you for your crncicter,c tion,Ad. hope tb.. t eur rec'u. t will be con.id.ered before ::.ermis ion i:: grunted to the .evelopers of Cle prole rty for erection of the roposed mobile :'Lome Yours truly, i rrbe-: of the .•ircDistrict Bo .rd: t'rvr.:f ren c tt, 1I -resident trk Suckle., Vice Prey. Everett Rccelin, Tod t?. indter, :ui.�actor Don "ci'herson, Director 'vo."e t HooAch. ?�icLF t'^ 1 j • 11 BEFORiiHE .D COUNTY, COLORAW PLANN, C:U, SSION 6i, utr !cr- 2I'# /lo RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No. 7.71 Date 5/26/69 APPLICATION OF .._N..._J....Mc.Gonabay....-...sold to Ron Lewis Land Realty Co Address Box 969, Evergreen, Colo. Moved by Adam LePore that the following resolution be introduced for pas- sage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for rezoning from P.MH!!. ( ..Mabile...#amea District to "A" ( Agriculture District) of of covering the following described property in Weld County, Coloraao, to -wit: Southwest Quarter (SW}) of the Southeast Quarter (SEt) of Section Thirty-four (34), Township Two (2) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West of the 6th P. K. Weld County, Colorado, containing 20 acres, more or less. be recommended (favorably) iganiculawk to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: Conditional zoning expired May 15, 1969 - a basis for need not shown, inadequate information and not a proven water supply shown. Motion seconded by .__._J....,.Ben ...Nix Vote: For Passage: Leonard Bartels Against Passage: Philip Bowles Henry Brunner Ronald Heitman Adam LePore J. Ben Nix 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 CERTIFICITION OF COPY I, Dorothy Rill , Recording Secretary of 'geld 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 Nay: 20, 1969 , and recorded in Book No. proceedings of said Planning Commission. PC -Z-006 Dated this 26th day of II Page No. , of the Meg , 19 6C1 Recording Secrety, Weld County Planning Commission A r- 220 FIRST NAIL SANK BLDG. ORECLEY. COLORADO 80821 PHONE 1303) 352-1002 JOHN P. DONLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW June 10, 1969 Mr. Marshall H. Anderson, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Weld County Courthouse Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Mountain View Mobile Home Park Dear Mr. Anderson: This letter will bring you up-to-date on the action taken by my client, Mr. Ron Lewis,in the further development of the Mountain View Mobile Home Park located northeast of Fort Lupton, Colorado. I appeared at the June meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission to determine whether that group had received the latest plans and re- ports which had been forwarded to them. Mr. Trafton Bean commented that the Mountain View developer was in substantial compliance with all requests made by the Planning Commission, but that there remained a lingering doubt as to the adequacy of the water supply. One comment by a Commission member indicated that the Commission considered that its obligation had been completed and that all further action would have to be taken by the Board of County Commissioners. This letter is written to respectfully request an opportunity to present all of the facts and information available on the water supply and on the progress taken by my client as is consistent with the request by the County Commissioners for due diligence. My client stands ready to appear before the Commissioners at their convenience. Yours very truly, John P. Attorney at Law JPD:nrr cc/ Samuel S. Telep, County Attorney Mr. Ronald Lewis, Mountain Land Realty Co. NOT I C E 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 and may be heard. Docket No. 16 Date: July 23, 1969 Time: 2:00 P. M. Petitioner; N. J. McConahay Ron Lewis Land Realty Co. (Purchaser) Box 969 Evergreen, Colorado Request: Change of Zone from "MH" Mobile Home District to "A" Agricultural District more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land in the SW*SEA- of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado, contains 20 acres m/l. DATED: JUNE 18, 1969 Publish Greeley Booster June 20th and July 10, 1969 tci THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: ANN SPOMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD ' ;le ; MuThtisc steet 4tr7wlepr aka FRIEYNY•1 sums 20, isss Pursuant to NOTICE laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing will be held in the office of the Board of. County Comis- sfoners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Court abuse, Gree- ley, Colorado, at the time speci- fied. All persons in any manner interested in the following pro- posed change of zone are re- quested to attend and may be heard. DOCKET NO. 16 Petitioner: l'- N. J. McConahay Ron Lewis Land Realty Ca (Purchaser) Box 969 Evergreen„ Colorado DATE: July 23, 1960 TIME. 2:00 P: M. �}` 's )%aquest: Change of Zone 14 Mobile .- Bone District M Agricultural District Asia ggrocularly described as follow* parcel o land in the SWu• h of Section 34, Towns* .4 • North, Range 66 West. of N z eth P. M., Weld County, OW • :brad°, contains- 20 acres nt' s.'i)ated: June 18, 1969 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO • By: ANN SPOMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD 10 July 23, 1969 I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated June 18, 1969, duly published June 20th and July 10, 1969, a public hearing was had on a Change of Zone as requested by N. J. McConahay - Ron Lewis Land Realty Company (purchaser), at the time and place specified in said notice. The evidence presented was taken under advisement, the decision to be made at a later date. ATTEST: /j 3 : 5 9`f COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD lc, AL IRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO °I1 Lc" 11 'Jo MOUNTAIN HOMES, SITES, EXCHANGERS COVENANTS and REGULATIONS for MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE HOME ESTATES. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DEVLEOPED BY MOUNTAIN LAND REALTY CO. BOX 969 EVERGREEN, COLORADO 80439 1. Overnight guest registration and extra charge for more than two persons per home...visitor.s get two weeks without charge. Evergreen: 674-4211 Denver: 936-7438 P.O. BOX 969 EVERGREEN COLORADO 80439 2. Late charge if rent not paid by fifth of month. 3. Tenant must keep lot clean, grass cut, trimmed, watered, weeded...no trash, on patio nor under mobile homes. 4. Landscaping is responsibility of tenant, must be attrac- tive...fences only in certain areas and with prior approval of management. 5. Tenant provides own garden hand tools...park's mowers, ladders, edgers and other garden equipment must be returned promptly. 6. Pets must be on leash outside...not permitted in recreation areas...excersise outside the park...no acquiring after coming into park...$5.00 a month. 7. Traffic...8 mph driving speed, no motorcycles. 8. No street parking...guests at front of park. 9. Noise...tune radios and TVs low 10 pm to 8 am...any dis- turbance of neighbors shall be considered a nuisance. 10. Rec hall closes at 10 pm except for park activities or pri- vate parties. L1. Wash-.tou_only in ear wash, not in stY-eet nor individual space - 19 Utilities - electricity at prevailing coispaey rate accordiee to meter; gae on flat rate basis. 13. Repairing caes in park is prohibited; cars dripping gas or oil must be fixed. 14. J o outdoor laundry dying except in desi gated area; no diepee washing in laundry; no tinting or dyeing in tubs or machines :i-5. Tenant must install patio awning and skirting within 60 (Lys of: occupancy,, awnings to be of aluminum and skirting of aeeel approved by :tamer. 16.. Recreation.. ,separate rules are posted for the billiard rete and for the eeriminine pool; failure to observe will result in ae ea restriction. 17. Visitors ..m;sst be accompanied by park resident at,'all times ;.ad visiting smell children positively may not play in otreet or wander in park unattended. :1.&, Cax.buger.:,ail x.ei s must be placed in containers provided in designated areee; it must be wrapped in paper, cartons l t- tened, boxes dismantled. 19, Tenants desiring use of park facilities for private party or d:ineeer meet first check with management; swimming pool and billiard room not available on reserved basis; no alcoholic be- o .ages in rec hall except for parties given by menage: ant or incorporated club; building and equipment must be cleaned and left in good order after parties. 20. City building permits must be obtained for all awnings, porches and storage sheds. 21, Tenants agree to comply with all state -county -city laws af- fecting his coach, space and improvements. 22. No for -sale signs on homes or sites; coach space transferable only with management permission. 23. Solicitors, vendors, peddlers not permitted in park. 24. Management/owners not responsible for loss due to fire, theft or accident to mobile homes, cars, boats or travel trailers. 25. Management reserves right to evict tenant it deems undesirable and violation of these rules shall be considered sufficient cause. 26. Tenants will be held responsible for any damage caused by any of their family or their visitors. S ANpArRD swosowcu. WAnR tSr o "43% CsAwada 5, DepartanS of Public Rea$, ' 4210 Fame Li Ow Avenue- Denver 80220 2;1: Sample mum: Date 11-74' T Type of Supply ( ) PnvR'�ie)`� j''hthkii Source: ( 1/J Well Sample Taken, by ro Return It port ;/ j� Address 114e. ity-Stakt /A% je; 967 (1U0M) >ar timato sun FOR Sampling Instructions 68 RESULTS , „ 'sr° I00 ml „.1iSGI ;nant :, ,: 4 id36xu=u uric..;..,,:: 24 .. 48 LOG AND HISTORY WELL LOG Ground Elevation Type Drilling From To Type of Material Water Loc. Perf. eift ( ;k Use additional paper if necessary to complete log and attach. State of Colorado County of says: he is the driller of the above described well; he has read the above map and statement, knows the content thereof, and the same is true of his own knowledge. Date Started WELL DATA Date Completed Hole Diameter: in. from ft. to ft. in. from ft to ? ft. in. from ft. to ft. CASING RECORD Cemented from Plain Casing Size-, kind - from ft. to ft. Size—, kind from 1 ft. to ft. Size—, kind from ft. to ft. Perforated Casing Sized , kind �3 from' ft to ft kind from 'T ft. to ft. Size, kind _ from— ft. to ft. S TEST DATA Date Tested Type of Pump Length of Test r ` Constant Yield , Drawdown PUMP DATA (To be filled in) Type of Pump Outlet Size Driven by Horsepower DEPTH TO WATEP 0 WELL DRILLERS STATEMENT TOTAL DEPTH ss being duly sworn, deposes and Subscribed and sworn to before me this My Commission expires , 19 License No. day of , 19— . Notary Public FORM TO BE MADE OUT IN QUADRUPLICATE: Original WHITE (both sides) & Triplicate GREEN Copy must be filed with the State Engineer within 30 -days after well is completed. Duplicate PINK copy is for the Owner & YELLOW copy for the Driller. WHITE FORM MUST BE AN ORIGINAL COPY ON BOTH SIDES AND SIGNED. ,,. WRJ-25-66 20 M-45 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Index No. IDWD Use Registered OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER MAP AND STATEMENT FOR WATER WELL FILING PERMIT NUMBER - Know all men by these presents: That the undersigned / �,� ��4 claimant(s), whose address is 7 4'; e, A , Citt y . , :; states: Claimant(s) is (are) the owner(s) of well No located as shown 4 the map below; the total number of acres of land owned by him (them) to be irrigated from this well is ,:,'f• :I , t' ;-' • work was commenced on this well by ac 1 construction day of (i- , 19 r_4. ; the tested capacity of said well is_(gpm) (cfs), for which claim is hereby made for purposes; that the average annual amount of water to be diverted is acre -ft.; and that the aforementioned statements are made and this map and statement are filed in compliance with the law. State of Colorado County of SS /I Claimant(s) f 1) Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 19 My Commission expires Notary Public MAP THE WELL SHALL BE LOCATED WITH REFERENCE TO GOVERNMENT SURVEY CORNERS OR MONUMENTS, OR SECTION LINES BY DISTANCE AND BEARING. feet from feet from (North or South) section line (East or West) section line IF WELL IS FOR IRRIGATION, THE AREA TO BE IRRIGATED MUST BE SHADED OR CROSS- HATCHED. The square below will be used to indicate the location of the well and the irrigated land. I I I -- T I I I I I I I I I -F I I I I I I I I I r-- I 1 i I i I I I I T I I I I I I I I I r . I I I I I I I I I I I ---.I.- I I I I I I I I I I I I i1 I I I i I I I -1.-_ I I i i I I I I I I I I I I - - I I I I I • I I I I I ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER OF COLORADO ON THIS DAY OF , 19 . E- 1 mi. WELL LOCATION T County 1/4 1/4, sec. , R. P. M. Ground Water Basin Water Management District Domestic wells may be located by the following: LOT , BLOCK _ SUBDIVISION State Engineer WRJ-5-(6 tt 4-2/ DTI F COLORADO / / A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER APPLICATION FOR: A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL /___/ OTHER Application must be completed satisfactorily before acceptance PRINT OR APPLICANT/AY' Street Address City & Stet PE 0 Use of ground water -2'' / Owner of land on which well is located Ni,mh. r nf acres to be irrigated Legal description of irrigated land Other water rights on this land Owner of irrigated land Aquifer ground water is to be from obtained ESTIMATED WELL DATA Est. quantity of ground water Est. Max. Yield Est. average annual amount used in acre-feet Storage capacity to be claimed: GPM or CFS to be Anticipated start of drillin Hole Diameter: 1!sy• in. from _ in. from f: Casing: Plain Perf. to ,3 -es ft. to it f t , ft. ft. in. from 67 in. from ,sr, in. from in. from PUMP DATA: Type HP _ AF ft. to L≤6 ft. ft. to/eft. ft. to ft. ft. to ft. Outlet Size This application approved PERMIT NUMBER 29101. DATE ISSUED OCT 14 1966 State En • her a by k 72— CATf gliEgttlivi{.10; //' WELLOCT 6 1966 C f,GROUND WATER SECT. , R. Le!' , f-/(__- P.m. Ground Water Basin Water Management District USE DIAGRAM ON THE BACK OF THIS SHEET TO LOCATE WELL. //' Driller A.,?v /t r. Driller Addre CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (OVER) <",`,'^t No. lam/ lL•%arila� Signature of Applicant This application approved CONDITIONAL PERMIT NO. (Permit good for one (I) year after date of issuance) DATE ISSUED Chairman Ground Water Commission by MOUNTAIN LAND REALTY CO. SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION 34 T. 2 N R. 66 W 6 P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO WELL ' 210'+ 1320' SCALE: 1" = 200' 0 0 M M 435' + +I 0 N N 522' + +I 0 N • #1 • #2 • #3 • #4 COUNTY ROAD 50. 1/4 COR. SECTION 34 PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION WILLIAM B. McDOWELL & ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers 900 28th Street Suite 5 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Samuel R. Smith and Allen G. Wassenaar, Associates Ronald Lewis Mountain Land Realty Co. P. 0. Box 969 Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Dear Mr. Lewis: Phone 444-3051 May 8, 1969 Ref: Project 6979 Percolation Tests The following is a report of percolation tests taken on August 16 and 17, 1968. Four percolation tests were conducted on a tract of land located 2 miles east of Fort Lupton, within an area more particularly described as SW 1/4,SE l/4,Section 34, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. of Weld County, Colorado. The percolation holes were located according to the attached sketch. Tests were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Depart- ment of Public Health Publication 526. Test results were as fol- lows: TEST HOLE NO. PERCOLATION RATE (Min/inch) 2 3 4 3 2 2 3 If you have any questions concerning the tests, please call. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. MCDOWELL & ASSOCIATES WBM:ml Enclosure: Sketch BY t%/Sri W't&.a2C William B. McDowell, PE -LS May 12, 1969 Glen Paul Weld County Sanitation Dept. P. 0. Box 1227 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear air: Please find enclosed the following information on Mountain View Mobile Home Park: 1. Application for septic tank system 2. Percolation test by William McDowell, P. E. 3. Percolation teat location 4. Recommendation of septic tank dimension - chart by Colorado State Department of Public Health 5. Typical camp sewage layout by Colorado State Department of Public Health 6. Water test from existing well as designated by develop- ment diagram. 7. Development diagram showing first phase sewage program and location of proposed septic system. Thank you. Sincerely, Ronald P. Lewis Sec./Treasurer RPL J c.j 1 Enclosure: cc: John P. Donley 31 June 10, 1909 ,z;los d L'tt '' do at inl orm h on that you r3quested os Lfle i� ..�, ,� ., outlier no , i avracioa sell pew,..,. .. .1' ;re17 Lu.,; <... yin .] i,!g Cc.. .• rnte1 crrnter;t errs S:r is+. •erely , _'. 11.,;,,.s REVIEW OF PLAN FOR Mr II HOME PARK Date May 22, 1969 Name of Mobile Home Park: Location: Mountain View Sec. 34, T2N, R66W Review of This plan indicates the following omissions or variances from the adopted county mobile home park regulations: Reference Requirement This Plan Correction 3.3 (c) 3.3 (f) 15.4 roadways and sidewalks water and sewage guarantee of completion partial info. partial to install facilities prior to occupancy provide typical cross-section. more data and approval of info by Glen Paul. none. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Disapprove Table X subject to: because of: until water supply and se41ge facilities are approved by Glen Paul. Report by: Trafton Bean & Associates; 737 29th Sgreet, Boulder, Colo_ 80307 area: 3n3 443-M54 ‘.-7r-'16"/., Kiienilitain Land 7 - MOUNTAIN HOMES, SITES, EXCHANGERS Weld County Planning Commission 'i Trafton Bean Ditltrict Courthouse Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Gentlemen: ty Cel 40‘A, May 13, 1969 Evergreen: 674-4211 Denver: 936-7438 P.O. BOX 969 EVERGREEN COLORADO 80439 Please find attached the additional requested information as per your letter of May 9, 1969. 1. The mobile home spaces will be independent. 2. See sheet #2 for details. 3. See attached copy of well log and safe water test made from water from said well by State Department of Public Health. Also see attached survey for location of existing well. Per the test on existing well, the production of this well is approx- imately J0,000 gallon per day and using the standards as set forth in the Mobile Home and Mobile Home Park Regulations of Weld County, Colorado as revised August, 1966, Section 7.1, this would be enough water to service and supply 44 trailers. The first phase of devel- opment is planned for 35 trailers. -Beyond this first phase, there will be additional wells drilled in a southerly direction on 350 ft. intervals within the parking clusters as per plot plan. See attached percolation test and State Department of Public Health Recommendations for size of septic tank. In as much as the first phase of development will not excede 35 units, the 5000 gallon septic tank will be used as per recommended septic tank dimensions for trailer and tourist camps -as set forth in Bulletin from Colorado State Department of Public Health, Sanitation Division per attached exhibit. 36 tiv.,r fjY,..a;: 074-4211 /�^`� f� Ds.nvvra 936-743a �.I .'---IIti.• y! 1 +! ". � I. i (�j "1J ��1 4yiyi V �• � nl;�}• P.U. 1;ifit Y:��J i : , i' I III ' 1 r i t l 1.,..J,:.:4•&... 1 1 ✓' �� .l t�.:�.:S'L.b �:Y k:..�/ <3 ''• ,.� .,. 1 �.:Su �)`. .J� tSL. ` f'Ya L:VU.:1:;caieL{'1 .. ., iviOlii-li;._ CMS,rS!TES E:XCHAE4CL:.i :S `-./., :.) 8043') Pg. 2 Cartage disposal would be handled by a contract carrier on a regularly scheduled basis. 6._ See sheet #2 of submitted plans. 7. See sheet #2 of submitted plans. 8, See sheet $2 of submitted plans. Improvements of first phase will be installed prior to inssuance of mobile home permits. z.n c you for your consideration. ` Res,-,ectfu?lsubmitted, Ronald P. Lewis 35 -teef-n - TRAFT0N BEAN & ASSOCIATES 737 29TH STREET, BOULDER, COLORADO, 80302 May 9, 1969 Mr. Ronald Lewis Mountain Land Realty Company P. O. Box 969 Evergreen, Colorado Dear Mr. Lewis: At the request of the Weld County Planning Commission I am writing to you about their review of your proposed mobile home park in Sec. 34 T2N R66W. As you must realize, their official actions will be described in their minutes which will be subject to approval at their next regular meeting. In the meantime, these comments may be helpful to you. In checking the drawing prepared by Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk dated April 2, 1969 against the adopted "Mobile Home and Mobile Home Park Regulations" for Weld County, we find the following types of infor- mation insufficient: PLANNING CONSUL rANTS 303, 442-6654 1. The mobile home spaces are not designated as dependent or independent. 2. Roadway information is not definite and no information is given concern- ing sidewalks. 3. The water supply is only indicated by the words "existing well." Further details concerning this well and any other proposed wells would need to be shown by accurate engineering data and statements of ap- proval of this water supply by the Weld County Sanitarian and by the State of Colorado public health officials. 4. The suitability of the soil for a "temporary septic tank" would need to be supported by percolation tests with the capacity of the septic tank specified. Further details would be required concerning the "future permanent sewage treatment facilities" as to the type proposed and when such facilities are planned for installation. 5. Methods of garbage disposal would need to be described. 6. Plans and specifications for the service building would need to be presented in sufficient detail to indicate the suitability of such structures for the proposed development. 7. Plans for electrical outlets and for liquefied petroleum gas service for each mobile home space shall be indicated in writing, if not otherwise shown on the site plan. d13 O4.71 Mr. Ronald Lewis 8. At least some of the preceding information could best be shown on a large-scale drawing of a typical mobile home space including the location of the mobile home, the placement of various utility service outlets, accompanying off-street parking area, and setbacks from ad- joining mobile home spaces and accompanying roadway. 9. If improvements are not to be installed prior to the issuance of mobile home permits, in lieu of such construction, the board of county com- missioners may require a security bond or certified check of sufficient amount to cover the estimated cost of all required improvements. In this regard, your engineer would be expected to provide an estimate of the probable cost for these improvements. Since the plan which you presented for review by the planning commission on May 5, 1969 contained many omissions, members of the Weld County Planning Commission recommended to the board of county commissioners that proceedings commence for rezoning of the area which was previously zoned MH in Section 34 T2N R66W to an "A" agricultural district. This, of course, is an advisory statement to the board of county commissioners which may or may not choose to proceed with such rezoning. In any event, it would seem that from your point of view, providing further information about your proposed mobile home park development at the earliest possible date would be essential. Certainly, the engineering firm you are using is well qualified to provide this type of information and, undoubtedly, will do so if you authorize such action. Very truly yours, rafton Bean TB/sc cc: Weld County Planning Commission Bob Britzman i (iGG/ I c, Lai. 71VN4.... Pap" WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WELD COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING 3/11/69 Ronald P. Lewis Mountain Land Realty Co. P. 0. Box 969 Evergreen, Colorado Dear Si_r: At a meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission Thursday, March 6, 1969, your mobile home site plan was tabled for Mountain View Mobile Homes. Enclosed is a list of recommendations from Trafton Bean and Associates, consultants for the Planning Commission. If you wish to be on the April agenda, kindly let me know by the 17th. Sincerely, Dorothy Hil Secretary Prelir,.�t,�,y r Name of Subdivision: Mountain View Mobile Homes Final Nat LII _ Location: SW 1/4, SE 1/4 Sec. 34, T2N, R66W _ Review of this plat indicates the following omissions or variances from the adopted county subdivision regulations: Reference Requirement This Plat Correction 3.7 Public Areas (1) Through street 60' north -south street near the Street should be widened to At the proposed density of this center of Sec. 34 is shown on 80' or agreement for 80' -- - development, a north -south collector street should be lo- the plat. collector to the west on future platting. -- toted near the center of the section to insure adequate local access. -M- -- 3A.2 Other Areas (3) Other improvements a) drainage At this density (13,000sq. ft. per lot) drainage could be a problem. Engineer should study drainage of site. b) sewer and water Recent directives from the State indicate the minimum lot size Details should be presented concerning sewer and water —- for individual sewer and water systems should be approximately one-half acre. service of the area. .—_3.7 Public Areas This parcel is not large enough to require public areas but if it Could waive the request on this plat but schools should (1) School and Park Land_ _ ____. _, is a part of a larger develop- ment, then these areas should be notified if larger project is planned. —.__ _ _ be -considered. - ..._ _➢ECOMt4E�19.'4T40Aa PcA,`!w4)6 _ _Co#vst,Sc/a.J_4C7iv.J_ -_-.444/2. G /fd9_ —___ . Disapprove Table because -ond rlraipnje hP cipt rkitteri will, flip Final Pint of : fee/Ge' /*e '.' Sire PGA4) sdoOco N,4Y ' deck) socAi nr.O /4!8740 ©p Aureeor/Near^ V SvCD/v>S/O+t% Pc 47". t n sewer, water Hello