HomeMy WebLinkAbout680016.tiffFINDINGS AND RESOLUTION
CONCERNING CHANGE OF ZONE
PETITION OF JAMES A. O1W
The petition of James A. Ord, 1911 - 15th Street, Greeley, Colorado,
requesting a change of zone from "R" Residential District to "B" Business
District and to "H" High Density District of four separate parcels of land lo-
cated in Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P, M. , Weld
County, Colorado, and more particularly described in metes and bounds and
designated as Tract A containing 12.5 acres, more or less; Tract B contain-
ing 5. 2 acres, more or less; Tract C containing 2. 5 acres, more or less;
and Tract D containing 3. 1 acres, more or less; all as appear on plat as sub-
mitted and made a part hereof by reference; came on for hearing on Wednes-
day, September 4, 1968, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County
of Weld, having heard the testimony and evidence adduced upon said hearing,
and having considered the testimony, evidence, and the recommendations of
the Weld County Planning Commission, the Greeley Planning Commission, and
Trafton Bean, Weld County Planning Consultant, filed with said Board, and
having carefully weighed the same, now makes the following findings:
1. The evidence discloses that the applicant failed to sustain the burden
of proof as to the need for a change of zone or that the present zone is errone-
ous or that circumstances warrant a change of zone at this time.
2. The evidence shows that the inhabitants of the immediate vicinity of
the area sought to be rezoned are unanimously opposed to the change of zone.
3. The evidence discloses that the present zoning is complementary to
the surrounding area.
4. The evidence shows that there is a need for a study and development
of a comprehensive plan for the greater Greeley area, which would include the
area sought to be rezoned, and therefore, any rezoning of subject property at
this time would be premature and not in the interest of good planning.
5. That each of the preceding findings in and of themselves and indepen-
dent of each other constitutes a separate and individual ground for denial of the
change of zone.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld
has heard the application of James A. Ord, 1911 - 15th Street, Greeley, Colo-
rado, for a change of zone from "R" Residential District to "B" Business Dist-
rict and to "H" High Density District of four separate parcels of land as herein -
above recited and made a part hereof by reference, and
WHEREAS, said Board has made its findings on the evidence and testi-
mony submitted to it, which findings precede this Resolution and by reference
are incorporated herein and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the said Board has carefully considered the petition, evidence
and testimony and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commis-
sion, the Greeley Planning Commission, and Trafton Bean, Weld County Plan-
ning Consultant, and given the same such weight as it in its discretion deems
proper, and is now fully advised in the premises;
680016
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of James A.
Ord, 1911 - 15th Street, Greeley, Colorado, requesting a change of zone
from "R" Residential District to "B" Business District and to "H" High Den-
sity District of the parcels of land indicated above be, and it hereby is denied
upon each of the grounds set forth in the Board's findings therein.
Made and entered this 18th day of September, 1968.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
Clerk of We Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7
(County Attorney
J/ /
c� l/ / l< ,a.
-2-
HOLLENBECK KING AND FRENCH
EDWARD C. KING
OF COUNSEL
GUY A. HOLLENBECK
NEIL C. KING
JOSEPH C. FRENCH
A.JACKSON MILLS, JR.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NINETEEN SIXTY-SIX THIRTEENTH STREET
BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
September 11th, 1968
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
Weld County Courthouse
Greeley, Colorado
Attention Chairman Anderson
Gentlemen:
POST OFFICE Box 187
TELEPHONE 443-7770
AREA CODE 303
In re: Rezoning application - James
Ord
Please be advised that we wish to indicate by this letter in
case it was not made clear by us at our presentation last Wednesday
in Mr. Ord's rezoning application that we certainly have no objection
if the Commissioners look favorably upon our application on having
it granted pursuant to the terms as outlined by our consultant's
report. You are advised that should the Board look favorably upon
our request, we would abide by such conditions as you see fit or as are
outlined in Mr. Britzman's report to you.
We also intend to make a part of the record signatures in sup-
port of our petition that were submitted earlier to the County Planning
and City Planning Departments. Those should be inserted in the file
shortly.
Again our thanks to the Board and to your County Attorney,
Mr. Telep, for the courtesy extended us at the hearing and we apologize
for taking it through the lunch hour.
Very truly yours,
O �cos ph C. French cA
JCF:al
cc to Mr. Samuel S. Telep
/Y;
September 4, 1968
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 31, 1968,
duly published August 2 and August 23, 1968, a public hearing was had on
the request for a Change of Zone by James A. Ord, at the time and place
specified in said notice. The evidence presented at said hearing was
taken under advisement, the decision to be made at a later date.
0
ATTEST: 12-..;-J �/�c--"s 2/
COUNTY CLERKAND RECORDER CHAIRMAN
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
MB: 35 Page ):27 LHR
BEFORE iE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANN1. COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Case No. Date 7/t5/69
APPLICATION OF
Address
-James ird
1311 15th St., Uresley, 3olc.
Moved by Philip 3owles that the following resolution be introduced fc.: pas-
sage by the Weld County Planning Commission:
Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application
for rezoning from "'? ( iees.Lde.ntLal District to 9:3" ( 3iis ness
District) 4,1 and "i" Residential Al .to_!!H" Uinh.Rens.i.ty
covering the following described property in Weld County, Coloraao, to -wit:
'Tact "4": ft. Section Thirteen (13), fownshio Five (5) ihmrth, dente Sixty-
six (66) Rest of the 6th M., ;elh Oounty, containing 1?.'5 aces more or
aless to "'B" Business.
Tract -"B": Pt. of ent.on Thirteen (13), Township ?t"e L.) north, nun: -e
-,ty-six (66) 'eat of the 6th P. HI., Weld 3oTnty, containing 5.2 acres
re or less to "" H,,,1 density.
n;": D;'Thirteen (13), Township five (PA, north _an';
,,xtv-si (66) --et oC tho 6th . --., std',Jaunty containinsi 2.5 acres
!nose or less to "7" U'crh density.
Tract "C": Pt. of Sevtion Thirteen (l3 , Township five (5), I arth, i,nr e
U t, r I 1T r 1 c r urn rr !',nS itV
1 i.- b�ttkci�lnme�i�t�d }�3,`��Y� �vi%avoi�ii�� �a �1"� �'tsa�tt 0�'`�olmtly'�omtAS'is5iorie'rs
for the followi g e.asons eco,nm,nd that it he denied on the basis the parcels
resent 1. Tb.;re were not sufficient assaments presented sho 1n7 that the ort ina1
scnin-a to be fealty or that the conditions in the area have chanted enough to
s sport the requested r zonLri sr:resent it zonirir is cos„ alimentary to the
surroundink area. See attach 1 13?al descriations and recoruneodations of Trefton
Bean, Sonsnitant.
Motion seconded by Price sdokixis
Vote:
For Passage:
Philip dories Against Passage: -
'rice Hoskins
John Watson
WELD CO, COMMISSIONERS
RECEIVED
JUL231968
P.M.
A.M.
The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and cordered that a certified copy be forwarded
with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings.
PC -Z-005
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
Dorothy Hill
, Recording Secretary of Weld County Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true
copy of Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on
Ill? 13, 1963 , and recorded in Book No. II , Page No. , of the
proceedings of said Planning Commission.
PC -Z-006
Dated this 22nr9- day of
............
Recording Secretary, Weld County Planning Commission
Ja.1y
1963
TRAFTON BEAN & ASSOCIATES
737 29TH STREET, BOULDER, COLORADO, 80302
TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: REZONING OF PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED WEST LAKE PARK
SUBDIVISION FIRST ADDITION
P L A N N t N O
CONSULTANTS
303, 442-6654
July 15, 1968
The zoning of land in use districts has been established in Weld County to protect property values,
and to secure the health, safety and general welfare of the residents. Because of these factors
requests for changing existing zoning district boundaries must be very carefully analyzed. Either
the original zoning must be shown to be faulty or changing conditions in the area must be evi-
denced to support an amendment.
Since the West Lake Park request is for a site located close to the City of Greeley, the "Guide
for Growth" plan for Greeley plus recommendations by the City Planning Commission must be
carefully considered.
Following your directions, we have completed a field check and review of this rezoning -proposal
and as a result now recommend the following:
1. The proposed rezoning of tract A from R, residential district to a B, business
district should be denied for the following reasons:
a) This area has not experienced a sufficient amount of change to justify
rezoning.
b) Business uses would not be compatible with existing development near this
corner (35th and West 20th). The northwest corner, which is platted for
one family homes and includes a small park on the corner, is now under
development. The southwest corner across from the proposed business
parcel also is platted for home sites and two residences now face the pro-
perty under review. The West Greeley Lake Dam area immediately east
of the proposed business zone is shown as a future park site on the Greeley
plan and therefore would not be improved by an adjoining business develop-
ment.
c) The surrounding area is already served by existing shopping centers and
vacant business areas located within one mile to the north, southeast and
south.
To: Weld County Planning Commission
Subject: Rezoning of portions of the proposed West Lake Park
Subdivision first addition
Page 2
July 15, 1968
d) The "Guide for Growth" for Greeley and vicinity approved by the City
Planning Commission on May 4, 1961 does not indicate the need for a
business district in this area. Although this plan may be somewhat
outdated, the lack of appreciable change in this particular area in-
dicates that the plan is still valid with regard to this property.
e) The Greeley City Planning Commission at a special meeting held on
June 26, 1968 stated that in their opinion the entire area should remain
zoned for residential use.
2. Tracts B, C and D should remain in the R, residential district for the following
reasons:
a) The original zoning has not been provento be faulty and changing
conditions in the area do not reflect the need for a revision of these
zoning district boundaries.
b) The proposed somewhat arbitrary mixture of single family and high density
residential zones, not by design, but because the land has been factored
into odd shaped parcels evidently results from previous actions taken
without proper regard -for future development.
c) The City of Greeley "Guide for Growth" does not show this area for high
density residential development.
Request
Present:
Change of Zone
James A. Ord
September 4, 1968
The Boardof County Commissioners
Harold W. Andersen
Edward L Dunbar
Marshall H. Anderson
County Attorney
Samuel S. Telep
Petitioner:
Mr. James A. Ord
Mr. Clifford Brock
Mr. Robert Brightsman
Mr. French, Attorney for Petitioner
Weld County Planning Commission
J. Ben Nix Member
Dave Moore, Employee
Protestant:
As per conversation (listed in order of appearance)
Mr. Richard Schuman
Mr. C. S. Vaughn
Mrs. Joe Gusick
Mr. Gordon Johnson
Dr. Kemme
Mr. J. W. Norcross
Mr. Harold A:,dersen: I will call this meeting to order and will turn it over
to the County Attorney, Mr. Telep.
Mr. Telep: Thank you Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like the
record to show that the hearing came on at 11:30 A. M., September
4, 1968, however it is about thirteen minutes of twelve. This
is a change of zone at the request of the petitioner James A. Ord.
The change from "R" Residential District to "B" Business District
and to "H" to High Density District of several parcels of land
described in meets and bounds. For the record I will refer to
3
'them only as tracts, being tract A in Section 13, Township 5 North
Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., containing 12.5 acres more or less.
Also a tract in Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the
6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado known as Tract B, containing 5.2
acres also a tract of land in Section 13, Township 5 North, Range
66 West of the 6th P. M. also known a Tract C'containing 2.5
acres more or less and a tract of land In Section 13, Township
5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado,
also known a4K Tract D,containing 3.1 acres more or less. Now
these tracts four in number described in meets and bounds were
published as required by law and everything is in order for this
hearing, the petitioner is present in person and represented by
his counsel, Mr. French.
Mr. Chairman, you may ask the petitioner or his
counsel to take over and make an opening statement
2
Mr. Andersen:
Mr. French:
Thank you Mr. Telep, we will turn the meeting over to the
petitioner.
I indicated to Mr. Telep that we are quite willing to
abide with any ground rules on timing that you want to impose
I don't think the presentation will take over a half an hour
at the most, that would be lengthy. So if we are going to be
limited in time I hope that the opposition, if there are many
opponents, would be limited likewise.
Generally I don't know how many of the Commissioners
are familiar with the tract of land that we are speaking of,
where it is located by a meets and bounds description. It is
at an intersect -on of the southeast corner of 35th Avenue and
20th Street. To give you a little history, we come in here
swinging for the third time. We have two strikes against us
because the County Planning Commission has not made a favorable
recommendation to our proposal nor has the City Planning Commission.
We understand that the City Planning Commission does not have any
jurisdiction but we are sure that you weight what they have to say.
And what we are asking today is that you view this with an open
mind because frankly we don't think the County Planning Commission
gave this the study that it demands, we don't think that the City
has and partly it our fault but we are making a new presentation
today in effect.
Mr. Brock is appearing with me on behalf of Mr. Ord.
Mr. Ord is here today. As Mr. Telep indicated I am Joe French
I am an attorney from Boulder. At the previous hearings before
the various commissions - County and City Commissions, Mr. Brock
outlined what he thought the position in favor of our application
was. We felt that he had a good plan and felt that he highlighted
all the things that should be highlighted and spoke for the plan,
3
Mr. French: however, after we were unfavorably met by the County people and the
City people. We are looking for a plan here that would be good for
the community and for Mr. Ord. After an August meeting with the City
people they recommended that a professional consultant be retained.
We went out and we did that and we got a local concern and we would
like to have them make the presentation after we make a few comments.
We hope the County Commissioners don't have a tendency
to rubber stamp, the County Planning Commission or the City Planning
Commission. What you are going to hear today in from our Consultant
is a :,ew proposal in a sense that it is somewhat different from
what we have urged all along with what Mr. Telep read in the original
petition. Now we want you to understand that Mr. Ord doesn't want
to seems to be disregarding the desires of the neighbors out there,
the people that are living in that area. It is not at all his
show of
position. We don't want you to be overwhelmed by the/hand that
are going to stand up and say they are against it. At each meeting
we have not had the majority of people in favor of our plan. I
expect today you are going to see that. We we are not going to
decide this by a show of hands but by sound logic and listening
to profession people tell you what they think should be done with
that piece of land. I would hope that before you make any decision
if you haven't looked at the land you go look at it. We think
that is the biggest factor involved. You don't have to be a planner
to go out and look at this tract of land and know that something has
to be done with it. You don't have to be a planner to realize that
this community and the growth that it has undergone in the last
number of years. It is at that position in the west end of town
now that something has to be done with this land Mr. Ord has.
There has been some suggestion in the past that Mr. Ord
bought the property he knew what he bought when he bought it and
if he paid too much for it that is his problem and if he is trying
4
Mr. French:
to make a profit , he ought not do it at the expense of the
property owners. We can not deny that certainly Mr. Ord is
interested in the economic aspect of this property, and a
planner is interested in the economic development property
so that is not a simply approach. But we do want to try
to come to grips - the fact of the matter - that is you
have a piece of land that you would now by good sound planning
and that you have to give everybody concern including the
property owner the best zoning you can give them.
You have in your file a report from Trafton Bean
frankly we think that this is a report that deals with
this property very well. I think Mr. Brightsman is going
to present to you a proposal for this land that has much
more depth and Mr. Bean's report when he appeared before
the County Planning Commission. We did not have an opportunity
to see that report before it was submitted to the County
Planning Commission, we didn't have an opportunity to study
it - to address ourselved to it which I think we were some-
what at a disadvantage at that hearing. So I would again hope
that you will not rubber stamp his report. He gives some
weight in there to the Guide to Growth and I think
the Guide to Growth isn't any answer to that particular
piece of property. Mr. Br?ightsman is going to enlighten you
just a little bit on that. He also talks about the Greeley
City Planning Commission and what their opinion was. Well
this
subsequent to/July 15th report of Trafton Bean, the City in
August met and said there ought to be a professional consultant
hired to deal with that property. Well we have done that.
So you .are hearing today for the first time
5
Mr. French: what we think is an independent view aside from the developers.
We understand your feeling that the developer wants it his way
and the property owner always wants it his way. We think that
we have a report that we are going to submit to you today that
inbetween those two and again we appologize to you for not having
had this report for the City's benefit and the County Planning
Commissions benefit. Mr. Brock is here to answer any questions
Mr. Ord is here to answer any questions you might have. We have
submitted petitions before and I spoke to Mr. Telep and for some
reason the petitions were made a part of the record at the City
and County Planning Commission's aren't in this file. We would
like the opportunity to make them a part of this record. We will
get them reproduced and add them to the file. We had signatures
in favor of this development and again not nearly as many in favor
as those opposed. This is a diagram that Mr. Brightsman will be
referring to and perhaps Mr. Telep can 'cold it up as he makes
his comments. So I would like to with the permission of the Chairman
at this time to say or suggest we turn the meeting over to
Mr. Br'_ -ghtsman to tell you what he has done at Mr. Brooks request.
Mr. Brightsman, as you three Commissioners are aware of is with
the Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk Firm here in town. We feel
he has done a lot of hard work. He isn't giving us exactly what
we asked for but we do feel that this does show - that this does
support our petition for a re -zoning request on this property
it does give merit to our request and he has some suggestions that
we feel we can live with if the Commissioners feel that it is the
proper, thing for the property.
Mr. Telep: Will you come over here and state your name and address and state
who you are representing.
Mr. Brightsman: My name is Bob Brightsman my address is 2021 Clubhouse Drive
Greeley, Colorado. I represent the firm Nelson, Haley, Patterson and
6
Quirk, Mr. Clifford being our client on this particular piece.
Mr. French: I might ask we left copies of the report prepared by
Mr. Brightsman with the Commissioners yesterday. I think Mr.
Anderson was here, I don't know if the Commissioners have had
time to study that report or not but this is what we are going
to be refering to.
Mr. Telep: We have not - and Joe let me say at this time let the
record show that the copy of this letter dated August 27, 1968
written by Mr. Robert K. Brock is in the file accompanied with
shopping service center map.
Mr. Brightsman: A few weeks ago Mr. Brock approacted our firm, he brought
me up to date on the problems of the meetings that had taken place
on this particular piece of property and request or asked to see
if we would be interested in reviewing the subject sight to see
what might be desirable for the use of the land. After discussing
this further with him he felt that it would be reasonable approach
that we could perhaps provide some service to the City since we
do on some occasions work with the City Planning Commission perhaps
we could help the County Planning Commission as wellas the Commissioners.
Both the City and County Planning Commissions are in an
unfortunate position in not having an up-to-daye or in some cases
a Guide for Growth. Many of the areas outside of the city limits
or in some cases within the city limits. When we have applications
such as these today there is no one thing that the County Commissioners
or the City or whatever the case may be can lean on, to say this is
what we project for the area.
So this is the approach I tried to take concerning this
site. Not being concerned with the site as much as I am with the
general area. This is the approach that I would take if I were
developing a land use plan for the area west of Greeley.
7
Mr. Brightsman:
First we must determine what the trends are in the area. What the
potentials might be and obviously what the best use of the land are.
It is hard to say what is the best use for a single piece of land
that is practically impossible. There are many uses which can be
commercial
adapted to a particular parcel. Even because you say / is desirable
in one area it doesn't mean it doesn't mean this specific 5 -acres.
It can be the 5 acres next or it or maybe a block away. But any
use must first meet the needs of the area. This is one of the first
concerns. The use if it is located on a subject site must be adapted
to the site without detriment to the adjoining property owner.
Now the subject site which has been talked about quite a
bit in the past has some problems. It is a low piece of land,
close to a lake, it is on an intersection with two streets which
are proposed by the Greeley Planning to be major highways in the future.
Both ofwhichmay possibleAbe 4 lane highways. The traffic on it now
is probably very limited compared to what the potential will be when
the west of Greeley is actually developed. So obviously it is going
grows
to increase.as-we find that more industrial development/along the
Dura Machines location out there. More activity as the golf course
and more residences are developed in the western part of the community.
The traffic is going to increase regardless of what happens to this
subject site.
There has been growth in the area, obviously the west side
of Greeley has grownmorethan any other area now with all type of
uses commercial, industrial, residential and so on. The predominant
character right now in this general area is residential and agricultural.
There are very few non residential uses. By non residential I am talking
about commercial - industrial. It is primarily a residential -agricultural
involvement that exists because of the investment of publicmonies
such as the high school, the parks, some of these other facilities
that exist in the area it obviously it going to continue primarily
as a residential area. I doubt very seriously if there will be any
major influx of non residential uses.
So just based on this
8
Mr. Brightsman: I think we can assume that this 25 acres of land that we are concerned
here with today are basically being developed in a residential pattern
of some type.
Since two different proposals have been submitted to the
City and just one to the County. I think it is worthwhile to discuss
the merits of both of these proposals a little. The first one was the
half and half combination of multiple family and commercial (12.5 acres
of commercial and 12.5 in apartments). The desirability of i.his
location for commercial probably is the biggest contention that
we are concerned with here today. To determine if this is desirable
in the area we have to consider what exists not just nearby but what
are we talking about are the commercial competitors or what exist
nearby that might effect this use of land. The desirability of
this piece of land for commercial use. We have numerous commercial
or 9th Street
areas, the area along 9th/Avenue between 23rd and the western city
limits is a strip commercial area developed with numerous food
stores and other types of business uses. It acts not as a neighborhood
convenience center but more as a community commercial area, perhaps
in direct competition with downtown Greeley. The type of shopping
center proposed by the applicant is a neighborhood convenience center
which is generally limited in the area that it serves and is somewhat
small.
We have of course downtown Greeley, a major retail area
which really overlaps ac,y other neighborhood shopping center so it
really isn't effected by this proposal. We have Hillside Shopping
Center which is a mile or a mile and a half away, just because of
its distance it does not effect this property. A neighborhood shopping
center rarely serves an area much beyond one mile from it location
We have some areas which are zoned or are proposed for zone but
are undeveloped, one is at Reservoir Road and 23rd in the City of
Greeley. It is zoned for commercial purposes it is partially developed
Mr. Brightsrnen: service station, a seven -eleven store and its is
developed this way. I feel that because of the way it is developed
now it will probably will not be developed as a neighborhood shopping
center- much more than exists there now. Its potential is limited,
even though its location isn't so bad. Another location which is
rather controversial in the City of Greeley is the intersection of
16th and 23rd. There have been applications for zoning ol: cii€ferent
types down there and they have all been denied - the potential for
commercial there seems to be very limited, even though in this case
Greeley"s Guide for Growth does indicate commerical use down there. But
the general attitude has not been right for commercial use at that
intersection. This I think can be screened out as a possibld competitor
with this proposal. The only other nearby commercial area is at.35th Avenue
and the by-pass. There is approximately 6 acres down there zoned for
commercial purposes - it is probably good for a certain limited type
but it is not the neighborhood type of use where you would have a market
and a drug store or maybe a bank, se: -•vice station but more for: the
highway use. You have across the street the Elks Club, which has comm-
ercial zoning, you have a cemetery nearby and these things actually tend
to discourage the development of this commercial for any other use other
than maybe something that is directly related to the highway such as a
motel or restaurant. Something more geared to the traffic on the highway
more than the needs of the neighborhood.
This site located at 35th and 20th is halfway in-between
Highway 34 now and the 34 bypass. It encompasses an area which is a
logical residential neighborhood. At the present time it does not have
adequate population to support a shopping center of any considerable size,
but with the traffic that goes by
10
Mr. Brightsman:
daily to the schools, to the industry, to the golf course and to
the growing residential enviorment - more homes are being built
out there. It is quite possible that economically the site could
now justify a small neighborhood convenience shopping center of
maybe 2, 3 or 4 acres, under present economic standards. As this
area continues to grow we have in this report in the exhibit in the
back - it show an area that we basically feel will be the service
area, if the shopping center were developed in this area. In no
case would the service area exceed beyond a mile. Realistically
people can go more than a mile to a shopping center basically
they tend to go to the closest one if it is competitive. On this
map is indicated the existing estimated population and the projected
population The neighborhood shopping center to economically justify
its existence must have at least a population of around 5,000 people
perhaps even closer to 10,000 people if it is going to be of any
size, to be economically feasible. A shopping center of that size
would not exceed 10 acres. The trend is in most cases more in making
it a little more compact it falls somewhere between the 5 and 10 acre
site.
But we feel that when this area does develop residential
12,000 to
character tltlere will be sufficient population of/28,000 people living
in less than a mile of this site. Under total development which is
"X" number of years away, no one knows, but eventually this would
have it. As the people come in they are going to develop their own
needs, their own conveniences, they are going to want some non
residential uses nearby just to satisfy their convenience.
Therefore a neighborhood shopping center of the size 5 - 7 acres
would I feel be -desirable in this area to serve the future needs
of the public which will be living nearby. So I think that just
satisfied there is a need - that there will actually be a demand
for commercial facilities in this general location.
11
Mr. Brightsman:
On the second question there is a need - it it going to be
compatible. It is a nice residential neighborhood, there are
good quality home being constructed. You must make it compatible
and this can be done. I don 't believe it has been done in Greeley
or anywhere in the county that I know of where a shopping center or the
developer has really taken the time to make a shopping center part
ofmthe neighborhood. In southern California where I spent most of
the last 10 years, this is becoming a trend to emphas)ze the design
the convenience of the center to make it more attractive through
architectural development and control making it safer by many
many access points along the highways, by landscaping it making
it a desirable feature in the neighborhood. This can be done,
the County has the control by using the conditional zoning and
requiring some type of precise plan to be submitted, to be reviewed
by the County Commissioners and by public hearings like this one if
they so desire. To apply control to the development of the site
to make certain that it is compatible with the area as it develops.
The only question that we have left unanswered as yet if
you have a shopping center on a site in a neighborhood of 5 to 7
acres what about the remaining 18 acres that we are talking about.
It has been pointed out that there is some problem with the existing
with the low ground water level with the
fact that the land itself is down low that it might not be the
most desirable piece of land economically to sell for high priority
resideetial sites. I feel that there is some justification in this.
To maintain the quality of the area by going to a different type of -
I don't know if you would want to call it an apartment because it
isn't - but be getting into a town house or condominum concept
of home development you can do this - it fits this site because
the condominum or town house have large open spaces generally and
this could be worked in around the area that might have ground
water problems
12
Mr. Brightsman:=
be residential in quality and in character and perhaps the greatest
concern to you people out here is the fact that people would be buying
these and they would be home owners just like you are. It would help
maintain thequalityof the area. Under the town house or the condomimum
concept the density of the land or the number of units per acre probably
would be in the 8 - 12 unit per acre catogery as compared to anywhere
from 1 to 4 under the normal family residential standards. If it
were developed as apartments you would normally go to a much higher
density 25 - 30 units per acre or even higher depending upon the
type of development proposed. So I feel because of the problems of
this site with this site and if you want to maintain the same quality
the best way to do it is to go to the town house condominium concept
on the remaining portion of the land.
In discussing this report with Mr. Brock - I am certain
these are not the answer entirely that he would like to have seen.
We are talking about controls in the shopping center which doesn't
make it easy - it costs them more money to develop. We are talking
of the possibility of putting in a service station. If it does go
in it back up on the highway. The open part of the station opens
facing in to the shopping center with the back of it well designed
and so on. That concept alone is very difficult to sell to the oil
company but he has talked to them and apparently they are agreeable
to something of this nature. The town house concept is going to be
a little more difficult to develop if they go this way rather than
the normal apartment. The use of apartments alone there might be
some demand for a limited area of apartments simply because of the
existance of the high school. Just because 6f the fact alone that
there is a need for apartment in Greeley but not for 18 acres of
apartments. So this is one reason why the town house meets a
different type of clients, I guess, the buyer is somewhat different
with the college influx here and the type of industry we are getting
in. The town house complex will blend in with their needs quite well.
13
Mr. Brightsman: We have prepared this map which is not too different from the ones
you have previously seen. We have located the shopping center up
at the intersection merely because the shopping center itself fits better
to the traffic pattern of the intersection than any type of residential
development right next to the intersection. We have limited the size
on this map to 6.7 acres the remaining other parcels - parcels B,
C, and D will be under the "H" zoning, with the intent that it would
be developed into some type of town house complex at least on the
major portion of the total property.
I have no further comments to make, I would now like to
turn it over to ---
Mr. French:
I would like to ask one question - do we really find
everyone talks in any city you go to anymore if it is outside the
city and we are trying to develop a'_county piece of property - does
the Guide to Growth specifically help the Commissioners any on what
to do with this specific property. If you look at that guide ---
Mr. Brightsman: You are talking about Greeley's Guide to Growth. This
Guide for Growth which was prepared back in 1961 is primarily based
on the existing city and did not go much beyond the city limits other
than to show location of some public land, schools, parks and golf
courses. This area west of Greeley is very deficient - its gives
no color at all which on the map represents residential or agricultural
and it is quite obvious that no consideration given to how the area
was going to develop, where commercial and facilities would be, where
the industrial areas would be if any. So it is completely inadequate
the City Planning Commission has acknowledged this by the fact that
they have retained our firm to develop a comprehensive plan for Greeley
which goes 3Z miles or 4 miles beyond the city limits west to take care
of this area, along with this big void.
Mr. French: Mr. Chairman, do you Commissioners have any questions
14
or 12.5 acres
Mr. Dunbar: You mention 6 acres in Tract A/and then you mention
something -about a shopping center of 6 acres - can you clarify
that?
Mr. Brightsman: The original proposal was for 12.5 acres for shopping
and this parcel up here came down and included most of this. We
are suggesting that this be cut down to 6.7 acres. Four hundred
foot of depth going back to 20th and the full frontage on thet plan.
Twelve and a half was the original proposal made to the County.
Mr. Anderson: That map is that the complete design facing 35th Avenue?
On the small map.
Mr. Brightsman: There is some behind the lake, we didn't put that on the
map, but this small parcel right hete one on either side of the
existing church are back behind the lake. I don't know exactly
what the size of thoseare but together they are C and D.
Mr. Dunbar: Does that present a seep problem?
Mr. Brightsman:
Mr. French:
Well there are going to be problems in the back, along
close to the lake - it is going to take some type of a soil study
to find out what the ground level really is or where the water
level is and what can be built there. There has been some discussion
by the client and the city as to the possibility of maybe giving
some of that land to a park. The lake area is city owned and
may be developed as a park eventually this would fit in pretty
well with that idea.
I think Mr. Brock has a few comments concerning Mr. Ord's
position on controls or conditions that the county might want to
require.
Mr. Brock: Well lets make one thing understood it has not been our
intention at any time to hamper the neighborhood in any way, shape,
or form to deter property values. We realize the homes within this
area are above average in particular portions. However we feel the
15
Mr. Brock:
entire area has not been developed to its full extent and the
characteristic of the neighborhood has not been fully established.
After going over the proposal made by Mr. Brightsman I talked to the
people who are interested in as far as leasing space within this site
and what have you. Now we would like to make it understood at this
time that we are not looking for at today's meeting an overall
approval of this. We feel certain guarantees in order to take
away some of the objections however can be done on a contingency
basis.
What we would like to do is establish which we have done
we feel there is a need in the neighborhood. We would like to set
up certain controls - one being to have the members who are objecting
elect
to this within their body/- two people who would sit on an archectural
control committee along with Mr. Ord and myself. To get an approval
subject to the approval in the area of the design and type of the
operation we would like to put in within this area.
We would like to have it further restricted - there is a
slight problem on the corner there it exists now and it is going to
become more noticable as the growth in the area continues. From this
standpoint one thing that was suggested by Mr. Brightsman that we
go with 100 percent is one that no accessibility into this shopping
center will be allowed within 200 feet of the corner. We would take
then the recommendations made by the County (1) that sidewalks
be put adjacent to 20th and 35th all the way around for the kids
going to the high school. That this be done and also that we put
a decorative fence around the property, not allow the service station
site, which we do have an option, to face on to the street and still
turn it back into the shopping center area where the back of the
building can be archectually controlled and landscaping used at
this particular point. Now we are looking at in my preliminary
study after we received Mr. Brightsman report - was giving you an
example of what idea to give you an example its something on a
Spanish archectural design with your set backs your walks next
to the street, the - approximately a four foot -decorative fence
16
Mr. Brock:
Mr. French:
Mr. Andersen:
Mr. Telep:
Mr. French:
J. H. Brister
that fits with the architecture that would so be established later
if not Spanish, and something else. But to make this compatible
with the neighborhood. I believe there is definitely a need within
this area. We do have extreme problems with this ground, the only
way on residential purposes that this could be used economically
is cheap very inexpensive housing, which we feel is more detrimental
to the rest of our ground and to you than what are particular proposal
would be. We are willing to work with the people in working out the
design in archetectual to protect their values to their satisfaction
on
and if need be to put/a control, if construction is not started within
a certain period the zoning reverted. There is a definite demand
the other locations within the area, the people we were talking to
for reasons expressed by Mr. Brightsman, they are not interested.
They want to be in a nice neighborhood and willing to give a little
and we are willing go to the added expense, willing to pay a little
more rent,
particular
way hamper
to have this compatible with that particular with that
portion of town. It will be of benefit and will in no
the area.
That concludes what we have, we would like to reserve
some time for comments.
Do we have any objectors?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words - Joe do you
have any people with you other than the petitioner who are in favor
of granting?
Mr. Ord - if there are some here I don't know just exactly
who they are - if there are people in favor would they stand and
identify themselves for the record.
J. H. Brister, West Greeley Baptist Church,
Mr. French: How many people are in the church congregation?
18
Mr. Schuman: I am R. T. Schuman, I live at 1821 Twenty-fifth Avenue
Court, which is Rangeview Estates, immediately across the intersection
northwest of the proposed zoning change. I would first of all point
out that the only reason that any of us are here is that this is a
zoning change. As thislandwas purchased by Mr. Ord, he was well
aware of what the zoning was and likewise those of us who own land
in the immediate area were also very much aware of what the zoning
was where we are as well as the surrounding zones. We offer no
objections whatsoever to the use of those lands in the zoning for
which they were appointed at the time zoning was accomplished.
I dislike the implication of a threat of small cheap
housing that they believe would be more detrimental than the
commercial zoning that is being requested. We have no objection
to the use of this land within the zoning requirements for the
best profit that anyone can make from it. However we do not
believe that a commercial zone in this area will add to the
appreciation of our properties. Now maybe someone believes that
but we who live there do not, in fact we believe that it will
depreciate the value of our properties through a change in the
character of the area. That weJhave a difference of opinion
we
obviously/believe has been established and if you will look
at the building that is on all side of this particular plot of
land you certainly must agree with us.
Now they keep talking about need, who needs what? They
keep saying that somebody needs commercial zoning. Who needs
commercial zoning? Well we who live the closest to it - certainly
who would obviously have the most convenience from it - say to you
that we don't need it at all. So who needs it? Maybe a filling
station needs it, maybe a seven -eleven needs it, maybe a Safeway
Store needs it, maybe the landowner needs it, but the people in
the neighborhood don't need it. We can just as well get into our
19
Mr. Schuman:
Mr. Schuman:
Mr. Telep:
Mr. Schuman:
Mr. Brister:
Mr. Schuman:
Mr. Telep:
Mr. Schuman:
automobiles and drive to Tenth Street or to available zoning
onto the by-pass and we have no objections at all. Now talking
about a need for a small shopping center I would ask you - the
situation in the Wilshire Shopping Center - currently I believe
there is a substantial vacancy there - we know that the Albertson
Group - wibh some 26 acres there is availalbe for commercial use
and we don't mind driving down there at all. So where this need
comes in I have a question who need it? We do not want to stop
the development of this land at all. The owner has a right to
develop this land but we say that it must be done within the
confines of the present zoning or into zoning that will not
substantially alter the character of the area that is now
being served. I would ask the protestants to please stand
that are here protesting this and I think you will find a pretty
unified group.
Protestants stand.
Thank you verymuch.
Lets count them - For the record it is only fitting
and proper to show that 31 protestants stood and were counted.
I would ask one question of the gentleman from the
West Greeley Baptist Church, where is this property located?
3251 Twenty-second Street.
It is on Twenty-second Street.
He is within the confines of this area.
I would only point out one other thing and I am going to
have you look at the tax base that has been established residentially
in the area. I would appreciate'it very much if you gentlemen before
making a decision would drive around the area and look at the development
I think that you would find it is very complimentary. I have no further
comments - there may be some others - we are not organized.
20
Mr. Telep: Thank you very much for coming. Is there anyone in this
audience who wishes to state something different than Mr. Schuman
has presented.
Mr. Vaughn
I am C. S. Vaughn I live at 2537 Rangeview
400 yards from the proposed commercial site. I would
endorse what Mr. Schuman has said and one additional
Road approximately
simply like to
consideration
and that is as a patron of tieschool. This morning I carried my
small boy to that school and the traffic conditions already are
very congested they are difficult. I can see that commerical property
would certainly add not subtract. Secondly one further thought, I am
not as articulate nor can I be as through as Mr. French and his expert
here who has made the study. But I think the gentlemen from the
engineer firm stated that the logical residential neighborhood
his study indicated that this was a logical residential neighborhood.
before
It is interesting to note further that subject to hearings/two of
zonging groups the city and the county that the amount of acerage
proposed here has been reduced from 12 acres to 6 acres. I believe
that that 6 acres would represent the total amount of space that
6 of the homes that are represented here occupy. I suggest too that
you look to the tax base that these homes - very substantial. Many
of us who have come to Greeley established our homes there did so
because this was the most desirable residential area surrounding
the Greeley area. We would like it to continue and when we hear
all the nicities about spanish design compared to the neighborhood
and this sort of thing it simply suggests that a Seven -Eleven is the
same by any other name. You don't change the character of it by
hiding behind a wall.
And thirdly the gentleman who spoke to you first he kind
of said to you sir - that this Board should not rubber stamp. I've
got great respect for the Board and I don't think you are rubber
stamp books. He wanted you to see a show of hands and apply logic
21
Mr. Vaughn: and I think those of us who live in the neighborhood - we don't
need the services that they propose and know that you will apply
that Thank you.
Mr. Telep: Thank you Mr. Vaughn. Is there anyone else here who
would like to add to already to what has been said in protest.
Mr. Schuman: One more comment,admittedly we do not have good
planning in our areas of growth. Mr. Brightsman and his firm
are going to do this. I wonder if this is a time to make a
decision that a change of zone anywhere in this area -until we
have a better comprehensive picture of what this area should
really look like 10 years or 15 years from now.
Mr. Telep: Thank you Dick.
Mrs. Joe Gusick: I live at 2015 Thirty-fifth Avenue roughly across
the streeton the west side facing the proposed shopping center.
We own approximately and acre and a half there which we bought
so that we could maintain a suburban residencial area for our
family our horses and so forth. Most of these folks bought in the country
with the same idea. We bought to be a suburban area not to be surrounded
by so called conviences. Also Mr. Brightsman mentioned the fact that
these shopping centers have been very successfully used in Southern
California. This is true but the zoning has been very very restrictive
for the past number of years from a few bad experiences that they
had had. I cite particulary the area of Garden Grove which went
downhill terrifically after a lot of this zoning was allowed, in
primarily residential areas. It was no longer saleable for residential
use. I would hate to see this happen in such a community such as
Greeley, which has a terrfic potential for excellent residential
areas west of town. This is the only remaiming area that is fairly
desirable for residential use. But I think that if you will investigate
22
Mrs. Gusick: some of these other areas where this has been allowed you will
find it has been an extreme detriment. Look carefully into your
zoning before you allow spot zones here and there because it will
be a problem in the future I am sure. Thank you.
Gordon Johnson: I live at 3502 Rangeview, Mr. Vaughn was modest, not
mentioning the point we did have the last time. A lot of the older
timers in the area should realize that we do have some extremely
influential and beneficial industries that have come to this city
and we have four or five of the executives from State Farm living
in Rangeview. They have all expressed the opinion - they have
moved here and live in this area because of the good residential
possibilities and it freedom from this type of thing. This is
a drawing point for our community and we should recognize it.
Thank you.
Mr. Andersen: Can we hear from the representatives from the Planning
Commission?
Mr. Nix- I live at Eaton, Colorado, I am somewhat familiar with
this area and do represent the Planning Board es a member. I might
tell you that we have, I believe all the Planning Board, at least
the most of us have taken time to go and have a look and see this
area. We came up with a decision at that time that this was not
in our opinion the proper suitable shopping center area. I might
tell you that it is still my personnel opinion, therefore I can
not speak for the rest of the Planning Board, certainly it is my
opinion -- that the expression of the representation here it certainly
indicates their feelings and the need in this area.
Mr. Andersen: Thank you Ben. Mr. Moore, do you have anything to say?
Mr. Moore:
I am the building inspector for Weld County, and am
strictly an employee of the Planning Commission. I am personally
an not qualified to express my opinion on this and I would just
merely go along with the decision of the Planning Commission
as their employee.
23
Mr. Andersen: Is there anyone else that would like to express their
opinion.
Mr. Telep: As mentioned previously we would like to invite each
and everyone of you to talk if you have anything to add to already
what has been said. My primary invitation still holds. It seems
that is all we have at the present time. Joe do you have anything
else.
Mr. French: I have indicated throughout these hearings I can appreciate
the feelings of the people in the neighborhood and the Commissioners
have and awfully tough task in approaching the zoning problems. I
know that first hand - I am the County Attorney in Boulder County
requests
and I watch the Commissioners agonize over rezoning/and the agony
gets greater and greater as the people appear. I would first like
to point out to you that when I appeal to you on logic and reasoning
the 30 some people who are here are far short of the representatives
of the neighborhood, as Mr. BrEghtman indicates that the neighborhood
we are talking about is consisting of 2800 people. I think you know
as a matter of common ordinary experience that people who are against
something tend to show up people who might be for it don't show up.
So while I appreciate the feelings of the people out there and the
people who are here I don't think you ought to conclude as was suggested
by Mr. Nix that this is a representative feeling of the need.
Now with reference to a couple of other comments the
test of rezoning is not whether you increase or decrease the property
values. Mr. Telep can tell you that but legally that does not have
anything to do with rezoning. As a matter of fact that is a by-product.
That fact is their need - we say there is a need -presented the basis
for the need. The fact is that a lot of people hear that there is
going to be a rezoning request and they come down against it because
it is rezoning. I can only say as the attorney for Mr. Ord we hope
the Commissioners don't want to legislate against change and progress.
24
Mr. French: I can see where homeowners and if I were living in this area
who knows I might be here along with Mr. Telep, if he were the
attorney resisting this change. But that is not the test either
you people are the leaders of the community, the elected officials
you have to decide what is in the best interest of Weld County
not whatsthe best interest of State Farm or a special interest
group. I hope that State Farm doesn't dictate as many decisions
as was suggested here.
But I think you are going to have to decide right now
what you are going to do with this property. Mr. Nix was right
they did do out and look at it - that is very helpful if you use
your imagination and you use your ability to envision growth in
this area you will see the proposal that we have submitted is
an asset to the area. If you allow this rezoning change that half
or more of the people here in two or three years from now will
say they don't think it has hurt the neighborhood at all. Right
now they are against it - now it is changing the status quo.
Now one comment was made by the opposition that is the
key one that we have admittedly have not had good planning. Another
suggestion was followed lets wait for 10 or 15 years and see what
we can do about it. You can go to my community in Boulder, you
can go to Longmont, you can go to any of your areas up here and
you can see many communities and I can point them out to you, Mr.
Telep your County Attorney, has been over there, he is familiar
with them. Areas where the City of Boulder or the County of Boulder
has failed to act on requests like this put it off and now it is
an eye sore. Now it is a piece of property they can't do anything
with. They are still wrestling with it and they are still getting
changes that are requested and denied. You are going to have an
island out there unto itself if you don't act now if you have a
23
Mr. French: good plant We think we have submitted a good plan and if the
suggestion has been made lets see what the planning for the
areas is - you've got it right here - this man is from the firm
who is going to do the pknning and don't think he hasn't considered
the future there. I think this is a very well done report and it
wasn't what Mr. Brock and Mr. Ord wanted. Mr. Brightsman gave us
an independent look and its carved out from 12.5 acres to 6 acres
of business so they haven't gotten what they wanted. What I am
getting to here is Mr. Ord is in the position of give and compromise
all along. We've tried to be as cooperative as we can tried to give
up things we orginally wanted and the opposition isn't going to give
anything. They want things status quo, they want you to close your
eyes to change, close your eyes to progress, they want you to close
to the growth that is inevitably that is going to come to west
Greeley. Mr. Brightsman has not closed his eyes it isn't something
we wanted, if we had written it we would have written it differently
but we wanted to give up a little to get something out there that
can be workable and can be good for the community.
Dr. Kemme:
I live at 3514 Wagon Trail Road, I live about a block
from the proposal. This has been called an independent study
I don't believe we can call it that, it was paid for by Mr. Ord
I don't think it is independent. Its major premise is thet we in
that area need the services, how do you find out if we need them -
go talk to the people. Did the man doing this study talk to the
people - well I think you can see today that the people who live
out there are here and they don't want it. So their major premise
is wrong in their whole study. This is what he kept coming back
to in his old study whether we need it and we don't need it.
The people are here today to tell you that. Also earlier he said
don't listen to your Planning Commission. Ignore your City Uommission
and your County Commission, why have these Planning Commissions if
you are going to ignore their study. I can't believe that they
haven't spent some time on this. I am sure they have and I think
we ought to listen to them. I don't think you have to rubber stamp
them, listen to them and then weigh their recommendations heavily.
Thank you.
26
Mr. Schuman: Mr. Telep, one more comment - I think you misunderstood
me when I said we should not have a plan for 10 or 15 years.
Mr. Brightsman will be at a plan wit,in 30 to 60 days. A
comprehensive plan and Bob I can not believe that you would
recommend a 6 acre zoning without having a comprehensive plan.
I recognize your problem in making a living but I don't wish
to pry into this any further but I believe the over-all picture
of planning
encompassing several miles/is more important than 6 acres.
J. W. Norcross,Jr.: I have a question - who orginally zoned this thing
what my question is orginally in the planning somewhere it was
zoned on 35th Avenue - am I correct? Is there busines zoning
there? Isn't there zoning for commercial out by the Elks.
Mr. Telep: There probably is I can't answer that.
Mr. French: Mr. Brightsman went in to that, to the south of this
parcel of land, yes down on the 34 by-pass.
Mr. Norcross: Who made that zoning?
Mr. Telep: I don't know - I think that perhaps in the first instance
when this was zoned to begin with - but it was done with committees
and hearings under the law and - I don't know who gets the blame.
Mr. Norcross: That has already been established as a commercial area,
by a committee like this
Mr. Telep: Not like this - this was done probably orginally when
Weld County was first zoned. Certain parts of it were zoned other
than agriculture but we have various zonings in answer to your
question such as industrial, scientific zones and
Mr.Norcross:
Mr. French:
What I understand this zoning was done by competent people.
We have nothing further Mr. Chairman, unless Mr. Ord has
has comment.
Mr. Telep: Mr. Ord would you like to make any comment that has not
been made by your counsel.
27
Mr. Ord: I don't know what else I could add to what has already
been said.
Mrs. Gusick: I am question why if that property at the corner
of Thirty-fifth Avenue and the by-pass - if it has already
been zoned for commercial or business use and has been for
sale for some period of time - I question you why has it not
been used - why don't you use that particular piece of property
instead of this one. Why try to create it here when t already
exist and you haven't used it any further. Apparently they
haven't felt the need for it or haven't felt that it would
be financially feasible to develop it for that purpose.
Mr. Telep:
That is a good question, I don't think this Board
is qualified to answer that and I am not either for that matter.
But a person who owns a piece of land is always interested in
putting it to the highest and best use.
Mrs. Gusick: I know it has been for sale for such use no one has
seen fit to buy it for same apparently there is not a need for
it or a financial return comsurate with the investment. I personally
as a resident of the area would rather have a business development
Mr. Telep:
there than on so directly available plus the fact that I question
wether
if they have a drainage problem there - the high density or
town house situation, shopping center would be as feasible as
residential. To me they would have more problems with drainage
and so forth with the commercial than in a residential. We can
always put up with the problems of a house but in a shopping center
it is not good.
I think that is a good question but the economic factor
is something that is up to the particular person who wants to run
this type of a business.
28
Mr. Andersen: You have heard the request as well as the objections to
this zoning what is your pleasure?
Mr. Marshall
Anderson: I move we take it under advisement.
Mr. Dunbar: I seconded it.
Mr. Andersen: It has been regularly moved and seconded that we take
this request under advisement. I will make it unanimous.
Meeting Adjourned
Deputy County Clerk
NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON AND QUIRK, INC.
2021 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE
August 27, 1968
Mr. Clifford Brock
901 Main Street
Louisville, Colorado 80027
Dear Mr. Brock:
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE 303: 352-8077
WEIR Co. cormvISSIONERS
RG iVED
Inn
3Df3
P.M.
61�i�i9i=�-'%''i2111$I$141516
4
2 1l,zt</ -c �l2Cl� j
In response to your request, we have prepared the following report which
analyzes the potential use of land for the 25 acres on the southeast corner
of 35th Avenue and 20th Street, approximately one-half mile west of the
City of Greeley. It is our understanding that two plans have been proposed
for the 25 acre parcel. The original proposal divided the property almost
equally in half, providing 12-1/2 acres at the immediate corner for commercial,
or "B" zoning, and the remaining 12.4 acres for "H", or apartment zoning.
Later, as an alternate to this plan, the entire area was proposed as "H"
zoning.
It was suggested thatweprepare a study to determine the best use of this
land. I feel it is necessary to preface this study with the following comments.
It is next to impossible to determine what is the best use of any parcel of
land. In all instances, you will find that any parcel of land could physically
be adapted to many different types of uses. Economically, however, the
number of uses is somewhat more limited, but even in this instance, it is
still difficult to establish which is the best use. A use can be deemed
desirable if: (1) It fits into and meets the needs of an area -wide land
use concept, and (2) If it can be adapted to the site without detriment to
adjoining uses. These conclusions apply to any piece of land, not just
this particular site presently under consideration.
The site under consideration is located at the intersection of two major
streets. At the present time, these streets are carrying a limited amount
of traffic, especially when existing traffic flows are compared to the
ultimate potential possible when the West Greeley area is further developed.
Thirty-fifth Avenue acts as a normal connector or collector between the
Highway 34 bypass and the existing Highway 34. Twentieth Street, on the
other hand, begins in the Glenmere area and extends westward through the
growth area of the City of Greeley for many miles. Significant urban develop-
ments are taking place along both of these highways. These developments
include residential areas, churches, schools, golf courses, and industrial
uses. The potential of the general West Greeley area is taking shape.
OFFICES IN GREELEY AND GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
Mr. Clifford Brock
- 2 - August 27, 1968
The character of the area has not yet been entirely established. A considerable
amount of rural agricultural land is still evidenced. Major use of land
nearby, other than agricultural, is residential. The existing residential
areas generally represent a good to excellent housing environment. It is
anticipated that, as Greeley continues to grow, this similar character will
naturally continue in this immediate area. The location of the existing
residential areas, schools, and parks have, for the most part, predetermined
the pattern of growth. It would appear very impractical to superimpose
any extensive non-residential use into this environment. It is therefore
logical to assume that the main use of the subject 25 acres would be residential
in character.
Since the proposals, both the original and the alternate, have suggested
apartment development, and in one case, some business development, I feel
it is necessary to comment on the qualifications of these two proposals.
The first item of concern is the proposed business area of 12-1/2 acres.
At first, the thought of commercial development in this somewhat rural setting
appears impractical. However, further analysis which follows has altered
this opinion considerably.
To determine the desirability and justification for a shopping center at
this intersection, it is necessary to consider existing developments, existing
zoning, and other characteristics within the west area of Greeley. Ninth
Street, between 23rd Avenue and the western City limits, serves as the community
commercial center which, at least to some degree, is a competitor with downtown
Greeley. It acts as a neighborhood center for that portion of town which
is immediately adjacent to Ninth Street. The extensive development of food
stores does not appear economically sound in logical planning terms. This
observation is somewhat supported by the fact that one of the supermarkets
recently went out of business and has since changed hands. Unfortunately,
as competition grows greater, this trend will probably continue.
The Hillside Shopping Center and the downtown Greeley area are too remote
from the subject site to be considered. The downtown area is a regional
shopping facility which always overlaps neighborhood centers and their market
area. The Hillside Shopping Center is a neighborhood shopping center and
serves basically its neighborhood which, in most cases, does not exceed an
area of one mile in any direction from the shopping center.
The southwest corner of Reservoir Road and 23rd Avenue has a site zoned for
business of approximately 14-1/2 acres. This site is only partially developed
as a small service area. The remaining 12 acres are vacant and will probably
continue to be vacant unless they are developed with uses other than commercial.
The location of that site is generally good with two exceptions. First, it is
too close to Hillside Shopping Center to be real effective, and second, its
best frontage on 23rd Avenue has now been developed, thereby restricting good
visibility and access to any potential shopping center, which would be built
on the Reservoir Road frontage.
Mr. Clifford Brock
- 3 - August 27, 1968
The Greeley Guide for Growth Plan indicates a proposed commercial area at the
intersection of 16th Street and 23rd Avenue. This area also has advantages
of being developed for commercial purposes. However, recent applications for
zoning at this intersection have been denied by the City of Greeley. It is,
therefore, logical to assume that this area will not be opened for commercial
development.
The commercial zoning existing at the northeast corner of 35th AvenueandHighway 34 bypass is composed of approximately 6-1/2 acres. This site is
poorly located for use as a neighborhood commercial facility. The existence
of the Elks Club and golf course; the cemetery, and the bypass itself restrict
this area as being desirable for a neighborhood shopping center. Most of the
residential development would be too far removed to actually be convenient
to the site. In addition, the highway acts as a natural barrier restricting
access to the site, or at least making it inconvenient, if service roads
were required.
We previously indicated that the area around the proposed 25 acre site would
generally be developed with residential uses. When developed, certain non-
residential uses will be required in the area to serve the neighborhood needs.
One of these non-residential uses would be a neighborhood shopping center. A
neighborhood shopping center is a business area which generally provides con-
venience services, or in other words, the services which are needed on a
one -stop basis, such as groceries, drugs; and limited personal services, such
as a beauty and barber shop, or a cleaning establishment. To be justified
economically, a neighborhood shopping center must serve a population of 5,000
to 10,000 people. It will generally range in size from five to ten acres.
It must be convenient to the neighborhood and, therefore, is generally located
at the intersection of major streets and as close as possible to the center
of the area which it is serving.
With these as guidelines, it becomes obvious that a neighborhood shopping center
of a size of five to seven acres could be justified near the intersection of
35th Avenue and 20th Street. At the present time, within simile of this site,
there areapproximately700 families, or 2,800 persons. This falls short of the
5,000 persons needed to support a full-sized neighborhood shopping center.
However, there are additional residential areas further west, such as Highland
Hills. Other traffic is generated past this intersection by the new industry,
the golf course, and the high school. Together, these resources could presently
justify development,of a small shopping center of perhaps two to three acres.
Tile area outlined on Exhibit A, which is attached, would logically be the
area serviced by this neighborhood shopping center. When fully developed at
two units per acre, this area could house a total population of 12,000 people,
or almost 25,000 people, if developed at a rate of slightly over three units
per acre. In either case, this would be more than adequate to support the
full-sized neighborhood shopping center.
Mr. Clifford Brock
4 August 27, 1968
For all practical purposes, this shopping center could be located on either
one of the four corners of the intersection, but not on all four. One corner
must be selected for this purpose. Normally, selection is made on a first -
come, first -serve basis. To protect the residents of the area, and the
County and the City of Greeley, a zoning request of this type can normally
be applied on a conditional basis. If construction has not started within
a one or two year period, or any other time which may be suggested by the
County, the property should be zoned back to a residential or agricultural zone.
It is basically understood that housing is not the best use at a busy inter-
section. Single family housing is not adequate to buffer itself from noise
and traffic and related effects, unless homesites are large. Apartment
development on the corner is actually many times worse than single family use,
since it lacks adequate open space, and generally has less buffering qualities
than provided by single family uses. At the same time, it puts more people
nearer the intersection confronting them with the same problems of noise
and congestion. Commercial development at an intersection usually offers
the best usage, since it can separate traffic from residential uses. Even
if developed commercially, one of the primary objectives should be the eliminatiai
of traffic conflict points. The location of the driveways should be of
prime concern. With proper design, architectural and traffic control, adequate
setbacks and parking, and adequate landscaping, the site could become an
asset to the neighborhood as a shopping center.
It is not necessary that R-3 back up to a commercial zone. With proper design
of the shopping center, with adequate setbacks, an R-1 zone could back up just
as effectively on a commercial zone as an R-3 zone. Nearness to the existing
high school and lack of other apartments in the general area would, however,
indicate a possible need for some apartment development. However, it is
questionable that the 25 acres, or a major portion of it, could be economically
justified for apartment development. The lake, with its possible ground
water problem, could justify need for a greater density, other than R-1,
to economically justify use of the land. A townhouse or condominium type
of development would lend itself naturally to the site and the problems which
exist. It would provide a greater density, but yet, not as dense as what
is normally found in apartment developments. At the same time, it generally
has large open spaces which perhaps could be fit into areas where ground
water is a problem, and at the same time, it retains the qualities of individual
ownership which should be beneficial to the whole area.
The townhouse development, as such, normally lends itself to a different type
of housing market than what you would normally find with single family residents.
The person buying a townhouse unit generally will be older, with their youngest
children being of high school age. Being near a high school, this would
be convenient to that market.
Mr. Clifford Brock _ 5 _
August 27, 1968
Like the commercial development, it is not necessary that it be on this
particular property. There is justification, however, that limited apartment
development or perhaps a large scale townhouse development could be justified
in this immediate area, especially since there is no other townhouse develop-
ment located within or near the City of Greeley.
In summary, I would like to make the following comments.
1. For all practical purposes, it is impossible to define the best use for a
parcel of land. However, the needs of an area can be determined and, a
general location, defined.
2. The main character of the subject property should be retained in a
residential nature.
3. A neighborhood shopping center of approximately five to seven acres
is justifiable in this general location and could be well adapted to
the subject site.
4. Any shopping center or townhouses located within this area should be
subject to conditional zoning. In addition, plans should be reviewed
for proper design, architectural character, traffic problems, adequate
setbacks, parking, and landscaping.
5. Only a limited need for apartment development appears logical in this area.
The normal generators for high intensity apartment use are lacking from the
area, such as colleges or large commercial or industrial activities.
6. A townhouse or condominium development of eight to twelve units per acre
could be well adapted to the site, because of its topographical features,
its ground water problem, and the existence of the adjacent lake.
7. The availability of good single family housing sites nearby does make
it more difficult to competitively develop the subject site with single
family residences, and at the same time, maintain the quality which is
evidenced by existing housing in the neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted,
NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON, and QUIRK, INC.
a ,.a -,
Robert K. Britzman, Associate AIP
Director of Planning
RKB/mah
Attachment: Exhibit A
`,r, TA
7.13.,23 _.., ..o
/7,
/7i 4- /%.S/C.
p`L
l'.;
,OF'5.O = .
.
r
'D.vU ft.
= . S /C. -r-
i
r A ct
l UJ1': S7 , :.eC.,
Pn�
inn
2°..'30" ',J,
/ s� ai % t _g, / 4 c
REGISI[REU
0
-.. CL O .,
Or Lae3 i..' i.
ott t._14O
.l1////4
NOTICE
Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing will
be held in the Office of The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, Weld County Court House, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified.
All persons in any manner interested in the following proposed change of zone
are requested to attend and may be heard.
Date:
Time:
DOCKET NO. 41
September 4, 1968
11:30 A. M.
James A. Ord
1911 15th Street
Greeley, Colorado
Request: Change of Zone from "R" Residential District to "B" Business District
and "R" Residential to "H" High Density
A tract of land in Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M.
A/K/A Tract "A" & more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NW
corner of Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. thence
S 1° 41' 10" E, 100.00 ft., along the West line of said Section 13 to the true
point of beginning; thence N 88° 34' 00" E, 781.03 ft., parallel: to the North
line of said Section 13; thence S 0° 30' 00"E, 716.02 ft; thence S35°41'20" W,
47.66 ft; thence S 88° 34' 00" W, 737.29 ft., parallel to the North line of
said Section 13, to a point on the West line of said Section 13; thence N 1° 41' 10"
W, 753.93 ft., to the true point of beginning; excepting the westerly 50.00 ft.
thereof for road right-of-way, containing 12.5 acres m/l.
A tract of land in Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M.
A/K/A Tract "B" and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
NW corner of Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., thence
S 1° 41' 10" E, 100.00 ft., along the West line of said Section 13; thence N 88°34'00"
E, 781.03 ft., parallel to the North line of said Section 13, thence S 0° 30' 00" E,
716.02 ft.; thence S 35° 41' 20" W, 47.66 ft., to the true point of beginning;thence
S 35° 41' 20" W, 446.04 ft., to a point of curve to the right; thence southwesterly,
along the arc of said curve to the right, said arc having a radius of 200.00 ft. and
and interior angle of 52° 37' 40"; thence S 88° 18' 50" W, 307.28 ft., to a point
on the West line of said Section 13; thence N 1° 41' 10" W, 435.74 ft., along the
West line of said Section 13; thence N 88° 34' 00" E, 737.29 ft., to the true point
of beginning; excepting the westerly 50.00 ft. thereof for road r/w; containing
5.2 acres m/l
A tract of land in Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M.,
A/K/A Tract "C" and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NW
Corner of Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M.; thence
S 1° 41' 10" E, 1289.67 ft., along the West line of said Section 13; thence N 88°18' 50"
E, 406.18 ft.; thence S 1° 41' 10" E, 40.00 ft., to the.true point of beginning;
thence S 1° 41' 10" E, 30.00 ft.; thence N 88° 18' 50" E, 24.08 ft.; thence S86°10'16"
E, 234.48 ft.; thence N 53° 11' 54" E, 691.71 ft., to a point on the South line of
that tract of land described in deed recorded in Book 572, Reception No. 1493705
of the Weld County Records, Colorado; thence S 87° 57' 40" W, 318 ft. m/1 along
the southerly line of said tract of land described in deed recorded in Book 572,
Reception No 1493705, to the corner thereon; thence S 53° 11' 54" W, 593.60 ft.,
along the southerly line of said tract of land described in deed recorded in Book 572,
Reception No. 1493705, to a point on the north r/w line of West 22nd Street; thence
Westerly 19.34 ft., along the North r/w line of said West 22nd Street, to the
true point of beginning; excepting the southerly 30.00 ft. thereof for road R/W,
containing 2.5 acres m/1
Change of Zone
James Ord
Docket No. 41
A tract of land in Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M.
A/K/A Tract "D" and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
NW Corner of Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M.; thence
S 1° 41' 10" E, 1289.67ft., along the West line of said Section 13; thence
North 88° 18' 50" E, 406.18 ft.; thence S 1° 41' 10" E, 70.00 ft; thence N88° 18' 50"
E, 24.08 ft.; thence S 86° 10' 16" E, 234.48 ft; thence N 53° 11' 54" E, 691.71 ft.,
to a point on the South line of that tract of land described in deed recorded in
Book 572, Reception No. 1493705 of the Weld County Records, Colorado,; thence
N 87° 57' 40" E, 387 ft., m/1 along the southerly line of said tract of land
described in deed recorded in Book 572, Reception No. 1493705, to the corner
thereon, said corner being the true point of beginning; thence S 87° 57' 40" W,
387 ft., m/l,along the southerly line of said tract of land described in deed
recorded in Book 572, Reception No. 1493705, to the Northerly most point of that
tract of land described in deed recorded in Book 578, Reception No. 1499960 of the
Weld County Records, Colorado; thence S 11° 18' 45" E, 443.22 ft., to a point on the
West boundary of Bel Air Park as recorded in Weld County, Colorado; thence Northeasterly
160 ft., m/l, along the northerly line of said Bel Air Park, to the Northerly most
point thereof; thence N 1° 06' 30" W, 45.60 ft.; thence N 88° 15' 38" E, 171 ft.,
m/1 to a point from which the true point of beginning bears N 2° 13' 30" W;
thence N 2° 13' 30" W, 340 ft., m/1 to the true point of beginning; containing
3.1 acres m/l
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DATED; JULY 31, 1968
BY: ANN SPOMER
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
/79
Pursuarif to
the State' of. Cy
hearing mill"be
of the Heard- -4":i
sinners of Weld."!
Wald County Coil
ley, Colorado, 1e :spec-.
ified. All persods,kitialy mariner
interested in 'tin w410,W IL pre:
posed Change .of lone' gre re-
quested to attend. bed, may., he
heard
DOCKET NO'. 41
JamesA. Ord
1911 15th Str'edt,
Greeley,. Colorado
0. 1400705,
r; thence. S
along
enact
ed in re-
oek 57st Reception
O' a point; On the
Al West 22nd
terly 19.34
F/ -line
'zoo " std, to
the truqgoint, 'of begilg;
excepting the southerly. 30.00
ftz tSereef, fta road it/W, eon-
atrga' m/l
as"id(av
6f lane ill Section: 13,
-4Powatthip' 5: -North, Range. 66.
West of the. 6th P. M, A/
R/± Tract : "tiD" and more
Date: Septebor 4, 1968 -particularly described as`fol-
Time: 11:30 A. M - • , k77We.t • ggrnttencing at the NW
_... ; �... ,cornier of Section 13, Township
Request: Change of ,Zone from :.._5:North, :Range 66 West. of.
"R" Residential ,. District to "-'BY °-the<6dr.P.-M. thence,S 1 41
Business District and "fif" Rest p , 1589:6;1 ft ,' along the
dential to H"' A.y' WINS tt-SaidSection` 13;
'thence' N : "89 18' `:.59" -' E.
A tract of land hi riettion 13, '495.18 ft.; thence 5 .1 41' 10"
Township 5 North, ... -flange. 85- .•E; -WOO 'ft;...thence: N 88'
West of the 6th `51 A/ 50"'E;"24.08 ft.;' thence S 86°
K/A Tract "A" and=. more. .ie• 16" E-234.48 ft; ....thence
particularly described'as' fb1= .. 'PTS$ _II,' 54` E, 691.71 It,, to a
lows: Comeneocing at Ste f4W ` vow fdi the ,: south line; of: that
corner of Sectoh•ti "'Pownshgr ' tract of 'land described in
5 North, Range '46' 71Vest 4 • ` .- deed reaea'ded in Book $72, Re-
the 6th P. M. thence a 1° 41' - ceptlon-l*o. 1493705 ofthe"Weld
10" E, 100.00 ft .*rig_ the ;may Records, Colorado:
West line of said Section 13 thence N 57° 57' 40" E. 307 ft.,
to the true point of la g in/1'along the southerly line of
thence N 88° 34' '00""E, -78100 ' said tratt'ef land described in
ft., parallel to the North line` deed recorded in Beek' 572, Re=
of said Section 13; thdnc_ e'S 0° caption No: 1490705, to the tor-
30' 00" E, .;:716,02 $: 4henc8 nor thereon, said corner being.
S 35° 41' -20" W 47.d6 -'YE; the true point of beginning;
thence S 88° 34' 00" W,.:737.78" -theme S 87' 57' 40" W, 387 It,
ft., parallel to the.'North' ling -:_m11 along the southerly line of
of said Section 13, to a point
an the West line of -..,said. Sec-
tion 18; thence N 1° 41' 10"
W, 753.93 ft:,to the,true point
of beginning; excepting the
westerly 50.00 ft thereof for
road right-of-way, containing
12.5 acres n✓1.
A tract of land in Section 13,..,..
Township 5 North, Range 66
West of the 6th P. M. A/•
K/A Tract "B" and more
particularly described as fol-
lows: Commencing at the NW
corner of Section 13, Township.
5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. thence S.1°: 41'. W, 4g611 ft.; "thence N 88° 15'
along the 38" E,, 171 ft., m/1 to a point
West line of said Section 13; from which the true -.point of
thence N 88° 34' 00" E, 781.03 - beginning bears N 2°_.13' 30".
ft., parallel to the North line ly, thence N 2° 13' 30" W, 340
of said Section 13, thence S 0° ft., m/1 to the true point of be -
30' 00" E, 716.02 ft.; thence S ginning; containing 3.1 acres
35° 41' 20" W, 47.66 ft:; to the pr/1
true point of beginning; thence
S 35° 41' 20" W, 446.04 ft., to
a point of curve to the right;
thence southwesterly, along the
arc of said curve to the right,
said arc having a radius of
200.00 ft. and an interior angle
of 52 37' 40"; thence S
88° 18' 50" W, 307.28 ft., to a
point on. the _West ..line_.of told -
Section 13; thence':N`1° 41' 10"
W, 435.74 ft., along 'the West hed in The Greeley Boos -
N line of said. Section 13: thence. fePublisug•'. 2,. 1068 and.. A9g. 23, 1964
N 88° 34' G@Z 707.l6;ft to -
the true point of
excepting the westerly 50.00 ft.
thereof for. road .r/w;. con-
taining 5.2 acres mil
A tract of land in Section 13,
Township 5 North, Range. 66
West of - the 6th P. M. A/
K/A Tract "C" and more
particularly ' described as fol-
lows: Commencing at the NW
corner of Section 13, Township
5 North, Range 66 West of
the 6011 P. M. thence S 1°, 41'
10" E, 1289.67 ft., '-along the
West line of said.. Section 13;.
thence N 88° 18t-50" E,
406.18 ft.; thence S 1° 41' 10"
E, 40.00 ft., to the true paint
ofbeginning; thence S 1' 41'
10" E, 30.06. ft.; thence N 88°
18' 50" E, 24.08. ft.; thence S
86° 10' 16" E, 234.48 ft.; thence
N 53° 11' 54" E, 691.71 ft., to a
point on the South line of that
tract of land described in deed
recorded in Book 572, Recep-
tion No. 1493705 - of the Weld
County Records, Colorado;
thence S 87° 57' 40"'W, 318 ft.
m/1' along the southerly line
said track of land described in
deed recorded in Book 5'72, Re-
ception No. 1495'706, to the
Northerly most point of that
tract of land described in deed
recor'd'ed in. Book 578, Re-
ception No.. 1499960 of the
Weld County itecorda,. Colora-
do; thence S 11° a3' 46" E,
443.22 ft., to a point on the
West boundary of Bel Air Park
as recorded in Weld County,
Colorado; thence Northeaster-
ly 160 ft. in/1 along the north-
erly line of said Bel Air Park,
to the Northerly moat point
thereof- thence N 1° 06' 30"
Dated: July 31, 1968
THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
By: ANN SPOMER
"COUNTY CLERK AND
RE,ORDER. AND CLERK'
*":NE BOARD
9/v /d;
70/ fljr/��s77T.
026,02/ diedese 1a')-
% E7 6 F--&€- �p2h4'
/Sit
t B tits Pit 4a
Cotoear Po
a r o?
/09
020.9 S'
t. c+
/,
ft
tt
H
a.0 -if (/A
/73
3
a��/ .":7-ne Sal
/e
(L
313y tacten l n/ /1'•
/ ,a
012 9/-es47tix./ C) r�
1
1 N
a R
:32j 5
</i
LJ
U h`
Ce
Lii
wvn h
i
W ti1
K V N
V
tl
W
Z
a 8
a
_ ` sCO
rtAK/MAIPWAKIPWArif/VAPPWAKIPAPIT
II
d
ft
2
111
a
J
W W
24
a
RESIDENTS
F
V
RESERV01Rs
mvd
4.1
vt
8 0•
H
VIVV5VJ ,
ca V
b7bd'�bL v
D ory� �►/j0
Nlikh o*,
7 0�'
41
'b4'1 .4.16ffirA
N
V 0 1 N 1
a A
La co N.4
GREELEY WEST N16N
6rdl/r/Pradr:ddraIVAPWIVIrAriirr/AdrAlrAIMAIKllr/
3AV 71St
1100 To /7OO Ft TENT/A L
w
Hello