HomeMy WebLinkAbout690024.tiffFINDINGS AND RESOLUTION
CONCERNING CHANGE OF ZONE
PETITION OF JOHN G. WERKHEISER
The petition of John G. Werkheiser, 2002 First Avenue, Greeley,
Colorado, requesting a change of zone from "R" Residential District to
"M -H" Mobile Home District, of a parcel of land described as follows,
to -wit:
Lots 7 and 8 in the Southwest Quarter (SW4) of
Southwest Quarter (SW4) of Section 9, Town-
ship 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P. M.,
Weld County, Colorado, containing 10.00 acres,
more or less,
came on for hearing on Wednesday, June 25, 1969, at 2:00 o'clock P. M.,
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 recommendations of the Weld
County Planning Commission 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 erroneous, 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 re -zoned are predominately opposed
to the change of zone.
3. The evidence discloses that the present zoning is compli-
mentary to the surrounding area.
4. The evidence shows that a tract of land containing five acres,
more or less, immediately to the west of subject property, has already
been zoned "M -H," and that petitioner has shown no need for this additional
area to be re -zoned.
5. That each of the preceding findings in and of themselves,
and independent 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 John G. Werkheiser, 2002 First Avenue,
Greeley, Colorado, for a change of zone from "R" Residential District to
"M -H" Mobile Home District, of a tract of land for a proposed mobile home
trailer park, said area being more particularly described as follows:
Lots 7 and 8 in the Southwest Quarter (SW4) of
Southwest Quarter (SW4) of Section 9, Town-
ship 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P. M.,
Weld County, Colorado, containing 10.00 acres,
more or less; and
690024
WHEREAS., said Board has made its findings on the evidence and
testimony 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 Commission, and given the same such weight as it, in its
discretion, deems proper, and is now fully advised in the premises;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of
John G. Werkheiser, 2002 First Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, requesting
a change of zone from "R" Residential District to "M -H" Mobile Home
District to locate a mobile home trailer park on the 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 30th day of July, 1969.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST:
County Attorney
WE COUNTY, COLORADO
7/7-77
-2-
June 25, 1969
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 21, 1969, duly
published May 23 and June 13, 1969, a public hearing was had for Change of Zone
as requested by John G. Werkheiser, at the time and place specified in said
notice. The evidence presented was taken yrrfier advisement; the decision to be
made at a later la�date.
ATTEST: �d 4-�-supi .*`G'Cr-77l L' l GI c� c,,. -c,,.-- --
County Clerk Recorder and airman, B and of County Commissioners
Clerk to the Board Weld County, Colorado
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PRESENT:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Marshall H. Anderson, Chairman
Glenn K. Billings, Member
Harold W. Anderson, Member
Mr. Samuel S. Telep, County Attorney
APPLICANT
Mr. John Werkheiser
PETITIONERS ATTORNEY
Stow L. Witwer, Jr.
Mr. M. A. Johnson, Developer of Project
PROTESTANTS
Kenneth Hungenberg
Bus Sharp
Earl Steele
Earl Wolff
Mrs. Earl Wolff
CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST
"R" Residential District
to
"MH" Mobile Home District
PETITION OF
John Werkheiser
June 25, 1969
Marshall Anderson: At this time Mr. Telep, will you make the record for this
change of zone request.
Mr. Telep: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let the record show that this
cause came on for a hearing this day, June 25, 1969, at 2:00 P. M.
pursuant to the notice that was published as required by law, published
in the Greeley Booster on May 23rd and June 13, 1969. Let the record
further show that this petition is being made by John G. Werkheiser
of 2002 First Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, for a change of zone from
"R" Residential District to"MH" Mobile Home District of a parcel of
land containing 10 acres more or less and more particularly described
as Lots 7 and 8 in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
(SW4SWe) of Section 9, Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P. M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
Let the record further show that the petitioner is present
in person and is represented by counsel,Stow Witwer, Jr. Let the
record further show that there is on file a resolution of the Weld
County Planning Commission, dated May 21, 1969, recommending favorably
as to this zoning request.
Let the record further show that there are several people
in the hearing room and they will be asked to idenfity themselves
later and to state whether they are in favor or opposed to the change
of zone.
Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Witwer:
Would the petitioner care to proceed at this time.
Thank you Mr. Anderson, I am Stow Witwer, Jr. appearing
on behalf of the petition. I would like the record in this cause to
further relect that the file, an official part of this cause does
contain a properly - a proper application that has been properly
filed with the Weld County Planning Commission for a change of zone
of the property described previously by Mr. Telep.
2
Mr. Witwers I would like now marked as Exhibit or I would also
like to make as part of the record a letter under the heading
of our office in which the answers to the various questions that
must be filed with a change of zone are answered. I have sufficient
copies for each member of the Commission. You might have this marked
as Exhibit "A" and it be introduced as such.
Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Witwer:
Accepted.
There are also on file in the official record of this
cause petitions concerning to the application that we are here
concerned with. These consent forms are from adjoining landowners.
There is a consent from Mr. John G. Werkheiser, the petitioner who
is also owns adjoining property south of the property that we are
here concerned with. There is a petition by Mr. Swanson who owns
the south half of the property which adjoins the subject property
on the west. There is a petition signed by the First National Bank
of Greeley as excutor of the estate of Nona Rush consenting to this
change of zone. That property owner owns the north half of the
property adjoing the subject property on the west.
There is also in this file a consent signed by
Dr. Scheel, Mossberg and Hoff, nearby property owners. The file
contains the favorable recommendation or the recommendations for
favorable approval by the Weld County Planning Commission. The
file contains a recommendation from the City of Greeley Planning
Commission recommending favorably the approval because they have
also considered the matter previously. I would ask that a"letter
from Mr. 0. L. Shaffer, Director of Water, from the City of Greeley,
Colorado, dated May 22, 1969, be marked as applicant's Exhibit "B".
I would advise the Commission - the Board of Commissioners that
this letter advises that there is sufficient water and water taps
and sewage available to the property and I would ask that this letter
be accepted as part of this record.
Mr. Chairman: Accepted.
3
Mr. Witwer: The file reflects that the Notice of Hearing in this
cause has been properly in accordance with the law and we are
certain that there are in the file returned receipt requests
-executed by all landowners adjoining and owning property within
500 feet of the subject property. Beyond these somewhat technical
matters I would like to advise the Board that to more familarize
you with the property. This property is between 9.5 and 10 acres
is located east of First Avenue and adjoining Twentieth Street
east of the City of Greeley. The property adjoins" Lot 6 of the
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Section on the
west. Now this property on the west is, the south half of the
property on the west is now a mobile home park and is presently
zoned as such. On the north the property adjoins property that
is presently being used by the Weld County Livestock Commission
Company with corrals, cattle pens and used in connection with
that auction facility of which the Board if familiar.
On the -east the property is adjoined by property
but
which is zoned "R"/is presently and to my knowledge all the
property on theriieast is presently farmed. On the south and
across the street, across Twentieth Street, the property -
the adjoining property owner is Mr. John Werkheiser and
Mrs. Jessie Werkheiser the petitioners here. The property
has been sold by Mr. and Mrs. Werkheiser to a Mr. M. A.Johnson
seated beside me. Mr.Johnson is the developer of this property
and is purchasing this property subject to a contract and contains
the usual provision if the zoning is approved and the contract is
valid and in force effect. It is the position of the applicant
that the property should be zoned "NH" for several reasons and
I would briefly recite them. Number (1) as will be pointed out
by Mr. Johnson, there is a clear need for a mobile home park
in the area immediately axund - the immediate vicinity of Greeley.
We think this will distinguish this property from other outlying
areas of the county where they may be a surplus of mobile homes
parks but I think that the testimony will establish, the Board may
be familiar with the fact that this is not the case of the property
next and adjoining the City of Greeley.
Our second and general reason is that the property
can not feasibly be developed for a higher residential use at
this time nor in the forseeable future because of it location;.
with regard to the sale pavillion and the yard facilities north
and their present use. We further feel that this is the same
situation because the property now adjoins property on the west
which is presently a mobile home park. It would be consistant
development of that area of the county to permit an additional
mobile home site at this time.
I would say as a third reason and perhaps most
important is that the plan of the developer to develop a
quality mobile home park - it will be brough out that Mr. Johnson
has carefully considered this matter, has investigated the matter
throughly, he is financially able to bring forth and put together
the type of development that should be in the event that the
Board grants our application. I think it is of some note that
and I am not certain that this is often understood, but in addition
costs of
to the land costs, plus the/developing of the area in addition
to the costs of actually putting in the concrete, the asphalt,
on
the building sites, storage and all of these/site costs. And
in addition to such other matter as land acquisition and attorney
fees, Mr. Johnson will be paying in excess of $14,000.00 just for
water, water taps and sewer facilities and drainage. I would like
to at this time have a site plan that is over the heading of
Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk Consulting Engineers marked
as Applittnts Exhibit "A" as Applicant's Exhibit "C"
Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Witwer:
Accepted.
I would like to at this time to call Mr. M. A. Johnson, desioper
for him to tell the Board what it will be like and then we will try
5
make these statements to those in the audience here may - would you
please state your name?
Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Witwers
Mr. Johnson:
M. A. Johnson, 2935 Eleventh Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
2935 Eleventh Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
We would like to have this real nice park and it would
be to my advantage to have one.
Mr. Witwer: Mr. Johnson, are you a permanent resident of Weld County?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, I have lived here two years.
Mr. Witwer: Have you had any previous experience in the construction
or building materials or land development industry prior to your coming
to Greeley?
Mr, Johnson: Yes, I spent almost my life working with it.
Mr. Witwer: Have you studied the Weld County Mobile Home Regulations?
Mr. Johnson: Very throughly.
Mr. Witwer: And are you familiar with the stringent requirements
and operation
contained therein as to the use and construction/of mobile homesparks?
Mr. Johnson: I surely am.
Mr. Witwer: And if this application is developed are you prepared to
comply with these requirements?
Mr. Johnson: Entirely.
Mr. Witwer: Mr. Johnson, have you examined and explored the requirements
of street access, traffic control, water, sewage, water taps, water and
all other requirements that should be met before the Commission can
properly act on this application?
Mr. Johnson: I am well aware of all the requirement.
Mr. Witwer: And have all these matter been resolved? By those in authority?
Are all of the necessary - are all the necessary facilities available?
Mr. Johnson: They are and I have letters to that effect.
Mr. Witwer: Now at this point I would ask you to tell the Board
exactly what type of development is contemplated.
6
Mr. Witwer: This is Twentieth Street and north would be up on the
diagram. This would be in a northly direction. Where is the existing
mobile home park?
Mr. Johnson: It is to the west , there is five acres now and
an optional five acres more to go in here.
Mr. Witwer: Now is that adjoining this property.
Mr. Johnson: No - they are set back 50 feet - that would be 100 feet
along here - mobile home here and a mobile home along the west side.
Mr. Witwer: Now would you explain exactly to the Board what is shown
-on this.
Mr. Johnson: Well all these spots are more than the specified spaces
there are 78 spaces and a density of 7.8 spaces per acre. I believe
it is.
Mr. Witer: 7.8 sites per acres
Mr. Johnson: Yes, of course there will be concrete walks around
the perimeter and the streets will be of the culvert size which is
called for in the code. The whole court will be code or better.
I wouldn't put nice dwellings in if I would live there myself.
This will be the park area here which will be sufficient.
Mr. Witwer: What is the approximate size to the park area?
Mr. Johns on:
Mr. Witwer:
Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Witwer:
Mr. Johnson:
or something like that or an extra parking deal of some kind.
It has 15,600 square feet.
Approximately 350 feet by 45 feet
In the back here, yes
Adjoining on the east now what is there?
There is a storage area here - maybe travel trailers
Mr. Witwer: What will the street composition be?
Mr. Johnson: It will be asphalt.
Mr. Witwer: What will the access be to streets and highways from the
development?
Mr. Johnson: It Will be asphalt from the appropriate sides.
Mr. Witwer: And where will they be located?
Mr. Johnson: On the east and west sides, as you come into Twentieth Street.
Mr. Witwer: They will come in the Twentieth Street on the east and
west sides. There will be two access roads. Have you made arrangements
with the County in the event this is granted to dedicate sufficient
tight -of -way so that Twentieth Street can be developed in accordance
with the rules.
Mr. Johnson: It is all in the record there.
Mr. Witwer: So there will be a thirty foot right -of way from the
center line, am I correct, on the north side.
Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Witwer:
Mr. Johnson:
It is all on record at the last Commission meeting
This would be the Planning Commission.
Yes.
Mr. Witwer: I understand that there would be sidewalks around each
of the blocks and there would be three blocks within the development.
Mr. Johnson: Thats right. This is a typical site plan over here.
Mr. Witwer: Now that site plan that would be a typical from one of
the lots you would have a mobile home
Mr. Johnson: The concrete patio and what is storage or car port will
be concrete the fill -out will be what comes out to the street.
Mr. Witwer: There is storage facilities?
Mr. Johnson: Storage facilities in the back of the car port.
Mr. Witwer: And there is a covered patio area.
Mr. Johnson: Depending on the trailer itself - it won't be covered.
Mr. Witwer: There is a patio area though?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Witwer: What about refuse collection?
a
Mr. Johnson: Well that will bs storage unit a concrete 'covered patio
that will be handled by the collectors.
Mr. Witwer: Have you considered at all the type of person that you
plan to lent the spaces to? The type of -development?
Mr. Johnson: We are going to try and keep it as retired people and
forsome people with small families. Not Aver two. - it shouldn't
average over one and a half, I -don't intend to average that much,
children
but the national average is about Lk/per trailer.
Mr. Witwer:
Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Witwer:
Mr. Johnson:
You think yours would be less or - school children
I would like to keep it as low as possible.
Why is that? Have you any particular reason?
Well -I think that a mobile home court is sort of dangerous
for children and they also seem to disturb us older people.
Mr-. Witwer: Are you suggesting that if you have older people and
this is the class of your cliental that it might interfere with this
if you plan to have children too.
Mr. Johnson: That is right and you can keep a court a lot better
if there aren't a lot of children.
Mr. Witwer: Mr. Johnson have you explored whether or not the existing
mobile home parks in the Greeley vicinity in the immediate Greeley
vicinity are full or whether they have a lot of vacancies?
Mr. Johnson: Well I am going to spend quite a bit of money, there
is one district that I know of and sometime ago, about a month ago,
I went to live in a mobile home court and there were three or four
vancancies with older people. Now some of them have spaces that
they were fixing to get ready. There would be about a two percent
vacancy.
Mr. Witwer: You say out of all those eleven mobile home parks
there was approximately a two percent vacancy? Now has anyone
prior to this date complained to you, told you that they did not
want this development - they have contacted you personally?
Mr. Johnson:
No, there hasn't been one person that has said
anything to you or discouraging in any way about building the
trailer court.
Mr. Witwer: Has anyone contacted you personally as to whether
9
Mr. Witwer: or not you woul-d be a disagreeable feature in the neighborhood?
Mr. Johnson: Not a soul.
Mr. Witwer: Has anyone talked with you that you might work out any
might
differences that/exist with -others in the neighborhood?
Mr,, Johnson:
Mr. Witwers
Mr. Johnson:
Well there has been nobody approach tie.
Have you discussed this matter with the people at all?
Yes I have talked with them, well an the last month or
so I have talked pretty freely about it - I didn't talk toe much about
it at first.
Mr. Witwer: I see.
Do you understand the financial commitment that are
involved in a development of the type that you are _proposing to
the hoard?
Mr. Johnson: -Only too well.
Mr. Witwer: And are you in a -position to commit yourself to the
development as you plan.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, I made arrangement for it.
Mr. Witwer: What is - before we go any further - is there any
questions that the -Board may have.
Marshall Anderson: Mr. Johnson, I am -familiar with that property out
there --one thing concerns me - what about surface drainage
what are you going to -do with your surface water-?
Mr. Johnson: Well, I am not to familiar with that -but I - some
4,300 dollars -----
Mr. Anderson: Well will this allow you to put in storm sewers
are you going to be on a sanitary sewer and a storm sewer?
Mr. Johnson: We are going to be on sanitary sewers, yes.
Mr. Anderson: But a mean where is the water going to go -off the ---
Mr. Johnson: I am not sure on that.
NY. Witwer: Have you discussed this point with the city?
Mr. Johnson: No I assumed it woul-d be their responsibility and they
10
Mr. Johnsonfcont) would have to pick me up.
Mr. Witwer: I might state to my knowledge there is no commitment
regard to
with the city with/the -storm sewers specifically although the
city has had the water and storm sewer people out there so I don't
think it is -any particular problem.
Marshall Anderson: Now that west street, is that - that will be part of
the property it won't be in -conjunction with the court Tight west
of you — or will you share that street?
Mr. Johnson: No it will be separate altogether, separate streets
separate , he comes out on First -Avenue. You see
I have to go out the way I come in.
Marshall Anderson: Is this -going to be -all underground cable or are
you going to put in utility poles in.
Mr. Johnson: We will have utility poles and underground from polls
on in.
Marshall Anderson: Glenn, do you have any questions?
Mr. Witwer: I think on the matter of rezoning, the Board is always
presented with several alternatives as - I think it is important to
know that to consider -there is a need for mobile home parks, there is
a need in the Greeley area. The 'development should not hurt existing
property _owners. And I think this is best evi-denced by the fact
that the petitioner himself still owns substantial acerage -adjoining
this property on the south, and it is difficult to conceive that he
would do something that -he would not think that would be in a long
term best interest to this particular property. Here is a man who
has gone through the complexities of the change of zone process
he has expended funds, he has had surveys conducted, he has gone
to -all of the agencies to date end has run into no opposition.
The County Planning Commission, which has considered this matter
and has recommended it as well as the City of -Greeley.
I think this is certainly evidence to support the
petition and with that I will state to the Board we have no further
testimony to present at this time. If there are any questions that
you have of Mr. Johnson, or Mr. Werkheiser, or myself we will be more
than happy to answer them. Thank you.
11
Marshall Anderson: Is there anyone else in the room who wants to speak
for the petition?
Earl Wolff: I live at 412 East 18th Street, Did I hear directly
that all property owners within 500 feet have bean contacted?
Marshall Anderson: I think it was stated adjacent property.
Mr. Witwer: Within 500 - adjacent.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, 500 adjacent.
Mr. Wolff: Well my adjoins and I have another question. Did you
say the City of Greeley had evaluated the location of this court?
Mr. Telep:
Mr. Witwer:
Mr. Telep:
Mr. Witwer:
That is what you said Mr. Witwer.
Had evaluated the court.
No.
They have considered the court from the standpoint
of
of availability and facility,/sewer, water and water taps - but they
--- they also considered the matter of the Board, the City Planning
Commission, the _City Planning Commission views the question as any
Planning Commission would - and they have — from that Planning
actually
Commission they have recommended favorable/on the mobile home.
Concerning what 1 said specifically, on the water, sewer, and
water taps, this is confirmed in a letter from the City. This
is in part a consideration of the City Planning Commission.
Audience: It falls under their jurisdiction rather than the
County.
Mr. Telep: No, that is not a correct statement, no— The recommendation
of the Planning Commission, just goes this far. It meets with the City's
plan and the right of way for the adjoining property by that they have
existing roads and roadways and if there is going to -be another
subdivision be it a housing subdivision, sir, or a mobile home
subdivision, they would like to have existing streets -or contemplated
streets meet existing street-.. So they could have continunity - i-n
the interest of good planning.
Mr. Wolff: Then one other thing 1 have understood that this area
out here, when we bought it my wife and I. Now this area -out here
is zoned for estates, it has been zoned that way and I wondered
12
Mr. Wolff:cont.: strong it was on tearing that down.
Mr. Telep: Well sir, this particular area that the petitioner
wants to rezone today is presently in a residential district
not estates - residential.
Mr. Wolff: Well then the estates then run along the east
Mr. Telep: Well that could be, but he wants to change it
from residential to mobile home.
Marshall Anderson: Is there anyone else in this room in favor of this
application?
Mr. Werkheiser: Yes, I want this as a proper zone. You take horses
cattle and everything else over there. but they don't have a thing
for it they just put them there. And then when you want to - I could
have sold this for residential. They didn't want to be against the
stockyard, where the tattle and horses were at. So if you put up
buffer zone against it - maybe - my other is residential.
Marshall Anderson: Is there anyone else for the applicant? If not we will
hear from the opposition.
Ken Hungenberq: My address is 605 East 18th Street. I am going to be
representing mostly some property -that I am co-owner of directly east
of Mr. Werkheiser's property.
Mr. Telep: How far do you live from the location that is sought
to be rezoned now?
Mr.Hungenberq: I think catty -corner probably 700 feet roughly, I
never have guessed at it, something like -that.
Mr. Telep: I take it that you are here opposed to the change of
zone.
Mr. Hungenberq: I want object to it, yes.
Mr. Tel-ep: Will you tell the Commissioners in your own words
why you are objecting to this change of zone?
Mr. Hungenberq: Well first I would like to point out a few things
that seem to be a little mistaken here, directly north of this
ten acres is not this Weld County Sales Yard. It is owned by
Tom Kime and is tea acres of farmland, he has got it intopasture
grass now and he pastures a few horses on it. I am sure that
some day Mr. Kime has plans ±or his property and it would be
other than trailer courts. I don't think I am mistaken there.
You are catty corner you are not directly north of it as you
refer to the Weld County Sales Barn. Now my property would be
twenty acres east along Twentieth it passes right north of the new
East Memorial School. Can you Commissioners feature a straight
half of mile of trailer courts. If I would have to rezone mine
to realize any income off of it in the event I would want to sell
it I would have to ask for zoning for a trailer court. That would
give us a straight half mile of trailer courts right directly
opposite that school building. I don't think it would look
to nice there are some who probably think these new trailer
courts fairly attractive. _I am not one of them. If we go back
to 1961, when we zoned our property, I think - I say we - most
every resident out there was contacted sooner or later to be at
least one of the meetings. If I remember right most of them
objected to several things being built right beside them and they
were a little bit worried because they were building a little bit
of everything in the same type of an area. They didn't like junk
yards and they didn't like slaughter houses. I shouldn't put a
trailer court in the same class, they are much nicer than that.
But they didn't feel like they wanted trailer courts built right
beside their homes.
Now county zoning - we thought we had it set-up half
way right its probalby made out in sort of a checkerboard. But we
sort of hoped it would stick. Now here is another thing I have been
informed once you let one trailer park in you can't keep anymore out.
I think our county zoning should be a little stronger than that.
The drainage that you brought up, Mr. Anderson, you
and I probably realize the whole delta lays flat. I can't imagine
where the water is going to go from a heavy rain unless someone
puts in storm sewers. At best he could put in a culvert and run
it over onto my fields, there it would have to stop and mate -a
lake. Every field has a lake in itself -every lower end drains
no where.
Now my main expression here is I think our County
Zoning should protect us from something that we feel will
decrease our property and that is about sums it up.
Mr. Telep: Ken you own this land just north of the school?
Mr. Hungenberqs Yes.
Mr. Telep: And adjacent to the --.this location?
Mr. Hungenberqs The west side.
Mr. Telep: All the way to the street?
Mr. Hungenberqs That is right.
Mr. Telep: In other words all of this.
Mr. Hungenberq: All of that. I live directly catty -corner right about
there.
Audience: You show it on the map up there, right here, I will
just pencil it in lightly.
Mr. Hungenberq: I might as well show you on the map where I live just
about there.
Mr. Witwers Mr. Hungenberg, your property is presently being farmed
is that right?
Mr. Hungenberq: That is correct.
Mr. Witwers You are not presently developing it or under any
residential plan?
Mr. Hungenberq: No, no immediate plan. But when we built it or when
I bought it - it was protected by -residential zoning. In fact
I believe my property there is zoned estate. Estate in there rather
than residential.
Mr. Witwer: I think the record should speak - I believe that the
entire area is residential, I don't know that it is matter of relevance
Mr. Telep: Mr. Witwer, according to this map here to the right
looking straight ahead of me to the north it would appear it is zoned
residential.
Mr. Witwer: Yes, I believe that is the case, I don't - unless I am
mistak-en it is residential. Whatever significance the difference
would have. I don't know.
Mr. Hungenberq: The difference is the square footage for lots. Now
there is one other thing I would like to point out on the signers
15
of their petition, the only signers they had was the property owner,
the trailer court to the west, and the veterinary shop which is a
little piece of property on Eighteenth Street. Now that tak% in
two sides, two owners, and then the National Bank along the north
half of the trailer court property, I imagine that eventually they
intend to develop that into a trailer court. So that leaves all
surrounding property owners that didn't sign, and they were all
approached. I thought more would be here today but they didn't
make it. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Witwer: Concerning the question that I would like understood
by the Commissioners as far as the Weld County Livestock Commission
Company corrals. Don't they run somewhat into the property here
in question on the north side - they run east - isn't there an
"L" shapped aren't their corrals "L" shapped at that point
You know, I am asking you - I am not trying to debate with you.
Mr. Hungenberq:
Mr. Witwer:
Mr. Hungenberg:
No they are directly at the corner.
On the corner.
The corners join see.
Mr. Witwer: Less there be any misunderstanding then I would like
to this to be understood that I made the mistake in the statement that
Mr. Johnson is apparently understood that it does catty -corner this
property.
Mr. Hungenberqs Right.
Mr. Witwer:
Mr. -Chairman:
Mr. Sharp:
I have no other questions.
Is there anyone else in opposition to this?
Mr. Bus Sharp of 507 East Eighteenth Street, Greeley.
I own five acres over there on Eighteenth on the north side of the
road and at the time I bought that we went through the county I think,
to have it zoned residential estate. I guess I am about 500 feet
if Kenny is 600 feet.
Mr. Chairman: You are both wrong - your talking about between
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Street.
Mr. Sharp: I beg your pardon.
Mr. Chairman: The north side of this property would be on Seventeenth
16
yo'r about a block and a half.
Mr. Sharp: I am about a block and a half away but actually
z am part owner in the five acres across the street then which
is the property adjoining this, and I was never approached.
Mr. Chairman: That is the old Garry place.
Mr. Sharp: Thats right.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, you would adjoin on the east end on the
north.
Mr. Sharp: And I never was approached, I didn't know anything
about it until last night.
Mr. Telep: I take it then you are here opposed to the change
of zone?
Mr. Sharp: Yes.
Mr. Telep: Why don't you give your other reasons, other than
the fact that you were not approached - you are now - so you are
being afforded the opportunity.
Mr. Sharp: The reason I am opposed is I have lived out there
for 10 years and I know the drainage problem and prior to that
I lived in town and that is why I went out there, because I wanted
to get away and have a little room between us.
Mr. Chairman: Do you have any questions Mr. Wi-twer?
Mr. Witwer: As I understand it Mr. Sharp, you live on East Eighteenth
Street -
Mr. Sharp:
Mr.
The north side of the street. And I Lam a partner on
the five acres directly across the street from me that would run
back to Seventeenth - or Nineteenth Street. If there was a
Nineteenth Street.
Chairman: Are there any more questions of the protestant?
Mr. Steele: My name is Mr. Earl Steel and I live at 409 East
Eighteenth Street and I am opposed to this zoning.
17
Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Steele:
Do you want to state your reason, Mr. Steele.
We have a very nice residential area where we live
we are rather proud of it, I think all our neighbors take great
pride in having our little area out there that we have worked
hard and long and to the Commissioners here in 1961, spent a
great deal of time and set us up in real nice shape. Now I
guess we are under the heading of estate - residential or whatever
and this is no disrespect to anybody but I am just opposed to this
rezoning and in all respects I would rather not have it - a mobile
home court in the area. I think it would be detrimental eventually
to the valuation of our property and mentioning there are others - now
I don't know if I should say this but Tom Kime and Manley Young
are both up in the mountains, at Walden, I know very well if they
had been notified of this, I am sure they haven't been, they would
have been here to in opposition - I only surmise this I have no
assurance that they will be opposed - but I am really sure they
would be. There are many others in this particular neighborhood
- I don't know— I suppose they have been notified but I am like
Ktn Hungenberg said I am surprised there aren't more of them here.
But this is the reason it is just on a flag and I
think it would be a detriment to our home and our neighborhood
to have a commercial facility in the area. This is the way I feel.
Mr. Witwer: Do you find that your property is presently being
devalued by the existance of the mobile home which is presently
the ---
Mr. Steele: I don't think it has improved the condition at all
Now this is one that I plain knew nothing about until it was all
cut and dried, and this is no fault, I am sure it had proper
publication at best. I would have been here in opposition to
this had I known it. In all respects I think it is nice perhaps
as a mobile home could look but I just don't think - well it just
doesn't please me in the area. I just don't look forward to having
this sort of thing expanded into the area which we own. Just the
18
same as you live in your residential area downtown, I am sure you
would feel the same way with some commercial someplaces would perhaps
devaluate your property and kind of hurt your pride. 1 think 'We have a
real nice neighborhood out there. It is well kept and I don't think
in my estimation that a mobile home fits into our picture.
Mr. Witwer: Mr. Steele, I don't think anyone is trying to interfere
you live
with your use of your property I would ask again,/as I understand it
you are on the north side of Eighteenth and you have a very nice
estate type of home with corrals, frontage and nice lawns and this
kind of thing but you are some distance, are you not?
Mr. Steele: Yes we are, but we are approving of things that keep
closing in on us, is this necessary that this should keep working
in the direction now soon we will have more and more and the first
thing you know you'll have us kind of gobbled up and you will have us.
And this is the way I feel about it - part of it is discretion but that
is the way I feel it will go, if this thing is permitted to spread in
the area.
Mr. Witwer:
KL, Werkheiser:
I have no other questions.
why didn't we
May I ask a question - when we sent the guy there
why didn't you make this statement to him that you were opposed
to because it might hurt your business.
Mr. Steele: Pardon me, Mr. Werkheiser,
Mr. Werkheiser: Well that is the report I got back, they went and asked
you about it and you said you wouldn't sign it
Mr. Steele: This is Mr. Williams, I take it - oh, Mr, Johnson,
excuse me. I believe this pertains to this - there was some
someone came around and wanted to know if I would approve
Audience: I wanted to know if you would sign - Hungenberg wouldn't
sign. He was the only one that had guts enough to stand up and say so.
19
Mr. Steele: Well I didn't sign it I don't believe.
Mr. Werkheiser: No.
Mr. Steele: What do you want to call it guts or what or whatever you
want to call it. anyway
Mr. Werkheiser: You said it would hurt your business.
Mr. Telep: Are there anymore questions?
Mr. Witwer: I don't have any more questions.
Mr. Wolff: I am Mr. Wolff, and I asked a question a while ago
but I am definitely opposed for the same reason these other fellows
stated. My land will be right on the northeast corner - it does
adjoin it very definitely.
Mr. Telep: What is your home address?
Mr. Wolff: It is 412 East Eighteenth Street. I am on the south
side of the street and I am right next to Mr. Kime, right across
the street from Mr. Steele and I feel exactly the same way that they do
and I have seen the great big old pools down there in the fields for
a good half mile or better south, it stands in my field. it stands
in Kenny's field, it stands in the fields across the way and I have
a little pasture out there. I run a few sheep, it helps keep the
weeds c'own and --
Mr. Telep: You talk about the pools - is it your contention then
that if he could solve this drainage problem would you still be
opposed to it?
Mr. Wolff: Yes sir I would for other reasons.
Mr. Telep: Alright, then this is what the Commissioners would like
to hear. You say there is a pool here and a pool there.
Mr. Wolff: No I was juts
Mr. Telep: You would like to leave it like it is residential
L'v
is that correct?
Mr. Wolff: Yes, residential - estate , yes sir. I would.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anyone else here to speak in opposition
of the applicant.
Mr. Hungenberq: I have one more question, How come John you were in favor
of the first one when you were directly across the street
Mr. Telep: Mr. Hungenberg, may I - we are trying to have a hearing
here and I don't want to sound disrespectful or anything like that
but what you are attempting to do now is engaging in a conservation
with Mr. Werkheiser, what we are trying to do here now is to
make a record, so theCommissioners can be sufficiently advised
so they can come up with a judgement and a decision later. If
you have something to talk to Mr. Werkheiser about, I think he ought
to come up here and testify and then you would have all the right in
the world to ask him questions. But you have already testified, we
know you are against it - if it is a question of whether you agree
or disagree or personalities that is something else - I don't think
the Board would like to hear that.
Mr. Hungenberq: Okay I withdraw the question.
Mr. Telep: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anyone else in opposition to this? At this
time we will have the showing of hands of the people for the application.
Mr. Telep: Those that are in favor. Let the record show that we
have in addition -to counsel, in addition to the developer, Mr. Johnson,
and in addtion to the petitioner, Mr. Werkheiser, let the record show
that there are three other people in the room in favor. We don't
know their names - I think it is only fitting and proper that we
should have their names for the record. Sir you have your hand up
as being in favor of it, would you be identified for the record, you
know the record won't show who you are.
Mr.Johnson: Triangle realty.
Mr. Telep: You are Mr. Johnson, with the Triangle and your interest
here is as a real estate man, is that correct?
21
Mr. Reynolds: I am Frank Reynolds with Triangel Realty.
Mr. Telep: Your interested for the same reason, Okay. Now the
other gentlemen.
Mr. Bob Johnson: The petitioner is my father, I am very interested in
getting this granted.
Mr. Telep:
Mr. Witwer:
Alright, thank you very much.
I would like to point out a couple of things on this
notice provision less there be any misunderstanding. The usual
procedures were followed here, we did make a request of the
abstract company we did find all the adjoining landowners. I
did not personally but it is my understanding that the people in
the area were surveyed. There was some opposition as I recall
principally by Mr.Hungenberg, I think, who has always stood in
opposition. I think I have had the names of all the people
who have appeared except Mr. Wolff and I have not contacted him
may
or he is not on the list of people that/have been contacted by
people on behalf of the petitioner. As the Board of Commissioners
is aware the official notices that the 500 feet
are not made by the applicant. So we are not in a position to
make this statement so I think in all fairness to the petition
we are making it sound as though something was done without notice.
The contrary is the fact.
Concerning the things that have been brought out I
think there is clearly expressed a basis against mobile home
parks. Our only answer to that points out that points out several
things, number (1) this is not considered by the regulations a
commercial development. Number (2) these are authorized permissible
uses of a persons property if they so see fit and if they are in a
position to comply with the regulations. Number (3) I think that
other than the question - perhaps several questions that Mr. Hungenberg
raised and I think in particular the question of drainage - I can
find nothing othe: than there is generalized expression against this.
I do not think we can consider any further than this particular
application, we can't consider what happened in the first application
22
some year ago nor can we properly consider what will happen on the
next application, if any for some other change of zone. I do think
that the Commission can probably consider I am sure the Board should
probably consider what the consistant development of that area should
be. We are asking for a change of zone, it is not presently mobile
home and we think we have supported the reasons for that change in
accordance with the established procedures.
Mr. Chairman: Alright, now we will have the people opposing the
application show their hands.
Mr. Telep: Let the record show that five persons, Mr. Chairman
are in opposition to the change of zone, which includes four
who have testified personally in opposition and a lady, Ms Wolff,
is it,
Mrs. Wolff: Right.
Mr. Teleps The wife of one of the protestants who testified.
I suppose for the record and if you were to testify you would
probably testify for the same reasons your husband expressed,
is that correct
Mrs. Wolff:
Mr. Telep:
Mr. Chairman:
Thats right.
Let the record so show.
Is there anything else to come before this hearing?
If not we will declare the hearing closed and it will be taken
under advisement.
Deputy County Clerk
Tape Number 29 - 1969
B. H. CRUCE
CITY MANAGER
OUR FILING NO.
C►TY 0f G
O. L. SHAFFER
DIRECTOR OF WATER & SEWER
lit 't 0CL
ttLt
GREELEY, COLORADO
May 72, 1969
'doter and sanitary sewer availabie in 20th
Street to serve lots 7.:I c. of the S:] ouartor
the 7)'1 quarter of erection u, Towoshio 5 North,
inge r lest in 1e IL County, Colorado.
�/�
H rector of 'dater
1.S/oh
YOUR NO
Saw Offices
KAROWSKY & WITWER
CHARLES -A. KAROWSKY
STOW L. WITWER. JR.
County Commissioners of Weld County
Greeley
Colorado 80631
Gentlemen:
SUITE200. KINNEY BUILDING
GREELEY. COLORADO
00631
AREA 000E 309
3e2 -91e1
352-3000
June 24, 1969
I submit herewith answers to the zoning change questionnaire which
should be considered relative to the application of John Werkheiser
for change of zone:
(1) Is it impractical, impossible or undesirable to
develop the land according to the current zoning classification'?
Answer: Yes. It is impractical to develop the -property
according to its current zoning classification because the property
adjoins a mobile home park an the west and a commercial livestock
sales and feed yard on the north, thus making it impossible to use
the property for a higher residential use.
(2) Would the proposed rezoning benefit the entire county
by allowing a type of development which is needed and cannot locate in
other parts of the county?
Answer: Yes. The need for development of this type is best
shown by the very low vacancy rate of mobile home parks in the area
immediately surrounding Greeley. The need for lower cost residences
for elderly persons or persons with limited financial resources Lan be
alleviated by the type of development -here proposed. The availability
of mobile home park -zoning in outlying areas does not solve the need
for mobile homes in the Greeley area.
(3) Would the proposed rezoning benefit lands adjoining the
area requesting the change?
Answer: Yes. The principal adjoining land builder is the
petitioner and this is an indication that the adjoining landowners
would not be adversely affected by the zone change. The petitioner
would not ask this rezoning unless it would enhance the value of his
County Commissioners of Weld County
Page 2
June 24, 1969
remaining property.
(4) What features apply to the property requesting re-
zoning which make it logical to rezone this tract and not to rezone
in a similar manner surrounding properties which may have like land
use characteristics?
Answer: The subject property adjoins an existing mobile
home park. It would not he beneficial to zone additional properties
at this time even though such properties may have like land use
characteristics, because zoning can occur as the needs develop in the
particular area.
(5) Why are other areas in the county already zoned according
to the requested classification, unsuitable for the development which
is proposed?
Answer: Outlying areas are not suitable because they do
not permit persons in the Greeley area to reside where they wish.
M -H zoning in the Greeley area is at present enjoying a very low
vacancy factor.
(6) What _proof or evidence is available that the original
zoning is faulty or that changing conditions in the area justify re-
zoning at this time.
Answer: Original zoning was -not faulty. Changed conditions
include the rezoning of the adjoining property to mobile home use and
the general growth of the area supports the need for additional mobile
homes.
Should you desire further -discussion of any of the questions, the
petitioner or the developer would be happy to discuss the matter.
Yours very truly,
KAROWSKY & WITWER
j ea
Pursuant to the zoning laws of
the State of Colorado, a public
bearing will be held in the Office
Of The Board of County Commis-
sioners, Weld County, Weld Coun-
ty CourtHouse, Greeley, Colorado
at the time specified. All persons
in any manner interested in the
ollowing proposed change of zone,
e requested to attend and may
heard.
DOCKET NO., 14
John G. WerkheisPr
2002 First Avenue a ,
Greeley, Colorado
DATE: June 25, 1969
TIME: 2:00 P. M.
REQUEST: Change of Zooid,
h - from "R" Residential District t0
"MH" Mobile Home District.
'Lots 7 and 8 in the Southwest
Quarter-(SW'k) of Southwest.
Quarter (SW34) of Section 9,
'rx Township 5 North, Range 65
West of the 6th -P. M., Weld,.
County, Colorado. Contains
10.00 acres mil
Dated: May 21, 1969
THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, -COLORADO
By: ANN SPOMER
COUNTY CLERKAND
RECORDER AND CLERK
TO THE BOARD.
NOTICE
Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing
will be held in the Office of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, Weld County Court House, Greeley, Colorado, at the time
specified. All persons in any manner interested in the following proposed
change of zone are requested to attend and may be heard.
DOCKET NO. 14
John G. Werkheiser
2002 First Avenue
Greeley, Colorado
DATE: June 25, 1969
TIME: 2:00 P. M.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from "R' Residential District to "MH" Mobile Home
District
Lots 7 and 8 in the Southwest Quarter (SW4) of Southwest
Quarter (SW4) of Section 9, Township -5 North, Range 65
West of the 6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado. Contains
10.00 acres m/l
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATED: MAY 21, 1969 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
To be published
Greeley Booster
May 23 & June 13, 1969
'/l
BEFORE "a 1ELU COUNTY, COLOW4IJ PLANNING .IM£SSWUN
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AMENDED RESOLUTION Case No. Z-133 Date 5/21/69
APPLICATION OF .___,Jpbn G, Werkeiser
Address 2002..1st ..Aye.., Greeley, Colo.
Moved by J, Ben Nix 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 ( District to (
District) of of
covering the following described property in Weld County, Coloraoo, to -wit:
be recommended (favorably) (t to the Board of County Commissioners
for the following reasons:
To amend the resolution of May 5, 1969 to recommend the dedication of a
30' right-of-way instead of 50A. - this meets with the City plan and the
right-of-way for the adjoining property.
Motion seconded by Henxy,.Eruuner
Vote:
For Passage: Leonard .motels
Benry..Brunner
Philip..Bowles
Adam..lePore
J....Ben..Nix
Against Passage:
The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and cordered that a certified copy be forwarded
with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings.
PC -Z-005
CERTIFICATION Of COPY
I, -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
May 20.,. 1969... , and recorded in Book Mo. II .., Page No.
9 ....... , or the
proceedings of said Planning Commission.
Dated this
.21st_ day of
, 19 69.
Recording Secretary/Weld County Planning Commission
PC -2.006
BEFORE Th rLLu CuUN i Y, COLUHAL&. PLANNING ,MISSluN
(..cl%t
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Case No. Z-133 Date 5/6/69
APPLICATION OF John G. Werkheiser
Address
2002 1st Ave., Greeley,. Colo.
Moved by Leonard Bartels 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 'R" ( Residential District to qffin ( Mobile homes
District) of . of
covering the following described property in Weld County, Coloraoo, to -wit:
Lots 7 & 8 in the Southwest Quarter (SWw) of the Southwest Quarter (SWt)
of Section Nine (9), Township Five (5) North, Range Sixty-five (65) West
of the 6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado.
NT'
be recommended (favorably) to
for the following reasons:
Adjoining and existing mobile home park.
shows a trend toward further development
has access to the required utilities.
Dedication of a 50right-of-way.
Motion seconded by Philip Bowles
Vote:
For Passage:
Leonard Bartels
Hon y... $finer
Philip Bowles
Ronald .Holtman
Adam..Leore
the Board of County Commissioners
It is in a general area which
of mobile home parks. The area
Against Passage:
W l.C ;',0, CONWSSIONFRS
;;REELr'(
A.M.
6171819l10I11.0.211 2
J. Ben Nix
The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and cordered that a c
with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners f
PC -Z-005
1 bd
GREELEY. COLD.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, 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
May ...5,...1969 and recorded in Book No. II , Page No. , of the
proceedings of said Planning Commission.
Dated this 7th day of May , 19 69.
Recording Secretly, Weld County Planning Commission
PC -Z-006
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30¢
CO
N
0
00
z
SENT T0�
STREET AND NO.
9.1/ io
I, O., STATE, AND CODE en Lcuado
EXTRA SERVICES FOR fM0TI0NAL FEES
Dsliver to
Return Swain
Shows to whom Shows to whom, where Add Only
end date date,end where
delivered 0 50¢ fee
0 10¢ fee E 35¢ fee
POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE
COVERAGE
E PROVIDED—
(RAILED— (See other side)
Mar. 1966 NOT FOR IE
o u) o(_ alawdo3
POSTMARK
OR DATE
£90S08 '°N
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30¢
SE TO
�(//
iv/ C'�4Z �/. /..-Li �
POSTMARK
OR DATE
TREET AND NO.
c,?/Dc,7 - ��f oe.-.(_.-----.
P. O., STATE, AND ZIP CODE
` EXTRA S VICES FOR ADDITIONAL
dbtpte Ipt
Shows to whom Shows to whom,
and date date, and where
delivered delivered
❑ 10¢ fee ❑ 35¢ fee
FEES
Deliver to
- Ad Only
❑ so¢ fee
-POD Farm 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— See other side)
Mar. 1966 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
Hello