HomeMy WebLinkAbout690013.tiff785
2b
CD
rfl
Cr,
��------ o'clock M --. DEG _G 31Y76
Recur at �---- ..�
Rec. No. I7O? Mary Ann Feuerstein, Recorder
d_t
FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION
CONCERNING CHANGE OF ZONE
PETITION OF WHITE ACRES,
ARAPAHOE FARMS AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
The petition of White Acres, Arapahoe Farms and Development Company,
2920 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado, requesting a change of zone from "A"
Agricultural District to "M -H" Mobile Home District of a tract of land located
in the Northwest Quarter (NW+) of Section Three (3), Township Three (3) North,
Range Sixty -Eight (68) West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colo-
rado, containing Ninty-four acres, more or less, for a proposed trailer court,
came on for hearing on Wednesday, January 20, 1969, at 10:00 A. M. o'clock,
and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld having heard the
testimony and evidence adduced upon said hearing, andhaving considered the
testimony, evidence, and the 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 rezoned are unanimously opposed to the change of zone.
3. The evidence shows that there is no assurance of a continous and
adequate supply of potable water for said trailer court complex.
4. The evidence shows that there would be a large ditch lateral bisecting
said proposed trailer court which would be an att active nuisance if such trailer
court were allowed, and additionally, would deprive vested owners of said ditch
to the continous use and enjoyment of the irrigation water.
5. The evidence shows that users of water running through said ditch
lateral have a proprietary interest in and to certain headgates both on and off
the property sought to be rezoned, and that they would be subjected to unreason-
able and undue hardship to properly divide their fair share of the water in said
ditch lateral.
6. The evidence shows that petitioner already has a tract containing
approximately Fifty-three (53) acres, more or less, that has already been zoned
"M -H", and that petitioner has shown no need for this additional area to be re-
zoned.
7. 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 White Acres, Arapahoe Farms and Development
Company, 2920 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado, for a change of zone from
"A" Agricultural District to "M -H" Mobile Home District, of a tract of land
for a proposed trailer court, said are being more particularly described as
follows:
690013
pc OR aO
785
1706852
2 ma
A parcel of land designated as Lot A on plat, containing
94 acres m/1 and located in the NW4 of Section 3, Town-
ship 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; except those
parcels designated as Lot B and Lot C, and more particu-
larly described as follows:
Lot B: That part of the said NW4 lying northerly of the
following described line: Beginning at a point on the east
line of said NW4, which point is 1557.03 feet south of the
NE corner of the said NW4; thence northwesterly along
the northerly bank of the Mead lateral ditch as follows:
North 56°32'50" west, 222. 28 feet; thence north 74°28'30"
west, 341. 39 feet; thence north 46°06'50" west, 142. 84
feet; thence north 31°23'20" west, 400. 23 feet; thence
north 67°01'10" west, 815.17 feet; thence north 78°45'10"
west, 73.83 feet; thence south 73°50' west, 310. 59 feet;
thence leaving the bank of said ditch north 88°45'30" west,
700. 25 feet to a point on the west line of said NW4; 53
acres m/1
Lot C: Beginning at a point on the west line of said NW4,
1179. 96 feet south of the NW corner of said NW4; thence
south along said west line 427 feet; thence south 89°50'
east, 1304 feet to a point in a lake; thence north 9°06' west,
473. 8 feet; thence north 850west, 200 feet along the base of
the lake dike; thence south 85°west, 362.05 feet to a point
west of the Highland Lateral; thence south 88°01' west
669.03 feet, m/1 to the true point of beginning; 13 acres
m/1
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, evi-
dence and testimony and the recommendation of the Weld County Planning Comm-
ission, 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 White Acres,
Arapahoe Farms and Development Company , 2920 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colo-
rado, requesting a change of zone from "A" Agricultural District to "M -H"
Mobile Home District to locate a trailer court on the land indicated above be,
and it hereby is denied upon each of the grounds set forth in the Board's finding
therein.
Made and entered this 19th day of February, 1969.
AT -TEST;/
ounty A.torney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WE t OU /TY, COT ORADO
�1 aZ���r
i
_
January 20, 1969
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 11, 1968,
duly published December 20th, 1968,and January 10th, 1969 a public hearing was
had for a Change of Zone as requested by White Acres, Arapahoe Farms and Development
Company, at the time and place specified in said notice. The evidence presented
was taken under advisement, the decision to be made at a ater date.
ATTEST:___ %141 �1 -e?1 _
COUNTY CLE�KAND RECORDER ' c RMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
972-1.? a'76
'2920 Parr
+cider,. -Colorado,,. _ifi'
-;Change:. of Sae a
".;44' Agriettidte District to "la"
Molds Homes -District' in the as
SIM particularly!- described as
fellows:
A. parcel : of,
a isaC A on-
9 -accts xWl. as 'located is
the NW'/. of Section 3, Town-
ship 3 North, Rage 68 West..
of the 6th P. iai,; e
'those - Greeks des as
Lot 8 arid lot; .n s
particularly as fol-
lower
Lst B: the
Y of
said NW's. eel
the following d line:
Begriming ..at.. a op the
east line of said , which
psiart is 155. ., south of
the NZ chr j said
, fi :,westerly
aim the ' bank of
the Wad , ' as fol-
lows: N
9'1'9.88 feet„.' .rth 74°
98'80 w ,' - thence
north 46 �` 142.84
.,x :r
es: ' - : 23' 2011
west, 11110
W° 01'. 1 7 feet;.
thence no ' west,
78.89
50' west thence
leaving ditch
700.25
feet to a . west.
line of acres
Lot C: Bear. �.,int on
the. west 1 NW',
1179.96 -. the NW
- owner , - thence
e south -�.. llne427
-'feet; • 89° 50'
' east, nt in a
lake; west,
473.8 f =orth 85°
west, , . base
of the 1 south
95° a point
west ...' Lateral;
thence or west
669.88 the true
point - .... 1a acres
al
Dated: December 11, 1968
THE
COUNTY . ERS
WE .'M> DO.
RK AND
D CLERK
BOARD
Greeley Boos-
ter .,, 13, 1968 and Janu-
ary 10, 1969
DDCKET NO. 52
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, Weld County,
Weld County Court House, Greeley, Colorado, on January 20, 1969 at 11:00
o'clock on the petition of White Acres, Arapahoe Farms and Development
Company of 2920 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado, requesting a Change of
Zone from"A" Agriculture District to "MN" Mobile Homes District in the
area more particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land designated as Lot A on plat, containing 94 acres
m/1 and located in the NWi of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P. M.; except those parcels designated as Lot B
and Lot C, and more particularly described as follows:
Lot B: That part of the said NW4 lying northerly of the following
described line: Beginning at a point on the east line of said NW ,
which point is 1557.03 feet south of the'.NE corner of the said NWW;
thence northwesterly along the northerly bank of the Mead lateral
ditch as follows: North 56° 32' 50" west, 222.28 feet; thence
north 74° 28' 30" west, 341.39 feet; thence north 46° 06' 50" west,
142.84 feet; thence north 31° 23' 20" west, 400.23 feet; thence
north 67° 01' 10" west, 815.17 feet; thence north 78° 45' 10" west,
73.83 feet; thence south 73° 50' west, 310.59 feet; thence leaving
the bank of said ditch north 88° 45' 30" west, 700.25 feet to a point
on the west line of said NW4; 53 acres m/1.
Lot C: Beginning at a point on the west line of said NW -n, 1179.96
feet south of the NW corner of said NW4; thence south along said
west line 427,feet; thence south 89° 50' east, 1304 feet to a point
in a lake; thence north 9° 06' west, 473.8 feet; thence north
85° west, 200 feet along the base of the lake dike; thence south 85°
west, 362.05 feet to a point west of the Highland Lateral; thence
south 88° 01' west 669.03 feet, m/1 to the true point of beginning;
13 acres m/1.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DATED: DECEMBER 11, 1968
To Be Published in the Greeley
Booster: December 20th -2968
January 10th 1969
))(3 •7 ; 3 L
BY: ANN SPOMER
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
BEFORE ,jE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNID :OMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Case No. -176 Date 11/6/PA
APPLICATION OF
Address
Shine Acres, Arapahoe a ns Devel o -r ent Gc
292') Pearl St, Po :Ji er, Colo.
Moved by that the following resolution be introduced fo::paa
sage by the Weld County Planning Commission:
Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application
for rezoning from A ( A;rica1ture) District to :II ( Alobile Lanes
District) of of
covering the following described property in Weld County, Colorado, to -wit:
See _ t ored. map and le Tal descrintior_
be recommended 7 bab 4X(unfavorably) to the Board of County Commissioners
for the following reasons:
e nrocerty to the north is ar e±ntly ooned " Iii". The rilnins Com snion
ried the additional sane ehafle bece zse a need wasn't shaen.
Motion seconded by
Vote:
For Passage:
e,nall ,.,_,:ran
L eonard eertels
P hilto 'orates
ion 1J 32itrne
J. .:r; LA
Joun atone
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
1
EXHIBIT "A"
The NW4 of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th
P.M., except those parts thereof described as follows: t-
A. Land described in instrument recorded in Book 76 at Page 428,
Weld County, Colorado, records;
B. That part of the said NW4 lying Northerly of the following described
line: Beginning at a point on the East line of said NW4, which point
is 1557.03 feet South of the Northeast corner of the said NW4; thence
Northwesterly along the Northerly bank of the Mead lateral ditch as
follows: North 56°32'50" West, 222.28 feet; thence North 74°28'30"
West, 341. 39 feet; thence North 46°06'50" West, 142.84 feet; thence
North 31°23'20" West, 400.23 feet; thence North 67°01'10" West, 815.17
feet; thence North 78°45'10" West, 73.83 feet; thence South 73°50' West,
310. 59 feet; thence leaving the bank of said ditch North 88°45'30" West,
700.25 feet to a point on the West line of said NW4; 5
C. Beginning at a point on the West line of said NW4, 1179. 96 feet,
South of the Northwest corner of said NW -1.; thence South along said
West line 427feet; thence South 89° 50' East, 1304 feet to a point in
a lake; thence North 9°06' West, 473.8 feet; thence North 85° West, •
200 feet along the base of the lake dike; thence South 85! West, 362.05
feet to a point West of the Highland Lateral; thence South 88°01' West
669.03 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning.
A parcel of land designated as Lot A on plat, containing 94 acres, more or less, and
located in the Northwest Quarter (NW4) of Section Three (3), Township Three (3) North,
Range Sixty-eight (68) West of the 6th P. M. ; except those parcels designated as Lot B
and Lot C, and more particularly described as follows:
Lot B: That part of the said NWI lying northerly of the following described line: Be-
ginning at a point on the east line of said NW4, which point is 1557. 03 feet south of the
northeast corner of the said NW4-; thence northwesterly along the northerly bank of the
Mead lateral ditch as follows: North 56° 32' 50" west, 222. 28 feet; thence north 74°
28' 30" west, 341. 39 feet; thence north 46° 06' 50" west, 142. 84 feet; thence North
31° 23' 20" west, 400.23 feet; thence north 67° 01' 10" west, 815.17 feet; thence north
78° 45' 10" west, 73. 83 feet; thence south 73° 50' west, 310. 59 feet; thence leaving the
bank of said ditch north 88° 45' 30" west, 700.25 feet to a point on the west line of said
NW4; 53 acres more or less.
Lot C: Beginning at a point on the west line of said NW4, 1179. 96 feet, south of the
northwest corner of said NW4; thence south along said west line 427 feet; thence south
89° 50' east, 1304 feet to a point in a lake; thence north 9° 06' west, 473.8 feet; thence
north 85° west, 200 feet along the base of the lake dike; thence south 85° west, 362. 05
feet to a point west of the Highland Lateral; thence south 88° 01' west 669.03 feet, more or
less, to the true point of beginning; 13 acres more or less.
A parcel of land designated as Lot A on plat, containing 94 acres, more or less, and
located in the Northwest Quarter (NW -1) of Section Three (3), Township Three (3) North,
Range Sixty-eight (68) West of the 6th P. M. ; except those parcels designated as Lot B
and Lot C and more particularly described as follows: That part of the said
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
Do?otl7 =i11
, 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
Nov. 44t> 1963
, and recorded in Book No. 11 , Page No. , of the
proceedings of said Planning Commission.
Dated this 6th day of
Recording Secretar
PC -Z-006
f
19 63
Weld County Planning Commission
71/'. %1.
CHANGE OF ZONE
White Acres
January 20, 1969
Present:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Marshall H. Anderson
Glenn K. Billings
Harold W. Anderson
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Leonard Bartels
Petitioner - White Acres
J. H. Tull
Protestants
Gilman Olson - Landowner
Albert Jeffers - Little Thompson Water District
Ray Hickman - Assistant Superintendent of Schools (Mead Area)
Clayton Klaus - Landowner
Robert Ismael - Landowner
Darwin Frei - Member Town Board
John Myers - Superintendent
Bill Doke - Landowner
Henry Pepper - Landowner
L. A. Biddle - Landowner
Albert Jeffers -
Leo Slagel - School Board Member St. Vrain
Mr. Anderson:
James H. Tull:
We are making a record on tape, now if anyone has anything to
say pleas give your name. At this time we will hear the
application of White Acres, Arapahoe Development Company of
2920 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado. A change of zone
from "A" Agricultural to "MH" Mobile Home. To save time
had the
we/description - we will peke it exhibit "A" unless
someone wants it read. I believe you are all familiar
with the location. At this time we will hear from the
applicant.
We are so glad to see so many of our neighbors out
here this morning because this is a very important. What
we have here is a request for a change of zoning on a
piece of ground approximately 100 acres in size. We had
an adjoining 54 acres already zoned for mobile homes, which
lies immediately north of this property. But what we are
really attempting to do here everyone will see this before
we are through with the presentation - is to take the 150
acres of ground rather than the 53 and create a real nice
mobile home park that everybody could be proud of.
Here is our present 53 acres of ground laid out
in a manner in which we hope we don't have to build. This
is a laid out to what we understand is Weld County's mobile
home park regulations.
On this particular piece of ground approximately
54 acres we have space for 636 mobile homes. With the
necessary streets requirements by the county and as far
as I know meeting all the requirements.
Marshall Anderson: One question - are these rental type.
Mr. Tull: Yes sir, no sales, we feel sales are too hard to
try and control. This is the layout of the parK we would
Mr. Tull (cont) to see built. One hundred and fifty acres of property.
You remember on that proposed plat 636 on the total of
the complete 150 acres - 615 or 30 less than we proposed
on the 54 acres.
This particular area is complete with layout of
which we have detail drawings. Recreational facilities
three recreational areas, parking areas, increased
recreational areas - green belt land- through the area,
parks - a proposed golf course and many other
This is programed - the way it is layed out now for
367 double spaces and 248 single. The shading is the
double spaces and the lighter shading is the single spaces.
Trying to take advantage of the natural of the
ground in laying out the doubles.
Several things - first of all I will bring out some
objections before they are raised and try to answer them.
Many of the folks said osc of the reasons for the complaints
on mobile home parks was the school district, which I am
well aware of, which I recognize the problem, which I hope
all of us through the legislature can control one of these
days but - the point being here and our whole bone of
contention on this particular proposal is that going ahead
with this is going to eliviate and cut down on many of the
problems of what we already have the right to do. In other
words 636 space of single trailers there will quite a few
children - I am sure there will be a lot of children.
We have done a lot of studing and have spent a lot
money on mobile home parks around the country in the last
six months. Ranging all the way from Colorado to Los Vegas
and such areas and we find people living in double mobile
homes for the most part have no children. These are older
people, retired people and not only this but mobile home
people have the same set of standards and I don't know
what the right word is but they would not want their
double mobile home, which range in price up to $25,000,
to even be parked by a single. This is one of those
essentricities that we all have. We don't want a $10,000
house by a $50,000 house. So basically what I am saying
is that I have no way of knowing nor does anyone else
but we are definitely going to limit a lot if not all
of the double spaces to No children areas. So with this
plan we are definitely and how many I don't know and I
can't say. We will definitely be cutting down on the
number of children in the area as compared to the proposed
orginal planning.
Now this is one of the proposed recreation and
utility sites - there are two of them that we have here
on this layout you will notice there is room for the pool,
the recreation building, tennis court, other courts. These
are sketches of the units themselves. Single lot here
double lot there. This is the top unit which is on the
county line road where the ecisiting - you know where the
property is - it is where the present house is. This is
the area that will be filled under the proposed new plan.
I am certain it would be a nice situation.
This is one of the other recreational areas located
down in the southwest corner of the area, ones that are gong
to be laid out ssparate units spaces. Actually this gives
us a density of about a gross of about 5 or 4 per acre on
the whole 150 acres of ground. Compared to 11 or 12 on the
other ground. Once again all these things are open for
your instpection if you would like to pass them around.
This is an area which we propose and we will have to
come in at a later date for zoning change on a little piece
/paved road mobile home park
alohg4the west side - a area of this size needs a
utility area - storage. We propose a very small area
20,000 square feet for a service area - a small store - grocery store
this sort of thing where people can get their service into
this point. The pool if you notice on the plan we have
a strip completely around the park - 50 feet- for bridle
paths and riding and for protection and a buffer zone which
is actually required by the county anyway. With the stable
down here using some the existing facilities that we already
have.
This is a proposed drawing you may recognize this
- this is a little farm that sits there - this is the small
shed that will be redone - I think we can use these buildings
with remodeling them. This is a view looking west of the
small farm on the property. We have of course completed
all of our - this is our which we have
completely redone. The topo has been completely done
we have received approval from the state health board on
the location and installation of the septic system but
the sewer treatment facility. We have gone to great
lengths to protect the water areas in the mobile home
park. We know that water becomes a very important
factor in a lot of people's thinking - especially the
farmers in the area.
We have the proposed sewer treatment will be a
a treatment plant which initially will be designed to
accomodate the first 150 mobile homes which can be
From
expanded.,1 ' the treatment plant it will be discharged
into a polishing pond from the polishing pond into another
lake on our property. Then from a lake into the drainage
areas. From what we have found out and certainly I guess
this should discharge practically pure water into any
place it goes into after going into three separate, the
treatment plant, the polishing and then into another lake.
How much discharge will there be - we don't know
hardly any other situation - we do plan on using the water
as much as possible for the golf course area and so forth
for sprinkling and irrigation. So what will be going on
through is a matter of conjecture at this point. But
certainly we have been assured that this water that is
going on through is - well they tell us - there are people
less pure
drinking water but they don't know it. This is
there statement but anyway basically I think it boils
down to this - that we would like to build a nice mobile
home park. We are willing to cooperate fully with the
County and the property owners to the extent that we feel
really that the choice between the two mobile homes parks
if you choose the later - there are so many advantages?
and will be a much nicer unit. It willcut down on some
of theproblems that some of the people will object to
and it what we want to build really. We are willing to
plat
be bound by the final/that is appvoved, the number of spaces
we have already said that we will put in no more mobile home
spaces that we have the right to on the ecisiting ground. We
will do anything we can to eliminate problems regarding the
water and sewer. We know we are cutting down on the number
of school children by going to the double size trailer.
We will certainly have certain areas that are restricted to
children so it is our contention that from the standpoint
not
of economically it is/a better deal for us for sure by going
to the larger park. But we happen to have some people involved
to do this park who do not want to build an ordinary mobile
park. They are people who live outside this area and they
have seen the nice mobile home parks go in and what can be
done, and we feel that maybe its time Colorado had asnice
as mobile home park - as we have not found any nice ones
like this really in the state. So with this in mind this
Marshall Anderson:
6
is what we want to do and we have had it before the Planning
Commission, we have talked to several members of the Planning
Commission about this park. I don't know what they claimed
but I think they like this particular proposal. I am stating
that we are willing to be bound by
Have you brought this new proposal before the Planning
Commission
Mr. Tull: No we haven't because we have only discussed it informally
with several of its members and this is as far as we have gone.
We would have full intention of going back through the Planning
Commission is necessary, however, we don't feel we want to wait
to much longer - we would like to start construction in the next
30 days.
Mr. Anderson: I think you are planning ahead of the procedure here.
Mr. Tull: Well we have been to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Anderson: With both plans?
Mr. Tull: Well we went in just for a zoning change on the 100
acres. The orginal 53 is already zoned.
Mr. Anderson: But you haven't brought this whole proposition back to
the Planning Commission in its entirely, have you?
Mr. Tull: Not exactly like this, no. But of course at the time
we didn't know how much work we need do on this 53 acres
was zoned with very little difficulty some time back. We
- the proposal - we just merely said what we had plans to
do and since we found out the thinking of the people out there
and of the Planning Commission we then wanted to get in to some
definite plans here.
Mr. Anderson: Your kind of getting ahead of the procedure here
mister - any change of zone has to have gone through the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Tull: Well it has been through the Planning Commission.
7
Mr. Anderson:
Mr. Tull:
Mr. Bartels:
Mr. Anderson:
Mr. Bartels:
Mr. Tull:
Mr. Andersonl:
Mr. Tull:
Marshall Anderson:
Mr. Tull:
Mr. Anderson:
One parcel - but the other parcel has not been through
as I understand it.
Yes it has - yes it has.
It has been through Marsh, but it has not been presented
in this way.
But you don't know what is going on.
No.
Yes it was presented on the 100 acres and then
But the 53 acres wasn't presented - the new plat
hasn't been presented is that all.
No, no because we don't want to present one until we
know what our total plan will be. In other words this is our
problem as you can see. We want to give our final plan the
way we want to build it. We can't go ahead and file a final
plat on the 53 acres and then come in and change it later.
So cur position is that we need to get it solve because if
we don't whole hundred - we will submit our final plat based
on the large number of spaces and go from there. So we are
kind of caught betwix and between. But we were in with the
zoning on the hundred acres and discussed that at great length
with the Planning Commission and told them what we wanted to
do as far as building the trailer plan as you recall. We
didn't have these particular drawings at that time. That
is more or less what it boils down to
As I see it you are trying to get us to over -ride
the Planning Commission with this additional and
As I understand it sir, anything that goes to the
Planning then has to be approved or disapproved by the
Commissioners up to that point.
By them, then they come to us - your asking us to go
over the head of the Planning Commission on this addtional
Mr. Tull:
In actuality we are just following your procedure
Marshall Anderson: No you are one step ahead of the procedure.
Mr. Tull: No, no I can't quite agree with that sir - because
we got a notice that there would be a hearing today, we
really haven't planned on coming back in until we redid
this. We had a notice of the meeting, discussed it with
some of the members of the Planning Commission and they
said - the people said here that if anything it is either
approved or disapproved by the Planning Commission, then
has to be approved or disapproved by the Board of County
Commissioners. Now we realize that you generally follow
many times the will of the Planning Commission but if these
are the rules that you fellows set forth then we are just
complying with them. We were notified that there would be
a hearing today - we wanted to present this thing in the
best particular light that we can and abide by whatever
decision you make.
Mr. Anderson: We will go ahead and listen to the hearing and
we will take or decide on what we are going to do after you
have presented the case
Mr. Tull: That is fine, that is all we ask for.
Mr. Anderson: Go ahead and proceede.
Mr. Tull: Well basically I can't think of anything further that
I can say at this time. After when someone has something else
to bring up - maybe I might be able to answer them or something
else will come to light. But basically in a very short summation
this is what we want to build, without creating anymore problems
that we can see by asking for this increased zoning. We are
eliminating some of the problems, creating a nicer area, a
better mobile home park for the area and for Weld County and
this is what we are after.
Mr. Anderson: Is there anyone else who has anything to say for the
application. If not we will listen to the opposition.
Gilman Olson:
I have a half a mile quarter on the east side of this
property. I see no need for this up in that locality at the
present time. For instance if that was developing, but one
house is built there and that fell on its face and then it
was allowed for a mobile home two years ago and nothing has
been done up there. Seems to me there is a rat race going
here. The Del Camino was allowed a mobile park down there
and I understand they are in trouble they can't carry the
sewage and all of that. I don't understand how these people
think they can either. Police protection is nill over there
The sheriff now doesn't have cars enough to get to us - I
don't know what we would do with 650 more families. Fire is
the same way. I live down the Highland Ditch from there.
My neighbors now are throwing garbage in the ditch - I don't
know what they would do when this got done. There is no
county garbage truck out there or anything. Our schools
we have a representative - a school board member, Mr. Hickman,
to talk on that.
We worked like slaves over there to get a Little
Thompson in so we could put in domestic water
Actually this mobile home could hook up on it
Thompson , and go ahead with it. We have the
in over there
, the Little
president of
the Board representing them here today on that. I wonder
if these people who have lived out there know what happens
when some of these dust storms come up, with 650 mobile
homes sitting out there - what is going to happen to them.
Thistle and thing blow by there my house doesnt even stop
them - I don't know how a mobile home park is going to work
up there with a golf course. All these pools he is showing
there - how many months out a year can you use a pool in
this area, what need do we have for this thing? That is my
question.
10
Albert Jeffers: I am president of the Little Thompson Water Association
we have a water line in that area. We have a six inch water
line in that area at this time. We can possibly take on
20 to 30 taps at the very most and we are talking about
615 taps, there has to be about 312 thousand dollars plus
some more money for bigger facilities in that area - which
just isn't fair - we couldn't possibly serve it. It is
going to take a lot of money.
Mr. Anderson: We are llsten5t to the objections at this time.
Do you have anything else Mr. Jeffers?
Mr. Hickman:
Marshall Anderson:
Mr. Hickman:
Clayton Klaus
I would like to express the concern of the school-
district. (Assistant Superintendent of the St Vrain Valley
School District). We are basically not objecting to
homes as homes but we are especially concerned with the
ability to supply school facilities for an area that will
through that type of load on us in a very short period of
time. Actually this probably is a problem that should be
state-wide and faced as such. But it hasn't been faced
on the state level and we are in a dilemma in being able
to supply school facilities for that many - impact as
quickly as soon as it could conceivablly come. Now normally
in
we figure that/a development at least 2 school youngsters
per home. This varies in some cases - it is considerably
above that which would exceed our present enrollment in the
Mead School by 50 percent. Our problem is based on that
concern - how are we going to pay the bill - how are we
going to get the facilities available.
We are talking about the Med. School District.
This would be in the Mead attendance area.
My property adjoins the proposed mobile home area
on the south and for the reasons Mr. Olson gave. I have a
couple of more ato add. Anyone - they talked about a sewage
treatment plant - they didn't say what kind of a plant -
that the water would be clean enough to drink. Well I would
to have tese gentlemen drink the first gallon of water
12
Mr. Tull:
President of the Farmers Extension Ditch Company, which takes
over just a little ways down from there and we would have to
demand something that could not be used for disposal of garbage
and tin cans.
May I answer your question now - there are garbage
and trash collection points. All the garbage will be taken
away. It can't be any different than in the city or town.
We have to rely upon the proper disposal facility to get
rid of the system. As far as the ditch itself is concerned
I am well aware of the ditch and the purpose for which it
was put there. We are willing to work with the Board or
anyone else. To put in a fence or anything we can do to
keep kids from throwing stuff in but the disposal of'the
like
rubbish and this sort of thing will be handled just/you
would in a city. It just has to be that way for that size
of a community and you can only rely on them:and the controls
we have in the park in doing that.
Audience: Where would you go after you have collected it2
Mr. Tull: Well we haven't decided that - there are probably
several places in the area.
Audience: The town is having a hard time tiling to find a place
to dump their trash.
Mr. Tull: Well we do have other ground in the area - we will
have to dump it in there. But it has to go somewhere - you
can't say just because they are a mobile home park they have
a right to dump there. Wherever Mead or Longmont or somebody
is dunpoing - we would have to try and make the arrangements
to do so.
Mr. Olson: Another thing that I forgot when I was up before
Mr. Clayton and I are on the Mead Lateral which goes through
there, some of those kids fall in there and drown/and as a
ditch company we want some guarantee
11
Mr. Klaus; that comes ofit of there - well anyway it runs through that
lake and that lake has an overflow pipe that runs through
my pasture where stock is the year around. I would think
that a plant to treat that water would be prohibitive to
make that kind of water available. We also irrigate through
that slough. A number of people draw stock water and irrigation
water on down the line, which would be here today if we thought
it necessary to oppose them.
I would like to add about the school district another
thing 530 some dollars cost per pupil if they only have 400
small
in there that would be a/matter of two hundred thousand
dollars which probably the tax owners would ham to pay,
because my understanding is that mobile homes only pay about
$3.00 per acre just on the land that is there - appraised value
the license fee doesn't go to the support of the school. I
want to go on record as being definitely opposed to the zoning
change.
Mr. Anderson:
Robert Ismael:
Is there anyone else?
My property is surrounded on three side by this
proposed park and my problem is more or less a personal one
but my domestic well is in that area - between two of those
pumps and also I own part of that center pond that is where
I water my stock. I would be greatly concerned with the
sewage disposal in any of the area around there. As far
as I am concerned I don't think it is very acceptable.
Darwin Frei: I am on the counsel for the Town of Mead and we
oppose it because we should they should develop what they
have already zone first and then also we would be concerned
about the taxes and schools.
Harold Anderson: I am a little concerned in this area too. I question
in my mind what facilities - how do you intend to keep
trash and rubbish out of the ditch which will no go through
on both sides will be exposed on both sides. I happen to
13
in some shape or form that if this goes in, then we are
clear of all drownings or hazzards that would happen
on our property going through there.
Mr. Anderson: Is there anyone else in opposition?
John Meyers:
Audience:
Mr. Anderson:
I am superintendent of this ditch. and there is
something very important and that is our right-of-way
our service and maintenance. At times we have to be
on both sides with a dragline, bulldozer and other things.
According to this drawing it shows a bunch of pretty trees
on this side - well we want this understood that we have to
go in on either side of there anytime we need to and we have
a road anytime we want to use it for maintenance or for our
operation. We have a right to work from either side. By
state law it says we have what we need but I am more worried
about the kids than anything else.
I might add that thisis the largest part of the ditch
of the combined ditches Farmers Extension and the Highland
Lake Lateral and the volume of water going through there
at times is from 5 to 7 or 8 thousand inches - if there are
two ditches dumping above it will be a real hazzard for the
kids drowning in this ditch and so in this lake. So they
would have to - I would either think they would either have
to tile cover it or fence it off to where they could not have
access to it.
Is there anyone else in opposition?
Bill Doke: I am a little concerned as a taxpayer about the police
protection and that sort of thing and was wondering whether
the taxes that we are going to get off of this land is going
to off set the police protection that we will be given from
the sheriff's office and also the fire protection. We are
talking about 5 or 6 hundred mobile homes here. A population
of a thousand or twelve hundred people.. surely they need some
sort of protection of their own up there. Are you going to
14
Mr. Doke: have a constable or a policeman up there or something of
that sat.
Mr. Anderson: Does anyone else have anything to say?
Mr. Olson: Something just popped into my mind, having lived there
all my life - the drainage problems up there - wilen that dryland
flood at times - I wonder if these people have taken that into
consideration. The Higland Lateral goes over its banks and
everything else - I have seen where it comes down through
that draw and it would take a trailer court with it.
Henry Peppler: I live right across the road from this property and I
am opposed this time to the mobile home because I think our
taxes will increase
L. A. Biddle: I live on the northwest with a pretty good size strip
of land. I am opposed to this I moved:from east of Boulder
just below the sewer plant from the City of Boulder. The
irrigation ditch came down through there and it was so
terrible I moved because we could not even set an irrigation
tube - the trash and all was so bad - we couldn't even irrigate.
Mr. Anderson: Is there anyone elese in opposition?
Audience: I might add to this on this Farmers Extension that
there are about 4 laterals take off with good size headgates
and any trash that comes in this gate - down the ditch - would
very :•likely to lodge in these headgates and we end up on the
end of a ditch - when these gates plug up - on the end of a
ditch with excessive amounts of water, and we just wash people
away.
Mr. Anderson:
Audience:
Are these - this is in my own mind - are these headgates
within this property?
No - no they are on below.
Audience(/) Excuse me, I have something else - I have the right to
the filling of the lake in the upper property and the right to
run my water in and out of it. Also a fifteen foot right-of-way.
I see no provision for my right or anything within this proposed
plat.
15
Mr. Anderson: You will have your chance for a rebuttal. At this time
we willl listen to the applicant, to answer some of these
questions.
Mr. Tull: I wrote these things down as they were talking. I
don't know quite how to answer, to me we are not asking for
a change of zone - except for the purpose of doing something
which should benefit all of these fellows more greatly than
what we have up here. Mr. Olson, he remarks were well taken
I had no quarrel with them. I don't agree naturally but my
question to him is? Would he rather see a nicer unit than
the more cluster and more highly dense method. It may be
there. The little Thompson Water District, we do have a
letter signed by your manager stating that they would serve
the area, I don't know who it is but we do have the letter in
the file. I don't have it here now but it can be produced
at any time. This was with the expectation of a great
number of mobile homes.
School districts we know this is a problem, we are
from Boulder County, the shcool district down there, in
talking with the Superintendent of Schools, they take their
position on mobile home parks - they don't object to them
they just think that if they put the mobile home parks in
they will be subject to certain requirements. Then they may
have to bus them 20 miles or whatever but they don't object.
We talk about taxes it is a point well taken - it
seems a little superfluous to even agrue about taxes- what
taxes are fair? Our neighbor lives in a $15,000 home
with no children, or $30,000 home with no children paying
a lot more taxes than a guy with a $10,000 home and 75
kids in school - so you know there is no equal pro ration
of taxes. I am in sympathy with this and I hope with the
legislature and the county officials will get this solve
if there is an answer. I think step are being taken to do
this - in fact I am not so sure that the Weld County Commissioners
have a meeting on this with these people on this for this next
week. Mr. Clayton Klaus remarks are well taken once again
16
Mr. Tull:
they are objecting to what we already have 55 acres zoned.
At the time this particular 55 acres was zoned, I don't
believe there was one of these men here in attendance to
object at that time. So it is a little bit strange to me
that they object to this when we are only attempting to
improve - what was already approved. The right of Clayton
Klaus are very well remembered I know exactly what he
is exactly entitled to because I happen to have sold the
ground to him. There is a provision in there for your
right-of-way and we hope to work out with you bn the
portion that goes through our ground. We will work
it out in a culvert system or anything that would be of
mutual benefit to you and to us.
I will take you up on the drinking water - ----
anyway once again I say nobody has objected
to this zoning before so it is a little odd to us whether
they are objecting now.
Mr Ismal's point - the spring that he has - the
treatment facilities are to go nowhere this and no water
is to be dumped near his particular ground. This was
discussed with the state engineer at the time he was up
there and we would try to locate it completely away from
your area - so there would be no problem of contamination.
The Town of Mead - we have a letter in our files
and zoning
approving the orginal platting/and so forth- of the orginal
54 acres - so again we are not creating any more problems
than the orginal approval that they gave us.
The ditch company - we realize we will have to work
out something very suitable for the ditch company and we
are willing to approach that in a manner that we can agree
upon and do whatever necessary to protect the ditch, giving
you ample right-of-way for your work. I am sure there is a
restriction on the amount of land that you can get into -
in most any cases they run from 30 feet to 50 feet. We
have looked into it and whatever is necessary for the ditch
will be provided for it.
17
Mr. Tull:
Mr. Anderson:
Mr. Biddle's point - I know Mr. Biddle, I know exactly -
I think Mr. Biddle more than anyone else probably has
seen what growth will do. I know the several places he
has moved out of. The progress as it goes further out
and goes further out and I am certain that this will
one day be true of Mr. Biddle's land next door to this
particular ground. It seems like he has had some very
choice pieces of ground which he has been able to sell
in the past and they worked out very well for him I am
sure, but the point is all the talk and opposition is
based as if we were going in with a new proposal on
zoning and we are not. I mean we are on one piece but
this
we already have the park approved and/we intend and
please do no consider this any type of a threat because
it is not. But we do want to build a nice place but if
we can't get the zoning on 100 acres, then we are going
to develop the other 53 acres. We would much rather do
it in a plan that we would like to do, which we think is
much better.
And on the school board once again - we can
guarantee there will be less children in that park
than in the park that is already approved. So I can
not see what the school district can object to., This
a
is/little incomprehensible.
If we could guarantee there
would be less children going into this whole park than what
the original park is - doesn't this make sense?
How are you going to guarantee that-- I mean the
stalls are for rent - arent they? The covenants are protected
by the people in the park - now lets be more specific on that.
Mr. Tull: Now let me state this - I gave you an answer legally
at this time but I am certain there should be a way to guarantee
this. And if there is a way to guarantee this we are willing
to go along and that is all I can state at this time, but
once again we do have less units in this park than we do
18
on the original unit anyway but this is all I can answer
to you right now, Mr. Anderson. If there is a way to
do it, legally and be bound by it we are willing to do
so.
Harold Anderson: I have one question - is there any specific time
limit to this one that has been allowed - that required
performance.
Mr. Tull: No and once again I will state and this is one
of our own feelings and we have felt that this is one of
the reason that there has been a lot of opposition to
mobile home parks. For several reasons - in many many
cases and we have them around Boulder and anywhere they
have mobile parks granted and zoned and nothing has ever
been done. Our feeling that the reason it has not been
done is for two reasons is (1) mere speculation the
(2) is really a matter of a person getting a piece of
ground zoned without having any idea of what their costs
are going to be and what it is going to take to develop
a mobile home park. And they are not cheap to develop.
They are very very expensive.
Harols Anderson: At the present time - we only give a limited time
on these permits or change of zones. Some performance must
be done before a certain length of time. Some of the a year
and some of them 18 months.
Mr. Tull: We are aware of that provision before we ever came
in here and we think that this is a good way to do it and
we are willing to go on that.
Leo Siegel: I am a Board member of the St Vrain School District
RE1-J - I would just like to know the clarification for one
part for when you referred to or mentioned our opposition
in Boulder County. We are members of the entire area
from Lyons to Longmont, Erie, Frederick, Hygene and so
therefore just for dlarification you mentioned the fact
Mr. Slagel:
Mr. Tull:
Mr. Slagel:
Mr. Tull:
Mr. Slagel:
Mr. Olson:
Audience:
19
that we didn't object to something in Boulder County or
something.
No I said Boulder County, I was talking to (Mel Wiseman)
at the last Planning Commission they had on parks up there.
We had bought a piece of ground and were thinking of zoning
at that time. You might know - it acres out east
of Boulder - the application has been withdrawn but anyhow
he stated that the Board did not object to them on ,) the
face of it - in other words they did not say they were
throughly opposed. He said they merely made higher clarification
that in the event that it is granted - it was subject to their
dictates as to where they go to shcool is the way I understood
it.
You are referring to the Boulder Valley School?
Yes, the Boulder Valley
In other words in our St Vrain Valley we have no
different procedure with them than what I heard. I mention
Boulder County and we are a part of Boulder County is the
reason. The other thing is trying to restrict a piece of
property,: with no children is to me seems to be near to
impossible.
Mr. Chairman, a need for this park has not been talked
about. The need for it - who is going to support 650 people
out there. We can't even find jobs enough for the people that
we have.
I'll come back on this letter that the manager of
the Little Thompson wrote - he writes everybody a letter
when they ask for it and he told them these was water in the
I am
area -/sure he didn't tell them that we could take on 650
trailers or homes of any kind with the facilities we have
now. I think you gentlemen are well aware that a six inch
line doesn't go very far on watering a bunch of people
and on top of that now from that area there - which is
right west of Highway 1-25 we serve all that area straight
GJ
Mr. Anderson:
Mr. Jeffers:
Mr. Frei:
Audience:
Audience:
Mr. Anderson:
Mr. Jeffers:
east from there clear up to the south brink of the
Little Thompson River - that whole area in there
we go down as far south as it is not quite as far
south as Highway 66 with that one feeder. One have
another feeder but that feeder has to serve all those
people in that area. I can't figure the numberof people
I could if I talked to the manager orykhe phone this
morning and he indicated that maybe we could take on
anywhere from 20 to 40 people and that would be without
doing something.
That is 20 to 40 taps
40 taps yes.
On the town of Mead, under a previous m unstl
this other letter was written and this counsil has it
now objecting to the new zoning.
Mr. Tull stated that we all didn't do anything
about the approval of the tract with 53 acres - now
I can explain that - nobody knew about it - the sign was
put in the ditch behind some weeds and if it hadn't been
for my wife I would have stopped and read it one night
but I didn't and nobody - the reason I didn't
it was because my land wasn't within 500 feet
other 53 acres.
But I assure you there would
know about
of this
have been
some objections if we had known about it.
I will back him up on that I live within the 500 feet
from it and I didn't have anyway of seeing it. If you don't
travel the road where they put the sign you never see it.
and Ididn't know anything about the trailer court personally.
Does anyone else have anything to say?
Let me interrupt a minute Mr. Chairman, I don't want
to give the people the impression that we don't have the
water to sell, but we don't have it at that point. If they
will take their trailer court over to Campion we have got
it. We have an 18 inch line over there.
Mr. Anderson:
Tape 2 (1969 Tape)
Side 2
If there are no further objections we will take the meeting
under advisement.
Meeting adjourned.
Deputy County Clerk
Hello