HomeMy WebLinkAbout730676.tiff a
Monfort of Colorado,Inc.
Post Office Box G
Greeley,Colorado• PDX 353,8100 �y'uw9au dol „11
August 1, 1.973
Mr. John Watson, Chairman
Weld County Planning Commission
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear John:
We would like the Planning Commission of Weld County to consider an amend-
ment to the boundaries of the comprehensive plan for the City of Greeley
so as to include the property shown on the attached plan and described in
the attached legal descriptions. The property involved includes approxi-
mately 2,400 acres, owned in fee or held under binding lease-option contracts
and has been utilized in our feedlot operations. The owners of parcels "A"
and "B" also would like their property included within the boundaries of the
comprehensive plan.
As you probably know, our company, being cognizant of the proximity of the
north feedlot to the City of Greeley, will complete a new feedlot this fall
located ten miles to the east. In the interest of converting this feeding
complex to a use that is more compatible with the needs of the City, we
would propose that the comprehensive plan be amended and that we begin a plan-
ning process for the development of the property in accordance with the overall
objectives of the City and the County.
In consideration of the potential for removal of the feedlot, the 1971 Com-
prehensive Plan states that "if the feedlot is in fact removed, the Compre-
•
hensive Plan may need to be amended to accommodate greater northerly expansion."
We, therefore, request such an amendment.
The northerly growth of the City, and the enlargement of the Comprehensive
Plan boundaries to accommodate it, will, shift the 1980 growth ring, lessen-
ing the western expansion. Also, while industrial uses are now projected for
the section of the area north of the river, we would submit that the develop-
ment of a new planned community including parks and industrial sites as well
as a variety of residential and commercial uses will benefit the entire community
and will be in accord with the general aims of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan
states that, "due to the location of the regional sewage treatment plant, develop-
ment north of Greeley would have some eventual economic benefits, in lieu of
. continued westerly expansion."
730676
taOO1 1
Page 2
August 1, 1973
Mr. Watson
In the long run, northerly growth coupled with some westerly expansion will
create a more compact community, therefore lessening the costs of a new
municipal infrastructure and possibly lessening the costs of providing some
municipal services. We would hope that removal of the feedlot would provide
a major impetus to further improvement of the City.
Conversion of the feedlot complex to an alternative use involves the re-
location or abandonment of approximately 5 million dollars in structures
and equipment. In addition, development of a detailed plan for the land
will require further expenditures in both time and money. Therefore,
before proceeding further we are asking for your amendment of the boundaries
of the Comprehensive Plan as a first step.
As this step will require the approval of both Weld County and the City of
Greeley we have also contacted the Greeley Planning Board with a similar
request. We hope that a joint meeting can be arranged at a mutually con-
venient time between the Greeley Planning Board and the Weld County Planning
Commission to review the matter.
We look forward to working with you now and in the future.
Sincerely,
MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC.
' *
Kenneth Monfort, President
Enclosures
In Township Six (6) North, Range Sixty-Five (65) West of the Sixth (6th)
Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado.
All of Section Thirty (30) excepting a strip of land conveyed
for ditch purposes by Quit Claim Deed recorded in Book 74 at
Page 8 of the Weld County Records and excepting parcels hereto-
fore conveyed by instruments of record to the Colorado Department
of Highways, State of Colorado, and to Weld County, Colorado.
The North half of Section Twenty-Nine (29) and a parcel lying in
the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW'aSW}) of said
Section 29 described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest
Corner (NWCor) of the Southwest Quarter (SW$) , thence South
200 feet, thence East 348 feet, thence North 200 feet, thence
West 348 feet to the point of beginning; excepting the North-
east Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE4NE'4) , that part of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE1/4NE1/4) lying
and being East of the East right-of-way line of the Bliss Lateral,
4.64 acres conveyed to the Union Pacific Railroad Company by
Warranty Deed recorded in Book 300 at Page 148 of the Weld
County Records, that parcel of land conveyed by Deed recorded
in Book 1163 at Page 510 of the Weld County Records and
subject to an easement for right-of-way as conveyed by Deed
recorded in Book 1268 at Page 191 of the Weld County Records
and excepting from all of said above described property those
parcels heretofore conveyed by instruments recorded in the
Office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Weld County, Colorado
to the Department of Highways, State of Colorado, and to Weld
County.
The Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) and the West half of the Northwest
Quarter (ANW1) of Section Twenty (20) .
The Northeast Quarter (NE1) of Section Thirty-one (31) and all
that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
(NE'}SW'z) and the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
(NW1/4SE1/4) and the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
(NE1/4SE1) of Section Thirty-one (31) , more specifically
described as follows: Considering the East line of said Section
31 to bear South 00°00'00" East and with all other bearings
described herein being relative thereto, and beginning at the
East Quarter Corner (E'aCor) of said Section 31, thence South
00°00'00" East along the East line of said Section 31 a distance
of 881.33 feet to a point, thence North 89°32'30" West a
distance of 653.72 feet, along the line described in Book 414
at .Page 484 of the Weld County records, thence South 00°13'50"
East a distance of 197.38 feet, thence South 73°12'52"
West a distance of 162.50 feet, thence North 55°42'00"
West a distance of 300 feet, thence North 13°37'00" West a
distance of 335 feet, thence North 30°39'00" West a distance
of 353 feet, thence South 52°33'00" West a distance of 270
Page 2
feet, thence South 36°23'00" West a distance of 694.40 feet
to a point where said line intersects the North bank of the
existing channel of the Cache La Poudre River, thence South
71°07'20" West a distance of 294.20 feet, thence South 82°21'20"
West a distance of 262.48 feet until said line intersects the
North line of that parcel of land described in Book 373 at
Page 463 of the Weld County records, thence North along the
North line of said parcel North 85°53'00" West a distance of
687.85 feet,
thence North 55°22'10" West a distance of 77.24 feet,
thence North 65°16'30" West a distance of 129.80 feet,
thence North 87°57'50" West a distance of 208.50 feet,
thence South 75°35'50" West a distance of 170.90 feet,
thence South 89°18'50" West a distance of 271.80 feet
to a point where said line intersects the West line of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE'1SW'1)
of said Section 31, thence North 01°11'10" East a dis-
tance of 1,073.76 feet along the West line of the NE'aSW�a,
thence South 89°53'40" East a distance of 3,970.88 feet
along the North line of the NE'aSW1/4 and the Northwest
quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NW1SE's) and the Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE'3SE'14) to the point of
beginning.
And the North 44.32 acres of the Northwest Quarter (NW'a) and a
100 foot right-of-way over and across the North Half of said
North Half of the Northwest Quarter (N1INW'a) o£ Section Thirty-
one (31) , comprising 46.52 acres more or less and excepting
therefrom a parcel of land containing 6.11 acres located in
the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW1/4NW'1) more
particularly described as follows: Considering the North line
of said Section 31 as bearing due East and all bearings herein
relative thereto, commencing at the Northwest Corner of said
Section 31, thence North 90°00' 00" East along the North
line of said Section 31, a distance of 381.84 feet to the true
point of beginning; thence North 90°00'00" East 452.76 feet;
thence South 01°25'24" East 656.56 feet; thence North 88°19'18"
West 334.60 feet; thence 15°33'12" West 465.18 feet; thence
North 02°50'06" West 199.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
And a tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (NW1/4NW1/4) of Section Thirty-one (31) , more
particularly described as follows: Considering the North line
of said Section 31 as bearing due East and all bearings
herein relative thereto, commencing at the Northwest Corner
(NWCor) of said Section 31, thence North 90°00'00" East
along the North line of said Section 31, a distance of
381.84 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North
90o00'00" East 452.76 feet; thence South 01°25'24" East
656.56 feet; thence North 88°19'18" West 334.60 feet; thence .
15°33'12" West 465.18 feet; thence North 02°50'06" West
199.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 6.11
acres.
Page 3
The Southwest Quarter (SW4) of Section Nineteen (19) , EXCEPT
that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the
South Quarter Corner (S1/4Cor) of said Section 19, thence North
1,320 feet; thence West 145 feet; thence South 22°21' East
125 Feet; thence South 02°45' East 357 feet; thence South
15°32' West 135 feet; thence South 358 feet; thence East 97
feet; thence South 360 feet; thence East 20 feet to the True
Point of Beginning; AND ALSO EXCEPTING a life estate measured
by the life of Arthur H. Leaver, heretofore reserved, in and
to the following described part thereof: Commencing at the
South Quarter Corner (S%Cor) of said Section 19; thence West
20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence West 160 feet;
thence North 360 feet; thence East 160 feet; thence South 360
feet to the True Point of Beginning.
The West Half of the Northwest Quarter (W15NW4) (except a Right-
of-Way conveyed to Weld County of Deed recorded in Book 76 at
Page 509, Weld County records, and further except Right-of-Way
and surface water conveyed by Deed recorded in Book 228 at Page
349 of the Weld County records, and further except parcel of
land as conveyed by Deed recorded in Book 1434 at Page 51,
Weld County, Colorado records) ; and
The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE'1NW1/4) , (except
seven (7) acres, more or less, conveyed by Deed recorded in
Book 254 at Page 401 of the Weld County records) and
One-half ('1) acre in the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (NE1/4NW'1) as described in Deed recorded in Book 254
at Page 400, Weld County records, all being in Section Nineteen
(19) .
In Township Six (6) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West of the Sixth (6th)
Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado.
The West Half of the Southeast Quarter (WIISE1) , the North Half
of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (N1SE4NE4) ,
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4NE1/4) and the
West Half of the Northeast Quarter (WIINE1/4) of Section Twenty-
three (23) , excepting, however, that part of the West Half of the
Northeast Quarter (W'IINE1/4) of said Section, consisting of
approximately four (4) acres of land containing the inlet to
Seeley's Lake, bounded on the West by a meandering line
commencing at a point on the East line of the WIINE'1 27 chains South
of the North line of said Quarter and running North 22° West,
3
20 chains to a stake; thence North 1 West, 8 chains and 58
links to the North line of said described land; and bounded on
the East by a meandering line commencing at a point on the
North line of said Section, 1,845 feet West of the Northeast
Corner (NECor) of said Section, running thence South 7°40'
East, 400 feet, thence South 31° East, 400 feet, thence South
11° East, 600 feet, thence South 27° East, 300 feet to the
East line of said ANSI& of said Section; and excepting that
part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4NE1). _
of Section 23, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.
lying North of the No. 2 Ditch.
Page 4
The Northeast Quarter (NE'z) of Section Twenty-four (24) , except
that part thereof North of the Canal of the New Cache La Poudre
Irrigating Company and except that parcel of land conveyed to
School District No. 6 commencing at a point thirty (30) feet
West from the Southeast Corner (SECor) of the E1/2NE1/4 of said
Section 24; thence running North 104.5 feet; thence running
West 209 feet; thence running South 104.5 feet; thence running
East 209 feet to the place of beginning, containing one-half el)
acre more or less.
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter (SIINE4) and the Southeast
Quarter (SEAS) of Section Twenty-five (25) excepting that part
thereof lying South of a parcel of land described in Warranty
Deed recorded in Book 337 at Page 157 of the Weld County records
as conveyed to The Denver, Laramie and Northwestern Railroad
Company and lying West of a line 380 feet East of and running
parallel with the West line of said Section 25 and further
excepting that parcel of land conveyed to Serapia Tellez by
Quit Claim Deed recorded in Book 1027 at Page 474 of the Weld
County records and excepting .91 acres conveyed to the Denver,
Laramie and Northwestern Railroad Company under Warranty Deed
recorded in Book 337 at Page 45 of the Weld County Records.
All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
(NW1/4NE1/4) of Section Thirty-six (36) , described as follows,
to-wit: Beginning at a point on the North line of the NANE1/4
of said Section 36, 757.5 feet East of the Northwest Corner
°mar) of the said NW$NE$; thence running South 664 feet to
a point; thence running West to the West line of said NW4NE4;
thence running North on the West line of said NW'xNE'a 664 feet
more or less to the Northwest Corner (NWCor) of the NW'1NE4;
thence East 757.5 feet along the North line of said NW'1NE'1 to
the point of beginning.
MEMO
T0: Interested Parties
FROM: Vern Nelson, Downtown Development Chairman
RE : Downtown Landowners Survey
Attached you will find the results of a survey conducted
this summer by the Greeley Area Chamber of Commerce Downtown
Development Committee. Property owners were contacted and
personally interviewed and we certainly appreciate the time
involved in this effort. Our sincere thanks to the participants
and volunteers .
These results are very interesting and will be an asset
the City and Chamber as we explore alternatives and opportunities
for downtown Greeley.
If you have any questions regarding the information contained
herein, please contact Sharon Linhart, Administrative Manager at
the Chamber or myself.
GREELEY AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
GREELEY DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNERS' SURVEY
Downtown Property Owner' s Survey Results
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
One of the major concerns of the membership of the Greeley
Area Chamber of Commerce for the Chamber year 1977 - 78 , as
expressed in "Penny For Your Thoughts" meetings held in the
summer of 1977 , was the Greeley Downtown Area. According to
the members , the downtown area needed to be investigated as to
possible re-development or development plans . Apparently, the
membership felt at that time, that the Chamber of Commerce must
and could take a leadership role in any downtown development .
President Larry Bohlender and President-Elect Larry Menefee
appointed a Downtown Development Committee Chairman, Vern Nelson.
Several meetings were held with the Greeley Planning Commission,
Planning Staff, City Manager and Mayor . It was decided that
landowner attitudes were important to the study of downtown
development by the Greeley Planning Commission. It was also
concluded that the Chamber was the best vehicle to gather landowner
attitudes. Thus the Downtown Development Committee agreed to
undertake the responsibility of a landowner attitudes survey.
The survey is the first attempt at ascertaining the thoughts
and plans of the downtown landowners . Several previous surveys
had queried the downtown merchants , the downtown customers , and
other interested parties . However, there had been no previous
attempt to talk directly to the downtown property owners .
The City of Greeley Planning Department has been investigating
the downtown problems and opportunities for some time. They have
1 of 10
been involved with many of the previously mentioned surveys . The
Greeley Area Chamber of Commerce received assistance from the Planning
Department Staff in preparation and implementation of this survey.
PROCEDURE
At the direction of the Downtown Development Committee , the
Chamber carried out the following procedure in surveying the
downtown property owners . First, a questionnaire was developed
(see attachment Cpl) .
It was determined that the property owners must be surveyed
in person, if possible. A list of Chamber volunteers who could
assist with this project was developed and those volunteers were
then contacted. At a kick-off breakfast , Chairman Nelson instructed
the survey teams to call upon property owners during the time of
June 8 thru June 14, 1978 . The teams were to ask the property
owners the questions as listed on the survey and discuss briefly
with the property owners any helpful comments or ideas . Following
the interview, the survey teams were requested to return the
questionnaire to the Chamber of Commerce immediately.
The Chamber staff then compiled the results .
LANDOWNERS DESCRIPTION
Sixty-two separate landowners were interviewed in the course
of the survey. These landowners actually represent 98 individual
parcels of property in varying sizes and shapes . The landowners
surveyed own property geographically located within the following
boundaries : 8th Avenue going west to 11th Avenue, 6th Street
going south the 11th Street with the exception of the block of
6th Street between 10th and 11th Avenues (see attachment #2) .
2 of 10
SURVEY RESULTS
1. Respondents answering the question of the approximate number
of the work force at the address in question: total for all
properties = 2 , 336 persons , average of all properties = 25 . 9
persons , highest number of employees = 450 , lowest number of
employees = 1 person.
2 . When responding to the question of the approximate number of
square feet of the property in question, the following results
were obtained: total square feet = 1 , 238 , 956 square feet
(excluding the city and county) , average square feet = 14,079 . 0
square feet.
3 . When responding to a question regarding the amount of square
footage currently being utilized, respondants gave the
information: 84 parcels of land are currently 100'/ utilized.
12 parcels of land are being utilized to less than 100%
capacity, while one parcel of land is vacant .
4. The results of the question pertaining to the length of
current ownership are :
1-10 yrs . - 11-20 y rs . 21-30 yrs . 31-40 yrs . 41-50 yrs .
22
18 19 6 1
Over�rs•
19
this was approximate in almost all cases.
5 . A question regarding the age of the property resulted in the
following information:
1-10 yrs . 11-20 yrs . 21-30 yrs . 31-40 yrs . 41-50 yrs .
5
9 7 5 6
OVER�rs•
43
3 of 10
SURVEY RESULTS (cont)
6. For those surveyed, not owner-occupied properties which have
leases, the following information was given regarding the
lease expiration dates
leases expires in the next :
1-5 yrs . 10 yrs .
49 6
The remainder of those surveyed either had month to month
lease arrangements , no leases , or were owner-occupied.
7 . For those who had tenant-lease arrangements, 46 tenants
have lease renewal options, while only 15 have no options .
8 . Property owners responded two to one that they are not
planning any major property improvements or changes in the
next five years .
25 yes ; 50 no ; 5 depends
9 & 10 .
These two questions pertain to the question #8 regarding
the reasons why or why not the respondents have planned
property improvements.
4 of 10
SURVEY RESULTS (cont)
Sample Negative Comments :
"overbuilt" , "recently remodeled" , "planning to move",
"adequate now", "in good condition now", "wait to see what
tenants desire", "business has no future", "new building",
"not necessary", "no room to expand", "no money", "waiting
to see shopping mall and parking downtown", "making money
now, why change? ' , "only remodel when needed", "downtown
rent is $1. 00 per square foot with no utilities included",
"following the downtown trend" .
Sample Positive Comments :
"recent remodeling doubled business", "interior remodeling
planned", "will improve property to suit tenants", "will
improve if county holds taxes down", "currently remodeling",
"thinking of a new restaurant", "depends on financing".
11. On a question regarding the downtown property values , a
majority of respondents said that values are increasing.
Increasing Decreasing Stable
45 9 16
12 . This question asked respondents what they now perceive the
downtown to be. Sample comments were :
"dead" , "frustrated", "problem-parking" , "viable", "business
declining, ", "deteriorating", "backwards", "service and
governmental area", "stable, but will decline without change",
"changing from retail to financial", "static", "in better
physical shape", "looking for leadership", "continues to be
5 of 10
SURVEY RESULTS (cont)
12. (cont)
a financial growth area" , "not enough interest to promote
good shopping mall and parking facilities" , "financial,
governmental, professional services and smaller specialty
shops" , "parking is no. 1 problem" , "potential for more
retail because of captive customers" , "governmental agencies
have more preferential decisions over private industries" ,
"existing frontage on 8th avenue is ugly" , "low cost pur-
chases of property has been bled, no encouragement to redo
while making a satisfactory return" , "limbo" , "going down-
hill" , "now one is willing to put any money in it" , "county
complex is overdone" , "nothing in downtown to draw people -
especially in the evening" , "professional , cultural , service
area" , "on the upgrade" , "retail business is healthy when
merchandising is properly handled" .
13 . To the question "what would you like the downtown to be?" ,
respondants gave a variety of answers :
Sample comments:
"alive" , "want parking structure in town' s center" , "development
program similar to St . Louis & Kansas City" , "covered mall" ,
"more specialty shops and boutiques" , "retail center with new
housing structure" , "large retail stores needed" , "community
center needed" , "improve to increase downtown taxes" , "more
attractive stores" , "prosperous" , "multi-business area" , "close-in
parking" , "don't want development to be radical" , "more retail
oriented" , "successful atmosphere" , "off-street parking" ,
"progressive" , "focal point of community" , "activity center" ,
6 of 10
SURVEY RESULTS (cont)
13 . (cont)
"office area" , "similar to Boulder" , "high rises" , "parking
in place of a portion of Lincoln Park" , "mall areas on 7th
and 8th Streets" , "back to what it was 20 years ago" ,_ "cleaner" ,
"similar to Fort Collins downtown" , "the pillar of the community" ,
"regional market area" , "2 of 3 major retailers and multiple
small shops and offices" .
*there were repeated references ' to paving.
14. When asked if they plan to retain their ownership , xespondants
answered overwhelmingly that they would keep their properties .
yes - 64 no - 7 depends - 4
15 . Additional financial information is desired by less than
half of the respondants .
yes - 22 no - 35
16 . Other helpful ideas and comments of significance are :
"Chamber is headed in right direction" , "parking garage could
solve the problem" , "St .Louis and Kansas City had bond issue
for downtown" , "downtown merchants should instigate action,
not Chamber" , "avoid problems with municipal bonds" , "get
off their duff and go to work" , "merchants need to catch up
with city, county and Chamber" , "urban development district
might help" , "should have put aside mil levy each year since
first study for downtown improvements" , "change tax structure,
don' t penalize property owners for improvements" , "don' t
destroy park" , "use fountains" , "modernize buildings to
7 of 10
SURVEY RESULTS (cont)
16 . (cont)
beautify" , "outlying shopping center will help downtown by
keeping shopping in Greeley area" , "not sure parking is the
solution - merchandising is also a concern" , "would invest
money in downtown improvement" , "Seattle , Washington worked
to get downtown improvement on a cooperative basis to provide
continuity" , "two or three good small restaurants needed" ,
"concentrate retail in one area, offices in another" , "confront
parking problems with employees" , "two or three garages are
leaving downtown - purchase them for parking" , "enforcement
of city codes on old buildings" , "limitations of additional
shopping centers" , "develope community airport" , "go to young
ivestors who want action" , "create special tax district" ,
"educate people on walking" , "raise funds for property acquisition
by taxing 1/10 of one percent sales tax in downtown" , "sign
code needed" , "provide merchandising seminars for small merchants" ,
"encourage cooperation between landowner and tenants" .
8 of 10
SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS
Several conclusions can be drawn upon review of the survey
results and two misconceptions clarified. Generally, the true
attitudes of the Greeley Downtown Property owners are quite varied;
nevertheless there is a consensus on several accounts .
At this point, nearly all of the downtown properties are
being totally utilized with only one vacancy noted. Fifty-seven
percent of the parcels are over 50-years-old while five were under
ten-years of age . For those non-owner-occupied properties , 89
percent have leases expiring in the next five years and most
have renewal options .
Regarding length of ownership, this factor displays a high
degree of variation. However, approximately 75 percent of
the current owners plan to retain their ownership. Most
feel their property value is increasing, however, there seems
to be a good deal of confusion of this question. Especially
as it relates to assessed valuations and rental rates . In
fact , 22 percent of respondents stated it was stable or did'nt
know values are increasing or decreasing. An interesting
statistic is that only 31 percent plan any major property
improvements or changes in the next five years , although some
reasoned that they had recently remodeled. Approximately
half of the owners desire more information on financing, which
might mean they are not opposed to making financial commitments .
Most respondents seem anxious to see changes and improvements
in the area, and all have specific ideas on effecting those desired
changes . However, these ideas did not necessarily have a common
theme from which a comprehensive development plan is visible.
9 of 10
S'
SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS (cont)
The specified problems seem to center around parking,
retailing, appearance and atmosphere and, in some cases , taxation
and property values . In almost all cases , parking was noted, in
spite of the lack of a survey question on parking.
Two popular misconceptions which this survey has clarified
are : (1) the downtown area is controlled by a small , elite group
of property owners and (2) the downtown property owners are largely
out-of-town landlords who don' t care what happens . The first is
untrue because out of 98 parcels of land included in the survey,
there are 62 individual owners . Eight respondents are multiple-
parcel owners . In many instances the owners are not corporations ,
but private individuals and 32 percent of the properties are owner-
occupied businessess. Secondly, the large percentage of landowners
are Greeley or Weld County residents . Efforts were made to contact
out-of-town owners and seven responded via long-distance telephone
calls with great interest in the downtown development issues.
In conclusion, it is fair to say that a desire exists on the
part of landowners to see a change in downtown Greeley. Exactly
how many will financially and actively support a major development
project is uncertain. Many have been and will continue to maintain
a "wait and see" attitude regarding any such project . However, it
appears that most are at least open to suggestions and willing to
try for an improvement .
Submitted by the Greeley Area Chamber of Commerce, 1407 8th Avenue,
Greeley, Colorado, 80631
Prepared by: Vern Nelson, Downtown Development Chairman
Dated: July 27, 1978
10 of 10
Attachment #1
GREELEY AREA CHAMBER O1' COMMERCE
DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNERS SURVEY
Property Owner :
Tenant (s) now occupying space :
Address :
1 . Approx. # of work force at this address :
2. Approx. # of square feet :
3 . How much is being utilized:
4. Length of current ownership:
5 . How old is property:
6 . Tenant/lease expiration date :
7 . Renewal option? YES NO
8. Do you plan any major property improvements or changes in the
next five years? YES NO
9 . If so, why?
10. If not, why not?
11. Do you think your property value is increasing or decreasing?
12 . What do you now perceive the downtown to be?
13. What would you like the downtown area to be?
14. Do you plan to retain ownership? YES NO
15 . Do you desire more information on financial aids for your
property and overal downtown improvement? YES NO
16 . Do you have any helpful ideas or comments :
I ---' 1 • • .
!. ' 1 i `, 'Wit. '• w
Lis . _.. _.._ ,. I .i.4._.. - _. . �-..<.,.a
1 z . l � .
it 1G a ! I r I t I I ' I 1 b I O ""`" I a
.....- ,..-..0.-- -, .„../. ....":41III ../ANIMIllro . t_.:..1 i_. __, . . 0.- ...,„/AIIINCEPre/ dordillUill
_______-...-. - --,iikt\ii r: ,,,. , ,i i . . ,
, . .. ...,. _..
, ,jk • .
•
i .
. .... .._ •\ _ . .. . .._ . _ ... S • —
1 !9,•_..ii_� 't. L___ -J I r t „r 1 1 �... t I__
1 I # I r i
\I I I \
-� �-- ._.LI I_i �_J �-- i. _ . .. .. ..�_.�_ _ .i•• i_.:.. . . � � I -
1.1
,---.-
L....7 ! ; I i 111 :
r:
r
CI ! �T_l.i \ "7-7"7""•---.....----1,-.* -1 - � _, . _ . • -1 � ---� r•-1- ----} \ r-- -
`I 1.111 , Ii ! ii , I ! I I
�;�� { , , _I.���_�.�.J.:rJ �. .,,.L_ :. ..:_ _�i •
._., . ._�_ .. �.�.; i_..i." ... ._ _.• ; .. ICJ 1--
L }� �,` 1 I
!K: t 1 j I i i ! r { ! ; t I �� 1 r �. F t .i , n
Q , \ . _. .. . .t
1 1 TT—I j ` l 1-771 i I n' 1 '1 � J.'Ir� � i - ' . •
.�
�_ I
i1 Ij1 •
. . - , l I
- �...j.. . .� �:....... -- - ..1 ��.1..^t_...:.'.i.. . . ....,1 t.
' \ • rl1 N5l_7
-- _zt7 i
1 i i I 1:_, L:J
, "
_A I ' ITLA
� , I �l1L _L lye.__ 1 �
._ t111 LiNnmaa l C_-
1� H1N 2/i�SlilliallipP. ;r1.-'647;"e7P,-- __ -- --.... -- -- -- -----
III
1i � 1111l1Ii . r iI _ , � i ! �i
�. 1 1I i lel
; I
I 1` 1 X_�3dJOJ 1 ! e
Ili\
It ' t . I • i la ,e.:4, e. _ _ _::.... ....1
� L\ I
V
! f
ail Srw..0".ii®iiii®iiii iiii fill XIS
i 1
u 11; { 6 91 F 1 'ill £ G!L.
.;... I. :. 6 [E3 I
�. . II .
fil Ill : 1 --.-- i•- ----
1Fri.: 1 F.-
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION ON GREELEY PLAN
The Weld County Planning Commission was requested by the City of
Greeley to make a recommendation regarding development to the North of the
Poudre River in the area of the Monfort feedlots. The Weld County Planning
Commission met with the County Commissioners , City Planning and representa-
tives from the Monfort Corporation to discuss the various alternatives and
potential uses of the land in this area.
The Planning Commission, in arriving at their decision, weighed each
factor involved, including the existing adopted plan for the City of Greeley,
the Greeley/Weld growth and development study prepared by James M. Bowers and
Associates of Denver and Urbicus of Loveland, the Weld County Plan and the
commentary and input from the County Commissioners, City of Greeley Planning
staff and the Weld County Planning staff.
The growth and development study by Bowers and Urbicus recommends that
the area north of the river remain in agriculture because it contains some of
the County' s prime agricultural land. The study further describes this land
as deep, well-drained gentle sloping in the direction of the river from the
terrace to the north. Detail examination of the Monfort Feeder Lots indi-
cates these conditions which were once true of the area are no longer true
• where the feeder lots have been operated over a long period of time. The top
soil and the immediate subsoil have been completely removed by periodic
cleaning of the feeder lots which included scraping the soil along with the
manure off of the lot and transporting to other fields where crops were grown
so the nutrient value of the manure could be recycled.
Further discussion of the Greeley area economic base revealed an over
extention and development of housing to meet population projections based on
the growth potential of the Colorado Front Range Counties . A proper balance
between housing, commercial and industrial development has not occurred. The
City of Greeley is lacking in a diversified industrial base to support the
population growth as projected.
These two major factors caused the Weld County Planning Commission to
arrive at a conclusion which fits into the concepts of the Weld County Plan
and at the same time helps to meet the needs of the City of Greeley and pro-
vides a solution to a problem with many political and social factors.
The feeder lot site is ideally located in relation to a major highway,
railroad, a large labor force, municipal sewer and water so as to be con-
sidered a prime industrial site for larger, medium sized industry provided
suitable performance standards are maintained to protect the interests of
the people of the City of Greeley.
the weld County Planning Commission recommends that this area be
appropriately zoned to meet the future needs of Weld County.
Hello