The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About710011.tiff FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION CONCERNING CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION OF BRAD WOLFF The petition of Brad Wolff, 3280 South Onieda, Denver, Colorado, requesting a change of zone from "A" Agricultural District to Mobile Home District, "MH-UD" - UNIT DEVELOPMENT of a tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter (SW+) of Section Three (3), Township Five (5) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described in meets and lat bounds and containing 33 acres, more or less, all as appears on plat as submitted and made a part hereof by reference, came on for hearing on Wednesday, January 13, 1971, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado, having heard the testimony and evidence adduced upon said hearing, and having considered the testimony ,g evidence and said Board, and having carefully weighed the same,l now makes fon filed with 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 that time. 2. The evidence shows that the inhabitants of the immediate to the vicinity of the area sought to be rezoned are unanimously opposed change of zone. 3. The evidence discloses that the present zoning is complementary to the surrounding area. 4. The evidence shows that there is a need for a study and develop- ment of a comprehensive plan for the greater Greeley area, which would include the area sought to be rezoned, and therefore, any rezoning of subject property at this time would be premature and not in the interest of good planning. 5. That each of the preceding findings in and of themselves and 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, State of Colorado, has heard the application of Brad Wolff, 3280 South Onieda, Denver, Colorado, for a change of zone from "A" Agricultural District to Mobile Home District, "MH-UD" - UNIT DEVELOPMENT of a tract of land as hereinabove recited and made a part hereof by reference, and WHEREAS, said Board has made its findings on the evidence and s de is reference areninco incorporated herein and gmade e it, which ndin aparthhereof, l Resolution and by and WHEREAS, the said Board has carefully considered the petition, evidence and testimony and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and, and is now fully advised inhas given the same such ight as it in thepremises its discretion deems proper,, 710011 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Brad Wolff, 3280 South Onieda, Denver, Colorado, requesting a change of zone from "A" Agricultural District to Mobile Home District, "MH-UD" - UNIT DEVELOPMENT of the tract of land indicated above be, and it hereby is denied upon each of the grounds set forth in the Board's findings therein. Made and entered this 10th day of February, 1971. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO / /// tc !z2t V F(,( i v i `t ATTEST: rnicifil‘1,7. - se" /lerk of the Bo rd APPROVED AS TO FORM: Coun y Attorney l/ -2- Findings & Resolution of Brad Wolff Resolution dated: 2/10/71 RECEIP3OR CERTIFIED MAIL-30¢ (plus postage) SENT TO 4,. POSTMARK sne�y p OR DATE STREET ANDN.7c)14 a �C rwl P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE x 1 , /�7) Lc, _ _ OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered .. I50 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only.. 650 2. Shows to whom,date and where delivered.. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850_ 0 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 50d SPECIAL DELIVERY (2 pounds or less) 450 Z POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) July 1969 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL <coo: 1970 0 397:490 Oh PLEA S FURNISH SERV ) I DICATED BY CHECKED BLOCKS) 4 ' "11i NQED�FEE(S) MID. M. Straw to whpl�TT, and #ddrsss Deli r ONLY s�. `where deNye3ed ❑ toe dresses I REE11P+T " '' Received the nuf{{i�1h�bere article described below. ' EGIETENED* SI61FA ESC.:Abo*ESSEE(aldw t re)t he filled in) fiyy y'ERTIFIED He dl ip� _ A' a;"r EE's Allen,IF 1 ? � .. IONISED ilk 0 Are— I '.e TEIDELEpw� -s � snow ;� ELtvgtEa.(,(,ifrgvwui) ,@ .0, 'FEB DO Er �� f a. e55-16—TIi -iT 707-Ile oPo _�_ Y ,. 1; • Change of Zone i !iti.Iti. ' ...F ��`�' �-. Brad Wolff : 1/�71 Li ik , • •• • • J f,-- ,.1 ' ; 1. 1 ...____ —T..+.. 1 '..... :._7-1,...... -_.._ icr--.-.�.• ---tea t:..:._..........-. ter, �w-.��i'r-"1_:'!"l �yi ;, .�.w•ww•• .7CJ.::T�--+••r- T••`c.: �ut�M_1. yy....-�..._,.r-,ar.+. .,:«" .. ._..� ._.,-... 4th•? .'A ,w.S.1..� ._.... ._..._..._..._........ .. .... ..o.y. .�.......... .. ''':.... 0,2/), ,..../...:; .. .1. _ i ....•��•' *„- 'd:Yi.'r.yL...au.:..:�+�.. u'Lc:,_�ti...+.,._y. �.,.�.� o _ /•��e.....„„r .,. . .. ....,....:,....„. ..„....:.L.•• ,.:......, .. t. .;...!...,..,...:... .„..:....::. , . • . . . • • • .; 6 ��.'.�� ua .7,.....„. .,:•,.„•••••, ,-.,,....; ,-.,...i..••sI . y •t/ *.,r, Vii' y•.a:.. ...: -. r" •'-r,--^�'��;: • � • •7. ii+. .f. i.• • 1; _. .:1:,. •.1%•'— :;.-W*77--}?•f'- .....:,•;._.,:'' Vii.,... • 0 , C Y 1'.L. • • , 4/4./.4,...-. • , ., ./.4:'...,,:,/;.. .1.,•49(.4.'.z.i.k.. ,:-'...,t7-7,- . . .,...../....:.:-...../.....,.., ,....,., ...:.,,, ...r,:y...,:-...:,:;•,...; ..2.•.:4••.,•••,:'*.^.,•••..-...... .,•••••..... .,...;,:::',:. ,•-• *, •‘, -... • . • . . + 1f 1 ' !i £ ' t : j4: Q • • I . ' ....,..,....:.,4 4.4-iL'.-11---i:A--4• •.:.'•.'T'l,?..r."-'•?'7 *"".,.... :,.. ..:,,?,,..,•,,. ..,k.::.f..i.2,2).../...;e.:•,,:::,-.•••••..,,, , *.:;t•. ......1:1,.‘y..i. •••; .‘ • • *. . F,y ��5 •, ' 9. -...--..-77 i F,'1.,&•'''•••••;1:4-..VVV�..• .: ..,_.....,:::::_:,..i...,....,..,......4.:- •' '' ''�'.::_.r 1 �w_..r., .wMr..:...rrww. • - 'I'• ,,::,:,,.,-.k....,.:..:._1:::-.:-........ :.e' ',gip ' . 1i,,...;:":,...•:.,:-...'..:�.._:V..,.::.yr w.,•_a.:..:.':_.:..__.'..:.....:.......• '... . . •.i ''5 '�}.:' '' !- X1.4 �!� .•. -• 1.: i.' . 1 •; { '',."; �I•. ,-:':tit. '.:'r. :-•••••...:.:.:.....:.,.....,,...#.,„. ..-t••••-7.---,:,... .:,• • •1 • _...:..tom....,. .,.•. Change of Zone : Brad Wolff r� p5\� lJ7 — Continuance 113 70 ,F, , I2ECOR ,i,ei e d -s li #C2c,/,,z-e_.w r A�� C�V CyV`� .. _ c ?e: 14 r _I J u1- ✓ c A , ./I:(6/ v(,%mac 4 m ,,7'l- , _2 :�-3 d)/ /C .;�-c 4 61c--4-€4_y- (____, .d F /Set J e--t - i ✓''_` .--,------\_- . ; /� 7 _ ,T-` r t-a/ g?7i /il r . I /-leQ � /l/2- - 5 6C& / -cccZcy , �� /2t .___ "i&ti alf° t ).'ir,"/ /c2/cc - _lye- .1.--c.c.4,- D2g ) _l, } .O 4/ ' c J2t al / 721 ,,, 19-44; Za�' sy _k; 3 /3 rx 9 5— #-"-k — I { , i H _ ( - I.a BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO REQUEST: Change of Zone from ) "A" Agricultural District to ) "MH-UD" Mobile Homes Unit ) DOCKET NO. 54 Development. Petition of ) Brad Wolff, 3280 Onieda, ) Denver, Colorado. ) APPEARANCES SAMUEL S. TELEP, County Attorney, Weld County, Colorado, Appearing on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. CHARLES A. KAROWSKY, Attorney at Law, 8th & 8th Building, Greeley, Colorado, Appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Brad Wolff. THOMAS A. RICHARDSON, Attorney at Law, 922i Ninth Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, and WILLIAM R. KELLY, Attorney at Law, First National Bank Building, Greeley, Colorado, Appearing on behalf of the Protestants. Pursuant to Notice published in the Greeley Booster, hearing on the above Request was held in the County Commissioners ' Hearing Room of the Weld County Courthouse at Greeley, Colorado, commencing at 2 :00, p.m. , on Wednesday, January 13, 1971, before the Board of County Commissioners, MARSHALL H. ANDERSON, Chair- man, GLENN K. BILLINGS AND HARRY S. ASHLEY, Members of the Board. Wednesday Afternoon January 13, 1971 (Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were marked for the purpose of identification. ) CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We will call this hearing to order. Continuation of Docket Number 54, Brad Wolff, 3280 Onieda, Denver, Colorado. Original date was November 30, 1970, 2:00, p.m. Request a change of zone from Agricultural to "MH-UD" Mobile Homes Unit Development. The way we will handle this, the Applicant will put on his case, and everybody will have a chance to be heard for or against; and the Protestants will then have a chance to be heard. At this time, Mr. Telep, would you please make the record. MR. TELEP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let the record show that this cause came on for hearing this day, January 13, 1971, at 2 :00, p.m. , on the Application of Brad -Wolff, 3280 Onieda, Denver, Colorado, seeking a change of zone from "A" Agricultural District to "MH-UD" Mobile Homes Unit Development of a tract of land located in the SW4 of Section 3, Township -5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, and more par- ticularly described in metes and bounds and containing 38 acres more or less, and as published as required by law. -2- Let the record further show that this cause origi- nally came on for hearing November 30, 1970, and was continued to this day for good cause shown. Let the record further show that the Applicant is present in person and represented by counsel, Mr. Charles Karowsky. Let the record further show that there are some Protestants present and represented by counsel, Mr. Thomas A. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I believe we are ready to proceed. And if the Applicant or counsel wishes to make an opening statement, he should be granted that opportunity at this time. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Mr. Karowsky. MR. KAROWSKY: Thank you, gentlemen. For the record, I am Charles Karowsky and I am the attorney appearing in behalf of the Applicant Brad Wolff and Associates, Mr. Brad Wolff, the Applicant, is seated to my left. This hearing as has been stated by the County Attorney is for the purpose of seeking the zoning of the particular tract of land, the location of which will be identified more specifically as the proceeding continues, for mobile home purposes. I think it would serve the purposes well to advise the Commission that the plat which appears on the easel is a colored diagram purporting to show the area involved. -3- The various symbols will be identified by the engineer when he testifies. And a miniature of that plat, approxi- mately 20 or 25 of them, were mailed by me to a number of the Protestants who appeared and whose names appeared on the attendance record at the original Planning Com- mission meeting, I believe back in November of last year. I think it would serve the Commission's purpose also for me to briefly review for you the sequence of events that have transpired. We are involved here with about 37 acres of land which lies north and west of the City of Greeley, lies north of U. S. 34 and direct access to it, I believe, has been designated as 59th Avenue. On August the 4th, 1970, the application of Brad Wolff and Associates was heard before the Weld County Planning Commission and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to submission of the plan as a unit development and approval by the City Planning Commission. Some discussions were had withthe planning staff of Weld County and, as a consequence, the plat was modified to the extent that you see it now before you on the easel. And we will, for the purposes of the record, offer more of a foldable plat as an exhibit. The Applicant then proceeded to comply with all of the requirements of the Planning Commission and prepare this as a planned unit and to obtain the approval of the City Planning Commission. It might be interesting to note that the minutes of -4- the first meeting which -was held on August the 4th in which Mr. Lorenson, as the City Planner, read letters from the City stating water to serve the area is available, sewer services in the immediate area are unavailable and the nearest trunk line is one and a half miles east. The City would treat the sewage, but all costs of trunks and hook-ups must be paid for by the developer. There were 39 protestants present on 22 parcels. Mr. Lorenson recommended the proposal to be recommended as a unit development. The density is six and a half units per acre. According to the Assessor's records the property is not suitable for good agricultural use. Motion was made to take the matter under advisement. And then, subsequently, it was moved to approve the concept such to the presentation as a unit development and the approval of the City Plan- ning Commission. The vote of the Planning Commission at that time was unanimous in favor of approving the concept. Interestingly enough, and in compliance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the Applicant then presented the plan as a planned unit development, obtained the approval of the City Planning Commission. The Applicant further indicated that he would extend the sewer line to provide sewer services for the area at his own expense. I think the Commission is entitled to operate under the assumption, unless the contrary is indicated by Mr. Lorenson and I ' ve had no indication to such effect, that water, sewer, utilities, are all -5- available; And I have no desire to put Mr. Lorenson in a difficult position because we have no general program for land use in this particular area, but I might empha- size the fact that this land is well located, drainage is proper. We' re not on a river bottom. The area has an excellent view of the mountains. It is not intended, nor can it possibly be by reason of its location, which hope- fully the Commissioners will view before any decision is reach, potentially an undesirable area. It is, potentially, eminently a desirable area for the development as planned. At the second Planning Commission hearing, there were a number of protests, articulate and eloquent, and despite the fact that the Planning Commission had approved the concept on the first hearing, at the second hearing the Planning Commission rejected the Applicant on the grounds that there were other acreage that had been approved, had been recommended for approval, that it was not necessarily the best use of the land, and that the density exceeded the requirements of the Greeley Comprehensive Plan. Now perhaps this is indulging in speculation at this time, but it is interesting that all requirements of the planning staff of Weld County had been satisfied at the time of the second hearing, yet apparently influenced by the protestants the Planning Commission elected to deny the application. There was reference to the density of the Greeley Comprehensive Plan, which is a non-existent document at this present time, nobody knows where it is -6- or when it 's going to be available or what this document is going to contain. I think if you have a checklist of basic require- ments in order to satisfy yourselves that the area involved meets all the technical requirements, I can say I think without hesitation that it checks out on water, sewer; the land is desirable from a physical aspect for the contemplated use. All utilities are available. Drainage is acceptable. Layout of the space, the setback require- ments, the side requirements, the access roads are all acceptable. I would further like to point out to the Commission that Mr. Wolff is not a stranger to this community and has developed a number of areas in and around the City of Greeley, which I think upon his detailed discussion thereof you will recognize, in his judgment, in mine and I 'm sure in yours, that it reflects credit to the work that he has performed and are a credit to the community. I ' d like it clearly understood that -- and I know that commissions get spooked about things like this and understandably so -- this land is not being sought for rezoning for speculation purposes. Mr. Wolff is not a speculator; he is a developer. And subject to the approval of this Planning Commission and meeting all of the requirements that may be imposed by the Board of Commissioners, Mr. Wolff proposes to commence development of this area as soon as is possible under the circumstances, which I assume would be immediately -7- weather permitting. MR. Wolff has had considerable experience in devel- oping mobile home parks, and I think the thing that the Commission is going to have to understand is that the general image that the average person has of a mobile home park has drammatically changed in the last ten years. We' ve become much more sophisticated. This area contem- plates almost 30 percent of open area. It contemplates a clubhouse. It contemplates a swimming pool. These are going to be rental units. This permits the developer, and I think this is important for the Commission to take recognition of this fact, it permits the developer to control the flexibility of the use of the area. And one consideration that is important from a budget point of view,as far as the County and eventually the City is concerned, is that under the circumstances the maintenance of all of the facilities within the perimeter of the proposed development, roadways and otherwise, are the responsibility of the developer and continue to be soon a permanent basis and do not become the responsibility of the County. Mr. Wolff has just completed, and you will have the opportunity to see slides of a mobile home park in Golden that he has completed. This area contemplates a total of 247 units. Mr. Wolff tells me that there is no contem- plation on his part, if this development is approved and developed, to come any further south with this development; -8- that is south toward U. S. 34. It 's not inconceivable that, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and the Weld County Commissioners, that if this project is found to be economically desirable and acceptable to the community and to the Commissioners that it might develop further to the east. One of the things that you have to be concerned about, I 'm sure, is whether or not a need for this type of park exists. As Mr. Wolff will testify, there are areas now which are zoned for the specific purpose intended and which have been offered to Mr. Wolff, and without any relfection on previous planning or previous approvals, Mr. Wolff has seen fit to reject these, even though the land is less expensive, because he feels as a sound developer that the income groups to whom he is going to invite to participate in his venture are entitled to a decent area in which to live; and he feels that this area presents a much more realistic point of view than the areas that are presently available. Now I 'm not going to go into a long chamber-of-commerce talk, but I get a little frightened when I anticipate all of the studies and all of the things that we know and the Kipplinger letters about population increase and what ' s going to happen to the Windsor area, to the Greeley area, to the area from here to the mountains, in the next ten years. I think it ' s important to note that Mr. Wolff has invested a substantial amount of money in this venture to -9- the present time in the form of engineers, in the form of employing high-priced consultants who have performed feasibility studies to determine whether or not this pro- ject is feasible, and he's not about to appear before this Planning Commission if he doesn' t think that the project is economically feasible. I think that the rapid development in this area and all other areas surrounding the city and adjacent to -Windsor and the adjacent com- munities demonstrates the desperate need for the type of housing that this park provides and hope to provide. And I think good planning should anticipate the needs that are going to arise. I don ' t have to belabor you with costs of building homes which is now becoming almost prohibitive. Mr. Wolff will indicate the problems that are encountered in housing starts, in the financing of the same. These units are designed to satisfy the needs of modest, reason- able income families. Statistics as demonstrated by one of the witnesses will indicate what the density is, the population on a national andon a state-wide basis of mobile home parks. I think the testimony will show that population density of occupants is substantially less than in a modest real estate type of development such as Hillside or Rolling Hills that we have in our community at the present time. I think it fits in with the general type of concept, which I may or may not have correct, but my understanding has been in the past that generally speaking the -10- Commissioners and the Planning Commission have attempted to utilize, within the limits of the law, the areas north of old U. S. 34 and south of U. S. 34 by-pass for mobile home development projects, and this would appear to fit into that category. As I stated before, the concept of mobile home parks in the past has ?dramatically changed, with much more open space, with much more sophistication. The general image of trailers crowded close to each other is now a thing of the past. I think you will find when the engineer testifies that the spaces between the mobile homes is greater than is required by the City of Greeley and its subdivision developments. And, fortunately, in a rental- type of operation of this nature, we have complete super- vision by the developer, and it continues as such. In other words, the County will have no responsibility for the maintenance of roads, maintenance of facilities within the perimeter of the development. One of the things I think that has not been taken into consideration is the fact that -- and this will be emphasized by the testimony -- Mr. Wolff 's bringing the sewer line practically a mile and a half from its present terminus, bringing in water and utilities, is going to permit a development of the area, of the rest of the area, by other property owners at considerably less expense than could ever have been reasonably projected or anticipated. The statistics show that the requirements for the next ten -11- years as anticipated are going to be a staggering amount of spaces per year. And I want to emphasize to the Com- mission that one of the things that concerns us is that an answer developers constantly receive in a project of this nature is that there are adequate areas developed at the present time, or not developed but zoned at the present time for the kind of purpose that Mr. Wolff seeks, and Mr. Wolff is seeking a desirable type of area for the development of a mobile home park. Without unfairly anticipating protests, but on the basis of the information that is available to me at the present time and on the basis of previous comments made by protestants, I think the thrust of their position is that the development of a mobile home court adjacent to their property is going to diminish and depreciate its value. I think experience on the basis of the experts show that this is not true, that the values of their property in fact do not diminish, particularly in a development as sophisticated and as desirable as this one has been created. Another objection has been that land is being developed for speculative purposes. You can strike that from your minds immediately. And in addition to that there are a number of pro- testants, whom I presume are protesting purely from what they consider or what they might term an aesthetic point of view, who truly have no standing to be heard, but whom -12- I presume will be heard by the Commission, and without objection on our part, because they are not considered to be within the immediate area. I would like the Com- mission to have an opportunity on the screen to see the approximate location before the testimony is introduced in the form of witnesses. The area that is marked in green is the area in- volved. These lines right here, which are immediately south of the area which is marked green, represent a ridge. You can see that to the north and to the west are dairies, feedlots, farming. To the south along Tenth Street or U. S. 34 we have a liquor store, and immediately adjacent to that is a used car lot I believe, and then the Village Inn Restaurant is at this point right here. The Country Club is in the lower right part of the pro- jected plat. This is residential area immediately adjacent to the Country Club and west thereof. A sewer line will have to be brought from a distance approximately a mile and a half from the east to the subject property. Water is available. The land slopes basically to the north and to the west. Drainage is ideal under the circumstances. The road which leads to the subject property, namely 59th Avenue, is one hundred foot right of way which clas- sifies it as a major arterial. And of course access along U. S. 34 is well known. I think it ' s important that the Commissioners acquaint themselves with the location of the property and, as I ' ve -13- suggested previously, I think they would be well advised to view the premises subsequent to the hearing and at a moment of time before a decision has been made. I would like at tilt time to ask the Commission, and my understanding that there is a stipulation to this effect, that the entire file which is before Mr. Telep and which contains the application, the original actions of the Planning Commission, the notices, the rulings of the Planning Commission, and the plats which have been filed, and has been marked as an exhibit, be accepted as an exhibit in this matter. I would further ask that although you have plats in front of you, that officially for the record what has been marked Petitioner ' s Exhibit 2 be accepted. MR. TELEP: Any objections, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: No; I have no objection. MR. TELEP: How about Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Does the Commission care to hear argu- ments from us now? We will make an argument later. MR. TELEP: The question is, Mr. Kelly, do you have any objections that the file before the County Commissioners be stipulated to as being received? MR. KELLY: I haven ' t seen that file, but I 'm not going to object to it. I ' d like to get down to the hearing. MR. TELEP: Okay, sir. Thank you. Let the record show that there are no objections. (Petitioner ' s Exhibit A is received in evidence. ) -14- MR. KAROWSKY: The Plat I have here is an identical plat to what you have before you. I would like to offer it as Petitioner ' s Exhibit 2. MR. TELEP: Mr. Kelly, do you know what Petitioner ' s Exhibit Number 2 is? MR. KELLY: I 'm not going to object to that. It doesn' t show my farm immediately adjoining this. But then I can bring that out. MR. TELEP: It will be accepted for what it 's worth. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 was received in evidence. ) MR. KAROWSKY: Now to proceed to the matter, I would like to call Mr. William Van Court. I 'm not going to have him testify in response to questions and answers because I think it will expedite the matter. Mr. Van Court is a real estate consultant and is an appraiser and will briefly advise you of his background and qualifications and then advise you of what his involve- ment in this matter is. And I would ask, Mr. Van Court, if you would just take that chair and if you find it easier to testify seated or standing, it ' s your preference. WILLIAM VAN COURT: Gentlemen of the Commission, I 'm an independent real estate appraiser and consultant from Denver. My background, very briefly, I 've been engaged in valuation and consulting work for about 21 years. For nine years I was associated with the Mortgage Loan Department of Prudential Insurance Company. Four years I was with Garrett-Bromfield and Company as a vice-president, -15- a Denver real estate company. And for the last eight years I ' ve had my own business in Denver at 670 Grant Street. I ' ve been involved in the consulting evaluation profession in this area for about, since about 1954. I was engaged by Brad Wolff and Associates to make a feasibility study for a mobile home park on this par- ticular site. And this I completed in August of this year. My task was to determine whether this proposed project was economically feasible. At that time of course the zoning had not been accomplished, and my assumption throughout my report was that it would be zoned for mobile home use. But in my study, I made a survey of existing facilities within the Greeley and Weld County area. I checked rental rates, I checked occupancy rates, and I checked absorption rates at which this community, this particular area, can soak up this type of development. And after a rather lengthy study it was my conclusion that this particular project was economically feasible. I ' d like to make four or five points that are brought out in my report in support of this application for rezoning. And the first of the points is that the mobile home industry has experienceda radical change in the last 30 years. Back in the days before World War II a mobile home was called a trailer or a trailerhouse, and it was mobile. It was usually occupied by people who were transient, and it was usually owned by people of a rela- tively low-income group. Now in recent years this has -16- changed, as I indicated, rather radically. First of all, they' re no longer mobile. They have wheels when they' re delivered from the factory. But most government studies that I have seen indicate that half of the ones that have been sold in the last five years have not been moved from the original foundations. And, as a matter of fact, the rate of turnover, the rate of moving by people who occu- py this type of facility is only slightly different than you would find in a comparable single-family residence. And along the same lines I think I should emphasize that this industry is a little unusual in that the parks that have been developed in the last ten years are con- tinually improving. Each one that I have seen in every community where I have worked has been a little better than the last one that was developed; to the extent that today, when you look at a mobile home park, it has very little comparability to the ones that were developed in 1960, because they ' re continually improving, and improving in terms of density and improving in terms of green areas, park areas, recreational facilities, roads, lights and so forth. My second point has to do with the problem that is developing today inthe construction of single-family residences. The cost of building homes for young married couples, new families and so forth, the costs are becoming almost prohibitive. It 's true in Weld County, it ' s true in Denver and it 's true everywhere. It ' s to the point -17- that the people that need the housing most simply can- not afford it if they think in terms of single-family residences. So there has to be some alternative. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development said the other day that the costs of erecting a single-family house have increased more than 50 percent in the last five to ten years. Unfortunately, the income levels of the people that occupy these homes has not increased at the same rate. So the alternatives are apartments, which is a partial answer but not a permanent answer, and mobile homes which I think is also a partial answer buy may not be a permanent answer. The rate of new home construction I think is another thing that you should consider in your deliberations. In 1960, just ten years ago, about eight percent of the new housing units developed were mobile home type units. By 1969, just ten years later, it was up to about 28 percent of all new single-family units. And, as a matter of fact, in 1969 about 75 percent of all new single-family units under seventeen thousand five hundred were mobile homes; 75 percent of the market. The third point has to do with the type of occupant of the mobile home today as it is being developed, the mobile home park. This has changed radically in 30 years, because back before World War II these were, as I indi- cated before, transient people for the most part. They were people that had to move in their business for one -18- reason or another, either because they were military or in construction work or they were in some line of endeavor that required they move from time to time. But the most recent surveys in the Colorado area indicate that about 22 percent are skilled workers, about 18 percent are professional and other business, about 25 percent are retired people, and the other 32 percent is divided between military and other classifications such as students. So that the type of people that occupy these units is entirely different that it was. The income level of people that occupy these units is different than it used to be. As I indicated before, in the original concept of the trailerhouse, these were primarily low-income people. But the most recent studies in this area indicate that the income or the family income level of about half of the people, about 47, 48 percent is over $7,000. 00 a year. And that can' t be considered a poverty level. Another very important point is that the number of people that occupy a mobile home is considerably different than you will find in a single-family residence. The National studies, the State studies and the local studies, indicate that there is about two and a half people for each mobile home unit. And in single-family residences, typi- cally in the same price ranges, they run four and over. Now as to the matter of taxation and community ser- vices. In every case where I 've been involved in a hearing -19- of this type, the hearing body or the governmental agency is concerned about the tax income as related to the ser- vices furnished; and this should very properly be a con- cern. A common feeling is that mobile home parks do not generate proportionate tax revenue in relationship to the services that are rendered. And I would suggest to you that this is primarily a myth. And I think the most authoritative work on this particular subject is a study that was done for the Adams County Commissioners in March of 1970 by Carl Becker and Associates of Denver. And this is a rather voluminous study of the mobile home picture in Adams County, and there is a number of I think very important conclusions. But the point is that this study was done for the County Commissioners because in Adams County there is about 40 percent of all the mobile home spaces in the Denver Metropolitan area. But there are conclusions in here that I think are significant for Weld County. In the area of taxes paid per school child, one of the conclusions reached on Page 18 of the Study is that the school child living in a mobile home contributes an average on $195.24 per student; whereas, a comparable single-family residence, the contribution is $169.90 per student. So that the income paid by the students attending schools is actually greater in the mobile homes than it is in the single-family residences. The difference is that the child in the single-family, conventional single-family -20- residence is paying ad valorem taxes and ad valorem taxes only. And the child in the mobile home is paying ad valorem taxes through the park itself and he' s also paying a specific ownership tax which goes to the state. So that the amount of dollars paid in taxes is actually greater for the mobile home. And the question is not in how many dollars it 's paid, but how it ' s distributed. There are other significant points in this study. As I mentioned before, the average density in Adams County is two and a half persons per mobile home. Another point is one I suggested before, that the turn-over of people living in mobile homes is only slightly different than you would find in single-family residences. They are no longer transient. Another point that 's made in the study, and I would be glad to leave it with you if it would be helpful, is the level of services required in a mobile home park, which is significantly less than you would have in a comparable single-family residential development. And that 's because the developer puts in the streets, the recreation areas, the parks and he also maintains them. In conclusion, gentlemen, I would say it ' s my conclusthn that this is a feasible, economically feasible development; that it represents the highest and best use of this par- ticular piece of land; and that I think it 's the best development for the overall community that I can think of. I would be glad to answer any questions if you have them. -21- MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Van Court, have you viewed the premises, the prospective site for this development? MR. VAN COURT: Yes, sir, I have. MR. KAROWKSY: On the basis of your background and experience, could you state whether or not you are satis- fied that this can be developed in the manner which Mr. Wolff proposes to develop it? MR. VAN COURT: I think it can be developed in this manner physically and economically, yes. MR. KAROWSKY: Now I ' d like to clear up one point. My understanding is that you are an independent real estate consultant, that you are not a member of Brad Wolff and Associates and that you have no financial interest of any kind in this project; is that correct? MR. VAN COURT: That is correct, sir. I have been employed on a fee basis to do this study and that ' s my only interest in the project. I have no other financial interest. MR. KAROWSKY: Are you acquainted with any of the other projects involving mobile homes that Mr. Wolff has been associated with in the past? MR. VAN COURT: Yes, I 'm aware of several of them. MR. KAROWSKY: Could you enumerate one or two? MR. VAN COURT: The Golden Terrace that you referred to before. I haddone some evaluation work on that, and he has other ones that are in the planning stage. MR. KAROWSKY: Where is the Golen Terrace project -22- located? MR. VAN COURT: That ' s within the City of Golden in Jefferson County. MR. KAROWSKY: Is that project completed at the present time? MR. VAN COURT: Yes, sir, it is. MR. KAROWSKY: In going through your statistics, were you able to come up with any comparisons with reference to child or children per mobile home unit as compared to single-family dwellings? MR. VAN COURT: Yes. We contacted the school district in the course of making our study. This is Greeley School District Number 6. And their records -- these were the only figures that were available to us. It 's adjacent, to my understanding, to the subject area. But their records indicated that the average mobile home in the District housed . 5 children and they attended elementary schools entirely. Whereas, the single-family residential develop- ments within the same area, there was . 77 elementary, .35 junior high and .30 senior high. So that the number of children per living unit was considerably higher in the single-family developments. MR. KAROWSKY: Now this is a recent project of School District Number 6; is that correct? MR. VAN COURT: That is correct, sir. MR. KAROWSKY: Which is Weld County, Colorado? MR. VAN COURT: Yes, sir. -23- MR. KAROWSKY: And that 's a school district in which this land is located, in which Mr. Wolff ' s project is lo- cated, within the boundaries of School District 6? MR. KAROWSKY: Yes, sir. MR. KAROWSKY: I don ' t believe there are any other questions, unless the Commission or some of the persons present would like to inquire. MEMBER BILLINGS: No, I have no questions at this time. MEMBER ASHLEY: No, I don' t. MR. KAROWSKY: We would like to offer, if a copy is available, the Adams County Study, which is a rather elaborate copy which was prepared at the expense of and at the request of the Adams County Commissioners, which is done in depth and might be advantageous to the Commissioners for not only this hearing but future hearings. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We will accept it. MEMBER ASHLEY: I have got one question. There on your taxes per student, do those figures that you use, did that actually flow to the school district? MR. VAN COURT: No, because the specific ownership does not go to the school district. That goes, it 's funded through the State and hopefully some of it gets back. But this particular table was on the basis of how much was paid in taxes per student and not necessarily paid to the school district. MR. KAROWSKY: I think in your testimony you indicated -24- that there is a combination of taxes paid. There are ad valorem taxes paid by the owner of the project? MR. VAN COURT: That 's right. MR. KAROWSKY: Forthe improvements located thereon, namely the community building, the concrete that ' s poured, the streets, the curbs, the gutters, the utility improve- ments, the swimming pool and things of that nature. And in addition to that, are the taxes which are paid by the occupant of the building; is that correct? MR. VAN COURT: That is correct, sir. MR. KAROWSKY: Now if the Commission please, I believe the Study which is being offered as an exhibit has been marked up to some extent. MR. VAN COURT: Yes, it has. MR. KAROWSKY: And we will offer it at this time with request for privilege to withdraw and replacement with an unmarked copy so you can mark it up at your pleasure rather than ours. Is that acceptable? MR. KELLY: It isn' t acceptable to me. It 's not shown to be the same circumstances, the same neighborhood, the same county. I ' ve had no chance to examine it, and it ' s voluminous. MR. TELEP: Mr. Kelly, what that is, it ' s a survey that was made for another county and the Commissioners have a right to accept it and give it whatever weight they might deem necessary. MR. KELLY: Well, I make that objection that it isn' t -25- relevant. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Objection overruled. We will accept it for what it 's worth. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 was marked for the purpose of identification and received in evidence. ) CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Mr. Kelly, do you have any questions? MR. KELLY: No. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you, Mr. Richardson? MR. RICHARDSON: No. MR. KELLY: I would like to say, I have never been shown a copy of that exhibit that 's proposed, which counsel has just offered here. I have had no opportunity. MR. TELEP: Well, Mr. Kelly, this is an administrative hearing. We are trying to adhere as best we can to the Rules of Civil Procedure and they are allowing whatever latitude they deem necessary so that they could, I 'm sure that the Board of County Commissioners can, withibi their respective joint and separate wisdom give it what weight they deem necessary. And they can separate the kernels from the chaff here, Mr. Kelly. You have a right to examine it whenever you want. MR. KELLY: I don ' t think the Commissioners have any authority on the facts in this case. MR. LORENSON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kelly did examine the record of the Planning Commission and the file of the Planning Commission and the file of the Commission in our office at length, and I feel sure that unless he by-passed -26- it by his own missing, that he has seen this. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: All right. MR. KAROWSKY: We have furnished Mr. Kelly with a miniature plat in color as it appears up there; is that correct, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: You have furnished me a very fine-line, difficult to read, letter-size copy of that. It 's very difficult to decipher. You never have offered me this Adams County Exhibit that you offer here, which I think doesn' t apply to the facts in this case. MR. KAROWKSY: Well, I think we' ve already disposed of that matter, haven' t we, gentlemen? CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Do you have any questions of the witness, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: No, sir. MR. KAROWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Van Court. We would like to call Mr. Jerry Kessler, and in con- nection with his testimony Mr. Swan will operate several slides that Mr. Kessler will use to demonstrate his testi- mony. GERALD KESSLER Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY CHARLES A.KAROWSKY: Q If you would be kind enough to identify yourself, where you -27- reside, what your background, your qualifications are and what your participation in this venture has been, I would be most appreciative. A Yes. I am Gerald Kessler. I have been in Colorado since 1952, explicitly following the lines of the profession of land management. Since 1952 to 1962 I was cheif planning designer for Harman, O'Donnel & Henninger in Denver, Colorado. Our specific business of course was to develop the design patterns and concepts for all types of land uses, including mobile home development. Since 1962 we have had our own office, explicitly following the same general profession in the Rocky Mountain region. As of this last year, as a portion of our services, we have designed and acted as planning consultants for over 500 acres of mobile home parks, basically following the con- cept of a planned unit development. In relationship to our other land planning work, it involves approximately at the present time 4, 500 acres of other residential developments, both single-family, multiple, condominium and recreational. Mr. Van Court has indicated in his testimony the general background, the characteristics of Greeley, the population economies, incomes and so on. Our specific responsibilities were directly toward this subject tract, the relationship of this tract to the adjoining properties, access via the thoroughfares as previously planned and developed by Weld County and the metropolitan area. With -28- this in mind we selected and had the opportunity to review the overall area of this particular section, quarter section of Section 3, in establishing a general location some- where along Fourth Street extended. Upon review of the entire area we recommended the mobile home development be located in the northwest quadrant of this particular area, this particular spot, We did this for a number of reasons. That location has specifically a visual barrier from the south. With the knowledge that the area within the Greeley Country Club, knowing that the other developments around it would be somewhat of a higher value because of it ' s proximity to the County Club, we wanted to protect them from any visual and psychological problem, so we located this particular mobile home development design so that it would be north of this ridgeline and west of this smaller ridgeline, so that actually from this particular resi- dential development and the Country Club itself you could not really visually see any of the mobile home develop- ment. As I say, this is primarily psychological. Inasmuch as Mr. Van Court has stated that mobile home developments have changed tremendously in the last ten years, we con- stantly change and improve the design pattern and constantly improve the facilities and the neighborhood type of develop- ment from each succeeding project. The intent of this particular vicinity map for Vista Village is primarily to show the main access routes, both -29- Highway 34 and also to show Fourth Street extended and the major thoroughfare of 59th Avenue to the north, the sec- ondary collector of 47th Avenue, and approximately at the point would be 53rd Avenue. Now the last uses indicated here are not necessarily indicated by those red squares, but basically just identifcation of the general land use. The area to the north is primarily crops and agriculture. The area to the west is primarily crops and agriculture. The area to the south of this particular area is primarily used for pasture purposes. The area to the east is pri- marily crops. From the standpoint of development of this particular project, it definitely is colored more specifically by the topography. As indicated on the vicinity map showing the two ridges, this particular area is actually located in somewhat of a bowl oriented toward the north. And as such, the lowest point recognized as the surface drainage, which is primarily located right in here. There are some existing large cottonwood trees which are this small group here, immediately adjacent to the entrance way, the entrance park boulevard. The entrance park boulevard is primarily for the purpose of control, primarily for the purpose of access and it ' s one of the requirements by the Federal Housing Administration to provide adequate, safe, interesting access. A second access point is located at this particular location and also is primarily at their request. However, -30- this secondary access would be controlled only for emer- gencies if such time as this particular two-way system -- there is a problem there. Immediately at the end of the major access boulevard is the administrative building which contains the community facilities and services. From the standpoint of visual amenities, the overall park itself is developed basically into approximately four components or four specific areas so that these par- ticular mobile units can be considered somewhat independent of the overall, yet inter-related to the remainder. So this is a little larger area. The areas that are designated as tan are for the mobile home lots themselves. The area that is green is indicated as the open space for visual use and also physi- cal use. The area adjacent to the property line or limits of the project is what we call the mobile home park set- back, which is a continuous strip of ground around the entire area, allowing for fencing, if necessary, land- scaping that would be compatible and somewhat equal to the City of Greeley' s park system. And that is so stipulated in the planned unit development requirements on the map to the left. The circulation pattern coming from the main entry boulevard is a collector road that actually goes around each specific area and comes back to the main point. The individual cul-de-sacs or T-type streets are very short and only serve the individual units along that street with a -31- turn-around or back-around at the end of it. However, on each mobile home site there is actually a turn-around point for two cars, two-car parking off street for each unit, and that detail is located on the white panel at this particular location. The brown and rectangular colored units symbolizes the single-wide unit which is approxi- mately 12 feet wide and a double-wide unit which is approx- imately 24 foot wide, each of course having a two-car off street parking. The topography as such, being a relatively bowl shaped area and sloping off to the north, provides excel- lent long-range views of the mountains and of the valley to the north. Now each one of these builing groups are inter-connected with pedestrian accessways, indicated again by a green panel that provides for the pedestrian, the homeowners living within this group, who actually go across to the clubhouse or within this upper area to gain access down through the park to the clubhouse and also from the northwesterly quadrant to walk through and to the club- house. There are other spots from the mobile home park setback area to also gain acess from it to the street. And also at each end of the cul-de-sac or T-type street would be access not only for the pedestrians but also for maintenance equipment to maintain the park in its proper character. Within the mobile home lot itself the minimum distance -32- between units, looking over to the white panel, the mini- mum distance between units would be 25 feet, which in actuality is more than most subdivision requirements for single-family homes. The setback is adequate from the street, setback is adequate from the rear, and the setbacks are taken care of immediately opening up onto this park area which would be maintained of course by the management of the project. Another item which is rather important for most single- family homeowners is what do we do with our boats if we are so inclined to have boats, and what can we do with camper trailers if we are so inclined to have those. There is a requirement and also a stipulation that 's recognized within this overall project area which are located in these two corners, which is indicated as a service storage area, which is providing approximately 100 square feet per mobile home lot, providing this space for the camper trailers, motorcycles, boats, et cetera. So there would not be allowed any camper trailers, boats, et cetera, within the mobile home lot itself, but they would actually be located within these storage areas. These storage areas would be properly fenced for protection and properly fenced for security and also properly lighted. From the standpoint of this particular project and any project that we have been associated with, the pur- pose of course is to provide a business and a business that is economical. And that business of course is related -33- specifically to the type of services that are provided these individuals that desire to rent. If the mobile home park is not developed properly, constructed pro- perly, maintained properly and managed properly, they will not desire to stay here, nor will they desire to rent a mobile home unit, which I 'm referring to actually a lot. So, therefore, the attractiveness of this par- ticular area is not only recognized to the individuals that live there but also recognizes that of property immediately adjacent to this subject tract or some similar tract and also recognizes the properties within vision of this particular tract. I have a statement here which could answer and may answer some of the property owners ' concern, and that is concerning the depreciation of property values of the area adjacent to a mobile home park. Patrick Barton, a former Director of the Federal Housing Administration from the State of Indiana was asked this statement about the depreciation of property. He said in a letter to the Indiana Mobile Home Association, I quote, " In our opinion, a good, modern mobile home park has no appreciable effect on property values of any adjoining properties. " "There are also examples in this State of fine sub- divisions of 25 to 40 thousand dollars, brick or stone residences being built on land immediately adjoining a mobile home housing development with no effect on sales or values. " -34- From the standpoint of planning, this anticipates potential needs of the community and also recognizes the particular project, particular land must remain versatile. And this type of housing will permit the recognition of natural changes in the economy, natural changes in structures and natural mobility of the population, and also would recognize theproblems of providing housing for moderate income level, . Are there any questions? MR. LORENSON: I have one. Would you point out any drainage retention or detention areas to take care of drainage? MR. KELLY: Sorry, I couldntt hear that. THE WITNESS: Mr. Kelly, the question was would I please point out the drainage retention or detention areas as required for the storm runoff. Preliminary studies were made by Nelson, Haley, Pat- terson & Ouirk regarding utilities and also surface runoff. The retention areas, since this general tract is sloping toward the north, you must recognize the existing drainage pipes that are crossing Fourth Avenue, and immediately adjacent to the entrance boulevard, as retention or detention areas to hold back and reduce the flow of water. This detention spot is primarily graded as a grasp swale so that water will build up as a fast runoff from these adjacent streets within the project area and will flow off slowly througha small pipe of approximately four or six inch -35- diameter. At this particular area, within the mobile home park setback, is also a short and small retention area which actually picks up only a very small portion of this tract. There is another one, another detention area located right here that is picking up this small area of the tract. There is a detention area right here that is picking up this small area of the tract. And there is a detention area right there which picks up this small area of the tract. I might add on the south perimeter of this particular project area there exists an irrigation ditch that will intercept a small portion of the drainage from the existing ridge, that is approximately in this particular location. I believe that covers your question, Mr. Lorenson, con- cerning retention or detention drainage basins within this particular tract. The existing pipes that are crossing Fourth Street, FourthStreet extended, is right here and there is one right here which would not be over-burdened what- soever from any additional or fast runoff. The existing pipes would be quite capable of handling the surface drainage. MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Kessler, wouldwu mind pointing out, I don ' tbelieve you pointed out the location of the clubhouse and the swimming pool area. THE WITNESS: The clubhouse is a part of the admini- strative and services recreational facilities located at -36- this point, immediately opposite and in line with the main entrance, park boulevard entrance. The club' s recreation facilities and swimming pool would be immediately south and within this green area as I 'm indicating here on the colored slide. MR. KAROWSKY: What is the density of units per acre on this project as you have presently designed it? THE WITNESS: Density of this particular project is 6. 5 mobile home units per gross acre. The total acreage is 38 acres, which would constitute 247 mobile home units. MR. KAROWSKY: Now have you any comparisons with other mobile home developments with which you have been associated in the metropolitan areas? THE WITNESS: Yes. The national average is approxi- mately seven plus. It varies of course with the configu- ration of the property and the topographic problems. Two of the recent projects have been 7. 9 or approximately 8 mobile home units per gross acre. It 's somewhat of a similar development as this. MR. KAROWKSY: I believe you testified to this, but am I correct that there are 25 feet between each unit? THE WITNESS: Yes, there is 25 feet from wall to wall to each unit. MR. KAROWSKY: Which actually exceeds what is required in many single-family subdivisions; is that correct? THE WITNESS: That is correct, yes. MR. KAROWSKY: How many acres, if you know, are -37- devoted for recreational purposes within the perimeter of this project, Mr. Kessler? THE WITNESS: The area that's colored green is 11. 3 acres. This is what we considered as open space. However, the area that is brown actually has a substantial amount of open space also. But we want to designate just the difference between the land use. The area in brown would be basically maintained by each individual mobile home dweller. The area in green would be maintained by the park management. MR. KAROWSKY: The area that 's designated in brown contemplates each mobile home owner maintaining his own little yard with grass plantings and things of that nature? THE WITNESS: Yes, small amount of planting adjacent to the mobile home unit itself and a very small amount of lawn that 's there. MR. KAROWSKY: All right. Now other than possibly the area of density, are you aware of any factors which exist within the perimeter of this development which do not conform to the technical requirements of the regulations of Weld County or of the recommendations of the planning staff? THE WITNESS: The physical design as such, I 'm sure, have met all the requirements so stipulated. MR. KAROWSKY: Now is it not true that an additional requirement has been imposed which may be somewhat bewilder- ing to us and perhaps to the Commissioners, that is the -38- requirement of a fence completely surrounding the area has been imposed? THE WITNESS: Well, the fence was discussed. It may not have gotten actually into a written requirement, but it 's part of the total planned unit development philosophy. In my opinion, fencing isn' t absolutely necessary. We don ' t know whether we' re fencing the people in or fencing the people out. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any more questions? Do you have any here? MEMBER ASHLEY: I have one question. Now all the surface drainage is down that boulevard and out on that County road, is that right, after it leaves those retaining ponds? THE WITNESS: No, not quite all of it, sir. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: If it did, where would it go? THE WITNESS: Well, the configuration of the ground today, the drainage would still continue northward across Fourth Street. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Then where would it go, down in a barrow pit? THE WITNESS: Well, there is a drainage swale that ' s from this particular point on the area to the north that runs diagonally toward what would be 59th. The existing topography out there now, that' s agriculture and crops. I believe this year it was corn. -This drainage would not be increased in velocity as such, because it would be detained -39- within this project area, let off very slowly. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Can I have a question answered, please? If you were to put blacktop all over this hillside here, don ' t you think you would have a lot more drainage than you would have now? THE WITNESS: Only the water that will fall on the ground will flow away. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Naturally. THE WITNESS: Natural direction. And the idea, I 'm sure you ' re familiar with the detention ponds as we call them, it holds water and drains off slowly whether it 's ground, grass or asphalt , concrete, steel or glass, and the design of these detention areas are specifically designed for that purpose. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: How long is it going to be there? THE WITNESS: They will vary in depth from one and a half feet to approximately three and a half feet. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Are they going to be fenced in? THE WITNESS: No, because for a period of an hour or so there will be water there, they will be receiving this. This is a national standard, and has been recently developed locally for the Denver Urban Drainage Study which I was associated with, and it 's being put into effect all over the metropolitan area for retention and detention of storm water falling within project areas so that existing streets and existing storm drainage pipes can channel the water. -40- So it would be designed specifically for the problem. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Where is the entrance to that park in relationship to -- MR. KELLY: Let me ask you a question. THE WITNESS: Could I answer his question first, Mr. Kelly? There is a slight hill. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: There has been several accidents there at that spot. THE WITNESS: That hill, slight hill, is a continuation of this ridge line, and it ' s approximately 600 feet east of the boundary of this particular area. I might add also in the consideration of this particular development, a portion of that hill and road surface may be lowered, to recognize the site distance, which is not really too hazardous even at this point, but also to recognize some of the problems involved as far as sanitary sewer lines extending eastward from this point toward the city limits of Greeley. So that there would not be quite as much cut required for the sanitary sewer to be passing this point UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Isn' t it an oversight that you left the dairy off? THE WITNESS: Right here? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: No, catty-corner. THE WITNESS: Right here? It 's there. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: There is a dairy farm directly opposite your storage area, junk yard. That ' s a dairy right there. -41- CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Let 's keep this hearing in order now. We want your names when you speak. THE WITNESS: As I brought out originally, the desig- nation of a general land use was put on the map for your reference. The colors were not specifically locating the exact point of the ownership. We didn ' t have the total ownership of that particular area. The idea is basically to make reference to this type of land use, not necessarily that that is a cattle area, or diary as you say it is, and I know that it is a dairy. It 's not located at that point. But generally, as far as the land use is concerned, that ' s the use. I stand corrected. Yes, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: Mr. Kessler, there are two ridges on this land, are there not? THE WITNESS: Are you referring to the project area? MR. KELLY: This land we're talking about, yes. THE WITNESS: Yes, there are two ridges. MR. KELLY: And you would run the drainage from all that down between the two ridges? THE WITNESS: Have to. That ' s the way it goes right now. MR. KELLY: Whose land would it go onto? THE •WITNESS: The adjacent property owner that it flows across right now. MR. KELLY: Here you have marked some things in red squares. What do they intend to indicate? -42- ten o'clock tomorrow morning and that way each person can be heard. If we try to rush this thing, somebody is not going to be able to be heard, and everybody has a chance to be heard in this hearing. We will adjourn till ten o'clock tomorrow morning, if we run until 4:00, 4:30 with Mr. Karowsky ' s witnesses. That ' s what it will take. But at the end of that time we will adjourn until ten o' clock tomorrow morning. All right. MR. KAROWSKY: For the benefit of the Commission, we only have one more witness and that' s Mr. Brad Wolff, the developer, and I would ask him to proceed right now. Mr. Wolff, you will identify yourself for the record, where you live and that you are the Applicant and you pro- ceed with your testimony, please. MR. WOLFF: Yes. I am Brad Wolff. I am President of Brad Wolff and Associates, who will be the developers and builders of this property. I live and have my offices in Denver and live in Englewoof. I have previously been associated for quite a few years with projects here in Greeley, which we will have a few brief slides of. I would like to say that I have enjoyed my relationships in Greeley. And one of the reasons I chose Greeley instead of possibly Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, or some other place, is because of the fine relationships I ' ve had with the people of the Greeley area. I will say this: That I take pride in presenting this as any other real estate development I ' ve ever done. -44- As Mr. Karowsky said, I am a developer and builder and not a speculator. I 've never speculated on a piece of ground in my life. I ' ve always developed it. And that goes back to 1947. Now this, in a lot of ways, these mobile home parks really are a little more satisfying to a developer than some of the more higher-priced condominiums and housing developments we' ve done because I find that the people who live in these do so by choice and because they love the way of life. And they 're, frankly, quite a bit easier to get along with generally than some of the people we have in our subdivisions, condominiums and so forth. We feel at this time it is satisfying a very major need, and that ' s our business. As I 'm sure I don' t have to tell you folks, over the years as a real estate developer you have to develop a feel for location and timing. If you don ' t, you' re out of business. And, fortunately, we' re still in business and we feel it 's because of using such experts as we' ve brought here today, and advanced and helped us plan the proper kind of community. And then the kind of feel you just get through years of development that a certain thing should be done in certain places at certain times. And I honestly feel, after very careful consideration of the whole thing, that this is the job to be done here at this time, and is the best thing to do at this time. I might say that I have in my mind a feasibility study -45- from the Federal Housing Administration, which indicates that they agree with this; and FHA does not go along and guarantee a 40—year loan if they don ' t feel that it 's feasible, I know of one park in Longmont just recently that is just outside the city of Longmont, some vacant ground that they applied for 320 some spaces and the Federal Housing Administration came back and said there is only a necessity for 150 at this time. That 's all you can develop. In this case they approved the entire development as being feasible in Greeley at this time. They have a very great stake in that kind of thing. Now this is our Three Fountains Garden Condiminium, which incidentally Jerry Kessler did. I am very proud of this project. This is the type of thing that we did. Now admittedly a high-priced project in the Denver area, this is 114 units and still continuing. And believe me, I 'm not going to hurt my reputation anywhere that hurts any of my other developments. We take a great deal of pride. And, as a matter of fact, I think over the years my experience has been more one of over-developing in neighborhoods than under-developing. Frankly, as far as this density is concerned, I wanted eight to the acre. Pencilwise, that 's what it should be. The six and a half that Burman and Mr. Kessler finally beat me down to was very begrudgingly because I think we could do a very nice job. After all, it really isn ' t the density that counts so much, it ' s how you do the density. With all -46- the open areas, withthe layout, using professional land planning, engineer and so forth. One project at eight , to the acre can be a project that 's better than one at five, and that 's been proved time and time again. However, I 'm willing to accept the six and a half because they just plain beat me down to it. But at some point the pencil, the banker and the economic feasibility says you can ' t go any farther. Now this is a rental project, because I firmly believe it 's the best kind of a mobile home project. We can keep absolute control. We have control over °who lives there. If there is any neighborhood problems, we have immediate eviction processes, where if you sell sites and people move their units in there, you might have protective cove- nants, you might have the Homeowner ' s Association. I think we all know how well those things work in the case of a real crisis. So that this is a case of good strong manage- ment, setting criterion rules such as skirting, which we will insist on, and this is the kind of thing that really makes a very nice development of good community-minded people. And keep in mind, please, that these people do own their units, they do not rent their units. They rent the pad and they have the same pride of ownership that many do who own homes, and certainly more than apartment dwellers. They have their little plot of ground. While they don ' t own it, they maintain it, and they ' re proud of it and they consider it their own. If the neighbor's dog gets on it, -47- believe me, they will tell you whose piece of ground they think that is. So you have a happy combination between renting and owning, which gives civic pride and good neighbors, good people to have in your community. Charlie, if I may have the next one. For those of you who do not know, these are some apartments we developed at 16th Street and Ninth Avenue, 1964, ' 65, ' 66. We ' re proud of those. Those had balconies when they weren ' t putting balconies on apartments in the Greeley area. A lot of you are familiar with these. MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Wolff, these are in the Greeley area; is that correct? MR. WOLFF: They are in the City of Greeley, yes. The Sherwood Park subdivision, we picked up and carried on after it had been started by another developer. You will notice the class of homes, a lot more brick than generally had been used I think as an average in the Greeley area. We' re justifiably proud of what we did in Sherwood Park, some 70 odd homes there, and we would have stayed there except in 1966, as I think you will all recall, the housing financing market got pretty slim and it just got to be a little bit too tough to fight the battle for the time being. So that 's the history of our background in the Greeley area, with local partners, local bankers, and I 've made a lot of good local friends here. Now here is a shot of the park you have heard about in -48- Golden Terrace, which is completed, and we have moved 200 people in here between June 15th and today. Today we' ll hit our two hundredth tenant. You can see the demand. This happens to be a park that allows adults only. But the demand is even greater where you have some family involvement. But these people have a gread deal of pride in landscaping. They go in and we plant the little trees you see at each one, and a lot of them. Now here is your Christmas type thing. We have Christmas contests and give prizes for lighting. Now this was just taken this last Christmas. These people have pride of ownership as I say. I ' ve had the question asked of me, as a matter of fact, would I move into one of these myself and all I can say is I insisted my mother move into this one up here,where she was living in an apartment and couldn ' t really afford it. And for the same amount of money she could live in a nice location and with a little plot of ground and enjoy it. Here is your clubhouse at Golden Terrace. Another shot of the clubhouse. Swimming pool. Something along these lines. We haven ' t got definite designs yet, but whatever fits in this particular type of park we ' ll do. The City has no maintenance here. People enjoy themselves at these places. As you can see, they' re very nice people, they' re not anybody that anybody should be ashamed of. Pool tables. It 's a fine way of life, especially for newly marrieds and older people whose children have left. Generally speaking, we do not have school age children, -49- because this is a little too tight living for school age children and that 's true nationwide. That 's our clubhouse lighted for Christmas. This is a lady in one of her mobile home kitchens. Now, folks, that is the interior of a mobile home at Golden Terrace. This is not a special made job or anything else. This is very typical of the type of doublewides that we have there. If that ' s a trailerhouse or a shack, why, I ' ll take it. While it 's one of the better ones, there are many there that it 's typical of in many of the modern parks. By the way, we do not allow any type of older units to move in. Each one is subject to inspection. Generally speaking, we don ' t allow any unit less than 12 feet wide and generally not over three years old unles it 's in particularly good shape. This is part of our park requirements. We require skirting. We plant or sod, depending on the case, the law, so we're assured of having lawns in. MR. KAROWKSY: Would you explain the terminology skirting, please? MR. WOLFF: This is what has been objectionable in the past where people store all kinds of junk under the mobile home and it 's just left exposed and it makes the whole thing look like a junk yard. It ' s an absolute requirement of ours, subject to eviction, that they skirt within 90 days, which gives them time to finance it and get the job done. Also we require that they maintain -50- their yards or they ' re subject to eviction, because we planted them or sodded them and it ' s cost us a lot of money. And from there on, they -take it. We have contests for landscaping, pay prizes, this type of thing. So that it 's just the thing that nobody needs to be ashamed of. It 's a fine way of life, and it 's an affordable way of life for people who don ' t want to live in apartments and who maybe for one reason or another can either not afford a home or are tired of the home. We have many people in Golden Terrace who can well afford 30, 40, 50 thousand dollar homes. They don ' t want them. This is the size ground they want, this is the size home they want, and it frees them to do some traveling and a few other things. For the young married couple, it 's a thing that 's sometimes more easily financed than a home. And it gives them a little yard rather than having their small children have to be in some type of high-rise or even low-rise apartment with very little play area. A plot of ground of their own. I 'd like, if I may, to read a letter here from the City Manager in Golden, dated July 24th, 1970. MR. KELLY: To who is it? MR. WOLFF: This is from the City Manager of Golden addressed to me. MR. KELLY: What does that have to do with this land out in Section 3? MR. WOLFF: Well, Mr. Kelly, it shows performance. That 's all, Lots of times people -- -51- MR. KELLY: Built any buildings on this land that you ' re asking to have rezoned? MR. WOLFF: No, I haven ' t. MR. KELLY: It 's all if, isn' t it? MR. WOLFF: No, it isn ' t if. I 've never had an if project yet. I 'm ready, willing and able to develop it. MR. KELLY: Do you own any land adjoining this pro- ject? MR. WOLFF: I don ' t own any land. MR. KELLY: Do you own any east of it? MR. WOLFF: No, sir. MR. KELLY: West of it? MR. WOLFF: No, sir. MR. KELLY: Do you live in the neighborhood? MR. WOLFF: No, sir, I don ' t. MR. KELLY: That isn ' t in Golden, is it? CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Go ahead and read the letter into the record. MR. WOLFF: "The City Engineer, Victor Seiferth, and myself have just returned from an inspection tour of your Golden Terrace Mobile Home Park development. "We are both very pleased with the progress that has been made. Most of the requirements demanded under the PD agreement have been met and those remaining are rapidly being accomplished. "We are pleased particularly about the way you are sodding the spaces. Your method of setting the mobile home -52- and then sodding the lot seems to make a lot of sense. "The Inspector reports that all utility services (water, sewer and telephone) are installed to each of the 264 spaces as well as the Club House and swimming pool. Concrete patios are completed on all 264 spaces, also. We noted that as of yesterday there were 44 "homes" set, all of which had sod and street lights. It appeared that about half of the "homes" had skirts on and others were in pro- cess of being installed. There has been approximately 90 storage sheds set. The Club House and swimming pool are nearing completion. "Progress to date indicates an excellent mobile home development that will be outstanding in the area. " And I might add that in Golden we were challenged, we had an eight to one vote by City Council to zone the property. It 's in a very nice location on the hillside. It 's right at the point between Highway 6 where it goes to Golden and Highway 40 where it goes on up Mount Vernon Canyon. But we were challenged in court to a referendum or I ' d say that they forced a public referendum, and by a vote of the people of the City of Golden we got our zoning, by a fairly substantial majority. And I think this is some indication that the public, general public, is not opposed to mobile home parks. I also have, and I won' t bore anybody with these, but these are testimonials from the people who had moved in around July, stating that they liked the way we ran the -53- park and they were happy to live there. I think that subject to any question anybody might ask me, I ' ll say this: I am ready, willing and able to develop this. I think that it 's the finest use I can think of with the ground, and it 's something that in no way do I feel that I have any apologies to make to anybody in any way hurting anybody 's property values. I have never done it in my life by any development which I have ever done, which is up to 2,000 apartments, condiminiums, single- family residences. And I don' t intend to do it here. MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Wolff, I may ask a couple of quick questions, please. Am I correct in that the streets constructed within the boundaries of the project are constructed and main- tained by you as the developer? MR. WOLFF: That is true. And they are also constructed and maintained according to specifications that meet all County requirements as far as standing up over the years. MR. KAROWSKY: Am I correct in that garbage, sewage and water services are installed and maintained by the developer, you? MR. WOLFF: That 's true. MR. KAROWSKY: Do you contemplate a resident manager for internal order in this project? MR. WOLFF: Very definitely. At least a resident manager and a wife who work together as a team usually, and sometimes we have an assistant manager, depending on -54- whether we need them or not. MR. KELLY: May I ask a question? MR. WOLFF: Yes. MR. KELLY: Does the FHA have anything to do with changing the zoning of thisproperty? MR. WOLFF: No, sir, not that I would know. MR. KELLY: That 's all. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Are there any other questions? Do you have anything, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: No. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Charlie, do you rest at this time? MR. KAROWSKY: I have just onzitem, Mr. Anderson. This is a clipping from the Business Section of the Denver Post on January the 3rd, which demonstrates the need, not in this county, but in Adams County, but demon- strates what is going on in the State with reference to a mobile home park in Adams County. And it has some signi- ficance in connection with the study which is going to be made available to the Commission. I would ask that it be marked as an exhibit and admitted. MR. KELLY: I don' t think it has anything to do with the zoning of this particular piece of ground and, therefore, I object to it. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We will accept it in evidence for whatever it ' s worth. (Petitioner's Exhibit No, 5 was marked for the purpose of identification and received in evidence. ) -55- MR. KAROWSKY: All that we have read into the record, the letter of testimonial that was just written from the City Manager of Golden on July 24th, 1970, we would like to offer it as an exhibit for the record and ask for permission to withdraw it and substitute a photocopy. And I 'm not sure whether or not, for the record, we asked that Exhibit Number 1, which is the entire file, be admitted. But I presume that has been stipulated to; isn ' t that correct, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. MR. KAROWSKY: We rest. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you have anything else, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: No. It 's my understanding that we will reconvene then at ten o' clock tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That ' s right. Let the record show that we will adjourn at this time and reconvene at ten o' clock in the morning at this same room. All you people will be heard tomorrow at ten o ' clock. MR. KAROWSKY: May I inquire, there is a considerable amount of equipment, and I don ' t know whether or not Mr. Richardson or Mr. Kelly or any of the persons appearing either for or against would like to have the opportunity to review some of the pictures. If we could get an expres- sion of opinion now, we could perhaps leave the a;uipment here. MR. KELLY: I think it would be interesting to the Commission in considering this matter to have that exhibit -56- that was put on in an enlargement of the plain white one there. I think it was inadequate and incomplete and self- serving. MR. KAROWSKY: We' ll have it here. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: At this time we will adjourn and everybody will have a chance to be heard tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. (Recess at 4:00, p.m. , January 13, 1971) -57- Thursday Morning January 14, 1971 10:00, a.m. (Petitioner 's Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 were marked for the purposes of identification. ) CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, we' ll con- tinue this hearing. MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for just one moment, because I think it 's rather awkward to have a stiff mounted plat as an exhibit, I would like to offer one of the miniature plats that could fit in the file as Exhibit 6. And Mr. Burman Lorenson brought to my attention that he did not have a copy of the drainage study and apparently it ' s been misfiled. And this is the drainage study with a report of Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk which was made in October of last year, and I would like it to be part of the file as Exhibit 7. It 's a drainage study by Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk of October the 7th, 1970, of the subject property. And attached to it is a summary. MR. KELLY: Might I look at that? MR. KAROWSKY: Surely. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We' ll accept Exhibit 6, a minia- ture of the official development plan. You can have per- mission to remove that one. At this time the opposition may proceed. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 was received in evidence. ) MR. TELEP: Tom, do you have any objections to this -58- drainage study presentation? MR. RICHARDSON: No. MR. TELEP: Do you have any objections, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: No. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We' ll accept the drainage study as Exhibit No. 7. (Petitioner' s Exhibit No. 7 was received in evidence. ) MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to represent a number of the people who live in the area. And the purpose of that of course is to allow me to make cer- tain statements that they would have made individually if they were called here to speak concerning the proposed change of zone. Now I would like to read into the record the group that has asked me to represent them: Lawrence Hertzke, Luverne Hertzke, Clarence Sitzman, Art Valladao, Doctor and Mrs. Darst, Doctor and Mrs. Brighi, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Mahan, Wayne Deason, Otis Axsom, Charles McGlothlin, Thomas Harrison, Doctor and Mrs. Beaty, Charlie Mylander and Robert Gilbert. Now these people live in the area. They have properties in and around the area and they of course at this point are opposing the change of zone. Now the first point that I would like to bring out is that up to this point in the hearing we have not discussed the general principles of zoning. Now I think in a change of zone of this type you have four basic principles of zoning that the County Commissioners must keep in mind -59- before they agree to change or to give a change of zone. The first one is the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. Now the Planning Commission, as you all well know, is the technical body appointed by the County Commissioners to study the proposed plat and the proposed plan that this land is to be used for. And their primary job is to determine, as was brought out earlier, as to whether or not this plan meets the various technicalities of planning and of zoning and of the type of structure or the type of improvement that is to be made upon the land. Their job is primarily technical and they also have the job of determining whether or not it does fit into the programming for the area as previously planned. That brings us to our point number 2, which is a very important point as far as zoning is concerned. And that is a question as to whether or not this does follow the Com- prehensive Plan that has been adopted by the County, meaning simply that any of these zoning changes that are requested are theoretically to follow the overall plan that the County and the community have for the area. This is a question that has to be answered prior to the changing of the zone: Does it follow the comprehensive plan as pro- grammed by the officials of the County, being the Planning Commission, and the County Commissioners? The third point that must be considered in the change of zone is what are the wishes of the community? Does this abide by the wishes of the other property owners within -60- the areaand does it follow what they have recommended or asked tha-t the area be used for? You-r fourth point in zoning is what is the best use of the land. Is this land to be used for its most pro- ductive and itS best use if you change the zone? Or is this land to be put to a bet-ter use by leaving the zone alone? Or is it to be put to a better use by changing a zone other than the one asked for here at the hearing? And, finally, is there a need for this type of change? You must show a need for this type of change of zone before you have met the requirements for a change of zone. Now these points that I have just now mentioned are the basic requirements to be considered before the governing body here authorizes a change of zone. Now some of the points that were brought up in the hearing and some of the points that my people would like to have brought out are as follows. Number 1: W-e discussed and it was discussed in the hearing about the density here of this planned program, and it was that there would be six and a half units per gross acre. It also was brought out that 30 percent of the gross area was to be open area for recreation, a club- house, trailer, camper, boat parking. Now if you will take 30 percent off of the total acreage, which I believe was 37 acres, you will find that you have left approximately 26 acres. Then if you will divide into that 26 acres the number of units that are to be placed upon this improvement, -61- which I believe was 247, I believe you will find that your density, your net density is going to be far greater than six and a half units per acre. It will figure out approxi- mately nine units per acre. Another point that should be brought out at this time is the question of how the water and the sewage, one, the water is to be brought to the area; two, the sewage is to be taken away. The feeling of the neighborhood is that there would be no easements granted for water to be brought to the area. There will be no easements for sewage to be taken away from the area. This means, then, that you 're going to have to move your water and move your sewage undoubtedly down the barrow pits. I think you all know the rules of the Health Department, and that is if you have a water line and, as I understand it, there is a water line on the north side of the road in the barrow pit, that you cannot run a sewage line above that water line, because of the possibility of that sewer line leaking and the water then percolating on into your water line or a possibility that it might. This means then that the only barrow pit available would be on the south side and, if I understand correctly, there is a gas line running down the south side. So that I think there is no doubt but what there will be a serious limitation as to where the water and sewage lines may be placed in order to facilitate and take care of this type of a proposal. Now your next point is that you have a problem with -62- drainage. Some of the gentlemen here, and were here yesterday, state that if there is a two-inch rain there is a definite problem with drainage, that it does flood across the road to the north with simply that much water. We all know that if this area is developed with asphalt flats and the roads and the hard tops of the trailers, that you increase the runoff following a rain or following a storm, which undoubtedly will increase the drainage then to the north and cause some flooding on the land that borders or is adjacent to this project. There is serious doubt in the neighbors ' minds as to whether or not the negineer for the project has properly provided for the needed drain- age that will be required for a project of this kind without causing damage to the neighbors primarily to the north and the northwest. Another question that has been raised by some of the neighbors of the area is in the actual use of the project, stating that, well, we will hide it with a fence. And of course the question is raised, well, if you have to hide it with a fence so that it won ' t be seen, then what type of structure are you having on the inside, why does it need to be fenced. Of course this reminds me that it may be new Union Colony starting, because when the original Union Colony was formed it was fenced in. So maybe this is some- thing that we' re advancing after our Centennial year so that we will have a new Union Colony. Another very important point that the neighbors have -63- raised, and of course they were in on this from sometime back, and that is your 1961, ' 62 and ' 63 water project entered into by Greeley and Loveland, which means the farmers of the area and the City of Greeley. I won' t bore you with the detail, but you all know that this water, being Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, as well as the district water owned by Greeley-Loveland, its various companies, was obtained by the City of Greeley for the prime purpose of allowing the City of Greeley to grow to the west. If you will remember, many individual water companies were beginning to move in on the City of Greeley and there would be absolutely no control of building in the future, because the individual water companies could care less as to what type of building would go into their areas. This was a major reason for the City and the farmers of the Greeley-Loveland in entering into this water pro- ject, Secondly, of course, was to obtain water for future development and for the community. Now at that time these people envisioned, and I think there was a possibility that the planning group of the county, which was then the County Commissioners, that this area should be developed into residential growth, and that the residential growth of Greeley and the farm community, which would subsequently be put into subdivisions, would end up in one-family dwellings, duplexes andapartments for this area; that the industry, commercial, business, would be located in the -64- other directions, primarily south, east and north; that these were the natural boundaries for this type of thing. To the south you were bounded by the Town of Evans which was expanding to the west, and also future plans for the By-pass 34. To the east you were tied in with feedlots, and this will undoubtedly be an industrial growth area to the east. And to the north you were stopped by Monfort 's and by the natural barrier, the river, Cache La Poudre. Therefore, any planning group more or less was locked in with a plan of residential, apartment and duplex use for the land lying to the west. And to put a broundary on it presently, it would be the by-pass, Number 34, to the soutp and the Cache LaPoudre River to the north. And within those boundaries and where your natural resource, which few towns have and communities have but Greeley and Weld County have, would be used for this type of purpose and that this would be this type of building as we expand to the west. Now these are the points that these people feel should be considered by the County Commissioners prior to making this zoning change or any other zoning change in this particular area. Now anotherpoint that was mentioned was that the Proponents have spent a great deal of money and invested a great deal of money in planning and programming and in presenting this change of zone to you. This is true. There is no doubt about it. Under the rules of the -65- Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, you do have to spend a great deal of money in plats, in program- ming, in bringing in men who have studied the economic structures and who have engineered a plat program that you ' re looking at now. On the other hand, they' re not the only ones that have spent a great dealof money in the area. You must also consider that the farmer in improving his land, leveling it, in irrigating it, has also a great investment in the area and in his particular land that he owned. So that you cannot weigh or should not try to weigh who has spent the most money and, therefore, the one that has on the smallest piece of land should have a change of zone. Theyr ' e all involved. Now you can talk about what type of building is going here. You can talk about how the streets are going to be programmed and how the drainage is going to work, how the water is going to be brought and how the sewage is to be taken away. But you get back to the principles of zoning and those -- and I ' ll probably tell you those again in the summation -- but those are, does it follow the recommenda- tions of the Planning Commission; does it follow your comprehensive plan for this area; what are the wants of the community; has there been a need shown for this additional space to be devoted to trailer parks within the County of Weld; and what is the best use of this land for the future development of the County and the community of Greeley. Now these are the points that the people that I -66- represent have asked be brought forth and be presented to the Commission. And I have done it in this manner rather than parade these people in front of you one at a time and probably in the number of 14 or 15 people. Mr. Kelly, would you like to make some remarks? MR. KELLY: I ' d rather make my statement later. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Tom, do you have any of the neighbors that want to make a statement personally? MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, Mr. Anderson, I do have. MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if Mr. Richardson would read into the record the addresses of the people that he is representing. MR. RICHARDSON: If the Commission please, I would like to have the right to furnish these addresses to you following the hearing, and I will take them out of the Weld County Directory for that purpose. Now a few of them are here. MEMBER BILLINGS: Tom, could we have these people give their name and address and location? MR. RICHARDSON: I ' ll call On them now, if you will permit me to do so. Starting here at the rear and on my right, sir, if you would stand and give your name and address, if you are against the project. MR. MAHAN: I am William Mahan, and I have the farm just west. MR. RICHARDSON: Just west of the planned project? MR. MAHAN: Yes. -67- MR. RICHARDSON: What is your address? MR. MAHAN: Route 3, Box 167. MRS. MAHAN: I 'm Mrs, Mahan, the same address. MR. RICHARDSON: You feel the same as your husband, correct? MRS. MAHAN: Yes, very much. MR. RICHARDSON: All right. Next person, please. MR. HERTZKE: Lawrence Hertzke, my wife Betty. We live just east of the property, Route 3, Box 93. LUVERNE HERTZKE: Luverne Hertzke, my wife, Route 3, Box 91. MRS. DARST: Mrs. John Darst,1000 - 48th Avenue. MR. VALLADAO: Art Valladao, Route 3, Box 95. MR. SITZMAN: Clarence Sitzman, 1000 - 50th Avenue. MR. RICHARDSON: Now the other names I read into the record, if I may have permission, I will furnish you their addresses as soon as I can get hold of a Weld County Directory. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That will be accepted, MR. RICHARDSON: All right. Now, Mr. Valladao has mentioned to me that he would like to make a statement before the Commission concerning the drainage. Mr. Valladao, do you want to come up here and sit and tell them about the drainage, and we' ll proceed as they did by just letting you talk without questions. MR. VALLADAO: This drainage that will drain off of this place and across the road and on to mine and through mine on to Charlie Mylander' s, the drain there is an 18-inch -68- drain across the road. And when I developed mine about three years ago, I put an eight-inch drain through my place and it handled it from then till now properly. But if they pave all this hill up there, which they will, I doubt it if 'my drain will handle it then. And they ' re talking about these little potholes they ' re talking about, and I just don ' t think that will work worth a darn, because they can ' t afford to make them that big to make them work. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I have a question now. This eight-inch drain you ' re talking about, is that a seepage drain or is that for flood water? MR. VALLADAO: No. It 's runoff water. MEMBER BILLINGS: Art, where do you have that drain at that goes across your place, above your loafing sheds? MR. VALLADAO: Yes, it ' s right by one loafing shed, cuts across that back corral, MEMBER BILLINGS: You drop that into that sheep Creek, is it? MR .VALLADAO: Right. It goes through Charlie Mylander's place and on down. MEMBER BILLINGS: That ' s an 18-inch tile? MR. VALLADAO: No, I ' ve got an eight. But coming across the road it ' s either a 16 or 18. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Go ahead, MR. VALLADAO: That ' s it, We' ll have problems. My corrals will be flooded if any water, I mean rain that would amount to anything. -69- CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: All right. Do you have anything else? MR. VALLADAO: No. MR. KAROWSKY: May I ask him a couple questions? Mr. Valladao, where is your property located? MR. VALLADAO: To the northwest. MR. KAROWSKY: To the north and west? MR. VALLADAO: Right, I 'm the feedlot over there. MR. KAROWSKY: Yes. What is really the dairy, right? MR. VALLADAO: Right. MR. KAROWSKY: You have not had an opportunity, have you, to see the drainage study that 's been done by Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk on this? MR. VALLADAO: Not really. I mean, have you presented it here? MR. KAROWSKY: It ' s here. And I might for your bene- fit state that the conclusions made by Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk was that the detention ponds are sufficient to retain all the storm water generated by the design within the development and will cause less runoff to the adjacent properties than they now experience. Now may I ask you a question? MR. VALLADAO: Yes. MR. KAROWSKY: Would you object to this development if it were, say, an R-1 development? MR. VALLADAO: I don ' t know what an R-1 is. MR. KAROWKSY: Building residential. -70- MR. VALLADAO: No, I wouldn ' t. MR. KAROWSKY: Or apartments' or condominiums, wouldn ' t this cause a drainage problem? MR. VALLADAO: Well, it can ' t be as bad as this is, because this is on the hill and it will be practically all paved, won ' t it, with the exception of just a little area that will have a lawn around the house. MR. KAROWSKY: All I 'm suggesting is, sir, I appreci- ate and understand your concern about the drainage problem, but we are obliged of course to rely on qualified engineers and experts who design these things, MR. VALLADAO: Right. MR. KAROWSKY: And they have done a detailed topo study on this thing and they have done a detailed prepa- ration of these various detention ponds and they come up with a conclusion that you ' re going to have less runoff. This is the engineers ' estimate. And they design these for storm capacities, that they say it will cause less runoff to the adjacent properties than they now experience. Now actually if this were developed for apartments, condo- miniums, R-1 development, private homes, there would still have to be paving, there would still be runoff, there would still be streets that would accumulate water, and -- MR. VALLADAO: Would there be as much, though? MR. KAROWSKY: Well, apparently the engineers are not at all concerned about this, because they conclude that the design as they have created is going to be less than -71- what now presently runs off, and all I 'm interested in is if you have some facutal basis to assume other than a conclusion that there is going to be a lot of hard surface up there that the draingage problem would be greater than it is now? MR. VALLADAO: Well, I can ' t see why it shouldn ' t be greater if you pave that. Pavement isn ' t going to absorb water like that farm ground does now, will it? MR. KAROWSKY: Well, my function of course is not to argue with you. MR. VALLADAO: I don ' twant to argue really. MR. KAROWSKY: What the engineers have done is to design this thing so that the only water that can flow on to your property is the rain water that falls on this particular piece. MR. VALLADAO: Right. Right. MR. KAROWSKY: Because it ' s at a high point at the south and will not collect any water that comes from the south. Now they apparently have designed these retention ponds so that it will permit slow absorption of the water and you will get less drainage than you do now. Do you have a problem now? MR. VALLADAO: No. MR KAROWSKY: No problem now? MR. VALLADAO: No problem. MR. KAROWSKY: You will have even less of a problem according to this engineering statement. -72- MR. VALLADAO: Right. MEMBER BILLINGS: This is kind of direct and maybe you wouldn' t want to answer it. But if you were assured that you weren' t going to have a water problem with your dairy, and I 'm familiar with that area, would you still object to a mobile homepark being built in the area? I think my map here, that I ' ve been looking at, that pos- sibly there can be some changes made to control this runoff. This is my concern also. So the thang I would ask, do you still object for any reason for this type of facility being put in there? MR. VALLADAO: Well, I don' t know. I 'm going by what the neighbors tell me, These trailer parks are all around town with the exception of directly west. And my feeling has been, from what the neighbors have said, is that they would sort of like to reserve this area for residential, which is ideal. And we' ve got oodles of other property that is probably better for these mobile homes than that is there. MEMBER BILLINGS: I think that basically you would prefer somethang else other than mobile homes is what you' re saying? MR. VALLADAO: Right. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any more questions? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Hertzke, would you like to make a statement to the Commissioners? Here again, Mr. Lawrence Hertzke will speak to the Commissioners without questions -73- and just make a statement . LAWRENCE HERTZKE: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to add too much to what our counsel has spoke to you. He has given you our feelings and I do wantto make one comment on the drainage. As Mr. Valladao has stated, that any time we do get a one or two-inch rain, we do have water over the road. We have been in this area or on our farm since ' 47, and I can honestly say there probably hasn ' t been two or three years in that time that water has not flowed over the road. And the comment that wasmade yesterday by one of the professional gentlemen that all that was needed was a four-inch line underneath the road probably was, oh, I would say a statement of his ability to analyze that situation. Those of us who have lived in the area so long could have done a lot better job by just -- by just viewing it. That statement was, I don ' t know, it left much to be desired. The comprehensive plan that Mr. Richardson has talked about I feel is one of the most important of our whole area. And here I 'm not just talking about my immediate area but the whole west-of-Greeley area, that we have a nice area going out west of Greeley and Southwest and northwest, and we would surely like to keep it this way. We hope that some day we in Greeley, and I trust that you as Commissioners, will have enough ability to see this, that Greeley is not known as a trailer city, if we have trailers completely surrounding the city, which I hope you gentlemen will take in real good consideration. I really -74- have no other comments. MEMBER BILLINGS: Lawrence, I have two or three questions I would like to ask you. You are right on the curve? MR. HERTZKE: Yes, right past the curve. We have one farm adjacent to the Mosier property which I think the gentleman yesterday stated that if this park goes in, then they will want the property immediately east of it in the same type of zoning which then would be adjacent to our property, yes. MEMBER BILLINGS: Here again, you have indicated that your main problem or your main concern at this point, one of them, is runoff. And this comprehensive plan, I think maybe we ought to clarify this. The City of Greeley has, as I understand, I ' ve never seen one and nobody else seems to have seen one at this point, has been having a compre- hensive plan put together. Burman, where are we, are we going to be able to get this comprehensive plan and see what the City of Greeley is talking about? MR. LORENSON: Our Planning Department has seen the comprehensive plan. The Greeley Planning Commission has also seen it. And there has been a field study and work sessions between the Greeley Flanning Consultant and the Greeley Planning Commission to review each section of the comprehensive plan. And as soon as they have finished the review and make their recommendation, it will be passed on to City Council. -75- MEMBER BILLINGS: I just wanted to bring this out at this point, that I know that there has been something done along this line for comprehensive planning, but because of federal funding or something nobody seems to really have been able to study it. So at this point this Board knows little about Greeley 's Comprehensive Plan. And maybe you know more. MR. HERTZKE: No, I don ' t think we do. Although we, probably just like you, what you have heard in the papers and this type of thing. But I think here, we as West Greeley residents are probably just as much at fault as the City. Maybe we haven ' t pushed hard enough. Maybe we haven' t cooperated or worked enough on this type of thing. And I can assure you that the area is ready now to work with the City, whether it be moneywise or timewise; that we are interested in working out a plan that will not only cover our area but possibly cover the whole area to where we will be satisfied that the growth of Greeley will be done in an organized way rather than a spotted way. MEMBER BILLINGS: One other question, really isn' t pertinent to this. I 'm trying to establish maybe where the City sewer and gas and water lines are at this time. Are they out as far as your place yet? MR. HERTZKE: Yes, they ' re both out, as counsel stated, the water line is on the north side of the road in the barrow pit and the major gas line is on the south side of the road. -76- MEMBER BILLINGS: Sewer isn ' t out that far? MR. HERTZKE: No. Sewer is a mile and a half away. It 's down about 40th, something like that. MEMBER BILLINGS: Just the water and the gas? MR. HERTZKE: Right. MEMBER BILLINGS: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I would like to ask one question. Do you know how wide that right of way is out there? MR. HERTZKE: The road? CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you know what it is from tele- phone pole to telephone pole or fence line to fence line? MR. HERTZKE: I sure don ' t. I sure don ' t. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It ' s a dedicated 60-foot right of way. MR. HERTZKE: I don' t know. MEMBER BILLINGS: I would say it ' s probably pretty close to 60 foot along his place, from telephone pole to telephone pole. MR. LORENSON: Mr. Chairman, on this plan, on this particular plan, in line with the County requirements, this is on a half section line and it shows at least adjacent to this property there will be 40 feet from the centerline of the road, which would give a total right of way, if the north half were developed, of 80 feet, in line with the County requirements. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: From there on east it ' s still 40 feet? -77- MR. LORENSON: That 's right, There is 60 feet they show adjacent to this property, total right of way right now. MR. HERTZKE: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to have the counsel, Mr. Karowsky, tell us how the proposed sewer line will go into Greeley and this type of thing, or is this a fair question? MEMBER BILLINGS: This is a question I ' ll be bringing up in a little while, yes, sir. MR. HERTZKE: Fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you have any questions, Charlie? MR. KAROWSKY: I was just curious, Mr. Hertzke. In the years you have been out there have you had an oppor- tunity to observe whetheror not the cause of the water that comes over the road exclusively comes from this hill or does it accumulate from other areas also? MR. KERTZKE: No. It has to come from that hill, because that ' s a natural drain there. There is no other place for it. And there is no other water that can get in there either. This is true, there is just that one area. MR. KAROWSKY: You heard the conversation with the previous gentleman that I had pertaining to the drainage study and the fact that the engineers are of the opinion that with the design they have created, that it would be less water coming from drainage. If this fact is true, the engineers are correct in this assumption, would this satisfy that requirement? -78- MR. HERTZKE: Well, here again, I have to question his ability, because when he stated that it would only take a four or six-inch line to carry all of the runoff from this area do it would be all out in two hours, well, I ' ve seen it stand there for a day or two before it drained out. And if you do something like this, to get it down to a four-inch line, I question his ability. MR. KAROWSKY: Well, Mr. Hertzke, the drainage study was not done by Mr. Kessler who testified yesterday. It was done by Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk. MR. HERTZKE: Well, he made the statement though. MR. KAROWSKY: Yes. MR. HERTZKE: That all it would take is a four-inch line to take the water. MR. KAROWSKY: Are you concerned about this particular piece of property that we are seeking to rezone or are you concerned about possible future property that you are apprehensive might be developed for the same purpose? MR. HERTZKE: I think I 'm concerned about the whole area. MR. KAROWSKY: The whole area? MR. HERTZKE: The whole area west of Greeley. I would much prefer to have a plan for the whole area rather than of some individual,and not necessarily you folks, spot here and a spot there. MR. KAROWSKY: What you ' re suggesting then is that it is your hope and anticipation that at some future date your -79- land might become considerably more valuable by reason of the fact that you could subdivide it for some purpose, whether it be residential or otherwise? MR. HERTZKE: I presume. MR. KAROWSKY: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Are there any more questions? Do you have any more witnesses, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Commissioner, I don ' t believe there is anyone else here in the audience that wishes to speak. I believe that we have covered everything. We' ll give them one more chance. Anybody else wish to speak on this situation? CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Mr. Kelly, do you have anything to say? MR. KELLY: I would like to have that white projection on the screen. My name is William R. Kelly. I have practiced law in Greeley something over 50 years. My wife owned the land immediately, and I own the land immediately, adjoining this project mobile home area, 1, 750 feet. We bought that land in 1916. It had obvious residential, private resi- dential, and in the ' 30s I started to build a residence there and, well, spent a lot of money. Other things happened. I wanted to point out that this map disregards the neighbors, the neighborhood, and the Applicant here said he wasn' t interested in who were the neighbors. Now we improved that land with enlarging that house -80- and building another full room house, adding water to it, leveling it, putting in line ditches and bringing more of it under irrigation and buying more reservoir water and Colorado Big Thompson water, and then adding city water to the residences there, always with the view in mind that it was residential perpetually. And George Mosier was -- a fellow who has been known for many years -- was owner of this land, of this project. He and Mr. Hertzke and I have been for about 50 years, or his father maybe was director of the West Grapevine Lateral which comes through there. And ten years ago Mr. Mosier wanted us to join in the cause to providing a ditch within a mile of his land there and put Mr. Hertzke and others on. We joined in. I think I paid one-sixth of it. It cost about $11,000. 00, besides interest. And there were arguments that motivated us then that this land had a residential potential, and it was ultimately going to be residential property. It has the attraction abou tit that it has ridges on it on which residential sites can be built without having obstruction of the view of the mountains. And that is one of the valu- able things sought for in Colorado, is to have a view of the high ranges of the mountains. And it 's comparable to the Cottonwood Village property , or ground terrain in its possibilitys, that it has these ridges, it ' s close to the City limits now, and it has the natural possibility of permanent residences, but not for mobile homes, which also permits trailers. -81- The selling point about mobile homes is that you can move them, take them up, leave, put them on a truck and drive off, go somewhere else. The word mobile itself means that it ' s movable. But this property has the natural desirability and fitness for residential property of a permanent nature, not that of a temporary or mobile nature, but a development such as the Cottonwood Village. Of course the plan here would put in double as many families on an acre of ground as what the usual residential development size of a family unit. I think we have all had experience these days, the Commission I mean, and the rest of us, that we travel quite a bit in this country and we get to other areas and are interested in subdivisions and planning, zoning. In my very active practice, from which I 'm retiring, I ' ve had the experience with several subdivisions and zoning cases that go clear to the Supreme Court. Mr. Karowsky was in one of those cases concerning the Fareacres Subdivision. My latest one was with the Cottonwood Village, in which I was attorney for the land- owners. And those things naturally bring up discussions of fitness of ground and the effect of different kinds of improvements and industries and uses of the ground. And we know that this Greeley growth, which began 25 years ago, is extending west, and it 's natural that it ' s going to come to this property which is close to the Aims College, to the Country Club and to a development already arrived at the south end of the Mosier property. We have seen and -82- know that wherever you put a mobile home or trailer park, which this permits, you see no development adjoining it of permanent residential property. That ends the desirability of the property for residential purpose. You may see one line southward, east of Fort Collins, where there is a mobile home across the street and the unusual things hap- pened that half a block away there are permanent residences, but they were built before the mobile home, not since. When it 's zoned and made use for mobile home, that ends its potential desirability for permanent residence purpose as distinguished from mobile purpose. Now this project would adjoin my land, the northwest quarter of Section 3 for 1,750 feet. Right across the corner it would adjoid the Valladao land and right across to the west of it it would adjoin Valladao, I think they have a quarter section at least a half mile in length there, all of which has this same quality of ridges and having the desirability of permanent residential develop- ment. And the Applicant here is not interested in the neighborhood, at least who they are. I think he's failed to consider the fact that he will, by making this mobile home, this change of zoning so it could be made for mobile home instead of residential R-1, will immediately depreciate the value of the property which adjoins it on the east and west and north, which is its natural usefulness and fitness for zoning. And it is plain to me from observation of the -83- effect of mobile homes in the areas here and in Greeley and in California, and I ' ve been in these mobile home areas in California, and elsewhere, happen to be there more than some because having my wife's family living in Southern California and my brother in the San Fransisco Bay area, and I know that the effect of a mobile home as distinguished from permanent residential area destroys, is a blight upon the property for its development for perma- nent residential purpose. That's why we object to the change of zoning that 's sought here to make this a mobile home area instead of a residential area. Of course I have another interest. Apparently this sewage from this area of 247 homes is intended to be dis- charged north, and that ' s our land, north there. That 's about all. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is that all you have, Mr. Kelly? Do you have any questions, Charlie? MR. KAROWSKY: No thank you. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Anything to add, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: No, Mr. Commissioner. MR. MOSIER: May I have the privilege of making a few statements? My name is George Mosier and my former address was Route 3, Box 181. And I was the owner of this pro- perty. Now there has been several misleading statements made on this. My father and A. L. Keltner bought this property in 1917, and at that time Mr. Kelly wrote a letter -84- to A. L. Keltner and W. J. Mosier stating that if they kept a ditch through this area and kept it clean every year they would have the right of way, and if this ditch was built Mr. Kelly would deed that right of way to my father and to Mr. Keltner. My father and Mr. Keltner, believing Mr. Kelly would do this, kept the ditch open. And when I took over the place in 1932, Mr. Kelly had never deeded that right of way. But we kept the ditch open. Later on Mr. Kelly went in and graded the property and eliminated our ditch. But the drainage went right straight through there. Mr. Hertzke made a statement here that the water was ponded up there for two or three days. I have never seen the water ponded up there. Instead of being a four-inch tile across the road, it must be a 16 or something, I don ' t know, but it has never interfered with the flow of the water across there. And as -far as the water going in the northwest corner, the only time that there was ever any flooding across the road was when the road maintainer blocked the tile off with a grader. When it was cleaned out, why, it has never interfered with it. That ' s all I wish to say, unless there are some other questions. MR. KELLY: No. I might say in response to that, that Mosier and Keltner bought in there after I did and I was attorney for George Mosier's father and Keltner. They were wasting water kind of generally across the road there, and -85- I told them that I would give them a right of way on a definite line for irrigation wast e water, not for resi- dential sewage or waste. And I did give them that right of way without charge. I believe there is a deed but it ' s only for irrigation waste water, and it ' s not for 247 homes or mobile homes. MR. MOSIER: What about the rain water that we have had there in the past, were we to have blocked that off some way? CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I 'm going to put a stop to this. We' re not going to get in a ditch water fight here. We could be here all day. Mr. Hertzke, have you anything else? MR. HERTZKE: Mr. Chairman, can I make one statement in reference to George -- I think he misunderstood me or maybe I stated it wrong. But I was using the reference of yesterday where the individual said it justtook a four- inch line to take care of the water. I inferred if it was a four-inch line there, it would take a couple days to drain it off. Right now, yes, there is a big line there, this is true. He insinuated yesterday that it would take a four-inch line to take care of the water. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is there anything else to come before this hearing? MR. RICHARDSON: We have nothing more, Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Karowsky probably wishes to sum up his case and I would like to have the same opportunity. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I would like to ask one question. -86- This sewer concerns me. You have got a water line on the north and a gas line on the south. Where is the sewer line going, down the middle of the road, or has anything been talked about on that? MR. WOLFF: Do you know any more about that than I do? MR. LORENSON: No. MR. WOLFF: All I can say is Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk has assured us that it is feasible, and I 'm sure when they do they take into account, they know where the gas line is and the present water line is. By the way, it ' s not a tappable water line. That ' s not the one we intend to use. We' re not allowed to use that line. We have to go across Highway 34 and pick up the water and come down 59th. The sewer line, we' ve had a tentative bid. We have gone that far. But the engineers have assured us it 's feasible. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That doesn' t answer my question. Where is it going to be located? We've gor a mile and a half of oiled road which is our responsibility. We' re having a lot of problems and I want this a matter of record. Are you people willing to put that road back like you found it; in other words, resurface that mile and a half of road if this road has to be torn up? MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Chairman, I 'm under the impression that Nelson and Haley, and if you desire us to get a report from them we can with reference to the sewer, contemplate that the sewer can be installed. And of course it ' s going -87- to have to be installed whether it 's developed for Mr. Kelly 's and Mr. Hertzke' s purposes or whether it 's developed for our purposes, and .my understanding is that they have already done a study on this. I was going to comment on this in response to Mr. Richardson ' s state- ments. But Mr. Wolff has already responded concerning the water line which is going to come from the south. So we' ve got no problems there. But it is the responsibility of the developer to put the sewer line in with the approval of the County Commissioners in such a manner that it does not unduly interfere with the operation of the County or cause the County any additional expense. And whatever has to be done in order to put the sewer line in will be the responsibility of the developer, period, under the supervision of competent engineers such as Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The thing that concerns me, are we going to have a cut down the middle of that road and a patch in it or, if you have to go into the road, are you going to resurface the road? MR. KAROWSKY: I understand, Mr. Anderson, and I doubt seriously if we have to go into the road. It could be that if we had to go into the road for the entire length, this might make the entire project economically unfeasible, because we understand it would be our obligation to restore the road to its former condition. If there are areas where cuts have to be made because of topography or because of -88- the requirements of the engineer, then I would assume without even having discussed the matter with my client that this would be their responsibility to do and to repair. We' re aware of the fact that the County can ' t assume additional obligations. But we have to defer our judgments to the people who are the experts in this par- ticular area. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We still need somebody, Charlie, with a checkbook. MR. KAROWSKY: With a checkbook, that ' s right. MR. WOLFF: So that it may not seem like I 'm avoiding a question, this is not mine to answer alone, Mr. Anderson. First of all, I 'm not sure whether it has to go into the pavement or whether it doesn ' t. I ' ve been told it 's feasible. But in this case, this doesn ' t have to be my money I 'm promising. I think Mr. Karowsky' s answer is right, this happens to be involved with the present owners; that sewer line is usable to more than this property as has been brought out and, therefore, there is a sharing of the cost. And so I can' t sit here and commit somebody besides myself. I do know that everywhere I go, that whatever we do, we always have to put back and there is all kinds of regulations that usually cover that. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The thing I was wondering is how we put it back, that 's the thing that concerns me. We have got problems on 20th Street with Western Slope Gas, who cut our shoulders apart out there and now we' re blamed -89- for no road on 20th Street. And I want it brought out on this hearing who is going to be responsible for that road and how. MR. WOLFF: Well, until we know physicall what we' re really dealing with, frankly sitting here right now I don ' t know. Maybe I can go to a telephone and find out,which I will try to do. But we certainly would be glad to make it a contingency of the zoning, any reasonable request. MR. MOSIER: Mr. Anderson, maybe I can clarify one thing in your mind and the rest of the Commissioners. The Bureau of Reclamation has a right of way of, I think it ' s 26 feet, that is on the left-hand side or the owner' s side of the road, which would be the south side. The gas line is in the barrow pit. So the sewer line would have to be clear out of the Bureau of Reclamations ' right of way, and that right of way runs all the way through on Section 3. MEMBER BILLINGS: I ' ve got a question. I would assume, and possibly you can ' t answer this either, Mr. Wolff, that for your gas you would be hooking on to Colorado Interstate right there at the intersection where you are proposing and not having to bring the gas line in from the east or the west, you would be hooking on to that corner? MR. WOLFF: That is my understanding. MR. LORENSON: Mr. Chairman, we have records who they are. Is there a Mel Cole, Assistant Manager -- let ' s see, what company is this? MR. KAROWSKY: Mel Cole, that ' s Greeley Gas Company. -90- MR. LORENSON: These are the ones that would make clearance through. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: At this time, Mr. Lorenson, do you want to make a report of the Planning Commission. MR. LORENSON: Yes, sir. MRS. DARST: Excuse me.. Mr. Chairman, may I insert something here before you go on? I feel compelled to give the emphasis back where it belongs perhaps. We' re con- cerned, yes, about drainage. We' re concerned about water. We' re concerned about the sewage. But I ' d like to remind you again and leave this thought in your minds, every owner, property owner, out in that area, except the area that was sold by Mr. Mosier, is objecting to this happening out there. And I do think that is riding roughshod over all those people for someone to come in and try to do this kind of thing out in this area. I just would like to put the emphasis back where I think it belongs. Thank you. MR. LORENSON: Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that this petition be voted for unfavorable for the following reasons: Petition submitted by surrounding property owners requesting denial; not necessarily the best use of the land; Forty acres of mobile home district is already in the northwest area of Greeley has been approved recently -- this is the Harsh Mobile Home Park -- and an additional ten acres which the County Commissioners did approve; and then also that the density exceeds the requirements of the Greeley -91- Comprehensive Plan. Now I ' d have to say on the last statement that the Greeley Comprehensive Plan is still a proposed plan. These are the recommendations of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Lorenson. MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Lorenson, the original recom- mendations of the Planning Commission in August of last year, after approval by the City Planning Commission, was approval, was it not? MR. LORENSON: Mr. County Attorney, do you want me to answer that? MR. TELEP: That ' s your question. MR. LORENSON: Yes. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the site subject to making it into the form of a planned unit development, which was done. MR. KAROWSKY: And after the contingencies were specified in the August Planning Commission meeting, then the developer did in fact comply with those contingencies, such as a planned unit development, correct? MR. LORENSON: Yes, he did. MR. KAROWSKY: There is one other item we ought to correct right now. For reasons for which I am a little bewildered about at this time, there is an impression in the minds of the engineer that a fence had to be around the entire perimeter of the property. This is not true; is that correct? MR. LORENSON: No. -92- MR. KAROWSKY: The fence only has to be around the storage areas; is that correct? MR. LORENSON: That 's correct. And it so reads on the development plan. MR. KAROWSKY: Storage space shall be provided and located, perimeter fencing to be six feet high. So when you talk about perimeter fencing, you talk about perimeter fencing of the storage areas? MR. LORENSON: In Tracts D and H. MR. KAROWSKY: That ' s this one on the righthand side of the plan and this one on the left-hand side of the plan that are shown in white? MR. LORENSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Mr. Lorenson, I would like to get one thing clear for the record. What was the date of that resolution of the denial of this? MR. KAROWSKY: November the 30th. MR. LORENSON: The date of this resolution that was sent to the Board of County Commissioners is October the 6th, 1970, as dated on the resolution. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. KELLY: I ' d like to say this. I was given no notice of that meeting of the Planning Commission, the first meeting, and I was entitled to notice. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: All right. Is there anything else at this time? MEMBER BILLINGS: I have nothing else. -93- CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you have anything else to offer, Burman? MR. LORENSON: Mr. Chairman, I would say this, that the Planning Department ' s efforts here have been only to determine whether the land is usable for this type thing. We have made every attempt to make sure that every require- ment can be met. That 's all I have. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Thank you. Do you have anything else, Charlie? MR. KAROWSKY: Well, may I make a comment with reference to the statements that have been made by opposition. I ' d like to put Mr. Wolff on just for a couple quick questions if I may. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you have any objections, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: Fine. Just so I have a comeback. MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Wolff, the mobile home development that you established in Golden, Golden Terrace, for which you received a commendation from the City Manager of Golden, what is the density on that project? MR. W LFF: That 's 7. 9 units per acre. MR. KAROWSKY: May I ask you, in your interests, in developing this type of a project in this community, are you aware of the fact that there are other areas that have been previously zoned by the Commissioners for such pur- pose? In the general Greeley area, are you aware of the fact that there are other areas that were previously zoned for mobile home development? -94- MR. WOLFF: Well, I 'm aware of certain ones in Weld County. Now if you want to go beyond that, I have one in Westminster. MR. KAROWSKY: No. No. I mean in Weld County. MR. WOLFF: In Weld County, yes. But I 'm not sure of their densities. It 's only by rumor. MR. KAROWSKY: I 'm notconcerned about density. I 'm concerned about the fact as to whether or not youMe interested in developing those rather than seeking to develop a new parcel of ground? MR. WOLFF: No. I know of several pieces, including this Marsh piece, and I ' ve never even bothered to go any more than drive by it because it ' s another river bottom deal, and I 'm not interested in that at all. I told you location is important in this business.. And there have been -- that one has not been offered. I ' ve not even checked on it. I presume it could be bought. There is another one that has recently been zoned or is being zoned that has been offered to me, I 'm not interested in it. MR. KAROWSKY: You say there is one that has recently been zoned and has been offered to you? MR. WOLFF: What they call the Lamb property down there. MR. KAROWSKY: This apparently is for speculation purposes then? MR. WOLFF: I ' ve had two calls on it in Denver asking if I was interested in purchasing it, MR. KAROWSKY: Your purpose in selecting this particular -95- piece of property is that for residential purposes this would ideally serve the purpose? MR. WOLFF: Yes. That was my considered opinion after looking all around the Greeley area. There is another one east of Evans that may be in Evans and not in Weld County, I 'm not sure of that. But I 'm also not interested in it. It ' s been kicking around for quite a while. MR. KAROWSKY. Do you have any other comments you would like to make? MR. WOLFF: Well, I might just say that also I have one in the City of Westminster that ' s zoned at eight to the acre that we' re breaking ground on this coming week. And they have no objection. The plan 's been totally passed by the City and City Engineering Staff, MR. KAROWSKY: Would you like to explain briefly to the Commissioners the situation you found yourself in when you agreed to cooperate with the request for a planned unit development, because this apparently was a modification of procedures that had been previously established by the development of mobile home courts. MR. WOLFF: Well, I think it was a circumstance that we came along with this application that the Planning Commission, Planning Department was talking about putting PUD in. I was familiar with PUD. I got caught in the same bind in Golden. They were putting PUD in there and I waited until they had their ordinance set up so they could put it in PUD instead of under the Board of Adjustment as -96- it used to be. So they said would you mind a little delay, as I recall, until we get this PUD set up and we ' ll put it under planned unit development. I don ' t mind planned unit development because it makes a developer do what he promises to do; nothing more, nothing less. It 's all lined out and I know what I can do, on density, as I said yesterday. So I don' t mind being pinned down to developing the plan as I say I will. That 's why I can only go so far, though, because that 's as far as you can go. MR. KAROWSKY: Anything else, Mr. Wolff? MR. WOLFF: I don ' t think so. There is one more thing. I still, knowing these people and being in this business, you know ten years ago if somebody said to me you ' re going to develop mobile home parks, I .would have said you ' re out of your mind, because I was a subdivision builder and apartment builder and so forth. But those times have changed. And mobile homes are residences as far as I 'm concerned, and the people who live in them, I have a cer- tain resentement for the fact that some feel the people who live in them are inferior in some or another. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you have anything, have any questions, Tom? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Wolff, is the reason for selecting this land that it was choice land in your opinion? MR. WOLFF: I felt that it was the right land, neither too good nor too bad for a mobile home. MR. RICHARDSON: Would it still be all right for one -97- family dwellings? MR. WOLFF: At this point I would not be interested in it for one family dwellings, no. MR. RICHARDSON. Would you if the City limits were moved out that far? MR. WOLFF: No, sir, I wouldn ' t. MR. RICHARDSON: Then you are saying that in your opinion that you wouldn ' t build anything there but a trailer park? MR. WOLFF: Mobile Home park, MR. RICHARDSON: Mobile home park. MR. WOLFF: I spend my life correcting people on that. I would say that this is the highest and best use and the only use I would want to see of it for me anywhere in the forseeable future, CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any more questions of Mr. Wolff? MR. KAROWSKY: That 's all, Mr. Wolff. The Commissioners have been most patient. I ' ll try to make this as brief as possible. I would like to briefly summarize the objections that have been made by the protestants here today. And great emphasis has been placed on the fact that the Planning Commission rejected this application. And I might point out that the rejection came apparently after approval had been granted and the requests and requirements of the Planning Staff and of the Planning Commission had been satisfied with the planned unit development. And it -98- resulted apparently from another public hearing. This is a matter which I have talked at great length about before and I 'm not going to belabor the Commissioners about it now. But I don ' t know how many days in court protestants are entitled to. With reference to the easements, I think it 's pre- sumptuous on the part of counsel to presume that no ease- ments are available. This is the problem of the developer. If a developer can ' t obtain easements for the sewer lines, then of course this makes the project unfeasible and they haven ' t anything to be concerned about. I am deeply resentful of the fact, and I think it 's terribly presumptuous of people to operate under the assumption that these are leper colonies. Ybu know, let 's take these people and put them behind the railroad tracks or let 's put them down in the mosquito swamps. We just don ' t want them near us. I think it 's the height of pre- sumption, May I have that diagram, please on the board. The reason I was insistent upon the address of some of the protestants is that some of the protestants live _in this area right over here. Now if we' re concerned about an aesthetic aspect of this thing, and I think this is going to be attractive as demonstrated by the slides, I would challenge Robert Gilbert, who lives on 47th Avenue behind the Greeley County Club, to climb up a 50-foot ladder with a pair of binoculars and spot this thing. I don ' t -99- understand how the people who are living in this area can contend that a mobile home park, even if they findit personally offensive from an aesthetic point of view, can possibly rain on this parade. Look at the distances that are involved. I can understand and appreciate Mr. Kelly 's objections, I can understand Mr. Hertzke's objections, on the basis that they think that perhaps possibly some day in the future this area may develop and this land might be worth considerably more money. But I would suggest that when the addresses are furnished of some of the Pro- testants that a large number of them reside in this par- ticular area here. And how far their domain extends I don' t know. If it extends as far as they can see, if they say we ought to be able to control what goes in as far as they can see, then their domain is terminated because they can' t see this far, if they find this particularly offensive. Now I think the time has come to stop thinking about these things as a place where we put inmates of Hanson 's Disease, you know, these are residential areas and they are decent residential areas. And they are designed to meet the needs of a particular group of people, and we' re going to have a great influx, and these arent ' undesirable people. We make them sound like they ' re all criminals and we don ' t want them. We all can ' t afford $35,000 or $50,000, $75,000 houses, And Mr. Wolff and his associates are desirous of satisfying the need. -100- If this property, as has been suggested, is so eminently desirable, comparable to Cottonwood, what ' s the delay in the development? I am unaware of any develop- ment, now I may be wrong in this regard, but any sub- stantial subdivision development north of U. S. 34. I 'm totally unaware of any. And I presume that land developers in this community,and we have one present in the form of Mr. Schoot who is one of the heavier land developers, that if this land was as eminently desirable for the purposes specified, these are the people that know what property is worth. These are the people that would know what areas would develop, . I think it ' s presumptuous again on the part of non-experts to testify as to the fact that they think this is goint to create drainage problems. We have employed the best talent available to ascertain these facts. There has been some emphasis placed on the fact that one of the engineers yesterday testified to the fact of an additional four-inch tile, four-inch tile being adequate to take care of this. He was talking about an additional tile to supplement the conditions that already exist. All the Commissioners have to do is to read Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk's engineering estimates and they come up with a conclusion that the drainage problem is less severe. I think it ' s demeaning to keep saying trailer park, trailer park, trailer park, because we' re trying to invoke in your minds and to createprejudices in your minds of the -101- old image. They have become more sophisticated. Now it is not true -- it is not true -- that wherever these so- called "trailer parks" are located, these mobile home parks are located, that they create a blight. As a matter of fact, the sophisticated, modern type of mobile home park developed in California, and you can go all over the state and see magnificant subdivisions immediately adjacent to mobile home parks, and I just saw one at Thanksgiving time. I have a son that attends Stanford and Stanford has a mobile home park for its students, and they aren ' t designed like this, believe me; they' re about six feet apart from each other and there are over 400 of them, and right across the street, right smack across the street from the mobile home park they are developing one of the most magnificant subdivision developments you have ever seen. Mainly because they do not feel that that mobile home park is raining on their particular parade. Now these people are concerned about the values of their property. We had testimony yesterday to the effect that figures throughout the country show that with the modern, sophisti- cated type of mobile home park, the quality type of work that Mr. Wolff desires to construct, and I think you shout be satisfied as to the quality of the work that he' s done in the past, are not going to suffer any depreciation. These people arc entitled to live in decent areas. Mr. Wolff is an experienced developer, has indicated that he would not use this land for residential purposes. -102- Now I don ' t mean to be unkind, but what they ' re doing is betting on the come. They' re not taking any calculated risks in investing money. They are anticipating that in fove or ten or 15 years maybe this land will develop for residential purposes. We don ' t know what the Greeley Com- prehensive Plan is, and I 'm totally unaware of any county comprehensive plan. And I ' ll hazard a guess that even though I haven ' t seen it, that when the Greeley Comprehensive Plan comes out, it ' s not going to say that we reserve this area for R-1 residential purposes. Now I think that there has been a deliberate attempt made to create in the minds of the Commissioners that by developing a sophisticated, modern mobile home type of park that we' re creating a blight in that particular area. And this just is not true. Now the computation that was made about density. These are requirements imposed by the Planning Staff with reference to the open space, Now I would assume that everybody would be concerned about open space, and I would suggest, gentlemen, that this open space is considerably greater than the open space that ' s provided in Rolling Hills. I don ' t know of any space in Rolling Hills. It looks like a forest up there. I don ' t know of any open space in Hillside. And if we' re talking about planning, and I don ' t mean again to demean anybody, but we ' re talking about those four-plexes or whatever they are that are developed along the U. S. 34 By-pass. This is a respectable, -103- decent type of place designed to meet the kind of income bracket that is going to become a substantial part of this community and in the immediate future, not five years from now, but in the next six months and in the next year. I know that when I approach this problem in behalf of a client I should do it calmly and rationally. But I must confess that I get a little excited and a little uptight with the presumptuousness and snobbery of people to say and we're a mile or a mile and a half away but we don ' t want anything like this even within the territory of our sovereignty of our domain. I can understand Mr. Kelly 's concern. He' s deeply apprehensive that this land that he's owned for a long period of time would eventually develop into R-1 property. And I would presume that with the development of this park and the expense that the developer is going to to bring a sewer line and a water line, that maybe Mr. Kelly 's ambitions would be realized sooner than he would otherwise have anticipated. I would suggest that if this area is comparable to Cottonwood it would have been developed as rapidly as Cottonwood has, because, Lord knows, there is a lot of development going on south and west of the City of Greeley. Now they keep referring to this as non-residential. And I don ' t know, what are we going to have, animals living in these mobile homes? We' re going to have people living in them. And wherever people live, this is a residential area. -104- I would suggest that on the basis of the facts which have been presented that a substantial case has been made to show that in every respect we have complied with the requirements of the Planning Commission, with the technical aspects of the thing. And I appreciate the Commissioners ' concern with roadways and checkbooks. I think Mr. Anderson made a good point. And this is our problem. We can ' t expect' you to subsidize our developments. This is our obligation. And we have to resolve these problems. And if there are any questions in your minds, we can certainly obtain from Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk the necessary information. I was intrigued by the comment that the Comprehensive Plan called for the south boundary to be U. S. 34 By-pass, but a new boundary to the north has now been inserted, namely the Cache La Poudre River. I was totally unaware of the fact that any policy had been established by any- body, the City Planning Commission or the County Commis- sioners that suddenly we have extended the boundaries of this residential area to the Cache La Poudre River. Now from the viewpoint of what values are assigned to properties adjacent thereto, is it suggested that people who are farming this land, who have farmed it for 50 years, who bought it in 1916 or 117, or who bought it in 1947, is this going to diminish the value of their land for farming purposes? No. But they are contending, without support, that it ' s going to diminish the value of their land for -105- subdivision purposes some day in the dim, distant future. And I would also suggest, gentlemen, that the Applicant has made as strong a case for a desirable mobile home park as could possibly be made, particularly since he's indicated that some of the developments which this body has approved in the past have been offered to him and he doesn ' t want them, because he wants people to be able to live in a respectable place. Thank you for your patience in this hearing. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have probably had enough said about drainage, water, density. I would like to take a crack at density but probably shouldn ' t, so we' ll pass that. But I think the thing that we' ve got to get back to and the thing you gentlemen have got to think about is simply this, you are here listening to a request for a change of zone, and I 'm repetitious but I think you have got to dwell on it time and time again, because when you read a few of the cases from the Supreme Court you will find one of the points is, did it follow the comprehensive plan when they changed the zone. Now I don ' t know whether Weld County has a comprehensive plan or not. I think Weld County is definitely working on them. They have one in mind. It probably hasn' t been written. And so you come to this point. You kind of question in your mind, well, without a comprehensive plan, can we make all these changes of zones that we are? Maybe the primary thing for us to do is to get us a comprehensive -106- plan and then decide whether or not these requests follow the plan. But in many of your cases the Court will say, well, it did or it did not follow the comprehensive plan. Now I 'm not arguing whether we do or whether we don ' t. The point is, what is the plan for this area. And we should follow a definite plan rather than to go into spot zoning and to zone an area here and here and here with different things that we think may or may not be what the community will have in the future. But I still maintain, gentlemen, that we do have, between the City and the County, a pretty good idea of what we want out in this area. And I do not believe that this request follows what has been planned for the area. In other words, it is not following the comprehensive plan. Secondly, the next major priniple in zoning is, what are the wishes of the community for the area. And I think the wishes of the community have been pretty strongly placed before you by the people that are here and by the past as to what has been envisioned and planned for the area between By-pass 34 and the Cache La Poudre River. And I think that was driven home to the community pretty strongly back in ' 61 and ' 62 when the City of Greeley and the Greeley-Loveland Irrigation people got together and provided a most essential thing for this community, which was water, and the reason they did it was so that the governing body such as the County Commissioners and the City of Greeley could control the type of growth that was -107- to be in the area west of the City. So that I think the wishes of the community should be recognized. The third point is best use of the land. Now of course the ones requesting zoning are going to put before you people that will tell you what they, in their opinion, think will be the best use of the land, and it will be what their project calls for. Otherwise, they wouldn' t be here. But I believe that all you have to do as indi- vidual commissioners and as a body is to view the area which you have many times because you live and work in the area, that this area should be developed for R-1 single-family dwellings. This would be the best use of the land in the future for a continued growth of the com- munity to the west. And, fourthly, is there a need for the additional zoning? Now your own Planning Commission Chairman has stated that there are over 50 acres in the area still available and open for this type of development. The person asking for a change of zone has to bring before you proof that there is a definite need for the additional zoning before zoning should be granted. So, really, this hearing is about this, it is about four principles of zoning. And have those four principles been met? Does it follow the comprehensive plan or program for the area? Two, does it follow the wishes of the community? Three, is it the best use of the land? And, four, is there a need, has there been a need established for this change of zone? -108- Thank you. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you have anything to say? MR. KELLY: Noe MR. TELEP: Charlie, do you have any rebuttal? MR. KELLY: I won' t take the time. MR. KAROWSKY: Only to request, for the record, that any protestants who have either testified or whose names appear in protest of this application who are not within the 500 feet limit, that their testimony should not be considered as pertinent and should not be considered by the Commission, because I think it is highly inappropriate to consider that somebody who lives a mile and a half away is in the neighborhood of the projected application. One other thing that Mr. Wolff was going to make clear was that he did not propose under any circumstances to move southward with his development. This project right here is as far south as he proposes to move. In other words, he proposes to move no further south toward U. S. 34 with any mobile home park development. And other than the fact that I would be terribly interested in seeing this mysterious comprehensive plan that everybody knows about but which I have never seen, I have nothing further to say, because I think you have listened to plenty of conversation already. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Anyone else have anything to say? Thank you everybody for your time and patience and your conversation, and we' ll take this under advisement. -109- MEMBER BILLINGS: Mr. Chairman, I move that we do take this under advisement. We have accumulated quite a bit of information and testimony, and there are two or three points which I would like to check out. So I would make this in a form of a motion that we do take this under advisement at this time. MEMBER ASHLEY: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It 's been moved and seconded that we take this under advisement. We will adjourn. (Adjourned at 11:40, a.m. , January 14, 1971. ) -110- REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS: COUNTY OF WELD ) I, Colin J. Campbell, Certified Shorthand Reporter, State of Colorado, hereby certify that I took in stenotypy all the proceedings had in the foregoing hearing on the dates stated. I further certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my notes. Dated this j/ day of February, 1971. Colin J. pbell, C -111- January 14, 1971 I hereby certify that on this day, January 14, 1971, a second continuance was held concerning a certain Change of Zone hearing as requested by Brad Wolff. Said hearing was previously heard at public hearings held on November 30, 1970 and January 13, 1971. Said evidence was presented was taken r a isemnt. //^^ff �I i ATTEST: Lv::al/. ' r49'i-'t✓z tJ ;/ �t ZJ 't /lc COUNTY CLERK'AND RECORDER IRMAN AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 1 January 13, 1971 I hereby certify that on this day, January 13, 1971, a continuance was had concerning an original request for a Change of Zone for Brad Wolff. The original hearing date being November 30, 1970. -Said hearing was continued to the next day. ATTEST: C1.7114,12.4- fe.y / -C / ' �„ k>t j44 f COUNTY CLERK cod RECORDER CHP�IRMAF AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO VV. ,' 'I i / /' G, 1 . Mr. and Mrs. Otis Axsom 1218 - 48th Avenue 2 . Dr. Ed Beaty (Aims College) 47th Avenue & 20th Street 3. Dr. and Mrs. Louis Brighi 1300 Polomar Drive 4. Dr. and Mrs. John H. Darst 1041 - 48th Avenue 5. Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Deason 6 . Mr. and Mrs. Robert Gilbert 1506 - 47th Avenue 7. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas E. Harrison 5322 - 24th Street 8 . Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Hertzke Route 3 , Box 93 9. Mr. and Mrs. Luverne Hertzke Route 3 , Box 91 10. Mr. and Mrs. William Mahan Route 3 , Box 167 11. Mr. and Mrs. W. K. McGlothlin 1041 - 48th Avenue 12. Mr. and Mrs. Charles B. Mylander Route 3, Box 95 13. Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Sitzman 1000 - 50th Avenue 14 . Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Valladao Route 3 , Box 95 SOUTHARD AND SOUTHARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING CHAS.E.SOUTHARD (1673-1960) G REELE Y,COLORADO TELEPHONE WILLIAM H.SOUTHARD 80631 303-353-1292 January 11, 1971 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Weld County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: This office represents Mary Priscilla Murphy and Janet Lucille Sampson, owners of approximately 140 acres in the Northwest Quarter of 2-5-65 (being one-half mile north of the Country Club) . Both Mrs . Murphy and Mrs . Sampson are non-residents . Their attention has been directed to the proposed zoning of the Mosier farm for approximately 40 acres as a mobile home area. Rather than appear before the Board, it was con- sidered more advisable to convey to you the concern of Mrs . Murphy and Mrs. Sampson so that you could have their concern in mind in guiding you to a decision in the matter. They are concerned that possible spot zoning of a 40 acre tract for mobile homes might be inconsistent with the over-all and general plan developed for the area. On the other hand, if the general area is all developed for mobile homes, they would not have an objection. It would also seem advisable to postpone the zoning until comprehensive county planning has-teen developed. The sewer facilities to serve a densely populated mobile home area would be a problem which certainly the county should insist being solved before the mobile homes are placed in the area. We hope these comments will be of some assistance to you in your deliberations on this matter. Yours very truly , SOUTHARD AND SOUTHARD %/j� By , WHS/C TE OF L DO sS. COUNTY OF WELD Filed wth the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners JAN 12 1971 \I. COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER et Deputy - ao, te t` r I NELSON, HALEY, PAT i'ERSON AND QUIRK, INC. 2021 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE GREECE V. COLORADO 80631 PHONE 303 353-6244 October 27, 1970 Project No. 70-11-133 To Whom It May Concern: We have been requested by Brad Wolff and Associates to prepare a drainage study for the proposed Vista Village Mobile Home Park located in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. The site has a total of 38 acres, more or less, and is bounded on the North and West by County Roads and on the South by the Grapevine Ditch and on the East by a Grapevine Ditch Lateral . The entire area falls from South to North at approximately 5.5 percent slope. Off-site storm water runoff is restricted fran entering the site by the Grapevine Ditch. Therefore, we have considered only the area within the site in the following calculations. As shown on the Exhibit, there are 7 retention ponds located throughout the area to be developed. These ponds are sized to hold the amounts of runoff water as shown on the Exiiibi t. We have used the following criteria to obtain the amount of runoff water concentrated at the existing 12 inch culverts under the County Roads: (a) Q = C.I.A. Q = Cubic Feet Per Second *C = Runoff Coefficient = 0.5 **I = Rainfall Intensity = 1 .30"/hour A = Area (Shown on Exhibit) *Because of the large open areas and the nature of the proposed development, we have determined a runoff coefficient of 0.5. This is the same as FHA requires for residential development. **This study is based upon a 10 year storm. We acknowledge the possibility that a storn may occur at any time with an intensity and/or duration that could cause flooding over the County Roads at the existing culverts . This flooding would occur whether or not the mobile home park is developed. (b) Q x 448. 8 = Gallons Per Minute Gal/Min x 8.02 = Cubic Feet Per Hour • Cu.Ft./Hr t 43560 = Acre Feet • OFFICES IN GREELEY AND GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO October 27, 1970 Page 2 1 . Area No. 1 Area = 2.1 Acres Retention Pond No. 7 = 0.5 Acre Feet Holding Capacity Q = 2.1 x 0.5 x 1 .80 = 1 .89 cfs 1 .89 x 448.8 = 848.23 gal/min 848.23 x 8.02 = 6802.82 cu.ft./hr 6802.82 a 43560 = 0.16 ac.ft. Retention Pond No. 1 will contain all the storm water runoff from Area No. 1 with 0.34 ac.ft. remaining capacity. 2. Area No. 2 • Area = 8.1 Acres Retention Pond No. 7 = 0.34 Acre Feet Remaining Capacity Q = 8.1 x 0.5 x 1 .80 = 7.29 cfs 7.29 x 448.8 = 3271 .75 gal/min 3271 .75 x 8.02 = 26239.45 cu.ft./hr 26239.45 t 43560 = 0.60 ac.ft. Retention Rond No. 7 will contain 0.5 acre feet of the storm water run- off from Areas No. 1 and 2. This will leave 0.26 acre feet to flow westerly thru the existing 12 inch drain line. 0.26 ac. ft. = a Q of 3.00 cfs. The existing 12 inch pipe is sufficient to carry the runoff from Areas No. 1 and 2 flowing thru Retention Pond No. 7. 3. Area No. 3 Area = 1 .7 Acres Retention Pond No. 1 = 0.2 Acre Feet Q = 1 .7 x 0.5 x 1 .80 = 1 .53 cfs 1 .53 x 448.8 = 686.66 gal/min 686.66 x 8.02 = 5507.05 cu.ft./hr 5507.05 a 43560 = 0.13 ac.ft. • Retention Pond No. 3 will contain all the storm water runoff from Area No. 3 with 0.07 acre feet remaining capacity. 4. Area No. 4 Area = 6.7 Acres Retention Pond No. 2 = 0.5 Acre Feet Q = 6.7 x 0.5 x 1 .80 = 6.03 cfs 6.03 x -448.8 = 2706.26 gal/min • 2706.26 x 8.02 = 21704.24 cu.ft./hr 21704. 24 t 43560 = 0.50 ac.ft. • Retention Pond No. 2 will contain all the storm water runoff from Area Nu. 4 with no remaining capacity. • October 27, 1970 Page 3 5. Area No. 5 Area = 6.3 Acres Retention Pond No. 3 = 2.0 Acre Feet Q = 6.3 x 0.5 x 1 .80 = 5.67 cfs 5.67 x 448.8 = 2544.70 gal/min 2544.70 x 8.02 = 20408.46 cu.ft./hr 20408.46 t 43560 = 0.47 ac.ft. Retention Pond No. 3 will contain all the storm water runoff from Area No. 5 with 1 . 53 acre feet remaining capacity. 6. Area No. 6 Area = 3.3 Acres Retention Pond No. 5 = 0.25 Acre Feet Q = 3.3 x 0.5 x 1 .80 = 2.97 cfs 2.97 x 448.8 = 1332.94 gal/min 1332.94 x 8.02 = 10690.15 cu.ft./hr 10690.15 t 43560 = 0.24 ac.ft. Retention Pond No. 5 will contain all the storm water runoff from Area No. 6 with no remaining capacity. 7. Area No. 7 Area = 7.4 Acres Retention Pond No. 4 = 0.4 Acre Feet Q = 7.4 x 0.5 x 1 .80 = 6.66 cfs 6.66 x 448.8 = 2989.90 gal/min 2989.00 x 8.02 = 23971 .84 cu.ft./hr 23971 .84 . 43560 = 0.55 ac.ft. Retention Pond No. 4 will contain 0.40 ac.ft. of the storm water runoff from Area No. 7 with 0.15 ac.ft. running through to Area No. 8 and Retention Pond no. 6. 8. Area No. 8 Area = 2.0 Acres Retention Pond No. 6 = 0.5 Acre Feet Q = 2.0 x 0.5 x 1 . 80 = 1 .80 cfs 1.80 x 448.8 = 807.84 gal/min 807.84 x 8.02 = 6478.88 cu.ft./hr 6478.88 t 43560 = 0.15 ac.ft. Retention Pond No. 6 will contain all the storm water runoff in Areas No. 7 and No. 8 leaving an excess of 0.20 ac.ft. of holding capacity in Retention Pond No. 6. October 27 , 1970 Page 4 From the above calculations, we conclude that there will be no additional storm water runoff concentration at the existing 12 inch culverts under the County Roads . The detention ponds as shown on the Exhibit are sufficient to retain all the storm water generated by the design storm, within the development and will cause less runoff to the adjacent properties than they now experience. Very truly yours, NELSON, HALEY, PATT S N and QUIRK, INC. Dean Thomison DT/sm • D ,, .z d_ q: I - r. 1 m = I D • F\i ' t. a a� v. %,n Ski .: . to h 0 • r T D . ,/ _ I I . - pp fr i... -4, ;.:-.-, .,,.\,7 t2,7:-\ \.',. - , _.:' 1-,f ,F,frit 't m Ito 't - °° �'� ��'�t .. t O x il�� L ��I CPTITifr�.•� , \, ,, .,\_,,,' . �I rl, - l.2— `: / , E'/O ,� / 1. .� I�` 2 [iFt m l•,. ,y� eF — ro a Y n In a E A r1 �i_ 4_ 4 A�. `\ e h 40, 1I ..+r'SY'�fi A •L`,,,f 3r.. ;Ri c T 4. T J Z _ 1 N I Nt N 4'°ty`yo 6 uv} ° ✓aN m ° m ar a .a: AERIAL VIEW OF NORTH LAKE, MORILE NOME COMMUNITY View is to the east, across Pecos St in acre park, with a bicycle path winding. the foreground. At lower left is a seven- -across its center. 453�Site Mobile Home Park In Adams County Fills Quickly North Lake, a new 55-acre billiards, meetings and enter dergsound', utllit Each site mobile home community' in tainment. Included is a kitchen. hall day water sewage ser- Adams County has filled its 452 North Lake tenants have off. and Patios, plus sites and the developers are at' to founda- building a second new coj ni. street parking for two au- nity.at Brighton,for opening in tomobiles, Paved streets, and Laskin, .said lest :Gate at early February, post lanterns in front of their Brighten will, deplicate"North North Lake, opened in'July homes. There is a master tele- Lake'and will have 455•spaces. and sold out in six months, is vision antenna system, plus un He said Den Modular at W. 52nd Ave. and P4ces"St. Comn unties is Z000 just east of Interstate 25'and Send C FOrnts mere mob'lo 7 et essitn es north of Northglenn. It's a proj- 1971 and rs g';g ect of Modular Comrttteities, Land Planning Firm ranging from Fort Collins,Colo. Inc., 1711 Security Lite' Build- COLolt'Apo SPRINGS — to Kansas City,Mo. and Hous- ing,a development firm headed ton,Tex. . ' by Norman J. Laskin. Colorado Environments, Inc., has been formed as a division Laskin said North Lake"wasIf marriage is in our daughters designed to give the full life to of Skiland Corp.. makeup,.it will coil you:tea,if you mobile ea has a se The division n president a is send Nor to The area has a sever-acre David R. Belton, former plan- , park with a fenced playground, uurg director of R. Keith Hook picnic tables,bicycle paths and and Associates, Colorado a putting green. Next to a_heat- Springs. Id swimming pool i a SAW Colorado' Ebtvirahtnenta will ' Denver's square-foot Commodity btdiding handle land planning for level- complte wedding slopping center. with facilities for card players, opers. sue s.. unswr n. retasse WM. T. VAN CC', r,.T `-'174• 9 CGLP d✓/2 7 c SUITE 1330 - 718 17th STREET - -/�- �C teiva, COLORADO 802041 , k 0 m ti gF rs, s �ti R: S ,c ,ABA S COUNTY OLORDO ARCH 1 7 0 Adams County MOBILE HOME INVENTORY and ANALYSIS Prepared By • The Carl S. Becker Company Management and Planning Consultants Denver , Colorado July , 1969 Table: of Contents Page Introduction i Part I - Scope of Study and Methodology Scope of the Study 1-2 Methodology 3-4 Part II Mobile Home Inventory Population and School Enrollment Mobile Home Parks Inventory 5 Table I m Mobile Home Parks by School District 5 • Table II - Metropolitan Area Mobile Home Parks and Spaces 6 Table III • School Enrollment from Mobile Homes 7 Part III Population Table IV- .- Population Estimates by Housing Types 9 Family Size 10 School Enrollment 11 Table V -• Children Residing in Mobile Home Parks 11 Table VI ._ Mobile Home Residency as a Per- cent of Total Enrollment. by School District: 11 Table VII -- School Enrollment Other Than Mobile Homes 12 Part IV Taxes and Fees Comparative Taxes 13 Table VIII Mobile Homes as Percent. of Total Dwelling Units 13 Table IX - Mobile Homes Revenue to School. from Property Tax and Owner- ship Fees by School District 14 Table X - Mobile Homes Revenue to County from Property. Tax and Ownership Fees by School District 15 Taxes Paid by Single Family Units 16 Table of Contents Continued) Page Table XI - Per Unit Revenue Single Family Units 16 Taxes Paid by Multi-Family Units 16 Table XII - Per Unit Revenue Multi-Family Units 17 Table XIII - Tax Contribution Per Student Per Dwelling 18 Unit • Part V - Socio-Economic Data Socio-Economic Impact on Adams County 19 Table XIV - Apportionment of Share of Adjusted Gross Income to Mobile Home Residents 1967 19 Table XV - Apportionment of Share of Total Retail Sales to Mobile Home Residents 1967 19 Federal Aids to Schools 20 Table XVI - Federal Aid to School Districts under Public Laws 815 and 874 21 Taxes Paid by Present Single Family Dwelling 22 Units Table XVII - Comparative Market Value and Taxes Revenue by Housing Value Class - Adams County 23 Part VI - Zoning Comparisons of Mobile Home Zoning Requests 24 Table XVIII - Zoning Regulations Authorize Mobile Home Parks 24 Table XIX - Density Limits Mobile Home Parks Units/acre (Average) 25 Table XX - Lot Width , Setback and Height - Limits '.per Home) 25 Table XXI - Required Services or Amenities by Park Owner. 26 Comparison: Adams County versus FHA Standards 27 Table XXII Adams County Zoning Regulations with FHA Minimum Requirements 28 Table of Contents (Continued) Page Part VII - Cost of County Service Cost of County Service 29 Table XXIII - Costs for County Services Per Dwelling Unit. (Schools Excluded) 29 Part VIII - Summary and Findings Summary 30 Table XXIV - Summary of Tax and Fee Receipts 30 Findings 31 Appendices Appendix A - Population Estimates by School Districts by Housing Type B - Mobile Home Use, Depreciation and Salvage C - Mobile Home Registrations in Adams County D - inventory of Mobile Home Parks by School District E - Distribution of Specific Ownership Tax in Cities F - Percent Distribution of Property Tax Revenue in Cities G - Number of Mobile Homes by Year of Manufacture INTRODUCTION The Adams County Commissioners and the Adams County Planning Commission have retained the Carl S . Becker Company , Management. and Planning Consultants, to conduct. an inventory of te impact of mobile home unit operation in Adams County . This report presents the data required in the study design. and summarizes the findings. We were not able to obtain adequate information as to construc- tion dates of mobile home parks . TnereforY we have not included this information. Mobile home sales information in Adams County was also not available in meaningful terms and trer:'efor not included in this report. General information concerning various types of hcusinq is con- tained in the report. Since there is presently no public hous- ing in Adams County the ranking of housing costs are related to true value as identified by the Adams County Planning staff. Use characteristics and growth in mobile some registr-ations are shown in the appendices. At the time of our field inspection there were no vacancies in any of the mobile home parks covered in. this report. Additional mobile home spaces are under construc.t.ion, but these new spaces are not included in the data. it. is apparent, aat least at: pre- sent, that new and vacant spaces are filled as the become avail- able., Several operators indicated that they have waiting lists of people who wish. to locate in their parks . From this information, it would appear that a mobile home space shortage exists not. only in Adams County , but throughout. the Metropolitan Denver Area . We wish to express CUT appreciation, to the Adams County Planning staff, the Assessor s Off:i^,e , the Treasurer ' s Office , the Data Processing Department. , and the Administrative staff of School Districts 1, 12 , 14 , 271, 2.8,1 and 50 for their assistance render- ed during various phases of the preparation of this report. . i Part I SCOPE OF STUDY. and METHODOLOGY Scope of the Study The responsibility assigned to the consultant was to inventory the impact of mobile home units on Adams County , Items to be considered in the inventory include : 1. The number of mobile home parks and spaces in Adams County as compared to the other counties in the Denver Metropolitan Area. 2 . The amount of taxes paid by mobile homes as com- pared with other housing types, i. e. , apartments and single family homes. 3 . The density of population of mobile homes as com- pared to other housing types. 4 . The number of school children per mobile home as compared to other housing types. 5. Approximate school population by housing type. 6. Federal school aid from P. L. ' s 8'"4 and 815 (Aid to :Impacted Areas; 7. An estimate of the impact of selected economic factors. 8. The average age or length of use of mobile homes. 9. Recent trends in mobile home sales as related to available mobile home spaces. 10. A comparison of Mobile Home Regulations in the Metro Area . This study is the first known attempt to comprehensively inventory the impact of mobile home living in the Denver Metro- politan Area. While limited to the Adams County area, the con- clusions may apply in many sections of the -Metropolitan area . The particular significance of the study is a recognition by Adams County of the changing demands of the housing consumer. In 1967 (the most recent statistics available) : 1. 25% of all single family housing starts were mobile homes. 1 2. 75% of all single family starts in the below $15 , 000 category were mobile homes. 3 . 90% of all single family housing starts below $12 , 500 were mobile homes. "' Perhaps of greater significance is the projections made by local housing authorities who expect an increase in mobile home units from the present 7 , 000 units in the Denver Area to 40, 000 units by 1975. ** The anticipated causes of this startling increase are many . Most important of these seem to be the following : 1. A more mobile population needs mobile housing units. 2. The increasing costs of traditional housing . 3 . The availability of spacious mobile units containing over 1, 400 square feet. 4 . Complete living facilities for a family in the one package. 5. Lower cost of a completely furnished mobile unit $8. 00 - $12. 00 per square foot versus $12. 00 - $16. 00 per square foot for an unfurnished conventional home. '* * *Source: Real Estate Market Letter Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, Volume IV, No. 9 , October, 1968. **Source: Real Estate Market Letter Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, Volume IV, No. 10, November, 1968. 2 Methodology In order to present a true picture of mobile home occupancy in Adams County considerable effort was made to develop a program which would collect and analyze available information concerning all housing types. After examining all possible sources of in- formation„ a study program was developed, reviewed, and approved by the Adams County Planning Department. The results of the study are presented in light of this program. The study program is as follows: 1. Sample geographical areas of single and multiple dwellings were selected with the assistance of the Adams County Planning Department to create an identifiable base for tax revenue comparisons. 2. Each of these areas was analyzed from the standpoint of assessed value, average family size, and taxes paid. 3 . An inventory of all mobile home parks in the County was made to obtain Information concerning park size , spaces , school age children, tax and license fees revenue. 4 . All trailer registrations through March 1, 1969 were examined for each mobile home park to determine the license fees and the age of each mobile home. Care was exer- cised to exclude tracel trailers from com- tat.ions. 5 . A mean (average) assessed value of all mob- ile home parks was computed to provide a per space assessed value. 6. School records were examined to determine the number of P. L. 874 recipients by type of residence. 7 . The economic factor used was the per capita expenditures for goods in the Adams County Area . This expenditure was based on the gross sales. * *Colorado Department. of Revenue 8. Mobile home statistical data from Adams County was compared with available data from Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, and Jefferson Counties. 9 . The Adams County Population Estimate for 1969 was used as a base for all population est- imates. After all the raw data was collected, mathematical com- putations were used to evaluate and present the results of the inventory . For purposes of identifying mobile home parks, a definition was developed as follows: "A mobile home park shall mean any tract of ground which contains five or more mobile homes which are known, advertised, or commonly recognized as a mobile home park or trailer court are properly included within this definition. " Part II MOBILE HOMES INVENTORY, POPULATION and SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Mobile Home Parks Inventory An inventory of mobile home parks covering the- full area of Adams County from north to south and east from the western boundary approximately 18 miles , or a total area of approximately 297 square miles was completed. The results of this inventory are presented in Tables S and II. The survey and these facts gathered cover all parks. The observation, however , did not attempt to rate parks as to quality of quarters available to the public . The information was gathered by school district, where possible. Table I Mobile Home Parks by School District Number Number of School District of Parks Trailer Spaces 1 2 172 12 1 468 14 15 844 27J 4 94 28J 10 1001 50 12* 639 Total 44 3218 *'Includes Mobile Landed Estated which sells lots for trailer locations. 5 In order to determine the number of mobile hone parks in the Denver Metropolitan Area, a questionnaire was distri- buted to all County Planning Offices in the five-county area. Results of this survey are as follows . Table II Metropolitan Area Mobile Home Parks and Spaces Mobile Home Number of Avg. Space Counties Parks Spaces PesrP.ark Adams County 44 218 73 Arapahoe County 30 942 .'1 Boulder 48 1572 ?3 Denver 12 ` f3 3 32 Jefferson 20 1750 88 154 7865 51 Adams County has 40.9% of the mobile home spaces. Specific data as to the nature of the operations was gathered. Most mobile home residents own their own unit and lease a space in a mobile home park. Some operators of mobile home parks maintain one or ,,ore units for rent and in one case, the entire park con- tains units owned by the operator for lease to ten- ants. One mobile home area, identified by definition in this report, is in fact a mobile home subdi' isicn where individual lots are sold for occupancy by a mobile home and accessory buildings and improvements are installed by the owner, A comparison of the average school enrollemnt by housing type is presented below: Table III School Enrollment from Mobile Homes'* School No. of School Age Avg . School Enroll. District Mobile Homes Children Per Mobile Home 1 172 10 . 06 12 468 -0- 14 844 463 . 55 27J 94 14 . 15 28J 1001 364 . 36 50 639 159 / . 25 County Average 3 , 218 1, 010 / . 31 *A breakdown of apartment family composition is not available for Adams County . The Metropolitan Suburban area average is . 15 students per apartment unit. 7 Part III POPULATION Population Population data was gathered from throughout the study area. Sources included Adams County Planning Office, School District Administration Offices, and mobile home owners and managers. Table IV Population Estimates by dousing Types School County District 12 14 27) 28J 50 Total No, dousing Units Other Than Mobile Homes* 4,808 7,533 7,158 3,264 6,486 11 ,665 40,914 Average Farm ily Size 3.75 3.80 3, 76 3..73 4..27 3,76 3,78 Total Est. Pop, for dousing Other Than Mob, Homes** 18,073 28,668 26,967 12,200 25,078 43,937 154,923 Number of Mob, Homes 172 468 844 94 1 ,001 633 3,218 -Average Fam. ily Size 2,05 2.00 3. 13 2,39 2,62 2,47 2,59 Total Est. Pop, in Mob, domes 354 936 2,642 225 2,625 1 ,568 8,350 Est, Total Pop,*** 18,427 29,604 294609 12,426 27,703 45,505 i&3,273 *Information for apartments not available by school district,: **Apartment anu single family unit combined average, ***Adams County Planning Office Estimate of Population, 1969 — 9 — Family Size Average family size was found to be as follows : i 1. Mobile Homes 2. 59 2. Apartment Unit Dwellers 2.40* 3. Single Family Home Dwellers 4.08** The study indicates that mobile home parks generally have a smaller average family size than single family dwellings. Conversely, the average mobile home family size is slightly larger than the average family size of apartment dwellers. *Source: U. S. Census of Population, 1960. **Computed: Balance of population which occupies single family residences. - 10 - School Enrollment School enrollment statistics were gathered from each of study area districts in Adams County - The number of children from mobile homes was determined as a result of actual interviews and ccunts working with mobile home owners and managers . Table V Children Residing in Mobile Home Parks* District Number School Age Pre-School 1 10 24 12 0 0 14 463 838 27J 14 32 28J 364 Est. 678 50 159 300 1010 1872 The table below presents the computation of the percentage of school children in mobile homes as a percent of the total enrollment. Table V:[ Mobile Home Residency as a Percent cf Total Enrollment by School District School Total Mobile Home % from. District Enrollment Residence Mobile Homes 1 6, 907 10 . 15 12 12 , 150 -0- -0- 14 8, 159 463 5 . 70 27J 3 , 640 14 . 38 28J 6, 774*'* 384 5. 37 50 15 , 766 159 1. 01 County Total 53 , 396 1010 C189% *Source: School records , interviews with mobile home park owners and managers. **Adams County portion of total enrollment. School Officials in District 285 estimate that enrollment from mobile homes has dropped due to operator restrictions on fam- ilies with school children. This restrictive policy can, of course, be changed. A change could result in significant in- creases in school enrollments from mobile homes. 11 - The school enrollment per family living in permanent homes is presented below: Table VII School Enrollment Other Than Mobile Homes Avg . School Number of Housing Units Total School Enroll. per School District (Other than mobile homes) Enrollment* Home 1 4, 808 6 , 897 1. 43 12 7 , 533 12, 150 1. 61 14 7 , 158 7 , 696 1. 08 27J 3 , 269 3 , 626 1 . 11 28J 6 , 486 6 , 410 . 98 50 11, 665 15 , 607 1. 4 40, 914 52 , 386 *Not including Mobile Home enrollment of 1, 010 children- See Table VI - 12 Part. TV TAXES and FEES Comparative Taxes This section of the report presents information as to the distribution of housing by type, the assessed value and the taxes paid, and a comparison of the taxes paid with the students enrolled from each type of housing . The average assessed valuation for mobile home spaces is based on a 100% sample of value assessed to the parks in which the space occurs. Averace ownership fees per mobile home space are based on the number of vehicles registered to March 1, 1969, divided into the total fees collected. This computation included 2 , 095 registrations out of a total 3 , 218 spaces occupied. Distribution of ownership fees between the County and the schools followed the tax distribution formula established by statute. Special District and Municipal levies were not included in this computation. Table VIII Mobile Homes as Percent of Total Dwelling Inits School Total Total District Dwelling^Units_' Mobile homes Percent 1 4 , 980 172 3 .45 12 8, 001 468 5 .85 14 8, 002 844 10. 54 27J 3 , 358 94 2. 79 28J 7 , 487 1 , 001 13. 36 50 12 , 304 639 5 . 15 Totals 44 , 132 3 , 218 7 . 29 Taxes and Fees Paid by Mobile Homes The taxes and fees paid by mobile homes to schools and to the County are presented in the following tables . *All housing units-40, 914 and mobile homes-3 , 218 See Table IV; .,. 1 Table IX Revenue to School from Property Tax and Ownerships Fees by Scnool District (per mobile home oer space) School County O i s tr ct 1 12 14 27J 28J 50 "average Avg, Assess. Va1.. Per $ 420-a8 467,.90 426,31 3u7:66 181,661 617.,49 368, lei Space School4 Mill Levy 65-:i3b 71-.042 75, 110 61,57J 56.7604 74. 712 57,456 Avg, Prop- Tax Pd. ner Moo. d©m 40, to Schools A L7,04 3253 32,02 22u3 10..31 38.6t5 24,c$ Avg. Owner fees per Mob, come Sn,. $ 66.80 1)269 44,J4 37,33 42,113 47-;;/ 16-, % Ownership ry .a to SChoo d aJ.4/0 L l.b 61.4 7 . 1 73,U 82.4 80,d to 5rr-. District $ uj-71 43,00 36-43 19.63 32.J8 31. 04 36,63 Total to Scn. per Mobs dome sp. 4. 81,27 7a.a;3 ati:.3i 62,26 4.3.29 69.70 tit-4o 1"Average assessed -value artifically 10'. be*.au+se of recent mobile home court expansion whi cn ha$ not appeared on assessment ru i a. Z [ncludes County General Scnool Levy of 13,660 Mills, 3, Average Levy used due to consolidation actual levy 1-50,810 IA-5J,b6U 16-64,;200 for each at ea 4'Average Levy used due to consolidation acts;,,: levy 28JA 44,660 28J3 41 6iiJ for each area. -- 14 Table X Mobile Homes Revenue to County from Property Tax and Ownership Fees by School District (per mobile home ner space) School County District 1 12 14 170 : N. µ40K Av®ra Avg, Asses„ Val , Per sn- $ 420, 53 4;,7,33 425,32 357,55 131 ,551 517,49 a 363,16 Con .Mill Levy' 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 Avg, Pron Tax per Mob 5689 Home to 40- 6,73 7,33 6,32 5.88 2,91 8,28 Avg, sotal Owners; in fees per 14o0, Home So, y 66.80 52,69 44,J4 37,32 42,28 37,67 $ 46,33 % Ownership fees to Cu, 19,6% 18,4 17,6 20,6 22,0 17,6 19,,2% $ to Co, Amt, of Ownersnip $ 13,09 9,69 1,75 7,69 9, 30 6,.63 $ 8. 70 Fee to Co Tot, Amt. to /` Co, per Mob. I Home Sp° 19,82 17:02 14.57 13,57 12,21 14,91 I $ 14,59 Tot, Amt,to Sch, per sp, $ 81,27 15,03 68,31 52,26 43„29 69,70 $ 61,46 Tot, Amtn per sp, $ 101 ,.09 92 .55 82,88 65, 83 05,)0 84,61 $ 76.05 Tot, Amt, 29,36 perCap, --- --- --- --- --- --- l 'Average assessed value artificially low because no recent mobile home court expansion which has not appeared on assessment rolls 2.° Includes County General Road and 0rtdge, Public Welfare, Public Works, County Library, and Contingency levies, — 15 — Taxes Paid by Single Family Units It is estimated that there are presently 33 , 697 single family units in Adams County as of January 1, 1969 . These units range in value from under $10, 000 to in excess of $25, 000 and houses an estimated 137 , 603 persons or 4. 08 persons per unit. Average assessed value of these units have been computed. Table XI Per Unit Revenue Single Family Units Total Assessed Value $126, 734 , 420 Total Number of Units 33 , 697 Average Assessed Value $ 3 , 761 Average School Mill Levy 67. 455 Average Total School. Tax $253. 70 Average County Mill Levy 16. 000 Average Total Ccunty Tax $ 60. 17 Average Total Single Family Unit Tax $313 .87 Average per capita tax $ 76. 93 Taxes Paid by Multi-•Family Units It is estimated that there are presently 7 , 217* multi- family units in Adams County as January 1, 1969. These units range in size from buffet apartments to four- bedroom family units. These units house an estimated 17 , 320 persons or 2 . 4 person per unit. *Source: Western Federal Savings and Loan Association Est- timate 1/1/68, and Adams County Building Depart- ment Records. - 1.6 - A random sample of assessed valuation indicates an av- erage per unit assessed value of $2 , 459 . 18. Tax revenue from these units are estimated as follows: Table XII Per Unit Revenue Multi-Family Units School Revenue County Revenue Total Revenue $2459 . 18 $2459. 18 $2459 . 18 x 67 .455 mills* x 16. 000 mills x 83 . 455 Total per Family $165. 88/unit $ 39. 35 S205 . 23 Total per Capita $ 69 . 12 $ 16. 39 $ 85. 57 *Average District levy plus County General School Fund. The occupancy density in Adams County multi--family units is assumed to be typical of other metropolitan suburban multi-family unit apartments. Each apartment therefore contributes . 15 student per unit or one student for each 6. 66 dwelling units. The tax burden carried by multi- family units if significantly higher since the average tax dollar revenue per student per unit is $1104. 76 . - 1/ - Table XIII Tax Contribution Per Student Per Dwelling Unit Mobile Home Single Family Multiple Family Space Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Avg . Assess. Value $368. 16 $3 , 761. 00 $ 2 , 459 . 18 Avg . Total School Mill Levy 67. 455 mills 67 . 455 mills 67.455 mills Property Tax yield for School purposes $ 24 . 8 $ 253 . ''0 $ 165. 88 Ownership Fees $ 45 . 33 -0- -0- Avg . Total School. Mill Levy Percentage 80.8% 0 -0- Ownership Fees to Schools $ 36. 63 --0- -0- Total $ 61 .46 $ 253 . 70 $ 165. 88 Average Stduent per unit . 31 1 . 52 . 15 Dollar Tax Rev. per student $195. 24 per $ 169. 90 per $ 1104. 76 per student student student The tax revenues received by the schools on a per child basis is actually greater from a mobile home child than from a single fam- ily housing type child. The revenue from apartment. children is significantly higher than either group. Since the mobile home revenue paid is _partially from specific ownership fees and part- ially from property tax, the total value of the mobile home is not included in the assessed value of the school district. The district, therefore , is limited in its bond debt capacity to the extent that this real value does not appear as assessed value. 18 - Part V SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA Socio-Economic Impact on Adams County As part of the inventory and inspection phase of the study , every mobile home park in Adams County was visited at least once by the consultant. The cost of construction of each park, the value of mobile homes housed in each park, and the income level of the res- idents of the mobile home was observed. It is concluded that mobile home dwellers cover the entire spectrum, very poor to quite wealthy . The evaluation of all parks, as objectively as possible from a qualitative standpoint as compared to Adams County income stat- istics , indicated that a complete income cross-section of Adams County residents were living in mobile home parks. The residents of mobile home parks are in very much the same income brackets as the residents of apartments or single family residences. The prime reason for selection of any type of quarters appears to be the need and desire of people for a type of dwelling unit that fits them. Turnover by residents occupying homes in mobile home parks is very similar to most other housing types. The national average for mobile home "moves" is about once in every 5. 2 years*. In Adams County operators indicated that the average occupancy was for a shorter period of about three years. The "life" of con- ventional and FHA-VA single family home loans in the Denver area average six to eight years respectively . Apartment oc- cupancy averages two years. ** *Source : Mobile Home Manufacturers Association. **Western Federal Savings and Loan Association. Table XIV Apportionment of Share of Adjusted Gross Income to Mobile Home Residents 1967 Total Average Adjusted Number Adjusted Estimated Income Gross of Gross Number of Mobile Home Income Returns Income Mobile Homes Residents $342, 738, 118 58,826 $5 , 826 2 , 000* $11, 652 , 600 *Estimate of Carl S. Becker Company • Table XV Apportionment of Share of Total Retail Sales to Mobile Home Residents Estimated Estimated Sales 1967 Estimated Retail Sales Mobile Home Attrib. to Retail Sales Population Per Capita Population Mob. Home Res. 313 , 970, 000 160, 000 $1, 962 5 , 200 $10, 204 , 688 - 19 - • From this comparison, it is apparent that mobile home dwellers are more permanent than apartment dwellers and yet are not as permanent as the single family home dweller. In terms of economic impact , it was not possible to obtain a / representative valid sample of income per dweller,. Apparent V/ wealth indicators such as two-car families, travel trailers, boats and exterior improvements lead to the conclusion that the average resident„is an "average income" family in Adams County , Thus, contribution to and demand on the local economy by mob- ile park dwellers can be rated as "average" or similar to that of other citizens of Adams County . It is concluded that 3, 218 family units contribute significant- ly to the Adams County economy . In addition to the normal grocery , apparel, utility, and recreation contribution, the V mobile home resident creates the demand and stimulates the majority of the"mobile home industry " activities in the sales, service, manufacturing and maintenance fields in Adams County. The measurable indicators of economic impact are the sales and income figures shown in Tables Xiv and XV. Federal Aid to Schools The Federal aid to school programs provide funds to school districts . The details are presented as follows : 20 d ab1` i%V I Federal Aid to School Districs Under Public Laws 616 and 874 School Total ui Sl,t, i rat 1.,_ __ 14 . _41.$1 —.4.S ,.. .- _Co u ter. Students Living in -U- -J- 29 1 183 d 219 Hobo domes Students Living in Other iiousrnc 404 453 727 243 2342 1223 6464 Total Students 464 463 756 246 -2525 1229 6673 Public c Law 6164 None 4147,UUJ None clone hone none Public Law 4468.644x 12 6Y4 4)361 .16 316,Uii 18444l' x 744 3:34.27 171 ,86 314).25 Total P.,Lr, 4,426,84 674 Funds sl67,673°6U 143,176,18 137.2U1.U4 d2,23►i°42 433,997 381.297,25 Lounty dotal of P.L. Funds 0 . n o ° o ° $1 ,3496900.33 1°Source, Scnool District Adminstrative Offices. 2°Federal Aid for capital cons turcti on., 3,Federal aid for operation of Educational Program. Amount shown is per student payment 4°Amount paid for students who reside on Federal property. 3cAmount paid for students who reside on private property, — 21 — Taxes Paid by Present Single Fam.iiy_9wellinq Units In order to determine the relationship which exists between assessed value, tax: revenue and family size in single fam- ily homes , an extensive sample of assessed values was taken. from the assessment rolls of Adams County . Altogetr.er . SoIre 20, 024 individual hcmes and the assessments were examined. These assessments were reviewed in light of the est.:mat.ed true value or market value of single family residential units selected at random. This work was done in coopera- tion with the Adams County Planning Department. These homes were broken into four classes as follows: 1 . Class A - Under $10, 000 . 00 2 . Class B .- $10, 000 . 00 to $17 , 499. 00 3 , Class C - $17 , 500.. 00 to $24 , 999. 00 4 . Over $25 , 000. 00 22 Table XVII Comparative Market Value and Taxes Revenue by Housing Value Class - Adams County Class A B C D Number of Parcels Sampled 4 , 969 14 , 485 551 19 Avg . Assessed Value Per Parcel $ 3 , 176. 62 $4, 246.47 $4 , 246. 47 $7 , 183 . 68 Avg . School Mill Levy 67 .455* 67 .455* 67.455* 67.455* Avg . Taxes to Schools $214. 28 $286.45 $279. 11 $484 . 58 Avg . County Mill Levy 16 . 000 16. 000 16. 000 16. 000 Avg . County Tax $ 50. 83 $ 67 . 94 $ 66. 20 $114 .94 Avg . Total Mill Levy 83 . 455 83 .455 83 .455 83 .455 Avg . Total Tax $265. 11 $354. 39 $345. 31 $599. 52 Avg . Size** of Family 3 . 7 4. 2 4. 1 3 .6 Avg . Tax paid per Capita $ 71. 65 $ 84 . 38 $ 84. 22 $166. 53 *Includes County General School Levy plus average school levy . **Average family size based on 1960 census enumeration districts. The above table indicates that more expensive homes contribute more heavily to per capita tax revenues. In Adams County , most homes fall into the middle value housing category . The two mid- dle value housing categories each contibutes more total dollars in tax revenue than other groups. This class housing will continue to dominate the Adams County housing market. - 23 - Comparison of Mobile Home Zoninq_R,equirement.s One of the influences over mobile home park location is the nature of the local zoning restrictions as imposed on mobile home parks by local government.. Zoning controls pertaining to mobile homes exist in all jurisdictions of the metro- politan area except in the city and county of Denver and some of the small cities where mcbile homes are not permit- ted except as a non-conforming use. Table XVIII Zoning Regulations Authorize Mobile Home Parks Counties, Separate District Special lee_P_rmit. Adams yes Arapahoe yes Boulder yes" Denver no** no** Jefferson yes yes* *In Suburban Multi-Family Zone District. Also permitted in Commercial I District and Planned Development. District. **Non-Conforming Use only . 24 ... Table XIX Density Limits Mobile Home Parks Units/acre (Average) Counties Adams 11. 16 Arapahoe 13. 61 Boulder 8. 7 Denver n/p* Jefferson 18. 15 *n/p - Not a permitted use under current zoning . Table XX Lot Width, Setback and Height Limits (per home) Lot Front Rear Height Counties Width Yard Sidevard Yard Limits Adams 450 8 ' 12 ' 8 ' 16 " 5 ' * 261 ** Arapahoe 35 ' 10 ' 10 ' 10 ' 25 ' Boulder 25 ' 25 ' 71' 5 ' 25 ' 10*** Denver n/pl Jefferson 25 ' n/r2 10 ' 10 ' 25 ' 1 n/p - not permitted 2 n/r - no stated requirement or limitation * yard opposite entry to unit ** applies to buildings in district *** setback to exterior boundary - 25 - fab!e XL Renui red Servi ces or Amenties by Park. Owner Counties Adams Ara anoe Boulder uenver 1efferson Recreation yes yes yin not per- n/r mitted Laundry Services , dlugs, yes ./r yes nip' Land Donation yes n/r n/r , n/r Garbage ii f r_es h Pickup yes n/r yes n/r Off Street yes n/r yes ,, Parkingn/r Ven, Star,* , Area yes n/r n/r n/r iiealtil Dept. Appro yes n/r yes nil' Planned Unit Development yes yes yes yes *Trailer, boat , recreation venic!e , etc, ri/r No requirements are spelled out, but detailed plan is required: — 26 — Part VI ZONING Comparison: Adams County versus FHA Standards A comparison of Adams County Zoning Regulations with Federal Housing Administration Minimum Property Standards for Mobile Home Courts is presented herein. 1. The Federal Housing Administration' s Mobile Home Park Loan Insurance Program is of importance to all local jurisdictions. The use of this pro- gram which finances construction will increase as more mobile home units are purchased. 2 . Of specific local concern is the compatibility of local zoning laws with the FHA minimum specifica- tions. Uniformity of regulations will tend to el- iminate confusion caused by varying standards and assure quality mobile home park development financed by FHA. 3. The FHA minimum standards must be considered a beg- inning point and local regulations adjusted to local conditions must be adapted to fit. - 27 - faole ,(XII Adams County Loninq Regulations with FHA Minimum Requirements Adams County FHA Lot Area 3600 sq ft (26z) Lot Area no min, 4JOJ sq ft (76'4) stated Sine Yaru Side Yard ( .atry Side) 1? feet (entry Side) 15 feet (Other Side) 5 feet. (other Side) 3 feet Front Yard d feet Front Yard .13 feet Rear Yard u feet Rear Yard 3 feet Minimum Uist- Minimum Uist- ance utwn.. Mob, ance btwn , Mob,: Homes- Homes - (cntry Side) 26 feet (:entry Side) 44 feet (Utner Side) 2a feet (Other Slue) 1e feet (Rear ) 2S feet (Rear ) 1 J feet Recreation Recreation Area 8% Area d`k Parking Parking Req/Space LUG* Req/Space 1 .25 Waste and Waste and Trash wisp. Trasis Uisb, to Standards yes to Standards yes Storage 2JJ cu feet Storage 9J cu feet *1 off-street space plus unspecified oo street plus 133 square feet/space for other vehicle storage (ice, camper, coat, etc- ,1* 28 Part VII COST OF COUNTY SERVICE Cost of County Service The County must also consider the relative cost of service to housing . Per unit costs of County ser- vices are shown in Table XXII . Table XXIII Costs for County Services Per Dwelling Unit Schools Excluded) $4 , 548 , 243 . 36* 44, 132 dwelling units= $103 . 06 cost per dwelling unit for County services *Total County -All Funds Budget excluding County General School Fund. Table XXI indicates that single family residential units in Adams County pay direct ad valorem taxes equivalent to ap- proximately 50% of the costs of County services . The bal- ance of the costs are paid by specific ownership taxes, per- sonal property taxes , highway user tax refunds , State and Federal grants , various County services fees, and by bus- inesses and industrial taxes assessed and collected in Adams County , As shown above in. Table XXIII , the per-unit cost of County services is $103. 06 . The proportionate share of taxes re- turned to the County from total taxes paid by mobile home is significantly lower - $14. 59 (Table X) than is paid by single family housing -• $60. 17 (Table X) . It is apparent that the mobile home contribution to general County tax is substantially lower than single family housing. It should be pointed out that within mobile home parks, the County is not required to maintain public streets and by terms of the County zoning regulations , the mobile home park operator must provide rec- reational space for use of the occupants of the mobile home park. While the precise cost to the County from the opera- tion of the mobile home parks cannot be easily determined, it would appear that. the County is not receiving sufficient revenue from mobile home parks to cover the cost of services. - 29 - Part VIII SUMMARY and FINDINGS Summary A summary of taxes and fees paid per family and per capita is presented in this section. This section also presents the findings from the study . Table XXIV Summary of Tax and Fee Receipts Family Unit Per Capita Schools Counts __ Total —. _ Total____ Mobile Home $ 61 . 46 $ 14. 59 $ 76. 05 $ 29. 36 Permanent Single 76.93 Family Dwelling 253 . 70 60. 17 313 .87 Permanent Multi- 165. 88 39. 35 205 . 23 85 . 57 Family Dwelling - 30 - Findings The findings are as follows-: 1.. That the future economic impact on society in this . / country , and specifically in Adams County , Colorado, V/ will be an ever increasing number of mobile type homes used to provide -housing for people whose in- comes or desires make it wise to live in a house costing less than $12 , 500.. / 2 . That. in the future, more adequate financing arrange-- ment. will be developed which will provide for the anticipated expansion of mobile home living . 3. That Adams County has 40. 9% of the mobile home spaces in the metropolitan area . That the mobile home park residents usually have a v much. smaller family , - 2 . 59 people, than residents of permanent single family dwellings . Less than 2% of the school population in Adams County comes from mobile homes. 5 That mobile home families do not contribute as many children to the school. system proportionately as do other families . There is only one chance in three that the family will have a school-age child. 6 . That the assessed value of mobile homes does not completely reflect. the recent expansion of mobile home parks. V7 . That mobile home dwellers come from all walks of life and all income levels. / ) That turnover of the use of space in mobile home i/ �� parks is only slightly higher gran turnover in the purchase and sale of permanent single family res- idential homes. 9. That the typical mobile home space in Adams County is occupied by a 1963 mobile home. 10. That the heed of the household will earn an average annual adjusted gross income of S5, 826. 30. * ✓ 11. That the family will trade the mobile home once every six years. ** 12. All metropolitan jurisdictions maintain zoning res- �� /// trictions of one type or another over mobile home X parks. In Adams County , these restrictions are/ \ gen- erally more stringent then FHA requirements. *Source: 1967 Annual Report Colorado Department of Revenue. **Source: Interview with mobile home owners and park operators. 31 ... 13. Mobile home school children are significantly V less in number than present single family dwell- ing school children. As a consequence, the proportionate amount of taxes and fees paid per child by mobile home dwellers is higher. That per capita tax and fee payments by mobile home residents are significantly lower than permanent single family and multi-family dwell- ing occupants. However, the amount of service provided to mobile home families is also sign- ificantly lower. 15. That. the Adams County permanent single family dwelling purchases are dom:inata.d by those classes falling between a market value of $11, 000 and a market value of $25, 000. The greatest portion of the total tax revenue comes from the houses in these two classes. - 32 s- APPENDICES Appendix A Population estimates n? Scrinnl listricts bt' NOi1Si0n Tvr1?S School Total • Cou 12 14 270 28Jai3 nty U1Striots 1 number of ,Mob, Homes 172 468 844 94 1 ,001 Jag 3,218 est, Pope Mou, ,bone 364 936 2,642 22 2,625 1 ,668 8. 350 Avg Family Size 2,JJ 2,00 3,13 2,39 2,62 2.47 2.59 NO- of a:Jel. - ing units otrter than Moii le 8owsw 4,808 7,533 7,168 3,264 6,486 11 ,665 40,914 ,:sti mate Population 18,J73 28,668 26,967 12,200 26,J78 43,937 1.64,923 Avg Family Size 4.76 3.805 3,77 3.74 3,,87 3,77 3,79 focal Est, Population 18,427 24 ,604 29,609 12,426 27,703 460505 163,2.73 *i4o breakdown of single family and mu1i t-family by school district , Appen3ix__B Mobile Home Use , Depreciation and Salvage The mobile home unit will have three owners during its average twelve-year life and be moved four times. Trade- in value will be affected by the artificial six-year depreciation. £actor which. corresponds to the State lic— ense fee depreciation schedule. After the unit is "re- tired" from family occupancy , it is likely to be con- verted to a construction of'f.i.ce, storage building , a rancher ' s shed or continue to serve as housing for migrant workers. In the event of travel damage to the unit, most of the appliances , furniture and fixtures will be salvaged. Because of the recent growth pattern of mobile homes as permanent dwellings , the true impact of the salvage pro- blem will not be known for five - seven years. It is assumed that. the problem will be similar to the present auto salvage situation but of less serious impact .be- cause of absolute numbers. Some consideration should be given to this problem at. an early date . Appendix C Mobile Home Registrations in Adams Countyl 1958 n/a 1959 1022 1960 1383 1961 2287 1962 2690 1963 2609 1964 3020 1965 3095 1966 3561 1967 4240 1968 4861 1. Source: Annual Reports , Colorado Department of Revenue. Includes some travel trailers classified as mobile homes. Appendix D Inventory of Mobile Nome Parks by School District Projected School Court No. of 1869 License Average Lac. -Rev. Assessed -Assessed Value District Code Spaces Fee Paid 3/1/69 Fee/Space ?er Court Value Per Space #1 A 147 25 $ 73.06 $10,739.82 $ 70,030 $ 476.39 B 25 12 68.84 1,721.00 2,310 92.40 District Total 172 37 71.30 avg 12,460.82 72,340 420.58 #12 A .468 468 57.19 24,660.85 208,630 457.90 District Total 468 468 57.19 avg 24,660.85 208,630 -457.90 #14 A 40 8 30.41 1,216.40 10,920 237.39 B 30 11 51.09 1,532.70 12,240 408.00 C 34 23 47.62 1,608.88 13,180 387.64 D 58 17 30.73 1,741.74 43,730 753.96 E 15 13 60.10 901.50 7,110 474.00 F 64 60 48.30 3,091.20 11,480 179.37 G 52 28 53.61 2,787.72 17,770 341.73 H 65 45 49.88 3,242.20 18,180 279.69 I 290 180 65.25 18,922.50 155,880 537.51 J 40 29 52.94 1,535.20 8,230 205.75 K 30 18 60.68 1,820.40 13,340 444.66 L 71 36 50.90 3,613.90 30,710 432.53 M 17 6 36.26 616.42 n/a n/a N 15 9 57.04 855.60 17,050 1,136.66 O 23 3 33.37 767.51 n/a n/a District Total 844 '486 '48.54 avg ,44,253.87 359,820 426.32 #27J A 31 17 $ 42.71 $ 1,3?4.61 $ 12,720 $ 410.32 B 16 12 28.19 450.72 5,560 347.50 C 21 6 44.33 930.93 6,370 303.33 D 26 13 52.08 $ 1,354.08 9,900 380.77 District Total 94 48 41.82 avg. $ 4,059.74 34,550 367.55 #28J A 110 89 54.93 6,042.30 4,180 38.00 B 74 28 42.63 3,154.62 3,190 43.00 C 63 34 42.51 2,678.13 16,000 253.97 D 25 7 36.94 923.50 n/a -n/a E 120 76 64.37 7,724.40 30,790 256.58 F 206 149 57.97 11,941.82 53,660 260.48 G 268 214 65.77 17,626.36 4,740 17.68 H 48 13 37.91 1,819.68 14,630 304.79 I 65 48 37.48 2,436.20 48,390 744.46 J 22 13 27.31 600.82 6,370 289.54 District Total 1001 671 46.78 avg. 54,947.83 181,850 181.66 #50 A 100 86 58.47 5,847.00 75,670 756.70 B 60 35 44.78 2,686.80 37,240 620.66 C 96 72 53.38 5,124.48 37,440 390.00 D 36 13 49.35 1,480.50 16,390** 780.47 E 117 55 37.07 4,337.19 31,400 268.37 F 45 20 38.61 1,737.45 28,290 628.60 G 30 16 -35.10 1,053.00 6,520 217.36 H 21 17 33.87 711.27 13,730 653.80 I 36 22 39.18 1,410.48 25,670 713.05 J 28 19 33.68 948.64 11,910 425.35 K 17 7 36.73 624.41 8,360 491.76 L 53 23 50.16 2,658.48 12,950 244.33 District Total 639 385 $ 42.17 avg. $ 22,831.17 $327,570 $ 517.4 County Total 3,218 2,095 49.83 avg. $161,863.20 1,184,760 368.16 *Assumes 100% occupancy ** Includes 21 improved lots out of 35. Appendix F Percent Distribution of Property Tax Revenue in Cities 1. Thornton School District No. 1 Mill Levy % of Total County 16. 00 16. 8 County General School 1.3 . 65 14 . 3 School District No. 1 50. 81 53 . 3 City 14. 98 15.6 95 . 44 100. 00 2 . Commerce City School District No. 14 Mill Levy % of Total County 16 . 00 15.4 County General School 13 . 65 13 . 2 School District -No. 14 61.46 59 . 3 City 9. 00 8. 7 So. Adams County Water & 3 . 50 3 .4 Sanitation District 103 .61 100. 00 3 . Brighton School District No. 27J Mill Levy % of Total County 16. 00 17. 3 County General School 13. 65 14. 7 School District No. 27J 47 . 92 51.8 City 1.5. 00 16. 2 92 . 56 100. 00 4 . Aurora School District No. 28J Mill Levy % of Total County 1.6. 00 18. 0 County General School 13 .65 15.4 School District No. 28J 44. 66 50. 3 City 14. 50 16. 3 88.81 100. 00 5. Westminster School. District No. 50 Mill Levy % of Total County 16. 00 15. 3 County General School 13 . 65 13. 1 School District No. 50 61 . 06 58. 7 Recreation District 4 . 00 9 . 1 City _ 9, 50 _ 3 . 8 104 . 21 100. 00 Appendix G Number of Mobile Homes by Year of Manufacture Adams County (1969 Registrations to March 1, 1969) 1.941 1 1947 1 1948 5 1949 1950 4 1951 15 1952 16 1953 28 1954 13 1955 41 1956 60 1957 67 1958 89 1959 135 1960 120 1961 112 1962 137 1963 21' 1964 248 1.965 201 1966 226 1967 202 1.968 2'2 1969 91 Median age is five years based upon year of manufacture. Appendix G Number of Mobile Homes by Year of Manufacture Adams County (1969 Registrations to March 1, 1969) 1941 1 1947 1 1948 5 1949 7 1950 4 1951 15 1952 16 1953 28 1954 13 1955 41 1956 60 1957 67 1958 89 1959 135 1960 120 1961 112 1962 137 1963 217 1964 248 1965 201 1966 226 1967 202 1968 272 1969 91 Median age is five years based upon year of manufacture. / 19--// CITY OF GOLDEN ■ . ■ . 911 TENTH STREET GOLDEN, COLORADO July 24, 1970 Brad Wolff 3280 South Oneida Way Denver, Colorado 80222 The City Engineer, Victor Seiferth, and myself have just returned from an inspection tour of your Golden Terrace Mobile Home Park development. We are both very pleased with theprogress that has been made. Most of the requirements demanded under the PD agreement have been met and those remaining are rapidly being accomplished. We are pleased particularly about the way you are sodding the spaces. Your method of setting the mobile home and then sodding the lot seems to make a lot of sense. The Inspector reports that all utility services (water, sewer and telephone) are installed to each of the 264 spaces as well as the Club House and swimming pool. Concrete patios are completed on all 264 spaces, also. We noted that as of yesterday there were 44 "homes" set, all of which had sod and street lights. It appeared that about half of the "homes" had skirts on and others were in process of being installed. There has been approximately 90 storage sheds set. The Club House and swimming pool are nearing completion. Progress to date indicates an excellent mobile home development that will be outstanding in the area. Sincerely yours, Walter G. Brown City Manager WGB/sb Hello