HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041185.tiff ORIGINAL
_ Transcript
CATTAIL CREEK GROUP LLC
DOCKET NO. 2004-23
03/24/2004
etryatnf K d-7/9-5)-00"/ 2004-1185 #Co/3
1
PROCEEDINGS
MR. MASDEN: Good morning. We will now hear Case
No. PL-1628 . And we have a sign-up sheet circulating if
anybody wants to speak on this issue. Please get this.
Come over and sign up. And people who were speaking,
including the Commissioners, I'm told, we need to speak up.
They're having trouble hearing us.
We will start up here in -- we'll only go about 20
minutes. What we'll try and do is -- Counselor will make
the case on record. We'll have staff go through the
application. And we will take a break, like I said, at 11:45.
And people who cannot come back -- we 'll reconvene at 1: 30.
People who cannot come back for that 1:30 hearing,
we'll give you a chance -- hopefully we' ll have time for
_ people to give testimony. If anybody wants to testify for
or against this application, we' ll open up the public input
portion, and you'll be able to testify if you cannot come
back for the 1:30 hearing. So we'll get started now,
Counselor.
MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, Docket No. 2004-23
is the application of Cattail Creek Group, LLC, in care of
2
George DuBard, in care of Todd Hodges Design, LLC, for
Amended Changes of Zone No. 613 through the a agricultural
zone district PUD, zone district for 8 lots with the state
_ zone uses and one lot with agricultural zone uses along the
7 . 19 acres of open space. Legal description, Lot 2 record
exemption No. 2637 being part of the southwest corner
section 9 north, 66 west, at 6 p.m. in Weld County,
Colorado. Notice was published March 4, 2004 in the South
Weld Sun, and evidence of posting provided by photograph in
an affidavit to the staff.
MR. MASDEN: Alright thanks agin, sir. Good
morning, Sheri.
MR. MORRISON: In terms of the testimony, you
probably need to get agreement from the applicant if it' s
all right to take these things out of order, or at least
see if he ' s got an objection to it .
MR. MASDEN: Is there a representative from the
applicant, or the applicant here? Give your name and
address, please.
MS. BEST-JOHNSON: Good morning. Anne Best-
Johnson. Todd Hodges Design. 1269 North Cleveland Avenue,
Loveland, Colorado, 80537 . Dave Heldt, the property
manager, agrees that it is fine to take public testimony.
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thank you. All right.
Sheri?
AGREN-BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
3
MS . LOCKMAN: Sheri Lockman, Department of
Planning Services . Cattail Creek Group, LLC, in care of
George DuBard, has applied for a request for a Change of
Zoning agricultural to be given for eight lots with the E
Estate services and one lot of agricultural land uses . It
also has 7 . 19 acres of open space. Signed by the Board of
County Commissioners was March 4, 2004 by planning staff.
MR. MASDEN: Sheri, let me ask you how many acres
of open space did you say?
MS. LOCKMAN: The open space itself is 7 . 19.
MR. MASDEN: All right. Thank you.
MS . LOCKMAN: Cattail Creek community is located
north of and adjacent to County Road 70, approximately 800
feet east of County Road 29 . The towns of Severance and
Eaton and the city of Greeley are all in the three miles of
referral area. Surrounding properties are agricultural in
nature, with homes in close proximity. Forteen remote
referral agencies reviewed this case; 13 responded
favorably or included conditions that have addressed the
development plan and conditions for approval.
Numerous letters and petitions have been received
requesting denial of the community. The applicants do have
an agreement with the North Weld County water district to
service the homes and lots for the residential lots. The
applicant proposes to irrigate the agricultural lot and
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
4
open space, along with residential lots, with water from
Woods Lake mutual Water and Irrigation Company and Larimer
and Weld Irrigation Company.
-- The application included a letter from Doug Seeley,
Water Resource Engineer with Tetra Tech RMC. Mr. Seeley
indicated that Cattail Creek should have no problem
delivering the proposed irrigation water to the site. The
applicant is proposing (inaudible) and has agreed to a
portion of the shared cost of improving County Road 7 from
the western edge of the access road east of Weld County
Road 31 .
The applicant has been in negotiations with Bonanza
Creek Oil Company, who happen to owne the lease on the
property. However, they have not been able to enter into a
use agreement at this time. Planning staff recommend the
following language be added as Commission approval 184,
which is under required recording Amended Change of Plat,
and I did give a copy of this to the Chair.
If a service use agreement is reached with the Bonanza
Creek Oil Company, the claues shall indicate the agreed
upon drilling envelope locations including setback. If an
agreement is not reached, the plat shall indicate the 400 -
- the 4 -- 400 by 400 drilling envelope and the long 800 by
800 drilling envelope location per state statute. Weld
County Planning Commission is recommending approval of the
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
5
change of zone. The applicants have requested the final
plan be administratively reviewed. We will request that
you include the format you wish the (inaudible) final
motion be made.
The applicants are being represented by Ms . Anne Best-
Johnson and Mr. Todd Hodges . And I would be happy to take
any questions you have.
MR. MASDEN: All right. Thanks, Sheri . Any
questions of Sheri on this?
MS. LOCKMAN: I do have some photos if you would
like to see them.
MR. MASDEN: Any comments from the Health
Department?
MS. SMITH: Good morning. Pam Smith, Weld
County Health Department. The lot sizes have changed from
one-acre lots to four-acre lots . The septic systems are
anticipated to be conventional septic systems . There is a
area of a 100 foot flood plain elevation. The septic
envelopes have been placed outside that -- that
designation. And I guess that' s about it as far as the
changes . So I can answer any questions that you have
though.
MR. MASDEN: All right. Thanks . Do you have any
.- questions of Pam? All right. Thank you. Peter?
MR. SCHEI : Good morning. Peter Schei,
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
6
Department of Public Works. I don't have any specific
comments . Just note that the interior roadway is going to
be paved, two 12-foot lanes . I 'd be happy to answer any
questions that the Board may have .
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Any questions of Peter?
Commissioner Geile?
MR. GEILE: The only question I have, Peter, is
have you seen any language related to homeowners
association agreement where they would be responsible for
the maintenance, snow removal of the (inaudible) ?
MR. SCHEI : I have not seen that myself
personally. It may be there in --
MR. GEILE: The reason I asked that is one that
we approved earlier, that is -- that is actually one of the
conditions in the HOA -- Homeowners Association. So I 'm
just curious if it was there, if I just couldn't find it.
But maybe the applicant can deal with that. Thank you.
MR. SCHEI : Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: Any other questions of Public Works?
Seeing none, the representative for the applicant. Oh, we
-- is there anyone here that wants to speak for or against
this -- we will open up the public input portion to speak
for or against this application -- and will not be able to
return for the 1 : 30 -- when we start the meeting back up?
Is there anyone that would like to speak on this, for or
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
7
against this? If there is, you can step to the lectern.
Give your name and address, please.
MALE VOICE: Good morning. The people that are
here to speak this application would prefer to wait until
after 1 : 30 because they -- they don't want to be held to
time constraints, so they don't have any problem waiting.
MR. MASDEN: All right. Thank you. We will move
on then and ask for a representative from the application.
MS. BEST-JOHNSON: Anne Best-Johnson. Here today
with property manager Dave Heldt and a group of consultants
representing Cattail Creek Group, LLC. On August 20, 2002,
the Planning Commission approved the Change of Zone
application. The Board of County Commissioners denied the
-. Change of Zone application on October 2, 2002 .
The applicants then presented a Substantial Change
application to the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners and received approval at those
hearings on August 5 and October 8, 2003 respectively.
Both found the applicant met criteria for Substantial
Change based upon criteria outlined in the Weld County
Code. Both boards supported the applicant proceeding with
a Change of Zone application phase .
Planning Commissioners approved the Amended Change
Zone application on February 3, 2004 . Today, we are asking
for your vote of approval of this Amended Changes Zone
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
8
application.
The project location is north of and adjacent to Weld
County Road 70 and approximately 800 feet east of Weld
County Road 29. The site is approximately three miles
southwest of Eaton, one mile north of Greeley, and three
miles south-southeast of Severance . The acreage, again, is
161.34 acres . Surrounding land uses include agricultural
and residential .
The applicant has worked with referral agencies
through four phases of this development: Sketch Plan,
Change of Zone, Substantial Change, and now the Amended
Change of Zone application phases . Through this
cooperation with referral agencies, the communities of
Eaton, Greeley, and Severance have indicated no conflict
with the proposal.
Other referral agencies lending their support for this
application include the Eaton School District, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Eaton Fire Protection District, West
Greeley Soil Conservation District, the State Division of
Water Resources, Bonanza Creek Oil Company, and the Weld
is—
County Sheriff' s Office, Department of Public Health and
Environment, Zoning Compliance, Planning Services, Building
Inspection, and Public Works .
Mineral owners and lessees of Mineral owners were
notified according to State Statute on December 29, 2003 .
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
..r
9
Letters from Bonanza Creek Oil is included in application
materials and indicate no conflict with the proposal .
This project does propose non-urban scale development
through a PUD process . Eight four-acre lots are located on
the least productive portion of the property. The property
owners met with Mr. Gary Whitman, who farms the site, to
determine the least productive portion of this parcel . He
determined the land located to the east was the least
productive portion due to short rows and the size.
Therefore, our client decided to place the common open
space and Lots 1 through 8 in this area. Mr. Whitman is
present today to answer any questions that you may have.
Lots 1 through 8 are proposed to be located on
approximately 33 acres of the -- of the property, and
that' s approximately 20 percent of the entire site. 18 . 02
acres, or nearly 54 percent of Lots 1 through 8 has been
designated a No-Build area to preserve the septic leech
field, replacement envelopes, and landscape buffer. The
flood plain associated with Lots 1 through 5 is located in
the No-Build area. Each four-acre lot, then, has an
approximately one-and-a-half to a two-acre building site .
The remainder of each lot has been place in this No-Build
area.
There is one 114-acre agricultural lot proposed. This
lot is approximately 71 percent of the entire site .
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
10
There's a five-acre building envelope proposed. It ' s
currently under Center Pivot irrigation and has been farmed
in the past. Mr. Gary Whitman, again, is present to answer
any questions regarding farming on this parcel .
Common open space is proposed north of Lot 5, east of
Lot 9, and there is a 75-foot wide landscaped buffer west
of Lots 6 through 8, and that equates to approximately
seven acres, or approximately five percent of the site.
The 75-foot wide landscaped buffer between Lots 6 through 8
is beyond the setback in the No-Build area . So that's an
additional buffer.
Proposed land uses within the subdivision include
single-family residential, agricultural, and open space
uses . The specific architectural styles of the residential
structures will be selected by individual lot owners within
standard limitations outlined in the Covenants, and a draft
copy of those Covenants was provided in this Amended Change
of Zone application.
Domestic water is to be provided by North Weld County
Water District. And Alan Overton from North Weld County
Water District will be available to answer any questions
that you may have. Irrigation water is to be provided to
the homeowners association. Doug Seeley, an engineer for
the project, is here to answer any questions that you may
have on irrigation water. Sewage disposal is to be handled
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
11
by individual sewage disposal systems . Tom Finley, the
GeoTechnical Consultant, is here to answer any questions
that you may have on the septic systems .
Access to Lot 9 shall remain as it is today. Access
to Lots 1 through 8 will be made from Weld County Road 70 .
Cooperation with Weld County Public Works and the Sheriff's
Office ensures safe access . Dennis Messner, the project
engineer, is available to answer any questions .
This proposal meets and exceeds portions of the review
and approval criteria for a Change of Zone Planned Unit
Development as outlined in the Weld County Code . Section
27-1-10 : The intent of the PUD is to allow developers to
apply flexibility in developing land, to encourage a more
efficient use of land, to conserve the value of the land,
and to encourage the preservation of the site ' s natural
characteristics .
._ Section 27-2-60: The intent of providing common open
space has been met. It is important to note recent changes
in the Weld County Code have eliminated common open space
proposed Planned Unit Developments as this one.
Section 27-6-120 . 6.c: The proposed application is
capable of being in harmony with surrounding land uses .
Sections 22-3-50 .B. 1, 22-2-190 .D. 4, 22-2-210 .E:
Adequate facilities and services are available.
Section 27-2-10 : The performance standards of the PUD
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
12
chapter have been met. Review by the Department of
., Planning Services, Public Works, Public Health, the
Sheriff' s Office, and other referral agencies indicate no
conflict.
22-2-60: The Center Pivot Irrigation System and
building envelope on Lot 9 support the goals listed in this
section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 22-2-210 .D: This proposal supports the
Comprehensive Plan' s outline of the PUD purpose -- to
provide flexibility, areas of distinct character and
identity, and conservation of natural site features .
Section 23-1-90 : The definitions of common open
space, non-urban scale development, the Weld County Prime
and Non-Prime Agricultural Land listed in the Zoning
Chapter were consulted in preparing this application.
This is an agricultural area. The applicant, in fact,
is retaining a large agricultural parcel . The Right to
Farm Statement as found in the Weld County Comprehensive
^ Plan will be placed on all plats to be recorded.
We do request a favorable vote by you today. Included
with this vote, we respectfully request staff review of the
final plat.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this
request . And I am happy to answer any questions that you
may have at this time. There are also other consultants
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
13
that are here with me today that would also be happy to
answer any questions that you may have at this time.
MR. MASDEN: Thank you, Anne. Any questions?
Commissioner Geile?
MR. GEILE: Anne, I have not seen the homeowners
association or the Covenants associated with that. Can you
help me a little bit? Can you tell me if within it, who' s
responsible for the maintenance of the roads?
MS. BEST-JOHNSON: The maintenance of the roads
and snow removal will be done by the homeowners association
now. After a year, if Weld County accepts the roads, Weld
County will take over some of those maintenance
responsibilities, but it ' s still the homeowners
association's responsibility to do some of the other items .
MR. MASDEN: Any other questions of Anne? Okay.
We will take a break now and reconvene at 1 : 30 for public
testimony. Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 11 : 43 a.m. , the meeting was
recessed until 1 :30 p.m. )
MR. MASDEN: Good afternoon. We are reconvening
our Board of County Commissioners . I 'm showing all five
Commissioners are here still . We didn't lose anybody over
lunch. And it looks like a good portion of the people came
back. Thanks for bearing with us . We are now getting into
the public portion of this hearing, and I 'd like to open
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
14
this up for public comment. You can come to the lectern
and speak for or against this application, giving your name
and address for the record. And you'll have three minutes
to speak on -- on the -- each individual on this . So is
there anyone here who would like to speak on this?
MR. MILLER: Good afternoon. My name is Mike
.. Miller. 14280 County Road 72, Greeley, 80631 . I am here
representing the 168 people who have signed the petition
that you have in your possession, so hopefully you will
bear with me and give me a little more than three minutes.
It usually takes me longer to say anything than three
minutes .
This application was denied by this Board in 2002 .
The issues stated at that time were compatibility,
buffering and screening, and irrigation issues. The
applicants came back with a Substantial Change hearing,
which you approved, and they made minimal changes, which
were adequate to justify Substantial Change. But we don' t
feel that those changes were adequate to address the issues
that were the cause of it being denied in the first place.
The first issue that you -- you folks denied it on is
buffering and screening. The elevation drop from the
adjacent properties to this site is 22 feet. The
applicants have proposed to screen the west side of the
property from the pages property, which would be this area
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
Pia
15
right here. It ' s going to be very difficult for the
applicants to put any kind of screen in there that will
Ps
screen the pages from this property since there is a 22
foot drop there. We don't feel that that is -- is going to
be effective .
The applicants have also failed to address any kind of
screening on the north side of the property adjoining my
property or on the east side of this application adjoining
that neighbor' s property. That' s never been addressed.
They've made no attempt whatsoever to screen that area.
The applicants have -- have stated in their
application that they've been in contact with Larry Rodstad
at the Division of Wildlife regarding fencing along the
north and east boundaries, but they have not submitted any
plan to fence anything. They contacted him back in August
of 2003 but they've never followed through on any of that,
so we have no idea what plans, if any, that they have for
screening or buffering the north and the east properties .
The second issue that you denied this application on
before was incompatibility. That incompatibility remains .
The Planning Commission failed to recognize or would not
recognize the previous petitions that were circulated. So
we went back and addressed this new application with 168
people, all of which were still in opposition to this
application, even with the changes made .
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017 BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
16
._ The applicants moved the roadway. They enlarged the
size of the lots to four acres . But in doing so, they
reduced the common open space to practically nothing.
�- These people still feel that this is incompatible, but the
large lots now will become unmanageable. Very few people
are capable of dealing with four acres of property.
The last application had a large open space area on
the east side of the property and smaller lots. The
problem they had with that application was they couldn't
irrigate that common open space . But now they've got it
broken down into eight individual lots, which is even more
unmanageable for irrigation. The properties now about the
neighbors ' properties .
There used to be a big, open space area over here
which buffered them from the property to the east and the
property to the north. Well, as part of the Substantial
Change application, they changed the size of the lots, and
now these properties directly adjoin the neighbors '
properties . And there is no provision in here for any type
of buffering or screening or fencing to keep the residents
of these lots -- I guess it would be one, two, three, four,
and five -- from accessing neighboring property.
Mr. Geile referred to, in his decision for denial in
the last case, suggested that they go to a cluster PUD.
Well, the applicants have said they won' t -- won't do that .
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
17
The question is, why won't they do that? Well, the -- the
cluster PUD would require this agricultural outlot to then
be preserved for a minimum of 40 years from any type of
development. What' s to prevent these guys now from coming
back in five years and saying, well, now we want to
subdivision on this other ag outlot. They'd be right back
in front of you again and -- and we ' ll be right back doing
this same thing again. It kind of shows the -- that the
attitude that they have toward this is that they want to
get the most out of it they can. I don't hold that against
them. They' re all out here to make a profit . But we don't
want it to be at our expense.
The applicant ' s submitted a claim that they have
satisfied the open space requirement . The PUD' s required
to have a certain amount of open space. I believe it's 20
percent of the -- of the property. The applicants are
claiming that the unbuildable portions of these lots
qualify as open space. And they' re claiming that the
outlot qualifies as open space . If you look at the actual
common open space, it's only seven acres . That does not
meet the county requirement for common open space.
Now, they've -- they've got an out there . They claim
that this outlot gives them the right to not have -- not
meet that minimum requirement . The common open space is
defined as "usable parcel of land or water, unimproved and
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
18
set aside, dedicated, designated, or reserved for public or
private use for the use and enjoyment of owners or
occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such areas .
There' s no way in the world that the people living in this
are going to be allowed to use that agricultural outlot for
anything. Whoever's farming that is not going to want kids
over there running around, playing in that outlot. There
is no way that the unbuildable parcels of these lots
qualify as common open space. The guy in Lot 1 doesn't
want the guys in Lot 2 coming over and playing on his land.
It is not common open space . And it does not meet the
intent of common open space. There is nowhere on this
property where people could congregate, where they can have
any type of community on the full seven acres that they
have divided in this strip of land going up behind their
houses and that little piece up on the north. It does not
meet the intent of common open space, nor does it meet the
percentage requirement of common open space .
One of the biggest issues that we had was irrigation
of all this land. There was an issue with water being
illegally diverted from neighboring properties in the
previous application. During the Substantial Change
hearing, the applicant said that it was just a
misunderstanding. It was not a misunderstanding. It was
being illegally diverted. We have a letter from the Water
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017-BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328-GREELEY(970)356-3306
19
Commissioner demanding that they cease that diversion. And
they have . They have since had to concrete in that
diversion.
Now they have installed another piece of pipe in there
to bring water down to this property, and they say, well,
that just solves the whole irrigation issue . It does not
solve the irrigation issue. The applicants claim, well, we
got a letter from the water engineer stating that there is
— ample water on this property. If you would -- and you all
have a copy of this letter from Tetra Tech, their water
engineer.
Now, I 've seen hundreds of land use cases, but I 've
never seen an engineer' s letter that was written quite like
this . Engineers are supposed to deal with facts . They' re
supposed to be able to take facts and come up with numbers
that say this is what you' ll have . I look at this letter
from Tetra Tech. It states that the information that he
relied on was provided to him by John Shepardson, the
applicant, and one of his employees . Never did the
engineer contact Woods Lake Mutual Water Company, who would
know what the delivery of water is out there . Never did.
Who would you contact if you were trying to find out how
much water actually was delivered?
The engineer states that historical records of water
deliveries from Woods Lake system are limited, and a
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328-GREELEY(970)356-3306
20
detailed analysis of the expected yield of the water rights
has not been performed. Well, that ' s what you would expect
from an engineer' s report, isn't it? That' s what I would
expect. Instead, he says, "it is our understanding that
the original allocation of Woods Lake shares was performed
such that a single share of Woods Lake water was adequate
to irrigate a single acre of land by means of flood
irrigation.
Utilizing this general assumption, 20 shares of Woods
Lake Mutual Water should be adequate to irrigate 20 acres
of land growing a typical crop. " You don' t need an
engineer to say "it should. " The engineer, to make a good
determination, should have found out what the actual
delivery is . The actual delivery is determined at the
Board of -- the water company this year is approximately
a-
three-quarters of an acre foot of water per share of Woods
w Lake water. That would not be adequate water to water this
site .
They also -- the plan that they have, half a share of
Larimer and Weld water. Larimer and Weld water is early
water. We call it free water. By law, it cannot be stored
water. When they call and say you've got some water
coming, you are required by law to take that water, use it,
and let it flow through back into the system. You are not
allowed to put it into storage. This water ends in June --
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
21
in a real good year, early July. What are they going to
— water with in July, August, and September? It won' t be
Woods Lake water because there isn't very much of that.
They do not have an adequate irrigation plan. Now
they've taken what previously was a bad irrigation plan
with inadequate water. Now they split it up into eight
individual lots . And they have not provided us with any
idea of how they are going to take that water and deliver
it to these lots . They say, oh, well, maybe we ' ll run a
pipe down here and then under the road. When you order
water, you get it all now. You don' t get a trickle that
you can split up over 48 hours in this small, small
quantity of water. So all eight of these lots are going to
— have to be taking water at the same time, and that ' s just -
- that' s unmanageable. These people aren't farmers .
They' re going to have to schedule their time to come out
and take this little of water that they' re going and put it
on their crop. It' s not going to happen.
The last hearing, they stated that they would not be
using North Well water to irrigate lawns with. Now,
they' re coming back at this hearing and saying, yes, we are
going to irrigate our lawns with North Well water. Well,
what are they really going to do? I think we all know the
status of the -- of the North Well system. It's overtaxed.
They' re going to upgrade it, and granted they are. But the
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
22
idea originally was they were going to irrigate their lawns
with their irrigation water, not their potable water.
So their engineers used assumptions based on
statements made by John Shepardson and Todd Hodges, not by
actual facts that the water company provided them. The
engineer' s report is unusual and irrelevant, based on
faulty information.
There was a statement made by the applicant that the
farmer had stated this was the least productive property
that they had. That same farmer who made that statement
farms numerous parcels in that area that are the same size.
He' s been farming them for years . What makes this an
unfarmable parcel? Is it just for convenience so they can
develop it? Well, that' s what we're thinking.
The Covenants of this -- this development state that
the people that are the managers now, which is Cattail
Creek, will retain control of the architectural review of
this development until the last lot is sold. Well, those
are the guys that are -- that are here making this
application. So until the last lot's sold, they can let
any kind of house in there that they want. They also allow
for an accessory out building, up to the maximum allowed by
County law. We could have eight lots here with 300 foot by
100 foot buildings on them. There is no restriction on
that.
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
23
Their Covenants also allow for the Board of Directors
to allow up to two horses per acre on these parcels . So we
could have eight horses per lot on here. If that adequate
-- that irrigation is not adequate, we're going to have a
bunch of dirt lots with horses on them. No place for
anybody to ride those horses because we don' t have any open
space. So they' re going to be looking to go somewhere else
to ride, either on the County roads or on neighbors '
property.
The Weld County Comprehensive Plan, as you' re well
aware, is -- asks that you not approve development on prime
farm ground. The statement was made at the Planning
Commission hearing by Planning staff that this is not prime
farm ground, not all of it was prime farm ground. These
are the brochures that the applicant' s been distributing in
an attempt to sell the property, representing it as prime
farm ground with adequate irrigation water. You can't have
it both ways . Either it' s all prime farm ground or it' s
not. Either it is when you sell it and it is in here, or
it' s the other way around. You can't change your story
because you' re at the Commissioner' s meeting.
As you all know, I 'm chairman of the Planning
Commission. I had to excuse myself from this case when it
�- came up because of conflict of interest. I did ask the
Planning Commission members how they could possibly approve
AGREN.BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-00I7•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
24
this after the meeting when it did not meet the minimum
requirements for open space. And to a man, they all said,
gee, we didn't realize it didn't have enough open space,
gee, sorry. And that's an issue I guess I ' ll have to take
up with that Board, but obviously they didn't read their
packages very well .
The last time you saw this case you denied it because
it was incompatible, it had inadequate irrigation, and it
did not have adequate buffering. The 168 people that I
represent here today still feel it has inadequate
buffering, it has inadequate irrigation, and it ' s
incompatible. And we would ask you to -- to deny this
application again. It' s worse than it was last time. And
I don' t think it ' ll get any better. That' s all I have. If
you have any questions, I ' ll be glad to answer them.
MR. MASDEN: All right. Thanks . Anybody have
any questions for Mike? Thank you. Anyone else like to
speak for or against this application? Come up to the
lectern and give your name and address, please.
MS . PAGE: Good afternoon. My name is Debra
Page . 14379 Weld County Road 70 . We are, as -- this is
our property right here. I 'm sure you' re well aware --
-
you've looked at this information, you've heard the case
before. The main concerns of this request to deny this
application as stated in our letters, petitions, and what
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433 COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
25
Mike Miller has said here today. As a community, we
elected not to hire an attorney to represent us . We felt
that our case was solid enough, strong enough to stand on
its own and to forego legal counsel .
I 'm a property manager for a homeowner association in
Larimer County. I have been managing properties for over
ten years . I can tell you from experiences that homeowners
associations, Covenants, by-laws, and any other written
- rule is a constant challenge to enforce. Unless they are
in direct violation with a city or a county code, there is
little to do in making a person comply. I do not see this
homeowners -- proposed homeowners association as being any
different from any other.
As I had previously stated to you, October the 2nd of
2002, we were sold this piece of property by the applicant,
one of the applicant ' s members, under which we believe was
false pretense. We were promised that this ground and the
surrounding property that buffered us on the east, north,
and west of our property would remain farm agricultural
land. The applicant member knew full well we would have
never engaged in any contract with him with the intentions
that he would be developing this land. He even stated to
my husband and I that if he had a desire to do anything
with this, that he could not do it for a period of ten
years, according to the codes of Weld County. When I
•^7.
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
26
verified this with Weld County in January of 2002 before we
signed our contract, they confirmed the same on (inaudible)
properties .
In February of 2003, we met with and engaged an
attorney concerning other misrepresented facts by this
applicant whose name is John Shepardson. We have all heard
what this development is from numerous experts that they
have hired. They've done a good job. I would like to
share with you what this is not. This is not a farmer who
has farmed this ground for over 50 years . Bill is too old
to farm it, and he ' s looking at his 401 (k) and there ' s
nothing there. He ' s forced to sell his land to a developer
so he has something to live on for the remainder of his
life .
This is a company. It's an LLC -- Limited Liability
Company. Exactly what it says . Limited Liability -- of
builders, real estate agents who is looking at nothing but
making this work for a profit . They have little or no
concern for those who are landowners and homeowners here
now. There is no way for us to be properly buffered from
this now or even in the future.
Our reason for moving here will have been changed
forever. Take that into account. We will have to bear the
brunt of this for several years to come. Construction --
there's no way to buffer it. Constant encroachment to us
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
27
and surrounding property owners .
They so boldly told me that a Substantial Change had
to have only one thing happen in order for it to go
through, to be considered Substantial Change . Well, far be
it from me to tell you Commissioners your job, that you
only need one reason to continue to deny this application.
Incompatibility with surrounding land uses, common open
space, buffering and screening. In 164 residents of Weld
County, 128 of those sirs, within two miles of this
property. We didn't reach out to the surrounding areas.
This is within two miles of this property.
I appreciate your time, the effort of hearing this
case, reading the petition, the letters . And I would ask
that you continue to unanimously deny this application.
Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: Thanks . Any questions?
MR. GEILE: The only thought I had, and I surely
can understand your frustration, but -- if -- if you feel
you were misrepresented when you purchased your property,
this body might not be the one to come to. There might not
-- there might be another body that you need to pursue
those kinds of issues with.
MS . PAGE: And we certainly have. If you didn't
catch that, in 2003, we have obtained an attorney. As far
as the issue, that is for my husband and I personally. We
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
28
also stand on all the other issues that this is
incompatible with surrounding land uses, buffering for us .
We didn't move out to where we moved to have to be buffered
from a development. That' s not the reason that we moved
here . We have personal issues, sir, as well as community
issues for this agricultural community.
MR. MASDEN: Thank you. Any other questions? Is
there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue?
�- Step forward, and give your name and address, please.
MR. MCNEAR: Good afternoon. My name is Patrick
McNear. 34499 Weld County Road 31 . I am also the owner
Broker of Scott Realty Co. 1212 Eighth Avenue in Greeley.
Not to beat those issues which have already been presented
here, but I ' ll run through those real quickly just to
reiterate.
My concerns are as previously presented. The amended
application does not address the reasons for denial by
moving the accessing road (inaudible) creek. Also, it does
not meet common space requirements, and the space it does
provide is undesirable for this type of a PUD. The
irrigation water issue is inadequate in spite of what they
present. I ' ll be one of those -- it ' ll be one of those
hideous burdens for the ditch company as well as the
parties which eventually become involved in ownership out
there . I 've seen these issues in the past in my business,
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
29
and they never go away.
The proposal -- this proposal, met with complete
rejection from the community of informed property owners
and residents within about a two mile radius in all
directions . It does not belong here, This is the
consensus . If this group wants to play golf or -- they
should go to a location where that type of activity is
welcome. And there are plenty of other places in this
county where that' s the case .
The main reason I oppose this proposal is that the
number -- the numbers never made sense to me from the
beginning and they still don't. They purchased the
property August of 1999 for a price of $480, 000 . Sold most
of the water for about that value. Sold off several lots .
And now have a brochure on the property attempting to
market subject property subject to your approval at a price
of $850, 000 . The applicant has already contributed to more
growth in this section over the past few years than other
^ landowner. They may still realize the benefits available
to the rest of us in the neighborhood. What if the rest of
us decided that we would like to maximize our property
ownership to its maximum potential? That is not what the
community desires to see, and that ' s the reason you haven' t
seen that type of development within it.
There are other flaws in their plan. I feel that the
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
30
r. market value, which they set forth for sites range in
$150, 000 or greater for what were previously one-acre
sites . Now they're four-acre sites with -- with
restrictions and Covenants . Things burdening the property.
As I had demonstrated at their first presentation,
comparable sites without the density issues and the
restrictions of the property in this location are being
sold for approximately $80, 000 . If they need to market
these lots for the value that they have stated, they' re in
trouble before they start . Historically --
MR. MASDEN: Pat?
MR. MCNEAR: Yes?
MR. MASDEN: Can I interrupt you?
-- MR. MCNEAR: Sure.
MR. MASDEN: I don't think we ' re here to argue
the point on what they' re asking for the lots .
MR. MCNEAR: Sure.
MR. MASDEN: That ' s irrelevant to this case.
What we ' re after is the application itself.
MR. MCNEAR: Let me finish this statement, and I
think it will tie into what -- what my concern is . And let
me know -- and that is that concern as well .
Historically, when land values are oversold in an
area, the quality of improvements diminish, as well as the
quality of the buyer. The problem has already been
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
31
observed in this area, unsold speculative housing. This is
not compatible -- that' s what I 'm trying to tell you --
it's not compatible with the type of housing that we
currently enjoy living in. Is that okay?
The rural sector of this county continues to suffer
from recent drought conditions coupled with the effect of
the failed augmentation plan. This will cause agricultural
operators to need to sell sites in other -- in order to
continue to operate or purchase water rights or capital to
augment their wells . These sellers should not have to
compete with those lots in this market, which is already at
equilibrium or declining.
The applicant and their experts have found superficial
solutions to all the concerns presented here in order to
get approval today. Based on the way I see them marketing
of property, they will sell those problems and concerns to
a third party, most likely, providing they can find
somebody who will accept their numbers . And then they will
be gone .
The concern I have is, even with the best rules and
^
covenants, the enforcement of those violations usually ends
up in our Supreme Court system. For example, the Kelly
farm situation, which the Greeley Tribune reported on
recently. Based on the way this proposal started out and
the resistance from the community, as a whole it appears
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
32
the situation, which will be pitting neighbor against
neighbor. Let's not go there.
I strongly believe in the rights of landowners to
utilize the benefits of their property ownership to its
fullest potential or keeping farmers ' land use options wide
open and diversified the County economy. However, I also
believe in the rights of landowners protecting their
interests from those who pose adversity by exceeding
certain boundaries while achieving their potential. This
happens to be one of those circumstances . I thank you for
your time and if you have questions, I ' ll be --
MR. GEILE: Yes . I did have one question.
MR. MCNEAR: Yes?
MR. GEILE: You said that they had sold the water
off of the property --
MR. MCNEAR: Yes .
MR. GEILE: And I know you have a strong
background in water but what I see on this profile of this
— property is value included in Wood Lake Mutual shares,
$216, 000 so they -- could you maybe help me understand what
you mean by "they sold the water"?
MR. MCNEAR: Sure. There were --
MR. GEILE: Or if there ' s somebody else that
could --
MR. MCNEAR: There were 92 shares in what -- it' s
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
33
another ditch company called the Divide Canal. And that' s
where the stored water rights that would supply water to
this Woods Lake Mutual . It' s -- it ' s a fairly complex
issue, and if you'd like, I can -- I can dissect all that
and go there . But what they sold was the valuable part of
the water that provides them irrigation in the late season.
MR. GEILE: Okay. So, in your opinion, and
without that -- without the 92 shares that they sold,
they' re going to have a hard time, a difficult time --
MR. MCNEAR: They've already cashed that in, yes .
And the rest of the people who are communitively involved
in that Woods Lake Mutual own those shares . So this place
is the burden on them operating that system with someone
�- who sold pinnacle part of it.
MR. GEILE: Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thanks . Any other questions?
MALE VOICE: Pat? That was 92 acre feet, not
shares .
MR. MCNEAR: I 'm sorry. 92 acre feet. That ' s
about 4, 000 which is almost $400, 000 .
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone
else who would like to speak on this matter today? Come up
to the lectern. Give your name and address, please.
^ MR. SCHULTE: My name is Dennis Schulte. 35510
Weld County Road 31 . I don't know how relative this is to
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
34
this particular thing, but I do have a question about the
traffic on Road 31, which is where I assume most of this
traffic will lead to, being the main artery by it. And if
there' s going to be any upgrading or anything done to the
intersection there or the intersection of 74 and 31, where
there' s been numerous accidents, and I might suggest maybe
a flashing light . I know they've done some traffic
studies . I know it appeared in the Greeley Tribune for
being one of hazardous intersections . And my son' s just
turned 16 and he ' s getting a license. And I -- that ' s why
I wanted to know if there' s going to be anything to address
that when you add nine more families .
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Are there any questions?
Peter, do you --
MR. SCHEI : I can address that. Do we want to
address it now, or on --
MR. MASDEN: Yeah. If you would, please.
MR. SCHEI : There ' s no need for provisions for --
- from Public Works standpoint regarding the intersection of
County Road 70 and County Road 31 . There -- we looked at
this earlier in the case, I think it was before it was
amended.
MR. MASDEN: Can you speak up a little bit?
MR. SCHEI : I 'll speak into the mic. Right? But
right now, what we ' re looking at is just the stabilized
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
35
base on County Road --
MALE VOICE: Would you mind if he started over,
Mr. Chairman?
MR. MASDEN: Yeah. Could you start over, Peter,
and speak into the -- we're having trouble hearing you.
Everybody is.
MR. SCHEI : Well, I don't know if I can repeat
what I said. We ' re -- we' re looking right now at the
intersection of Weld County Road 70 and Weld County Road
31, and the question was asked if there was going to be any
intersection upgrades there . At this point, Public Works
has looked at this previous, and there are no planned
improvements at that intersection. We studied that. What
there is going to be is there is going to be a upgrade to
Weld County Road 70, and there ' s a stabilization plan in
place as part of this development where the applicant will
be required to pay a proportional share of the upgrade
costs for that . If there ' s any specific questions
regarding accident data, I have some data available should
we want to look at that.
MR. MASDEN: All right. Thank you. Did that
answer your questions?
MR. SCHULTE: Not really. That answers my
question on 70, but I 'm asking the Commissioners, are there
any plans to address additional traffic further down where
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
36
these lead into Eaton. Morrison specifically said before,
"and 31. " I know it' s not directly involved in this, but
it is in the sense that it' s a feeder from there and that's
where the traffic will come. That is a dangerous
intersection, as we probably all know.
MR. JERKE: Well, I guess I just want to mention
that each of these homes, if approved and if built, would
wind up having a nearly $2, 000 fee for road improvements
through our Strategic Road Plan in the County, and it would
be kept in that quadrant in what would be the northwest
quadrant of the County. County Road No. 74 is the prime
road that is probably going to be receiving most of that
attention. So, if this is approved, these folks would be
contributing to that down the road. Now, I can't tell you
^ that all that money would be spent on that intersection,
but it would be spent largely for improvements on 74 .
MR. SCHULTE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: Thank you. Any questions? Okay.
Thank you. Anyone like to speak on this matter today?
Come forward, and give your name and address for the
record, please.
MR. WHITMAN: Dave Gary Whitman, speaking for
Whitman Brothers, Inc. 3546 Weld County Road 37 . I farm
this farm and some ground just to the west of it. And I
want to clarify a few things. What I said about the ground
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
37
not being as good is it' s not as good as the Pivot ground
for the simple fact of the Pivot. It takes double the
water, and you can' t grow the crop on it because of hill
and the sandy loam -- soil . And in -- as far as regulating
water to a half a share. We ' re doing it now with four
other people . So I don't know why this would be an issue
in this subdivision. And that' s about all I have to say.
MR. MASDEN: All right. Thanks . Questions for
Gary? Commissioner? Gary, could you step back up here,
please? Commissioner Jerke has a question.
MR. JERKE: Yeah, Gary. Last year, did you --
did you farm the place?
MR. WHITMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. JERKE: Okay. And would this have been after
the 92 acre feet of storage had been sold off?
MR. WHITMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. JERKE: How did it work, then, for the Center
Pivot to be able to go ahead and use what sounds like --
- MR. WHITMAN: Last year half the Pivot lay idle .
We participate in all the government programs . It was put
— into PP -- preventive planting. We farmed a little over
5, 000 acres from just north or Greeley to Pierce, and we
were short on all farms . So, on a normal year with what
water he sold off, we'd be fine. But on the drought years
where they cut us back, all farms are short. And we were
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
38
just told yesterday we could be at a 50 percent allotment
^
this year, so --
MR. JERKE: So would you anticipate 50 percent is
about all you would future for the bulk of the farm that is
under Pivot?
MR. WHITMAN: No. I feel we're probably getting
close to the end of the drought. And once the drought gets
over, we'll go back to our normal, you know, anticipation
of the water.
MR. JERKE: But what about the 92 acre feet that
^ were off of it permanently?
MR. WHITMAN: It would help if it was there on
this dry year. On a normal year, it wouldn't need it with
the Pivot.
MR. JERKE: Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: All right . Thank you. Any other
questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak on this matter today? Give me your name and
address, please .
MR. MEYER: I 'm Gary (inaudible) Meyer. 34416
Weld County Road 29. We've got a 12-acre parcel on the
west side of the Pivot. And we built the house in 2000-
2001 . Went through the man developing it. Built the house
for us . We went into it, thinking it ' s our prime horse
property, put horses on. Have a little farm right there
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
39
that had irrigation water to it. And we came in, built --
well, the water line wasn't big enough to feed one more
house. So we ended up with a well .
And then they said not enough acreage, so you' re
confined to domestic use only. Okay. So we deal with that
and we make it work. We don't have outside animals, we
don't have a yard. Come to find out, they' re closing the
development. I 'm thinking, great, because they' re going to
bring in that two-inch line that feeds that area and
increase it six. I can buy water tap off of it to actually
upgrade. I don' t have a lawn. We put three trees in that
we haul water to. And just to get by and try to make it --
bring up the value of the house .
-- So this water line by coming in with this development
benefits my property. So I was looking at the positives .
The group who got together in the community never stopped
by to, I guess, address me and say that they have
grievances against this because they knew I have done work
for the developer -- developer, and I can have a business
relationship with him. So I wasn't informed about the
grievances against him.
And so it got put off a year, where a year without
water -- without being able to buy a tap or an option to do
what we want. We've been without water for three weeks now
because a well cracked and ruined our aquifer. And so to
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433 COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
40
me, it' s kind of like we would have had water, gotten our
tap, and it' s one of the things -- progress will come into
the area. At least they' re designing it with buffers . You
know, five acres versus five foot apart houses .
So I seen the benefits to the property go in there as
far as the development. Me personally, with getting water
to it and, you know, being little acreages . The irrigation
factor, I thought I 'd mention on it. We went into it
thinking we had water rights . We had this . This was
great. We found out different. We dealt with it. We
basically got Wood shares water, which is the free water.
Comes in, shows up. Nobody came in, said here ' s how you
irrigate your 12 acres . Nobody said here ' s what you should
do. We dealt with it and we tried to manage a good job.
We put up about 500 bales of hay a year. I don' t see
the water being a problem to control through this drought .
One year we didn' t have any water. We were still able to
put up 300 bales, so that ' s how I feel about the area and
the water usage. A little water' s great, but the way we
planted it, if we didn't get any, we still had a decent
little crop.
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thanks. Any questions for
Gary? Good. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who'd
like to speak to this matter today? Going once, going
twice . Seeing there is no one else to speak in the public
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
41
comment portion of this hearing, I will close that portion
now for public comment. And bring it back and bring the
developer or representative of the developer.
MS. BEST-JOHNSON: Anne Best-Johnson. I would
like to call Doug Seeley up to discuss the irrigation more
at this time.
MR. SEELEY: Doug Seeley. I 'm with Tetra Tech
RMC. 1900 South Sunset Street in Longmont, Colorado,
80501 . I 'm here representing the applicant and -- when the
applicant initially contacted me, he -- he asked me to
address the physical water delivery system. And I wasn' t
asked to address the physical water supply initially. And
subsequent to the report that I had prepared for the
applicant, water supply issue has become more of an issue,
and I 've subsequently looked into that in more detail .
I appreciate the comments on the report. I
acknowledge that the report does not adequately address the
water supply situation, and since that time, I have, in
fact, contacted Wood Lake Mutual Irrigation Company, and
other parties I 've been able to review additional burden
records on these water rights and now have firm confidence
in the numbers that -- and that there -- there is an
adequate irrigation supply for what ' s being proposed.
The applicant owns 160 -- or 180 shares with Wood Lake
Mutual Irrigation Company. They've elected to allocate
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)2964017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
42
that 160 shares to the Center Pivot area and 20 shares to
the proposed residential plots and the open space areas .
The applicant also owns three and three-quarters shares
Larimer and Weld. And the applicant has elected to
allocate that three-and-a-quarter shares to the Center
Pivot and half a share to -- to the residential lines .
Based on the information provided me -- to me from
Wood Lake Irrigation Company, I have determined that the --
- an average yield of 34 acre feet per year will be available
to the residential lives, assuming the 31 acres of
irrigation roughly in that area. That' s an application
rate of 1 . 1 acre per acre, which is an adequate supply for
the proposed uses there .
The applicant is proposing to use -- to establish
native grasses behind the open space areas and on the -- in
the wilds, excluding the immediate areas around the homes
that are near the treated waters . The native grasses
require very little, if any, substantive irrigation. The
native grasses perform fine with naturally-occurring precip
and soil moisture . They both in on establishing grass and
once it is established during either one of those periods
supplemental irrigation supply is not necessarily needed to
-- to do that.
In the area under the Center Pivot, there' s
approximately 103 acres there that is irrigated. The 160
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
43
shares of -- of Wood Lake along with three-and-a-quarter
shares there as well . We ' ll try to provide an average
yield of 251 acre feet per year, which is -- well, it' s 2 . 4
acre feet per acre, which is adequate for that type of use,
agriculture use in that area for raising corn, alfalfa,
whatever that ' s agriculture crop in that area.
Regarding the physical water delivery systems, it' s
been noted that the infrastructure is now in place where
it ' s currently under construction of the -- the -- what' s
called the Wood Lake east side will be utilized a little
more to the residential lots and open space.
Approximately 700 linear feet of new pipeline is
required to complete the -- the delivery infrastructure to
the proposed residential lots . There is an existing head
gate and measurement plume on the east lateral through
which the irrigation company can provide deliveries to the
residential lots .
There ' s no modification needed to the east lateral
itself. There ' s an allocation of 34 acre feet per year to
the residential lots . In those areas, I estimate that
typical application may be two inches per irrigation, so
they -- they will have -- be able to irrigate approximately
seven times per year in the residential areas. And if this
is delivered on a -- my understanding is that water is to
be delivered on a five-day -- in a five-day period.
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
44
So the way that I see this working is a delivery rate
of half a cfs will be made over a five-day period seven
times a year on average. And this is manageable . Twenty-
- five cfs running through an existing one foot partial
plumes, it's .25 feet. It ' s a measurable amount that can
be delivered after delivery to the boom and delivery to the
residential areas, Cattail -- or, the applicant proposes to
assign an irrigation manager who would then manage the
delivery of water to each of the individual lots and to the
open space areas .
And the Wood Lake Irrigation Company would -- would
not be responsible for anything after delivery through the
-- through the partial boom. Delivery of water to the
Center Pivot is made through the south lateral. The
applicant owns carrying rights in both east and south
laterals at adequate amounts to deliver the water. And
there -- there ' s an adequate supply of water available to
the applicant to support the proposed uses .
Applicant is proposing to establish trees in the
buffer area along the eastern edge of the lot, and
applicant proposes to utilize a temporary construction tap
from North well for purposes of establishing those trees
and ensuring that a continuous water supply is available to
that area in order to establish the trees in that -- in
that particular zone. Once the trees are established,
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)4434433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
45
after the first year or two, the taps would be removed and
raw water -- not a potable water -- from Wood Lake and the
Larimer-Weld shared will be utilized to irrigate those
particular areas . That' s all I had. I ' ll take your
questions .
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thanks, Doug. Any questions?
Commissioner Geile?
MR. GEILE: The only question I had, does it --
- as this goes down the road, it's going to require a
homeowners association to try to figure out what you just
said. And it sounds so complicated to me, I 'm not sure
homeowners -- how would -- how would you do that? How
would you structure a homeowners association to be able to
-- I guess what -- what you've just described has so many
complicated parts to it, it's requiring eight units down
here to us figure out how to do we get the water delivered,
and then, like you say, it ' s just measurable enough to -- I
think supply the properties at five times -- or is it seven
�- time --
MR. SEELEY: Seven times .
MR. GEILE: -- during the year. Well, that' s
going to require some real coordination, number one, and
number two, it ' s going to require some real sophistication.
So I -- my question is, how could that possibly be put in
place? How would you do that?
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
46
MR. SEELEY: I think what the H0A is proposing to
do is assign an irrigation manager to represent all the
homeowners in that area and handle the irrigation
deliveries. When that water is being delivered through
that five-day period, the applicant will have -- or -- or,
the homeowners will have an irrigation manager who will
deliver the water to each of the lots, or handle the
delivery to each one of the lots and to the open space.
I believe that ' s all it will take. I don' t see it
being any more complicated than that. I -- I see that it
can maybe be done on a -- you know, each lot would maybe
run for 12 hours when they get this five-day run period.
The first lot would take their water for a 12-hour period,
then the next lot would pick up their delivery on a 12-hour
period. And it would just be moved around. And on the
fifth day, the water could be delivered to the open space.
And that' s --
-
MR. GEILE: If they didn't get their allotted
amount of water, who would be responsible? Who would --
let' s say, one of these lot owners -- who would they -- the
parcel owners -- who would they hold responsible for not
being able to get or it didn't work out, they didn't get
their -- the homeowners association? Who would they hold
responsible if this water manager didn't do his job right?
MR. SEELEY: I envision that that water could
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
47
possibly be held if someone cannot take delivery of their
water, that water would be held in a -- in the account --
-
in the HOA account, and would lay, and they could take
delivery of that water at another time.
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Any other questions?
MALE VOICE: Mr. Chairman, I 'm the man that Doug
Seeley talked to.
MR. MASDEN: The public comment portion is over.
Thank you.
FEMALE VOICE: He misrepresented what he said to
him.
MALE VOICE: I do not agree with his figures .
MR. MASDEN: Well, I 'm sorry. The public comment
portion is over. You should have presented that then.
FEMALE VOICE: Well, we didn't -- he just now
presented it.
MR. MASDEN: Does the applicant have another
individual to -- okay.
MR. OVERTON: Al Overton with North Weld County
Park District. 33247 Highway 85, Lucerne, Colorado, 80646.
I 'm not real clear on county requirements but I don't know
if there ' s a county law that says every parcel has to be
irrigated to the fullest potential. North Weld is capable
of providing water to these lots . Our agreement is for a
full tap so it' s -- has water included for some outside
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
48
watering. It ' s not enough to irrigate all four acres, but
it is enough to do a normal sized lawn area. We are going
to be constructing a line -- an improvement to this area to
-- serve as development to provide fire flows.
Currently, the water situation here is -- is -- is
meek. I mean, we don't have the facilities available to
really serve any additional taps which we 've had witness
to. We ' re looking around $200, 000 infrastructure fee to
^- just get water to the site. And that' s basically -- the
next person that comes in, even through an RE application,
is going to have that cost to receive water from North
Weld.
And on an individual basis, that' s just not economical
for most people to do. We are going to be providing fire
flows and fire protection to this development, which there
is not any fire flows existing currently for any new
properties near here .
So, from a North Weld standpoint, this planning and
development is a benefit to our distribution system, and
we ' re -- we ' re -- we ' re supporting it and feel that it' s --
it ' s -- does good to our system and good to the community
here. Do you have any other questions?
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Now, what size is that line going to be?
MR. OVERTON: Well, right now we 've sized it as
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
49
eight-inch. Of course, North Weld' s looking at possibly
oversizing and paying for the oversizing costs . We need an
eight-inch diameter line to provide the 500 gallons a
minute fire flow, which, what put, 500 gallon per min into
prospectus which is what the town of Ault uses on a peak
day. So it' s a good amountful .
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone
else?
MS . BEST-JOHNSON: I have a few items I 'd like to
make in closing. First of all, the Division of Wildlife
did send in their referral response to Ms. Lockman on
January 8, 2004 . And that is included in your packet. It
discusses that Larry -- Mr. Larry Rodstad did make
recommendations to Cattails Creek' s consultant. It did
include wood or plastic post and rail fences, three- and
four-strand barbed wire. They did provide some options .
The Division of Wildlife is also aware of free flow of
wildlife, and at a further time, the applicants will be
coming in with a fencing plan but they want to get through
-- through this phase before expending time on coming up
with a fencing plan. But we will work with the Division of
Wildlife as was evidenced in that January letter.
You have -- you've heard testimony and discussion on
�- the potable and the irrigation water to be supplied to this
development. It' s important for you to realize that the
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
50
irrigation water that is being supplied is being supplied
as a bonus for this development, and we should be
respectful for -- be respectful of the environment for
that.
I 'm going to show you a photograph. It's taken at the
"X" looking south-southwest towards the southern property
boundary. This is the approximate location of where the
photograph was taken. It was taken by Todd Hodges . This
photograph shows the terrain. There is not -- from looking
at this photograph, it does not appear to be a 22-foot
slope in that area.
This overhead -- the parcels highlighted in yellow are
those parcels created through the Recorded Exemption
process . This is a -- this was pulled off the (inaudible)
County website and shows parcels located within a half a
mile of the property. Twenty-five percent of surrounding
property owners within this half-mile are less than five
acres . Sixty-two percent of the parcels located in that
half-mile were created through the Recorded Exemption
process . There are no Covenants . There are no governing
restrictions that cover Recorded Exemption, whether it be a
five-acre, a one-acre, a two-acre in this area, or a 35-
-
acre parcel. In the Covenants on page 23, item I in the
Covenants, talk about animals, livestock, and poultry. I 'd
like to read to you: "No animals, livestock, or poultry of
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
51
any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any unit except
for dogs, cats, or other household pets, provided that they
are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial
purposes and do not constitute a nuisance. No more than
two dogs and two cats may be kept on any unit.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the association may adopt
rules and regulations pertaining to horses on the property,
subject to the ordinances of Weld County. Animals shall
not be permitted to roam onto other units . No animal shall
be allowed on the common elements, except in strict
compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the
association. The owners of the unit shall be responsible
for any damage or injury caused by any animals owned or
kept by the owners without limiting and foregoing
continuous and/or frequent barking or howling of dogs is
hereby defined as a nuisance . " So I just wanted to clarify
that. They are not saying two horses are allowed per acre.
They're saying two dogs, two cats per unit, as long as
they' re not kept for breeding, and horses may be allowed if
determined so by the homeowners association.
This brings us back to the issue of compatibility. In
the POD chapter 27-2-35, "a buffer zone is an area used as
a protection zone between two land uses of different
�- intensity and compatibility. A buffer zone or a buffer
area is also referred to as a &transition zone. '" And
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433-COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328 GREELEY(970)356-3306
52
._ Merriam-Webster' s Dictionary defines the term "compatible"
as "that which is capable of existing together in harmony. "
These four-acre lots, each with a non-buildable area,
are capable of living in harmony with surrounding land
uses . The large 114 acre Lot 9 is compatible with
surrounding land uses, including small lot development
surrounding it, created through the Recorded Exemption
processes . The eight four-acre lots are compatible with
surrounding land uses as they are similar in size and
larger than some of the surrounding parcels . The density,
design, and location of land uses within and adjoining the
PUD shall be designed to be compatible with other uses
within and adjoining the PUD.
Compatible uses shall be determined by evaluating the
general uses, building height, setback, offset size,
(inaudible) character, open space screening, health,
safety, and welfare of the PUD in relation to the
surrounding uses . Conditions placed on by staff ensure
that this development will be compatible with surrounding
land uses . Referral agencies have reviewed this, and there
are numerous development standards and numerous conditions
of approval placed upon this application that ensure
compatibility and harmony and that this is a sound
development. I 'm happy to answer any questions .
MR. GEILE: the only -- the only question I have
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
53
is, Anne, is, you know, the way you brought forth your
witnesses . Which is, of course, your -- your -- that --
-
that -- that ' s, you know, the way you decide to make --
- present your case . But there was a water -- but you held
off bringing your water expert forth, and there was a
concern brought up about water.
And water is very important in this case. I would --
if there ' s -- if there is, and I don't want to reopen the
public input part of this, but if there is somebody who can
add more testimony on the water, because I 'm -- after the
water expert presented his information, there -- if there
is some testimony that could be presented that would, in
essence, shed light onto that, then I 'd like to hear it.
And I 'm not -- I 'm not criticizing the way you made
your presentation, Anne . I 'm just saying that I would like
to maybe move beyond or I 'd like to propose to the
Commission that we move beyond, perhaps, our protocol in
the way we have to conduct these hearings and allow anyone
who would have any additional information on the water that
can be substantiated. And be substantiated, and can set
the data at that at the same level that their witness did,
to do that.
MR. MASDEN: Mr. Jerke?
MR. JERKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
certainly agree. You know, all of us watch these TV shows
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
54
at night, and I think usually the judge says you opened the
door. And, I think, Anne, you did open the door in
bringing up the water expert after the opposing side at the
party had their say. You know, that ' s TV, okay?
MR. MORRISON: It's within the Board' s discretion
to reopen public testimony on an issue. And the public did
bring up the water issue before -- before the applicant
did, but you can reopen that and take additional public
testimony. The only caveat is the applicant still gets the
last say.
MR. GEILE: Counsel, I understand that, but if
there ' s additional information to be provided on the water,
then I guess my thought would only be to limit it to the
water.
MR. MORRISON: Well, that ' s within your
discretion, so you --
MR. GEILE: -- applicant would then have an
opportunity to summarize their --
- MR. MASDEN: Okay. The Commission has -- has
agreed to open the public portion up for testimony on the
water, please .
MALE VOICE: Water or irrigation?
..
MR. MASDEN: Water.
MR. HERGERT: Ruben Hergert. 12315 Weld County
Road 72, Eaton, Colorado. I 've been president of this Wood
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
55
Lake Mutual Water and Irrigation Company for 19 years . And
the answer -- information that Doug Seeley gave you -- he
talked to me, but those weren't the kind of figures he got
from me . He picked them out of the air. This half a share
of Larimer-Weld water is enough water for a big garden.
You cannot irrigate 38 acres with a -- with a little stream
of water like that and try to divide it up among eight
different owners . The -- most acer feet that, that system
would deliver on a good year would be about 27 acre feet,
on a good year. Drought years, it won't deliver near that
much. So I stand to correct Mr. Seeley on the figures he
gave. He was (inaudible) . Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: Mr. Jerke?
MR. JERKE: Yes . Is there any -- is there any
more water derived as a result of these 20 shares of Wood
Lake? They go beyond the Larimer-Weld.
MR. HERGERT: They can buy water rent water.
They think they have to have water, they' ll take it from
•- the other shop over here. And that isn't going to happen.
MR. JERKE: So the 20 shares to you are
worthless?
MR. HERGERT: No. On a good year, why they will
get some water. Two years ago, we didn' t have any river
run, so there was very little water. All the farms .
MR. JERKE: How much water was being delivered
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
56
last year per share at Wood Lake?
MR. HERGERT: Oh, probably -- probably total
then, it was 20 shares. Maybe 15 acre feet.
MR. JERKE: Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: Any other questions? Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mike Miller again, folks . The
representation was made that this water could be delivered
seven times during the year. You need to understand that
Larimer-Weld water is only as early water. The Divide
Canal water that is sold out to these farms with the
valuable lake water that was available for June -- or,
July, August, and September. They will not have that water
available July, August, and September. So I don't where
he ' s coming up with seven irrigation times . But that
Larimer-Weld water will not be there .
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Any questions for Mike?
Thanks . Anyone else?
MS. PAGE: Yes, sir. We have ten shares of Woods
Lake --
MR. MASDEN: Give your name and address, please.
MS. PAGE: Okay. I 'm Debra Page again. 14379
Weld County Road 70 . We own ten shares of Woods Lake
Mutual . We have ten shares of bi-lateral with the right to
run it . And a half a share in Larimer-Weld. We farm
eight-and-a-half acres of equestrian pasture mix of a hay.
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
57
We had no water. We had water not even enough to get
across our property last year. I think it is important for
you to know that we didn't get it in the very beginning as
Woods Lake is a holding capacity only. As Mr. Hergert
said, that you have to buy your water to put it into Woods
Lake. Larimer-Weld water does not go into Woods Lake. It
is a holding storage only. Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone
else that would like to speak on this water issue? Seeing
there is no one else, I will close that portion -- okay.
All right.
MR. SEELEY: But, of course, I would be with the
applicant.
MR. MASDEN: You would be with the applicant.
MR. SEELEY: I would be summarizing.
MR. MASDEN: I close that public portion of this
meeting again and bring it back to the applicant. Your
engineer -- oh, yeah.
MR. SEELEY: Doug Seeley. I 'd like to, I guess,
go into a little more detail as to how I came up with my
numbers . I spoke with Mr. Ruben Hergert on February 18
regarding average deliveries of Larimer-Weld water. And we
spent some time on the telephone, went through each one of
the shareholders in Wood Lake and -- and went through each
shareholder and identified the -- the average yield that
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•CREELEY(970)356-3306
58
was available to each one of those shareholders based on
their prorata share ownership in Larimer-Weld.
Bottom line is what Mr. Herger advised you was that
Larimer-Weld yields an average of 48 acre feet per share .
And this was apparently a number that was derived from
Craig Harrison, who was involved with some water sales on -
- on the property they were -- discussed earlier. And then
to -- to verify that we need to put per share, I obtained a
ditch conversion record for Larimer-Weld Irrigation
Company. And according to those records, long-term
average, an average of about 62, 387 acre feet per year is
delivered through Larimer-Weld. This is correct lowest
versions used for irrigation under the system.
This does not include storage water that' s delivered
through the canal . It doesn't include any carriage water
that' s carried through the canal . This is only water
that' s converted under the Larimer-Weld water rights . I
applied a system loss of 20 percent to that 62, 000, and
that reduces it to roughly 50, 000 acre feet per year,
49, 990 acre feet per year. There are 1, 419 outstanding
r shares in Larimer-Weld. So this is equivalent to 35-acre
foot per share that is expected to yield. And this is
somewhat higher than the -- the -- the 28 acre foot per
share provided me by Mr. Herger. I conservatively adopted
the 28-acre foot equivalent shares because this is what
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
59
.- Wood Lake Mutual Company provided to me .
Regarding those Wood Lake shares, I want to clarify
that the Wood Lake is a decreed water right. It is a
decreed storage right. It has a decreed capacity of 4, 591
acre feet, a physical capacity of 3, 106 acre feet, meaning
that this is a -- this is a water right that' s bound just
like any other water right in Colorado. It has an initial
fill plus a refill right at the reservoir. There are --
- there are a total 1, 682 outstanding shares in Wood Lake.
So there ' s 2 . 73 acre feet of decreed capacity of Wood Lake
per share. There ' s 1 . 85 acre feet of physical capacity per
share.
So I adopted an average yield of one acre foot per
acre, and the numbers that I presented earlier, I believe
that this is reasonable given the -- the capacity of the
reservoir, and also the previous testimony provided by
Vicki Mill of Wood Lake. This is a typical yield provided
with Wood Lake shares . So apparently the system yielded
somewhat less in 2002 of . 6 acre foot per share. And
reportedly . 75 acre foot per share according to previous
testimony today. But I believe a one-acre foot per share
is a reasonable estimate on -- on what Wood Lake would
yield in an average year.
So this, again, it provides an average of 1 . 1 acre
foot per acre in the residential areas . It ' s emphasized
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
60
again that really there is no irrigation needed if the
native grasses are utilized in these areas . And I verified
this with the Natural Resource Conservation Service at
NRCS, who has that -- The applicant has contacted regarding
what types of native seed mix to adopt, and he provided me
protocol in how to establish the native grasses and
maintain those grasses . And he actually encourages that
irrigation water is kept to a minimum such that weeds are
not as much of a problem. And once established, native
grasses can be encouraged by controlling weeds and -- and
grazing or -- or mowing the grasses . Do you have any
questions of me at this time?
MR. MASDEN: Any questions of Mr. Seeley? Thank
you. Will the representative for the applicant come back
up? You have anything further?
MS . BEST-JOHNSON: Just -- this is the Criteria
for Approval for the changes of zone -- Board of County
Commissioners Criteria, and again, there is a criteria
listed in the Weld County Code for providing for an
irrigation source to comment on this case, other than it
shall be maintained in a healthy -- and then it goes to the
healthy status . The irrigation in this PUD is being
provided as a bonus to them.
MR. MASDEN: Any questions? You have read all
the minute changes that have been proposed and shown here
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
61
._ in the site specific development plan?
MS. BEST-JOHNSON: Yes . Mr. David Heldt and Mr.
George DuBard have read and are in agreement. Mr. David
Heldt has read the additional item that Sheri brought up
today and they are in agreement .
MR. MASDEN: All right. In agreement.
Everything has been discussed. Is there any further
discussion with the applicant? All right . Thank you.
I ' ll bring you back on board for discussion. Commissioner
Jerke?
MR. JERKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask
Sheri to put back up on the screen the picture you would
indicate the development of the overall area. I think
that' s a good one. I -- I had just a couple of things that
I wanted to say to start off discussion. I heard from the
-- from the neighbors who were concerned and I appreciate
their concerns .
It occurs to me, though, when I look at this site and
I look at the areas to the southeast, for example, that
have been subdivided heavily in the east. It' s a west
front as well . And hearing from testimony from neighbors
that suggest that there ' s 128 property owners within two
miles, but there are very, very few, when I look at this,
very, very few honest-to-goodness farms that are left that
are stand-alone farms anymore . Seems to me an awful lot of
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328 GREELEY(970)356-3306
62
this is cut up to a degree already, which leads me to the
conclusion of incompatibility. How do you want to go and
count your area of development?
Obviously, a lot of people would rather not have it
developed at all . Want to close the door behind them, but
at times that 's not realistic because that oftentimes
injures your property rights as well if you happen to own
some land and you wanted to have -- grasp that ability as
well in the future.
So I look at something like this and I look at the
fact that the applicant wants to go ahead and preserve 100
plus acres on the Center Pivot. It would be, obviously,
farmed, at least for the short-term if not for the long-
- term. I see that as a positive . I see another major
positive is the fact that we had initially one-acre sites
being proposed to us roughly a year-and-a-half ago, and the
applicant has come in and said, we understand that that was
an issue, a problem, to see a row of homes with just one-
- acre lots, that that would not be in concert with the rest
of the neighborhood and the way it looks .
So the developer came in and divided up roughly 32
acres of something that doesn' t fit under the Center Pivot
at all, obviously, and put that instead into four-acre
sites, which gives people, clearly, more land of their own
to own and probably puts it closer to the neighborhood
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017 BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
63
average of tracts . I 'm certain those tracts run from one
acre on up to potentially even a quarter section or more
that people still have and farm in a traditional manner.
-- But it looks to me, and I want to hear from my
colleagues on this, it looks to me at first blush like this
applicant is trying to go in and do what ' s right with
respect to developing in the way that we suggested with our
original rejection of your application. It would make
sense for the area and would try to go in and preserve
other people ' s property rights and preserve as much farm
ground for as long as possible. So I 'd like to hear from
my colleagues .
Oh, I did want to mention, too. Irrigation, it seems
to me with what I 've heard from the experts that there is
probably enough water to sustain native grasses but,
— obviously, in these kinds of parcels, and we see them, if
not every month, certainly every other month, proposals
like this that people in the neighborhood figure out that
they' re going to need a small tractor and a big bush hog
pretty fast once they get into these things because,
clearly, you have to have a way to go in and maintain this
land. It ' s not going to be farmed, but it' ll be grazed,
obviously, to a degree. Some people will probably like
horses, but this is not something clearly from the
irrigation what we heard from the experts and the neighbors
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
64
that is ever going to be producing agriculture, again, on
those four-acre sites, but rather small lot pasture grass .
Anyway, I want to hear from my colleagues and see what they
have to say.
MR. MASDEN: Well, I thank you. Other comments?
Commissioner Vaad.
MR. VAAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was
thinking very -- in a very similar way to Commissioner
Jerke. I was impressed the comment that 128 people within
two miles . A petition signed by 168 people, who obviously
are close enough to have an intense interest in this issue
before us, which says that this -- the nature of this area
is changing, as Commissioner Jerke just pointed and with
which I agree .
There was quite an issue made of the open space
requirements . Section 27-2-60 of the Weld County code
states, and I quote, "in non-urban scale development" --
-
I 'll stop the quote there because I think that ' s what we ' re
talking about. This is not an urban scale development. To
follow on with the quote, " . . . with a minimum 80-acre
agricultural outlot, the preservation of the agricultural
outlot may be considered to meet the intent of the common
open space requirement. " Closed quote. So I think that is
adequately addressed. It ' s suggested by the resolution in
force.
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-00(7•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
65
The water issue, and I don't understand irrigation
water so it might have been wasted on me in acer feet and
what it takes, but I am impressed by the fact that they
plan non-water-requiring prairie grass -- my -- my word for
that -- for ground cover to control the weeds which I 'm
very much interested in happening, and not an irrigated or
a grass that' s need -- has need of irrigation.
The quote from the homeowners association ordinances
that the animals will be restricted to household pets, only
four of those, unless the homeowners decide on horses among
themselves . But I think once they' re out there for not a
very long period of time before discovering that won't work
on these acreages to have horses .
I 'm thinking back, too, of our reasons for agreeing
that there was a substantial change in that situation some
months back. But they did change more than one item. And
they changed the configuration of how they were going to do
this . They were moving lots around to try to accommodate
the area.
And, finally, I agree with the conclusion that, I
think, Commissioner Jerke, drew, both by the number of
people living in the area and also the map that we have
before us that shows properties but also the property that
was shown to us by Ms. Johnson of all the properties around
there that were established through the Recorded Exemption
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
66
process .
Under our current rules, with the four allowed
Recorded Exemption rule and now going from ten years to
five years, in 15 years there could be 12 lots established
with very little control . So I think this meets the
intent. I think it would be the intent and desire of the
neighbors for some control on how these would be developed,
including the buffering, the open space requirements, and
the provision of urban services, that being the water from
North Weld in a systematic and thoughtful way. So I 'm, at
this point, I would support if not make a motion to
approve. Thank you.
MR. MASDEN: Any other comments? Commissioner
Geile.
MR. GEILE: Yes . I concur with my colleagues on
the compatibility issue certainly on compatibility issues,
certainly when we take a look at the -- or realize,
recognize a number of buildable lots, I guess you might
say, residential units that are in the area, they' re
certainly beginning to classify the area as one of growth
whether you like it or not. That' s a fact that ' s going on
there and that' s what's going to continue to go on.
Some of the things that I was very concerned about,
one of them was, you know, if that Center Pivot would have
been part of this application but it' s not. As Mr. Jerke
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
67
pointed out, it ' s not . It continues to be an opportunity
for agriculture to continue to -- to farm in the area and
go across . And I think we had testimony from a farmer in
the area who had been doing that and explained what had
been going on. And that -- that -- that satisfied that
part.
When we take a look at PUD goals, as an example, in
our Comprehensive Plan, one that says "encourage creative
approaches to land development, which can result in
environmental -- environments with distinct identity and
character. " Seems to me like this one, even though it
doesn't create a distinct -- distinct identity and
character, it certainly does flow with what ' s going on in
the area, especially when you take into consideration the
adjacent section, which is like set in -- like it ' s set
into your farm.
We have another PUD policy, 4 .3, conservation of
natural site features such as topography, vegetation, and
water. Of course, it should be considered in the -- in the
project design. And that was one concern I had. How would
this water get down there? What -- what would -- how would
it -- how would it -- how could it be used? I think there
is concern I still have about the fact that this is a early
water, which it seems to have been established by everyone.
But there isn't going to be water in this area all year
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
68
unless it's above-average year. However, it does take into
consideration the-- the water courts, which I think are
important in any consideration we had, which this kind of a
case.
Then another one, PUD Policy 7 . 1, provide a mechanism
whereby a new plan, either development phase or the cost of
infrastructure directly related to the development. I
think one -- one presentation we had is we would bring
central well water into the area. Developer would pay for
it, and that would benefit other people in the area, so
it' s another one of those things that perhaps -- not
perhaps -- it' s another one of those things that does, by
the fact of upgrading the infrastructure, does benefit
people in the area.
I still have some -- well, going back to another
thing, I did pull up the architectural design standards,
and based upon what I 've heard, the architectural design
standards does put the developer at a pretty high level as
far as what they are able to do. There certainly will have
to be over 1, 500 feet -- square foot -- on each lot . There
are certain architectural designs which we could keep it as
a stick-built. I mean, there' s no way they could do
anything but stick-built. We talk about foundations, we
talk about other structure design standards, which -- which
would assents -- make sure that these homes are compatible
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING &VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017 BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
69
with the area, and maybe even might provide opportunity
where the compatibility even above that could influence or
help other property values in the area. So I couldn't see
any deterioration of the property values; if anything, it
looked like the upgrading of the infrastructure as well as
._ design standards and I see in the Covenants would be
beneficial to the people in the area.
The screening of the north and the east, I think, is
still an issue, and I think the developer is going to have
to deal with that, but I 'm not going to make that a part of
my deliberations today. So I will be -- as Commissioner
Vaad said, I will be supporting this application.
But I also wanted to say how much I appreciated the
testimony that was brought before us today because this is
a very difficult hearing. And I think, if anything, the
conditions, the development standards, the conditions of
approval, are going to put the developer's feet to fire to
make sure that this is a quality development. Anything
less than that, a violation of any of this, we ' re bringing
it back before us and certainly those, like I say, their
feet will be held to the fire to make sure that they do
produce what they've said, what they've represented to us .
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ' ll (inaudible) .
MR. MASDEN: Thank you. Commissioner Long.
MR. LONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree in
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
70
part with a lot of what my colleagues have said. I think
there' s been a lot of creative use from the first
application of this application of the intent and the
content and the purpose behind our codes and our
Comprehensive Plan. I guess I 'd fall -- my colleagues are
saying there ' s more approval on this side . I fall -- I --
I fall on the other side.
I think it ' s kind of creative use, in my perspective,
in finding ways to be able to create adherence to our
codes, but I think in some respect for myself, it misses
some of the intent. I think you always have to encourage
through our developments and in our deliberations, good
stewardship of the land.
And I -- I have my doubts whether this irrigation plan
is going to be able to provide enough and also a good
management structure to be able to provide good stewardship
of that land. And I think, also, the intent of the common
open space has been skirted from my point of view in
regards that it's going to be individual lots in the common
value aspect of somebody being able to use somebody else ' s
parcel, even though it's unbuildable, would be in -- in
jeopardy or at least suspect.
So I think, for myself, there ' s concerns . I think
that is a problem with the no screening on the north and on
the east. And those are my concerns .
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
71
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner.
Myself, there are a lot of things that have already been
said that I agree with on this . I think with the applicant
bringing this back for change, that there has been more
than one thing that has been changed. And I believe that
it has made a better application for everybody and -- and
the compatibility has -- has increased here.
Also, it has increased the water line that will be
brought in will benefit the area and some of the people
that are already living there that could use that. The lot
sizes have gotten bigger, and I feel with that it has
increased the compatibility with the area.
Looking at this map, it really makes you realize what
is going on. Now we ' re transitioning -- all of Weld County
is transitioning from such -- just a, basically, an
agricultural county to a more urbanized area, and in
looking at that, it's very evident, but probably some of
the people -- quite a few of the people that have been
against this live on Recorded Exemptions in subdivided
areas already. So, you know, I feel it does have a
compatibility there.
And I feel the water situation with the irrigation,
that ' s going to be a tough issue but I think people will
learn to -- to deal with that. How the water is
distributed, maybe not have the water late in the year, but
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
72
.. the farmers have to deal with that now, and that ' s what you
have -- you learn to live with. The quality of homes, as
Commissioner Geile had stated earlier too. You know,
they' re -- they' re not going to be a bunch of portable
homes, trailer houses, things of this nature . They' re very
strict standards . Building these homes that are going to
be built there . It ' s going to be a nice area.
And the homeowners association will decide what other
animals will be allowed in there besides two dogs and two
cats per lot. And, you know, if they have the water to --
._ to allow a horse or a calf or something like that, that
would be up to the people that live there . And -- and I
believe that is -- that is a good situation. So with all
.- that, I will be in support of this application. Any
further comments? If not --
MR. MORRISON: Do we need Sheri -- there' s the
issue of whether it ' s a specific or conceptual --
MS. LOCKMAN: I may have some paperwork to the
chair, Board recommendation on Oil and Gas as well as a
recommendation (inaudible) would like to see this as a
._ Commissioners approval article and they asked me any motion
they make .
MR. MASDEN: Okay. And you'd like to see this --
- all right. As a condition of approval, we have No. 1-A-4 .
If a surface use agreement is reached with Bonanza Creek
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING&VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
73
Oil Company, the plat shell indicates the agreed-upon
drilling envelope locations that include setbacks. If any
agreement is not reached, the plat shell indicates the four
-- 400 by 400 feet drilling envelopes, and that one 800
feet by 800 feet drilling envelope location be state
statute. And you want that in administrative review at
final; is that --
MS. LOCKMAN: Yes, we do.
.- MR. MASDEN: Okay. All right . That will be part
of the motion tonight . The condition. I ' ll bring it back
to the Board for a determination and make a motion.
MR. JERKE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question, I
guess, regarding if we would be hearing this again if
approved today.
MR. MORRISON: If you -- if you include what was
just suggested, then the administrative agreement was not.
You don't have to. It was just recommendations, so if you
want to hear it again --
-
MR. JERKE: Mr. Chairman, my -- my preference
would be due to the fact that so many neighbors have
serious concerns about this, I believe that, as much as we
may not want to, I think that if we do approve this today,
we owe it to them to personally hear it again rather than
just have administrative approval on this .
MR. MASDEN: All right. Is that agreeable? All
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
74
right. That ' s fine with me. Okay.
MR. JERKE: Mr. Chairman, I would move to approve
r
Amended Change of Zone No. 613 from the A Ag Zone District
to the PUD -- Planned Unit Development Zone District for
eight lots with E Estate Zone uses, and with one lot with
an a Ag Zone use, along with 7 . 19 acres of open space,
together with development standards, conditions of approval
we have adopted.
MR. VAAD: Second.
MR. MASDEN: I have a motion by Commissioner
Jerke, a second by Commissioner Vaad to approve the Amended
Change of Zone No. 613 from A Agricultural Zone District to
PUD Zone District.
MR. GEILE: I want to make sure that -- I was
kind of skimming through some notes here. Does that mean
that we will hear it? We' re not going to have an
administrative review of the final draft?
MR. MORRISON: I would suggest you add that it ' s
an exceptional approval .
MR. GEILE: All right. Which means that we would
approve it because -- I ' ll say one of the things I ' ll be
looking at would be the buffering and screaming --
buffering and screening in that final plan to make sure
that it ' s --
MR. MASDEN: Is that agreeable with --
r
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING& VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)4434433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
75
MR. JERKE: Yes. That was intended to be a
motion.
MR. MASDEN: All right.
MALE VOICE: Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would
asked for a roll call vote, please.
MR. MASDEN: Okay. Thank. Any further comments
or discussion on this? May I have a roll call, please?
FEMALE VOICE: Glenn Vaad.
MR. VAAD: Yes.
FEMALE VOICE: Dave Long.
MR. LONG: No.
FEMALE VOICE: Mike Geile.
MR. GEILE: Yes.
FEMALE VOICE: Bill Jerke.
MR. JERKE: Yes.
FEMALE VOICE: Rob Masden.
MR. MASDEN: Yes. The motion passes, four to
.� one. Thank you. We're adjourned.
AGREN•BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO
DENVER(303)296-0017•BOULDER(303)443-0433•COLORADO SPRINGS(719)635-8328•GREELEY(970)356-3306
CERTIFICATE
I, Patricia D. Thiel,Notary Public within and for the State Colorado,
do hereby certify:
That the foregoing proceedings were transcribed from an audio
recording and thereafter reduced to typewritten form under my supervision,
and that the same is, to the best of my ability, a true and correct transcription
of the proceedings as I was able to hear them on the audio recording made
available to me for re-recording and transcription;
That I am not related to or in any way associated with any of the
parties to said case of action, or their counsel, and that I am not interested in
the event thereof. (�
In witness whereof, I have affixed my signature and seal this 7 day
of Aprr1 ( / 200 l
— My commission expires November 4, 2007.
Patricia D. Thiel, Transcriber
Hello