HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040848.tiff INSERT TO TRANSCRIPT
(Insert at Page 249, between Lines 3 and 4)
MEETING BEFORE THE:
BOARD OF WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DOCKET NO. 2003-29
AUGUST 6, 2003
ebnnf t L ate t iec� 2004-0848
PL. Mo3
I-2
1 MR. CLINGER: The first objector talked about, ah, it would take a couple of
2 hundred years or somewhere in there long term, and I sat there and calculated that. What
3 happens, this project when it was first offered for sale in 2000, really took off. The market
4 was good, things were great, and then those terrorists hit those towers in New York, and
5 the whole housing industry nationwide, as they say, went in the can. And that has really hurt
6 this project. But even if you take that into account, and we're now in the year 2003, and if
7 you use the math, this project, with Phase One and Two, will be completed in 15 years.
8 And things are picking up now. Ah, this is the worst period, the last two or three years, that
9 I've seen in my Planning career. But, lately, things are really picking up, so I'm very
10 encouraged as to what is happening in our economy and in my industry. The discussion
11 about the danger and explosions, etc., painting that picture of, it's important to remind the
12 Commission that the setbacks here are in conformance with the Weld County regulations,
13 and they have been agreed to over eight months now, and we've negotiated with the oil
14 and gas companies, and they now are in full agreement with these setbacks. And, the one
15 person talked about the fracking. And, you remember, I talked about that earlier. That
16 these use areas for the fracking are over and above these setbacks. And there's over 325
17 acres set aside in here just for that purpose, so that they can use those areas that are one
18 the submitted plan for these fracking and other operations. So those are over and above
19 those setbacks.
20 With respect to the water out there. The developer that has taken over this
21 project, and keep in mind that the second developer here died. And this developer has
22 taken over here in the last year and a half. And so, they are addressing these issues. And
I-3
1 if you go out there, there are signs saying, "No swimming", the land is posted, "No
2 swimming". There were pictures painted about the water quality. This water is used to
3 irrigate crops all over this area. People handle this water daily. Irrigators handle this
4 water, it's applied to crops and the crops are consumed. So, this water has been used for
5 a long time for these purposes. And this developer is cognizant and recognizes that there
6 shouldn't be no swimming and is diligently pursuing those restrictions.
7 The one woman rancher talked about this area out here being agricultural.
8 This land was zoned by the Weld County Commissioners in 1983. She knew it, and now
9 she wants you to change it. She knew it, she's known this since 1983.
10 Another person talked about ah, something about ten-acre lots in Phase
11 Two. There are no ten-acre lots in Phase Two. The minimum lot size in Phase Two is two
12 and a half, and there are some lots in the three, three and a half acre range.
13 Another person talked about the school. And that, ah, they said that the
14 school can't be built because of the septic. Mr. Shupe had to leave, but I talked with him at
15 the break and he says, yes, it can be done. The school can be built using the septic
16 system and would utilize a 60 by 100-foot two alternating filter bed, 60 by 100 foot would
17 handle the school, but the septic tank itself would have to be build on-site, custom
18 designed. Be a larger septic tank than you would normally see in a residential application.
19 So, yes, it definitely can be done.
20 I think that addresses most of those issues by various people. In summary,
21 one of the reasons we're requesting Filing 2 approval now, is that we are required by Weld
22 County regulations to diligently pursue the approval of the balance of this land. You
I-4
1 originally, this Commission, not this one but previous Commission, approved this Master
2 Plan for 800 lots. And, but it requires us to diligently pursue the platting of the balance of
3 this land and we are doing so.
4 Then in 2001, this Commission approved a Substantial Change application
5 for 419 lots. We then submitted a plan with 406 lots, two and one-half acre minimums, and
6 it was approved. This Filing #2 was approved by the Planning Commission in November
7 of 2002. Since then, as you know, we have worked diligently with the oil and gas
8 companies to address all their concerns and have a full agreement. This developer has
9 acted in goo9d faith and tried to address all the issues with a very professional team of
10 experts in their fields. Gentlemen, this developer has spent hundreds of thousands of
11 dollars getting to this hearing today. Every person that's on this team is a recognized
12 expert in his field. And we've tried to be very professional in presenting the case, and
13 addressing the issues.
14 There are, yes, there are problems in Filing 1, but, I'm seeing this all over the
15 state. In development the last two years, I have clients that have been in business thirty
16 years that are having, that had terrible time since this 9-11. It's happening all over the
17 state, not just here. These are tough times in the building industry, but as I said previously,
18 things are changing. I'm optimistic, the economy is starting to come back, and I think we
19 are now on the road to recovery. The best long-term growth and values are vested in
20 master planned communities. I've been doing this for over thirty years, and in my projects,
21 I've over a quarter of a million people living in them, my homeowners, that, I go back to
22 these projects years later, the homes have increased in value over the long-term, are in the
I-5
1 master plan communities, not in some little Phase One, but in a master plan. That's why
2 we have master planning. That's why we plan ahead. And that's what we've done here.
3 This application is all about the future. Future growth, and future financial planning. That
4 also relates to the amenities we talked about. An we have filed this application promising,
5 in writing, that these amenities will be built, one per each phase as this develops. This
6 land was zoned in 1983, and now we only want to plan for it's conclusion. To leave open
7 the question of what will happen to the rest of Pelican Lake, in my opinion, creates more
8 problems than it solves. The overwhelming testimony supports Filing 2. I have know this
9 developer team, we have a portion of them here, for over fifteen years. This is a very well
10 funded, well recognized team of developers, they have other projects up in Fort Collins and
11 down in Denver, and this is a well funded, recognized firm of professionals. They have
12 taken over this project, and I can assure you that they are going to see this through. You
13 can see what has happened since they've took over. They've, they're working with the
14 homeowners overwhelmingly, we're having testimony in support. So, in conclusion, I would
15 just like to say that in the thirty years I've planned projects, I think this is a really fine one, I
16 think it is going to be a long-term value for the County. I think we've done everything that
17 we know how to do to satisfy the concerns of the County, and we ask your approval tonight
18 so that we can go forward with this beautiful project. If you have any questions, I'd be more
19 than happy to answer them.
20 CHAIR LONG: Thank you, Mr. Clinger. Is there any questions?
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I just had one.
22 CHAIR LONG: Commissioner Geile.
I-6
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: The test wells that will be drilled, or have been
2 drilled, will be drilled.
3 MR. CLINGER: They have not yet, they will be.
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Will be drilled. And they are mainly designed to
5 test the nitrate level, is that correct?
6 MR. CLINGER: Yes. For any nitrate or contamination levels.
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE: What happens if you find a nitrate, and I assume
8 there are certain levels that are set by the Health Department. What if you go over that,
9 what happens?
10 MR. CLINGER: Then they will have to go back and find the source of the
11 contaminant and they will have to, as Mr. Shupe testified, they will have to go in and open
12 those fields, if there is one or two that are, ah, causing that problem, and redo the sand
13 filters. One of the things that Mr. Shupe didn't mention was that in this type of treatment,
14 sand filters go back longer than we can imagine. And it's really not new technology.
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I don't think we need an explanation or lesson on
16 that.
17 MR. CLINGER: Yes, they would have to go back and find the source and
18 replace it.
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: The other question I had, is you have an awful lot
20 of open space, and I'm still not sure in my mind how you are going to irrigate that. So
21 what's your watering plan, or irrigation plan, or anything like that?
22 MR. CLINGER: The open space will not be irrigated. It will remain natural.
I-7
1 Now, excuse me, there are certain areas at intersections, and I have the landscape plans
2 that will be irrigated, at the focal points, at key intersections, and around the mail kiosks,
3 and bus stops, etc.
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE: All right, and in those areas, where will the water
5 come from? Will this be Central Weld water, treated water, that you'll be doing any of your
6 watering with?
7 MR. CLINGER: It will be Central Weld. And this, all those plants are zero-
8 scaped plants to reduce water consumption.
9 CHAIR LONG: Any other questions for Mr. Clinger? Mr. Jerke.
10 COMMISSIONER JERKE: I have a fundamental question, I apologize, I
11 must have missed it somewhere along the line, I'm sure you stated early, very early in the
12 whole thing, but who exactly is REI? Who are the principals in this?
13 MR. CLINGER: REI is a team of developers in Denver, Mike Mesina is a
14 long term developer at a big company in Denver, and is teamed up with Mr. Sheldon and
15 Mrs. Heathcock to form the REI Company. And I've been working with that group for 15
16 years. Not Mr. Sheldon, but Mr. Mesina.
17 COMMISSIONER JERKE: And that would have been Mesina Homes at
18 one time, I assume?
19 MR. CLINGER: Yeah, that was PrideMark.
20 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you, at least we've got a name to the REI.
21 CHAIR LONG: Any other questions for Mr. Clinger? Thank you, sir.
22 MR. CLINGER: Thank you very much.
I-8
1 CHAIR LONG: Thank you. Any questions of staff? I know staff had some
2 things you wanted to relate to us regarding additions,
3 MS. SMITH: I had some comments before that if I could, ah, based on some
4 testimony, and I'll be, I'll try and be brief. The building envelopes they were talking about,
5 with the oil and gas agreement and the ignition sources. That, ah, ignition sources are
6 prohibited outside those building envelope areas. I looked at the general septic system
7 design. Sand filter systems are a "Douse" System. The engineer has said that some
8 systems will be doused, some of them if grade allows, will be siphoned, so if they're
9 doused mechanically with a pump that would be an ignition source and it would have to
10 stay inside the building envelope. If it was able to be doused by siphon then it wouldn't be
11 an ignition source, so it could be outside. Just for some clarification so there may still be
12 restrictions on those 51 lots that have specific building envelopes, whether the septic
13 systems can be inside or outside of them.
14 Ah, the water sample that was submitted from public testimony. I looked at
15 this, and I'm just going to make a best guestimate on what I think has taken place with this.
16 It says that the report was supposed to be sent to Central Weld water. It identifies a
17 property address, it also says that residual chlorine was 1.0 parts per million. Generally,
18 what, and it also says that it was tested for choloforms. Choloforms were absent and so
19 they did not do a test for fecal choloforms. Generally, what happens is either when you
20 put a new community water line into service you have to test prior to putting it on-line and
21 making it available. That could be the source of this test since it was collected by Central
22 Weld and brought to us. Another possibility would be that it, that it's part of routine testing.
I-9
1 Because I know that the Health Department, we collect samples throughout the County on
2 public and non-public water systems on a monthly basis. If that was done by us, then the
3 lab form would be a pre-printed form and we would have staff signature on who collected
4 the sample. I also checked with the lab, we do not have the capability to test for giardia in-
5 house. So, it was represented to you that this was a giardia sample that was collected and
6 tested by the Health Department. We do not have that capability. This was a water
7 sample for a community water system.
8 About the reservoir and the contaminants in the reservoir, like was stated
9 earlier, this is a reservoir that is fed by agricultural waters, by irrigation waters. This would
10 be similar to a farmer's retention pond, just on a much larger scale. There would be
11 expected to have contaminants in there. Ah, it's private. It's available only to the
12 homeowners and their guests. It would be similar to swimming in your pond on your farm.
13 Kind of a scenario. There isn't any, anything in the development standards or in my
14 comments or in previous comments from previous referrals going all the way back to 1989
15 that I found that said that they had to be held to any sort of water quality standard. Because
16 it is not open to the public.
17 As far as the septic system for the school,
18 MR. MORRISON: Pam, can we stop there. They're not held to water quality
19 standard for purposes of bathing. They're still subject to State water quality regulations,
20 which are separate, there's, there's those relating to bathing and then there are water
21 quality standards.
22 MS. SMITH: And I was relating to the bathing.
I-10
1 MR. MORRISON: Right.
2 CHAIR LONG: Thank you, Counsel.
3 MS. SMITH: As far as the septic system for the school. A septic system
4 could be put in for the school. It would have to go through the State site approval process
5 because it would be in excess of 2,000 gallons per day flow, so it would have to be
6 reviewed by the County, it would have to go through the 208 committee and then go to the
7 State Health Department for review and approval. Ah, and I would like to correct an earlier
8 statement, Commissioner Masden, you had asked me about sand filter systems and what
9 the efficiency was of those? I've had the chance to do some reading this afternoon. And,
10 single pass sand filter systems can produce, can be expected to produce an effluent of
11 less than 10 milligrams per liter for both BOD and suspended solids. Typical effluent
12 leaving a septic tank prior to a leach field. The BOD concentration is 155 to 286
13 milligrams per liter, according to the EPA documents. It also says that effluent is nearly
14 completely nitrified, but some variability can be expected in nitrogen removal capabilities.
15 A test was done in 1989, they reference that test, and it found that typical nitrogen
16 removals of 18 to 33 percent with single pass sand filter systems was found. Total
17 nitrogen, again, it would be raw effluent leaving the septic tank prior to any leach field
18 treatment, ranges between 26 and 75 milligrams per liter, so that you would get an 18 to
19 33 percent reduction off of those numbers. So it is a lot higher quality than what you would
20 find through a typical septic system with no dosing and treatment through sand system.
21 CHAIR LONG: Thank you.
22 MR. MORRISON: Can I, is that Selgado? The reference that you're using?
I-11
1 MS. SMITH: No, this is a EPA On-site Waste Water Treatment System
2 Manual.
3 MR. MORRISON: Date of publication?
4 MS. SMITH: Urn, February, 2002.
5 MR. MORRISON: Thank you.
6 CHAIR LONG: Thank you. Commissioner Geile.
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Pam, there's thirty-six homes, I would, whatever
8 that number is, of completed homes
9 MS. SMITH: Forty something.
10 COMMISSIONER GEILE: When their septic systems fail, what happens?
11 Are they going to be required to go to this system?
12 MS. SMITH: The way I understand it now, the way that it's written in their
13 Beebe Draw Management Plan for the Metro District is that any home that is already
14 improved is not subject to this. It doesn't say anything, it does clarify, it does specify that
15 homes that are, or property that is sold but not improved would be subject to this, but
16 anything that is not sold, anything that is already developed is not subject to this.
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE: What are you going to require?
18 MS. SMITH: I didn't specify to go backwards for those homes, those thirty
19 something homes that are already built.
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Thank. you.
21 MR. MORRISON: But most of those are already on engineered systems.
22 They're not conventional systems.
I-12
1 MS. SMITH: They're engineered systems but they aren't, I don't know if any
2 of them are siphoned or dosed to get the dousing that a, um, specified sand filter system
3 with the statistics that I read would be.
4 CHAIR LONG: Any other questions? Any further comments? Thank you.
5 Monica?
6 MS. MIKA: Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services. I just wanted to
7 maybe add some more clarification to the comment from the school district, because
8 we've heard a couple of different things. The most recent referral received in this case
9 from the school district, the referral cites that they have an agreement already. It was the
10 prior referral that was received, in March 8 of 2000, where the Superintendent states that
11 Weld RE-1 does not plan to build a school on this site due to lack of an adequate sewer
12 facility in the area. So that comment did come from the school district, it just came at a, in
13 a previous case, (inaudible) in relationship to this application. So I wanted to provide
14 some clarification to that and what was going on in that regard.
15 CHAIR LONG: Any questions on that matter? Thank you. Please continue.
16 MS. MIKA: Ah, staff did get together and we do have, ah, proposed
17 changes to the resolution for the Board's consideration. And, we put these changes
18 together prior to the hearing, so I anticipate that there will be some further modifications.
19 What I'm proposing to do is go through the resolution and address everything that needs to
20 be deleted and then go back and address everything that needs to be modified, so that it's
21 easy for everybody to understand. And, I will start with page three of the resolution. Staff is
22 suggesting that page three of the resolution, under the section that's entitled, "Prior to
I-13
1 recording", that items B, be deleted.
2 CHAIR LONG: Starting with, "The applicant shall be required. . "
3 MS. MIKA: I'm starting with, "Prior to recording the plat the applicant shall be
4 required to submit the waste handling plan." That's already been taken care of.
5 CHAIR LONG: Any objections? Okay. Please.
6 MS. MIKA: On the next page under J. The statement is, "The site shown as
7 mailboxes shall be identified." That's also been addressed.
8 CHAIR LONG: Any objection? Okay.
9 MS. MIKA: Then, that same page, "The applicant shall be required to submit
10 a revegetation plan." That's also been submitted.
11 CHAIR LONG: Any objection? Seeing none, please continue.
12 MS. MIKA: N. Then Y of page number five. It says, "A plan shall be
13 developed to maintain roadways within the subdivision due to inclement weather."
14 Proposing to delete that as well.
15 CHAIR LONG: Commissioner Geile.
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE. Yeah, I want to make sure, Monica, there was one
17 of the people providing testimony made the statement that the County will be maintaining,
18 per se, the roads, the internal roads of the subdivision. It was my understanding that that
19 would be up to either the Homeowners' Association or to the Improvement District. Would
20 you, would you clarify that for me?
21 MS. MIKA: And I think we can let Don talk about, specifically, which roads
22 will be maintained, because there are, in Section, Outlot A, those are private roads to the
I-14
1 subdivision.
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I would like to make sure I know what we're
3 talking about. Ah, so when we talk about a plan shall be developed to maintain roadways
4 within the da, da, da, da, da, were we really, well, maybe I ought to hear what Don has to
5 say. You say we have a plan?
6 MS. MIKA: I can explain this standard. This standard came from the
7 Sheriffs Office. And, this standard isn't a general standard that the Sheriffs Office
8 employs on there, and after discussion with the applicant, the Sheriffs Office revised their
9 referral and said that this standards wasn't necessary in their opinion, and that's why it's on
10 your resolution. If it needs to be on there for other reasons, then, certainly, we can pursue
11 that.
12 CHAIR LONG: Is the Board okay with that? Okay. Or, there is further
13 comment from Don?
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I would like to hear what Don has to say.
15 MR. CARROLL: Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works. Ah, during
16 testimony there was a person that basically had some concerns on the County paying for
17 the improvements out there. The roadway improvements. And, as I had indicated earlier,
18 there was three areas that we were going to do the off-site improvements with the
19 applicant. Upgrading and paving of Weld County Road 38 was one location, ah,
20 (inaudible) there on 39 and 32 and also accessing out the bottom on 32. All these will be,
21 ah, at the applicant's expense. Internal. What we're doing out there is, the applicant is
22 basically doing improvements, paying for the improvements, internally. Once they have
I-15
1 been completed, and the one year warranty is up, we have been maintaining those roads
2 out there. Basically, it's mostly snow removal right now. We haven't got any failed areas
3 out there or anything similar to that.
4 CHAIR LONG: Counsel?
5 MR. MORRISON: I believe the service plan includes snow removal as a
6 possible function of the Metropolitan District. Is that
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Of the District, that's what I thought.
8 MR. MORRISON: The District can perform that function, and so, by
9 agreement, they could take that over, I don't know that they have, but that is a, an allowed
10 function of the District.
11 CHAIR LONG: Any other questions for Don, then? You finished, Don?
12 Okay. Thank you. So we're okay with striking Y? Okay then. Commissioner Geile, you're
13 okay? Okay. We'll strike Y. Please continue.
14 MS. MIKA: Continuing on page six, we're recommending we eliminate E,
15 which was a requirement for utility easements to be associated with the County Road right-
16 of-way, that's been taken care of.
17 CHAIR LONG: Okay.
18 MS. MIKA: Number G which is a 15-foot right-of-way adjacent to Weld
19 County Road 39, that is reflected on the plat. H is also reflected on the plat, the typical
20 cross section has been reviewed and approved. I, the modification to reflect a minimum
21 50-foot radius has also been reviewed and approved by Public Works. K, that the plat
22 should be modified to show a 25-foot utility easement between the filings has also been,
I-16
1 taken place.
2 CHAIR LONG: That is J?
3 MS. MIKA: K.
4 CHAIR LONG: K. Okay.
5 MS. MIKA: And we're also proposing to eliminate L, "The plat shall be
6 modified to show an additional ten foot of right-of-way on Weld County Road 32."
7 CHAIR LONG: Very well, thank you.
8 MS. MIKA; Okay. Continuing on.
9 CHAIR LONG: Continuing on.
10 MS. MIKA: The Planning staff has some new suggestions to be included
11 under"Prior to recording the plat." Let me see what page that is.
12 CHAIR LONG: Okay, start on page three.
13 MS. MIKA: Which, I believe would be numbered DD, and we're proposing
14 that the applicant shall provide a deed or legal instrument identifying the correct legal
15 description for Tract F.
16 CHAIR LONG: So you're starting at the top of our, ah, our addition that you
17 gave us today, which is A, and then changing that to DD.
18 MS. MIKA: Right, we're doing additions, additions to staff comments.
19 CHAIR LONG: Okay. So that would be added as DD. Any objection?
20 Okay.
21 MS. MIKA: To add an EE, where it talks about the applicant shall address
22 the concerns of the Weld County Health Department in its letter dated July 31, 2003,
I-17
1 regarding future placement of future septics.
2 CHAIR LONG: Any objection? Continue.
3 MS. MIKA: FF is all plats, with the exception of construction drawings, will
4 be recorded.
5 CHAIR LONG: Any objections? Thank you. Continue.
6 MS. MIKA: And GG, the dock master's house and associated uses shall be
7 added to the amenities plan.
8 CHAIR LONG: Any objections? Okay.
9 MS. MIKA: Now, under the section entitled, "The plat shall be amended to
10 include the following notes and modifications", which is on your page seven. Starting with
11 the letter S, proposing the following plat changes. On here, ah, and I did divide these into
12 general plats, as well as corrections to the JL Walters plat maps, and I can run through
13 these, if the Board wishes? Ah,
14 CHAIR LONG: I think we should as a matter of the record.
15 MS. MIKA: Okay. S, "All plats shall be modified to show the dimensions of
16 the oil and gas pipeline easements." T, "All plats shall be drawn at a scale of 1 to 200."
17 CHAIR LONG: We'll just continue, and if we have an objection, please state.
18 MS. MIKA: U, "All plats shall be labeled with oil and setback circles using
19 the same language." Ah, I'm having a hard time reading and deciding what the alphabet
20 is, ah, V, "All plats shall be revised to show the correct number of acreages associated
21 with filing two." W, "All plats shall be revised to eliminate previous notes, no longer valid on
22 the plats." X, "All plats shall be revised to show a consistent and legible legend." And now,
I-18
1 I don't know what number I'm on.
2 CHAIR LONG: Y.
3 MS. MIKA: Thank you. Y, I'm just going to do it right now, AA, BB. Ah, Y, "All
4 plats shall reference oil and gas encumbrances, including setback rings, lines, and future
5 drill sites and enlarged well area locations." Z, "All plats shall be redrawn to identify the
6 same oil and gas setback and building envelope areas." AA, "All plats shall be redrawn to
7 identify only one lot as Lot 394." BB, "The wildlife habitat buffer and setback shall be
8 labeled and shall meet the requirements of the environmental assessment dated
9 December, 1996." CC, "No development associated with Beebe Draw Metropolitan
10 District will occur in Section 15." DD, "Perimeter fencing on home lots, or lots with, ah, will
11 be limited to a maximum of five percent of the total lot area adjacent to or around the main
12 dwelling and parking areas. Up to an additional five percent of the lot area may be fenced
13 or a coral or paddock."
14 Okay, EE, "Fifteen trees shall be planted on each lot in accordance with the
15 environmental assessment dated December, 1996." FF.
16 There are lots of lots identified on here.
17 MR. MORRISON: And, for the record, what she is working from has been
18 marked as Exhibit DD.
19 CHAIR LONG: Okay, and let the record reflect that, and I guess for my
20 clarification, what's the difference between the blue numbers and the black numbers?
21 MS. MIKA: The blue ones are additions that Environmental Health made to
22 the list after they looked at the list, and the blue ones are additions, with the exception of lot
I-19
1 252. Can be delineated from the list you have, and the following lots added to the list. And
2 the reason for adding these lots is because it was difficult to determine what lots were
3 involved in easements and so forth, because they weren't identified on the plat. And some
4 of this information came to light today. So we'd like to add, under FF, "Lots 97, 152, 269,
5 267, 278, and 363." And then, under G, we'd like to make a statement saying, "Weld
6 County will not take responsibility for inadequately identified building envelopes."
7 And, then, Planning is proposing an additional section that you don't have,
8 which would be "Prior to recording the JL Walters plat maps."
9 COMMISSIONER GEILE: So it would be section three? Excuse me, Mr.
10 Chairman.
11 CHAIR LONG: Yeah, go ahead.
12 MS. MIKA: And we get to start over with A. So, A is, "The plat shall be
13 redrawn to be legible in black and white ink." B, "The legend shall be relabeled to
14 eliminate the word, 'proposed' in landscaping areas, horse trails, and detention ponds."
15 C, use the same language for all drainage areas. D, "Label all roadways." E, "Delineate all
16 gas lines by symbol reference, and insert the word, 'well' in 150-foot future well drilling site
17 radius." F, eliminate the 100 by 100 impossible building pad alternative. G, page three of
18 five, "Identify the landscape area and the open space across from Lots 234 and 235 to be
19 reviewed by the Department of Planning Service and applicant." I guess, just to describe
20 that, it appears to be that there is an error on the plat in relationship to their identification of
21 landscaping in and around that area and we just would like to make sure that that be taken
22 care of prior to recording the plat.
I-20
1 H, page four of five, "The landscape in the cul-de-sac identified by Lots 277
2 and 278 is incorrect and should be modified." I, page four of five, "The landscaped area
3 defined by Lots 304 and 305 is mislabeled." J, page five of five, "The landscaped area by
4 Lots 278 and 308 needs relabeled." K, page five of five, "Lot 374 is identified with
5 suggested line location. Prior to recording the plat, this issue shall be resolved by the oil
6 and gas company and the applicant." L, page five of five, "Lot 375 is identified with
7 suggested vacation. Prior to recording this plat, the issue shall be (inaudible) by the oil
8 and gas company and the applicant." M, page five of five, "The buffer adjoining Lots 320,
9 321, and 322, 323, 324, and 325 is not consistent with the buffer area as identified by the
10 landmark plats. Prior to recording, this issue shall be resolved."
11 Ah, and it continues, under N, on page four of twelve, Outlot A shall be
12 identified as a landscaped area. On N, page six of twelve, Outlot D shall be identified as a
13 landscaped area. O, page six of twelve, "The area adjacent to Lot 273 shall be identified
14 as an Outlot." P, "The roadway names are not compatible with the county, with the Weld
15 County Address Ordinance, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June
16 24, 2003. Prior to recording, the correct address names shall be reassigned and
17 reviewed and approved by Weld County." Q, page nine of twelve, "The detention ponds
18 are not consistent with, detention ponds as delineated on the JL Walters plat. Prior to
19 recording, this issue needs to be resolved." R, (inaudible), six, R, "Outlot E shall be
20 identified as a landscaped area." S, page nine of twelve, "The future drills site as located
21 in Tract Q shall be labeled." And t, page twelve of twelve, "A legend and vicinity map
22 needs to be included to differentiate the proposed uses." And, we can make it U, it's part
I-21
1 of Prior to release of building permits, "The applicant or developer shall conduct an
2 identification survey for all lots identified within the building envelopes, or identified with oil
3 and gas uses. The applicant's developer shall be responsible for staking all established
4 lot lines at the time of the setback inspection."
5 And now, moving on to the final page, we'll go back and start over again,
6 with the, ah, with, okay. On page three, the part we're proposing rewording. On page
7 three, G, and they're proposing, I'll just read the whole sentence into the record. It says,
8 "Prior to recording the plat, Section 16, Township 3, Range, 3 North, Range 65 West of the
9 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, included in the Metropolitan District shall," okay, "the
10 Metropolitan District shall be excluded from the Metropolitan District. No development
11 associated with Beebe Draw or the District shall occur in Section 15. The peninsula of
12 Section 15 will be designated as a wildlife refuge with appropriate signage and limited
13 access." This is the area the applicant referenced earlier, that was something that the
14 Department of Planning Services requested. Actually, this request is from the
15 Environmental Assessment that was assigned in 1996.
16 The next change or modification is on page four, letter N. And, Lee might
17 want to help us out on this, to make the determination if he concurs at this point. Ah, I'm
18 suggesting the words inserted in section four be included. "The applicant shall provide
19 evidence of an agreement with the property's mineral owners in section four, stipulating
20 that the oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site
21 to include future and existing well site locations., locations for associated oil and gas
22 production equipment, pipeline easements and appropriately defined access roadways
I-22
1 and identify these on the plat."
2 CHAIR LONG: Counsel, is that okay?
3 MR. MORRISON: I'm probably going to need some help, because I had
4 some discussions not on the record, and I'm not sure how much got on the record. Ah,
5 Encana is the operator in question in Section 4. My understanding is there are existing
6 agreements but they are not a signator to this new agreement. They are aware of it and
7 have not, have chosen not to act one way, to object or to approve. Ah, so, I think, the, if the
8 understanding is that those prior agreements may be sufficient to do this. Ah, I think that
9 would work. But, if you require a new agreement, then you're back in this issue of whether
10 is there an agreement or is there adequate accommodation. So you may wish to add the
11 language, "adequate accommodation" in addition to agreement. Ah, so you won't, again,
12 be in a situation where the oil and gas people have veto over your decision.
13 CHAIR LONG: What's the wishes? To add that language? As counsel has,
14 to be consistent with our past philosophies. Cases? Everyone in agreement? Okay, let
15 the record reflect, can you
16 MR. MORRISON: Well, I think what I'd like to suggest is "provide evidence of
17 an agreement with, or adequate accommodation of," and that would be in the first
18 sentence there, so basically, either show an agreement or show adequate
19 accommodation. As I said, I think it is the applicant's position that they have already, that
20 they have agreements but they're not the current ones.
21 CHAIR LONG: Commissioner Jerke.
22 COMMISSIONER JERKE: I guess it's important to note for the record that
I-23
1 according to State law, that adequate accommodation could be just showing a place on
2 the plat where the center of the forty normally would be.
3 MR. MORRISON: Well, and I, right.
4 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Pretty much accurate?
5 MR. MORRISON: That's correct. That's correct and I, you know, there is at
6 least some evidence that they have, that there's been an effort to design this, whether
7 that's adequate I don't think is determined yet.
8 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Okay.
9 CHAIR LONG: You're okay with that? Okay.
10 MS. MIKA: Okay. Continuing on, on page four, letter O. We're proposing
11 that this statement be revised to say that, "The applicant shall delineate on the landscaping
12 plan, the type of irrigation systems to be utilized in the landscape areas." On page five,
13 under letter Z, we're proposing to eliminate "evidence shall be submitted from the
14 Platteville Fire District showing that the Fire District has approved the locations." Because
15 that has happened, they have approved the locations and we would like it to read, "The fire
16 hydrants located within the Planned Unit Development shall be delineated on the plat."
17 CHAIR LONG: Commissioner Geile?
18 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yeah, and I just wanted to see if Commissioner
19 Jerke's awake? Are we, are we requiring, in phase one are we requiring sprinklers in the
20 home because of the water pressure or anything like that, or are we requiring sprinklers?
21 Did the fire department request that we require sprinklers? Thank you, I just wanted that in
22 the record.
I-24
1 CHAIR LONG: Thank you. We'll move.
2 MS. MIKA: Ah, on the Development Standard page, which is number two,
3 and we're proposing a revision to stay on here, "In addition the sign shall be limited to
4 sizes as defined in Section 42 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance." And then on page
5 three, Pam would like it to be reworded to say, on number three,
6 MS. SMITH: This will be 23 on page three, and we're talking about the
7 maximum permissible noise levels, I need to correct that. The wording should say, "All
8 activities on the facility, with the exception of the oil and gas activities, shall adhere to the
9 maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone District, as delineated
10 in Section 25-12-103, CRS, as amended." We didn't exclude the oil and gas activities.
11 That's a carry over from previous referrals, went back as far as 1989, so that needs to be
12 corrected.
13 CHAIR LONG: Comments? Okay.
14 MS. MIKA: On that same page, on three, number 20. And this is a new one
15 we just added, just brought to our attention, the word should say, "Not sold" on the third line
16 where it talks about all the lots in filing 1 that are "not sold". And then, if we turn the page
17 one more time, we are in what's known as Exhibit A, the Site Plan Review and
18 Development Standards, and the first number one should be modified to exclude the word,
19 "public" and it should just say, "lighting in the areas". Ah, you guys have that? On page
20 two, standard thirteen.
21 CHAIR LONG: Just for clarification, and, your record here it says, "in the
22 public areas", should be strike, stricken. And you're saying only take out "in the public".
I-25
1 MS. MIKA: You're right, it should be "in the public area." You are correct. I
2 stand by what was submitted to you in writing.
3 (INAUDIBLE)
4 MS. MIKA: Yes, where it says security lighting, the plan shall, security
5 lighting, including the RV area.
6 MR. MORRISON: And then you want to correct board?
7 COMMISSIONER JERKE: What kind of boards do they store out there?
8 MS. MIKA: Oh, yes. Yes, Mr. Morrison brought that to my attention earlier,
9 that should say, "boat storage" not "board storage". Because that would not be a use
10 allowed in this PUD.
11 COMMISSIONER JERKE: (Inaudible)
12 MS. MIKA: Okay, we're getting punchy. On the final page of the resolution,
13 under thirteen, ah, we're proposing that the word "public" be stricken from the last
14 sentence. and then under fourteen, we're proposing that to be reworded to include
15 reference to the surface use agreement entered into the applicant and oil and gas
16 operations with the exception of those as defined in section four. And I don't know if we
17 need that last sentence now, or if we could just say, "the surface use agreement entered
18 into the applicant and oil and gas operators." It's up to the Board.
19 CHAIR LONG: Take it your second way.
20 MS. MIKA: And I believe we have no further comments at this time.
21 CHAIR LONG: Are there any questions of staff?
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE: No, but I had one I wanted to talk about.
I-26
1 CHAIR LONG: Commissioner Masden had a question.
2 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Yeah, Monica, just a, I guess to ask you a
3 question. Why did we have to go through all these changes and modifications and ah,
4 amendments to the plat and everything else?
5 MS. MIKA: Ah, we had a general standard that we like to adhere to on our
6 final plats, and the plat submitted fell somewhat short of meeting the County standard, and
7 so those comments were added there in order to insure compatibility of all final plats
8 submitted.
9 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: All right, thank you.
10 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yeah, I, if we're through with the Conditions of
11 Approval and Development Standards, and realizing this is a Final Plat, and I noticed that
12 there were several letters that were presented by the Beebe Draw Gun Club. And the one
13 that I'll reference is the one dated November 5th by Bob Rule, Robert Rule. And, not to go
14 into all the reasons why he's opposed to it, but he does make a statement that I'm
15 concerned about, and I know that the applicant's water expert has left, but, I'll make a point
16 in a minute. The second sentence says, "The lakes of Beebe Draw Gun Club are supplied
17 from waste seepage and spring water principally" I think coming from Milton Reservoir. Or
18 emanating from Milton Reservoir. This has been particularly evident this year when Milton
19 Reservoir is almost dry and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, everybody experienced the
20 drought. And I think they're concern is where the water for their acreage comes from. And
21 also, the quality of that water. And I think there has, there's been things that have been put
22 into this project, such as the testing stations for the nitrate levels. And I think I've also had it
I-27
1 answered to my satisfaction that there won't be anything changed as far as adding water to
2 this project other than, in other words, they're not using any, 'cause there wasn't any water
3 on this project, I mean on this land, that they could've used for irrigation. So the only water
4 that is being added to the land would be that that's coming from the North Weld Water. I
5 can't see, but not being an engineer, I can't see where there would be any, how this project
6 would affect their situation as far as it goes for water that's supplying their, the way the
7 water comes in to supply their ponds and lakes. I guess what I would like to suggest is, to
8 ensure that there is some kind of communication that occurs some way, that's my question,
9 how it should occur. I would like to see the communication occur between the applicant
10 and the Beebe Draw Gun Club explaining what I just said, and I just want to make sure that
11 there is a communications in process, or communication that does occur to ensure that
12 there that this particular part that I just read out of their letters dealt with. (inaudible) Do
13 you understand what I just asked for?
14 CHAIR LONG: You're not asking for a Condition of Approval, but just a
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I, I'm not sure it should be a Condition of
16 Approval, I would just like for it to be some kind of agreement that we get this done, that
17 there is a communications between the applicant and the Beebe Draw Gun Club to ensure
18 that there is a spirit of communications going on. Ah, that I think will be important.
19 CHAIR LONG: Commissioner Jerke.
20 COMMISSIONER JERKE: I guess I'm maybe a little bit confused, now is
21 the Beebe Draw Gun Club going to continue their, what I would call hunting slash
22 recreational lease at the reservoir? Or is their lease gone and it's the applicant's lease
I-28
1 now, purely for recreation, or, what is the scenario?
2 MR. MORRISON: It belongs, I think it
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I'm not, I don't know how that all works, I know that
4 whatever they've been doing is going to continue. And I don't know how the arrangement
5 or the lease or all those other things worked out. They don't lease Milton Reservoir. I think
6 what they do is they have seepage water from Milton Reservoir, you understand all of this
7 better than I do, Commissioner,
8 COMMISSIONER JERKE: I understand seepage.
9 COMMISSIONER GEILE: but, that in essence has created their ponds and
10 all that other stuff.
11 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Okay. Okay, I see. Thank you.
12 CHAIR LONG: Thank you. How do you want to address?
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Well, I guess when you ask the applicant to come
14 back with ah, if they're going to agree or not agree that the changes in the Development
15 Standards and Conditions of Approval, I would like to hear, in the spirit of working with
16 adjacent landowners, if that's a problem or not. And I can't imagine it would be. I imagine
17 they'd want to do that anyway.
18 CHAIR LONG: We'll do that at that time. Any other comments or questions
19 for staff at this point? I'll ask for the applicant or representative of the applicant if he would
20 please come forward again, and if you could just state for the record, your, just your name
21 would be fine.
22 MR. CLINGER: For the record, David Clinger, representing the applicant.
I-29
1 CHAIR LONG: You have read through the Development Standards and
2 Conditions of Approval, and with the new ones even stated and, as amended, do you find
3 yourself in agreement with those?
4 MR. CLINGER: Yes, sir, we do.
5 CHAIR LONG: Could you address the question posed by Commissioner
6 Geile?
7 MR. CLINGER: Yes. Commissioner Geile, we will communicate with the
8 gun club, sit down with them, and resolve any issues that they have raised.
9 COMMISSIONER GEILE: And I wonder, if I may, Mr. Chairman?
10 CHAIR LONG: Please.
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE: If, whatever, if you take minutes at that meeting,
12 or letters that you write, if they could be forwarded to the Planning Department to become
13 part of the file?
14 MR. CLINGER: Yes, sir, we will do that. Thank you.
15 CHAIR LONG: Thank you. Ah, any further questions of staff? Seeing none,
16 I'll bring it back to the Board for this time for discussion. Is there any discussion?
17 Commissioner Jerke?
18 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll start it off with a
19 few things. Some of these items, I guess are a bit symbolic to me, and go to history,
20 history of the area, future of the area. Ah, problems that I guess I see with the proposal at
21 this time. A couple of these things are symbolic, like I've mentioned. The first one certainly
22 is. On all of the new plats, it lists what I've always know Milton Lake or Milton Reservoir, as
7
I-30
1 Pelican, and I've got no problems with people calling their subdivision what they want to
2 call it, but it just occurs to me just a little strange to take somebody else's reservoir and put
3 it on a plat and go ahead and change the name. And it's one of those things that counsel
4 may jump up and down on at some point, I don't know, but, I don't know that that's the kind
5 of thing that I've seen done before, and I don't know that it's the kind of thing I appreciate
6 very much. Somebody else owns the lake. Somebody other, an applicant comes in and
7 decides to change the name.
8 Another thing that kind of set me off a little bit on this whole proposal is the
9 statement that there are thirty-three owners that went ahead and signed petitions for this.
10 There are, indeed, from what I can tell, thirty-three owners. But that states about half the
11 fact, because when you think about thirty-three owners you think about thirty-three lots of
12 the thirty-six, thirty-eight owners, and that sounds like a strong majority. But it turns out,
13 when you begin counting the numbers, that those thirty-three owners add up to something
14 like seventeen addresses. And that suggests something different than what was being
15 conveyed. That causes a problem for me.
16 I think that the school district was a little bit asleep on the switch on this one.
17 Ah, they come in late and suggested that the school site isn't relevant to them because
18 they don't want to have that type of a sewer system. Until that is worked out, I've got some
19 problems with the proposal from that perspective. Overloading LaSalle, Gilcrest,
20 Platteville elementary schools with potentially four hundred additional homes, is a point of
21 controversy to me.
22 Another point that I think is extremely relevant to me, and I guess I would fault
I-31
1 to the degree, our own Public Works Department, and again, the school system, for not
2 getting on the County Road 42 situation. I know that area pretty darn well. And I know it
3 well enough to know that people will want to take 42 to go to Gilcrest. It is a direct route.
4 And it will need to be paved if we add hundreds of new homes. And that needs to be part
5 of a traffic plan, to go ahead and make this thing work at some point. So I have a problem
6 there, we need to have that type of thing installed before, or have that type of agreement
7 installed before I would be in favor of this situation, or this proposal.
8 The issue has been brought up about taxation without representation. I won't
9 pretend to know the legalities of how to do that, but I will tell you that I think that it makes
10 sense for more people to be able to be involved, who are actually property owners at site,
11 within the Metropolitan District and the Homeowners' Association. However you phase
12 that it, that needs to be something in which more people have ownership in the government
13 of the property that they're in. Ah, you have agreements with the oil companies, I think
14 that's good, except for one. That's still somewhat up in the air. That is good, you've
15 obviously done a lot of good in that area. You've got a tremendous problem with the soils
16 out there. If you could do it in Las Vegas, you can probably do it anywhere. However,
17 they've done it with water, and lots and lots and lots of water. And that's something that
18 you really don't have out there. You've got a bunch of five-eights inch taps and it's difficult
19 for me to see how you're going to have the kind of ability to go ahead and get those soils
20 re-established like you'd like to see with more water there.
21 I would be happier seeing a phased program in which, instead of coming in
22 for four hundred lots, I would rather see forty. I'd rather see ten applications of forty. Every
I-32
1 other year, or whatever it takes. Than to see one shot at four hundred. The thing that
2 keeps hitting me square in the face on this, over and over again, is the fact that there are
3 roughly thirty-eight homes and there are roughly one hundred and fifty home sites left in
4 Phase One. And it seems to me that that is the biggest answer to your dilemma, is to go
5 ahead and get more lots sold and more homes built. Every home built, obviously, provides
6 revenue to the Metropolitan District, provides more revenue to be able to go ahead and
7 provide for amenities as they need to be done. Obviously, to go ahead and built trust for
8 the people that already live out there, as many dollars as possible needs to be generated
9 towards building amenities and making sure that things are being done right. That, as well
10 as figuring out a way to have better representation on those boards. I think that's
11 absolutely critical to be able to build the trust out there. That, that's the end of my
12 comments, so, obviously, I won't be supporting this proposal tonight.
13 CHAIR LONG: Commissioner Vaad.
14 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yeah. I, as I know all of my colleagues have been,
15 we've been working very hard listening, and, we appreciate the recognition that we have
16 been very attentive to very good testimony. I've worked hard and I've thought from the
17 beginning, a lot about the good faith gesture on the part of Weld County Commissioners,
18 and I think I can back that up by saying that I made a motion to pass this in September 13th
19 of 2000, because I thought it met those requirements. That failed, and that's why we had a
20 subsequent Substantial Change Hearing that passed and got us back on track. So that's
21 very important to me to, that we represent on behalf of those who went before us, that we'll
22 be faithful to the good faith that they were, or expressed. The allegations of unfulfilled
•
I-33
1 commitments, and I consider at this point, them to be only allegations, because I've not had
2 those substantiated or seen evidence that they were substantiated at all. But they're
3 troubling, nevertheless. I don't feel that I can in good conscience at this time, support the
4 approval that might have the impact of exacerbating those problems for the homeowners
5 and for the developers from this point. I think it's a matter of timing and, and, if I can
6 presume to say that I agree with Commissioner Jerke, maybe if things were done in
7 phases and it came on, there would be those benefits. Finishing out the hundred and fifty
8 homes, if that's the accurate figure that are there and then work from there before taking on
9 considerably, considerable more obligations.
10 And then, finally, the implications of the oil and gas production and the
11 difficulties that they might produce are significantly greater now than when the Change of
12 Zone was done by our predecessors in 1983. I think I heard the figure that there were
13 nineteen wells on the site, now there's in excess of one hundred, or, I may have that
14 somewhat, ah, but I was struck by how many more there were. As we're encouraged to do
15 by counsel, to refer back to what specifically is it that the applicant hasn't met as far as the
16 application. I've been trying to find it, to find reference to that rather than just my sense of
17 where there are unfulfilled commitments, and so I go back to the major components of the
18 development guides, and there are eight, A through H, environmental impacts, service
19 provision impacts, and those have to do with not the services provided by the
20 development, but that have to be provided to the development, the landscape elements,
21 the site design, common open space usage, proposed signage, MUD is not applicable
22 here, nor are intergovernmental agreements, 'cause they are outside of those areas. So,
I-34
1 those are all things that I would imagine the applicant feels they have addressed.
2 However, ah, whether they have, that's, in my mind, is muddied by these allegations, again,
3 that we heard. And I do admit that I handle them only as allegations right now, not proven
4 facts, but I think before exposing both the developer and homeowners to further obligations
5 known and unknown, either it needs to come back in a smaller bite or clear these things
6 up. So, I think that indicates where I'll be on a motion.
7 MR. MORRISON: Before you, I don't want to, I want to remind you that the,
8 this is done under the old PUD regulations, and although there's certainly overlap, the
9 proposed resolution, as well as material, has been provided to you that may need to be
10 consulted, because it is under Section 28-14, ah, using the existing, the older PUD
11 regulations under which the zone change was done.
12 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And, if I may, Mr. Chairman?
13 CHAIR LONG: Please, continue.
14 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And it wasn't that I was going specifically to those
15 of the new PUD regulations, more to the fact, or my sense that whatever the appropriate
16 development standards were, I have doubts that they could be adequately fulfilled.
17 CHAIR LONG: Commissioner Masden.
18 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
19 like to thank a lot of the people, or all of the people who have came here today and tonight
20 to listen to us and, ah to give testimony. Ah, because I know this is, ah, very concerning to
21 them as it is to us and everyone in this room. Ah, some of the things that we are in charge
22 of, ah, and take on a very serious note, is the health, safety, and welfare, of the people for
I-35
1 the County, for all of Weld County, and along with that, ah, I believe falls under that
2 category, is for protection of their investments in their properties, ah, (inaudible)where they
3 live. And, ah, looking at this proposal the way it is, and listening to Mr. Clinger talk about
4 the master planning, looking at it in that aspect, ah, master plans great and, but I think
5 looking at this, the phases. It needs to be phased in. Ah, and we're looking at Phase One
6 and there's only approximately thirty-seven houses, that's right at twenty percent, is all
7 that's built in there now. Ah, so I, you know, looking at Phase Two already, ah, really is
8 disturbing to me for, because of the way, especially with the way the Metro District one is
9 set up with basically no cap on the Mill Levy and not enough residents on the board to help
10 make those decisions. Is, ah, like, like was mentioned before, ifs like taxation without
11 representation. And, what I'd, I brought up before, and was mentioned by Commissioner
12 on, ah you know, having Pelican Lake just pop up and the use of that, because I've lived in
13 this area almost my entire life and it's always been Milton Reservoir. Ah, and looking at
14 that property out there, and being familiar with that type of property, and how fragile that
15 ground is, and looking at that type of development, ah, I think that really needs to be taken
16 into consideration. Because I know there's other developments that were done years ago
17 that were larger, ah, on property that was very similar, and just, one or two horses out there
18 really destroys that eco-system very, ah, very quickly. And, ah, you end up with big weed
19 patches or just basically nothing, you have blowing sand and quite a mess, so ah, Mr.
20 Chairman, in light of all this, I will not be in support of this project.
21 CHAIR LONG: Thank you. Commissioner Geile.
Hello