HomeMy WebLinkAbout720661.tiffBEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APRIL 10, 1972
( INTERLADCO, INCORPORATED
(
(
(
( INDIANHEAD
(
( SUBDIVISION
(
(
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Glenn K. Billings
Marshall H. Anderson
Harry S. Ashley
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Thomas Connell, Assistant County Attorney
Burman Lorensen, Weld County Planner
DEFENDANTS:
Mr. Warren Stobbe
Mr. Lynn Hammond
Tape # 31-32
720661
MR. BILLINGS: We will call this meeting to order.
This is in discussion of an unfavorable recommendation by the
Planning Commission for Interladco, Warren Stobbe, of 515 West
Twelfth Street, Loveland, Colorado. At this time Mr. Lorensen
would you like to make a report for the Planning Commission.
MR. LORENSEN: Well, late in November, Interladco
representatives, Mr. Wilburn and Mr. Hammond did submit to the
Planning Commission the subdivision called Indianhead, located
approximately one-half mile east of the Weld County Line on
U. S. Highway 34 and eventually it came before the Weld County
Planning Commission. To my knowledge every requirement and
recommendation that I had made to the Planning Commission had
been fulfilled by the applicants and the Planning Commission
at that point, after some discussion, decided to disapprove the
subdivision. The applicant then wished to find a way to have
it reconsidered, because they felt it was inappropriate that
the Planning Commission deny it when they felt that in all
aspects they had met the regulations. So I came to the County
Commissioners and requested to the County Commissioners through
the Planning Commission review the Planning Commissions decision
and this is the reason we are here today. The subdivision is
on, I think, approximately 140 acres, the one that is being
discussed had 116 lots on it, which does meet the "A". zone
requirements. Again we are repeating every recommendation and
every item in the subdivision regulations have been met.
MR. BILLINGS: Mr. Stobbe,do you have any comments
at this time you would like to make?
-1-
MR. STOBBE: Well I see, Mr. Billings, that our case
has been pretty well stated by Mr. Hammond at our last meeting
and if we have - don't have any further comments, I think Mr.
Billings, if it is agreeable with you, we just as soon refer
any comments we have until after Mr. Connell has stated
anything.
(Pause)
MR. ANDERSON: Don't have anything to say, Tom.
MR. CONNELL: Pardon?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think you have anything to
say, do you?
MR. BILLINGS: I don't think, unless we need to, we
will probably will not ask Mr. Connell for any comments.
MR. HAMMOND: If he doesn't have anything to say,
your honor, I think the suggestion of your honor....The
position that we tried to outline to the County Commissioners
at the last hearing, was that, as Mr. Lorensen stated, we were
advised that we had complied with all the requirements which
he had. The communication to us indicating the reason for
the denial by the Planning Commission, brought forth matters
which were either not discussed by the Planning Commission
with us or on which there was no evidence taken at the
Planning Commission hearing. And that to our knowledge we
have been unable to find where any of the items on which the
denial was based are set up as criteria for the approval or
-2-
or denial or the consideration of subdivisions by the Planning
Commission.
I think we reviewed each one of these separate items
as they discussed them in their communication stating why they
denied it, I think we discussed each of these, for example there
was a statement that evidence of adequate water supply and
sewage disposal was doubtful. Well, that is contrary to the
evidence that was put on at the Planning Commission hearing.
The item that.,since no new industry or jobs were created in
the area, the residents must travel to other areas daily,
thus overloading road systems or transportation systems, we are
not aware that the Planning Commission or the Commissioners
have used that criteria, if it is a fact, in determining whether
or not a subdivision should be approved. Certainly these type
of things should go into a consideration of how the roads and
all should be laid out in a subdivision plan. And it was our
feeling that this was the basis upon which the Planning
Commission function is, in other words, they were to determine
how the roads should be laid out and whether they met various
grade specifications and the like. We feel this was done and
to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. I think
Mr. Stobbe has outlined to the Commissioners prior to this
hearing, a number of times the history in the acquisition of
this land, and it was purchased, and the attitued of the
communities at the time it was purchased, specifically Windsor,
and then after the land was purchased, it seemed that the
policy feelings of the Commissioners and possibly those
people in Windsor at that time changed.
-3-
Now it is not really relevant to this discussion
as to whether or not the land would be bought again if the
company had been aware of or the Commissioners had adopted
certain policy decisions at the time they bought the land.
They probably would not have. But the problem the company
has is that in good faith and operation, upon the recommendations
of the people they talked to, including official in the Town
of Windsor, it was indicated that this was certainly in line
with the attitude that existed at that time, and as such
they purchased the land. And then again, relying upon the
State Statutes, they proceeded to submit their application
for a subdivision of the land to Weld County and again in line.
with what they thought the rules and regulations of the County
were.
I think the point of the whole discussion is, Mr.
Lorensen has stated that they apparently did this successfully,
because according to him, theymet the questions that he had
and irrespective of this the Planning Commission did deny the
application and it is for that reason we are here before you
today.
MR. BILLINGS: Do you have any questions Mr.
Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Nope.
MR. BILLINGS: Do you have any questions (pause) Do
you have any further comments Burman?
MR. LORENSEN: No, sir.
MR. BILLINGS: If there would be no objection I
-4-
would assume from Interladco one or two minor changes in our
requirements basically on septic tanks and this is what you
are referring to in your request for this approval of the
subdivision plat. I think you should be aware because of the
many problems and because of the feeling of the State Health
Department and the County Health Department, there are
perculation tests which were not accurate, (pause) that these
tests have been changed from 1 inch in 60 minutes to 1 inch
in 30 minutes. Now, where you are talking about acre lots -
this probably shouldn't make much difference fi the problem -
this is a health regulation which has been changed and which
we are abiding by at this time.
And I would also assume in our past discussion,
that if this were approved you would supply and it has been
supplied for adequate water for every one of the taps within
the district and that you have an agreement with the ditch
company that goes through your area, and that you would
have to either post a bond or a certified check or a letter
of certification from your bank along with fianncial statements
for streets, curb and gutter, if they are required; and that
in our past talking to you - you are going to put all the
utilities underground, and the septic tank or sewer system
in - and the water system - in before construction was started
and I am sure we had some discussion as to the size of the
water line so that it would meet the fire code in the existing
area, I just want to clarify this one area so that we are
in understanding that if this were approved and I think the
only existing condition which has changed since discussion
with Interladco, has been with one on perculation test.
-5-
MR. HAMMOND: Is this a county or a state change?
MR. BILLINGS: This was recommended by our County
Health Department. Specifically it was in certain areas such
as the Southwest part of the county where perculation tests
weren't meeting any standards. I don't know whether it
would effect that area or it wouldn't. I don't know whether
you have had any perculation tests in that area.
MR. STOBBE: Mr. Billings, just to help the cause
here. We had perculation tests made by our engineers, and
those were submitted to the County Health Department and at
that particular time, both the time of the testing and of
course the time of the hearing with the Commission - these
had satisified both the State and the County. I guess it
was Mr. Glen Paul who signed letters indicationg that his
department had approved these. And we really had no
problems as far as health and sanitation.
MR. BILLINGS: I doubt if there would be any
problem where you are talking about acre lots, but that
change has been made and withthe recommendation of the Health
Department, and we have been asking all the different
people coming in for a change of zone or a land use permits
to comply or meet this. This perculation test if you have
no objection to that, I think this is the only area that
needs - really needs to be cleared up, is whether you would
have any objections on the recertification of the health
department on acre lot, that it does meet that test.
-6=
MR. STOBBE:
to lend a little more
contemplating putting
I might also, (pause) mention just again
information to it. We are still seriously
in a sewer system as opposed to septic
tanks because we are somewhat of the same thinking that it
would be better to
do it. One of the
obviously was such
have something else, if we can economically
problems is, as we discussed previously,
a low density like one per
acre - it is
difficult to economically do a lot of things we had originally
contemplated, but in good faith, and keeping with the spirit
of the rules as we understand them, we are still trying to
put in a sewer system as opposed to septic tanks. I don't
know if that helps but we are trying to solve that problem
anyway.
MR. BILLINGS: I am sure that this Board would be -
would look much more in favor of this subdivision with a
sewer system in it rather than septic tanks where we know
very definitely from state regulations that are coming down
that septic tanks are just about a thing of the past. But,
Marsh, did you have any other comments other than those that
have been brought up here; and Harry?
MR. ASHLEY: No.
MR. BILLINGS: I think first off if there is no
objection to meeting this new regulation, which we have had
a change of quite some time, has been in effect and I am sure
that under all the others, you are familiar with all the other
existing regulations, regarding the streets, water contracts,
and the agreement which I did have an agreement, a letter
from the ditch company, but if there are-- —
-7-
MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Billings, may we have about five
minutes, I don't think we have any problems, but : could I
talk to Mr.
MR. BILLINGS: As long as I can get out of here by
2:45.
MR. BILLINGS: You gentlemen are familiar with the
new septic tank system which has been approved by the County
and State Health Departments.
MR. HAMMOND: Yes.
MR. BILLINGS: It works on aeration or evaporation
situation rather than going into the ground and in some
areas there you did run into the problem of meeting the
perculation tests you didn't go to a sewer system - why you
might be able to utilize this system.
MR; HAMMOND: Could we do this Mr. Billings, I ..
don't think we would have any problem but some of this requires
engineering advise to see where things stand. Could you go
ahead and take your action and if you so desire you make such
c and::ition as you see fit and then we will endeavor to see
if we have any problems and if we do we will contact you and
this may be the simplest and quickest way on it.
MR. CONNELL: Do I understand that any conditional
approval today would be with you concurrence then at this
point?
MR. HAMMOND: Well, any conditional approval I would
-8-
assume, today would be on the basis, that that's your
decision.. We would either have to work around it or
something.
MR. CONNELL: In other words, you are asking for
a flat conditional decision by the Commissioners rather than
one with your concurrence on this point on this particular
item.
MR. HAMMOND: Well, lets discuss this a little further.
I am not filled in on this completely or the engineering and
neither is Mr. Wilburn or Mr. Stobbee. One of the matters
we have discussed, when we left the room, was a lagoon system
on the sewage - in other words - it is possible we can put in
a sewage system there and utilizing a lagoon method and put
in sewage line for the whole subdivision and if this doesn't
pose any problem to the County. I don't see that the condition
is a factor.
MR. STOBBE: One additional bit of information that
we are trying to come up with to support a sewer system as
opposed to a septic tank type system, with Mr. Billings'
attitude in mind, that this would be looked upon more favorably.
We did contact the Department of Housing & Urban Development
with reference, not only to the subdivision, but to the
financing thereof and as it turned out the Federal people are
very much in favor of a lagoon system. They feel it is more
efficient. So it would satisfy your interest of having no
septic tanks. And also we can live with this, it cost us more,
but none the less, it would be better for all parties
concerned, Mr. Steel is their sanitation engineer, he felt
-9-
that they would be very favorably dispossed toward the
subdivision with reference to their assistance if we would
put in a lagoon type system. Getting away from the septic
tanks again. We found this an acceptable version to us,if
in fact, you gentlemen; would find that a sewer treatment
facility if this variety would be also acceptable to you.
Then, we, at this meeting, could agree to do that.
MR. BILLINGS: I think at this
NOT AUDITABLE - Audience Participation.
MR. HAMMOND: Tom, the point being is this, if you
were to approve the subdivision plat with the condition that
you had a one inch or one foot, and
MR. CONNELL: Well, the resolution has already been
enacted some time ago on this. My only point is this
MR. HAMMOND: Well, we will agree with your condition,
if in fact we would also add to your condition as an alternative
to the septic system - you would a lagoon
MR. CONNELL: An acceptable lagoon.
MR. BILLINGS: This system has to meet the State and
County Health Department requirements.
MR. ANDERSON: Gentlemen, I have a question that I
would like to ask
MR. STOBBE: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: After these guys make their fast buck
and get out of town
-10-
(Argumentative - Not Audible)
Now look, you conduct yourself as a
gentleman and I will conduct mine as one now, if not, lets
don't do it in the Courthouse here.
MR. ANDERSON: You'and I have never had any trouble,
but any way
Well lets keep it on a gentlemen basis.
MR. ANDERSON: Who's going to take care of this sewer
system after the subdivision is completed; and the subdivider
is gone, that is what I am wondering about.
MR. STOBBE: Well, there are several factors per-
taining to that All of whichshould necessarily take another
careful advisement. The Federal Government again is no more
interested in having a developer come in to a particular area
and do what you implied and get in, do a:poor job, and leave.
MR. ANDERSON: The reason I brought the question
up is - we have got - there are some small municipal sewers
around here that are not maintained properly by unskilled
people and what I am wondering - who is going to maintain it -
is the county, are we going to be left, like we are with
ungraded roads, if we get into this situation.
MR. STOBBE: No, we have looked into this quite
thoroughly and a very acceptable version to us as far as
maintenance is concerned and also again I refer to the
Federal Governemnt, because we are trying to satisfy all
parties concerned; their version of this is to set up a trust.
The trust or the trustee would be bonafide bank, primarily the
-11-
local area, or Denver if necessary, and these people would
administer to the subdivision and the developer would at
all tines would be responsible for the maintersxeand also the
supervision of the sewer treatment facility. So it does
take care of the thing that you are asking, the trust would
be extracting funds form the subdivision and also the
developer to maintain the system at a percentage quality
discharge that would meet all health standards. And, up
until the time that a bonafide sewer system or sewer district
would be available, this would be maintained by the developer
and the trust.
MR. ANDERSON: Would this also, when you set this
up, could this be incorporated and say - and then - then the
next five or ten years or so from now it could be added on
to? Are you engineering it to the point where there will be
enough ground to expand it and things like that?
MR. STOBBE: Yes, we are providing, I guess, five
acres or so for a very adequate sewer system and drainage
system and from an engineering advantage point there does not seem
to be any problems at all and from the maintenance end,
taking care of it, the trust system - which again the Federal
Government and the mortgage company are very interested in -
how do we maintain this to protect their investment as well.
Everyone seems to think that this trust arrangement is a
very adequate arrangement. And it will provide the things
you are asking.
;42-
MR. ANDERSON: The only reason we have some little
municipal sewers around here: When they built them they
weren't supposed to get into any problems but there isn't
anybody around who know how to run them. The Town of Evans,
down here, went through that, and they finally had to hire a
man to maintain the pumps.
MR. STOBBE: This will be supervised by our own
company as long as - until such time as there is an adequate
sewer system coming to that area, or a district that is
designed to do that.
MR. ANDERSON: In other words, you're going to
contract with a municipality for their help?
MR. STOBBE: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: To maintain it. The only thing, I
didn't want the County into situation
MR. STOBBE: We are quite interested
It won't happen in that area,Mr.
Anderson that at such time if someone in the County or
somebodywanted to farm a district, it could form a nucleus
for expansion and taking in some of the other people.
MR. BILLINGS: Just so we have a clarification
here and so we know where we are at, so we can take some action
on this. Basically you said that you had no objections to
the perculation tests regulations which is the basic change
which has happened, which we are requiring of everybody -
this is one inch in 30 seconds instead of one inch in sixty
seconds -
MR. CONNELL: No, minutes.
-13-
MR. BILLINGS: or, in 60 minutes, excuse me.
And that all the rest of the existing regulations which we
have regarding water contracts, ditch agreements, and asphalt
street, and bonding and the utilities and meeting the fire
hydrant code for the fire department within that district.
That your thinking possible of building a lagoon type sewer
system, which would be maintained aid operated by the
developer and which would, as you understand, would have to be
approved by the County Health Department and the State Health
Department. If such a system was produced, in other words,
if you're still going with the septic tanks and you go to
a lagoon system it must meet all State and County Health
regulations. And, in my understanding in some talking with
you people that all of these existing things be done, the
water lines would be put in, the streets would be in and
utilities would be in, fire hydrants and everything before
the first building permit was issued, is this correct?
This was my understanding before.
MR. STOBBE: Let me ask one question. Are you
saying, Mr. Billings, all of this would be in before the
first house is built or before the first house is sold?
MR. BILLINGS: I would say, before the first
house is sold.
M.R. STOBBE: Well, this would be acceptable.
MR. : Well, let me put it this way fire
protection would be provided for the area, in other words
its not necessary to have the fire mains throughout the
-14
142 acres, to have fire mains to serve the first 10 acres.
MR. BILLINGS: What I am saying is that you must
meet the fire codes of whatever fire district you are in and
that the fire hydrants would fit those fire trucks and all
that. They've got certain regulations and they are different
within the areas. And it wouldn't do you any good to put in
a 6 inch water line with fire hydrants that didn't fit the
damn truck.
MR. HAMMOND: That would be taken care of by code.
The one question that does concern me that you didn't answer
is whether or nott you are to have your streets in, all
your curbs, gutters, and all your lines in before the first
building permit is requested. If you are, this is the first
time I have seen
AUDIENCE: No, no.
MR. STOBBE: You do it on a development basis.
MR. : You do it on a development basis
because it will take approximately 9 months to provide it
all. But to get the water operatin' in the subdivision, the
sewage operation would take pratically all of the
MR. BILLINGS: You would need a contract with
the supplier of domestic water, that he was going to furnish
you taps with all the area.
MR. : Right now the mains would have to be
in to take care of the whole area but I just didn't want any
-15-
misunderstanding about, we'd have to have it all completed
and, say, we will say we will start with the building permit,
because it's just like all the subdivisions - it's just not
done that way.
MR. BILLINGS: Burman, does that meet all your
regulations?
MR. LORENSEN: Well, if the subdivision agreement
were approved and these items were listed there would be
bonding or funding.
MR. BILLINGS: Yes.
MR. LORENSEN: And we would have a process where
we would have the ability to go in to construct it if it were
not done for those amounts.
MR. BILLINGS: I just wanted to be sure.
MR. LORENSEN: Particularly the roadways and things
of this matter.
MR. STOBBE: Yes we would be willing to go along
with the idea, well, physically these things would be
chronologically scaled out - we would provide to do the whole
project.
MR. LORENSEN: There is enough form and substance
to our subdivision agreement, if bound by a letter of credit,
or bonding, or certified check, which we could absolutely
sure of ---that it was right.
MR. BILLINGS: Another thing I bring up at this
time, it really doesn't effect you a great deal, but because
of the change in prices and in the cost of road construction,
we have basically reviewed these every two years and in
-16-
reviewing - in other words in two years if this were approved,
and the roads were not all in, there would be a review of what
of the amount of bonding it would take to cover the roads that
are not in, and I don't see any problem, but because of
construction costs and everything on bonding
MR. STOBBE: Let me ask you, would not a, say a,
a committment letter by the particular bank
MR. BILLINGS: That's a letter of credit.
MR. STOBBE: to a specific sum, say a
million dollars is, to take a figure out of the air, they are
committingthemselves to lend the money for the construction
project. This is a specific letter of credit from the bank,
right. It sort of takes everybody off the hook.
MR. LORENSEN: There is a small difference there,
a letter of credit allows the County access to funds that
have been committed for this purpose. Yet, the developer does
not do it for a specific amount of time.
MR. STOBBE: A letter of loan committment, before
has been turned down by the Board.
MR. CONNELL: Well, he is not talking about loan
committment. You're talking specifically about a letter of
credit aren't you?
MR. STOBBE: No, I was talking about a loan committment.
MR. CONNELL: The regulations are clear. A letter
of credit, or a bond, or deposit of funds are the only terms.
-17-
•
Audience participation ---Not Audible.
MR. ASHLEY: I never heard them called that.
MR. BILLINGS: Harry, who is the banker around here,
says one is basically the same as the other.
MR. CONNELL: One is basically the same as the
other.
MR. ASHLEY: It depends upon what you get. A letter
of credit, promising the bank they would loan this individual
or the corporation that amount of money.
MR. CONNELL: And that --sure
MR. ASHLEY: A loan is a committment,they don't call
it
MR. STOBBE: Sure, it just gives everybody the
assurance that the money will be provided so that in good faith
we can develop it and meet the criteria that you gentlemen
have set.i
MR. BILLINGS: Because of, actually in the change
of the cost of construction and building roads, why, under
our regulations we review these every two years. For instance,
say like you use a million dollars, within two years, which
I am sure isn't right, you wouldn't have any asphalt roads
or anything in, then this Board has the right to come back
and say that because of construction cost, estimates of
cost, that then this guarantee has to be increased to a million
-18-
S
one hundred thousand or something like that. I wanted you
to be familiar with that regulation.
MR. STOBBE: Oh, sure. There is no question with
this.
MR. HAMMOND: I have one question of Mr. Lorensen
and that in discussing this sewage lagoon system - if he
sees a problem in this.
MR. LORENSEN: Well, I have different information,
than apparently you gentlemen do. EPA, through a couple
of their people, through two different contacts with them,
it was indicated that Federal funds are going to be dried
up for packaging plants and lagoon systems that are not
part of existing districts. And we have been told this
within the last two weeks. And it is rather new but, we
had lunch with Mr. Cruce and Mr. Rosech, Frank Rosech,
of the State and he indicated that this was true, or
indicated this information, then there were two other people
from EPA who had said the same thing. So it is relatively
new and I don't know if it is going to effect you or not.
If it is
MR. STOBBE: I don't know this Burman, but the
thing, as I say, we were interested in complying with, not
only the State and County regulations, but also the government,
the Federal Government, (HUD) who, that specifically asked
us to put these in, and they prefer lagoons over that of a
sewer treatment facility and by that I mean a chemical
treatment. They are saying that the lagoons are more efficient
-19-
and do a better, natural job for the affluent as opposed
to chemically treating it with a smaller plant and possibly
ending up with a breakdown. So, I don't know if this
answers the question, but we have done our homework on this
and we feel the best possible provision by-passing the
subject tank approach would be a lagoon. And we were
advised by the government that they would insure government
loans based on that type of system. So all I am saying
here is to give you the assurance that we will provide an
acceptable system to the best humanly possible within the
keeping of the economics. If, for an example, we come up
with something that becomes economically unsuitable, we
start with a septic well at one point, we had this approved.
Now there seems to be a change. Now we can advance this
and do still a better job on septic tanks by providing a
lagoon system, which would satisfy all standards at this
point. Now, if for an example, based on your comments
Burman, that something else has transpired, well, you know
in other words, we could be chasing this thing around forever,
but what we are trying to do is we are willing to do
something as long as it is reasonable.
MR. BILLINGS: No, the only change we are talking
about there. and you are talking about twodifferent ways,
is the change of the perculation tests which was recommended
by the Health Department to us, and that has been changed
for quite some time. Other than that I think we have pretty
well covered everything. You're well familiar with the
regulations that are required by our existing zoning regulations,
subdivision regulations, I think as long as either you go
to an improved --whichever type of approved sewage plant
you go to, if it is approved by the State Health Department
-20-
and meets the State Health Department standards, whether
it be septic tanks, and here we are referring back to the
County standards along with the State standards, and if you
come up with a lagoon system that is approved by the State
Health Department, as meeting all the requirements and
regulations, and you indicate also that it has been approved
by the Federal government.
Then along with all our other existing regulations
I would have to assume that basically you are in compliance
and I think that further discussion is just rehashing over,
different problems or ideas which we have and unless there
is other questions from the Board, I would call for some type
of an action.
MR. ASHLEY: Either way I think it is an improvement.
I move that we approve this preliminary plat, this Indianhead
Subdivision.
MR. BILLINGS: I have one vote in favor of the,
motion and one vote against the motion approving Interladco
subdivision known as Indianhead. How do you vote Mr. Ashley?
MR. ASHLEY: Yes.
MR. BILLINGS: Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
MR. BILLINGS: The chair, thinking all of these
regulations will be met according to specifications which
have been discussed here and discussed in previous meetings
and are a matter of record on tape, at this time votes yes
in favorof.`approving the plat for the subdivision of Indianhead.
MR. HAMMOND: Thank you.
-21-
I
i�
MR. BILLINGS: If `here is nothing more to come
before this Board, the meeting is adjourned.
ATTEST:
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND
CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY:
Deputy County Clerk
-22-
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Hello