The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About720667.tiff • BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) ) WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ) ) OCTOBER 30, 1972 ) ) ) ) ) ( INTERLADCO INCORPORATED ( ( INDIANHEAD ( ( SUBDIVISION ( ( THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN K. BILLINGS MARSHALL H. ANDERSON HARRY S. ASHLEY SAMUEL S. TELEP, COUNTY ATTORNEY MISS CYNTHIA TELEP, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY JIM OHI, WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DEFENDANTS: LYNN A HAMMOND, ATTORNEY FOR INTERLADCO JOHN A. CHILSON, ATTORNEY - FIRM OF HAMMOND AND CHILSON DAVID SHUPE, ENGINEER, HOGAN AND OLHAUSEN, P. C. PROTESTANTS: JOHN SCHULTZ, PRESIDENT, SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-J5 NORMAN CARLSON, PRESIDENT, WELD COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL HOWARD SCHWALM, LANDOWNER JOHN HOUTCHENS, ATTORNEY FOR MR. SCHWALM WILLIAM SHADE, ATTORNEY FOR MR. RAY AMEN GARY WEBER, LANDOWNER AL CHOTVACS, ENGINEER, COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS MR. MOSIER, DITCH RIDER, FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION COMPANY DON CARLISLE, AERIAL APPLICATION BUSINESS JOHN MCKEE, MEMBER, FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION COMPANY TAPE 69 - 70 720667 MR. BILLINGS: The next item of business is Case Number S-97, Interladco Inc., 515 West Twelfth, Loveland, Colorado, I might ask that at this time that anyone who wants to make comments regarding this - as we call on you- if you will give your name and address, and to request that only one person speaks at a time because in the conflict of picking up too many voices on the tape and not being able to transcribe it. At this time, Mr. Telep, would you like to make a record. MR. TELEP: Mr. Chairman, this is not a rezoning, let the record be made as such, it is a hearing for the acceptance, modification or rejection of Interladco plat, We will proceed as we did on Ivan Gilbaugh's - is a change of zone. I wanted to make that clear here. MR.BILLINGS: This hearing comes before the Board of County Commissioners after the decision was made by the Weld County Planning Commission and then a letter of request, asking that the Board hear this. At this time I will turn this over to representatives of Interladco to bring this Board up to date on any information that you might have. MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Billings, my name is Lynn Hammond and Mr. Chilson, who is my partner, is here, and I would also like to introduce Mr. Shupe who has appeared before the Commission previously, Nt.. Hogan of Hogan and Olhausen Associates both are Denver engineers. The other two gentle- men are Mr. Wilburn and Mr. Madison who are with the .Inter- ladco. Mr. Stobbe, who had previously appeared before the Commission is entered in the hospital and is not able to be • here today. I think that my comments of - will be only repeating that on, March 13th of 1972, we had a hearing, if. I believe, my date is correct, for the prelininary plan for the Commissions benefit and as you all know the pre- liminary plat as it was submitted to the Planning Commission was recommended denial and we have gone over many times before the basis and objections of the Planning Commission's comments on that preliminary plat. On, March 13th, or prior to that date, we requested a hearing with the County Commissioners, subject to the changing of the method of sewage disposal and this was prior to the meeting of, March 13th, was based on a septic tank leach field arrangement. At thatmeeting, if you will recall, the County Commissioners suggested to us, that if we would make a change in this method of disposal to a contained system, that it would be approved. We agreed to this, the changes were made and at that meeting, the preliminary plat was approved. Subsequent to, March 13th, and going on the assumption that we were to comply with the subdivision regulations that are set out on Page 10, of the regulations, the final plat was prepared and we had numerous meetings and consultations with the Planning staff. There was a great deal of delay and I see no purpose served in going, over those delays I think it suffices to say, that the final plat was finally submitted and the hearing held by the Planning Commission. At that time after taking the case under advisement we received communication from the Planning Office on, September 18th, that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the final plat. There basis of denial of the final plat was based upon some 13 points, which were set out in the letter to Interladco and to these 13 points, -2- ce 41, Mr. Shupe, the engineer, responded with a letter to the Board of County Commissioners, dated. September 21st. Now the way I view the situation I am informed by Mr. Shupe, that he has complied with the requirements set forth in the subdivision resolutions, so far as the information required in submitting the final plat, in other words, the preliminary plat was approved subject to the sewage system. He then completed the final plat - I think it is here then for your action. So as far as we see it we have complied with the requirements of the County Commissioners and we have complied with the requirements of the subdivision resolution in completing the preliminary plat in final form and taking care of those items which questions were raised at the County Commissioners hearing on March 13th. Now if the Commission desires, we are perfectly willing, to go through these points which were raised by the Planning Staff on the basis of their recommendation for denial. Although as I said these were set out in a letter of September 21st. We can take these point by point, if you are interested, I personally think it is not applicable or pertinent because the number of the items if you have read the letter that Mr. Shupe wrote the number of the items were either incorrectly stated or they just didn't apply. Now as I said we will be happy to go through these basically my proposition is that we have had approval of the preliminary plat and we have complied :;ith the suggestions and the requirments of the County Commissioners in our final plat and we feel that the final plat is complete and is before you for consideration. MR. BILLINGS: I think based on the many items here very possibly we should go through these item by item. -3- MR. HAMMOND: Fine. MR. BILLINGS: Here under items 1, 2 and 3 regarding right-of-way I think we need a clarification on right-of-way. MR. HAMMOND: I will take these point by point and I believe Mr. Shupe can answer these questions with regard to point number 1. It says insufficient dedication of streets and public 1 area to the public is required by 5.1 paren (3). Probably we 1 should consider all three items. Number 2 is failure to reserve land for street and other public .purpose and to arrange transfer of title of land so reserved and Number 3 preliminary plat show 100 minimum additional right-of-gray and 50 possible additional right-of-way for U. S. Highway 34, which are not indicated on the final plat. I make reference to paragraph 3.7; 3.7 of the old subdivision regulations states as follows, "the owner of land in a subdivision may be requested to reserve suitable area for school, parks, through streets or similar public purposes at such locations as that may be designated by the county. Where this lanais not dedicatecin the plat directly to the appropriate agency arrangements for such transfer of title shall be agreed upon prior to the approval of the final plat. I think two questions arose in consideration of this point - the first is that in my opinion the paragraph is not throughly clear on exactly what we are talking about. If I am correct, and I think when I am finished, Mr. Lorensen can clarify this - the question that arose was whether or not the highway frontage along Highway 34 was to be dedicated to the ;ublic on this final plat. For the information of the Commission the preliminary plat as was considered by you on the meeting of, March 13th, had the statement on it, I believe, it was something to the effect "possible future highway expansion." At the time this preliminary plat was submitted to you for -4- • consideration, there was talk about the possibility of U. S. Highway 34 being expanded - in fact I think it was - some of it was in the planning stage. Speaking specifically with point number 3, at the time it was not known whether the Highway Department, if they did in fact, put the highway through, would be taking it all off the south side of the road or whether or not part of it would be off the north side of the road. So this accounted for the fact that on the preliminary plat it was indicated that there was 100 foot space there in which there was no platting that took place. And the statement on that 100 foot space indicated that there would be possible future right-of-way. It was not known at that time whether it would be 100 feet or 150 feet. Now at the time that this went before the Utility Board prior to the meeting of the Planning Commission on the final plat, the question arose at that meeting as to whether or not the company intended to dedicate to the public that strip of highway. The representatives from the State Highway Department were at that meeting and two or three questions arose. For example; one was well if it is dedicated to the public what happens if some problems arise and either the highway is realigned or the highway isn't put in at all or it is not put in the fashion that is indicated. The point being that here we have a recorded plat in which a strip of highway - or strip of land is dedicated to the public and it may not in fact turn out that way. The second point that came up at the Utilities Board hearing was the representatives from the Highway Department said - well they mould certainly like to have a dedication of the -5- ( highway - but certainly realized they could not require it. That is the Highway Department could not require it. The indication was given by the company at that time that there was no attempt made on this final plat to actually plat into lots or blocks that strip of land which was anticipated that could possibly be used as future highway expansion. That the real purpose and intent of trying to control these things is so that if a final plat is not approved - indicating the highly developed area that when and if the Highway Department did put in a highway they would be forced to go in and condemn land. At highly developed prices. In other words the company said we fully intend not to do anything with that land until the indication is given by the Highway Department whether or not they want it. Now if they want it, we will certainly work with them and the indication - that is why we indicated on the preliminary plat that way. So with the approval or suggestion of the Highway Department, the Utility Board approved the final plat subject to changing the word that was then put on the plat as dedicated to designated. In other words the company indicated that they would be perfectly willing to have the final plat approved with that area, which we thought, at that time would be the future Highway U. S. 34 expansion - indicated as a designated area. Now the thing that we are coming down to really is whether or not the company is going to be required to dedicate that on a plat or wnether or not we are going to say we will not give the land but we will certainly set it aside for future expansion until your plans are clear and you tell us what you want to do with it. But if at the time you want it then you will be required to negotiate with us and we will work out arrangements whereby you will purchase it at whatever the -6- r • fair price is. Now the point is there is a farmhouse, a garage and other improvements on this strip and the position of the company was that it w-s unfair taking the property to require the subdivider to dedicate this land to the County when it was a substantial size 8 or 9 acres in size; secondly, it had a house and out buildings on the property; and thirdly, it really rasd°t ironclad determined that that was where the highway was going to be. So the company said we feel what your interested in - to the State Highway Department - is that the County not approve the plat where this is shown as commercial land or platted in lots and blocks, so that when you have to buy it - you have to go in and buy developed land. In other words we will set it aside, we will not plat it in lots and blocks - when you acquire it you will be acquiring it at raw land prices whatever it is in the area. In referring back to the statement in the subdivision regulations - it says the owner of land in a subdivision may be requested to reserve suitable area. Well it is our feeling that what we have done and what we have stated is in effect is reserving that land. It is reserving it so that its not going to be platted and subject to any high development so that if and when any acquisition occurs they are not paying high prices for it. We feel we have complied with that subdivision resolution The other point in question it says that any through a street or similar public purpose. We are talking about major arterial highway. We certainly understand the intent of this subdivision resolution. If you are saying to a subdivider that we may require a through street - through your subdivision that this will have to be set aside for future expansion and -7- , the like. But what we are talking here is a piece of land that borders U. S. Highway 34, the Highway Department has indicated to us we are planning to expand that; we think that we will expand it, the money has not been appropriated. And what we are saying is - well then we think we have complied with the intent - we have set it aside,we have reserved this. Mr. Shupe is there's anything else you want to add on points 1, 2 or 3. MR. SHUPE: Yes, Mr. Hammond, the points 1 and 2 specifically refer to public area or other public purposes and it was our understanding that possibly that might refer to a request of the school district for a school site which came to the Planning Commission -- just -- if I am not -- if I am correct just prior to the hearing by the Planning Commission on the final plat. Normally these come as a part of the school board's review of the preliminary plat. If this item does in fact make reference to this request of the school, we would like to respond, that it seems to us to be a rather an unreasonable request of the school to come after the final plat has already been submitted, when normally they make such request, if they make it at all, at the time of the preliminary plat. Thats all I want to add to what you have said. This was a very late request you understand. MR. HAMMOND: I don't know, Mr. Billings, do you want to go down these one by one? Do you have any comments or questions with reference to these - we will try to answer. MR. BILLINGS: Jim, since they went over these 1, 2 and 3 items, do you have any comments? Jim Ohi has been working on this and is one of our planners. Cindy? -8- (41) MISS TELEP: This is rather an interesting procedure that we are involved in right here - right now. Cause I was thinking to myself that from the legal point of view involving both substances and procedural review with this particular subdivision that has come before Weld County for consideration. And that involves any of the planning agencies here in the County and also the Board of County Commissioners. So I mean its an amalgam and its very important that we realize that of both procedure and substance. And it is really hard to make distinction between - especially when you are planning for something that is future growth and it is going to involve certain problems which are becoming more and more proceedings. Just by way of information, the Commissioners know this - I remind them of the fact that the Planning Commission orginally recommended denial of this plat - preliminary plat - as it was presented to them. The file is rather thick on reasons why this was recommended to be denied, why it was a premature development, why there was a lot of very basic planning problems with it. Then the Board of County Commissioners was approached and it was requested that they might override this by a vote and this was done after a very articulate smooth presentation of what would or could be done to the site. MR. ANDERSON: For the record what was the vote on that? MISS TELEP: For the record, I believe on April 10, 19'2, it reads: Mr. Ashley voted - yes: Mr. Anderson voted - no: and Mr. Billings voted yes. MR. ANDERSON: Thats why I wanted it in the record. MISS TELEP: At that time they felt they wanted to give these people a chance to come in with perhaps a more clear -9- • • presentation of what they wanted to do. And this was their idea of what the preliminary plat was suppose to do. To give whoever reviewed it a good idea of what actually is happening at the site. But I would like to indicate that procedurally through our subdivision regulations and our building regulations it lists that a very important point - if anybody considers that approval of a preliminary plat, as was done in this case by the Board of County Commissioners on the voice vote there, is the last time that a subdivision is going to be considered. That everything that is done, thereafter, is rubber stamped approval, thereafter, of whatever subject change or this sort of thing - - - without any further consideration of either more factual information input that is received by a planning agency, without any further consideration of any other - - without further consideration of laws that are.passed with the intent to review exactly this kind of a problem which is exactly is what Senate Bill 35 is-was - - which was enacted May 5th. Basically we are dealing with a one months time period, about the time this preliminary plat was approved, at which time all these considerations were not taken into account a And I do not believe for one minute, nor would I advise them legally that if the preliminary plat on something they've approved - - that a final plat is a rubber stamp approval - thereafter. MR. HAMMOND: May I comment to that, Cindy, before - MISS TELEP: Well, I just want to finish making a statement. And I would just say this - that I believe that in this particular case what we have here is a situation where there has been further and further showing - to the Planning Commission and to all the planning facilities in this area that the preliminary plat was procedural and without - - - -9-A /• • MR. HAMMOND: May we have a definition - - - MISS TELEP: I want - no - no - I want to - - - MR. SHUPE: I would like a definition of that so I can respond. MR. HAMMOND: What do you mean premature? MISS TELEP: That is a word I happened to pick up in the file reading through the FHA communications on the subject. They were done in 1971 and in 1972, at the beginning of the year when you,I believe probably applied to them for an FHA financing program. They said it could be done conventionally - it would not take - - - MR. HAMMOND: I think this is something, that Cindy, you probably don't want to get into - - - MISS TELEP: Well after they did a rather large feasibility study MR. HAMMOND: I don't think you want to get into this because it is all going to come back in your face. The FHA was requested to study the matter. We have testimony and witnesses at the FHA, who said - the extent of their study was calling Mr. Lorensen, at your office to get his comments and they repeated in their report exactly what his comments were. So in other words the only thing that is coming from FHA is coming from your own Mr. Lorensen. That is the extent ,of the study, in other words you are asking someone else - - MISS TELEP: All I know - that in reading the letter MR. HAMMOND: Ya. MISS TELEP: In the file they indicate - - -10- MR. HAMMOND: Yes, this is why I spoke to - not to get into - too deep - the point is - on FHA - the FHA statement was exactly what Mr. Lorensen gave them and the extent of their study was calling Mr. Lorensen up and seeing what his comments were. So I think it both unfair and paddingly wrong on the basis of it to have the County to come up and use the FHA as authority, when they are the ones who told the FHA what to say. Now with regard to your comments on the preliminary plat - - MISS TELEP: I want you to know this but I appreciate your informing me - - MR. HAMMOND: Yes, with regard to the preliminary plat I don't think anyone here is saying that the County's approval of the preliminary plat can be taken as final approval. We certainly understand that and I agree with it, so lets look for a minute at the purpose of a preliminary plat and particularly as you stated in your own subdivision regulations. MISS TELEP: I'm not - - MR HAMMOND •: The purpose of a preliminary plat is to flush out all of the problems, so that, when it finally comes to somebody for a decision - like it did before the County Commissioners - somebody can say all right we either agree or we disagree,or we agree subject to conditions. Now the whole point on it is - that your Section 5, which starts at Page 10, on any final plat implies without any conditions that the final plat it says, after approval of the preliminary plat a final plat shall be submitted. The final plat shall contain all the information required on the preliminary plat plus the following. -11- • All the information required on the preliminary plat plus the following - now if the final plat is only to contain What was on the preliminary, which we have to accept was approved by the County Commissioners, then the only other thing left to review on the final plat by the County Commissioners is whether or not the subdivider has complied with point 1 - 6 on page 10. Now our position is that these don't leave out for further question- ing some of the basics which the planning staff office saw fit to do when the final plat was up for approval. In other words, your own subdivision regulations state that after the preliminary plat has been approved, the final plat is submitted with that information plus the following and they list points 1 through 6 which are basically have your streets name, your engineers certificate on the plat. In other words these are not substantee points to be considered as to whether the plat is good or bad. They want it. Now our position is, we have complied with that and obviously if the final plat did not have points 1 through 6 on it I can certainly see why the Planning Commission said no its not any good you have to do it. Our point is we did it and not only that tie subjected ourselves to meetings to try and resolve the points which we felt the Planning Commission had no further authority or - or even right to enter into or to question. MISS TELEP: What kind of things did they have no right to question - - --- MR. HAMMOND: We tried to resolve some of the points that were brought up by the Planning Staff on the points given for denial, we v=ent back and we said all right we will agree to this or we will agree to that. We tried to work out, in other words we were trying to tell the Planning Commission, or the Planning Staff ye will try and work out some of these details. -12- But so far as I am concerned the only thing the Planning Commission had to consider at that meeting was did the final plat have the thingson it that were on it at the preliminary basis-and if they were conditions - had these conditions been met, which the County Commissioners put the conditions - we met them - - then were points 1 through 6 on, if they were then I think the final plat is there and it is up to the County Commissioners to approve it if those things have - - been complied with MIS_ S TELEP; - - - MR. BILLINGS: Maybe I'd like to - MISS TELEP: Mr. Hammond, I think we have a problem here legally speaking of grandfatherin : - too - and grandfathering is a number of things - this is a whole area, and I am willing to admit that has been of some controversy and it has been through- out the State and you know it and I know it. I believe you act as an attorney for the City of Loveland too and you know exactly what we are talking about in Senate Bill 35 coming in. Now when that happened as of, May 5, 1972, I make it a point to stress to our Planning Commission that we were operating under its auspices. MVIII?: Maybe I am mistaken, but the copy of Senate Bill 35, that I have says that no preliminary plat shall be approved after, June 1st, and I was under the impression- - AUDIENCE: Not audible. MR. H-- AONND: It says on or after June 1st, 1972, no Board of County Commissioners shall approve any preliminary plan. Now we have already had our preliminary plan prior to June 1. MISS TELEP: Well all moratoriums - no - the moratoriums that you are referring to is not what I am talking about. -13- • MR. HAMMOND: Oh. MISS TELEP: No, really it isn't because, what I am thinking about is that the Senate Bill pointed out certain areas which were going to be considered after the May 5th, and you know that and I know that, in other words, any subdivision that came in would have to consider very carefully going into a feasibility study, involving sewage and water, and topography and impact enviormental impact, and everything. In fact it is a great comprehensive land use bill implementing their policies. This kind of consideration was given to everything after that period and it was also given in terms of the review of everything that existed prior to it. I don't - - - MR. HAMMOND: Let me interrupt you in one place, Cindy, with which regard you are talking about on that point all Senate Bill 35 says that if a final plat is not approved by June 1st that the following information which is set forth in point "B" "C" and "D" have to be submittted - a copy of the sewage disposal system plan, a soil and topographical conditions. In otherwords„in my reading of Senate Bill 35 says that is the County Commissioners have not acted on - upon any - preliminary plan or final plan by June 1, the following information shall be submitted and my point is - is that we not only have submitted what the State had required, we have submitted everything that Mr. Lorensen up to this very minute, has been able to think of. MISS TELEP: Well I don't know that - - - MR. BILLINGS: If this is the case, Cindy, let me back up I would like to start asking some specific questionsor we will be sitting here all day. Number 1, under Section 3.13 of the Weld County zoning resolution requirements the minimum lot size of 180 foot in an agricultural zone - Lot 9, Block 6 - as -13-A I understand it-your not in compliance. MR. HAMMOND: Which oneis it Mr. Billings, which point? MR. BILLINGS: 3.13 MR. HAMMOND: Is there a numbered objection that your specifically MR. BILLINGS: No I am referring to certain specific things where - - - MR. SHUPE: Yes, the lot width that refers to is defined in that ordinance as the minimum width of the lot at the narrowest point within the building as I recall - its some words to that effect - and you can look up the information on the lot width there. We have provided on the plat a line back of which the lot is a mimimum of 180 feet in width. MR. BILLINGS: In other words what are you going to be doing is staggering your houses so they are back far enough. You're going to set them on the back of the lot or what - - - MR. SHUPE: There may be some which set back farther than the 50 foot minimum requirement on that particular lot - lets see - - - well at a point 50 feet from Apache Road the lot is 180.07 feet in width. MR. BILLINGS: So your going to have to set the house back 150 feet. MR. SHUPE: No back 50 feet which is the mimimum set back, Jim, that is one of the ones that has been added on our plat and I have a copy of it if you'd like. MR. HAMMOND: Did you get that answered, Mr. Billings, to your satisfaction? -14- . Alk i MR. BILLINGS: We have it answered, I don't know if it is very satisfactory. MR. HAMMOND: Well I think the point - - - MR. BILLINGS: In other words you are going to set - - MR. HAMMOND: When we discussed this at the _ MR. BILLINGS: You've got lots that at the street's frontage which are too narrow. MR. HAMMOND: But there were some other culdesacs there. MR. BILLINGS: So you are setting the houses back MR. HAMMOND: But there was no way that you could get the minimum frontage so we are this set back. MR. BILLINGS: Okay then, any questions on that one, under Section 5.1 (3) requiring a good and sufficient dedication of all the streets as shown on the plat to be public. Has this . been - - - MR. OHI: I like to comment on those items first of all the preliminary plat did not show, as Mr. Hammond stated that the area was to be reserved for possible future right-of-way. It plainly states 150 foot a 100 minimum additional right-of-way to the existing right-of-way and another 50 feet possible additional right-of-way. In fact when the final plat was submitted, for staff review, it shows the dedication of the right-of-way and it was only after the Utility Board Meeting on, August 17th, that the dedication was changed to designation. So it was on the preliminary plat or at least the intention seemed to be there because it was dedicated on the final plat as submitted. We have received three final plats so far, the first two had the dedication on there but the third one did not. Its changed to -15- designation. Secondly, the point of whether or not it is designated or reserved is a very important matter because to me there is no real legal backing for the term designated, in fact, there is a whole section on State Statutes on it,on reservation of land for public use. This is in reference to towns, but designation to me doesn't have any kind of basis in what the obligations are between the subdivider and the public agency approving the plat. We have a letter from the Highway Department approving the dedication,as this plat that was submitted for staff review showing dedication on it. MR. BILLINGS: You say you have a letter---- MR. OHI: The third item MR. BILLINGS: You say you have a letter from the State Highway Department approving the dedication of the right-of-way along - - MR. OHI: Well approving location and requesting that MR. BILLINGS: Requesting that it be dedicated? MR. OHI: Dedicated, right. MR. BILLINGS: Has it been dedicated? MR. HAMMOND: This is what we are trying to explain Mr. Billings, at this lengthy meeting we had with the Utility Board we had no major disagreement with the State Highway people at all. They said we would like to have it dedicated but we know we can't require you to do it and they told us it is our hope, and the reason we come into these hearings is that 415-A • -you don't go through a subdivision and have the County approve a plat which shows commercial frontage or lots and blocks divided up. And this is why we said all right, we will change the word dedicated to designated and there is not going to be any subdivision of that land into iots and blocks and we will negotiate and discuss with the highway department when they have firmed up that• plans and the Utility Board with the Highway Department :and they approved the plat with the word designated. The whole thing we are getting down to is whether or not the subdivider - we don't think that any subdivider should come in and ask the County the approval of a subdivision plat where there is information that there may be a major highway improvement made and have the plat show the land into lots and blocks so that when the Highway Department goes to acquire they've got to pay high prices, because they are buying developed property. We are saying that the fairer way is to have it indicated on the plat that the subdivider intends no use of the property and when the Highway Department wants it and if they want it, then they will pay whatever the price is for raw land but notat highly developed prices. And this seemend to meet with the approval of the Highway Department when we talked with them. MR. ASHLEY: Do you have a letter, Jim? from the State Highway Department? MR. OHI: Yes. MR. HAMMOND: But this letter that he has was written prior to the hearing with the Utility Board, when we hashed this point all out--- MR. ASHLEY: Well MR. BILLINGS: I think the letter may indicate a clarification of that they probably do want the right-of-way -16- • • on your side of the road and also for clarification this has been on our proposed program with the State Highway Department for a number of years now and does hold a very high priority for the completion of 34 clear to I-25 as a four lane highway MR. HAMMOND: We were led to believe in talking with the Highway Department that our organization was probably not uncommon and had previously been utilized in the Monfort case. MR. OHI: While I am looking for that letter I would like to point out too, from the school district request - my only point is that if the developer can take off - remove - dedication after the final plat has been submitted - there surely shouldn't be any more problem to add dedication on when the final plat is being considered. But this is the letter from Mr. Capron, the District Engineer to Burman Lorensen. We have received the preliminary plat for the Indianhead Subdivision and would request the following - since the present land is agricultural any subdivision would raise the value of the lands we would request that the right-of-way for improvement of U. S. Highway 34 to a four lane facility be dedicated at the time. The right-of-way as shorn on the plat has been previously checked with our office and is adequate. Your help in this regard will be appreciated, Very truly yours, W. J. Capron, District Engineer. MR. HAMMOND: And I would like to point out one thing in that letter that I am not sure I understand exactly what the Highway Department means. The letter states that after land is subdivided prices will raise, therefore, they wanted something done at this time which seems to me to imply, -17- to me)that the Highway Department does not intend to have a subdivider give 6 or 7 acres of land with houses and improvements on it, at the time it comes in for approval that they don't want to have to pay high subdivision prices. In other words his letter says that after it is subdivided that prices will go up e. if we then acquired it after it is subdivided we would pay a high price for it. We are not asking that type of situation. We are asking that the company be compensated for the 6.5 or 7 acres which would be taken for the value that they would pay any farmer or any farm owner out there. And not at subdivision prices. MR. BILLINGS: Do you have any questions? MISS TELEP: MR. HAMMOND: And we would be willing to enter into any agreement with the Highway Department on this point. MISS TELEP: There is always, just compensation for land that is taken in regard - - - you know - - - that not the problem. MR. HAMMOND: Right, right - my only point is MR. BILLINGS: You are basically saying that you are willing to set aside that amount of land that is required for the widening of U. S. Highway 34. MR. HAMMOND: and when it is required - - - MR. BILLINGS: Nothing will be built on it MR. HAMMOND: Right MISS TELEP: Yes, but they are suggesting - is that when it is acquired that it would be for the market price - that would be used for it. -18- MR. HAMMOND: I would be for whatever the raw land prices but not considered as commercial or subdivided land. MISS TELEP: It is an interesting problem of appraisal, but its not at issue here, really. MR. HAMMOND: Well, the point is Iron behalf of the company; I think I could state that we would be perfectly willing to enter into an agreement with the State Highway Department that if its not being subdivided on the plat - for the reason that we intended it to be taken at fair market value of existing agricultural properties. MISS TELEP: Yes, - no I believe - I believe that really basically through that this subdivision presents a lot more problems than just this one. MR. HAMMOND: Yes, but I am just trying to clarify this one. I think that to answer Mr. Billings question - we would certainly would be willing to do that. MR. BILLINGS: The next item that I would like to get in to is MR. ANDERSON: Glen, wait a moment I have one question as long as we are talking about this road thing. Is that the entrance to that going to that - going to be on that county line intersection up there - or is it going to be another intersection. MR. BILLINGS: We've got a map of that we could put on the bulle-do Board so people could see MR. ANDERSON: Well I did, there isn't but one entrance to that - isn't that up on the corner? AR2. SHUPE: No sir, there are two entrances, one is on the County Line road and the other is on the highway. ---19- • • MR. ANDERSON: Is it about half way between the railroad track and the - that intersection then - - - AUDIENCE: Audience participation - not audible. MR. SHUPE: These overlap so it may be a little bit of a problem to see it. MR. SHUPE: Yes, it is County Road 15 here, there is oneentrance here on County Road 15 - - - AR2. ANDERSON: Approximately how far east of that is the hourse? MR. SHUPE: This is almost half of a mile - its about 2300 feet - the house sits right in here -. at the present time MR. ANDERSON: Ya MR. SHUPE: And the Greeley Loveland "MR. ANDERSON: The top of that map is north - - MR. SHUPE: This way is north - yes - This is U. S. 34 going east and west and this is County Road 15 going north and south. And as you see there is one entrance here - - MR. ANDERSON: Thats about half way between the hill and the corner - - - or the houreand the corner MR. SHUPE: I don't understand what the problem - - MR. ANDERSON: Heres 34 MR. SHUPE: Yes this is 34 - you know thats only a mineral reservation - the railroad track itself is not on this property. MR. ANDERSON: The whole thing is about half way between the railroad tracks on top of the hill. -20- • MR. SHUPE: Actually the top of the hill is ,just about where this county road comes in. Ya - this would be perhaps half way between the railroad track and the county road. MR. ANDERSON: The County line road is about here Aft. SHUPE: That would be about correct MR. BILLINGS: Another clarifiction how many actually - how many homes or lots are there in this total subdivision? MR. SHUPE: I beg your pardon sir? ARC. BILLINGS: How many homes are there in the total subdivision. MR. SHUPE: At the present time 113 MR. BILLINGS: The next item here will fall under Section 3.7. It is my understanding there has not been any area set aside for schools parks or for public purposes within that whole area and I think you are familiar that we do have a letter from School District RE-J5 which is Windsor - - indicating that AUDIENCE: No No - not Windsor MR. BILLINGS: No Johnstown, excuse me. That the elementary school is running at full capacity now and that this development would creat a demand for elementary classrooms and that district does not have --- let me back up here and read it. "The Board of Education went on record by motion passed at a regular meeting of the Board of Education, Monday, October 9, 1972, as opposing the development due to the impact possible upon the elementary school - - Letford Elementary School in parens - which is already nearing capacity - they feel that the development would create a demand for elementary classrooms that the district does not have the bonding capacity to provide. _.-21- • • Also)the Board would also like to attend the hearing scheduled in regard to this development. Are there . - - - anybody here from the school i:oard? AUDIENCE: Yes. PR. BILLINGS: I think at this time we would like to get your comments here so that these people would know what the problem might be. JOHN SHULTZ: Well I am John Shultz from Milliken, Colorado, I am president of the RE-J5 School Board and we have going on record recommending that this development be denied. First place the subdividers have never visited with the school board on this issue - I will admit that they have talked to the superintendent. Secondly if approved we ask them to setaside some land for a school site if it was deemed necessary to build a school out there and this was never acknowledged by the Board of Education. Now I have just got a few fictious figures here. I£ they plan 125 homes, this could mean 250 students, which would put us in trouble. Our elementary building is at capacity now and if we add approximately 250 students out there it will require about 5 new school busses to transport them into the Milliken-Johnstown Schools. Our district has not been as fortunate as some of the surrounding districts. We haven't had any new industry come in so consequently we haven't had the increase in valuation that surrounding districts have had. It isn't reasonable for the taxpayers of the district that we have now, to provide a facilities for/new housing area when their own property taxes won't provide enough funds - property taxes to pay their own way. MR. HA6MdOND: Mr. Billings the only comment that I wish to make is that at the time the preliminary plat was considered --22- • • by the Planning Commission - I am sure that all parties were notified and at the time when we were still in a preliminary basis when something could have been changed. Nobody came forth, the school district did not come forth at the time and this is what Mr. Shupe was referring to - is that just after the preliminary plat was approved, and at the time the final plat was filed, it was at that time, that we first heard from the Planning Commission that the school district was concerned. MR. SHULTZ: Well I might add to that - I don't know if its a good explanation or not, but our Board is made up of five members - five farmers - I think you know what the pay is- we have to work for a living and I will admit that we might have drug our feet on this thing. But I think in this country we still have a right to change our minds. MR. OHI: I think that certainly you do because Interladco changed their mind on dedication after the final plat was approved, I mean was submitted. .If they can remove a didication then they can add on too. MR. BILLINGS: Is there anyone else here that wanted to comment about the school situation? You are the only representative I see from the school board. MR. CARLSON: I am Norman ,Carlson, President of the Weld County Ag Council and we went on record of opposing this for the same reasons only as the County, because it's/going to cost more :or the County to provide police protection, its going to cost more for the fire district to provide a truck that will run up there because it is in the Johnstown-Milliken - Johnstown Fire District, and especially because of school taxes. Unless Amendment 7 passes next week, the farmers in that district provide most of the taxes and we are just overloaded now with taxes and we don't need anymore. -23- • • MR. BILLINGS: The next item here, Jim, if anybody else - - - concerned with school or tax base - - - - MR. ANDERSON: You gentlemen are going to have to knock this off sometime - I move we adjourn for an hour and a half MR. BILLINGS: Ya, I didn't realize it was that late. We will adjourn this meeting. MR. ANDERSON: Recess. MR.-BILLINGS: Recess until 1:30 and we will come back and try to complete this list of questions I have here and maybe we can get some answers. We hope that all you people who are interested in this will come back this afternoon - we never know how long all these hearings will last. MR. ANDERSON: Second the motion. MR. BILLINGS: Do I have a second to the motion? Do you want to stay through the noon hour - - MR. ASHLEY: Are you through? MR. BILLINGS: I am through. All right we will adjourn until 1:30. -24- . •• AFTERNOON SESSION MR. BILLINGS: We will call this hearing back to order from the recess at 12:00 o'clock, the Indianhead Subdivision final plat hearing. I hope that we can go on through some of this other stuff that we have here fairly rapidly, without taking up too much time. I think there are probably a lot of people here who are certainly interested in this subdivision and who would want to testify one way or the other. I think that we might bring these points out as fast as we can and Jim you would give your reasons why you feel that at this time that they might not be in compliance - - then you can give any reasons to them and then if you can give any reason why you think you are - - if we can go through them as fast as we can,so we can finish this hearing farily early this afternoon - I would hope. Whats - - Jim , the one on - - - it would be in Section 3.2 (4) prohibiting reverse corner lots - Lot 1 Block 7 you are referring to: MR. OHI: Ya, reverse corner lot is a lot on which the backyard - back lot line - is a substantially a continuation of a front lot line of a lot immediately to the rear of it MR. BILLINGS: Would you like to show on the map over here - - to show what you are referring to so the Board is better informed MR. OHI: This lot here Lot:lBlock 7 and reverse corner lot line is prohibitive by our regulations. The problem is that it has two frontages - and --- hot. BILLINGS: Its 3.2(4) -25- • (• I found it - - - this lot here - - the frontyard is - - - the rear lot line of this lot is a continuation of the front yard - - front lot line of the lot immediately to the rear of the - - - its not a corner lot because a corner lot would have a separate side yard lot line which is not a continutation of the lot immediately to the rear of it. MR. BILLINGS: While you are up there you might go into Section 3.3 - - Minimum and maximum block.:lenghts. You're referring to Block 3 and 5. NR. OHI: Right the minimum — maximum block lengths are set out so that you won't have blocks that really—long without being broken up by streets. Block 6 exceeds the maximum allowabel length of 1260 I believe - it is an Block 3 which straches all the way around from here to here. Also exceeds the maximum allowable block length in a subdivision MR. BILLINGS: The other: one you have here is Section 3.1 (6) requiring streets to intersect at right angles. MR. OHI: Right. This violation occurs at three points here, here, and here. Here the subdivider says that at these he admits to this here that he is not intersecting at right angles but they have corrected that. Here now their claim is that as long as the centerline where the two roads meet at right angles thats sufficient. But my understanding of the regulation is that the intent of that regulation is for safety reasons that as a person comes to a road he wants - - should be at a right angle to it for maximum visibility at both directions. Now if the centerline of the road is to be the intersection where the intersection centerline is to be at -26- r• right angle that means the wider the road, here,therefore, the more heavily traveled and more important the less important it is for the street to meet at a right angle where the person will enter that road. So I think here and here they are still in violation of that regulation, even though the centerlines of the roads meet at right angles MR. BILLINGS: And again under Section 3.1 (12) requiring i - a minimum centerline you are referring to that here just now. MR. OHI: Right, here where they put now they, Now in a letter from Mr. Shupe said that was a typo - graphical error but it scales out 270 feet and I had it recalculated using his dimensionsfor a length and chord and it comes out in calculations that we've had made 267 feet. MR. HAMMOND: Lets take these one by one. MR. BILLINGS: These are all under onesub head and I thought I would catch those and then we could go back. MR. HAMMOND: Yes, in fact I would appreciate Mr. Billings if when we go down these one by one for example on point number six - this reverse corner lot if we could comment and go damn then point by point after Mr. Ohi gives us whatever statement - - whatever statement he has - If I could ask him questions. MR. BILLINGS: All right. MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Ohi you say on point 6 that Lot 1 Block 7 was a reverse corner lot. I don't see where a reverse corner lot is defined or is it? MR. OHI: Its defined in our zoning -27- MR. BILLINGS: Section 3.2 (4) MR. HAMMOND: I see that Mr. Billings where it says there isn't a reverse corner lot but I don't know where it defines what a reverse corner lot is. - - - MR. OHI: The reverse corner lot is defined in our subdivision - I mean our zoning resolution. A corner lot having a side street substantially a continuation on the front lot line of the first lot line to the rear. That is PAR. SHUPE: Okay and that is true of neither one of the adjacent lots, Jim. MR. OHI: What adjacent ones? MR. SHUPE: Its either side of that that you called a front is a continuation of the front lot line of the adjacent lot - not a continuation of the side line. MR. OHI: A corner lot having a side street which one is the side street? MR. SHUPE: You call it either way you want it. MR. OHI: Okay how then can either one apply? MR. SHUPE: The only other line is not a side line its a back line MR. OHI: - - having a side street you take this side street here as a side street having a side street substantially a continuation on the front lot line of the first lot line of first lot to its rear, which is 8 or 2? FAR. SHUPE: But thats not a side lot line, that's its rear. -28- • MR. OHI: The problem here is that it doesn't have one. Thats what a reverse corner lot is MR. SHUPE: Okay. MR. OHI: There is no side lot. MR. HAMMOND: Were you present in the County Planning Commissions meeting where Mr. Lorensen advised that County Planning Commission that this particular lot posed a problem and he could see no solution to it other than what the company and the engineers had proposed in the plat? ''mere you there Mr. Ohi? MR. OHI: Yes, I remember him saying it. MR. HAMMOND: . You remember him saying it - - MR. OHI: I don't know exactly what he said but I remembering say that MR. HAMMOND: Do you remember him saying that he didn't see any solution to the problem other than how the company had platted it on the plat MR. OHI: No I dont MR. HAMMOND: You have tapes of those meetings don't you? MR. OHI: Yes we do. MR. HAMMOND: The problem here Mr. Billings is that when this came before the Planning Commission and this particular item was discussed, Mr. Lorensen, and I am sure the tape of that meeting will bear me out, because I made notes here as we went down them in the Planning Commission. Mr. Lorensen advised that this particular lot posed a problem because it was on a corner like that and if he could see no solution to the problem, other -29- ( • than how it was platted and of course I will take exception with Mr. Ohi, I don't think that also fits within the definition of a corner lot. MR. OHI: We can see the difference here - like this is a corner lot and this one here - there is no side - and there is no side lot line where - - - MR. SHUPE: Jim we suggested one method of fixing that, which you really didn't respond to - we suggested that if you wanted to choose one of those and call it a front we would put a reservation strip on the other side thereby eliminating access, thereby, eliminating the problem, But so far you haven't really responded to that, but we are willing to do it. MR. OHIs I think the problem exists no matter which side the access is because you only have - - what happens here is that there is no backyard as you have in the other lot here, you are going to have a street on the front and back I think its going to be an undesirable lot. MR. HAMMOND: Why isn't this a back lot or back line? MR. OHI: Well then this means that the front yard of the house that is going to be at this point right here. MR. SHUPE: Jim, that lot is 230 feet deep, how much backyard do you really need? Its 50 some thousand square feet in size. How much yard do you really need? MR. OHI: About the same as any undesirable lot thats going to have traffic on both sides of it. MR. SHUPE_ Well I suggest that you not buy it. - MR. OHI: Well I suggest that you not plat it - - - ---30- MR. HAMMOND: Well we just can't leave a piece of ground unplatted. Now the point is that the company has tried to cooperate and work this out and the only thing we can be able to get from the Planning Office is Mr. Lorensen's statement from the Planning Commission that it looks like we did all that • we could. Maybe we can answer the problem - - - - MR. OHI: The problem is really plotting the lot itself. MR. HAMMOND: - - - and maybe we can answer the problem by going into the next point. And in your objections you did not say lots or blocks 3 and 6 you said Block 3 and 5, do not meet the maximum allowable lot length. MR.OHI: Okay, it's Block 5, right. MR. HAMMOND: Now, one indication so fare as the lot here that goes around was that it was that our understanding that your objection is to the fact that there is no street that goes on through, right? M .• OEI: Well, my objection is that it doesn't meet the regulations then. MR.HAMMOND: Well that would be why it didn't meet it would it, Mr. Ohi? MR. OHI: If you had a block in something that is totally surrounded by streets. MR. HAMMOND: Well that's right in order to shorten this block you would have to put a street through wouldn't you? MR. OHI: It still wouldn't be a block. MR. HAMMOND: Wouldn't it be a block if this street vent through, if you so designated it? -31- MR. OHI: MR. HAMMOND: Why not? MR. SHUPE: Why not? Mkt. OHI: Because a lot is defined as that which is a parcel of land that is wholly surrounded by access roads, and the only time - - - MR. HAMMOND: It is our understanding that the objection of the Planning Commission was that this Block had no access street through, however, shortening the length of it. And our response to that was our understanding that you weren't particularly interested in having adjoining land to any direction having feeder street into it that would further in your statement increase the development potential of adjoining and therefore would create problems. In other words the fact that there was no street through here didn't happen by-happen chance-it happened because it was our understanding that the Planning Commission didn't want further development. MR. OHI: I'm just pointing out the violations of the regulations of - - - MR. BILLINGS: The Board will take these comments under consideration, we just wanted to clarify some of these things. MR. SHUPE: In regard to the other lot - or the other block that exceeds the recommended length - might I say that the regulation does in fact only recommend rather than require a minimum of 1240 feet or 1260 feet and this lot - this block exceeds that length by 40 feet, which to us does not appear to us to be a variation. MR. HAMMOND: Now, Mr. Billings, about this block here, it is 40 feet beyond the recommended one . -32- MR. SHUPE: Certainly we understand the requirements that lots and blocks be served by cross traffic at approximately one-quarter mile intervals, which is what that 1260 is based on. I might say also in response to Block 3, that - that block does have traffic arteries carrying away from it at approximately 800 foot intervals - average. 'ID that it isn't really a matter of it being that long of a block without anyway of getting away from it. MR. HATNdOND: I might also mention that these were all on the preliminary plat. Mr.Shupe perhaps you could clarify point Number 8 which, Mr. Billings, asked about. These are right angle corners Appache Road and Arikaree Road. MR. SHUPE: Yes, the three points that Jim mentioned are this one and this one and this one as he pointed out - - this one in fact did not meet at a right angle buy some 7 degrees but we have corrected it. This one does meet at a right angle when this curve comes - - when this street comes into this curve it meets at a radial line. That by definition is a right angle - and there is no other way to interpert it. Likewise this one- a tangent to this curve at this point would be perpendicular to the opposing centerline. This again by definition is a right angle. I would agree with Jim but if we were dealing with a right-of-way here that were 250 feet wide you would obviously need more of a tangent but two local 60 foot streets do no really fall within his concern, I believe, at this point. Those streets will meet at a right angle. A car is about 20 feet long - right? Okay 20 feet back from there you are not going to be able to tell that you are not on a right angle to that opposing street. No way. MR. OHI: All I'm saying is that the street as far as I'm concerned still don't meet at a right angle because - - MR. SHUPE: Well. -33- • MR. OHI: If they were going to meet at centerline, I'm taking your argument then the wider - - - MR. SHUPE: Then I think, Jim, your regulation really ought to say that - if thats going to be your definition your regulation ought to say it. What it says is that streets shall • meet at right angles, which they do. MR. OHI: Im my opinion, they don't. MR. BILLINGS: The next one Jim is on the minimum centerline. You've got indicated here that they're MR. HAMMOND: Which points this Mr. Billings? MR. BILLINGS: ThiC is on "F" Section 3.1 (12 requiring minimum centerline radius for streets MR. HAMNOND: What pointin his letter of objection do you have that? MR. BILLINGS: They don't meet minimum centerline radius. MR. SHUPE: That was indeed an error of the draftman's on the plat - the outside radius is shown properly at 230 and the inside was shown properly at 170. For some reason the centerline radius the draftman wrote a figure other than what it should have been 200 feet on there. We just now recalculated it and it does calculate exactly a 200 foot centerline radius. MR. OHI: The point- I am not sure-is I have never seen_ is the cc,rection that Mr. Shupe points our,. They never submitted anything to us. MR. SHUPE: Well I was a little suprised that you didn't get a copy of my letter here Jim, in which I delinated all these things. MR. OHI: I got a copy only because Gil Olson sent me one as far as the plat corrections I have never seen them I would like - - - -34- • • -- MR. HAMMOND: Would you agree that this change which Mr. Shupe says is a typographical error on there - that you would have no objection then to that point. MR. OHI: I would like to see the calculations. MR. HAMMONE 4 But assuming the calculations are correct then the objections doesn't hold. MR. OHI: We've gotour own - - - He's using his own figures here. We've calculated that radius from that centerline curve. We came up with a different figure than he did. MR. HOGAN: Well I just use the other. information Mr. Ohi and it calculates exactly 200 feet and I don't know who you had check it, but there's nothing the matter with the rest of the calculations. MR. OHI: Ya, I would like to reserve the right to see it though. MR. BILLINGS: Our next - - - - MR. HOGAN: I have to sign the plat here then I am responsible for it. MR. BILLINGS: Do we have someone here from the State • Highway Department? We were this morning talking in reference to a letter signed by Mr. Capron, regarding the right-of-way contin- uation of Highway 34 as a four-line route along this area. Are you familar with the subdividsion that we are talking about. It's do,rn by Kelim. You might read that letter Jim and - so we can get some verification as to what the State Highway's thinking is in that area. MR. OHI: This is from Wayne Capron, addressed to -35- • Burman Lorensen, "We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the Indianhead Subdivision and would request the following. Since the present land is agricultural and any subdivision will raise the value of the land - we would request that right-of-way needed for the improvement of U. S. Highway 34 to a four lane facility be dedicated at this time. The right-of-way as shown on the plat has been previously checked with our office and is adequate. Your help filth this will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, W. J. Capron. MR. BILLINGS: I think what we brought up this morning was the fact that it wasn't known for sure whether the State Highway would be widened on that side or on the other side of the road. And I was wondering if you have gotten that far along with your proposal of the four laning..'that on to I-25. If there would be an indication which side of the road you are going to widen the highway in that area or if you are that far along yet? MR. CHOTVACS: I am Al Chotvacs, Assistant District Engineer for the Colorado Division of Highways, 101 East Twenty- First Avenue. At the pre-construction of our matter at a public hearing it was shown that the highway would be widened on the south side at this point. Nit. BILLINGS: That was the thing we needed for clarifiction because it was brought up possibly it must be - you wouldn't need all that dedicated right-of- way through there. • Now they, as I understand it, you did indicate this morning, if I can find my right notes here, that you would be willing to dedicate that right-of-way through there - that if it were needed is this correct? MR. HAMMOND: I keg you pardon now what was that Mfr. Billings? Would we what - - - -36- �� MR. BILLINGS: That you would be willing to dedicate that land through there if it were needed for the highway the question was one of you gentlemen brought up this morning, that possibly the highway would be going on the other-side and not on that side. MR. HAMMOND: No I believe the statement, Mr. Billings, which we would still hold to - is the final plat shows that as designated for highway enlargement. That it would not be dedi. ' '. to the State, but that no developmentyould take place on the landaand that we would be willing to enter into an agreement, with the State Highway Department, that at such time they were acquiring right-of-way - that the property would be deeded and conveyed to them upon them paying a going market price for agricultural land. Not developed land. MR. BILLINGS: Is there anything else Al, that you would like to add? MR. BILLINGS: I think the main point we wanted was the clarification on was that in your planning it was going along with the south side of 34 and not the north side. MR. CHILSON: Excuse me, are you acquainted with acquisition by the State Highway Department of right-of-way - - - MR. CHILSON: From your acquaintance and your knowledge of the procedure involved are you ever aware of the situation - I'm sorry, my name is Chilson, I am with Mr. Hammond representing Interladco, are you ever aware of a situation where as a requirement for a subdivision approval the subdividers have been required to dedicate land for a major arterial highway such as U. S. Highway 34? MR. CHOTVACS: This is a perrogative of the city or the county. The state in itself can not ask for a dedication of right- of-way. We can request dedication and you have asked the question do we have knowledge of such. I do not have knowledge in a - -37- • • separate out in the country like this/however/ but we have had dedications between corporate limits of cities where they have dedicated right-of-way for the highway. NR. CHILSON: But in so far as your knowledge of acquisitions the State Highway Department does not have the authority to do anything other than to acquimeand to condemn is that corredt? MR. CHOTVACS: Yes MR. BILLINGS: Jim you had one other item here under Section 3.6 (1) prohibiting the platting of lots in areas subject to flooding Block 3 Lots 20/ 21 and 22 would you like to comment on that? MR.OHI: Ya, the provisions for that of .course is that a lot should not be platted in an area subject to flooding and my point is that if we are going to protect lots- prevent lots from being platted in the areas subject to flooding, what the developers have done is propose that three lots be used as storm water retention areas making so all the water that - all the water from here is going to run into an area here on these three lots to be held - I think for a five hour holding capacity holding time. And this seems to me - if we have regulations to protect lots from being flooded why plat lots for the purpose of holding water from storms. Theis my objection to those lots. MR. BILLINGS: Is there anywhere, Jim,within that area, that they have designated as holding ponds for run-off, from that area. MR. OHI: No - well they have easements there that is drainage utility easements - so called , on these three lots - - they are not separated as retention areas, I mean multiple use is a good thing but the use - this is carrying it a bit too far -38- �. �( I think. I would like to see as is often done in Greeley, in a parka retention area for the storm water to go to. But to plat, building sites and then to have the backyard of these sites designated for storm water retention area. I think is bad practice. Aft. HAMMOND: Mr. Ohi, is your objection based upon - - it comes back to Greeley, the question of drainage - MR. ANDERSON: Where would that water go,does it flow into the ditch or - - - ►:R. OHI: The intention is to hold this for a given amount of time - to cast the silt - then to go into the Farmers Ditch. Now I have a question too as to the maintenance of this proposed retention area are the owners of Lots 20, 21, 22 to be responsible for the clean up of silt and debris. There is no provision made by the owner who is to take care of this. MR. HAMMOND: Lets get back to the first one and we will come to that. What you speak of is the function of the consideration of the drainage plan, is it not? MR. OHI: Its partly - - - MR. HAMMOND: Who under your subdivision regulations approves drainage plans? MR. OHI: Well the County Engineer does. MR. HAMMOND: Are you aware of the fact that the County Engineer has approved this plat in regard to all aspects. MR. OHI: He has but the study he has - - MR. HAMMOND: Then are you usurping his functions now and your coming in - - - MR. OHI: No - Ism adding further consideration the Board should review. -39- • • MR. HAMMOND: Now, I say in all fairness to the Board, it is only proper to point out that the man who is responsible for this, the County Engineer - - - MR. BILLINGS: Has our County Engineer approved this fourth plat - - - MR. HAMMOND: Yes sir. MR. BILLINGS: The drainage facility. MR. HAMMOND: Yes. MR. SHUPE: He has approved the drainage plan MR. BILLINGS: We had better talk to our County Engineer. MR. OHI: There were several drainage plans submitted, one was going to run it• into a cul-de-sac. MR. SHUPE: There were two, Jim, one which he asked us to revise and two the revised one. Those are the drainage plans MR. ANDERSON: Is this the revised on or is this the old one? MR. OHI: This is the revised one. MR. BILLINGS: Now you say this is going to drain into the Farmers Supply Irrigation - - - Ate?. SHUPE: Yes, I think, Mr. Billings - Mr. Hogan can explain the other questions that were brought up. Just briefly the basic philosophy of the drainage here is - I don't want to bore you withtt, but the ridge that runs across here -• - some of the drainage is off to the northeast. That portion of the drainage which goes southwesterly, which is the slope of _-40- 1 • • the rest of the ground some of it is intercepted by the Greeley Loveland Canal, some of it is intercepted by the Farmers Irrigation Ditch and a very minor part of it which would fall below that will be handled by our sanitation facility. But basically we have discussed the drainage with the both ditch companies - the Greeley Loveland people said they.would accept anything which was not concentrated by roads, so anything that doesn't fall on a road or drain into a road is allowed to go on to the Greeley Loveland Ditch as it now does of course - - - MR. ANDERSON: HoOs it going to get there if it don't - you got to cross - - - MR. SHUPE: Well what I am saying is that that any- thing that doesn't have to cross the road - to get to the canal is allowed to go into the canal. So that anything below this barrow ditch would go in there - anything in here would go in there - anything in here would go there. MR. BILLINGS: Do you have a letter of agreement from either one or both of these ditch companies that you can - - Nit. SHUPE: I believe - - - MR. BILLINGS: That you can discharge that water in there - - - MAR. SHUPE: I believe both of those have been submitted Mr. Billings. MR. BILLINGS: We have a letter from Mr. Bill Southard, is that from - - - MR. SHUPE: That would be from the Greeley Loveland -41- MISS TELEP: Ya, its from the Greeley Loveland Irrigation Company. He points out a number of problems in his letter MR. SHUPE: We are aware of those. He says - - - MR. HAMMOND: The letter also says they have no . objection to the plan - - - MISS TELEP: In the most reluctant of terms I would say that - - AUDIENCE: Laughter MR. HAMMOND: I really object to - - as far as attorneys knowing the laws of the State. MR. TELEP: This is an administrative hearing, Gentlemen. MISS TELEP: This is not a court hearing - - - and I MR. SHUPE: But at any rate - the remaining philosophy of the drainage plan below the Greeley Loveland Ditch was that AUDIENCE: Background not audible MR. TELEP: Its a matter of opinion on what you say and how you say it - this is an administmtive hearing - - - - MR. SHUPE: We would discuss with the Board of the Farmers Ditch that we would retain the water for a sufficient length of time according to the design storm requirements of the County Engineer to allow the water to drain into the ditch at no greater a rate than what it does now. We have also agreed with Farmers Ditch Company people to line the ditch with concrete across the property. These two things taken together in our opinionand we believe to be substantial measure in the opinion of the Board though I don't have an absolute final written -42- • --agreement about this concrete lining. We have agreed to do it in so far as the length of our property is concerned. But the intent here is that, storm run-off congregates at this point only long enough to be allowed to be slowed down, to the rate at which it is presently entering the ditch. MR. ANDERSON: How big - - MR. SHUPE: How big are what? these lots - - - MR. ANDERSON: No I mean those holding ponds. MR. SHUPE: Oh the retention area covers - I forget - about 1.2 acres, I believe. MR. ANDERSON: How deep? MR. SHUPE: It may very well be for a period of two hours as much as two feet.deep. MR. ANDERSON: How much rain is this based on MR. SHUPE: This is based on a five year storm. MR. ANDERSON: think your not MR. SHUPE: Well we - - - MR. ANDERSON: You get that all covered that doesn't sound like enough acres to me. MR. SHUPE: Well,keep in mind Mr. Anderson MR. ANDERSON: not audible MR. SHUPE: Well keep in mind Mr. Anderson that it isn't draining out at the same time it is draining in. This is a pond for thapurpose of slowing it down - not necessarily for — -43- stopping it. We are simply allowing it to drain off at the same rate that it now drains off - based on calculations. AR. BILLINGS: You as an engineer, I assume you are their engineer. NR. SHUPE: Yes sir. AR. ANDERSON: Think that it is feasible to plot those acres in there for houses on them when you going to run all that water in there - - AR. SHUPE: Yes sir I do believe so - if you will take a look at the lot which is the worst one - Lot 1 - it has a building site area exclusive of the set back, which is in excess of 7,000 square feet, which is bigger than any lot or as big as almost any lot in the city. NR. BILLINGS: How many acres are we talking about possibly that is going to be draining down in that area? Forty acres - - just approximately. MR. SHUPE: It would be in that range - yes. NR. BILLINGS: Your basis on this - is based on a 5 year flood, a 10 year flood or a 50 year, 100 year or :what? NR. ANDERSON: Who is going to maintain that? MR. SHUPE: It is at the request of the County Engineer and so stated in the drainage report based on a 5 year storm. 6R. SHUPE: It is our feeling that this was shared to some extent, I felt by the County Engineer, in our last meeting, with him that there would not be any very significant maintenance in terms of - - - - MR. ANDERSON: Supposethere is - the ditch company refuses to take care of it - - - - -44- �• MR. SHUPE: I beg your pardon. MR. ANDERSON: Say the ditch company refuses to take care of it and the landowner - who are you going to talk in on that - - - you've got - you've got 130 people in there - say 130 families. MR. SHUPE: 113. MR. ANDERSON: So your going to have 113 people fighting care - you know whos going to take/of that - MR. SHUPE: Well sirs we do I am sure as you are aware do have to have a homeowners association to maintain the sanitation facility - its well within the realm of possibility to simply include that function should it be required within the purview of the homeowners association. MR. ANDERSON: That reminds me of the deals the County gets into around these ditches on the bridge I am afraid we would get into trouble - we have to clean them out. I think we would just have to buy another dragline for this kind of stuff. MR. SHUPE: As I say there is a way in which we can assume the maintenance and I think there is no problem. MR. ANDERSON: Well MR. HAMMOND: At that particular point we have no objection to providing that this would be subject to a homeowners association assumption of liability. MR. ANDERSON: Is this going to be a homeowners operation? MR. SHUPE: That is the intent yes. MR. ANDERSON: I've been wanting that to be brought out. -45- • MR. SHUPE: We have said that right along. MR. BILLINGS: While we are here discussing this, we still have our highway engineer - I forgot to bring up access on U. S. 34. I think maybe we should explain that to them so we can get their feelings too. We have one access on to U. S. 34 is that right? MR. SHUPE: Thats correct - yes. MR. BILLINGS: Would you point out to them where that access is. MR. SHUPE: Well I think they received a copy of the preliminary plat - and are well aware of the location of it but MR. BILLINGS: Is the same on this plat as it was on the preliminary plat? MR. SHUPE: Yes sir it is. MR. CHOTVACS: 386 feet from the quarter corner there MR. SHUPE: Yes that is correct. Thats the same as it has been all along. MR. BILLINGS: I guess the next item we get to - - - MR. HAMMOND: I might indicate - - - MR. BILLINGS: This gentlemen would like to MR. SCHWALM: Could I speak on this drainage. My name is Howard Schwalm and I am an adjoining landowner. The thing that concerns me on the land above the ditch - they have indicated pipelines across on arterial areas - in a heavy rainfall I wonder how the property division is going to be made? How do you direct certain waters to this channel and certain water to that. - -46- 4 When it does go across the ditch the area between the two ditches seems to pick up an additional supply of water from the ground above and presuming we are in a flooding condition and the water is headed for the retention pond and the retention fills quickly - I notice its not too big and the ditch is already carrying probably 110 percent of its capacity in a flooding condition and then we are trying to imply this retention pond on top of that. It looks to me like we've got an awful lot of:water heading for an awful small place. And myself being familiar with the area, I can kind of visualize what these ditches do. I had- this experience this last summer. The Farmers Ditch for the half mile it goes through our property runs completely over for probably four hours during an evening storm. So the retention water - it is just going to flood us more and the lake that this runs into does not have adequate outlets to handle flood control over and above what is already existing. So what we are saying here is we are going to bring more water from high ground and in flooding times we can't regulate how much is going to go through the arterials, pipelines and so on to the lower ground. So I think we are creating a terrific problem for the existing drainage and lakes that is below it now. MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Billings, all these things of course were considered by the engineers and the County Engineer and the parties in interest and supposedly were taken care of before today. However, to respond to that I think Mr. Shupe could give you some information. Mr. Shupe do you know what the carrying capacity of the ditch is and what the decreed right of the ditch is - - - MR. SHUPE: Well I think Bill told me, the ditch rider, that decreed capacity of the ditch isiin that areafis around 7 cfs - is that right Bill? -47- • DITCH RIDER: Well that would be the ordinary irrigation committed right. MR. SHUPE: Right, the capacity of the channel in that area right now in a dirt condition is 6.5 cfs or very nearly 10 times the decreed capacity and the concrete lining of the ditch of course would increase that somewhat - because it decreases friction velocity and so on - - - we feel that the ditch will probably have a very adequate capacity to handle thakind of thing that Mr. Schwalm is referring to. I have no doubt that there are times probably that he has seen - then the ditch was being asked to carry somewhat more than it could in its present condition. I don't think anybody that I know of ever designs for the 100 year storm - - - you can't MR. BILLINGS: This is something that concerns me because we have had subdivisions similar to this where we required a plan for a 100 year flood. It concerns m4 f our County Engineer approved this based on only a five year flood. MR. SHUPE: Well I think some of the answers to that Mr. Billings, has to-take into account the type of subdivision that it may be - if you were talking about a dense kind of subdivision with 7500 to 10,000 square foot lots I think the concern would be much more grevious than with an area of 160 acres with only 114 lots on it. Considerably less than one lot per acre density. I agree with you that there are times and circumstances which do change the requirements but I believe that in a rural area that design for a storm of much greater magnitude than 5 years is probably not justified. What I am saying is substantially the agreement with the requirements that your County Engineer placed on it. We orginally designed it for a two year storm and he asked us to increase it to a five - which we did -48- C MR. BILLINGS: Are these any question? MR. SCHWALM: I would like to ask the man where the 6.5 foot capacity is at in that ditch. MR. SHUPE: We went out and shot the cross sections across the property and we didn't go onto your land cause we didn't have any right to - but we shot the capacity of the existing ditch and calculated it to the best of our engineering ability based on current standard engineering practice. MR. SCHWALM: Well 6.5 feet is a terrific amount of water - I am positive as I am setting here that the cement ditch that connects this property couldn't carry more than 25 feet at the maximum. MR. SHUPE: As I say we did not go on to your property because we didn't feel we had the right to MR. SCHWALM: Not audible AUDIENCE: Not audible MR. MOSIER: Mr. Billings, I am William Mosier, I am ditch rider for the Farmers Ditch Company and I was going to say that I didn't want to go on record stating that seven cubic feet was all - - - thats all I carry when we are irrigating. And Howard is surely right because if we go to 15 feet - that is cubic feet per second that would be more than enough through there at any time whether its flooding or irrigating or anytime because theres only two people or farmers at the end of the ditch and we don't have no outlet from there on in. MR. BILLINGS: This is what I want to ask now - - MR. ANDERSON: Now you are talking about a clean ditch too aren't you - you aren't talking about an autumn ditch -49- • MR. MOSIER: Yes, it is a cement lined ditch MR. ANDERSON: Ya, but I mean from where the cement lining ends MR. MOSIER: No sir it is not. MR. ANDERSON: It is full of grass and weeds. MR. SHUPE: There is a gap across this property. MR. BILLINGS: The question I wanted to ask you as ditch rider - I assume from what you are saying you are getting to the end of the ditch. Now say we had one of these heavy run-offs , from heavy rains and all that would be cause for flooding on down the ditch or do you have an outlet where you can drop this water in into the river or anything. MR. MOSIER: We do not have an outlet. If I have say, a foot and a half maybe five feet excess for the day I can use Rains Lake or go through Croissants or it will go through directly to the Big Thompson River. But through flooding conditions it just goes down the road right-of-way. So there is no' set outlet - - there is no set outlet for say 15 or 20 - - - - MR. BILLINGS: In other words you, do not have an outlet such as Number Three has here in Greeley on the West side of Greeley where they can just open their ditch and dump it into the river where you have got flooding up above. In other words your control would be at the headgates and thatsthe only place. MR. MOSIER: Thats right. MR. BILLINGS: How far are the headgates up above? MR. MOSIER: Seventeen miles MR. BILLINGS: Seventeen miles. Are there any other questions or comments as far as ---- the retention- - - -50- • • MISS TELEP: No only except I would like to point out to the Commissioners this is one of the considerations which was male in the original Planning Commission recommendation for denial for this particular subdivision-that these problems had not been resolved. MR. ANDERSON: We are already being harrased out here in West Greeley on the same thing we are talking about here now. We have Hunter Heights under water everytime it rains. That thing happened 10 or 12 years ago and you haven't seen the last of it yet. Are we creating another problem like that2 MR. OHI: Why I think it hasn't been fully resolved and it could be - - - MR. ANDERSON: I think it ought to be resolved and I think - - - - Gentlemen MR. BILLINGS: This gentlemen here. : I'd like to submit that this is purely an engineering question. I have to be registered in order to present these things and its been checked by your County Engineer. It has had extensive study - expetially on the run-off studies and the criteria of the Colorado Division of Highways, which is the most reliable in the area, its a much broader type thing than we are lookingat here. Its almost regional thing you know. MR. TELEP: Ya Nit. BILLINGS: Well I understand that but I am definitely myself concerned that our County Engineer would approve anything with just a five year flood program involved. Because we have never gone under a 25 or 50 or 100 year flood. -51- • • s Well let me explain part of that --there are basically two types of drainage basins, the closed drainage basin or what we call the sump area and a normal type run-off area. A lot of this comes about from the fact background of what FHA has required they are sticklers for this drainage. They have set a lot of criteria that everybody uses. And whether or not it is in a sump area, that means for instance if one of those cul-de-sacs drains into a hole - well that would be a sump area. The only way you can get the water out is provide for it. That we would probably design on a 50 year flood basis which would be the ordinary criteria,nowlif on the other hand you were in a position where you were going to get that storm once in 50 years, it wouldn't normally do that. You, would handle it (1) as perhaps as a conduit type of system with a swale or overflow which would carry over the same route, that would furnish protection, but it would not in other words its like talking about the freeway bridges down in Denver. If you recall when we had the big flood down there it washed away some of the bridges and the water was over the bridges - well so it is impossible to design for that type of a storm. Now the best thing we can do is to retain the waters and to release them at a rate that will not be injurious to anything downstream. What we have done here with our study and in concert with the requirements of the County Engineer is to provide for holding this water and for releasing it at a rate not more than what is present and the difference between a 25 year storm and 10 year storm is not double its mabye less than 5 percent or something like that. MR. HAMMOND: The point I would like to clear up Mr. Billings before we go on is that I don't think its really fair to come: into a hearing and have, you comment Cindy, that these are the types of problems which the County Planning Commission considered and why they recommended denial. The point is that we have exhausted every remedy that you provide, we have satisfied your County Engineer, who we don't think is subject to prejudices of the County Planning Commission with regard to this matter. We have satisfied the -52- Farmers Ditch, who has legal counsel, and they should be far more concerned than anybody here. We have satisfied the engineers who werecertified, which incidently your supposed to be under the State of Colorado, a professional engineer to check another engineer's work. Neither Mr. Ohl, to my knowledge, nor Mr. Lorensen, are professional engineers and they are presently violating state statutes. MR. OHI: No, we have the checked that with Dick Deyoe who is a registered professional engineer. MR. HAMMOND: Who? MR. OHI: Dick Deyoe, who is a professional engineer. MR. HAMMOND: Is he in your department? MR. OHI: Yes. MR. HAMMOND: Did he do this checking or did you? ASH. OHI: No, he assigned it to someone else. MR. HAMMOND: He assigned it - so it wasn't done under his supervision. MR. OHI: It was. CHANGE OF TAPE: #70 MR.: HAMMOND: On continuing on this point. We have been through all these items we have satisfied the ditch company we have satisfied the engineers who prepared it, and we have satisfied your County Engineer, we have satisfied the State Highway Department, and now we are coming up into a hearing where to some of us it looks like there may be a problem and so now we are going back trying to relitigate and re-raise the issues. -53- Mr. Lorensen was here when the preliminary plan was before the County Commissioners, he had the full opportunity to raise any questions which he thought were so monumental to at this time reopen the whole case. And he didn't say one thing and the reason he didn't say one thing was because it had been blown out of all proportion. The only evidence thats been before this Commission today is, Mr. Ohi's statement, who says he thinks it is under designed and yet the engineers, the ditch company, the County Engineer, everyone else has approved it. Now the point that I am getting at is that I don't think we are going to get going anywhere/through these points one by one. If we are going to reopen and relitigate the whole issue which this is why the Utility Board meets, this is why the Utility Board approved the sewage system, as you gentlemen suggested. These are why in my estimation, anyway, everyone of your Boards are supposed to funnel information into this body to tell you whether its good or bad. MR. BILLINGS: I think the Chair - MR. ANDERSON: What you are saying we are not suppose to ask any questions. MR. BILLINGS: The chair will ask - - - - MR. HAMMOND: That not what I am saying at all, Mr. Chairman. MR. BILLINGS: The chair will rule - - - MR. ANDERSON: I've got new for you - I am going to ask them. MR. BILLINGS: We are going to ask the questions number (1) this is the fourth filing that you have brought in here and number (2) we approved your preliminary plat - this is totally different than your preliminary plat. -54- MR. HAMMOND: In what respects? MR. BILLINGS: And number (3) there are many items here which you have not varified or acted on in good faith. You haven't given this Board direct answers yet and until we clarify these - we will ask the questions. MR. HAMMOND: We are not here to argue - to argue with you. But you have made two statements which I think are very critical. MR. BILLINGS: They may be but this is not - - - --- MR. HAMMOND: First &f all MR. BILLINGS: This may be but first of all this is not the same plat we approved. MR. HAMMOND: This is exactly the same plat MR. BILLINGS: This is the 4th one. MR. HAMMOND: This is exactly the same preliminary plat that appeared before here and I want that issue cleared up. MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Ohl, is this the same plat that - - MR. OHI: Not the same plat, Mr. Hammond in what respect, because the preliminary plat shows a cul-de-sac coming like that and there was no provision for a treatment facility and here a lot platted all the way to the corner of the. - - - - MR. HAMMOND: But in the preliminary plat which you recommended denial of - the County Commissioners took action and suggested that there be some changes - were not these changes made in order to comply with the County Commissioner's request? MR. OHI: Well I say - - - - -55- MR. HAMMOND: Your coming in and now condeming us for making the changes that we were told to make by the County Commissioners. MR. OHI: We weren't after changes just the dedication. MR. BILLINGS: I think we are just talking in circles here, the Board of County Commissioners have received many letters since the approval of the preliminary plat and we need answers on these many letters and requests and we are going to get them. It is just about that simple. s Mr. Billings, we have had meetings with these people, the ditch company, and I myself - was present and we never had or came to any agreement with them on anything that they have stated. MR. BILLINGS: I think that these are the thing that have been brought out continually, since we have approved the preliminary plat. I would like to go on now with some of the other items so we get clarification on those. The next items, here again, and it was just brought up and thats based on what type of a sewage facility is going to be there, whether it will it be septic tanks or its going to be a package sewer plant, where it is going to be located and how its going to serve the area. Orginally I know in some of our talking their was going to be a sewer system put in, a package sewer plant, and there was going to be drainage facilities worked out where the affluent from this plant could drain on down into the Poudre River at some point• We need clarification on this. And I do have a tape in my desk indicating those things. -56 MR SHUPE: Indicating that we intended to drain into Poudre River? MR. BILLINGS: That you intended to drain into the drainage basin. MR. ANDERSON: Tom - - - MR. HAMMOND: Would like Mr. Shupe to review the sewage disposal system, Mr. Billings. MR. BILLINGS: Yes we want that reviewed so we know exactly what you are going to do because there is a question of whether we are septic tanks or sewer system or what. MR. SHUPE: Mr. Billings when we first proposed the subdivision we did submit the recommended or the required perculation tests - to Mr. Glen Paul, your sanitarian here in Weld County, for his approval. He indicated that all of them were well within the criteria, with the exception of two, he asked us to rerun those - therefore run some new ones in that area and to give the average results of those this we did. And it was found that the entire area would be suitable for septic, tanks on the basis of perculation. I might here indicate also that the perculation tests get tighter or slower as you go toward the ditches thus tending to make oneof the responses of the Greeley Loveland Ditch Company - specifically that they were . afraid solid waste might get into their ditch. We believe that this could not really happen, but at any rate when it come to the time of preparation - - - time of approval of the preliminary plat the suggestion or almost well not quite a requirement but a suggestion was made by, I believe, this body that we consider the placing or the handling of the sewage disposal by a collection and treatment system. We did subsequently then, examine that potential -57- `i • found it to be economically within the limits of possibility and therefore recommended our clients addisubsequently changed the plat to conform. The system as it is proposed and has been approved by both the County Health Department and the State Water Pollution Commission. Now is that the domestic sewage from the entire Indianhead Subdivision will be collected, brought to a point of treatment which is below the Farmers Ditch which would be an aerated type lagoon. Similar in philosophy to the one used by the City of Windsor, for instance, if you are interested in checking that one out. The treated affluent would go from that pond to an approximately 4 acres retention area, this will be divided into 2 cells and would allow the photosynthetic action to complete any additional purification that might be necessary. At that point it would then be chlorinated and transported to a small reservoir at the top end of the project from which point it would be distributed for irrigation to the upper properties who can use it for that purpose, on a gravity basis. FAR. BILLINGS: Could you show us on the map where the proposed sewage plant is going to be and where it - - - - FAR. SHUPE: Yes sir, the aeration cell would be right at this point, the retention pond would be very nearly all the rest of this area, the force main line then comes up :here and out - -oops - - excuse me - - I guess it comes up this black line, the retention area is in this general area and then from there it can be distributed by gravity both ways. Now based on normal useage rates, which, in most studies indicate some 55 gallons per person per day, but based also on the State requirement which require us to use 100 gallons a day. We have designed this treatment facility, in such a way that it would require about 11 acres of -58- irrigation to completely use up the affluent this is based on the growing of pasture grass. I might suggest that there are 2 things that should also be considered here - - oh - - before I go to that, there are considerably more than 11 acres, there are some 26 acres that could be irrigated by gravity from this point that we propose to use, however, beyond that point, as I have indicated most studies show that the 100 gallons a day is considerably in excess of the normal use, of which, frequently runs no more than 55 to 60 gallons per day, which would mean we have a safety factor not of 2.5 but about 5. In addition roughly 10 to 12 percent of the proposed affluent will also be evaporated from the surface of this pond partically during the summer periods when the water use is frequently higher. The .pond in addition has the capacity to retain the entire affluent from the subdivision for approximately a four month period, which would .take care of the winter months at least that is our intent. MR. BILLINGS: You say the pond has enough capacity to holdit for the winter months? MR. SHUPE: Yes it does - it does indeed. I think all of you are aware that frequently even during the winter we have periods of time when it is wise to irrigate - it is certainly possible. MR. ANDERSON: Are there any houses down there across the road - on that county line road - - across from where the sewage treatment plait is? MR. SHUPE: You mean across this county road? MR. ANDERSON: Yalthere are two or three houses down in that area - - I question if they are that far south - - is there Howard? MR. SCHWALM: There are some residents along the County line road and then we are on the southwesterly course our buildings -59- • are probably. MR. SHUPE: Now you are way over here. MR. SCHWALM: Yes southwesterly. MR. SHUPE: You are quite a ways above the proposed plant site. MR. SCHWALM: Oh no, we are below. MR. SHUPE: Your above the Farmers Ditch - aren't you? I am aware of that but - what I am saying is the plant is even on beyond below the ditch. It is also a fully lined pond. It is not allowed to seep. MR. ANDERSON: What is the closest house where that sewer system is when completed - do you have any idea? MR. SHUPE: No, about one-third of a mile. MR. ANDERSON: Did you want to ask a question? MR. WEBER: Yes sir, my name is Gary Weber and my sis and I own property directly south of this proposed holding system. and we have a couple of questions which we would like to ask? On the 5th of September, I wrote to Mr. Stobbe, who is the executive president of Interladco, I believe, and asked him specifically about this treatment system and about the holding system because we have a great deal of concern depending upon how this is structured that could create some problems for our porperty in terms of seepage, because we have that problem right now. We are draining the property constantly. He replied to me verbally on the telephone a few days later and indicated that it would be taken care of but never gave me any kind of an indication as to the kind of proposed holding unit they would have. In addition to this I asked him to send me a letter confirming it end up to this point he has. never done this -60- and this is why we are concerned. And also in answer to your question sir, we have a house probably within a one-third of a mile of that area. MR. SHUPE: Well my one-third of a mile was approximately only. I had not measured it - - MR. WEBER: So I would like to know about this can you give me some information4 MR. SHUPE: Well as I - - two things that may respond to your seepage area, Mr. Weber, was (1) that we have proposed in fact to line the Farmers Irrigation Ditch with concrete which will take care of a large part of the seepage problem that you have right now, which I suspect, (2) our treatment facility is approved that on the basis these ponds will be lined. Fully lined and normally this is done with a vinyl liner or butyl rubber liner either is adequate and very sufficient. The permiability rates on them are almost nil on either one of those materials. They are measurable in terms of inches per year rather than per hour or per minute-such as you measure perculation rates. They have in effect a zero permiability from the standpoint of the kind of seepage you are talking about and the affluent is not intended to leave this property. MR. WEBER: Now in addition to this, now back to the flooding situation - if there were large amounts of water which would over flowed the Farmers Ditch and come to this area then, correct me if I am wrong, but obviously my property then would be the recipient of this flood water. MR. SHUPE: I think it probably is now - - MR. WEBER: To the degree. MR. SHUPE: To the degree that it floods, yes, because downhill I don't see how you can avoid it. -61- • MR. WEBER: But as I see it your compounding the problem and adding to it. MR. SHUPE: Increasing it somewhat - yes. You have to say that because of the pavements and roads. MR. You are also bringing water from above the Greeley Loveland Ditch - which is never - - - I MR. SHUPE: There is some which comes there yes. I think we are not talking in terms of magnitudes, however, thats like double, or triple, or 10 times, we are talking in terms of 20 percent, 10 percent or 5 percent, depending upon the storm. MR: BILLINGS: We do have a letter here dated August 24, from the Farmers Union Ditch Company, who are also concerned about a lagoon for the purpose sewer processing adjacent to or close to the existing irrigation ditch of Farmers Irrigation and Ditch and Reservior Company. It was our prior understanding that septic tanks would be used. The Board of Directors of the Farmers Irrigation Ditch and Reservoir Company are extremely concerned that the lagoon may prove detrimental to the water quality of a ditch company. MR. SHUPE: Yes that was written prior to our last meeting but - - - I fail to see how - - - MR. BILLINGS: Do you have a copy of that? at. SHUPE: Yes. MR. BILLINGS: You've met with them since that. PAR. SHUPE: Yes we have met with them since that and I frankly fail to see if we lined the ditch and lined the pond both how we can get any interaction between the two. Particularly in -62- • • view of the fact that the surface of the pond is some 2 or 3 feet lower than the bottom of their ditch and this is based on a drawing which we submitted to their Board and which they have not, Mr. McKee, tells me - have yet taken action upon. MR. BILLINGS: They indicate here that their last correspondence from you was on January 18, 1972, and then they say please be informed that the Board of Directors of the Farmers Irrigation Ditch and Reservoir Company reserve the right to exercise complete and free discretion to the full extent that the above project may effect the present ditch and the rights of the ditch company. MR. SHUPE: We are fully aware of that and we have met with them at least twice since they sent that letter is that not correct? MR. BILLINGS: Now on your package sewer plant and everything - has it been approved by the State Health Department yet? MR. SHUPE: Keep in mind that two things - first of all the first step in such a treatment facility is the site location approval. This has to come from both on the County and on the State level from the State Pollution Water Commission - prior to even your consideration. Once this is approved then plans will be prepared and must in fact by law be submitted to the State Health Department for their approval. We anticipate - - - - MR. BILLINGS: You haven't submitted anything - - - MR. SHUPE: We haven't had anything to submit them on until this point, gentlemen. Until we know this is a project we have nothing to submit. -63- • MR. ANDERSON: This lake you are going to have up here on the hill - now is that going to be sealed? MR. SHUPE: You mean up here. MR. ANDERSON: Ya MR. SHUPE: We anticipated that would be a closed reservior - - concrete. MR. ANDERSON: Have you got any proof that it is not going to seep out on the farm to the south of that - doesn't that ground break right towards you MR. SHUPE: This land from - the ridge runs approximately at an angle like that - - - MR. ANDERSON: That goes over on the Schwalm farm. MR. SHUPE: No it drains this way. Mr. Schwalm's land as I understand it is down here to the south. As I say the top of the ridge is here and it drains this way and this way. MR. OHI: Which pond - this one right here? MR. SHUPE: Its not a pond - its a concrete reservoir. MR. OHI: Okay where's the reservoir? MR. HAMMOND: We anticipate - - - - MR. ANDERSON: You concrete it then you can't see it. MR. OHI: You know there is a pipeline easement there MR. SHUPE: Yes we are fully aware of that and we have discussed that with them. -63- A MR. BILLINGS: Who would be responsible for the maintenance and care of the lagoons and the sewer pipeline? MR. SHUPE: Well as I said earlier, we do-have-anticipate the necessity of a homeowners association which will be charged with the responsibility of maintenance of the sewage treatment facility MR. HAMMOND: We would assume any, approval by the County would be subject to the creation of such an association. MR. SHUPE: Absolutely and I don't think that there is anyway out. MR. BILLINGS: There is a question there in• the back. MR. SHADE: 'I am Bill Shade, and I am here representing Ray Amen, who owns the farm south of this property, as T'understand MR. SHUPE: Isn't it south - Mr. Schwalm? MR. SCHWALM: Well they have a reservoir that belongs to Amen. MR. SHUPE: The lake - yes. MR. SHADE: The lake to my understanding is it a likely recipient of the overflow of water from this? MR. SHUPE: We are talking about drainage overflow at this point. MR. SHADE: Yes, I suppose it would be surface drainage but I am just curious on the - why I thought frankly - that your treated water or treated affluent was to be kept in the southern part of the subdivision near where the surface water is to be held is that not so? -64- • MR. SHUPE: Thats correct until its - until the treatment is complete and then it will be transported to where it can 6e reused. MR. SHADE: And then as I understand it - it will be transported back north by a force main - put into some sort of a pond there and the level of that pond will be controlled by virtue of pumping water out of it - - onto other lots. MR. SHUPE: We anticipate that this will be a concrete reservoir and that we can pull by gravity out of that. MR. SHADE: Now will you have an easement or some right to discharge water on those lots - what if the people don't want to receive that water for irrigation? MR. SHUPE: Theiwill buy the lots with the water rights attached to them. MR. SHADE: Well thats a right - but there is an obligation maybe they don't want that water for irrigation. MR. SHUPE: This kind of situation is questionable both a right and an obligation. MR. SHADE: Now I wonder about that isn't their going to be an easement thats created against the 11 acres - as you say that are needed. MR. SHUPE: I don't think there needs to be any easement there only needs only to be a covenant. hR?. SHADE: Well is that been provided for? MR. SHUPE: It certainly will be if the project is approved. Yes. -65- • • MR. SHADE: Well I would just think that there would be some control here built into it. MR. SHUPE: I agree with you and I have no objections to it. Nit. SHADE: Because I think maybe, correct me if I am wrong - I don't know are you certain this type of water would be suitable for irrigation? MR. SHUPE: Absolutely. MR. SHADE: I understand it will be highly questionable won't it? MR. SHUPE: Why should it be? MR. SHADE: - I assume it will have been during the treatment process. Mgt. SHUPE: No, this is a completely biological process except for the chloronatio'n. MR. SHADE: Yes, that is what I was - - - - MR. SHUPE: Which is not: a chemical situation - no more than your drinking water is. MR. SHADE: Do you know of another-subdivision where this sort of plan has been used? Nit. SHAPE: Yes. sir, I do as a matter of fact, I put in one about four years ago in Boulder. I received an award as a matter of fact and the water is reused for irrigation on land - resued them for pasture by the people who own horses in the project. -66- • i • MR. SHADE: I assume that those people have some obligation to accept water on the land MR. SHUPE: Yes sir, the do and their is no objection to it - in fact - those lots are sold for upwards of 14,000 dollars a piece. Yes sir. MR. You say this is a completely biological process. Are you telling me then there would be no problem with odors and such things as this, since this is a surface type of operation. MR. SHUPE: In general sir, there is no odor problem with an aerated lagoon. That is exactly what I am saying. It does have to be - the edges of the pond have to be kept free of weeds and we are aware of that. That is part of the responsibility of maintenance of the plant, but there is no odor from it. I might suggest that you view the Windsor plant - if you are interested this is a very similar operation. And they just don't get any of it at least not the times I have been there. MR. WEBER: Because this;is located directly adjacent to our property what economical effect does this have on my property? Does this increase its value because it has a lagoon next to it. MR. SHUPE: I don't think I have anyway of measuring that. MR. WEBER: Oh I think using some horse sense you could say there would definitely be' a reduction on it. MR. SHUPE: I fail to see particularly why if this is not visable to you or it doesn't produce an odor why it is detrimental? MR. WEBER: But you can't guarantee me sir, that that does not produce an odor - because there are times in the year when it does produce an odor. -67- ( • � ! -" MR. SHUPE: An unaerated lagoon - normally will twice during the year yes. You will get turnover in the fall and in the spring and you do get a definite odor for about two weeks each time. This is an aerated lagoon wherein air will be entered into the treatment itself on a constant basis and there is no .normal time when you get any odor. If the cell should break down this might happen, we do plan to have a stanby cell there on the property at all times. AR. WEBER: But part of this total operation is surface operation correct? MR. SHUPE: The lagoon - - - MR. WEBER: The aeration areas - - - MR. SHUPE: The lagoon area is open on the surface - - - MR. WEBER: On both areas MR. SHUPE: Right MR. WEBER: Okay then as I said getting back to the property which we own there - the location of this next to our property would have an immediate effect on decreasing the value of that property due to the fact that there is an undesirable kind of installation which would be located next to it - - - - MR. SHUPE: I think some of that depends upon what you plan to use your property for - do you intend - - - - MR. WEBER: Well if I decided to sell my property and it - - - - subdivide it. MR. SHUPE: Good luck. Audience:laughter -68- c • ( � MR. WEBER: Thats not the intent its an agricultural area and as an agricultural piece of property now thats what I intend to use it for but projecting you are decreasing the value of my property with the location of this lagoon system next to it MR. SHUPE: I really fail to see that but this has to be valued only as your opinion and I can't offer any comments to that. hR2. ANDERSON: I would like to ask Mr. Weber a question how many times is your farm flooded by the overflow of the ditch or how often does it happen? MR. WEBER: That would be very difficult for me to answer, this gentlemen, next to me might be able to help you. MR. Well I think we usually have a flooding situation once a year. Maybe we might miss one year and be twice the next - but it is usually conditions where the ditch is pretty slow through that area and it has been true to run over. It runs over- through Weber's place and through our place, and the overflow goes into the lake. MR. ASHLEY: Is that lagoon going to be side by side of this holding pond for the surface drainage? MR. SHUPE: No sir, it is separated by the Farmers Ditch, xhich is some 50 feet in right-of-way plus the side slopes and so on I suppose the proximity would be something in the range o£ 95 feet probably. It might be something in that range. MR. ASHLEY: No danger of:it getting into that lagoon is there? MR. SHUPE: The surface run off? None whatever. We intend to take very stringent steps to make sure the burams are high enough, on the aeration plant and so on to preclude that possibility. -69- (11 c• MR. BILLINGS: Has there been any particular provisions worked out between the two ditch companies for some type of fencing or something like that. Certainly if this were approved there would be a lot of children in that area. Have we got anywhere along these lines - I know the City of Greeley ran into this here a couple of years ago on the oldest ditch in Weld County. It runs right through` the middle of Greeley here and it finally ended up where they either had to tile the thing or to have it fenced. They have fenced it as I understand it about 300 to 400 feet on each side of - - - - MR. SHUPE: We have discussed that with both ditch companies neither one have stated it as or absolute requirement. We have discussed it with them and I think Mr. Southard in his letter from the Greeley Loveland suggested some heavy landscaping with some non-free aquatic plants - thats what his letter refers to. 4o- What he means, is that tend"to use an awful lot of water and so don't steal a great deal from his ditch although it does seep at the present time. This has not been made a requirement by either one of the ditch companies although as I say, we have discussed the potential with both. Again let me say that I think probably the situation like this with these large lots and low density will be lot less of a control problem than one of which you suggest goes right through the center of town. MR. BILLINGS: Marsh, do you have any other questions? Harry? MR. ASHLEY: No. MR. BILLINGS: There are a good many people here that haven't spoken and wanted to. We will go back here again. -70- ( ! • ; • MR. WEBER: My only comment is and I will say nothing more is that if our property suffers damage from this - as it appears to me - you gentlemen will correct me if I am wrong - irregardless of the well made plans that have been made - if our properties end up suffering damage then we indeed as property owners are going to be the ones who are going to rectify the problem rather than have the owners of a sort rectify the problem is that the way I interpert it or am I incorrect? MR. SHUPE: I don't see why that necessarily be true. If there is entity to which you could go and we have already stated that there will be in face a homeowners association, which will be responsible for the units after the developer leaves the picture - which is probably a good five years away and in that time - its fairly likely that they all understand the magnitude of what might be your problem. MR. WEBER: After we suffer the problem irregardless of what kind of litigation we go through, irregardless of what kind of a homeowners association we have, we are incumbered with the problems as I see it, sir, in our property - it has a devaluation process on it and we are the ones who suffer. MR. SHUPE: Gary, I think you are presumming of all the answers to a question - in your question. PR. WEBER: No I am not, John. MR. SHUPE: Well you are saying - other than your litigation rights - and you are assuming a problem without any hard evidence that is there yet. When you assume that you have come to court and exhausted all your remidies, which is the key issue and all I am doing is pointing out that it would be impossible for anyone to answer a question like that unless they -71- 1 • (' • would agree with your articulative premise. MR. WEBER: Let met give you an example when Mr. Stobbe called me and I asked him to write me a letter so I might share with my sister, because we are located quite a number of miles apart, his response on the letter that I wrote - - I asked him in good faith about these problems, I expected an answer in good faith he verbalized an answer to me and I have never gotten a written letter from it. If that is an example of the trust that we would have between each other and or the communication and maybe I am misreading or mis-interperting - then this is how I would proceed that we have problems in the future. The landowners are the guy who gets stuck with it, Interladco is free and clear. MR. SHUPE: I understood your question or perhaps I misunderstood your previous question. I understood that to be - - isn't it true that if you build this thing which is a problem we litigate our right and come out on the short end. We appeal to the homeowners association and haven't gotten anywhere then this lagoon is a burden to our problem. MR. WEBER: It is. MR. SHUPE: Alright I am saying - in answering - it is impossible for anyone to answer that question unless they totally agree with all the premises (1) that it is a problem and (2) that you went to court and lost. If Interladco or the homeowners association creates a hazzard here which effects your land, they run water onto your land, they pollute your land, similar to that nature, you do have a cause of action in litigation. And your assuming - - - MR. WEBER: But you see as a landowner it is pracitical not to have it put there and then I don't have to worry about any cause of action. Thank you. -72- • (• MR. SHUPE: We could carry that to any extreme. Gary, we could say I couldn't build a fence on my land next to yours because it might fall over and injure your horse. MR. WEBER: Your simplifying the problem now. MR. SHUPE: I don't agree with you that the problems there. MR. BILLINGS: Is there any other people in the audience that hasn't had anything to say and would like to say something about this. There are a number of you who are interested. Any comments? MR. HOUTCHENS: Mr. Billings, I am John Houtchens, I am here in behalf and with Howard Schwalm. I think Mr. Schwalm as a neighboring landowner and as a farmer has a lot of concern about a development like this. Most of those I think are obvious to your problems such as how do you run an agricultural business next asdevelopment of this nature thats out in the middle of the county - there are a lot of problems himself, Mr. Schwalm, has address himself to the drainage problem - I think one of the big overriding concerns and so that we don't retread ground we have goneLover is the homeowners association of the development proposed. Everything that they have stated about the drainage system and the lack of a sewage treatment facility hinges upon maintenance some point in the future and they state probably approximately five years the developer will be developed out of the ground and will be done. Then the neighboring landowners have this mystical association to look to and I think we are probably talking about a quasi-municipal body, and I am not real sure what their oblications are going to be to the neighboring landowners what obligations does this association beyond obligation to each other - if they enter into an agreement obligating themselves to each other then they may have some obligation -73- there but I am not sure they have any continuing obligation to the County or to the neighboring landowners. I think this should be an area of great concern because these facilities that they are talking about are going to last way beyond the time of the developers involved. MR. BILLINGS: Any other comments by anyone else in the audience. The gentlemen back here. MR. JOHN MCKEE: I have een on the Farmers Ditch Board for quite a while. I don't like to stand in the way of any development - I think there is a lot of potential problems to put in the way it is proposed. For that reason the company hasn't taken any action.on it. Either reject it or approve. But the people who live there under it have reason to be concerned. If we get one of these heavy rains itsbound to be a lot of water go down both ways MR. BILLINGS: Is there anyone else. This gentlemen MR. CARLISLE: I am Don Carlisle and I am in the aerial application business in Weld County and as I see it on this project we are running into something here in agriculture that pertains to the aerial application business and particularly to the farmer. In that as you build up areas like this around agriculture you begin to run into regulations from the FAA and from whats construed as being the owners rights within an agricultural - you'd say - effort. I think the big thing and probably — simply it is to point up the fact that I have worked for Mr. Schwalm in the past and if this housing development is put in and we receive complaints from the people in this area - it will be totally impossible for us under the existing regulations today for us to do any work for him at all. This in turn, I think, penalizes Mr. Schwalm who has had the privilege and perrogative -74- 1 for many years and not that the implementation of housing developments like this. It will destroy his perrogative as a farmer and a free agent to have said service rendered service to it. MR. ANDERSON: Don, how close can you get to according to the FAA - how close can you fly to these developments? MR. CARLISLE: Five hundred feet. MR. ANDERSON: If the wings are long you are too close. MR. CARLISLE: Well we received probably to clarify it, a little more, we had a classic example this year out at Belair Park. I have worked for this man out there for probably the last 15 years - and putting Thimet on corn - I think you remember the article that hit the paper - on the fact of the stink of the potential danger as one women stated that the granules had actually fallen on her garden and that she was afraid the garden was contaminated and she would never be allowed to eat - she thought it would be too dangerous to use. The second thing that came out of that is the fact that these people farm fruits and begin to exert pressure and as this matter is brought to the attention of the FAA and they are the governing bodies. They feel that under the regulations that they are obligated to protect the people on the ground from the people in the air. Now we work within the area and the Johnstown area - I have worked over there for the last 23 years and we have never had any problems. But in the areas around Dacono where they put in a trailer court down there we did run into the problems, Belaire - we ran into the problem and its up to the point now where if these people want to use air as a means of controlling their pest problems in their crops they are restricted to it by definition of the existing FAA reguations. -75- ` We are not allowed to do it, and if they don't do it then the municipalities, under the pressure exerted, by these people, who in most instance, that we have found, are notfrom this area. They don't understand our problems. They don't understand that a farmer is trying to make a living out there. He really isn't using these insecticides and herbicides to produce a crop. They only see it and understand it in the terms that it is only annoying them and their way of life. And its particular significant in that it is always the adjacent landowners to these people it isn't your land — you do loose some business from the ground that is cut out, which effect the area, but it is the adjacent landowner that suffers. The people that are around it and not only the immediate adjacent landowner but when conditions are such that it is the landowner that adjacent to the adjacent people. MR. BILLINGS: Don, at which stages do you do this spraying - is it after your corn crops are so high that you can't get in with mechanical sprayers and stuff like that. MR. CARLISLE: Very often yes. We are into the phase of production on corn now where its gone corn, corn, corn so much and the crop rotation is gone that we are being faced with new pests now - insect pests, corn root worms here, the corn web and bean cut work is coming in and these insects are something that you can't very often forecast or control up until the corn is just prior to tassle or five or six feet high. MR. BILLINGS: Is there anyone else who wants to make a comment? MR. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman, I am Norman Carlson, of the Ag Council, in the end I want to clarify one statement that I made this morning - I said its in the Johnstown Fire District its not it is the Windsor Fire District. Its still in -76- (1 the Johnstown-Milliken School District. This as Don brought up is another reason that the Ag Council was opposed to this. There was one argument brought out that if something like this is stopped it will lower the land value of all of the farmers in all of Weld County. This maybe true but then again you've got to look to the future of when our young people or if there will ever be any young farmers that will ever stay in the farming business - it it is because there is a lot of this prime agricultural land that develop into subdivisions there won't be any agriculture. I don't know where the food will come from then. So you've got to look to the future also. Not to the future of the old farmer, when they retire not that they can sell their land to developers - I don't go along with that. MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Billings, if I could summon up I think I would do it in a couple of minutes here. First before I do, Mr. Shupe I would like to ask you a couple of questions? Have you examined the subdivision regulations, Section 5.1? MR. SHUPE: Yes sir. MR. HAMMOND: And these have to do with what has to be done on a final plat after a preliminary plat has been approved. MR. SHUPE: Yes. MR. HAMMOND: And there are six points one through six is that correct? MR. SHUPE: Yes. Mt. HAMMOND: Then to the best knowledge and belief does the final plat of Indianhead Subdivision have you as the engineer, seen to it that all of the points one through six have been complied with? MR. SHUPE: Yes sir. -77- y • MR. HAMMOND: Also with reference to Senate Bill 35, I refer your attention to Section 106-2-34-(6-A-D) this is the one that makes reference to on or after June 1st, the County Commissioners approval of a final plat would submit the following information: Paragraph and then there are paragraphs D, C. or B, C. D. Have you examined those? GR2. SHUPE: Yes. MR. HAMMOND: Have the material requested or required by B, C, and D been supplied to the County Officials in the process of approval of this subdivision to date? MR. SHUPE: Yes, we believe that they have. MR. HAMMOND: Gentlemen, we are coming up to probably the end; of the road on Indianhead Subdivision as to whether or not it is to be approved by the County. I stated when I started talking this morning that it was our position that the County had approved the preliminary plat. That all the matter which we discussed this morning have at some stage or another within the last year have been considered and that having complied with the requirements of your subdivision regulations for the completion of the final plat that it would be arbitrary and capricious to do other than approve the subdivision. I only want to point out a couple of things. We of course realize that the County would, if they were to approve this would do it subject to two or three items; (1) if there are any final corrections or errors of major as described earlier by Mr. Shupe on the angle of one street. These of course I think should be corrected, (2) we would assume that any approval by the County would be subject to the completion of a contract with the Farmers Ditch relatively to the handling of the water and I see no - it would be foolish to approve the subdivision without making it subject to that contract, because obviously the Farmers Ditch does -78- • ( 0 have to be satisfied that the problem can be resolved, (3) I think the establishment of a homeowners association to guarantee that some of the questions which have been raised here would be a condition of the approval of the final plat because as Mr. Anderson stated earlier we in Larimer County have problems similar to what you in Weld County have and I have no reason to believe that our clients in this situation or in this case Interladco would do anything other that what they have said. But time passes quickly and people die and people move away and obviously for the continued maintenance of the welfare of the people who will buy lots out there there would have to be some assurance that these maintenance features could be continued. And the only logical basis that I could see is a homeowners association and it would be charged with this responsibliity. And this can certainly be done and in my opinion it should be done. I wish to point out that the preliminary plat which was shown to you, is similar to the final plat, which you have reviewed here, with the one exception that the final plat we have tried to provide for the sewage disposal system, which you requested, and in consideration of the approval of the preliminary plat. I can certainly have understandings and concerns for the people who have spoken up being adjoining owners, school officials and the like. I wish to point out though in our system of democracy we seem to think that organizations or entities or governmental bodies like the County appoint certain groups and bodies and boards to look into some of the matters which are supposed to be looked into prior to approval for consideration for approval. With reference to the school, I am sure the County Commissioners are aware of the fact that one preliminary plat which was considered at one time by the County, with a higher density factor, did have a site for a school on it and Mr. Lorensen' s statement to the petitioner in this case was - they didn't want the higher density and i. e. -79- 111 c* they didn't want school site. The point was is that the petitioner in this case have tried to cooperate from the start, they did have on a preliminary plat a site for a school and it was indicated that the County did not want that density. We have talked a lot a about run-off, you gentlemen can figure pretty fast with a pencil, you've got 116 lots or roughly 160 acres, you've got substantial size to those lots. its not like a subdivision even around the Country Club, where thelots seem to be bigger than normal it certainly isn't the normal 2.7 lots per acre which you find in a normal subdivision in town. You have got more than one acre lot in this subdivision. The only area that is going to generate a substantial amounts or tun-off are the streets and we tried to explain why the streets did not go through these blocks as was objected to by the Planning Office. This is more or less a self contained unit. It should notpromote or foster any growth to any direction because it isn't tied in with anything to any direction. The point is that at the preliminary hearing that we had on this with the Planning Commission the school did not appear, we did not find out about their desires concerning a school site until after the final plat was already considered. I am concerned about the adjoining owners who said they had concern and questioning about some of the run-off. It is our feeling that the engineers in this case are competent. They have been employed to come up with answers to the problems. We have had no reason to believe that they haven't answered the problems. We think that the future area problems can be solved and; most of the objections with regard to this homeorners association in assuming the liability and the maintenance of these points. We have tried our best to work with the Planning Staff to come up with an answer which you know - nobody r the Planning -80- doesn't want anything out there and it is rather obvious, but I hope we are still a system of laws and not men. And I hope we are still a system where if the state law says that a man can do these things with his property and if he complies with these requirements of State law, then I hope we can't have people in planning positions coming up and saying well I don't care what the State lab says, we are just not going to have that. Gentlemen, as County Commissioners we tried to put before you the facts as we see them. We have not changed the preliminary plat except in the manner which was requested by you. We feel that we have complied with all the requirments that you set forth in the subdivision rules so far as a final plat. We have indicated that we think that it should certainly be certainly contingent upon an approval of the Farmers Ditch because really without that there is no sense in putting it in anyway. We think that there is - should be a condition upon a homeowners association established and we think that any minor correction in there should certainly be straightened out. Gentlemen, you come before sombbody and you say to them we think we have complied with the law, complied not only with it in good faith, we have complied with it to the letter. We have answered questions today and have gone into issues today which were raised a long long time ago. They certainly should not be interperted by the Commission as somebody suddenly deciding that there is new problems here that nobody ever saw before. Everyone of the issues and points we have discussed today were brought up at the Planning Commission. They were brought up at either oneor more of the Utility Boards in question. We tried to cooperate in everyway and we would seek your approval upon the final plat subject to the conditions that we have outlined here and we think this would be in keeping with the intent of the subdivision regulations. -81- MR. BILLINGS: Any other comments. I think we've went through a good deal of testimony and answering of questions one way or another. I think at this time the Board - the chair would entertain a motikn to approve or deny or take under advisement the application for approval of the plat of Indianhead Subdivision. MR. ANDERSON: I move this be taken under advisement MR. ASHLEY: Seconded. MR. BILLINGS: I have a motion and a second that the Board take this under advisement, how do you vote Mr. Anderson? • MR. ANDERSON: Yes. • MR. ASHLEY: Yes. MR. BILLINGS: The chair votes yes_ and we will take this under advisement for further study and you will be notified of the decision. Meeting adjourned. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Glenn K. Billings • Marsndll n. Anderson Harry S. Ashley ATTEST: County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board By: Deputy County Clerk -82- Hello