The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About720671.tiff /a -ao-7 a FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION CONCERNING INDIANHEAD SUBDIVISION PLAT The petition of Interladco, Inc. , c/o Warren Strobbe, requesting approval, execution and recordation o£ a subdivision plat of the Northeast Quarter (NE4) of Section Eighteen (18), Township Five (5) North, Range Sixty-seven (67) West of the Sixth P. M. , Weld County, Colorado, designated as "Indianhead Subdivision" hereinafter referred to as the "plat", came on for hearing on October 30, 1972, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado, having heard the testimony and evidence adduced at said hearing and having considered the testimony, evidence and recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission filed with said Board, and having carefully weighed the same, now makes the following findings: 1. The evidence and testimony disclose that the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof as to the need for a subdivision of this nature and size in a rural and remote area of the county; 2. That said plat encompasses land located with an area zoned "A" Agricutural and favorable consideration would have an undue adverse effect on existing agricultural uses adjoining and adjacent to the proposed subdivision; 3. The evidence and testimony show that the inhabitants of the immediate vicinity of the area proposed to be subdivided are unanimously opposed to the subdivision; 4. The evidence and testimony show that said subdivision would create an undue burden on existing fire and police protection services, and additionally, would create an undue burden on the existing facilities of School District Re-5J; 5. The evidence and testimony, including personal inspection of the subdivision site, disclose that a subdivision of this nature in said rural and remote area of the county would only tend to encourage urban 720671 ifb . • sprawl and uncontrolled expansion within the county; 6. The evidence and testimony disclose that the remoteness and isolation of this subdivision from existing residential and commercial development with their conveniences and amenities, and said location being outside of the normal growth pattern for this type of residential development make it reasonably forseeable that the impact of this urban use will be detrimental to the development of agriculture in Weld County; 7. The evidence and investigation show that there is a need for an environmental impact study and development of a comprehensive plan for the greater Loveland, Greeley and Windsor areas, which would include the area sought to be subdivided, and therefore, approval of the plat for said subdivision at this time would be premature and not in the interest of good planning. FURTHER, The Board makes the following additional findings: S. Said final plat is in violation of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations, as revised April 21, 1971, in the following respects: (a) Section 5. 1(3) requiring (good and sufficient dedication of all streets . . . . as shown on the plat to the public)". (b) Section 3. 7 - requiring reservation of "Suitable are for school, park, through street or similar public purposes, and where . . . not dedicated on the plat . . . . arrange- ments for said transfer of title shall be agreed upon prior to approval of the final plat". (c) Section 3. 6 (1) prohibiting platting lots in areas subject to flooding (Block 3, Lots 20, 21 and 22). 9. Non-conformance of final plat with preliminary plat which shows minimum 150' right of way for U. S. Highway No. 34. 10. No provision for maintenance of proposed sewage treatment facility. 11. No provision for adequate fencing and maintenance along Greeley Loveland Ditch and Farmer's Ditch. -2- • • 12. That each of the preceding findings in and of themselves and independent of each other constitutes a separate and individual ground for denial of the plat. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado, has heard the petition of Interladco, Inc. , c/o Warren Strobbe, requesting approval, execution and recordation of a subdivision plat of a parcel of land as hereinabove recited and made a part hereof by reference, and WHEREAS, said Board has made its findings on the evidence and testimony submitted to it, including personal inspection of subdivision site, which findings precede this resolution and by reference are incor- porated herein and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the said Board has carefully considered the final plat, evidence and testimony and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and has given the same such weight as it in its discretion deems proper, and is now fully advised in the premises; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Interladco, Inc. , c/o Warren Strobbe, requesting approval, execution and recordation of a subdivision plat of a parcel of land indicated above be, and it hereby is denied on each of the grounds set forth in the Board's findings therein. Made and entered this 90th day of December, A. D. , 1972. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: e•- /✓/' ��2 % � vr+/ (/� • )1E i - r( 4, Clerk of th Board /J [ "V:--,D,Aputy County Clerk P • / APPROVED ASCI=O FORM: i 'ep, 4 ,, County ttorney -3- "L . 4,4 a ham ,.41 y • 11011 11, • SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of . 1972 by and between the County of Weld, Colorado, hereinafter called "County", and Interladco. Inc. . Warren A. Stnhhe. President hereinafter called "Subdivider". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Subdivider is the owner of the following described property in the County of Weld, Colorado: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHEREAS, a final plat of said property, known as Indianhead Subdivision has been submitted to the County for approval; and WHEREAS, it is provided by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, County of Weld, that no final plat shall be approved unless the subdivider shall have entered into a written agreement with the County to install certain improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the acceptance and approval of said final plat, the parties hereto promise, covenant, and agree as follows: 1. Engineering Services: Subdivider shall furnish, at its own expense all enginerring services in connection with the design and construction of the subdivision improvements described and detailed on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. 1. 1 Said engineering services shall be performed by a Registered Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado and shall conform to the standards and criteria for public works as established by the County. • 1. 2 Said engineering services shall consist of, but not be limited to, surveys, designs, plans and profiles, estimates, construction supervision, and furnishing necessary material to the County. 1. 3 Subdivider shall furnish drawings and estimates to the County for approval prior to the letting of any con- struction contract. Before acceptance of the installed improvements, Subdivider shall furnish one set of repro- ducible "as-built" drawings and a final statement of construction cost.to the County. a�noo COUNTY OF WELD � sg. f�cd .,.th tn= Clerk of the Board _ 1 _ ' of County Comm,ssinr3.g • SEP 21 1972 COUNTY ClelIX ARO IRCOOotX By • • � • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A PORTION OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN Considering the North line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 5 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in the County of Weld, State of Colorado as bearing South 88°38'31 " West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto. Beginning at the Northeast Corner of said Section 18; thence along the North line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18 South 88°38'31 " West 2669.54 feet to the Northwest Corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18; thence along the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18 South 1°12'26" East 2648.06 feet to the Southwest Corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18; thence along the South line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18 North 88°45'56" East 2656.07 feet to the Southeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18; thence along the East line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18 North 0°55'00" West 1942.69 feet to the Southeast Corner of that certain parcel of land described under reception No. 1438250 in Book 516 records of said County; thence along the Southerly, Westerly, and Northerly lines of said parcel the following courses and distances : South 88°14'00" West 660.00 feet; thence North 0°55'00" West 660.00 feet; thence North 88°14'00" East 660.00 feet to a point on the East line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18 from which the North- east Corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18 bears North 0°55'00" West 51 .17 feet; thence along East line North 0°55'00" West 51 .17 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 152.051 Acres more or less. s. .A 2. Rights-of-Way and Easements: Before commencing the con- struction of any improvements herein agreed upon, Subdivider shall acquire, at its own expense, good and sufficient rights-of-way and ease- ments on all lands and facilities traversed by the proposed improvements. All such rights-of-way and easements shall be conveyed to the County and the documents of conveyance shall be furnished to the County for recording. 3. Construction: Subdivider shall furnish and install, at its own expense, the subdivision improvements described and detailed on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. 1 Said construction shall be in strict conformance to the drawings approved by the County and the specifications adopted by the County for public works projects. Whenever a subdivision is proposed within three miles of an incorpor- ated community located in the County or located in any adjacent county, the subdivider shall be required to install improvements in accordance with the requirements and standards that would exist if the plat were developed within the corporate limits of that community. If the incorporated community has not adopted such requirements and standards at the time a subdivision is proposed, the requirements and standards of the County shall be adhered to. If both the incorporated community and the County have requirements and standards, those requirements and standards that are more restrictive shall apply. 3. 2 Subdivider shall employ, at its own expense, a qualified testing company, previously approved by the County, to perform all testing of materials or construction that is re- quired by the County; and shall furnish copies of test results to the County. 3. 3 At all times during said construction, the County shall have the right to test and inspect or to require testing and inspection of material and work at Subdivider's expense. Any material or work not conforming to the approved plans and specifications shall be removed and replaced to the satis- faction of the County at Subdivider's expense. 3. 4 The Subdivider shall furnish proof that proper arrange- ments have been made for the installation of sanitary sewer, water, gas, electric, and telephone services. 3. 5 Said subdivision improvements shall be completed according to the terms of this agreement within the "Time for Completion" appearing in said Exhibit "A", which time shall commence upon the date of this agreement. The Board of County Commissioners, at its option may grant extension of time of completion upon application by Subdivider. 4. Release of Liability: Subdivider shall indemnify and save harmless the County from any and all suits, actions, or claims of every nature and description caused by, arising from, or on account -2- • \• , " _ SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" Date : ply 1,1 . 1979 Name of Subdivision : Indianhead Subdivision Location : Portion of Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 5 North, Range 67 West Intending to be legally bound , the undersigned subdivider hereby agrees to provide throughout this subdivision and as shown on the subdivision plat of Tnndianhead Subdivision, dated ,July 11 , 1912., the following county improvements . (Leave spaces blank where they do not apply) Estimated Construction Unit Construction Completion Improvements Cost Cost Cost • Street grading 35C/cu.yd. g 1 pp Street base 2.65/ton 4yq,Q5Z f Street paving 1 .85/sq.yd 68,709 & culverts 7.00/ft. • 4,928 Sidewalks Storm Sewer facilities i Retention ponds $1200 ea. 1 ,200 Ditch improvements $b/ft 5,070 Sub-surface drainage Sanitary sewers Trunk & forced lines Mains $6/ft(incl NH) 73,320 Latera s house Conn $9/ft 8,000 On-site Sewage facilities 12,000 On-_er maisite Water supply & storage 9,725 '.4atns $2.67/ft(6ucia) 37,000 Fi re hydrants $550 ea. 2,200 I Survey & street monuments & boxes Street lighting Street name signs • Fencing requirements Landscape proposal Park improvements Bridge & Utility Crossings (2) $8500/ea. 17,000 SUB TOTAL $302,300 Supervision Cost `Z • Engineering Costs ,J 7,700 testing , inspection , as=built plans and work in addition to preliminary and Final . Plat) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND SUPERVISION $ 310,000 STATE OF COLORADO i COUNTY Or WELD SS. j Flku ...trl t;_ Ci rit of the board of County Comm- - SEP ? 1 1972 r COUNTY CLERK AND REfOROPII By Deputy SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" (continued) The above improvements shall be constructed in accordance with all County requirements and specifications , and conformance with this provision shall be determined solely by Weld County , or it' s duly, authorized agent. The improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the time schedules shown above. • • gn ure o�f �i, div derma ( if corporation , to be signed by President and attested to by Secretary, together with the • corporate seal . ) Dated: July 11 , 19 72 ACCEPTANCE Approved by resolution of the at the meeting of 19 . THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: • Clerk to the Board • By Deputy County Clerk • APPROVED AS TO FORM: County. Attorney Amount of Note Greeley, Colorado , 19 On demand after date for value received, the undersigned promises to pay to the order of the Board of County Commissioners; Weld County, Colorado, the sum of Dollars• ( $ ) with interest at ten percent (10%) per year from date of demand until paid. This note is given for the purpose of securing the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, against a contingent liability by reason of said Board of Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, granting subdivision rights to one or more of the undersigned within the County of Weld, Colorado, as outlined in Sub- division Agreement dated , 19 , and guaranteeing installation of certain improvements in said subdivision by , 19 Amount of note shall be conditioned by damages which the Board of County Commissioners shall suffer by failure of undersigned to perform under said agree- ment. Upon final acceptance of said improvements by the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. The makers, endorsers, sureties, guarantors and assignors of this note severally waive demand, presentment for payment, protest and notice of protest and of non- payment, and agree and consent to any extensions of time of payment, without notice, by the holder on request of any of them. It is also stipulated that should this note be collected by an attorney after maturity or in case of default (whether by suit or otherwise) ten percent (10%), additional on amount due shall be allowed the holder as attorney fees. If the improvements as shown have not been constructed by the stated completion time, the Board of County Commissioners, at its option, may re-negotiate the note amount to reflect change in construction cost and the amount of improvement construction completed. NOTE: APPROVED FINANCIAL STATEMENT MUST BE ATTACHED. Warren A. Stobbe (President) Accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, this day of , 19 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Clerk of the Board By Deputy County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Attorney 1111 . • BEFORE :Hr. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING(uJMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CASE No. S-97 2/25/72 APPLICATION OF Interladco , Inc . c/o Warren Stobbe , 515 W 12th , Loveland, Colorado Address Moved by Glen Anderson that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the Subdivision Plat Pr..e.1.imama.ry....plat_..o.f.....I.nd.i.anhead...S.uh.d.imis.ion located on the following described property Weld County, Colorado, to-wit: See attached legal description be recommended Xere4WOCOX (unfavorably) to the Board of County Commis- sioners for the following reasons: the general plan for the County does not contemplate the dennity proposed for this subdivision ; the area is more needed to provide food supply than for residential develop- ment ; there will be inadequate fire and police protection to persons and property ; the density proposed will overload the public schools serving the area ; no new industry or jobs have been created in the area , residents must travel to other areas daily thus overloading the road system or transportation system; evidence of adequate water WtN@RtA0xtlYti@k1.9r4Rt supply and sewage disposal is doubtful . Motion seconded by John Watson • Vote: For Passage: ..." Glen Anderson Against Passage: Philip Bowles Donald Clark J . Ben Nix John Watson John Weigand The Chairman declared the motion passed and ordered that a certified copy of this Res- olution be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. PC - S-005 , . �: CERTIFICATION OF COPY • I, Dorothy Chlanda $ Recording Secretary of Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of. Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on 1/18/72-- - , and recorded in Book No. III f Page No. , of the proceedings of said Planning- Commission. Dated this 25th day of Feb . 1972 , (/er—itc-f—°6---- Recording Secretary, eld County Planning Commission ___ ___ __-------.-_ Planning Commission I (we the undersi n( hereby request a hearin _,efore the Weld County concerning proposed subdivision of the following described unincorporated area of Weld County. LEGAL DESCRIPTION : The Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of Section 18, Township 5 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian EXCEPT the following part thereof described in deed to Sinclair Pipeline Company recorded under Reception No. 1438250 in Book 516, to-wit: < Beginning at a point on the East line of said Section 18, which point bears South 00°55' East, 51 .17 feet from the Northeast corner of said Section 18; thence South 00°55' East, along the East line of said Section 18, a distance of 660 feet; thence South 88°14' West, 660 feet; thence North 00°55' West, 660 feet; thence North 88°14'East, 660 feet to the point of beginning; together with 25 acre feet of Northern Colorado Conservancy Water, one right to Lake Loveland, 1/2 right to Boyd Lake, together with all other water and, ditch rights used or attached to said land. C� 7 tjr ion e (313) 563-5050 [NTFRLADCO.�NG � ° cG �� a SUITE 102. GARRISON PLACE + 19855 OUTER DRIVE it DEARBORN, MICHIGAN 48124 February 24, 1972 Mr. Burman Lorenson Weld County Planning Commission Greeley, Colorado Dear Mr. Lorenson: Please be advised of our decision to request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners as discussed by tele- phone on the aforementioned date and by your letter dated Feb. 8, 1972, to seek remedy from the decision dening approval of the preliminary plat of Indianhead Subdivision re case # S-97, by the Planning Commission Board. It is our belief that the decision reached by the Plan- ning Commission is based on a philosophy of county planning not supported by engineering evidence or legal justification. If after a final determination is reached by the Board of Commissioners regarding the above subdivision a sincere expression of interest is indicated toward a Planned Unit Developement (previously submitted for review) , we will make every effort to redirect our energy to this end. Respectfully, Warren A . Stobbe President WAS/pg STAT O O ADO cc: Mr. Glen Billings ss. COUNTY OF WELD Chairman Filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commission=rs FEB 281972 COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER c O7 By Deputy a:. • �,.• 51 17 RI FG � Weld County -44 1 4 �.� u.s. 34 • z, L C BOWER P wAYNE J.CAPROI DISTRICT ENGINZER STATE. OF COLORADO DISTRICT NO. 4 _ P.O. BOX 890 13?0 2ND STRS_T GREEELEY. COLORADO 80531 August 14, 1972 iii. Burman Lorenson ,_ Q Planning Director /4? rt4ju Yi Weld County Planning Commission ITS� J t t J � ,. ?field County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 `K �l�U a _j; 1/ Dear Burman: {�-i '1: - °at9y;? � We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the Indianhead Subdivision and would request the follow- ing: Since the present land is agricultural and any subdivision will raise the value of the land, we would request that the right of way needed for 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 in this regard will be appreciated. Very truly yours, L. C. BOWER CHIEF ENGINEER w! J. Ca 'On DistricyJEngineer/ WJC•mb cc: Shumate-Bower-Haase-Zulian D. Graham J. Peterson M. Ballinger 411 • a DeGOOD, BURTON & PHIPPS F. Bay DeGood ATTORNEYS AT LAW R. Don Burton Suite 11, Pint National Bank Building Phone 303 • 6673131 John G. Phipps Loveland, Colorado 80337 P. O. Box 637 August 24, 1972 Weld County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Indian Head Subdivision - Farmers Ditch Company Gentlemen: Reference is made to our prior correspondence to you concerning the above matter, dated January 18, 1972. It is the impression of the Board of Directors , from hearsay, that the developers of the above named project have altered their plats and plans for development in a material manner, subsequent to the date of the above described letter from Farmers Irrigating Ditch and Reservoir Company to you as the County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado. Among those changes, we are told, is the present anticipation of the developers to use a lagoon for the purpose of sewer processing adjacent or close to the existing irrigation ditch of Farmers Irrigating Ditch and Reservoir Company. It was our prior understanding that septic tanks would be used. The Board of Directors of Farmers Irrigating Ditch and Reservoir Company are extremely concerned that such a lagoon may prove detrimental to the water quality of the ditch company, �� -- We have had no further information provided to the ditch company concerning changes, alterations, new plats, sanitation treatment changes or otherwise since our above mentioned correspondence of January 18, 1972. Please be informed that the Board of Directors of Farmers Irrigating Ditch and Reservoir Company reserve the right to exercise complete and free discretion to the l full extent that the above project may affect the present ditch and rights of the ditch company. Very truly yours, DeGood, Bur n a P ipps BY: � WELD CO. COMm6S.ONERS 0o GREELEY,COLD. D FRD/jg AUG 23 1972 7 L J� AM. 3;�/ / {�?i8 lonr,Iz I Z 8 ai5�a STA LORADO iCOUNTY OF WELD 55.Filed with tn. Clsrk of the Board of County Comm.sit -- SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SEP 21 1972 FOR WATER. MAIN EXTENSIONS �„ a Vto , INSIDE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AREAS COUNTY CLERIC AND RECORDER By . _ DepuV THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this thirteenth day of July, 1972, by and between the LITTLE THOMPSON VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, hereinafter called the DISTRICT, and INTERLADCO, INC. hereinafter called CUSTOMER, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, DISTRICT has been organized as a legal body and is known as the Little Thompson Valley Water District, and WHEREAS, CUSTOMERS are taxpaying electors within said DISTRICT, or de- siring to join said DISTRICT, and WHEREAS, CUSTOMERS are desirous of purchasing water service in a sub- division area, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and. the terms of this agreement, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. The Description of the premises for which these taps are being purchased is as follows: The Northeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. 2. All water mains within the boundaries of Little Thompson Valley Water District shall be constructed by the DISTRICT or a Contractor ap- proved by the DISTRICT. The CUSTOMER may, with the express written consent of the DISTRICT, contract with other firms for installation. All materials shall meet DISTRICT standards and the DISTRICT shall furnish inspection at the CUSTOMER'S expense. The cost of the water mains and related appurtenances constructed within the boundaries of Little Thompson Valley Water District shall be at the cost of the CUSTOMER. If water mains within the boundaries of Little Thompson Valley Water District are contructed by the DISTRICT or the DISTRICT'S Contractor, advance payment for said construction shall be • furnished in an amount as per a written estimate of construction costs made by the DISTRICT. A final adjustment of cost will be made after construction is completed, if necessary. Design for water line construction within the subdivision will be ap— proved by the DISTRICT. If lines or structures are constructed by the CUSTOMER, immediately upon completion of the construction, all Rights of Ownership of water lines within the subdivision shall be transferred by Bill of Sale to the DISTRICT (free and clear of any liens or incumbrances) together with lien releases for all construction costs. The DISTRICT upon receipt of the Bill of Sale shall assume all operation and maintenance re— sponsibilities. Service lines from main lines to and including the meter '. , installation shall be furnished and installed by the DISTRICT. Completion • of construction, inspection, approval by the DISTRICT and payment of all construction costs shall be a condition precedent to the requirements of the DISTRICT to furnish and deliver water. 3. This agreement, when approved by the Board of Directors, shall become a legal and binding contract upon all parties hereto. 4. CUSTOMER further agrees to execute any and all easements needed by DISTRICT at no expense to DISTRICT, across CUSTOMER'S property for the purpose of installing any pipe lines constructed by DISTRICT. DISTRICT shall be responsible for restoring surface area back to reasonable condi- tion at DISTRICT cost. 5. It is further mutually agreed that this agreement shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. 6. CUSTOMER agrees to the following special provisions:. Since the proposed subdivision cannot be adequately served by present District facilities, a 250,000 gallon storage tank must be provided. Engineer's estimate of cost of added facili— ties required is $70,000.00. Customer agrees that all of the foregoing is contingent upon the receipt of $70,000.00 cash by the District for required improvements. Said $70,000.00 to be paid to District by Customer and other interested developers. The aforemention agreement herewith setforth is subject to final plat approved by Weld County authorities. 7. CUSTOMER further agrees to abide by the rates established and the rules and regulations of the DISTRICT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto and hereunder set their signatures the day and year first hereinabove written. LITTLE THOMPSON VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BY ; 2 sire-6 7- J"r-77 CUSTOMER SIGNATURE v Interladco, Inc . f:Ce‘/Alfe STATE OF COLORADO )' ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I day of �,� , 192.-;!_by Witness my Hand and Official Seal. - n .__ Notary Public My Commission Expires �7 CrI.TMI;;;io;t c;;freS Fes. 25, 1975 1 .. s • .yv ., /�/p. .2en IN COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH >16?-n941 t., .- WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION • .; i, : -, ,,,,,1-,C. _ • r'�tr-42 J Denver, Colorado -80220" ' APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF LOCATION is FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Submit in duplicate Complete only.Parts A 6 B See instructions Applicant: Interladco,. Inc. ---------" Address: :,•515 'West 12th<Strepef. Loveland. Colorado 80537 (P.M •Rnx 449) ', -- p : -r''� • "keg -.47A: -i' x ; '��r �' ,4,: ,-.4t3..-...\:, - t lr-ilk lsta --A---.. INFORMATION`REGARDING'{{PROJECT°SUBMITTED FOR. REVIEW: , , 'fi r "�* ' i 5 i zeran •type,;,of treatmentz.fac i 1 i ty `3 AZ:1W _tritest. ��Ct.77„A - i.- Q- ` `, b ; ,b , at I : 4' 2. •ylocatio acillrty1 .:NETT Sec t18 :T5N, 'R67W of= the 6thlr.M w 4,;'"".--e ..-",- --4- * e. Y4. •:` ^w =i_:tY�e T^N s q",La. ;t .'it . " ..: +:0 .,, � '°+ny:iY� .� r .emu , Namee tercou�se into whi'chteffluen t discharged r No discharge nt :_ 'R5 '' .oF t s v Y 4�4 -o--t 3,�:.'. `"�, :aa">�3'+ •, '� .'k^lT " 4....'i Leta lama teff.tuent_discharge: --, • NoteaPPlicable ,� ��•' . as x 7z aku, rr a s r° , l i)I'4' t, ��1''�'k kiW. N'��' a llitai'c,t-4 @ vY t` Aia�.q�43, i i. . e.v 4$04* S144$14t1 '7 5..,.:'' De d glue distance downstream of•water plant rawrwater ►ntakexnearesekthl: y u r i effluett discharge Not"aDPlicabie - j.- it— --'i - rt r q 17, 6r Est project cost:$0,000.00 Est.bid opening date f-1-72 Est.compITdate:t9-T-7Z `- '2 :i'i'ti� a.,r , ;:i ,at 3h,, ;'..:44:-w' 2;1;4-,t _...- ._Ts�.�o..,�}r« ::.i -': 7. Projeet.aJayout and design criteria ,(Attach separate'sheets or- report showing •e1 2. ' . < - entireriervIce- area with respect to- surrounding -areas, habi-tab lei,?butidings, 'loca- tion of-potable water wells with 4 mile, effluent discharge point and topography ``of •area;`population to be served.) +� ; 8. AddIttonal information may be required,,,upon: request. of the District Engineer and, • local heatth<°department officials. ThIs.may• include, (a)<. re1ationship of.th1s „ faci.IIty to area-wide.''-plan,=(b)-flood plain'data, (c) provision for maintenance and operation of the facility I ncl ud i ng. odor control (d) 1egai status (district;,.`. association,-municipality) '•,_-_" 47/„:::� , „.,t4:::.....,;,-.,,,V: . 4: 9. Have you contacted local planning and building officials or other countyrofftcial! -'regarding building permits, zoning matters; ,special .use review permits and other similar matters: Yes Weid`Co -Planning Board & Board of County Conti ssioners" "'"Ng __ ,., a „_ (Name-of those contacted)- "c,,,, s,,.. t '7.'f'kv�..y,;}xx.4. �+F 1.%i:•f7Y,'�a`? . g. ��! • 10. . Consultin :Engineer: .,-- Hogan & OThausert, P. C. .4,4,-,.-+� ` " -, ° 5" ' �_., , _. - Address: 2300 West Eisenhower Blvd., Loveland, Colorado Telephone 667-6281 .-. , The undersigned applicant agrees to supply information necessary for Review of Plans and Specifications and to secure signatures of -the-appropriate local government officials prit to submission (See part a on baek,of ihis _Sheet.) ?; `sy., +. _ _ f_w .Auc''Qpp v 4-18-72 f --_. --� �' Date � .a � �..•.tq t .y `o Signature of-Applicant __..._ ..__ ._ _ :. m ..wffi ___ _. ��- Warren A. Stobbe - ter--- 0 r 'H . • . B. SIGNATURE OF LocCROSS nw NT F�F&RE NCE SHEET C LS: T he undersigned* have reviewed the proposal for the location, construction, operation, and point of effluent discharge of the above-described sewage treatment facility, and RECOMMEND APPROVAL or DIS- APPROVAL to space provided below: Name or Subject File No. Lre2- `. RECOMMEND ' DATE. ' . RECOMMEND +� " : `APPROVAL a4DISAPPROVAL . 7.. . rding" -r- b -•,,,< ., • , z‘-' /pt 7 � ��e s gnat r" "' 1 r?�>��, , ..,,, 'fix g for ocaT. sal �epa tme nt tit,-74 ..i- - '�y,..y, s , t - -- ,art I _ ,27,,-,,, b `r5..t e �x f , ''' 1.'�ZEms ._�e A` j�� ^ :„- , "» N .�� :'r� : �� Signature for P1 nning` � � y s //�y�r . Commission �� ar,� � + v „Att.`--,;0.1,,.Signature for Board of Coun C oner H �( r • s d.... • w # -r49, .V L »to 4e' t' ,.t v .ao-�t, Ommi SS i ₹ J,J�.` s l s.? 1 4,m-4(4-.,.. "K s .'wiA*I," 3�t T St w'. H Y A < �N S .s. ,� 8 � -,..-c.-Mt: ' f Signatures r . for Mayor of; City Manager of • .,44 '- : ` z € �`.“.4.7.;cipalityT -P.,i. , '4,- ''..--,:44r''''' V2'.."- N1�4" a' 4' , w ... ,,-1-'�a'f t s,. r i .r z q+> "y' r, `? 4 `¢'! S's'ep t 9 w'q'S� .t,tH' v i e$,.�5`-�'e app'.'d6�r �,. sit ld'o ,--tr *; m�".Before< plans>cartd"•speci'fCcattons:wi TT�lie "accepted for .review, the eppl 'cant must sFlow��, harems- the.actiofr.takerr'oft the, project by ,the ,Lace IaHealth OffIcers,-:representative .4 :; af'`L (21 he PTanni r rrerSommiss}on,.-representative" of the-•Board-of'County Commissioners, and ,3.1-'4: theeMayor`orC:ity.Managerof the municipality that might be affected by the discharge=T 1,...blItrastt irg ' ' L " �,r �.-Y • Fr $K `1 h� _ t`+ s5n W`z° ° . EIER "STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT USE a�� r -r.$44-14.,the uncle rs19(1 District Engineer, have the following comts.nentrils Na �' a Naeroror. SUDSCT `--1 ,O Stir • Y.# --,-.;1.„_\.',1 I'~si, 1.,A'`Is this plant "located 'so that it can serve the needs of the present and/or x. -future logical service area? ,LeF4,eed fo ,Serae /e 4'*2..- Is the>xptant located where It is likely to,create nuisance problems for ; " ass} existing ar now planned-development? 1 �r'�r:: .1,n- f1a+ x;,,�E = O�.! /J ��to�OGrl1i I?74.iit�ainvd /3.-"-'Has a,sufficfent amount`of suitable land been set aside for expansion?, *,',1'.-t;, ?hit* � /1�0 BXIIZ?s'�on ldn L�r il�t7.1'�C� g '44, 4: : Has the deveioper'or owner of the facility made provision for 'adequate funding �;z to buy'; maintain, operate, -and repair"or replace in kind the facLlityig- • - ,;.,-1,-) Yof Of,-,.iie &nein, -standing-- 5.,- Are thereranreommunitytwater•supply intakes within t �";rte f t:t ,.___ -effluent~dischar a o►nts2 ,._.__.5- mfies downstream of,thea . . roe. NA-� ds�;rai��-� D. RECOMMENDATIONS: /9"04 1e8 adfacifed "Sar�rrra/y of a.,q/y,s'i;�";" Library B sillAI c$ ref d�y►�- W, .. latest date of pa D 'be matter6� i e/ for identification urposea. The papers, "" - themselves,should be filed under name ." --•-----•� CatNa90-59021;,_. _. ...,. . .. ...._.. .,,.. , or eutyeet after-SEE/. For use in all Filing Systems _ . ._ . ,, _. _, . . ,_._..� • A I IE it C. E FC 0 R . D ‘ az,;_idie_a,Q. jt-te&L ,,t_ ?ELY- /e•.--,36-- 7-2-- /6),ritr,"2, NAmE ADDRESS i , r�1 � ,c��u�ufr/ Jet - l /741, eel / ,+ 1 d� ( � - //( 2 f 0 3 �Q��-b rum , 'c 70,46.-...._ 1.1Arc.i , 5d . /„.. o .: ,z ��/07 vrte-1..5- 67--,-.7,4 lP��, .i. 2,7/�., s 7 fie / c,e_ &A-- - ...,'N pii<1-C •Z„. of/,...../ , _ 7_sr..? a 22.-_,... (I�� .4....._„7„), � e---: 4_,,, , .:', _(- -�` G _, ; /Y: ,.. 1�r-rte. , c -_�C ^. . . E��r:;�r(',{. tie-(/•"(•// - I janiaj I y '2 g fi / , . / ?r / 3 J �� etF ��, / �� , a �r� (., e l7P,7 c it, " i� • •„� cz«:, ,A% - Vat . •; i o� g�� {I � / 77 / i • R • t=fig z� WELD COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION _ -11"C- COMMISSIONERS _ �.. H. ANDERSON BURMAN LORENSON MARSHALL H PLANNER t - - HARRY S. ASHLEY PHONE (309) 353.2212 4 ' GLENN K. BILLINGS EXT. 27, 25 AND 25 + COUNTY SERVICES BLDD. t- COLORADO O R A D O GREELEY, sos3t 10/26/72 STA E F LOi?ADO� COUNTY OF WELD ss. Filed u.in [n_ Clerk of the Board of County Commissio-n Mr. Glenn Billings , Chairman 0CT 2p1972 Board of County Commissioners Weld County Courthouse COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER • Greeley, Colorado 80631 By Deputy Re : Indianhead Subdivision Final plat Dear Glenn : I would like to present my views on the letter written by David Shupe , project engineer for Indianhead Subdivision , on the reasons listed by the Planning Commission to support its recommendation that the Board disapprove the plat. First of all , those corrections to the plat mentioned by Mr. Shupe have not been shown to us nor has he sent us a ' copy of the letter in which he states the changes have been made on the plat. A copy of the letter was sent to us by .Gil Olson . On items 1 , 2 and 3 , the matter of dedication or reserva- tion of right-of-way for U . S . Highway 34 is an important matter . Merely "designating" or "setting aside of land, " to use Mr . Shupe ' s phrase , is neither adequate nor in con- formance with the Weld County Subdivision Resolution under the provisions which this plat was processed . The matter of adequate R. O .W. should be fully resolved before a final plat is approved . The developers have not dedicated any land for any public use other than interior streets . The Preliminary plat as approved by the Board shows "100 ' min- imum additional R. O .W" and "50' possible additional R.O.W. " for U. S . Highway 34 . The dedication of R.O .W. was changed to "designation " on the final plat after it was submitted to the Planning Commission for staff review. Also , Sec . 3 . 1 (4 ) of the old subdivision regulations reinforces the requirement for dedication of R .O . W. for a major arterial highway. f' • • ` ' , WELD COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS BURMAN LORENSON . �-��•"_ sl��__ MARSHALL H. ANDERSON PLANNER _ HARRY S. ASHLEY PHONE 1303) 333-2212 GLENN K. BILLINGS EXT. 27. 28 AND 29 COUNTY SERVICES BLDG. COLORADO GREELEY, spas) -2- As you know, the Weld County Re-5J School District opposes the development because of the anticipated impact on al - ready crowded facilities . The minimum requirement for the developers should be dedication of an adequate site for an • elementary school . As to Mr. Shupe' s comment that the re= . quest for a school site is too late , the dedication would require only the changing of a few lines on the plat and the addition of a statement of dedication. As fins the sewage treatment facility, there are numerous matters still unresolved . The Preliminary Plat as approved by the Board does not show a sewage treatment facility. On the application to the State Health Department for approval of location of the facility , the "location of the facility" is described as "NE4, Sec 18 , T5N , R67W of the 6th P . M. " . I do not think the sewage treatment facility has been ap- proved by the State Health Department "in the location shown , " as stated by Mr . Shupe , because the location of the facility was not specified until the second final plat was submitted on August 8 , 1972 , while the "location" was approved by the State Health Department on May 16 , 1972. There are two very important questions about the proposed treatment facility that are left unanswered . First , the question of maintenance and responsibility for any malfunction or liability has never been resolved . The developer stated at the Board hearing on April 10 that a "trust fund" would be es- tablished to take care of this problem. At other times , he has mentioned a "homeowners ' associations' for this purpose. So far , to my knowledge , no evidence has been provided by the developer that either of these two proposed solutions has gone beyond the talk stage even though the developer has been ques- tioned about this problem in conferences and meetings . The second question left unanswered is the matter of treated ef- fluent discharge . The developer claims on the application for approval of location for the facility that there will be "no discharge" and that the location of effluent discharge is " not applicable , " However, on the accompanying report prepared by Mr . Shupe , the "total area needed" to irrigate with effluent • 1. ea WELD COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION F . :: ,a COMMISSIONERS BURMAN LORENSON MARSHALL H. ANDERSON PLANNER ., HARRY S. ASHLEY PHONE (202) 752.2212 EXT. 27, 25 AND 25 y GLENN K. BILLINGS COUNTY SERVICES BLDG. COLORADO GREELEY. 80631 -3- is given as "11 .6 acres . " This means that 11 lots will be needed to "irrigate" or, in other words , to discharge the effluent. Which 11 lots will be used and how will the ef- fluent be carried to these lots? How will the lots be ir- rigated in the winter? These are important questions that must be resolved prior to final plat approval . On the matter of adequate lot width, Mr. Shupe is essenti- ally. correct. However , lot 9 of Block 6 will not meet the minimum lot width requirement in any case, and the subdivid- er must obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment which . he has not done , even though he was notified of this on August 22nd . Although all other lots meet the minimum lot width requirement , some excessive front yard setbacks are created by the location of structures to meet this requirement. The location of a storm drainage holding pond on acre-sized lots is also questionable . Are backyards of residences suitable , for this purpose? Also , who is responsible for removing debris and silt that will accumulate? Would the owners of these lots be responsible for maintaining the holding pond for the benefit of all the other owners in the subdivision? Another major question is the . impact of the subdivision on sur- rounding agricultural uses . The Board recently disapproved the Boise Borthers ' feedlot because of its incompatibility with res- idential uses miles away even though the feedlot met all require- ments except location . It would seem that agricultural uses de- serve as much protection from conflicting urban uses as do urban uses from agricultural uses . These are some of the more important questions that remain un- resolved , and is a summary of the reasons why I feel that the final plat of Indianhead Subdivision should be disapproved by the Board . Respectfully submitted , r�l ("9 / Jim Ohi , Planner JO/dc cc : Marshall Anderson Harry Ashley • • Board of Directors r �T Principals JOHN L. SHULTZ I��gib (grunt CHARLES D. HOLLEY President Roosevelt High School VERN KAMMERZELL Schaal ,,��J, KEITH el THOMA3 Vice President �:j .{.lL.l "�J Middle School, Milliken E. EUGENE BASHOR 1. Secretary H. PAUL KNIGHT ALBERT J. STROH KENNETH E. GOODWIN DELMAR I. PETERSON Lettord Elementary School Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Treasurer JANE H. SPRAGUE Director Pliii tts#n6m, evilnrabn Oct. 10, 1972 Weld County Commissioners Weld County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs : I have been directed by the Board of Education of Weld County Re-5J School District to send a letter to your attention with regard to the proposed Indianhead Development . The Board of Education went on record by a motion passed at the regular meeting of the Board of Education Monday, October 9th, as opposing this development. Due to the impact possible upon our elementary school (Letford Elementary school ) which is already nearing capacity, they feel this development will create a demand for elementary classrooms that the district does not have the bonding capacity to provide. Officers of the board would like to attend the hearing scheduled in regard to this development. Would you please notify them of the date. Yours truly, WELD CO. COMMISSIONERS GREELEY,COLD. GGS�?/ Oe1TX.�fjf�h: RECEIVED Kenneth E. Goodwin , OCT 111972 Superintendent eimi9110111!12loist4151t KG/r A PC. • Co. l;iti7(t . • . i . < ` r • r F RADO isx Q COUNTY OF WELD 14 filad ,.d„ Ln-_ Clerk of the 3oard of County Comm r- --- l Q U SEP2o1972 ce W September 21 , 1972 �� '" "' m p p o L. w File No, 20-2-1E COUNTY CLERK�ND4RECORDER = W By Deputy o F „ L z = I— 2 C) Board of County Commissioners o 3 Weld County Court House W = F— _ Greeley, Colorado 80631 � `u wW _ . . RE: Indianhead Subdivision u U Final Plat _ _ .7 7 Gentlemen: ° G I— v We have been notified of the decision of the Weld County Planning x oe Commission to recommend that you disapprove the subject Plat on the w basis of a stipulated list of reasons, which accompanied their letter. .. Many of these reasons are of the type which may normally be simply m pointed out to the submitter, and he would be asked to change them to Q comply with the ordinance. Some of these had been mentioned previously, oe < along with a method for their correction, but they still appear on the list. Others have not been brought to our attention until this time, but this does not mean we are unable or unwilling to address ourselves to them. In fact, it is the purpose of this letter to speak to those reasons which are of an engineering nature, in the order of their listing. r Items 1 , 2, and 3 appear to relate to a legal question regarding reserving U o right-of-way for the widening of U.S. Highway 34 adjacent to the property. ' L> However, they may also refer to a belated request from the school district ci_ c4 for a five acre school site. It is our understanding from the owners , that the Highway Department is amenable to the setting aside of land in Z the location of their proposed widening so that it can be purchased by them at a later date, at undeveloped land prices . As to the school site cwn • request, it was stated by the planning staff to us that such a request Ll could not logically be honored at such a late date in the filing process. o Q , Item 4. It is our understanding from the owners that the approval of o Z your board to the preliminary plat was given with the stipulation that o = z the sewage treatment facility would be added as proposed. It has received o _..1 < the approval of both the County Health Department and the State Water < 3 - ) Pollution Pollution Control Commission, in the location shown. If there is a process other than platting by which approval of the Board for such _. facilities is obtained, we have not yet been informed of it. 6 Item 5. Since the definition of "Width of Lot" given in Section 12.2 (41 ) ', - z of the Weld County Zoning Resolution specifically relates to the position z ec of the principal structure on the lot, it would appear to us that the U placing on the plat of a line showing the location of the 180' required should completely satisfy the requirements of Section 3.13. This was CD z done, in fact, at the request of the planning director, Mr. Lorenson. z This comment seems , in that light, to be without any significant = justification. Board of County Commft., ioners (. September 21 , 1972 Page Two Item 6. In our opinion, the lot in question is highly unique, being neither a through lot nor a reversed corner lot in the accepted sense of the terms. Due to its large size, and to the nature of the subdivision, Mr. Lorenson stated at the last Planning Commission meeting that he felt there was no problem with the lot at all . In addition, any major layout change affecting that lot would appear to us to have been in violation of the approval of the Preliminary Plat, on which this lot appeared. Item 7. The wording of this item is significantly different from the section of the regulation to which it refers. Section 3.3 does not set absolute limits, but established guidelines for planning. The intent of the regulation appears to be to provide cross traffic at quarter-mile intervals. Block 5, which is referred to, exceeds the guideline length by some forty feet, which would appear to be well within the intent of the regulation. Block 3 also referenced is a peripheral block on the boundaries of the subdivision. It was left unbroken with the tacit approval of the Planning Staff, since to have extended roads outward toward undeveloped areas would have been "an invitation to develop" the adjacent ground. While it does exceed the guidelines greatly, it does not do so without reason. In addition, traffic flow away from the block is provided seven times throughout its length at an average spacing of some 860 feet. Item 8. Apache Road and Hopi Trail do, in fact, meet at right angles , as do Hopi Trail and Blackfoot Road. The Arikaree Road - Commanche Court intersection was at an angle of approximately 83°, but has now been changed to comply fully with the regulation. Item 9. Of the lot lines mentioned here, only the common line of Lots 17 and 18, Block 6, is not at right angles. This is due to the fact that the line is also the centerline of the Greeley-Loveland Ditch. While not felt by us to be either necessary or sound engineering, such a change could be made, at your discretion. Item 10. The three minor grade variances have been duly noted and changed, although in all cases but the one involving Arikaree Road, the change may be measured in inches. Item 11 . A lettering error did appear on the Plat at this point. It did not involve closures, calculations, or the accuracy of the document in any way. The correction has been made. Item 12. While this point was never mentioned in previous reviews, the plat has been changed to comply. However, in our opinion, the regulation should stipulate that this requirement refers to right-of-way intersections, rather than street intersections, as it appears to refer to asphalt fillets, the way it is presently written. Item 13. This comment seems to ignore two basic points , and thereby to stretch the intent of the ordinance somewhat beyond the credible limits. The first point is that the water course involved is an irrigation ditch rather than an uncontrolled natural stream. In its present configuration, its capacity is nearly ten times its decree at this point. The second point is that some ponding on the lowest portion of the three lots in question was included from the beginning in the drainage report, for the subdivision, and that report was reviewed and approved by the County Engineer several months ago. Houses built on any of these lots Board of County Commissioners September 21 , 1972 Page Three outside the easements provided are in our opinion well protected from storms of the magnitude anticipated, as are all others in the subdivision. In summation, while three minor corrective measures were indeed required on the Plat, they all appeared to be in the nature of changes frequently found in such reviews, and a developer would not hesitate to make such changes. These are the reasons for a competent staff review, and are not normally classed as sufficient cause for denial , nor are they, in our experience, kept from the developer or his agent until after the formal action of the Planning Commission, as were Items 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, and 13. We will be happy to meet with you at your convenience, prior to your formal meeting if desired, to discuss these items with you. Very truly yours, HOGAN & OLHAUSEN, P.C. David B. Shu a �' DBS/jm CC: Interladco, Inc. 0 �^ > r • x.-67-/ /i; /Pe, HAMMOND AND CHILSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIRST NATIONAL HANK BUILDING-LOVELAND,COLORADO 80337 9e7-O23 LYNN A.HAMMOND E O C O ADO doNN H.CHILSDN September 26, 1972 COUNTY OF WELD ss' Flied with [Ili Clerk of the Board of County Commission.rs SEP 2 / 1972 COORry CLFRK AXO RFCOROFR By-- _Deputy Board of County Commissioners Weld County Courthouse Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Indianhead Subdivision Gentlemen: On behalf of Interladco, Inc. , request is hereby made for a public hearing to consider the approval of the final plat for Indianhead Subdivision. It is respectfully requested that this hearing be held at the earliest possible date consistent with the notice requirements and I would appreciate your advising me of the date to be set as soon as possible. Should there be any questions, please advise. Very truly yours, L nn . ammond LAH/bm cc: Mr. Telep Weld County Attorney Mr. Warren Stobbe Interladco, Inc. Chat f c n — .� (gifi n TiCT: • • • ••- i .,S. ¢ •�a '•i�S++�T1iL.4 .40N 4�,x ,{.it g..." -,^`�it„, `Y+r' 'a" 5 .`2`,•-2,.---44,i.y ' A- sir". -- r t 4is-- cr, .. k-a...<$ . ,�y;c 4,—J p.- p 7 7� }}��- i ,y1 y r .1-- C il / I } ; is , t 4,2 5.1".*- •gJt '0{°$-0- Y 4 7 �; � t 9 Yt: .� rya e "� � ) y- ( "` +Cae r 4 , r ..a ,-11 y r : P�r I �•., !r! " ie y,. -, f 1 ,J 1(r yXY A- C a +S, ? "' W •/ r_ v - �' � !.. i r �} t s.-A-1 ° ,o y 1 c�'`s�� ar,�, {i-,,,;,;1 o J .E --c\-4.,,,e 1 r,,, , 1 FJ^�r } 14.".4. a6 8„5 llir t( • a v'r �' ! r .±j--J4•,„- -,-•.„--)•• 'r j- . .* ' '� -,:v..S -iit•t c . ..(T--14 'i�',, C 1 ~ y u.° f_ '7 r at,. -,- TT i f ` "� 417 �a7"y.. t/- t I ;� r M + Yt�� '! S4'.� F r _ ? Jo- �i•ae 3 1.. >•$ ; �s>F•"iari " ate`{�yr •;‘,1'r',� �2 •}.4„...„,,,c414 -- x "�44,,....„,./,/,,,,,,-e- YY'J `! ka �,.. a r- t.mc-1� - a5.' '3i a .g.•' _ �4 ,,,, ta�+^+�' '4x i r r r- �y - +za #'"F a #frt. kL .s � S� -� �'._. i 1:"461._ Yr'hy y' kq:@�a rr'' tisa',' l'y., -s 5u .�g{.r1.P �.. r • r .y a e+F' pjrj�`d p .€ 1�! -5`} C f y, 0 [•, t. r ,. 1. t''' aid, I i ...!q 1. .}'�, ' Azk0 / R'.'' ! As:cat—. .X let•- .`u . it f Y < i 1 3 r 4- sr„,—, hi a 4,a} .2t..,‘..-:••.-..a--;:: r 'rlf�.• sg 1` 'a, �(,4S ',�6 J {1.+{ 5 Jr b rri : . Ili, �` �J � . INT • �C� 1 INC. ; : ', a + -,_ - 4.- t = FINANCIAL STATE NT b .; " r. _ 1EC .E' 31 1•71 & t iit4c��J„ e - _ III �IIII i { ' j �i. [} •••••• i , +3'>aKc �,'� -1:.ie 1�> ^x:=„" f" .Fyz r.}�.>tt,,r4`4 Y , � P . �..1. �i •�pf k. ✓. _ Cl„.-124 .77. as*,{ "Gs-sS' .-e y+ r. ar`�s s •X 'T r,t r �FC"' '''i'"�'`{f J 14":"; M"..s'� °,.,rq., .Y'!°w f "f kv �.¢ a spr f , Ate ... *vP- fs .a: �n r a"F-. - _ s F ,,i. .''fie N2-:•,-;;;••••i-,,••, ,y, ar"' # ' ; . E }. S ax.:JZ ✓j.� .l$ _ 'l'w kE.s a` ice- ."T'.i�.a� +ay,�„-'� e � ''''',22 tr '' r -': �q`�Y '47-3"r•r > -v.,,f.-'1?- $` - B a'4:11';,\ ;tit .�.L s .. t� i zs'r ✓�-�`'�` r 'f _& K -,;.„- `iav"f. 4-,'..P, m .i:s`' .W}sF 3' • > T'�'",.+' .a*+S.r '='°i,2~ t •4 �k A'}c .<a'6 f -;a �.. . �.3� �`s t, 1• 4ry# v:, s 'f g r e rh i 4 ` .t�; A �r., y!- .; 7.^s f' 1 �..* � � tr. •, "}-s : yb 3. ... ` Cift"c.N. , .0e: A, A�.a.. }��3�' V' '0-, Py +. -z'^ }.. v tF d'.' 7, da , �`.. # �.,£'1^'.Yci„ •,�•v "' '• •it•... friv ,„� y f� :: .. --"•,-.`44,‘"44. , ^£ . ,- F R t .^ "y • am Y 4*- '''tl•�r �i5 Yx FA�r �'4 -'8' .,.�. y� i. xNt SI -. s v, 4 X -i T' rt'Cn a dy,`.v r "s �.x 3 ' t. F > • . rA t SyWr`Y` -t 'ea. rt f�a-n _jit_r B .-_, .J fi .9'. t '-e"" a -R" .N.s wi y y } +X �qY\ _.4.`�a 2. ( f s 'r t Y -A - -F x i r Y ' i ''„r�� .f� 1, ai..__ ra A.i r ,,..� " E# �r .� P �vaµ+-r�+� e; 1 "`S P `.5� i z u M Fv.a i3ak .414-0-1°V Y 1 M, A.b ' L a 44',t^...,'.hero"r,'� -, - F- .# 7'.d „ s,i.., -- g - t fit` %., { � 1 �'" „yea, 3 � �F , � _ r 0 .7'' ' 4�' r. � r f as IiC' za s hr y r l a f, ..1 � ti1��,.: 0y;. ' _ �.Y '�",j. .' 1�' �.tt � .., ": � .r F� 't -- 1 '.�f.'S°'b`srd 0 . ?. ` J f '..4,;:e• a�yd � * � r$ :• +." • .r• s�. � c: ", » � x�c _ 1 22°Y�`1 �-T a a'� -ai- 416;i �x i'ir"₹ ' 41* .e{Ir - '4, e� r tix 'P I. � , = � `- ✓7 B+-� 1q3;(it` ash o fo rT�LLav g 24{ t of g ., -a ` ' a. -q�P `g:�i, ds7i� 4 im .a. x: a ti,I �I a � �'yT�I5 -t i • , .. -��- 1j:1-4114i; 1 1 A"., '•' • �`,i -:_ -...1.:•.* aiWe_*�tl ,;` Fr�,r• � 111! W�iCMM1e w4..y`: t >� •3 I • t —,— ----..-54.4,7s: -., tiY fir. J� rSr � Si7r 5 YXv---,,e-cat,--,z1/4„,"„,.:2.. i1E +f Yv1ccrrgg{2 X Y wpt+' sc Fw^_ '_ "�" ii i r J , [_ r ' e'��¢ .t ;,:-...2( ! . y }cl CS4kT7t n s- S s'a .' { t h;C, ,B' -�- r ' c ,xf �' d'3 to eo e 4 :"'r w a K� 's"'`.JF�"�.�.��:/u` 1�� riz -X'1'.$ r r�:'z - .. . ,.. 1 ( .,. . . . • . • , » \ } \ ` . � ete aadc o . . _*else_« . as of December e, 55 \ . . . 3 I / ji \ . Kaufman,�. Prepared #. Bowe: & 22! »ea \ ) . . Dearborn, a6I@, — . . \ .4 �� Interladco Balance Sheet December 31, 1971 ASSETS Current Assets: Manufacturers National Bank $155,022 .32 Home Federal Saving & Loan 70,119.36 First National Bank of Loveland 2,129.14 Petty Cash 200.00 Total Current Assets • $ 227,470.82 Fixed Assets: Cost Reserve Net Construction Machinery $6,309.37 $630.94 $ 5,678.43 Office Equipment 2,879.74 713.00 2.166.74 Total Fixed Assets 7,845.17 Land and Construction In Process: Indian Head Land $ ;121,369.91 Powder Horn Land 1,224,003.08 Construction in Process Indian Head 62,039.08 Construction in Process Powder Horn 71,053.35 Investment in Water Supply 10,400.00 Total Land and Construction 1,488,865.42 • Other Assets: Escrow Deposit $ 8,000.00 Organization Cost 2,820.00 Mortgage Receivable 232.400.00 Total Other Assets 243,220.00 TOTAL ASSETS $1,967,401.4 • • r Interladco Balance Sheet Continued December 31, 1971 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Federal Withholding Tax $ 1,058.25 Accrued FICA 301.28 Michigan Withholding Tax 221.44 Colorado Withholding Tax 475.18 Accrued Federal Unemployment Ins. 45.00 Accrued Michigan Unemployment Ins. 53.16 Total Current Liabilities $ 2,154.31 Long-Term Liabilities: Land Contract Indian Head (Mellin) $ 78,100.00 Land Contract Powder Horn (Svedman) 781,000.00 Home Federal Saving & Loan 252,480.36 IAccrued Interest 36,898.96 Total Long-Term Liabilities 1,148,479.32 Total Liabilities $1,150,633.63 CAPITAL Capital Stock Class B Par Value .10 Authorized 500,000 Issued 381,360 $ 38,136.00 Paid in Capital 786,,164.00 824,300.00 Surplus: Earned Income 1971 83,192.98 Less: Loss on Stock Issuance. $91,724.20 Less : Interest 1970 999.00 90,725.20 Net Deficit (7,532.22) 816,767.78 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL $1,967,401.41 Y • • Interladco Profit and Loss Statement January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971 Income: Sale of Membership leases $398,400.00 Cost of Sales: Land $ 68,709.95 Construction in process 211,624.24 280334.19 ' Profit on Sale $118,065.81 Interest Income & Rental 2,946.53 Total Income $121,.012.34 • Expenses: Salaries & Wages $ 29,902.00 Payroll Taxes 1,214.26 Insurance 492.33 Office Supplies 624.75 l , Subscriptions 42.00 Professional Services 1,250.50 Rent 1,156.70 Telephone Expense ' 1,189.15 Relocation Expense 255.59 Travel & Entertainment 628.08 Organization Expense Amortization 705.00 Depreciation on Office Equipment 359.00 Total Expenses 37,819.36 Net Operating Profit for 1971 $ 83,192.98 • • • l Interladco Sale of Membership Lease: In 1971 Interladco, Inc. sold 83 leases @ 4800.00 Purchasers paid $2,000.00 and assumed mortgages of $2,800.00 on each membership. • Cost of Sale of Membership Lease: Expenses and Cost of construction up to July 31, 1971 has been capitalized. We are writing off cost of construction thru December. 31, 1971 and cost of land for Arapahoe as Cost of Sale Cost prior July 31, 1971 $ 51,882.40 • • Share of Development Cost 17,793.83 69,676.23 Cost August 1 - December 31 138,534.79 Accrued Interest as of 12-31 3,413.22 Total Cost of Construction $211,624.24 Cost of Land 68,709.95 $280,334.19 The Company planned on going public and spent $9.1,724.00 in expenses to go on the market. They failed to go public and disbanded the plan in 1971 and therefore are writing off the $91,724.00 as a loss. Interest on Indian Head and Powder Horn has been charged to Land. Water Supply: Cost of Water Supply $ 10,400.00 This has been set up as a separate Asset as the Company will receive money on this. • • 3 GLENN K. BILLINGS, �` �•,� ', p CHAIRMAN Cer Y �/, J RT. 2. PDX 167, GREELEY. COLO. '` Try�T.pity R3'� \r LLiiVV 1ITT//'11 LJLJ HAROLD ANDERSON. CHAIRMAN PRO-TEN . 1. OFFICE OF BURh1AN LOR ENSON RT 3OHNSTOWN. COLD. THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY PLANNER MARSHALL H. ANDERSON, PHONE 1333. 353.2212 MEMBER i�aterr.h�Y0 a of EXT. 2T. 20 ANO 29 202 0TH AVE.. GREELEY. COLO. �FY•E E 6' 9/18/72 Mr. Warren A. Stobbe , President✓ Interladco , Inc . P. O. Box 949 Loveland , Colorado 80537 Dear Mr. Stobbe : The Weld County Planning Commission at its meeting on September 12 , 1972 , voted to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners disapproval of the final plat for Indianhead Subdivision for reasons listed on the attached sheet . Sinc//erely , �7u • �JYm Ohi , Planner JO/dc cc : Hogan and Olhausen STA F COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD SS. Flied with the Oak of the Board of County Comm.:" SEP 2p1 1972 COUNTY CLERIC AND RECOROEP By Deputy, er: � a T "Y ` 4 s j =4/ • BEFORE THE-WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CASE N0. S-o7 9/13/72 • • APPLICATION OF Interladc.o,. .Inc Address 515 West 12.th,."..Loveland,....Colorado Moved by J . Ben Rix that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the Subdivision Plat India.nhead_ S.ub.divis.i.o.n located on the following described property Weld County, Colorado, to-wit: See attached plat be recommended Efocysryttltyay (unfavorably) to the Board of County Commis— sioners for the following reasons: See attached list subject to the following TA O RADO COUNTY OF WELD s5. Filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissic---a Motion seconded by Ronald Heitman SEP 2 .1. 1972 Vote: cau.name mm uce.u.r By Deputy For Passage: Glenn...Anderson.. Against Passage: .Ro.n.a.l.d...Rei.tman.... J . _ Ben Nix John Watson John Weigand The Chairman declared the motion passed and ordered that a certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commis- sioners for further proceedings. PC - S-005 CERTIFICATION OF COPY I� Dorothy Chlanda , Recording Secretary of Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of. Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on Sept . 12 , 1972 , and recorded in Book No. III , Page No. , of the proceedings of said Planning Commission. Dated this 13th day of Sept. , 197.2 . Recording Secretary, ��ci '""...........__..__ ry, Id County Planning Commission • • Indianhead Subdivision - reasons for denial : 1 . Insufficient dedication of street and public area to the public as required by Sec . 5 . 1 (3)*. 2 . Failure to reserve land for street and other public purpose and to arrange transfer of title of land so reserved (Sec . 3. 7 ) . 3 . Preliminary Plat shows "100' minimum additional ROW" and "50' possible additional ROW" for U . S. Highway 34 which are not indicated on Final Plat . 4 . Location of sewage treatment facility has not been approved by the Board of County Commissioners as required by Sec . 3 . 3(2) of the Weld County Zoning Resolution . Sewage treatment facility was not shown on the Preliminary Plat approved by the Board of County Commissioners . 5 . The following lots do not meet the minimum lot width re- quirements as required by Sec . 3 . 13 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution : Block 1 : Lot 16 Block 3 : Lots 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 20 , 21 Block 5 : Lots 2 , 9 Block 6 : Lots 3 , 4 , 5 , 9, 15 6 . Lot 1 , Block 7 is a reverse corner lot and violates Sec . 3. 2(4) . 7 . Blocks 3 and 5 do not meet maximum allowable Block lengths of 1260 feet as required by Sec . 3 . 3 . 8. The following streets do not intersect at right angles as required by Sec . 3 . 1 (6) : Apache Road and Hopi Trail Arikaree Road and Commanche Court Hopi Trail and Blackfoot Road 9. The following lots do not have lot lines intersecting street lines or the tangent of the curve of the street line at right angles as required by Sec . 3 . 2(3) : Lot 4 , Block 3 Lot 1 , Block 4 Lots 17 , 18 , 25 of Block 6 10. The following streets exceed maximum allowable grade of 3% for a distance of 200 feet approaching intersections as specified by Sec . 3 . 1 ( 9) : Arikaree Road at Commanche Court Hopi Trail at Apache Road Hopi Trail at Blackfoot Road—Sta 33+45 . 36 (Hopi ) • • i 11 . Lakotah Court near its intersection with Algonquin Drive does not meet minimum centerline radius requirement of 200 feet as specified in Sec . 3 . 1 (12) . 12 . All street intersections do not comply with Sec . 3. 1 (1d) which requires minimum radii at street intersections . 13 . Lots 20 , 21 , and 22 of Block 3 do not meet requirements of Sec . 3 . 6 (1 ) which prohibits platting of lots in areas subject to flooding without adequate flood protection measures . *Note : All references are to the Weld County Subdivision Resolution effective until August 30 , 1972 , unless otherwise noted . SUBS I( ON R EGUL % T, I ON S 3 i 3.1 STREETS (CONTINUED) (6 ) STREETS. SHALL INTERSECT AT RIGHT 1WGLES. (7 ) HALF STREETS SHALL BE PROHIBITED; WHEN NECESSARY THE COUNTY COMMISSION- ERS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO CONDEMN ADJACENT PROPERTY TO PROVIDE A FULL WIDTH STREET TO COMPLY tM TH THE MASTER HIGHWAY ANO STREET PLAN. (8 ) STREET GRADES SHALL BE MORE THAN 6.4% BUT LESS THAN 7% FOR LOCAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS, AND LESS THAN 5`L FOR MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS'. ( 9 ) STREETS SHALL BE LEVELED TO A GRADE OF LESS THAN 3% FORA DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 200 FEET APPROACHING ALL INTERSECTIONS. - (10) STREET JOGS WITH CENTERLINE OFFSETS OF LESS THAN 135 FEET SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. (11) MIEN STREETS ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH EXISTING STREETS; THE NEW STREETS SHALL BE NAMED ACCORDING TO THE STREETS WITH 'WHICH THEY CORRESPCNO., STREETS WHICH DO NOT FIT INTO AN ESTABLISHED STREET-NAMING.PATMWI SHALL BE NAMED IN A MANNER WHICH WILL NOT DUPLICATE OR BE CONFUSED WITH EXIST- ING STREET NAMES. (12) MINIMUM RADII OF CENTERLINE OF STREETS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: MAJOR ARTERIAL 500 FEET COLLECTOR 350 FEET LOCAL 20C FEET (13) MINIMUM LENGTH OF TANGENTS BETWEEN REVERSE CURVES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: MAJOR ARTERIAL , 250 FEET COLLECTOR 150 FEET LOCAL 50 FEET (14) MINIMUM RADII AT STREET INTERSECTIONS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: MAJOR ARTERIAL 50 FEET COLLECTOR 25 FEET LOCAL 15 FEET 3.2 LOTS ( 1 ) LOTS SHALL BE AT LEAST AS LARGE AS ALLOWED BY THE MINIMUM ZONING STAND— ARDS CONTAINED IN APPROPRIATE ZONING REGULATIONS. ( 2 ) THE DEPTH TO VIDTH RATIO OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3 TO 1. (3 ) LOT LINES SHALL BE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE STREET LINE OR AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE TANGENT OF THE CURVE OF THE STREET LINE. ( 4 ) REVERSED CORNER LOTS ANO THROUGH LOTS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. ( 5 ) ALL LOTS SHALL FROnT ON A PUBLIC STREET OR HIGHWAY= • • • } • N. • • SUBDIVISI0 ;S ^ ECUL ; TICNS 4 • 3.3 BLOCKS 1 ) THE LONG D19EiNS1ON ^F ANY BLOCK FOR RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL ORDINARILY BE MORE THAN 400 FEET IN LENGTH AND LESS THAN 1260 FEET IN LENGTH.` AN EX- CEPTION MAY SE MADE FCR LONGER BLOCKS BACKING ONTO A RAILROAD.' CANAL, • MAJOR ARTERIAL OR SIMILAR BARRIER. 3.4 DITCHES • 1 ) MAJOR DRAINAGE DITCHES AND IRRIGATION DITCHES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED ON PUBLIC STREETS OR HIGHWAYS EXCEPT TO CROSS SUCH PUBLIC STREETS OR HIGH DAYS. 3.5 ALLEYS AND EASEMENTS (1 ) THE CO'_°NTY MAY P.ECIIIRE ALLEYS AT LEAST .20 FEET. IN WIDTH AND OPEN AT BOTH ENDS IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS' AND AT THE REAR OR ALL LOTS FRONTING ON MAJ- OR ARTERIAL STREETS. •ISERE-ALLEYS ARE NOT REQUIRED, EASEMENTS SHALL BE GRANTED OR RESERVED AT LEAST 10 FEET IN WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF ALL REAR LOT LINES AND FIVE FEET IN WIDTH ALONG EACH SIDE LOT LINES WHERE NECES- GARY FOR UTILITY INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STORM AND SANITARY SETTERS, GAS AND WATER LINES, AND ELECTRIC AND TELEPHONE SERVICE; 1210ER EASEMENTS V.AY BE RE^UIRED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF CONDITIONS RE- QUIRE SUCH. • 3.6 FLOODS • ( 1 ) NO LOTS SHALL BE PLATTED IN AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING UNLESS ADEQUATE FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES ARE TAKEN PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT INCLUDING SUCH LOTS. ( 2 ) ALL NATURAL WATERWAYS WITHIN A DRAINAGE BASIN SHALL BE DEFINED AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE UNINTERRUPTED SURFACE RUNOFF THAT MIGHT BE EXPECTED FROM A FIVE YEAR FREQUENCY STORM. 3) THE ABOVE DATA MUST BE ACQUIRED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER THROUGH A HY- DROLOGICAL STUDY. 3.7 PUBLIC AREAS 1 ) THE OWNER OF LAND IN .A SUBDIVISION MAY BE REQUESTED TO RESERVE SUITABLE AREA .FOR SCHOOL, PARK, THROUGH STREET DR SIMILAR PUBLIC PURPOSES AT SUCH LOCATIONS AS MAY BE DESIGNATED BY THE COUNTY. TIHERE THIS LAND IS NOT • DEDICATED ON THE PLAT DIRECTLY TO THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC AGENCY, AR- RANGEMENTS FOR SUCH TRANSFER OF TITLE SHALL BE AGREED'UPON PRIOR TO AP- PROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT. • • • • V • • . . SUBDIVISION REOULATI . 0 N S 10 FINAL PLAT SECTION V 5.1 CONTENTS AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, A FINAL PLAT SHALL BE SUBMITTED. THE FINAL PLAT SHALL CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ON THE PRELIMINARY e PLAT (EXCEPT CONTOUR INTERVALS) PLUS THE FOLLORING: • 1 ) CALCULATED DIMENSIONS ANO BEARINGS FOR ALL LINES, ANGLES ANO CURVES USED TO DESCRIBE ALL LOTS, STREETS, ALLEYS, EASEMENTS, AREAS TO BE RESERVED OR DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE, REFERENCE TO PERMANENT SURVEY MONUMENTSiN— CLUDING A TIE TO A SECTION CORNER OR A QUARTER SECTION CORNER, AND FOR OTHER IMPORTANT FEATURES. • ( 2 ) AN IDENTIFICATION OF ALL LOTS AND BLOCKS AND NAMES OF STREETS. (3 ) N GOOD AND SUFFICIENT DEDICATION OF ALL THE STREETS, ALLEYS, EASEMENTSs PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT TO THE PUBLIC. 4J A CERTIFICATION BY THE SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE SURVEY AND DRAFTING OF THE PLAT. ( 5 ) CERTIFICATES SHOWING APPROVAL OF THE PLAT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT BY THE BOAR° OF COUNTY COMMISSION- ERS. 6 ) ALL DRAWINGS AND SIGNATURES SHALL BE IN WATERPROOF INK ON. TRACING CLOTH (OR OTHER PERMANENT REPRODUCIBLE FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE COUNTY) WITH THE OUTER DIMENSIONS OF NOT MORE THAN 24 INCHES BY 36 INCHES. 5.2 PROCEDURE IF THE SUBDIVISION LIES WHOLLY CR PARTIALLY :'WITHIN TOO MILES OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY, THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE MUNICIPALITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE COUNTY PLAN.. KING COMMISSION UNTIL RECEIPT OF THE MUNICIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS CR WITHIN 15 DAYS OF SUBMISSION TO THE MUNICIPALITY, WHICHEVER IS SOONER. WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER RECEIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PLAT, THE SUBDIVIDER SHALL SUBMIT SIX COPIES OF THE FINAL PLAT TO THE CECR=TARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOND AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH SUCH PLAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED. WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE MEETING' ON THE FINAL PLAT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL APPROVE, DISAPPROVE OR APPROVE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATIONS OF THE SAID PLAT. IF THE PLAT IS DISAPPROVED, REASONS FOR SUCH DICAP%'ROVAL SHALL BE STATED IN WRITING. Hello