HomeMy WebLinkAbout720655.tiff - •
•
•
•
•
•
•
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
•
Date : January 18 , 1972
Subject : Preliminary plat of Indianhead Subdivision
Applicant : Interladco , Inc.
•
•
Planning Commission members present : „ •
Philip Bowles , Chairman ' :-
Glenn Anderson -
f_.': -�
Donald Clark
J . Ben Nix
John Watson
-.
John Weigand • ;.:
•
ante-rtadco = =-
Lynn• _ �___ .
. _
• • .. . ._ .
- Sh
- _
t - - -
_ - - -- - -
L.. � :. . ,, _
k m - - �= — - - �.
_ Da_ a O1 z 1 -�aus�efi -�,�� �
_ -
_ •
•
•
•
•- - - - •
— _ — - -- -- — -- _ --—_•
ti
-..___ •_ • _1T.:-••' �,_,. - _. _ —_•- 12.�T —�__v..�••'��_.:.�• A _ ��:ms's—.�'._��_ —_ �'-J.._-' �'-.'.._r_ _a__ -
. _
- ... __ — — _ _ _�s:��. _'_••:�'�Fn:-���s-��r.�i/C�wY�cTF'—�ar,�.....Yiar--�'r---•'•��--sF 720655
v
Mr. Lorenson : We ' ve received - on item number
one on the list which was a letter of approval from the
Greeley-Loveland Irrigation Company , proposed easements
and crossing. It ' s about a page and a half , but I ' ll read
the important portions of it . There ' s a proposal that was
submitted by Hogan and Associates , which was spelled out
on page one and part of page two and the pertinent part
says , "The normal run-off will be controlled both in quant-
ity as to the means of discharge into the Greeley-Loveland
Irrigation Canal , a flume or carrying structure will be in-
stalled at the bridge to carry the additional runoff across
the ditch . All final plans would be submitted to you , and
that ' s referring to the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Company , for
_ approval prior to any construction if the project proceeds
t� ronstx 'trot°- -t. n__+ii#e_ et l o the
hc as went -
2nTe .. wI ,yau a-re -in-=Tea- era� agreeme.n_t trittr.the above-, please -
`gaa� odtt� (utterlt rerr¢ i�eetlJ�-to� s�s# xt =
-
_--= _ &pproved- su�lect to_ the rirsCakla o o 'a fir mover
_ W-- _
_. - - -.eta-_ 35Erle3tikr � , Ib,YAc: - n -
- - ice,
e _ ._.. ._.. -'
1LC, an �r� the - Lte� tt m er ire
_ - reCaies-ta ` the Farmer`s,=a=Tett2'ro ap#srcrval Ea fte farm
er' s Ditch for proposed. easement and crossing . There is a
two page plus letter from DeGood , Burton and Phipps , who
_ e ' are ho-a-ttari s for-tttcifafimer s Etrt€1r p��3E
hPy 1" �P ,�„� Sias of ch therld—Tile--e--caTrsrd er-
a
-nd the tone of the letter= is generally that -vr there isle =-
solution that can be worked out with them and the last para-
graph , "The Board of Directors will cooperate to the best
ability towards acceptable solutions to the various factors
briefly described above , but would anticipate , of course ,
that the ditch company will be free of damage , expense and
•
la-ability of any type that may result from the alteration
of the existing circumstances on the premises . The Board
will anticipate the ditch companies approval on all mat-
ers affecting the ditch company should be received prior
to the commencement of the development of the property" .
There was a note attached , I don' t know whether it ' s for
real or not , but it says that the subdivider is prepared
to meet the requirements . That' s item number two.
Mr. Stobbe: I might, hopefully say, that we are
referring" to the minutes of your meeting before that.
Mr. Lorenson: This is another item on item two,
but that' s the letter from the ditch company. Item number
•
•
three related to 50 feet of right-of-way on the east section
- --- - _
ssn`t on_ 1"-e l'i s 5 1-assume:t� _ #� r = _-
j.
J f -
�-••
Engineer. In a ,letter from the County Engineer, attached
to the drainage report , "Regarding revised drainage study
- s- ---� - • s
7 14nra d a r s ra e r- Buz itua rrtte - P + t ;
commodate the requirement as outlined by the ditch company
off Comanche Court . There is also a question about the 50
feet on the east line of the development. It is not dim-
ensioned or adequately illustrated" . I think that referred
•
to the—same thing I did about the right-of-way. So , he' s
stating that their drainage report does meet his require-
ments . Item number six , requested review by the Larimer
County Planning Commission . I have a letter from the Lar-
imer County Planning Commission , it says , "The Subdivision
Committee of the Larimer County Planning Commission review-
ed the Indianhead preliminary plat and at it' s regular meet-
ing Wednesday , January 5 , 1972, it is the recommendation
of this committee that the plat be denied because of the
lack of utilities in the area , specifically water and sew-
er and because that there is questionable need of a devel -
opment of this size" , and it' s signed by the secretary ,
Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission , Kitty Lesniak.
Item number seven was on the cul -de-sac, the situation was
_I USIT -C GT vest- vitas-_YOU ka014 es fs=Comm-c“ver =
u, nda tanL i_ -7. so- ig omme__ zed ii
-- - -
n - er e-ght, item -number el gh ₹inert--platting=3 suq es
-Cartrace.wi tit—tl �rttie _f �or[-�wa-F1
-_ - —
. �
-- aF Beta ac t -44:ve-
- -
- _ - EFATB5 bCSTf° — _
t
--'- = -
_ Mr. "Peru? -Yes; . if has.--T = _
•
Mr. Lorenson : That covers all the items that
were _required in the ..first_ comments _ ___
"c - Geat_l emen, `-d Lice to.
myse-tt Ttmt Lynn Hammond, alscrMr - Stobtre- and Mr.--"W'rt6urrr-r-i7: -
from the developing firm is here . If you have any questions ,
I think to simplify your meeting and actually (inaudible)
to answer any questions you may have . As you recall , and I
chink for the benefit of Mr. Weigand and Mr . Clark who
- 1-
wer-e ' nt here at the last meeting when this was presented ,
uh , these particular items which are on the list in front
of you , were raised as questions at that time and it was
suggested that we reappear after they had been looked at ,
and as Mr. Lorenson stated you have the results of the
( inaudible) .
Mr. Bowles : Dale , what was the total length of
the roads within this plat as submitted? The way it is
here .
Mr. 01 hausen : I' m not sure.
Mr. Bowles : Approximate?
Mr. 01 hausen : Around 10,000 feet, or something
.Mr _ tart- iza_re
rrk
4{iif-did'-P„-�i�3Iott�,'_�.�ils`�-�.EF�St; -`
- - - - --- - -- - -
4=v
_ #4
- _ -
a
♦. . . - -:_
- Mr Nix - I. thaught yon tver€ _May f est ou, a re
ereca'fry-=pxoblems that.youu-see here as -far"as'the d=i=tch ". -=..= —
company is concerned? •
—fir Southard: Tltpy have same-pro bl ems, _ hut-Tfar
-
eeley LoVetand goes -through--an ur&-am-area-,, there-s
answers to it and can ' t get any. I ' m talking about the
safety answers , the people when they clean the chicken ,
when they viscerate it , where do the innards go? You know
perfectly well , you get them down the ditch then , and when
•
we ' re just living with it , I don ' t know what else there is
to do but there is nothing that we have now in the way of
objections to the matter. We think the principal thing for
their storm drain off and to. what we have proposed and what
they have changed on their alterations , that they have com-
plied with what The right-of-way is of suffic-
ient width . A problem yet to be worked out which couldn' t
go on your plan at this time is something with regard to a
safety feature so that , I ' m talking about fences , what
happens to those fences with the weeds and all behind them
and there' s a raft of problems when they are worked out ,
but I don ' t believe they could possibly
Mr. Nix : You don ' t anticipate anything that
couldn ' t work out.
-- Mr. Southard: no sir , not at this stage - -
•
Mr. - No other questions , Burman?
Mr. Lorenson : They answered every one of them.
1, Bo;elec : Ar= are any further questions from
al of the rest of you? I know , tonight' s agenda-we have _
cul -de-sacs , a discussion on this was part of the; thing last _
time . The question of whether some of these streets wouTd
be changed , this plat would be amended with the additional
cul -de-sacs so we ' ll try and resolve that tonight .
- - Mr. 01hausen Mr_ Chairman ,_ could - I make one
-Comment? It ' s pertinent to the letter recekved from the
Larimer County Subdivision Committee , or they did not ask
for a representative from our office and particularly their
point about the water and sewer , and the utilities not being
available . I think we have reported that we do have adequate
-5-
• •
utili-ties in the area ; it has went through the local Weld
County Commission committee and we think we have answered
all of those questions . We don ' t think that ' s a pertinent
point that they made there and they didn ' t give us the op-
portunity to voice our feelings or at least show them what
we did have in existence . I ' d just like to point that out.
Mr. Nix . Right here - - - -recalled a question
I have.
Mr. Paul : Well , Mr. Chairman , I ' d like to make
a comment also , because I don ' t think Larimer County should
write such a letter asking , I mean question the sewer be-
cause we have approved it . We have surveyed it with the
engineers , it meets the requirements of the percolation
test and it just kinda burns you up to sit and listen when
Larimer County writes over, and tells us-here.. I don 't think -
it' s any of their business . It=kinda burns me up when they
write something : , -
Mit Hammond • If -may make one statement __too ,
in response to fir. Nix . The company or the engineers would
certainly have been most willing to meet with anybody on _
this committee that could do this which Ire , numbed one, nad
known when they were going_ to discuss it , acrd nutber two, or
had an invitation to come and discuss it with them. It ' s
difficult to believe some of the conclusions with particul -
ar reference to what you ' re own _County officials and been
thr_ougk yeast_ Uti14tyaCsmm-rttee, I `_m not, has to be what_ _
they-said . It's just unfortunate that no onewas able to
sit down and maybe answer some questions that were raised .
Undoubtedly , they could have been answered because it ' s
been approved by your own people .
Mr . Anderson : I would move that we Lake this under
•
•
J
adv-isement .
Mr. Bowles : Is there a second?
Mr . Watson : I second the motion .
Mr . Bowles : It ' s been moved and seconded - -
Mr. Stobbe : May I ask a question before- the
panel please , before you vote or whatever . Were you not
to discuss the cul -de-sacs this evening?
Mr. Hammond : I think -- - -
Mr. Bowles : We ' re going to discuss cul -de-sacs
in general at our executive meeting tonight .
Mr . Stobbe : Oh , I see , - - -
.,-. _ .. .r:./,...._:..:.guy-r.__.._ r•...-- ._..__ _.. ...-. _..... . Y _. _ .-. -• __ - -. ..
..•__ ..' _ ._t.x.:=tea?.: -:-s:_r'.____:_.. _. _ _ - �-_ _ T•�.._w.� __
:._ :-qtr:.:--Bov�l..�s;::�=:;.Nab--:speci.f,lta:l ly::::�_�:r•�=.tfi� s��i.e.v�-�.o��.+: .,'...__-_.•.
-=. _ -
• me ft•:•-bliL t- would affect: tire_ plo.ssitae
.decide -that we . do want to - go ...on c:ul:�de=sacs.- .:It�rasn' •
•
-
- - cl
;t�.s speci call but �t _fi
-y �
w� a ec -
-- -- - on -between ' Dale yard:-Bu r�man"on the :'�scr�bi Ter a y015_-ait- .
•
t one plat . - r -- -
r - Mr. Nix: F '•m= sure there -will be. _ _
•
Mr . Bowl es : O . K. - May ale have vote •on th-e - =
Secretary: Nix? Yes . Weigand? Yes . Watson?
-. _
_- �Ces :�- `�l rk:? Ye-s~:-- �Baaries-3.11ke
_ -
--_ `_- R�r- _Ha MO1 oo..� sa_ -r e t em a:,,
ate very much your putting this on the agenda because
time is a factor and we appreciate this consideration.
-7-
Hello