HomeMy WebLinkAbout720665.tiff •
MELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Date : September 5 , 1972
Subject : Indianhead Subdivision final plat
Applicant ; Interladco , Inc .
Planning Commission members present :
Glenn Anderson , Chairman
Donald Clark
John Watson
Interladco :
Warren Stobbe
Lynn Hammond
Dale Olhausen
Dave Shupe
Others :
Cynthia Telep , Attorney
Glen Paul , Sanitarian
Burman Lorenson , Planning Director
Jim Ohi , Planner
Al Chotvacs , Department of Highways
Denny Graham , Department of Highways
720665
Mr . Anderson : Indianhead Subdivision . For the
benefit of those people that were not here earlier , we ' ll
repeat this . We do not have a quorum , therefore we cannot
make a decision today , but we will hear it and we have set
an executive session for a week from tonight , which the
other members then will hear the tapes and then we ' ll make
some decisions at that time .
Mr. Hammond : Well , Mr . Anderson , for the benefit
of the Commission , I think the reason for the meeting to-
day as you recall , we met last meeting on this , there was
a list of some substantial number of items which were ob-
jected to by the Planning Department and it was felt that
there should be some attempt to try to resolve some of
these problems which we have tried to do . I think the ob-
ject of the meeting today would be to advise you of the
progress in trying to resolve these items and then if you
- desire to have anyone appear at any further session , we
would be happy to do it .
Mr . Anderson : Alright.
Mr. Hammond : Mr. 0lhausen , I believe , is pre-
pared to go through some of these . The only thing I have ,
other than add , is that a letter from Mr. DeGood who rep-
resents the Farmer ' s Ditch which he asked me to submit to
you . There was a letter previously written on August 24th
and this is in clarification of that letter .
Mr . Anderson : Alright .
Mr . Hammond : I might indicate that the tenor of
that letter , you may want to read it or you may not, but
the tenor is that the developers and the ditch companies
have met and have worked out a procedure to resolve any
-1 -
•
questions and there is no reason why a solution can ' t be
forthcoming .
Mr. Olhausen : Glenn , we sent a copy of this
letter to each of the Planning Commission and it ,rent in
Friday night ' s mail and I don ' t know whether you people
received it or not . Did you receive one , John?
Mr . Anderson : I haven ' t , Mr. Clark , I guess has
received his , but I haven ' t received mine .
Mr. Shupe : It must have just come in today: s
mail .
Mr. Olhausen : What I did was go through each
point that was pointed out last time on Jim' s list and
discussed individually each one and answered them , hope-
fully , the way we sat down and met and tried to work them
out . Jim and myself and Dave here and Byron Ewing met
. ana discussed the items on the list and I ' d be happy to
read through them all and comment from there if you like ,
and if there ' s , there are the other couple items that we ' ve
also addressed to and that ' s the one I think from the High-
way Department , and then we ' ve also had a meeting since
with the ditch company , but whatever your pleasure , I ' ll
be happy to go through this , this letter with you on the
items , if you prefer or if you have any individual quest-
ions , you can bring them up and if you don ' t.
Mr. Anderson : I imagine that ' s the best way to
go about it . These are the items in question , and so - - -
Mr. Olhausen : Well , let me just read through
this and then after I get done , if you have questions that
you comment or Burman or Jim has arguments , they can com-
ment and we ' ll - - - -
_9_
•
Mr . Shupe : There is a representative here from
the Highway Department if you would like to deal with
that one first . This might be - - - -
Mr. Anderson : 0 . K .
Mr. Stobbe : - - - - these two gentlemen here .
I ' d like to introduce them , I know all the , Al chotvacs ,
Denny Graham.
Mr. Anderson : 0 . K. Would you gentlemen like
to speak to that , the Highway at this time then?
Mr. Stobbe : You might address yourself to the
question and then maybe these gentlemen could help clarify
it
Mr. Olhausen : 0 . K. , item number five , Utilities
Coordinating Board has approved final plat subject to clar-
ification and provision of right-of-way for U. S . Highway
34 . This was a comment of Jim' s , and then my comments ,
"the Utility Coordinating Board did approve final plat with
the stipulation that the word "designated" be used on the
plat rather than the word "dedicated" . Mr . Lyle Anderson
of the State Highway Commission was present at the meeting
and voted in favor of this action . Items number 5 , a , b ,
c , d , a.nd e , and f all related to this right-of-way and
are legal questions rather than relative to any hearing or
planning . Perhaps the Commission is not aware that this
property is income producing property and has a home and
•
buildings on this parcel being discussed . We under - - -
well the letter , we received the letter from the Highway
Department . On location of the one foot reservation along
the Highway 34 right-of-way as shown on the plat as being
along the south edge of the present U . S . Highway 34 right-
-3-
•
- of-way rather than north edge of the northern most lot as
suggested by Mr. Ohi ' s comments . We feel this is the pro-
per and logical location for it as shown by the plat as it
more logically represents the present condition . While
both the owner and the State Highway Department understand
the County' s concern , it would appear more reasonable that
the control strip could be reestablished at some future
time when ownership of the area be set aside for possible
right-of-way actually changed hands . Looks like there ' s a
preposition or something - - - - . As an alternate to what
has been shown on the plat , this right-of-way in question
' could be eliminated completely from the plat and thereby
eliminate the problems which seem to have arisen relative
to the suggestion that this . be required to be dedicated
for public use . All I have suggested at the end is that ,
"perhaps we just don ' t even show this " . But the property
in question does have a house and some buildings on it ,
in -this 200 foot strip , and it ' s presently being rented
and people are living in the house.
Mr% Shupe : Just to refresh your memory , this
is the 150 feet here and that ' s an existing house which is
occupied right at the moment. This is the proposed reser-
vation limitations here and the house sits right there , so
it ' s within that 150 feet.
Mr. Olhausen : So , that doesn ' t explain it in
much detail but - - - .
Mr. Anderson : Do the Highway Department repre-
sentatives then wish to make some comments ?
Mr. Chotvacs : Well in regards to the dedication ,
which Mr. Capron , the District Engineer , I ' m representing
the BureaL as Assistant District Engineer , he still feels
•
that we would request that the 150 feet be dedicated for
Highway improvement . However , we would be amenable to any
proposal which the Indianhead Subdivision may wish to bring
forth . But we do feel that each development creates a cer-
tain number of problems , in fact it increases to the high-
way a certain amount of traffic and ultimately to the dev-
eloper which didn ' t show at the time . People come in and
first thing they want - - - because they can ' t get across
. We feel that there is some consideration needs _
to be given to the highway use. And the dedication is not
without previous precedence and the district , or Weld
County. Inaudible. However , as I mentioned , - - - - take
into consideration any proposal that they may have .
Mr. Anderson : 0 . K. , thank you . Any one on
- - this
Mr. Shupe_: Do you gentlemen have any comment
- about this one foot reservation strip? I recognize that
it ' s not a , not necessarily a requirement of the State ,
but does it bother you to have to have it one place or
the other in particular?
Mr. Chotvacs : We do not particularly have any
question as , or bother us particularly where it is at , the
location of it . However, we do feel that U . S. 34 is a
major thoroughfare and the , by some means , access should
be controlled .
Mr. Shupe : Yes .
Mr. Graham : I see no reason why the street - -
couldn ' t be substituted with an access detour.
Inaudible .
5-
Mr. Shupe : Whether it could or should be locat-
ed adjacent to the highway now and moved later when and if
you ever acquired the right-of-way , this wouldn ' t pose a
problem to you , that ' s , I guess , my question .
Mr. Olhausen : Just to be clear of what you said ,
Al , you ' re requesting that the land yet be dedicated but
your saying , "that ' s the desirable thing" , but you aren ' t
requiring it or anything , is that?
Mr. Chotvacs : I guess in a way , that ' s what
we ' re saying. However , we feel that there ' s precendent
that , when , tempered this that we are asking for consider-
able right-of-way in 150 feet .
Mr. Olhausen : How about from the income prod-
ucing house and so on , is that relative?
Mr. Chotvacs : The income producing house creates
. nothing but a problem for us , especially if it comes to
the wire highway , administration rules , we do now
have to provide at least to buy for the relocation of who-
ever is in that house , and this can get to where you ' re
providing , you have to provide a decent , safe and sanitary
replacement housing for these people and if this housing
is more expensive , then we have to provide them what they' re
presently using , that means we ' ve got for four years to pro-
vide supplements .
Mr. Olhausen : But at the Utility Board meeting
Lyle voted in favor of what the Utility Board did and I ' m
assuming that ' s the action of the , I mean that ' s satis-
factory as he approved it at the Utility Board was it not?
In other words the way they adjusted the wording of it?
-6-
•
Mr . Chotvacs : I can ' t quite say that the Dist-
rict would have quite come along with that , I think maybe
Andy went out on his own in so doing the changing the
word from "dedication " to the word to be used "designa-
tion " . However , under the circumstances , possibly we
could go ahead and get that resolved . If development was
there , maybe "designated " but we get that off the ground .
However , Mr. Capron still feels that there should be some
dedication from the property there .
Mr. Watson : Well , may I ask Dale a question?
In your letter, I understood what you said , but I do
gather from the development today , they have no inten-
tions of dedicating any property to the State right now ,
is that correct?
Mr. Olhausen : That ' s . correct , it ' s my under-
standing .
Mr. Chotvacs : Well , it ' s
Mr. Stobbe : Well , it ' s just a point of verifi -
cation , it ' s not that we would not have appreciated doing
just that , but as you can appreciate with the development
as it has now come about with many of these lots going as
high as an acre and a half , there is no way in the world
that we can afford to give anybody anything . I mean this
was brought about by your Planning department and we didn ' t
want it this way , as a matter of fact , we showed several
plans which provided for recreational areas , we provided
several plans for schools , we provided for many things
that are not on the plat under review currently , and the
reason they ' re not there is because of what we had to come
up with to satisfy the Planning department . So , the answer
-7-
•
is , we can ' t afford to do it , it ' s not a question of de-
sire at this point , it ' s a question of economic fact .
Mr. Hammond : I think it should be added that
the willingness of the company to designate on the plat an
area means that they have no intention of trying to plat
this area as to develop the lots so that if and when the
Highway Department does enter into the acquisition of the
land they are not buying it has highly developed commercial
frontage , they ' re buying it as the property exists . It was
my understanding at the meeting of the Utility Board that
' this was the primary concern of the Highway Department in
making a request is that they wanted to in some way guaran-
tee themselves that when and if they go out to acquire this
property they ' re not going out and acquiring highly expen-
sive developed commercial property and the indication of
the company is , "well , they certainly would agree to a des-
ignation on the plat that this was going to be set aside
and not platted into lots so that if and when the depart-
ment ' s desires to acquire the property , they' d be talking
about a value that would be far different than if it were
platted into lots " and I think this indicates the good faith
of the company . There is a house that ' s rented on the prop-
erty , there are barns that are on the property , it is , uh ,
presently , uh , for rental , and the point is , is that the
company would undoubtedly sell that house to someone for
good value if the development were to proceed or if they
just own the property , they might well be going to do that
but the point , I think this is skipping everybody is that ,
the company is not trying to increase the value of that
property by development that they do and the plat that they
are asking be approved . They ' re indicating they will des -
- ignate this for future acquisition , which will surely limit
-8-
• •
- the value and affect the value . They ' re not asking to go
in and ask the approval of the Planning Commission to ap-
prove a plat which in turn is going to result in the County
having to pay , or the State having to pay very high prices
for commercial developed frontage , and that ' s not what' s
being asked at all .
Mr. Anderson : Alright , then Dale do you want
to proceed with the rest of them?
Mr. Ohi : May I say something? On this Highway
matter here , I have the minutes of the Utility Board meet-
ing at which this matter was discussed , and the matter of
the Highway dedication , I ' ll read from the minutes . "Mr.
Ewing stated that he would like to have this point clari -
fied as to the Highway dedication or not . Mr. Olhausen
stated the plat will read "reserved for" . Mr. Hammond ask-
ed what would happen if this property is reserved and the
• Highway Department decided not to use the property by going
farther north? Mr. Ewing stated that the Highway Depart-
ment has provisions for abandoning right-of-way. A motion
by Mr. Farmer to approve the utility plat subject to the
clarification of the dedication of the right-of-way, second-
ed by Mr. Fagan . A unanimous vote of "Aye" . Motion carried.
So the motion as presented by the Utility Board was that the
plat be approved subject to the clarification of the "dedi -
cation" , not subject to "designation" , not subject to a
change of "designation" .
Mr. Hammond : Your minutes are wrong . And I can
get witnesses to prove that .
Mr. Ohi : Well , we have the tapes , we can listen .
Mr. Hammond : I think we probably should at some
-9-
•
future time because that ' s rot the correct , part of what
you say is correct , but there was other remarks made after
that and the specific point was made that the word "dedi -
cated" be changed to "designated " . And that won ' t reflect
on your tape .
Mr. Anderson : Well , I ' m sure that ' s on the tape .
Maybe we can clarify it .
Mr. Ohi : 0 . K.
Mr. Anderson : O . K. , Dale , do you want to pro-
,
ceed then?
Mr. Dlhausen : Do you want to wait for John?
Mr. Anderson : Did we lose one?
Mr. Olhausen : I ' ll start out here . This is to
the Planning Commission , addressed the Planning Commission .
Gentlemen : At the regular scheduled meeting of the , of
August 27 , 1972 , we received a copy of the Planning Commis-
sion comments regarding the final plat of Indianhead Sub-
division . As directed by the Planning Commission at that
meeting: we met with Mr. Byron Ewing , County Engineer and
Mr. Jim Ohi , of the Planning staff on August 24 , 1972 . It
was our understanding that we were to meet with Mr. Ohi and
Mr. Ewing to clarify any questions and to work out wherever
possible any points of discrepancy which were noted on the
list prepared and presented at the hearing by Mr. Jim Ohi .
It was also my understanding that our meeting would perhaps
eliminate many of the items for consideration by the Commis-
sion . However , Mr . Ohi , at the meeting on August 24 , stat-
ed that he yet wanted to point out or list each one of the
items of his list of comments , although he may or may. not
•
- feel that there are any problems relative to the items . /
Each of the items of Mr . Ohi ' s list are shown below. Com-
ments as we have since discussed at the meeting of August
24 are given for each item . Item No . 1 . All items re-
quired for final plat submission have been provided . Com-
ment : Self-explanatory . No comment necessary. Item No .
2 . Water contract with Little Thompson Valley !later Dist-
rict provided . Comment : Self-explanatory. No comment
necessary. Item No . 3 . Sewage plan approved by Weld
County Health Department . It ' s again self-explanatory.
•
Item No . 4 . Subdivision Improvements Agreement and cert-
ified financial statement have been provided . Again self-
explanatory. Item No . 4a . The excavation costs for re-
tention ponds , water and sewer mains should be included
in improvement agreement . Comment : Excavation costs
were included in the improvement agreement as submitted .
The item noted here was due to a question by the County
Engineer as to whether the amounts shown were adequate .
The costs shown on the Improvements Agreement were devel -
oped from bid tabulations from recent jobs of similar nat-
ure in the general area and are felt to be representative
of actual anticipated costs . Item 5 , we ' ve covered ,.
that ' s the Highway. Item No . 6 . The following lots are
substandard and do not meet the minimum lot width require-
ment as specified in the Weld County Zoning Regulations .
We list the lots , Block 1 , Lot 16 and so on . Comment :
The lots noted are those located along the curved portion
of the street where the lot narrows down at the front por-
tion , similar to a cul -de-sac lot , although cul -de-sac lots
have not been included in this list . The lots indicated
were discussed in great detail with the Planning Director
and Mr. Ohi on July 27 , 1972 . At that time , it was stated
by Mr. Lorenson that the 180 ' width requirement in the
- zoning ordinance was not intended to apply to subdivision
where curvilineal streets and cul -de-sacs are used , such
as the one under consideration . The results of our July
27 meeting and our discussions at that time was that we
were to show on the plat a setback line for each of these
lots in question indicating the point at which the minimur
lot width was reached . This line is the minimum setback
line unless an individual lot owner would choose to re-
quest a variance . These lines have been added to the plat
as submitted to the County Planning office on August 8,
1972. These lots are basically the same as were shown on
the previous approved preliminary plat and to materially
change the lot layout at this time would have negated that
approval of the preliminary plat. This question of appli -
cation of the 180 feet width requirement in the zoning
ordinance has been duly recognized in the preparation of
the new Weld County Subdivision regulations , a copy of the
draft of which was sent to our office. _ It indicates in
Section 8-5C (5) that reduced frontages are to be consid-
ered acceptable within a stipulated limit where lots are
shaped to conform to curved streets . Do you want to ad-
dress that point since it ' s -
Mr. Anderson : Yeah , I think we should . Does
the staff have any comments to make on that?
Mr. Olhausen : Are you following what we ' re talk-
ing about here on this one? It ' s the curved streets where
we have the pie shaped lots and zoning requirements on this
are 180 foot minimum frontage.
Mr. Hammond : If you have a map , Dale , why don ' t
you show them .
Mr. Olhausen : Well , we have a , so we have these
-12-
•
type of lots ;;here we have to get a farther set-back to
reach a 180 foot width on here .
Mr . Where ( inaudible )
Mr . Shupe : There are no case less than 40 ,000
square feet and some of them are considerably larger , I
don ' t know whether we got that covered up or not. Block
6 , Lot 4 for instance , is 51 ,600. It ' s quite a bit more
than the 40 ,000 minimum.
Mr. Olhausen : But these are the lots here?
,
Mr. Shupe : These ones that are colored are the
ones that were questioned on the letters .
Mr. Olhausen : Now , the same thing does occur on
a cul -de-sac line .
Mr. Shupe : Yes , I mentioned . We did
put the set-back on as Burman and Jim discussed at our
meeting the 27th .
Inaudible .
Mr. Lorenson : Well , we did recognize on cul -de-
sac lots , that on those cul -de-sac lots , the frontage re-
. quired by the normal zone district is never accomplished .
And 'since these in a sense are curvilinear streets , we
were suggesting a way to get around the stiff language of
the regulation and the suggestion was that you accomplish
your right-of-way , or not the right-of-way , your set ,
• length of lot and the set-back line we felt would probably
be sufficient . That was the reason it was suggested , and
by the way , Jim didn ' t make the comment on it , I did , and
it was my recommendation .
-13-
• Mr . Shupe : I believe that ' s correct and I think
that ' s what the letter said .
Mr . Lorenson : However , if you do take a literal
view of the regulations , it makes no such provision and
this was an attempt to compromise .
Mr. Shupe : The reference to the new regulations
I believe , says , if I remember correctly , that you can go
down to 40 feet if it ' s a pie shaped lot . There are none
of these that are - - - - .
' Mr. Ohi : Cul -de-sacs .
Mr . Shupe : I beg your pardon? .
Mr. Ohi : Cul -de-sac .
Mr. Shupe : I don ' t think it says specifically
cul -de-sac , but regardless it , none of these are any where
' near that , and the length is shown . For instance , this
one is 151 feet roughly at the front and at this point
where you see the break in the color , it is in fact 180
feet beyond that point . It ' s at least 180 feet there and
at the back it ' s 21.0 on that particular lot for instance .
Mr. Anderson : O . K. , any further comments or
questions ?
Mr . Olhausen : The next item is basically the
same item , Item number 7 . The substandard lots would re-
quire excessive front yard setback to meet the minimum lot
• width requirement . Note especially the following : Block
1 , Lot 16 , Block 3 , Lots 5 , 6 , 10 and 11 . Block 5 , Lot 2 .
Block 6 , Lots 3 , 4 , and 5 . I guess they ' re the same numbers .
Mr. Shupe : Yeah , except for that one .
_, A
,
s
.
j Mr. O7 hausen :
--�_ Comment : This list does not
again include cul -de-sacs
which would be more critical
j in this respect since
the radius is much less than on the
j curves of the streets where
the lots are being discussed.
Although in some cases
more than 50 foot setback is re-
quired to obtain the
minimum width requirement ; this
i in no real
way renders an is
y of the lots unbuildable or
i
necessarily undesirable .
The average lot size
' insubdivision is such that even this
the set-backs deemed "ex-
essive" by the Planning staff still leave from
200 foot depth be 100 to
Yond the set-back line shown . Lots of
this size are not subject to the same problems of use as
normal city lots , for which the conce
originall pt of set-backs were
y developed. Although many potential purchasers
of these sites may not. want to
build a house on the rear
portion of a lot , it is also true that there are prefer to do just this many who, and in fact there are many exist-
in9 throughout the County. We feel
that this is an item
that primarily concerns the developer and certainly does
not necessarily make this lot of less value. Each of
these lots has been reviewed
and it has been determined
that there is an adequate buildin
dwe7lin s 9 site area for typical
9 for each lot shown on the plat .
M r. ___.__ o n
I take it from the comments , you
are requesting a variance on those lots you mentioned
rather than attempting to put the set-back too far.
. Mr. Shup
-- _._e
• The set-back is - - _
Mr. 0� Jh�sen : These
these lots are all the
same ones we ' ve been talking about . They do have
back , I ' m just ans�•ierin a set-
g the item that was brought up under
- the previous list , su it ' s the same group of lots we ' re
i
_lc
talking about basically , and all we did was discuss it ,
the point of excessive front set-back which was pointed
out originally.
Mr . Shupe : Well , there are 3 on the list on
the first comment that are not referred to in the second
comment . It ' s this one , which requires a set-back of
like 53 feet and this one and this one which reach the
180 feet before you get to the , or I mean which reach the
180 foot width before you get to the 50 foot set-back.
They are slightly less than 150 feet right on the road-
A way but by the time you get 50 feet back , they are in ex-
cess of 180 feet. So I didn ' t even , these two I didn ' t
even bother coloring in , because they do not , to us , ap-
pear to be , even need the set-back line comment , but the
others do .
Mr. Anderson : 0 . K. , we ' ll have the - - -
Mr. Olhausen : Item No . 8 . Note the buildable
area of Lot 21 , Block 3 . Our comment : The buildable area
of tot' 21 , Block 3 is approximately 7000 square feet or
the equivalent of the entire area of a typical city lot.
Topographically , it lies within the portion of the lot
best suited for building , and therefore appears to us to
be very acceptable and to present no real problems . In
other words , I guess you ' ve got it crosshatched here ,
you ' ve got about 7000 square foot area in there that you
could build on which is sizeable to put a house on . All
we ' re doing is showing that you can get a , get a home site
and a good sized one here without squeezing. I think this
measures about , I forget - - -
Mr . Shupe : It ' s 40 feet at this end and about
90 feet to the existing
_lc_
Mr . Olhausen : Item No . 9 . Lot 1 , Block 7 is a
throughlot and is prohibited by the Subdivision Resolu-
tion . A variance has been requrested for this lot by the
subdivider. Our comment : This lot , in our opinion , seems
to fit the definition of a corner lot better than that of
a throughlot . We do not consider this a throughlot . This
was discussed in prior meetings with the Planning staff,
and in accordance with their wishes , we have requested a
variance in such terms , so as to request the Planning Com-
mission to decide whether such a variance is indeed nec-
essary. Since this lot is more than 25% in excess of the
size required , no problem is incurred in determining a
buildable site on the lot . And I say , this question may
be resolved by locating a one foot reserve strip along
one of the streets , if deemed necessary. And that ' s this
oddball . And it was on the original plat. I don ' t , it
could be , you know , it ' s open for discussion that' s for
• sure , but we consider it as much a corner lot as anything
else . These lines are , I forget what on the parallel , but
(inaudible - Mr. Shupe ) almost 30 degrees . The only other
thought is if it is a real question , if necessary , we
could reserve this site so you couldn ' t have access off of
it , if that would resolve the problem. It ' s an alternate
solution to it , so , we don ' t believe that it requests or
requires a variance but we have requested one if necessary
and like you say , the other thought is may the , just put
a one foot reserved strip here to be sure that you can ' t
have access on two streets - - - - .
•
Mr . Shupe : This heavy line would indicate the
limits of a 50 foot setback on either side .
Mr. 0lhausen : That ' s a pretty large lot .
-17-
•
Mr. Shupe : Yes , this is a 125 feet here and it ' s
still 25 feet clear up at the radius point . The lot itself
is over 50 ,000 square feet inside .
Mr. Anderson : O . K .
Mr . Olhausen : Lot number 9 , or Item No . 9 .
Lot 1 , Block 7 is a throughlot and it ' s , oh I just read
this one . Sounds familiar , it was before I started read-
ing . Item No . 10 . A variance for inadequate lot width
for Lot 9 , Block 6 has been requested by the subdivider.
However , lot width requirements are stipulated in the
Zoning Resolution and any variance in the requirement is
under the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. Com-
ment : The variance requested on Lot 9 , Block 6 is not for
inadequacy as stated but rather has to do with the rather
odd shape of the lot itself. It the ends of the set-back
line are connected , the lot at that point is 180 feet
•wide , but the width is not specifically parallel to either
Hopi Trail or Apache Road . Once again , if, in the opinion
of the Planning Commission , a variance is required. by, this
situation , a formal request has been filed . This lot and
Lot 1 , of Item number 9 were not changed from that shown
on the preliminary plat .
Mr. Shupe : The situation is simply this . It is
180 feet wide if you connect the ends of the set-back line ,
you find a width of 180 feet which is approximately normal
to the major access of the lot but it is not specifically
parallel to streets . It is a somewhat unusual lot in that
regard , it ' s not so much a typical corner lot as would
normally be the case . For instance , up here where a lot
might be narrower this way but wide this way on a normal
corner this is an unusual corner , the lot width can be
-18-
gip
•
•
achieved at that point , but if you feel it ' s necessary ,
we have applied for a variance if , in your opinion , it is
necessary .
Mr . Anderson : 0 . K. Does the staff have any
comments on those last two items ?
Mr . Lorenson : Jim did the review , do you have- -
Mr. Ohi : No , I have no further comment .
Mr. Lorenson : I have no objections , I really ,
Jim and I had a discussion on Lot number 1 in Block 7 . I
' really think it poses no real problem and that putting a ,
my own opinion , putting a one foot strip does nothing , one
way or the other , it really doesn ' t matter. On Lot 9 , it ' s
a strange animal and , I don ' t know , I should , I think I
should address myself specifically to that question , but
there ' s something else that is occurring and a part of the
occurrence of the entire question is that we suggested in
the very beginning that there could be a system by where
they could cut out a great deal of road and they , it was
in return suggested that they comply with the Subdivision
Regulations . So when we reviewed the plat , we took out
the same Subdivision Regulations that they alluded to in
saving the roads etc . , and made us without consideration
of these other items by their exact plan , in a sense. And
so when we graded these things , we did grade them with the
same thing in light is that there wasn ' t really a question
of what was extremely the best and most intelligent thing ,
• or the most reasonable thing , but that now that we had to
take that exact design or nearly exact design and use it ,
that we should judge their design by that same exact cri -
teria , and that ' s what we did . And on Lots 1 and 9 , I
-19-
•
- really , from a personal point of view , have no objection
to that lot , either one of those lots being used as a -
- - extremely unusual problem , but we were reading the
letter of the Subdivision, Regulations .
Mr. Anderson : 0 . K . Then let' s go on to the
next one thee , Dale .
Mr. Olhausen : Item No . 11 . Easement for the
Greeley-Loveland Ditch Company has been removed south of
Hopi Trail on the amended final plat . Our comment : This
ommission was an inadvertent oversight and has now been
corrected and shown on the final plat. Item No . 12 . Weld
County School District Re-5J has requested provision of
five contiguous acres for a future school site to accomo-
date the anticipated load of school -age children who will
be living in the subdivision and to enable the district
to maintain it' s neighborhood school concept. Our comment:
Tifis request appears to be long after the fact . The pre-
liminary plat was submitted to the School Board in Decem-
ber of 471 . Mr. Lorenson , at the time of the preliminary
plat review , did indicate concern on the part of the school .
but no request for a school site was made . We contacted
bath the Superintendents of R2-J and R5-J Districts prior
to the preliminary plat submittal . It was indicated at
that time that the, area would be served by the Thompson
School District R2-J . It was noted on our preliminary plat
-dated November 8 , 1971 , and no other indications other than
that was noted until now , which is nine months later. It
might also' be pertinent that the original plat which was
• submitted to the County did include a school site and it
was discussed at one of the Planning Commission ' s hearings
that the site was not necessary and therefore could be el -
iminated . The request does not appear to be valid at this
•
•
time because of the late date of this request and the fact
that these school districts were made aware of the subdiv-
ision under consideration , and because the preliminary
plat has been approved . There are no other available ,
there are no other available sites in the area , where
there are a lot of land around , it isn ' t like it is the
last section in the County.
Mr . Lorenson : That ' s an outside agency ' s com-
ment about the school district and I ' ll let them tell you
for themselves .
Mr. Anderson : 0. K. , let ' s go to the next one .• Mr. Olhausen : Item No . 13 . Letter of approval
from Farmer ' s Ditch Company that hasn ' t been provided .
Our comment : Meetings were held with the Ditch Company
and verbal agreements or understandings were reached by
- both parties as to the requirements by the Farmer' s Ditch
Company. A letter was provided by the Ditch Company and
has been submitted previously to the County. This item
was discussed a,.t the previous Planning Commission meeting
and all requirements relative to this item were satisfied
at that time , according to the expressed comments of the
Planning Director. Subsequently , the owner has met again
with the Ditch Company and has requested a letter from that
body indicative of the mutual cooperation expressed at
• their meeting . And we have had a meeting and you might
comment or - - -
•
Mr. Shupe : I met with them last Friday and they
expressed no real concern but that a mutual agreement could
not be reached . They said they wanted something to reach
an agreement on , basically , and we had planned to meet on
-21 -
•
• Thursday afternoon , excuse me , Thursday afternoon we had
planned then to meet out on the site Friday afternoon and
discuss the specific details regarding the height of the
ditch bank on the downhill side specifically , then it rain-
ed and they were afraid that if we got in there , we
wouldn ' t never get back out , which I think is probably
true . So , we have rescheduled that meeting for tomorrow.
The letter I would imagine indicates that the error , the
mutual cooperation which wasn ' t - - - - I think there ' s
no problem at all , about reaching an agreement with them.
' Mr . Anderson : 0 . K. I might read this letter
that , they ' ve written here , dated September 5th , 1972 .
Weld County Commissioners , . Greeley , Colorado . Re : Far-
mers Ditch- Indianhead Subdivision correspondence of Jan-
uary 18 , 1972 and August 24 , 1972 : Gentlemen : The Board
of Directors of Farmers Irrigating Ditch and Reservoir
Campany have had an opportunity to review those matters
discussed in the above mentioned letters with represent-
atives of Indianhead Subdivision on Thursday , August 13 ,
• 1972 . Please be informed that the representatives of
Indianhead Subdivision have agreed to cooperate with the
ditch company toward a satisfactory solution to proposed
ditch relocation and other matters discussed in more de-
tail by the above mentioned , prior pieces of correspond-
ence . An additional meeting has been set at the location
of the proposed subdivision for the purpose of further con-
sideration of those matters , at which time we expect mat-
•
ters to be resolved . Very truly yours , DeGood , Burton and
Phipps , by F . Ray DeGood .
Mr. Shupe : In fact , that will be determined on
the site . They were sort of up in the air about it , quite
•
-22-
W •
- frankly , They said that if , if something satisfactory
was worked out on the uphill side to where they would not
be liable for the maintenance of the uphill side , then
probably 30 fees was enough if , if that wasn ' t resolvable
to their satisfaction , then they would probably require
50 feet and we have no objections , really , to either sol -
ution , but we do plan to make that resolution tomorrow
afternoon , Jim.
Mr. Ohi : Are you going to show that on the
plat if they increase it?
Mr. Shupe : I beg your pardon?
Mr. Ohi : Are you going to show that on the
plat if they increase the easement?
Mr. Shupe : This would have to be done , wouldn ' t
it? Well , it wouldn ' t have to be done , it could be done
by deeds , but the easy way would be to put it on the plat.
Mr. Stobbe : In that regards , we would give them
a contract or some agreement mutually and all these points ,
whether the easement would be 50 feet or 30 feet , or you
know cementing the ditch form , if we move any part of it ,
that type of thing , we' re willing to do all that , and they
didn ' t appear to us , at least , to have any question as to
our interest in doing it or any response with reference to
not having it being done . They said that you do a good
job , fine .
Mr . Anderson : Well , 0. K. Let ' s move on then .
Mr . Olhausen : Well , Item No . 14 . Reluctant ap-
' proval has been given by the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Comp-
any of the plat . Comment : Meetings were held with
-23-
• •
'representatives of the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Company. A
letter was received from the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Comp-
any. Their requests have been taken into consideration
and are substantiated by submittals to the County. We know
of no problems relative to the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Com-
pany or the Farmer ' s Ditch Company. Further , the term" re-
luctant" appears to us to be rather subjective and not par-
ticularly supporable on the basis of submittals made to the
County of which we are aware .
Mr. Hammond : I might supplement the comment. I
talked to Sill Southard and I realize this is heresay in
talking to you gentlemen , but I asked Bill with regard to
this particular point , if there was a problem because of the
use of the word "reluctant" , cause I had not fully read the
letter and he frankly wondered why I was calling him. He
said , "I thought that was all straighened out in the letter" ,
. he Laid , " I may have said something at the end of it , is we
hope this will work out " , and he said , " I hope that on any
project that things will work out" , but he said , I said ,
"Weil , is there any necessity as far as the ditch company is
concerned to make any more of a definite statement?" He
said , "Not as far as I 'm concerned , he said , "We assume that
we ' ll get things resolved contractually" , but he said , " I
see no real problems . " And I called him to clarify in my
own mind , if there was some reason for the use of this word
"reluctant" and as I said , he was kinda confuted as to why
I was calling him.
• Mr. Ohi : Well , let me read the letter then we
received from the
• Mr. Hammond : Well , I think the letter has already
• •
-been read and I think the only comment I had was that he
indicated to me the phone , he said , " If I said something
at the last to indicate , I hope everything works out" , he
said , "That should not be accented as I had any more concern
about this than I do any project" .
Mr . Ohi : Do you care to hear the letter again?
Mr . Anderson : Yeah , let ' s hear it over again .
Mr . Ohl : This is from Southard and Southard.
Gentlemen : The Greeley-Loveland Irrigation Company have
asked that we communicate to you , relative to the proposed
subdivision plan , the fact that the objections listed in
the January 3 , 1972 letter to you have apparently all been
satisfied covering the run-off and the various closing ad-
jacent to the canal of Greeley-Loveland . Although the Gre-
eley- Loveland Irrigation Company has reservations concern-
ing the feasibility of the planned disposal of surface run-
_
off being diverted other than into the Greeley-Loveland
Canal , if the plan works as indicated in the plat and the
construction is of the standard indicated , the Company
would no longer have any objections to the acceptance of
the plat . This is the third paragraph. As mentioned in
the January 3 , 1972 letter , the safety problem and possible
fencing problem along the canal do pose a problem to which
the Company feels there is no alternative except to "live
with it" . Yours very truly , by Wm. H . Southard . I think
it ' s substantial reservations expressed in the letter.
• Mr. Anderson : O. K .
Inaudible .
Mr . Olhausen : Item No . 15 . The following items
pertain to drainage : Lots 20 and 21 of Block 3 are designed
-25-
•
•
- to contain a drainage retention pond and should be elimin-
ated as building sites . Our comment : Both lots referred
to have very acceptable building sues and neither the nat-
ure nor the function of the storm drainage retention area
appears to present any significant detriment to these lots
as building sites , particularly as related to storm drainage .
Mr. Ohi : Hey , Dale?
Mr. Olhausen : Yes?
Mr. Ohi : I think the , we resolved that at the
meeting to the satisfaction of Byron and myself and I think
we ' ll skip those . Number 15 .
Mr. Shupe : All of. Item 15?
Mr. Ohi : Yeah .
Mr. Olhausen : Fine .
Mr. Ohi : There are other people here who want
to talk .
Mr. Olhausen : All drainage and so on and - - -
•
Inaudible .
Mr. Olhausen : Item 16 . Screening of sewage
treatment pond and facilities should be provided. Our
comment : This point has been discussed in some detail
with the Planning Commission prior to this item , and it is
the concensus of all parties that such screening is neces-
sary and most logically should and will be shown on the de-
tailed plans for the treatment facility which , prior to
construction will be submitted for the approval of both the
County and State Health Departments .
-26-
• ! •
Mr. Shupe : It will be along this line here
essentially .
Mr . Olhaasen : We agreed that it should be screen-
ed and we intend to and normally would be shown on the plat .
Mr. Watson : Why wouldn ' t you screen your neighbors
to the south?
Mr. Shupe : I beg your pardon?
Mr. Watson : Why wouldn ' t you screen your neigh-
bors to the south and east?
Mr. Shupe : I don ' t know that you necessarily
wouldn ' t .
Mr. Watson : That ' s why I asked the question .
Mr. Shupe : Inaudible .
• Mr. Watson : Inaudible any more than ,
Mr. Shupe : Well , the point is , that it is not
normally shown on the plat. That ' s all we ' re saying , and
it would and should be shown on the detailed plans of the
engineering for the treatment facility which is to be sub
mitted. to both the County and the State Health Departments .
Mr. Anderson : Well , 0 . K.
Inaudible .
Mr . Olhausen : Item No . 17 . The Federal Housing
Administration has declined to participate in the financing
of the subdivision because , in the opinion of the agency ,
the subdivision is " rural , remote and premature" . Our com-
ment : This item was thoroughly discussed and commented on
by the owner at a prior meeting and no further considera-
tion appears necessary . As you can see from the above
comments , many of the above items were discussed and gen-
erally agreed on prior to the last Planning Commissing meet-
ing , or have been submitted and due to either oversight or
insufficient time by the Planning staff, have been over-
looked as already being submitted . Also complete engineer-
ing submittals were provided and none of the above items
necessitate any additional engineering which were not pre-
viously considered and submitted . We believe that we have
tried to work in a conscientious manner with the Planning
staff to incorporate their wishes wherever possible . The
modifications in the final plat from the preliminary plat
were very minor in nature and primarily to satisfy Planning
staff' s requests . Some of the above items were very gen-
eral in nature and not directly related to requirements of
the regulations or the policy of the County. However , we
' have considered each item carefully and believe that we
have tried to meet the intent of the Planning staff' s re-
quests . There are some areas of the regulations which can-
not be met to the letter or which do not apply in all cases .
We realize that this is not unusual and that the intent of
the regulations should be reasonably met . We believe that
we have done this relative to all of the items mentioned
above . We request that the final plat be approved subject
to any items considered incomplete or not sufficiently ans -
wered . Respectfully submitted , Ourselves .
Mr. Anderson : 0 . K. Well , gentlemen , thank you,
and - - - -
Miss Telep : Inaudible - I have - inaudible -
Mr. Shade , inaudible - May I ?
9n
•
Air . Anderson : Yes , go ahead .
Miss Telep : O . K. He says , Mr . Shade is City
Attorney for Greeley and he has a City Council meeting and
a few other things and he had to go . He said - inaudible -
He represents Ray Amen who is located , I believe , south of
this property . And he says that Mr . Amen objects - - - -
Mr . Hammond : I think that ' s Ray Amen .
Miss Telep : Ray Amen , yeah , I can ' t read this
writing . O. K. Mr. Ray Amen and he says he has a cattle
' feeding operation on 18 acres one-half mile south of the
tract and he is fearful that the residential. development
will result in complaints being made against - - - - .
Tape changed .
Mr. Shupe : on Thursday , He is roughly
half a mile south of this property , is that not correct?
And his concern about the treated effluent from the sewage
plant , in our opinion , have already been met , in that the
pond has capacity to store the effluent for the entire five
month period in winter, so that there really is no way for ,
for effluent to get down a half a mile away in his lake ,
and
ATr. Stobbe : Just let me add to this , obviously
being south of the property and it' s the natural water flow ,
he expressed interest in the project and concern of the
waters of the ditch company and obviously at that point he
represented a ditch company , and he expressed the same con-
cern . Each of the problems that he expressed , we tried to
resolve on an engineering standpoint as to , did this satisfy
or didn ' t this satisfy , and would it adequately protect him?
•
- Our engineers say that it does more than adequately protect
him and so while we understand his concern , we are trying
to , in like fashion , exercise a lot of caution . So , Mr.
Shupe here has assured me that his design plan was adequate
to take care of any problems of this prerogative and I
hoped you knew that .
Mr . Shupe : These problems are in line and will
be , as we stipulated in our design , criteria and we feel
that there just can ' t be any way . Should there be any pos-
sibility of seepage , which I think is highly unlikely , with
the line from a half a mile , is sufficient to care for him ,
even if we were to permit raw seepage were seeping into
the ground as from a septic system. These treated effluents
are a far cry from that and the most recent studies indicate
even that the viril matters , which for a number of years
have been a concern on the part of Health Department offic-
ials , even they are considerably more degradeable , both
- biologically and simply timewise in soil than had been pre-
. vious1y thought . We ' ve had some pretty recent studies on
this , that is within the last three to four months and they
tend to indicate that even some of our least serious con-
cerns about septic systems such as the viril matters , are
• even of less concern than we thought. So we have addressed
ourselves specifically to Mr. Amen on this point and I ex-
pect him to be at the meeting tomorrow and I expect to talk
with' him some more about it .
For. Anderson : Alright , then I think we will take
this matter under advisement . Is other people here who want
to speak in favor or against this subdivision?
Mrs . That was our first home , the subdi -
vision .
-30-
• • _
Mr. Hammond : I might indicate also that we ' d
be happy to leave with the Planning Commission what form
is here if you . study this at a further session , if this
would be of any benefit .
Mr. Watson : Do these people have any comments
to make about this ?
Mr. No , everything is pretty much - -
- - We own land on three sides .
Mr. Anderson : Would you state your name please?
Mr. Carl Amen .
Mr . Ohi : . 1 might read one more letter we receiv-
ed today. It ' s addressed to' the Planning Commission Mem-
bers . This letter is in regard to Interladco Development
located west on , west of Greeley on Highway 34 . As an ad-
joining land owner , I feel that I must raise my objections
. at this time . I believe that this housing development as
planned , projected and located , is truly against the con-
cept of good planning. Considering the remote location of
the land , the two irrigation canals , the high pressure pet-
roleum line , the site of a porposed lagoon for sewage dis-
posal , the terrain of the land in regard to run-off , the
high water table of land below the irrigation canals (this
condition varies with the year) , this site is highly unde-
sirable . The developers have failed to give me definite
answers to future problems I know will arise when this hous-
ing development is already built . They have also assumed
this development is acceptable with the Johnstown-Milliken
( Re-5J ) school system. No one representing Interladco has
met with the school board . What about police protection
-31 -
•
for this remote area ? Won ' t Weld County be responsible?
Whose fire protection district is it in? There is much to
consider and careful planning is essential . It seems poor
planning to assume everything is acceptable without meet-
ing with these concerned parties . I strongly urge written
acceptance from all of these concerned parties before you
rule on acceptance of this site for housing . I have exper-
ienced their negligence in the care of this plot of land
this summer. I found it necessary to contact Fred Treffie-
sen , an employee of the Weed Contraol District in order to
a
get Interladco to take care of tho excessive growth of
weeds . They had someone make a pass over this ground with
a disk and didn ' t do a satisfactory job of killing the
weeds , consequently we will have weeds and their seeds
blowing all over our and other ' s farm ground this fall and
winter. Due to the negligence of Interladco to control
run-off water , the ditch bank along the side of our pumping
" system where we receive •rater out of the Greeley-Loveland
canal for irrigation , has been eroded . This run-off is due
to improper conservation practices . I hope the decision
that you make regarding this land is representative of good
planning . Sincerely , signed Howard Schwalm.
Mr. Hammond : How do you spell that last name?
Mr . Ohi : Schwalm.
Inaudible .
Mr . Anderson : Alright , gentlemen , then we' ll
take this matter under advisement and for further consid-
eration .
Hello