HomeMy WebLinkAbout720664.tiff WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Date : August 22 , 1972
Subject : Final plat of Indianhead Subdivision
Applicant : Interladco , Inc .
Planning Commission members present :
Glenn Anderson , Chairman
Donald Clark
Ronald Heitman
Elmer Rothe
John Watson
John Weigand •
Interladco :
Warren Stobbe •
Jim Wilburn
Dale Olhausen
Lynn Hammond
David Shupe
Mr. Johnson
Others :
Marshall Anderson , County Commissioner
Cynthia Telep , Attorney
Jim Ohi , Planner
Gary Eastman , Planner
Glen Paul , Sanitarian
Larry Simpson , Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District
•
720664
Mr. Anderson : Indianhzad Subdivision , Inter-
ladco , Inc . , final plat .
Mr . Olhausen : Are you ready?
Mr. Anderson : All ready .
Mr. Olhausen : I ' m Dale Olhausen , engineer for
the developer. I have the project engineer here , David
Shupe , of our office , and the attorney for the owners ,
Mr. Lynn Hammond. And Mr. Warren Stobbe and Mr. Jim Wil -
burn , are the owners for Interladco .
Mr. It all goes together.
Mr . Olhausen : Yeah , there ' s two sheets here .
I ' ll just brief you slightly and bring you up to date and
when you get into specifics , you ' ll have to get the pro-
ject engineer and if there is other questions . Water is
from the Little. Thompson Valley Water District and we have
a letter agreement with the Little Thompson for service
to the area .
Mr. Watson : Do we have that?
Mr. Olhausen : Yes , it ' s in the file . There is
an existing 8 - 6 inch line directly to this property and
there are some other requirements with it. The sewer has
been approved by the State and local Health Departments
and glen can attest to that. There ' s a proposed sewer fac-
ility in this area here and we have a report filed with
the bounty. The , there ' s two ditch companies , is everybody
familiar where this is? I ' m sorry , this is on this side of
Kelim by Highway 34 . Here ' s U . S . Highway 34 and it ' a ap-
proximately a mile and a half on this side of Kelim right
on 34 . Here ' s 34 , just like this , a County road runs along
-1 -
• • .
this side . There ' s two ditches that go through it , the
Greeley-Loveland Ditch and some of you ' ll remember, details
and such on the two ditches in the preliminary plan group
and we have received letters from and met with the ditch
companies and the owners have agreed basically to do what
the ditch companies have requested and work with them and
part of it was with respect to drainage at the time . The
drainage on the Greeley-Loveland be carried across it ex-
cept that area which directly flows into it , the streets
be carried across . We have designed a bridge construction
and so on and we have carried the flumes to cross over.
The Farmer' s Ditch is this easement shown here and there
is the retention pond down in the area of these two lots
which is shown on the drainage submittal and doesn ' t In-
dicate that there is - - - retention . The , I think that
all the requirements of the County , at least engineering
wise , there are a couple of items that came up . One par-
ticularly that came up at the Utility meeting last time .
We had originally designated or dedicated for use , a strip
along adjacent to U . S . 34 . We ' ve worked with the Highway
Department and they requested for the expaniion of the
highway here , about 200 feet , which we' ve shown and we , as
engineers , had indicated that to be dedicated and the owner
upon review , wanted it to be reserved , designated but not
dedicated. So , since this did come up at the Utility meet-
ing last Thursday , on Friday we resubmitted new ones and
that ' s the only change from what there was before and it ' s
a , it ' s a technical point. As far as , there are some other,
this , these properties are basically one acre sites , or
40 ,000 and above square footage , so they are large sites ,
they are yet served by public sewer or at least sewer lines
and a treatment facility. The , there are some other ease-
ments located hero . There ' s a gas company easement , so you
-2-
y
•
-can see that there ' s been some design around the easement .
There ' s also a mineral easement which was discussed at the
preliminary hearing and I think that ' s been •resolved , and
everybody ' s been satisfied . There are some other comments .
We met with the Planning staff and they had several com-
ments and we ' ve either requested a variance or satisfied
their questions . One of the major items I think , was on
these lots on curves . The requirement is 180 foot mini -
mum frontage and on this large a lot , why , you can see
that that' s a large frontage and particularly on a curve ,
why we simply showed a set-back as they requested . We in-
dicate where the 180 foot set-back would be , so some of
these we will have the building site located somewhat to
the rear of the lot . In all cases we' ve looked at it and
determined that there are adequate building sites avail -
able and so on and some of them are a bit unusual and you
can see some of these have split lots . Originally we had
it the other way and the Planning staff requested that we
come directly off and it does make some unusual lots as you
can see . For instance this one has .a good building site
here , even though the guys that own the property on both
sides of this easement and there are some unusual lots in
there . But basically , it ' s the same as we had on the orig-
inal preliminary plat and that we submitted to you . We
• think all changes were based , that were generated by the
Planning staff comments or something of that nature , so - -
Mr. Shupe : We did make one significant change
from the preliminary plat . It had to do with the alignment
of this road. Originally this road came down and went out
here with this cul -de-sac coming off of it . The change was
made to facilitate the sewer line coming out here and also
ta—eliminate some drainage that was coming back this way
-3-
s •
•
— and going into the ditch . That ' s the only change , as far
as alignment is concerned that was made from the prelimin-
ary plat .
Mr. Watson : What is this subject mineral reser-
vation situation?
Mr. Shupe : Well , that ' s a very junior kind of a
reservation which says that , " If we ever decide to come
back and dig up any coal , we ' re responsible for holding up
anything that ' s on the ground at that time" . It' s the
kind of a thing which , in all likelihood , would never be
exercised , but it does exist and it is therefore shown.
Mr . Weigand : this area all the way.
Mr. Shupe : I believe it does , yes . There ' s no
track on it , there never has been any track on it , it ' s
just there .
Mr. Weigand : It covers the major part of, parts
of Greeley , all the towns north of here and south of here
along the lateral . Inaudible .
Mr. Watson : on fencing? •
• Mr. Shupe : They , they do not require fencing
and they are satisfied with the 90 foot right-of-way.
They did suggest that we do some landscape type planting
• and we have not made a specific indication as to what we
would do or would not do at that point , the only thing
they suggested was that we not plant things that would
take a lot of water , seep through the ditch , we ' re - - -
Mr. Rothe : What about water running in to it?
Mr. Shupe : plater running into it? You mean ,
•
..
-4-
- drainage water?
Mr. Anderson : Drainage water?
Mr. Shupe : That ' s all been taken care of as Mr.
Olhausen indicated . The structures that we have designed
to cross the ditch at this point and at this point , also
include major size flumes on each side to carry the water
from the barrow ditches right on across the Greeley-Love-
land Canal and ultimately they wind up in this rentention
area and our conversations with the .Farmer' s Ditch have
indicated that they would continue to accept storm run-
off so long as it was at no greater rate than what normal -
ly comes off the property. This is the reason for the re-
tention area , it simply slows down the flow and leaves the
property at the same rate that it now does in it ' s undev-
eloped state .
Mr. Watson : Are you going to grade this all and
let your roads catch all the run-off? In other words
you' re going to have culverts , I assume paralleling the
bridges , is that what your saying?
Mr. Shupe : That ' s correct , yes , they ' re on the
bridges and the only thing that drains into the Greeley-
Loveland Ditch now is area below the developed roads ,
which they agreed to . Anything that would run into it
without being concentrated . - - -
Mr. Watson : In other words , all of these lots ,
the same lots that would - - - -
Mr. Shupe : Well , these lots actually drain down
so they drain into the road . The only, Jim , maybe you
have a copy of the drainage plan , if you don ' t , I do have.
-5-
•
Mr . Ohl . _ t ' s right here .
Nr . Shupe : Uncrosshatched here , basically
would drain without being concentrated , would simply over
lot into the Greeley-Loveland Canal , and that part of it
they will accept . They just didn ' t want us concentrating
it and dumping it in everywhere and so we have resolved
that by picking up the run-off in the roads and crossing
at the bridges and carrying on down to the retention area ,
and of course there is some area up here which drains the
other way which likewise is not concentrated but just sl -
owed to go into the barrow ditches . But that ' s the basic
philosophy of the drainage .
Mr . Anderson : Did you say your water source was
Little Thompson or - - -
Mr . Shupe : Yes .
Mr. Anderson : Does the Commission have any other
questions? The staff have any further questions here?
Mr. 0hi : Yes , I would like to , for the benefit
of Dave there , and others who don ' t have a copy of it, I ' d
like to read our recommendations . The Weld County Planning
Commission staff recommends that the folowing items be con-
sidered : 1 . All items required for final plat submission
have been provided . 2 . Water contract with Little Thomp-
son Valley Water District provided. 3 . Sewage plan approv-
ed by Weld County Health Department . 4. Subdivision Im-
provements Agreement and certified financial statement have
been provided. 4-a . Excavation costs for retention pond ,
water and sewer mains should be included in the improve-
ment agreement. 5 . Utilities Coordinating Board has ap-
-- proved the final plat subject to clarification of provision
-6-
- of right-of-,,gay for U . S . Highway 34 . 5-a . Right-of-way
is not dedicated or reserved but " designated " for highway
use on the amended plat . Now this is more than a minor
technical point , I reel , because the terms "reservation" ,
"dedication " are explicit in our regulations for "as des-
ignated" , we don ' t know what that means at all . 5-b . The
State Department of Highways has requested that the right-
of-way be dedicated . 5-c . Section 5 . 1 ( 3) of the Subdivi -
sion Resolution of Meld County required "a good and suf-
ficient dedication of all streets . . . as shown on the
final plat to the public " . 5-d . Section 3 . 7 of the Sub-
division Resolution requires that arrangement for transfer
of title of areas reserved for public areas be agreed up-
on prior to approval of the final plat . 5-e . Dedication
for right-of-way was provided on the final plat submitted
for staff review . The amended plat , changing the dedica-
tion to "designation" was submitted after staff review and
conference with the subdivider' s representatives and after
the deadline for submission of final plat for this hearing
date . 5-f. One foot reservation strip should be along
the north edge of northern-most lots and not along south
edge of present U . S . Highway 34 right-of-way. 6 . The
following lots are substandard and do not meet the minimum
lot width requirements as specified in the Weld County Zon-
•
ing Resolution : elk 1 , Lot 16 . Blk 3 , Lots 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 ,
12 , 20 , and 21 . Blk 5 , Lots 2 and 9 . Blk 6 , Lots 3 , 4 ,
5 ; 9 , 10 and 15 . 7 . The substandard lots would require
excessive front yard set-backs to meet the minimum lot width
requirement . Note especially the following : Blk 1 , Lot 16 ,
Blk 3 , Lots 5 , 6 , 10 and 11 . Blk 5 , Lot 2 . Blk 6 , Lots 3 ,
4 and 5 . 8. Note the buildable area of Lot 21 , Blk 3 . 9 .
Lot 1 , Blk 7 is a through lot and is prohibited by the Sub-
division Resolution . A variance has been requested for this
-7-
•
•
-lot by the subdivider . 10 . A variance for inadequate lot
width for Lot 9 , Bik 6 has been requested by the subdivid-
er . However , lot width requirements are stipulated in the
Zoning Resolution and any variance in this requirement is
under the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment . 11 .
Easements for the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Company has been
removed south of Hopi Trail on the amended plat . 12 .
Weld County School District Re-5J has requested provision
of five (5 ) contiguous acres for a future school site to
accomodate the anticipated load of school -aged children
who will be living in the subdivision and to enable the
district to maintain it ' s neighborhood school concept.
13 . Letter of approval by the Farmer ' s Ditch Company has
not been provided . 14 . Reluctant approval of the plat
has been given by the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Company. 15 .
The following items pertain to drainage : a . Lots 20 and
21 of Blk 3 are designated to contain a drainage retention
pond and should be eliminated as building sites . b. The
capacity of the proposed retention pond should be specified
in acre-feet . c . The one hour design capacity should be
increased to contain a five year storm at two inches per
hour intensity. d . The floor of proposed drainage ditches
should be sodded and the sides seeded to reduce erosion .
e . Inlet structures and outlet pans should be provided at
culverts to prevent washing. f. Drainage study does not
agree with present plan . 16. . Screening of sewage treat-
ment pond and facilities should be provided . 17 . The Fed-
eral 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" .
These are items that we think should be considered by the
Planning Commission on this final plat request .
•
-8-
Mr. Hammond : 0 . K. , if , could I interupt ,
could I have a copy of your recommendations ?
Mr. Ohi : ;tell , this is my original , it ' s the
originals , I need to have that back .
Mr. Hammond : Well , do you have a copier?
Inaudible .
Mr. Hammond : If I might address the Board , if
you don ' t mind , I ' ll sit down .
Mr. Anderson : Mould you state your name for
the records please .
Mr. Hammond : Lynn Hammond , I ' m the attorney ,
appearing on behalf of the petitioners in this case . I
see some new faces on the Planning Commission and because
of that , I ' d like to make a very brief review of summary
of how we ' ve got to this point . I don ' t want to get into
specific detail on some of these items because I ' m afraid
•
that the tensions and emotions that would be created would
Ye far more violent than what some of the people might ex-
•
pect seated in this room. Last year the petitioner in this
• case , sought to file , pursuant to the existing regulations
then in force and in effect , the approval of a plat in ac-
cordance with the Subdivision Regulations at that time .
At the time that was done , the petitioner , attempting and
trying to cooperate with the Planning staff , appeared and
talked with the Planning Director , and at that time was ad-
vised by the Planning Director that he would do everything
in his power to see that road blocks , delays and problems
were interposed in the path of this subdivider to see that
this was not approved . I ' m making these statements and
•
-9-
•
- I ' m fully , willing to be quoted because we have this doc-
ument. He advised that , although it may be that the pro-
posal met with the requirements and there would be no
technical reason why it would be delayed or not passed ,
that he personally would see that this was done , that he ,
philosophically , apparently on his own , did not believe
that this was in line with what his idea of proper plan-
ning and regardless of what the late said , this is what
his position would be . We have gone through numerous
meetings with the Planning Commission , Utility Boards , we
even requested and were granted an appearance before the
County Commissioners , one of whom is sitting in the room.
We have tried to be gentlemen in this proposal and appear-
ance , we have been subject to the foulest kind of abuse
and appearance before some of the bodies that we have ap-
peared before , some of the members have been accused of
being sharp-shooting shysters and never having been met by
some of the principals making these statements .. The people
have tried to keep their temper , they have tried to swallow
the statements that were made and they were advised by the
County Commissioners at the meeting in which they appeared
at , "Well , I ' m sure that everything will be worked out.
Mr. Lorenson will , I ' m sure , work with you , there must be
some misunderstanding , and this is the reason why you ' re
having all the trouble that you' re having" . The principals
in this case were advised by some of the Planning members ,
you see this then went up to the Board of County Commis-
sioners and the Board of County Commissioners on a plit
vote , indicated that the preliminary plat would by approv-
ed by the Board of County Commissioners because we could
get no decision out of the Planning group , and some of the
people here , I ' m sure , Mr. Anderson and others are aware
of the facts surrounding this . In other words , here is
•
-10-
s • .
•
subdivider who had requested approval of a subdivision
plat , he had complied with all the items which we thought
by law , he was required to comply with and yet we could
get no opinion out of the Planning group . At one of the
Planning Commission meetings and it ' s on your minutes and
in our records , Mr . Nix rude a motion , I believe it was
seconded by Mr. Anderson , that , let' s just go ahead and
deny this preliminary plat , because you know that you ' re
not going to approve it in the end anyway. And we talked
to Mr. Nix afterwards and I thought he was a real gentle-
man . He told us exactly what was on his mind and he
didn ' t beat around the bush and there wasn' t anything be-
hind the scenes , it was right out open and on the table.
Subsequent to that , we had the meeting with the County Com-
missioners . It was our opinion after that was done , that
the preliminary plat was approved , or would be approved
and none of this , that we' re going through with here , was
brought up at that time . Last week , I advised our engineer
to get in touch with the Planning staff, anticipating that
we would have problems today , and ask the engineer to please
contact the Planning staff and endeavor to finally work this
out smoothly and find out what specific problems there were
so that we could have answers for you gentlemen . I don' t
see how•
you gentlemen , as a Planning Commission , can, sit at
a table and try and expect to answer these problems if these
are supposed to be worked out ahead of time , before they
ever get to you . I ' m City Attorney for the City of Loveland
and we would not even be able to exist if are tried to carry
our fights on at the level of the hearing itself. The
things in the planning areas that you gentlemen were suppos-
ed to be concerned with , ought to be resolved so your plan-
ner says , "here ' s the problem" , the subdivider says , "we
a were aware of the problem , here ' s our answer, and it ' s up
-11 -
- to you gentlemen to decide" . We were advised that there
were no real problems , that Mr. Lorenson was going to be
out of town . Mr. Lorenson was talked to , we really don ' t
know what we ' re going to object to . Yesterday , I asked
our engineer , "Did you get in touch with the Planning of-
fice again to find out if anything was going to be object-
ed to? " He advised us he called and he was advised that
it was dumped in Mr. Ohi ' s lap at too late a date and that
Mr. Ohi did not yet have any review made of the situation .
Anticipating further that there would be problems , I sent
Mr. Johnson over to talk with Mr. Ohi from our office.
This afternoon Mr. Johnson was advised that, he came back
and he said , " I thought it was a very forthright meeting.
I thought Mr. Ohi was a conscientous individual who said
he was trying to do his job" . I said fine , "What did he
tell you about what his objections were going to be?" This
was at one-thirty or two o ' clock this afternoon . He said ,
what? Yesterday afternoon , didn ' t you go today too? It
was yesterday afternoon , he was advised , " I don ' t really
have any specifics " . They discussed the problem on the
road , which had to do with the dedication of the road for
the Highway Department , and I believe they discussed the
item with the situation with the ditch companies , and that
was it. Now , we come in here , we ' re faced with a listing
here of a page , two or three pages of items , of items that
we ' re expected to , in good conscience , advise you what our
position is and we haven ' t even been shown the courtesy by
the Planning staff , of being albe to answer you . In other
words , it is your gentlemen ' s time , you know if you want
to sit here and go through these things point by point , by
point , then that ' s fine , but that ' s a helluva way to run
a ship , in my opinion . You should not have to be faced with
-12-
4
• •
these kinds of problems , unless you want to stay here
until two or three o ' clock in the morning . If we were
advised of what these positions and problems of the Plan-
ning staff are , I think we could have concisely told you
what our position was and whether we agree or disagree
and why . Five minutes ago was the first time we had been
advised of any of these problems , and it all goes back to
reenforce the position taken by Mr. Lorenson at the first
meeting he had with the officials of the company over a
year ago , when he said he would do everything in his posi-
tion to see that this was denied . I only want to sum up
here a couple of points . The Subdivision Regulations
which I assume that we are operating under, inasmuch as
the filing of this :•!as done many , many months ago , state
that , "if approved" and I ' m talking about the preliminary
plat , "subject to modifications , the nature of the modi -
fications shall be indicated " . Now in my understanding ,
there was approval of the preliminary plat. There were no
modifications of that indicated after the approval , and in
my estimation , these things here , which are an entirely
new ball game , bring up matters which were not dicussed ,
or the majority of them weren ' t , they were not indicated
on any final approval of the preliminary plat and as far
as I ' m concerned , they ' re strictly and solely interjected
into the thing at this point to bring further delay. Now,
I , have discussed this with Mr. Telep , the County Attorney ,
I have discussed it with the Assistant County Attorney.,
and there ' s patience , gentlemen , with which this thing is
•
going to survive . This isn ' t , your talking about fairness
and rightness , some of the !Meld County officials accusing
individuals of being sharp-shooting shysters , it' s very
lucky somebody hasn ' t been served with a slander suit or
-13-
-- libel suit in this �
a readJ • These gentlemen are tyring
get something done in a business -like way , they
done anything under the t� J haven ' t
able and they ' ve tried to
thin - do
9s forthright , and I
get , it ' s beyond n
me , i ca '
comprehend a t
the method and the
madness in the situation .
Now we told and talked with the Planners at Weld County
in the initial phases of this . We ' re not here promoting
development or not development , we ' re here because you ha
laws which said a man could subdivide . There were people
who filed in good faith under those laws , and now we ' re
coming back and saying , "Well , we really don ' t care what
the laws are , we really don ' t care what the Taws say, we ' -
re going to administer this thing the way we darn well
please , and if you don ' t like it , you know, we think your
going to run out of patience before you get anything done
and you ' re going to go over to Larimer County or go some-
place else" . The only item, which is
in my opinion ,
been mentioned by Mr . Ohi which has substance and that I
care to reply to myself at this time , is the matter of the
road. At the .Utilities meeting , the Utilities Committee
approved this plat with the specific mention in the resol -
tion approving it , that the word "dedicated" be changed to
some other word , which was incorporated into the language.
In other words , when we appeared before the Utilities Com-
mittee , the representative from the State Highway Depart-
ment was there and he told us , he said , "The position of
the Highway Department , of course
is that we would like
to get the right-of-,,ray for nothing, and we ' d like to have
you dedicate it , but we know we can ' t force you to dedicate
it and since we can ' t force you to dedicate it so that we
don ' t have to pay for it , if and when we get around to wid-
ening the highway , then we would at least like you not to
-14-
• •
- plat lots in it so when we go to condemn it , we don ' t have
to by buying plaited lots " . The representatives of the
company said , "hat ' s fine . We do not have any plans for
platting it . We do not have any plans for building big
structures on it so when you go to put your highway in ,
you got to condemn it at high prices , but because we paid
a price for it , we think when you condemn it , you should
pay us the same as you pay every other farmer up and down
the strip" . In other words , the company says , "We agree
not to plat it . We agree to set it aside , so that when
you get ready to condemn it or negotiate for it ' s purchase,
you' re doing it on the basis of not buying subdivided lots
but you ' re doing it on the basis of trying to just come
down here and buy it because it ' s still farm land " . The
company has agreed to this . Now if the Planning Commis-
sion is going to take the position that , gentlemen , we ' re
going to require you to dedicate that , then what ' s to stop
the Planning Commission or the County Commissioners or some
other bodies saying , " In every arterial highway in this
County , we' re going to declare "no use" for fifty feet on
either side of it , so 35 years from now , when the highway
is built , if it happens to be built along one of those
roads , the Highway Department won ' t have to pay anything
for it" . And you say , "What do you mean , they don ' t have
to pay anything for it is that , when you go to the Board
of Condemnation case , you go to pay the owner of the land
that , the fair maket value of the land being condemned ,
and what ' s going to happen if everything is designated
"reserved for future highway expansion" . You think any
farmer is going to get anything out of any piece of land
if the State Highway decides to enlarge? Now I ' m for
. saving the taxpayer money but I ' m certainly fot for saving
•
the taxpayer money at the expense of taking property with-
out compensation , that happens to be prohibited in the
Constitution . We are willing to set aside . land , not plat
it , not build on it , so that when it ' s purchased , it ' s
purchased at appraised value based on fair market value
of that land at that time . And that ' s what we ' ve done ,
and that ' s exactly what the Highway Department said they' d
be satisfied with in the event that we were not required
to dedicate it. And they said , "We understand we can ' t
require you to dedicate it" . So the point is , we again
have tried to live within the spirit of what they want and
what we can give . 200 hundred feet for half a mile amounts
to a substantial amount of land . For other little points ,
which probably are thrown in , we ' re getting beyond the ,
realm of what ' s pertinent to the conversation , the company
has estimated the additional cost that they have required
to go through , with loss of interest on the money they' ve
been paying , and engineering fees which were , in our opin-
ion , unnecessarily incurred , and you ' re talking between
$25 ,000 and $40 ,000 for the delay , which in our opinion
has been occasioned by the actions of the Planning Direct-
or and staff. Now, we like to be good people arid good
citizens , and by golly we like to comply with the law and
do what they say , but no man - -- - -
Changed tape .
Mr. Stobbe : It so happened that at that partic-
ular time , which is not the case currently , we were seek-
ing FHA approval on the project which we felt was import-
ant to the community as well as to ourselves . At that par-
ticular time , all things with the FHA , and I can give you
personal names like Robert Olsen and Mr. Wagner, for an ex-
ample , the Commissioner , or the Planner of the r Di ► ecto
r V V 1
-lb-
•
f the FHA , these people had told me , at this particular
time , that that project was going along in fine fashion
and we spent four months of work with the FHA at a great
deal of expense . Now , Mr . Ohi points out , that the FHA
turned it down because of the rural development , and in
fact , what was the case and not as you said , Mr. Ohi ,
they turned it down because of what Mr. Lorenson had
taken from me , in confidence , as to where we were finan-
cing the project , then they called him , seeking the ad-
vice of Mr. Lorenson , " Does this suit the County ' s need?"
and Mr. Lorenson lowered the boom and he told Bob Olsen
verbatum the very thing that Bob Olsen told me verbatum,
in other words , he was quoting Burman Lorenson and he
told me that they turned the project down because of the
County ' s recommendation . It was not turned down by a
VA recommendation or the FHA recommendation .
Ohi : I just quoted what they wrote us .
Mr. Stobbe : I know what you said, but the im
lication that you told these gentlemen , is misleading.
It' s so misleading , it ' s practically prevarication .
Mr. Chi : I was just reading their statement of
their evaluation .
Kr. Stobbe : Well , let' s be honest with these
gentlemen . Don ' t start hiding behind the scene of termin-
ology. What I ' m saying in fact is , that this . was collusion
in a most real sense and we ' re willing to test this , if
necessary. And I ' m saying this because the evidence is
getting so preponderous that we can take persons , places ,
things , denial , recommendation right down the line and you
gentlemen , believe it or not , are putting your very cred-
entials and your h>icking behind what you ' re saying now.
-17-
•
•
_ This is not going to go beyond the boards today . Ve ' re
taking formal action if there are no changes in vie,•r com-
ing from the Planning Director . Now I ' m saying this from
the bottom of my heart. When it gets to a point that econ-
omically , we talked to Re-J5 at the time that we recommend-
ed , is another example , you ' re talking about dedication
of five acres to a school . This is not true . Plumber one ,
we recommended to the Planning Commission and to the Com-
missioners at a joint meeting , that we would do a Planned
Unit Development and dedicate school acreage . At that
particular time , unanimously it was turned down and unnec-
essarily , Burman told us specifically that this was not
the location that they were looking for, it was not dedi -
cation of land. Now , out of a clear blue sky , without
notification , Mr. Ohi comes up and says they ' re looking
for five acres of land.
Mr. Ohi : Well , we ' ve received - - -
Mr. Stobbe : This is again spontaneous , we had
• no record of this - - - -
Mr . Anderson : Mr. Stobbe , if you ' ll hold off
just a minute . We have a letter from the school district
written on August the 16th .
Mr. Stobbe : Wy wasn ' t we advised of this - - -
why - - - - preliminary plat .
Mr. Anderson : We just received it August 16th .
Mr. Stobbe : By whose? How did this just out of
a blue sky come out August 16th?
Inaudible .
•
s -18-
• •
Mr. Anderson : Wel 1 , this is when it was writ-
-
ten , we received it on the 20th .
Mr . Stobbe : Right . Who wrote the letter?
Mr. Anderson : Kenneth E . Goodwin , Superintend-
ent of Schools .
Mr . Stobbe : O . K. , Mr. Goodwin , I have talked
to , as a matter of fact , he quotes , Mr. Goodwin told me
"That he would be happy to have the subdivision there" .
I spoke to him personally. I don ' t know who prompted the
letter, but we ' re going to find out because I imagine
that ' s a matter of evidence , or fact , is it not?
Inaudible .
Mr. Stobbe : - - - the letter and I would like
to know how Mr. Goodwin , in fact , got information to this
particular point. I think in the spirit - - - -
Mr. Ohi : Well , may I explain what , whenever we
get a final plat , are submit it to the various agencies and
they received a final plat copy of your proposal and they
responded to that . We didn ' t solicit anything more than
we usually do with other agencies .
•
Mr . Stobbe : I see.
Mr. Hammond : How come this was not advised to
Mr. Johnson yesterday then , Mr. Ohi ? Even at this Late
date .
Mr. Ohi : Mr. Johnson came in about two o ' clock
or so when I was in the middle of preparing my review and
I told him what I had done so far and I stressed that I
was in the middle of rreparing my review and this was
•
• s
- premature , but I would of tie him what I had found so far.
Mr . Hammond : But you had the letter for a day
or more . What I ' m saying is , this is an indication of ex-
actly what I ' m trying to advise the Planning Commission
of. Hoar can you expect people to cooperate with you if
it isn ' t a two-way street? ••
Mr . Ohi : Well , let me - - - -
Mr. What school district is that?
Mr. Ohi : Well , let me respond to all of your
charges of collusion and of subterfuge and all that.
Inaudible .
Mr. Ohi : All the items that I pointed out here
and I might also point out that , your final plat was sub-
mitted after the deadline , four days before the hearing,
which - - --
•
Mr. Stobbe : And I also might point out - - -
Mr. Olhausen : At least that ' s our - - - -
Mr. Stobbe : If he ' s telling the truth - - -
Mr. Watson : Let him speak , he ' s speaking and
'you please be still .
Inaudible .
•
Mr. Anderson : This , this is in Weld County - -
Mr. Ohi : . So that , technically , we couldn ' t, the
Planning Commission does not have to consider this plat at
all , it can consider the plat as submitted 15 days prior
. to the hearing date , in which the road is dedicated rather
-20-
5 V
•. •
- than designated . So I think it ' s just in the , as far as
it goes , we ' re cooperating with you to consider this plat
which was turned in after our staff review which put a
burden on the Planning staff .
Mr. Stobbe : We did turn this plat in within 15
days and it was your recommendation that you did not have
time to look at it , this is the third postponement , this
is not the first one . We had this plat filed a month ago.
Mr. Ohi : Wel 1 , I have here the original final
plat which was submitted to our office and which I re-
viewed with Dale and Dave , and suggested some correct-
ions . Now , Dale and Dave , well , I sent a letter to them
stating that if you , if they submitted a plat within a
certain amount of time , it would be , by August the 8th
I believe it was , that we would put p You on the agenda in
spite of the fact that you did not have all of the re-
quirements required under final plat submission . I thought• this was cooperating with your representatives . So , the
second plat , incorporating the changes that I have , that
Burman and I had suggested at the conference , was turned
in 15 days before this date here , this date. But. four days
ago , the third plat came in changing the designation ,
changing the dedication of the right-of-way for U. S. 34
to "a designation" and this is the plat we' re considering
now , so this is the third plat that you have submitted , and
it was submitted four days before this hearing.
Mr. Hammond : Well , just one point , that was the
only thing on the plat , Mr. Qhi , that was done at the re-
quest of the Utilities Committee who said , "We approve the
plat subject to , I believe , - - _ -
Mr. Ewing : This point came up in the Utility
.
. -21 --
• ,
•
— Board meeting and the gentlemen representing the develop-
ers here said that they did not definitely want to , they
did not want to dedicate that ground. Well , at that stage
of the game , the plat did say "dedication" , and if they
wanted to change it , we could see no reason why . That was
the reason the recommendation was just that way . We
agreed "designation" as opposed to "dedication" . That
point right there is between them and the Colorado Depart-
ment of Highways . And , so that was the reason for the
change to "designation " . They did not want to dedicate
that ground .
Mr. Olhausen : Mr. Chairman?
Mr . Anderson : Yes .
•
Mr. Olhausen : I ' d like to have Dave speak with
the item on schools . He discussed this with both the
Principal I believe and the Superintendent .
Mr. Shupe : I think there must be some confusion
somewhere because very early in the game I talked to both
Mr. C1aust and Mr. Goodwin about this school district this
is in and even though it lies in Weld County, I was given
to understand by both of those gentlemen who are the Sup-
• erintendents of the respective district involved that it
did in fact lie within the Re2J school District and serv-
ed by Loveland , or would be served . I think there must
be some confusion there .
Mr . Schwalm : They ' re incorrect , it ' s in Re-5
District .
Mr . Shupe : Well , this is a brand new idea to
me , because I did contact them - - - .
y -22-
•
Nr. Howard Schwalm: Nay I speak on this ?
Nr . Anderson : Yes , would you state your name
please .
Nr. Schwalm : Howard Schwalm. I happen to be
an adjoining land owner to the south of the development
and a former School Board member .
Mr. Anderson : Of what district?
Mr. Schwalm : Re--5J
Mr. Anderson : Thank you.
Per. Schwalm : This parcel of land lies south of
34 and east of the County line in Re-5J . I think one must
remember if you construe what the Superintendent says is
not the final rule . He has a Board , School Board , that
tells him intermittantly as this process of law goes along
what their feeling is , and student enrollment and these
type of things . You all know the tax angle and the over
crowding are concerns of Boards , and I assure you that ' s
why they made this recommendation and specifically trans-
portation . They ' re about as far to the end of the district
as they could be from the local school . So you see , you ' re
talking about a 100 homes , assume one elementary student
per home and if we have a 25 student enrollment , we do not
have the facilities in elementary school , so there again
that points up why the Board reacts as they do and these
are thing that they have to consider the matter because
funding for buildings and stuff don ' t come prior to your
development . It has to be developed and you ' re not going
to go out and start today and be finished tomorrow and
next year - - - - there . These things just don ' t happen ,
r but the families move in and they are entitled to an
-23-
• •
education and I think our school district would be more
than ;vi11ina to provide it with everything being equal ,
but they , the :,card doesn ' t feel at this point , if they
can express their opinions , that they should overload
the present facilities and by the same reason , add a tax
burden on to the existing tax units . Now as a , this may
be getting away from this part of it a little bit , but as
an adjacent land owner , I ' d like to speak in behalf of
myself and my brother. We are attempting to buy a farm
adjoining this and we have no objections to people, in
fact we work with a lot of people , but the things we object
to is , at the beginning of this program, many things hap-
pened that we weren ' t adequately notified and things were
assumed . May I recall the first incident that surveyors
come to our place . First thing you know we had people on
parts of our land , driving stakes , we' d question them,
"We don ' t know" . No response . Of course that ' s probab-
ly natural , but we ' ve been pretty much in the dark for
quite awhile on several items . Now , another thing that
concerns me is something that we have not touched on and
that ' s the future . We as an adjoining landowner, we live
south-easterly of the proposed sewage site . I wonder what
the odor is going to be , and I ' m sure that when these l00
families move into this area , when we start up the fields
on our manure spreaders , the odor is going to be quite an
item. Airplanes dusting our crops , in instances near Gree-
ley , the airplane pilot has told me that he has to quit
spraying - - -
Mr. Stobbe : Is this relative to the school
district?
Mr. Schwalm : Pardon?
.s -24.-
• •
►. ^. Stobbe : I say , is this relative to the
school district t , t you : pointing your questions in?
Mr. Schwalm : I indicated that I had finished
with the school district , and 1 was talking in behalf of
myself.
Mr. Stobbe : I see .
Mr. Schwalm: May I go ahead?
Mr. Anderson : Yes , go right ahead .
Mr. Schwalm: In instances they are being denied .
of controlling the insects on their crops . Now , are these
things we ' re going to be faced with? If this housing dev-
elopment goes in and we have a problem that arises that ' s
relative to a particular unit , who do we go to? Who is
the taxing agent? Is it an incorporated type thing? Nat-
urally there ' s going to be some problems , but I can assure
you that I ' m going to be the first that ' s going to get the
problems . You fellows are developing it , this is your bus-
inessy you ' re going to develop it and move and do more , and
granted if it ' s done right and you ' re doing a good job but
I. don ' t think we ' ve really made a plan to the future and if
this thing doesn ' t develop as it is shown , it could be a
detriment to the existing land and so on around here , and
these are some things I just bring to your attention and I
would hope that you would consider. I realize some of these
• fellows feelings , but I ' m not so sure that they really un-
derstand the fellow out on the land . These are some things
that we ' ve been there a long time and hope to be there awhile
and , gentlemen , I ' d like to assure you we ' re not against
people .
Mr. Anderson : Thank you . Yes sir?
-L5-
•
•
Mr . Shuue : Mr . Chairman , I ' m willing to accept
the possibility that one or both of the Superintendents
{;lade a mistake . However , that was noted on our prelimin-
ary plat submittal and application and I think probably
we should have been notified of this discrepancy before
now , since that was back in October , was it , or earlier
than that when the preliminary plat was submitted to you .
Mr. Olhausen : Mr . Chairman , I think that on
that same point , that it was discussed on the prelimin-
ary for schools and there was opportunity , I think , at
least to request it previously and it is a major change
from the preliminary if we have to go back and add a five
acre site and it isn ' t there isn ' t enough property avail -
able and I think that on that point that I don ' t believe
it' s valid for the schools to come in on a final plat and
say , "We want five acres " , it being the only subdivision •
in this immediate area and it isn ' t that the thing wasn ' t
addressed to or discussed . Both the school districts were
discussed at our preliminary hearing.
Mr. Anderson : I believe that' s correct. They
were contacted at that time and I think responded . I
don ' t remember what the response was at that time but it' s
cuStomary- then to resubmit a final plat to them for their
review too .
Mr. Ohi : They expressed concern at the prelim-
inary stage also . Well , I ' d like to , on these matters
here that , on this list of items that I ' ve submitted that
I don ' t think they were a complete surprise as Mr. Hammond
indicated , because the right-of-way situation was , I talk-
ed it over with Dale and Mr . Johnson . The substandard
lots , items 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 were also discussed with
•
-26-
•
_- Dale and Gave at
our conference and we pointed out than
they could request a waiver to the Planning Commission
when they submitted the final tat .
�J
Mr . Olhausen : Are those the lots on the - - -
Nr . Ohi Right .
Mr. Olhausen : Where are showed the set-back .
Mr= Ohi : Right . And also the variance for the
through lot into Lot 9 , Blk 6. This is , was all discusses
with Dave and Dale at our meeting , Now No . 11 , as far as
the , why the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Company easement has
been removed on the new final plat , is something that you
fellows took on your own.
Mr . Shupe : That I think , has to be classed as
t an error on our part . It was removed when the lot line
change was made and obviously didn ' t get put back on by
the draftsman and that ' s something that we obviously - -
Mr. Ohi : Well , it was just as much a surprise
to me as it was probably to you . It wasn ' t something that
I sprung on the people here. And the letter of approval •
from the , item 13 , from Farmer' s Ditch Company is somethin
I discussed both with Dale and Dave and Mr. Johnson, g
Mr. Johnson : Mr. Chairman , if I may, in my
cussions late yesterday afternoon with Mr. Ohi , I speci -
fically asked him if all the requirements in regards to
the ditch companies , both ditch companies , have been met
and he stated to me at that time that "Yes , they had" ,
that he would like to see a letter concerning an agree-
ment of liability , added that it was not necessary, he
told that all the necessary requirements had been met.
-27-•
_- . -
•
• •
Dale and Dave at our conferhce and we pointed out that
they could request a waiver to the Planning Commission
when they submitted the final pl a c.
Mr . Olhausen : Are chose the lots on the - - -
Mr. Ohi : Right .
Mr. Olhausen : Where are showed the set--back .
Mr. Ohi : Right. And also the variance for the
through lot into Lot 9 , Blk o . This is , was all discussed
with Dave and Dale at our meeting . Now No . 11 , as far as
the , why the Greeley-Loveland Ditch Company easement .has
been removed on the new final plat , is something that you
fellows took on your own .
Mr. Shupe : That I think , has to be classed as
an error on our part . It was removed when the lot line
change was made . and obviously didn ' t get put back: on by
the draftsman and that ' s something that we obviously - -
Mr. Ohi : Well , it was just as much a surprise
to me as it was probably to you . It wasn ' t something that
I sprung on the people here. And the letter of approval
from the , item 13 , from Farmer' s Ditch Company is something
I discussed both with pale and Dave and Per. Johnson_ ..
Mr. Johnson : Mr. Chairman , if I may , in my dis-
cussions late yesterday afternoon with Mr. Ohi , I speci -
fically asked him if all the requirements in regards to
the ditch companies , both ditch companies , have been met
and he stated to me at that time that "Yes , they had" ,
that he would like to see a letter concerning an agree-
ment of liability , added that it was not necessary , he
told that all the necessary requirements had been met.
-27-
•
Mr. Ohi : Well , I can ' t recall my exact words ,
but I said that as far as the Greeley-Loveland was con-
cerned , we had a letter from them and that we would also
like a letter the other , the Farmer ' s Ditch Company approv-
ing the terms for liability and screen , whatever that they
had requested the subdivider provide before the final plat
was approved by the Planning Commission . So I think it is
unfair for Mr . Hammond to imply that this was all done to
make the Planning Commission ' s work unnecessarily tedious .
These are items that we discussed earlier.
Mr. Hammond : I think that' s a mistake , Mr. Ohi ,
I didn ' t say that.
Mr. Ohi : Well , you implied that , I - - -
Mr. Hammond : I say that ' s a result of your act-
ions , not what was implied. The implication was that it
was done to delay and hinder the developer.
Mr. Ohi : I don ' t think it was , because these
are items •that we talked about.
Mr. Anderson : Well , I don ' t believe that we ' re
going to be able to make any decision on this today and I
would suggest that you engineers and the County Planning
staff sit down and iron these items out and the sooner the
better and I ' m sure that you ' ll get cooperation from the
Planning staff providing he get ' s cooperation from your
people .
Mr. Olhausen : Mr. Chairman , before you get in-
to a motion , I don ' t •rant to get into mish-mash , but if
we are going to do such a thing , or try to , then hopefully
if there are questions that would have to be resolved on
•
•
-2R-
• •
•
points , then we ought to try and at least get an answer
back to the Planning staff and get the chance . No , Jim
did have a long list before him , we sat down and there
was a multitude of them and we reviewed them and some of
them we agreed and some of them we disagreed and on the
lot set-back , we agreed to show the set-back , I think and
I think maybe it ' s a point but some of the other ones are
new . We didn ' t talk about drainage and sodding and things
like that and I , those are new items , Jim. And I don ' t
think it ' s .fair to us as engineers or the owners to have
to get a dozen new items , and there are a bunch of those
and certainly we discussed the letters on the ditch com-
panies and the owner was aware of that and the designation
and so on and those are good valid points and engineering
wise , why , you know we can only do so much and then it ' s
a legal requirement as to whether the Planning Commission
can or can ' t require it and certainly the right of the
owner to argue to disagree and , but , most of these items
or a lot of them that we ' re talking about , are minor
points that should be resolved before it - I discussed
with Jim yesterday and he listed a couple of items about
the bonding and the , or the quantity of earth work and so
on and a couple of minor items and we discussed the day,
we really never went down any list , nothing like this , I
don ' t think Jim . And you got to agree that - - here - -
Mr. Ohi : Of course this was , due to our own time
schedule so this was prepared around one o ' clock .
Mr. Olhausen : You also commented that Byron was
starting his review yesterday and this type of thing and
this is after the fact . We had to , we had the information
in there 15 days ago and we did in fact , go down the list
-29-
• •
•
- and answer every m J the point and either it ' s agreed
or not agreed and thero are a couple of those items on
ther2 that if Sher 2 is _ question that we resolve them
today at least as far as whether the Planning Commission
feels they are a point , I ' m thinking about the designa-
tion of the State Highway , Jim. If there are
further
letters required from the ditch company and , these are
real problems for the owner , there ' s no final plat and
this requires additional meetings with these people and
they aren ' t easy to come to . We ' ve tried to handle these
before , most of them are rehashes of old discussion we ' ve
had on the preliminary and I ' m sure you people , and I don ' t
and Jim doesn ' t want to get into these things , so if we can
resolve a few of these , I ' m sure we can work out the en-
gineering points but there are some other points and so - -
Mr. Anderson : I might ask the Commission how
they feel on that , do you want to review these items and
state which ones you would waive , at this time .
Mr. Watson : I ' d like to make a comment here.
I think Jim has done a fine job and I think that there
seems to be a misunderstanding on the time element factor
and you know there isn ' t a subdivision in Weld County that
• doesn ' t dedicate land when they develop subdivisions , if
it ' s on a County road it' s 50 feet or 100 foot right-of,
way and I 'm sure that this Company came to Colorado and
bought this piece of ground , they knew that 34 was there
and they knew it would be a four lane highway and some
benefit to them. Therefore , I ' m sure that they were aware
at the time that they - - - -- have to dedicate it . And I
think it' s ridiculous for them to think that they should
• not have to dedicate it . That ' s my personal opinion. And
-30-
•
•
also think that the developers %3ave got to bury the a:: for
their dislike for our Nlannin Director because they ' re let-
ting that completely control their mental attitude . That ' s
all I ' m doing to say .
Mr . Hammond : Nay I make one point of one quest-
ion?
Per. Anderson : Yes sir.
Mr. Hammond : Let ' s just assume , just for pur-
poses of , you know I ' ve always found - - - - it ' s kinds
nice to put yourself in the other guy ' s shoes , to see how
he feels . Let ' s just assume , that what I ' ve said is true .
Would you still feel the same about what you just said?
Mr. Watson : I was just trying to say to you ,
Mr. Hammond , forget that you have a dislike for Mr. Loren-
son , and carry this on to finish the project .
Mr. Hammond : I have tried to elevate myself
above the personal feeling for Mr. Lorenson in trying to
get a job done and frankly , sir , I find it impossible .
Mr. Watson : Well , you ' ve got it laid out for
• you today , you should have had this here .
- - Mr. Hammond : We have had this before , we -had it
before the preliminary plat . We complied with it - - - -
Mr . Watson : - - - - point out to you and I think
. you understand what I ' m trying to say.
Mr. Hammond : Yeah , but you think of what I said.
Suppose I ' m right and you ' re wrong?
Mr. Watson : I didn ' t say you were wrong , I said
-31 -
_
• •
_ you ' re letting that become an obsession with you , your
dislike to the man and just like with your project . The
project is going to eventually be approved and you ' ve
got the reasons to rake it be approved .
Mr. Stobbe : Was Mr. Nix also wrong in saying
this? Was Burman ' s and Mr. Ohi ' s apparent response to
the FHA , was that a misnomer? Could we go down and cite
that person after person after person in reference to what
your saying? I think what you ' re saying , is in fact , part
of what you ' re a party to . You were on the Planning Com-
mission for the preliminary plat . You heard • what the con-
versations were and you know what the undertones are..
Mr, Watson : I have said nothing of that kind ,
sir. I said that you are letting that become an obsession
with you , you ' re dislike , and your attitude toward Burman
Lorenson who is trying to - - - -
Mr. Stobbe : deal with fact.
Mr. Watson : Burman Lorenson hasn ' t got a thing
to do with it , the decision of this plat.
Mr. Hammond : No sir , he doesn' t , but he has
everything in the world to do with this and we ' re here in
good conscience trying to defend what has been done.
Mr. Ohi : Well , as far as that goes , this - -
Mr. Watson : This gentleman has done a fine job
and it ' s sure cut and dried for you what needs to be done
and I don ' t think there ' s a thing that' s out of order.
Mr. Hammond : I don ' t have any objection , in
fact , that a man of his capacity should come up with things
like this , I think they should be done a little sooner, we
-. _ '
-32- •
• •
•
•
—should be given the benefit or ,chat they are so that when
W2 appear before you , we don ' t appear a
s ignoramuses .
Inaudible .
Nr . Chi : We i 1 , of the 17 items that are listed ,
only , only !' of the items were things that weren ' t dis-
cussed .
Mr. Hammond : Mr. Ohi , look , we ' re just beatina
a head horse to death . Look at No . 14. What kind of a
statement in a recommendation is "reluctant approval of
the plat given by the Greeley-Loveland" . Whose definition
is "reluctant" , who has come to that conclusion?
Mr. Ohi : Obviously it ' s my conclusion .
Mr. Hammond : Let ' s ,just say that there is or
there isn ' t an approval . Now are you trying to tell me
' that you know , look , let ' s lay the cards .
Mr . Ohi : Well , I think the Planning Commission
should be aware of the quality of the approval given by - -
Mr. Hammond : That ' s your opinion , not theirs ,
and they ' re the people that have to
Mr. Ohi : Right.
•
Mr. Hammond : And they' re the people that have
to
Mr . Anderson : And there again , as I said , I
think the two , your engineer and our Planner need to get
together and iron these things out. Can we have some
order here?
Mr . Stobbe : I think one of the questions here
2{
• •
•
- that should be brought out . We did supply letters from
both the ditch company and the Greeley-Loveland Irrigat-
ing Canal and both of them at the time the preliminary
plat was discussed was submitted in good faith with these
people . There was no hostility with the ditch companies ,
most of them said , "We would be very willing to work out
an amicable solution to the problem" . All the relunctance
and the inuendoes that are going on are not just being -
- - - unrealistic . The point is , that the letters that
we submitted which came from Mr . Southard and also from
the Farmer' s Ditch , which was represented by Ray DeGood ,
the attorney , who happens to be a next door neighbor of
mine , he told me axactly what developed . He told me that
they could not sign a bonified letter until the final plat
was approved . So it ' s one of these things , they can ' t
sign a plat or a formal contract nor can we until we come
up with a bonified plat that ' s acceptable. Then , like
gentlemen , we will work out an agreement with these ditch
companies so that we can provide the proper bridge , the
proper whatever is required in terms of grass and color-
ing and such as this .
Mr. Anderson : Do we have a letter from them
• showing the willingness to cooperate?
Mr. Stobbe : They have both said that they will
•
operate within the spirit of the framework of which they
can , meaning that they represent a ditch company so , there-
fore , they can ' t say , "We ' re happy to have you cross our
ditch" . What they are saying is , "That if the plan requir-
es a ditch crossing, we will both work toward a proper type
of crossing" , one that ' s going to last , one that will hold
up . They are saying , "That if we get together and work out
•
-34-
9
an amicable solv .ion `0 hP ;rcJ' em, both parties I
speak on behalf of cur corpora ion ,on , `'r. Southard and the
i ndi vi dual , ?a„/ DeGood , 5poke for the other company , they
said they saw no real o robl em with the two proposals .
It ' s a question of sitting down like brothers and work-
ing out a solution . And that ' s what we ' re proposing .
We ' re not saying we ' re trying to hurt the companies ,
they ' re not saying they ' re trying to deny permission ,
they ' re saying , "We would like to stork out an amicable
solution . I ' m - - -
Mr . Anderson : Well , that ' s what I - -- - -
Mr . Stobbe : - - - judgement , that there is such
a thing as rapport with people and I don ' t think , other
than the experiences that we ' ve had to date , and it hap-
pens to be with the Planning Director and their staff and
their influence that this is where rapport stops . And it ' s
too bad that members of your own Committee attested this
and will sit in court and tell us that . I ' m saying this
again , very seriously . There are witnesses enough in this
particular case that we are incriminating . ourselves by our
very actions . And I say this pretty seriously.
Mr. Anderson : Well , I 'm suggesting that the two
of you get together and sit down and work out these details
and submit it back to the Planning Commission for a hearing
. at the earliest possible date . At this time , I ' d like to ,
beings there ' s other people present in the room, I ' d like
to ask if they have any comments either in favor or again-
st this subdivision .
Mr. Schwalm : Just one more thing , would it be
possible that I could have an idea from this group , who is
the responsible unit when this thing ' s completed? T moan
-35-
•
• •
•
we ' re going to have a problem , my point is , I ;rant to
know who to go to , and I ' d be clad to have the answer and
opinion . If it takes some discussion on the part of your
company , that ' s 0 . K. , but I believe this should be a mat-
ter of record as far as nyself is concerned as a next door
landowner . I believe that I ' ll be number one with prob-
lems and I ' m not saying that it ' s all going to be problems ,
there will going to be some good of some aspects of it , but
I know that things will turn up and if it ' s caused by the
total unit , what do I do?
Mr . Anderson : Well ?
Mr. Heitman : I think he ' s deserving an answer.
Mr. Anderson : Right . But how do we answer
that? Cindy , would you care to tackle that?
c
Mr. Hammond : I suppose first of all , this de-
pends upon the nature of the problem. You know if you ' ve
got a problem with the next door neighbor letting his kids
run across and do damage to your corn field or whatever ,
you ' d probably do just like I would , you ' d call him up and
say , "Look we ' ve got a problem" . If you ' ve got a problem
that , maybe the drainage isn ' t working just to your somebody satis-
faction ,
. y has got to enter into agreements , the
ditch companies and the subdividers , as to how these prob-
lems are going to be solved . For me to sit here and say ,
"You ' re not going to have any, problems " , is foolish because
people make problems . To tell you how to resolve those
problems , I ' m not sure I ' m very expert because in reference
to what was remarked about Mr. Lorenson , I have not been
able to get the problem there . So I suppose , that yes , you
have problems with some neighbors and you don ' t have them
with others and some You can get along with and some you
•
-36-
• ••
— can ' t , and I can ' t tell you you ' re not going to have prob-
lems , I can ' t tell you that the problems aren ' t doing to
be solved when they come up , but I don ' t really fully un-
derstand what kind of problems we ' re talking about.
Per . Schwalm : Let me just take an example . Sup-
posing a problem arises from the sewage treatment plant .
Mr. Hammond : What kind of a problem?
Mr . Schwalm: Well , alright , let ' s say seepage .
Mr. Hammond : Then , probably , I don ' t fully un-
derstand the engineerings of it , but I don ' t know , is that
possible to have a seepage problem from your sewage plant?
Mr . Shupe : Not of the untreated effluent.
Mr . Schwalm: Well that doesn ' t make any dif-
ference .
Mr. Hammond : Well , what specific problems , I
don ' t mean to be difficult , I ' m trying to pin down exactly
• what you have in mind .
Mr. Schwalm: High water table - - - going to
be one result from it .
Mr. Heitman : When he gets a crop flooded out ,
that ' s what he ' s asking .
• itr. Schwalm : I know the land , I ' ve lived there
10 years . I understand your company ' s part and everything
in wanting to do what they want to do and they ' ve probably
made underground water studies and all this , but I know
from living there as long as I have , that the land natural -
ly has high water table . And you build a dike and put
-37 -
• •
fluid in it it ' s going to raise the water table . Now , t,lho
would we go to to correct this problem?
?!;. Hammond : Weil , probably if you stretch it
to the ultimate , if you bring suit against the company
that developed it or failure to ruin a crop or inundate
your land , the company is dependent upon good engineering
from the firm that they ' ve hired . If they fail to secure
that good engineering , then they will probably be stand-
ing behind them. In other words , you proclaim to us and
we will say , " It ' s up to the engineers" . If they didn ' t
do it , that ' s their problem . You certainly are entitled
to not be left out in the cold , and have some one tell you ,
"Well that ' s just the breaks of the game , it ' s too bad ,
but you know your just in the way of progress with folks
around progress" .
E
Mr. Schwalm: This is thing I figured .
Mr. Hammond : Well , I don ' t think that ' s right .
I think you ' ll find a number of attorneys that you might
go to that would say that they feel there is a definite
responsibility.
Mr. Schwalm : You see , I go to an attorney , and
• the first thing I ' m becoming i nvol_ved i n_ a law suit which
is costing something it shouldn ' t .
• Mr . Hammond : Alright , let ' s go back . One of the
requirements , in my opinion , is having a Planning staff and
the other bodies that these things go through is to ensure
that when the engineer says this is what is going to be
done , somebody on the Planning staff looks it over and comes
up , trouble shoots it to see whether or not the engineer, in
fact , knows what he ' s talking about . In other words , one of
-3$-
• •
-the things that you , as a land owner and a tax payer , ha v
a right to expect , is that your County staff is going to
see that the sewage treatment plant was out in there and
meets specifications and can do the job it ' s supposed to
do . One of your requirements on your Subdivision Regula -
tions is to ensure that things are put in or are provided
for . Now if somewhere done the dine , there ' s been a mis-
take made , the engineer made a mistake , the County let it
slip by , and ultimately it causes a problem, the respons-
ibility still comes back to the engineer that designed the
work and the company that put it in .
Mr. Schwalm : Now , as long as we ' re on this par-
ticular subject , let me inject some more of the things
that could happen . You know our unities are very border
conscious . Supposing this sewage disposal is
effluent over, now if I take my manure spreaders and go
out by this housing development and create an odor, those
people can protest , and probably get me to stop .
Mr. Hammond : How?
Mr. Schwalm : By signing a petition . They put
many feed lots out of business .
Mr. Hammond : I don ' t _s.ee how they can stop it.
Mr . Schwalm : I know of feed lots that have been
put of out business because
Inaudible.
Mr. Hammond : I don ' t have any question of the
fact that you have concern and you feel that you want ans-
wers to your questions . What I ' m telling you is that I
think the problems that you have , can be answered . And
-39-
•
• •
_that I think that , I don ' t think somebody can stop ou
y
from carrying on your activities - _ - -
in existence
and they can ' t come in after the fact and say I ' m not
happy with - -
Mr. Qlhausen : Mr . Chairman , it might be inter-
esting to know if there ' s a homeowners association , or
something that ' s handling the sewage plant and that is th
fact and is true as I understand , so there would be some-
body like that to go to .
Mr. Schwalm : The only thing I ' d like on the
subdivision on a contract that would say that we could go
back to this developer if we have a problem, rather than
have to say we got to go to each one of these individuals '
houses and try to organize them into a taxing unit so . they
can raise the funds to do it properly. If this is in the
contract 0. K. , you put it in there that Interiadco will
be responsible for future years or anything that ' s caused
by the result of this development , well that ' s telling me
something but if it isn ' t in there , I - - - -
Mr. .Anderson : Of course , I think this would have
to be determined by a court of law at the time something
happened like that . We can ' t foresee all of these problems
Cindy, would you like to make a few comments? Could we
•
have a little order again here? I ' d like to call on our
•
assistant County attorney here to make a few comments , if
she has any.
Miss Telep : O . K. yes I do , I just have a couple .
Is your name Mr . Hammer, or Hammond?
Mr. Hammond : Hammond.
Miss Telep : Did you talk with me about this -
-d�r-
• •
H.9 mmo n d : No
t.Nss�Teleo : Because you said La7 , 2d ,,o i
you
Telex and the Assistant Co;,�nt�.� Attorney � �and , and
wonderingI was
�.r• Ha,nmond : The Assistant County Attorney a
that time I believe Nr. -
Miss Te1en : i don ' t remember.
Mr. Anderson : Tom Connell .
Miss Telen : Tom Connell , O. K. , anywa I
wanted you to knowthat I Y Just
do take some umbrage , you know ,
when people say that we don ' t
have any laws here and if sr
do have them, we aren ' t paying any attention t
cause I think we are and I ° them be-
attend these meetings so that
r I see that these people do
to know - - _ 5° I mean , I just wanted you
Mr. ,Hammond : It ' s no reflection on
this is the first time I ' ve ever met you .
Miss Tele : . Well , alright , but , I mean , I
wanted you to know that I was n°tin Just
g the
didn ' t feel too happy
comments and I
• ppy about them, because I think that we
have, a fine Planning staff in this Count
doing a fine Y' I think -we ' re
job in planning . I have a background in
Wing myself and I ' plan-
m rather interested in finding that we
have now the facilities and the people with
look into the future to foresee backgrounds to
problems before they come
up to trouble-shoot them, as you yourself said .
that ' s what Jim' s I think
putting together here , is a list of things
that are going to be items of potentia
l trouble , items that
are going to come up , these things have to be take
n care of.
-41 -
- — ..._ . ._.. ._ ..--- _____ __ _
• •
•
.
I -don ' t know about the exact time schedules involved , I
think that this can be worked out be ween you . I know
that even I have slight things where you run into , maybe
a personality clash or something with someone sometimes ,
we try to work these things out and I think , I hope this
isn ' t really the basis of the trouble here . I feel that
maybe you have whatever is required . But I do know this ,
if they ' re doing their job , which I believe they ' re doing ,
if they come up with legitimate reasons and reasons why
things are not working out or this isn ' t right , this is
what this body takes into account. This Planning Commis-
sion is not the Planning staff. These people take the rec-
ommendations , they know that these things are opinions ,
they know that then they are backed up based on certain
facts . That ' s all that the staff can do then , is give
them the facts , give them furthermore their opinions and
r
then this body takes it . It deliberates it , and decides
what it wants to do . No I believe that originally , I don ' t
know , I can ' t , I haven ' t seen the final on this one for
some time , but it seems to me that the original recommenda-
• ' tion of this Planning Commission was for denial of this
project, and then it went to the Board of County Commission-
• ers as you ' ve said and I think there were a lot of pressures
put on to the Board and I don ' t know what all , and they went
ahead and they approved the preliminary. Now if there are
further problems with the final plat , this Board is entitl -
ed to consider all of those problems , and I believe they
are going to enter into any decision they make . I don ' t
know , all I know is , I sit here and I look at the legal prob-
lems involved . So that ' s my statement . Thank you very much .
Mr. Hammond : - - - no objections to the Board con-
sidering those items which they should consider . I ' m not
•
•
-42-
• •
saying that any of these items or items which should not
be considered , I ' m only saying , timing wise , we should have
been informed of what they were so we could have saved the
Planning Commission time and in fairness at our represent-
ation . I don ' t have any , - - - let rye make my last state-
ment and then I don ' t have anything else to say . Your
regulations under which I have been informed we ' re operat-
ing , state that within 30 days after meeting on the final
plat , the Planning Commission shall approve or disapprove
or approve subject to modifications of the said plat. If
the plat is disapproved , reasons for such disapproval shall
be stated in writing. In another section of the regula-
tions , it states that , "the final plat , that any changes
in the preliminary plat , if it says , if the preliminary
plat is approved subject to modifications , the nature of
the required modifications shall be indicated" . The pre-
► liminary plat was approved , there were no modifications in-
dicated to my knowledge , as such , I think personally any
of this is out of place , although we will endeavor to try
and meet and solve the problems we can , and as far as the
final plat is concerned , I consider this to be a hearing
on it , or we will endeavor to meet with anybody that we
can , within 30 days we expect a decision from the Planning
• Commission , win , lose or draw and if it' s lose , we expect
to have the reasons specifically stated why it ' s been de-
nied . And I think that is indicating our good faith and
I think that this is all we can do . As I said , if there ' s
a desire to meet and try to work out any of these things
that they can be worked out so that within the 30 day per-
iod , we can appear back before you and state , "Alright , of
this list , we have met with the Planning Commission , this
is how we have solved items , 1 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 8 , items 2 and n
•
-43-
• i
- are not resolvable , you gentlemen are going to have to
make the decision . "
Mr . Anderson : So , I believe that ' s all we ' re
asking for .
Mr. Hammond : You have , under the regulations ,
30 days to make your decision and we would be happy to work
within that time , but we are going to expect a decision in
30 days .
Mr. Anderson : Are there any other people from
the area over there that wish to speak? Alright , then ,
back to the drawing boards , I guess . We will have our
Planning staff get together with you folks as soon as pos-
sible .
Mr. Hammond : Can I ask a question? When is your
next regular meeting?
Mr. Anderson : Our next regular meeting is the ,
what? 5th of September.
Mr. Hammond : Could we expect that this would be
on the agenda at that time?
Mr. Anderson : I would think that it could be ,
providing that these things are worked out.
Mr. Hammond : Well , I ' m thinking that you will
undoubtedly come up with a final conclusion . If this has
been worked out and this hasn ' t been worked out and you ' re
going to have turn this over and make up your -
Mr. Anderson : I don ' t see any reason why it
can ' t , do you Jim? You can work this up?Mr. Ohl : If that ' s y rc desire , we can lIU 1. l Ty
•
-44-
.
11,
•
— them in 30 days .
Mr. Anderson : Pardon?
Mr . Ohi : IT that ' s they ' re desire we can not-
ify them in 30 days , after this nearing .
Mr . Stobbe : Our desires - - - - are conclusive .
Mr. Hammond : Our desires are to get together
prior to September 5th so that at the September 5th meet-
ing of this Board , we can appear back and state what items
have been resolved with you .
Mr. Ohi : Then the decision will be 30 days after
that hearing.
Mr. Hammond : Oh no , 30 days from this hearing.
This is the hearing , and I think from now on , if these , I 'm
going by the letter of what ' s in the document .
•
Mr . Ohi : So am I .
Mr . Hammond : O. K. , this is the hearing , unless
I have been informed otherwise .
Miss Telep : You want an informal date?
Mr . Hammond : Well , I want a decision within 30
days , and the Chairman suggested that our group get togeth-
er with the Planning crew to try and come up and resolve
some of the problems , and I said we would be willing to do
this and meet back with you on September 5th to advise you
of where we have resolved any problems so that you then
have a few days still to meet , to come up with your final
recommendations .
Miss Teleo : Alright , what is the date you ' re
•
- 3-
•
scheduled for?
Nr . Anderson : Tha 5th of September is our next
meeting .
Mr. Ohi : That ' s right . We want to meet with
gale at any time we can arrange a meeting .
Mr. Hammond : Alright , we wi ll , we will - - - .
Mr. Anderson : This goes to say that we don ' t
want your engineers coming in the 3rd of September to re-
view this . •
•
Mr. Hammond : We hope that you can depend upon
us , better than we have been able to
Inaudible .
•
•
_Ag_
Hello