HomeMy WebLinkAbout720660.tiff • •
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )
)
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO )
)
)
MARCH 13, 1972 )
INTERLADCO, INCORPORATI
INDIANAEAD
SUBDIVISION
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
GLENN K. BILLINGS
MARSHALL H. ANDERSON
HARRY S. ASHLEY
THOMAS CONNELL, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
DEFENDANTS:
MR. WARREN STOBBE
MR. LYNN HAMMOND
Tape # 24-25
720660
MR. BILLINGS: Interladco, Mr. Stobbe, of 515 West
Twelfth Street, Loveland, Colorado, this comes before us on a
request from Interladco that the Board of County Commissioners
hear this case even though it has been recommended unfavorably
by the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners
for the following reasons:
1. The general plan for the County does not
contemplate the density proposed for this
subdivision.
2. The area is more needed to provide food
supply than for residential development.
3. There would be inadequate fire and police
protection to persons and property.
4. The density proposed would overload the
public schools serving the area.
5. No new industry or jobs have been created
in the area.
6. The residents must travel to other areas
daily thus overloading the road system or
the transportation system.
7. Evidence of adequate water supply and
sewage disposal is doubtful.
I have a letter here dated, February 24, 1972, to our
Planning Commission, "Please be advised of our decision to request
a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, as discussed
by telephone, on the aforementioned date and by your letter
dated, February 8, 1972, to seek remedy from the decision
denying approval of the preliminary plat of Indianhead Subdivision,
(Case S-97 by the Planning Commission Board). It is our belief
that the decision reached by the Planning Commission is based
on philosophy of county planning not supported by engineering
evidence or legal justification.
6
After a final determination is reached by the Board
of County Commissioners regarding the above subdivision a
sincere expression of interest is indicated toward a Planned
Unit Development (previously submitted for review) we will
make every effort to redirect our energies to this end.
Respectfully, Warren A. Stobbe, President."
Mr. Stobbe at this time do you have anything you
would like to say?
MR. STOBBE: Well, possibly I might -- or just hold
back for a few minutes and have Mr. Hammond our counsel sort of
take the lead in this particular meeting. Then I would be very
happy to answer or add to as the case may require.
MR. HAMMOND: I am Lynn A. Hammond, Attorney. at Law,
Loveland, Colorado, appearing on behalf of Interladco Inc., who
filed the - submitted the plat on Indianhead Subdivision with
the Weld County Officials.
Gentlemen, to start out with I think that I am not
prepared or I should say that I am at somewhat of a loss as to
know exactly the procedure to follow in trying to bring the points
before you. I think there are two considerations: (1) the legal
points involved and (2) just the policy matters involved which
have a bearing on past meetings that we have had with you. Before
we get in and review any of the legal points that I feel apply, I
would like to refresh your memory.
I think you will all recall that we appeared before the
County Commissioners on, January 3rd, and at that time expressed
a concern as to the procedure with which the Indianhead Subdivision
was being processed through the Planning Commission. And I think
in an overall summary without being toosimple in explanation, I
think that we expressed a concern: (1) there were delays in the
consideration of this by the Planning Commission, which did not
appear to be related to any engineering reasons and (2) we had
-2-
encountered a good deal of resistance on the behalf of
Mr. Lorensen, the County Planner, as to any development period;
and after a rather lengthy hearing with you all on, January 3rd,
if I did not misread the instructions or information given to us
by yourselves it was indicated that (1) we should all try and
get together and at least proceed in a harmonious fashion and
(2) if we would contact Mr. Lorensen, and try and work this out
with him. We were sure -- or it was indicated -- that we could
probably expect cooperation. We did that, I have a chronological
study that I asked Mr. Stobbe to make, which goes back to, April
of 1969, when this particular tract of land was purchased up to
the present date. As to the dates and who was contacted, what
hearingawere attended, the essence of what happened and this goes on
for some five pages. I won't go into thatright{now. But suffice
as to say that after we appeared before you we did appear before
the Planning Commission that afternoon on, January 3rd.
At that time and prior to that date we were furnished,
I think the morning of the hearing, the same morning we were here
-- a communication from Mr. Lorensen's office, to the point that
there were some eight items that he was concerned with in regard
to the submission of our plat to the Planning Commission. So
picking up from this point, we left your office, we wentto
Mr. Lorensen's office - we got a copy of these eight points that
he was concerned with - with the plat - with the knowledge that
they would be discussed that afternoon and evening.
At the Planning Commission, that afternoon, he submitted
these eight points to the Planning Commission indicating that this
was in essence his objection to Indianhead Subdivision. One of the
items which concerned a letter of approval from the Greeley Loveland
Ditch Company, we felt was valid, and we did not have such a letter.
-3-
•
The background on that particular item was that the storm drainage
off the streets would go into the Greeley Loveland Ditch Company and the
Planning Commission rightfully wanted to know whether or not if this
was approved by them.
We then contacted the ditch company, we made alternate
arrangements due to the fact that they had some problems that of
which we could understand and at the Planning Commission meeting
on January 3rd, they indicated that they did want a letter of
final approval from someone - one of the ditch companies who
was going to accept this storm drainage.
The motion was made d: that meeting by Mr. Nix and it
was seconded by Mr. Anderson to the affect that they deny the
Indianhead Subdivision plat and Mr. Connell, the attorney, inter-
jected his point, if I am not mistaken, that he did not feel that
it was legal for them to raise this issue at this time because
the final papers had not been before them.
I asked the Planning Commission if the denial was going
to be made before we had an opportunity to fully answer the objections
on this letter which, Mr. Lorensen had given to the Planning
Commission. And when the attorney talked with them he indicated
that he felt that we should certainly have the opportunity of
meeting the objections Mr. Lorensen had raised.
Mr. Nix at that point indicated that he didn't see
any sense in beating around the bush and they weren't going to
approve it anyway and he didn't think it was fair to impose
the additional time and expense on the subdivider to go through
something that would in all likelihood be denied anyway. The
chair at that point ruled that they would not vote on the motion
and that we would have a further hearing.
-4-
We then met with the Planning Commission on, January
18th, at which time Mr. Lorensen advised the Planning Commission
and I am taking the liberty of saying what people did because
these are in the minutes of the respective bodies and can
easily be checked out. We were then again back on the dis-
cussion of the items which were engineering items, submitted by
Mr: Lorensen's office, as to the reason for his feeling that
the plat should not be approved at that point. I should go back
on the meeting of, January 3rd, and before we left the Commissioners
Office, the Planning Commissions Office - I asked the Planning
Commission were there any other items other than those which
were outlined on the letter which the Planning Commission or
the Director of Planning was concerned about -- so that when we
had our further meeting on January 18th, that we would be in a
position to answer fully all questions raised by the Commission.
In other words what I was foreseeing is the possibility of
appearing at another meeting of the Planning Commission and they
say well you have raised or answered these eight points but we
now have another eight points. So the Chairman, Mr. Bowles,
was very considerate and kind and he asked if there were any
other points that needed clarification or that there were
questions on and we were given a definite impression that if
these questions were answered we would then have a decision.
So we came to the meeting on, January 18th, I think
as oversimplification, the procedure was something as follows:
indicated that we had been there previous, we talked about the
points that were in question, we submitted all letters that had
been requested to be submitted and I believe that if I am not
mis-stating Mr. Lorensen he indicated that they have complied with
the items that I set out and had no objection to the compliance.
-5-
We were then informed that the matter would be taken under
consideration and that we would be advised.
Now I think at this point I should advise the
Commissioners that it was my impression and this impression
was gained by reading the state statutes and your own subdivision
regulations that the Planning Commission certainly has the
authority to determine the quality of the items that go into a
subdivision; to be sure that the roads are properly planned; and
they have the necessary engineering data and plans to support
whats going to be done; and that the items necessary to provide
for good planning of a subdivision certainly are in the province
of the Planning Commission and they have certainly the authority,
and should have the authority to control these. But I will have
to admit very frankly that we were not under any impression, and
I am not to this date, that the Planning Commission has the
authority to go beyond those powers which are indicated and go
outside of any engineering data that issupplied and say in
essence well,we just don't want that subdivision period. In
other words its been my impression and I think you can certainly
ask your own counsel on this but, it is my impression that the
state law sets out certain provision as far as establishment of
a Planning Commission, certain provisions_ as to the option of
subdivision regulations, and you in fact in Weld County have
adopted subdivision regulations. Now at that point if an
individual comes to me and says, " what do I do in processing a
subdivision plat through the county?" -- my advise to him is -
you live up to what the county requires insofar as subdivision
regulations, planning and platting and the submission of these
things in a timely course and you get a decision.
-6-
And certainly we would not have been - - we could
accept a determination from the Planning Commission -- that we deny
the plat for the following reasons: (1) your streets are too
narrow, (2) your proper drainage has not been provided or (3)
--- on these types of items. The reason I gave the brief
review of our meeting is that so far as I am aware, and have been
informed by anyone we have complied with and we do meet the
requirements that have been set out by Mr. Lorensen's office.
In other words its kind of like playing a ball game and then
finding out when you get into the ninth inning that your in a
game and the rules have been changed.
We have tried to work consciously and sincerly in
everyway possible with all the officials in Weld County in
trying to comply with those items which you have indicated in
your subdivision regulations are necessary for a properly planned
community. We have not prepared for and we are not in any position
to influence the political decisions that are made. In other words
we feel that it is a right to subdivide land in the county so long
as the regulations and engineering data and all are complied with.
We can not have any basis to appeal the decision from a planning
group who goes outside the engineering data and requirements that
they were put in office to enforce and in an effect come up for
no other reason thalwe don't want this here. Now let me go down,
for a minute , the recommendations made by the Planning Commission
after the final hearing and the reasons stated for the denial.
(a) was that the general plan for the county
does not contemplate the density proposed
for this subdivision.
-7-
\•
I don't know what the general plan of the County is.
I don't know how the general plan of the county is-if there is
one = makes any provision for the subdivision of land. No more
than I know how the county plan , if they had one, provided for
the establishment of the Kodak plant in and around Windsor. And
recently completely industralized zone on that. In other words
I don't understand if there is a county plan how its right one way and
wrong the other. But suffice as to say I have never been informed
of a county plan. Or I am not informed by this resolution in
what particulars that this subdivision does not comply with the
county plan.
(b) it says that the area is more needed for
food supply than for residential development.
This point was not raised at the hearing - at any
hearing that we had with the Planning Commission. I have seen
no statistical studies. This is like grabbing a finding out of
the air and having the issue never been presented at any hearing
stage. Someone is saying that we need the area for food. The
issue was raised at the hearing in the Planning Commission -
how much of the land was irrigated land and how much was dryland
and it was pointed out that a substantial part of the farm had
always been traditionally dryland and that it was only recently
under irrigation and I am not saying the whole farm but a portion
of it that is irrigated, was only put under irrigation by the
pumping out of the ditch and the point being that it is not
considered prime agriculturalland. So I don't know, for example,
I am not - haven't - been appraised at how someone makes that
determination.
(c) that there will be inadequate fire and
police protection to the persons and
property.
-8-
•
• •
This was not discussed at the hearing. Mr. Lorensen did
indicate that he felt there was a problem as far as policing
and fire protection.
(End of Tape 24) (Begin Tape 25)
MR. HAMMOND: We are on the record now. The State
Statute 106-2-34, makes reference to subdivsion regulations
and this is in the section of the State Statutes under County
Planning. It states in essence that before any Planning
Commission shall exercise the powers referred to in subsection,
and these are the poweres to review subdivisions and so forth.
They shall adopt subdivision regulations and I quote, "such
regulations may provide among other things for the proper
arrangements of streets in relation to existing or planned
streets and to the master plan for adequate and convenient open
spaces for traffic, utilities, access of fire fighting apparatus,
civil defense,recreation, sites for schools and so forth." Now
the point I am making is that the State Statutes speaking with
regard to fire protection states that the subdivision regulations
should indicate how you are going to get accessive apparatus into
the subdivision. I suppose in line with that, where are your
fire plugs going to be. These are all matters that were taken
care of in the subdivision plat and the whole thing. What the
Planning Commission now is saying - is well it is the job of the
planner or the job of the subdivider to provide for police and
fire protection. I am not going to get into the merits of
arguing whether this is or isn't a good point. I am saying it
isn't in the law.
(d) that the density proposed will overload the
public schools serving the area.
-9-
(• •
There was no evidence - to my knowledge - at any
hearing or any discussion as to the fact that (1) schools would
be overloaded or that (2) there was any concern about it. There
was an indication by Mr. Lorensen, if Mr. Connell wants to talk
about heresay, there is some indication he had been talking to
the Johnstown people and they were a little concerned about where
the people would go to school. But nobody presented any evidence,
nobody came in and objected, there was no evidence before the
Planning Commission as evidence as such that there was any
problem: as far as schools and in fact Mr. Stobbe advises me,
and again this is heresay, so you can take it for what it is
worth, that they were invited to the hearing and didn't show up.
On the theory that if they had a problem they would make it
known.
(e) that since no new industry or jobs have
been created in the area the residents
must travel to other areas daily, thus
overloading the road system or transportation
system.
This is hard to respond to because I suppose its like
saying that Gibsons can advertise to come over - in the Loveland
papers - come over to the store to shop for bargains in Weld
County but don't use the Weld County roads to get there because
you'd be overloading the road system. I don't see (1) where
this has any bearing, I can argue, of course, well yes you will
be traveling on the roads and there is going to be more traffic
but still what we are coming down to is the Planning Commission
at least in my estimation was suppose to determine whether or not
the plat as submitted complied with regulations and I don't see
in any of your regulations or the State Statutes where a
consideration of whether roads are going to have more traffic
on them is a basis for denial.
-10-
• ��
(f) evidence of adequate water supply and
sewage disposal is doubtful.
This is contrary to the evidence that was presented
at the hearing. There were letters of approval on the septic -
the sewage disposal system. There was indication from the water
districts that an adequate supply was going to be there. Now
again this is somebody in effect saying well we have heard the
evidence but we really don't believe the evidence. Now, again,
that to me is not the problem so that the body or the commission,
or anybody to say in affect well you can present what evidence
you want to before us but if we don't happen to agree with it,
we are not going to make our recommendation or base our decision
upon that. The point being that I as a counselor for Interladco
or that they themselves can't fight, we can't have any basis to
come back and say we can answer these type of objections. Now,
of course to Mr. Stobbe, this is not wholly a surprise, I don't
think Mr. Stobbe is particularly surprised at the findings. I
think it was simply a matter on how they would be worded. Because
you
Mr. Lorensen and I think we brought this up to/gentlemen, on ,
January 3rd, has advised the officials of Interladco numerous
times that it really didn't make any difference what was submitted
he was going to recommend against it.
Now a point in elaborating on that. Subsequent
to the denial or the hearing on, January 18th. We had proposed at
the Planning Commission hearings that very possibly a planned
unit development would put up a better overall development if one
was to be out there, that could be secured through your -- the
present procedure. And we discussed this with the County Commissioners
at the time we met with you on,January 3rd. And I think that there
were even some discussion between Mr. Stobbe and members of the
Commission and also the Planning Commission. It was determined
-11-
after January 18th, in that hearing that there would be some
attempt then to try and cooperate and see if a plannned unit
development could answer more questions and present something
better that you would all like to see. There was some general tacit
understanding of what the planned unit development to the Planning
Commission on the alternative that - end said in effect - and you
all got copies of the letter but the essence of it was - this is
presented for your consideration and if you think this is a better
approach to solving the problem. Subsequent to a number of
telephone calls, number of meetings with Mr. Stobbe, with various
people involved it came back to Mr. Lorensen. Mr. Lorensen and
Mr. Stobbe got together and we received a copy, a xerox copy,
of the items which were going to be required of any planned
unit development, In essence Mr. Stobbe had requested a specific
letter to the effect that if a planned unit development is
submitted please indicate what would be requested on it and
so forth so we can have it.
We never did get the letter, we got a copy which was
marked void over the top of it indicating that someone decided
that it shouldn't be sent. The point is - is the ball game -
again had been Khanged, the requirements that Mr. Lorensen came
up with on the planned unit development were such that it would
just simply not be feasible to it.
Gentlemen we have tried in every way we know possible
to try and cooperate, to try and make facilities of engineering
people, that these people have employed,to answer questions, to
meet with people to resolve problems, to say we don't like the
proceedings under the way it is going here under a subdivision,
we will try a plannned unit development and the point is that
nothing works.
-12-
Now I have read your subdivision regulations and I would
-- I wanted to talk with Tom about these because from a legal
standpoint it looks to me like these subdivision regulations,
and this may well be a question that is put to the court, if it
goes there. What was the purpose of these subdivision regulations?
You can read through these subdivision regulations and come to
one conclusion, I think, and that is that somebody felt that it
was necessary to have a set of rules in the Planning Commission's
handsthat they could hand to subdividers and say - if you are going
to subdivide land you have to comply with our regulations. It
has nothing to do with fire protection, school protection, whether
the density is in line with your general plan, whether or not you
are going to be traveling to other communities and thus over-
loading the road. It says in Section 3 your design standards for
roads - how wide they will be, what the paving will be
and what the grades will be, it says what your lots will be, what
the dimensions will be, it gives dimensions for blocks, it says
what you do with ditches, alleys, easements, floods, it talks
about unit developments. In other words these rules as I interpret
them give the County Planning Office a set of regulations whereby
if someone wants to develop land they can put these on the table
and say okay but you've got to comply with these regulations.
You've got to have your streets, your grades, your blocks, your
lots, everything in there comply with this. I don't see anything
in these County regulations pertaining to the reasons, that this
was denied by the Planning Commission. I don't see anything in
the State Statutes that says that the County Planning Commission
will go into these items that are listed on the denials.
Now the other interesting thing and this gets into the
legal point is it talks about a preliminary plat and it talks
about a final plat and on the final plat it gives certain time
-13-
requirements of when things will be approved and moved on. None
of which were met with our point subdivision here. But the point
on the final plat it says that within 30 days after meeting on
the final plat the Planning Commission shall approve,
disapprove or approve subject to modification of said plat if
the plat is disapproved reasons for such disapproval shall be
stated in writing.
Now if the minutes of the Planning Commission qualify
for a writing advising us as why it was denied. I question (1)
did we receive it but more importantly that that in a due process
sense how can we take the reasons for denial and come up in any
sense with your subdivision regulation on how we violated them.
We have complied with everything. Mr.Lorensen at the Planning
Commission hearing said well they have answered all the questions
that I had. So the point I am getting at is that in due process
the only thing your subdivision regulations provide is that if
there is a denial - the reasons will be stated in writing. It
doesn't say who to, or where it goes to, or anything. But the
point is that if it is going to be denied, I would assume it would
be denied because it doesn't meet one of your regulations. How
can you require things that aren't in your regulations? Now that in
essence is thelegal points that I would have you consider. I
don't want to bore you with going through meeting, by meeting by
meeting
MR. STOBBE: Twenty-four of them---
MR. HAMMOND: Twnety-four different contacts with Weld
County streching from
MR. STOBBE: not audible
MR. HAMMOND: well contacts be that as it may - well
twenty-four different times in which meeting were held and scheduled
and items were brought up. It brings us up to today. Now we
-14-
•
don't have any conflict with you gentlemen. We have not
had - you gave us a hearing on, January 3rd - its the only
one we requested and you were kind enough to talk with us.
You indicated you thought we could get together with Mr. Lorensen
- we could iron things out we have given it a try. The point
is where do we go from here? Now the subdivision regulation,
as you have probably been advised by your attorney, I don't see
any provision in them as to what happens if the Planning
Commission denies something. The State Statutes on the other
hand indicates in the section dealing with powers that the only
time they talk about referrirg anythingto the Board of County
Commissioners is if a street is proposed to be dedicated to the
County, with the Planning Commission if they deny it you can' :.
take it to the Board of County Commissioners and get an over-
ruling of it, if that is the point in question.
We have exhausted every resource we feel that would in
any common sense try to resolve any problems, what I am saying is -
that I know of no other activity or procedure that we can under
take to furnish information to anybody, to work cooperatively with
anybody, we are here obviously because we feel:
(1) this was denied on an improper basis and that
(2) the County Planning Commission does not have the
final authority anyway - they are a recommending body - the way
I view the State Statutes - the decision has to be made by the
Board of County Commissioners. So we are here presenting our
case to you.
Now I don't want to bore you with going through these
twenty-four different meetings - what was discussed, what the
action was, I don't think you need to have a review of the
development but we are prepared to do that if you want. I think
you are all aware of where it is and what is proposed and where
-15-
•
things stand. Now unless there are any specific questions
relating to those items, I propose not to go into them.
Or perhaps we could sit back and maybe answer a question or
two before Mr. Stobbe makes a comment.
MR. CONNELL: If I may ask, Mr. Hammond, if I
understand with your appearance before the Board of County
Commissioners are you simply considering an appeal on the
decision on the plat as submitted or do you intend to proceed
probably by playing the development submission rather than --
MR. HAMMOND: No the point there was that after our
meeting with the Commissioners on January 3rd, it was indicated
that perhaps the County Commissioners would look more favorably
on a planned unit development than they would upon a subdivison.
In other words they thought maybe a planned unit development
could offer more of the right type of things. At the meeting
of the Planning Commission, on January 3rd, held that same day,
we brought that item up and it was quickly squelched - they
said no we do not want to consider that. I think this was
upon recommendation of Mr. Lorensen. Subsequent to the final
meeting with the Planning Commission on, January 18th, we again
discussed planned unit development and we wrote a letter to
the Planning Commission and to the Commissioners to the effect
pending their approval or action our subdivision plat and without
withdrawing submission we would consider discussing with the
appropriate authorities a planned unit development. So they
would have a basis to see what one would be as compared to
the other. We were very specific ,here in that the communication in the
indication that we were not withdrawing, we wanted a final action
on the plat.
-16-
(11
It was then I think through a series of meetings, I
think, that Mr. Stobbe had with various individuals, now on
the County Planning and Commission level that we should probably
indicate by preliminary plat what we had in mind on the planned
unit development. This was done and it was discussed rather
specifically what would be in that planned unit development.
This was then apparently referred to Mr. Lorensen and he was
advised to let us know by letter what would be the consideration
of the planned unit development. What would be their attitude,
What specifically 1 - 2 - 3 and 4 what did he think. The
point is - we never did get the letter, I do have a photocopy
with the letter void written over what was written up but it
was never sent out and the indication on that letter was that the
recommendations that Mr. Lorensen would make would completely
make it economically unfeasible to do it. In other words he
had imposed additional regulations and restrictions and all
that had not been discussed between Mr. Stobbe, Mr. Billings
and others. And, such is our thought right now is - we are
here only on the subdivision plat, the POD, for our interpertation
has died on the vine. We would still stay open and try and work
with the County on it, if the County Commissioners thought fit to
approve - we would certainly bewllling to sit down and change
it by planned unit development. But we have not in effect - we
feel that the County Planning Office - has made - - taken such
such action to make consideration of it fruitless.
MR. BILLINGS: Anything else Tom? Do you have any
questions, Harry?
MR. ASHLEY: I don't understand why they refused to let
you present it? The planned unit development----
MR. HAMMOND: I think perhaps Mr. Stobbe could clarify
maybe, Warren, you should review that.
-17-
•
MR. STOBBE: The thing that is very difficult, gentlemen,
in a meeting is to convey attitudes, to convey intent. Mr. Hammond
very adequately discussed our problems and possibly some of the
implications involved. But this is as a good example Mr. Ashley.
We did spend about $4,000.00 with reference to Mr. Billings
suggestion. About planning another which was a second PUD. We
had one orginally and this one didn't obviously meet with
acceptance because of a high density. We submitted a second
PUD at this request. The last meeting I had with Mr. Lorensen
he specifically stated, that if increase in density he didn't
want it at all, whether it be a planned unit development or a
residential subdivision. And I specifically asked him, are
you saying this Burman? Reference to foregoing quality
subdivision and he said, yes. He said regardless of the
quality and regardless of what you dd if it increased the
density he will not approve it. And also he said that
philosophically whatever we do he will disapprove - he doesn't
want the subdivision on that property. Now - as a corporate
officer I find it difficult to recommend to our company
to spend another $15,000.00 possibly to submit in its final
form, a particular planned unit development when ideologically
or philosophically it is going to be disapproved. This does
not even test good business administration. And certainly I
wouldn't be guilty of that particular act. To acquiesce
to something with such a warped attitude. And that is my problem
--- I can't
MR. HAMMOND: Let me hit two points on that, which I
think should be understood, after Mr. Stobbe, discussed with
Mr. Billings, the merits of a planned unit development and at
the suggestion that possibly this would be more acceptable,
the company subsequent to this January meeting, within the last
couple of months spent $4,000.00 to submit this preliminary PUD
-18-
• •
plan and at that time Mr. Lorensen indicated that if the density
was increased he wouldn't approve it or he would do anything to
see that it was disapproved. So the point that Mr. Stobbe is
making is that he doesn't think it makes good business sense
to go back to his principals, his corporate people and say
well lets put another $15,000.00 in planning and they say if it
isn't going to be approved and he says well everything is
against them. You know the planning director says he's going
to do everything he can against it. So the point is that when
I said in reference to Tom's question - it died on the vine -
it died on the vine because we don't see the advisability of
spending $15,000.00 for additional planned unit development with
the present prospects that anything will be done about it.
MR. ASHLEY: Was the $4,000.00 spent on the first
plan - was it adequate enough to take to the Planning Commission?
MR. STOBBE: No sir, Mr. Ashley, the $4,000.00 and I
am using this in round numbers was only an effort on our part, I
had 10 sets of plans drawn up with letters - to again you
Mr. Billings - remember - we were talking about this and you
said why don't you do your best to submit what might be an
alternative. This was the second planned unit development.
We spent literally thousands of dollars in trying to come
up with an acceptable version that would satisfy the County
requirements, the code, to satisfy the attitude of the planner.
And as it turned out this $4,000.00, that I had reference to was
in addition to all the previous expense and it was only done in
good faith. To have our planned unit development,which was a
modified version, ready for your review table on the 18th
meeting on - the meeting of January 18th and at this particular
time, in spite of that particular effort I understood it was
unanimously denied.
C� clik
MR. CONNELL: I would make one comment here Mr. Chairman,
(1) Mr. Lorensen does not have any authority to do ultimately
approve or deny any item that comes before the Planning Commission
except those by the Board that is done administratively; (2)
the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Board of
County Commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners are the
final approval or denial authority in a matter of this type. We
have discussed before I believe both you and I and at meetings,
I question seriously the authority of the Planning Commission
or the Board to comment on a plan that is not formally submitted
and submitted in proper form, now, there has been some question
as to the requirements for that plan or any other plan that is
submitted. I think Mr. Hammond is fully aware, I am sure, that
as a matter of law there are only certain requirements that can be
imposed and if a plan is submitted, pursuant to those requirements
and fullfilling the legal requirements that are in existance,
then and if approval or denial of that plan is then subject to
proper appeal routes and
MR. HAMMOND: Let me interrupt you Tom, this is our
same impression about the subdivision plat.
MR. CONNELL: I agree.
MR. HAMMOND: We thought this was the rule of the ball
game looking back on my chronological notes on, May 9, 1971,
Mr. Wilburn met with Mr. Lorensen at which time he was advised,
" I will work with you as required, however, I will recommend
denial of the subdivision plan and without regards to quality
and I do not want people out there," and this was May 9, 1971.
MR. CONNELL: True, my point is still, even though
he is an advisor to the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners he is not in authority in the approval or denial.
He merely
-20-
(• ( I
MR. HAMMOND: The only reason I raise the question
is that he has done a pretty good job of what he said he was going
to do. And our money is not going to last forever and we have
been through I don't know how many thousand of dollars up to the
subdivision plat stage and we are really before you people at
your mercy right now. And everything he said he was going to
do he did and he
MR. CONNELL: Mr. Hammond I would make a suggestion, you
are here and have been heard and the Board does have the full file
available to them and the records of the hearings. This has been
an extended process, Mr. Chairman, there are quite a number of
factors in this case, some of which I am aware of and some of
which I am not aware of. My suggestion would be then and
I'think it would be in order for the Board, at this time, subject
to any further matters that Mr. Hammond would wish to present,
that the Board take this matter under advisement and I would
like an opportunity to completely review the total file of the
Planning Office together with my notes in the matter in past
meetings. So that we may appropriately advise you of any
questions that you might have of our office concerning the
application as it stands at this point.
MR. BILLINGS: I think, Harry, for a little clarification
when we first met with Interladco on our first hearing on the
subdivision as they are talking about now, I expressed an opinion,
my own personal opinion that I didn't think we should go to -
we were talking about acre lots - and under acre lots their
proposal was for spetic tanks and in that area and I personally
felt that an acre lot was (1) too big - you are going to have a
half acre of weed patch on every lot and (2) when they go on
acre lots they were going to septic tanks and they had indicated
in their original presentations to the Planning Commission, that they
('
- they would either way - either on a planned unit development
on half acre lots where they would build a better home on the
site and where they would put in a package sewer plant in lieu
of septic tanks on an acre lot. I did at that time express
my own personal opinion that I would certainly be more than
agreeable with a planned unit development on half acre lots
with a package sewer plant than I would be with septic tanks
and I think this is where we come up with maybe the two
different proposals.
MR. ASHLEY: At that time didn't you understand that
they would consider coming back with a planned unit development?
MR. STOBBE: We did, Mr. Ashley.
MR. HAMMOND: Let me fill in right here, at that
January 3rd meeting right after we met you that morning, we
brought it up to try and to say to the Planning Commission that
we want to do this, they said-no we don't want to hear it.
MR. ASHLEY: They'd have to.
MR. HAMMOND: Ya but
MR. ASHLEY: They can't say that---
MR. CONNELL: I think the problem is, Harry, if I
might clarify this, Mr. Hammond, here again I think although. it
was in good faith here was a proposal that they were asking for
an opinion from the Commission but without making a formal
application in the matter. And my understanding at that point
was and my advise to the Commission was, that I don't think that
they should properly vote on it --- orgive a recommendation on
simply this type of proposal until it is either appropriately filed
and----
-22-
•
MR. HAMMOND: Your discussion is well taken, Tom,
the position that, I am with in the client is - should we
present a planned unit development and then through indications
from the Commissioners - if not they do spend $4,000.00 to
present the preliminary and to get the feeling- the feeling
is bad. The feeling comes back from the Planning Director that
what he will require would not be acceptable if it was presented
and then the question is well'.should we put out the $15,000.00
for being no further than you are with Indianhead Subdivision.
MR. CONNELL: I will appreciate your position and
what you are trying to do, and I don't blame you a bit in that
advice but it still has to be my advise to both Boards that
they can not give a formal indication on what they will do
on any matter until it does come for example for a hearing,
-- it has been properly processed and properly submitted.
Because at any time they do this, they are putting themselves
in the possible position of forced approval or denial.
MR. HAMMOND: Right.
MR. CONNELL: and I can not---
MR. HAMMOND: I can appreciate your position. Our
conclusion was that will we go ahead and process the Indianhead
Subdivision if it is approved by the County Commissioners, then
that is the indication of good faith they want to work on the
thing, we will then submit a planned unit development and spend
the money that is necessary if its not approved by the County
Planning Commission then probably we better spend the money in
court.
MR. BILLINGS: Well I think we are running short of time
and we have another meeting at noon. I think that probably that
Tom's suggestion is the one we have to go on now and take this
-23-
(0 � �
under advisement and give Tom some time to study all of this
and for us to meet with the Planning Commission in a full
discussion of what route we should go.
MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Billings, could I interrupt you and .
suggest this - that I am sure that you are going to have to meet
with the Planning Commission as you said; but if Tom is going to
review this for the Commission, we would like and I am sure
he would not object. We would like the privilege of being
there so that we may make any other comments on any things
that needs to come up. In .other words, I think this hearing,
i', you want to consider it should be
MR. BILLINGS: well I am sure of that ----
MR. HAMMOND: continued to another date.
MR. CONNELL: I would agree, however, I don't think at
this point that we would necessarily have a meeting with the
Planning Commission, I think the records of the Planning Commission
is totally available and at this point it is the decision for the
Commissioners based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
And prior to advising them on any legal consequences on mattersof
that I wish to review the total file together with my notes.
MR. HAMMOND: Well the only thing I am saying is
that in the review of that you feel it is necessary to sit down
with the Commissioners, I would like the privilege of being there
so we can present any final points that we would want you to
consider.
MR. BILLINGS: I think what will happen there, after
Tom reviews this and we meet with Tom on it and there has to be
some discussion with the Planning Commission and then whatever
decision comes out of that you would be notified and if it came back
-24-
to. the planned unit development or something else or they wanted
to stand on this action why then you would still be notified
of that so that you would come back into a meeting.
MR. HAMMOND: My only point is that - I - when
you consider this - so that before you take the vote of what
your going to do - I would like the privilege of being here
when Tom presents his side so that I may present any final
information I have.
MR. BILLINGS: Well we would just continue this to
another date and have a meeting.
MR. HAMMOND: Fine.
MR. BILLINGS: I think with that we have pretty well
covered everything an unless there is something else. Mr. Stobbe
do you have anything you would like to bring up at all
MR. STOBBE: Well the only thought and this something
that I think you are aware of by virtue of what I put into a
letter. I have been advised by our company to proceed with this
subdivision as we have officially qualified it and sent in all the
necessary evidence, however, I would certainly like to in the sake
of working in good faith, if after we have the determination on that
particular subdivision I still would be very open minded to consider
a PUD for that area. But I do have to proceed with the idea that
I would need a formal determination on what we have submitted.
MR. BILLINGS: Well I think as soon as Tom reviews
what he has and makes a recommendation to us then we will call
you back for a meeting and we will give you a determination
on this. You know my position on it. Personally I am not in favor
of it.
-25-
• •
�
MR. HAMMOND: Okay this will simply be a continuation
of this hearing.
MR. BILLINGS: Right.
MR. HAMMOND: At which time then he will present and I
will present any final pointsand you take your action.
MR. BILLINGS: Tom,, can you get this reviwed within
two weeks?
MR.CONNELL:. I would like to have the file of the
Planning Commission.
MR.BILLINGS: All right if you get it reviewed, Tom,
within two week we will then schedule them back on our Planning
hearing on, Monday, two weeks from today. You have to check
with Tom to be sure that Tom can make it.
MR. CONNELL: That should be fine.
MR. BILLINGS: and then we will definitely give you
a decision on this and if there are any recommendations to be made
we will do that. Does that sound all right Marsh? Harry?
MR. ASHLEY: Yes.
MR. OLSON: Mr. Chairman, do you want to put a time on
this for two weeks from today?
MR.BILLINGS: well only if it is all right with Tom.
MR. CONNELL: -- well lets go another week and probably we
will - if we have to be --- I will let you know.
MR. BILLINGS: If there is nothing else adjournment
is in order.
MR. HAMMOND: Thank you for your time.
-26-
•
Meeting adjourned.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY:
Deputy County Clerk
Hello